Thanks for posting that link, BF263533 :)

Quite an interesting read.If a competitive advantage is realized through the combination of quick turnarounds in America and Europe, relatively cheaper MX labor in Asia and more convenient flight times for travelers at the cost of a few extra hours of idle time in HKG than why not go for it?Yes, but Continental could improve it's equipment utilitization if they gassed up all idle planes and had them circle the airport rather than RON. They’d waste boatloads of fuel and labor but the a/c utilitization would shoot through the ceiling.

Point being that it makes no sense for CO to go through the expense of an additional flight if the revenues cannot offset the expense. Yes, every business is driven by the bottom line but as we all know, in the airline business there's more than just aircraft utilitization driving profits/losses. Furthermore, we do not know what necessary tasks are being performed “behind the scenes” in HKG during the down time which would have to be performed elsewhere should the 777 continue on immediately.

By simply saying "CO should add a flight here because the plane is sitting on the ground for too long" would shortsighted as there are undoubtedly many necessary functions, in addition to the few I've guessed at, which are performed during the down time.

First off, they can - and are - getting new planes which will allow for growth and perhaps better utilitization. But still, it seems like the 787's are going to do to Asia what the 757's did for Europe. To that extent, Houston and Newark have good potential for growth.Correct. But, the addition of ExpressJet flights represent much less of a fiscal risk than negotiating for new rights, launching new international marketing campaigns, doling out the cash for landing fees, etc.

LOL. As you know there are serious ways to improve utilization. It's tough squeezing out extra minutes, but the impact on the FS can be impressive.


I certainly don't disagree with what you're saying. My suggestion is to try to open up new markets. Going forward, I think Continental won't have too much choice. Growth is in trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific service; that's where the focus needs to be.

It's true that we don't know what maintenance is being performed. I do think that routes between US and China (and US/India) is where growth is. Developing routes to those two countries must be in the Continental's future.


It's more complex that that. But, China/India is where the focus should be. Where aircraft are service is an economic decision in the broadest sense of that term. If HKG makes the most sense, then that's where it should be done.


I definitely agree with what your statement on the B787's and the Asian markets. The 777-200LR seems to have a slightly longer reach, but I bet that's something that Boeing is looking at. I expect to see some B787's serve the bigger markets in Europe too.

I think that there are probably better markets than IAH for international growth; however, since CO is already well entrenched there, it's much less expensive to expand from IAH. I still believe the carrier should consider LAX. Twenty years (or thereabouts), CO didn't have much of a presence in EWR. It got there through acquisition, something that wouldn't work at LAX. However, I have to imagine that, if done correctly, CO could generate lots of trans-Pacific traffic from an LAX hub.

I am a fan of the use of the RJ's. They were a good call on the part of Continental. They've helped the carrier stay competitive. I think with regard to expanding overseas, CO has to do it to prosper. It's shown that it can put the necessary infrastructure in place; I know the carrier will keep going in this direction.

^ Yes to that. Yeep - and on that note here are the ranges for the 772ER, 772LR, 787 from EWR and the 772ER, 772LR, 787 from IAH.

But the 777LR is not cheap and should CO order it they will find themselves boxed into using the LR's on limited routes (i.e. those which could not be flown by a 772ER). Do you really see CO coughing up the cash for this bird to only satisfy a few select routes the 772ER/787 cannot?

At the last DO CO commented that the 777's had too many BF seats/Y seats for TATL but too few for the Pacific routes. Perhaps the 787 will relive the majority of the existing 777's of European duty to allow CO to refit them with a higher percentage of J seats and use the on mainly Asia runs.

…or maybe not. Who knows?
If the US would allow secure transit than IAH would be a much more valuable asset as they would be able to connect not only the southern areas of the US with the world but also Latin/South America. But as we all know, secure transit areas promote terrorism :rolleyes:.

Has Larry flown those 777s lately? None of my recent flights had any empties in Y/J - they were all packed to the gills...

My thinking is that Larry meant that the loads are seasonal and equipment needs to be repositioned accordingly. TATL 787s to Europe in the midst of winter is probably better utilization vs. TATL 777s.

I hope the 777s are used to serve India/China. Real growth is in Asia and if CO can position itself as the carrier of choice for travelers from India & China, they should be well set for the future.