A possible reason for CO to fly the 762 as opposed to the 753 is based on positioning and maximizing the passenger load factor.

In some cases an airline will fly a wide body as opposed to a narrow body as the next leg of the journey is international, for example IAH-EWR operates flt 0152 a 767 at 1205 every day except Thursday and Sunday, they also run flt 0050 at 1330 everyday except Saturday.

So it is possible for the 767 to move from EWR to LHR or other international point.

A passenger air carrier does not run an aircraft based on cargo loads. It has to do with positioning and demand. For example DL and NW will run widebodies to PHX during winter months as demand increases.

To the latter regarding IAH CO flight demand, who knows, could be kids are going back to school so vacations are starting to taper off.

If they tried saying that, they'd look very silly, given that the shoe ban was instituted shortly after the Reid incident. I think it is clear that the flying public believes that the shoe ban was instituted to defend against the threat of Reid-style shoe bombers.

Of course. People have been talking about this risk on this board for years. With the "Know your shipper" program, shippers with a history are exempted from screening of air freight.

Agreed. I get the impression the TSA just has not thought this through. Doing a good job of this kind of profiling requires extensive training. I question the TSA folks at the front line will be professional enough, competent enough, well-trained enough to do this right.

But look at other examples. Flight 52 (a 762) goes from IAH-EWR-IAH, which takes most of the day -- I would imagine cargo has something to do with this. Also a few weeks ago, Flight 51 (EWR-IAH (762)) which I was on was delayed because we were overweight with cargo and had to take some off. So I think that cargo does play an important role for at least CO.

As for the weekend specials, I never recall seeing so many destinations from IAH. It was significantly higher than at any other time that I remember.

Agreed. It's not something you implement overnight or even overmonth.

And Bart has how much expertise in xray refractometry? Or is this a matter of drinking too much of the TSA Kool-Aid?

The DHS-IG really ought to investigate why debunked policies at TSA continue to be practiced, as well as why TSA spokespeople continue to make misleading statements which are inconsistent with scientific fact. Not only does this maximize inconvenience on passengers, but security suffers. Too many TSA eye balls are being distracted by Granny's tennis shoes and Junior's diaper rash creme instead of looking for real threats.

Deleted

Your point is well taken.

Cargo sent between IAH and EWR is most likely internationally bound. EWR is a gateway city, similar to LAX. International cargo is a substantial source of revenue for carriers.

At origin, cargo which is internationally bound is configured into consolidations by destination. For example, several companies have goods destined to Italy, a consolidation would be ROM. This improves handling when the freight is on the ground. A consolidation upon arrival at a gateway city is transferred to the next leg on route to the destination.

While some domestic freight will move via air between points, it has no where near the value of the international cargo. For example, if I can get $2.25 per kilo for freight between IAH and ROM, anything else that fills the belly drops to the bottom line.

Pulling cargo from a plane can occur for several reasons, weight and balance, need for additional fuel, etc.

Once again, flying a passenger craft to accommodate cargo does not make business sense. The rate of return is not enough to justify the increased operating cost.

But, if the narrow body capacity is running 90% (757) and a wide body (767) would net an 80% load factor, then yes, an equipment switch would make sense. The 10% differential will be offset by the increase in cargo.

Not to contradict my earlier statement, but cargo does not make a huge difference in the big picture of domestic US travel.

For example, if the IAH-EWR run was averaging a 55% load factor with a narrow body (757), switching to a wide body (767) makes no sense.

If cargo was an integral factor in domestic air travel, we would see an abundance of wide body aircraft flying domestic routes where applicable.

The original point of my message is enough alternatives exist for domestic air cargo that a ban would not have a substantial impact on the economics of air travel.

International cargo is easier to manage as time can be built in to accommodate additional screening measures

The Continental.com specials for this weekend include over 50 destinations just from Houston. Everything from Acapulco to Wichita. I wonder if discretionary travel has dramatically decreased.

There also seemed to be more than the usual # of UA e-fares this weekend and next, and the prices were lower than usual. I, too, wonder about discretionary travel being down.

On Sunday, they were clearing all standbys and even calling up "anyone else who wants on the plane," when in the past the flights have been very full (we did go out nearly full on both flights, but from the amount of standbys they cleared, I bet the later flights were ghost ships)

I sincerely hope so.

The airlines need to be made financially aware of these extremely stupid decisions by Comrades Chertoff and Hawley.

Memo to Buffoons Chertoff and Hawley: the x-ray does not detect explosives. Take your pathetic, worthless excuses and cram them where the sun doesn't shine.

Of course X-Ray machiens can't detect explosives, only the carbon and metal objects used to explode them.

This is why the TSA has a little thing called the ION SCAN. Google it if you never heard of it.

It's the IonScan Sentinel II, and if you wouldn't mind using the search feature of this website, you'd find that not only am I extremely familiar with them and their operation, but I've also been posting copiously advocating their use.

The beginning of the school year might have something to do with it too.

TSA plan: X-ray for liquid bombs
 

From USA Today:
I find the above statement terribly misleading. The DHS has already admitted that x-ray's can't detect explosives, so making the statement that these new machines "are better at spotting liquid explosives" is completely false.

So where's the ROI using enhanced (i.e. more expensive) x-ray machines to see an object better, but still not be able to tell if it's an explosive? Why bother? :confused:

Edited to add:
Just found this interesting quote in a Washington Post article from September:
Geesh, what an idiot! :td: :td: :td: