|
Originally Posted by andrewwm
(Post 20096227)
Nonsense. AA flies the 757 to markets such as JFK-CDG, which, if I recall correctly, caused outraged posts from certain members when UA tried this from IAD.
Originally Posted by andrewwm
(Post 20096267)
If it were soley diversion rates, then why haven't any of the routes that diverted at much higher rates (e.g. EWR-TXL, EWR-CPH) been switched?
As for TXL - this is the route they switch back and forth between a 757 and a 767, IIRC (and did a Gander stop just this week). If there wasn't such a deficit of widebodies at the moment, maybe it would be a 67 year round. |
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
(Post 20096485)
Um, no, this is nonsense - it's a 763. I should know, I flew it last fall.
|
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
(Post 20096485)
As for TXL - this is the route they switch back and forth between a 757 and a 767, IIRC (and did a Gander stop just this week). If there wasn't such a deficit of widebodies at the moment, maybe it would be a 67 year round.
|
Originally Posted by weirdlyndon
(Post 20096509)
Yup - am flying EWR-TXL next month. When I booked the flight back in October it was listed as a 767-400 which surprised me since I didn't think TXL had that sort of demand. It's since been switched to a non-BF configured 767-200 (pmCO) which will make me feel less miserable about not being in a SWU upgradeable fare class to begin with.
|
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
(Post 20096485)
It's actually a 763 year-round - I should know, I flew it last year. A 757 seems to be summer only, when, you know, it's less likely to divert than in the winter months. Good planning.
edit: heh, harder than it used to be to check through EOS given AA's new craptastic website that I am trying to make work |
Originally Posted by andrewwm
(Post 20097026)
No it's not. 1x daily 757 and 1x daily 763 year-round. Been that way for years. Go check through end of schedule on AA if you don't believe me.
|
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
(Post 20096485)
It's actually a 763 year-round - I should know, I flew it last year. A 757 seems to be summer only,
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...200Z/KJFK/LFPG |
Originally Posted by Mr.Nuke
(Post 20097385)
They pretty clearly are sending a 757 year round at this point.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/A...200Z/KJFK/LFPG Anyway, back on topic of 757s on near-4K mile routes. |
The 757 was originally intended as a 727 replacement and that's how Boeing marketed it. The performance ended up being far superior than a 727 with a range of 4,500 NM.
Continental deserves credit for pioneering the 757 in TATL flights to avoid a connection to smaller markets in Europe. However, they deserve a big :td: for poaching sUA birds and putting the 757s on sUA routes that ended up getting COdbaUA a lot of bad press because of the technical stops. Also, I think it might be inaccurate to say that CO put all their eggs in the 787 basket. Their order for the then 7E7 in 2004 also included top-off orders for 777-200ERs and over the couple of years following they added to that 777 top off order for a couple more frames. It's safe though to say that their widebody fleet was lacking up until the merger. |
Originally Posted by UA-NYC
(Post 20097421)
Check Sep/Oct, 120/121 was a 763. 2x daily of them.
Anyway, back on topic of 757s on near-4K mile routes. I didn't check last summer, so maybe there were a few days/weeks in peak tourist season where a 763 was subbed, but 120/121 was one of the first route AA put their reconfigured biz class 757s on and it hasn't changed since. So I guess horror of horrors that UA puts a 757 on an objectively less busy O&D city pair (IAD-CDG) but AA has one on the second busiest/yielding TATL city pair (JFK-CDG) and peachy keen. Got it. |
Originally Posted by halls120
(Post 20096383)
United used to have the IAD-CDG contract. DL has it now.
What many people don't understand is that it is very easy for government travelers to select a non-contract carrier, as long as 1) the other flight selected is a US flag carrier flight and 2) the non contract carrier offers a DG fare that matches the contract fare. For example, If I was flying to CDG next month, the current YCA fare is 1325 on DL, and the penalty fare is 868. UA offers the same YCA fare, and a slightly lower penalty fare, and I'm allowed to select the United flight. Last year when UA still had the contract but was flying the 757s, many government travelers opted for the DL flights. On the rare instance where auditors questioned why we didn't choose the UA contract flight, all we had to do is mention the Gander fuel stop, and the inquiry ended. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...bu7exGKj8AwkEA "It is important to note that choosing the Discounted Government (“DG”) fare, also called the “me too” fare, is not permitted by the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR). Federal travelers cannot choose a DG fare, even if it is lower than a CPP fare unless there the CPP carrier is full or no CPP carrier exists in the area you are traveling to." Picking a lowest available, on the other hand, is permitted, though agency rules govern the use of lowest available vs. refundable. |
Originally Posted by channa
(Post 20096248)
Why would anyone pay Full F on CO? A Platinum gets an F seat with a M fare. A Silver gets an F seat with a B fare. Why the heck would anyone pay for F on CO if they're an Elite frequent flyer? In addition to all the service, reliability, and operational problems that came with the 3/3 system downgrade, I'm sure the Y/B/M-Up policy eroded their F/C revenue as well, at least domestically. And a handful of TOD upgrades is not going to recover it. But CO might be okay with that (see mindset issue above). People complained for years that they could not buy an F seat on SFO/LAX-EWR sometimes 1-2 weeks out or more. Not that an upgrade wasn't available, but it was F0. CO always claimed the complexity and costs of running a subfleet of larger F planes outweighed the benefits of the extra revenue. Now keep in mind, as you pointed out earlier, that CO did not have the type of F revenue that UA did, and that may have changed in the merged entity, but the legacy CO mindset may still be present in the organization when these decisions are being made. After all a lot of business decisions are based on assumptions and weights, and it's very easy to get those wrong. As they got more elites, they went to the Y/B/M preference, and still had a very narrow price spread between F and Y (DL does this now on many routes). Its just a different model. I don't think it "eroded" CO's Full Price FC sales as they did not have any. Those folks were flying from JFK/LGA. Where I think they went wrong is in not really understanding the different markets UA was in, the different type of fliers, and what it took to retain them. Some guy who paid $1200 RT (F) rather than $900 RT (Y) to fly LAX/SFO-EWR has a different set of expectations from someone who pays $2600 to fly it in C (or Domestic F to EWR on PMUA)
Originally Posted by andrewwm
(Post 20096267)
If it were soley diversion rates, then why haven't any of the routes that diverted at much higher rates (e.g. EWR-TXL, EWR-CPH) been switched?
Originally Posted by andrewwm
(Post 20096385)
I don't doubt that passengers hate unscheduled stop, but honestly what do you expect people to answer on that poll? There's no mention of possible offsetting benefits in the question like the qualifiers "if it lowered the ticket price" or "allowed the airline to serve an otherwise unprofitable route".
Originally Posted by TWA Fan 1
(Post 20096408)
One of the most fascinating aspects of the story is that Boeing stopped making the 757 in 2004 and its use as an ETOPS TATL a/c really took off after that.
Since then, as was discussed earlier in this thread, Boeing has not made any product truly capable of replacing the 752... Because it (and the 762/2) was a leap in fuel efficiency/capacity, and it had no direct narrow body competitor, Boeing was able to have it do everything. Today, airlines don't want to pay for that, and with fuel costs so key, caring arround the extra fuel/weight for more capacity makes little sense, which is why the 737/320/321 have less capacity. |
Originally Posted by IflyfromABE
(Post 20083606)
Part of the problem is that the 757-300 was never meant to be a TATL bird. It's range is shorter than that of the 707-320B (3400 nautical miles vs 3800). For reference point, EWR-CDG is 3200 nautical miles. Piece of cake for the 707 but tough for the 753, especially westwards. The 727-200 Advanced that was occasionally and not successfully used in TATL routes had a 3500 nautical mile range.
If there is enough market, and it seems to be, someone should develop a single aisle TATL bird with range well in the 4000s. *The range of the 752 is close to 4000 btw and the potential 753 replacements 737 Max 9 and A321neo have only 3600 nm range. |
Originally Posted by UrbaneGent
(Post 20097818)
Do share - which airline used the 727-200 TATL? Thank you!
The Cimber and Royal flights had fuel stops in KEF, but private charters and cargo flights apparently did it non-stop. Remember that PrivatAir has 737 TATL flights and that the 727-200 has about the same range as the 737NGs. |
Originally Posted by andrewwm
(Post 20097546)
So I guess horror of horrors that UA puts a 757 on an objectively less busy O&D city pair (IAD-CDG) but AA has one on the second busiest/yielding TATL city pair (JFK-CDG) and peachy keen. Got it.
2. A big difference when you ONLY fly 757s on a busy route (giving consumers no choice, and forcing them to look elsewhere, as what happened to UA apparently) vs. the ability to take a widebody on a route if you so choose Helps if you look at the full story. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:41 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.