I would have thought that the logical step-up from a 777 would be to a 747/400. Then to a pair of 767s then to a pair of 777s if capacity kept on increasing. Surely it's more economical to fly a 400 than it is to fly 2x757s?
I would have thought that the logical step-up from a 777 would be to a 747/400. Then to a pair of 767s then to a pair of 777s if capacity kept on increasing. Surely it's more economical to fly a 400 than it is to fly 2x757s?
Steve
I certainly wouldn't argue with the point you are making Lucy. You will be much better placed that I am to judge, given your experience.
As I said, I am travelling inbound on the AA BOS-MAN route next month (but not outbound). It is interesting that Robert had a mere 5 hour flight on the service and it's probably a trade off between the short journey and the suitability of the aircraft. I'll have to reseve judgement until May but 5 hours transatlantic has some real attractions for me.
MAN-EWR on a 757 doesn't appeal though.
The 5 hour flight that Robert had is not unusual if you get a good strong tail wind and the return leg is always faster due to wind anyway. You will have to let me know what you think when you get back - its always interesting to get the passengers view point - I hope its a good one[msnsmile]
I'll be happy to - I refuse to look forward to my flight home though!!!
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Snapper
I would have thought that the logical step-up from a 777 would be to a 747/400. Then to a pair of 767s then to a pair of 777s if capacity kept on increasing. Surely it's more economical to fly a 400 than it is to fly 2x757s?
[/quote]
Total agreement Steve![msnwink]
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:When I operated this route once a month the BA 767 went in for a big check and so they used a 757 and we got so many complaints from passengers as it was just not the right aircraft. The 757 was designed for short/medium haul only[/quote]
Lucy,
The East Coast USA flights from UK are not really long haul, and it is well within the design range of the 757.
Incidentally the 757 has a longer range and payload than a certain single aisled aircraft that could just make it across the Atlantic; albeit it flew at Mach 2 for some of the journey!!
Katys Grandad,
Plenty of room in the AA 757 - front seats are best!
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:
Incidentally the 757 has a longer range and payload than a certain single aisled aircraft that could just make it across the Atlantic; albeit it flew at Mach 2 for some of the journey!!
[/quote]
I used to fly on the Etops 757 but I remain unconvinced that they are right for transatlantics.The only reason airlines use them is because they are cheap to operate on longer fuller flights.
The thing is though Robert we quite often did that trip in 3 hours with on average 50 passengers !!!!! She was a a whole different ball game! I actually did the Concorde tour last weekend to show my children the inside of Concorde it was a real trip down memory lane the smell inside of the leather seats and everything - OOH I miss flying on her so much[msncry][msnwink]
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:The only reason airlines use them is because they are cheap to operate on longer fuller flights.[/quote]
Lucy,
That is exactly right.
Airlines - especially in America - make little profit and are always on the verge of going bust it seems. Therefore it makes little sense to operate a bigger, and less economical, aircraft when marketing studies indicate that a 757 will cope.
Having been in Concorde I couldn't believe how cramped it was inside. In my book it will go down as one of Britain's(and France's) biggest ever waste of taxpayers money. Poor space, poor range, poor payload, totally uneconomical and an evironmental disaster - but didn't it look great!!
Robert as I said on a TV programme that followed us on a London-New York flight, if you want to travel in a Rolls Royce you go First class on a 747-400 if you want to travel in a Ferrari you go on Concorde[msnwink]
How can we tell our children that we used to be able to get to NY in 3 hours but not anymore, how backward is that!
I afarid I won't have a bad word said against her she was the best[msnsmile2]
<blockquote id="quote" class="ffs">quote:Originally posted by Robert5988[brAirlines - especially in America - make little profit and are always on the verge of going bust it seems. Therefore it makes little sense to operate a bigger, and less economical, aircraft when marketing studies indicate that a 757 will cope.[/quote]
Ahhhh, but ...
On the transatlantic route not every passenger is driven completely by price alone. Some of us are looking for a better product; specifically more legroom in economy. So maybe there is a market segment whereby an airline flies a bigger aircraft than necessary but offers a much improved product at a higher price.
Say an airline typically runs a 32" seat pitch in economy. What if they upped their economy fare by 30% but at the same time introduced a whopping 42" seat pitch. Personally, I think they would be full to the gubbles. It would also cost them less to fly the aircraft as fewer passengers means less baggage, less weight, and heaps less fuel to carry it all. If an airline got the sums right they might even be able to shave one or two cabin staff from the flight as well (sorry Lal!!)
Steve
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks