|
   |
Home >> Forum >> If U're to start a new airline, which 3 airliner types will be in your fleet? Civil aviation forum
If U're to start a new airline, which 3 airliner types will be in your fleet?
Return to the forum index - Post a message for this thread
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 18 Sep 14:50 |
|
| |
$ is no object and U're free from political influence. Pls list 3 types of brand-new airliner(Currently still in production or to be available before 2014) that will make up your fleet.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 18 Sep 15:07 |
|
| |
MMMMMMM! Short haul E190 under 2 hours. Medium hall 757-200 under 5 hours, long haul between 5 Hrs and 7 Hrs A330-200 long haul 7 hours to 10 hours A350 Ultrea long haul above 10 hours A340-500/600. In addition each medium haul and long haul could operate short haul routes depending on load factors.
Cargo fleet to Include 2 AN124's for specific sector's
5 BAE 146 QT's for regional and short Eu hops less than 1.30hrs
4 A330F for middle east flights
6 B747-400 for Asian/Pacific routes
10 757-200 for EU routes over 1.30 hours
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 18 Sep 15:07 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Mabel - Sent 18 Sep 18:24 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Boeing Boy Nat - Sent 18 Sep 18:52 |
|
| |
I would have to say:
Boeing 737-800 for short haul routes, Boeing 767-300ER for transatlantic routes and Boeing 747-400 for long haul routes. The airline would be based at London-Heathrow airport. I am faithful to Boeing on this one. My airline would be called SparkJET.
Boeingboynat
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of humanator - Sent 19 Sep 22:18 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 19 Sep 1:23 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 19 Sep 10:11 |
|
| |
I am setting up a new airline based in Scotland and we are going to do UK domestic, European and Trans Atlantic so I will need the following types.
DHC-8-400
Airbus a-319
Airbus A-330-200
Now then FLX is this just a bit of fun or knowing you is there something going on in that active mind of yours.
Best regards,
Bill
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 19 Sep 10:53 |
|
| |
Dear all,
For those who listed 752, production has ended nearly 4yrs ago and the type has been deleted from Boeing sales catalogue for yrs. 744 pax variant is still offered but has not received new orders for yrs and the last was delivered to QF 4-5yrs ago. Therefore, pls list alternative types for these 2 choices.
Also, interested to learn the reasons behind your choices.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 19 Sep 18:21 |
|
| |
Yes the 752 production has ended but it still continues to be a very suucessfull plane and very god at what it does. Although you mention new types. It will be a new type in my airline rsrsrsrsrsrsrsrsrsrs.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of LevHAM - Sent 19 Sep 19:49 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Mabel - Sent 20 Sep 22:07 |
|
| |
I would pick 737-700/800 and 777-200ER/LR because of costs and efficiency...these aircraft require fewer crew than larger aircraft with similar range such as 757-200 or 767 or 330/340 or 747-400, and most Boeing airplanes burn less fuel than their Airbus counterparts, for example a 777-200 burns as much fuel as a smaller 767-300 and burns a good 10-15% less fuel than a 340.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 20 Sep 23:56 |
|
| |
As this is a Airline forum Ive decided to negotiate with Boeing to re-launch the 757 series. They have decided to launch a 757-100 re-launch the 757-200 with new avionics and RR engines. The 757-300 will have extra tanks fitted to offer that little extra range when needed. Wjho's interested?
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 20 Sep 5:50 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of helicopter - Sent 21 Sep 8:38 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 22 Sep 22:36 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 22 Sep 1:45 |
|
| |
Maybe he's refering to the 737-200's that have tragically met there fate recently and the 500 in Russia. But nonetheless I would'nt go that far as say such a comment like that. The 737 has been around longer thean the A320. Both are proven planes with good records. I suggest you re-phrase what you have written
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 22 Sep 7:57 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 22 Sep 12:59 |
|
| |
speedbird9468:
Right before Boeing decided to close the 757 production line, they did evaluated a potential 753ER variant that will hv transatlantic range similar to the std 752 and inevitably, increased MTOW. Extra fuel tank is the easy part, squeezing more takeoff thrust efficiently fm an older turbofan design without breaking the damn thing is the hard part. Latest avionics help but their contribution is too small for the old 757 platform to catch-up with the overall efficiency level of 737NG or A32x. Neither RR nor PW has any newer Gen turbofan design in 757's thrust class(About 40,000-50,000lbs thrust) except those good old RB211 and PW4000. Possibly due to high dev+cert cost vs small potential mkt, Boeing decided against it and instead focused on the 739ER with about 5-6hrs sector duration but @ the same size as the 752. In retrospect, that decision is probably spot-on. 5-6hrs duration is precisely the max where all U.S. majors(i.e. Core 757 customers) actually need their 752s to fly domestically today which is significantly below 752's max range capability(e.g. transatlantic). Witness how CO has been shifting their 752s from domestic to transatlantic mkts over the yrs and filling the domestic voids with newer but shorter range+lower op cost 739s/739ERs. At the U.S. majors, there're still tons of domestic 752s ready to be replaced by lower op cost 739s/738s and then redeployed on the higher yield transatlantic mkts. Imagine what the demand for brand new 752 or even 753ER will be like....
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 22 Sep 13:46 |
|
| |
Here are the 3 choices and reasons for my airlines:
1-2hrs: Bombardier Q400
- Turboprops offer huge reduction in fuel cost compared with any RJs. @ today's oil price level, low fare is more important than cruise speed for short-hops.
- Pax capacity+comfort equivalent to mid-size RJs @ half their list prices.
3-5hrs: Bombardier CSeries 130ER
- GTF(Geared TurboFan) engines' quantum leap in efficiency+noise level in this thrust class.
- Max range+pax capacity similar to std 736/318/73G/319
- True mainline jet size(Cabin diameter+5 abreast seat layout similar to 717/MD90) @ RJ prices.
5 to 16hrs: Boeing 787-9
- Significantly lower op cost per seat than all current types(Including A380)
- Unprecendented fuelburn per seat regardless of flying medium(i.e. 5-8hrs) or extra-long range(i.e. 13-16hrs)
- Fit into any airport gate that accept upto A332 size airliner yet has more range than 772ER or A343.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 22 Sep 15:58 |
|
| |
Good choice FLX. But i think Turboprops are a little slower than jets. Although good aircraft. In addition you may have to make more than one flight a day. Thats why I choose capacity and speed.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 22 Sep 19:46 |
|
| |
Don't knock the Q400 I'm going for it also. Just ask FlyBe and they will tell you about speed and turn round time which is much quicker than even the smaller jets and it is very fuel efficient.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 22 Sep 21:21 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 23 Sep 11:17 |
|
| |
speedbird9468:
U're absolutely right. Turboprops are like snails relative to RJs @ CRUISE SPEED.
However, I can see RJ has real advantages over Turboprop only on routes with longer cruise time(Above 500km). I hv been sort of experimenting repeatedly over the last 15yrs trying to find out actual total time savings of RJs/Mainline jets over Turboprops on sectors of about 1-1.5hrs. I hv tried both jets and turboprops on a variety of popular routes where both fly(Some with both in the same airlines) such as HNL-KHH(Honolulu-Maui), BKK-USM(Bangkok-KohSamui), GUM-SPN(Guam-Saipan), SEA-YVR(Seattle-Vancouver), BNE-GLT(Brisbane-Gladstone). So far, I've found that Turboprops rarely take more than 20% longer than RJs/Mainline jets to complete the same journey, gate-to-gate. That may still sounds like a big deal until we put it into perspective, say, a typical 60mins journey by a RJ will take a Turboprop a max of 12mins more to complete. Today, it takes 12mins just to get through security and walk to your gate even in smaller airports. 12mins is nothing in today's air travel reality whereas every gallon of fuel saved is a huge thing.
Compared with turboprops of the 80s(e.g. Shorts360,Q100), the latest Q400 has been narrowing the cruise speed gap significantly:
Shorts360: 296kmh
Q100: 500kmh
Q400: 667kmh
E190: 890kmh
Still, E190 is a great airliner especially if your airlines also deploy it on longer sectors where turboprops simply don't hv that kind of range. In fact, E190/195 were my top choices in this size class before the advent of CSeries 110/130. I particularly like how the E190/195 hv been eating into the mkt share of 73Gs and 319s in shorter-range mkts and completely devastated 736 and 318 sales......progress & competition are always beautiful.
captain bill:
Yup, I hv seen many times, up-close right near the tarmac, how quickly some airlines turnaround their turboprops. It seems more like they're turning around a bus/coach rather than an airliner.... I read somewhere that fuel burn saving of turboprop is about 30% over RJs - more than the profit margin of some airlines in good times.
Also, as I grew-up in Canada, I think my choices are probably a bit biased towards Bombardier.
Nothing particular going on in my head nor am I involved in fleet planning for any new airlines when I started this topic.....just a bit of fun.
Mable:
May I know why do U deploy 73GER(737-700ER) on routes of under 4,000miles? This thing has a fully loaded max range of over 9,900km.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Mabel - Sent 23 Sep 15:51 |
|
| |
FLX, I would not use the 73G on routes over 4000 miles because the plane's small size cannot provide the comforts and amenities passengers expect on long-haul routes without operating at a huge monetary loss (as is the case with ANA's 73G flights between Japan and India). First and business class passengers on long-haul flights expect sleeper suites, 180* reclining seats, open bars and other amenities which can't possibly fit on a narrow body plane. Passengers are willing to sacrifice amenities on short flights, but pay for and expect luxury and pampering on long-haul routes, which explains why Ryanair isn't flying across the Atlantic.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 23 Sep 16:00 |
|
| |
Mabel. But airlines go TATL all the time with the 737Ng and A318/319 for a specific sector (rich Business people) Thats why the capacity has been dramatically reduced and very comfortable. I believe Ba are flying to New York from LCY with an A319. Via Shannon. I'd love to try that...
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Mabel - Sent 23 Sep 17:46 |
|
| |
I give BA's LCY-JFK service 6 months. Why would a first class passenger spend 7 hours cramped on a 319 if he could have his own sleeping pod and stretch out on a 747? How can BA make a profit flying a 319 with only 40-50 passengers?
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 24 Sep 23:31 |
|
| |
I think that 40/50 passengers on a A319 would be very comfortable. I would be. The in flight service must be top notch. I certainly would lover to fly it. Ive flown accross the pond in cattle class on a 757 and enjoyed it. The layout is similar to that of an A319 in normal service 3-3
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 24 Sep 10:36 |
|
| |
Mabel:
Thanx for the info re the commercial performance of NH's NRT-BOM route on their all-C-class 73GER. I didn't know that route is performing badly for NH. I assumed NH must be at least breaking even since they're still flying that route. Their load factor must be bad as unlike London-NewYork, this is definitely a<pioneer> route. Can U cite where did U learnt about this so I can look it up in more details? Thanx.
I can see your point re the expectation of some C-class pax in terms of the perceived(i.e. feel) diff in cabin space between a bigger and smaller airliner. On many of my fligths, I often overheard other pax, regardless of their cabin class, complaining about being in a smaller rather than a larger/jumbo jet even if the duration is 2hrs or less! Although possible to replicate all the C-class bells & whistles(private cubicule, flatbed, bar, etc.) of a widebody, it'll never make econ sense to copy all these features onto a narrowbody airliner.
However, does smaller jet always mean less comfort? Take the 318LR(Not 319) for BA's LCY-JFK service as an example. Correct me if I'm wrong, the 318LR will include a seat design nearly identical to BA's latest C-class seats(Private cubicule,flatbed,etc.) on their Intercon widebody fleet. As an identical design, seat pitch+width for C-class must be similar between the 318LR and other BA Intercon widebodies. This is not surprising given that a 318 has 110seats in std 2-class layout. Just imagine the amount of space per pax on BA's 318LR will be like if they only install 40-50seats in a cabin big enough for 110seats! Now, will it still be appropriate to describe seats on BA 318LR as<cramped>?Of course, we can argue that BA's true intention is to install 40 tiny seats upfront and use the huge space @ the back for a strip bar with dancefloor+poles so although cramped for 7hrs, 40 lucky souls will be happy throughout but that's another topic......
Yes, pax on BA's 318LR will still suffer a lower cabin ceiling and unlikely can enjoy standing around an open bar. If these 2 factors are truly annoying, CEOs, tycoons, bankers, rockstars and the nobles must enjoy torturing themselves when crossing the Atlantic in their <cramped> private jets which typically hv much smaller cabin diameter than a 318LR.
Given reasonable load factor on 1 of the most profitable route on earth, any airline can make $ with only 40-50seats if all tickets are sold AT BIZ-CLASS FARES(5-6Xs the avg Y-class transatlantic fare). Don't forget the op cost per trip(Not CASM) of a 318LR is so much lower than any widebody.
No doubt the perception of space is a powerful factor in some pax's mind. However, there're pax who care more about the real tangible/measureable aspects of personal inflight comfort than the perception of comfort. I'm an example: I'm flying HNL->NRT(8hrs) nex mth on JL Y-class. There're 4 daily JL flights on this route and Dep time is not an issue for me. 3 flights are on 744/743 and 1 is on 763ER. Most people would hv picked the 744/743 flights because they prefer bigger jets but I specifically selected the 763ER flight as I know I'll get wider Y-class seat than in any 747........747 cabin in 3-4-3 layout ALWAYS(And regardless of airlines) has less width per seat than 767 cabin in 2-3-2 layout.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Mabel - Sent 24 Sep 16:16 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 25 Sep 2:40 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of LevHAM - Sent 25 Sep 12:14 |
|
| |
>Mabel:
>I give BA's LCY-JFK service 6 months. Why would a first class >passenger spend 7 hours cramped on a 319 if he could have his >own sleeping pod and stretch out on a 747? How can BA make a >profit flying a 319 with only 40-50 passengers?
First, it will be an A-318 with only 32 Seats. Second, a 32-Seat A-318 is anything else than cramped. This service will have a lot of advantages for business men. The flight is departing from LCY-Airport. So you don't have to get to Heathrow which takes you a lot of time. Remeber LCY is right next to Docklands for example. Then, Check-In time at LCY is just 15 Minutes prior to departure, another time-saver.
The only disadvantage is that the plane has to make a fuelstop in Shannon westbound due to the very short Runway in LCY, eastbound they will fly nonstop. But they will use this 45-Minute Stop for Immigration, so you don't have to stand in line for an hour in JFK to immigrate.
So, I see this flight becoming sucessfull. I just think that BA should have approached that slowly, and start with one daily flight, as they will start 2 daily flight right away.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 25 Sep 15:15 |
|
| |
I actulalyy think the opposite. I think it will be very lucrative. got to LCy half hour check in instead of the rat race at LHR/LGW etc etc. Just a shame that LCY can only handle the A318 and not larger traffic
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 26 Sep 7:59 |
|
| |
This has been very well thought out by BA and much work was done with people from the city who need to travel back and forth between LON and NYC. These 318 will be the last word in luxury and BA will GET top dollar for the flight. the other advantage is that when you arrive in JFK you walk straight off the aircraft and into your car/cab as on the west bound led the kite drops into SNN where the pax go through US border control. So if you have the dosh it is even better than Concord service and will be much quicker than LHR - JFK.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 26 Sep 10:40 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 27 Sep 3:06 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 27 Sep 15:19 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 27 Sep 18:23 |
|
| |
I an told that as the airliner is fueling up the pax will go into the treminal and clear US immigration. I beleive and EI-DUB may know more about this that you can do this at SNN.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 27 Sep 20:28 |
|
| |
I know its of topic but this is intertesting. To clear US customs and Immigration in Ireland cross the pond and go straight through. Could we be seeing more of these types of flights. It will I presume save a lot of time Refuel the plane as the pax go through the formalities
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of EI-DUB - Sent 28 Sep 11:07 |
|
| |
I didn't realise this until recently, but Ireland is one of a number of countries that have pre clearance with US immigration. So the rule applies that you clear it at the last airport you depart from before entering the states. So if you are flying DUB-SNN-JFK or LCY-SNN-JFK in this case it would be done in SNN where indeed captainbill there is US immigration facilities.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 29 Sep 6:33 |
|
| |
Fyi, all airports, major or minor, in Canada with flights to the U.S. hv U.S. CIQ on site for pax pre-clearance since at least the early 80s.
U.S. border control service is probably the least accomodating CIQ authority on earth. Their mission statement must be something like <...to treat every incoming foreigner equally as a high-risk potential terrorist regardless of age, race, nationality, etc. If we cannot deter these invading aliens, we must at least give them hell in our inspection procedure...>
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 29 Sep 15:21 |
|
| |
How do we give them hell FLX? I remember a story. A US officer once asked a tourist '' any fruit or vegetables'' the tourist replied ''not today thank you'' the question was meant to mean do you have any fruit or vegetables or are you carrying any fruit or vegetables? If we give them hell they will only make our lives worst. Unfortunately this is true. Although its a terrible prodcedure and it can be predjucided towards others with disatrous affects. I feel we must co-operate to the best of our abilities to evite possible deportation or other consequences.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of PK-GAT - Sent 29 Sep 17:32 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 30 Sep 8:05 |
|
| |
speedbird9468:
<...to treat every incoming foreigner equally as a high-risk potential terrorist regardless of age, race, nationality, etc. If we cannot deter these invading aliens, we must at least give them hell in our inspection procedure...> is a single mission statement in 2 sentences. Sorry about the confusion.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 30 Sep 11:12 |
|
| |
So far among the widebodies, it seems like 77W(777-300ER) and 332(330-200) are listed quite often here. Is it a coincidence that they're currently also the best-sellers in their respective categories? Why are they so popular among airlines today and on this forum relative to their siblings/similar competitors? Some reasons I can think of:
77W:
Lots of 744 are due to be replaced soon. The only things comparable in size+range and available+flying today are 346(340-600),388(380-800) and 77W. I hv explained in details many times on this forum why 346 sales has been dead so I won't go into details again. 388 is an excellent 744 replacement for airlines still seeing substantial traffic growth on certain trunk routes due to limited competition(e.g. DXB-JFK) or landing slots(e.g. Anywhere to LHR). For other Intercon trunk routes currently flown by 744, the mkt is more stable and mature with little growth. Many airlines actually see a small pax reduction on their 744s particularly in Y-class. This is where a slightly smaller widebody like 77W with less Y-class seats but the same or a bit more premium seats than 744 makes tremendous sense. It sounds like a paradox but selling less seat is more profitable for airlines these days. 77W burns about 1/3 less fuel than 744 and the $ saved is more than enough to off-set the lost revenue in a smaller Y-class section which has poor yield anyway.
332:
Other than the 763ER(767-300ER), 332 is currently the cheapest vehicle for an airline to participate in the Long/Intercon range mkt(i.e. 8-12hrs) today. It's a bit more efficient per seat than 763ER and a lot more capable in terms of belly cargo utility. 332 is great for airlines entering new Long/Intercon range mkts and need the smallest possible pax capacity per flight to launch services - a route opener(e.g. How EK used 332 to open-up 2nd-tier EU cities). For airlines seeing diminishing traffic on their Intercon trunk routes due to severe competition, 332 is an affordable way to maintain minimum mkt presence - a route defender(e.g. How NW maintained NRT-SEA over the past 15yrs but downsized from 747-200 to DC10-30 to 332).
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 16 Oct 0:11 |
|
| |
In addition the A330 can operate from fairly medium runways from about 7000 ft. BOH does it all the time with a Monarch 330 to the Carribean. another advantage the A330 has over the 767 is age. The 767 is a great plane. But can it really be called a true wide body due to the fact that it cant fit 2 containers side by side in the belly like the A330. I wouldn't say that a DC10-30 to A330 is a downsize. Just more economical
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of Mabel - Sent 16 Oct 19:04 |
|
| |
Speedbird, take your anti-American rant somewhere else. This is an AVIATION forum, not an anti-American forum. If you have an issue with how you were treated by US Immigration officials, then blame Osama and his buddies.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of captain bill - Sent 16 Oct 19:39 |
|
| |
NOW NOW Mabel this is an AVIATION forum not a site for racial comments.
In the course of a discussion sometimes we do on this site go off track but you will find that it is always the truth we tell.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 17 Oct 1:00 |
|
| |
Opa someone got his knickers in a twist. If you understand English and can read I said it was a private student of mine going on his annual pet food conference. I'm talking about Immigration at an Airport which is indirectly linked to the avaiton industry. In addition I am speaking the truth and know off several students off mine who have also been treated badly at US airports. I do'nt blame Osama and his friends at all. I blame the American system to see everyone as a possible threat to which they are not. I have a small Intercambio business sending students to the Uk for English study. Not one has mentioned they had problems at immigration. In addition my wife who is Brazilian has never had a problem at the Uk airports she has entered that includes LHR, LGW, BOH and MAN. Its not an Anti American rant. Its fact and when Americans address the isssue their tourism industtry will thrive again
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of MODO - Sent 19 Oct 15:31 |
|
| |
- Boeing 737-800 ( For Short haul flights between 30 min and 4 hours )
- Airbus A330-200 ( For Medium haul flights between 4 hours and 9 hours )
- Boeing 777-200LR ( Long haul flights between 9 hours and 18 hours )
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of mj - Sent 21 Oct 9:27 |
|
| |
why on earth would have a Boeing 777-300er and an Airbus A330-300 in the same fleet or would just be trying to show how stupid you are. This makes no commercial sence unless you`re one of those gready bustard who wouds up being cought up by their mistakes. I would recomment 777-300er 737-800 and A380
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 21 Oct 15:30 |
|
| |
Why not I mean An A330 with flights from 4 to 9 hours could be more profitable than a T7. depending on the load. I mean the A330 has also a greater cargo carrying capacity over its rival the 767. Also why put a 737-800 on a 9 hour flight. If its for an exclusive service ok. If you loook at the Major Airlines they all use widew body craft on short hops of le'ts say 2 hours or less. I remember flying with TAP from LIS to LHR on an A330 and BA from LIS to LHR on a 767-300. I also flew to Milan on a 767-300 a flight of about 1hr 20 mins. So if there is demand I think the A330 is a very sensible choice over the 767. Not for the T7 at the moment apart from the A340 series there is'nt as far as i know a plane that it can beat in its sector
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 21 Oct 15:31 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of OldEuropeAirbus - Sent 21 Oct 16:50 |
|
| |
My 3 types would be:
A-320Family (short/medium haul)
A-340-500 (long/ultra-long haul)
A-380 (long haul/high capacity routes)
No, I would not operate regional routes, would take over another airline for that :-)
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 24 Oct 13:25 |
|
| |
speedbird9468:
I actually don't expect a 332(or 763ER) on carribean charter should take-off in anything much longer than about 7,000ft rwy length due to light load(i.e. full pax+fuel but little or no belly cargo). In Japan, scheduled domestic 744D and 772/773 routinely take-off in 2,000-2,500m rwy also due to light load(i.e. full pax+belly cargo but little fuel).
I heard the arguments, both for and against, calling the 767 family a <true> widebody over the past 2 decades. While its belly cargo utility is a definite disadvantage, I find it hard to describe the 767 as anything other than a widebody. Sure, the fuselage is the most narrow of all widebodies but it still has 2 isles and even in normal Y 2-3-2 layout, its seat width is better than all other widebodies except perhaps the 777 or 388. My impression was reinforced 2days ago on an 8hrs HNL->NRT over the Pacific by JL. It was no doubt a new-built 763ER(Yup, Boeing is still delivering new built 763ER to Japan Airlines) as there wasn't a scratch anywhere on the wing nor in the lavatory. Frankly, it was a slightly more comfortable Y-class seating experience than the 3 short hops(3-4.5hrs) I took in 333s this yr around Asia.
U're right, DC-10-30 is @ most, only tiny-bit bigger than a 332 in terms of cabin floor space so it couldn't be a downsize. NW's equipment history on the NRT-SEA route is probably not a straightforward example of downsizing. However, NW did switched directly from 742 to 332 on NRT-SFO which no doubt is an example of downsizing.
I'm unsure what do U mean by <Not for the T7 at the moment apart from the A340 series there is'nt as far as i know a plane that it can beat in its sector>. Anyway, here is my radical double theory(i.e. Not facts):
A) The 777 platform is most optimized in the 772ER and 77W variants in terms of size(300 or 360 seats in 3class)+range(14,300-14,600km) mkt niche:
These 2 variants and their mkt niche are really where Boeing wanted the entire 777 platform design to be revolved around. While 772,773,77L are just side-dishes or nice-to-have on the showroom floor, Boeing always intended the 772ER and 77W as the bread & butter or volume sellers of the 777 program and their sales performance, relative to the other 3 variants, clearly show where the <sweet spots> of the 777 platform are. Airbus' 343 and 346 aim for the same mkt niche but their platform's <sweet spots> are somewhere else so they're inherently less efficient to do the same job.
B) The 330/340 platform is most optimized in the 332 and 333 variants in terms of size(250 or 300 seats in 3class)+range(10,000-12,500km) combo:
Similar story as the 772ER and 77W, the 332 and 333 variants and their mkt niche are really where Airbus found the <sweet spots> from the 330/340 platform design. All 340 variants are really just side-dishes/stretching the limit of the basic platform design and the sales number shows. Boeing's 772 aim for the same mkt niche as the 333 but its platform's <sweet spots> are somewhere else so it's inherently less efficient to do the same job(i.e. it's a bit too heavy for such range).
Just diff horse for diff course......
**************
mj:
<why on earth would have a Boeing 777-300er and an Airbus A330-300 in the same fleet or would just be trying to show how stupid you are.>...hmmm interesting comment. CX has exactly those 2 in the same fleet and KE will be the same soon. May be CX and KE, both multiple global award winning carriers, are both <stupid> airlines???
The truth is that the 77W(777-300ER) and the 333(330-300) are targeted for vastly diff mkts. One has 360seats in 3-class flying upto 14,600km with a higher CASM while the other has 300seats in 3-class flying upto 10,500km with a lower CASM. It's perfectly reasonable to hv both in the same airline fleet with no duplication.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 24 Oct 14:53 |
|
| |
As you mention FLX for 7,000 ft runways. BOH has a runway of about 7400 ft and during the year operates A330 and 767-300ER direct non stop to the Carribean. In addition sometime ago a 747-200 European flew non stop to JFK Obviouysly with not a light fuel load and the same applies for the A330 and 767. I imagine the pax loads were pretty high as the A330/767 were cruise charters and the 747 an Xmas shopping Charter. But I imagine there was little or no cargo just baggage
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 24 Oct 15:08 |
|
| |
More on the 767...
The platform was conceived in the mid-late 70s as Boeing's answer to the A300. It was a time of high oil prices and I know for a fact that Boeing consciously designed the fuselage to be a bit narrower than the A300 to gain fuel burn advantage over the Airbus - an important distinction. Key 767 customers at that time were major N.American carriers who wanted the most fuel efficient widebody available for domestic trunk routes. Unlike European airlines, belly cargo utility on 767 was non-critical as such need was already well-served by their larger domestic DC10(UA,AA,NW,CO,HA,Western,CP) or L1011(DL,TWA,PA,Eastern,AC) fleets which can easily accomodate LD3s side-by-side just like the A300.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 24 Oct 15:45 |
|
| |
Exactly. The key factor re take-off distance is mostly take-off weight. At MTOW(Whatever combo of fuel, belly cargo and pax), neither 332 nor 763ER can make it off the ground with anything less than 2,500m, let alone a 742. In contrast, with only full pax load(Officially, this include their luggage allowances in the belly) but no belly cargo, any 332/763ER(Or even a 742) will need far below a full tank to fly BOH to Carribean/JFK. In other words, take-off condition will be far below MTOW and therefore, 7,400ft take-off distance has plenty of safety margin.
Take a look of this specific example and let's estimate:
Distance BOH-NAS(Nassau): 6,901km
Normal traffic+weather allowance: 1,000km
763ER max range(Full pax+fuel with no cargo): Over 11,000km
So effectively, a charter 763ER flying the route will be using less than 72% of its max range performance. Fuel carried in tank will be by a similar factor. Of course, take-off distance won't be by the same factor but we can imagine it will be significantly less than MTOW condition.
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 25 Oct 2:00 |
|
| |
By the way FLX don't exactly quote me on BOH being about 7400ft. Its only an estimation from the info that I have. I know that cargo is a very high source of revenue. But seeing these figures wonder if more TATL routes could be operated by scheduled carriers across the pond from regional airports. There are some that already do this mainly with a 757 because lets face it it appears to the fashionable plane at the moment and due to its well amazing capabilities is suited for the job. It sometimes amazes me that although all the money and most business is in the major cities and capitals, there also seems to be a great deal of smaller business away from the capital's. For Example. My Brother works for a large American bank with very large offices just outside BOH town centre. Everyweek he tells me that at least a few hundred people from the US go there and vice versa using scheduled carriers via LHR and LGW. Surely it would be more beneficial for a carrier to lets say operate a 3/4 times a week service into BOH. For me it makes sense to do that. Now that BOH is having a 40 million revamp to the terminal etc etc it could attract this kind of service. But on the other hand there is no train close by although there is a bus service. But a full 767 for ex is a bit uncomfotable on a bus LOL
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of FLX - Sent 25 Oct 8:15 |
|
| |
speedbird9468:
This will be a bit off-topic. I hv been to Bournemouth once 29yrs ago(Probably when Thatcherism was still a novelty) when I was just a kid. The only thing I remember is that it's a quiet but pretty little town by the sea with only 1 large shopping mall @ or near Pool and a small railway station. I stayed @ my cousin's whose husband was an architect - probably why I saw many residents nearby were up-scale retirees. I passed by BOH which to me @ the time seemed like a predominantly GA airport.
I guess it must hv changed a lot since then....
|
|
User profil
|
Private message
|
Suggest deletion
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Message of speedbird9468 - Sent 25 Oct 11:02 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post a message for this thread
|