quote:Originally posted by narikin
I find it hard to justify buying a PE seat now - its just a little more legroom, but the same food and virtually the same treatment. With flights being half empty, if you have your wits about you, you can get a row of Economy seats, and lay out flat for a good sleep. something you cant do, while paying double the $ in PE, with the fixed armrests. Its got to be full UC or Economy for me, in between is worse than either.
basically the problem is this: I would RATHER be stretched over 3/4 seats of Economy, than my single PE seat, with its fixed armrests, every time, regardless of cost. VS have to do something about that fact, like making upgrades for Au folks from PE to UC much more frequent, OR make PE to UC upgrades easier to buy with miles, with no restrictions.
They should try that for 3/6 months and see how it works. Happy regular flyers bleat about it to all their friends and increase your business all round.
Most of the flilghts I have been on in the last 2 years have been rammed full.
I would rather spend my money on knowing I have a good seat, with decent space and legroom combined with a typical PE service which is less hurried than in a full Economy cabin.
Having once tried to sleep on a row of Economy seats, with the armrests up and the seatbelts tucked it, it was very uncomfortable.
Coupled with the fact that many people are eyeing up the empty row as well, it's a race as soon as the seat belt sign goes off.
PE prices on a lot of routes are much much cheaper than they were 12 months ago. Take advantage.
IATA warned airlines set to lose a further $9 Billion.
At the same time they are told by their CEO that travel is more accessible than ever in price and purchase options and to survive in the global online market they need to reshape their services and their business models to provide greater value that travellers are willing to pay for.
At the same time they are told by their CEO that travel is more accessible than ever in price and purchase options and to survive in the global online market they need to reshape their services and their business models to provide greater value that travellers are willing to pay for.
No Bill, that is wrong, ok so a lot of airlines are ramping up their offerings, but it is obvious that they are wrong, you must cut services and amenities while still charging top dollar, it worked well for the US legacy carriers until airlines like JetBlue and Virgin America came along, offering a better product for less money. But when does say a national carrier have to face competition from an upstart 1 airliner airline [:w]
Hell it worked for BA, until a single airplane airline came along, shock up the industry a little, offered more for less, not less for more. Isn't history an interesting thing. It should be noted that BA has turned the corner on offering a bad product and the American carriers are starting to invest in their products.
There is a man named Stephen Payne, a man I respect a great deal, he has nothing to do with airlines, he designs cruise ships, his most famous one being the Queen Mary 2, anyways, he has this little thing he run's his business by, when he is looking at designing a new ship for a client he finds out what the client wants to use the ship for, he then goes back and studies all of the previous ships that were given this job, he then finds out what worked, what had to be changed and what plain didn't work no matter what.
With the stuff that worked he builds that into his designs.
Anyways, the point I am trying to get at with this is, someone needs to hit SRB and Steve Ridgway over the head with a history book, a nice big and heavy one, they are repeating history again and it didn't work out so well the last time.
Ok, the future, here is what I see.
789's Operating lower density routes
358's operating higher density routes.
744's, 346, 343 go away.
Operating costs come down, new aircraft means a lower MX bill, twin engine means better fuel bill, we quietly forget the 4 engine slogan btw.
Hell it worked for BA, until a single airplane airline came along, shock up the industry a little, offered more for less, not less for more. Isn't history an interesting thing. It should be noted that BA has turned the corner on offering a bad product and the American carriers are starting to invest in their products.
There is a man named Stephen Payne, a man I respect a great deal, he has nothing to do with airlines, he designs cruise ships, his most famous one being the Queen Mary 2, anyways, he has this little thing he run's his business by, when he is looking at designing a new ship for a client he finds out what the client wants to use the ship for, he then goes back and studies all of the previous ships that were given this job, he then finds out what worked, what had to be changed and what plain didn't work no matter what.
With the stuff that worked he builds that into his designs.
Anyways, the point I am trying to get at with this is, someone needs to hit SRB and Steve Ridgway over the head with a history book, a nice big and heavy one, they are repeating history again and it didn't work out so well the last time.
Ok, the future, here is what I see.
789's Operating lower density routes
358's operating higher density routes.
744's, 346, 343 go away.
Operating costs come down, new aircraft means a lower MX bill, twin engine means better fuel bill, we quietly forget the 4 engine slogan btw.
quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
Anyways, the point I am trying to get at with this is, someone needs to hit SRB and Steve Ridgway over the head with a history book, a nice big and heavy one, they are repeating history again and it didn't work out so well the last time.
Ok, the future, here is what I see.
789's Operating lower density routes
358's operating higher density routes.
744's, 346, 343 go away.
Operating costs come down, new aircraft means a lower MX bill, twin engine means better fuel bill, we quietly forget the 4 engine slogan btw.
Do you mean the A350-800 or are you meaning A380-800?
Anyways, the point I am trying to get at with this is, someone needs to hit SRB and Steve Ridgway over the head with a history book, a nice big and heavy one, they are repeating history again and it didn't work out so well the last time.
Ok, the future, here is what I see.
789's Operating lower density routes
358's operating higher density routes.
744's, 346, 343 go away.
Operating costs come down, new aircraft means a lower MX bill, twin engine means better fuel bill, we quietly forget the 4 engine slogan btw.
Do you mean the A350-800 or are you meaning A380-800?
Nope, I will be amazed if VS ever get's a 388. They are a great plane if you can fill them, but I see VS moving in a more conservative way, the 789 and 350-10's should be in the 225 - 350 pax range, easy to fill, cheaper to operate.
For some reason I keep thinking that the largest 350 will be the 8 [:I]
For some reason I keep thinking that the largest 350 will be the 8 [:I]
Ahh now your reply makes sense.
Yes I would agree with you. Of course that is all dependent on the 350-1000 being launched.
I do think that VS should have gone with the 77W over the 346 and the 744 10 or so years ago. The successes that a number of airlines have had with the 77W just shows how versatile it is, look at EK for example.
I also think there should have at some stage been some expansion of MAN using some 330s.
Yes I would agree with you. Of course that is all dependent on the 350-1000 being launched.
I do think that VS should have gone with the 77W over the 346 and the 744 10 or so years ago. The successes that a number of airlines have had with the 77W just shows how versatile it is, look at EK for example.
I also think there should have at some stage been some expansion of MAN using some 330s.
Well the 351 (that just looks wrong) will be launched at some point, though it does look like the 359 is the sweet spot, but it may be to small for VS.
The 77W as you say is the perfect plane for VS, however with the order backlog they may as well go for the 351 and get the newer technology.
The 789's I can see replacing the 744's at LHR first, a 346 would be needed to cover SFO, but there is no reason not to put the 789's on the NYC routes in a high J config.
Now the big question, what to do with the 346's, there is no after market for them as there is with the 744, so their resale value is not that great, meaning that I can see them staying with VS for a long while yet. The conversion market for the 744's has slowed down, but with the LGW fleet being leased the LHR fleet can move over to LGW and replace them, actually I may off just answered my own question, reconfig the 346's with a lower number off seats in F, raise the number in W and there you go. Let the 789's and the 351's take over LHR, have the 346's take over LGW, retire (as much as I hate to say it) the 744's.
The 77W as you say is the perfect plane for VS, however with the order backlog they may as well go for the 351 and get the newer technology.
The 789's I can see replacing the 744's at LHR first, a 346 would be needed to cover SFO, but there is no reason not to put the 789's on the NYC routes in a high J config.
Now the big question, what to do with the 346's, there is no after market for them as there is with the 744, so their resale value is not that great, meaning that I can see them staying with VS for a long while yet. The conversion market for the 744's has slowed down, but with the LGW fleet being leased the LHR fleet can move over to LGW and replace them, actually I may off just answered my own question, reconfig the 346's with a lower number off seats in F, raise the number in W and there you go. Let the 789's and the 351's take over LHR, have the 346's take over LGW, retire (as much as I hate to say it) the 744's.
quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
Well the 351 (that just looks wrong) will be launched at some point, though it does look like the 359 is the sweet spot, but it may be to small for VS.
Yeh especially as they have order the 789 which is the direct competitor of the 359 (IIRC).
quote:
The 77W as you say is the perfect plane for VS, however with the order backlog they may as well go for the 351 and get the newer technology.
Yep and it should have been ordered instead of the 346's. That way VS could have operated the 77W on the routes with more demand and would have fleet commonalty with other 777 members whihc would have allowed for the development of newer routes.
One of the main problems I think VS currently has is that there is no aircraft that could be put on development type routes. EK for example will put the 333 on a route, then when its performing well (c.2 years later) will put the 772 onto the route and will eventually replace it with a 77W. This is exactly the sort of thing VS could have done had they plumped for the 777, had the 772 on newer routes and once they become more established put a 77W onto the route. Sadly though as you point out there is no point in ordering the 77W currently.
quote:
Now the big question, what to do with the 346's, there is no after market for them as there is with the 744, so their resale value is not that great, meaning that I can see them staying with VS for a long while yet. The conversion market for the 744's has slowed down, but with the LGW fleet being leased the LHR fleet can move over to LGW and replace them, actually I may off just answered my own question, reconfig the 346's with a lower number off seats in F, raise the number in W and there you go. Let the 789's and the 351's take over LHR, have the 346's take over LGW, retire (as much as I hate to say it) the 744's.
The 346's are a real problem. IB and LH may want to pick up a couple of second hand ones but other than them I cant see anyone coming into the market for a ten year old 346. Maybe, this is a long shot, but by then, someone like Arik might be interested in them, who knows.
744's will probably start to leave the fleet c.2013 (provided leases are not renewed) I would imagine at that time the 346's will become LGW aircraft as you point out, until a replacement (read 351) arrives.
Of course official VS policy is that really the 346's will stay at LHR and be supplemented by the 789. LGW will get a couple of 388's and the rest of the 744 fleet (which is to be replaced with more 388's or the 748).
Well the 351 (that just looks wrong) will be launched at some point, though it does look like the 359 is the sweet spot, but it may be to small for VS.
Yeh especially as they have order the 789 which is the direct competitor of the 359 (IIRC).
quote:
The 77W as you say is the perfect plane for VS, however with the order backlog they may as well go for the 351 and get the newer technology.
Yep and it should have been ordered instead of the 346's. That way VS could have operated the 77W on the routes with more demand and would have fleet commonalty with other 777 members whihc would have allowed for the development of newer routes.
One of the main problems I think VS currently has is that there is no aircraft that could be put on development type routes. EK for example will put the 333 on a route, then when its performing well (c.2 years later) will put the 772 onto the route and will eventually replace it with a 77W. This is exactly the sort of thing VS could have done had they plumped for the 777, had the 772 on newer routes and once they become more established put a 77W onto the route. Sadly though as you point out there is no point in ordering the 77W currently.
quote:
Now the big question, what to do with the 346's, there is no after market for them as there is with the 744, so their resale value is not that great, meaning that I can see them staying with VS for a long while yet. The conversion market for the 744's has slowed down, but with the LGW fleet being leased the LHR fleet can move over to LGW and replace them, actually I may off just answered my own question, reconfig the 346's with a lower number off seats in F, raise the number in W and there you go. Let the 789's and the 351's take over LHR, have the 346's take over LGW, retire (as much as I hate to say it) the 744's.
The 346's are a real problem. IB and LH may want to pick up a couple of second hand ones but other than them I cant see anyone coming into the market for a ten year old 346. Maybe, this is a long shot, but by then, someone like Arik might be interested in them, who knows.
744's will probably start to leave the fleet c.2013 (provided leases are not renewed) I would imagine at that time the 346's will become LGW aircraft as you point out, until a replacement (read 351) arrives.
Of course official VS policy is that really the 346's will stay at LHR and be supplemented by the 789. LGW will get a couple of 388's and the rest of the 744 fleet (which is to be replaced with more 388's or the 748).
quote:
744's will probably start to leave the fleet c.2013 (provided leases are not renewed) I would imagine at that time the 346's will become LGW aircraft as you point out, until a replacement (read 351) arrives.
Of course official VS policy is that really the 346's will stay at LHR and be supplemented by the 789. LGW will get a couple of 388's and the rest of the 744 fleet (which is to be replaced with more 388's or the 748).
I think i read somewhere that the 346 wouldn't be economical to operate in a high density config. Something to do with the economics of the plane?? Id say LGW should be 744/748 and 789. Maybe in the interim they could send a 343 over there? Its not needed for the BOM anymore. It could operate 7 flights a week rather than the 2 it currently operates from MAN. Just a thought......
744's will probably start to leave the fleet c.2013 (provided leases are not renewed) I would imagine at that time the 346's will become LGW aircraft as you point out, until a replacement (read 351) arrives.
Of course official VS policy is that really the 346's will stay at LHR and be supplemented by the 789. LGW will get a couple of 388's and the rest of the 744 fleet (which is to be replaced with more 388's or the 748).
I think i read somewhere that the 346 wouldn't be economical to operate in a high density config. Something to do with the economics of the plane?? Id say LGW should be 744/748 and 789. Maybe in the interim they could send a 343 over there? Its not needed for the BOM anymore. It could operate 7 flights a week rather than the 2 it currently operates from MAN. Just a thought......
Someone on here said that the A340-600 is too long to park on stand at LGW so would have to be stuck on a 'bus gate' if they were to operate there.
Always planning a trip somewhere!
quote:Originally posted by Scrooge
quote:Originally posted by ryand
No they don't but they have 346's doing nothing.........
Couldn't they put the flights one 343 does onto a spare 346 and move the 343 to LGW.
When do they have a spare 346 ?
I think it's no secret that the Airbus fleet is worked less intensively than the Boeings at the moment.
For example, the VS11/12 I took a couple of weeks ago should have been operated on the 747, but was swapped for a 346 at short notice, and the aircraft that was laid on, G-VYOU, hadn't worked at all the previous day (according to LHR movement listings).
With Mumbai being canx, and 25/26 being canx, that throws up a couple of aircraft. HKG 238/239 obviously takes up some of this though. Also the arrival and departure times of the Airbus operated flights are more spread throughout the day, so this adds a little more flexibility to do rapid turns to smooth irregular ops without causing too much delay.
Boeing ops used to be more spread out at LHR (e.g. when 1/2 were, and over the winter when JNB is, operated on the Boeing), but they are now more biased to the AM, not unlike the Gatwick 744 ops.
The three ops that are planned on the 744 out of LHR (5/6, 19/20, 45/46) at the moment don't leave much room for movement at all when things go awry, as we've seen.
In theory, to get the MIA and SFO go near time, the inbound aircraft off 6 and 46 need to be turned onto these flights. The inbound off the 20 then turns to work the afternoon's 45.
It would be a more obvious choice to swap 5/6 onto the 346 with the current scheduling, and run either BOS or EWR 1/2 (both afternoon departures, and morning arrivals) with the other 744.
Not sure why MIA is 744 right now? Maybe answering my own question here, but from what I can tell, it's loading well on Y, which may mean that the 346 (with ~40 less Y seats than the LHR 744) just isn't big enough.
Mike
quote:Originally posted by ryand
No they don't but they have 346's doing nothing.........
Couldn't they put the flights one 343 does onto a spare 346 and move the 343 to LGW.
When do they have a spare 346 ?
I think it's no secret that the Airbus fleet is worked less intensively than the Boeings at the moment.
For example, the VS11/12 I took a couple of weeks ago should have been operated on the 747, but was swapped for a 346 at short notice, and the aircraft that was laid on, G-VYOU, hadn't worked at all the previous day (according to LHR movement listings).
With Mumbai being canx, and 25/26 being canx, that throws up a couple of aircraft. HKG 238/239 obviously takes up some of this though. Also the arrival and departure times of the Airbus operated flights are more spread throughout the day, so this adds a little more flexibility to do rapid turns to smooth irregular ops without causing too much delay.
Boeing ops used to be more spread out at LHR (e.g. when 1/2 were, and over the winter when JNB is, operated on the Boeing), but they are now more biased to the AM, not unlike the Gatwick 744 ops.
The three ops that are planned on the 744 out of LHR (5/6, 19/20, 45/46) at the moment don't leave much room for movement at all when things go awry, as we've seen.
In theory, to get the MIA and SFO go near time, the inbound aircraft off 6 and 46 need to be turned onto these flights. The inbound off the 20 then turns to work the afternoon's 45.
It would be a more obvious choice to swap 5/6 onto the 346 with the current scheduling, and run either BOS or EWR 1/2 (both afternoon departures, and morning arrivals) with the other 744.
Not sure why MIA is 744 right now? Maybe answering my own question here, but from what I can tell, it's loading well on Y, which may mean that the 346 (with ~40 less Y seats than the LHR 744) just isn't big enough.
Mike
Thanks Mike, I was going to say in agreement with you, ever notice the number of resting VS 346s on the bussed stands of T4 currently. Maybe only for a few hours or a day each, but in the past I don't recall that so much.
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
Mike the 747's have 228 seats and the 346 has 225 in Y since the new config was launched.
As for the spare 346's. To my calculations on a normal day with no irregular ops:
17 346's are used: VS1, VS3, VS7, VS9, VS11, VS17, VS 23, VS200(Requires 3 A/C), VS 250, VS 300, VS 400, VS601, VS 651
5 343's are used: VS21, VS39, VS55, VS238, VS671
3 744's are used: VS5, VS19, VS45
That leaves 2 346's spare for maintenance etc, 1 343 spare to operate the MAN-BGI and 2 spare 744 (1 Covering LGW at the moment)
Why not move either the 1/2 or 11/12 onto the 744 as mike said free up another 346, move the VS21 onto the 346, there you go 1 A343 is free for LGW use. And if they wanted they could move the MAN-BGI back onto the 744 and move the extra VS73 to a Thursday from Sunday to allow the BGI flight back onto the 747. You could then have 2 spare A343, one for LGW and one for maintenance cover etc...
As for the spare 346's. To my calculations on a normal day with no irregular ops:
17 346's are used: VS1, VS3, VS7, VS9, VS11, VS17, VS 23, VS200(Requires 3 A/C), VS 250, VS 300, VS 400, VS601, VS 651
5 343's are used: VS21, VS39, VS55, VS238, VS671
3 744's are used: VS5, VS19, VS45
That leaves 2 346's spare for maintenance etc, 1 343 spare to operate the MAN-BGI and 2 spare 744 (1 Covering LGW at the moment)
Why not move either the 1/2 or 11/12 onto the 744 as mike said free up another 346, move the VS21 onto the 346, there you go 1 A343 is free for LGW use. And if they wanted they could move the MAN-BGI back onto the 744 and move the extra VS73 to a Thursday from Sunday to allow the BGI flight back onto the 747. You could then have 2 spare A343, one for LGW and one for maintenance cover etc...
quote:Originally posted by willd
Yeh especially as they have order the 789 which is the direct competitor of the 359 (IIRC).
It wasn't originally, since Boeing showed all sorts of lovely designs for 787 with 8 abreast seating but the A350 had 9 abreast. However now most purchasers of the 787 plan 9 abreast in economy so it does match the 359.
quote:Originally posted by willd
Yep and it should have been ordered instead of the 346's. That way VS could have operated the 77W on the routes with more demand and would have fleet commonalty with other 777 members whihc would have allowed for the development of newer routes.
Don't agree with this, the 356 is great for VS, where the 346 suits VS, and VS has reported often before that it is satisfied with the plane.
quote:Originally posted by willd
One of the main problems I think VS currently has is that there is no aircraft that could be put on development type routes. EK for example will put the 333 on a route, then when its performing well (c.2 years later) will put the 772 onto the route and will eventually replace it with a 77W.
Now there I do agree, but the 343 - 346 was partly intended to help with this. Just then the route network didn't allow the flexibility.
For some routes the 346, as a young and modern plane, should last for a long time. I can see VS letting some of the leased planes go, but for those VS owns, why not keep them on? You see, I don't totally agree with this:
quote:Originally posted by willd
The 346's are a real problem
For a mainly Airbus fleet, it didn't make sense to me for VS to opt for the 787. The 350 has near commonality on the flight desk as the 340 and therefore the cost of transition for pilots will be much less, similarly in maintenance etc. where the differences are less. But then VS's airliner purchasing policies have long amused me, a little bit of this, a little bit of that ... should have stuck with A332s, A346s and if needed (but doubtful ever to come) A380s for the flexibility you described. Moving to 350s in the future?
Yeh especially as they have order the 789 which is the direct competitor of the 359 (IIRC).
It wasn't originally, since Boeing showed all sorts of lovely designs for 787 with 8 abreast seating but the A350 had 9 abreast. However now most purchasers of the 787 plan 9 abreast in economy so it does match the 359.
quote:Originally posted by willd
Yep and it should have been ordered instead of the 346's. That way VS could have operated the 77W on the routes with more demand and would have fleet commonalty with other 777 members whihc would have allowed for the development of newer routes.
Don't agree with this, the 356 is great for VS, where the 346 suits VS, and VS has reported often before that it is satisfied with the plane.
quote:Originally posted by willd
One of the main problems I think VS currently has is that there is no aircraft that could be put on development type routes. EK for example will put the 333 on a route, then when its performing well (c.2 years later) will put the 772 onto the route and will eventually replace it with a 77W.
Now there I do agree, but the 343 - 346 was partly intended to help with this. Just then the route network didn't allow the flexibility.
For some routes the 346, as a young and modern plane, should last for a long time. I can see VS letting some of the leased planes go, but for those VS owns, why not keep them on? You see, I don't totally agree with this:
quote:Originally posted by willd
The 346's are a real problem
For a mainly Airbus fleet, it didn't make sense to me for VS to opt for the 787. The 350 has near commonality on the flight desk as the 340 and therefore the cost of transition for pilots will be much less, similarly in maintenance etc. where the differences are less. But then VS's airliner purchasing policies have long amused me, a little bit of this, a little bit of that ... should have stuck with A332s, A346s and if needed (but doubtful ever to come) A380s for the flexibility you described. Moving to 350s in the future?
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
quote:Originally posted by ryand
As for the spare 346's. To my calculations on a normal day with no irregular ops:
17 346's are used: VS1, VS3, VS7, VS9, VS11, VS17, VS 23, VS200(Requires 3 A/C), VS 250, VS 300, VS 400, VS601, VS 651
5 343's are used: VS21, VS39, VS55, VS238, VS671
3 744's are used: VS5, VS19, VS45
That leaves 2 346's spare for maintenance etc, 1 343 spare to operate the MAN-BGI and 2 spare 744 (1 Covering LGW at the moment)
Yes, indeed, however don't forget that with very efficient rotation of planes between routes, there's a lot of time in those schedules, e.g. a BOS plane may only be committed for 16 hrs a day so may rotate to another schedule.
Aren't the 55, 601, 603 and 651 not seven days a week either?
As for the spare 346's. To my calculations on a normal day with no irregular ops:
17 346's are used: VS1, VS3, VS7, VS9, VS11, VS17, VS 23, VS200(Requires 3 A/C), VS 250, VS 300, VS 400, VS601, VS 651
5 343's are used: VS21, VS39, VS55, VS238, VS671
3 744's are used: VS5, VS19, VS45
That leaves 2 346's spare for maintenance etc, 1 343 spare to operate the MAN-BGI and 2 spare 744 (1 Covering LGW at the moment)
Yes, indeed, however don't forget that with very efficient rotation of planes between routes, there's a lot of time in those schedules, e.g. a BOS plane may only be committed for 16 hrs a day so may rotate to another schedule.
Aren't the 55, 601, 603 and 651 not seven days a week either?
There's a plane at JFK, to fly you back from far away
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
all those dark and frantic transatlantic miles
Beat me to it, yes there are two planes sitting around in theory, but the reality is that those two planes are being used, it just gives a bit of flexibility to the schedule.
You do have to remember that right now LHR is down 2 744's so there is no flexibility there, if two 346's were to go down you would see the 346 routes go to hell as well, but having those two extra aircraft allows VS to plug one in and rotate the inbound to another route, MX etc.
You do have to remember that right now LHR is down 2 744's so there is no flexibility there, if two 346's were to go down you would see the 346 routes go to hell as well, but having those two extra aircraft allows VS to plug one in and rotate the inbound to another route, MX etc.
I see how right now it wouldn't work because of the lack of 744's but effectively if VS had no spare plane the whole operation could be operated by just the 340 fleet. That would leave 5 A/C doing nothing. 4 of these yes will be needed either to cover for visits to the hanger or giving flexibility to the schedule. But one is still available. Not to mention most days not all of these flights operate as there is cuts due to low demand.
Its difficult and in reality nothing is going to change, just some hypothesis on a rainy day
Its difficult and in reality nothing is going to change, just some hypothesis on a rainy day
It doesn't work in reality though, look at 7/8, by block time it could be done by one aircraft, in reality you need two, so what you end up with is an aircraft doing something like LHR - LAX - LHR - JFK - LHR - LAX - LHR.
The spare aircraft are just slotted into the rotation. Aircraft utilization is just a huge jigsaw puzzle lol
The spare aircraft are just slotted into the rotation. Aircraft utilization is just a huge jigsaw puzzle lol
1/2, 5/6, 19/20, 45/46 works with 4 A/C
07:50 - 10:35
08:45 - 11:30
09:05 - 14:00
10:30 - 15:45
There you go 4 A/C for 4 routes. and similar happens with the 340's right? The timetable works out so there's a mix of long and short sector flights to make up this jigsaw. Surely that still means there will be at least on a/c doing nothing.......
07:50 - 10:35
08:45 - 11:30
09:05 - 14:00
10:30 - 15:45
There you go 4 A/C for 4 routes. and similar happens with the 340's right? The timetable works out so there's a mix of long and short sector flights to make up this jigsaw. Surely that still means there will be at least on a/c doing nothing.......
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 173 guests