Airlines usually fly their best aircraft over the Atlantic but I don't get why can more airlines fly their 737-900ER, 737-700, a319, a321. I know that Air Canada fly's their a319 but why can't more do it. The new a320NEO are capable. I get there is a thing called ETOPS. Can anyone explain why they don't usually fly these planes?
Why not do small in the Atlantic?
#1
Posted 12 July 2017 - 07:04 PM
#2
Posted 13 July 2017 - 05:11 PM
Cost. Why would an airline pay 3 flight crews, airport taxes, fees and the cost of turning around an aircraft 3 times when they can pay for it all once and carry the same number of passengers?
Although, in saying that, Norwegian is launching flights from Edinburgh (relatively small airport) to tiny airports outside New York, Boston etc. They will be flown with a 320neo using the Ryanair model. Across the Atlantic for £60 will generate demand that wasn't there to begin with. The only reason this is possibly viable is because Norwegian will be getting to use the airports for buttons compared to JFK or BOS.
#3
Posted 14 July 2017 - 04:41 AM
Besides the fact that a 737 and A32X are not actually capable of consistently crossing the Atlantic on anything but the shortest routes, there's enough demand to warrant larger airplanes anyway.
It's an extreme example, but British Airways serve JFK-LHR on a 747 or 777 8 times a day. Factor in the other airlines and airports, and there are over 40 flights a day between London and New York. There is simply too much demand on this route for it to be served by a smaller aircraft.
On the other end, many airlines do serve Trans-atlantic routes with smaller aircraft. The 757 especially is a very common aircraft on these routes, Delta even use one on the New York to Dakar, Senegal route.
Another issue with using more smaller aircraft is that on many longhaul routes, there's a specific time of day where there's a lot of demand, with a lot less demand at other times of day. For example, on many US East Coast to Europe routes, the most desirable flights leave in the evening US time to arrive in the morning in Europe in time for a full business day. As there is only a small window for this, it's much more economical to have one large plane serve this time than have two or three departures right next to each other on smaller planes. Factor in that departure slots at airports like Heathrow, JFK, Charles de Gaulle, and Frankfurt are extremely expensive, and the numbers favor the single large departure even further.
And finally, these routes have a lot of competition. If you're looking for a flight across the Atlantic (especially in business class, where the airlines are really targeting high-value passengers), wide body aircraft are generally more popular among travelers as they offer more comfort, and greater ability for the airlines to offer amenities such as lie-flat seats, aisle access, etc, that these high-value customers are looking for.
#4
Posted 16 July 2017 - 03:44 PM
I am edible. If you eat me though, you are a cannibal
#5
Posted 16 July 2017 - 03:58 PM
No wonder I doubt British Airways will retire its dinosaur fleet of 747s anytime soon. And no matter how hard they try to hide the planes' ages with all these retrofits, there will always be telltale signs of aging in their cabins.Because of fuel. Sometimes they don't have the range. And it's better to use wide bodies because the airlines can take care of the demand in less flights. And so the passengers have more comfort
#6
Posted 16 July 2017 - 05:59 PM
But British Airways fly their a318 from London City to JFK, why do they do that then?
#7
Posted 16 July 2017 - 06:50 PM
I am edible. If you eat me though, you are a cannibal
#8
Posted 16 July 2017 - 07:09 PM
How long that route will exist for after the Multinationals all **** off to Dublin, Frankfurt and Paris is another question. The English brought that on themselves though
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users