Jump to content

Photo

747 Being Phased out?

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#41
M4matthew

M4matthew

    M4Matthew

  • Member
  • 673 posts

increasing capacity although reducing frequency

 

Since when has frequency been important on any ultra long-haul route? Frequency is only important to business and connecting passengers, but the first thing you do when you get off the plane after an 11 hour flight is go straight to your hotel to let your body clock recover. If you have a meeting in LA, you'll probably arrive 1-2 days in advance just so you're well rested; by which time whether you arrived in the afternoon or evening is irrelevant. And with regard to connecting passengers, I doubt LAX is a hub for connections from Europe - they all transit on the East Coast. For instance my mum's been to America twice this year, once to Las Vegas (via Charlotte) and once to San Diego (via Newark).

 

So, bearing that in mind. It makes sense to replace 3 747s with 2 A380s. You keep the same number of seats, the passengers don't mind the loss in frequency but you save a hell of a lot of fuel. And as a cheeky bonus you've also freed up a slot at LHR to be used for another route  :D



#42
mxax-ai

mxax-ai

    OMGZ I LUUUUV AE!!!

  • Member
  • 585 posts

User's Awards

3    3      
I wasn't expressing dissapointment, I was expressing surprisement about the fact that it's possible to replace such a big aircraft with another aircraft with a lower frequency yet adding capacity. :P

#43
ar157

ar157

    Resident Australian Arnimal

  • Member
  • 1,476 posts

User's Awards

     

Since when has frequency been important on any ultra long-haul route? 

 

Perhaps HKG-JFK? though that could be attributed to the lack of VVVVVLA. But still, if there's 4x daily flights to JFK, 3x of which are non-stop surely there must be something going on.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users