Ewr-oslo

[mrf777]

Rumor has it that CO will annouce new service Newark to Oslo serviced by a 757...It should start mid-late June.

 

[ITRADE]

CO applied to fly this route in late November.

 

[JFK777]

I thought the whole point of having 767-200ER's was to fly to smaller european cities. 757er'sshould go to Hawaii and all those 767's should come to the Atlantic. Having 757 across the pond when all the competition flies A330, A340, 777 and 744's is retarded. I am ashamed to say I always fly the European airlines because they always fly big widebdies few 767's and no 757. Can you imagine British Airways or Virgin offering skinny airplanes to JFK. May be the day there is no monarchy in England, not going to happen.

 

[SVQLBA]

EWR - Oslo was announced today.

I may be a minority, but I don't mind the 757 transatlantic. Seats are the same as in a 767 or 777. The roof may be lower, but to me its no big deal. I'd rather have the 757 with lower trip costs open up moredirect routings (EWR-MAN, EWR-STN, CLE-LGW) that allow me to bypass at least one hub at one end or the other. I much prefer CO's approach to UA's approach of only flying to-from hubs across the pond. Yeah, 76s and 77's are nice to Paris, FRA, LHR/LGW from EWR, JFK. PHL, BOS, ORD etc, but a lot of people don't live or do business in those places on one or both sides. Personally, I think the 757's is better suited to the transtlantic fragmentation role than it is for the domestic trunk role for which it was designed. It turned out to be over-gauged and over-winged for that.

 

[JFK777]

New York being the country's most important city naturally ahs the most European service. Since CAL has the biggest operation in The New York area its only natural it have service to some seemingly obscure European cities. Glasgow won't get served from Houston but certainly from New York. Oslo deserves better then a 757, SAS has been serving the route since I can remember with no feed at either end. SAS's main hub is in Copenhagen where they feed all flight to Asia and North America. SAS flew 763 and now they fly A330 or A340's, if they can sell 200 seats a day surely the biggest airline in the the biggest transatlantic market in the United States can fly a 767. CAL could sell Oslo with only one stop to anywhere in North America. Most Oslo traffic probably connects through LHR or FRA, what a shame. IF AA and DA can fly 767 from their hubs to all kinds of European cities so should CAL

 

[JFK777]

I can't find any justification for fly 757 to Europe. 767's made many routes possible such ATL-Stutgart, ATL-MUC, and ORD-Man possible. If a 767 can be flown from ATL to a secondary European city then there should be more demand from a hub in New York where a natural market for these services should automatically exist. New York to the capitol city of any country in Europe should have a decent enough market, when you add the capacity of CAL's hub to feed such flights then demand should grow tremendously.

All those 757 CAL uses from EWR to DUB, Snn, EDI, Gla, LIs, BRU and those others should be replaced, tommorrow. Only 757's to Guam, those isalnd markets in the Pacific don't deserve such good metal; EWR does.

 

[CLEfan]

If it wasn't for the 757, EDI, LIS, BHX, and now Oslo and many other cities in Europe would not have direct service to EWR because it wouldnt be profitable to operate the flight. The 767's weigh more, can hold more cargo, and have more Business First seats. Flights to these smaller European cities cannot fill the additional BF seats or have enough cargo to justify the larger planes. The 757 better matches the demand, thus CO makes money.

Also, even with pulling all the 767's off Pacific, there still wouldn't be enough to cover the full schedule. Whats your beef with the Pacific Islands? Other than Guam and Hawaii, they only see 737's.

 

[skycruiser]

All those 757 CAL uses from EWR to DUB, Snn, EDI, Gla, LIs, BRU and those others should be replaced, tommorrow. Only 757's to Guam, those isalnd markets in the Pacific don't deserve such good metal; EWR does.

By putting the 757 on those long haul routes (and if it could make it without stopping) the company would loose revenue in the form of passenger as well as cargo . Those Europe routes have less demand vs range and seem to fit the 757 very well. The company spends the money to have the smart folks in planning and that is why you have the 767 flying the pacific routes.

 

[SVQLBA]

From today's news, looks like CO is exactly right to start EWR Oslo with the 757.

SAS Withdraws From Newark Oslo

You can always upgauge later once a route proves itself, but I think CO looks very very smart to have certified the 757 for overwater ops. Many of the other US carriers I believe did not certifiy the 757 for overwater ops, and so don't have the same network-building options.

Now, if only they would start CLE-AMS so that the CLE area was actually connected to the rest of Europe -- LGW is great for London but rotten as a connecting point.

 

[Rob]

Now, if only they would start CLE-AMS ...

Maybe CLE-CDG will be more likely (in 2005?) if CAL re-hooks up with AF. CAL said, pre-911, that CLE-CDG was breakeven on the O&D alone. I'm not sure that's true about AMS, although AMS is a great airport for connections.

 

[mrf777]

Rob do you mean CLE-LGW was break even on O/D traffic?...that route was a good money maker even in 2003.

 

[Borescope]

IF AA and DA can fly 767 from their hubs to all kinds of European cities so should CAL

Co is in this to make money. AA & DL are losing tons of money right now. You can't make money on those routes with a 65% load factor.

 

[AAmech]

AA does not fly to nearly as many smaller EU cities as CO so it can use 767's across the pond. And please don't Lump AA in with DL. AA has been seriously restructing for almost a year now and its costs are now even lower than CO's so that makes them WAY lower than DL's.

 

[JFK777]

757's are fine from small markets but if New York can't sell 120 seat a day to a European city it should be served. My baseline from NYC, the biggest market in the USA, is CAL's767-200ER. Anything smaller isn't worth flying to. IF TAP Air Portigal can fly a A340 to JFK from LIS, CAL can flya bigger bird.

 

[Cosmo]

757's are fine from small markets but if New York can't sell 120 seat a day to a European city it should be served. My baseline from NYC, the biggest market in the USA, is CAL's767-200ER. Anything smaller isn't worth flying to. IF TAP Air Portigal can fly a A340 to JFK from LIS, CAL can flya bigger bird.

Absolute and utter hogwash!

CO is in business to make money. If that airline believes it can maximize its revenues by flying a B757, rather than a larger plane, to secondary markets in Europe, why shouldn't it do so? Why should CO forego a potentially profitable opportunity just because its B757s are smaller than most of the aircraft that other carriers fly across the Atlantic (and smaller than your highly arbitrary minimum standard)? The fact that New York is the largest Transatlantic gateway in the U.S. is immaterial. And I would further argue that you have no idea whether TAP is making any money on its LIS-EWR (not JFK) service, regardless of whether or not they are filling their plane.

Also note that specifically in the EWR-OSL market, SAS is dropping its current thrice-weekly service on the route that is provided with a larger A330 aircraft, presumably because the service is not profitable. On the other hand, it's clear that CO sees an opportunity to profitably operate a smaller B757 with greater frequency in this market, to the benefit of both the flying public and (hopefully) its own bottom line. Why shouldn't it? Your "argument" is simply nonsense!

You've been rather insistent upon your "appropriate" minimum aircraft size for flights from the New York area. That leads me to ask: what are your route and schedule planning qualifications and experience, such that it would compel us to accept your so-called "analysis" over that of CO's route and schedule planners?