Progress Update
- Thread starter Ukridge
- Start date
firstamendment
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 1,348
- 0
Oops, you are absolutely correct. My apologies to the fine folks of NWA.ZMAN777 said:
firstamendment
Veteran
- Apr 1, 2003
- 1,348
- 0
UK
I know You were not being nasty..It was towards Bear and what appeared to be the typical wise crack responses. Those things happen on all the boards. I realize writing is difficult because of the lack of true emotion. We read what we think something is. I apologize if I can across as attacking you.
Arguments of dominating carriers and lcc's aside, there ain't no money...period...and cross traing cost if you stop leases on one and start on the other. These days it seems all the US carriers are pinching pennies evrywhere. But I know what you mean about a/c preference. I peronally always likes the DC-10..I know...hiss boo...but there was something about that airplane I really liked.
Cheers
I know You were not being nasty..It was towards Bear and what appeared to be the typical wise crack responses. Those things happen on all the boards. I realize writing is difficult because of the lack of true emotion. We read what we think something is. I apologize if I can across as attacking you.
Arguments of dominating carriers and lcc's aside, there ain't no money...period...and cross traing cost if you stop leases on one and start on the other. These days it seems all the US carriers are pinching pennies evrywhere. But I know what you mean about a/c preference. I peronally always likes the DC-10..I know...hiss boo...but there was something about that airplane I really liked.
Cheers
OK now *I'm* confused. I simply explained why you will see 767s on some routes as opposed to 777s and 747s. How does answering a customer's question count as being a "typical bitter, victimized, smartass airline employee remark.... spew(ing) venom"? Perhaps you have me confused with someone else?firstamendment said:
OP
Ukridge
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 354
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #22
"... there ain't no money...period...and cross training costs if you stop leases on one and start on the other. "
Good point First. I did not think of the associated costs with suddenly switching one aircraft type with another. In the light of their not being much "buffer" money, I could see how United would be reluctant to switch aircraft only to have it not pan out and then have to switch back.
ZMAN777 - I hope this is true. Someone else had mentioned the 747 taking over one of the London flights. Is there a time frame?
Cheers
Good point First. I did not think of the associated costs with suddenly switching one aircraft type with another. In the light of their not being much "buffer" money, I could see how United would be reluctant to switch aircraft only to have it not pan out and then have to switch back.
ZMAN777 - I hope this is true. Someone else had mentioned the 747 taking over one of the London flights. Is there a time frame?
Cheers
Cosmo
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 840
- 0
Ukridge:
The following flights will soon start operating with a B747-400:
UA 918 IAD(1815)-LHR(0620+1) Eff. 10/31/03
UA 919 LHR(1200)-IAD(1510) Eff. 11/01/03
Of course, this will happen as United seasonally reduces its service in the market from 4 daily nonstop round trips down to 3 for the winter. I believe that the 4th trip will return next April.
The following flights will soon start operating with a B747-400:
UA 918 IAD(1815)-LHR(0620+1) Eff. 10/31/03
UA 919 LHR(1200)-IAD(1510) Eff. 11/01/03
Of course, this will happen as United seasonally reduces its service in the market from 4 daily nonstop round trips down to 3 for the winter. I believe that the 4th trip will return next April.
ZMAN777
Advanced
- Aug 23, 2002
- 204
- 0
UKRidge,Ukridge said:
Right now the 747-400 will be a permanent gauge of service. Nothing seasonal about it from what my sources tell me. SFO-LHR 747-400 is due to start 1 January and LAX-LHR 747-400 in April. You'll soon see lots of 747 tails on the ramp at LHR. Right now I haven't seen anything about ORD-LHR on the 747 but that would be a natural as well.
UAL also has some surprises planned for this Winter as well out of IAD heading to warmer climes but I won't go into when/where that is due to begin. All I can say is that it'll be on the A320 and is a new route out of IAD for UAL.
Cheers,
Z B)
Cosmo
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 840
- 0
ZMAN777 said:
I was talking about the loss of the 4th IAD-LHR flight being seasonal, not the change in gauge to the B747-400 -- sorry if I didn't make that clear enough. I also assume that the 4th flight will return next April, just like it did this year. And if your prediction in a previous post that United's morning IAD-LHR flight will become a B777 next year proves to be true, it will be a good competitive move since BA's morning flight in the market has always been a B777.
ZMAN777 said:
Do you mean in addition to the weekly IAD-CUN nonstop service that was announced a couple of weeks ago for a February 2004 start (here's United's press release about it)?
OP
Ukridge
Senior
- Aug 27, 2002
- 354
- 0
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #28
ZMAN777. I will keep my eye open for the 400s. This however, sounds rather sad as it implies the selling/give back of the 777s. Certainly United does not plan to keep both aircraft and actually expand service to the European markets does it?
I know the planners are working the structure but it is disheartening to view the 400s simply as a replacement for the 777s and to see the later no longer in the fleet.
Cheers
Uk
I know the planners are working the structure but it is disheartening to view the 400s simply as a replacement for the 777s and to see the later no longer in the fleet.
Cheers
Uk
Since when is the 747-400 more economical to run than the 777? I thought UA parked the 747's in the desert due to the cost factor in operating them? It was my understanding the 747's are hugh gas guzzlers. What is the break even point on the 747 vs the 777? Anyone care to comment?
"Since when is the 747-400 more economical to run than the 777?"
"It was my understanding the 747's are hugh gas guzzlers."
Fuel and cost of ownership (ie, lease costs) seem to both hover between 10 and 15% of operating costs, so if your "ownership cost" of a basically new 400 gets cut in half, then the it can burn more fuel and be the efficient solution. the 400 only "guzzles gas" down low (high speed wing)
"It was my understanding the 747's are hugh gas guzzlers."
Fuel and cost of ownership (ie, lease costs) seem to both hover between 10 and 15% of operating costs, so if your "ownership cost" of a basically new 400 gets cut in half, then the it can burn more fuel and be the efficient solution. the 400 only "guzzles gas" down low (high speed wing)
