Guys, you are missing the point here.
Firstly SIN to HKG is a very profitble and revenue making service.
I never once doubted this, therefore I am not missing the point. I am well aware how profitable this run can be, as UA is allowed to do so (along with NW, I believe) in addition to SQ and CX, of course. I was just thinking along the lines of a longer long-haul route to be the first revenue flight, given the magnitude and sheer size of the aircraft.
An example of this was BA when thay got the B777, thay were operating them to Paris for months for crew training.
Flying and introducing a NEW type to an airline is not as easy as having one trained crew and letting them loose on it, you need to get the crews trained properly and the best way of doing it is maximum flying in a short space of time.
I do not disagree at all with you skycruiser, and it seems like the most economically feasible thing to do. I recall OA doing this with the A340, using them on ATH-LHR and ATH-CDG, before deploying them on Canada, JFK, and Australia runs. However, in the past, airlines have gotten away with not doing this. The aforementioned first routes of the 707, 747, and 777 are immediate examples. These airlines obviously put them into the long-haul sector right off the bat without doing the short-haul thing first. Why is that?
Sign In
