[QUOTE=GKirk]
Remember, you only need to fill the front to make a transatlantic flight profitable 😉
[QUOTE]
Only if the yield is very strong, and whilst we are talking about the oil industry (ie a sector willing to pay high fares), it is only to an operational centre, and not for most senior management/execs, for whom these companies will pay the most to transport. In the cases of operational staff and management, experience shows that whilst they will typically be flown up front, the companies will not pay the highest of fares unless they really have to, and so such a route would struggle purely relying on the up front pax. If the fares are too high then some of those travellers will still find themselves connecting, which then reduces the pax demand.
Well I agree with David2386, the route would be sretching the legs of the 757 to say the least. In addition most LH airlines wouldn’t consider a route with 32k pax/annum (unless perhaps they’re quoting a one-way figure and the figure is actually 64k pax/annum), or at least not on a daily service anyway, in my reckoning the MAX you’d get would be 3x per week, and then they wouldn’t capture the whole market anyway, even allowing for some stimulation because the service is provided. So I’m a sceptic for one.
…
UK CAA suspends Emerald Airways’ AOC
Kerry Ezard, London (05May06, 11:23 GMT, 111 words)UK carrier Emerald Airways has had its air operator’s certificate (AOC) suspended by the UK CAA.
A CAA spokesman says the AOC was revoked yesterday at 20:00 because the regulator is “no longer satisfied that the operator can continue to maintain the requirements of the CAA”.
He declines to disclose specific reasons for the decision, but notes that Emerald could have the AOC reinstated “if it can demonstrate that it has taken action to meet those requirements”.
Emerald could not immediately be reached for comment.
The carrier operates passenger and cargo services using a fleet of five British Aerospace ATP turboprops, 12 BAe 748s, seven Shorts 360s and one Shorts 330-200.
Source: Air Transport Intelligence news
Oh dear….does anybody else think threads like this should just be closed at post one?
Does the original Embraer 50 seater count, it was originally conceived as a prop?
Which unreal propliner would you rather fly?
Convair Model 37,
Bristol Brabazon
or Sud-Est Armagnac?
Someone has stumbled across http://www.unrealaircraft.com! :rolleyes:
and also this flew overhead, dont know what it is though…..(i must be thick!!!)
I’m sure you’re being sarcastic here and I’ll look a fool, but JUST in case, it is one of our RAF’s venerable old VC-10s, and very nice it is too!
BA operated LAX in 1994-1995 with the 767, loads were excellent, yeilds were not :rolleyes:
UA could use SFO as they use ORD with bmi. SFO is a busling UA hub so it could, and should work with a 767, AA could do LAX no problem i’m sure!
Quite right, the BA loads were good, but yields not, which is the typical problem out of MAN. HOWEVER BA also suffered degredation of service on hot days and often had to offload pax and freight on hot summer days because the 767s couldn’t do the non-stop west coats route fully laden when the temperature was too great from the MAN runway. This problem would apply to AA or UA operating 767s to LAX or SFO, but bmi would possibly be ok with A330s which have better performance in this respect. Having to offload freight upsets the forwarders and clients, but offloading passengers is really bad news and always better avoided.
I think it may be difficult to say for certain. I am of the belief that they expanded too fast (the point I made in the last thread regarding this issue) and that is bad news for an airline, it just doesn’t work, but whether it is a short term blip is difficult to predict because JetBlue has apporached the low fare model from a different angle (there have been high service LCCs before, but not on this scale, and lets face it, many of them have gone bust) so they are still breaking new ground to some extent. Hence we don’t have examples of how these model can succeed.
I think its interestig to note that they are reverting back to focusing on shorter routes, which isn’t much of a surpise. LCC airlines tend to find that the amount people are willing to pay for a flight is not proportionate to the distance travelled (and indeed this is true for all airlines), and so they can charge higher fares against distance travelled over shorter routes. This admittedly has cost implications because you’re paying more airport charges, maintenance and possibly even crew costs, but this is more than made up for by being able to charge more for the distance flown…if any of this makes sense! LOL
love the Air China landing shot particularly :).
LOL, lets hope nobody working for the Chinese Government is sat looking at this site…they’ll be having kittens at this comment (I can just see them pressing emergency alarm buttons), I think you mean China Airlines, from Taiwan, which is not recognised as a seperate country by mainland China where Air China originates from. 😀
Not saying it was in this case but do they do this every time a light bulb goes – surely perhaps procedure could be to replace the lightbulb before declaring emergency, not an easy task but should be made easy,
Wozza
I’m not sure whether the bulb had actually gone, it could have been some other fault, wiring or sensory for example. There are so many reasons for this potential problem that it would be unrealistic to expect a pilot to mess around changing a bulb. Studies show that landing is the most stressful period of any flight for the pilots, whilst I acknowledge that having to declare a full emergency landing would just add to the stress, I don’t think it would be fair to expect a pilot to have to start dealing with a bulb replacement along with multiple checks and whilst monitoring the aircraft itself and the crowded skies in which they are flying, so in some ways I would guess that it is more approriate to follow this procedure.
The busiest route out of the UK is now London – Dublin, and infact this is now the busiest international route in the world. In 2005 there were just over 4.36 million passengers between LON and DUB, by comparison JFK attracted 2.94million and Palma attracted 1.21 million passengers. The other major spanish route, Malaga attracted just under 2 million passengers. As correctly stated earlier LON- Paris was formerly the busiest route, but Eurostar saw to that!
P.S. If you add EWR (Newark) onto the total then that adds another million passengers out of London. But remember that overall New York is not as well served as Dublin from the regions and the Dublin routes from the regions generate some large passenger volumes. So overall DUBLIN is the largest destination from the UK.
BTW, IF you meant which actual route (rather than city pairs) was the busiest then yes LHR – JFK moves into number one spot, with basically all of the demand in 2005 passing through LHR, compared to only 2million passengers going LHR – DUB.
The busiest route out of the UK is now London – Dublin, and infact this is now the busiest international route in the world. In 2005 there were just over 4.36 million passengers between LON and DUB, by comparison JFK attracted 2.94million and Palma attracted 1.21 million passengers. The other major spanish route, Malaga attracted just under 2 million passengers. As correctly stated earlier LON- Paris was formerly the busiest route, but Eurostar saw to that!
P.S. If you add EWR (Newark) onto the total then that adds another million passengers out of London. But remember that overall New York is not as well served as Dublin from the regions and the Dublin routes from the regions generate some large passenger volumes. So overall DUBLIN is the largest destination from the UK.
I love architecture and interesting buildings, and this looks fantastic, I was worried before I opened the link as to what it would look like, but I think they have cleverly used just enough elements.
I didn’t see the clip when originally on the TV, but I would gues that the titles were blurred out at that point because its shown on the BBC, and therefore they cannot endorse brands. That CV took a beating though!