I think when I mean point to point long haul, I’m talking in terms of development at non-hubs such as [say, in the UK] Manchester or Glasgow, rather than development at Heathrow. Whilst the 787 and A350 will to some extent replace 767s, I do see them increasing the viability of regional long-haul to an extent (witness what EK has already done with the A330, which would never have happened when the only long-haul choices were 747s, DC-10s and L10s).

I agree about such growth, at least in the UK or EU. My particular statement was aimed more at the quote by bring_it_on.

Just like aircraft, airlines don’t pay full price for fuel. Some airlines have hedged fuel which basically signed a contract to buy fuel for the length of the contract at a set price. It’s a great deal if gas prices should go up as your fuel costs will remain the same while everyone else is paying the increased cost. Of course it can also work against you if fuel prices should drop and you’re left paying your contractual higher price.

Even those that aren’t hedged don’t pay full price for fuel. Given the quantity that airlines buy they get discounts on the costs. Usually airlines will experience a lower fuel cost when operating out of their hubs rather than when they fill up at an outstation. It is common for airliners to carry more fuel than needed out of a hub in order to lessen the amount of fuel that needs to be bought for the return trip.

It would be tough to get a straight forward price quote from a fuel manufacturer as there is a lot of wheeling and dealing that goes on between them and airlines before they settle on a fuel price.

In some cases we’ve seen our fuel cost per gallon nearly triple in the last 3 years. Where we use to see fuel prices of $.65-.85/gallon now we’re looking at prices around $1.80/gallon. Unfortunately we’ve actually seen ticket prices lower in that same amount of time not to mention taking inflation into account.

15 pounds is about $30 which seems to be a reasonable surcharge to cover the fuel cost increase. That $30 surcharge is a flat fee in most cases and it calculated to cover both short and long flights. You might feel ripped off on a short 1 hour flight but you are getting quite a deal on a 4 hour flight.

I think what is happening is that the traveling public hasn’t seen a noticeable increase in ticket prices in so long that they’ve become a bit spoiled. Now any increase, no matter how small, is upsetting. Inflation is roughly 3% for most of the industrialized world yet ticket prices haven’t kept up with that, not even close.

Adjusted for inflation a $200 ticket in 2001 would/should cost about $225 today in 2005. Now that only holds true if operational costs (ie fuel) remained the same which they haven’t. So that $30 surcharge may cover the cost of the fuel but the airlines are still operating with a lower income with some operating at a loss. This is why airlines have gone to the employees looking for concessions. Since we’ll never see an “employee cost” surcharge added to tickets the employees are giving up their money to permit the flat “growth” of airline tickets over the years. Bummer.

I wish I would be in the UK at some point this summer as I would like to check out the operation.

When will you be taping your David Letterman show? I’ll have to make sure to set up the DVR to record that.

Great pictures Andy. Any idea what the winds were at?

That’s a shame to hear. I must admit though that I never quite understood this order. They already have a young fleet and their cash reserves are not that impressive.

IMHO it was mainly a ploy to force concessions from their employee groups, especially the pilots. AC put in the order knowing that they couldn’t realisticly support the order without concessions. Even without the order AC needed concessions to stay competitive as well as balance their books a bit better. Prior to the order AC had little leverage against their employee groups/pilots. The Boeing order gave them that leverage but the pilots didn’t bite the bait. With the failed concessions the order served little purpose for their future especially since it would only hurt their fragile financial situation so they cancelled the order. CO used the same tactics with their pilots but it worked for them so the 787 order stayed.

Wow, 100 738’s for Alaskan? I never saw that coming. It would make sense to phase out their MD-80’s and go with a single fleet type but only time will tell if they do that.

I liked that SOP as you had a visual confirmation (switch position) of whether you had received take off/landing clearance.

We use the same system. Below 10,000′ we have the main landing lights on but leave the nose landing/taxi lights off. Doesn’t really matter as they are automatically extinguished when the gear is retracted. On approach we/I turn on the nose landing light when we are cleared for the approach. The taxi light is turned on when we are cleared to land. Some captains chose to use the taxi light for approach clearance and landing for landing clearance but it’s a personal preference. It is an excellent memory aid.