Date: 26 Dec 97 03:28:42 From: jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca> Organization: VTL References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
Karl Swartz wrote: > I'm not sure that ORD-HKG operates with significantly more crew than > SFO-HKG, adjusting for the different number of pax and class of service. > When you consider the crews for both ORD-SFO and SFO-HKG combined versus > ORD-HKG, I'm not convinced there's that much difference. But ORD-HKG doesn't operate under difficult conditions, does it ? If you provide a plane that can do the distance under any weather, what is the worse case scenario of flight time and how many crews would you need to prepare for such situations ? And of course, this begs to ask: how does an airline plan its crews for such a flight ? How much in advance do they know that they will or will not need an extra crew for each flight/day ? Or would they always have to have that extra crew on just in case ? > >- Are the passengers ready to stay that long in an a/c ? Personally not, but marketing tends to sway passengers towards non-stops so those who don't think this through will tend to want a non-stop before wishing for a flight with a stop-over. > The business travellers whose time is precious want to minimize the > amount of time spent in aircraft and at airports. A non-stop like > ORD-HKG knocks 4:10 off their travel time -- easily worth spending it > all in one sitting. To me, time of arrival and departure is more important. If the direct flight saves me 4 hours, but causes me to leave or arrive at a time which is less practical (especially in a foreign city), then it becomes an issue. If I connect, and the long flights reliability means that you have to pad your connection times by a few hours in case the long flight encounters bad winds, then you don't really gain that time.