Re: A340-500/600 and B777-200X/-300X

Date:         26 Dec 97 03:28:42 
From:         jf mezei <"[non-spam]jfmezei"@videotron.ca>
Organization: VTL
References:   1 2 3
Followups:    1 2
Next article
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.