Could China and the max grounding cancel out?
01-30-2020 | 05:57 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
Could China and the max grounding cancel out?
1) Max grounding has caused major capacity constraints.
2) Now there's an enormous surplus capacity for transpacific widebodies
Could #2 be redeployed quickly to take up the slack for #1?
2) Now there's an enormous surplus capacity for transpacific widebodies
Could #2 be redeployed quickly to take up the slack for #1?
01-30-2020 | 06:56 AM
#2
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,618
Likes: 558
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Also there aren't enough widebody gates for all those turns, and most of those are in international terminals.
It could be done if there were some kind of national crisis in air transport capacity, but nobody who has to turn a profit will likely go there. Maybe a very few transcons or maybe shorter NAT routes?
01-30-2020 | 07:57 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 5,467
Likes: 144
From: UNA
I could see it working in a few markets. all 3 majors seem to deploy wide bodies domestically during the winter when they dont make money flying to Europe. with spring break coming up I could see using those planes to spots like florida and mexico. if these cancelation happen to extend into the summer ( I dont think they will) I could see them using Pacific wide bodies on some hub to hub routes that they fly wide bodies on during the winter for the slow europe travel season. probably cheaper than parking them
01-30-2020 | 12:51 PM
#4
Line Holder
Joined: Aug 2019
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Widebodies would not be economical if flown empty, most especially on short domestic routes. Domestic pax expect frequency, so you can't replace multiple daily departures with one flight every day or two.
Also there aren't enough widebody gates for all those turns, and most of those are in international terminals.
It could be done if there were some kind of national crisis in air transport capacity, but nobody who has to turn a profit will likely go there. Maybe a very few transcons or maybe shorter NAT routes?
Also there aren't enough widebody gates for all those turns, and most of those are in international terminals.
It could be done if there were some kind of national crisis in air transport capacity, but nobody who has to turn a profit will likely go there. Maybe a very few transcons or maybe shorter NAT routes?
01-31-2020 | 05:13 AM
#5
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: May 2017
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 0
The economics of this would be in comparison to sitting empty for weeks. Slightly unprofitable would beat moderately unprofitable
And no you would not use a 777 3x/week to replace 7x/day crj service. But 5x/day 787 subbed for 8x/day a321 on a transcon might work
And no you would not use a 777 3x/week to replace 7x/day crj service. But 5x/day 787 subbed for 8x/day a321 on a transcon might work
01-31-2020 | 05:48 AM
#6
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,618
Likes: 558
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Remember the gates... those things normally do about 10-14 hours block, 2-3 at the gate. If it changes to 4-6 in the air, I doubt you'd have enough widebody gates. Will it be worth it to try to do hardstand ops? US majors aren't really geared up for that (like some foriegn majors).
02-05-2020 | 07:06 AM
#7
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,657
Likes: 0
From: Fastest Hunk of Junk in the Galaxy
My company's optimizer can somehow poop out a 5 day trip with no layover longer than 12 hours, turn me into airport reserve with 4 hour sits, yet still pay no more than our average daily guarantee, I certainly hope they can figure out how to use spare wide body capacity.
