EWR displacement
10-10-2023 | 07:01 PM
#5
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 1,124
Likes: 70
From: AOG
MCI 777 bid forthcoming!!
In all seriousness, look at all of the routes that we aren’t flying because of Russian airspace closures. It makes sense to move the planes.
In all seriousness, look at all of the routes that we aren’t flying because of Russian airspace closures. It makes sense to move the planes.
Last edited by ClappedOut145; 10-10-2023 at 07:14 PM.
10-10-2023 | 10:40 PM
#8
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2015
Posts: 976
Likes: 75
From: NOYB
The 787-10 is much better suited for most current 777 routes to the east and south out of EWR. Much more efficient per seat mile and still plenty of cargo capacity for the job. The newer airframes will not gum up EWR as much with MX delays either. The 777 is best suited for longer/Pacific routes that are heavy on cargo. No surprise SFO 777 has gotten huge as a result, IAH/EWR crews are flying W trips in Nov to cover a lot of SFO flying. Even if rumors of a EWR 777 displacement are wrong, the 777 out of EWR is going to be stagnant at best. 756 might grow in the short term to cover next summer's TATL schedule, 787 will grow over the long term.
10-11-2023 | 04:50 AM
#10
Line Holder
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,725
Likes: 0
From: UAL retired
Looking at the min/max sheet from the last bid the ratio of CA to FO in EWR on the 777 is 2.5 to 1 whereas the 787 is 1.8 to 1. Assuming for a moment (and we all know what happens when one assumes anything 
) but assuming for a moment the 787 ratio is more realistic then 1.8 x 155 CA would indicate a need for 279 EWR 777 FOs which is almost 100 less than there are in the last category summary. Obviously if the number of EWR 777 CAs is also going to be cut then the number would be even lower. I would point out, however, that the min/max table went from a min of 145 EWR 777 CAs to 155 so my totally biased hope/guess is that any EWR 777 displacement coming down the pike will be targeted at the FO list.
) but assuming for a moment the 787 ratio is more realistic then 1.8 x 155 CA would indicate a need for 279 EWR 777 FOs which is almost 100 less than there are in the last category summary. Obviously if the number of EWR 777 CAs is also going to be cut then the number would be even lower. I would point out, however, that the min/max table went from a min of 145 EWR 777 CAs to 155 so my totally biased hope/guess is that any EWR 777 displacement coming down the pike will be targeted at the FO list.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
