A350-1000 and other Fleet News
01-12-2024, 07:08 PM
#2151
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2013
Position: The Parlor
Posts: 1,247
Ya, Ya,we know. You still wear your varsity letter jacket too? Seriously, there's a lot more to it than being to able go to all your garden spots full vs mostly full. Personally I DGAF if we're full or not. I bet a 3/4 full 350 makes more than a full 777, plus it's a hell of a lot more comfortable and we have more of them. Boeing sucks.
01-12-2024, 07:11 PM
#2152
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
Ya, Ya,we know. You still wear your varsity letter jacket too? Seriously, there's a lot more to it than being to able go to all your garden spots full vs mostly full. Personally I DGAF if we're full or not. I bet a 3/4 full 350 makes more than a full 777, plus it's a hell of a lot more comfortable and we have more of them. Boeing sucks.
You know nothing of what you speak!
01-12-2024, 07:17 PM
#2153
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2021
Posts: 220
CASM is but a cog in the wheel. Cargo matters, and even that value can't be established simply by weight.
Last edited by Verdell; 01-12-2024 at 07:28 PM.
01-12-2024, 07:22 PM
#2154
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Supreme Allied Commander
Posts: 1,074
They are too expensive to operate. Our mistake was not getting some 350-1000s from the get go. It's been a varient issue, not a platform issue.
01-12-2024, 07:35 PM
#2155
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
You didn't fly a garden variety 777. It was the 200LR. Did we do SYD, JNB, BOM on a regular 772? Likewise, we'll soon have the 350-1000. It is plenty capable. Even the newer 359s [New Production Standard] will be different performers vs our current 350s. False equivalance. So why don't we order more 777LRs instead of order more 350s?
They are too expensive to operate. Our mistake was not getting some 350-1000s from the get go. It's been a varient issue, not a platform issue.
They are too expensive to operate. Our mistake was not getting some 350-1000s from the get go. It's been a varient issue, not a platform issue.
Later when we got the 10 LRs Delta started flying ATL-JNB, ICN, DXB and LAX-SYD. The LR was the Balls! Those huge GE engines were awesome! 110lbs thrust! we could fill it up, 300 pax, 50K cargo and get off the ground in JNB, fly 16-17 hours to ATL.
The A350 is a great 250 pax airplane for 15 hours but if you need to go longer than that you need to cut it down to 220 pax.
01-12-2024, 07:46 PM
#2157
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: LAX ER
Posts: 1,606
???
my point was United has an entire Boeing fleet with 1 airbus type and it’s a domestic type because they need domestic metal from other manufacturers. Like we need domestic 737’s because just 320/220 won’t cut it for our future domestic size. As same goes for AA and UA. That was my point.
my point was United has an entire Boeing fleet with 1 airbus type and it’s a domestic type because they need domestic metal from other manufacturers. Like we need domestic 737’s because just 320/220 won’t cut it for our future domestic size. As same goes for AA and UA. That was my point.
01-12-2024, 07:47 PM
#2158
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
"Full" would mean maximum revenue minus cost of the flight. This is not an easy figure to establish. One cannot simply count empty seats and say a flight is "not full"/unprofitable (or more, or less, efficient.) There is a lot going on underneath (literally and figuratively.)
CASM is but a cog in the wheel. Cargo matters, and even that value can't be established simply by weight.
CASM is but a cog in the wheel. Cargo matters, and even that value can't be established simply by weight.
I did it every week for like, 14 years!
01-12-2024, 07:59 PM
#2159
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2021
Posts: 220
Zero. Zero hours is how many times I flew it.
Did it make more money because I flew/didn't fly it? No. It made zero more dollars because I flew it or didn't fly it.
Why is actually flying it remotely relevant to whether one airframe is a better asset to a company than a different airframe?
The answer is that it doesn't. Efficiency is what matters. Not whether all the seats were "full"
Did it make more money because I flew/didn't fly it? No. It made zero more dollars because I flew it or didn't fly it.
Why is actually flying it remotely relevant to whether one airframe is a better asset to a company than a different airframe?
The answer is that it doesn't. Efficiency is what matters. Not whether all the seats were "full"
01-12-2024, 08:02 PM
#2160
Runs with scissors
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: Going to hell in a bucket, but enjoying the ride .
Posts: 7,730
Zero. Zero hours is how many times I flew it.
Did it make more money because I flew/didn't fly it? No. It made zero more dollars because I flew it or didn't fly it.
Why is actually flying it remotely relevant to whether one airframe is a better asset to a company than a different airframe?
The answer is that it doesn't. Efficiency is what matters. Not whether all the seats were "full"
Did it make more money because I flew/didn't fly it? No. It made zero more dollars because I flew it or didn't fly it.
Why is actually flying it remotely relevant to whether one airframe is a better asset to a company than a different airframe?
The answer is that it doesn't. Efficiency is what matters. Not whether all the seats were "full"
