Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, CaryThe Triangle Area
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The GSK thing is overstated. I'm on the RDU-London nonstop 15 times a year. It's been a long long time since I've sat next to anybody from GSK on those flights. I believe the revenue guarantee (not a subsidy) comes from the Research Triangle Regional Partnership, not directly from GSK. I'm sure that GSK has a contract with AA for reduced fares in exchange for a certain level of business, but IBM and Lenovo and Cisco etc can get a similar deal.
That said, most of the time AA operates a 767 on the flight which is no longer leading-edge in terms of fuel consumed per passenger across the pond. As long as fuel prices remain low, AA can tolerate it. But if fuel prices go back up, the 767 becomes less attractive to operate and then it's a matter of whether AA puts one of the new 787s on the route or just punts. Except in summer, there is not enough traffic RDU-London to justify the more fuel-efficient 777. Or, AA could do what DL is doing and downgrade to the 757.
Interesting, we flew the AA flight to London at the end of May and returned in June. We flew the 767 out but it was going into maintenance a couple days later for an entire cabin refit, so we flew the 777 back. The flight attendant was saying that there was some talk of them keeping the 777 on the route becaue of issues getting the new seats for a 767 and it was borderline already. Who knows if she was making it up and might have been wishful thinking on her part as it was much nicer and bigger, but I checked and there was some big backlog with 767 seats.
We also saw a passenger get taken off by security as we were about to leave after one male FA got into it with her over storing bags in the overhead and as she was walking evidently she bumped him. I could not see the actual bump but he freaked out and said she did it intentionally right near us. Was pretty crazy and made us about a hour late leaving.
Prior to the intro of the 747, everyone flew a narrowbody 707 or DC8 across the pond and passengers thought nothing of it.
Prior to the 747, airlines hadn't crammed another 10 rows of seats into a plane, narrow-body or otherwise. Back then, flying was much more glamorous now. A six or eight our flight on a 757 in coach would be pure hell. (I've done 15 hours on the coach floor of an A380 and it was no picnic.)
Prior to the 747, airlines hadn't crammed another 10 rows of seats into a plane, narrow-body or otherwise. Back then, flying was much more glamorous now. A six or eight our flight on a 757 in coach would be pure hell.
Yeah, they have reduced legroom a lot but the sideways room hasn't changed (except for 10-abreast in a 777 or 9-abreast in a 787, each a travesty). I've done many transatlantics on a 757 and survived. DL passengers to CDG will survive too. There just isn't enough traffic RDU-CDG for DL to gamble on a larger aircraft, at least not at the outset. Take the 757 or leave it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by garnetpalmetto
Pfft. If the Gimli Glider could make it halfway across Canada...
Kidding aside, the glide ratio of a no-fuel 767 is maybe as high as 20:1... gives you about 100 miles max if you start at typical cruise altitude.
The GSK thing is overstated. I'm on the RDU-London nonstop 15 times a year. It's been a long long time since I've sat next to anybody from GSK on those flights. I believe the revenue guarantee (not a subsidy) comes from the Research Triangle Regional Partnership, not directly from GSK. I'm sure that GSK has a contract with AA for reduced fares in exchange for a certain level of business, but IBM and Lenovo and Cisco etc can get a similar deal.
That said, most of the time AA operates a 767 on the flight which is no longer leading-edge in terms of fuel consumed per passenger across the pond. As long as fuel prices remain low, AA can tolerate it. But if fuel prices go back up, the 767 becomes less attractive to operate and then it's a matter of whether AA puts one of the new 787s on the route or just punts. Except in summer, there is not enough traffic RDU-London to justify the more fuel-efficient 777. Or, AA could do what DL is doing and downgrade to the 757.
A321 is starting to take over the 75 routes, same amount of pax (relatively) and roughly 75% of the fuel burn. We are still keeping them for our S. America flying though with all the terrain down there.
Yes, the 321 is a pig... but the cabin is nice. More room than the Boeing. IMO it's a better product overall from a narrowbody perspective.
Location: River's Edge Inn, Todd NC, and Lorgues France
1,734 posts, read 2,562,280 times
Reputation: 2769
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard-xyzzy
Yeah, they have reduced legroom a lot but the sideways room hasn't changed (except for 10-abreast in a 777 or 9-abreast in a 787, each a travesty). I've done many transatlantics on a 757 and survived. DL passengers to CDG will survive too.
"Surviving" is setting a pretty low bar.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
