A330 being used domestic for Delta

P

pilotlight

Well-Known Member
In my boredom on reserve I sometimes will check ahead to flight schedules in the future to see who is doing what and i noticed that ATL MSP and back will be all large equipment including an A330. NOrthwest never did anything like this. This should make commuters happy.
 
pilotlight said:
In my boredom on reserve I sometimes will check ahead to flight schedules in the future to see who is doing what and i noticed that ATL MSP and back will be all large equipment including an A330. NOrthwest never did anything like this. This should make commuters happy.
Click to expand...

blee256 said:
its most likely just a repo flight made revenue flight to offset some of the costs.
Click to expand...


The A330 is flying ATL-AMS-ATL now. It's got to get to and from it's base too ATL somehow. Expect to see a lot of this going on with 777s, 747, 767-400 and ERs.
 
A 777 and or 76ER would show up on JFK-ATL every once and a while. CAL uses their 777/767s the same way. i.e. FRA-EWR-IAH-GRU-EWR-FRA rinse and repeat.
 
United uses its wide bodies on domestic routes as well to not have them sitting on the ground too long and to move that freight which makes big $$$...
 
RWH1986 said:
United uses its wide bodies on domestic routes as well to not have them sitting on the ground too long and to move that freight which makes big $$$...
Click to expand...


Last spring when I thought I was going to Eagle I was looking at what the commute to Boston and Chiacgo would be like from Dulles. At the time they were using 74s on the IAD - ORD and IAD - BOS, and then the 74 would carry on to an international location. That didnt last for long.
 
v1valarob said:
Last spring when I thought I was going to Eagle I was looking at what the commute to Boston and Chiacgo would be like from Dulles. At the time they were using 74s on the IAD - ORD and IAD - BOS, and then the 74 would carry on to an international location. That didnt last for long.
Click to expand...

I took that deadhead numerous times........and that upper deck is NICE and QUIET!
 
v1valarob said:
Last spring when I thought I was going to Eagle I was looking at what the commute to Boston and Chiacgo would be like from Dulles. At the time they were using 74s on the IAD - ORD and IAD - BOS, and then the 74 would carry on to an international location. That didnt last for long.
Click to expand...

I remember those flights. That lasted very short for repositioning and to get the passengers in BOS after that bad couple days of storms. I was surprised when IAD-BOS I was scheduled to work out was a 777 instead of the usual Airbus or 757. I thought I was on the wrong gate. I might be returning to the ramp in IAD over the summer...
 
DeltaAVL said:
A repo flight IS a scheduled flight. It carries passengers just like any other flight would.
Click to expand...
For all intents and purposes a repo flight is not a scheduled flight and is operated part 91. Mostly used to get an aircraft to a specific spot to either replace another aircraft (maintenance issues) and pick up it's line or when the weather gets bad and flights cancel aircaft need to be moved in order to position them to pick up the scheduled flight segments on their lines that aren't cancelled such as a return leg to a hub or vice versa.

On another note look for upgauged equipment between ATL DTW and MSP due to the increase in DL/NWA commuters which also coincides with the equipment shift between the hubs without base changes.
 
pilotlight said:
No its a scheduled flight in delta's system
Click to expand...

Correct, it is a scheduled flight. However What I was saying is, its main purpose is to reposition the plane. So instead of just flying the plane empty from ATL-MSP, might as well make it a revenue flight, so that the passengers can offset some of their repo costs.

I dont know much about RASM or whatever those calculations are, but its my understanding is, it's not profitable to fly a widebody for short flights. i.e. A330 from ATL-MSP
 
DeltaAVL said:
A repo flight IS a scheduled flight. It carries passengers just like any other flight would.
Click to expand...

Not always. I've done a couple of repo flights, and the only people on board were me, the FO and the FA, and the FA wasn't even technically required. Why? No passengers. No passengers b/c it wasn't schedule so they couldn't sell tickets. Now, I've also done repo flights that were MADE scheduled flights so they could carry passengers that either missed earlier flights or for whatever reason.

If a flight is termed a "repo" flight, there shouldn't be any passengers on it. Period. They have the option of converting it to a scheduled flight, but then it's no longer termed a "repo."
 
H46Bubba said:
For all intents and purposes a repo flight is not a scheduled flight and is operated part 91. Mostly used to get an aircraft to a specific spot to either replace another aircraft (maintenance issues) and pick up it's line or when the weather gets bad and flights cancel aircaft need to be moved in order to position them to pick up the scheduled flight segments on their lines that aren't cancelled such as a return leg to a hub or vice versa.

On another note look for upgauged equipment between ATL DTW and MSP due to the increase in DL/NWA commuters which also coincides with the equipment shift between the hubs without base changes.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you're right. My apologies to the deceived.

What I should have said is that this particular flight, which isn't technically a "reposition flight" (right?) but still somewhat acts as one, is in the DL scheduling system because it carries passengers and earns revenue. Exactly what blee256 said.
 
pilotlight said:
NOrthwest never did anything like this. This should make commuters happy.
Click to expand...

Not correct. Before 9/11, NWA flew DC-10s domestically to quite a few places, including MSP/DTW - MCO, LAS, PHX, LAX, SEA and others.

After 9/11, the DC-10-40s were phased out, leaving the -30s to run international.

Richman
 
blee256 said:
I dont know much about RASM or whatever those calculations are, but its my understanding is, it's not profitable to fly a widebody for short flights. i.e. A330 from ATL-MSP
Click to expand...


I would beg to differ. Many carriers worldwide make very good money operating widebody aircraft on short flights. Some airlines ( Cathay Pacific, Singapore Airlines, and Emirates ) only have widebdoy aircraft and use them on flights as short as 1 hour. Those happen to be three of the most profitable airlines in the world.

If you include gate costs, ATC fees, overflight costs, landing fees, other handling fees, customer service personnel, etc a single A330 flight would very likely cost less than two 737NG flights on the same route given that it has relatively high passenger load factor and is utilized well for carrying some cargo.

Take the flight I did yesterday from Dubai to Cairo and return. A 364 passenger 777-300 with three classes. The flight to Cairo is blocked at 4:05 with the return at 3:10. Going there we had 363 passengers and 25 tonnes of cargo. The return had 357 passengers and 30 tonnes of cargo. That flight definetly made money. Another short sector we fly is Dubai-Karachi-Dubai, blocked at 2 hours each way. Usually with a two class 777-300ER capable of seating 442 passengers. It's usually very full and usually carries over 20 tonnes of cargo each way. They make money hand over fist on that route.

The U.S. carriers are so badly mismanaged that they are incapable of maximizing payload except by chance. It's probably true that widebody flights domestically in the USA are often not generating a positive revenue, but they certainly could if the carriers had better management practices.



Typhoonpilot
 
typhoonpilot said:
The U.S. carriers are so badly mismanaged that they are incapable of maximizing payload except by chance. It's probably true that widebody flights domestically in the USA are often not generating a positive revenue, but they certainly could if the carriers had better management practices.
Click to expand...


If management wouldn't get wrapped around the axle on "frequency," they might make more money....and generate more mainline jobs in the process. If the 3 RJs going MEM-GPT aren't full all the time, do you really NEED 3 flights or can you get by with 1 A320 in the afternoon? I understand the need for some frequencies into hubs in order to make connections to other destinations, but some of them are downright out of hand.
 
kellwolf said:
If management wouldn't get wrapped around the axle on "frequency," they might make more money....and generate more mainline jobs in the process. If the 3 RJs going MEM-GPT aren't full all the time, do you really NEED 3 flights or can you get by with 1 A320 in the afternoon? I understand the need for some frequencies into hubs in order to make connections to other destinations, but some of them are downright out of hand.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly. I've been saying the same thing for years. They could do three mainline narrowbodies per day instead of six RJs on many city pairs. The advantge would be they could then carry some freight or mail. Airport and airway congestion would be reduced and there would be more mainline jobs.

Some highly congested airports ( LGA and DCA come to mind ) should have a minimum aircraft size of no less than 120 seats.


TP
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top