|
|
Post by mdeval on Feb 24, 2015 12:30:37 GMT -5
I did a flight today from Boston to Philadelphia, TWA, using the Martin 404. This question occurred to me. If an established flight started seeing an increase in passengers to the point where that one 404 was too small for the demand, would the airline add another flight sometime the same day using the same equipment, or would they keep, the one flight as was but step up to perhaps a Connie. Question of pure operating economics probably. But how would the operating cost of using two 404s stack up to the cost of a Connie ? Another scenario might be that a competing airline might notice that increase (I'm sure they all kept tabs on everyone else) and add a similar flight of their own. That however might of course be in some sort of violation from the higher powers.
Any thoughts anyone ?
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 24, 2015 13:12:45 GMT -5
As you say, I think it would depend on the current schedule, and the economics of the situation. If they only had one flight a day into that town they might add another 404, so they would have morning and evening flights. But if they already had what they felt was enough flights, they'd probably change at least one of them to a small Connie (if they had the equipment available).
|
|
|
|
Post by mdeval on Feb 25, 2015 13:17:21 GMT -5
That all makes sense. The question still bugging me though is how operating costs compare, 1 Connie vs 2 Martins ? Labor would enter in with 2 crews vs 1, baggage handling costs, airport fees. Fuel costs, however you're comparing 4 engines on 2 planes to 4 engines on just 1.
I'll have to broach this subject with my dad who I think I once mentioned flew for TWA in the Martins and all models of Connie. Maybe he's got some input.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Feb 25, 2015 13:52:37 GMT -5
I'm sure that one Connie is a lot cheaper than two 404's, for the reasons you mention. But flying two 404's reasonably full beats a Connie only 1/3 full. And don't forget that other considerations will be at work, especially if there is competition on the route. You don't want to become an afterthought in people's minds there in that town.
|
|
|
|
Post by mdeval on Feb 25, 2015 14:05:38 GMT -5
Yeah, my dad also mentioned the reasoning of 2 smaller planes running full vs a larger one only half full. Same thing holds true today with using 2 regional jets vs an Airbus or Boeing. I guess the end decision took many factors into consideration and much number crunching. And we're talking 60 years ago. Immensely more complicated now of course.
Mike
|
|
|
|
Post by Dennis the menace on Feb 25, 2015 16:41:56 GMT -5
The number of passengers sitting in seats is not always proportional to whether or not the flight makes money. A pilot on Southwest told me that they only needed to fill 37 seats on any given flight to break even due to the amount of mail and cargo that each flight normally carried. So a larger plane filled with fewer seats can sometimes make more money than a smaller plane with every seat filled, due to its larger cargo carrying capacity.
Usually airlines will move equipment around to handle various passenger demands as each route demands. When Delta first started flying the Los Angeles to Dallas to Atlanta run with jets, it was mainly using Convair 880s because they couldn't fill the larger volume of a DC-8. Later on, as more people began to use the route, they brought in the DC-8s, especially on certain "popular" flights.
We usually left on the earliest flight of the morning, at dawn. That almost always meant a Convair 880. It was rarely filled as I recall. The next mid morning flight was more popular, and was a DC-8 flight. The few times we took that flight, it was usually filled to capacity. I guess not a lot of people want to get up at 4 am to catch the early bird flight. We flew National 4 times on the Los Angeles to Miami run because we were flying to New Orleans. In the winter, the flights would be filled, so they would use a DC-10. In the summer, when not many people wanted to go to Florida, they often used a DC-8. So there are many factors into what equipment airlines choose to use and when they choose to use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by captrig on Feb 27, 2015 8:25:50 GMT -5
You are describing what is called an "extra section" where a carrier may indeed operate an additional airplane on the same route and as close to the same time as possible. Larger equipment is a possibility, but normally the carriers have no extra airplanes available. Everything is planned down to the natt's behind. When an airplane goes down for maintenance, especially around the holidays, it can create huge problems as everything tends to snowball. Remember that the airplane - say a "hangar queen" - just out of a C check might not have anything scheduled for 12 hours, but after that the machine would be committed for a heavy schedule of flying.
One thing you run into at an airline is the phrase "We can't do that because:______________________________" When faced with a situation as you describe, someone in the bean counting gallery will quickly fill in the blank. in about 1993 I was ferrying a 727 from Guam to Minneapolis. She was going in for a C check - the heavy one where they take it apart & overhaul everything. We stopped in Majuro & then Honolulu for a RON. The next day as we were preparing for departure with only the crew and a couple wives on board we learned that there were 140 "Non Revs" at the terminal trying to get back to the mainland, but could not as all the flights were oversold - a normal condition. WELL! So I called the big boys and suggested we haul them at least to SFO and many to MSP as that's where they were going. Initial answer was "brilliant, yes!" Great, so the non-revs (employees) are informed and everyone is relieved.
SOUND OF KLAXON
Someone in the Ivory Towers decides this simply cannot be done! The airplane would "run out of time" in mid-pacific, i.e., past the maximum time available to legally operate the airframe until maintenance is performed. As we did not have access to that information, we sadly fired up and left those people behind. This of course resulted in some major difficulty at the crew base because the people stuck in HNL were scheduled to fly trips out of MSP or other bases. "No matter" they said, the regs must be followed - as indeed they must.
When we blocked into SFO we were told that, yes, the bean counter in maintenance control had made an error and gee- there was time on the airframe enough to get everyone home. But that, my friend, is how airlines think and why you probably would not see an extra section on short notice.
Hope that is insightful.
Captrig
|
|
