Aircraft rostering strategy
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: England
Age: 37
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft rostering strategy
Hi all
Does anyone know how an airline decides what aircraft are used on a given route?
I travel alot between lhr and toronto with BA which is typically a 744 job but also recently 787.
Over the xmas period they seem to have replaced the 744 with 777 which is usually a busy time so id have thought they would utilise the bigger jet?
Looking into it they seem to forecast this up to 12 months in advance with 744 returning next year,so what is the strategy?
Why do i even care? Because i like my upper deck window seat
there is plenty more room and the service always seems to be much better.
Recent 787 experience left me deflated. Gimmick windows that dont stop as much light as the old style shutters, cabin felt much more crammed in and crew service not as good. Quieter? I didnt notice it :/.
Thanks in advance
Does anyone know how an airline decides what aircraft are used on a given route?
I travel alot between lhr and toronto with BA which is typically a 744 job but also recently 787.
Over the xmas period they seem to have replaced the 744 with 777 which is usually a busy time so id have thought they would utilise the bigger jet?
Looking into it they seem to forecast this up to 12 months in advance with 744 returning next year,so what is the strategy?
Why do i even care? Because i like my upper deck window seat
there is plenty more room and the service always seems to be much better. Recent 787 experience left me deflated. Gimmick windows that dont stop as much light as the old style shutters, cabin felt much more crammed in and crew service not as good. Quieter? I didnt notice it :/.
Thanks in advance
Paxing All Over The World
Good question. My GUESS includes these factors:
- Always based on historical data. Cheaper to have to turn some away than carry many empty seats.
- YYZ~LHr is heavily served with directs and indirects, so concentrate on routes that have less competition.
- What other promotions are happening in the route network this xmas?
- Where do we want to grow our market?
- Where is the higher seat yield?
- Those in the know will be along shortly, it's just that I've got a quiet afternoon!
Range of the aircraft, you won't get a 757 from LHR - SIN (although some US carriers do push its range to the limit).
Availability of a fleet - whats in the hangars, whats needed on other routes. Cathay are renown for "misusing" their fleet. A 747 on the ground between long haul rotations may be put on a short round trip to Taipei.
Need for frequency and even babysitting slots (look at UA LHR - EWR, 1 x 777, 4 x 757 daily). This is an extreme example but operating many long haul routes daily is a commercial necessity.
Lack of slots at certain airports and in a few case bilateral constraints on frequency.
Mix of classes - some types may have a higher or lower proportion of premium seats. BA 767 / 787s do not have first. LH I believe have a higher proportion of premium seats in their 747s than A380s.
Desire to put newer aircraft on flagship routes.
Cargo capacity - don't overlook belly cargo on certain routes.
Operating & capital cost. Expect to see BA 77Ws achieving high utilisation - the fleet its got high capital costs better but fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs than their 744s and can cope with long ranges.
In the case of US carriers the location of crew bases could play a part.
I'll probably think of a few more.
Availability of a fleet - whats in the hangars, whats needed on other routes. Cathay are renown for "misusing" their fleet. A 747 on the ground between long haul rotations may be put on a short round trip to Taipei.
Need for frequency and even babysitting slots (look at UA LHR - EWR, 1 x 777, 4 x 757 daily). This is an extreme example but operating many long haul routes daily is a commercial necessity.
Lack of slots at certain airports and in a few case bilateral constraints on frequency.
Mix of classes - some types may have a higher or lower proportion of premium seats. BA 767 / 787s do not have first. LH I believe have a higher proportion of premium seats in their 747s than A380s.
Desire to put newer aircraft on flagship routes.
Cargo capacity - don't overlook belly cargo on certain routes.
Operating & capital cost. Expect to see BA 77Ws achieving high utilisation - the fleet its got high capital costs better but fuel efficiency and lower maintenance costs than their 744s and can cope with long ranges.
In the case of US carriers the location of crew bases could play a part.
I'll probably think of a few more.
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: England
Age: 37
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the feedback
As far as 'progress' goes i think they have done well to market a new product, call it a 'dreamliner' but in essence doesnt really give consumers much more. Improved efficiency will no doubt help cut business costs though
As far as 'progress' goes i think they have done well to market a new product, call it a 'dreamliner' but in essence doesnt really give consumers much more. Improved efficiency will no doubt help cut business costs though
Paxing All Over The World
It is true that Boeing have done a very fine job of branding and marketing.
What seems to be the case is that Boeing were annoyed that 'jumbo' had become the generic word for 'large passenger aircraft' - and their competitor's A380 is the 'super jumbo'. They clearly wanted to determine the name of the 787 - given that the machine is simply another 'big twin' and unlikley to gain much news coverage by comparison to the novel 380.
So they decided to brand it in way that no machine had previously been 'named'. Always just numbers.
They pushed the name and image from before it first flew and targeted the pax - not usually done. I thought this a waste of money because pax do not care what they are in and (mostly) don't know what they are in. They also carefully used the flowing paint lines on the machine to make it look different - even though most carriers have straight lines - and it's just an even bigger twin than the Triple.
Once the machine developed problems, the whole publicity thing blew up in the faces. They 'over egged' the pudding and - as you report - set themselves up for a fall.
That's modern business practice.
What seems to be the case is that Boeing were annoyed that 'jumbo' had become the generic word for 'large passenger aircraft' - and their competitor's A380 is the 'super jumbo'. They clearly wanted to determine the name of the 787 - given that the machine is simply another 'big twin' and unlikley to gain much news coverage by comparison to the novel 380.
So they decided to brand it in way that no machine had previously been 'named'. Always just numbers.
They pushed the name and image from before it first flew and targeted the pax - not usually done. I thought this a waste of money because pax do not care what they are in and (mostly) don't know what they are in. They also carefully used the flowing paint lines on the machine to make it look different - even though most carriers have straight lines - and it's just an even bigger twin than the Triple.
Once the machine developed problems, the whole publicity thing blew up in the faces. They 'over egged' the pudding and - as you report - set themselves up for a fall.
That's modern business practice.
They also carefully used the flowing paint lines on the machine to make it look different - even though most carriers have straight lines - and it's just an even bigger twin than the Triple.
Paxing All Over The World
DRUK Interesting. I don't keep track of a/c details. So the machine is simplydesigned for Long + Thin routes? I do know the machine was built to be the opposite of the 380. Neither A nor B wanted to repeat the competition between the DC-10 / B747 and similar clashes.
