Quote:
Originally Posted by kbud
From United, Chicago is 2nd to none... No new aircraft placed at ORD (77Ws and 787s), seat reduction on key int'l markets (744s to 77ERs) barely any new international service started. Seems like Chicago is 3rd to San Francisco and Newark...
|
This is a confusing sentence because it's not clear whether you're being sarcastic or whether you don't know what the phrase "second to none" means. "Second to none" meaning, of course, that the subject is the clear leader or winner, with no competitor even in partial consideration for first place.
Also, my understanding is that United is simply not using 747s at all anymore, in any market. Despite the fact that, in theory, the longest 747 can carry over 800 passengers in some configurations, in practice the 777 class is often configured with more seating than many 747s anyway, as well as more cargo room. But more importantly the operating costs of the 2-engine 777 class is significantly less than the four-engine 747 class something on the order of 1/3 of a cent per seat, per mile cheaper, which amounts to savings of about $6,000 for trans-Pacific flights carrying 450 passengers. I don't know how many trans-Pacific flights United offers daily, system-wide, but say they have 20 flights a day with 450 passengers counting all flights in either direction, with $6,000 per trip savings, over a year that amounts to savings of nearly $44 million. United listed their
747-400 plane with 374 seats while their
77W lists a capacity of 366 seats, a net loss of only 8 seats. Granted, the 77W doesn't have any true First Class seats, but one has to wonder how many First Class seats United was actually selling, versus using for upgrades. First Class seats, despite their huge trans-oceanic list price, can operate at a loss if they're mostly used as upgrades and not actually being sold at face value.
Prev
Linear Mode
