TheLocalYokel
Honorary Member Of Forums4airports
- Jan 14, 2009
- 15,711
- 343
- IMPORTANT!! To reduce spam, we request that you make a post soon after completing your registration. We request you keep your account active by posting regularly. Inactive accounts risk being deleted.
- Yes
- Admin
- #81
I note an ongoing discussion in the Dried Plum where some posters are suggesting a narrow-bodied aircraft initially, leading to a larger aircraft as the route matures.
I can see some advantages in that: presumably lower operating costs and (probably) higher load factors. Against that is less cargo space, but will CWL be able to set up a thriving cargo operation by the time the route begins next year? If not, and I would have thought that it's unlikely in the timescale available, then the cargo question would not be of such critical importance early on in the route's life.
Ideally, a wide-bodied aircraft would operate from the beginning (and it still might) but a smaller aircraft might mean a higher frequency and reduce the pressure to fill the aircraft from the outset, or as near full as the airline would consider satisfactory.
As some have already made the point elsewhere, the important thing is to have the route and if the airport is given more time to build it into a thriving wide-bodied operation it might not be such a bad thing. Of course, it may be that from its sums Qatar is confident that a wide-bodied aircraft is the right equipment from the word go.
Availability of aircraft type might also be a factor but I'm not up to date with the current Qatar fleet situation.
I can see some advantages in that: presumably lower operating costs and (probably) higher load factors. Against that is less cargo space, but will CWL be able to set up a thriving cargo operation by the time the route begins next year? If not, and I would have thought that it's unlikely in the timescale available, then the cargo question would not be of such critical importance early on in the route's life.
Ideally, a wide-bodied aircraft would operate from the beginning (and it still might) but a smaller aircraft might mean a higher frequency and reduce the pressure to fill the aircraft from the outset, or as near full as the airline would consider satisfactory.
As some have already made the point elsewhere, the important thing is to have the route and if the airport is given more time to build it into a thriving wide-bodied operation it might not be such a bad thing. Of course, it may be that from its sums Qatar is confident that a wide-bodied aircraft is the right equipment from the word go.
Availability of aircraft type might also be a factor but I'm not up to date with the current Qatar fleet situation.