#1
|
|||
|
|||
"flying high"
The following item appeared in "The West Australian's", Inside Cover segment on Thursday :
Quote:
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
My mates mum years ago travelled Melbourne-singapore with only 4 pax on board.Every one was up the front and had a 2-1 ratio.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
I’ve been on Continental Micronesia DC10 Guam Tokyo with 11 passengers. Left at 4.30am.
They still made money as full of fresh fish as freight for the Japanese lunch table. Banjo
__________________
used to fly globally on business, now retired |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
It's not so much the number of passengers on board, there is something else not quite right about the article.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The must have upgraded Perth flights to A380s without telling anyone...
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Right on ! That's what inferred and what most non-aviation enthusiasts would believe.
A330s started recently so perhaps "Bigglesworth" and the "Inside Cover" editor are getting the two confused. I sent off an email to him on Thursday asking for more information. I haven't received a reply as yet (not that I really expect one) as "Inside Cover" editors tend not to respond when glaring mistakes are brought to their attention. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
even if it was an A380....35 cabin crew? Is that right...QF, if I'm not mistaken, only operate with 22?
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Minimum yield curve?
Would they have operated the flight with so few pax?
__________________
Philip |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
the destination still needs a plane to fly the return leg, freight revenue, not wanting to waste a departure/arrival slot, no space to hold a dead aircraft til the next day, and the reasons go on. if they didn't operate it they'd lose more money by cancelling flow-on flights, etc etc.
__________________
One of those UNSW students... you know what I mean |
|
|