767 gone BOS-LAX

[eolesen]

AA's 762 certainly has high costs, but I don't think the 763 is quite as bad in comparison to the industry.

Coming back to the argument for BOS having demand for widebodies....... I know it might come as a shock, but it's only the 10th largest city in the US @ 4.5M people.

CHI @ 9.5M doesn't drive a lot of need for widebodies, so why should a place that's half the size of CHI?

When you look at cities of comparable size (between 4.0M and 4.5M), you get DTW, SFO, and ONT. When you get away from UA's hub to hub flying in SFO, there's very little widebody demand.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Looking at schedules for this summer within the US, DL has about 50 widebody flights per day within the US offering about 13K seats, AA has about 11.5K seats, and UA and HA each offer about 10K seats per day.
AA's widebody seats are predominantly on transcon, DL's are predominantly to/from their east coast hubs and the large west coast cities plus Hawaii, and UA is heavily to/from Hawaii and their intra-hub flying.
AA is one of the last carriers to not move its transcon flying to narrowbodies which have better per seat economics, even if the widebody provides the potential for a superior product. Given that low fare carriers set the fares on nearly all transcon routes now, it is getting harder and harder to justify a premium configured aircraft if there are not substantial revenue premiums generated by that investment.
.
Not only does the 763 have 25-40 more seats using the same type of configuration but it can carry a lot more cargo and have winglets. Most 762s will live on as cargo aircraft.

 

[737823]

AA's 762 certainly has high costs, but I don't think the 763 is quite as bad in comparison to the industry.

Coming back to the argument for BOS having demand for widebodies....... I know it might come as a shock, but it's only the 10th largest city in the US @ 4.5M people.

CHI @ 9.5M doesn't drive a lot of need for widebodies, so why should a place that's half the size of CHI?

When you look at cities of comparable size (between 4.0M and 4.5M), you get DTW, SFO, and ONT. When you get away from UA's hub to hub flying in SFO, there's very little widebody demand.

Point taken but none of the above have 50+ colleges and universities which drive significant international traffic. Furthermore, Boston has household incomes well above the national average which also contributes to demand for travel more so than Detroit or even Chicago. At any rate, I split time between here and New York but its nice having the 767 option when its in the schedule.

Josh

 

[eolesen]

Point taken but none of the above have 50+ colleges and universities which drive significant international traffic. Furthermore, Boston has household incomes well above the national average which also contributes to demand for travel more so than Detroit or even Chicago. At any rate, I split time between here and New York but its nice having the 767 option when its in the schedule.

Josh

DTW is only the automotive center of the universe....

You might get a few researchers flying on someone else's dime, but academics aren't known for spending money, and students are even worse.

Since 7 out of 10 travelers have no idea what airline they're flying on, let alone what type of aircraft, I think it's a pretty weak argument to try and make that passenger demand is what dictates a widebody vs. narrowbody.

I suspect the only reason AA keeps widebodies on JFK-LAX is that they probably have a couple of significant cargo contracts left which demand the belly space. Kill off the 762's and AA can also benefit from some utilization routings i.e. HNL-LAX-JFK-MXP... the opportunities for that to happen at BOS are probably not as lucrative.

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

Plus BOS-SAN and BOS-SEA.

The OP has an inexplicable dislike for 757s. The days of widebodies on numerous domestic routes is long gone. Likewise, same thing on thin European routes, especially in the off-season.

You mean like this?

http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj96/Rush8track/AA-747-vi.jpg

 

[BoeingBoy]

It seems that more and more of the domestic wide-body flying is positioning/utilization/hours equalization flying, especially with the "big 3" having both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific flying. Why have an expensive wide-body arrive on the east or west coast and sit when it can do a semi or full transcon in what would otherwise be idle time. Sorta the international flying equivalent of the old US LAS late-night hub idea - extra utilization during what would otherwise be down time lowers CASM. Plus by rotating the planes between trans-Atlantic/S American flying and trans-Pacific routing the accrual of hours on the airframe is better equalized. Within the last week I've seen that AA is putting 777's on some MIA-LAX (or SFO/SEA) routes, presumably after they come in from Europe/S America and then to do Pacific routes.

Jim

 

[777flyer]

do you realize that the 767 in AA's configuration has one of the highest CASMs in the domestic US air carrier fleet? It doesn't make sense to put an expensive widebody in a heavy premium configuration on a route unless there is a very substantial amount of premium traffic. Even UA is backing off of the idea of a premium heavy configured 757 because the costs are just too high.
Given that the 767 fleet will likely be reduced in the near future, the chances are that AA will have even less widebody domestic routes....if the option is to fly a 767 on a transcon route with heavy low fare competition and an international route where there is a much higher percentage of premium passengers not subject to discounting at the same level, the int'l flight will win the use of the aircraft.
Remember that UA is getting rid of its 762s which don't generate sufficient revenue even in int'l ops given currrent costs (esp. fuel since the 762 and 763 have very similar costs but the 762 has lower revenue generating potential).
.
The widebody on domestic routes will become even more of a rarity.
.
Keep in mind that some widebody capacity is available "for free" given AA's strength in Latin America where int'l aircraft arrive in the a.m. and depart in the pm.... not all need to spend the day in maintenance.

Good post.
I think AA is the only airline that even has widebody aircraft flying coast to coast today. The 762 has 40 premium seats which probably subsidizes the measly MD-80 size 128 seats in coach. But the 762's are nearly obsolete. The future is all narrow body transcon flying, with possibly the A321 having 3 class service.

 

[eolesen]

Nah, three class is gone. Screen Actors Guild was subsidizing this thru workrules in their contract (paid F was required) but gave that up in their last contract...

There's still demand for containerized cargo, but it won't be in every frequency in every major market.

 

[737823]

Nah, three class is gone. Screen Actors Guild was subsidizing this thru workrules in their contract (paid F was required) but gave that up in their last contract...

There's still demand for containerized cargo, but it won't be in every frequency in every major market.

As an aside, I've seen BA load containers on to their A320 series aircraft at Heathrow. I assume it's possible to configure a narrow body to accommodate certain sizes of containers however it may limit range, payload, and of course other cargo in the hold. Could the forthcoming AA Airbus be configured to handle those containers?

Josh

 

[777flyer]

Nah, three class is gone. Screen Actors Guild was subsidizing this thru workrules in their contract (paid F was required) but gave that up in their last contract...

There's still demand for containerized cargo, but it won't be in every frequency in every major market.

I hope 3 class is gone too. Totally unecessary.

 

[eolesen]

As an aside, I've seen BA load containers on to their A320 series aircraft at Heathrow. I assume it's possible to configure a narrow body to accommodate certain sizes of containers however it may limit range, payload, and of course other cargo in the hold. Could the forthcoming AA Airbus be configured to handle those containers?

BA, AC and JQ use LD3-46's on their 320 & 321 fleets. Personally, I think it's too limiting:

• LD3-46's offer ~25% less capacity than a standard LD3, so nobody in their right mind would be putting them on a widebody (which means unloading & loading a container at the transfer points.... which is a pain in the arse)
• usable volume is reduced as the containers don't fill up 100% of the space they occupy
• loaders & dollies are required at all the airports you're going to operate to/from
• roller & locking system increase the EOW of the aircraft considerably, decreasing usable payload

Overall, a poor choice for an airplane you'd want to have the flexibility to operate 80% of your schedule with.

Some airlines who chose the container option now just fly them around with flats locked in place and bulk load them. It eliminates the issues with usable volume and equipment, but you still take a hit to the EOW.

Further, the A320's container capability isn't about cargo -- it's about reducing ground handling time & costs.

Shippers & forwarders could care less -- if you can't handle full size pallets, they're not interested.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You are indeed right, E, about the cargo that AA carries transcon... but they could (and still may) accommodate that demand by flying a mixed schedule of a couple widebodies and the majority narrowbodies....
DL has chosen not to use widebodies on its transcon flights but it does operate them from JFK to its hubs which also have widebody service to the left coast. DL needs to rotate widebodies through its hubs for maintenance purposes and the widebodies do have enough ground time that they can get some "free time" out of the aircraft.
And the reality is that UPS and Fedex probably carry the majority of transcon cargo anyway....
And alot of freight is trucked to/from the flights.. so it is possible that AA probably handles a lot of transcon freight over its JFK transcons that originate all over the NE, including BOS, and terminate all over CA and probably even other destinations in the west outside of CA.
I would imagine that AA still gets the majority of the NYC-west coast flying by passenger carriers but it still comes down to the fact that they have a dedicated fleet of widebody aircraft that has a high premium configuration which you note is no longer necessary, that fleet is old, and has a CASM well above other carriers, including the low fare carriers that set the fares on most of the transcon routes.
.
other than 737..'s personal interest in widebodies, I haven't seen any economic justification for keeping the number of widebody flights they now have.
AA's reorg is about making the tough choices necessary to successfully restructure.... and that does include some things "sacred" to some passengers.
AA must do what is best for the long term viability of the company.

 

[KILOFINAL]

I totally agree. No need for containers on A320's as it just adds to the overall costs of ramp operations. Plus there are many issues with locks not working....problems with the PDU's etc.

Not to mention the cost of maintaining the FMC's and other equipment needed for the containers.

BA, AC and JQ use LD3-46's on their 320 & 321 fleets. Personally, I think it's too limiting:

• LD3-46's offer ~25% less capacity than a standard LD3, so nobody in their right mind would be putting them on a widebody (which means unloading & loading a container at the transfer points.... which is a pain in the arse)
• usable volume is reduced as the containers don't fill up 100% of the space they occupy
• loaders & dollies are required at all the airports you're going to operate to/from
• roller & locking system increase the EOW of the aircraft considerably, decreasing usable payload

Overall, a poor choice for an airplane you'd want to have the flexibility to operate 80% of your schedule with.

Some airlines who chose the container option now just fly them around with flats locked in place and bulk load them. It eliminates the issues with usable volume and equipment, but you still take a hit to the EOW.

Further, the A320's container capability isn't about cargo -- it's about reducing ground handling time & costs.

Shippers & forwarders could care less -- if you can't handle full size pallets, they're not interested.