Delay-Virgin ready to take on AA to London

[MetalMover]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-virgin-takes-battle-york-110000637.html
 
Can't wait for WT to get a hold of this one...

 

[nycbusdriver]

American has put its flagship aircraft on the New York to London route: a new extended range Boeing 777-300 that has separate cabins for first and business class with fully reclining seats, as well as coach seats with power outlets and USB jacks. Late last year, American took an older 777 used on the route out of service to upgrade it with lie-flat seating, citing a need to be competitive with the Delta-Virgin venture.

 
I understand that the extended range 777 is a wise interim choice while the older 777 has its interior upgraded, but putting the extended range 777s on JFK-LHR as a long-term plan would be a stupid waste of a valuable, unique assets.

 

[IORFA]

I understand that the extended range 777 is a wise interim choice while the older 777 has its interior upgraded, but putting the extended range 777s on JFK-LHR as a long-term plan would be a stupid waste of a valuable, unique assets.[/size]

Although, JFK and LAX have been alternating new records lately for cargo carried and they are always to LHR. Maybe the 777-300ER does have a place on that route.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

This coming right after DL gives up on ORD-LHR before it's even begun.

 

[737823]

I understand that the extended range 777 is a wise interim choice while the older 777 has its interior upgraded, but putting the extended range 777s on JFK-LHR as a long-term plan would be a stupid waste of a valuable, unique assets.[/size]

Perhaps but not nearly as much of a waste of capable aircraft as US sending 332s to BOS, CUN, MCO, PHX, SJU, etc from CLT.

Josh

 

[Kev3188]

Although, JFK and LAX have been alternating new records lately for cargo carried and they are always to LHR. Maybe the 777-300ER does have a place on that route.

 
 
At the risk of getting too wonkish, any idea what sort of numbers are being put up?

 

[FWAAA]

I understand that the extended range 777 is a wise interim choice while the older 777 has its interior upgraded, but putting the extended range 777s on JFK-LHR as a long-term plan would be a stupid waste of a valuable, unique assets.

That might be true except that JFK-LHR is one of the leading routes on which airlines still sell First Class.   Sure, it's a shorter route than the long-range capability of the 777-300ER (AA calls them 77Ws), but what really matters are the average fares.    Apparently,  AA and BA are jointly getting pretty good fares to justify all the 744s and 77Ws between JFK and LHR.  
 
AA's 77Ws seat more than 300 passengers, and if any route justifies big planes, it would be JFK-LHR.   BA flies a mix of 747-400s and 777s on that route, presumably because they've jointly decided with AA that JFK-LHR needs a lot of seats.   
 
AA's 772s will seat about 260 once they've been reconfigured.   If AA and BA agree that First Class isn't as important on JFK-LHR as it used to be, then the newly reconfigured 2-class 772s might be returned to that route.   But if First Class still matters on that route, then the 77Ws will remain.   77Ws are substantially larger than A333s, as even the 772s feature about 12% more floor area than A333s.   What airplane should AA fly between JFK and LHR if the 77W is a waste?    
 
Sure, the 77W is heavy and has the capability to fly long range routes.  744s and A380s are very big, heavy, and feature long range, but you see European airlines flying them across the Atlantic where they're "wasting" the valuable, unique features of those planes.   

 

[IORFA]

At the risk of getting too wonkish, any idea what sort of numbers are being put up?

I can't remember exactly, but these are AA cargo records. I want to say it was 102,000 last message I saw. The 77W has a lot more cargo space than 777-200ER. Again, I'm not the person to ask. I've heard, just don't remember. If I see another message, I'll let you know.

 

[DFWFSC]

At the risk of getting too wonkish, any idea what sort of numbers are being put up?

A few weeks back AA Flt 136 LAX-LHR loaded over 105k in cargo alone, and I think the total load with everything was 110K cargo/bags. The flight was booked for less than 100 passangers, and that's why such a big cargo load.

 

[jcw]

Perhaps but not nearly as much of a waste of capable aircraft as US sending 332s to BOS, CUN, MCO, PHX, SJU, etc from CLT.
Josh

Let's see traffic is light between Europe and North American in the winter months and people want to go to the islands in the winter. So fly a half empty plane to Europe or dynamically deploy your aircraft to generate the most revenue. I forgot AA does not understand dynamic scheduling and runs the same flights everyday. I forgot the objective was to make money.

It's amazing your ability to trash US in every post.

 

[robbedagain]

jcw..  its truly amazing how josh the jp morgan fraud dude trashes US at every shot he gets   and on every single thread   
 
as for the loads   wouldnt the cargo alone pay for a single 77W flight with heavy cargo loads?

 

[700UW]

Yes, I worked Air Cargo and we had the origination of the LGW flight from TPA, and we would have to book Cargo space several weeks in advance.

Cargo revenue provides a very good yield on flights and usually pays for the operating costs of the flight and passenger revenue is profit.

 

[FWAAA]

Yes, I worked Air Cargo and we had the origination of the LGW flight from TPA, and we would have to book Cargo space several weeks in advance. Cargo revenue provides a very good yield on flights and usually pays for the operating costs of the flight and passenger revenue is profit.

No, cargo does not "usually" cover the operating costs.    Perhaps on a flight or two a year, but not usually.
 
In 2013,   AA+US took in $35.5 billion in passenger revenue.  
 
In 2013,  AA+US took in $830 million in cargo revenue and paid a total of $13.2 billion for fuel.   On top of that,  AA+US paid a total of $7.9 billion in wages, salaries and benefits.   AA+US had total operating expenses of $37.8 billion.    With just a paltry $830 million in cargo revenue,  cargo does not usually pay the operating expenses.  

 

[jcw]

I agree cargo can be very profitable in addition to passenger load

 

[Kev3188]

I can't remember exactly, but these are AA cargo records. I want to say it was 102,000 last message I saw. The 77W has a lot more cargo space than 777-200ER. Again, I'm not the person to ask. I've heard, just don't remember. If I see another message, I'll let you know.

 
 

A few weeks back AA Flt 136 LAX-LHR loaded over 105k in cargo alone, and I think the total load with everything was 110K cargo/bags. The flight was booked for less than 100 passangers, and that's why such a big cargo load.

Thanks guys!