Honolulu to Tokyo

[upsilon]

In the late '60s and the '70s I flew trans-atlantic (TA) in the 707, DC-8 and 747 on PA, TW, as well as AF and BOAC. The two American flag carriers were superior in seating in both cabins; and I preferred the American (then known as stewardesses) to the Europeans.

Things went downhill when PA sold the northern Europe routes to UA. But it really became hell-in-a-hand-basket when PA liquidated and DL took over the remaining routes and imposed its self-styled 'southern culture' service on international travelers while using the (mostly-stapled and thus embittered) PA cabin crew. It was not nice!

AA bought from TWA its northern TA routes and later acquired all of the remainder. But AA has always been a day-late and a dollar-short in matching BA (after merging with BOAC). And more recently Virgin Atlantic has set an even higher standard.

The 767 and 777 do not match the 747 in front cabin comfort and space. On TA routes, UA and AA fly ONLY the former. The other two English-speaking crewed airlines still use the 747 on American routes.

The comparison between the AA front cabins and the British competition is pitiful. The Brits win hands down!

 

[UALDC767]

In the late '60s and the '70s I flew trans-atlantic (TA) in the 707, DC-8 and 747 on PA, TW, as well as AF and BOAC. The two American flag carriers were superior in seating in both cabins; and I preferred the American (then known as stewardesses) to the Europeans.

Things went downhill when PA sold the northern Europe routes to UA. But it really became hell-in-a-hand-basket when PA liquidated and DL took over the remaining routes and imposed its self-styled 'southern culture' service on international travelers while using the (mostly-stapled and thus embittered) PA cabin crew. It was not nice!

AA bought from TWA its northern TA routes and later acquired all of the remainder. But AA has always been a day-late and a dollar-short in matching BA (after merging with BOAC). And more recently Virgin Atlantic has set an even higher standard.

The 767 and 777 do not match the 747 in front cabin comfort and space. On TA routes, UA and AA fly ONLY the former. The other two English-speaking crewed airlines still use the 747 on American routes.

The comparison between the AA front cabins and the British competition is pitiful. The Brits win hands down!

Upsilon,

To clarify a few things....

First off, UAL and AMR did not purchase any northern TA Europe routes from Pan AM and TWA other than the LHR access. (AMR got the rest of what was left of TWA when they took over in 2001)

And second you are WRONG about only flying 767/777 across the Atlantic. UAL does fly 747-400's to Europe. LHR and FRA from IAD for sure and possibly from ORD/SFO/LAX during high season. Has for a couple of years now. And they used to fly the old rope start 747-100/200 to Rome and Milan as well a long time ago.

DC

 

[JFK777]

I think the remark about BA and Virgin flying 747 is they fly them on most of their routes to the USA. UA flies 747 on just 2 of their 15 daily flight out of Dulles and almost never out of LAX, SFO & ORD. 747's are still the best airplanes, 767 did something great for the tlantic but its time they finish their flying days as freighters or Hawaii routes and get replaced by 787 or A330 across the pond.

 

[SPG Trvlr]

I think the remark about BA and Virgin flying 747 is they fly them on most of their routes to the USA. UA flies 747 on just 2 of their 15 daily flight out of Dulles and almost never out of LAX, SFO & ORD. 747's are still the best airplanes, 767 did something great for the tlantic but its time they finish their flying days as freighters or Hawaii routes and get replaced by 787 or A330 across the pond.

For quite a long while now UA has a B744 SFO-FRA in addition to it's IAD-FRA

 

[eolesen]

BA and VS fly them to the US because they can't get rid of them and have to fly them somewhere... It's a great aircraft as far as comfort goes, but as an airline, it's the age-old argument of running bigger aircraft vs. higher frequencies.

As a scheduler, I'd rather be able to run two 777's a couple hours apart than run a single 747. You wind up carrying more of everything at about the same operating cost, and get to offer a better schedule.

 

[JFK777]

BA & VS operate most flights from Heathrow, an airport so slot constricted slots go for tens of millions of dollars. They fly 747 because they are the biggest, BA flies about 10 747's to JFK daily, so its has frequency with lots of capacity. On some routes running smaller planes is giving up revenue too. There are reasons LHR will see many A380's early, airlines operating there need more seats per slots. I know BA hasn't ordered any, but Singapore, Virgin and Emirates have, you can bet the first airport to see them in action is LHR.

 

[s80dude]

BA & VS operate most flights from Heathrow, an airport so slot constricted slots go for tens of millions of dollars. They fly 747 because they are the biggest, BA flies about 10 747's to JFK daily, so its has frequency with lots of capacity. On some routes running smaller planes is giving up revenue too. There are reasons LHR will see many A380's early, airlines operating there need more seats per slots. I know BA hasn't ordered any, but Singapore, Virgin and Emirates have, you can bet the first airport to see them in action is LHR.

BA flies 5 747's and 2 777's per day between JFK and LHR.

 

[eolesen]

On some routes running smaller planes is giving up revenue too.

That's not entirely true. You don't go broke by flying smaller aircraft than the competition. When there's that much demand, you can jack up the ticket prices accordingly, and make more money. When the markets are softer, you have fewer empty seats.

But, as I said, it's an age old argument. Some airlines believe in volume. Some believe in frequency. AA tends to believe in frequency, which is why we've always run smaller equipment than UA, NW, TW, and PA. When those carriers were running 747s, we were running DC10's. When UA and NW were buying 744's, AA was buying MD11's.

Since UAL has focused on the 777 and NWA has focused on the A330 and now the 787, I'd say AA made the right decision all along.

 

[UALDC767]

Since UAL has focused on the 777 and NWA has focused on the A330 and now the 787, I'd say AA made the right decision all along.

Well its hard to say who made the right decision regarding fleet choices. Each airline has different needs/ideas regarding fleet types. UAL needs the size and capabilities of the 400 for Asia/South Pacific markets. The 777 proved to be a bad choice for AKL due to range/payload issues. AMR didn't need those capabilities due to their route structure. You make a choice and go with it.

Not long ago pundits were lauding the 50 seat RJ and how NWA had all those paid for DC-9's. Now they cant get rid of them fast enough. SO who knows?

DC

 

[TWAnr]

UAL needs the size and capabilities of the 400 for Asia/South Pacific markets. The 777 proved to be a bad choice for AKL due to range/payload issues.

UAL's selection and specifications of the 777 model must be the problem. The 777 IGW/ER should have no payload restrictions whatsoever on flights from the West Coast of the United States to New Zealand.

 

[UALDC767]

UAL's selection and specifications of the 777 model must be the problem. The 777 IGW/ER should have no payload restrictions whatsoever on flights from the West Coast of the United States to New Zealand.

TWAnr,

UAL as a launch customer, did have some issues with the A models, but the more recent B models seem to be fine. Though the P&W engines seems to be a minority choice on the 777.

The range/payload issue in AKL wasn't from the west coast to AKL but rather from AKL to west coast. The etops segment from Hawaii to mainland required so much fuel that pax and cargo were often restricted. The plane could fly the distance but not with enough paying pax or cargo to make it work. That is my understanding.

DC

 

[TWAnr]

The range/payload issue in AKL wasn't from the west coast to AKL but rather from AKL to west coast.

OK, I should have been more precise in my choice of language and written "between" the west coast and AKL.

AA flies the 777 non-stop between Chicago and New Delhi, India. That flight is ~1,000 longer than the flights between either LAX or SFO and AKL. Even though the DEL flight is not an ETOPS flight, the extra distance should more than make up for the fuel penalty for the ETOPS segment you refer to. Yet, I have never heard that the ORD-DEL flight is payload restricted in either direction.

 

[TWAnr]

For whatever this is worth, I found the range chart on the Boeing site:

 

[UALDC767]

OK, I should have been more precise in my choice of language and written "between" the west coast and AKL.

AA flies the 777 non-stop between Chicago and New Delhi, India. That flight is ~1,000 longer than the flights between either LAX or SFO and AKL. Even though the DEL flight is not an ETOPS flight, the extra distance should more than make up for the fuel penalty for the ETOPS segment you refer to. Yet, I have never heard that the ORD-DEL flight is payload restricted in either direction.

TWAnr,

While I haven't been senior enough to fly the 777, my understanding comes from talking to various 777 pilots. Often the planned landing fuel on the west coast was over 30k pounds, well over the normal 15-20k. All due to etops requirements. Thats a lot of extra pax or cargo to be giving up.

And yes some of the range/payload is due to the engine choices UAL made. They are not as powerful or as fuel efficient as the other engine models offered. Why they went with P&W, other than a long standing partnership with them, I do not know. Probably the same reason they didnt order the crew rest facility in the 777 when delivered new. Short sightedness...

DC

 

[TWAnr]

And yes some of the range/payload is due to the engine choices UAL made. They are not as powerful or as fuel efficient as the other engine models offered.

I have not been able to locate the reference, but I seem to recall reading that the MTOW of the AA 777 model is approximately 30,000 kilograms higher than that of the UA version. It was more than just the choice of engines; the AA 777s also have heavier duty landing gears and increased fuel capacity.