As it turns out, WT thinks you should know that he's really saying that for a very specific mission needing a specific number of seats (which is exactly how many the A330 has) and covering a certain range (which is the most efficient range for the A330) the A330 is the lowest CASM plane. You also have to assume that all the other components of CASM are equal or worse for any other widebody. In other words, if the A330 is the only widebody that fits and everything else that goes into CASM is the same it has the lowest CASM.
Ah, but having an airplane that provides flexibility can increase CASM when that flexibility isn't needed for the perfect A330 mission... :lol: Like his example of SEA-NRT...heaven forbid that you might also want the plane to SEA-India or ATL-NRT...
I guess the idea is to have the perfect plane for every mission - no matter how many different types it would take. Of course, since the NW merger DL nearly has everything from the DC9 to the 747 (what's missing other than the A340?) - just more of it's perfect strategic moves... :lol:
Whether DL or UA would have chosen to have the number of fleet types in their combined fleet that they now have is far less signfiicant than the fact that both carriers are using their resources to generate far better financial results than AA, who we might remember CHOSE to buy both A300s and 763s at the same time and is now CHOOSING to buy the A320 and 737 families - where there is even less performance difference.
DL and UA/CO are carrying HIGHER revenues using the same or smaller/lighter aircraft on routes where they compete with AA - and that is why AA is in the financial shape it is in.
And DL and UA have developed their route systems enough that they can match their diverse fleet to the routes they are operating.
When AA achieves revenue on par with its peers and costs on the same metric, then the details will be something that matters.
In the meantime, UA will carry far more revenue per flight ORD/LAX-Asia while DL's 764s generate as much revenue per flight ATL-Brazil and JFK-LHR as AA carries on its own flights JFKLHR or MIA-Brazil using a much heavier 777.
BTW, DOT data (reported in Aviation Daily - hardly a secret source) for the year ended June 10 (I need to get fresh data but the point remains the same) shows that DL's 333s had a DOT reported aircraft CASM of 4.1 which was the lowest reported CASM for any US carrier widebody aircraft. The average stage length for DL's 333s was 3930, well within the capabilities of that aircraft type. As of that date, DL is the only carrier that reported data for the 333.
For the same period, 4 carriers - AA, UA, CO, and DL all reported data for the 777. AA and UA each reported average stage lengths for their 777s of 4400 and 3700 (rounded to nearest hundred) while CO and DL's 777s were both very close to 6000 miles.
What is noteworthy is that the average CASM for the US carrier 777 fleet was 6.7 with CO, DL, and UA all at 6.2 or 6.3. AA, OTOH, was at 7.9 with the notable difference from the other carriers being maintenance costs and 18 fewer seats than the US industry average for that fleet type.
In fact, the 764 fleet operated by CO and DL had an average seat count of 242 seats, a CASM of 5.6, and an average stage length of 3900 miles.
In JFKLHR last summer, DL carried the same amount of revenue per flight (almost to the dollar) as AA yet DL used 764s while AA used 777s with a substantial CASM penalty.
In LAXNRT last summer DL used a 333 while AA used a 777... .DL carried almost twice as much revenue per flight as AA but DL used an aircraft with a CASM substantially below AA's...suppose that market helped contribute to DL employees' profit sharing? I think so.
SO, CO and DL are using an aircraft that could operate the vast majority of the flights AA uses ts 777s for with 98% of the number of seats and doing so with a CASM that is just 71% of AA's CASM for its 777 fleet.
Having the right aircraft for the right mission makes all the difference in the world when it comes to the end of the quarter and costs and revenues are added up.
And arguments about the flexibility that comes w/ extra capability when it might be needed rings hollow when you consider that AA by choice, not once but twice, has ordered two similar models from Airbus and Boeing.
FLUF, I actually agree with you/your statement, EXCEPT, there WILL be more YES votes coming from APA (this time) because of the lack of flying Jobs(most likely those AA dudes who are "running" to China are single of divorced), and as I stated earlier, APA has NEVER faced a 800 lb. GORILLA like this one before. (B K ). THIS time is NOT shutting down Crandall, knowing fairly well that they'd be back in the cockpit eventually. THIS time is more like Russian Roulette with Only one empty cylinder as opposed to 5.
I THIS case, I stand by my claim that the spouses in DFW/TUL(for APA/TWU) will be voting, not the poor bas-tard that actually flys/unloads the plane !
AA took delivery on ~30 757 and 763 aircraft after Jan 2000. The PWs were written out of the fleet plan when the acquisition took place, and the 2002/2003 deliveries covered those shells.
With the closure of the STL and SJU hubs. It's certainly convenient to include all those TW shells in your argument, but when essentially all of those ASMs are gone, it rings a little hollow, which is why I've always compared AA in 2000 vs 2010 when trying to gauge growth or contraction.
And from 2000 to now i know for a fact DFW and MIA are + growth. Do they replace the STL and SJU ASMs? no idea. Nor do i care. They have parked 150+ mainline jets, growth has come from non-mainline jobs.
So yeah sure, totally believe they will be the first airline to expand SCOPE limits only to not come back and hurt employees. Right, Want some beach front housing in Arizona? Its really nice h34r: