transcon 767s

[Furloughd4now]

It's pretty well known by the beancounters that from a P&L perspective, you don't fly wide-bodies domestically due to the higher CASM and opportunity cost to deploy on more profitable routes.

The reason why DL and UA do it so much is because their fleet just has so many of them. Even DL readjusted in bankruptcy and deployed more to transatlantic.

In the case of US, the 767 that flew CLT-LAX was pulled (when Mr. Siegel and his team came onboard and "rescheduled the airline") to fund new trans-atlantic/Carib flying like DUB/SNN. In addition, compounding the problem was the 767 the company lost in PHL back in 2000/2001 from the engine run-up disaster that caused a total write-off of the shell. It was never replaced (though 330's were/did come).

Under this management team, I doubt you'll ever see another one operate domestically except for aircraft placement (i.e. PHL to CLT and vice versa, etc.).

I worked one from MCO to CLT about 6 month ago. I don't think it was a replacement, but maybe it was.

 

[PHL]

Before the European flying really ramped up, the 767 even did red eyes from LAX to PHL, with the last Envoy config. That was a nice way to fly back East in comfort and actually be able to get some rest.

 

[Art at ISP]

I took the 767 a few times PHL-LAX--always up front too. It must have been around 2002 or so.

I also used to frequent the 767 PHL-CLT, and remember taking the A330-300 PHL-MIA when it first came on line--that was interesting.

 

[700UW]

CLT had LAX-CLT=LGW/FRA and back, also had a 767 from CLT-MIA-PIT, CLT-PHL and CLT=SJU