A321T

[WorldTraveler]

others can comment but the 757 engines are in a unique thrust class based on current engines. The 321s engines are the closest but are still about 10% less powerful.

Boeing would probably also need to get some of the weight out of the wing in order to improve the economics of the aircraft and that is not a cheap process.

and then you have to ask if Boeing's 60 year old fuselage is really ideal for a current generation longhaul narrowbody aircraft. From a cabin comfort standpoint, the 320 series is more ideal for longer haul travel.

there are enough 757s still in service and which can be kept in service if LGA is opened to longer haul flights... and remember that far more than transcon flights would open up if the slot restrictions fall. IAH/HOU is inside the LGA perimeter but AUS and SAT are not.

 

[Overspeed]

Boeing on 757 reengine

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-sees-no-business-case-757-max

 

[Overspeed]

321 neo launched

http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/boeing-plays-down-long-range-a321neo-threat

 

[FWAAA]

Was making the point that 321s are certified to fly from a runway length 7,000 feet on an over 5 hour flight. AA is planning to fly the 321 with the existing V2500-A5 on that route.

I believe that you are confused, as AA is not planning to fly current-edition 321s to Hawai'i. AA is planning to fly A321neos, with the new engines, but not the existing A321s. HA is also planning to fly neos to Hawai'i.
 

A 737 doesn't have to be dropped to some low density config to make that distance either. UA flies SNA to EWR with a 737 non-stop now. SNA is less than 6,000 feet with severe takeoff restrictions on departure. A 737 or 321 with winglets will make the LGA to West Coast run.

As pointed out by the busdriver, that's incorrect. A full 738 (or A321) cannot takeoff from LGA with enough fuel to fly to the west coast. When I say "full," I mean in a high-density normal configuration full of passengers and bags.
 

If it really is that big of a deal to get a plane off of the runways at LGA, then the market will shift to the most powerful and largest aircraft possible. it makes little sense to add huge business and first class cabins if the market is dominated by a few carriers.

 
Sure, you're obviously correct. In the third quarter, between JFK and LAX, AA carried almost as many local passengers as DL but at average one-way fares more than $250 higher than DL. If the PA eliminates the perimeter rule (a really unlikely event), then AA would probably try to keep that revenue premium by flying premium seats, not high-density planes to attract Delta-like fares.
 

Why the focus on the 321? The 319 will make it easily

Because this is a thread about the A321T, not A319s. An A319 could not carry enough premium seats to fly eoonomically between NYC and LAX. It's just too damn small.

In any event, a premium-configured 738 could easily takeoff from LGA with enough fuel to make LAX. Or AA could just use premium-configured 757s.

The relaxation of the perimeter rule is a far-fetched fantasy that is unlikely to happen.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not sure where you keep coming up with a $250 AA fare premium but it is actually $60 over DL according to the DOT.

further, as much as you want to tout DL's "discount" strategy, DL manages to carry more total passenger revenue on the JFK-LAX SEGMENT than AA does - in part because DL has a much larger int'l operation than AA at JFK.

and of course DL now carries the vast majority of the cargo revenue in the JFK-LAX market which is possible because DL uses larger widebody aircraft.

when you factor that AA operates 50% more flights than DL does and doesn't have the cargo revenue, the chances are that AA's flights aren't any more profitable than DL's and are probably less profitable.

and we haven't even gotten in to JFK-SFO where AA has been relegated to #4 out of 5 for now and will be 5 out of 5 as soon as B6 fills out Mint in their schedule.

 

[FWAAA]

I'm not sure where you keep coming up with a $250 AA fare premium but it is actually $60 over DL according to the DOT.

Table 1a from the DOT says that in the third quarter of 2014, AA's average fare in the JFK-LAX market was $666.30 while DL's average fare was $414.27. That's an advantage of $252 per passenger for AA.

If you have different numbers from the DOT, then cite your source.

further, as much as you want to tout DL's "discount" strategy, DL manages to carry more total passenger revenue on the JFK-LAX SEGMENT than AA does - in part because DL has a much larger int'l operation than AA at JFK.

According to Table 1a, again for the third quarter of 2014, DL carried 21.9% of the local traffic JFK-LAX and AA carried 18.6% of the local traffic. Of course, AA's fare premium over DL was 61% according to the DOT.

and of course DL now carries the vast majority of the cargo revenue in the JFK-LAX market which is possible because DL uses larger widebody aircraft.

What is DL's cargo yield per ton mile on the transcons?

when you factor that AA operates 50% more flights than DL does and doesn't have the cargo revenue, the chances are that AA's flights aren't any more profitable than DL's and are probably less profitable.

Sure, keep making things up.

and we haven't even gotten in to JFK-SFO where AA has been relegated to #4 out of 5 for now and will be 5 out of 5 as soon as B6 fills out Mint in their schedule.

Yawn. According to Table 1a, AA is getting about $190 more per local passenger on this route than is UA. Usually, the smallest carrier in the market has difficulty exercising any pricing power, but AA is attracting the highest fares on both JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO. Obviously, some segment of the market values AA's transcon product more than it values DL's or UA's.

 

[Hope777]

FWA, PLEASE DO NOT USE FACTS to Confuse the Fraudster, clearly the DOT DATA is flawed

 

[WorldTraveler]

my numbers use DOT data but it doesn't come up with net fares (which is what the airline gets) anywhere near that high.

when you consider that even a $415 average fare for DL is nearly a 17 cent yield, I don't believe the data.

furthermore if AA was getting the yield you say they got even before they downsized to the 321Ts, they would not have changed aircraft because AA's yield is so far above the CASM of even a 762.

your numbers quite frankly are not realistic of net fares in the market or else everyone and their dog would be making buckets of mone in the transcon markets. Given that AA downsized capacity to cut off lower yield traffic and VX has said the NYC transcons are problematic right now (which probably means they lose money) it is not realistic that your numbers are accurate of what airlines actually receive.


and if you think that a strategy of cutting revenue in order to push yields up is a winning strategy, then I probably can't help you, esp. since AA's labor costs have already gone up by about 10% just with the pilot and FA agreements. AA is #4 out of 5 in the local JFK-SFO market and has fallen from #1 to 2 in the JFK-LAX market and likely did not reduce its costs at all after adding frequencies back.

I have no idea what the yield is on JFK transcon cargo but AA has next to none of it now while DL has 2 million pounds of it. to pretend that domestic transcon cargo has no value but int'l cargo does is somehow a disconnect with reality - or else FedEx and UPS wouldn't carry domestic air cargo - but they do.

and specific to this topic, it is doubtful that an AA 321T could even takeoff from LGA with a full passenger load of 110 seats (or whatever it is).

and as much as you or others think otherwise, using an aircraft that carriers a minimum amount of seats compared to other aircraft makes even less sense at LGA where there are lots of other options to use those slots.

with limited slots, you push the most passengers thru the jetway per flight. Given that few other carriers besides AA and DL can add a decent LGA transcon presence and still operate their current operation, it makes little sense to have a service shootout when most other carriers including the low cost carriers have so few slots they can't add much service from LGA.

 

[FWAAA]

my numbers use DOT data but it doesn't come up with net fares (which is what the airline gets) anywhere near that high.

Then post a link. Here is the link to the DOT data with which you disagree:

http://www.dot.gov/office-policy/aviation-policy/table-1a-domestic-airline-airfare-report-third-quarter-2014

when you consider that even a $415 average fare for DL is nearly a 17 cent yield, I don't believe the data.

Classic. Here's what the Fraudster posted a little while ago on another thread:

of course just like the labor activists, you'll saw that the DOT's data is flawed since it doesn't tell the story that you want to hear.

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/58119-aa-applies-for-lax-gdl-mia-mty/?p=1153350

So you don't believe the DOT data because it doesn't support your tired narrative. Got it.

furthermore if AA was getting the yield you say they got even before they downsized to the 321Ts, they would not have changed aircraft because AA's yield is so far above the CASM of even a 762.

your numbers quite frankly are not realistic of net fares in the market or else everyone and their dog would be making buckets of mone in the transcon markets. Given that AA downsized capacity to cut off lower yield traffic and VX has said the NYC transcons are problematic right now (which probably means they lose money) it is not realistic that your numbers are accurate of what airlines actually receive.


and if you think that a strategy of cutting revenue in order to push yields up is a winning strategy, then I probably can't help you, esp. since AA's labor costs have already gone up by about 10% just with the pilot and FA agreements. AA is #4 out of 5 in the local JFK-SFO market and has fallen from #1 to 2 in the JFK-LAX market and likely did not reduce its costs at all after adding frequencies back.

I have no idea what the yield is on JFK transcon cargo but AA has next to none of it now while DL has 2 million pounds of it. to pretend that domestic transcon cargo has no value but int'l cargo does is somehow a disconnect with reality - or else FedEx and UPS wouldn't carry domestic air cargo - but they do.

Uh huh. The DOT data I cite is flawed because it doesn't support your tired narrative. Got it.

and specific to this topic, it is doubtful that an AA 321T could even takeoff from LGA with a full passenger load of 110 seats (or whatever it is).

Everyone with any knowledge (other than the TWU suck-ass Overspeed) has already conceded that point. I posted that the A321 could not do it several pages ago.

Bottom line: AA is capturing fares on the transcons that Delta could only dream of obtaining, and you don't like the data because it doesn't support your tired narrative.

Like I said - provide a link so we can evaluate your assertions.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and I see precisely why you are seeing something different.

the table you linked is Table 1a, Domestic Airline Airfare Report - Third Quarter 2014. This is for published fares, not flown data.

The O&D survey is based on FLOWN data... actual usage.

The Airline Origin and Destination Survey (DB1B) is a 10% sample of airline tickets from reporting carriers collected by the Office of Airline Information of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Data includes origin, destination and other itinerary details of passengers transported. This database is used to determine air traffic patterns, air carrier market shares and passenger flows.

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DatabaseInfo.asp?DB_ID=125&DB_Name=Airline%20Origin%20and%20Destination%20Survey%20(DB1B)

I would suggest you be careful calling other people frauds unless you are REALLY sure you know what you are talking about. In this case, you didn't.

In this case, the numbers you were citing have nothing to do with actual usage.

 

[FWAAA]

In this case, the numbers you were citing have nothing to do with actual usage.

Ok, here's the DB1B numbers:

Average Oneway Fares - LAXJFK
AA - $522.43
UA - $392.82
VX - $373.10
DL - $346.54
B6 - $319.42
 

I'm not sure where you keep coming up with a $250 AA fare premium but it is actually $60 over DL according to the DOT.

This data shows that AA is getting a fare premium of $176 each way, not the $60 you claimed. That's a premium of 51%.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not going to argue with you. That data still doesn't agree with what I see not does any data I see show that AA has anywhere near the level of premium over other carriers.


and further, I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not doubting that AA has a higher average fare and increased it by switching to the 321T strategy.

What you have yet to show me is any data - wherever you find it - that shows that AA DID NOT give up overall revenue on the segment or that it reduced its costs FASTER than the reduction in revenues.

Once again, high average fares are great... but given that AA has had to SHRINK its overall presence in the market in order to get them, including losing the cargo revenue, it is hard to believe you are sitting here trying to argue about high average fares in the light of less total revenue.

so, what is your point?

and I'm still not sure why you want to keep beating this horse... the 321T strategy isn't going to work at LGA (as well all acknowledge) and even if DL does use the 763ER - which I think is operationally possible - and AA could do the same thing but neither is going to carry cargo from LGA on transcons.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

FWAAA:

You need not travel under the bridge to play the troll's fantasy airline analyst game.

Everyone here knows that it has zero credibility. He is literally a running joke here.

I appreciate your posts, but giving him any audience is like feeding the gremlin after midnight.

 

[WorldTraveler]

it is only a joke because you are incapable of understanding concepts as advanced as what is involved here.

FWAAA is at least trying. Problem is he is arguing a point which no one is doubting.

the question he can't answer is how AA's strategy AT JFK of shrinking revenue made sense when it has added back as much as it cut in costs by using higher frequencies.

if you want to argue that the strategy made sense in SFO, it would be a little easier to understand.

again, FWAAA is trying to discuss concepts even if they are related to JFK transcons - which isn't applicable to LGA longhaul if it even happens... you have NEVER proven you either understand them or are capable of speaking to them.

the troll is you who has to stick your #### nose into a conversation to do nothing but to smear ####.

I thank AMFA every day that they made certain you didn't come to DL.

 

[FWAAA]

Someone's becoming unhinged.