A321T

[autofixer]

Lets just hope that Parker does NOT bastardize AA and make it a trash airline. AA product should NOT be tampered with. Are you listening Tempe!!

No.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DOT stats are in for the month of Feb 2014 after the 767s were removed from the JFK-LAX route by AA.

As expected, AA's cargo carried was cut to less than 1/3 of what it was a year ago while the airline that now flies 767s increased their cargo by 6X what it was a year ago - or an increase of over 1.25 MILLION pounds of cargo per month.

 

[jcw]

I'm sure no one at AA realized that when they changed from 767's to 321's the cargo hold would be smaller.  They must be besides themselves in Dallas that no one realized what would happen to the cargo space and revenue.
 
This is another great move by DL - way to go!

 

[LDVAviation]

DOT stats are in for the month of Feb 2014 after the 767s were removed from the JFK-LAX route by AA.

As expected, AA's cargo carried was cut to less than 1/3 of what it was a year ago while the airline that now flies 767s increased their cargo by 6X what it was a year ago - or an increase of over 1.25 MILLION pounds of cargo per month.

 
So what?  Research what has happened over the last year to the air freight market.  See FedEx or United.  There's the answer.

 

[WorldTraveler]

even among passenger carriers, JFK-LAX is a 3 million pound per month market.

AA had 2/3 of that market while operating 767-200s.

AA made the decision that it didn't want to cater to 40% of the coach transcon market so it cooked up the 321 premium concept.

I don't know what AA management thought the transcon market would do when they pulled their widebodies but it didn't go away or move to cargo carriers.

DL just happened to see an opportunity to increase its presence in the market, serving both the other 40% of the market that AA decided it didn't want to serve as well as the freight market.

It is hard to believe that one and three-quarters million pounds of cargo is of no consequence in the domestic market which does not have the same characteristics as the int'l market which is suffering from significant overcapacity, largely from Asian airlines.

DL now has 2/3 of the JFK-LAX cargo market and is the largest carrier in the JFK-LAX and SFO markets based on seats offered. Based on current average fares, it is likely that DL will become the highest revenue carrier when the first full quarter's DOT results are released.

The irony is that DL is using the exact same aircraft to serve the transcon market that AA has in its fleet. I get that the 762 is not economical but AA believes that the 763 is still a viable aircraft for int'l markets but didn't think that it would serve the transcon markets on at least a partial basis?

AA also decided that much of the JFK-Caribbean market isn't worth pursuing so have left that market and guess who showed up using the same 738s and 757s that AA has in its fleet.

I just flew DL on JFK-LAX and they have a good quality product in all cabins and the flight was nearly full - and I flew in the middle of the week; the cabin was less than a couple years old and nearly every passenger used either the personal AVOD system or their own personal devices using the aircraft's electrical system.

Given that capacity in the market is practically flat and DL's average fares are within 10% of what AA receives with a much higher ratio of premium seats, it is hard to argue that DL is dumping deeply discounted seats in the market.

and I can assure you that DL can push more passengers and revenue thru the jetway doors at LAX on one 767 than AA can board a comparable amount of passengers and revenue on their 321s. DL's 763 was in and out of LAX in 1 hr and 2 minutes.

If AA is happy walking away from the JFK markets that it has and leaving the door open for competitors, then I certainly won't be one to tell them to stop... but when people on here are as sensitive as they are about me pointing out something that anyone should have recognized was going to happen, you have to wonder why the decision was not thought and rethought.

 

[700UW]

So what is DL going to do when they pull the 767s off and replace them with the 757s that are getting modded?

 

[dfw gen]

even among passenger carriers, JFK-LAX is a 3 million pound per month market.

AA had 2/3 of that market while operating 767-200s.

AA made the decision that it didn't want to cater to 40% of the coach transcon market so it cooked up the 321 premium concept.

I don't know what AA management thought the transcon market would do when they pulled their widebodies but it didn't go away or move to cargo carriers.

DL just happened to see an opportunity to increase its presence in the market, serving both the other 40% of the market that AA decided it didn't want to serve as well as the freight market.

It is hard to believe that one and three-quarters million pounds of cargo is of no consequence in the domestic market which does not have the same characteristics as the int'l market which is suffering from significant overcapacity, largely from Asian airlines.

DL now has 2/3 of the JFK-LAX cargo market and is the largest carrier in the JFK-LAX and SFO markets based on seats offered. Based on current average fares, it is likely that DL will become the highest revenue carrier when the first full quarter's DOT results are released.

The irony is that DL is using the exact same aircraft to serve the transcon market that AA has in its fleet. I get that the 762 is not economical but AA believes that the 763 is still a viable aircraft for int'l markets but didn't think that it would serve the transcon markets on at least a partial basis?

AA also decided that much of the JFK-Caribbean market isn't worth pursuing so have left that market and guess who showed up using the same 738s and 757s that AA has in its fleet.

I just flew DL on JFK-LAX and they have a good quality product in all cabins and the flight was nearly full - and I flew in the middle of the week; the cabin was less than a couple years old and nearly every passenger used either the personal AVOD system or their own personal devices using the aircraft's electrical system.

Given that capacity in the market is practically flat and DL's average fares are within 10% of what AA receives with a much higher ratio of premium seats, it is hard to argue that DL is dumping deeply discounted seats in the market.

and I can assure you that DL can push more passengers and revenue thru the jetway doors at LAX on one 767 than AA can board a comparable amount of passengers and revenue on their 321s. DL's 763 was in and out of LAX in 1 hr and 2 minutes.

If AA is happy walking away from the JFK markets that it has and leaving the door open for competitors, then I certainly won't be one to tell them to stop... but when people on here are as sensitive as they are about me pointing out something that anyone should have recognized was going to happen, you have to wonder why the decision was not thought and rethought.

even among passenger carriers, JFK-LAX is a 3 million pound per month market.

AA had 2/3 of that market while operating 767-200s.

AA made the decision that it didn't want to cater to 40% of the coach transcon market so it cooked up the 321 premium concept.

I don't know what AA management thought the transcon market would do when they pulled their widebodies but it didn't go away or move to cargo carriers.

DL just happened to see an opportunity to increase its presence in the market, serving both the other 40% of the market that AA decided it didn't want to serve as well as the freight market.

It is hard to believe that one and three-quarters million pounds of cargo is of no consequence in the domestic market which does not have the same characteristics as the int'l market which is suffering from significant overcapacity, largely from Asian airlines.

DL now has 2/3 of the JFK-LAX cargo market and is the largest carrier in the JFK-LAX and SFO markets based on seats offered. Based on current average fares, it is likely that DL will become the highest revenue carrier when the first full quarter's DOT results are released.

The irony is that DL is using the exact same aircraft to serve the transcon market that AA has in its fleet. I get that the 762 is not economical but AA believes that the 763 is still a viable aircraft for int'l markets but didn't think that it would serve the transcon markets on at least a partial basis?

AA also decided that much of the JFK-Caribbean market isn't worth pursuing so have left that market and guess who showed up using the same 738s and 757s that AA has in its fleet.

I just flew DL on JFK-LAX and they have a good quality product in all cabins and the flight was nearly full - and I flew in the middle of the week; the cabin was less than a couple years old and nearly every passenger used either the personal AVOD system or their own personal devices using the aircraft's electrical system.

Given that capacity in the market is practically flat and DL's average fares are within 10% of what AA receives with a much higher ratio of premium seats, it is hard to argue that DL is dumping deeply discounted seats in the market.

and I can assure you that DL can push more passengers and revenue thru the jetway doors at LAX on one 767 than AA can board a comparable amount of passengers and revenue on their 321s. DL's 763 was in and out of LAX in 1 hr and 2 minutes.

If AA is happy walking away from the JFK markets that it has and leaving the door open for competitors, then I certainly won't be one to tell them to stop... but when people on here are as sensitive as they are about me pointing out something that anyone should have recognized was going to happen, you have to wonder why the decision was not thought and rethought.

go away fool.

 

[WorldTraveler]

go away fool.

because you can't handle that yet another AA strategic decision has worked for the benefit of a competitor or that as someone outside of the industry I said here exactly what was going to happen and it has?

700,
who says the 767s are coming off JFK-LAX?

There are 763s in the schedule far into 2015, well after the 757s should be thru with mods.

Also note that DL is not using the 767s on JFK-SFO and they also have added additional 767 fligihts to their original JFK-LAX schedule. It's also worth noting that DL's average fare on JFK-SFO with unmodded 757s is already higher than AA's on their 762s and UA's on JFK-LAX with their ps configured 757s. Considering that DL's 757s alone carry 30-40 more passengers than even UA's updated ps configuration, UA's economics on JFK-LAX are considerably worse than DL's.

Perhaps DL will decide it isn't worth it but I will bet you that the per seat economics of a 225 seat 763 are just as favorable if not better than are a 170 seat 757 or a 110 seat 321. Throw in 10K pounds of cargo per flight on the 763s and DL might have the the revenue and cost advantage.

If AA had not walked away from a big chunk of the coach market, DL's addition of the 767s wouldn't have worked.

DL is simply stepping into a market that, like the JFK-Caribbean markets, has been vacated and left to them.

 

[eolesen]

The only thing AA walked away from seems to be low yield markets. On the transcon, that decision seems to be paying off extremely well right now, and it probably hasn't hurt them much to leave some of the Caribbean markets out of JFK. Those were largely consolidator/wholesaler markets if I recall.

International cargo is another story, but domestic cargo is also low yield when you're up against dedicated cargo carriers, and AA has slowly moved away from freight & mail for over ten years.

What AA's losing in cargo revenue is more than being offset with what they're selling in the premium cabin, and thru higher utilization. The 321T can be turned around faster, and is also a little more nimble for gating purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if DL winds up paying people to sit in those last 40 or 50 seats on the widebodies (i.e. charging less than their actual cost).

Besides, isn't operating widebodies on the route just a stopgap measure for DL?...

 

[700UW]

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/MAR2014_JFK.pdf
 
Yet for the 12 month period ending in 3/14 AA has carried more cargo at JFK than DL, how can that be?
 
AA has carried nine more tons of cargo at JFK than DL.
 
Gee I guess DL isnt winning.

 

[jcw]

because you can't handle that yet another AA strategic decision has worked for the benefit of a competitor or that as someone outside of the industry I said here exactly what was going to happen and it has?

700,
who says the 767s are coming off JFK-LAX?

There are 763s in the schedule far into 2015, well after the 757s should be thru with mods.

Also note that DL is not using the 767s on JFK-SFO and they also have added additional 767 fligihts to their original JFK-LAX schedule. It's also worth noting that DL's average fare on JFK-SFO with unmodded 757s is already higher than AA's on their 762s and UA's on JFK-LAX with their ps configured 757s. Considering that DL's 757s alone carry 30-40 more passengers than even UA's updated ps configuration, UA's economics on JFK-LAX are considerably worse than DL's.

Perhaps DL will decide it isn't worth it but I will bet you that the per seat economics of a 225 seat 763 are just as favorable if not better than are a 170 seat 757 or a 110 seat 321. Throw in 10K pounds of cargo per flight on the 763s and DL might have the the revenue and cost advantage.

If AA had not walked away from a big chunk of the coach market, DL's addition of the 767s wouldn't have worked.

DL is simply stepping into a market that, like the JFK-Caribbean markets, has been vacated and left to them.

yes everyone knows DL is better run and it pouncing on every move AA makes to improve profitability
 
Good luck to DL - we know DL never changes its products/routes to improve profitability
 
Long live DL
 
Oh wait - they went into bankrupcy as well - so they are not perfect

 

[WorldTraveler]

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/MAR2014_JFK.pdf
 
Yet for the 12 month period ending in 3/14 AA has carried more cargo at JFK than DL, how can that be?
 
AA has carried nine more tons of cargo at JFK than DL.
 
Gee I guess DL isnt winning.

 
 first, you just noted, this is a 12 month summary.

second, the transcons aren't AA's only cargo markets from JFK.

maybe AA will lose the overall JFK cargo title but they still have large cargo markets to LHR, GRU, EZE, BCN, and CDG.
 

yes everyone knows DL is better run and it pouncing on every move AA makes to improve profitability
 
Good luck to DL - we know DL never changes its products/routes to improve profitability
 
Long live DL
 
Oh wait - they went into bankrupcy as well - so they are not perfect

why does it bother you that DL stepped in to pick up revenue which AA didn't want? we have had people on here tell us that the coach market wasn't worth pursuing and that cargo has no value.

Surprisingly, though, DL's average fares from JFK to LAX are within 10% of AA's even though DL has a much smaller percent of premium cabin seats. In order for DL's overall average fares to be so low, DL can't be taking a lot of premium cabin revenue - or else what they are taking is extraordinarily high yielding.

As for low yielding domestic cargo, the problem with cargo yields is int'l, not domestic.

DL's Caribbean average fares are almost identical to B6's which themselves are as high or higher on a per mile basis as the transcon fares.

given that AA's CASM for the most recent quarter was slightly less than DL's, it is hard to argue that DL can make money on JFK routes but AA cannot.

perhaps this is yet one more example of one man's trash is another's treasure.

 

[jcw]

 
 first, you just noted, this is a 12 month summary.

second, the transcons aren't AA's only cargo markets from JFK.

maybe AA will lose the overall JFK cargo title but they still have large cargo markets to LHR, GRU, EZE, BCN, and CDG.
 

why does it bother you that DL stepped in to pick up revenue which AA didn't want? we have had people on here tell us that the coach market wasn't worth pursuing and that cargo has no value.

Surprisingly, though, DL's average fares from JFK to LAX are within 10% of AA's even though DL has a much smaller percent of premium cabin seats. In order for DL's overall average fares to be so low, DL can't be taking a lot of premium cabin revenue - or else what they are taking is extraordinarily high yielding.

As for low yielding domestic cargo, the problem with cargo yields is int'l, not domestic.

DL's Caribbean average fares are almost identical to B6's which themselves are as high or higher on a per mile basis as the transcon fares.

given that AA's CASM for the most recent quarter was slightly less than DL's, it is hard to argue that DL can make money on JFK routes but AA cannot.

perhaps this is yet one more example of one man's trash is another's treasure.

 
It doesn't bother me - it's just amazing how everything DL does is perfect and everything AA does is a mistake
 
Focus on the DL board where you can sing their praises over the top
 
Each competitor has it's strenghts and weaknesses

 

[WorldTraveler]

I am simply noting that AA's strategic decision on JFK-LAX left an opening that DL chose to enter.

We have had umpteen people tell us on multiple occasions that market X wasn't worth the effort so AA left it, that customer Y's business isn't wanted so he should go somewhere else....

at what point is it worth fighting to make markets work, esp. when other companies can?

and if I could have predicted that the cargo market wouldn't shrink and that someone would have added capacity to the passenger market to replace what AA walked away from, why didn't AA mgmt.?

If it really is no loss to AA, then it should ruffle no one's feathers. If another competitor can make money doing what AA says it doesn't want, then it really is worth asking the question as to why AA, even with BK in sight (which is when many of the JFK decisions were made and before the merger was announced) decided that they couldn't or wouldn't compete in these markets.

And if AA really thinks that they can be a niche carrier in NYC without serving many of the same markets or market segments that other carriers serve, then the theory about whether it is possible to be a niche carrier in someone else's markets is valid.

but it is equally true that if so many AA people think that one segment or another of the NYC market isn't worth serving, then they shouldn't be surprised that AA has been reduced to half the size of its competitors in NYC.

For the record, UA chose that strategy at LGA and JFK in favor of their merger with CO which gave them a much larger and protected presence at EWR. In most LGA and JFK markets, UA has lost considerable market strength since their merger.

 

[jcw]

you still don't get it - they knew the cargo holds would not be able to carry the same payload - you act like it was a surprise - maybe they didn't want the cargo - maybe it wasn't profitable or maybe they felt they could make more money with their strategy - you are assuming the 321T is a disaster and is not making money - time will tell
 
At least I will give AA credit for trying something different
 
I don't think anyone is denying they are smaller in NYC - it is what it is and is working to make the most of it - it's not like they are going to get a huge amount of slots overnight to dramatically increase service
 
It's like beating a dead horse - we get your point