AA downgrades LAX-PVG and LAX-GRU to 787s, 777s move to Europe
- Thread starter WorldTraveler
- Start date
- Status
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #17
jealous for having so many widebodies on order that they can't find a place to put them and are shuffling high CASM larger aircraft around.
Again, you do see the irony of boasting about AA's progress in the Pacific and the need to use smaller, lower CASM aircraft only to send the 777s to Europe and routes where AA underperfoms the competition and even to markets like BCN where AA does well but where the 777 will be the highest CASM aircraft in the market?
Again, you do see the irony of boasting about AA's progress in the Pacific and the need to use smaller, lower CASM aircraft only to send the 777s to Europe and routes where AA underperfoms the competition and even to markets like BCN where AA does well but where the 777 will be the highest CASM aircraft in the market?
I love how AA is using its new widebodies exactly as has long been predicted, and offseting its widebody backlog by steadily retiring its older 767s, and this somehow means that AA "can't find a place" for 777s. Right. On the subject of the 777s, I'll be curious to see what the CASM on these aircraft is once they're reconfigured to 2-class (my prediction: CASM will go down).
Indeed. The comedic value of these and other diatribes is absolutely priceless.
MAH4546 said:
Indeed. The comedic value of these and other diatribes is absolutely priceless.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #19
Of course AA's CASM on the 772s will go down but since the 772 weighs 50K pounds more than the 333 which seats about the same amount of passengers and uses about 20% more fuel, the 777 is a suboptimal aircraft. Since AA now operates 333s, it knows that and it also knows the 777 is too much airplane for many of these routes in the winter.
So, no, AA's supposed intent was to replace 767s with 787s and it is now turning out that the 787s are being used to make the Pacific work - and pushing the 777s to markets where the long-term success rate there isn't any better than it was on the Pacific.
I didn't expect you would admit to the irony if you are able to see it.
So, no, AA's supposed intent was to replace 767s with 787s and it is now turning out that the 787s are being used to make the Pacific work - and pushing the 777s to markets where the long-term success rate there isn't any better than it was on the Pacific.
I didn't expect you would admit to the irony if you are able to see it.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #22
AA has announced to the world what its intentions are with its fleet - at least for the next year.
The 777 is still a viable aircraft - but on routes where lower CASM aircraft can do the job, the 777 is at a disadvantage.
Given that AA's Pacific and longhaul Latin strategy is to remove the 777 in favor of the lower CASM, smaller 787. it is obvious that AA has to move its 777s to other parts of its network where the 777 is less ideal than on the Pacific where 6000 mile plus segments make use of the 777's capabilities and the highest cost to operate those segments - and that is how DL and UA are using their 777s.
The 777 is still a viable aircraft - but on routes where lower CASM aircraft can do the job, the 777 is at a disadvantage.
Given that AA's Pacific and longhaul Latin strategy is to remove the 777 in favor of the lower CASM, smaller 787. it is obvious that AA has to move its 777s to other parts of its network where the 777 is less ideal than on the Pacific where 6000 mile plus segments make use of the 777's capabilities and the highest cost to operate those segments - and that is how DL and UA are using their 777s.
- Status
