AA to operate 3 cabin 321s with lie flat first, business class

[tom barry]

World Traveler,
With regard to your post # 24 (I think), I agree that AA has to go back to some ' Nickles + Dimes', and since we're talking about the JFK/Lga airports, It's Jet Blue that I really think AA will go after. JFK and A-320's are just two compelling factors that I think matter here !

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, the question is how large is large enough in NYC. AA still serves most of the key business markets from LGA and JFK even if on Eagle and B6 has many of the leisure destinations covered. But if AA walks away from a large portion of the leisure market in the JFK-LAX market, why does anyone think they would be willing to continue to fight for their share of the leisure traffic such as NYC-Florida and the Caribbean? Before you say that it isn't worth going after alot of those leisure destinations, remember that there are alot of execs in NYC who live in or have 2nd houses in S. Florida or even the Caribbean.

Remember that AA has bought several carriers in the past that overlapped AA's networks or added to it in low fare regions of their network and AA ended up dismantling large portions of those airlines as well as what AA had in those regions as well - to the benefit of other carriers. I have yet to see that AA hasn't changed the mindset that your friend Bob laid out that you only need to serve the top business markets around the world. And that strategy has gotten AA to a distant #3 position in NYC - from which you propose rectifying by adding back alot of the leisure capacity which AA walked away from - and which could not be profitably flown even with AA's post BK cost structure.

B6 is a heavily leisure focused airline that exists and survives because its costs are much lower than any other large carrier making it possible to serve markets and passenger segments that would not be profitable for other carriers.

 

[mistified]

I think it's a mistake to replace the double aisle 767-200ER's with the A321 on the transcon flights. AA will lose customers to the competition because they will no longer have a standout product on those routes. IMHO a much better choice would have been the new 767-200ER's that will be rolling off the assembly line at Boeing for a very long time. From what I read the operating economics of those new planes are very good. Not quiet a 787 but close and and much cheaper to purchase. Not to mention that they could still haul a lot more cargo than the A-321.


mistified

 

[mistified]

I think it's a mistake to replace the double aisle 767-200ER's with the A321 on the transcon flights. AA will lose customers to the competition because they will no longer have a standout product on those routes. IMHO a much better choice would have been the new 767-200ER's that will be rolling off the assembly line at Boeing for a very long time. From what I read the operating economics of those new planes are very good. Not to mention that they could still haul a lot more cargo than the A-321

 

[kirkpatrick]

Fewer passengers/bags/seats/etc = less weight = lower fuel burn = the same amount of fuel will give a longer range.

Another point: the longer westbound flights almost always have good weather at the end negating the need for an alternate while the eastbound trips where weather at arrival is not as reliable are shorter.

MK

 

[eolesen]

I think it's a mistake to replace the double aisle 767-200ER's with the A321 on the transcon flights. AA will lose customers to the competition because they will no longer have a standout product on those routes. IMHO a much better choice would have been the new 767-200ER's that will be rolling off the assembly line at Boeing for a very long time. From what I read the operating economics of those new planes are very good. Not to mention that they could still haul a lot more cargo than the A-321

You do realize that there hasn't been a single delivery of a passenger 762ER in over 10 years, right? They've not built one since 2008, and that was a tanker for the Japanese military....

With the cabin density they're proposing, single aisle should be fine.

 

[FWAAA]

I'll admit that the reference to the new 762s being superior mystified me too. Why would AA replace very old technology with brand new editions of that very old technology?

LAN has been buying lots of new 763s in recent years, something that surprises me. There may be some very good reason for LAN doing what they're doing. but I don't understand it.

I like widebodies too, but I understand the economics behind skinnier single aisle planes. As we've discussed here before about the 75L between BOS/JFK and LHR or other European cities, once I close my eyes in business class, it doesn't matter how wide the cabin is.

 

[tom barry]

again, the question is how large is large enough in NYC. AA still serves most of the key business markets from LGA and JFK even if on Eagle and B6 has many of the leisure destinations covered. But if AA walks away from a large portion of the leisure market in the JFK-LAX market, why does anyone think they would be willing to continue to fight for their share of the leisure traffic such as NYC-Florida and the Caribbean? Before you say that it isn't worth going after alot of those leisure destinations, remember that there are alot of execs in NYC who live in or have 2nd houses in S. Florida or even the Caribbean.

Remember that AA has bought several carriers in the past that overlapped AA's networks or added to it in low fare regions of their network and AA ended up dismantling large portions of those airlines as well as what AA had in those regions as well - to the benefit of other carriers. I have yet to see that AA hasn't changed the mindset that your friend Bob laid out that you only need to serve the top business markets around the world. And that strategy has gotten AA to a distant #3 position in NYC - from which you propose rectifying by adding back alot of the leisure capacity which AA walked away from - and which could not be profitably flown even with AA's post BK cost structure.

B6 is a heavily leisure focused airline that exists and survives because its costs are much lower than any other large carrier making it possible to serve markets and passenger segments that would not be profitable for other carriers.

Good point(about B6 as it stands today).
IMO I believe AA (now) realizes that it needs to regain a certain % of the domestic market(s) it jettisoned out of NYC, AND further, realizes AE is Not the Answer, but B6 CERTAINLY could be !
B6 is in both airports(jfk/Lga) And HPN. B6 is running A320's/E-190/195(s) which ties in VERY nicely with AA's Large (enroute) Airbus Order.
With DL @ #1 in Kennedy, B6 @ # 2, and AA @ # 3, ...a AA/B6 'hook-up' jettisons DL to # 3 in JFK, and diminishes thier significance @ LGA. Should you and I hear that AA IS going after B6, the 'area' for debate will be virtually ZERO !

I could be wrong, though in this case I think Not. This phoney AA/BK gives AMR a Perfect opportunity to kill 5 birds with 1 stone(as it were), and Again, it's looking Very Much like B6 will be THE target.
AA digesting B6 would be like an 'appetizer', as opposed to the '9 course Meal' that DL had to swallow via NW.

 

[Kev3188]

LAN has been buying lots of new 763s in recent years, something that surprises me. There may be some very good reason for LAN doing what they're doing. but I don't understand it.

Cargo volume? Just a guess...

... once I close my eyes in business class, it doesn't matter how wide the cabin is.

Still the best IFE going...

 

[WorldTraveler]

SCL, LAN's home, is a fairly small market. The 763 is much better sized for a market the size of the markets in western S. America than the 332 which is the primary widebody in TAM's fleet. The 763 w/ winglets competes fairly well on costs and still can easily carry 40-50K pounds of cargo even on 4000 mile segments.
Latam says that they will make a decision on simplifying their longhaul fleet - apart from the 340s that were already planned to leave JJ's fleet.
BTW, TAM's in-flight magazine - which has alot of duplicate content with LAN's this month - features a series of articles about the newly formed holding company. They have side by side English and Portuguese or Spanish.

Tom,
Since AA and B6 combined plus AE operate about 55% of all JFK slots and 75% of all slots operated by the US carriers (since about 25% of JFK's slots are held by foreign airlines), there would be antitrust issues - the same ones that people want to raise if DL and AA attempted to merge. There would have to be divestitures.
It also doesn't change the fact that LGA is the preferred airport in the NYC area for every market that can be served from LGA with JFK and EWR vying for 2nd place for markets that are also served from LGA and JFK 2nd for markets that cannot be served from LGA.

B6 has a very small presence at LGA and half of their presence came from buying very high priced slots as part of the DL-US slot deal. AA still has enough slots at LGA that they could mount a reasonable defense on their own and combined w/ large RJs, that might be their salvation in NYC. If being largest does matter - and the jury is still out on that - then it is doubtful that AA plus anyone can grow large enough to mount a defense against DL at LGA now. If DL deploys a number of their 717s in LGA to provide a mainline product, then it will be even harder for anyone else to provide a competitive product.

It also still doesn't change that B6's non-fuel costs are about 10-15% lower than any of the network carriers - including what AA is proposing post BK - meaning it would be impossible for many of B6's flights to work under AA's cost structure. The only way you could keep B6 is if it were a separate subsidiary of AA and it isn't clear that the pilot contract would allow that.

NYC is no different than other parts of AA's network - they will be smaller than UA and DL no matter what mergers might take place (and that includes AA/US where there is certain to be rationalization of the networks which people use while arguing for the basis of the merger and then at the same time add AA and US' current size together to say they will be the largest).
AA has to figure out how to use what it has to generate maximum revenues and hang onto the highest revenue business in the industry.

Even with the announcement regarding JFK-LAX and the 321, there still isn't anything that says that AA can't do that... they just will be walking away from a significant portion of leisure customers in a market where AA has always been the largest. It is not known long-term if AA can be the brand of preference for premium customers while not fully competing for all of the leisure passengers.

If you believe that AA should go after B6 - even if they must resolve the antitrust issues - then you also have to believe that AA has to compete for every leisure passenger in the JFK transcon markets. Based on AA's strategy with the 321, they do not appear to be doing that.

 

[777 fixer]

You do realize that there hasn't been a single delivery of a passenger 762ER in over 10 years, right? They've not built one since 2008, and that was a tanker for the Japanese military....

With the cabin density they're proposing, single aisle should be fine.

If an airline were to order some -200ER I'm sure that Boeing would oblige. All were really talking about is removing 20 feet of fuselage. The KC-46 Tanker is based on the 767-200ER as well. Not that I think anyone is going to order a -200ER anytime soon.

 

[mistified]

You do realize that there hasn't been a single delivery of a passenger 762ER in over 10 years, right? They've not built one since 2008, and that was a tanker for the Japanese military....

With the cabin density they're proposing, single aisle should be fine.

And you do realize that Boeing has been awarded the contract to replace the US Air Force tanker fleet with the 767-200ER??This aircraft is not your mamas 767-200ER. One article I read compared the operating economics to the old 767 and the 787.
Conclusion: Much closer to the 787 for much less the price.

Big difference in precepton between double aisle and single aisle no matter the density. Especially with the high revenue hollywood crowd from LA. That is AA's bread and butter on the LAX-JFK transcons.
With the 321 they will be just like the "Waltons".

 

[WorldTraveler]

The problem with the 762 as a passenger aircraft is that it has almost all of the costs of a 763 but with about 40 less seats; thus, CASM on the 762 is one of the highest among current airliners. The 764 drove 763 CASMs down lower but the 764 didn't have the wing size necessary to do many of the missions the 332 can do - and the 332 easily won the 240 seat market.
The 763 is the smallest widebody that also has CASMs that are in the ballpark with other widebody airliners.

Boeing kept the 767 line open for years in order to win the Air Force refueling contract. As long as tankers are being built, it will probably still be possible to buy a passenger version if you want one... and the chances are that Boeing will sell them at substantial discounts.

It will still be interesting to see whether Latam chooses to ditch the 767 or the 332.... both have strong points - but they have indicted they don't need as many types as they have.

 

[tom barry]

SCL, LAN's home, is a fairly small market. The 763 is much better sized for a market the size of the markets in western S. America than the 332 which is the primary widebody in TAM's fleet. The 763 w/ winglets competes fairly well on costs and still can easily carry 40-50K pounds of cargo even on 4000 mile segments.
Latam says that they will make a decision on simplifying their longhaul fleet - apart from the 340s that were already planned to leave JJ's fleet.
BTW, TAM's in-flight magazine - which has alot of duplicate content with LAN's this month - features a series of articles about the newly formed holding company. They have side by side English and Portuguese or Spanish.

Tom,
Since AA and B6 combined plus AE operate about 55% of all JFK slots and 75% of all slots operated by the US carriers (since about 25% of JFK's slots are held by foreign airlines), there would be antitrust issues - the same ones that people want to raise if DL and AA attempted to merge. There would have to be divestitures.
It also doesn't change the fact that LGA is the preferred airport in the NYC area for every market that can be served from LGA with JFK and EWR vying for 2nd place for markets that are also served from LGA and JFK 2nd for markets that cannot be served from LGA.

B6 has a very small presence at LGA and half of their presence came from buying very high priced slots as part of the DL-US slot deal. AA still has enough slots at LGA that they could mount a reasonable defense on their own and combined w/ large RJs, that might be their salvation in NYC. If being largest does matter - and the jury is still out on that - then it is doubtful that AA plus anyone can grow large enough to mount a defense against DL at LGA now. If DL deploys a number of their 717s in LGA to provide a mainline product, then it will be even harder for anyone else to provide a competitive product.

It also still doesn't change that B6's non-fuel costs are about 10-15% lower than any of the network carriers - including what AA is proposing post BK - meaning it would be impossible for many of B6's flights to work under AA's cost structure. The only way you could keep B6 is if it were a separate subsidiary of AA and it isn't clear that the pilot contract would allow that.

NYC is no different than other parts of AA's network - they will be smaller than UA and DL no matter what mergers might take place (and that includes AA/US where there is certain to be rationalization of the networks which people use while arguing for the basis of the merger and then at the same time add AA and US' current size together to say they will be the largest).
AA has to figure out how to use what it has to generate maximum revenues and hang onto the highest revenue business in the industry.

Even with the announcement regarding JFK-LAX and the 321, there still isn't anything that says that AA can't do that... they just will be walking away from a significant portion of leisure customers in a market where AA has always been the largest. It is not known long-term if AA can be the brand of preference for premium customers while not fully competing for all of the leisure passengers.

If you believe that AA should go after B6 - even if they must resolve the antitrust issues - then you also have to believe that AA has to compete for every leisure passenger in the JFK transcon markets. Based on AA's strategy with the 321, they do not appear to be doing that.

OK, I'll agree that(if they so choose), AA could reinvigorate thier domestic/leisure markets out of LGA on thier own.
And as you say, 'Bigger isn't always best'
One thing I believe Profoundly is, that post BK, AA WILL be THE 'most profitable' Airline of all the US carriers out of JFK. (AA didn't build that Taj Mahal- T9- to be underutilized FOREVER) !
I could care less, if DL becomes THE # 1 OR most profitable carrier out of LGA. (Wonder how much $$ thier 'shuttle(s)' are bringing in these days, since my current employer AMTRAK, is 'Cleaning the Clocks' of both DL and US between BOS-NYC-WAS)

BUT, as with All things US commercial Aviation, TIME will TELL !

 

[eolesen]

Big difference in precepton between double aisle and single aisle no matter the density. Especially with the high revenue hollywood crowd from LA. That is AA's bread and butter on the LAX-JFK transcons.
With the 321 they will be just like the "Waltons".

Maybe, but the Hollywood crowd does just fine on a corporate jet. They aren't any larger than an RJ.... It's all about the seat. Put the right seat in, and the vast majority of the complaints go away. Able to sleep, they won't notice if they're on a single aisle or in the grocery aisle of a Walmart...

I'm sure the foamers and some flight attendants will miss the wide bodies, but most people won't. The balance sheet certainly won't.