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

[mistified]

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.

Bringing a cooperate jet into the comparision is apples to oranges.
Because in that circumstance you aren't usually sharing the space with strangers.

 

[care2purchasefood?]

What a joke ToHo is!

 

[Kev3188]

What's ToHo?

 

[WorldTraveler]

What's ToHo?

Tom Horton?

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 !

I can consider the possibility of AA as "most profitable" at JFK - but I have to ask how. AA's business plan is based on a CASM that it says will be almost identical to DL's. On an overall JFK and NYC (3 airports) basis, AA and DL carry local traffic w/ very comparable average fares. UA is only a valid comparison on a city level based on its smaller size at LGA and JFK but they still outperform on average fare by a few percent - undoubtedly because of their greater number of int'l routes.
AA could and probably will end up as the highest margin airline on the transcons by using the lowest cost aircraft to move 100 people per flight who are willing to pay the highest fares in the market.
But that is not the sum total of the market by any means. On a NYC total basis, DL and UA are much larger and serve more markets. The question is whether that translates into greater ability to serve high value corporate traffic rather than just the known high value passengers in a couple very large markets.

As for the Shuttle, DL is probably breaking even by using smaller aircraft; they had the option to move the Shuttle over to the main terminal and create connections w/ other flights as US has done for years but they chose not to do that. Presumably, the US Shuttle which has been dependent on connections will see a bigger revenue drop w/ the pull down of their non-hub LGA flying.

The Shuttle IS a market where the train should be able to command a market share premium - but it is one of the very few markets in the country where train service is a viable alternative to air service - and Amtrak is heavily subsidized.

The United States made the decision post WWII to build a transportation network based on highways and airports - and the US has the largest, most modern, and most efficient airport and highway system in the world. Other countries, much more densely populated, focused on rail - and it was heavily subsidized for years, esp. if you include the buildout of the system - and it is still subsidized in some countries.
The US doesn't have the resources to build rail systems - either intra- or intercity - to compete against large and efficient transportation systems which already work. The US does have the abililty to maintain and increase the efficiency of the systems we do have such as thru upgrades to our air traffic control system.

 

[Bob Owens]

Tom Horton?


I can consider the possibility of AA as "most profitable" at JFK - but I have to ask how. AA's business plan is based on a CASM that it says will be almost identical to DL's. On an overall JFK and NYC (3 airports) basis, AA and DL carry local traffic w/ very comparable average fares. UA is only a valid comparison on a city level based on its smaller size at LGA and JFK but they still outperform on average fare by a few percent - undoubtedly because of their greater number of int'l routes.
AA could and probably will end up as the highest margin airline on the transcons by using the lowest cost aircraft to move 100 people per flight who are willing to pay the highest fares in the market.
But that is not the sum total of the market by any means. On a NYC total basis, DL and UA are much larger and serve more markets. The question is whether that translates into greater ability to serve high value corporate traffic rather than just the known high value passengers in a couple very large markets.

You seem to forget Fees and that the space under the cabin can carry a lot of stuff call Cargo.At one time the passengers were considered supplimental revenue.

AA runs a trip from RDU to London for the most part to carry freight.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I didn't forget about cargo at all... I mentioned in this thread about the cargo capacity that is being lost in the transcons.

AA carries far more than just cargo on their RDU-LHR flight. It has well above average fares compared to the whole rest of the US to LHR, even though RDU is in the eastern part of US. AA has valuable corporate contracts that justify its RDU-LHR flight. No US passenger carry could make a flight work on the basis of "for the most part to carry freight." If the revenue was primarily cargo, AA - or any other passenger airline - wouldn't put an expensive premium configured passenger aircraft with a dozen crew members to carry a bunch of cargo.