American Airlines Wins a Futile Victory Over Delta ?
- Thread starter mistified
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #17
It's to a different airport hours later. It makes little to no sense to keep the passengers on AA vs put them on a JL flight. It's not an automation issue but rather logic. Let us know how it turns out. But AA has to announce they are flying to HND first.
Let's see DL has two big schedule changes coming up - shutting down LAX to LHR and EWR to LHR - oh wait - they are going to have to stop SEA to HND
I guess DL won't be able to get those SEA passengers to Tokyo
Interesting that AA won't be able to switch it's schedule in Tokyo however DL will be able to
Amazing double standard
I guess DL won't be able to get those SEA passengers to Tokyo
Interesting that AA won't be able to switch it's schedule in Tokyo however DL will be able to
Amazing double standard
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #20
since UA uses a 787 on LAX-NRT and DL uses a 767 on LAX-HND, actual schedules show that DL's 767 takes 35 minutes more - and yet DL has a higher average fare on both LAX-HND and LAX-NRT than UA has - so the aircraft type doesn't make any difference in revenue. IN fact, DL clearly does a better job with a slower aircraft so that argument doesn't work. and on the return, the difference is a whopping, hold on to your seats, FIVE minutes.
apparently the 767 can find the winds just as good as a 787 or any other aircraft.
so the average RT difference is 20 minutes.
And given that DL's system on-time is far higher than AA or UA's, the chances are much higher that a customer will actually get where they want on DL on-time.
And I still will bet that DL will upgrade LAX-HND to a larger aircraft and both the 333 and 777 are within minutes of a 787 in actual performance.
wanna pull another futile argument out of your backsides as to how DL will suffer because of AA's introduction to the HND market while DL will not only remain there but have NRT service - with the highest average fares on its own aircraft among US carriers.
apparently the 767 can find the winds just as good as a 787 or any other aircraft.
so the average RT difference is 20 minutes.
And given that DL's system on-time is far higher than AA or UA's, the chances are much higher that a customer will actually get where they want on DL on-time.
And I still will bet that DL will upgrade LAX-HND to a larger aircraft and both the 333 and 777 are within minutes of a 787 in actual performance.
wanna pull another futile argument out of your backsides as to how DL will suffer because of AA's introduction to the HND market while DL will not only remain there but have NRT service - with the highest average fares on its own aircraft among US carriers.
True, but AA's January filing (the one that really focused on the 777 for page after page after page), could have said "we plan to initiate the route with our 777 but anticipate replacing that 777 once our 787s begin flying," but AA didn't mention its 787 at all.eolesen said:
I agree completely. The 787 is not disadvantageous and in fact, in several ways, is superior to the old configuration 777. Still, starting the route on October 1 with a 787 would place AA in the same "broken promises" category as DL that AA spent dozens of pages complaining about in its recent HND filings. Probably won't ever make a difference in future route cases, but makes AA look somewhat foolish for having focused on its 777 so extensively in its filings.eolesen said:
If AA cancels its LAX-NRT flight, as expected, then the 777 on LAX-HND makes sense unless AA wants to reduce TYO capacity. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that AA retains LAX-NRT, then I would argue that the NRT flight should see the 787 while the HND flight should stay a 777 for a while.FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #23
The DOT won't object and there really is no issue regardless of what aircraft AA uses.
The 787 might have a modern business class cabin - even if the unorthodox reverse seats aren't attractive to some people - but AA simply does not have enough of them and the coach product is no better than other airlines' coach cabin - and some of those have wider seats.
The 777 is a large expensive aircraft for a route with questionable economics. AA can use its older 777s which do not have a competitive business class cabin or they can use a newer 777 - but there aren't that many of them - so AA has to pick its battles carefully and put the newly configured 777s where they can have the greatest impact.
AA simply does not have enough longhaul aircraft with current industry standard cabins and even fewer that have the right economics for this route. and new 787s will increasingly put the pressure on AA to find places for its 777-200 fleet or start parking them or accelerating 767 retirements and yet the 787s are replacing more 777 routes than 767 routes.
Ironically and tangentially, the 767 could become a very valuable aircraft for AA solely based on performance if the LGA perimeter rule is revised. Given that AA has committed to getting rid of the 767s, AA has the choice of using older 767s with uncompetitive cabins or using smaller 757s which could affect AA's ability to maintain share. The 787 is too large for LGA and the 767 might be a large aircraft for AA's gates but LGA can handle it.
Factor in that AA will be starting the LAX-HND route in the off-peak season and the economic challenges are very real.
If AA/JL decide to move JL's SFO-HND flight, the complexity of the decision and the risk is even larger. and it is also very possible that JL will suspend its SFO-HND route and reroute its passengers to AA over LAX which will improve economics of the AA flight and the open up DFW-HND which has been rumored, but then AA/JL are forced to start a DFW-Asia flight during the off-peak season but perhaps can help it get started by reducing DFW-NRT capacity. The best choice might be for AA to start LAX-HND when it can, JL to suspend its SFO-HND route, and for JL to start DFW-HND next spring - if the Japanese government will allow them to have a dormancy period on their HND service.
The 787 might have a modern business class cabin - even if the unorthodox reverse seats aren't attractive to some people - but AA simply does not have enough of them and the coach product is no better than other airlines' coach cabin - and some of those have wider seats.
The 777 is a large expensive aircraft for a route with questionable economics. AA can use its older 777s which do not have a competitive business class cabin or they can use a newer 777 - but there aren't that many of them - so AA has to pick its battles carefully and put the newly configured 777s where they can have the greatest impact.
AA simply does not have enough longhaul aircraft with current industry standard cabins and even fewer that have the right economics for this route. and new 787s will increasingly put the pressure on AA to find places for its 777-200 fleet or start parking them or accelerating 767 retirements and yet the 787s are replacing more 777 routes than 767 routes.
Ironically and tangentially, the 767 could become a very valuable aircraft for AA solely based on performance if the LGA perimeter rule is revised. Given that AA has committed to getting rid of the 767s, AA has the choice of using older 767s with uncompetitive cabins or using smaller 757s which could affect AA's ability to maintain share. The 787 is too large for LGA and the 767 might be a large aircraft for AA's gates but LGA can handle it.
Factor in that AA will be starting the LAX-HND route in the off-peak season and the economic challenges are very real.
If AA/JL decide to move JL's SFO-HND flight, the complexity of the decision and the risk is even larger. and it is also very possible that JL will suspend its SFO-HND route and reroute its passengers to AA over LAX which will improve economics of the AA flight and the open up DFW-HND which has been rumored, but then AA/JL are forced to start a DFW-Asia flight during the off-peak season but perhaps can help it get started by reducing DFW-NRT capacity. The best choice might be for AA to start LAX-HND when it can, JL to suspend its SFO-HND route, and for JL to start DFW-HND next spring - if the Japanese government will allow them to have a dormancy period on their HND service.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #25
wait a minute... we heard from others just a few posts ago that the 787 is a veritable rocket ship in its ability to cross the Pacific at a monumental advantage to a 767 - which actually turns out to be 20 minutes each way on average.
the value of 767s was a parenthetical insertion. You clearly missed the significance of its inclusion so you can just focus on the topic at hand.
the value of 767s was a parenthetical insertion. You clearly missed the significance of its inclusion so you can just focus on the topic at hand.
The tough part is the 787 is more efficient by a long shot over the 767 so there is no way it's even worth debating - the 767 normal cruise speed is 470 knots while the 787 is 490
Any one with strong analytical skills would understand that difference
So for the analytically challenged that about 4% faster that takes 30 mins off a 12 hour flight - we know that will be hard for some to understand but it's simple math
Any one with strong analytical skills would understand that difference
So for the analytically challenged that about 4% faster that takes 30 mins off a 12 hour flight - we know that will be hard for some to understand but it's simple math
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #30
DL does enjoy a revenue premium relative to the entire US airline industry. On the domestic system, DL gets 115% of the average fares that the US industry gets. On DL's entire system, it is about 107%.
other carriers don't release that statistic because they can't make the claim but it can easily be seen from each airline's financial reports which are publicly available.
And DL not only gets a revenue premium to the industry to Tokyo as a whole but also from Tokyo to LAX - for both NRT and HND.
You really should not make such bold statements when there is factual data to verify such statements.
other carriers don't release that statistic because they can't make the claim but it can easily be seen from each airline's financial reports which are publicly available.
And DL not only gets a revenue premium to the industry to Tokyo as a whole but also from Tokyo to LAX - for both NRT and HND.
You really should not make such bold statements when there is factual data to verify such statements.
- Status
Similar threads
