While 763 to Moscow during the winter is possible, AA would ideally like to have revert back to a 772 for the summer if that happens. There is healthy F-class demand to Moscow, and full-fare paying, too.
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
AMR Corporation Announces Initial Round of Capacity Reductions
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
While 763 to Moscow during the winter is possible, AA would ideally like to have revert back to a 772 for the summer if that happens. There is healthy F-class demand to Moscow, and full-fare paying, too.
Last time I checked, ORD-EZE wasn't daily. In fact, it's only 4x weekly. In terms of weekly aircraft scheduling, it takes up only "1.5" aircraft, not 2.
Quite simple.
LAX-LHR, for example, uses "1.5" aircraft. One plane can't operate the same flight round-trip in 24 hours, but it can be done in about 30 hours. So that, in scheduling lingo, becomes "1.5" aircraft rather than two. That then means that another route that only needs "1.5" aircraft (i.e. LAX-NRT) can be combined with a route that uses 1.5 aircraft, and this pair of routes, properly scheduled, can be flown using only three aircraft, rather than four. Over a daily schedule, it happens when three airplanes can operate two long-haul routes over a roughly 48 hour period.
Similarly, a route like ORD-EZE, when looked at over the course of the entire week, only operates 4x weekly uses "1.5" aircraft over the course of a week, because it doesn't need 2 aircraft every single day, but rather only four days of the week. So when scheduled over the course of the week, it is considered as only taking up "1.5" aircraft out of the system, and can be combined with other routes in a situation where, again, only three airplanes are needed to operate two long-haul routes over a roughly 48-60 hour period.
Aircraft scheduling for long-haul flights is looked at in 48 hour blocks or weekly terms, not daily.
Argentina frequencies are worthless since the U.S. and Argentina doubled the amount of flights permitted between the two countries last year. AA can let them sit dormant for a very long time.
LGA Fleet Service
Veteran
- Banned
- #22
In the coming weeks, AMR will continue to make additional schedule reductions in other markets and will assess the location- and route-specific impacts of those changes. This will be done to achieve plans to reduce AMR's fourth quarter mainline domestic capacity by 11 percent to 12 percent compared to 2007 levels and its fourth quarter regional affiliate capacity by 10 percent to 11 percent compared to 2007. Fourth quarter consolidated system capacity is expected to decline 7 percent to 8 percent year over year, including capacity reductions that were announced earlier this year.
To effect these changes, AMR plans to retire 40-45 mainline aircraft (mostly MD-80s and some Airbus A300s) and 35-40 regional jets. In an effort to significantly reduce costs, American Eagle also will retire its Saab fleet by the end of the year.
To effect these changes, AMR plans to retire 40-45 mainline aircraft (mostly MD-80s and some Airbus A300s) and 35-40 regional jets. In an effort to significantly reduce costs, American Eagle also will retire its Saab fleet by the end of the year.
CubsFanJohn
Advanced
- Mar 30, 2008
- 227
- 0
I thought the 777 from that route was going to fly a South America run during the winter.
ORD-DME was originally supposed to be a 763. I thought they determined it was impossible due to possible pilot legality issues and, ultimately, their use of the metric system. What's the real story there?
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 584
- Banned
- #26
<_< -------- The 763's have the new seats in first, the 762's don't. We 've heard we are supposed to start the conversion here at MCIE, but haven't heard anything as late. With todays economy, do you feel they will still be converted?
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
After all that dough they wasted partying up the Stansted service. That route was destined to die anyway.
At the rate changes are being announced, both San Juan AND Chicago will become destination cities only. I didn't think even AA was dumb enough to actually kill a hub right now but it looks like it just might happen with ORD. On top of that, ORDs loss could take care of the bulk of their head count reductions as well.
Moscow is a super hot market right now and AA would do well to put nice tin with nice seats on that route and GET RID of those clunky old 76s on that route - slip a newer trip-7 on it and make some money!
AA also needs to heavily restrict aadvantage flying on new markets for at least the first six months. Those plats will suck the profits dry on a new market if you aren't careful. AA could do some serious business with Moscow if they play their cards right and they damn well better be putting Russian Vodka on those planes too! :wacko: Anything Cristall, perhaps a nice Putinka!
At the rate changes are being announced, both San Juan AND Chicago will become destination cities only. I didn't think even AA was dumb enough to actually kill a hub right now but it looks like it just might happen with ORD. On top of that, ORDs loss could take care of the bulk of their head count reductions as well.
Moscow is a super hot market right now and AA would do well to put nice tin with nice seats on that route and GET RID of those clunky old 76s on that route - slip a newer trip-7 on it and make some money!
AA also needs to heavily restrict aadvantage flying on new markets for at least the first six months. Those plats will suck the profits dry on a new market if you aren't careful. AA could do some serious business with Moscow if they play their cards right and they damn well better be putting Russian Vodka on those planes too! :wacko: Anything Cristall, perhaps a nice Putinka!
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,945
- 9,372
Wing, I don't know how you managed to equate pulling a couple flights out of ORD as the death of the hub... It's still the best place operationally and geographically to try and funnel traffic to/from Europe into the rest of the AA network. JFK's a shorter flying distance, but the congestion issues at JFK dwarf that at ORD, especially with new runway capacity coming online at ORD within the immediate future.
Not too surprising. There will always be demand in/out of LHR than at LTN or STN because of the connecting opportunities.
Silverjet (the remaining all-J operator based out of London) had trading on their shares halted last week because of funding issues, so they may be teetering on the edge of a shutdown.
Not too surprising. There will always be demand in/out of LHR than at LTN or STN because of the connecting opportunities.
Silverjet (the remaining all-J operator based out of London) had trading on their shares halted last week because of funding issues, so they may be teetering on the edge of a shutdown.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
That's too bad. I have an AAward flight booked for Aug. returning to JFK via STN (LHR was too expensive mileage wise).
I wonder if JFK-STN comes back only if there is another MaxJet or EOS? So does STN now qualify as Europe's Love Field?
WingNaPrayer
Veteran
I'm not equating it as the death of ORD, but I have a feeling there are a lot more ORD cancellations to come and again, I see it as a destination city down the road. It would be a drastic move but I don't think UAUA is going to be a competitor worth worring about in the not too distant future and when that becomes the case, AA doesn't need to maintain as much of a hub in ORD.
AA would do well to focus on it's coasts (LAX/JFK) and the southern pair (DFW/MIA). DFW needs to stop being an international departure city and let the other three handle it. I had long thought that DFW should be AA's domestic hub, MIA the Caribbean/Latin America hub, and LAX the hub for points west of the continental USA and JFK the hub for points east of the continental USA. All three of those hubs need a domestic central location to feed them. At some point, Chicago may seem like a spare, like having an extra roll of paper towels hanging around just in case.
Chicago does have it's own air traffic problems, things aren't so rosey their either. At least MIA has back up runways at their disposal for emergencies with FLL and WPB, and Dallas has LOVE or even Houston if they needed it. LAX has back ups all around them as does JFK with LGA just around the corner almost. Chicago doesn't really have that. Sure, they have midway but even it is at or near capacity with it's own set of multi-faceted problems. If a hub were to be let go, or drastically reduced, ORD would be it.
Just opinion at this point but I'm sure everyone is keeping an eye out at their own nearest hub waiting with baited breath while AA hashes over head count issues.
