And the best transcon airline is...

[FWAAA]

I disagree on PHL, I think BOS is more likely on 222/143. Especially with B6 bringing Mint in. The demographics and AA premium passenger loyalty is much stronger in BOS.

I agree that better premium seating on LAX-BOS makes sense, too. Especially if B6 begins flying its Mint A321s between BOS and LAX. IIRC, BOS-LAX was the last route to lose 3-class transcons when they were scaled back to just JFK-LAX/SFO in 2003. Throughout the 1990s, there were three daily 3-class 767s between BOS and LAX.

 

[topDawg]

WT why does DL feel the need to "give away product" (your words) on the JFK-SEA market? They are the only carrier offering it and SEA isn't a traditional premium transcon market like LAX & SFO.

Josh

fwiw Delta is slowly pulling back on the BizE on SEA-JFK. 
 
At one point it was 2 or 3 75E and 1x 76L, 
 
its now down to 2x 75E 2x 75X. 
 
goes to 2x 738 1x 75X 1x 75E next month then 2x 738 1x 75E in DEC

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

 
Would that data include 13,000 posts?

 
Yep, the 13,000 posts, *and* the 4,100 downmods

 

[WorldTraveler]

fwiw Delta is slowly pulling back on the BizE on SEA-JFK. 
 
At one point it was 2 or 3 75E and 1x 76L, 
 
its now down to 2x 75E 2x 75X. 
 
goes to 2x 738 1x 75X 1x 75E next month then 2x 738 1x 75E in DEC

which is nothing more than reflecting the seasonality of the local market.

the fact that DL has fewer seats in coach doesn't change the need for a premium cabin on the flights that connect to Asia.

You do realize that DL does the same thing at JFK every year... for 3 months or more, the domestic feed for 2+ banks of int'l flights is reduced. many markets lose 1 or more flights/day to JFK between the summer and winter.

and AA does the exact same thing on the transcons with a reduced schedule on Saturday - practically year round.

matching supply to demand is what ANY airline does.

 

[jcw]

That's right if DL adjusts capacity for a seasonal adjustment it's OK if AA does that it's not - we get it only DL makes good moves
 
It keeps going right by you that DL continues to struggle in SEA with multiple cut backs in capacity

 

[WorldTraveler]

once again, you completely miss the point.

IF AA adjusted its capacity DOWN as DL and other carriers did it would be GREAT

Nowhere did I criticize AA for removing capacity from Europe during the winter as it is doing

My criticism of AA is in leaving capacity into markets where it loses money - and DOT data confirms that is what is happening.

in the case of the transcons, AA is puling capacity from the coach market while throwing it into the premium cabins even as fares in the premium cabins are falling faster - or rising less - than in the overall market all the while doing little to change overall costs because they are offsetting reduced capacity with more frequency which only works if you can demonstrate much higher fares.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

in the case of the transcons, AA is puling capacity from the coach market while throwing it into the premium cabins ... ... ...

 
I just have a comment about some of the drama from WTs rants about AA's draconian cuts to econ cabin and the largesse premium cabins on the transcons:  it has already been pointed out to him on several occasions that the reduction in econ seats was 19% (not the 40% or the 33% he claimed as fact) and the huge increase in the premium cabin seats is 8%.
 
You'd figure that somebody whose career in the aviation industry spanned several decades would grasp simple basic numbers or once they're corrected would stop repeating made-up "facts" like a parrot.  I guess the Whole Truth is a little difficult to realize if one has a biased narrative to peddle.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I would think that someone who is really intent on proving that I am wrong would be capable of countering the principle including that I have noted that the actual numbers are irrelevant unless you can put them in a discussion.

how can you explain a 44% increase in frequencies and the costs associated with them when one of the stated intentions of the 321Ts was to reduce costs. If AA has increased frequency, offset much if not all of the benefit of switching from 762s to 321s, and cut capacity, where is the financial advantage, esp. in a market where average fares are growing slower than the industry = and slower than AA's increase in costs?

and, where have I repeated 33% after it was pointed out that it was 19%?

 

[topDawg]

which is nothing more than reflecting the seasonality of the local market.

if it was loaded as a seasonal change I would agree. 
 
but its not. right now its loaded as is as far out as one can look. It is very possible that the 4th flight comes back but I bet its on an airplane with regular F
 

the fact that DL has fewer seats in coach doesn't change the need for a premium cabin on the flights that connect to Asia.

The flights that connect to Asia. Why do you keep saying that? 
 
The Delta flight that has the 75E on it lands in SEA at 1930ish 
 
HKG,NRT,PEK,PVG,ICN are all gone by 1600........ So unless they can time travel or you mean that they connect by taking an over night stop then no, it is not for Asia connections. 
 
now the JFK-SEA 738 that comes in around 1200 works out for some connections. (PEK, PVG, HKG) but not for others (ICN/NRT) 
 

You do realize that DL does the same thing at JFK every year... for 3 months or more, the domestic feed for 2+ banks of int'l flights is reduced. many markets lose 1 or more flights/day to JFK between the summer and winter.

no, Delta doesn't pull C/Y aircraft off of JFK-SFO/LAX in the off season. 
 

and AA does the exact same thing on the transcons with a reduced schedule on Saturday - practically year round.

 
err what? 
 
What days does AA pull the A321T off of JFK-LAX/SFO? I can't find any......they reduce Saturday frequency but guess what, so does Delta. (JFK-LAX goes to 5 flights from 8 JFK-SFO 4 from 6)   
 
 
For those that wanna know AA goes from 13 to 12 on JFK-LAX and 5 to 5 on JFK-SFO on Saturdays. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

since this thread is about AA's JFK-transcon service and not DL's JFK-SEA service, let's just note that if you check DL's schedule for May 2015 and beyond it is ALL 757 int'l even if the connectivity on the JFK-SEA BE flight that is offered during the dead of winter is biased toward the JFK rather than the SEA hub.

also, let's not confuse reducing capacity overall which happens with nearly all airlines to the Pacific NW but also happens as you note on the transcons.

given that AA is already the smallest airline of the big 3 on JFK-SFO, they really can't cut any deeper without being out of the game for good.

remember that the JFK transcons were historically the domain of AA and UA; DL never was much of a force in them until the Pan Am acquisition and it still took them years to decide it was worth pursuing the market at levels of service and with a product that is comparable to what is flown out of JFK rather than the 2 cabin domestic transcon schedule which is more common at EWR.

thus, talking about AA's position in the JFK transcon markets really involves just LAX since AA's schedule to SFO has fallen so much that they are not only #4 out of 4 in the JFK-SFO local market not just in seat share but also revenue share.

as of the most recent DOT data, PHX and LAX are the only two western US markets where AA/US has a share and average fare advantage to DL.

 

[eolesen]

how can you explain a 44% increase in frequencies and the costs associated with them when one of the stated intentions of the 321Ts was to reduce costs. If AA has increased frequency, offset much if not all of the benefit of switching from 762s to 321s, and cut capacity, where is the financial advantage, esp. in a market where average fares are growing slower than the industry = and slower than AA's increase in costs?

We've been thru this before. It's lower overall cost to fly the 44% more frequencies using smaller aircraft. You wind up with fewer flight attendants, a slight increase in pilot hours, but the real driver is far greater fuel efficiency. The 762 winds up looking horribly inefficient when you consider how much dead weight it can carry compared to the 321T.

It's not a new equation -- the same logic often dictated using two 727's leaving within 45 minutes of each other on ORD-LGA and DFW-LGA vs. a single frequency with a DC10.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

We've been thru this before. It's lower overall cost to fly the 44% more frequencies using smaller aircraft. You wind up with fewer flight attendants, a slight increase in pilot hours, but the real driver is far greater fuel efficiency. The 762 winds up looking horribly inefficient when you consider how much dead weight it can carry compared to the 321T.It's not a new equation -- the same logic often dictated using two 727's leaving within 45 minutes of each other on ORD-LGA and DFW-LGA vs. a single frequency with a DC10.

NWA used to use the same "wingtip" flight model on some of its hub-hub and high density routes. They did it with 757-757, or 757-320, rather than tie up a DC-10 on the route. If needed they could drop one of them on any given day and utilize the capacity on the system.

 

[WorldTraveler]

We've been thru this before. It's lower overall cost to fly the 44% more frequencies using smaller aircraft. You wind up with fewer flight attendants, a slight increase in pilot hours, but the real driver is far greater fuel efficiency. The 762 winds up looking horribly inefficient when you consider how much dead weight it can carry compared to the 321T.

It's not a new equation -- the same logic often dictated using two 727's leaving within 45 minutes of each other on ORD-LGA and DFW-LGA vs. a single frequency with a DC10.

except that you still can't grasp that AA has fewer seats flying under its new schedule than it had using 767s.

sure, costs go down but pilot time goes UP by the same amount of new frequencies. 321 pilots might make a bit less than the 767 pilots under BK but when you add back pay increases, it isn't much. further, adding 40% more frequencies offsets a major portion of the fuel burn advantage.

and again, the 767 - at least in the 300 version - can easily carry 9000 pounds of cargo per flight because that is exactly what they are doing for DL.

so the extra weight is not dead weight at all.

and DLs 763s carry twice the number of total passengers with the only difference being the lack of a FC cabin which DL doesn't believe generates the revenue necessary to cover the extra costs.

further, US DOT data for ACTUAL usage is available for US airlines and the 763 burns about 1600 gal/hr of fuel, the 762 burnt about 1400, and the 321 burns 900.

in the seat configurations that AA is using, the 321 burns slightly less fuel per seat than the 762s but MORE than the 763s that DL uses.

when you factor in the cargo that AA carried on the 762s but doesn't now but DL does on the 763s, then the argument about decreased costs simply doesn't fly... even more so considering that the 321s cost a whole lot more than the 762s.

so, let's dispense with the argument that the 321s are lower cost aircraft. they simply are not.

AA's reasoning could only have been that by adding far more frequencies, they would increase their dominance of the market esp. among high fare paying customers - but so far there is no evidence that has happened, esp. since average premium cabin fares on the transcons are not increasing at the same level as coach seats.

AA might prove in time that its strategy is working from a financial perspective but so far the evidence doesn't support it.

 

[mistified]

If Delta is only carrying 9000 pounds of cargo on the 767-300 LAX-JFK, then they are far short of what AA carried on same route with their 767-200.

Mistified

 

[topDawg]

since this thread is about AA's JFK-transcon service and not DL's JFK-SEA service,

no no no. 
Doesn't work that way champ. You can't go mister subject change on me because your wrong and cant man up and admit it. 
 
You got sloppy and didn't look at a timetable before posting. Delta isn't running the 75E on JFK-SEA for Asia. You said it, now admit how wrong you are. 

 

let's just note that if you check DL's schedule for May 2015 and beyond it is ALL 757 int'l even if the connectivity on the JFK-SEA BE flight that is offered during the dead of winter is biased toward the JFK rather than the SEA hub.

come on WT. if you really worked in Network then you know how useless that is. May is all dummy schedule. APR6th is the last day of the live schedule. 
 
When it updates next week how much you wanna bet that they extend 2x 738 1x 757?

 

also, let's not confuse reducing capacity overall which happens with nearly all airlines to the Pacific NW but also happens as you note on the transcons.

lol. 
So now its seasonal. Okay......so then they didn't last year why exactly? 
 

given that AA is already the smallest airline of the big 3 on JFK-SFO, they really can't cut any deeper without being out of the game for good.

they have one less flight but have more C seats than DL (and clearly more F seats) on the route. 
 

remember that the JFK transcons were historically the domain of AA and UA; DL never was much of a force in them until the Pan Am acquisition and it still took them years to decide it was worth pursuing the market at levels of service and with a product that is comparable to what is flown out of JFK rather than the 2 cabin domestic transcon schedule which is more common at EWR.

okay and 70 years ago Delta had an all prop fleet. 
 
None of that means anything now. 
 
JFK-SEA on all(mostly) BizE aircraft failed. It was a good try but it has failed. 
 

thus, talking about AA's position in the JFK transcon markets really involves just LAX since AA's schedule to SFO has fallen so much that they are not only #4 out of 4 in the JFK-SFO local market not just in seat share but also revenue share.

Again, AA has one less flight than Delta and more C seats. they aren't flooding the market with Y seats because they want the F and C seats in the market but not a ton of Y seats when the route has so much capacity. (and LCC flights that will probably do better in the Y market over the big three anyways) 
 

as of the most recent DOT data, PHX and LAX are the only two western US markets where AA/US has a share and average fare advantage to DL.

okay.........good for them? 
 
I hate avg. fare. That is such a useless stat.