And the best transcon airline is...

[WorldTraveler]

dawg,
you argue that the schedule is a dummy schedule beyond a couple months but then want to be that DL will reduce JFK-SEA to less than 4 flights/day in the peak season and not use 757s.
I'll take you on with that bet. what do I get when I win? - and I absolutely will

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

9000 pounds PER FLIGHT. DL carried over 1.5 MILLION pounds more cargo between JFK and LAX AFTER AA dumped the 762s.

the notion that the 321 is a cheaper aircraft to operate is not only offset by the reduced seat count which AA put on it which makes the fuel burn per seat on the 321 very close to what it was on the 762 WHILE ALSO eliminating the cargo carrying capability that the 767 had.

in the meantime, DL's 763s on the transcon have just 10 less FC seats but 100 more total seats than AA has on the 321 and DL's 763s are very similarly configured to AA's int'l 767s.

so, instead of putting the 763s that had a competitive product on the transcons, AA put low density 321s and DL put 767s that are very similarly sized to AA's 767s resulting in a loss of share, higher cost per passenger, and a loss of the cargo revenue.

 

[737823]

WT explain this if cargo is so lucrative why have both AA and UA ended widebodies on the route? I know AA considered getting containerized cargo for the 321Ts but ultimately ruled against it as they were an inefficient use of space and are smallee than the LD2s the 762s carried.

Why is the DL 763 only an interim solution while the 752s get upgraded to a somewhat competitive C product?

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

I gave you my theory regarding why AA pulled the 762s.

My hunch is that they believed they could not replace the 762 service with 763s or they would flood the market with capacity and force down fares so they used the 321 strategy which allowed them to reduce capacity which they believed would allow fares to rise while retaining the highest paying passengers in the market.

the problem with their theory is that they could not predict what other carriers would do - in this case DL - which added capacity, used 763s anyway, and also managed to get the cargo traffic which AA was willing to give up in order to try to improve the passenger revenues.

get out of your mind that the 763s are an interim solution for DL on JFK-LAX. They are not going anywhere.

DL has more than enough 757s they could use for transcon routes if they wanted to; ATL-Brasilia has been upgraded to a 763 which effectively freed up two 757s.

the 763s have lower seat mile costs than the 757s and have the cargo capability that the 757s don't have. The 763 is a better aircraft to serve the transcon market than the 757, AA's 762s, or AA's 321s.

 

[737823]

I gave you my theory regarding why AA pulled the 762s.My hunch is that they believed they could not replace the 762 service with 763s or they would flood the market with capacity and force down fares so they used the 321 strategy which allowed them to reduce capacity which they believed would allow fares to rise while retaining the highest paying passengers in the market.the problem with their theory is that they could not predict what other carriers would do - in this case DL - which added capacity, used 763s anyway, and also managed to get the cargo traffic which AA was willing to give up in order to try to improve the passenger revenues.get out of your mind that the 763s are an interim solution for DL on JFK-LAX. They are not going anywhere.DL has more than enough 757s they could use for transcon routes if they wanted to; ATL-Brasilia has been upgraded to a 763 which effectively freed up two 757s.the 763s have lower seat mile costs than the 757s and have the cargo capability that the 757s don't have. The 763 is a better aircraft to serve the transcon market than the 757, AA's 762s, or AA's 321s.

I hope the non-revs are enjoying the BE seats.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

I doubt they are since there are very few of them that are going unsold.

what is happening is that DL is getting more money for its transcon BE seats than other carriers that free give away upgrades.

 

[eolesen]

My hunch is that they believed they could not replace the 762 service with 763s or they would flood the market with capacity and force down fares so they used the 321 strategy which allowed them to reduce capacity which they believed would allow fares to rise while retaining the highest paying passengers in the market.

Placing 763's in the market wouldn't have allowed AA to seriously improve the product to a level that surpassed VX and matched PS.

get out of your mind that the 763s are an interim solution for DL on JFK-LAX. They are not going anywhere.

Yep. And the 744's weren't being retired, either. How'd that prediction work out?

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA could absolutely have refurbished their 763s to improve the product. But since AA hasn't even bothered to put AVOD on their int'l 763s and only refurbed the business class cabin, yes, you are right that they couldn't have had a competitive product. Buying a new aircraft made more sense than to refurbish the ones they had.

uh, every aircraft will be retired at some point... acting that the 744 retirements is something that wasn't expected - or that I said otherwise - is what we would call a lie.

 

[mistified]

Yes I understand PER FLIGHT
 
WT
Do you think that 9000 lbs of cargo is a lot for a 767-300?

9000 pounds PER FLIGHT. DL carried over 1.5 MILLION pounds more cargo between JFK and LAX AFTER AA dumped the 762s.


 
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

of course it is far from a full load... but that in the case of DL is repeated 5X per day.

and it is the same amount of cargo that AA carried on its 762s.... it just happened to switch carriers.

just because either the 762 or 763 could carry more doesn't mean the market exists to fill the bellies or equally that it isn't worth carrying what is there.

 

[jcw]

right - we need to focus on cargo since the passenger experience is so sub par - DL can't match the 321T in terms of service - so divert to the cargo bay - I realize that is a great strategy by DL - you can't win in the passenger cabin so convert to focusing on cargo - great, great strategy!!!!!  Hail to DL!!!!!

 

[737823]

right - we need to focus on cargo since the passenger experience is so sub par - DL can't match the 321T in terms of service - so divert to the cargo bay - I realize that is a great strategy by DL - you can't win in the passenger cabin so convert to focusing on cargo - great, great strategy!!!!!  Hail to DL!!!!!

But if DL pulled widebodies and AA hadn't we'd be hearing that cargo is dying a business and what a waste on AA's part it would be.

Josh

 

[eolesen]

With the actual margins on domestic cargo, it's entirely possible that ~9,000 lbs of cargo may be costing DL more to move than they're making in revenue. But let's not confuse a good narrative with facts.

 

[WorldTraveler]

right - we need to focus on cargo since the passenger experience is so sub par - DL can't match the 321T in terms of service - so divert to the cargo bay - I realize that is a great strategy by DL - you can't win in the passenger cabin so convert to focusing on cargo - great, great strategy!!!!!  Hail to DL!!!!!

didn't say that. I said that all the great passenger amenities don't matter if they can't generate profits. AA took a plane with much lower fuel burn and reduced the number of seats to produce the same fuel burn per passenger as the 762s and also eliminated the cargo carrying capability.



and of course cargo makes no sense in the transcon market because AA doesn't bother to carry it any more.

no, the simple fact is that AA made a strategic blunder with their transcon strategy and I'm sure there will be AA people trying to defned it until Parker scraps the whole project and puts dozens of more seats on the aircraft.

and then they'll say he didn't know what he was doing.

 

[jcw]

But if DL pulled widebodies and AA hadn't we'd be hearing that cargo is dying a business and what a waste on AA's part it would be.

Josh

 
so true!

 

[WorldTraveler]

there would have to be some basis for supporting that fact - and given that AA, DL, and UA all are close in size in cargo carried, the cargo business obviously is still viable