And the best transcon airline is...

[DNTULSA]

WT,
 
I just don't understand,
 
How did Delta ever let a treasure like you get away?

 

[WorldTraveler]

people have free choice.

 

[jcw]

Well let's see - I'm sure no one at AA realized a 321 was smaller than a 767 for cargo so they just let cargo go

What no one can prove is was the cargo flying profitable - just because cargo is flying does not mean it's profitable

DL recently cut capacity on some routes and WT reported as managing capacity for profitability - knowing that there is over capacity on the JFK-LAX route we should assume DL is mismanaging their capacity on this route

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

there are indeed hard numbers.

there are relatively few markets in which any passenger US carrier carriers more than 2 million pounds of freight per month; JFK-LAX was one of those. The market is enormous.

AA operated 9 767 flights/day. 2+ million pounds per month comes out to about 75,000 pounds per day or less than 10K per flight. In many months, the total cargo was over 2.5 million pounds... when you carry ON AVERAGE 9K pounds of cargo on 9 flts/day, the numbers add up fast.
 

 
Lets step back and have a closer look at this DL cargo domination.
 
If your numbers are correct - and given your lackluster math skills and penchant for data fabrication - I don't know is they are but for the sake of argument lets assume so:
2 million pounds of freight / month works out to on average less than 67000 pounds per day. 
That should work out to about 19-20 LD3 containers (3500 pounds per LD3 container).
Or about 25 LD2 containers (2700 pounds per LD2 container).
 
So it would look like AA walked away from 20-25 containers of cargo.  Money left behind?  Sure.  Worth the expense of operating the 767 (more costly in terms of fuel and old cabin product) on the route just to carry those ~20 LD3  or 25 LD2 containers per day?  Questionable, IMHO. How many 767s does it take to transport that cargo?  AA was flying 9 daily.  Wise use of resources?
 
Lets look at bragging about 9000 pounds of cargo
On average that would be 3-4 containers.  Doesn't the 767 hold at least 20-30?
 
Shocking istn't it that hose numbers sure don't add up that fast as some would have you believe!
 
There is your Whole Truth.
 
BTW:  since AA has switched from the B767 to A321 on the transcons less than a year ago it just amazes me on how one can make conclusions on data from such a relatively small time point.  Good thing you're only an expert on the internet and not a scientist of any capacity.
 
PS.  I'm assuming my numbers regarding the LD3 and LD2 containers are correct.  If not I apologize and somebody please correct.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

"Fuel burn per seat" is an entirely worthless measure, especially if you're not able to extract a premium for it.

 
It's just another WT made-up metric, virtually useless in the real world, but handy when trying to sell a narrative.  All hail DL!

 

[WorldTraveler]

you can't seem to grasp that AA took the cost savings it would get from eliminating 762s and then increase frequencies on 321s which offset much of the cost savings... and then they lost the cargo capability.

if the 321 really carried the number of passengers that the 321 carried, then it would have made sense.

instead, AA replaced the 762s with aircraft that were configured to burn the same amount of fuel per passenger, added back flights, still ended up giving part of the passenger market to other carriers (of which DL was just one part) and part of the cargo market to DL which gained about 90% of it.

feel free to believe that losing any revenue - above or below wing is insignificant. in a market as highly competitive as NYC is, for AA to lose anything and give it to another carrier is a loss that has implications for a far larger portion of AA's operation - esp. given that AA has been cutting NYC for years.

ignoring the truth and trying to say it is bastardized because you don't like it says a whole lot more about you than me.

 

[jcw]

Please post the DL and aa income statements for the ny la market then we can discuss your assumptions only those specific city pairs

Until then it's all guesses on your parr

Sorry that no one can believe anything you say as you created a persona that has got you kicked off message boards and such biased posts your approach is suspect to any analysis you dream up

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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.

 

you can't seem to grasp that AA took the cost savings it would get from eliminating 762s and then increase frequencies on 321s which offset much of the cost savings... and then they lost the cargo capability.

 
WRONG (as usual). 
Using the numbers you yourself provided, even with the added frequencies with the A321s, it looks like that AA uses at least 8% LESS fuel (even more given their low density seating configuration).
There's your Whole Truth.
 
With respect to the cargo, like I said, it is money left behind, but I'm pretty sure it didn't make financial sense for AA to keep the 767s so that they could, on average, haul 20-25 containers of cargo.
 
Twisting the truth, fabricating definitions (and perhaps even outright lying?) to justify an obsession says a whole lot about you, your mental state, your personality and character, than me.

 

[dfw gen]

 
when you are obsessed with the best, keep it close!

 

[WorldTraveler]

WRONG (as usual). 
Using the numbers you yourself provided, even with the added frequencies with the A321s, it looks like that AA uses at least 8% LESS fuel (even more given their low density seating configuration).
There's your Whole Truth.
 
With respect to the cargo, like I said, it is money left behind, but I'm pretty sure it didn't make financial sense for AA to keep the 767s so that they could, on average, haul 20-25 containers of cargo.
 
Twisting the truth, fabricating definitions (and perhaps even outright lying?) to justify an obsession says a whole lot about you, your mental state, your personality and character, than me.

I've twisted nothing.

repeat the same exercise for pilots, FAs, and OH don't forget the lease payments - and then factor in maintenance.

perhaps you can show me but I doubt very seriously that replacing the 762s with A321s and then increasing frequencies back up eliminates MOST of the cost savings.

and you fail to factor in that AA's capacity has still gone down by 20%.

perhaps you can show me how it all comes out profitable, including the loss of 2 million pounds of cargo

 

[silverbird007]

 
when you are obsessed with the best, keep it close!

Very funny, but very sad too. Ill bet there are Delta toys hanging from the ceiling in every room!

 

[mistified]

The 321T's are averaging about 30,000 lbs per day LAX-JFK or about 900,000 lbs a month.
 
That equates to 36% of what you claim Delta now carries and that AA gave up (2.0 million lbs). Not 10%.
 
Which means that AA gave up 64% (not 90%).
 
Which means AA use to carry 2.9 million lbs per month or 11,000 lbs per flight on the 767's 
 
or
 
using your percentages Delta now carries 10 times what AA carries currently or 9,000,000 lbs per month.
Which means that AA use to carry 9,900,000 per month? which equates to waaaay more than 9000 lbs per flight.
 
Either way your numbers do not add up.
So which ones is it WT?
Your lost somewhere in your millions of data points.
 
The 30,0000 lbs per day the 321's are carrying I am absolutely sure off. You just have to know where to find it.
 
 
 
 

sure does. AA carried about 260K pounds of cargo on the 321s in June which validates exactly what many said and I acknowledged; the 321 can carry cargo.

so can the 757s because UA carried just about the same amount.

the difference is that DL carried 10 times the amount that either AA or UA carried.

and a year ago AA carried the volume that DL now carries.

My statement has consistently been that AA gave up over 2 million pounds of cargo or 90% of what they carried

 

[WorldTraveler]

feel free to post your own stats.
you might want to pass them on to the DOT and let whoever files with the DOT that you have the correct data.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Why the condescension?

 

[WorldTraveler]

because when someone wants to argue that they have the data that the DOT doesn't have, it is absolutely relevant to ask them to inform not only the DOT but also AA's people at HDQ who are responsible for providing this data to the DOT.

the DOT data reflects ALL flights in the market, not just a few random flights that someone decided to find and then establish their own average.