Article on revenue gains

[JFK Fleet Service]

Best thing about dog ****? Eventually it dries up and blows away.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

cruel and inaccurate because it is the truth that the 333 and even the 764 are both far lighter and better suited for AA's medium haul international network yet AA never bought them.

 
BA operates 744s quite profitably from JFK to LHR so your "heavy" argument is laughable.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

The L1011 accident at DFW was wind sheer.
 

 
Wind shear.

 

[WorldTraveler]

indeed on the spelling, thank you.

Yes. I am aware of what BA does. But they also carry more pax than AA does.

Regardless of what BA does, it is still a principle of aviation that lifting unnecessary weight costs money.

If there are lighter airframes that could do the job, then there is no reason to use one that could save millions of gallons of fuel per year.

 

[1AA]

Passenger comfort is one option passengers look for.

 

[eolesen]

So now Mr. I'm An Expert on Revenue Production is an expert on aircraft route & fleet planning, in addition to being an advocate for all the employees at SeaTac?...

All those areas of expertise must get confusing in your head, WT... Where do you find the time to stay current on everything?

AA chose fleet simplicity as a strategy years ago. They ran the business case on having multiple subfleets, and chose to get rid of them.

I'm sure having a bunch of small subfleets makes sense for DL, but that doesn't mean it makes sense for everyone, and you can't argue that some of what DL saves in fuel from tweaking aircraft to specific routes winds up being wasted thru the higher expense of stocking rotables, pilot training for seat moves, and lower aircraft utilization...

 

[FWAAA]

You do know that it is possible to put FC on a 333 which has about the same amount of floor space as a 772, don't you? The 333 weighs 50K pounds less so lifting 25 extra tons on every flight to LHR and GRU which don't need it adds a whole lot to AA's fuel bill. But of course AA wanted nothing to do with Airbus so the 333 wasn't an option- until the price was supposedly so low that it is now worth it for AA to start parking M80s and 757s and replace them with Airbus? And of course AA will fly the 333 now. so other carriers have managed to safely fly Airbus widebodies but since AA couldn't they have burned hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel in order to fly the 777.

The 767 can also carry a FC cabin too. UA has done it for years.

maybe McAdoo is right but in your rush to defend AA mgmt. and their job and salary killing ways, you can't see that there is real truth to what is said.

Wasn't it McAdoo who commented about how much money AA was losing to DEL only to have AA cut the route shortly thereafter?

Your post is riddled with factual errors.   It's not up to your usual standards.       
 
According to Boeing, an empty 772IGW (now 772ER) with Trent engines weighs 299,000 pounds.   An empty Airbus A333 weighs 274,500 pounds, a difference of 25,000 pounds, not 50,000 pounds.   So an empty 772ER weighs about 9% more than the A333.    
 
Your assertion that the 772 and the A333 have "about the same floor space" is incorrect.   The 772 is wider than the A333 and, according to Randy Tinseth of Boeing (Randy's Journal) the 772 has about 12% more floor area than the Airbus A333.   
 
http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2011/03/the_games_people_play.html
 
12% more floor area for a 9% increase in operating empty weight.  
 
When the A333 entered service, its range was about 4,000nm.    Recognizing that huge shortcoming,  Airbus has worked diligently to increase its range, and the latest range improvements will bring it up to 6,100nm:
 
http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a330family/a330-300/
 
If the A333 was such a capable aircraft, then how come Delta ordered the Boeing substitute for it, the 767-400?    Delta never ordered a single A330.    The whole time you worked there, DL didn't see the brilliance in ordering any A330s.     Why is that?

Northwest, on the other hand, did order later generation, longer range A330s, which DL acquired recently in its merger with NW.    Given that the CEO came from NW and other NW management tagged along, it's no surprise that new Delta likes the A330.    The same will be true at AA.    US had no need for long-range planes when it ordered its A333s and thus short-range planes weren't a big problem.   And now, there may be some shorter flights where the US A333s can replace some AA 7772s.    That happens in mergers.    
 
The DEL flight?   McAdoo has a knack for pointing out the obvious.   When AA announced the DEL flight, fuel was still reasonably cheap.   By time the flight launced in November, 2005, fuel prices were escalating.   When McAdoo claimed that AA was losing tons of money every year on that flight, he was not being accurate.    The huge losses were mounting just as he wrote that piece, and yes,  AA terminated the route.   The losses were due to high fuel prices and the very cheap competing capacity on Air India.      

 

[WorldTraveler]

fleet simplicity is a great concept but the idea is to use the right aircraft for the right mission.

The vast majority of AA's 772ER fleet flies flights that are 10 hours or less. The 772ER weighs 50K pounds more than the 333, 100K pounds more than the 764ER, and 115K pounds more than the 763ER.

Someone can come on here and tell me the exact weight of AA's 772s and I will retract my statement about their weight but most 772ERs weigh above Boeing's spec weight.

And it still doesn't change that AA's int'l aircraft have lower seat densities than other carriers... CO and DL's 764s seat almost exactly the same number of passengers as AA's 772s... and yet despite the extra room on the 772, DOT revenue shows that DL and now UA 764 flights get comparable revenue per flight.

The extra weight of the 772 does not translate into higher revenue for AA.

I doubt very seriously that AA could financially justify operating a minimum of 30 772s on routes that could be flown with lighter aircraft. If AA operated a handful of routes that didn't fit the profile of an aircraft, then your point would be valid. Two-thirds of AA's 777 fleet serve routes that could be better operated with smaller, lighter aircraft.

CO managed to operate the 772, 764, and 757s. DL had a relatively small fleet of 777s and still does relative to its overall fleet and they are used only on the longest flights. UA operated even before the merger 763s, 777s, and 744s.

The article pointed out a principle that has been raised here before. IN the name of fleet simplicity, AA has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on jet fuel that other carriers have not and passenger comfort isn't an excuse.
There are Airbus operators that have seats that offer the same level of seat size as the 777.. and both are larger than the 764.

Yet somehow DL and UA have managed to generate revenues as high as or higher than AA on smaller aircraft on comparable routes.

DL did in fact consider the 330 in the same contest in which it ordered the 764... specifically because it was lighter and could still do the same missions the 330s could fly.

The 333s that DL is flying from SEA-NRT are the same ones that NW ordered, not the newer heavier aircraft that will be 13+ hour aircraft. The 333 has been more than capable of crossing the Atlantic for 2 decades.

I still haven't heard someone confirm if this isn't the same guy who talked about how much money AA was losing on ORD-DEL only to have the route finally cancelled.

How many years past 2005 are we? If the argument about fuel prices killing DEL was valid then, did it not add even more urgency for AA to get a lighter aircraft for its LHR and S. America flights which do not need the 772s extra weight?

Even if it is "only" 25K pounds over the 333, would you like to calculate the tens of millions of dollars extra year it costs to lift that extra weight which hasn't translated into higher revenue?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Your post is riddled with factual errors.   

Thanks FWAAA. That is "precisely" why nobody bothers to dissect his posts any longer. He is like a bad pop up ad.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

fleet simplicity is a great concept but the idea is to use the right aircraft for the right mission.

 
It's amusing to read your pontification of how great DL fleet make up is:  basically you're stating that all other airline fleets & network-fleet utilization basically sucks, etc., etc. 
 
The reason this is ridiculous is that prior to the NW merger, DL was for most intents and purposes a non-Airbus carrier.  (Yes, I realize they've operated Airbus A310s in the mid-1990s, but these were promptly replaced by B767s.)
 
Would you care to comment on this?
"The Delta agreement, after all, paralleled one signed last November by American Airlines, which also committed to a long-term relationship with Boeing for about 20 years. Both airlines said that in return for promising steady business to Boeing, they get price breaks and flexibility in the timing of deliveries of new planes. In addition, they said, a fleet of planes from just one manufacturer lowered the costs of training and keeping spare parts inventories."
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/21/business/delta-to-buy-only-boeing-jets-for-20-years.html

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

... ... ... The 772ER weighs 50K pounds more than the 333, 100K pounds more than the 764ER, and 115K pounds more than the 763ER.

Someone can come on here and tell me the exact weight of AA's 772s and I will retract my statement about their weight but most 772ERs weigh above Boeing's spec weight.
 

 
So the information that FWAA got from Boeing and/or Airbus web sites is incorrect?
How about wikipedia?  Does the info there pass your approval?
B777-200er operating empty weight 304500lbs
A330-300 operating empty weight 274500lbs
difference:  30000lbs

 

[FWAAA]

 
So the information that FWAA got from Boeing and/or Airbus web sites is incorrect?
How about wikipedia?  Does the info there pass your approval?
B777-200er operating empty weight 304500lbs
A330-300 operating empty weight 274500lbs
difference:  30000lbs

Exactly.
 
The Boeing website contains the detailed specs of all its planes, including the empty operating weight.    And the 299,000 pound weight is for the Trent engined 772ERs  in a 375 passenger configuration.    Given that AA's 772s were configured at 237 for most of the time, later increased to 245, it's quite likely that AA's 772s are even lighter than Boeing's 299,000 pound weight.     The F suites are somewhat heavy, but AA's total seat count is 130 fewer than the Boeing assumptions.   
 
Airbus, on the other hand, does not give include empty operating weights on its website and thus I was forced to rely on the Wiki weight of 274,500 pounds.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

Whether it is 25, 30, or 50K hardly seems to be the point. What does matter is that AA has operated 2/3 of its int'l flights on an aircraft that was heavier than needed.

Tell me the number of 772 flights AA operates today that are less than 10 hours long. Multiple 25K by that number and tell me how many pounds AA has carried around that could have been carried on other aircraft.

And let's keep in mind that AA could have chosen to keep FC on its 763s just as UA has done.... now AA is pulling FC off of the 772s so the FC cabin apparently didn't justify its existence.

Yes, we know all about the AA and DL - Boeing agreements but they were ruled invalid. It also doesn't change that the 764 is even lighter than the 333 and holds almost identical numbers of passengers in DL and UA's config as AA does on their 772.

again, there is DOT data that shows how much AA carries per flight on 772 routes compared to what DL or UA carry on comparable routes. If the 772 was worth it in terms of passenger revenue, then it should show up.... but it doesn't.

 

[FWAAA]

Whether it is 25, 30, or 50K hardly seems to be the point. What does matter is that AA has operated 2/3 of its int'l flights on an aircraft that was heavier than needed.
 

That's your typical response when you post bullshit and try to pass it off as facts.   You've done it before, and I'm confident you'll do it some more.   
 
Yes, WT, larger airplanes tend to weigh more.   In this case, a plane with about 12% more floor space weighs about 9% more.   
 
About the comparisons with DL:   I don't give a flying fcuk about Delta, and I'm confident that I speak for many.    We heard you the last dozen times you droned on and on and on about DL's superior revenue.   Go start a topic on the DL forum for that worthless tripe.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

I didn't post the article that was about AA. I am responding to a concern an industry analyst noted.

You have tried to use arguments which don't hold water if they are pushed.

If the FC cabin was worth the extra weight, why is AA now removing them?

Would you now like to admit that the analyst's concerns are valid and that AA really hasn't generated the revenue that an airframe the weight of a 772ER should generate and that is precisely why AA is removing the FC cabin?

Perhaps we could have started with an update which the article didn't have which is that AA IS removing the FC cabin - which adds a couple dozen more seats and helps justify the extra weight.

You could have done that instead of trying to trot out data that AA apparently already knew and acted upon.

The man's concerns were valid. Instead of endlessly trying to defend AA's decisions and assail everything that anyone says that is negative about AA, how about you acknowledge what AA has already figured out?