Delay-Virgin ready to take on AA to London

[WorldTraveler]

That might be true except that JFK-LHR is one of the leading routes on which airlines still sell First Class.   Sure, it's a shorter route than the long-range capability of the 777-300ER (AA calls them 77Ws), but what really matters are the average fares.    Apparently,  AA and BA are jointly getting pretty good fares to justify all the 744s and 77Ws between JFK and LHR.  
 
AA's 77Ws seat more than 300 passengers, and if any route justifies big planes, it would be JFK-LHR.   BA flies a mix of 747-400s and 777s on that route, presumably because they've jointly decided with AA that JFK-LHR needs a lot of seats.   JFK-LHR is one of the lowest LF routes for passengers between the US and LHR.
 
AA's 772s will seat about 260 once they've been reconfigured.   If AA and BA agree that First Class isn't as important on JFK-LHR as it used to be, then the newly reconfigured 2-class 772s might be returned to that route.   But if First Class still matters on that route, then the 77Ws will remain.   77Ws are substantially larger than A333s, as even the 772s feature about 12% more floor area than A333s.   What airplane should AA fly between JFK and LHR if the 77W is a waste?    
 
Sure, the 77W is heavy and has the capability to fly long range routes.  744s and A380s are very big, heavy, and feature long range, but you see European airlines flying them across the Atlantic where they're "wasting" the valuable, unique features of those planes.

since the average load factor from all US nonstop to LHR in the 1st quarter of 2013 was less than 75% and BA pulled the market average up with its 81% LF, the justification for flying large airplanes isn't really there.
 

A few weeks back AA Flt 136 LAX-LHR loaded over 105k in cargo alone, and I think the total load with everything was 110K cargo/bags. The flight was booked for less than 100 passangers, and that's why such a big cargo load.

 
 
what should flag more attention is that AA was operating a flight with a 40% or less LF - except that is not uncommon between the US and LHR on offpeak TATL flights during the winter.

Also, JFK-LHR as a market is below average in LF.

 

I can't remember exactly, but these are AA cargo records. I want to say it was 102,000 last message I saw. The 77W has a lot more cargo space than 777-200ER. Again, I'm not the person to ask. I've heard, just don't remember. If I see another message, I'll let you know.

according to DOT statistics again for the 1st quarter 2013, the market average on carrier nonstop from LAX-LHR was 28K pounds per flight with AA being slightly ahead of that at 33K. JFK-LHR average cargo loads are lower at 18K per flight and AA is just below the average with BA pulling the average up, but still with less than 20K pounds per flight.

LAX is the largest cargo market from LHR both for all carriers and for AA specifically.

Of the carriers with multiple flights, VS has the highest average cargo load per flight although NZ has a higher load at 36K per flight but they only serve LAX-LHR.

 

[eolesen]

That 40% load factor example may be a bit deceiving. When I lived in AZ, I'd backtrack and fly LHR-LAX whenever possible, and the premium cabins were always full. The flight is long enough to really make a difference... at least 8 hours of sleep *and* time to eat. Can't do that out of ORD or DFW.

 

[700UW]

And yet AA leads all airlines in Cargo carried out of JFK.

 

[WorldTraveler]

That 40% load factor example may be a bit deceiving. When I lived in AZ, I'd backtrack and fly LHR-LAX whenever possible, and the premium cabins were always full. The flight is long enough to really make a difference... at least 8 hours of sleep *and* time to eat. Can't do that out of ORD or DFW.

a 40% LF is a 40% load factor.

the yield might be strong and it is a very strong cargo market but 40% IS 40%.
 
 

And yet AA leads all airlines in Cargo carried out of JFK.

for now... you might be surprised how quickly that number changes as AA pulls the 767s off the trancons and DL adds them.

according to DOT data, AA has boarded about 10K pounds of cargo per flight on JFK-LAX - which is a couple hundred thousand pounds of cargo per day that is going to shift hands with various carriers.

 

[MAH4546]

Delta isn't adding widebodies to JFKLAX. It is temporary using them in order to be competitive.
 
Once the 757 lie-flat trans-con fleet is ready, the 767s will be out.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and yet DL has them in the published schedules as far out as they publish schedules.

DL's RASM has continued to increase even after the 763s entered the market and the cargo revenue is solid additional revenue.

Do you suppose that DL's intent may have originally been to go back to an all 757 schedule but has changed its mind as it has continue to increase its share and pick up a whole lot of cargo revenue while AA was banking on DL's original statements that the 767s were just temporary?

Given that DL created a subfleet of 767s that are heavily used on JFK-LAX, you might find that the 767s are on the route for the long-term.

DL's execs have noted that they are now the largest airline in the JFK transcon market now; I doubt if they would make that claim if they intended to back away which would happen if they went back to an all 757 schedule.

BTW, Dec DOT data shows that DL carried about half of the cargo in the JFK-LAX market that AA carried - when AA was still using the 767s. With 3.5M pounds of cargo per month in the market, there is a very large market that I fully expect DL is not going to walk away from, and certainly won't as long as their passenger performance continues to improve as it has been. For all the talk on here about how much cargo can help push profitability over the top on int'l markets because of AA's use of larger aircraft, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would not believe the same principle applies in the transcon markets as well.

 

[Jacobin777]

and yet DL has them in the published schedules as far out as they publish schedules.

DL's RASM has continued to increase even after the 763s entered the market and the cargo revenue is solid additional revenue.

Do you suppose that DL's intent may have originally been to go back to an all 757 schedule but has changed its mind as it has continue to increase its share and pick up a whole lot of cargo revenue while AA was banking on DL's original statements that the 767s were just temporary?

Given that DL created a subfleet of 767s that are heavily used on JFK-LAX, you might find that the 767s are on the route for the long-term.

DL's execs have noted that they are now the largest airline in the JFK transcon market now; I doubt if they would make that claim if they intended to back away which would happen if they went back to an all 757 schedule.

BTW, Dec DOT data shows that DL carried about half of the cargo in the JFK-LAX market that AA carried - when AA was still using the 767s. With 3.5M pounds of cargo per month in the market, there is a very large market that I fully expect DL is not going to walk away from, and certainly won't as long as their passenger performance continues to improve as it has been. For all the talk on here about how much cargo can help push profitability over the top on int'l markets because of AA's use of larger aircraft, I have a hard time understanding why anyone would not believe the same principle applies in the transcon markets as well.

 
So what happened with the planned DL ORD-LHR flight? <_<

 

[eolesen]

So what happened with the planned DL ORD-LHR flight? <_<

It evolved, since DL has flexibility that no other US legacy carrier has.

 

[WorldTraveler]

So what happened with the planned DL ORD-LHR flight? <_<

why didn't you ask the same thing about DEN-LAX and other routes which DL loaded and then never flew?

You apparently don't grasp the concept that there are carriers that are willing to start service in order to win business - and if that business doesn't come, they regroup.

There is a reason why DL leads US carriers in RASM growth and productivity.

if flexibility is what it takes for DL to pull off its financial successes, then you might ask why other carriers haven't figured out how to do the same thing.

BTW, there apparently is still an LHR slot that is floating around waiting to be used...

 

[Kev3188]

DL's execs have noted that they are now the largest airline in the JFK transcon market now; I doubt if they would make that claim if they intended to back away which would happen if they went back to an all 757 schedule.

Why not? It generates some buzz, and then when (or if) things change, they've used words that allow for wiggle room.

...Not unlike some people here...
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

let's put it this way.

JFK-LAX is one of the largest cargo markets that touches US soil.... AA has decided they want out of it and currently have 2/3 of that market. DL has managed to fill its capacity in the market despite using larger aircraft and the 763 is even more efficient at hauling cargo.

I could end up being wrong but I doubt very seriously that DL will go back to an all 757 operation when they are already on track to be the heir apparent to a market that AA has decided to walk away from.

As much as some want to believe otherwise, this could be yet one more example of AA handing revenue over to a competitor... and that extra revenue only makes it easier for DL to fund its expansion into key LHR markets such as from JFK.

feel free to classify it as hot air but I have a feeling that I will be shown to be right on this issue as with others.

 

[Kev3188]

Maybe, maybe not. Time'll tell, and I'm not leaning one way or the other.

All I'm noting is the use of a key word that allows them wiggle room out of that statement should the need arise down the road...

 

[WorldTraveler]

of course.. .and I am well aware that DL said, as was noted, that the 763s were transitional. But they can't ignore the cargo revenue that is now flowing their way and we don't even have public data that reflects the current month. Given that DL is up to 5X 763s this summer (IIRC) and yet the 757s are supposed to start coming out of mods with lie flat BE seats, if DL wanted to reduce capacity, those aircraft would be hitting the JFK-LAX market now.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

let's put it this way.

JFK-LAX is one of the largest cargo markets that touches US soil.... AA has decided they want out of it and currently have 2/3 of that market. DL has managed to fill its capacity in the market despite using larger aircraft and the 763 is even more efficient at hauling cargo.

I could end up being wrong but I doubt very seriously that DL will go back to an all 757 operation when they are already on track to be the heir apparent to a market that AA has decided to walk away from.

As much as some want to believe otherwise, this could be yet one more example of AA handing revenue over to a competitor... and that extra revenue only makes it easier for DL to fund its expansion into key LHR markets such as from JFK.

feel free to classify it as hot air but I have a feeling that I will be shown to be right on this issue as with others.

 
I could be wrong, but didn't you say not too long ago that AA was stupid for fllying widebodies on JFK-LAX?  Now DL is a genius?

 

[WorldTraveler]

the problem was the 762 with 168 or something seats. nothing wrong with widebodies.

in fact I asked the question why AA couldn't have figured out how to configure a few of their own 763s with the same type of configuration and one of your own fan club leaders said he expected they would fly some 767s.

he apparently didn't get the memo that AA was leaving the cargo Market to DL..... DL got it and adjusted their schedule to go after the 2 million plus pounds of cargo per month that AA has carried.