Delay-Virgin ready to take on AA to London

[WorldTraveler]

the capacity of the LD3 is irrelevant.

An A321 even in AA's reduced transcon config is not going to fly with any significant cargo from JFK-LAX esp. when the winds can easily make the flight as long as transatlantic flights.

If Parker moves ahead with the rumored plans to put more seats on the plane, it makes cargo even less of an option.

If AA is carrying cargo, it will show up in DOT data very soon... but the reality is that AA walked away from hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue per month and handed it over to DL.

 

[Kev3188]

the capacity of the LD3 is irrelevant.

Not to those of us discussing it, it isn't.

 

[eolesen]

Airbus can carry the shorter LD's, and the other obvious reality missing from WT's non-expert analysis of ground operations and cargo handling is that not all cargo has to be on a pallet or be containerized.

Freeloading cargo, especially time sensitive stuff, is done regularly on the narrowbody fleets. The smaller packages are also higher margin.

 

[robbedagain]

agree there E 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Not to those of us discussing it, it isn't.

no one said that discussing it is irrelevant.

what is irrelevant is whether A321s can carry containerized cargo because the 321 can't carry any significant amount of cargo and also make it across the US with a full load of passengers even in AA's premium configuration.
 

Airbus can carry the shorter LD's, and the other obvious reality missing from WT's non-expert analysis of ground operations and cargo handling is that not all cargo has to be on a pallet or be containerized.

Freeloading cargo, especially time sensitive stuff, is done regularly on the narrowbody fleets. The smaller packages are also higher margin.

and every other airline competes in that segment of the cargo business now - and will continue to do so.

AA can and will continue to serve that market - but it isn't even close to the revenue that is involved in carrying the 2 MILLION pounds of cargo that AA carried in the JFK-LAX alone (JFK was even more) in recent months.


If you want to know how much cargo can be carried on narrowbodies in the transcon market, look at UA out of both JFK and EWR. There is precious little of it in comparison to what has been carried by AA on the 767s from JFK to LAX and SFO.

I'm not sure why this is even a discussion given that I brought up the cargo issue when you and others jumped all over the idea of walking away from half of the coach market as part of AA's grand plan to increase profits - while cutting revenues.

AA IS walking away from cargo and passenger revenues in this whole refleeting exercise. Sure they hope costs will go down any faster but how anyone could not have expected that revenues would remain even close to the same is beyond comprehension.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Is this the Transcon thread or the LHR thread?

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Is this the Transcon thread or the LHR thread?

It's the Delta Uber Alles thread, don't you know ALL threads on the AA board always wind back to that underlying theme?

 

[Kev3188]

Truth.
 
...And God forbid the unwashed masses on the ramp ever get a word in- even if it is a tangental one...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm sorry you view yourself as part of any unwashed mass.... no one ever said you were.

I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence that an A321 can carry any significant amount of cargo on a transcon flight even in AA's premium config, let alone enough to come close to making a dent in the 2 million pounds per month that AA used to carry on the 767s but which is walking away from.

As to the connection to LHR, it has been noted several times that the transcon cargo Market is just one more example of AA's retreat from the NYC market which has provided an opportunity for DL to grow.

It is precisely as DL has grown in dozens of previously strong AA markets including the transcons that LHR remains the biggest fish which DL has to fry.

Note that despite the sentiment on the board here, AA will be a smaller airline in NYC this year than it was last year at the same time.

BA-AA will continue to be the dominant airline to LHR; no one is challenging that. But LHR is the primary connecting hub that oneworld must use to compete in the transatlantic market while DL and UA have continental European hubs which not only have lower taxes but also much more capacity.

DL's goal is to use LHR for local traffic only and its JV with VS is based on that.

AA and BA will continue to fight to maintain their position in the market but they are in a strategic quandry in trying to defend both the LHR local market - which DL/VS is gaining in anyway - and their overall position in the transatlantic market.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

BA-AA will continue to be the dominant airline to LHR; no one is challenging that. But LHR is the primary connecting hub that oneworld must use to compete in the transatlantic market while DL and UA have continental European hubs which not only have lower taxes but also much more capacity.

 
Did it ever occur to you that is precisely the reason why it makes sense for AA and others to fly larger aircraft into LHR? Because of the capacity limits?

 

[WorldTraveler]

of course it does.

except that AA's 772s have been configured with about the same number of seats as DL and UA have on their 764s.

Thus, adding the 773s to LHR does make sense, esp. if it allows AA to continue to offer a FC product which will be removed from the 772s.

But AA has had a minimal revenue premium over DL and UA in directly competitive markets where DL and/or UA have offered only a business class product.

using the RIGHT aircraft is what airlines should do... using more than is needed adds costs; using a smaller aircraft than is necessary to capture the revenue including - such as what AA is doing on the transcons - is revenue negative.

While AA wants to fight to hold onto the premium transcon market, it is walking away from most of the cargo market and a large chunk of the economy cabin. B6 is expanding into the premium cabin, VX is still there and has pulled about 20% of the market already, and DL is playing in the whole market - including cargo.

If AA justifies a higher average fare because of having a FC cabin to LHR or demonstrates that it is able to dramatically reduce costs and not cut revenues with the 321s, then I fully will acknowledge they have done the right thing... I just haven't seen that data but if someone wants to bring it to the table, I will absolutely acknowledge whatever success AA might have had.

 

[usabusdriver]

I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence that an A321 can carry any significant amount of cargo on a transcon flight even in AA's premium config, ...

 
WT,
 
Please define "significant".  If you take away 80 passengers from the seat configuration and multiply by 200 lbs per passenger you arrive at approximately 16,000 lbs available for cargo per flight.  When you factor in the increased frequency because of the new fleet to make the same seat count, that shows potential for significant cargo capacity.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

 
WT,
 
Please define "significant".  If you take away 80 passengers from the seat configuration and multiply by 200 lbs per passenger you arrive at approximately 16,000 lbs available for cargo per flight.  When you factor in the increased frequency because of the new fleet to make the same seat count, that shows potential for significant cargo capacity.

 
Let me attempt to summarize how WT will respond.  I'll do it in 7 words instead of 700 too.
"It doesn't matter.  Only DL can win!"

 

[WorldTraveler]

WT,
 
Please define "significant".  If you take away 80 passengers from the seat configuration and multiply by 200 lbs per passenger you arrive at approximately 16,000 lbs available for cargo per flight.  When you factor in the increased frequency because of the new fleet to make the same seat count, that shows potential for significant cargo capacity.

I can do the math too... Airbus publishes to the public its performance charts... not sure if the A321 is on there exactly as configured mechanically by AA but it isn't hard to figure how much cargo the plane could take.

It still doesn't change that the 321 is nowhere near as capable in carrying cargo as a widebody is.... period. and it can't come close to carrying the roughly 10K pounds of cargo per flight that AA carried on the 762s. Given that the 763 has even more cargo carrying space, it isn't hard to see why DL can carry as much cargo on the 763 as AA did but with fewer flights.

In fact, DL carried half the cargo as AA did with far less than half the number of widebody flights.

And it is also noteworthy that DL carried very little cargo on the transcons before they added the 763s... and also why UA has very little share of the transcon cargo market.
 
 

Let me attempt to summarize how WT will respond.  I'll do it in 7 words instead of 700 too.
"It doesn't matter.  Only DL can win!"

this decision was AA's, not DL's.

again, I'm not sure why anyone here is the least bit surprised now that the data is coming out.... I said months ago that the cargo market would move to DL and that is exactly what is happening.

AA mgmt. may well still consider it ok to sacrifice the cargo revenue based on reduced coach passenger capacity - but it is precisely because DL is willing to compete in the entire coach passenger market that it can justify using widebody aircraft that can carry cargo.

Widebody aircraft have long been part of the transcon market. I'm not sure why it is a surprise that DL would continue to use them even when every other carrier has stopped doing so.

 

[FWAAA]

WT,
 
Please define "significant".  If you take away 80 passengers from the seat configuration and multiply by 200 lbs per passenger you arrive at approximately 16,000 lbs available for cargo per flight.  When you factor in the increased frequency because of the new fleet to make the same seat count, that shows potential for significant cargo capacity.

Oh, stop it already with your inconvenient "facts"  that don't fit WT's narrative.    
 
WT is convinced that DL has picked up all of AA's transcon cargo business and has posted repeatedly that A321s with 102 passengers plus bags (plus eight crewmembers and their bags) are incapable of carrying any meaningful amount of cargo.    If my back-of-the-envelope calculations are correct, AA's A321s could be fully-fueled to capacity and still have several thousand pounds of available payload.   With 13 daily flights between JFK and LAX, 7000 pounds per flight would equal 90,000 pounds per day in each direction.
 
A321s can hold up to 10 of the LD-3 45s (shorter height).    Don't know whether AA bought the higher fuel capacity model (7,935 gal optional  v  6250 gal standard);   I'm assuming that the higher fuel capacity means center tanks that sacrifice a couple of LD3 positions.   
 
I have no idea if new AA intends to carry cargo on these transcons,  but anyone with rudimentary knowledge of airplane specifications can clearly see that it's possible.   If AA isn't doing it, it's because AA has decided that it's not worth it.   Sometimes airline executives make those kind of tough decisions. 
 
I also don't know where most of the cargo originates or where it's headed.   If, for example, it originates in Asia, then it should be able to fly to ORD or DFW and then could connect to NYC.   If it originates in Europe, then each day's 77W from LHR to LAX can carry significant amounts of cargo nonstop to LAX.   But that doesn't fit the narrative that AA has lost and that DL has won a huge cargo business.