SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1137 posts, RR: 10 Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8465 times:
There are no current plans to do anything with the B762 fleet.
AA has a number of contracts with various film studios which require both first and business class, and at the moment there is no better aircraft to fulfill this niche. It is my understanding that although UA's P.S. is arguably a better service in some respects there are still some high paying regular passengers who prefer flying widebodies.
These flights are often full up front, and coupled with a healthy cargo capacity they can be very profitable when compared with most domestic services.
The B762's do indeed fly almost exclusively LAX-JFK but as there is never a need to utilise the entire fleet they also visit (as you say) MIA, BDA, SJU and SDQ.
There are no plans whatsoever for refitting of the fleet, partly due to American's current reluctance to spend money on non essentials. However you can be sure that this stance would change should they ever see any erosion in their market to UA (which up until this point has been negligible) due to an inferior product.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23545 posts, RR: 50 Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 8436 times:
From someone that regularly flies he AA 762s and UA's p.s., I have to say AA needs to do something.
While the AA transcon 762s are somewhat newer, being all 767-200ERs as the older basic 767-200s have all been withdrawn something needs be done particularly in the cabins to keep up with UA.
I used to give the edge to American over UA's 767s particularly AA's biz class and at that time its MRTC seating. However with the superior p.s. product in all classes, and AAs continued downgrade of its offerings by the eliminations of MRTC, elimination of meals in Y class, reduction in meal service and choice in the premium cabin, UA has pulled far ahead in my view.
AA's sole advantage in the market in my view is, its greater frequency particularly on the LAX-JFK route, and the new terminal it has at JFK. Otherwise UA gets the nod.
To improve and stay competitive AA definitely needs a new F class product, a slightly improved C class product with the elimination of nickel and dimming small service items such as linens, meal choices etc, and improvement of its Y class products in seating configuration and return of meal service ala United.
While the transcon market it very competitive and cut throat, it is one of the few markets where there is constant demand for premium traffic. While personaly it does not botter me much as I tend to sleep, going 5+ hours with only a soda or BOB product is a little too much for most travellers.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21314 posts, RR: 60 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 8368 times:
As stated, because UA and AA are the only airlines offering a 3 class transcon product in that market, they are the preferred carriers with Hollywood. Most contracts in Hollywood have First or Business travel built in. CO and DL domestic first does not count for these flights (treated as Business usually).
Unless Hollywood decides to spend more money on making good movies and less money on stuff that doesn't contribute what so ever to making a good movie, AA won't lose the F cabin on these routes.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
UPSMD11 From United States of America, joined May 2003, 799 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7843 times:
AA does not regularly fly the 763 on transcon flights between JFK - LAX or even SFO for that matter. This route is one that I track on a regular basis and I have not seen a 763 on the route that I can remember.
UPSMD11 From United States of America, joined May 2003, 799 posts, RR: 4 Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 7821 times:
Yes, I do stand corrected on this. There are actually some 763 aircraft on the SFO flights. I don't look at this route too often but took a look tonight on flightaware and saw several 763 on the route.
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7873 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7653 times:
I think if AA were smart they would upgrade their 767-200(ER) planes on the LAX-JFK service with better First and Business class seats (possibly a larger premium cabin!), and possibly offering improved secure departure and arrival lounges to serve the entertainment community.
AA 777 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 806 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7649 times:
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 15): and possibly offering improved secure departure and arrival lounges to serve the entertainment community.
They have two of the newest Admirals Clubs at JFK and LAX (The LAX one is extremely nice, and yes I know Qantas paid for some of it). In addition, for those that pay full fare first, they can use the Admirals Club at JFK/LAX and the Flagship Lounge at LAX free of charge.
Eyeonthesky17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 95 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7584 times:
Quoting UPSMD11 (Reply 11): Yes, I do stand corrected on this. There are actually some 763 aircraft on the SFO flights. I don't look at this route too often but took a look tonight on flightaware and saw several 763 on the route.
So are these 763 F cabins on JFKSFO the same as the international J class, say on ORDFRA or JFKCDG??? Curious because I'll be flying them in the next couple of weeks.
Tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6442 posts, RR: 9 Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 7566 times:
from a coach perspective, it seems that P.S. is probably better because of Economy plus and free meals. However, I just prefer flying on widebodies. AA takes very good care of those 762s from an interior perspective.
Tommy in EWR/LAX.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
Ilyag From Israel, joined Jan 2001, 113 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6783 times:
Took AA on JFK-SFO-JFK run last summer and hated every minute. Lack of room and any kind of service in coach is far from outweighing widebody aircraft advantage (if there is any ...). The 762 on my way back was really worn out, but 763 to SFO wasn't much better either. Never again.
AirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4503 posts, RR: 54 Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6433 times:
I wonder how much sense it would make to refurbish the 762 interiors, especially considering that the average age of the 762 fleet has got to be pushing 20 years or so. In addition the CASM on those old dogs has got to be horrendous.
I believe the AA 762s are configured F9 C30 Y126.
On the other hand the 752s are F22 Y166.
Let's say that AA were to configure the 752 with 3 rows of proper first class seats for a total of 12 and put 24 proper (well the blue ones, anyway) business class seats, then they should still be able to accomodate about 100 economy seats or so at their measly pitch.
If UA can fit F12 C26 Y+72 with 68" and 54" pitch in the front cabins, then I think my assumptions above are reasonable with AA's 62"/50"/32" pitch.
So if AA was to do that with the 752s, the total decrease in capacity would only be about 20 Y seats or so.
With something like 10 daily flights or something, perhaps the odd 752 in this configuration could make things more efficient.
UPSMD11 From United States of America, joined May 2003, 799 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6369 times:
What is the average age of the UA 757 fleet being flown in p.s. configuration? I know people who have flown on the UA p.s. and they said it was amazing. I wonder if the celebrities really care that the AA product is not up to snuff with UA p.s. or if they even know. I did read that some C-level folks are taking UA p.s. instead of flying the corporate jet because they can get better service and seats. Makes sense to me.
I personally think AA should update the 762 fleet, even though it's a bit older, and enhance the service on the trans-con routes before they have to. It seems that proactive vs. reactive is better but I'm not paying the bills at AA.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23545 posts, RR: 50 Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5221 times:
Quoting UPSMD11 (Reply 22): What is the average age of the UA 757 fleet being flown in p.s. configuration? I
UA uses a wide range of their B757s for the p.s service the oldest being from 1989 to the newest 1996.
Eitherway its really not the aircraft age that matters, but instead them all sporting new interiors.
Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 21): In addition the CASM on those old dogs has got to be horrendous.
AA 762 hourly block cost was $5,260 versus $4,443 for its B757s according to DOT 3Q05 numbers.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 AirxLiban: Divide by 164 for the 762 and 188 for the 752. Works out to: $32.07 per seat per hour for the 762 $23.63 per seat per hour for the 752.
26 Laxintl: I'd be leery of making a per-seat comparison of AA 757 vs 762 fleet for the reason they are equipped with total different type configurations. A more
27 ContinentalEWR: American's 767-300ER's (excluding the 9 newer ones with the 777 style interior) are really nothing to rave about either. I flew in them JFK-EZE and EZ
28 AAden: i had the privilege of flying 762 lax-mia last year and i found the aircraft to be in good condition they had new seats and it was a 2-5-2 configurati
29 N1120A: Absolutely, particularly in Y class and F class where the service levels are no comparison. United's massive gain in yields and recovery in premium t
30 DL4EVR: About how full is the F section filled on PS flights? I can't see too many people paying $4500+ for a 5 hour trip. I could definitely afford it, but f
31 Laxintl: They dont publicly report p.s. vs non p.s. 757's numbers. If you are considering the p.s. being physically lighter and requiring slightly less fuel b
32 Commavia: AA has seen virtually no impact on loads nor yields on JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO since the p.s. introduction.
33 Laxintl: Well I'd question that, as UA has publicly stated the p.s. product has improved the yields and fare mix in all classes, while in internal releases ha
34 Wilax: That had to be a 777-200. I don't remember ever seeing 762's on that route, just 763's and 777's lately. There were AB6's way back, but a 2-5-2 confi
35 AA 777: I don't know if it happened in 2005 (dont think so) but in 2004 there was one 777 doing an early morning MIA-LAX followed by a 1pm turn back to MIA.