JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1218 posts, RR: 1 Posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 10259 times:
While perusing the AA reservation site for fun, it brought up two 777 flights leaving JFK, one at 6:10 p.m. (flt. 100) and another 777 flight leaving at 6:35 p.m. (flt 120) both bound for LHR. I understand using smaller planes to increase frequency and give passengers more choice, but what is the logic of two planes leaving to the same destination within a half hour of one another? If one 777 can't carry the demand, wouldn't it be more economical (assuming AA had such aircraft) to operate one 744 or 748 on this route at 6:00 p.m. nightly? Aren't the slots at LHR a fortune?
Any information/thoughts on this from our A.net friends who work for AA or know about such things??
Sammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1686 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10218 times:
What if those are their only two flights in that situation? No sense in getting a 747 or two just for that.
Feroze From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10204 times:
The same could be said of BA's flight departures (all on 747):
1830
1900
1930
2001
2030
2230
plus the 0840 daytime departure.
It all comes down to customer choice and demand - flexibility is key, especially for those at the front of the cabin - the ones who effectively pay for the flight
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10225 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 10208 times:
Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter): I understand using smaller planes to increase frequency and give passengers more choice, but what is the logic of two planes leaving to the same destination within a half hour of one another?
AA packs them in on this route, particularly as we are getting into the spring and summer months. If they can fill the flights, even if they are 25 minutes apart, why not? Sure, scheduling a bit more spaced apart would probably be more ideal, but the slot situation at Heathrow being what it is, they do the best they can with scheduling the flights. In addition, an increased schedule with more flights -- even if they are very close together -- is exceedingly appealing to the business travelers and corporate contracts who call the shots on routes like JFK-Heathrow.
Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter): If one 777 can't carry the demand, wouldn't it be more economical (assuming AA had such aircraft) to operate one 744 or 748 on this route at 6:00 p.m. nightly?
AA doesn't have anything bigger than the 777, though, and they're not going to get a bigger plane for the few instances -- like this -- where it might come in handy.
Yes, which is why AA will use them however they can get them, even if it means AA100 from JFK scheduled to land at 0625 and AA122 from JFK scheduled to land at 0655.
Gemini573 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 10065 times:
You should see BA's triple daily 744 flights ex-HKG. 23:15, 23:40, and 0:35.
8herveg From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1118 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 9521 times:
Quoting JAAlbert (Thread starter): wouldn't it be more economical (assuming AA had such aircraft) to operate one 744 or 748 on this route at 6:00 p.m. nightly?
AA aren't going to order a few larger aircraft just for this route! It's all about flexibility, which is what First and Business Class passengers particuarly, need between these two business cities!!
SailorOrion From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 9486 times:
Erm ... neither the A380 nor the 748 is in service at the moment, and a 744 is not nearly big enough to replace two 777 on the route. There are other routes that have similar densities because of very limited windows to operate (like SIN-FRA, LAX-SYD)
Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 9295 times:
For those of you who still don't think the A380 will be successful, I think this topic does a great job of showing how it will be successful. Sure airlines can increase flights to add capacity, but eventually the airport becomes too full. The only way to then grow is to switch to a larger aircraft. Look at BA's departures, all very close to each other, really cannot add any more frequency, so the next logical step is to switch to an A380.
Quoting Feroze (Reply 2): The same could be said of BA's flight departures (all on 747):
JAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1218 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9123 times:
Quoting 8herveg (Reply 8): It's all about flexibility, which is what First and Business Class passengers particuarly, need between these two business cities!!
I understand the flexibility argument, but really is flexibility really the issue in having two planes leave less than 30 minutes apart? I think this has more to do with the fact that AA has such demand for LHR flights leaving early evening that it has to send two planes. It spaces them a half hour apart to give LHR ground crew time to bring first one, then the other in.
I agree with Jaws707 that a single plane could trump the frequency concept -- where the planes leave less than 30 minutes apart at least.
Flexibility, being the ability to pull one plane off when demand slackens, however, would mitigate in favor of the two plane schedule.
But if you can fill the planes -- as AA apparently can even in this spring off season -- why not get the biggest plane you can?
Quoting SailorOrion (Reply 9): Erm ... neither the A380 nor the 748 is in service at the moment, and a 744 is not nearly big enough to replace two 777 on the route.
This is true -- I guess even one 380 isn't large enough to replace to 777 either
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9016 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
AA doesn't have anything bigger than the 777, though, and they're not going to get a bigger plane for the few instances -- like this -- where it might come in handy.
...add open skies and more competition......AA preferes flexibility to add/remove flights.....there is basically no need for a plane even larger than a B773ER for AA, and that's pushing it....
BDL2DCA From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 9016 times:
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 11):
But if you can fill the planes -- as AA apparently can even in this spring off season -- why not get the biggest plane you can?
The issue for AA is that this one single route is the only route in their network which could handle a bigger plane. And that is right now, when the economies in the US and the UK are both doing fairly well.
They would need at most 4 744s or 3 380s to cover some of the frequencies on this route, and that would be VERY expensive. Much more expensive over time than sending an extra 777.
Now, if AA had more routes in its network where it could acquire say 10-20 748s, then maybe we might see it. But there is just no business case to support them acquiring larger aircraft.
Gemini573 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 146 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 8870 times:
I guess it's the reason why you havent't seen any OW carrier (with the exception of QF), order the A380. If you look at the business models of BA, CX, and AA, they are more focused on the number of frequencies as opposed to offering more destinations. Look at CX. I haven't seen them introduce new destinations (exception of mainland China). I have seen them increase frequencies to existing desitnations; ICN, LHR, CDG, FRA, etc.
I'm sure the A380 will do very well for the carriers that have ordered them.
Ptcflyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 97 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8677 times:
The real reasons bigger planes are not called for here are RISK and FLEXIBILITY!
You can not cut an A380 in half if there is a serious downturn in travel due to SARS, or terrorism, etc.
You have double the trouble with an inability to recover should there be a mechanical problem!
May not be able to flexibly route a JFK - LHR A380 back to DFW. The plane would probably have to be dedicated to the JFK-LHR route.
If the LHR to JFK market craps out due for some reason... there are relatively few markets that can profitably absorb the lift of an A380. An airline can break up two 777s and fly to a lot of destinations profitably.
The LHR to JFK route may become far less important as passengers that are only using the segment to connect to other flights opt for increasing point-to-point services betweent the US and Europe. (the Middle East, India, and Africa!) I would hate to lock into such a huge investment in lift for one route... that may not maintain the demand levels into the future.
If it is a "light" day, and I need a 777 elsewhere due to some other problem... I can cancel one of 777s, accommodate the passengers... and recover from irregularities with far greater agility.
Of course, in addition to these two HUGE reasons... there are all of the typical reasons:
cost of the small subfleet (spare parts, training, procedures, etc. etc. etc.)
infrastructure improvements gate-side, etc.
Also, with the 787 and A350 coming on line... Airlines figure that their total costs per seat mile will approach that of an A380 .... with greater route dispatch flexibility, range and less RISK!
American Airlines and other carriers in similar circumstances will be far more productive leveraging smaller wide-bodies. Only until a carrier can fill 10+ A380's year round profitably... will it even become "tempting". The fragmentation out of the US to much of the rest of the world will probably limit the opportunity for such success with the super-jumbos for quite some time to come.
In my point of view it's just another "excuse" to bash the A380. If I follow your thinking, why doesn't AA simply send 10 757's in a row from JFK to LHR and fill them as the demand and if something goes wrong, they can use the "unused" 757 to another destination in their network or simply cancel the "unneeded" flights. Following your logic, the smaller plane with as many frequency as possible is the best option ??? Am I understanding you right ?
Geo772 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 497 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 8262 times:
Quoting Jaws707 (Reply 10): For those of you who still don't think the A380 will be successful, I think this topic does a great job of showing how it will be successful. Sure airlines can increase flights to add capacity, but eventually the airport becomes too full. The only way to then grow is to switch to a larger aircraft. Look at BA's departures, all very close to each other, really cannot add any more frequency, so the next logical step is to switch to an A380.
I disagree. Routes like New York - London rely on the huge business market. The reason BA operates so many 744 is that they hold the highest number of premium seats. If the 777 had a higher premium capacity then there is a good chance that the flight would be operated by 777's.
Carriers which rely almost solely on economy class travel are more likely to benefit from a larger aircraft, but only if they can fill it.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/7/8,B741/2/4,B752,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,1-11
TristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3712 posts, RR: 34 Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 8083 times:
Lets remember that although the flights leave New York in a row, the departures from LHR are much more spaced out. Flights leave LHr from 0900 up to 1800 to fly to NYC, but are obliged to return in a row because of the LHR NJB, and the fact that no one wants to arrive at LHR before 0600 anyway.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7677 posts, RR: 18 Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 7988 times:
Quoting HBJZA (Reply 17): Following your logic, the smaller plane with as many frequency as possible is the best option ??? Am I understanding you right ?
I think you missed the logic train. It is about right-sizing the equipment the carrier has to the market. Your example of the 757 might actually be a poor fit due to payload limitations on longer flights and a lack of premium seats, not to mention scheduling flexibility.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8556 posts, RR: 14 Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7111 times:
If you have demand to warrant the flights like this, do it. In the end the airlines get the profit from these routes.
Flyorski From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 978 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 7026 times:
Quoting Jaws707 (Reply 10): For those of you who still don't think the A380 will be successful, I think this topic does a great job of showing how it will be successful. Sure airlines can increase flights to add capacity, but eventually the airport becomes too full. The only way to then grow is to switch to a larger aircraft. Look at BA's departures, all very close to each other, really cannot add any more frequency, so the next logical step is to switch to an A380
Exactly, I would not actually be surprised to see UA or NW order some A380s.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved, than those who falsly believe they are free" -Goethe
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6467 times:
Quoting Jaws707 (Reply 10): For those of you who still don't think the A380 will be successful, I think this topic does a great job of showing how it will be successful. Sure airlines can increase flights to add capacity, but eventually the airport becomes too full. The only way to then grow is to switch to a larger aircraft. Look at BA's departures, all very close to each other, really cannot add any more frequency, so the next logical step is to switch to an A380.
Why not add more frequency? Isn't that what carriers such as AA, BA and CX have been doing?
BA have more than enough slots and enough "slack" in their system...
Jaws707 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 708 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5350 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 24): Why not add more frequency? Isn't that what carriers such as AA, BA and CX have been doing?
You can add frequency to a point. Let's look at ORD (O"Hare) for a moment. This airport is so busy it barely accomodates all flights on a good weather day, but if any storm comes in all hell breaks loose. Last Thur for example I was flying ORD-LGA. AA has about 19 daily roundtrip flights between the airports using MD-80's. The night before Chicago got some storms, and a bunch of flights ended up getting cancelled. Mine included. I should have been at LGA at 11:35am, instead I made it to JKF at 8:15pm. ORD has no slack and can backup quickly. Now they working on rebuilding it and expanding it further. In this case, I believe AA should reduce the route to say 12-14 daily roundtrips using some 757's with the MD-80's to keep capacity as is, but just reduce the # of flights.
25 Jacobin777: ...it would have been mayhem regardless if they used the a MadDog, B757 or a B777 (or even an A380) ..actually, they in fact switched one of their fl
26 DiscoverCSG: Well, that might work, except from the availability of slots at LHR - they aren't easy to get! The 772 is the largest plane AA thinks it can profitab
27 HighFlyer9790: So in total, how many flights leave JFK for LHR everyday? How about the new york are to the london area? (i.e. EWR and JFK, to LHR, MAN, etc.)
28 Feroze: This was discussed in detail in this thread: RE: London To New York, How Many A Day? (by Planesarecool Mar 18 2007 in Civil Aviation) Oh, MAN is not
29 BCALBOY: This ia exactly the case...i.e.the ba JFKLHR scheduling is designed to meet the needs of and win the Lion's share of the Premium Mkt. On peak days of
30 ContinentalEWR: The issue is slots and landing times. Nothing to do with size of plane or load factors. This is the world's busiest international route. JFK and LHR a
31 BCALBOY: Srry don -t agree at least so far as BA is concerned. JFK/LHR is too important - it get what it needs and other things are moved to accomodate. The c
32 JAAlbert: This would be a persuasive argument, if it werent for the fact that -- with respect to AA at least -- virtually every seat is sold on each of its eve
33 BCALBOY: No because those who turn-up late make space for those who turn-up early and usually end up withy some empty seats on last flt. JFKBA are expert and
34 Jacobin777: ...and that's a good problem to have... ...add open skies and a few other carriers serving other routes (such as EOS and MaxJet), and all of the sudd
35 Ktachiya: Excuse me but what does the NJB stand for? Is it some sort of agreement? Thanks in advance
36 Ptcflyer: IMHO, you are way too over sensitive for A380 bashing. The same issues apply to the new 747. As someone else pointed out... you have to factor in pre
37 Aq737: NW has three flights soon between HNL and NRT (2 744 and 1 333) that depart within an hour of one another. Aq737
38 TristarSteve: Night jet ban. LHR is basically closed from 2330 to 0600. Every airline that operates to LHR is allowed a small number of flights in this period. Whe
39 Aussiestu: Were these like slots and could be possibly sold to other airlines? It would appear rare for GF to use the NJB slots unless something had been delaye
40 Jaws707: I don't think it would have been as bad if there were fewer flights. For example, lets assume ORD is shut down for 4 hours. In these 4 hours AA delay
41 Geo772: That wasn't a quote from me for the record.
42 Jacobin777: ...because something like this doesn't happen to often during the year.. ....and what about rest of the odd 359 days when the system is performing sm
43 Jaws707: Problems at ORD occur way more often than 5 days a year. Anytime there is a thunderstorm things like this happen. There wouldn't be extra seats. The
44 ADent: Good in theory - but AA will lose the slots if they go unused. Then someone else will pick up the slots and congestion is just as bad. Not sure how d
45 Jacobin777: ...I fly into/out of ORD almost twice a month (many times 2x/month)....in the past 5-6 years, I've experienced maybe two delays...3 maximum... ..oh y
46 Jcavinato: Having taken AA on that route a lot, more than half the time we sit on the tarmac outside the tight area between the main part of LHR's terminal 3 and
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1218 posts, 
From India, joined Dec 2004, 794 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, 
From Australia, joined Dec 2006, 2701 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2006, 1118 posts, 
From Germany, joined Feb 2001, 2058 posts, 
...add open skies and more competition......AA preferes flexibility to add/remove flights.....there is basically no need for a plane even larger than a B773ER for AA, and that's pushing it....
From Switzerland, joined Jan 2006, 376 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 3712 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
