FlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 997 posts, RR: 0 Posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 9616 times:
Well with fuel prices where they are, and AA's announced intention to cut MD80's, will we see a return of widebodies in some major markets. Spread some fixed costs over more seats?
Interestingly, the first round of capacity cuts involve 767's...ORD-EZE takes 2 x 763, and HNL requires 1. In addition, there are 2 763's currently parked at AFW. That's 5 aircraft that will need to be utilized. Now some have speculated that these are to free up 777's for PEK, but honestly, the 777's are pretty underutilized as well. Thus, I am speculating that we will see a return of some 767's to more domestic markets.
ORD-LAX NOW: 4 M83, 5 757, 1 763 = TOTAL FREQ 10/DAY (1709 SEATS)
OPTION: 2 M83, 2 763, 5 757 = TOTAL FREQ 9/DAY(1662 SEATS)
- EASY - no real loss of flexibility for the biz traveler if scheduled properly(just loose 1 freq), and drop 47(3%) giveaway fare seats.
ORD-MIA NOW: 8 757, 1 763 = TOTAL FREQ 9/DAY(1729 SEATS)
OPTION: 4 757, 4 763 = TOTAL FREQ 8/DAY(1652 SEATS)
- AGAIN, EASY - No one needs an extra frequency in this market...a single spare 763 can rack up 4 segments in a day. and drop 77(4.4%) giveaway fare seats.
DFW-LAX NOW: 3 757, 5 738, 7 M80, 1 763 = 16/DAY(2481 SEATS). Are 16 frequencies/day really necessary in any market? Come on.
OPTION: 4 757, 5 738, 1 M80, 3 763 = 13/DAY( 2303 SEATS).
13 frequencies is still ample for the biz traveler and connections. Loss of 178 seats(basically a single 757), but cut 3 frequencies. Think of the cost of crew, insurance, FUEL, mx etc. for 3 MD80 flights r/t daily DFW-LAX.
Etc, etc. other good options IMHO are DFW-LGA/BOS/DCA/MCO/FLL(Why on earth does AA fly MD80's into MCO???), MIA-LGA/BOS
HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1020 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 9395 times:
Honestly, I believe the available widebodies will be allocated to INTL, in the statement from AMR, the projected a substantial decrease in domestic ASMs, while still growing INTL ASMs... to me that means that those over served markets like the ones that you mentioned, they will simply see reduced frequency...
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1589 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9324 times:
I love your thinking-and-it makes total sense. But, I get the feeling what you suggest won't take effect. Yes the airlines know they have to cut capacity and efficiencies...but they drag their feet at doing this. When AA first announced the bag charge and cuts it said markets like AUS to SNA would be cut..BFD. They really need to look at your analysis and do that. Sixteen Frequencies on DFW-LAX? My god, I had no clue. In your new figures you bring it down some, even going down to 8 (a 50% cut) would be more than enough. Those 767-200 flights to JFK from LAX are often lightly loaded as well. They could probably cut some of those and even, gasp, shall I say it, place a 777 in.
A lot of the EAGLE flying is going to have to go too. They rely HEAVILY on Eagle for frequency out of DFW. EAGLE flies out of their hubs to so many businesses centers that back in the day easily supported 727/MD80/F100 service, cities like CLE, IND, PIT, MKE, CVG, etc. Me thinks they should restore MD80s on these routes, with like 3 or 4 flights a day only-or maybe 3 or 4 big banks at DFW/ORD a day only and at strategic times for the business traveler. That is how it was in the 80s before the airlines jumped on the USA culture of having to have everything bigger, in abundance, NOW and CHEAP. That is how we got into this mess in the first place.
TAN FLYR From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1847 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 9163 times:
I also share your thinking and have stated so numerous times on this forum over the years. Finally it apeears that in some form or another it will take place. I remember when it was only 6 or so DC-10's a day from ORD-LAX. The max amount of time between any of the flights was about 2.5 hours.
I would hope that some of the scheduling folks use the same logic as you. It also might open up more cargo revenue opportunites have 767's back on more routes.
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 12, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8738 times:
Last time I checked they had 336. 299 in service and 37 parked. That doesn't change anything, as the reason they fly the MD80s to MCO is because they have 350 (336) of them and have to send them everywhere, no matter if it's the best aircraft or not.
Now, checking the 2007 annual report:
And it looks as if only 8 SAAB leases are due this year. The rest are owned and will just be parked. Though there may be liens against the aircraft to a point that they are handed over to the lien holders or scrapped and paid off.
The A306 fleet starts to retire this year, with 3 leases expiring 2008, 3 in 2009, and 8 in each of 2010 and 2011. They own 10. So they can cut capacity there by 13 planes this year by selling 10 A306s for freighter conversion.
What's really interesting is that come 2010, they will start losing non-parked 762ERs unless they re-lease them or buy them. I know they are far from efficient, but they make good use of them on transcons (though right now, I do wonder if they are losing money on some of those flights).
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2207 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8613 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): 'd personally love to see the MD80 banished from LAX as a start.
How about SAN, SJC and BUR, all noise impacted airports. AA has been screaming MD80's out of these airports for years. Does AA need nearly hourly service with 9 RT MD80s SAN-DFW? SAN has 14 MD80s, 2 757s and one 763. Same at SJC - 12 of 13 flights in MD80. BUR- all 4 DFW flights MD80.
If AA is grounding something like 35 MD80s, getting more 738s and probably having other aircraft available, please start removing MD80s at SAN, BUR and SJC.
TSS From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2870 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 8609 times:
Didn't I read somewhere on this website that there were some oddball non-ER 762s or 763s soon to be available used, either from expired leases or airline bankruptcies? I can't for the life of me recall who these aircraft belonged to, but would it make sense for AA to snatch these up (if the price is right) and use them to reduce DFW-LAX frequencies thereby freeing up ER aircraft for international duty?
Able to kill active threads stone dead with a single post!
Please. Just get the MD80 off the 3.5 hour "half-con" routes. 757s and 738s are fine replacements. Well, 738 is. 757 is old, but on a 3 hour route, it's fine. And they both have IFE.
Funny though, I have never, ever seen an AA MD80 on approach to BUR in three years of living under the path. I've seen them screaming off when going to Fry's. Man are they load. But on approach, I've never seen them. See the B6 and WN and AS birds all the time, and FedEx and UPS, but never the AA birds.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
SevenHeavy From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 1126 posts, RR: 10 Reply 16, posted (4 years 12 months 1 day ago) and read 8486 times:
Quoting FlyAA757 (Thread starter): Interestingly, the first round of capacity cuts involve 767's...ORD-EZE takes 2 x 763, and HNL requires 1. In addition, there are 2 763's currently parked at AFW. That's 5 aircraft that will need to be utilized. Now some have speculated that these are to free up 777's for PEK, but honestly, the 777's are pretty underutilized as well. Thus, I am speculating that we will see a return of some 767's to more domestic markets.
Firstly, I don't believe the B777 fleet is underutilised when compared to other airlines. The reason ORD-EZE/HNL is getting the chop is to free up B763 which in turn will free up B777 to operate to PEK.
Not to say that the B763 (or any other widebody) can't be profitable flying domestically but the odds are that most of the time they will better serve the airline on international routes. Sure, there are some domestice flights that will continue to be served by B763 but I doubt there will be any major additional flying - at least until B787's start arriving (when, not if)
My guess is that at the moment AA will fly any of its fleet wherever it can make the most money out of them. Everything is under scrutiny and marginal routes will get the axe in favour of better opportunities elsewhere. At the moment this favours european and particularly asian routes and probably will for the foreseeable future.
Another option -- remove seats.....and extend leg room by that fact. Yeah, that''ll happen.
Another option -- cancel routes/frequency. But, what rules are in place at LAX and JFK dealing with gate usage? Would they loose the gate if they don't have a frequent enough usage (like at ORD)? The frequency may also be related to NOT losing a gate in the future.
Remember also, AA is looking to get 737s to replace the Mad Dogs......that'll help with gas consumption over time. Am I correct in saying AA expects somthing like 20 planes this year?
Finally, of course, to change a couple flights into a single wide-body, you need the plane to do it with. Are they do to receive any this summer/fall?
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31118 posts, RR: 73 Reply 18, posted (4 years 12 months 22 hours ago) and read 8358 times:
Quoting Davescj (Reply 17): Remember also, AA is looking to get 737s to replace the Mad Dogs......that'll help with gas consumption over time. Am I correct in saying AA expects somthing like 20 planes this year?
34 737-800s will be delivered throughout 2009, which will slowly help to re-build the temporary cuts in capacity being made later this year (assuming of course, that things don't get worse and AA decides to retire even more S80s, which is very possible).
AA777LVR From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 193 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (4 years 12 months 21 hours ago) and read 8264 times:
Quoting SANFan (Reply 2): When we taxied out of MIA on Monday, there were 4 777's parked at the mx base. Don't know why.
I previously worked in aircraft routing for AA (nope...dispatch doesn't do it....there's a department in maintenance that controls aircraft routing for dispatch). These birds are having their mtx (A checks, MEL's, etc.) done during daylight hours since the T7's fly so much overnight. Much like the 763's it's hard to stop them to get their checks done so the idle time during the day is built into the sked for maintenance. DFW is much the same way for the 763's...they'll come in from South America or HI and sit for the day to have mtx and then start flying again in the late afternoon/evening. Occasionally, this is where dispatch will "steal" a widebody from for aircraft subs (i.e. 757's/A300's, etc).
Deltaflyertoo From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 1589 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (4 years 12 months 12 hours ago) and read 7399 times:
At one time the LAX-JFK route was HUGE for AA, however in the last 5 years they have seen increased compeitition by DL, add Jetblue and Virgin America and their yields have been substantially suppressed. In addition, yields high or not, they do offer a lot of frequency that spread the pax out on the 767s. I would think the biz traveler would be fine with a 7A, 930A, noon, 3pm and redeye option, (thats 5) instead of like 9 flights as it is now. Look at CO for example, they don't have 9 departures to EWR.
25 Cubsrule: UA and AA both seem to think that the correct way to deal with the increased competition is by differentiating themselves. Seeing 2 carriers doing it
26 DiscoverCSG: Well, I knew that was the case historically, but... With these times, I assume you mean LAX-JFK flights. For JFK-LAX, I think that would make it some
27 Gsosbee: This one yes. Also you need to remember there is no competition on the route unless you want a one stop through Denver, SLC or Phoenix.
28 EXAAUADL: Theyve taken a hit with UA's PS service..but I think UA doesnt make money flying a 112 seat 757.
29 Deltaflyertoo: Well IMO only I do think they are losing money on this strategy. The one WEAK source I have even is the CNBC special a day in the life of AA stating
30 Cubsrule: With both flying low-density planes, I can't help but wonder if they need the capacity. We have anecdotes about low loads, but nothing concrete.[Edit
31 Ikramerica: Any flight that doesn't lose money isn't bad. And there are other reasons for this route. The 3-class flights to NYC from LAX are subsidized by Holly
32 Aruba: Does this mean that BDL to SJU will return to the A300?
33 PRAirbus: AA 767's on JFK-Transcons are staying for a while since all AA 762's are getting an entire interior revamp in all cabins.
34 Joemugg: Lets hope sooner than later... maybe this is where the fifteen dollars is going.
35 MTSUATC: I would love to see a scheduled widebody back at BNA, and not the cargos. I know it's never going to happen. Just wishful thinking.
36 San747: Actually, with the SJU cuts, it might be totally gone soon.
37 MAH4546: BDL-SJU will most likely be staying and has survived the first (only?) round of cuts. Hartford has the third largest Caribbean immigrant community in
38 San747: Oh... I didn't know the market was that strong. In that case, Aruba does have a valid question- might that route ever see AB6 equipment again?
39 SANFan: I found a "sliver of positive" in all of the upcoming cuts, etc. For all of us SAN-ophiles (and especially those whom are also wide-body lovers), I l
40 MAH4546: Nowhere close. Only changes loaded are SJU schedule changes; and the individually announced BOS-SAN; ORD-HNL, JFK-STN, and ORD-EZE cuts. Nothing else
41 Flynavy: All 767-200s that AA has parked are older non-ER models, all stored at ROW since 2005 (less the one 762ER that exploded at LAX).