Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Impact Of AA A300 Retirement On Cargo Capacity  
User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Posted (6 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3988 times:

In the discussions about AA's retirement of the A300's (and subsequent replacement with 757's and 767's), I am curious as to how American is planning on dealing with the reduction in cargo capacity to some of its Caribbean destinations known for their "voluminous" amounts of checked baggage. As I recall, cargo alone practically pays for some of these destination.

The reason AA has been using this aircraft has been the very generous amount of underfloor cargo area that other planes do not have - and I know I have been told it many times (shame on me for not remembering!!), but a 767 is just slightly too narrow to put LD2 containers side-by-side (is that the right name?), but an A300 can. And granted, the 787 will alleviate this situation, but that's quite a ways into the future.

Given the lifeline nature of many of these flights in terms of bringing items to the islands that cannot be purchased there, how is AA planning on continuing carrying the massive amounts of checked baggage that its A300 destinations have been carrying?

Thanks for the insights!!


Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePRAirbus From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2005, 1144 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3707 times:

With the current economic downturn perhaps the A300 cargo capacity is not that crucial with the exception of a few markets where the 763 will take over (GYE/LIM/PAP/SDQ).

User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33280 posts, RR: 71
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3613 times:



Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 1):
With the current economic downturn perhaps the A300 cargo capacity is not that crucial with the exception of a few markets where the 763 will take over (GYE/LIM/PAP/SDQ).

Cargo capacity is always important, and traffic to Latin America has so far not been hurt. In addition to the markets you mention, PUJ, CCS, BOG, GUA and MGA will see 763s.



a.
User currently offlineHeavierthanair From Switzerland, joined Oct 2000, 823 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3446 times:

G'day

Quoting PRAirbus (Reply 1):
With the current economic downturn perhaps the A300 cargo capacity is not that crucial

Maybe the economic downturn was caused by fewer kitchensinks, refrigerators, dishwashers etc. being bought due to a lack of cargo space on those flights...  bigthumbsup 


Cheers

Peter



"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." (Albert Einstein, 1879
User currently offlineJustplanenutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 3322 times:

It has been generally stated a number of places that checked bag fees have reduced bag volume by 25%. That should have cleared space below the floor for paid cargo on the small planes.

I would be interested to know if that trend was consistent out of MIA.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7658 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3270 times:



Quoting Justplanenutz (Reply 4):
It has been generally stated a number of places that checked bag fees have reduced bag volume by 25%. That should have cleared space below the floor for paid cargo on the small planes.

That is the key, we do hear some airlines saying that their revenues have increased by X since they introduced the fee's, you would expect that since you have now receiving funds for somtheing that was previously free. What we need to know is if the volume of pax checked baggage has gone down, from my experience at MIA, it does appear so, but I have no scientific basis for that. Most pax on international flights even though not charged first bag fees are still attempting to pack as much as possible into one, the number of hand baggage has increased, also remember, that even though first bags are free on international routes - AA - the fees for additional and overweight have gone up tremendously.

The downturn in the economy now means that the space cleared out for cargo will now go unfilled, airlines will either use smaller a/c or attempt to lure pax back with lower bag fees, usually in a downturn in the economy, the business' that do well are those who cater mostly to the average joe, so look for Wal-Mart type stores to continue to see strong business with little or no fall off.


User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 3109 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 5):
Most pax on international flights even though not charged first bag fees

You know that is not gonna last. This all started with fees on the 2nd bags. Now that the first bag charge has been universally accepted (except WN), it's just a matter of time until these fees go international.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33280 posts, RR: 71
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3050 times:



Quoting JustPlaneNutz (Reply 6):
Quoting Par13del (Reply 5):
Most pax on international flights even though not charged first bag fees

You know that is not gonna last.

Yes, it definitley is going to last. Airlines will not add checked bag fees on international flights, because foreign airlines aren't adding checked bag fees. It would be suicide, especially to Latin America.



a.
User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Same thing was said about banning smoking on international flights. How did that work out?

User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33280 posts, RR: 71
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 3005 times:



Quoting JustPlaneNutz (Reply 8):
Same thing was said about banning smoking on international flights. How did that work out?

Everybody banned smoking.

Foreign carriers aren't charging for bags.

It's the same reason AA still serves a hot dinner on a 2.5 hour flight from Miami to Maracaibo: foreign airlines still do it, so AA still does, too.



a.
User currently offlineBassbonebobo From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 66 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2993 times:



Quoting PanAm747 (Thread starter):
I know I have been told it many times (shame on me for not remembering!!), but a 767 is just slightly too narrow to put LD2 containers side-by-side (is that the right name?), but an A300 can.

The A300 uses LD3 containers and the 767 uses LD2 containers which are narrower. The 767 is also capable of handling LD3's (at least the ones that I worked on are), as you said.



Rule #176. Any device that can crawl across the table on medium, does not need to be brought into the office.
User currently offlineJustPlaneNutz From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 553 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2953 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
Everybody banned smoking.

Not at the same time they didn't. The US acted first, with US airlines claiming they would be competitively harmed if the US acted unilaterally. They weren't and there was actually a rush among US airlines to go entirely smoke-free, ahead of regulation.

IMO, the number of US citizens that will book a foreign flag carrier to South/Central America to avoid a $25 bag fee is roughly equivalent to those who will drive a hybrid down the Pan American Highway to save the environment.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33280 posts, RR: 71
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 2864 times:



Quoting JustPlaneNutz (Reply 11):

IMO, the number of US citizens that will book a foreign flag carrier to South/Central America to avoid a $25 bag fee is roughly equivalent to those who will drive a hybrid down the Pan American Highway to save the environment.

And maybe that would be relevant if most people on this flights were U.S. citizens.

They aren't.



a.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Impact Of Fuel Price Hikes On Orders & Deferrals posted Mon Jun 2 2008 06:22:04 by Aviationbuff
The Impact Of The Bali Talks On Aviation posted Mon Dec 17 2007 00:30:30 by Cricket
History Of AA A300 posted Fri Aug 17 2007 18:29:25 by BR715-A1-30
Impact Of The CGH Crash On The Airport? posted Wed Jul 18 2007 03:59:08 by A340313X
AA A300 Crash On National Geographic Tonight. posted Thu Sep 7 2006 02:38:48 by JAM747
Air Madrid And Lufthansa Deal On Cargo Capacity posted Wed Jul 5 2006 12:28:11 by Beaucaire
Impact Of Mandala B732 Crash On OzJet posted Wed Sep 7 2005 13:16:19 by 6thfreedom
Impact Of TZ's Financial Crisis On MDW? posted Wed Aug 25 2004 15:55:41 by Leelaw
Color Of AA A300-600´s posted Tue Sep 7 1999 12:40:50 by AirNR
Impact Of Dockworkers Strike On US Air Cargo? posted Tue Oct 1 2002 15:43:13 by Lindy field