Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
American Airlines: Why No 777 On JFK-MIA?  
User currently offlineJetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1443 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9659 times:

Hi, I just wondered since JFK-MIA is very lucrative on AA's network and flights are always full, I wonder why AA doesnt use the 777 on the flight? JFK is one of AA's focus cities and MIA is AA's hub, is it possible that the 777 might be used on the route?


My worst nightmare is not getting a window seat!
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29671 posts, RR: 84
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9650 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am guessing they have enough feed between the two points that they don't need a 777 and therefore deploy the 777 on other routes.

The 777 turn times in JFK and MIA might also be tight enough to not allow the plane to perform a JFK-MIA-JFK / MIA-JFK-MIA rotation.


User currently onlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3451 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9538 times:

In AA's route structure, B777s are "international" airplanes with the only domestic flights being used to position an airframe for either an international flight or as a "backup" (ready spare) for an international flight. Once the domestic routing is decided, AA will try to sell every seat on the repositioning flight, but the primary reason for the domestic movement is to protect one (or more) international flight(s).


*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offline7324ever From Serbia, joined May 2009, 563 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9521 times:

They do/did have A300s on the route and I think they use 767s witch could help on LF but a 777 is a little much


Anything the US and EU build the Russians do it better! i.e. TU-144 vs Concorde and TU-154 vs The 727...
User currently offlineQantas787 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9495 times:

Slightly off topic I know , but I hope they keep their 777 on MIA-LAX until at least Feb 10, as I have 5 FC seats which I don't want downgraded to a 757 or 738. Went in their FC on it this year and it really is an exceptional domestic service. Good onya AA.

User currently offlineFlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6994 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9471 times:



Quoting Qantas787 (Reply 4):
Slightly off topic I know , but I hope they keep their 777 on MIA-LAX until at least Feb 10, as I have 5 FC seats which I don't want downgraded to a 757 or 738. Went in their FC on it this year and it really is an exceptional domestic service. Good onya AA.

I dont see why they would sell it, the 777 is used because the route can demand a 777, it is sold as a three class service and it is always full. As for JFK MIA had at one point 777 service to BOS,ORD,DFW and LAX but never JFK. Why I am not sure. but they have/had a lot of A300's on the route and now they fly 762 on the route also.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32175 posts, RR: 72
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9291 times:

AA has used 777s in the past on MIAJFK, it is all about spare aircraft availability and has nothing to do with LFs.

While AA typically uses 777s domestic only on utilisation, the MIALAX 777 service is on purpose. There is demand for 3 class service on the route, plus the cargo capacity is needed.



a.
User currently onlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3451 posts, RR: 47
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 9258 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 6):
While AA typically uses 777s domestic only on utilisation, the MIALAX 777 service is on purpose. There is demand for 3 class service on the route, plus the cargo capacity is needed.

Yes and no. Originally AA moved a "spare" 772 from DFW-LAX to back-up the LAX-NRT flight. Years later that was switched to a MIA-LAX round-trip as that was where the spare 772 was located (MIA). The service proved so popular AA now flys MIA-LAX with a 772 on the first flight timed to arrive at approx. the same time as the NRT-LAX 772 (10:35 vs 10:20). If the NRT-LAX plane is okayed for the LAX-NRT trip, the MIA bird returns to MIA at 11:50. If the MIA bird is better suited for the trans-Pac flt, the planes are swapped. And if there is a question-mark, the MIA flight is delayed until it is clear the NRT flight will depart (less than an hour later). So the primary reason for the MIA-LAX flight remains operational (back-up plane for LAX-NRT), but don't expect the spare to come from anywhere else for the foreseeable future as the LAX-MIA pax have voted with their $$$ to keep a 772 on that route.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9564 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9057 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 7):
The service proved so popular AA now flys MIA-LAX with a 772 on the first flight timed to arrive at approx. the same time as the NRT-LAX 772 (10:35 vs 10:20). If the NRT-LAX plane is okayed for the LAX-NRT trip, the MIA bird returns to MIA at 11:50. If the MIA bird is better suited for the trans-Pac flt, the planes are swapped. And if there is a question-mark, the MIA flight is delayed until it is clear the NRT flight will depart (less than an hour later). So the primary reason for the MIA-LAX flight remains operational (back-up plane for LAX-NRT),

Why are these 777's swapped? Apparently one operates LAX-NRT-LAX while the other operates MIA-LAX-MIA, right? I always find aircraft operations fascinating and always wonder about the logic behind aircraft utilizations.

A388


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3362 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9005 times:



Quoting A388 (Reply 8):
Why are these 777's swapped?

I would presume if one has non-functioning components that aren't serious enough to ground the aircraft, or if one has non-functioning equipment that is necessary for ETOPs - then the other bird gets the go ahead. That is, a malfunction that isn't serious enough to ground the aircraft, but not something you would necessarily want on an 11-12 hour trans-pac. It gives AA more options in LAX.



PHX based
User currently offlineAaal From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8885 times:

Once in a while they swap equipment on the JFK-MIA route to spot for a 777 trip.

They could fit it now in the current schedule. Take the aircraft that does 115 inbound which get in at 1100. Turn it
1230-1545 JFK-MIA
1650-2000 MIA-JFK

The plane could go on and turn flight 132 which is the normal sequence. Now that would be sweet.

Quoting 7324ever (Reply 3):
They do/did have A300s on the route and I think they use 767s witch could help on LF but a 777 is a little much

The A300's holds 266, while a 777 hold 247 in the domestic configuration. So it would be a drop in capacity.


User currently offlineA388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined May 2001, 9564 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8844 times:



Quoting 777STL (Reply 9):
I would presume if one has non-functioning components that aren't serious enough to ground the aircraft, or if one has non-functioning equipment that is necessary for ETOPs - then the other bird gets the go ahead. That is, a malfunction that isn't serious enough to ground the aircraft, but not something you would necessarily want on an 11-12 hour trans-pac. It gives AA more options in LAX.

Okay I think I see it now. The LAX-MIA flight departs later in the day hence giving AA room to fix the aircraft should there be non-functional components while the Japan flight continues with the other aircraft which was swapped? My question was based on both flights also returning right away(?)

A388


User currently offlineN623JB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 703 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8681 times:

In my opinion, I dont think a 777 would be used, because it would take a lot of people to fill up the plane, comparing it to the 757(aircraft that is used JFK-MIA)...But also, too big to operate on this route. Its not like its a long haul route JFK-NRT. That I would see a 777 being used on.


Bring JetBlue To Mexico City! (TLC and/or MEX would be great)
User currently offlineAAAL From United States of America, joined Apr 2009, 125 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8424 times:



Quoting N623JB (Reply 12):
In my opinion, I don't think a 777 would be used, because it would take a lot of people to fill up the plane, comparing it to the 757(aircraft that is used JFK-MIA)...But also, too big to operate on this route. Its not like its a long haul route JFK-NRT. That I would see a 777 being used on.

They use all types of aircraft on the route. Normally it would be all A300s but they are getting retired. That would be about 1330 available seats per day. As if it was all 777 it would only be 1235. That's almost 100 seats less.


User currently offlineFlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 6994 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8314 times:



Quoting N623JB (Reply 12):
In my opinion, I dont think a 777 would be used, because it would take a lot of people to fill up the plane, comparing it to the 757(aircraft that is used JFK-MIA)...But also, too big to operate on this route. Its not like its a long haul route JFK-NRT. That I would see a 777 being used on.

It is definitely not too big and airline could easily fill a 747 on a route like MIA-JFK but the public likes having more time options than bigger planes. Anyway MIA-JFK is being flown for AA by A300's which have more seats than the 777 but the A300 will retire in a few weeks. Its last AA flight is MIA-JFK. They will have at the end of august 3 757s one 762 and one 763 flying 5 daily MIA-JFK flights.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlineAJMIA From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 729 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8218 times:

MIA-JFK is 5x daily.

After the A300s are gone it will be
1x 762
1x 763
3x 757

That is a lot fewer seats then the 4x A300 1x 762 that we had previously.

I think if the down time at MIA and JFK was sufficient it would be smart to send a 777 back and forth on a domestic trip to increase the number of seats in the market.

I was fully expecting to see a couple of new flights with 757 or 737 aircraft to make up for the A300 to 757 downgrade.

AJMIA



Lady it's a jet... not a kite.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8168 times:



Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 14):
It is definitely not too big and airline could easily fill a 747 on a route like MIA-JFK but the public likes having more time options than bigger planes.

In pre-deregulation days when widebodies were common on many medium and even shorthaul U.S. domestic routes, National Airlines used their two 747-100s regularly on JFK-MIA in the early 1970s. In their April 1974 timetable, 2 of their 5 daily JFK-MIA flights were 747s.


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2169 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 7570 times:



Quoting AJMIA (Reply 15):
After the A300s are gone it will be
1x 762
1x 763
3x 757

That is a lot fewer seats then the 4x A300 1x 762 that we had previously.



Quoting AJMIA (Reply 15):
I was fully expecting to see a couple of new flights with 757 or 737 aircraft to make up for the A300 to 757 downgrade.

I guess the capacity drop could mean higher yields, explaining why AA would not be willing to match the former capacity with an additional flight. Or maybe with the drop in demand this year, loads weren't very high and it will suffice.



When I doubt... go running!
User currently onlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3451 posts, RR: 47
Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6995 times:



Quoting A388 (Reply 11):
The LAX-MIA flight departs later in the day hence giving AA room to fix the aircraft should there be non-functional components while the Japan flight continues with the other aircraft which was swapped? My question was based on both flights also returning right away(?)

If all is well, the planes are not normally planned to swap. The normal plan is the MIA-LAX bird returns to MIA and the NRT-LAX bird returns to NRT. The MIA-LAX flight simply positions a spare [good working] airframe at LAX as "revenue protection" just in case the NRT-LAX aircraft has a problem. In the days before it was a MIA-LAX flight, the spare plane had come from DFW or ORD. With the growth at MIA, more 777 assets were positioned there and that makes a "spare" airframe available to move to LAX once/day. Hence, it is planned as a MIA-LAX-MIA "turn."

Quoting AJMIA (Reply 15):
I think if the down time at MIA and JFK was sufficient it would be smart to send a 777 back and forth on a domestic trip to increase the number of seats in the market.

You need more than just the minimum "down time" to complete the flight you suggest. You also need to schedule in the maintenance time you would lose by flying the plane instead of fixing it. The international flights remain "high priority" so AA mgmt (currently) prefers to schedule the maintenance time for these birds instead of flying them domestically. ETOPS requirements are much more strict than domestic ops. and that means more maintenance man-hours required to maintain ETOPS standards.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineJetBlue777 From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 1443 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6940 times:

Hi, slightly off topic. Forgive my ingnorance but what are low and high yield flights?


My worst nightmare is not getting a window seat!
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4252 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6930 times:



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 18):
Quoting AJMIA (Reply 15):
I think if the down time at MIA and JFK was sufficient it would be smart to send a 777 back and forth on a domestic trip to increase the number of seats in the market.



Quoting AAR90 (Reply 18):
You need more than just the minimum "down time" to complete the flight you suggest. You also need to schedule in the maintenance time you would lose by flying the plane instead of fixing it.

One other factor to consider.... with the almost daily, horrendous delays into the NYC airports, sending a 777 down to MIA from JFK and hoping that it will return anywhere near it's scheduled ariival time back in JFK would be pretty risky.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32175 posts, RR: 72
Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 6396 times:



Quoting N623JB (Reply 12):
n my opinion, I dont think a 777 would be used, because it would take a lot of people to fill up the plane, comparing it to the 757(aircraft that is used JFK-MIA)...But also, too big to operate on this route. Its not like its a long haul route JFK-NRT. That I would see a 777 being used on.

The A300 was used on MIA-JFK 4x daily until the retirment phase-in. AA's A300s seat more people (267) than the 777 (247).

The 777 is not too big, capacity-wise, for MIA-JFK.



a.
User currently offlineOP3000 From United States of America, joined Jun 2009, 1678 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 6298 times:



Quoting JetBlue777 (Reply 19):
Hi, slightly off topic. Forgive my ingnorance but what are low and high yield flights?

Yield is how much revenue per seat is generated. Typically a high-yield flight is one where the airline can command high fares, whether its from coach or premium class (ideally both).

Quoting AAR90 (Reply 18):
In the days before it was a MIA-LAX flight, the spare plane had come from DFW or ORD. With the growth at MIA, more 777 assets were positioned there and that makes a "spare" airframe available to move to LAX once/day. Hence, it is planned as a MIA-LAX-MIA "turn."

IIRC AA rotates the 777s at LHR, which is where most of the birds flying to JFK head to. That way they avoid having to run them on JFK-LAX, JFK-MIA, JFK-DFW, JFK-ORD for rotation purposes.


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...
Why No Late-night JFK-SFO/LAX Flights On UA/AA? posted Fri Feb 17 2006 06:47:30 by RJpieces
Why No F Class On Croatia Airlines? posted Thu Jul 8 2004 22:12:05 by CB777
Why No Wingtips On The 777? posted Thu Dec 25 2003 18:13:33 by Moolies
UK LCCs (excluding FR&U2) - Why No Planes On Order posted Wed Jul 8 2009 10:03:15 by DocPepz
Why No 777-200LRs For Continental? posted Fri Feb 13 2009 17:23:34 by 1337Delta764
Southwest Airlines: Why No Transcons? posted Fri Oct 24 2008 19:30:39 by FXramper
Why No Operators On NCL-BGO Route? posted Tue Jul 29 2008 12:53:41 by Thom@s
Why No IFE On AF A32Xs? posted Sun Jul 20 2008 01:39:48 by LY777
Why No Photos On US Pilot Licences? posted Tue Jul 15 2008 22:37:43 by Xclozano
Why No Cameras On Major Runways? posted Mon May 26 2008 02:44:33 by A380900