Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA To Launch LAX-JFK Shuttle Service  
User currently offlineoc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 362 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 26791 times:

AA announced Wednesday that it will begin hourly service between LAX and JFK starting in early 2014. Currently AA has between 8 and 10 daily frequencies. Staring in early 2014 frequencies will be increased to the low teens.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2013-...ourly-flights-on-new-york-la-route

Clearly with this new shuttle like service, AA wont be losing too much capacity by replacing the 762's with the A321 T's.

On a side note, the article mentions there are slot restrictions at JFK and says AA will need to eliminate certain flights to accommodate the new LAX-JFK frequency. I don't know how much truth there is to that statement. I'm pretty sure AA is sitting on plenty of slots for JFK expansion.

Also interesting to note, AA will board passengers on the A321T though the L2 door. I guess that puts that debate to rest.

[Edited 2013-05-01 21:51:09]


I'm not complaining, I'm critiquing...
97 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKD5MDK From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 26694 times:

I'm pretty sure the JFK slot restrictions are for peak slots. Moving to a shuttle (and spreading flights across the day) wouldn't need many more if any peak slots.

User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2940 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 26615 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm excited to see that they will use L2 to board. That is my favorite thing about the 757s!


\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 26551 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting oc2dc (Thread starter):
Staring in early 2014 frequencies will be increased to the low teens.

That means at least two red eyes per night on the East bound direction, if not three.

Increasing frequency on the route not only gives additional flexibility to business travelers, it also gives the opportunity for leisure travelers to connect on all flights to Hawaii American has out of LAX.

I'm wondering if BOS-LAX will also see the A321 once the 757 is retired later this decade, I know SFO-JFK will.
MIA-LAX maybe, but I think that one will continue to see 763s and 772s.



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24866 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 26546 times:

AA is indeed tight on JFK slots - hence the deal with JetBlue couple years back.

If they need to shed slots they still have quite a few AE flights which probably don't have much value, or some low hanging fruit with single frequency domestic flights to places like LAS, SEA, MCO, TPA, SAN which likely don't mean much in the bigger network picture.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32616 posts, RR: 72
Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 26256 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
AA is indeed tight on JFK slots - hence the deal with JetBlue couple years back.

If they need to shed slots they still have quite a few AE flights which probably don't have much value, or some low hanging fruit with single frequency domestic flights to places like LAS, SEA, MCO, TPA, SAN which likely don't mean much in the bigger network picture.
AA is not tight on slots whatsoever. Slots are easy to get outside peak and those slots the it acquired from B6 are still being used on routes like MCO, ORF and LAS. It is essentially siting on a good number of prime slots, not used for prime purposes.

While I think that short-haul might go, especially as PHL becomes an AA hub, LAS, SAN and SEA aren't going anywhere, and absolutely mean much in the bigger network picture as important markets for AA to serve from NYC. SAN has a second frequency that seem to operate somewhat inconsistently. LAS is double daily, as is MCO and, effective June, TPA. They are also absolutely critical feeder markets for Europe flights.

[Edited 2013-05-01 22:50:34]


a.
User currently offlinecivetfive From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 26147 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 3):

They already run 2 redeyes on LAX-JFK, one at 9:30pm and another at 11:30pm.

What I'd personally like to see is the return of the 5th, and hopefully the introduction of a 6th, frequency on SFO-JFK. The options just feel very limited right now - only 1 eastbound flight arrives in time for dinner, 2 flights leave within 65 minutes after lunch, but arrive too late for dinner, and the 4th is a decent redeye. Westbound we have 2 morning flights, then nothing for 6+ hours, then a predinner flight.

Current Schedule - Eastbound
AA24 0700 1545
AA16 1255 2145
AA20 1400 2250
AA18 2240 0740 +1

Current Schedule - Westbound
AA59 0800 1130
AA179 0930 1255
AA85 1530 0705
AA177 1800 2140

I'd love to see a 0930 eastbound, and a 12pm westbound. With the 6th, I'd love a 1530 eastbound and a 2030 westbound - let me do drinks before heading to JFK!


User currently offlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 25356 times:

Hourly flights on a 5-6 hour transcon..? Hope they don't lose too much money.

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7210 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 24650 times:

Quoting toobz (Reply 7):
Hourly flights on a 5-6 hour transcon..? Hope they don't lose too much money.

That's what I'm thinking....doesn't sound like a good idea to me.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently onlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 24466 times:

Quoting oc2dc (Thread starter):
Also interesting to note, AA will board passengers on the A321T though the L2 door. I guess that puts that debate to rest.

This keeps the 'pee-ons' from oogling the 'stars' in F.



'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineAAplat4life From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 24236 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8):
Quoting toobz (Reply 7):Hourly flights on a 5-6 hour transcon..? Hope they don't lose too much money.
That's what I'm thinking....doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

This has been expected for some time now, but I still have reservations about it being profitable enough. Perhaps DL will add some more 767s on this route, and then will see how the market responds. The CASM advantage on the A321 is going to go away quickly with only 102 seats and the labor costs of more flights. I just cannot see US management sticking to this plan after the merger unless it is profitable.


User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1025 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 24037 times:

Quoting United_fan (Reply 9):
This keeps the 'pee-ons' from oogling the 'stars' in F.

Right on.

AA is going to have a the best product on the route when you look at it = brand new A321's with hourly service. Bold move on their part to get agressive again in NY after being beat up by DL and UA for the past few years. While the frequency may drop a bit after the initial hoopla, if they end up w/ 10 per day that's quite a nice setup.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8286 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 23991 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

AA has JFK to LAX flights about every 90 minutes, sometimes hourly. I doubt AA is going to call it a "shuttle" in the Boston to LGA type of shuttle.

User currently offlinetoobz From Finland, joined Jan 2010, 767 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 23905 times:

Uhh the best? You know DL has widebody with aisle access for every seat as well. Wouldn't say AA has the best. It's a great product as well

User currently offlineJBAirwaysFan From United States of America, joined May 2009, 951 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23652 times:

With multiple carriers on the JFK-LAX route (or NYC-LAX in general), how much more capacity can the market take? I know it's a very lucrative market with tons of demand, but every market has a limit. What is the limit on this one?


In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 750 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23525 times:

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 11):
if they end up w/ 10 per day that's quite a nice setup.

That's essentially the current setup... except today they are using widebodies with much more capacity.



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3382 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23402 times:

First thoughts:

1. I knew they would use 2L for boarding. Small, narrow F section doesnt need a conga line

2. Shuttle is interesting choice of words seeing as they will now have The Shuttle at LGA from US

3. Shuttle is a word usually associated with high frequency, all coach with a decent product, short haull service. I hope they dont brand it as a shuttle and then try to sell lie flat seats...it is just counter intuitive from a marketing point of view. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't have used Shuttle in the press release at all.

4. Slots...they have plenty of them. No cuts needed. They are down to like 90 flights. At one time, they had well over 100.


User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6449 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23247 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 16):
2. Shuttle is interesting choice of words seeing as they will now have The Shuttle at LGA from US

Back in the 60s and 70s, AA operated their own shuttle BOS-LGA-DCA which they called the Jet Express


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 23101 times:

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Reply 14):
With multiple carriers on the JFK-LAX route (or NYC-LAX in general), how much more capacity can the market take? I know it's a very lucrative market with tons of demand, but every market has a limit. What is the limit on this one?

The demand historically has always been gigantic--especially once the movie industry started to become important in the second decade of the 20th Century. Even before the airlines became important, the major American railroads had a LOT of service between New York City and Los Angeles--note that New York Central's 20th Century Limited and Pennsylvania Railroad's Broadway Limited at times synced their schedules so passengers could easily transfer to Rock Island/Southern Pacific's Golden State Limited, Santa Fe's Super Chief or Union Pacific/Chicago & Northwestern's City of Los Angeles.

When AA introduced the DC-3, it didn't take long for AA to use it on the New York City to Los Angeles route--the plane could fly from New York City to Los Angeles in 17.5 hours (including refueling stops)--less than half the time the Super Chief train needed just to travel from Chicago to Los Angeles!   Small wonder just before the American entrance into World War II, both Boeing and Douglas were developing four-engined airliners that could fly between New York City and Los Angeles faster and requiring fewer fuel stops.

In my humble opinion, it was the burgeoning Los Angeles-New York City route that drove the development of the Douglas DC-6/7/8, the Lockheed Constellation, and the Boeing 707. The fact in 2013 you have multiple airlines flying many flights per day between LAX and JFK shows how strong this route is even now. AA's decision to increase the flight frequency between JFK and LAX--especially with the impending arrival of the A321 models--continues this trend.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 61
Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 22855 times:

Interesting - and to be expected.

Although this still portends a substantial reduction in capacity (particularly in Y) - which is obviously the point. I take his statement of frequency in the "low teens" to mean less than 15. So even assuming 14 flights per day - which I think is quiet plausible - you're still talking at least a 15% overall capacity reduction.

As for the frequencies themselves - I agree with others - AA shouldn't have too much trouble finding the JFK slots. Plus, while BusinessWeek might have called it an "hourly shuttle," schedule and time zone realities means that of course it will not be quite hourly throughout the day westbound, and certainly not eastbound. I could see:

From LAX: 0630 0730 0830 0930 1030 1130 1230 1330 1430 1530 1700 2100 2230 2355
From JFK: 0630 0730 0830 0930 1100 1200 1300 1400 1530 1630 1730 1830 2000 2130

I would also not be surprised to see JFK-SFO get 1-2 extra round-trip frequencies, too.

[Edited 2013-05-02 06:07:50]

User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22577 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 18):
The demand historically has always been gigantic--especially once the movie industry started to become important in the second decade of the 20th Century. Even before the airlines became important, the major American railroads had a LOT of service between New York City and Los Angeles--note that New York Central's 20th Century Limited and Pennsylvania Railroad's Broadway Limited at times synced their schedules so passengers could easily transfer to Rock Island/Southern Pacific's Golden State Limited, Santa Fe's Super Chief or Union Pacific/Chicago & Northwestern's City of Los Angeles.

When AA introduced the DC-3, it didn't take long for AA to use it on the New York City to Los Angeles route--the plane could fly from New York City to Los Angeles in 17.5 hours (including refueling stops)--less than half the time the Super Chief train needed just to travel from Chicago to Los Angeles! Small wonder just before the American entrance into World War II, both Boeing and Douglas were developing four-engined airliners that could fly between New York City and Los Angeles faster and requiring fewer fuel stops.

In my humble opinion, it was the burgeoning Los Angeles-New York City route that drove the development of the Douglas DC-6/7/8, the Lockheed Constellation, and the Boeing 707. The fact in 2013 you have multiple airlines flying many flights per day between LAX and JFK shows how strong this route is even now. AA's decision to increase the flight frequency between JFK and LAX--especially with the impending arrival of the A321 models--continues this trend.

AA must know something us armchair CEO's dont...oh yeah, THEY have the gorilla's load of corporate contracts between both cities when it comes to travel...the guarantees must have already been in those corporate contracts to warrant the extra flights, which in my mind, are a good thing...I better hop on a 762 while I can! Oh, one question though...whats the capacity of AA's A321's vs the 762's?



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2017 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22129 times:

Maybe they see the need to "keep up with the joneses" in terms of frequency (UA in EWR) also. I totally understand EWR and JFK transcon market dynamics are not the same. But there is now a real precedent for high frequency flights to LAX and SFO from the NYC area.

UA strangely uses RJ's to fly to IAD. Maybe they should dump those flights and add more transcon frequencies to up the ante.

It is strange to call it a "shuttle," I agree. Shuttle implies something like BOS-LGA, DFW/DAL-IAH, SFO-LAX.


User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 555 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22095 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 8):
That's what I'm thinking....doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

Nothing AA does sounds like a good idea to you. Except maybe for PHX-NRT shuttles?


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 21933 times:

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 22):
Nothing AA does sounds like a good idea to you. Except maybe for PHX-NRT shuttles?

To me...anything close to a shuttle on the AA system would be LAX-JFK, MIA/JFK-SJU, JFK-MIA...



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3390 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 21741 times:

So UA added flts on EWR-LAX/SFO for a total of ~14 flts/day on each just because VX came in and now AA is adding another 5 each. Year over Year this has to be a ton of additional capacity on NYC-LAX/SFO.

User currently offlinesw733 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6303 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22229 times:

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 21):

It is strange to call it a "shuttle," I agree. Shuttle implies something like BOS-LGA, DFW/DAL-IAH, SFO-LAX.

I disagree completely. To me, shuttle service doesn't matter with length, but rather with frequency. Hourly service between Los Angeles and New York really is a shuttle service because of the frequency. Heck, I would consider HKG-LHR a shuttle service if they decided to start hourly flights.


User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3740 posts, RR: 12
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22200 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 24):
So UA added flts on EWR-LAX/SFO for a total of ~14 flts/day on each just because VX came in and now AA is adding another 5 each. Year over Year this has to be a ton of additional capacity on NYC-LAX/SFO.

I'm wondering what is the survival chance of EWR-LAX for AA. I see it going seasonal. I don't see it going anymore than 1x daily year round unless the US economy significantly bounces up to pre 9-11 levels by miracle. If that happens maybe it'll see larger 763 equipment (if there is enough demand) or 2x daily 738, 2x daily A321 or 2x daily one of each.
AA in EWR is weak.

Ben Soriano



Ben Soriano
User currently offlinedivemaster08 From Cayman Islands, joined Jul 2008, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22583 times:

As much as it seems a lot, I doubt this is really a huge increase in seats available when they replace the B762 with the A321.

I cant imagine there will be much difference in the seats AA will be offering. The only side will be less F/J product per flight which some may prefer as it should allow service to increase per pax.



My dream, is to fly, over the rainbow, so high!
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 61
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 22629 times:

Quoting toobz (Reply 13):
Uhh the best? You know DL has widebody with aisle access for every seat as well. Wouldn't say AA has the best. It's a great product as well

Yes - the best. Based on the pictures, the narrowbody cabin with that big a seat and a solid partition wall is going to give AA's F cabin on these planes the feel of a business jet. The privacy and exclusivity looks like it's going to be incredible - likely the best hard product in the U.S., and among the best in the world (again, based on the pictures). DL's F and UA's BF cabins will be competitive with AA's C cabins on these planes, but the look and feel of AA's F appears to be in a category by itself in the domestic U.S. market.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 21):
Maybe they see the need to "keep up with the joneses" in terms of frequency (UA in EWR) also. I totally understand EWR and JFK transcon market dynamics are not the same. But there is now a real precedent for high frequency flights to LAX and SFO from the NYC area.

I don't think this has anything to do with UA's high-frequency VX response. AA announced this transition to A321s on JFK-LAX/SFO many months ago, and no doubt was thinking back then about how the huge change in per-flight capacity would effect frequency. If anything, this simply fits with the model long followed by AA (and other network airlines) of prioritizing high frequencies in business-heavy markets.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 24):
So UA added flts on EWR-LAX/SFO for a total of ~14 flts/day on each just because VX came in and now AA is adding another 5 each. Year over Year this has to be a ton of additional capacity on NYC-LAX/SFO.

Again - not really, at least with respect to AA. It appears AA is primarily adding frequency. AA capacity in these markets is likely to be flat at most, and likely will actually be down.

Quoting sw733 (Reply 25):
To me, shuttle service doesn't matter with length, but rather with frequency. Hourly service between Los Angeles and New York really is a shuttle service because of the frequency.

 checkmark 

"Shuttle" = frequency.

Quoting American 767 (Reply 26):
I'm wondering what is the survival chance of EWR-LAX for AA.

It's survived this long, albeit at 1x daily. I suppose maybe AA really does have a market for it, as it's well-timed for O&D and longhaul connections.

[Edited 2013-05-02 07:10:46]

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7210 posts, RR: 17
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 22180 times:

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 22):
Nothing AA does sounds like a good idea to you. Except maybe for PHX-NRT shuttles?

Now that's just silly....but JFK-PHX, should they decide to beef up PHX, does make some sense...but lets look below:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 23):
To me...anything close to a shuttle on the AA system would be LAX-JFK, MIA/JFK-SJU, JFK-MIA...

JFK-MIA shuttles make the best sense to me. Same with JFK-DFW.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2394 posts, RR: 6
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 21862 times:

Quoting toobz (Reply 13):
You know DL has widebody with aisle access for every seat as well.

On limited frequencies. Further, DL has no plans to roll out 767 service to all LAX+SFO flights, so their best product will only be available a handful of times per day.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 21):
Maybe they see the need to "keep up with the joneses" in terms of frequency (UA in EWR) also. I totally understand EWR and JFK transcon market dynamics are not the same.

Uh oh... the bat signal is up... the 'usual suspects' will be here any minute to spout on about EWR's irrelevance to the NYC market.  
Quoting commavia (Reply 28):
DL's F and UA's BF cabins will be competitive with AA's C cabins on these planes,

The same seat, no less (at least on the 757s)!

Quoting commavia (Reply 28):
but the look and feel of AA's F appears to be in a category by itself in the domestic U.S. market.

For sure. Looks to be an exceptionally good product, but the question remains whether there is enough demand to justify 10 F seats on 13-15 daily frequencies. This will be an increase in capacity for the product while the ultra-premium segment is declining in the transcon market.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 61
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 20868 times:

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 30):
but the question remains whether there is enough demand to justify 10 F seats on 13-15 daily frequencies. This will be an increase in capacity for the product while the ultra-premium segment is declining in the transcon market.

True, although remember that while these A321s will have the same number of F seats as the 762s, they will also have 10 fewer C seats. So net-net, each of these jets will have 10 fewer premium seats. Therefore, adding say 4-5 additional daily frequencies would actually lead to only a very small change in the overall premium cabin capacity in the market.

I suspect that AA is banking on three things: (1) this overall better F product will help them to capture new incremental local and longhaul-connecting (AA and codeshare/interline) premium demand, (2) the strength of their corporate contracts will allow them to upsell some incremental portion of their present C customers into F, and (3) AA will pick up some level of the current F demand UA now attracts but will lose when it eliminates the F cabin.


User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2017 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 20554 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 31):
I suspect that AA is banking on three things: (1) this overall better F product will help them to capture new incremental local and longhaul-connecting (AA and codeshare/interline) premium demand, (2) the strength of their corporate contracts will allow them to upsell some incremental portion of their present C customers into F, and (3) AA will pick up some level of the current F demand UA now attracts but will lose when it eliminates the F cabin.

If losing F were such a devastating blow to lose F, UA would keep F. So, maybe.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 19152 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 29):
JFK-MIA shuttles make the best sense to me.

LGA-MIA shuttles make more sense, at least to me.


User currently offlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32616 posts, RR: 72
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 19060 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 26):
I'm wondering what is the survival chance of EWR-LAX for AA. I see it going seasonal. I don't see it going anymore than 1x daily year round unless the US economy significantly bounces up to pre 9-11 levels by miracle. If that happens maybe it'll see larger 763 equipment (if there is enough demand) or 2x daily 738, 2x daily A321 or 2x daily one of each.
AA in EWR is weak.

Who cares that AA is weak at Newark? It is very strong in Los Angeles, and it can easily - and does easily - support a daily Newark rotation that is ideally timed for local LA traffic and international connections. Flight isn't going anywhere.



a.
User currently offlinecgnnrw From Germany, joined May 2005, 1143 posts, RR: 2
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18821 times:

What are the chances AA will finish building their T8 at JFK. If I'm not mistaken only half of the proposed terminal was completed. Maybe with these extra frequencies they'll finish the rest of T8?


A330 man.
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 61
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18619 times:

Quoting cgnnrw (Reply 35):
What are the chances AA will finish building their T8 at JFK. If I'm not mistaken only half of the proposed terminal was completed. Maybe with these extra frequencies they'll finish the rest of T8?

I suspect the changes are pretty high - not because of this, though. The gate space is already pretty tight in T8, particularly at peak times, but this is probably only an additional 5-7 mainline departures, and in terms of slots is quite possibly a net change of zero as other routes see frequency reductions to fund this higher frequency. As such, T8 is likely able to handle it. I think more likely T8 will ultimately be fully built out as AA/BA pursue ever-closer cooperation and BA uses some or all of the (not-yet-built) north end of T8 as its JFK base. That's probably at least five years away, though.


User currently offlineckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5179 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18567 times:

If you think about it, AA has close to shuttle servie on LGA-ORD and DFW-ORD. Both routes have more than 15 weekday departures.

AA also tried this on ORD-LAX in the early 1990s. With the recession, AA decided to retire a number of DC-10s. That left AA short of widebodies. So, it went to a shuttle operation on the route, using mostly MD-80s, with 2 or 3 757s and 2 763s. Remember that was before VX and before WN had long-haul non-stops out of MDW.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18511 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 26):
AA in EWR is weak.
Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 34):
Who cares that AA is weak at Newark? It is very strong in Los Angeles, and it can easily - and does easily - support a daily Newark rotation that is ideally timed for local LA traffic and international connections. Flight isn't going anywhere.

My thoughts exactly. What may seem weak on the one end most certainly does not mean the flight itself is weak from the LAX perspective. It is a money making flight, or AA wouldve shelved it, and more than likely, there are quite a few corporate pax on those flights, same with the JFK-LAX offerings.

Now, if they would just make LAX-SLC mainline! LOL..I know Im dreaming, but it'd be nice.



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 18148 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 29):

JFK-MIA shuttles make the best sense to me. Same with JFK-DFW.

actually, JFK-DFW is only 1x and its pretty much used for TATL connections only. Most DFW-New York traffic is routed DFW-LGA, which is (~15x during the week), and DFW-EWR (~7x)....



Next
User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2017 posts, RR: 3
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17688 times:

I doubt the future of AA's LAX-EWR is in doubt. That is a sidebar topic. Just one flight a day is not a big deal really. It has a place in the route system. Of course it's not a superstar performer, but it's not going anywhere.

User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2165 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17676 times:

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 22):
Nothing AA does sounds like a good idea to you. Except maybe for PHX-NRT shuttles?

Brilliant. I loved this. You've earned that spot on my "Respected Members" list.

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 34):
Who cares that AA is weak at Newark? It is very strong in Los Angeles, and it can easily - and does easily - support a daily Newark rotation that is ideally timed for local LA traffic and international connections. Flight isn't going anywhere.

   NYC-based AA flyers are content having LGA and JFK.

Quoting ckfred (Reply 37):
AA also tried this on ORD-LAX in the early 1990s. With the recession, AA decided to retire a number of DC-10s. That left AA short of widebodies. So, it went to a shuttle operation on the route, using mostly MD-80s, with 2 or 3 757s and 2 763s. Remember that was before VX and before WN had long-haul non-stops out of MDW.

AA still flies 10x daily flights on ORD-LAX. While not levels of a "shuttle," still a good amount of frequencies.



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3867 posts, RR: 14
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17524 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 29):
JFK-MIA shuttles make the best sense to me. Same with JFK-DFW.

Which is why you don't run an airline. DFW and MIA are both within LGA's perimeter, and AA has de facto shuttle service between both cities to LGA based on frequency, and only token service from both points to JFK to cater to European connections.

Also, AA isn't branding this as a shuttle--one of their executives merely used shuttle as an adjective to illustrate their plan to provide high frequency services between two points (probably) at predictable departure times.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17352 posts, RR: 46
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17512 times:

Hourly AA 321s with 3 classes, new PS on UA plus eleventy daily flights from EWR, B6 jumping in with a 321 and premium product, DL with additional capacity and upgraded products--transcons are about to get serious, as if they weren't already. And then there's VX, who is suddenly going to be one of the few without a lie flat product....


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 17333 times:

A bit off topic but with the 321s comming on line would AA more frequency
on the MIA/LAX route and maybe add a 4th flight on the MIA/SFO or is there
schedule good as it is?


User currently offlineJBAirwaysFan From United States of America, joined May 2009, 951 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16519 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 16):
Shuttle is a word usually associated with high frequency, all coach with a decent product,

It's no longer all coach. First class has been introduced to the shuttle products now so that they can rotate the shuttle fleet into the regular mainline fleet.



In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
User currently offlinemiaskies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16395 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 42):
and only token service from both points to JFK to cater to European connections.

DFW-JFK: token point? yes. One daily 738; obviously LGA is the focus for this market.

MIA-JFK: 6x Daily Flights (alongside LGA's 10x Daily). I wouldn't call JFK exactly a token point from MIA, yes some connection opportunities etc. but the market is there from both ends to sustain 6 daily flights alongside LGA.



Nothing better than making love at 35K Feet!
User currently offlineExL10Mktg From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 64 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 16058 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 19):
Although this still portends a substantial reduction in capacity (particularly in Y) - which is obviously the point.

Here's the math:
current midweek schedule 9 x 762 @ 10/30/128 = 90/270/1152
least case scenario 12 x 321 @ 10/20/102 = 120/240/1224
likely scenario 14 x 321 @ 10/20/102 = 140/280/1428

Either way you are looking at least a slight to fair overall increase in Y capacity a very hefty increase in F and +/- in J (so just fewer or more upgrades lol.) Further, the Y will now break down into 36 MCE +96 standard so financially a big boost!


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 15906 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 43):
Hourly AA 321s with 3 classes, new PS on UA plus eleventy daily flights from EWR, B6 jumping in with a 321 and premium product, DL with additional capacity and upgraded products--transcons are about to get serious, as if they weren't already. And then there's VX, who is suddenly going to be one of the few without a lie flat product....

But VX's product is not that bad really, and I enjoy it a lot, but I do love DL's improvements on the route.



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineoc2dc From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 362 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 15474 times:

Quoting ExL10Mktg (Reply 47):
Here's the math:
current midweek schedule 9 x 762 @ 10/30/128 = 90/270/1152
least case scenario 12 x 321 @ 10/20/102 = 120/240/1224
likely scenario 14 x 321 @ 10/20/102 = 140/280/1428

Either way you are looking at least a slight to fair overall increase in Y capacity a very hefty increase in F and +/- in J (so just fewer or more upgrades lol.) Further, the Y will now break down into 36 MCE +96 standard so financially a big boost!

Your math is incorrect. The A321T's will have a total of 102 seats, not 102 in Econ and 36 in MCE (Main Cabin Extra).

The correct layout for the A321T is 10/20/36/36 for a total of 102.

12 x A321T @ 10F/20J/36MCE/36Y= 120F/240J/432MCE/432Y adding MCE +Y= 864
14 x A321T @ 10F/20J/36MCE/36Y= 140F/280J/504MCE/504Y adding MCE+Y = 1,008

Now you see a large increase in F capacity and J stays about the same. If you consider MCE and Y to be the same, then there is a drop of about 150 to 300 seats in Y. If you consider MCE separate from Y, then there is a gigantic dump in capacity. Clearly this plane and this route is focused on heavily on premium passengers and service.

If you add up all the seats in total on the A321T going 12 or 14x daily, then there will actually be an overall increase of capacity in general, granted most of the increase is in the front cabins.

[Edited 2013-05-02 13:29:27]

[Edited 2013-05-02 13:30:39]


I'm not complaining, I'm critiquing...
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5356 posts, RR: 12
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 14895 times:

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 5):
SAN has a second frequency that seem to operate somewhat inconsistently. LAS is double daily, as is MCO and, effective June, TPA. They are also absolutely critical feeder markets for Europe flights.

The SAN-JFK route does have me a bit concerned lately. Beginning sometime in March or early April, AA d/g'd our single JFK r/t to a 738 (from the 767 that it's been for a while now) with no sign of a second r/t on this summer's schedule.

I would be very surprised to see it dropped completely but the summer cut in capacity is unusual; for the past several years SAN has seen either 2x daily service to Kennedy or at least the 767 operating the single morning departure.

Historically, this route is a real oldie! It has operated permanently and consistently since somewhere in the mid-1960s! And I know history means little to nothing in today's market for today's airlines but I agree with Mark and hope the flight is continuing to be a solid performer for AA.

bb


User currently offlinewarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 707 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 14269 times:

Quoting oc2dc (Thread starter):
Also interesting to note, AA will board passengers on the A321T though the L2 door. I guess that puts that debate to rest.

I suspect that 2L boarding will end pretty quickly once AA realizes how much engine cowling damage occurs from bad jet bridge driving...


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 13901 times:

Quoting toobz (Reply 7):
Hourly flights on a 5-6 hour transcon..? Hope they don't lose too much money.

What's the problem on a route with heavy demand? Makes sense to offer easy-to-remember schedules.

The equivalent route in Canada to LAX-JFK is YVR-YYZ (about 300 miles shorter). AC has an hourly shuttle-type schedule for most of the day, even every 30 minutes during certain periods. Current eastbound AC nonstops YVR-YYZ (plus 6 to 8 WS 737s daily depending on day of week):

0700 - 763
0800 - 320
0900 - 77L
1000 - 321
1030 - 333
1100 - 321
1200 - 321
1230 - 763
1300 - 321
1330 - 763
1500 - 320
1600 - 321
1710 - 321
2240 - 321
2315 - 320
2340 - 319


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13566 times:

Quoting ExL10Mktg (Reply 47):
current midweek schedule 9 x 762 @ 10/30/128 = 90/270/1152
Quoting oc2dc (Reply 49):
14 x A321T @ 10F/20J/36MCE/36Y= 140F/280J/504MCE/504Y adding MCE+Y = 1,008


AA goes from 9 daily flights to 14 daily flights with a slight reduction in capacity. In essence, AA is transporting roughly the same capacity, but now requires 5 additional aircraft, 5 additional flights crews and airport personnel, 5 additional landing slots, incurs additional landing fees, consumes additional fuel, etc. etc. etc. in order to transport the same number of people. Not the most efficient use of assets. I still think AA's A321s are too premium heavy.


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13533 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 50):
Historically, this route is a real oldie! It has operated permanently and consistently since somewhere in the mid-1960s! And I know history means little to nothing in today's market for today's airlines but I agree with Mark and hope the flight is continuing to be a solid performer for AA.

Not sure but im thinking Delta and Jetblue are the real killers for them on SAN. Both look like 2x daily ish as strong competators. Delta is certainly gaining market share and FF base in the NYC are as well over time. Its probably the most profitable to run it this way and less super low seats to sell in competition?


User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13490 times:

There are already ten daily flights to the New York area from LAX so it is not that much of a stretch to think that they could increase the frequency by two or three more flights, Although I would think that a shuttle service would be flights leaving in regular intervals say every 90 minutes that would make sense and probably make money. Premium cabins should be quite full on these flights so I could see this as a good investment for AA to make.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2920 posts, RR: 20
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13495 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 36):
The gate space is already pretty tight in T8, particularly at peak times, but this is probably only an additional 5-7 mainline departures, and in terms of slots is quite possibly a net change of zero as other routes see frequency reductions to fund this higher frequency.

Not forgetting that they'll also need to slot in additional 8 mainline flights a day once US Airways come in plus I also doubt they will leave DL as the sole carrier, via Pinnacle, of JFK-PHL service.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 61
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 13273 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 53):
AA goes from 9 daily flights to 14 daily flights with a slight reduction in capacity. In essence, AA is transporting roughly the same capacity, but now requires 5 additional aircraft, 5 additional flights crews and airport personnel, 5 additional landing slots, incurs additional landing fees, consumes additional fuel, etc. etc. etc. in order to transport the same number of people. Not the most efficient use of assets. I still think AA's A321s are too premium heavy.

Unit costs for labor, landing fees, etc. will go up - true. But on the flip side, these A321s will be substantially less maintenance-intensive, and more fuel efficient on a trip basis. And, while the overall number of people is likely to remain relatively flat or somewhat down overall, the mix of passengers is almost certainly going to skew higher-yielding, so unit revenue is likely to go up, too. Obviously AA thinks the higher unit revenue can cover the higher costs in some areas.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 56):
Not forgetting that they'll also need to slot in additional 8 mainline flights a day once US Airways come in

True, but again, most of the current US schedule is outside peak times when gates (and slots) are not constrained. US currently has 8 flights per day out of JFK, but only 2 of those 8 depart after noon. And that's assuming the present US schedule is maintained post-merger, which I doubt - I would not be surprised to see JFK-PHX getting an extra (4th) daily frequency, but I doubt CLT will keep 5 daily mainline flights out of JFK.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 56):
plus I also doubt they will leave DL as the sole carrier, via Pinnacle, of JFK-PHL service.

I don't see why AA would need to fly such a short flight.


User currently offlinesuperjeff From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 11907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting toobz (Reply 13):
Uhh the best? You know DL has widebody with aisle access for every seat as well. Wouldn't say AA has the best. It's a great product as well

AA's 321's will have aisle access from all seats. Should be at least as good and arguably better than DL.


User currently onlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10794 times:

Quoting superjeff (Reply 58):

Quoting toobz (Reply 13):
Uhh the best? You know DL has widebody with aisle access for every seat as well. Wouldn't say AA has the best. It's a great product as well

AA's 321's will have aisle access from all seats. Should be at least as good and arguably better than DL.

Why should AA's product be better than that of DL's? Or a better question is how would you know if it is going to be better than DL's? I would wait to see what AAm has to offer, hopefully more than just a good Sundae.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 756 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10768 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 28):
Yes - the best. Based on the pictures, the narrowbody cabin with that big a seat and a solid partition wall is going to give AA's F cabin on these planes the feel of a business jet. The privacy and exclusivity looks like it's going to be incredible - likely the best hard product in the U.S., and among the best in the world (again, based on the pictures). DL's F and UA's BF cabins will be competitive with AA's C cabins on these planes, but the look and feel of AA's F appears to be in a category by itself in the domestic U.S. market.

Plus, isn't AA's ground handling of premium passengers suppose to be better at LAX and JFK?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 43):
And then there's VX, who is suddenly going to be one of the few without a lie flat product....

I've always wondered why VX didn't introduce a transcon sub fleet with 8 lie-flat F seats instead of the current Recaro recliners. Yes, it would have added complexity to the fleet, network planning and costs... but they are still losing money today... perhaps a bigger differentiator would have helped.

Quoting superjeff (Reply 58):
AA's 321's will have aisle access from all seats. Should be at least as good and arguably better than DL.

Only AA's 321 F seat will have *direct* aisle access. All other seats - J, MCE, Y - will have access to the aisle.


User currently offlinemesaflyguy From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 2940 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 10487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SANFan (Reply 50):

I wouldn't be worried based on the 767s, as those were just on the route because the cabin mods were being done in San Diego. The plane would arrive, get the mods done, and return a couple of days later.



\________(---)________/ :) World's most beautiful aircraft: 757-200, MD-88/90, E-190, A321
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 756 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 10291 times:

There seems to be a lot of money in Orange Co, CA. Would SNA-JFK-SNA not be able to sustain a premium transcon product, especially if DL can offer it on JFK-SEA-JFK.

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5356 posts, RR: 12
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9419 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 54):
Not sure but im thinking Delta and Jetblue are the real killers for them on SAN. Both look like 2x daily ish as strong competators. Delta is certainly gaining market share and FF base in the NYC are as well over time. Its probably the most profitable to run it this way and less super low seats to sell in competition?

Valid points. Yes, there is good competition on the route (plus UA into EWR might be included by some) but in the past several years -- when that same competition existed -- AA was right in there with either the larger capacity wide body or double-daily service -- at least during the summers. This year, B6 and DL, yes; AA, no...

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 61):
I wouldn't be worried based on the 767s, as those were just on the route because the cabin mods were being done in San Diego. The plane would arrive, get the mods done, and return a couple of days later.

No, we have seen the 767 between SAN and JFK for many years on and off, year-round and seasonal, when no interior mods were being done.

bb


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9235 times:

I think AA has tried 757 service on JFK-SNA in the past and DL tried 737-700 IIRC service recently. Both failed. On a flip side United does do excellent on EWR-SNA service but it has the huge EWR connection power to small European Cities and Small canadian cities that i think really helps it out. The premium customers on EWR-SNA o&d seem to need the time options 3x that united offers. Makes sense its a route where people are use to time options. Fares on EWR-SNA N/S in both coach and First are often way more than LAX N/S on this route.

User currently offlinesydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2920 posts, RR: 20
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9217 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 57):
I don't see why AA would need to fly such a short flight.

Wouldn't it be odd to leave Delta as the sole flier on a hub to hub route? Assuming both PHL and JFK retain their respective status in the combined carrier, there will be plenty of places that PHL serves that JFK and I'd have thought, given PHL lacks any sort of Asia and South American service, that a hop up to JFK would make sense a couple of times a day?

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 64):
I think AA has tried 757 service on JFK-SNA

Didn't they inherit that from TWA?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24866 posts, RR: 46
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9130 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 65):
Didn't they inherit that from TWA?

TW had dropped it as part of its JFK downsizing.

AA relaunched it in 2002 to drop it again in 2004. (for the record AA also tried SNA-JFK in the mid 90s)

DL has has tried JFK-SNA on atleast 2 occasions since

America West also tried SNA-JFK in the 90s.

Only airline that seems to have been able to make SNA-NYC stick is CO/now UA.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 756 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 8955 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 66):
TW had dropped it as part of its JFK downsizing.

AA relaunched it in 2002 to drop it again in 2004. (for the record AA also tried SNA-JFK in the mid 90s)

DL has has tried JFK-SNA on atleast 2 occasions since

America West also tried SNA-JFK in the 90s.

Only airline that seems to have been able to make SNA-NYC stick is CO/now UA.

Wow. What are the limiting factors that seem to prevent the route from working?


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11436 posts, RR: 61
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 8637 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 65):
Wouldn't it be odd to leave Delta as the sole flier on a hub to hub route?

Not really - DL may feel they need to fly it to link PHL into their Europe network. AA, on the other hand, won't have such a need since PHL already has its own large PHL-Europe nonstop network on AA.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 65):
Assuming both PHL and JFK retain their respective status in the combined carrier

... which I, personally, fully expect they will.

Quoting sydscott (Reply 65):
there will be plenty of places that PHL serves that JFK and I'd have thought, given PHL lacks any sort of Asia and South American service, that a hop up to JFK would make sense a couple of times a day?

There will be markets that either serves that the other doesn't, true. But I'm not sure if you need to link the two for that. Both will have robust service to many points in Europe - little connections between the two needed. Domestically, PHL obviously serves far more places, but much of the NY domestic O&D connecting to those places can be handled via LGA/EWR-PHL, leaving JFK to focus on the core, high-yielding longer-haul NY O&D.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 66):
AA relaunched it in 2002 to drop it again in 2004. (for the record AA also tried SNA-JFK in the mid 90s)

... along with JFK-ONT and JFK-LGB, both also in the early 2000s, and also dropped quickly.

Quoting questions (Reply 67):
Wow. What are the limiting factors that seem to prevent the route from working?
AA found with multiple attempts at flights from JFK to other LA basin airports that AA's highest-yielding FF customers consistently preferred LAX, and that the other airports generally sold at yield premiums to LAX. Try as the City and NIMBYs might to "regionalize" air traffic in the region, the reality is that LAX is the dominant airport in no small part because it truly is in a very convenient location for many of the region's customers, particularly the high-yielding ones.

[Edited 2013-05-03 04:26:30]

User currently offlineDolphinAir747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8415 times:

It seems they're following UA's strategy from EWR...

User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3382 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 8345 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 66):

TW had dropped it as part of its JFK downsizing.

I am pretty sure TWA operated it when they merged.

AA started service to LGB and ONT to counter B6...that didnt last long.

B6 would make a good run with a daily redeye to SNA...but again, that 320 with its engines + short runways + high climb gradient needed + long flight with full load = a bad equation.

B6 really pushes the 320s and does very well with them. Certain situations simply do not work


User currently onlineUnited_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7456 posts, RR: 7
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8279 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 70):
B6 would make a good run with a daily redeye to SNA...but again, that 320 with its engines + short runways + high climb gradient needed + long flight with full load = a bad equation.

Not much differant than BUR.



'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8221 times:

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 70):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 66):

TW had dropped it as part of its JFK downsizing.

I am pretty sure TWA operated it when they merged.

In the combined AA/TWA timetable for July 1, 2001 on departedflights.com, it shows 3 AA 757 flights for LAX-EWR, no TWA flights. If TWA was operating LAX-EWR when it merged with AA, it would have been listed in that timetable, just like LAX-JFK had both AA and TWA flights listed.

http://www.departedflights.com/AA070201p70.html



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2915 posts, RR: 6
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 8128 times:

Quoting questions (Reply 67):
What are the limiting factors that seem to prevent the route from working?

I think the yields and trafficare there, it's just comes down to lack of frequency and the right aircraft. If you want that higher yielding business traffic, you need frequency, and with SNA and JFK both slot constrained, it would be difficult to offer such an attractive schedule. As for aircraft, the payload restrictions a 757 or 767 would have to take to be able to take off from SNA would dilute the revenue too far.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7937 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 66):
TW had dropped it as part of its JFK downsizing.

AA relaunched it in 2002 to drop it again in 2004. (for the record AA also tried SNA-JFK in the mid 90s)
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 70):
I am pretty sure TWA operated it when they merged.

We did, I flew on that route in Dec '01...thats about as close to the actual "buyout" date that I remember.



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 75, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 7952 times:

Quoting sydscott (Reply 56):
Quoting commavia (Reply 57):
Quoting sydscott (Reply 65):

I can see US/AA flying PHL-JFK if nothing else to rotate a/c around. It will soon be a hub to hub route.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24866 posts, RR: 46
Reply 76, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7919 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 68):
... along with JFK-ONT and JFK-LGB, both also in the early 2000s, and also dropped quickly.

  

AA launched a rather significant but futile transcon push against JetBlue. There was also OAK flights(up to 3x daily) and PHX while SJC and LAX got extra frequencies as well.

Though JFK-LGB was probably the best of the bunch and stuck around till 2005.

Interesting, AA approached LGB in 2003 seeing if the could handle the A300 !

Quoting commavia (Reply 68):
AA found with multiple attempts at flights from JFK to other LA basin airports that AA's highest-yielding FF customers consistently preferred LAX, and that the other airports generally sold at yield premiums to LAX.

AA basically found itself competing with itself with the slew of new flights.

This was the period when $99 transcon fares were quite prevelant. Even F class was sold at mere $499 due to the massive capacity increase, plus airlines we giving double miles away like candy. It was truly a blood bath.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 70):
I am pretty sure TWA operated it when they merged.

Here is the merger AA/TW timetable. No JFK-SNA.

http://www.departedflights.com/AA070201p78.html

=



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 7762 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 76):
AA launched a rather significant but futile transcon push against JetBlue. There was also OAK flights(up to 3x daily) and PHX while SJC and LAX got extra frequencies as well.



From what I recall, AA launched PHX-JFK in the early 2000's in retaliation to HP not B6. AA launched route PHX-JFK in 2003 in response to HP launching their trans-con service from LAX to JFK/BOS that same year. However, B6 did not launch PHX-JFK until October 2004.


User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7718 times:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 74):
We did, I flew on that route in Dec '01...thats about as close to the actual "buyout" date that I remember.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 76):
Here is the merger AA/TW timetable. No JFK-SNA.

Oops, I meant Dec '00..my bad!



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3382 posts, RR: 5
Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7678 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 72):
In the combined AA/TWA timetable for July 1, 2001 on departedflights.com, it shows 3 AA 757 flights for LAX-EWR, no TWA flights. If TWA was operating LAX-EWR when it merged with AA, it would have been listed in that timetable, just like LAX-JFK had both AA and TWA flights listed.

I was referring to JFK-SNA, not LAX-EWR


User currently offlinejfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3382 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 7604 times:

Quoting WesternA318 (Reply 78):
Oops, I meant Dec '00..my bad!

So it was operating in Dec 2000...


Here is the merger AA/TW timetable. No JFK-SNA.


But it was not operating by July 2001 in the merged timetable.

So when did it stop?

American Airlines Nears a Deal to Acquire Trans World Airlines (Jan 8)

AA anounces TW takeover (Jan 10)
http://money.cnn.com/2001/01/10/deals/amr_twa/

American Airlines Clears Legal Hurdle in TWA Purchase; Deal Is Set to Close (April 9)

American Completes TWA Purchase, Nears Tentative Pact with Pilots' Union (April 10)


I think it is safe to say JFK-SNA was operated by TWA pretty much to the end. It had only run for a year or so. Does anyone have exact dates for us?


User currently offlinerlwynn From Germany, joined Dec 2000, 1075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7249 times:

Quoting United_fan (Reply 71):
Not much differant than BUR.

The BUR runway is over 1000 feet longer than SNA.



I can drive faster than you
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7193 times:

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 40):
Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 34):

AA used to be strong at EWR back in the late 90s/early 2000s but like many once larger stations (BOS, RDU, IAD, MCO) they are now a shell of their former self. The EWR-LAX hangs around likely because of corporate traffic. I doubt it will go away either.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineaajfksjubklyn From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7201 times:

Congrats AA for taking back the service you put in place nearly 50 years ago! The Transcon flight. I know I welcome hourly service and look forward to the new birds. I will miss the dual aisle access I have enjoyed for 30 years doing Transcon's, but i newer plane can't be beat, especially with the amenities and food you provide! (I figured we needed a different tone going here). Kudos!

User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7196 times:

Quoting aajfksjubklyn (Reply 83):
Congrats AA for taking back the service you put in place nearly 50 years ago! The Transcon flight. I know I welcome hourly service and look forward to the new birds. I will miss the dual aisle access I have enjoyed for 30 years doing Transcon's, but i newer plane can't be beat, especially with the amenities and food you provide! (I figured we needed a different tone going here). Kudos!

Hear hear! I for one, cant wait to try the A321's...but Ive not been on the 762 transcon on AA, I have to get on that before this year gets out...



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24868 posts, RR: 22
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7163 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 77):
From what I recall, AA launched PHX-JFK in the early 2000's in retaliation to HP not B6.

AA had also previously operated PHX-JFK nonstop for many years, as far back as the 1960s through sometime in the mid to late 1980s. For most of that period AA had 2 daily PHX-JFK nonstops. It looks like they dropped the route at about the same time HP started it.

For example, in the February 1985 OAG there were 3 daily JFK-PHX nonstops, 2 AA and 1 TW. In December 1989 AA was gone but there were 2 HP and 1 TW from JFK. HP also had 2 daily EWR-PHX nonstops then.


User currently offlinetimz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6795 posts, RR: 7
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 6856 times:

First scheduled PHX-IDL nonstop was an AA DC-7, in 1959.

User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 756 posts, RR: 1
Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6702 times:

Will the FA's serving the new transcon F cabin receive a refresher training course?

User currently offlinelat41 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6537 times:

Anyone remember the Eastern Transcon of the 1980s? It was an early attempt at this concept.

User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4428 posts, RR: 6
Reply 89, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6538 times:

Quoting lat41 (Reply 88):
Anyone remember the Eastern Transcon of the 1980s?

Yes! I flew EWR-MCI-LAX direct on the "brand new EA 757" aircraft back in July of 1986. I remember on the MCI-LAX segment the captain came on the PA to brag about how we were using the new technology and capabilities of the 757 to fly at 41,000 feet, avoiding storms, that those "older" planes that couldn't fly as high had to fly through.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16821 posts, RR: 51
Reply 90, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6497 times:

EWR-SNA was one of the first routes CO launched with their new 757s in the Spring of 1994. It was originally a single daily 757 and then was upgraded to 3x daily 73G's in the late '90s. This Summer the three daily EWR-SNA flights are a mix of a 73G, 738 and sUA 752.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 70):
B6 would make a good run with a daily redeye to SNA...but again, that 320 with its engines + short runways + high climb gradient needed + long flight with full load = a bad equation.

B6 really pushes the 320s and does very well with them. Certain situations simply do not work

UA is now operating 738s on EWR-SNA-EWR, are those 738s equipped with a short field performance package?



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3359 posts, RR: 0
Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6427 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 90):
UA is now operating 738s on EWR-SNA-EWR, are those 738s equipped with a short field performance package?

You may see a 319, 320 or 738 fly on EWR-SNA its easy to land with little fuel left but they usually rotate back to IAH or SFO. SNA-EWR is usually all 757-200 or 737-700 they need that power to take off the short runway with all that fuel.


User currently onlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16821 posts, RR: 51
Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 6410 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 91):
SNA-EWR is usually all 757-200 or 737-700 they need that power to take off the short runway with all that fuel.

I've seen the A320s on the West Bounds too, but the 738s are doing both West and East bounds.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1992 posts, RR: 6
Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6213 times:

There were three carriers on the NYC-LAX route before deregulation, and it was always competitive, but American is not hte powerhouse they once were. Look for Delta to give them a run for their money.

User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 5943 times:

Quoting milesrich (Reply 93):
There were three carriers on the NYC-LAX route before deregulation, and it was always competitive, but American is not hte powerhouse they once were. Look for Delta to give them a run for their money

I agree with this. I see UA being the third wheel with AA's new fleet and with DL's upgrades.



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlineKGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 705 posts, RR: 1
Reply 95, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5649 times:

Quoting warreng24 (Reply 51):
I suspect that 2L boarding will end pretty quickly once AA realizes how much engine cowling damage occurs from bad jet bridge driving...

   I would like to know where the OP got that information from. I have seen a few examples of L2 boarding on the A321, but it's very rare. I know a lot of people compare the A321 to the 757, but the distance from the L2 door to the engine cowl is a lot greater on the 757 (though it's still pretty close and there have been plenty of incidents with the 757). Besides, with US soon to be in charge, I suspect they will reverse course. US has many years of A321 experience and has never boarded the A321 via the L2 door to my knowledge.



Δ D E L T A: Keep Climbing
User currently offlineWesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5647 posts, RR: 24
Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5642 times:

Quoting KGRB (Reply 95):
I would like to know where the OP got that information from. I have seen a few examples of L2 boarding on the A321, but it's very rare. I know a lot of people compare the A321 to the 757, but the distance from the L2 door to the engine cowl is a lot greater on the 757 (though it's still pretty close and there have been plenty of incidents with the 757). Besides, with US soon to be in charge, I suspect they will reverse course. US has many years of A321 experience and has never boarded the A321 via the L2 door to my knowledge.

  



Next trip: SLC-LAX-JFK-LAX-SLC on AA, gotta say goodbye to my beloved 762!
User currently offlinerwy04lga From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 3176 posts, RR: 8
Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5508 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 28):
Quoting toobz (Reply 13):
Uhh the best? You know DL has widebody with aisle access for every seat as well. Wouldn't say AA has the best. It's a great product as well

Yes - the best. Based on the pictures, the narrowbody cabin with that big a seat

The seat looks bigger because the cabin is narrower. Kinda like the reason I prefer petite women, it makes 'things' at least look bigger!   

Quoting questions (Reply 62):
There seems to be a lot of money in Orange Co, CA. Would SNA-JFK-SNA not be able to sustain a premium transcon product, especially if DL can offer it on JFK-SEA-JFK.
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 64):
I think AA has tried 757 service on JFK-SNA in the past and DL tried 737-700 IIRC service recently. Both failed.

I flew on it a few times. My ex lived 10 minutes from SNA. Boy, was that much more convenient than LAX. However, I believe it was a 757.



Just accept that some days, you're the pigeon, and other days the statue
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...
AA To Launch Twice Weekly LAX-SJU Nonstop Service posted Sat Dec 20 2003 03:14:35 by Jcs17
AA/Eagle Wanting To Launch LAX-RDM Flights posted Fri Mar 8 2013 17:46:45 by bigfoot0503
AA To Launch JFK-BNA posted Fri Nov 5 2010 11:21:42 by MAH4546
MAXjet To Launch LAX Service posted Thu May 3 2007 17:20:06 by Laxintl
AA To Resume Daily JFK-NRT, Introduce LAX-NRT posted Tue Aug 12 2003 04:22:01 by JAL777
AA To Launch DCA-LGA-BOS Shuttle posted Thu Jul 18 2002 20:27:47 by B747-437B
AA To Launch Service Between Dallas And Guatemala posted Tue Mar 5 2002 22:35:49 by Mah4546
Virgin America To Launch LAX-SJC posted Mon Feb 4 2013 05:13:50 by SocalApproach
AA To Upgrade LAX-LHR To 777-300 Jun 2013 posted Mon Jun 25 2012 08:08:16 by miaami
AA To Launch Miami-Seattle posted Sun Mar 11 2012 05:50:10 by MAH4546