FlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 997 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (13 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1269 times:
CannedSpam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1224 times:
Just for the same reason that AA doesn't put them into DFW. AA doesn't want the A300 in LAX. It only costs more to keep MX in LAX to support them, and, there is nowhere really to fly these aircraft to out of LAX.
Hypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1213 times:
Aren't these based at JFK and used mostly for trans-Atlantic flights?
A300 American From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 171 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
I believe that Hypermike is correct, American
uses their A300 fleet for trans-Atlantic routes,as
well as South American and Carribean routes.
I also believe that they are based at Miami,
JFK, and San Juan (Chicago?).
Lax2000 From United States of America, joined exactly 14 years ago today! , 541 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1185 times:
Its funny you should mention the a300 at lax, I was recently thinking how few of them I have seen in person. Only Continentals and Pan Ams 5 years ago, probibly the same aircraft..now there are zero a300s at lax. I recently saw an AA a300 at mex.
Doug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 825 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1182 times:
Doug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 825 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1168 times:
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 9, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1152 times:
AA tried transcons with A300, but it was not cost efficient compared with other options. Acft has lots of cargo capacity, but little range when loaded up. AA retrenched its A300 fleet to primarily MIA north/south routes --which is the primary reason for getting them in the first place... cargo to/from Carribean.
Back in early 90's AA made a serious look at retiring A300 or DC-10. While it may look like a simple answer, I was told by Carty that the A300 wing is so inefficient it was causing significantly higher engine overhaul rates than 767 and DC10 fleets (same engines) combined. Ultimately, Airbus offered to replace AA's A300 skin panels with polished aluminum ones at Airbus' expense and shortly thereafter AA announced the planned retirement of its DC10 fleet.
But to answer your question, the acft can't handle the range/payload requirement as well as other available acft.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
FlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 997 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1148 times:
That seems strange, I was under the impression that a good amount of the $$ made on JFK-LHR was in the belly. If the a/c can do trans-atls, why not relatively short transcons?
That doesnt make too much sense
L1011 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1583 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1121 times:
I flew on many Eastern A300 flights from ATL-LAX and SFO. They replaced most of their L-1011 transcons with A300s. Would they have done this if the A300 was not profitable on these routes?
AAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3410 posts, RR: 50 Reply 12, posted (13 years 3 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
FlyAA757 writes:
>That seems strange, I was under the impression that
>a good amount of the $$ made on JFK-LHR was in the
>belly. If the a/c can do trans-atls, why not relatively
>short transcons? That doesnt make too much sense
I'm not one to argue too much with AA management decisions. They've done far too good of a job managing the numbers for me and my 20+ year old Business Admin degree. <;-)
Suffice it to say that the basic theory is one of revenue opportunities with available assets. As explained to me by those who should know, there is more profit to be made flying A300 across the pond than across the country. While there may be plenty of transcon cargo business, what is the revenue generated by that business (lots of competitors). OTOH, transatlantic cargo business may generate far greater revenue for similar operating costs. Hence more profitable to place large cargo capable acft there and less cargo capable acft in transcon service.
Too many variables for those not in the know to fully understand how airlines make the decisions they make. But the above is a very basic generalization as explained to me some years ago.
Bob Bradley writes:
>I flew on many Eastern A300 flights from ATL-LAX
>and SFO. They replaced most of their L-1011
>transcons with A300s. Would they have done
>this if the A300 was not profitable on these routes?
Depends on that airline's economics as they were looking at it at the time. It is not just a question of "profitable", but rather how profitable and how to maximize profitability.
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, 
, 541 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
