Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why No American A300's At Lax?  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Just as the question states.....


12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (14 years 5 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1979 times:

AA used to operate them MIA-LAX.

User currently offlineCannedSpam From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1934 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.

User currently offlineHypermike From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 1001 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1923 times:

Aren't these based at JFK and used mostly for trans-Atlantic flights?

User currently offlineA300 American From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 173 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1918 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?).


User currently offlineLax2000 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1895 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.

User currently offlineDoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1892 times:

they are based in miami as well as the 727's

User currently offlineBizclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1890 times:

I can't comment on the LAX situation but I can give you some flight information about some of the A300-600's in American's fleet as follows:

Flight# Dep. Arr.

518 MIA-JFK 07:10 09:59
596 MIA-BOS 07:30 10:44
881 BOS-MIA 06:18 09:48
882 MIA-JFK 19:25 22:27
981 BOS-MIA 12:00 15:29
988 MIA-BOS 19:35 22:50
989 JFK-MIA 06:38 09:42
1367 BOS-MIA 18:25 21:48
1700 MIA-BOS 13:45 17:06
1819 JFK-MIA 11:50 14:56
1928 MIA-JFK 17:10 20:12
2111 JFK-MIA 18:18 21:35


User currently offlineDoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1878 times:

also mia-san jaun
and mia-mco


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 9, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1862 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!
User currently offlineFlyAA757 From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1858 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


User currently offlineL1011 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1670 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1831 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

Bob Bradley
Richmond, VA



Fly Eastern's Golden Falcon DC-7B
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3466 posts, RR: 47
Reply 12, posted (14 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days ago) and read 1824 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!
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...
What Will Happen To American Eagle At LAX? posted Sun Sep 3 2006 08:12:17 by Trvlr
Why Is Southside Tbit At LAX Closed? posted Mon Jun 5 2006 02:11:08 by Access-Air
Why No US Carrier At VIE posted Mon Jun 5 2006 01:32:10 by COGlobeTrotter
Why No N. American Carrier To DXB? posted Tue Mar 28 2006 18:31:32 by BoeingFever777
Why No American Airshow Ala Dubai/Paris/Farnsboro? posted Tue Nov 29 2005 18:21:01 by D L X
Why No Brazilian Carrier At FCO? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 20:14:09 by Wingedarrow
Why No UA Mainline At RDU? posted Tue Jun 14 2005 06:27:59 by Usairwys757
American Eeagle At LAX posted Sat Apr 23 2005 02:30:26 by AirWillie6475
Why No VS A346 At LGW? posted Wed Apr 6 2005 23:13:39 by VS747SPUR
Why No 738 Logojets At FR? posted Mon Feb 14 2005 00:03:13 by A340600