>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!