Matt D
Topic Author
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

Why No American A300's At Lax?

Sun Feb 13, 2000 6:12 am

Just as the question states.....
 
flyaa757
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Sun Feb 13, 2000 6:55 am

AA used to operate them MIA-LAX.
 
CannedSpam
Posts: 449
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2000 8:18 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 2:00 am

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
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 1999 7:03 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 2:39 am

Aren't these based at JFK and used mostly for trans-Atlantic flights?
 
A300 American
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2000 8:37 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 3:12 am

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
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue May 25, 1999 9:12 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 8:06 am

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
Posts: 699
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 1999 8:54 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 8:13 am

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

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 8:46 am

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
 
doug
Posts: 699
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 1999 8:54 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 11:01 am

also mia-san jaun
and mia-mco
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 1:44 pm

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
Posts: 843
Joined: Mon Jun 14, 1999 7:12 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Tue Feb 15, 2000 1:51 pm

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
Posts: 2130
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:02 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Wed Feb 16, 2000 9:57 am

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
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: Why No American A300's At Lax?

Wed Feb 16, 2000 2:27 pm

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!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: A330NZ, Bing [Bot], carljanderson, Coal, DLFREEBIRD, ericm2031, flyguy89, flyingclrs727, Google Adsense [Bot], hayzel777, LamboAston, midexjet, msycajun, PanzerPowner, Prost, ro1960, wrcairline and 244 guests