Most US airlines are run very inefficiently.
Debatable, some may agree, many won't.
And to top it off, most people would prefer the European service, thus it's easier to fill the planes.
I don't think the actual traffic would support your assertion.
The 747 is not that much more fuel efficient than a 772 whereas the A380 will be.
Hmmm... Why are you conveniently left out the 767? FWIW, according to Boeing, the 744 still costs around 10% less than the 772ER on a per seat basis.
And was thinking of busier routes or longer ranged ones such as LAX-N RT, LAX-SYD, CDG-LAX, SFO-F RA, not JFK-STR
is the busiest trans Oceanic route. UA
don't use any 744, even though UA
has a large 744 fleet. UA
don't have as many flights as BA
have, but UA
probably have higher percentage of O&D traffic which usually have higher yield than connecting traffic. UA
have a trans-Atlantic network that doesn't require them to funnel most of their European traffic through LHR
, but BA
have to. Depending on the composition of traffic and volume, it's not always necessary to use the aircraft with the lowest seat cost to make the most profit.