I’ve always understood it that aircraft make no money on the ground, so running a wide body in a domestic turn in between international flights makes sense, better fleet utilization. At least, I know that how it used to be. UA used to cycle 747s through DEN from LAX, SFO, and ORD after they had come in from SYD, NRT, HKG etc. I know it’s different now, as airlines utilize fleets differently, but I’m sure it still happens.

But look at Japan. ANA runs multiple 777s and 767s a day between HND and ITM. It’s an almost shuttle like service. Even with the bullet trains, there is demand. When people want to fly, and an aircraft has the seats, why not run a wide body?

Same goes for Australia. Of course the population is incredibly sparse, so air travel is more of a priority, but QF runs quite a few A330s domestically.

fry530 wrote:

I’ve always understood it that aircraft make no money on the ground, so running a wide body in a domestic turn in between international flights makes sense, better fleet utilization.

That's a bit overly simplistic. A plane makes no money on the ground, but depending on the situation, it can make even less in the air. If the cost of flying the plane exceeds the money from tickets sold, then the flight loses money. If there isn't any other network value to having that flight, then you might as well keep it on the ground, save the fuel and crew costs, and maybe even get some maintenance work done on it (if needed) as well.

For example, right now, airlines have plenty of slack in their schedules since this is typically a slow season for most travel, so airlines cut back on their schedules. That represents a lot of planes "not making money" right now, but airlines still prefer that to flying them at full schedule.

axiom wrote:

why widebodies make sense, especially on high volume routes. The use of widebody equipment is a function of volume and yield, rather than distance. We may well see a time when widebodies are back on domestic routings en masse.

Another big consideration (for UA especially) using widebodies is to reduce airport congestion. EWR and SFO are notorious for being under some sort of reduced flow program for any number of reasons. ORD has a well-documented lack of gate space at certain times. If the demand can still be met and the schedule is still appealing, it's far better to have a couple less flights a day on larger planes than more flights on smaller planes.

Slightly off topic, but with the advent of Basic Economy fares, (less carry-ons) the ground times for these widebodies might not be as bad as when everyone needed a crowbar to get the carry-ons either on or off the plane. Containerized luggage helps speed things up.

jetblastdubai wrote:

axiom wrote:

why widebodies make sense, especially on high volume routes. The use of widebody equipment is a function of volume and yield, rather than distance. We may well see a time when widebodies are back on domestic routings en masse.

Another big consideration (for UA especially) using widebodies is to reduce airport congestion. EWR and SFO are notorious for being under some sort of reduced flow program for any number of reasons. ORD has a well-documented lack of gate space at certain times. If the demand can still be met and the schedule is still appealing, it's far better to have a couple less flights a day on larger planes than more flights on smaller planes.

Slightly off topic, but with the advent of Basic Economy fares, (less carry-ons) the ground times for these widebodies might not be as bad as when everyone needed a crowbar to get the carry-ons either on or off the plane. Containerized luggage helps speed things up.

Alleviation of congestion is a major factor
along with freight movement


I’m bewildered by some posters complaining of the use of wide bodies
domestically, I go out of my way to take these flights, I’ll take the extra space any
day over being shoe horned into another
737

airbazar wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

The Real Question is?? Why NOT? If the passengers and freight connections are there?? It's a win-win..

It's not because 1 772 is typically more expensive to operate than 2 narrowbodies.
The real reason is that these were ordered back when it was common practice to operate widebodies on trunk routes. That model has gone the way of the dodo but United still has the equipment, which is paid off, and not ready to retire them yet. But I guarantee you that in due time, the domestic 777's will be replaced by narrowbodies instead of additional widebodies.

it's certainly possible though by the time the 772As are gone the oldest 772ER might make good replacements. for ua it appears they come in handy on east coast/midwest to hawaii flights, cargo routes, etc

BN727227Ultra wrote:

thegoldenargosy wrote:

I wish more airlines flew domestic wide bodies. I've flown only a few in the last 20+ years.

DL ATL-MCO L1011
DL ATL-HNL A330
DL JFK-LAX 763

UA SFO-DEN 772
UA ORD-IAD 772

US LAX-PHL 762

AA DFW-ORD 772
AA ORD-DFW 788

These look like repositioning flights. I used to regularly my AA's 13:00 DFW-ORD flight on an MD-11. Back when there were hourly flights.

I remember AA flying SAT-DFW with DC-10s as well in the late 80s/early 90s.

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

How had Hub to Hub traffic trended over time? My gut instinct is that with consolidation and increasing pax numbers, many hubs are now "dense" enough to directly connect to most cities on their own, instead of 2 stop routings.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

How had Hub to Hub traffic trended over time? My gut instinct is that with consolidation and increasing pax numbers, many hubs are now "dense" enough to directly connect to most cities on their own, instead of 2 stop routings.

Look through the posts, may cities had non stop widebody service to hubs, and the flights were full.

QF's use of widebodies on domestic flights is very much for the freight and passenger capacity, and not just in soaking up ground time either - a fair proportion of their A332 flying is domestic only, and it used to be the case with their 763ERs for the last few years of their service as well (I recall that their last 763, VH-OGL, had an average cycle length of something like 1200 mi when it was retired).

There's also something to be said for the improvement in boarding and disembarkation times on a widebody; two aisles and generally-larger overhead bins do make a difference, particularly if you can use double-bridged gates.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

The DFW-AUS route was the last flight if the day. The plane would then overnight at AUS (Mueller). By overnighting in AUS, AA could pay lower parking fees than at DFW. It would then be in position for the first flight of the day to fly lots of passengers for both O&D for the beginning of the business day and for early morning connections.

This was long before Bergstrom airport opened. At that time 727's were the only narrow body had enough range to fly to either the east or west coasts from Mueller's runways. Austin was also a much smaller city than now, so it couldn't really support the number and passenger volume of the flights it gas today.

The opening of Bergstrom with it's 12,000 foot runway and the availability of Airbus A320 series and 737NG aircraft to fly anywhere in the contiguous states from there, greatly cut down on the need to to fly through DFW for connections from AUS. The booming economy in Austin since the 1980s meant that there are more people to fill seats on nonstop flights to more destinations. With more flights bypassing hubs, the need for domestic widebody service is lessened.

In the late 1990s up to 9/11, UA would overnight a 757 in Monterey. It was the last SFO-MRY flight of the day, then first one back in the next morning. I took it twice, never with more than 20 people on board. I never understood why, but maybe parking costs or gate slots had more to do with it. Not exactly wide body, but since 9/11 the biggest regular scheduled aircraft into MRY is the Allegiant MD80. Not even a 737, except for the occasional Secretary of Defense.

william wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

How had Hub to Hub traffic trended over time? My gut instinct is that with consolidation and increasing pax numbers, many hubs are now "dense" enough to directly connect to most cities on their own, instead of 2 stop routings.

Look through the posts, may cities had non stop widebody service to hubs, and the flights were full.

Bad wording on my part..I was wondering if hub to hub traffic has declined after all the mergers.

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

Back in the early 747, L1011, DC10 days the CAB limited flights and controlled where and what was flown. After deregulation they could tune loads to needs.

luv2cattlecall wrote:

william wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

How had Hub to Hub traffic trended over time? My gut instinct is that with consolidation and increasing pax numbers, many hubs are now "dense" enough to directly connect to most cities on their own, instead of 2 stop routings.

Look through the posts, may cities had non stop widebody service to hubs, and the flights were full.

Bad wording on my part..I was wondering if hub to hub traffic has declined after all the mergers.

More capacity control management, A321s that can carry 2/3s the pax of a DC-10 more efficiently and this again, no "efficient" WB aircraft built for domestic use.

rbavfan wrote:

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

Back in the early 747, L1011, DC10 days the CAB limited flights and controlled where and what was flown. After deregulation they could tune loads to needs.

Oh, I remember the glory days of deregulation starting and the widebodies continued to ply the domestic routes.

william wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

william wrote:

Look through the posts, may cities had non stop widebody service to hubs, and the flights were full.

Bad wording on my part..I was wondering if hub to hub traffic has declined after all the mergers.

More capacity control management, A321s that can carry 2/3s the pax of a DC-10 more efficiently and this again, no "efficient" WB aircraft built for domestic use.

Not just capacity control but better revenue mgmt. as well. The 1/3 of pax not on that aircraft were lower yielding anyway. Because airlines are managing inventory better they are doing a better job of holding off the low yield pax.

One favorite I remember was AA's LGA-RDU-MCO flights on a D10. Was always a great ride.

DL in the early 2000's had ~14-16 flights a day ATL-FLL with all but 2 on 763/764. Those 2 were 757. DL also had the ATL-MCO 777 which was pure utilization flying. From an accounting/flight profitability perspective, they only allocated variable costs to the ATL-MCO segment making it profitable. Fixed costs were allocated to the ATL-Europe segment the aircraft flew.

I often wonder why are not widebodies flown all over the USA like in years past. Supposedly we have record number of people flying today.

trnswrld wrote:

I must be getting old enough to have experienced a nice variety of wide bodies on short flights as well. I recall being on a 767-200 between ORD and STL, and a L1011 between STL and MCO and JFK.

I remember when Eastern regularly used the A300 on the BOS-LGA Shuttle! Although the 727s were comfortable enough in Shuttle configuration (more leg room), the A300s were exceptionally comfortable and very smooth-flying. Eastern also operated some late-night flights with the A300s at a considerable discount: the flights were operated mostly for cargo, but they would sell you a ticket on those flights as long as you had no checked baggage for the hold.

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder why are not widebodies flown all over the USA like in years past. Supposedly we have record number of people flying today.

Many reasons. First of all, there has been a trend over the past few decades to move to higher frequency on smaller aircraft. This favors narrowbodies. Another major reason is that widebody aircraft have higher operating costs than narrowbody aircraft because they weigh a lot more. Pilot pay for widebody flying also tends to be higher than for narrowbodies.

I think we've reached somewhat of an equilibrium at this point. Domestic widebody flying is way down over what it used to be, but there are certain facility-constrained airports (e.g. LAX, SFO, JFK, ORD) where there is a real benefit to adding capacity via larger aircraft rather than more flights. These also happen to be in large markets that have the demand to fill large aircraft, so domestic widebody flying works well. Add in the other considerations outlined in this thread such as extra cargo capacity and better low-season utilization, and there appears to be a need for some level of domestic widebody flying for the foreseeable future.

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder why are not widebodies flown all over the USA like in years past. Supposedly we have record number of people flying today.

Cost per passenger and the customer preference for frequency. Widebodies have a long turn time which raises their costs on short flights. Widebody engines also cost far more per takeoff, but very little per flight hour for maintenance. Widebodies have a huge amount of weight in fuel tanks, lavatories, galleys, and the wing that lifts that weight. Every pound costs during climb. At cruise the wing saves fuel by flying higher, but it takes hours for that wing to pay back the climb costs.

In the long ago past, until the 727, only a widebody could fly hub to the opposite coast. Then only a widebody could fly TCON until the 757. The A320 and 738 substantially improved TCON economics. PIPs, for example winglets, improved long range performance to the point of going to Hawaii.

The MAX, NEO, and to a lesser extent the C-series further extend range. Norwegian flies TATL with NG and MAX between destinations that would never pay for a widebody.

For example, I fly several times per year LGB or LAX to Florida. I much prefer a direct flight. TPA and JAX wouldn't support a widebody. Only MIA. Before, in the widebody era, I had to transfer at DFW or ATL. Why would I want to do that?

Hub bypass is here.

The MoM will significantly lower the climb costs, an artifact of being optimized for less distance. So it might take back market share. Today's widebodies start becoming economical after 3,000nm; that is outside of US missions except Hawaii. The MoM is optimized for about 60% of the range and thus should be economical at about 60% of the range or ATL/ORD to the west coast, PHX/SLC to the East coast, and TCON.

Lightsaber

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

I was thinking the same

lightsaber wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder why are not widebodies flown all over the USA like in years past. Supposedly we have record number of people flying today.

Cost per passenger and the customer preference for frequency. Widebodies have a long turn time which raises their costs on short flights. Widebody engines also cost far more per takeoff, but very little per flight hour for maintenance. Widebodies have a huge amount of weight in fuel tanks, lavatories, galleys, and the wing that lifts that weight. Every pound costs during climb. At cruise the wing saves fuel by flying higher, but it takes hours for that wing to pay back the climb costs.

In the long ago past, until the 727, only a widebody could fly hub to the opposite coast. Then only a widebody could fly TCON until the 757. The A320 and 738 substantially improved TCON economics. PIPs, for example winglets, improved long range performance to the point of going to Hawaii.

The MAX, NEO, and to a lesser extent the C-series further extend range. Norwegian flies TATL with NG and MAX between destinations that would never pay for a widebody.

For example, I fly several times per year LGB or LAX to Florida. I much prefer a direct flight. TPA and JAX wouldn't support a widebody. Only MIA. Before, in the widebody era, I had to transfer at DFW or ATL. Why would I want to do that?

Hub bypass is here.

The MoM will significantly lower the climb costs, an artifact of being optimized for less distance. So it might take back market share. Today's widebodies start becoming economical after 3,000nm; that is outside of US missions except Hawaii. The MoM is optimized for about 60% of the range and thus should be economical at about 60% of the range or ATL/ORD to the west coast, PHX/SLC to the East coast, and TCON.

Lightsaber

So it goes back to the fact there is not an efficient widebody built today for high cycle,domestic use. Hope holds out for Boeing's MOM if Bernstein is correct.

AA used to fly a 772 on DFW-ORD-LHR, back when the London non-stops out of DFW had to fly to LGW. But, even after AA was allowed to fly DFW-LHR, it still kept the 772 on the DFW-ORD-LHR routing.

A. Often a 772 was coming out of the hanger at DFW and the flight served as a ferry to ORD to get back into the overseas rotation. At the same time, a 772 due into the hanger at DFW would work ORD-DFW.

B. A the start of any given day, the 772 flight on ORD-DFW or DFW-ORD would often be less than full. But, by the time the plane pushed back, it was usually full. The idea was that the flight served as a means of getting misconnects through to the final destination.

If you go further back in time, NW used to fly 747s and DC-10s on ORD-MSP, and DC-10s worked ORD-DTW. Back in the 1970s, you could find that every aircraft type, from the 727-100 to the 747 flew on ORD-MSP every day.

Doesn't AA run a 777-300 on MIA-LAX for repositioning?

I also recall that from the late 1980s to the late 1990s, DL's aircraft on ORD-ATL consisted of 757s, 767s, and L-1011s, and DL normally had hour service from 6am to 9pm. I flew DL on ATL-ORD back in 1999, and the aircraft was an L-1011-500, which worked a flight from the West Coat before heading to ORD.

evank516 wrote:

Doesn't AA run a 777-300 on MIA-LAX for repositioning?

Last I knew, they did. Not sure if that's still the case, though. Currently, I know they run 763 service from MIA to DFW (AA 2427, 2213, 2706), 772 service from MIA to DFW as well (AA 969) and A330 service from CLT to PHL (AA 559).

I'm sure there's more, but goes to show they still do it quite a bit.

evank516 wrote:

Doesn't AA run a 777-300 on MIA-LAX for repositioning?

Not anymore. It went away when LAX-SYD moved from the 77W to the 789. AA does still run a daily 772 rotation on MIA-LAX.

FSDan wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Doesn't AA run a 777-300 on MIA-LAX for repositioning?

Not anymore. It went away when LAX-SYD moved from the 77W to the 789. AA does still run a daily 772 rotation on MIA-LAX.

And I think DFW-MIA right? That flight continues to Rio.

I too recall flying L1011s, 777s, and 767s domestic. (Somehow never a DC-10.). Even 747s LAX-JFK or to HNL.

william wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

I often wonder why are not widebodies flown all over the USA like in years past. Supposedly we have record number of people flying today.

Cost per passenger and the customer preference for frequency. Widebodies have a long turn time which raises their costs on short flights. Widebody engines also cost far more per takeoff, but very little per flight hour for maintenance. Widebodies have a huge amount of weight in fuel tanks, lavatories, galleys, and the wing that lifts that weight. Every pound costs during climb. At cruise the wing saves fuel by flying higher, but it takes hours for that wing to pay back the climb costs.

In the long ago past, until the 727, only a widebody could fly hub to the opposite coast. Then only a widebody could fly TCON until the 757. The A320 and 738 substantially improved TCON economics. PIPs, for example winglets, improved long range performance to the point of going to Hawaii.

The MAX, NEO, and to a lesser extent the C-series further extend range. Norwegian flies TATL with NG and MAX between destinations that would never pay for a widebody.

For example, I fly several times per year LGB or LAX to Florida. I much prefer a direct flight. TPA and JAX wouldn't support a widebody. Only MIA. Before, in the widebody era, I had to transfer at DFW or ATL. Why would I want to do that?

Hub bypass is here.

The MoM will significantly lower the climb costs, an artifact of being optimized for less distance. So it might take back market share. Today's widebodies start becoming economical after 3,000nm; that is outside of US missions except Hawaii. The MoM is optimized for about 60% of the range and thus should be economical at about 60% of the range or ATL/ORD to the west coast, PHX/SLC to the East coast, and TCON.

Lightsaber

So it goes back to the fact there is not an efficient widebody built today for high cycle,domestic use. Hope holds out for Boeing's MOM if Bernstein is correct.

Yes, it goes back to no efficient widebody for short missions. The 787 is the one widebody built for cycles, but it too suffers from turn times and weight. Having the fuel capacity to fly TPAC is awfully expensive TCON. The MoM is the only hope.

Everyone should remember how short range the early widebodies are and how few hours per day they were flown. They would never have worked in today's brutal competitive environment.

For those mourning their disappearance, the A321LR will shift the market further.

Lightsaber

evank516 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

evank516 wrote:

Doesn't AA run a 777-300 on MIA-LAX for repositioning?

Not anymore. It went away when LAX-SYD moved from the 77W to the 789. AA does still run a daily 772 rotation on MIA-LAX.

And I think DFW-MIA right? That flight continues to Rio.

Yep, DFW-MIA regularly sees a handful of daily 763 and 772 flights, probably both for capacity and repositioning purposes.

lightsaber wrote:

I too recall flying L1011s, 777s, and 767s domestic. (Somehow never a DC-10.). Even 747s LAX-JFK or to HNL.

william wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Cost per passenger and the customer preference for frequency. Widebodies have a long turn time which raises their costs on short flights. Widebody engines also cost far more per takeoff, but very little per flight hour for maintenance. Widebodies have a huge amount of weight in fuel tanks, lavatories, galleys, and the wing that lifts that weight. Every pound costs during climb. At cruise the wing saves fuel by flying higher, but it takes hours for that wing to pay back the climb costs.

In the long ago past, until the 727, only a widebody could fly hub to the opposite coast. Then only a widebody could fly TCON until the 757. The A320 and 738 substantially improved TCON economics. PIPs, for example winglets, improved long range performance to the point of going to Hawaii.

The MAX, NEO, and to a lesser extent the C-series further extend range. Norwegian flies TATL with NG and MAX between destinations that would never pay for a widebody.

For example, I fly several times per year LGB or LAX to Florida. I much prefer a direct flight. TPA and JAX wouldn't support a widebody. Only MIA. Before, in the widebody era, I had to transfer at DFW or ATL. Why would I want to do that?

Hub bypass is here.

The MoM will significantly lower the climb costs, an artifact of being optimized for less distance. So it might take back market share. Today's widebodies start becoming economical after 3,000nm; that is outside of US missions except Hawaii. The MoM is optimized for about 60% of the range and thus should be economical at about 60% of the range or ATL/ORD to the west coast, PHX/SLC to the East coast, and TCON.

Lightsaber

So it goes back to the fact there is not an efficient widebody built today for high cycle,domestic use. Hope holds out for Boeing's MOM if Bernstein is correct.

Yes, it goes back to no efficient widebody for short missions. The 787 is the one widebody built for cycles, but it too suffers from turn times and weight. Having the fuel capacity to fly TPAC is awfully expensive TCON. The MoM is the only hope.

Everyone should remember how short range the early widebodies are and how few hours per day they were flown. They would never have worked in today's brutal competitive environment.

For those mourning their disappearance, the A321LR will shift the market further.

Lightsaber

Yes and no, narrow bodies in the 80s/90s flew around 7-8 hours average. Lower than the 9-10 hours a 737 or A320 is clocking today. But the WBs were flying the same amount as the NBs back in the day if not more because of their longer range. Delta worked the Tristar like a rented mule.

alan3 wrote:

I know this thread is US but just to remind that AC uses all of its widebody types (77W, 333, 788. 789 and 763) on domestic routes like YVR-YYZ and YVR-YUL And the configuration is the same as international I believe. The OP seems to be complaining about the widebody configuration on his UA domestic flight but I can't see it being much less comfortable than domestic configurations these days.

When I fly transcon Canada, I only book widebody aircraft if possible. I won't sit 5 hours on a A320.

Obviously Canada has a less competitive airline environment but the transcon distances are the same, and they are flying widebodies with a much smaller population.

I checked BA website - even they have a daily 767 on LHR-GLA.

I believe Japan holds the record for domestic wide-bodies.

Guess it comes down to profit margin - less aircraft flying more passengers - but yes unfortunately there are consequences .

lightsaber wrote:

In the long ago past, until the 727, only a widebody could fly hub to the opposite coast. Then only a widebody could fly TCON until the 757. The A320 and 738 substantially improved TCON economics. PIPs, for example winglets, improved long range performance to the point of going to Hawaii.

I’m a little confused by this statement.

Before the 727, you had 707s and DC-8s, which definitely could fly transcons. When the 757 was introduced, that’s when the 707s and DC-8s were more-or-less killed off.

As for the question in general, it was explained to me by a colleague who used to be an airline scheduler (and alluded to in previous posts on here), the bulk of the old domestic widebodies were bought before deregulation, when routes, frequencies, and fares were regulated. After deregulation, these planes were difficult to make money with, but since they were already paid for, airlines kept flying them.

Their main mission was transcontinental or other high-capacity service. However, in order to minimize down time between long-haul banks, they were flown on the shortest hopes in between. That’s why you’d see DC-10s on routes such as DTW-MKE, ORD-CLE, etc. Those routes could get the plane back in time for the next bank where it was needed.

By the time those planes were due for retirement, airlines went with the planes they really wished they could have flown all along (757, then A320/737NG), but couldn’t either because the types weren’t available or because the cost of buying a new plane vs. keeping the already-owned widebody was too great.

MRYapproach wrote:

Last night I took the second 777 ever delivered: N774UA. It was set up for the latest in domestic cattle car accouterments: 10 wide, no screens, just a spring-loaded clamp for your personal device. yuck.

Good news, it's only set up for cattle for those who want to pay cattle prices, e.g. $49 DEN-SFO or $99 ORD-SFO or $180ish PS EWR-SFO

Try the beds upfront on your next flight, they are frequently on sale for an extra $100, and they are miles better than the 1980s barcaloungers on a 737 / 753 that UA routinely uses to hubs ex-ORD. Lots of people wanted BYOD, and that's what they get now. On the 737s you pay $7.99 for the 7 inch IFE if you're seated in the back, and that's not even AVOD.

MRYapproach wrote:

With so many flights between hubs on smaller aircraft, why do airlines use widebodies like 777s and A330s for domestic runs? Seems like they would be better utilized on trans-ocean flights.

If there's demand for it, they'll fly it. The owner / lessee makes the call on best utilization. Kudos to UA for bringing some class back to domestic flying when committing the 777As to hub-to-hub and GUM/HNL. If you travel to APAC you'll see tons of 777 / 330 domestic runs with lots of frequencies, much more than stateside. The part of me that grew up flying almost exclusively on wide bodies on relatively short flights also says that it's part of what leading countries do.

If the communist-occupied part of China or Japan can run these babies 24/7 on say TYO-KIX or PEK-PVG, then we can do more than the lame 739s. While we naturally have more hubs because we're bigger, more advanced, and love our hourly flights, that doesn't mean we can't throw a couple 777 / 330 into the daily hub to hub traffic.

MO11 wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

Last night I took the second 777 ever delivered: N774UA. It was set up for the latest in domestic cattle car accouterments: 10 wide, no screens, just a spring-loaded clamp for your personal device. yuck.


With so many flights between hubs on smaller aircraft, why do airlines use widebodies like 777s and A330s for domestic runs? Seems like they would be better utilized on trans-ocean flights.

Well, in this case the airplane did Hawaii trips and a Guam trip last week, then Saturday did a ORD-CUN roundtrip on a day which would be a heavy day for the route. Your flight positioned the plane back to SFO, so that it could resume Hawaii and Guam. Frequently, these flights are there just for routing, either for crew, maintenance, or just to make the schedule work.

All good places for a damn fine plane like the 777. Lot's of situations and markets where it comes in handy.

strfyr51 wrote:

The Real Question is?? Why NOT? If the passengers and freight connections are there?? It's a win-win.. How would you know the other stuff that's going on light the freight revenue? With a full load of belly freight? The passengers are pure profit. Leading up to the Christmas season in the past,
We flew B747's at some ungodly hours to places we never flew them to regularly Just to move US Mail and freight during the Holidays. During the Last quarter of the year, Freight is KING. And United sets all of this up early in the year and we're more flexible than ever before in routing and yield assignment. Money is Money. You plan for what you can Get. No matter how it looks to the uninformed. They don't really Need to know.

Bravo! Exactly right! They'll go to where they are needed and make money. Doesn't matter if it's SJU or GUM, it's a valuable operation.

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

Maybe the younger ones need more pointers from us. It was awesome to fly these planes back in the day, and they've become even better today with flat beds throughout. I'd take the ghetto 777As over the fudugly 739s/753s any day of the week. Hell, I'd even hang out in the Centurion lounge for an extra hour or two stuffing my face or drinking away, just for that.

Wide bodies say civilization like nothing else. Nothing more beautiful than a 777 plowing through a snowstorm with engines is as big around as the body of a 737. 100,000 lbs of thrust in each engine, watch the snow get blown away by that and take a sip of your favorite libation while thinking of jealous Santa with his little sleigh. Compare that to a maxed out 739 barely getting of the ground without a tail strike, along with the bland interior that screams WN.

william wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

william wrote:

Look through the posts, may cities had non stop widebody service to hubs, and the flights were full.

Bad wording on my part..I was wondering if hub to hub traffic has declined after all the mergers.

More capacity control management, A321s that can carry 2/3s the pax of a DC-10 more efficiently and this again, no "efficient" WB aircraft built for domestic use.

Aren't 764/773/783/33R supposed to be efficient short range wide body?

Opposite question: Why not?

Flew UA 777 EWR-LAX last week. Was really stoked to finally fly transcon widebody again (the last time being Delta 762 ATL-ONT in 1983).

Well, was happy until sitting on the tarmac for 4 hours due to frozen lavatories. 4 stinking hours. No AVOD, no free WiFi, no free drinks. No recompense whatsoever.

hOMSaR wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

In the long ago past, until the 727, only a widebody could fly hub to the opposite coast. Then only a widebody could fly TCON until the 757. The A320 and 738 substantially improved TCON economics. PIPs, for example winglets, improved long range performance to the point of going to Hawaii.

I’m a little confused by this statement.

Before the 727, you had 707s and DC-8s, which definitely could fly transcons. When the 757 was introduced, that’s when the 707s and DC-8s were more-or-less killed off.

As for the question in general, it was explained to me by a colleague who used to be an airline scheduler (and alluded to in previous posts on here), the bulk of the old domestic widebodies were bought before deregulation, when routes, frequencies, and fares were regulated. After deregulation, these planes were difficult to make money with, but since they were already paid for, airlines kept flying them.

Their main mission was transcontinental or other high-capacity service. However, in order to minimize down time between long-haul banks, they were flown on the shortest hopes in between. That’s why you’d see DC-10s on routes such as DTW-MKE, ORD-CLE, etc. Those routes could get the plane back in time for the next bank where it was needed.

By the time those planes were due for retirement, airlines went with the planes they really wished they could have flown all along (757, then A320/737NG), but couldn’t either because the types weren’t available or because the cost of buying a new plane vs. keeping the already-owned widebody was too great.

Yes,707s and DC-8s were narrowbody aircraft. But they so predate me I forget about them. But there were reasons the 727 sold incredibly well and then didn't. Heck, the 727s were retired early in my career! I only flew a few.

As for high capacity, recall back then the widebodies were flown with 50% on average load factors. I and my siblings often found a completely empty center row and slept LAX-ATL or LAX-DFW. There is a reason the widebodies were retired when they were. Today's target of 80% plus couldn't be achieved before good software was developed, but the low liad factors under deregulation was only viable when cars weren't reliable and most of the population was priced out of flying. I recall too many two thousand miles road trips as that was far cheaper for a family than flying. Seriously, the prior prices would never work in this era where the average car can drive 7,000+ miles without issue or anything but fuel. By the late 80's I was making that two thousand miles drive in under 40 hours door to door for a total round trip cost under one ticket.

Very few widebodies for domestic operations weren't bought under the distorted economics of regulation. There is a reason UA repurposed the 77As to mostly TATL.

The MoM is the one widebody with good domestic potential.

Lightsaber

In addition to reasons listed in the thread, it eases airport congestion and frees up gate space when 1 widebody does the work of 1-3 narrowbody/RJs. Especially true during IROPS and the busy summer months.

AMALH747430 wrote:

I remember AA flying SAT-DFW with DC-10s as well in the late 80s/early 90s.

In the mid/late 1980's AA flew their DC-10's on DFW-SAT, DFW-AUS, DFW-IAH, and DFW-ELP. Most of these, as another poster said, were the last flight out of DFW to the destination, so the widebody could RON and then be the first flight out to DFW in the morning. In the case of the ELP flight, it continued to LGA. I think the SAT flight continued (1 stop service) to ORD. AUS was a little different, in that there was also a late afternoon DC-10 that flew down from DFW that turned and got back to DFW for the last connecting bank of the day, sometime around 7 or 7:30 pm. It was a cool sight if you were driving on I-35 when that D10 came in low for a landing at Mueller! Back in those days I was too poor to fly to London, but I sure could afford to fly an hour long intra-Texas flight on a widebody!

Delta's L1011's were used on tons of rather short haul routes. Not only ATL to Florida, but things like ATL to MEM, MSY, DFW, and ORD.

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

AMALH747430 wrote:

I remember AA flying SAT-DFW with DC-10s as well in the late 80s/early 90s.

In the mid/late 1980's AA flew their DC-10's on DFW-SAT, DFW-AUS, DFW-IAH, and DFW-ELP. Most of these, as another poster said, were the last flight out of DFW to the destination, so the widebody could RON and then be the first flight out to DFW in the morning. In the case of the ELP flight, it continued to LGA. I think the SAT flight continued (1 stop service) to ORD. AUS was a little different, in that there was also a late afternoon DC-10 that flew down from DFW that turned and got back to DFW for the last connecting bank of the day, sometime around 7 or 7:30 pm. It was a cool sight if you were driving on I-35 when that D10 came in low for a landing at Mueller! Back in those days I was too poor to fly to London, but I sure could afford to fly an hour long intra-Texas flight on a widebody!

Delta's L1011's were used on tons of rather short haul routes. Not only ATL to Florida, but things like ATL to MEM, MSY, DFW, and ORD.

Back in the day, SWA would have advanced fares for $19.00 each way from AUS Mueller to DAL or HOU. Of course AA, DL (had a hub at DFW then) and CO (hub at IAH) would match fares. It was easy and cheap way to catch a DC-10 or 767 from AUS to DFW. And talking about racking up miles......................man those were days.

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

While not hub to hub, I distinctly remember when it was very common to see DL 764's running RSW-ATL. There were times I would see multiple DL 764's parked at RSW at one time. And for awhile, I'm not sure if they still do, AA used to run the 777 MIA-ORD & MIA-JFK. I've only flown a widebody twice that I can remember (MIA-MGA on an AA A300 roundtrip) and I'd rather fly on a widebody than a narrowbody.

rbavfan wrote:

william wrote:

Wow, I must be old. Am I the only one that remembers the days when Dc-10s, L1011s and 767 widebodies routinely connected hubs together?

AA used to fly DC10s and 767s between DFW and AUS. DL's ATL-MCO was almost all L1011s.

And now we are a point that Anetters think its odd to have widebody on a domestic flight?

Back in the early 747, L1011, DC10 days the CAB limited flights and controlled where and what was flown. After deregulation they could tune loads to needs.

I know pre-deregulation service to cities was controlled, but I don't know that the CAB had a say-so in what equipments was used.

Not hub-to-hub, but very early in the days of the 747, AA flew a JFK-BDL flight because they needed a place to RON the aircraft.

DL flew BDL-JFK-CDG in the early 2000's on a 763 and also BDL-BOS-BDA on an L1011 in the 80's.

FSDan wrote:

AA does still run a daily 772 rotation on MIA-LAX.

Sadly, not at the moment. It's all miserable 32B (not 32T, 32B). The 772 will return in a few weeks for a short time and after then, who knows? I've heard that the 757s may even reappear on MIA-LAX later in the year.

AC still operate a lot of domestic widebody routes. YVR, YYC, YEG, YYZ, YOW, YUL and YHZ all see at least 1 daily domestic widebody service. Last summer YYJ did too for the first time ever.

In addition YYT-YHZ this winter sees the 763 twice weekly.

WS also now have some 763 domestic service.

c933103 wrote:

william wrote:

luv2cattlecall wrote:

Bad wording on my part..I was wondering if hub to hub traffic has declined after all the mergers.

More capacity control management, A321s that can carry 2/3s the pax of a DC-10 more efficiently and this again, no "efficient" WB aircraft built for domestic use.

Aren't 764/773/783/33R supposed to be efficient short range wide body?

If 5500nm-6000nm is *short range* then sure, the 767/777(non-ER)/A330 were still burdened with alot of the structural weight that made them have (theroetically) ranges for LAX-AKL, SFO-PVG, not short routes by any means.

JustSomeDood wrote:

c933103 wrote:

william wrote:

More capacity control management, A321s that can carry 2/3s the pax of a DC-10 more efficiently and this again, no "efficient" WB aircraft built for domestic use.

Aren't 764/773/783/33R supposed to be efficient short range wide body?

If 5500nm-6000nm is *short range* then sure, the 767/777(non-ER)/A330 were still burdened with alot of the structural weight that made them have (theroetically) ranges for LAX-AKL, SFO-PVG, not short routes by any means.

There are also variants that didn't experience structural enhancement or MTOW/OEW increase?

lightsaber wrote:

hOMSaR wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

In the long ago past, until the 727, only a widebody could fly hub to the opposite coast. Then only a widebody could fly TCON until the 757. The A320 and 738 substantially improved TCON economics. PIPs, for example winglets, improved long range performance to the point of going to Hawaii.

I’m a little confused by this statement.

Before the 727, you had 707s and DC-8s, which definitely could fly transcons. When the 757 was introduced, that’s when the 707s and DC-8s were more-or-less killed off.

As for the question in general, it was explained to me by a colleague who used to be an airline scheduler (and alluded to in previous posts on here), the bulk of the old domestic widebodies were bought before deregulation, when routes, frequencies, and fares were regulated. After deregulation, these planes were difficult to make money with, but since they were already paid for, airlines kept flying them.

Their main mission was transcontinental or other high-capacity service. However, in order to minimize down time between long-haul banks, they were flown on the shortest hopes in between. That’s why you’d see DC-10s on routes such as DTW-MKE, ORD-CLE, etc. Those routes could get the plane back in time for the next bank where it was needed.

By the time those planes were due for retirement, airlines went with the planes they really wished they could have flown all along (757, then A320/737NG), but couldn’t either because the types weren’t available or because the cost of buying a new plane vs. keeping the already-owned widebody was too great.

Yes,707s and DC-8s were narrowbody aircraft. But they so predate me I forget about them. But there were reasons the 727 sold incredibly well and then didn't. Heck, the 727s were retired early in my career! I only flew a few.

As for high capacity, recall back then the widebodies were flown with 50% on average load factors. I and my siblings often found a completely empty center row and slept LAX-ATL or LAX-DFW. There is a reason the widebodies were retired when they were. Today's target of 80% plus couldn't be achieved before good software was developed, but the low liad factors under deregulation was only viable when cars weren't reliable and most of the population was priced out of flying. I recall too many two thousand miles road trips as that was far cheaper for a family than flying. Seriously, the prior prices would never work in this era where the average car can drive 7,000+ miles without issue or anything but fuel. By the late 80's I was making that two thousand miles drive in under 40 hours door to door for a total round trip cost under one ticket.

Very few widebodies for domestic operations weren't bought under the distorted economics of regulation. There is a reason UA repurposed the 77As to mostly TATL.

The MoM is the one widebody with good domestic potential.

Lightsaber

Still what was happening ono widebodies were also happening on narrowbodies