They want more frequencies, not fewer. AA is operating 102-seat A321Ts 12x this coming Monday. Southwest has 20x DAL-HOU.
Many passengers certainly appreciate more frequent flights but there must come a point where they are so frequent that nobody cares. I suspect that nobody would care if Southwest only had a flight every hour during the normal day for DAL to HOU. In Southwest's case they get economies by limiting the types of aircraft they have, so running 20 instead of 12 or 15 (with higher capacity) on that route costs much less than introducing a new type of aircraft.
However, there are many types of passengers. Those travelling on business will typically appreciate frequency, and those can be high yielding passengers. So it seems that BA for instance uses smaller aircraft than it has available on the LHR JFK route. However, even in those cases I suspect there are a limited number of favorite times.
Perhaps more people will choose the most economical flight so I'm slightly surprised that there aren't more airlines using bigger aircraft with lower CASM with reduced frequency on popular routes. For myself, making the flight from PHX to any airport in the DC area I really don't care what time the flight departs. I'm going to lose most of the day regardless.
Except that big, heavy, and fat widebody aircraft burn so much fuel during takeoff that they often do not have lower CASM on shorter flights than a more optimized A321. Asian airlines use them due to slot restrictions, not due to CASM, and even then they don't use them very often, since the CN3 did not order A330R.
Ive wondered this as well, I think its profit based than anything else. You get A330s/777s used in Asia on high demand domestic routes all the time, however I think you can make more profit filling a A321 99% 8 times a day vs a A330 80% 4 times a day.
Yes, don't let the dishonest airlines think they are appeasing the traveling public with more frequencies. It is nothing more than it being bean counter profit driven. At the same time, they could care less how much they clog the skies with all these narrow-bodies, which in turn adds to delays. The FAA/DOT have been way too lax in allowing airlines to pile on frequencies, in the sake of profits. It is insane how many narrow-body flights are operating trans-cons today where the skies could be much less packed with more wide-body types, with less frequencies. I doubt it will ever change though.
If that’s the case it’s not the airlines fault. Boeing and Airbus should have shorter range widebodies which achieve economies of scale instead of the opposite.
They tried, but it always failed because even an A330 is too big, heavy, and fat to offer lower CASM on a short flight than an A321. So far the 797 is still on paper.
The thread is talking about a plane variant with regional in its name, not American regional flight market
Then the OP doesn’t understand the term regional as it applies to any commercial flying in the US. 3000NM is not regional in any country.
A330 Regional is a derated, lighter version of A333. Basically reduced MTOW weight, reduced range (b/c it can carry less fuel), but is "optimized" for high capacity, short to mid haul route.
Saudia was the only airline that took up the offer. The plane itself was clearly targeted at Chinese airlines, but they didn't bite.
Previous thread that would explain everything well:viewtopic.php?t=1340929
P.S. "Regional" configuration is a pretty common name in APAC region for flights flying within that area. Both CX and SQ call their higher density widebodies (A330 mainly) "Regional Plane".
Well, if the CN3 didn't even bite I have no clue why people think the US3 are going to bite.
The reality is the A321NEO and A220-300 carry a passenger for less.
Indeed. A330R is just a paper de-rate. It still carries the heavy landing gear and reinforced wings needed to carry loads of fuel that won't be needed on a domestic milk run, so it's cost per seat is going to be high. Then, add in the capacity risk and the bean counters get shivers.
People here are over-rating the relatively tiny number of domestic widebody flights in the US. They're largely being done with international aircraft with spare time on their hands or re-purposed elderly international aircraft no longer fit for international service. Compare/contrast to the large number of A321s, 739s, and soon 7310s the big three operate. It's no contest.
Another side note I want to make - the thing that's seems to be even more overrated on a.net, IMO, is the amount of widebodies that's suppose to be flying domestic routes in mainland China. Even over in China, with its supposed crowded airspace, you have maybe 5-6 routes (PEK-SHA, PEK-CAN, PEK-SZX, SHA-CAN, SHA-SZX, PEK-CTU) that seems numerous A330s. All the other routes at best are like US domestic routes - i.e. 1-2 widebodies out of 15 daily flights. Even if you included HKG, you can add HKG-PEK and HKG-SHA (or PVG) and that's it.
That's a good point.
I live in both NYC and LA, so I take those transcons all the time. Frequency is great, because you can just head to the airport right after work, or head straight to work after coming off your flight. It's what most people prefer, at least out here.
As for replacing all the narrowbody frequency for widebodies, here's the thing. New York and LA are the two largest cities in America. The two largest economies in the country. Basically, if a widebody is going to replace a narrowbody, there's still going to be frequency. So instead of 10x daily on a 737/757, you're going to see 8x daily on a 767/A330. There's just so much demand for flights these days. In fact, it's what we're starting to see now, at least in the case of the transcons. UA adding 777 and 767s. Delta with the 767s and A330s. AA currently sticks with the A321, which is an extremely nice ride. But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw one of their 77Ws, 787, or A330 on the route one of these days.
I don't think they'll put heavies on the JFK-LAX because the 763 and A333 are getting retired and they need as many heavies as they have without buying more to overload debt.
ah sorry could you rearticulate the post?
762 10F + 30J = 40P X 8 flights per day = 320 premium seats per day
32T 10F + 20J = 30P X 12 flights per day = 360 premium seats per day, 12.5% increase
762 128Y X 8 flights per day = 1024Y seats per day
32T 72Y X 12 flights per day = 864Y seats per day, 18.5% decrease
Reconfiguring 762 with 12.5% more P seats would be 5 more. 40 X 12.5% = 5
Y would need to be reduced by 10 seats on 762 or 8.5% to add 5 more P seats.
12 daily 32Ts reduced Y by 18.5% or approx 2.2 times as 762 reconfiguration would have.
So you want to say using 762 could result in too many Y seat? Airlines can also refit 762 into having something similar to 10F 42J 107Y which would be even more premium heavy with less Y seat if that is desired, and there are also more different types of widebodies than 762
Except you're missing that the 762 is inefficient. It burns almost as much fuel as a 763 but carries barely any more than A321, and AA has 219 A321 for economics of scale.
I'm one of those "high yield, last minute passengers" and I can tell you that waiting an additional 30 minutes per schedule is much more preferable to me than having to sit on the plane waiting for an ATC slot due to "congestion" or waiting for a late arriving inbound plane.
I am too and I can tell you if one airline flies the Rout 5-6 times a day and the other flies it 15, I’m choosing the latter.
And that's - with all due respect - what I do not understand:
Yes, five options would be great: let's say two in the morning, one at noon and two different options in the evening.
But 15 or even 20 as described above?!?! What's the point in having so many alternatives?
Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. Maybe it's due to my job and the locations I have to travel to. I can be happy if they offer a daily connection...
Flexibility and cost. UA and DL have or have had domestic widebodies. US airlines are quite Capital conservative for domestic fleet. It is hard to justify the expense of a new widebody that may be triple the cost of a narrowbody for domestic use.
I guess that's one of the best explanations. Whenever this topic gets started on a.net some members will answer prayer-mill-like "because US-American passenger prefer "frequency". Since when do airlines do what the passengers want...?
You're right, once frequency hits a certain point (e.g. 10 flights a day), the rest is down to CASM and the CASM of the A330R is worse than A321 so that's why no one other than Saudia bought A330R, presumably for Hajj.
Back in the 1990s DL and UA put new build 767s into a domestic configuration. That is back in the late 1990s in the dot.com boom when Airlines spent wildly. Nowadays there is just too much capital tied up with doing that. UA prefers reconfiguring old low value 777s for domestic use.
I think this is where the term widebody with narrowbody economics comes from for them NMA. High density widebodies already are competitive on CASM when ownership costs are excluded. The problem is they are on a higher pricing curve and ownership costs become unfavorable for widebodies to the point that multiple narrowbodies makes sense. Getting the NMA priced in line with narrowbody pricing is the key to tapping into the domestic market.
To help explain, there is basically a linear relationship with seat-count and payload versus price. The higher the seat count or payload, the more expensive the plane and more airlines are willing to pay. This is why the manufacturers have little interest selling A319s or 737-7s and are pushing the airlines to bigger versions that cost more and have higher profit margins. This undercuts the price that Airbus can change for regional A330s and is why defatted versions are almost never economically viable.
There is a step change between the pricing curves for the 737/A320 families to the A330/787. There is a jump up somewhere around $20 Million once Airlines get into widebodies. This isn’t a big deal for airlines that have easy access to capital and financing. For those airlines using A330s or 787s on regional flights isn’t a problem since the cost of capital is low. For the US airlines, they are very cost conscious with their 700+ airplane fleets. The A330 regional is simply too expensive to make work. This is what the NMA is trying to exploit. If they can price the plane like a stretched A321/737 then the market will eat it up.
Than people should stop talking about frequency, frequency and again frequency. The frequency argument, even on TATL, kills both the A330 and the 797 ideas.
Everybody knows by now that the price of a 797 will not match the price of a stretched A321. It will perhaps match the price per seat, but that we do see on an A330 regional.
The 797 would be better off as a narrowbody DC-8 Super 60 clone with GTFs rather than a widebody so that Boeing can design a composite narrowbody fuselage for the NSA, and it looks like many people agree.