Why doesn’t AA fly widebodies on JFK-SFO/LAX

UA857 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:39 pm

When I was looking at NYC-SFO/LAX Flights I noticed that a lot of DL and UA flights are widebodies and all AA transcons are all A321 can you tell me why AA is the only US3 that doesn’t fly widebodies on Transcon?

jpetekyxmd80 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:41 pm

Because they ordered specialized and dedicated low density 321 fleet for this purpose, favoring frequency to capacity. These planes only fly those routes, so you won't see much variation.

Super80Fan · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:42 pm

AA used to fly those routes with the 767-200. I believe they switched to the A321 because they are in a heavily premium setup and it allows them to mainly sell expensive tickets on the route to more "premium" passengers while DL & UA are going after the more leisure traveler.

maps4ltd · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:43 pm

They've got a more competitive product on their A321s than some of their widebodies, and they don't have to fill as many seats. They can also pump in more frequency.

ytib · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:48 pm

UA857 wrote:
When I was looking at NYC-SFO/LAX Flights I noticed that a lot of DL and UA flights are widebodies and all AA transcons are all A321 can you tell me why AA is the only US3 that doesn’t fly widebodies on Transcon?

The A321 configuration used for this flight is geared for the premium passenger and with the corporate contracts they have, they are getting that premium.

https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_ ... 21_new.php

CWL757 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:50 pm

As others have said, due to frequencies. Same reason you won't see A380s on the LHR-JFK route.

stl07 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:53 pm

Because their A321s are WAY WAY superior to their awful 767s. If they flew those on transcontinental instead of leisure TATL they would lose all of their big corporate FFs

Wingtips56 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:59 pm

The A321T (Trans-continental) birds are configured in 3 cabins. A real First Class, full flat, 1x1 Business, and small coach at more premium fares. Folks wanting lower fares take connecting flights. The 767s no longer had 3 cabins, and the Hollywood crowd actually pays for F.

Ishrion · Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:00 pm

Side note, American does fly the A332 and sometimes the 763 on PHL-LAX/SFO.

SurfandSnow · Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:37 pm

Remember, time is money. More than a few people describe themselves as "bi-coastal" these days, and would much rather enjoy shorter boarding times and easier, quicker de-planing than endure the many hassles of a bigger jet.

I was so excited to ride a UA 777 from DEN to LAX recently...until I realized that it takes almost as long to load that behemoth as it does to fly from Denver to LA! Honestly, flying an outsourced Delta Connection E-175 on that same route was probably a better experience. Better yet, catch a 737 right into Burbank and avoid the whole mess of LAX. From JFK, those B6 flights into BUR can't be beat!

An AAv.geek friend of mine was thrilled to catch the 787 to LAX. He was much less thrilled to be taxiing forever and then sent to a remote gate since AA didn't have anywhere to accommodate the big plane at that time. I wonder if he prefers flying smaller aircraft that can use any AA LAX gate these days...

remymartin11 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:57 pm

The worst part of the 321T is Door 1 boarding and all of
Y and J stream past your 4K r/t seat.

B747forever · Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:57 pm

CWL757 wrote:
As others have said, due to frequencies. Same reason you won't see A380s on the LHR-JFK route.

Not sure that is entirely true as AA doesn't have any substantially higher frequency on LAX-NYC to compensate for using low density narrow bodies. SFO-JFK is even worse.

8/23 LAX-JFK/EWR

UA x12
AA x11
DL x10
B6 x10

8/23 SFO-JFK/EWR

UA x15
DL x8
B6 x6
AA x5

travelin man · Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:55 pm

AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route.

theasianguy · Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:06 pm

B747forever wrote:
CWL757 wrote:
As others have said, due to frequencies. Same reason you won't see A380s on the LHR-JFK route.

Not sure that is entirely true as AA doesn't have any substantially higher frequency on LAX-NYC to compensate for using low density narrow bodies. SFO-JFK is even worse.

8/23 LAX-JFK/EWR

UA x12
AA x11
DL x10
B6 x10

8/23 SFO-JFK/EWR

UA x15
DL x8
B6 x6
AA x5

I find it impressive that United offers both the largest aircraft and most frequency on New York-California transcons.

SFO-EWR is 1x 78J, 2x 77W, and 3x 772 daily.
LAX-EWR is 2x 78J and 1x 772 daily..

Each of these aircraft has more than 300 seats. AA's A321s only have 102 seats. Seems like AA is happy to provide the most premium transcon product and the only true First Class product with the least capacity.

Detroit313 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:09 pm

They fly the best narrowbody that exists in the US.

Why would they fly basic widoebodies like the competition does?

blacksoviet · Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:10 pm

How does First Class on the A321 compare to First Class on the 767-200 that flew those routes for decades?

toltommy · Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:20 pm

theasianguy wrote:
I find it impressive that United offers both the largest aircraft and most frequency on New York-California transcons.

SFO-EWR is 1x 78J, 2x 77W, and 3x 772 daily.
LAX-EWR is 2x 78J and 1x 772 daily.

Technically, UA offers the largest aircraft and most frequency on NEW JERSEY-California transcons.... :stirthepot:

HPAEAA · Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:41 pm

blacksoviet wrote:
How does First Class on the A321 compare to First Class on the 767-200 that flew those routes for decades?

The A321T was a significant upgrade for AA over the 762 in all the cabins, F had been in a 1x2x1 config which became a 1x1 config on the 321T and J went from a 2x2x2 confit to just 2x2. So far as the seats, AA never upgraded the late 90s/early 2000 seats which had mechanically operated controls, extended recline and footrests but I don’t believe F or J would lay-flat. For IFE, they had a tablet system which for now has been upgraded to a seat back solution which runs throughout the plane. One note though, if I recall, the 762 was the first aircraft to get the gogo inflight system, was quite nice when WiFi first appeared.

JohnAudiR18 · Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:08 pm

Just for reference, AA has about 15 of those A321T’s. There is a ton of frequency between JFK/BOS to SFO/LAX. Seems to be working out great. No complaints that I’ve really heard of. While it would be great to ride a wide body, if made to be comfortable a narrow body can’t be beat

BooDog · Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:29 pm

According to planespotters.com, there's 17 of these aircraft.

HPAEAA · Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:31 pm

JohnAudiR18 wrote:
Just for reference, AA has about 15 of those A321T’s. There is a ton of frequency between JFK/BOS to SFO/LAX. Seems to be working out great. No complaints that I’ve really heard of. While it would be great to ride a wide body, if made to be comfortable a narrow body can’t be beat

I agree, it’s a great product, I wish they could come up with an in between model for the other transcon markets, maybe remove the F cabin & expand Y.. it seems in the future we might see more premium narrowbodys beyond the 321t, 752intls, and Mint on B6, UAL is looking at lie flat in the max 10s:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 0s-451309/

caljn · Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:35 pm

"AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route."

Utterly subjective of course. I for one prefer UA's 757 or 787 currently on the trans con.

ojjunior · Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:17 am

ytib wrote:
https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Airbus_A321_new.php

I'm sorry but what's that small seat behind 10D?

planecane · Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:23 am

ojjunior wrote:
ytib wrote:
https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Airbus_A321_new.php

I'm sorry but what's that small seat behind 10D?

It's a seat for an FA.

chepos · Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:26 am

ojjunior wrote:
ytib wrote:
https://seatguru.com/airlines/American_Airlines/American_Airlines_Airbus_A321_new.php

I'm sorry but what's that small seat behind 10D?

There is a wall behind row 10, the FA jumpseat is not directly behind the J seat as shown on the map.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

catiii · Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:26 am

[twoid][/twoid]

caljn wrote:
"AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route."

Utterly subjective of course. I for one prefer UA's 757 or 787 currently on the trans con.

You might be the first person I’ve ever heard say they prefer the UA 757, which hasn’t seen a dime of investment in the forward cabin in 7 years. I had occasion to fly one EWR-SFO and was shocked at how dated and dirty the hard product in the forward cabin is.

Nicknuzzii · Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:45 am

catiii wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
caljn wrote:
"AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route."

Utterly subjective of course. I for one prefer UA's 757 or 787 currently on the trans con.

You might be the first person I’ve ever heard say they prefer the UA 757, which hasn’t seen a dime of investment in the forward cabin in 7 years. I had occasion to fly one EWR-SFO and was shocked at how dated and dirty the hard product in the forward cabin is.

Dated I 100% agree with you but I frequently fly the route and have never found it to be dirtier than anything else I've flown.

caljn · Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:57 am

catiii wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
caljn wrote:
"AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route."

Utterly subjective of course. I for one prefer UA's 757 or 787 currently on the trans con.

You might be the first person I’ve ever heard say they prefer the UA 757, which hasn’t seen a dime of investment in the forward cabin in 7 years. I had occasion to fly one EWR-SFO and was shocked at how dated and dirty the hard product in the forward cabin is.

The flying experience as an enthusiast on the 757 and 787 is in my view more entertaining than a 321. The '57 with the sturdy, confident vibe in flight as well as the fabulous take off. The '87 with the widebody and lower altitude pressurization which does leave you refreshed after a long trip.
Now if you're comparing cabin layout, that is a different subject. The 787-10's currently on the route are 3 cabin, business, premium econ, econ plus and economy. The aging 757 is also more than adequate up front in that they do have fairly comfortable lie-flat seats, but could indeed use a refresh.

sonicruiser · Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:07 am

Polaris on the 78X/77W easily beats F on the A321T

Spacepope · Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:26 am

remymartin11 wrote:
The worst part of the 321T is Door 1 boarding and all of
Y and J stream past your 4K r/t seat.

That’s the price you pay if you’re too poor to fly private.

ArchGuy1 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:34 am

LAX and JFK are both slot restricted, so it would be a good idea to reinstate somebody service on the JFK-LAX route as it is also a very busy route.

ctrabs0114 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:41 am

Ishrion wrote:
Side note, American does fly the A332 and sometimes the 763 on PHL-LAX/SFO.

The A332 used on PHL-LAX/SFO appears to be summer seasonal only from what I've seen.

Busyboy2 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:23 am

Spacepope wrote:
remymartin11 wrote:
The worst part of the 321T is Door 1 boarding and all of
Y and J stream past your 4K r/t seat.

That’s the price you pay if you’re too poor to fly private.

BOOM! mic drop.

aemoreira1981 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 4:45 am

Because AA needs a true first class on JFK to LAX and SFO, and among wide bodies, only the B77W has first class. The B762s that were replaced by these A321s had an international first class on them.

Chemist · Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:23 am

ArchGuy1 wrote:
LAX and JFK are both slot restricted, so it would be a good idea to reinstate somebody service on the JFK-LAX route as it is also a very busy route.

I don't believe LAX is slot restricted; somebody correct me if that's incorrect.
LAX IS however short on gates. I avoid LAX as much as possible as i've had to wait an hour on the ramp for a gate more than once.

Ishrion · Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:47 am

ctrabs0114 wrote:
Ishrion wrote:
Side note, American does fly the A332 and sometimes the 763 on PHL-LAX/SFO.

The A332 used on PHL-LAX/SFO appears to be summer seasonal only from what I've seen.

Just checked, it looks like it's available in the winter season.

StudiodeKadent · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:32 am

UA857 wrote:
When I was looking at NYC-SFO/LAX Flights I noticed that a lot of DL and UA flights are widebodies and all AA transcons are all A321 can you tell me why AA is the only US3 that doesn’t fly widebodies on Transcon?

They'd rather have a high-frequency high-yield operation. The use of relatively small jets makes this much more sustainable.

AAIRLINERS · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:40 am

A dozen or so years ago on occasion the 772 would fly a daily JFK-LAX between the 3 class 762 flights but thats when they were set up with 3 classes. Ive flown the 763 between SFO and JFK as well as SJC and BOS but that was a different era. Post merger management wasn't thrilled with the A321 transcon service philosophy at first but they have since changed their minds. Even though you have the premium class set-up 102 seats on the plane is pretty skimpy IMO. Both the SFO and LAX flights to and from JFK always seem to go out completely full which leads me to believe we are missing out on some potential revenue. As most know the only other 3-4 class aircraft AA runs besides the A321T are the 773s. With only 20 of them I am not sure they can be spared for transcon duty. That said we do currently fly LAX MIA once daily each way on the 773 and its generally full as well. Honestly my only personal observation is that of fuel burn...15000 pounds an hour or more. I cannot remember what the 75 or 76 series used but the reserve and alternate fuel was quite a bit less. I hope this adds some info for the OP.

sabby · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:48 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Because AA needs a true first class on JFK to LAX and SFO, and among wide bodies, only the B77W has first class. The B762s that were replaced by these A321s had an international first class on them.

To be fair, AA's A321T F seats are basically their long haul J seats. UA fly 78J and 77W which have equivalent J at much lower price than AA's F between NYC-LAX.

washingtonflyer · Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:16 pm

I think part of the strategy is consistency of product. If you're on an A321T the entire schedule, your passengers know where they like to be. If you're bouncing around 757s, 77Ws, and 787-10s, the seat maps and service options change constantly - depending on the day and the time of day.

Folks that are flying paid F between LAX and JFK are a picky lot, and they know what seat they want.

STT757 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:27 pm

toltommy wrote:
theasianguy wrote:
I find it impressive that United offers both the largest aircraft and most frequency on New York-California transcons.

SFO-EWR is 1x 78J, 2x 77W, and 3x 772 daily.
LAX-EWR is 2x 78J and 1x 772 daily.

Technically, UA offers the largest aircraft and most frequency on NEW JERSEY-California transcons....

Right, and East Rutherford New Jersey population 15,000 has two NFL franchises ( Giants and Jets) and the entire State of New York has only one NFL franchise (Buffalo Bills).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

nine4nine · Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:24 pm

caljn wrote:
"AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route."

Utterly subjective of course. I for one prefer UA's 757 or 787 currently on the trans con.

I prefer the B6 experience and the MINT offering over anything offered premium on both AA and UA on NYC area to LA. Although DL-One comes a close 2nd!

aemoreira1981 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 5:53 pm

nine4nine wrote:
caljn wrote:
"AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route."

Utterly subjective of course. I for one prefer UA's 757 or 787 currently on the trans con.

I prefer the B6 experience and the MINT offering over anything offered premium on both AA and UA on NYC area to LA. Although DL-One comes a close 2nd!

Before B6 introduced Mint, counting the B762s that finished their lives on JFK-LAX/SFO, what was the transcon offering on each of the US3? I know UA used p.s., but what was DL using? (Today, their SFO service is almost exclusively B752s with Delta One.)

marcogr12 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 6:54 pm

caljn wrote:
catiii wrote:
[twoid][/twoid]
caljn wrote:
"AA’s A321t is a much nicer plane than anything else flying that route."

Utterly subjective of course. I for one prefer UA's 757 or 787 currently on the trans con.

You might be the first person I’ve ever heard say they prefer the UA 757, which hasn’t seen a dime of investment in the forward cabin in 7 years. I had occasion to fly one EWR-SFO and was shocked at how dated and dirty the hard product in the forward cabin is.

The flying experience as an enthusiast on the 757 and 787 is in my view more entertaining than a 321. The '57 with the sturdy, confident vibe in flight as well as the fabulous take off. The '87 with the widebody and lower altitude pressurization which does leave you refreshed after a long trip.
Now if you're comparing cabin layout, that is a different subject. The 787-10's currently on the route are 3 cabin, business, premium econ, econ plus and economy. The aging 757 is also more than adequate up front in that they do have fairly comfortable lie-flat seats, but could indeed use a refresh.

As an avgeek i tend to agree about the fab takeoff of the 757 and the 787..And the AA A321 can be enjoyed by those who have got money to splash on J..if not, i don't think it makes a hell of a lot of difference,as a non-aviation-fan passenger, if u r flying the 757 or the A321..By the way, looking all transcon flights EWR/JFK-LAX/SFO i did see a lot of 757s,738s,739 but no 753 by UA and DL..How come since it can be used on heavily-trafficked routes with its higher capacity?

AABB777 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:18 pm

washingtonflyer wrote:
I think part of the strategy is consistency of product. If you're on an A321T the entire schedule, your passengers know where they like to be. If you're bouncing around 757s, 77Ws, and 787-10s, the seat maps and service options change constantly - depending on the day and the time of day.

Folks that are flying paid F between LAX and JFK are a picky lot, and they know what seat they want.

Agree. Premium passengers flying the JFK-LAX/SFO routes want premium product consistency and the 321T offers just that. If there is a schedule delay or somebody misses a flight because their meeting in midtown went longer than expected or if a customer just arrives at JFK early and is able to jump on an earlier flight JFK-LAX/SFO, these customers know for certain the product to expect. UA especially does not offer this certainty.

Antarius · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:24 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
Polaris on the 78X/77W easily beats F on the A321T

Agree to disagree. The zodiac cirrus seats on the 321T (and AA 77W and CX J) handily beat the Polaris seats.

Polaris reminds me of CX coffin class. With a lot more hype around it.

Austin787 · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:25 pm

theasianguy wrote:
I find it impressive that United offers both the largest aircraft and most frequency on New York-California transcons.

SFO-EWR is 1x 78J, 2x 77W, and 3x 772 daily.
LAX-EWR is 2x 78J and 1x 772 daily..

Each of these aircraft has more than 300 seats. AA's A321s only have 102 seats. Seems like AA is happy to provide the most premium transcon product and the only true First Class product with the least capacity.

United has a hub at all 3 destinations, and NYC-SFO/LAX also serve as hub to hub routes in addition to premium transcons.

fbgdavidson · Sun Aug 18, 2019 7:46 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Because AA needs a true first class on JFK to LAX and SFO, and among wide bodies, only the B77W has first class. The B762s that were replaced by these A321s had an international first class on them.

The 762 F seats may have been an international FC seat at some point (I think they were on 763s in the early 1990s) but it certainly wasn't in the last couple of decades of their life.

American Airlines Boeing 767-200 First Class Cabin by shorthairfrancis, on Flickr

B1168 · Mon Aug 19, 2019 2:32 am

SurfandSnow wrote:
Remember, time is money. More than a few people describe themselves as "bi-coastal" these days, and would much rather enjoy shorter boarding times and easier, quicker de-planing than endure the many hassles of a bigger jet.

I was so excited to ride a UA 777 from DEN to LAX recently...until I realized that it takes almost as long to load that behemoth as it does to fly from Denver to LA! Honestly, flying an outsourced Delta Connection E-175 on that same route was probably a better experience. Better yet, catch a 737 right into Burbank and avoid the whole mess of LAX. From JFK, those B6 flights into BUR can't be beat!

An AAv.geek friend of mine was thrilled to catch the 787 to LAX. He was much less thrilled to be taxiing forever and then sent to a remote gate since AA didn't have anywhere to accommodate the big plane at that time. I wonder if he prefers flying smaller aircraft that can use any AA LAX gate these days...

Bruh... if you were to fly in China between larger city pairs, that is the norm... try searching flights between Beijing and Guangzhou or Shenzhen and see how many widebodies there are on that route. Even worse, HSR rides necessitate a minimum of 8 hours, well beyond the acceptable bound:(

azncsa4qf744er · Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:48 am

toltommy wrote:
theasianguy wrote:
I find it impressive that United offers both the largest aircraft and most frequency on New York-California transcons.

SFO-EWR is 1x 78J, 2x 77W, and 3x 772 daily.
LAX-EWR is 2x 78J and 1x 772 daily.

Technically, UA offers the largest aircraft and most frequency on NEW JERSEY-California transcons....

Yepper! The answer to your stir the pot question is there..... and somehow United is still able to fill the seats and added widebody aircraft.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net