Chasensfo
Posts: 196
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:07 am

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

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:48 am

Funny how times change, I have an American Airlines timestable from 1980 I think which advertises SFO-JFK being 5x daily all 747s. From their introduction in 1982-2013 or 2014(whenever the transcon A321s arrived), 767-200s were operating some flights like flight AA20 as the same type, flight number, and general time for that entire period of time. While the 2-3-2 seating in coach was nice for many, I would venture to guess the average premium flyer prefers the lie-flat seats on the A321.

Times change, I remember when United employees were first scoffing at 757s doing some flights to Hawaii, but the big airplane for long flights mindset has long since made way for "right sizing" in the age where A321s have proven themselves on routes like KEF-SFO/LAX.
 
DarthLobster
Posts: 372
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:40 am

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

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:50 am

Because the liquor cabinets are larger on the widebodies, so AA routes those through PHX.
 
LAXLHR
Posts: 447
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:07 am

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

Mon Aug 19, 2019 5:51 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.


The WORST part? lol. Board last!. I usually get on with group 1 and Im too in my own world to be bothered by the other passengers standing next to me heading to J and Y. Sometimes its nice to just board last like I did today.

Nothing is perfect. Better to board through door one than risk a dinged engine I was told.
BA IB ET JM EA GK PA VS AA SN HP CO W7 WN NW DL UA AC US LH LX OS JL QF QR WY MH CX U2 EK 9W UK TP VY VN LO OK OZ UL SQ LA

707 727 L10 732-NG 741 742 743 744 752 753 762 763 772 773 787 DC8 DC9 DC10 M80 M11 100 AB3 310 318 319 320 321 332 333 342 343 380
 
anrec80
Posts: 2110
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:50 am

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

Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:21 am

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


Well let’s say this is due to JFK T7 limitations. This route is certainly thick enough for a few A380s a day. BA puts here 747s all the time.
 
oceanvikram
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:00 pm

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

Mon Aug 19, 2019 6:34 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.


I hear you.

Whenever I get the privilege of having a seat at the front section of an aircraft, I feel embarrassed when other fellow passengers are boarding.

I didn’t pay for my own ticket and yet those in y most likely did.
My comments are based as an aviation enthusiast first, then as a passenger who paid for his own ticket, after that a passenger on a business trip and finally an armchair CEO.
 
CURQ400
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 10:29 am

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

Mon Aug 19, 2019 9:42 am

anrec80 wrote:
CWL757 wrote:
As others have said, due to frequencies. Same reason you won't see A380s on the LHR-JFK route.


Well let’s say this is due to JFK T7 limitations. This route is certainly thick enough for a few A380s a day. BA puts here 747s all the time.


You’re aware that the A380 seats 70% more pax than the ultra Hi-J 747 that BA puts on that route? (All in the wrong class, too)
BA wouldn’t fly the A380 to JFK, even if they could.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

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

Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:18 am

Austin787 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..

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.


Exactly, and UA rotates those wide body jets at each of those stations. The 77W fleet is essentially SFO based, with EWR serving NRT, HKG, TLV (1 of 2 flights). and BOM, when it returns so those jets are cycled through SFO for maintenance and to operate SFO-Asia, SFO-AKL, and SFO-FRA. The 772s are rotated through for Hawaii service ex-West Coast, and the 78J's are used to cycle in a transcon flight or 2 (as is the LAX case) and then move them on to BRU, DUB, CDG (1 flight), BCN, TLV (1 flight) , and FRA, where they currently operate from EWR.
 
afcjets
Posts: 2913
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:04 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I know UA used p.s., but what was DL using? (Today, their SFO service is almost exclusively B752s with Delta One.)


Ever since DL tookover Pan Am's TATL hub at JFK, they continued to fly three class widebodies like PA did on JFK-LAX. PA flew the 747 and A310. DL only purchased the A310 from Pan Am and Shuttle 727s. DL flew the 763, 310, and L15 and when they got rid of IFC and came out with Business Elite (now Delta One), that also became standard. Eventually it went to all 757s with Business Elite but about about the same time AA got rid of the 762, DL added flights including some 763, 764, and A330s.
 
afcjets
Posts: 2913
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:22 am

fbgdavidson wrote:
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.

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



They never got the F swivel seats like the 772 when they were launched or the 773 F seat and AA eventually got rid of F on the 763. The F seats on the 762 were much nicer and wider when AA called them Luxury Liners and before the new interior 1999 (S80) - 2001 (762 F) like shown in your pic. Here is what they looked like before, even though its a mock cabin (pic1). Eventually F became leather again on the 762 (without lambswool though) and the seat was widened again (pic 2)

Image


Image
 
kimimm19
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:47 am

Because the American market is obsessed with frequency....

I would suspect most Avgeeks on here would much prefer widebodies and a few less flights a day.
 
flight152
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 3:23 am

kimimm19 wrote:
Because the American market is obsessed with frequency....

I would suspect most Avgeeks on here would much prefer widebodies and a few less flights a day.

As said before, this excuse doesn’t really hold up when United flys EWR-SFO 14 times a day with 5 777’s, 1 787 and nothing smaller then a 757.
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1739
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:25 am

lambwool looks SSSOOO comfortable....
xx
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15411
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:26 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.



LAX has no slot restrictions.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
HPAEAA
Posts: 1114
Joined: Mon May 08, 2006 7:24 am

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:49 am

flight152 wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
Because the American market is obsessed with frequency....

I would suspect most Avgeeks on here would much prefer widebodies and a few less flights a day.

As said before, this excuse doesn’t really hold up when United flys EWR-SFO 14 times a day with 5 777’s, 1 787 and nothing smaller then a 757.

What’s interesting is that AAL & UAL are Pretty close in terms of ttl revenue considering AAL uses such a low density config on the a321 vs UAL with all that wide body capacity on EWR-SFO, would the added cost of deploying 3 class wide body aircraft really be justified considering the returns they have with the a321T?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.oag.co ... s_amp=true
1.4mm and counting...
 
grbauc
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 7:53 am

yea DP and the current AA is pretty Conservative and for now they don't run anything but there A321T. I'm ok with it but A nice 77W or 789 would be nice to throw in there. We are seeing a small uptick in Domestic WB flying. Mostly aircraft utilization and its a start. AA should have more A321T for transcon routes on longer segments imop.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 1183
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:04 am

grbauc wrote:
yea DP and the current AA is pretty Conservative and for now they don't run anything but there A321T. I'm ok with it but A nice 77W or 789 would be nice to throw in there. We are seeing a small uptick in Domestic WB flying. Mostly aircraft utilization and its a start. AA should have more A321T for transcon routes on longer segments imop.


I don't think conservative means launching "test" flights to Bologna, Berlin, Dubrovnik, Casablanca, and Krakow.

The domestic widebody flying this winter is because they literally have no other route to put the aircraft on. Once they add more Australia/NZ flying for next year, there will be less widebodies on domestic routes.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:13 am

Ishrion wrote:
grbauc wrote:
yea DP and the current AA is pretty Conservative and for now they don't run anything but there A321T. I'm ok with it but A nice 77W or 789 would be nice to throw in there. We are seeing a small uptick in Domestic WB flying. Mostly aircraft utilization and its a start. AA should have more A321T for transcon routes on longer segments imop.


I don't think conservative means launching "test" flights to Bologna, Berlin, Dubrovnik, Casablanca, and Krakow.

The domestic widebody flying this winter is because they literally have no other route to put the aircraft on. Once they add more Australia/NZ flying for next year, there will be less widebodies on domestic routes.



Ok he's not ultra but I think His history has shown and he has shown a conservative leaning for much and most of his decisions.


Yea well see the domestic WB flying disappear once there not available.

I've said it before but He should go out on top or get some new blood in. Scott Kirby was a good yang to his yin and I believe he's missed. All the same even if Scott was still here I believe the same New blood and DP should go out. He's done the impossible and there no were to go but down now.
 
kimimm19
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:34 pm

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

Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:36 pm

HPAEAA wrote:
flight152 wrote:
kimimm19 wrote:
Because the American market is obsessed with frequency....

I would suspect most Avgeeks on here would much prefer widebodies and a few less flights a day.

As said before, this excuse doesn’t really hold up when United flys EWR-SFO 14 times a day with 5 777’s, 1 787 and nothing smaller then a 757.

What’s interesting is that AAL & UAL are Pretty close in terms of ttl revenue considering AAL uses such a low density config on the a321 vs UAL with all that wide body capacity on EWR-SFO, would the added cost of deploying 3 class wide body aircraft really be justified considering the returns they have with the a321T?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.oag.co ... s_amp=true


That's not saying all that much.

Especially as we don't know things like load factors and profit.. If anything, that suggests that UA has overcapacity and could do with (drum role please) less frequency...

It's only quite recently that UA has begun using the 781 and they are still using old 777s. So those against much lighter, premium dense a321s, it would be no wonder they're doing alright if UA can't fill the back of the widebodies.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos