Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Brickell305
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:06 pm

tphuang wrote:
ryby92 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Realistically speaking, what percentage of demand to GEO from US east coast originates from NYC area? Is it 50%, 60%, 75%? Basically, if there is enough capacity on NYC-GEO to capture 90% demand from NYC/NJ area, what is left for MIA-GEO?


Are you implying/predicting/wishing that both JFK and MIA will be failures? Obviously there must be some thing left for MIA seeing that the service has been upgraded from 4W to daily and then from A319 to 738. If it was B6 flying from FLL you would not be asking the same question.

Actually the other way around. I don't see why b6 would ever launch FLL if NYC has 80% of demand. You see inlike some people here, I actually frequently talk about routes that airlines I like should add and remove and stay away from. And we are abiut to do the start of the year predictions for next year. I actually fly aa more than any other airlines out of nyc in the past few years.

But of course, my predictions of aa in ceetain JFK markets is due to bias rather than yield data or how much aa has already cut.

B6 wouldn’t/shouldn’t launch FLL because it would be a disaster for them. B6 doesn’t offer the connections to Houston/other parts of Florida from FLL that help to make AA’s MIA flight work. So. Fla O&D definitely won’t be enough when there’s AA/PY/BW all competing for that market to one extent or another. It likely wouldn’t be enough even if they weren’t there. B6 has enough trouble with the likes of FLL-BGI/POS which are both bigger to/from So. Fla than GEO is or likely ever will be.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5460
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:11 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
ryby92 wrote:

Are you implying/predicting/wishing that both JFK and MIA will be failures? Obviously there must be some thing left for MIA seeing that the service has been upgraded from 4W to daily and then from A319 to 738. If it was B6 flying from FLL you would not be asking the same question.

Actually the other way around. I don't see why b6 would ever launch FLL if NYC has 80% of demand. You see inlike some people here, I actually frequently talk about routes that airlines I like should add and remove and stay away from. And we are abiut to do the start of the year predictions for next year. I actually fly aa more than any other airlines out of nyc in the past few years.

But of course, my predictions of aa in ceetain JFK markets is due to bias rather than yield data or how much aa has already cut.

B6 wouldn’t/shouldn’t launch FLL because it would be a disaster for them. B6 doesn’t offer the connections to Houston/other parts of Florida from FLL that help to make AA’s MIA flight work. So. Fla O&D definitely won’t be enough when there’s AA/PY/BW all competing for that market to one extent or another. It likely wouldn’t be enough even if they weren’t there. B6 has enough trouble with the likes of FLL-BGI/POS which are both bigger to/from So. Fla than GEO is or likely ever will be.

Nor have I suggested otherwise. Seems like current capacity from aa in South Florida is more than adequate. If anything, it might be too much capacity if some of the areas with demand get more direct capacity.
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:22 pm

tphuang wrote:
Brickell305 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Actually the other way around. I don't see why b6 would ever launch FLL if NYC has 80% of demand. You see inlike some people here, I actually frequently talk about routes that airlines I like should add and remove and stay away from. And we are abiut to do the start of the year predictions for next year. I actually fly aa more than any other airlines out of nyc in the past few years.

But of course, my predictions of aa in ceetain JFK markets is due to bias rather than yield data or how much aa has already cut.

B6 wouldn’t/shouldn’t launch FLL because it would be a disaster for them. B6 doesn’t offer the connections to Houston/other parts of Florida from FLL that help to make AA’s MIA flight work. So. Fla O&D definitely won’t be enough when there’s AA/PY/BW all competing for that market to one extent or another. It likely wouldn’t be enough even if they weren’t there. B6 has enough trouble with the likes of FLL-BGI/POS which are both bigger to/from So. Fla than GEO is or likely ever will be.

Nor have I suggested otherwise. Seems like current capacity from aa in South Florida is more than adequate. If anything, it might be too much capacity if some of the areas with demand get more direct capacity.

Agreed. If IAH demand ever increases to the point that UA can start its own flight, that’s gonna hurt AA in MIA. However, I don’t see that happening quite yet as business demand alone wouldn’t be enough for that flight. There would need to be some traffic to fill the back of the plane as well.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:25 pm

tphuang wrote:
ryby92 wrote:
EK216 wrote:

Yes I know about BW523 and I am not saying that BW has not had its own fair share of issues.

But I am sure BW recovered from the fallout of that, considering that accident happened almost a decade ago. And if my memory serves correct, that was not the only incident in which an aircraft overshot GEO's runway which caused a write-off.

To BW's credit, they've never stopped GEO-JFK despite competition, so clearly they must be doing something right.


So you are implying that BW can recover fully from a major accident resulting in loss of aircraft but because it is AA they can't recover from three or four fuel stops? And they have since weight restricted the aircraft to eliminate the tech stop? Help me out here.


Well when bw had these issues in the year past, they had no competition outside of some eastern airlines charter flights. Now there are going to be there airlines. There is less room for mishaps.

Long term, the biggest issue facing both airlines is that b6 is running a321neo here. The cost on that is so much lower than 150 seat b738.


The cost of the A321neo are not lower than a 737-800. CASM, probably for AA vs B6, even when considering AA owns the plane and B6 finances it. However, trip cost for the 737 are still lower.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:28 pm

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
I’m confused why an American 737-800 can’t fly a 2500 mile route. It is the same length as a domestic transcon. AA has flown plenty of 737-800 routes that long.

Is it because a direct route requires ETOPS?

Looking at the flight track, most of it is over the water, so I don't think that would be it. Looking at the range chart of a 737-800, if you're at maximum zero fuel weight, you can only fly about 2,000 nautical miles if you're at maximum take-off weight. You'd need to take 5,000 pounds off of the zero fuel weight in order to fly 2,500 miles.
]


Jfk-GEO is 2200nm, which is the same length as MIA-SFO. That is a route that AA has flown 737-800s for years. 2600sm is not an issue normally for the 737-800


MIA-SFO does not have the " I need to bring 6 bags to take a vacation" view. GEO is heavy on baggage. with a 2000nm range with max cargo you are going to have an issue. One of the reason they fly would fly a 767-200 to some Brazil markets vs a 757-200.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:35 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
N757ST wrote:

The 7400 foot long runway limits the max takeoff weight.


Should use an A321 or A321neo. Should not have any problems with the runway at MTOW and the range with the correct number of ACT.

edit: The 737-800 should actually not have a TOW limitation on a 7400 feet, 2250 m runway.


The A321 needs needs more runway than the 738.

You guys are forgetting performance factors outside of payload/range;

obstacle departure procedures and single engine climb performance
accelerate stop distances on contaminated runways
anti ice penalties

there is alot more than just 'payload/range'.

Not to mention most flights are fighting 100knot headwinds going north right now. I just did it yesterday.


It was noted the tech stops were southbound. So that 100knot tailwind should increase the range.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 3:48 pm

raylee67 wrote:
chepos wrote:
The flight for the SB sector has been now capped at 140 and NB at 157 due to the operating restrictions. Maybe during the busy holiday periods a 757 should be the equipment used (or the MAX once it’s back). MIA is a shorter stage length so the 738 has hd no problems there (was a 319 until 12/18).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


If pax number needs to be restricted to 157 anyway, wouldn't it be better to use the ex-US A320? A320 should have sufficient capabilities to fly the route with full payload (150 seats). It would be more efficient to fly a full A320 than a 70% full 738. Does AA have any A320 based at JFK? if yes, are the A320s ETOPS certified?


Difference between full payload with 150 seats standard & full payload with extra luggage for everyone. Then it becomes a Max Payload range issue not a Max passenger/payload issue. Max passenger payload could be based on 215 lb. per passenger or 32250 lb payload. Max payload on that A320 would be 44000 lb. a loss of 11700 lb. around 1754 gal or so of fuel based on Airbus specs. That is a substantial range loss. With passenger all checking extra baggage both would be passenger limited. Or you could tell people a lot of bags are not going with them.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:09 pm

x1234 wrote:
Remember Latin Americans like to SHOP for family in the USA. This is similar to East Asia a few years ago where VFR would always bring very heavy luggage's for family. But recently as American multi-nationals have expanded their presence into Latin America & East Asia the same stuff in the stores here in the USA are available over there too reducing the need for heavy luggage's. There's limited stores in GEO, Guyana (similar with Cuba) so people literally bring the whole kitchen sink with them south-bound.


But that same stuff sold there now is usually more expensive to by there.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5460
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 4:54 pm

sxf24 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
ryby92 wrote:

So you are implying that BW can recover fully from a major accident resulting in loss of aircraft but because it is AA they can't recover from three or four fuel stops? And they have since weight restricted the aircraft to eliminate the tech stop? Help me out here.


Well when bw had these issues in the year past, they had no competition outside of some eastern airlines charter flights. Now there are going to be there airlines. There is less room for mishaps.

Long term, the biggest issue facing both airlines is that b6 is running a321neo here. The cost on that is so much lower than 150 seat b738.


The cost of the A321neo are not lower than a 737-800. CASM, probably for AA vs B6, even when considering AA owns the plane and B6 finances it. However, trip cost for the 737 are still lower.

It's a lot lower. To give you an idea, the total operating cost of a321neo with JetBlue is only a couple of percentage higher than a320ceo, but there are close to 25% more seat. It's close to 20% lower in casm. And airlines do say a320ceo is about 2% higher than 737-800. And then, between aa and b6, there is a pretty large difference in casm between similar capacity aircraft. The casm gap between b6 a321neo and aa 737-800 is going to pretty huge.

The record of aa at JFK on vfr routes against b6 is not good for these reasons.

Also, b6 owns most of it's airbus aircraft. Please feel free to not just make stuff up.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6074
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:23 pm

CaliguyNYC wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Notice the reddest area is adjacent to JFK

This was/is an easy route to start

Unfortunately for AA, they waited til B6 got the aircraft with the ability to fly this route before they jumped in

This is a special VFR route much like Haiti. These are routes that can print/burn money depending on volatility, but persistence and being the only US carrier on the route usually pays off.

AA doesnt have that persistence at JFK. They will be off the route within the year


Your Hato analogu might have been correct a year ago. Now they discovered oil there so Guyana is a whole new market than before.



Lots of Oil Traffic between NY and Guayana? :/
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2238
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:50 pm

tphuang wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
tphuang wrote:

Well when bw had these issues in the year past, they had no competition outside of some eastern airlines charter flights. Now there are going to be there airlines. There is less room for mishaps.

Long term, the biggest issue facing both airlines is that b6 is running a321neo here. The cost on that is so much lower than 150 seat b738.


The cost of the A321neo are not lower than a 737-800. CASM, probably for AA vs B6, even when considering AA owns the plane and B6 finances it. However, trip cost for the 737 are still lower.

It's a lot lower. To give you an idea, the total operating cost of a321neo with JetBlue is only a couple of percentage higher than a320ceo, but there are close to 25% more seat. It's close to 20% lower in casm. And airlines do say a320ceo is about 2% higher than 737-800. And then, between aa and b6, there is a pretty large difference in casm between similar capacity aircraft. The casm gap between b6 a321neo and aa 737-800 is going to pretty huge.

The record of aa at JFK on vfr routes against b6 is not good for these reasons.

Also, b6 owns most of it's airbus aircraft. Please feel free to not just make stuff up.



B6 doesn't own the 321neos, they are on 15 year notes. AA owns the 738's outright, only have to cover crew/maintenance/insurance. It's how delta is so profitable with MD80's and the like.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5460
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 6:58 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
sxf24 wrote:

The cost of the A321neo are not lower than a 737-800. CASM, probably for AA vs B6, even when considering AA owns the plane and B6 finances it. However, trip cost for the 737 are still lower.

It's a lot lower. To give you an idea, the total operating cost of a321neo with JetBlue is only a couple of percentage higher than a320ceo, but there are close to 25% more seat. It's close to 20% lower in casm. And airlines do say a320ceo is about 2% higher than 737-800. And then, between aa and b6, there is a pretty large difference in casm between similar capacity aircraft. The casm gap between b6 a321neo and aa 737-800 is going to pretty huge.

The record of aa at JFK on vfr routes against b6 is not good for these reasons.

Also, b6 owns most of it's airbus aircraft. Please feel free to not just make stuff up.



B6 doesn't own the 321neos, they are on 15 year notes. AA owns the 738's outright, only have to cover crew/maintenance/insurance. It's how delta is so profitable with MD80's and the like.

And if you looked at what they have done, they ended up buying outright most of their airbus aircraft. I don't know why you drag delta in here. That has nothing to do b6, which owns most of it's airbus aircraft.
 
sxf24
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:22 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 7:35 pm

tphuang wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
tphuang wrote:

Well when bw had these issues in the year past, they had no competition outside of some eastern airlines charter flights. Now there are going to be there airlines. There is less room for mishaps.

Long term, the biggest issue facing both airlines is that b6 is running a321neo here. The cost on that is so much lower than 150 seat b738.


The cost of the A321neo are not lower than a 737-800. CASM, probably for AA vs B6, even when considering AA owns the plane and B6 finances it. However, trip cost for the 737 are still lower.

It's a lot lower. To give you an idea, the total operating cost of a321neo with JetBlue is only a couple of percentage higher than a320ceo, but there are close to 25% more seat. It's close to 20% lower in casm. And airlines do say a320ceo is about 2% higher than 737-800. And then, between aa and b6, there is a pretty large difference in casm between similar capacity aircraft. The casm gap between b6 a321neo and aa 737-800 is going to pretty huge.

The record of aa at JFK on vfr routes against b6 is not good for these reasons.

Also, b6 owns most of it's airbus aircraft. Please feel free to not just make stuff up.


The total operating costs of an A321neo are not a “couple of percentage points higher” than a A320ceo. Maybe a couples of couples...

All of B6’s aircraft are financed, which adds costs vs AA’s unencumbered 737s. B6 does have significantly lower labor costs.

The CASM is much better for the A321neo because of more seats. AA will have better RASM from a smaller aircraft and ability to sell F.
 
RodFarva
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat May 26, 2018 6:06 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 9:36 pm

sxf24 wrote:
All of B6’s aircraft are financed, which adds costs vs AA’s unencumbered 737s. B6 does have significantly lower labor costs.


This is incorrect. I suggest you have a look at the most recent 10K and 10Q reports. In the quarter ending September 30, 2019, JetBlue owned 207 of 254 aircraft. That is a long way from "all of B6's aircraft are financed". You are fake news.

What you probably meant is their neo's are financed and that is likely the case. The latest 10Q only mentions they purchased one A321neo, which was the only delivery for that quarter. The 10Q also says; "Depending on market conditions, we anticipate using a mix of cash and debt financing for aircraft scheduled for delivery in 2019."
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8491
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Sun Dec 29, 2019 10:04 pm

RodFarva wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
All of B6’s aircraft are financed, which adds costs vs AA’s unencumbered 737s. B6 does have significantly lower labor costs.


This is incorrect. I suggest you have a look at the most recent 10K and 10Q reports. In the quarter ending September 30, 2019, JetBlue owned 207 of 254 aircraft. That is a long way from "all of B6's aircraft are financed". You are fake news.


Financed is not a synonym for leased. If money is borrowed against them - encumbered, in language of the industry - they are financed. Do you have a mortgage on your home? Then it's financed.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5460
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 1:59 am

sxf24 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
sxf24 wrote:

The cost of the A321neo are not lower than a 737-800. CASM, probably for AA vs B6, even when considering AA owns the plane and B6 finances it. However, trip cost for the 737 are still lower.

It's a lot lower. To give you an idea, the total operating cost of a321neo with JetBlue is only a couple of percentage higher than a320ceo, but there are close to 25% more seat. It's close to 20% lower in casm. And airlines do say a320ceo is about 2% higher than 737-800. And then, between aa and b6, there is a pretty large difference in casm between similar capacity aircraft. The casm gap between b6 a321neo and aa 737-800 is going to pretty huge.

The record of aa at JFK on vfr routes against b6 is not good for these reasons.

Also, b6 owns most of it's airbus aircraft. Please feel free to not just make stuff up.


The total operating costs of an A321neo are not a “couple of percentage points higher” than a A320ceo. Maybe a couples of couples...

All of B6’s aircraft are financed, which adds costs vs AA’s unencumbered 737s. B6 does have significantly lower labor costs.

The CASM is much better for the A321neo because of more seats. AA will have better RASM from a smaller aircraft and ability to sell F.


Yes, total operating costs of an A321NEO is just a couple of percentage points higher based on the statement that JetBlue themselves have made regarding operating cost or CASM of aircraft in their fleet vs each other.

http://blueir.investproductions.com/~/m ... 18-web.pdf (page 27)
As of end of 2018, they owned 175 out of 193 Airbus aircraft they operate. Of those, 107 aircraft are unencumbered. And given their past history, they have a pretty good record of fully buying out the aircraft that the 16 airbus that they do lease.

In Q3 2019, B6 CASM was 11.29. AA CASM was 14.64. You can do your own math on the cost differences. It's a lot more than just labor cost. And the difference is larger for A321NEO vs 737-800.

The record of B6 vs AA in JFK VFR market is pretty strong. There is no evidence that AA even with fewer seat to sell and F can actually get higher RASM. Anyone that has looked at large JFK non-AA hub markets can attest to that.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 4:39 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
RodFarva wrote:
sxf24 wrote:
All of B6’s aircraft are financed, which adds costs vs AA’s unencumbered 737s. B6 does have significantly lower labor costs.


This is incorrect. I suggest you have a look at the most recent 10K and 10Q reports. In the quarter ending September 30, 2019, JetBlue owned 207 of 254 aircraft. That is a long way from "all of B6's aircraft are financed". You are fake news.


Financed is not a synonym for leased. If money is borrowed against them - encumbered, in language of the industry - they are financed. Do you have a mortgage on your home? Then it's financed.

From B6’s 2018 10K:
Owned: 205
Capital leased: 6
Operating leased: 42
“As of December 31, 2018 , our aircraft leases had an average remaining term of approximately 5 years , with expiration dates between 2019 and 2028 . We have the option to extend most of these leases for additional periods or to purchase the aircraft at the end of the related lease term. We have 98 owned aircraft subject to secured debt financing; 107 of our owned aircraft and 44 spare engines are unencumbered.”

http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/jetb ... ndex=11400

B6 owns a lot higher percentage of their planes than AA, and of those, a significant amount are owned outright. I couldn’t find the number of unencumbered planes AA has in their 10K, but I’d be surprised if it was as high a percentage as B6. 40% of B6’s planes (including many of the A321s I believe) are owned outright.

Last, I don’t think B6’s labor costs are much lower. Last I checked their pilots have similar pay scales now to the US3. Not sure about FAs, but I doubt it is much different.
 
User avatar
DL757NYC
Posts: 309
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 6:07 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:23 am

GEO requires a 757 the passengers bags are mostly heavy checked. And the flight is full NYC has a large population from Guyana. I remember loads of almost 300 bags. The amount of gate checks that were 50 pounds or more ran 30-40. That’s a flight we loaded at nighttime and started early because bins 1-4 were full to the brim. Oversized or cheap luggage duct taped together weighing 75lbs or more. usually with no magic carpet.
 
caribny
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:47 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 6:49 am

jfk777 wrote:
caribny wrote:
x1234 wrote:
. There's limited stores in GEO, Guyana (similar with Cuba) so people literally bring the whole kitchen sink with them south-bound.



Cubans travel to Guyana to shop so clearly shopping in Georgetown is better than that available in Havana.


Saying shopping in Guyana is "better" then Cuba is not saying much since Cuba probably has the worst shopping in the world. Who say" we are going to Cuba to go shopping ?", No one.



There are no shortages of items in Guyana. The shops are stocked. Guyana isnt what it was 30 years ago. People send money and not barrels of goods. The days of bringing critical supplies for relatives is over. Georgetown is not Havana or anything close. Guyanese dont go to Port of Spain to shop and interestingly enough Cubans dont seem to either.
 
caribny
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:47 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 7:05 am

DL757NYC wrote:
GEO requires a 757 the passengers bags are mostly heavy checked. And the flight is full NYC has a large population from Guyana. I remember loads of almost 300 bags. The amount of gate checks that were 50 pounds or more ran 30-40. That’s a flight we loaded at nighttime and started early because bins 1-4 were full to the brim. Oversized or cheap luggage duct taped together weighing 75lbs or more. usually with no magic carpet.



Paying for bags and the 50lb limit ended a lot of the nonsense. On full flights there is a real risk that "carryons" might be snatched if the bags look to full. Not that much space on a fully booked 737. Even on the leisure flights cabin space fills up and you bet on those heavy VFR flights eyes are watching because no one wants a delay to move tag and place bags that cannot fit in the cabin. Folks aren't want to pay $140 (2 bags round trip) on AA. Caribbean people (Cubans and Haitians excepted) who live in the USA dont travel as heavy as they used to. Those extra charges for overweight bags gets fierce.

Nowadays Western Union is what people use. Send money to the folks and they can buy what they want.
 
LJ
Posts: 5382
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:24 am

CaliguyNYC wrote:
I think AA will do just fine. Remember the big change in Guyana is the oil boom. AA is starting not for the VFR but for oil execs and bankers heading down there. AA will price First class super high, and will get that price. So it can keep coach cheap. Jet Blue, will probably fly an all coach plane. So execs will probably chose AA for first and miles. That said, I can see AA suspending JFK-GEO during the low periods an routing people through MIA.


Those oil execs and bankers travel on corporate contracts and they will not pay "super high fares" (if those execs fly commercial at all). The money is usually made from mid-size and small companies who are too small for a corporate contract. However, if they have cheaper options, they'll use them.
 
OB1504
Posts: 3988
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2004 5:10 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 9:28 am

rbavfan wrote:
Weatherwatcher1 wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
Looking at the flight track, most of it is over the water, so I don't think that would be it. Looking at the range chart of a 737-800, if you're at maximum zero fuel weight, you can only fly about 2,000 nautical miles if you're at maximum take-off weight. You'd need to take 5,000 pounds off of the zero fuel weight in order to fly 2,500 miles.
]


Jfk-GEO is 2200nm, which is the same length as MIA-SFO. That is a route that AA has flown 737-800s for years. 2600sm is not an issue normally for the 737-800


MIA-SFO does not have the " I need to bring 6 bags to take a vacation" view. GEO is heavy on baggage. with a 2000nm range with max cargo you are going to have an issue. One of the reason they fly would fly a 767-200 to some Brazil markets vs a 757-200.


AA hasn’t flown the 767-200 to Brazil in decades. The last remaining 757 market was slated to be downgauged to a 737 MAX before the grounding.
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:48 pm

LJ wrote:
CaliguyNYC wrote:
I think AA will do just fine. Remember the big change in Guyana is the oil boom. AA is starting not for the VFR but for oil execs and bankers heading down there. AA will price First class super high, and will get that price. So it can keep coach cheap. Jet Blue, will probably fly an all coach plane. So execs will probably chose AA for first and miles. That said, I can see AA suspending JFK-GEO during the low periods an routing people through MIA.


Those oil execs and bankers travel on corporate contracts and they will not pay "super high fares" (if those execs fly commercial at all). The money is usually made from mid-size and small companies who are too small for a corporate contract. However, if they have cheaper options, they'll use them.

There will be no oil execs or bankers in any significant number flying JFK-GEO. Oil execs would be flying from Houston and AA does not fly IAH-JFK so there won't even be connections there. As for bankers, there are no American banks in Guyana and it's unlikely that there will be any time soon and even if there were, it's till unlikely that will spur lots of demand. Trinidad for example, has one American bank operating there, and still most of the business traffic generated by that operates from So. Fla because that's where the bank's Latam/Caribbean base is.
 
Brickell305
Posts: 1097
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 2:54 pm

caribny wrote:
DL757NYC wrote:
GEO requires a 757 the passengers bags are mostly heavy checked. And the flight is full NYC has a large population from Guyana. I remember loads of almost 300 bags. The amount of gate checks that were 50 pounds or more ran 30-40. That’s a flight we loaded at nighttime and started early because bins 1-4 were full to the brim. Oversized or cheap luggage duct taped together weighing 75lbs or more. usually with no magic carpet.



Paying for bags and the 50lb limit ended a lot of the nonsense. On full flights there is a real risk that "carryons" might be snatched if the bags look to full. Not that much space on a fully booked 737. Even on the leisure flights cabin space fills up and you bet on those heavy VFR flights eyes are watching because no one wants a delay to move tag and place bags that cannot fit in the cabin. Folks aren't want to pay $140 (2 bags round trip) on AA. Caribbean people (Cubans and Haitians excepted) who live in the USA dont travel as heavy as they used to. Those extra charges for overweight bags gets fierce.

Nowadays Western Union is what people use. Send money to the folks and they can buy what they want.


I agree with the overweight bag part for sure. Very few people are doing that now for sure due to excess weight fees.Multiple checked bags still seem to occur rather frequently IMO. GEO may be different from the other Caribbean destinations but I still see the multiple checked bags happening to places like POS, BGI, UVF, ANU, etc. and it's not because goods aren't available in those places but because people there perceive that retail in the US offers more variety and lower prices so they will ask their family stateside to bring things down nonetheless. Also, more and more people are shopping online and shipping the goods to their family/friends stateside and wait for them to fly down and bring their items.
 
caribny
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:47 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 5:36 pm

Brickell305 wrote:
I agree with the overweight bag part for sure. Very few people are doing that now for sure due to excess weight fees.Multiple checked bags still seem to occur rather frequently IMO. GEO may be different from the other Caribbean destinations but I still see the multiple checked bags happening to places like POS, BGI, UVF, ANU, etc. and it's not because goods aren't available in those places but because people there perceive that retail in the US offers more variety and lower prices so they will ask their family stateside to bring things down nonetheless. Also, more and more people are shopping online and shipping the goods to their family/friends stateside and wait for them to fly down and bring their items.



A family of 4 flies down on AA, each with 2 bags (weighing no more than 50lbs). That is almost $600 in fees to take the bags down and back up. 50lbs adds up fast and AA can be ferocious as a hawk if its 1 lb over as they demand their fees. Maybe something small and light will be included in the luggage. Not sure how many want to pay all of those fees, especially at peak periods when the fares are already high.

I suspect the heavy bags people will be out of SoFL returning from their shopping expeditions, though there are arrangements for online shopping and concierge delivery to the Caribbean. Amerijet flies to most of these places almost daily. Caribbean also has all freight services to POS, BGI. and GEO.
 
Miamiairport
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:45 pm

At least out of MIA I see pax with multiple huge bags and think wow what kind of money that's going to run. About a year ago I needed to check in with an agent and the agent next to me tells the paxs with many, many bags that will be $1300 in baggage charges. The guy just whipped out a cc no questions asked.

Given that AA plan to run this route with the Max and Boeing clearly mislead the airlines as to the length it would take to re-certify the max I'd say Boeing botched this for AA.
 
caribny
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:47 am

Re: AA botches launch of JFK-GEO

Mon Dec 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Miamiairport wrote:
At least out of MIA I see pax with multiple huge bags and think wow what kind of money that's going to run. About a year ago I needed to check in with an agent and the agent next to me tells the paxs with many, many bags that will be $1300 in baggage charges. The guy just whipped out a cc no questions asked.

Given that AA plan to run this route with the Max and Boeing clearly mislead the airlines as to the length it would take to re-certify the max I'd say Boeing botched this for AA.



SoFL has a different market. Likely that he was a business person.

NYC more likely to be a nurse with a high mortgage paying parochial fees for her kids and sending money down to her parents. And vaguely resentful of relatives back home who might think that she owns JP Morgan, so she will likely have 2 curse words for them if their obsession with US bought stuff costs her in bag fees or worse yet excess weight. Less interested in paying high bag fees on top of what might be a $800 fare (per person) on the JFK GEO. And might be even higher during the peak Xmas as we are now in.

Yes Boeing did even more damage than is spoken of. Some Caribbean islands lost some seats this past summer when AA had to cancel or reduce service in certain routes. This adversely impacted airlift and so tourism arrivals. So its more than just the airlines.

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