Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
HNLFlyBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:01 pm

F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:48 pm

Is it true on this route that F Class has a 62" seat pitch? That's incredible for the Hawaii market, since we are considered a "leisure" market. Wasn't that the pitch of the old sleeper seats on UA in Intl. F? If this is the case, I would give them a try. It is according to seatguru.com. Also the seat features lumbar support and a foot/leg rest. Can any one confirm this? Is this better than CO's BF and NW's WBC?
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 11, 2004 3:54 pm

Is this better than CO's BF and NW's WBC?

The 763 have Business/Economy, but Business is sold as Domestic First to HNL. It has about 60" pitch, which is about the same as CO's BF and NW's WBC. However, AA has 2-2-2 seating vs. CO's 2-1-2 and NW's 2-2-2 (wider DC-10). And only CO offers the true international product...

AA will probably be flying B757 on most West Coast - Hawaii markets...
 
HNLFlyBoy
Topic Author
Posts: 318
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:01 pm

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 11, 2004 4:38 pm

Thank you IP for the info.
 
sllevin
Posts: 3314
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 1:57 pm

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:38 pm

I've flown both the AA and NW products quite a bit.

Between the AA and NW...NW has a wider seat (AA's is just 18.5"), but the AA seat is more comfortable (and has adjustable lumbar support, which is nice). NW has PTV's which AA does not.

But the differences are small and not worth basing a decision on.

Steve
 
plaaneboy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:45 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:52 pm

AA will probably be flying B757 on most West Coast - Hawaii markets...

AA will NEVER fly only 757s from the West Coast to Hawaii. The high seat capacity of the 763s make it economical to fly them to Hawaii. That's why you see them SFOHNL, LAXHNL, LAXOGG and LAXKOA.

The 757s are a good compliment to the 763s for off-peak times.
 
 
VSlover
Posts: 1860
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:36 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Thu Feb 12, 2004 1:40 am

having done the lax-hnl many times on AA, the seats in F are the exact same as the business seats transcon though with more recline, lumbar support, a foot rest, more room between rows, and a sundae cart!

 Smile
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Thu Feb 12, 2004 4:01 am

The high seat capacity of the 763s make it economical to fly them to Hawaii.

uhhh... the 763 have about twenty more seats than the B752 -- hardly justifiable...
 
jetstar
Posts: 1423
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 2:16 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:02 am

uhhh... the 763 have about twenty more seats than the B752 -- hardly justifiable...

AA's 767-300's used on the Hawaii run seat 30 in first class and 200 in coach for a total of 230 seats, the 757's seat 22 in first and 166 in coach, a total of
188 seats.

This gives them 42 more seats and does make it justifiable.
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Thu Feb 12, 2004 5:10 am

AA's 767-300's used on the Hawaii run seat 30 in first class and 200 in coach for a total of 230 seats...

Huh? AA did away with high-density B763 more than a year ago. All remaining aircraft have a standard 30J/182Y = 212 seats.... the 24 additional seats between the B757 and B767 is hardly justifiable given the increased costs of flying a widebody.
 
plaaneboy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:45 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:27 am

uhhh... the 763 have about twenty more seats than the B752 -- hardly justifiable...


Keep in mind that AA just returned to "standard room" on the 757 and are currently looking into whether or not to remove seats from the 763. Currently, they have 24 more seats than the 757. When it comes to aircraft economics, 24 seats is significant. Hence, justifiable when it comes to the cost difference when operating a 763 as opposed to a 757.

When you speak of equipment in a market, you have to look at the competition as well.

UA flies 777s and 763s, CO and DL fly 764s. In order to remain competitive, AA needs to fly widebodies in this market.

The economics of Hawaii service are different than other routes since it's a "burn" market for frequent flyer miles. This is where the 24 seats also make a difference.

[Edited 2004-02-12 17:30:17]
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:07 am

When it comes to aircraft economics, 24 seats is significant. Hence, justifiable when it comes to the cost difference when operating a 763 as opposed to a 757.
It certainly depends. There's tremendous costs involved with maintaining widebodies vs. narrowbodies, etc. But AA certainly doesn't need J or MRTC to Hawaii.

In order to remain competitive, AA needs to fly widebodies in this market.
I'd bet my daughter than at least 9/10 travelers headed to Hawaii could give two hoots what type of plane they're flying on  Wink/being sarcastic. Well many people may prefer widebodies, only a handful of people would be able to 'seek' them out - and many of those really don't care. I guess on boards like a.net it may make a difference...


The economics of Hawaii service are different than other routes since it's a "burn" market for frequent flyer miles. This is where the 24 seats also make a difference.
I keep hearing that argument... it'd be nice if it were true, but I've been searching for seats for DTW-HNL during a two-week period in July (non-holiday) for more than 7 months with no success. It seems that unless you're willing to fly Tuesday - next Wednesday, you're not going to have any luck. (And FWIW, now that DL seats can be had w/NW miles, I have enough miles for a ticket on the five network carriers...)
 
plaaneboy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:45 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:56 am

'It certainly depends. There's tremendous costs involved with maintaining widebodies vs. narrowbodies, etc. But AA certainly doesn't need J or MRTC to Hawaii.'

The difference in costs between maintaining the 763 and a 757 isn't that much at all. Now, if you compare a 777 and a 757, than I would agree with you. The crew costs and ownership costs are where the differences come in to play. It's true AA doesn't need a J cabin or MRTC, but they chose to configure all of their 763s the same to cut down costs on having a sub-fleet as they did before. If they choose to remove MRTC, it would add 11 seats to the 763, giving it a capacity of 193 in Y and thus an effective capacity of 223 seats vs. 188 for the 757. This would bring the per seat costs almost in line with the B757.

'I'd bet my daughter than at least 9/10 travelers headed to Hawaii could give two hoots what type of plane they're flying on'

Again, I disagree. Passengers do have preferences in the type of aircraft they fly. This could be quantified by "retention value", which determines whether or not the passenger will decide to give return business to the airline. UA benefited for awhile on the LAXORD route because they operated A320s as opposed to MD80s for AA. The A320s offered better cabin comfort and inflight entertainment, where AA's MD80s didn't. AA used to fly 763s LAXLHR and while the route did okay, it took off when they introduced a 777. Was it solely on the performance differences? No, it was because the product was better.


'I keep hearing that argument... it'd be nice if it were true, but I've been searching for seats for DTW-HNL during a two-week period in July (non-holiday) for more than 7 months with no success. It seems that unless you're willing to fly Tuesday - next Wednesday, you're not going to have any luck. (And FWIW, now that DL seats can be had w/NW miles, I have enough miles for a ticket on the five network carriers...)'

Peak periods may be a different story. But the fact remains that Hawaii is still a destination that passenger would care to burn their miles. All airlines field thousands of complaints from passengers not being able to burn their miles to Hawaii. Those routes still have a much higher percentage of frequent flyer mileage space than other routes. So yes, I would still consider those routes as "burn markets."

 
mlsrar
Posts: 1384
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2000 7:41 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Fri Feb 13, 2004 7:01 am

Well many people may prefer widebodies, only a handful of people would be able to 'seek' them out - and many of those really don't care. I guess on boards like a.net it may make a difference...


When I was an intern at the then blossoming Mark Travel Corp., as a res-agent, for United Vacations Hawaii, 70% of our calls were travel agents, the other 30% were direct-consumers. About 80% of those calls involved a request for an aircraft. We were coached to tell the configuration 100% of the time...it makes a difference, and people do seek it out.

The line in the sand to the average flier between a -10 and a 777 is slimmer though.
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Fri Feb 13, 2004 6:48 pm

The difference in costs between maintaining the 763 and a 757 isn't that much at all.
All widebodies have significantly increased maintenance costs vs. narrowbodies. I’m pretty sure narrowbodies can operate at least a couple more years vs. widebodies in between D-checks.

Passengers do have preferences in the type of aircraft they fly.
I’m not doubting that. But I compare it to having a child – you may prefer a boy or you may prefer a girl, but you’ll be happy with whatever you get. Other than aviation enthusiasts, very few people will seek out/avoid specific aircraft. Most people will pick flights based upon a combination of flight times & price without even glancing at the equipment – and even if they did glace, I doubt most people would comprehend what a “BOEING 767-300ER JET” was.

This could be quantified by "retention value", which determines whether or not the passenger will decide to give return business to the airline.
How do you figure? At times UA has flown B757, B763, B772 and B744 to Hawaii – it’s more-or-less luck of the draw what you get, especially since UA often changes the scheduled equipment. I doubt the facet that somebody flew a B744 to Hawaii would solely intrigue them to book again with UA – imagine their horror when they find themselves on a B757!

UA benefited for awhile on the LAXORD route because they operated A320s as opposed to MD80s for AA. The A320s offered better cabin comfort and inflight entertainment, where AA's MD80s didn't.
UA benefited on LAX-ORD because they were a significantly larger carrier than AA at both ends. AA flew MD-80, B757, B762/B767 and DC-10 while UA flew A320, B752, B762/B763, B772 and B747… you can’t convince me the average fare passenger knows the difference between an MD-80 or A320, let alone which has IFE! Again, it’s luck-of-the draw. You’re B752 flight may be an MD-80 before it takes off…

AA used to fly 763s LAXLHR and while the route did okay, it took off when they introduced a 777. Was it solely on the performance differences? No, it was because the product was better.
It wasn’t the B767 vs. the B77, it was the product inside – specifically, the First Suite which poached passengers from OAL.

But the fact remains that Hawaii is still a destination that passenger would care to burn their miles… So yes, I would still consider those routes as "burn markets."
Of course – Hawaii, Las Vegas, Florida, the Carribean, Europe, etc. will always be more popular destinations than Detroit or Kansas City since most people redeem their miles for vacations as opposed to business.

But my point is that award seats on flights to Hawaii are capacity controlled… I’ve seen the data for Summer 2002 for one major airline, and award tickets averaged 2-3 per 100 seats, a little more on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. And most of those flights left with a couple empty seats.

...it makes a difference, and people do seek it out.
Sure, many people will ask 'what type of plane is this,' but if you were to tell them 'it's a 757' and describe it, I doubt many of them will hang up... this illustrates my earlier point...
 
plaaneboy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:45 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Sat Feb 14, 2004 2:20 am

All widebodies have significantly increased maintenance costs vs. narrowbodies. I’m pretty sure narrowbodies can operate at least a couple more years vs. widebodies in between D-checks.

767s aren't your regular widebodies. Their maintenance differences are in the engines. A 762 and 752 aren't much different, boeing made them that way. The 763s cost aren't much higher than a 762, so the fact they have more seats in them make them more economical. When you have a flight with a stage length of 5 hours, like Hawaii, the cost differences between a 763 and a 752 are negligible. Now, if you fly a 757 between LAXSFO, then it's cost are much better than a 763 because of the short stage length.

Other than aviation enthusiasts, very few people will seek out/avoid specific aircraft. Most people will pick flights based upon a combination of flight times & price without even glancing at the equipment “ and even if they did glace, I doubt most people would comprehend what a BOEING 767-300ER JET was.

Again, if it weren't for the numerous letters I've seen from passengers, I would agree with you. The fact of the matter is, if you ask 10 people on the street which they prefer, a narrowbody or widebody, 9 out of 10 will tell you a widebody. One person would probably say that it depended on how much personal space he was given. You're not giving enough credit to the traveling public, we're not talking the 70s, people are very travel savvy in the internet era.

How do you figure?

When Survey America ask passengers for their opinions on service etc., they ask them what reasons, if the price was the same, would influence their decision when choosing what airline to fly in the future. Passengers list a variety of things such as loyalty program, cabin comfort, meals, F/A service etc. Basically, if two airlines had the same fare and schedule, what influences them to choose one over the other. This variable is retention or revenue recapture. This is something that is looked upon very closely together with passenger's comments directly to the airline. As an example, jetBlue and CO score very high in revenue recapture.

UA benefited on LAX-ORD because they were a significantly larger carrier than AA at both ends.... you cant convince me the average fare passenger knows the difference between an MD-80 or A320, let alone which has IFE! Again, its luck-of-the draw. Youre B752 flight may be an MD-80 before it takes off

UA and AA are comparable in terms of frequencies in LAXORD, AA with 14 and UA with 13, and both have a significant amount of flights out of ORD for connections. As I stated previously, you not giving enough credit to the traveling public. They may not know what an MD80 or a A320 is, but if they fly them, they'll know the difference between what airline showed a movie and which one didn't. Passengers let the airlines know their preferences in this way.


It wasnt the B767 vs. the B77, it was the product inside specifically, the First Suite which poached passengers from OAL.

You're contradicting yourself here, you're agreeing with me that the product is better. I assure you, it wasn't just the First Suite that made it more profitable, it was the overall product in all cabins.

But my point is that award seats on flights to Hawaii are capacity controlled Ive seen the data for Summer 2002 for one major airline, and award tickets averaged 2-3 per 100 seats, a little more on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. And most of those flights left with a couple empty seats.

That's true that all airlines use inventory controls in order to not sell the entire plane in award inventory. The point is, even with these controls in place, much more award inventory is flown to Hawaii than average markets. When an airline looks at how a route to Hawaii is doing, award invetory has an amount attached to it since the airline does get revenue through credit cards etc. that pay the airline for miles to offer it to their customers. This has allowed Hawaii routes to show a profit since it still gets a larger percentage of award travel than average domestic routes.

Sure, many people will ask 'what type of plane is this,' but if you were to tell them 'it's a 757' and describe it, I doubt many of them will hang up... this illustrates my earlier point...

Again, the average passenger may not know the difference between a 763 and a 757 when you ask them on the street, but if you ask them if they prefer a narrowbody to a widebody, they'll say the widebody. They know the difference in that regard.

My point to all of this Industrialpate is that your statement that AA plans to go to all 757s from the West Coast to Hawaii was made on assumption only and is thus unsubstantiated, you don't know for sure. Also, you're assuming that AA doesn't add seats back to the 763 as well, bringing the economics in line with the 757. The fact is, AA will probably stick with the 763 in some form or another, especially as they get older and their amoritization costs decrease and have the 757 support it on off-peak times. Smokin cool








 
ha763
Posts: 3201
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 5:36 pm

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:10 am

Another reason for using a widebody is cargo. Not nessarily O&D cargo, but transit cargo. Unless AA's and JAL's relationship with each other ends, it is very important for AA to fly the 763 between the Mainland and Hawaii, including the West Coast. JAL transits a lot of cargo to the Mainland through HNL and a good amount of it is transfered to AA. If AA doesn't fly a widebody, they lose all that cargo revenue.
 
plaaneboy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:45 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Tue Feb 17, 2004 1:08 am

Another reason for using a widebody is cargo. Not nessarily O&D cargo, but transit cargo. Unless AA's and JAL's relationship with each other ends, it is very important for AA to fly the 763 between the Mainland and Hawaii, including the West Coast. JAL transits a lot of cargo to the Mainland through HNL and a good amount of it is transfered to AA. If AA doesn't fly a widebody, they lose all that cargo revenue.

Good point.
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:31 am

… your statement that AA plans to go to all 757s from the West Coast to Hawaii was made on assumption only and is thus unsubstantiated, you don't know for sure.

I would expect that somebody who claims their occupation is an airline analyst and hints at working for AA would be less careless in their responses. I never claimed AA plans to go ‘all 757 from the West Coast to Hawaii,’ I stated that the vast majority of AA flights from the WC to Hawaii would be operated with B757. Anybody can check AA’s timetable for this summer on AA.com to see that my claim is substantiated and not an assumption.

Also, you're assuming that AA doesn't add seats back to the 763 as well, bringing the economics in line with the 757.

- Why would I assume that, considering AA claims they’re committed to MTRC on the B763.
- Even if one were to eliminate MTRC from the B763, the aircraft will still have the premium J cabin.

The fact is, AA will probably stick with the 763 in some form or another…

And I’m not denying that. I claimed that ‘most’ WC to Hawaii flights are being replaced with B757, you claimed this would never happen, even though AA’s own timetables support my claim. I would expect that as long as AA has a surplus of B763, WC-Hawaii will be a strong consideration for their services. And I would never rule out the possibility of AA converting a handful of B763 into high-density domestic birds to supplement the B757 to Hawaii, especially now that MTRC has ended.

BTW, AA’s oldest B763 are approaching 20-years-old…

Another reason for using a widebody is cargo.

Although that statement is true, it’s overrated. The B763 flights to ORD, DFW and a single flight to LAX are probably sufficient enough to ‘clean up’ AA’s cargo market. If cargo was really as big for AA as it’s made to be on a.net, then AA would be flying an AB6 MIA-LAX-HNL… (which isn’t cost prohibitive since the fleet type has ETOPS, etc.)

767s aren't your regular widebodies. Their maintenance differences are in the engines.

AA.com / AMR.com use to (and maybe still does) have a section where it talked about maintenance. It specially mentioned that the B767, A300 and B777 were complex aircraft & underwent heavy maintenance checks much more quickly than their narrow body counterparts.

The fact of the matter is, if you ask 10 people on the street which they prefer, a narrowbody or widebody, 9 out of 10 will tell you a widebody... You're not giving enough credit to the traveling public, we're not talking the 70s, people are very travel savvy in the internet era.

I’m not denying that people prefer widebodies. However, I know from dealing with the general public (non-aviation enthusiasts) that it will have little bearing over their purchase decisions. e.g. A passenger has the option of purchasing a ticket on airline XX, with a widebody, for $5 more & getting in one hour later than airline YY… most of the time, they’ll pick YY.

And FWIW, TZ and Suntrip’s consumer satisfaction scores have went higher since switching to narrowbody equipment. AQ always ranks high.

UA and AA are comparable in terms of frequencies in LAXORD, AA with 14 and UA with 13, and both have a significant amount of flights out of ORD for connections.

Yet the fact remains that UA has historically been and continues to be a larger carrier at both LAX and ORD than AA. Other than their intercontinental departures, AA has about a dozen flights ex-ORD larger than the B738. Although AA has matched UA frequency-for-frequency on most prime business routes, UA operates the larger equipment.

And again, I don’t see your point. An MD-80 and A320 are comparable in size. So how can you make the distinction that UA was more preferred than AA because of the A320, based on its size? Satus quo, AA operates nothing but B738 and a single B763 ORD-LAX whereas UA operates A320, B757, B763, B777 (high-density) and soon B744. Looks like the video equipment didn’t help AA at all…

…CO score very high in revenue recapture.

…yet CO has shrunk.

You're contradicting yourself here, you're agreeing with me that the product is better. I assure you, it wasn't just the First Suite that made it more profitable, it was the overall product in all cabins.

No, I’m not. If AA would’ve installed a First Suite product tailor-made to the B763 and PTVs throughout (AA’s J doesn’t have PTVs!), then perhaps AA would’ve been more competitive with the B763… it was the product, not the plane.
 
KKMolokai
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 2:06 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:00 am

"No, I’m not. If AA would’ve installed a First Suite product tailor-made to the B763 and PTVs throughout (AA’s J doesn’t have PTVs!), then perhaps AA would’ve been more competitive with the B763… it was the product, not the plane."

When AA's 763s still had three cabins, the First Class cabin did have fully-flat sleeper pods in a 2-1-2 seating config. They were actually comfortable.

AA's 763s don't have PTVs, however, the First/Business class cabins do have personal DVD players and Bose Acoustic Noise Canceling Headsets, on International Flagship and American Flagship flights, presented by flight attendants shortly after take-off.
We are the people of American Airlines. And we know why you fly.
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 18, 2004 3:05 pm

When AA's 763s still had three cabins, the First Class cabin did have fully-flat sleeper pods in a 2-1-2 seating config. They were actually comfortable.

I agree -- but they certainly didn't compare to the B777 offerings (heck, AA's B777 are superior to their B763 in all classes). My point was that Plaaneboy's argument is flawed -- LAX-LHR didn't "take-off" for AA because people perfer B777 over B767, it "took off" because people perferred the product that AA offered in their B777...

If UA offered their three-cabin B763 on this route, then replaced them with their two-cabin high-density B777, they'd lose most of their premium traffic. So obviously people don't perfer the B777 over the B763  Big grin.
 
KKMolokai
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2000 2:06 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 18, 2004 4:08 pm

LAX-LHR took off because this is a high-density route. Also, if I'm not mistaken, AA now flies only 777s to/from LHR. This premium market can fill all three cabins of a 777, whereas secondary European markets cannot, and thus utilize the two-class 767s.
We are the people of American Airlines. And we know why you fly.
 
qqflyboy
Posts: 1635
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 1:47 pm

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:15 pm

Since everyone seems to be into semantics on this thread...

"BTW, AA’s oldest B763 are approaching 20-years-old…"

I wouldn't call 16 approaching 20. The plane first went into service in 1988 with AA.
The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
 
Guest

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Wed Feb 18, 2004 6:18 pm

...I wouldn't call 16 approaching 20.

You would if you were 38 and she was, um 16,  Big grin.

(just playing!)
 
plaaneboy
Posts: 50
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:45 am

RE: F Class Seat Pitch, AA 763 To HNL/OGG

Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:01 am

Why would I assume that, considering AA claims they’re committed to MTRC on the B763

Being an airline analyst, you should also know that AA stood by MRTC for all of it's aircraft 2 years ago. What happened to the A300 and B757? It's always under review. So again, you ARE assuming that AA doesn't reverse MRTC for the 763 as well.

AA.com / AMR.com use to (and maybe still does) have a section where it talked about maintenance. It specially mentioned that the B767, A300 and B777 were complex aircraft & underwent heavy maintenance checks much more quickly than their narrow body counterparts.

I spoke to a mechanic in LAX who perform A checks on 767s and he said that although there are slight differences in maintenance between the 767 and 757, they're not much. The differences are in the engines and certain avionics used for flying over the Atlantic.

I’m not denying that people prefer widebodies. However, I know from dealing with the general public (non-aviation enthusiasts) that it will have little bearing over their purchase decisions. e.g. A passenger has the option of purchasing a ticket on airline XX, with a widebody, for $5 more & getting in one hour later than airline YY… most of the time, they’ll pick YY.

That's why I said "price and schedules being the same", they would choose the widebody. I don't know what general public you see, but the ones at the airport still would prefer a widebody over a narrowbody. Service, that's a different story. AQ is known for having good inflight service.

Although AA has matched UA frequency-for-frequency on most prime business routes, UA operates the larger equipment.

My point exactly, it gives them a strategic edge because of equipment type and size.

…yet CO has shrunk

They shrank because the market shrunk, not because they were losing share.

My point was that Plaaneboy's argument is flawed -- LAX-LHR didn't "take-off" for AA because people perfer B777 over B767, it "took off" because people perferred the product that AA offered in their B777...

If UA offered their three-cabin B763 on this route, then replaced them with their two-cabin high-density B777, they'd lose most of their premium traffic. So obviously people don't perfer the B777 over the B763


AA's profitability did take off, to the point that LAXLHR has become AA's most profitable European route. You should know this since you're an airline analyst.



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