New York-Los Angeles, Who Offers The Most Seats?

juventus · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:07 am

Anybody know which airlines and aircraft fly this route? (this seems like the perfect 767 route)

thanx in advance

FCYTravis · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:11 am

United almost certainly makes the most profit off of the route, which is what really matters. They fly 7 daily round-trips with the p.s.-configured 757-200. 12F, 26C, 72Y.

Stitch · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:14 am

B6 flies single-class 150-seat A320s. UA flies three-class 752s with 110 seats. AA flies 762s with ~160 seats. Not sure what CO and DL use.

juventus · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:17 am

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 1):
United almost certainly makes the most profit off of the route,

United makes more $$$ than DL and CO on this route???

FCYTravis · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:26 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 3):
United makes more $$$ than DL and CO on this route???

Almost certainly. UA intentionally reduced capacity by pulling off the 767-200s and replacing them with premium-configured narrowbodies. The p.s. product offers upgraded service, lie-flat seats in First Class and an international Business Class cabin - for which UA demands, and gets, a substantial premium.

How much of a premium? Try $4,700 for a full-F JFK-LAX round-trip.

Remember when $199 transcon round-trips were commonplace? United wasn't interested in playing that game. They let Delta/Song and JetBlue duke it out over the coach market and focused on offering a better product.

[Edited 2007-03-14 20:32:42]

spyderz · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:35 am

Using OAG data for this month, March 2007 the breakdown of available nonstop seat miles (since flights are the same length in essence its just seats) between the New York City airports and LAX (since its just LAX it excludes B6).

It terms of airlines:
AA - 44.55% of available seats
UA - 19.23%
CO - 18.98%
DL - 17.23%

American Airlines operates a mix of 767-200's, 757's, and 777's between these airports, with the 767-200 being by far the workhorse.

United Airlines operates 757's (most PS aircraft) in addition to a few A320 flights.

Continental uses 737-800s and 757-200s, with 737's providing slightly more seats.

Delta also uses a combination of 737-800s and 757-200s, except the 757 provides Delta with more seats.

In terms of aircraft:
757-200 - 50.40%
767-200 - 36.67%
737-800 - 12.30%
A320 - <1%
777-200 - <1%

Hope this provides you with the information you were looking for.

mikephotos · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:35 am

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 4):
How much of a premium? Try $4,700 for a full-F JFK-LAX round-trip.

AA's full-F is the same $4700 rt.

Mike

roseflyer · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:36 am

Airlines From Most to Least Passengers

American
11X LAX-JFK (762)
2X LAX-EWR (752)

jetBlue
6X LGB-JFK (A320)
5X BUR-JFK (A320)
1X ONT-JFK (A320)

Continental
6X LAX-EWR (1X753, 1X752, 4X738)
3X SNA-EWR (3X 73G)

United
8X LAX-JFK (757 PS)
1X LAX-EWR (A319)

Delta
5X LAX-JFK (757)

[Edited 2007-03-14 20:43:30]

9V-SPJ · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:37 am

AA does not operate the 777 between JFK and LAX, only the B762 actually, none of the above airlines do, maybe for the occasional but very rare swap.

9V-SPJ

FCYTravis · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 6):
AA's full-F is the same $4700 rt.

Right. I was speaking of comparisons to DL and CO... which are probably not anywhere near that. AA offers a similar three-class transcon service.

[Edited 2007-03-14 20:40:03]

Stitch · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:47 am

UA's F revenues are up some 35% since the launch of p.s. and much of it must be coming from AA since they are overhauling their competing AFS service in response.

spyderz · Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:53 am

Quoting 9V-SPJ (Reply 8):
AA does not operate the 777 between JFK and LAX, only the B762 actually, none of the above airlines do, maybe for the occasional but very rare swap.

American Airlines Flight 117, the 14:25 departure from JFK on March 24 will be operated with the 777-200. Its a one-time flight, but scheduled by American Airlines. Henceforth its passenger miles appearing in the OAG, but taking less than 1% market share.

It also appears that Delta and United are only operating the 737-800 and A320 respectively on the route Saturday-only, where demand is sizeably less.

san747 · Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:05 am

Quoting Spyderz (Reply 5):
American Airlines operates a mix of 767-200's, 757's, and 777's between these airports,

Quoting Spyderz (Reply 11):
American Airlines Flight 117, the 14:25 departure from JFK on March 24 will be operated with the 777-200. Its a one-time flight, but scheduled by American Airlines.

Wow... Nice. I'd love to be on that flight!

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
5X BUR-JFK (A320)

BUR-JFK is 5x a day? I thought it was 2x at the most...

SESGDL · Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:07 am

Quoting Spyderz (Reply 11):

It also appears that Delta and United are only operating the 737-800 and A320 respectively on the route Saturday-only, where demand is sizeably less.

I don't know what schedule you're looking at but on Saturdays DL operated 3x daily JFK-LAX, with 2 757s and 1 737-800.

Jeremy

LHUSA · Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:07 am

Quoting San747 (Reply 12):
BUR-JFK is 5x a day? I thought it was 2x at the most...

Just checked the GDS and it looks like it's 4 daily, but 3 daily on Saturdays.

spyderz · Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:35 am

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 13):
I don't know what schedule you're looking at but on Saturdays DL operated 3x daily JFK-LAX, with 2 757s and 1 737-800.

Ya exactly what I stated. Monday thru Friday and Sundays only see 757's, so the 737-800 only flies the route on Saturdays.

COEI2007 · Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:44 am

Quoting Mikephotos (Reply 6):
How much of a premium? Try $4,700 for a full-F JFK-LAX round-trip.

AA's full-F is the same $4700 rt.

Mike

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 9):
Right. I was speaking of comparisons to DL and CO... which are probably not anywhere near that. AA offers a similar three-class transcon service.

An A class ticket EWR-LAX is about $1478 with SNA being about the same price!

juventus · Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting Spyderz (Reply 5):
It terms of airlines:
AA - 44.55% of available seats
UA - 19.23%
CO - 18.98%
DL - 17.23%

Thanx that's what I was looking for.

What about foreign airlines on this route, ANY?????

Stitch · Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 17):
What about foreign airlines on this route, ANY?

I don't think any but AC have the necessary rights and AC doesn't fly it.

panamair · Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:07 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 17):
What about foreign airlines on this route, ANY?????

QF as part of their JFK-LAX-SYD flight with a 744. No local traffic rights obviously.

roseflyer · Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:00 am

Quoting San747 (Reply 12):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
5X BUR-JFK (A320)

BUR-JFK is 5x a day? I thought it was 2x at the most...

Sorry I posted summer frequencies, which are the max frequency. I believe that B6 will fly the route five times a day this summer.

Viscount724 · Thu Mar 15, 2007 8:49 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Quoting Juventus (Reply 17):
What about foreign airlines on this route, ANY?

I don't think any but AC have the necessary rights and AC doesn't fly it.

Please clarify what you mean No foreign airlines are permitted to carry domestic passengers between US points.

As part of the recently implemented Canada-USA Open Skies agreement, Canadian carriers can carry 5th freedom international traffic between the US and 3rd countries after a stop in the US, and vice versa for US carriers if they were to stop in Canada and continue to a 3rd country (subject of course to the 3rd country permitting such 5th freedom rights). But domestic cabotage rights in the US are definitely not permitted for any non-US carriers, and the same applies in Canada for non-Canadian carriers.

JoFMO · Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:18 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 21):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 18):
Quoting Juventus (Reply 17):
What about foreign airlines on this route, ANY?

I don't think any but AC have the necessary rights and AC doesn't fly it.

Please clarify what you mean No foreign airlines are permitted to carry domestic passengers between US points.

As part of the recently implemented Canada-USA Open Skies agreement, Canadian carriers can carry 5th freedom international traffic between the US and 3rd countries after a stop in the US, and vice versa for US carriers if they were to stop in Canada and continue to a 3rd country (subject of course to the 3rd country permitting such 5th freedom rights). But domestic cabotage rights in the US are definitely not permitted for any non-US carriers, and the same applies in Canada for non-Canadian carriers.

But AC sell tickets LAX-YYZ-LGA ?

Viscount724 · Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:52 am

Quoting JoFMO (Reply 22):
But AC sell tickets LAX-YYZ-LGA ?

As far as I know, that's not permitted either, and the same applies for US carriers, e.g. UA selling YVR-ORD-YYZ. They could only legally sell routings like that if the passenger was physically stopping over at the connecting point, but if the intent was for AC to carry a through connecting passenger between LAX and LGA, or for UA to carry a through passenger between YVR and YYZ, it would be illegal.

A few other carriers have been fined or served with cease and desist orders over similar practices. I recall KE or Asiana being accused a few years ago of illegally advertising/selling through transportation between Guam and the US mainland via ICN which they can't do since GUM is a US territory, although they operate both sectors or did at the time. The same would apply for JL or NH selling GUM-Japan-US mainland or Hawaii. Since the end-to-end journey is considered US domestic transportation, it can only be sold by US carriers. If foreign carriers persisted in selling such transportation they could risk having their US landing rights suspended or face other penalties.

There's nothing to prevent a passenger buying two separate tickets for such a journey but the foreign carrier isn't permitted to promote and actively sell such routings.

juventus · Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:14 pm

Does Air Tahiti Nui fly JFK-LAX??

UAL777UK · Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
UA's F revenues are up some 35% since the launch of p.s. and much of it must be coming from AA since they are overhauling their competing AFS service in response.

And they need to...UA's product up front on this route is light years ahead of AA's!

EXAAUADL · Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:33 am

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 1):
United almost certainly makes the most profit off of the route, which is what really matters. They fly 7 daily round-trips with the p.s.-configured 757-200. 12F, 26C, 72Y.

Sorry but it is virtually impossible to make money on a 112 seat 757.

AA has the most seats JFK-LAX and traditionalyl makes the most revenue

UA has improved their Revenue per PAX with PS but not nearly enough to offset the loss of 70 seats

Plus the 757 cant carry nearly as much cargo.

san747 · Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:57 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 24):
Does Air Tahiti Nui fly JFK-LAX??

They do-

LAX-PPT
LAX-CDG
JFK-PPT

No LAX-JFK unfortunately, otherwise I'd try to book them.

dutchjet · Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:30 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 24):
Does Air Tahiti Nui fly JFK-LAX??

No....but even if an Air Tahiti airplane flew between the two cities, they could not sell you a seat on the flight. As mentioned above, QF sends a 744 on a SYD-LAX-JFK routing, but no local traffic is permitted between LAX and JFK. Only US airlines are allowed to carry passengers between cities within the US.

AA787 · Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:40 am

AA still gets a lot of premium traffic by having more flexibility. This is especially attractive to businesses in each market who tend to have contracts with AA. In addition NYC in particular is HUGE AAdvantage country and a lot of people enjoy upgrading on these flights. AA by far makes the most profit by having more seats and better economics to make a profit, maybe not by person like UA, but certainly on a flight to flight basis.

AA787

roseflyer · Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:24 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 26):

Sorry but it is virtually impossible to make money on a 112 seat 757.

Where on earth do you come up with that statement? You can earn money in premium configurations. That's the whole premise of Privatair's scheduled operation and Air Frances dedicated long range A319s. Who would have thought you can earn money on 48 seat 737s? You can...they do.

You are making a blanket statement that I disagree with. Afterall the 762 can comfortably seat 200 in a 2 class configuration, but AA operates them with just 160 seats.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 26):
AA has the most seats JFK-LAX and traditionalyl makes the most revenue

Of course they make more revenue. They offer twice as many seats on the route by having more frequencies and larger planes. However revenue does not mean profit. I can fly 10 747s per day between LAX and JFK and I would probably have the most revenue, although my yields would be horrible as I would be filling those planes with low grade fares.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 26):
UA has improved their Revenue per PAX with PS but not nearly enough to offset the loss of 70 seats

I don't think you can make that statement. Where have you found that United acknowledges that they have not improved their revenue enough to offset the costs of PS. If PS were losing money, I am pretty confident that UA would dump the concept. They have a liability to their shareholders to try to earn a profit. They cannot run that many flights just because they want to. They have to have the ability to turn a profit. United has dumped prestige routes. I'm sure LAX-JFK would go away like JFK-LHR did if UA was losing money and could not compete. The 757s are great planes for the route. They have the international service standards with the big comfortable seats and have a good range. Also their lower capacity in economy means that United doesn't have to try to battle the lower costs of DL's high capacity 757s or worse B6.

FCYTravis · Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:25 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 26):
Sorry but it is virtually impossible to make money on a 112 seat 757.

Then why on Earth is UA doing it? I really doubt that they're just running the flights for the heck of it. They spent a lot of money to convert an entire subfleet of jets for the route. If it wasn't working, they could have discontinued it ages ago and put the 757s to better use elsewhere. Do you have any evidence to suggest that they're not making money on the route?

UAL777UK · Fri Mar 16, 2007 8:26 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 26):
Sorry but it is virtually impossible to make money on a 112 seat 757.

That comment is nonsense!!

EXAAUADL · Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:24 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 30):
Where on earth do you come up with that statement? You can earn money in premium configurations. That's the whole premise of Privatair's scheduled operation and Air Frances dedicated long range A319s. Who would have thought you can earn money on 48 seat 737s? You can...they do.

Is there low cost competiton on Priviate Air routes? No

With a 112 seat 757, an 80% load factor would be 89 seats or a 47% LF on the old 757 configuration....now it is an almost certainty that coach passengers arent paying much more than they were in the old Y configuration.

Thus any increase in average revenue must come from J and F pax. UA has improved its REV/PAX but not enough to overcome the loss of of nearly 80 seats.

If you doubt me simply look at DOT average fare per pax and T100 pax on board for UA, before and after PS....

If they had a 70% LF before (130 pax or so) at $200 average fare, that would be $26000 in rev. A 80% LF with 112 seats would be 90 pax and would require a aver age fare of $290 or a 50% increase in average rev/pax.......nearly impossible

UA has been successful in taking some high yield pax from AA, but they arent making any money doing it

jacobin777 · Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:32 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
UA's F revenues are up some 35% since the launch of p.s. and much of it must be coming from AA since they are overhauling their competing AFS service in response.

I really haven't seen AA's numbers drop off too much so I'm not sure if UA is really "eating away" at AA's premium pax....

...regardless..I hope both are making money... Smile

juventus · Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:35 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 34):
...regardless..I hope both are making money...

Its Los Angeles man. Hard not to make money flying to LAX...

roseflyer · Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:49 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 33):
If they had a 70% LF before (130 pax or so) at $200 average fare, that would be $26000 in rev. A 80% LF with 112 seats would be 90 pax and would require a aver age fare of $290 or a 50% increase in average rev/pax.......nearly impossible

I think that it is possible. What brings the fare down to $200 is all of those cheap economy fares below $200. United doesn't offer those fares as much anymore. They don't have as many discount economy fares. And before anyone says that everyone is just upgrading, UA does not allow double class upgrades, so it is guaranteed that first class passengers aren't paying discount economy fares. UA doesn't seem to offer the lowest economy fares at all. I haven't seen them as the lowest fare option between LAX and JFK in a long time.

UA has very few economy seats on those planes. Yes it means less passengers paying $200 per seat, but it gives room for passengers paying $1000 per seat. People have said what you are saying before, but I have trouble believing it based on simple assumptions without some real data. Is there any data out there?

jacobin777 · Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:19 am

Quoting Juventus (Reply 35):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 34):
...regardless..I hope both are making money...

Its Los Angeles man. Hard not to make money flying to LAX...

if it were that easy, every carrier and their grandmas would be flying that route... Wink

EXAAUADL · Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:56 am

I will also point out that UA never made money on JFK-LAX even in the good old days of 1999-2000

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 36):
but I have trouble believing it based on simple assumptions without some real data. Is there any data out there?

Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology -#1 Engineering College in US for 8 years straight. Go Fightin' Engineers!

There is real data out there. The data I saw one year ago, showed AA was losing premium pax to UA, but UA was no where near gettign enough additional revenue to pay for the reduction in seats....also dont forget when UA flew 767s they got more cargo revenue than they are getting today.

So the extra premium seats and the improved quality have to make up for a loss of 70+ coach seats and cargo capacity........going for the premium pax tends to work internationally, not domestically

Fact that AA hasnt copied it with their 112 seat 757s, should tell you something

LAXintl · Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:02 am

While truly being able to state if UA's p.s. product is profitable would require proprietary material lets look at what is out there.

For anyone with access to Aviation Daily, on it had 11/06/06 had the following quote

Chief Revenue Officer John Tague says the service is doing "well in excess of the initial business case."
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/A...6/11/06/02.xml&query=%2B%28p.s.%29

During the 2006, Investors Day conference in December p.s. was mentioned on a few occasions as also being successful. Page 19, of this presentation shows p.s. having a 16%+ margin improvement thru the 1st 9 months of 2006 compared to prior to its launch, less any general market improvement. So in other words, p.s. produced 16% improvement above and beyond the general mainline operation.

http://library.corporate-ir.net/libr...51/2006InvestorDayPresentation.pdf

I'm not sure how much people are aware of airline margins, however a 16% jump is huge, when one considers carriers often thread from profit or loss on single point shifts.

From my own personal observations with p.s., UA has definately gotten out of chasing the lowest yield back end of the bus crowd. Its quite common to see UA Y class fares range from $50-100 more then AA for instance on similar dates. UA having a much smaller economy cabin has less pressure to fill the cabin and has been able to drive up yields. With much more of the aircraft allocated to premium cabins, they concentrate on providing a nice product whose single seat sales equals several economy seats. And lastly, its not like the planes are empty. From flying atleast on a monthly if not bi-monthly basis on p.s., its truly a rare sight to see a plane with more than a dozen seats open, with business particularly being full on a consistent basis.

Just as how a premium small aircraft has been proven to be successful across the Atlantic and used by several carriers, the transcon market also has very strong premium demand and clearly support a more dedicated product.
Kudos to United for jumping at this.

EXAAUADL · Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:15 am

I wouldnt doubt that PS makes money on JFK-SFO, but not on JFK-LAX...With DOT data you can estimate if UA is making money or not.

The JFK-LAX beyond contribution is pretty useless as there is minimal conenctions in LAX versus SFO.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 39):
Just as how a premium small aircraft has been proven to be successful across the Atlantic and used by several carriers, the transcon market also has very strong premium demand and clearly support a more dedicated product.
Kudos to United for jumping at this.

I disagree, it has been proven time and time again that minimal true premium demand exists in the domestic US market. The most obvious question is, why isnt anyone copying it? I do think AA need to upgrade its premium product, but they can do so without taking 70 seats off their planes.

MaverickM11 · Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:41 am

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
Who Offers The Most Seats?

To answer your question between EWR/JFK and LAX, AA has the most seats (2095 PDEW this month). CO is second with 965 PDEW, and UA is third with 907. DL has 846 seats PDEW. B6 has 1435 PDEW scheduled to LGB/ONT/BUR from JFK.

LAXintl · Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:42 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 40):
I wouldnt doubt that PS makes money on JFK-SFO, but not on JFK-LAX...With DOT data you can estimate if UA is making money or not.

Actually I would say its the other way around. UA runs a denser LAX-JFK schedule then from SFO. From LA there is both more business and certainly entertainment industry traffic.

While SFO might be the larger UA hub, LA is a significantly larger market overall. Similarly compare AA, DL transcon frequencies and you'll see LA gets more flights over SFO.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 40):
I disagree,

In general I agree. Domestic premium demand is rather weak, however there is ample premium demand connecting America's largest city with the West Coast. As a regular transcon traveller, I run across dozens of other regulars whom pluck down monies for first of business class on these routes.

EXAAUADL · Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 42):
Actually I would say its the other way around. UA runs a denser LAX-JFK schedule then from SFO. From LA there is both more business and certainly entertainment industry traffic.

There is banking traffic in SFO, SFO is the financial center of the west coast, not LAX.....being a distant #2 or #3 in JFK-LAX could mean that UA has more to gain in JFK-LAX than in SFO, I might agree with that.

AA has always done better in JFK-LAX than in JFK-SFO and UA it has been the reverse.

RDUDDJI · Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:35 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 33):
UA has been successful in taking some high yield pax from AA, but they arent making any money doing it

The first part of this statement is true. The second part is false (see below)

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 33):
With a 112 seat 757, an 80% load factor would be 89 seats or a 47% LF on the old 757 configuration....now it is an almost certainty that coach passengers arent paying much more than they were in the old Y configuration.

Here's the problem with your math. UA pushed much of it's Y product to the other carriers and increased the premium it could derive for C/F. So when you make a blanket statement that they can't increase the average fare by xx%, remember, not only have they done that...they've also poached some premium pax from competitors. After they fly in PS, they're likely to come back again and again, and hey wait a minute, they might just become a Premier or something in the process and then choose UA for their other travel.

With B6's entry into the transcon marketplace from NYC, IMO airlines only had one of three choices: A) Match their fares and/or raise capacity to run them out (lose money). B) Reduce flying to cut costs and attempt to extract fare premium due to decreased ASMs (assuming other carrier cuts capacity too, lose marketshare. If they don't follow suit then you lose money and marketshare). C) Other.

UA chose option C and decided to "re-brand" their transcon product from NYC. In doing so, they have provided the premium pax with a key service differentiator...PS.

Personally, I was not a fan of PS at first (TED either), because it makes UA's fleet that much more complex. PS has worked great, and TED has "met" expectations.

roseflyer · Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:39 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 40):
I disagree, it has been proven time and time again that minimal true premium demand exists in the domestic US market.

That is a very true statement. However you used the word minimal, not nonexistant. LAX/SFO-JFK are routes that do have a premium market demand. Long flights with many of them being overnight flights encourage people to want more comfort.

UA and AA have tried operating premium routes to BOS and IAD, but neither of those worked. Only JFK.

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 40):
The most obvious question is, why isnt anyone copying it? I do think AA need to upgrade its premium product, but they can do so without taking 70 seats off their planes.

There is a famous economics case study of how copying can be bad and companies knowing it. For example the most classic example is Boeing versus Airbus. There is demand for a 500+ passenger plane, however it isn't a big enough market to support competition. If Boeing and Airbus both created a 500+ passenger plane, then both would lose money. But instead Boeing is focusing on a different market and allowing Airbus to have the 500+ passenger market.

If AA tried to have low desity high yielding 757s, then there might not be enough demand to allow each to be profitable. AA has a slightly larger and more economical plane and since there are less economy seats now available between JFK and LAX, AA's yields in economy may have gone up a bit. UA got more of the top of the market, AA gets more of the middle, and B6/DL get the bottom discount travelers. Different airlines get different segments of the market and can all share the revenue and earn a potential profit.

curticool · Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:46 am

Fly Delta! I Flew First Class To LAX And The Service Was Great

Delta Uses Either 767'S Or 757'S

planetime · Sat Mar 17, 2007 5:53 am

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 28):
QF sends a 744 on a SYD-LAX-JFK routing, but no local traffic is permitted between LAX and JFK.

Dumb question ... with the US being quite liberal in their aviation industry how come they do not allow local traffic ... maybe a codeshare with AA?

I know in OZ the UA flight SYD-MEL has no local traffic .... that I can understand that because the OZ's are much more protective than the Americans are.

dutchjet · Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:00 am

Quoting Planetime (Reply 47):

Dumb question ... with the US being quite liberal in their aviation industry how come they do not allow local traffic ... maybe a codeshare with AA?

I know in OZ the UA flight SYD-MEL has no local traffic .... that I can understand that because the OZ's are much more protective than the Americans are.

Without getting into a big political discussion.....while the US advocates open skies on services between it and other nations, it is very protective concerning air services within its borders (as most countries are) and is resitrictive as to investment by foreign parties into US carriers. The US domestic market gets a lot of attention because its the largest domestic market in the world and non-US airlines would like to get a piece of the action.

LAXintl · Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:17 am

Fishing thru Aviation Daily electronic edition, I was able to come up with the following market share and average fare statistics for the 12months ending June 30th, 2006

NYC-San Francisco
Airline - Market Share - Average One-Way Fare
AA 22% $261
UA 21% $350
B6 20% $168
CO 19% $234
DL 12% $168
HP 1% $207
Other 5% $174
Average Daily Passengers 3,354

NYC-Los Angeles
Airline - Market Share - Average One-Way Fare
AA 27% $253
B6 26% $159
CO 16% $219
UA 12% $305
DL 12% $159
HP 2% $202
Other 5% $177
Avg Daily Passengers 5,819

NYC Airports include EWR, JFK, ISP and LGA
LA Airports include BUR, LAX, LGB, ONT
SF Bay Airports include SFO, OAK, SJC

So, while UA has given up market share by dropping down to smaller equipment, they do have significant fare premium over their competitors with the p.s. product.

Also for me its interesting to see how terrible DL/Song did in relationship to its peers, while CO does better than the average even with its weak presence on the West Coast.

For anyone that want to check out the data themselves they are in the January 10 and 17, 2007 editions.

Cheers

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net