Programs: UA, DL, AA, Aegean Air, Cal Alumni (go Bears!)
Posts: 430
Why no domestic US wide body flights?
I don't really understand why there are no jumbo transcon flights anymore. Sure, airlines say people want convenience of many departures but this just doesn't make sense to me. In the 1970s and 80s, TWA, PanAm, United, AA, National, Continental, etc. all had either 747s, DC-10s or L-1011s crossing the continent. Now, you're lucky if you get a 737! Yet passenger numbers have doubled. Even here in California, PSA had L-1011 service between SFO and LAX.
On top of that, congestion at major airports must be largely due to carrying twice the passengers in planes half the size. That would be four times the flights. What gives?
Fuel economy issues, I would imagine. Those old monsters (I love 'em!) were not the cheapest things to operate. The L-1011 (I'm told) was particularly bad in that regard.
Plus, more crew needed, maybe larger landing fees, etc. ... it all adds up.
The best they can do is whatever they can to lose money at a slower rate.
__________________ "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"
I end up on 767s every so often between ATL and NYC, though many are likely continuations or repositioning of intl flights. Regularly see 777 om ATL-LAX.
As others said, they're out there, you just have to look for the specific flights.
__________________ "When you're great, people often mistake candor for bragging."
Programs: UA, DL, AA, Aegean Air, Cal Alumni (go Bears!)
Posts: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by gooselee
I end up on 767s every so often between ATL and NYC, though many are likely continuations or repositioning of intl flights. Regularly see 777 om ATL-LAX.
As others said, they're out there, you just have to look for the specific flights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBa
Just done ATL-PHX on a 767. So domestic widebody flights are available.
I suppose that the 767 is officially a wide body being 2 aisles and all, but its only 7 seats across, just one more than a 737/757. Just not the same as a jumbo.
While there are some widebodies, including some intl. configurations, the fact is that there aren't that many and the reason is quite simply that the demand isn't there.
If there were enough demand at profitable fares to fill a 747 or 777 running hourly between JFK & LAX/SFO, you can bet that some carrier would scrounge up the birds to fly the routes.
Programs: HH Silver, US Bronze, CO Nonepass, AS Non-MVP
Posts: 7,764
Airlines quickly found that the widebodies were money-losers and gas guzzlers, as fuel prices spiked during the 70's and 80's and fares generally plummeted after deregulation. The larger widebodies gave way to smaller widebodies (747 to L1011/DC10 to A300/767 then to narrowbodies.
The key was the development of next generation narrowbodies with transcon range. Plus, business customers value frequency over aircraft size.
Yes, that's correct. The US business market values frequency over aircraft capacity, which is why there are more flights on smaller aircraft. But just as there is a new generation of efficient narrow-body aircraft flying in transcon service, there is a new generation of wide-body aircraft coming online that are way more efficient than the old 1011s, DC-10/MD-11 and 747-400s. While new generation wide-body aircraft are primarily oriented towards medium haul and long haul service, I will not doubt that wide-body US domestic service will still be available five years from now. The domestic travel markets will change by then and travel demand will be even greater than today.
. 
