Originally Posted by
roadwarrior84
Ah, you are forgetting what has happened in Argentina (similar to Venezuela) and how it has affected the MIA-EZE route. It's not been doing well for the past couple of years, although it is still profitable at least for now. So in my head it makes more sense to fly the 787 on routes where you can maximize profits rather than fly it on thinner routes where you can make some profit. But again, guess AA knows best!
I'm forgetting nothing.
You opined that you thought it would be better to fly the small 787 from MIA to EZE instead of from DFW, and I disagreed because MIA-EZE produces several times the O&D and several times the total passenger traffic to EZE than does DFW. The 787 is a smaller plane than 777s, and with almost triple the traffic from MIA, there's no need to downsize the plane to EZE compared to from DFW. DFW-EZE has always been a long and thin route compared to MIA-EZE. If there's any route to EZE that might not need a 777-sized airplane, it's DFW.
Yes, Argentina is in the midst of crisis, but unless it's affecting traffic between EZE and MIA more than it's affecting traffic between EZE and DFW, then DFW-EZE features "too much airplane," not MIA-EZE. AA's 787-8s seat approximately the same as the 763s, and will burn less fuel.
The 787 offers some fuel savings and for airplane geeks, a new experience. UA is proof that it's not a "game-changer." UA is a smaller airline than it was in 2011 and its revenues have not grown anywhere near as much as they've grown at DL, AA, US or WN, despite Smisek's obsessive repetition of the words "787" and "network."