Originally Posted by
canadiancow
You seem to be assuming that they've looked at all their data and decided they don't need more J on the route.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying they don't have anything in their fleet for this. The only way they can add more J "tomorrow" is by adding a ton of Y, which they do not need.
I know for a fact they have considered sub-fleets with different J/Y ratios. That gets complicated. But the fact that it hasn't been done doesn't mean they shouldn't (or that they don't want to), and I suspect the XLR will play a part in making something like this happen.
Thank you for elaborating. I better understand your point, though am now a little more confused (yes, nothing new there...)
Everything I have read about the XLR indicate 14J and 168Y. The Max is 16J and 158Y. The XLR would offer less J and more Y. The other option, I guess, is reducing frequency and adding a 788? I suspect the routes currently offering the 788 have a better RASM to CASM ratio than a flight of that length perhaps.
Indeed having a higher J/Y ratio premium narrow-body could be a solution, but that then gets, as you say complicated. FTers would love nothing better than to have another vessel for complaining about downgrading. And again, perhaps the flight that best suits your timing needs would still be full and the other 4 that day leaves with lots of empty J?
Have you considered flying SFO-EWR-YOW and getting a lie-flat for the TCON?