Originally Posted by eponymous_coward

A bunch of those are repositioning flights between hubs, where your choice is a) have the plane out of position when you need maintenance or fleet rotation (the intended way you use the plane is a rotation of something like AAA-BBB-CCC-DDD-AAA), b) fly it empty to where it should be, or c) add some passengers on a domestic leg, because why not in preference to a) and b). There can also be some utilization reasons, like adding a short leg to help with getting maximum utilization (East Coast-MCO is a good example as a way to get additional flight hours utilization on top of a East Coast-Hawaii flight) or make it so you don't have too many planes at your hub occupying gates all at once.

(I also suspect UA/AC/CX do their "cram them in" 777s because they have the plane anyway, they're going to try and get something out of it. It's that or beer cans.)

If it really made sense to run widebodies on shorthaul except for some one-off scenarios and corner cases in the USA, Europe or Asia, LCCs would buy them used (there are plenty of them out there- you could easily have a fleet of cheap secondhand 747s doing LCC low frequency "stuff the plane" Y service). They don't. They use narrowbodies. That's because landing fees are markedly higher (based on weight), fuel burn is higher, staffing is higher. An environment that has reduced business travel is going to be one where revenue from that travel is seriously impacted, and airline cost has to come down because the revenue that supports higher cost structure is gone.

So I would expect the legacies to move towards what LCCs do as a response to lower business demand that makes them more dependent on VFR or general tourism travel: more seasonal service to locations, less than daily service, less emphasis on F cabins, cram everyone in.

Originally Posted by cmd320

You're looking at this from the context of what air travel was like previously. Not from the direction it is headed. Yes historically (for the last decade or so) airlines shifted away from domestic widebody use towards higher frequency on narrowbodies, but you yourself have said you don't expect business travel to recover for some time meaning the need for high frequency is gone.

Originally Posted by Eastbay1K

As for how any of this is related to the B6 Invasion of LAX and how it means the beginning of the end of every other airline serving LAX, I'm sure it does somehow.

Originally Posted by Eastbay1K

Sometimes the answer isn't in the Flyertalk Obvious Department. While I can't speak for any particular airline on any particular route, there are three factors at play with respect to the widebodies:

1) The plane would be sitting around all day, and there is less loss, or maybe even a little profit by having a domestic tag.
2) Pilots need takeoff/landing experience. This has been an issue with respect to widebody flying, where a pilot may only be flying a handful of longhaul trips in any given time period, there are three in the cockpit, and there is very little opportunity to keep up the required inflight experience.
3) Cargo, cargo, cargo. MIA is a huge port of entry for perishables from Latin America (as are LAX and various other airports).

As for how any of this is related to the B6 Invasion of LAX and how it means the beginning of the end of every other airline serving LAX, I'm sure it does somehow.

Originally Posted by eponymous_coward

It's not just a matter of high frequency, it's a matter of cost and seats in the market.

But even if you swapped out gauge to keep the seats constant and reduce frequency, it would be pretty insane to replace 960 seats that are 8 737 flights with 600 seats that are 2 777s instead of 5 737s (if that's what you felt demand called for, about a 1/3rd drop in seats in this market). That 777 has something like 6-8 times the weight of a 737. The landing fee per seat is higher. Again, those are costs that you have to recover in fares or eat on profit margin. Meanwhile an all narrowbody fleet (WN, AS, B6) gets to capture the savings.

Originally Posted by eponymous_coward

I hear B6 going to invade LAX with A380s...

Originally Posted by tphuang

That's the great part. I don't need to do anything. LAWA is doing all the work.

https://labusinessjournal.com/news/2...t-hub-airport/
“Passenger traffic is currently down at historic levels, so gate availability is not a concern at this time, nor do we anticipate it to be a concern any time soon,” said Heath Montgomery, spokesman for Los Angeles World Airports, the city agency that runs LAX.

These circumstances have made it easier for JetBlue to expand its flight roster at the airport. By 2025, the airline hopes to operate 75 flights per day out of the airport, more than three times its current level, including international routes and flights to locations that currently are not served out of LAX.

“With support from LAWA, we plan to embark on a meaningful expansion over the next five years and are confident necessary gate space will be available,” airline spokesman Stewart said in an email.

You don't make this kind of comments without some additional knowledge. The ULCCs are moving to MSC. JetBlue will either have preferential access of those gates left behind or CUTE access.

Originally Posted by cmd320

Yes, simplifying to an all narrow body fleet offers some cost savings in certain areas but most airlines have larger fleets of aircraft to pull from. AA/DL/UA aren't going to drop all of their widebody aircraft to streamline to 737/A320 fleets, at some point intercontinental flying will pick up again.

Originally Posted by eponymous_coward

I'm not saying that. I'm saying intercontinental travel will be reduced and widebodies won't be repurposed to domestic.

https://news.delta.com/deltas-777-ai...-amid-covid-19

Originally Posted by eponymous_coward

A bunch of those are repositioning flights between hubs, where your choice is a) have the plane out of position when you need maintenance or fleet rotation (the intended way you use the plane is a rotation of something like AAA-BBB-CCC-DDD-AAA), b) fly it empty to where it should be, or c) add some passengers on a domestic leg, because why not in preference to a) and b). There can also be some utilization reasons, like adding a short leg to help with getting maximum utilization (East Coast-MCO is a good example as a way to get additional flight hours utilization on top of a East Coast-Hawaii flight) or make it so you don't have too many planes at your hub occupying gates all at once.

Originally Posted by safari ari

Hasn't Cancun in general, even before 2020, been significantly cut, due to lower tourists going there, seems a little odd now, unless they expect people to start going to Mexico more in the winter with the rest of the world still unknown for travel?

Originally Posted by Kacee

There are very limited options right now for those who want to go somewhere warm and somewhat exotic for the holidays so yes, I think the expectation is CUN will see an upsurge. Case in point: we just booked Andaz Mayakoba over New Years, flying B6 from SFO, in lieu of Thailand.

Originally Posted by sfozrhfco

Who wants to plan a vacation around the holidays and find out a couple days before that the rules for travel to HI have changed again or cases are surging and the few places that were open to Americans are closed again