SEA-MIA Why only a 73G?
Oct 12, 2002, 5:15 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,808
Without being the real answerman, I know that AS, due to limited increases in actual aircraft has tried to reduce frequencies and increase aircraft size on certain routes in order to have enough aircraft for the expansion. Also, I would think they'd want an "overly successful" route (ie, people willing to pay higher fares due to less capacity) than for a larger plane with more cheap/free seats.
Oct 12, 2002, 6:58 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: East Ester, Alaska
Programs: Alaska Million Miler, United Million Miler, Wyndham Rewards Diamond, Choice Hotels Diamond
Posts: 12,163
I seem to recall hearing that there may be some range considerations keeping the 737-900 off some of the longer trans-con routes. According to Boeing, the -900 has a maximum range of 3,159 statute miles whereas the -700 checks in at 3,752 miles.
AS used their -900s on the 2,310 mile SEA-IAD route last year without any apparent problems. The SEA-MIA run however is 2,720 miles and while the -900 might handle this well eastbound, flying westbound against the winds might prove to be a problem with only a 420 mile cushion.
AS used their -900s on the 2,310 mile SEA-IAD route last year without any apparent problems. The SEA-MIA run however is 2,720 miles and while the -900 might handle this well eastbound, flying westbound against the winds might prove to be a problem with only a 420 mile cushion.
Oct 12, 2002, 9:26 pm
#4
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 5,971
Eastbay1K and Seat2A are both right. In addition to the fact that AA was having problems filling their 763 on this route, even with their Caribbean, European and S. American connections. This route was not a money maker for AA as some have said on other boards, if it was, they would have kept it or it would be slated for return but neither is true. AS could possibly make this work with their lower CASM and smaller aircraft. Just checking the loads during Nov. and Dec., it's apparently pretty succesful already.
Oct 13, 2002, 4:19 pm
#7
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: los angeles, calif.
Programs: Alaska Airlines Gold MVP
Posts: 7,172
AA had no problems filling up MIA-SEA 763s, they had problems filling them up with premium passengers. And the few premium passengers flying it were almost all going to Tokyo. The 73G is a much better aircraft for the route.
Oct 16, 2002, 2:02 pm
#8
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: FLL
Posts: 1,679
They are probably not using 737-900's because they can use the few that they have on other routes.
The game in recent years is to use the smallest plane possible. AA has 767's so they have to use them somewhere. If not, then they would use RJ's and 737 on every route. They don't care if they turn away passengers, as long as the flight is profitable.
The game in recent years is to use the smallest plane possible. AA has 767's so they have to use them somewhere. If not, then they would use RJ's and 737 on every route. They don't care if they turn away passengers, as long as the flight is profitable.