More 762 / 767-200 trouble on the JFK - SFO / LAX route (consolidated)
Apr 3, 2012, 1:39 pm
#46
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southern California/Los Angeles
Programs: Various
Posts: 2,778
I notice your locations listed as NY/LA. I've oft suspected that when a 762 goes tech, regardless of that plane's scheduled route, they shuffle things to keep the LAX schedule intact and let SFO catch the brunt of the mechanical delays.
AA does a much bigger business between LAX and JFK and probably has more corporate contracts to maintain (since LA is a bigger city and both LAX and JFK are AA hubs, while SFO isn't).
AA does a much bigger business between LAX and JFK and probably has more corporate contracts to maintain (since LA is a bigger city and both LAX and JFK are AA hubs, while SFO isn't).
As has been mentioned previously, this is going the direction of the A300, where reliability during the last two years (before phase out) was impacted. I recall my flight to SJO where it took 3 different A300s before we were able to take off from MIA. Lots of duct tape, squeaks, rattles, tattered interior.
Apr 3, 2012, 2:00 pm
#47
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA (BOS)
Programs: AA PLT Pro 2MM, DL Gold, UA Silver, Marriott Ambassador + LT Plat, COFC Venture X, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 5,587
[SPECULATION]
AA has already planned a phase-out of the 762s. Preventive maintenance is bare-bones, and this is affecting dispatch reliability, probably more than anticipated.
[/SPECULATION]
Seriously, I am quite surprised that there hasn't been anything in the bankruptcy about AA abandoning the 762s. It's probably held up by trying to figure out what to replace them with, e.g. refurb 752s or 738s until the 789s pipe-dreams get delivered by Boeing.
AA's LAX traffic is more valuable than SFO traffic, so if anything goes MX in JFK it's SFO that gets the 757 swap. So SFO gets a higher share of the effects of MX.
AA has already planned a phase-out of the 762s. Preventive maintenance is bare-bones, and this is affecting dispatch reliability, probably more than anticipated.
[/SPECULATION]
Seriously, I am quite surprised that there hasn't been anything in the bankruptcy about AA abandoning the 762s. It's probably held up by trying to figure out what to replace them with, e.g. refurb 752s or 738s until the 789s pipe-dreams get delivered by Boeing.
AA's LAX traffic is more valuable than SFO traffic, so if anything goes MX in JFK it's SFO that gets the 757 swap. So SFO gets a higher share of the effects of MX.
Apr 3, 2012, 2:12 pm
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
While the 762 is becoming a mechnical nightmare in the interim AA is kind of stuck. The 787s are designed to replace some of the 763s but delivery at the earliest is 2014 and that is IF Boeing can stay on schedule.
738s are probably too small an a/c for the NY routes and both the 738s and (domestic) 757s do not have an enhanced premium cabin like the 75Ls. Can't have the Hollywood and Tech rich boys riding in some crummy domestic narrow body cabin for a transcon. I suppose AA could take certain 757s and turn them into a Business Elite and Coach Two Class a/c as UA and DL did assuming there is spare capacity to have more 757s in a subfleet. Of course that would mean a lot of upgrades would go out the window.
The final option would be to replace the 762s with 321s that begin to arrive next year but again it would likely need to be a two class with an enhanced premium cabin.
738s are probably too small an a/c for the NY routes and both the 738s and (domestic) 757s do not have an enhanced premium cabin like the 75Ls. Can't have the Hollywood and Tech rich boys riding in some crummy domestic narrow body cabin for a transcon. I suppose AA could take certain 757s and turn them into a Business Elite and Coach Two Class a/c as UA and DL did assuming there is spare capacity to have more 757s in a subfleet. Of course that would mean a lot of upgrades would go out the window.
The final option would be to replace the 762s with 321s that begin to arrive next year but again it would likely need to be a two class with an enhanced premium cabin.
Apr 3, 2012, 2:43 pm
#49
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: NYC
Programs: AA Hilton UA Hyatt
Posts: 108
It's interesting, as I read these posts, because I have taken the JFK/SFO route no less than 12 times in the past 2 years, always Friday night/Sunday afternoon roundtrips. I have been delayed one time, the one time I decided to treat myself to the 763 flight that is scheduled once a day (at the time, I thought I preferred 763 J to 762). In two years, that was the only aircraft problem I had on a 767, and they switched in a 762.
As an aside, I found this thread by searching for J vs. F on 762, and didn't get much. For the first time ever, I flew F home from LAX to JFK 2 weeks ago, and I have to say I cannot tell the difference between J and F. In short, why would I pay more for the F seat? It's not a noticeably better seat than J-- and why do all airlines insist on using hard plastic for the ends of foot rests -- AA does it and so did the old Cathay J seats that I just rode to HK? Can't the pad those just a little bit more, so your feet don't abruptly hit the ends with a hard foot rest?
Domestic J 762 is my favorite seat on all of AA, ex first class 777. I'm not kidding -- and I think I'm in the major minority (singularity) here.
As an aside, I found this thread by searching for J vs. F on 762, and didn't get much. For the first time ever, I flew F home from LAX to JFK 2 weeks ago, and I have to say I cannot tell the difference between J and F. In short, why would I pay more for the F seat? It's not a noticeably better seat than J-- and why do all airlines insist on using hard plastic for the ends of foot rests -- AA does it and so did the old Cathay J seats that I just rode to HK? Can't the pad those just a little bit more, so your feet don't abruptly hit the ends with a hard foot rest?
Domestic J 762 is my favorite seat on all of AA, ex first class 777. I'm not kidding -- and I think I'm in the major minority (singularity) here.
Apr 3, 2012, 3:19 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: New York
Programs: AA EXP 1.0mm, not sure where I am with hotels these days
Posts: 2,795
It's interesting, as I read these posts, because I have taken the JFK/SFO route no less than 12 times in the past 2 years, always Friday night/Sunday afternoon roundtrips. I have been delayed one time, the one time I decided to treat myself to the 763 flight that is scheduled once a day (at the time, I thought I preferred 763 J to 762). In two years, that was the only aircraft problem I had on a 767, and they switched in a 762.
As an aside, I found this thread by searching for J vs. F on 762, and didn't get much. For the first time ever, I flew F home from LAX to JFK 2 weeks ago, and I have to say I cannot tell the difference between J and F. In short, why would I pay more for the F seat? It's not a noticeably better seat than J-- and why do all airlines insist on using hard plastic for the ends of foot rests -- AA does it and so did the old Cathay J seats that I just rode to HK? Can't the pad those just a little bit more, so your feet don't abruptly hit the ends with a hard foot rest?
Domestic J 762 is my favorite seat on all of AA, ex first class 777. I'm not kidding -- and I think I'm in the major minority (singularity) here.
As an aside, I found this thread by searching for J vs. F on 762, and didn't get much. For the first time ever, I flew F home from LAX to JFK 2 weeks ago, and I have to say I cannot tell the difference between J and F. In short, why would I pay more for the F seat? It's not a noticeably better seat than J-- and why do all airlines insist on using hard plastic for the ends of foot rests -- AA does it and so did the old Cathay J seats that I just rode to HK? Can't the pad those just a little bit more, so your feet don't abruptly hit the ends with a hard foot rest?
Domestic J 762 is my favorite seat on all of AA, ex first class 777. I'm not kidding -- and I think I'm in the major minority (singularity) here.
My comment is .... I wish I could get more SWUs to use from J to F on my transcon flights. Food better. MUCH better ice cream sundae. Seats more roomy and better body room (although I don't like bulkhead seats in F or J).
While I'm sensitive to mechanical issues, replacing the 76s on transcons to narrow bodies would be no fun. Similar to comments made in threads discussing use of 757s (two class) from North America to Europe.
Apr 3, 2012, 3:35 pm
#51
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
AA recently announced that it has reached a tentative agreement with lessors for revised terms for 11 of its 762s, subject to reaching definitive agreements. AA owns four of the 15 762s and as of 12/31/11, leases on nine more expire in 2013 and leases on the remaining two expire 2014. Obviously, AA intends to keep the 762s in the air for a little while longer or it would have simply rejected the leases and returned the planes.
When AA ordered its 787s, deliveries were to begin in September, 2012. That date has obviously been pushed back to late 2014 or maybe 2015 (or later). AA has 16 777s on the way (at least 10 of those are 77Ws for 2012-13 delivery). I've previously speculated that the financing for these 77Ws will probably be provided by Boeing and the terms will reflect significant compensation for the multi-year delay in the 787 deliveries. As of 12/31/11, the only planes for delivery in 2012 and 2013 for which AA has admitted having no financing in place are the 77Ws.
One thing is certain: AA doesn't really need 16 new 777s in the short term. There aren't that many potential destinations that AA doesn't serve that it will begin serving in the next couple of years. Accordingly, I doubt that all 16 are growth aircraft.
Where might AA use a 3-class 777-223ER? My answer? Perhaps JFK-LAX. Far-fetched? AA is already flying a couple of daily 777s between LAX and MIA.
Yes, the JFK-LAX market is much more saturated with many more carriers and the 777 is too much plane for the transcons. Still, imagine the marketing advantage if AA could point to 16 Flagship Suites and 37 angled J seats and ask customers if narrow 757s are what they really want. Flagship Suite or the UA F seat? Flagship Suite or the DL J seats? The result? TMZ would spend a lot less time in Terminal 5 trying to corner second-rate stars and would find more of them in Terminal 4.
Yes, the SAG deal no longer requires 3-class, but that's not been the sole reason that AA has maintained its 3-class JFK-LAX service anyway.
It may not come to pass, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the JFK-LAX flights turned into 777-223ERs about a year from now (once several 777-323ERs are on the property which can free up some 77Es).
The 777s wouldn't have to be devoted to the transcons the way the 762s are currently. A redeye 777 from LAX to JFK could then continue as the morning flight to LHR. Early morning JFK-LAX planes could continue to MIA, NRT, PVG and LHR (and perhaps PEK once AA applies for it). Early and mid-morning LAX-JFK planes could then continue to LHR and South America in the evening.
When AA ordered its 787s, deliveries were to begin in September, 2012. That date has obviously been pushed back to late 2014 or maybe 2015 (or later). AA has 16 777s on the way (at least 10 of those are 77Ws for 2012-13 delivery). I've previously speculated that the financing for these 77Ws will probably be provided by Boeing and the terms will reflect significant compensation for the multi-year delay in the 787 deliveries. As of 12/31/11, the only planes for delivery in 2012 and 2013 for which AA has admitted having no financing in place are the 77Ws.
One thing is certain: AA doesn't really need 16 new 777s in the short term. There aren't that many potential destinations that AA doesn't serve that it will begin serving in the next couple of years. Accordingly, I doubt that all 16 are growth aircraft.
Where might AA use a 3-class 777-223ER? My answer? Perhaps JFK-LAX. Far-fetched? AA is already flying a couple of daily 777s between LAX and MIA.
Yes, the JFK-LAX market is much more saturated with many more carriers and the 777 is too much plane for the transcons. Still, imagine the marketing advantage if AA could point to 16 Flagship Suites and 37 angled J seats and ask customers if narrow 757s are what they really want. Flagship Suite or the UA F seat? Flagship Suite or the DL J seats? The result? TMZ would spend a lot less time in Terminal 5 trying to corner second-rate stars and would find more of them in Terminal 4.
Yes, the SAG deal no longer requires 3-class, but that's not been the sole reason that AA has maintained its 3-class JFK-LAX service anyway.
It may not come to pass, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the JFK-LAX flights turned into 777-223ERs about a year from now (once several 777-323ERs are on the property which can free up some 77Es).
The 777s wouldn't have to be devoted to the transcons the way the 762s are currently. A redeye 777 from LAX to JFK could then continue as the morning flight to LHR. Early morning JFK-LAX planes could continue to MIA, NRT, PVG and LHR (and perhaps PEK once AA applies for it). Early and mid-morning LAX-JFK planes could then continue to LHR and South America in the evening.
You think there's any chance of seeing some two-class 772s enter service to replace some 763s which will in turn replace the 762s? I don't necessarily see the 777 JFK-LAX transcon scenario simply because there isn't the stand-alone demand and it doesn't make as much scheduling sense as MIA-LAX (since the vast majority of 777s are idle at MIA until very late at night while JFK's Europe traffic begins much earlier).
However, were AA to introduce a two-class 772 which could be used on some of those European routes maybe it would make more sense. It would certainly make more sense if they were to explore JFK-HNL for example. Using the two-class 777 (as UA did/does, albeit in a domestic config) to HI might make a lot of sense, particularly from somewhere like NYC (which to my knowledge is/was only done by CO with a 764).
Apr 3, 2012, 6:46 pm
#52
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PHX/NYC/LA
Programs: AA Plt, Marriott Gold, National EE, Hertz PC, El Mambero De Mucci, PWP Aide to Generalissimo Godot
Posts: 4,893
AA recently announced that it has reached a tentative agreement with lessors for revised terms for 11 of its 762s, subject to reaching definitive agreements. AA owns four of the 15 762s and as of 12/31/11, leases on nine more expire in 2013 and leases on the remaining two expire 2014. Obviously, AA intends to keep the 762s in the air for a little while longer or it would have simply rejected the leases and returned the planes.
When AA ordered its 787s, deliveries were to begin in September, 2012. That date has obviously been pushed back to late 2014 or maybe 2015 (or later). AA has 16 777s on the way (at least 10 of those are 77Ws for 2012-13 delivery). I've previously speculated that the financing for these 77Ws will probably be provided by Boeing and the terms will reflect significant compensation for the multi-year delay in the 787 deliveries. As of 12/31/11, the only planes for delivery in 2012 and 2013 for which AA has admitted having no financing in place are the 77Ws.
One thing is certain: AA doesn't really need 16 new 777s in the short term. There aren't that many potential destinations that AA doesn't serve that it will begin serving in the next couple of years. Accordingly, I doubt that all 16 are growth aircraft.
Where might AA use a 3-class 777-223ER? My answer? Perhaps JFK-LAX. Far-fetched? AA is already flying a couple of daily 777s between LAX and MIA.
Yes, the JFK-LAX market is much more saturated with many more carriers and the 777 is too much plane for the transcons. Still, imagine the marketing advantage if AA could point to 16 Flagship Suites and 37 angled J seats and ask customers if narrow 757s are what they really want. Flagship Suite or the UA F seat? Flagship Suite or the DL J seats? The result? TMZ would spend a lot less time in Terminal 5 trying to corner second-rate stars and would find more of them in Terminal 4.
Yes, the SAG deal no longer requires 3-class, but that's not been the sole reason that AA has maintained its 3-class JFK-LAX service anyway.
It may not come to pass, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the JFK-LAX flights turned into 777-223ERs about a year from now (once several 777-323ERs are on the property which can free up some 77Es).
The 777s wouldn't have to be devoted to the transcons the way the 762s are currently. A redeye 777 from LAX to JFK could then continue as the morning flight to LHR. Early morning JFK-LAX planes could continue to MIA, NRT, PVG and LHR (and perhaps PEK once AA applies for it). Early and mid-morning LAX-JFK planes could then continue to LHR and South America in the evening.
When AA ordered its 787s, deliveries were to begin in September, 2012. That date has obviously been pushed back to late 2014 or maybe 2015 (or later). AA has 16 777s on the way (at least 10 of those are 77Ws for 2012-13 delivery). I've previously speculated that the financing for these 77Ws will probably be provided by Boeing and the terms will reflect significant compensation for the multi-year delay in the 787 deliveries. As of 12/31/11, the only planes for delivery in 2012 and 2013 for which AA has admitted having no financing in place are the 77Ws.
One thing is certain: AA doesn't really need 16 new 777s in the short term. There aren't that many potential destinations that AA doesn't serve that it will begin serving in the next couple of years. Accordingly, I doubt that all 16 are growth aircraft.
Where might AA use a 3-class 777-223ER? My answer? Perhaps JFK-LAX. Far-fetched? AA is already flying a couple of daily 777s between LAX and MIA.
Yes, the JFK-LAX market is much more saturated with many more carriers and the 777 is too much plane for the transcons. Still, imagine the marketing advantage if AA could point to 16 Flagship Suites and 37 angled J seats and ask customers if narrow 757s are what they really want. Flagship Suite or the UA F seat? Flagship Suite or the DL J seats? The result? TMZ would spend a lot less time in Terminal 5 trying to corner second-rate stars and would find more of them in Terminal 4.
Yes, the SAG deal no longer requires 3-class, but that's not been the sole reason that AA has maintained its 3-class JFK-LAX service anyway.
It may not come to pass, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the JFK-LAX flights turned into 777-223ERs about a year from now (once several 777-323ERs are on the property which can free up some 77Es).
The 777s wouldn't have to be devoted to the transcons the way the 762s are currently. A redeye 777 from LAX to JFK could then continue as the morning flight to LHR. Early morning JFK-LAX planes could continue to MIA, NRT, PVG and LHR (and perhaps PEK once AA applies for it). Early and mid-morning LAX-JFK planes could then continue to LHR and South America in the evening.
Apr 3, 2012, 7:43 pm
#53
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southern California/Los Angeles
Programs: Various
Posts: 2,778
Another point of information (to add to the speculation):
Whatever aircraft replaces the 762, it is going to need to be WiFi enabled in order to be competitive.
Thus far, AA have the following GoGo/WiFi enabled: 100% =Super80s, 60%= 738s, 0%= 757s (though slowly in process), 100%= 762s, 0%= 763s, 0%= 772s.
Chance of 763 and 772 seems fairly low, and if they did, would take time for certification (note AAs 752s have taken close to 1 year so far for certification IIRC)
Whatever aircraft replaces the 762, it is going to need to be WiFi enabled in order to be competitive.
Thus far, AA have the following GoGo/WiFi enabled: 100% =Super80s, 60%= 738s, 0%= 757s (though slowly in process), 100%= 762s, 0%= 763s, 0%= 772s.
Chance of 763 and 772 seems fairly low, and if they did, would take time for certification (note AAs 752s have taken close to 1 year so far for certification IIRC)
Apr 3, 2012, 10:30 pm
#54
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: bay area, ca
Programs: AS 100K, AA Gold, IC Diamond AMB, HH Diamond
Posts: 1,840
You people have been freaking me out. But tonight's AA18 is at least on time (my first F redemption on a 3 class plane)
Apr 4, 2012, 12:29 am
#55
Join Date: Sep 2011
Programs: AA SPG Amex
Posts: 4,644
Another point of information (to add to the speculation):
Whatever aircraft replaces the 762, it is going to need to be WiFi enabled in order to be competitive.
Thus far, AA have the following GoGo/WiFi enabled: 100% =Super80s, 60%= 738s, 0%= 757s (though slowly in process), 100%= 762s, 0%= 763s, 0%= 772s.
Chance of 763 and 772 seems fairly low, and if they did, would take time for certification (note AAs 752s have taken close to 1 year so far for certification IIRC)
Whatever aircraft replaces the 762, it is going to need to be WiFi enabled in order to be competitive.
Thus far, AA have the following GoGo/WiFi enabled: 100% =Super80s, 60%= 738s, 0%= 757s (though slowly in process), 100%= 762s, 0%= 763s, 0%= 772s.
Chance of 763 and 772 seems fairly low, and if they did, would take time for certification (note AAs 752s have taken close to 1 year so far for certification IIRC)
Apr 20, 2012, 10:16 am
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Today's AA20, originally a 763, first went to a 762 and then cancelled, which prompted me to do a data-driven follow-up on this thread.
According to www.flightstats.com, over the period of 15 February, 2012 to 15 April, 2012, these are the stats on the SFO-JFK route, sorted by frequencies:
SFO-EWR:
AA's operations are definitely worse than the competition here; can't wait for the announcement to see what's replacing the 762s on this route.
According to www.flightstats.com, over the period of 15 February, 2012 to 15 April, 2012, these are the stats on the SFO-JFK route, sorted by frequencies:
- UA: 373 scheduled, 2 cancelled, 85% on-time or <15min late
- VX: 303 scheduled, 1 cancelled, 89% on-time or <15min late
- DL: 286 scheduled, 0 cancelled, 91% on-time or <15min late
- AA: 244 scheduled, 7 cancelled, 78% on-time or <15min late
- B6: 176 scheduled, 0 cancelled, 75% on-time or <15min late
SFO-EWR:
- UA: 249 scheduled, 2 cancelled, 72% on-time or <15min late
- CO: 191 scheduled, 0 cancelled, 83% on-time or <15min late
AA's operations are definitely worse than the competition here; can't wait for the announcement to see what's replacing the 762s on this route.
Apr 20, 2012, 10:28 am
#57
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL, AA 1MM LT GLD, SPG PLAT, National Exec Selc, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 8,278
Today's AA20, originally a 763, first went to a 762 and then cancelled, which prompted me to do a data-driven follow-up on this thread.
According to www.flightstats.com, over the period of 15 February, 2012 to 15 April, 2012, these are the stats on the SFO-JFK route, sorted by frequencies:
SFO-EWR:
AA's operations are definitely worse than the competition here; can't wait for the announcement to see what's replacing the 762s on this route.
According to www.flightstats.com, over the period of 15 February, 2012 to 15 April, 2012, these are the stats on the SFO-JFK route, sorted by frequencies:
- UA: 373 scheduled, 2 cancelled, 85% on-time or <15min late
- VX: 303 scheduled, 1 cancelled, 89% on-time or <15min late
- DL: 286 scheduled, 0 cancelled, 91% on-time or <15min late
- AA: 244 scheduled, 7 cancelled, 78% on-time or <15min late
- B6: 176 scheduled, 0 cancelled, 75% on-time or <15min late
SFO-EWR:
- UA: 249 scheduled, 2 cancelled, 72% on-time or <15min late
- CO: 191 scheduled, 0 cancelled, 83% on-time or <15min late
AA's operations are definitely worse than the competition here; can't wait for the announcement to see what's replacing the 762s on this route.
That said, not disagreeing that the 762s are becoming very unreliable. A shame because I really like them and don't look forward to the route going narrow-body.
Apr 20, 2012, 10:32 am
#58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 1999
Posts: 12,097
Good observation, so I pulled stats for those same two airlines the other way around (JFK-SFO):
- UA: 372 scheduled, 2 cancelled, 87% on-time or <15min late
- AA: 244 scheduled, 7 cancelled, 72% on-time or <15min late
As you can see, unfortunately they're no better.
Apr 20, 2012, 10:33 am
#59
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: San Francisco, CA USA // UA 1K 2 Million Miler, AA EXP 2MM, HH Diamond, SPG Plat // Easily found on SFO-ORDs
Posts: 2,726
Agreed that reliability is questionnable for AA on this route, but quick correction: AA/20 is usually a 762 and appears to have been swapped to a 763 before cancelling (reverse of what you've written above).
Apr 20, 2012, 10:33 am
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL, AA 1MM LT GLD, SPG PLAT, National Exec Selc, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 8,278
One way.
Good observation, so I pulled stats for those same two airlines the other way around (JFK-SFO):
As you can see, unfortunately they're no better.
Good observation, so I pulled stats for those same two airlines the other way around (JFK-SFO):
- UA: 372 scheduled, 2 cancelled, 87% on-time or <15min late
- AA: 244 scheduled, 7 cancelled, 72% on-time or <15min late
As you can see, unfortunately they're no better.