AA can't fly as many pax back to the mainland as they fly from the mainland to Hawaii
Sep 24, 2018, 6:25 pm
#16
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: ZOA, SFO, HKG
Programs: UA 1K 0.9MM, Marriott Gold, HHonors Gold, Hertz PC, SBux Gold, TSA Pre✓
Posts: 13,811
UA uses B738 with SFP package to resolve the technological difficulties with airports like LIH. While AS uses B738 for the routes, it is very likely that AS uses those B738s with SFP package as well for the same reason.
AA has B738. But I am not certain that SFP package has been installed.
Sep 24, 2018, 6:59 pm
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,968
Sep 24, 2018, 8:34 pm
#18
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AA 1MM
Posts: 185
No; Santa Cruz was a tech stop. The origin, La Paz (El Alto Airport), is so high (13,325 ft) that even the 757 cannot take off with enough fuel to make it back to MIA. So, the bird took off with a minimal fuel load, then made a stop at the much-lower Santa Cruz airport to take on enough fuel for the intercontinental flight.
Sep 24, 2018, 8:48 pm
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Well, AA could have kept enough 757s for Hawaii service, until the 321neo/737MAX8 were certified, but someone (DP) didn't think far enough ahead. Very short-sighted management decisions.
The other issue is why are they waiting until all passengers are on the plane. That is simply poor operational planning. If they need to block seats regularly, why don't they simply reduce the capacity of the plane for booking purposes???
The other issue is why are they waiting until all passengers are on the plane. That is simply poor operational planning. If they need to block seats regularly, why don't they simply reduce the capacity of the plane for booking purposes???
The problem is that it's very inefficient and costly to operate very small numbers of an aircraft type. Training, including pilot certification and scheduling, cabin crew training (with most USA airlines requiring FAs to be qualified on all aircraft in the fleet, maintenance (including training), parts (including inventory costs at various hubs), etc. really become expensive, although the minumum number of matching aircraft needed to obtain most of the efficiently gains is actually very reasonable. In fact, in an earlier era, the number was documented to be about six in a study by the CAB that helped to support the move to deregulate airlines.
Sep 24, 2018, 9:01 pm
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,704
Keeping a subfleet that's less fuel efficient for a particular route doesn't exactly sound like it would be a "good" management decision. I'm not sure why you believe this is short-sighted - the choice could well be current aircraft, or none at all.
And certainly the other issue cannot be planned for in advance. Winds, routing, the amount of baggage each person brings with them, not to mention no show patterns are all variable.
Sure, you could always undersell the flight. But then you would be preventing people from purchasing tickets and getting home on the day that they want when on certain days, the aircraft could have made it just fine. And underselling would eat into the financials of the route, which could mean that not operating it at all becomes more economical.
And certainly the other issue cannot be planned for in advance. Winds, routing, the amount of baggage each person brings with them, not to mention no show patterns are all variable.
Sure, you could always undersell the flight. But then you would be preventing people from purchasing tickets and getting home on the day that they want when on certain days, the aircraft could have made it just fine. And underselling would eat into the financials of the route, which could mean that not operating it at all becomes more economical.
Sep 25, 2018, 12:02 am
#21
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: YYJ
Posts: 4,137
I highly doubt that "certain, constant, multiple IDBs" are occurring.
Not every flight books to 100%.
Not every departure faces the same prevailing winds, weather, temperature, etc.
The $5400 paid out in compensation on the flight referenced above pales in comparison to the cost of maintaining a fleet of aging aircraft for a specific route.
Not every flight books to 100%.
Not every departure faces the same prevailing winds, weather, temperature, etc.
The $5400 paid out in compensation on the flight referenced above pales in comparison to the cost of maintaining a fleet of aging aircraft for a specific route.
Sep 25, 2018, 6:52 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,704
I highly doubt that "certain, constant, multiple IDBs" are occurring.
Not every flight books to 100%.
Not every departure faces the same prevailing winds, weather, temperature, etc.
The $5400 paid out in compensation on the flight referenced above pales in comparison to the cost of maintaining a fleet of aging aircraft for a specific route.
Not every flight books to 100%.
Not every departure faces the same prevailing winds, weather, temperature, etc.
The $5400 paid out in compensation on the flight referenced above pales in comparison to the cost of maintaining a fleet of aging aircraft for a specific route.
From my understanding we leave people in Hawaii every day because the Airbus can’t make it back to Phoenix with a full load, is that our plan to take people somewhere where we can’t bring them all back?
Sep 25, 2018, 6:59 am
#23
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
Keeping a subfleet that's less fuel efficient for a particular route doesn't exactly sound like it would be a "good" management decision. I'm not sure why you believe this is short-sighted - the choice could well be current aircraft, or none at all.
And certainly the other issue cannot be planned for in advance. Winds, routing, the amount of baggage each person brings with them, not to mention no show patterns are all variable.
Sure, you could always undersell the flight. But then you would be preventing people from purchasing tickets and getting home on the day that they want when on certain days, the aircraft could have made it just fine. And underselling would eat into the financials of the route, which could mean that not operating it at all becomes more economical.
And certainly the other issue cannot be planned for in advance. Winds, routing, the amount of baggage each person brings with them, not to mention no show patterns are all variable.
Sure, you could always undersell the flight. But then you would be preventing people from purchasing tickets and getting home on the day that they want when on certain days, the aircraft could have made it just fine. And underselling would eat into the financials of the route, which could mean that not operating it at all becomes more economical.
Sep 25, 2018, 7:15 am
#24
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MSP/BUF/BNA/LFT
Programs: AA Plat, Priority Club Gold, Choice Privileges Gold
Posts: 1,225
Sep 25, 2018, 7:18 am
#25
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Programs: WN A-List, AA good-riddance, Safeway Club Card Extraordinaire
Posts: 3,851
Sep 25, 2018, 7:25 am
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Sep 25, 2018, 8:33 am
#28
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MSP/BUF/BNA/LFT
Programs: AA Plat, Priority Club Gold, Choice Privileges Gold
Posts: 1,225
"From my understanding we leave people in Hawaii every day because the Airbus can’t make it back to Phoenix with a full load, is that our plan to take people somewhere where we can’t bring them all back?"
Sep 25, 2018, 9:09 am
#29
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Bay Area
Programs: WN A-List, AA good-riddance, Safeway Club Card Extraordinaire
Posts: 3,851
I suspect the employee asking the question misspoke, especially given the follow-up from management about weight restrictions to LAX (and, as you pointed out, AA doesn't fly A321s between Hawaii and PHX).
Along those lines, I suspect the employee's assertion that they leave people in Hawaii "every day" is a substantial exaggeration, at the very least.