Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > American Airlines | AAdvantage
Reload this Page >

AA can't fly as many pax back to the mainland as they fly from the mainland to Hawaii

AA can't fly as many pax back to the mainland as they fly from the mainland to Hawaii

Old Sep 22, 2018, 6:26 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: New York City + Vail, CO
Programs: American Airlines Executive Platinum, Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador Elite
Posts: 3,215
AA can't fly as many pax back to the mainland as they fly from the mainland to Hawaii

I just read another article worth sharing from View from the Wing.

Gary quotes someone from AA saying:
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?
American currently takes weight restrictions from Lihue – Los Angeles and on some days Maui – Los Angeles. But the A321neo will have full payload capability out of all Hawaii markets except for Lihue which may take a slight weight restriction.
I don't understand this--is this because of cargo demand from Hawaii to the continental US? I would think there would be more demand in the other direction for cargo.
donotblink is offline  
Old Sep 22, 2018, 7:13 pm
  #2  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,360
LIH-LAX is 2,615 miles. The runways at LIH are just 6,500 feet long.
guv1976 is offline  
Old Sep 22, 2018, 8:18 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,966
Here's my understanding of it:

Shorter runway => requires reduced takeoff weight => aircraft must carry less fuel OR pax OR cargo

Carrying less fuel is not a good idea, given that there are no intermediate/emergency landing points between Hawaii and the mainland.

So, the only alternative is to carry fewer pax or less cargo.
ESpen36 is offline  
Old Sep 22, 2018, 8:35 pm
  #4  
Moderator: American AAdvantage
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Originally Posted by donotblink
I just read another article worth sharing from View from the Wing.

Gary quotes someone from AA saying:




I don't understand this--is this because of cargo demand from Hawaii to the continental US? I would think there would be more demand in the other direction for cargo.
Prevailing winds (including velocity and direction), runway length and those winds, temperature, altitude and pressure (density altitude) and aircraft capabilities and restrictions (weight, including cargo, passengers, crew and fuel, runway length required for safe takeoff, crosswind component, etc.) and could all play a role in making those determinations. They’d be applied flight to flight, at or near time of departure.
enpremiere and ESpen36 like this.
JDiver is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 7:47 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,625
Sounds like a job for the new 757! ...er, wait.
jtav559 likes this.
DenverBrian is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 1:14 pm
  #6  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,966
I suppose they could also add a tech stop at HNL to refuel and then depart for the mainland, similar to the way the La Paz -> Santa Cruz -> Miami flights operated.
JB OmahAA likes this.
ESpen36 is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 5:44 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Programs: AA 1MM
Posts: 185
Originally Posted by ESpen36
I suppose they could also add a tech stop at HNL to refuel and then depart for the mainland, similar to the way the La Paz -> Santa Cruz -> Miami flights operated.
I don't believe La Paz was a Tech Stop.
tikchik is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 9:46 pm
  #8  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYC, USA
Programs: AA EXP 3MM, Lifetime Platinum, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 10,966
Originally Posted by tikchik
I don't believe La Paz was a Tech Stop.
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.
JDiver and tikchik like this.
ESpen36 is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 10:25 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: May 2007
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 5,342
Originally Posted by ESpen36
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.
Veering OT, but if VVI was indeed originally intended as a "tech stop", it seems to have surpassed demand expectations, as AA has dropped the LPB stop altogether and now flies MIA-VVI as an out-and-back.

Anyways, as I've posted elsewhere, that short runway at LIH might also have contributed to the loss of DFW-LIH this year. That route was operated by the 767 last winter. However, DFW-KOA going to a 777 this year indicates to me that AA wants to consolidate all DFW-Hawaii flying onto the 777, which cannot make it off the LIH runway without taking a significant payload hit. As a result, the route got canned. Sad!
dkc192 is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 11:04 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Programs: QF WP, AA EXP
Posts: 3,520
My last 2 flights out of LIH have had to kick people off the plane to allow it to fly. The last one was done after everyone had boarded and we were ready to go. Offer started at $1000 and they needed 5 people. I think it got up to $1200 for the last 2 people. That's a lot of money to throw away because you don't have the right plane (or planning, really) to operate the route. Almost took the voucher but First was sold out for the next two days and I needed to be home the next day. This brings up the other issue - there are not enough premium seats on these flights any more.
TSparky likes this.
SNA_Flyer is offline  
Old Sep 24, 2018, 10:40 am
  #11  
Moderator: American AAdvantage
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Originally Posted by ESpen36
I suppose they could also add a tech stop at HNL to refuel and then depart for the mainland, similar to the way the La Paz -> Santa Cruz -> Miami flights operated.
Or when AA began MD A Lemon, er MD-11 Flights SJC-NRT, requiring a Technical stop for full fueling at OAK.

AA is challenged to come up with exact fit” aircraft, even with the A321neo. (The 757 is an aviation “hot rod” for hot, high and shorter runway lengths.)

Last edited by JDiver; Sep 24, 2018 at 10:45 am
JDiver is offline  
Old Sep 24, 2018, 12:19 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,451
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???
AANYC1981 likes this.
formeraa is offline  
Old Sep 24, 2018, 3:14 pm
  #13  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 30,956
Originally Posted by SNA_Flyer
That's a lot of money to throw away because you don't have the right plane (or planning, really) to operate the route.
In the context of buying a bigger plane to serve that one route with occasional weight restrictions, $6K isn't really that much money.

List price on a 321 is $115M. That's $6K daily for 52 years.
CPRich is offline  
Old Sep 24, 2018, 4:37 pm
  #14  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: HH Gold, AA Gold
Posts: 10,451
Originally Posted by JDiver
Or when AA began MD A Lemon, er MD-11 Flights SJC-NRT, requiring a Technical stop for full fueling at OAK.

AA is challenged to come up with exact fit” aircraft, even with the A321neo. (The 757 is an aviation “hot rod” for hot, high and shorter runway lengths.)
I wonder how a 757 Max would be selling right about now. Too bad, Boeing didn't try it...
DenverBrian likes this.
formeraa is offline  
Old Sep 24, 2018, 4:46 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: YYJ
Posts: 4,132
Originally Posted by formeraa
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???
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.
cedric is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.