Why not AA 787-8 service DCA-LAX ?
With domestic travel coming back faster than international, why not swap AA 321's for 788's for the two DCA-LAX round trips?
With the end of the dreaded gate 35X today and opening of the beautiful new commuter terminal, AA could launch this around a "we love DCA" campaign which could include the new terminal and upgraded LAX experience -- lie flat seats, upgraded food and beverage service...Hollywood types and west coast congress people ($$$) would love it! Plus what a great way to get to all of those west coast AA connections in LAX one-stop from DCA. Also an opportunity to drive west coast traffic to/thru LAX from IAD to DCA screwing United. There is a mistaken belief that 2-isle aircraft cannot operate at DCA - that is untrue. Several years ago Delta operated a scheduled B767 DCA-ATL. The issue is with gates that can handle larger aircraft. Now that Eagle operations have moved to the new commuter terminal, AA could upgrade one gate on the north pier (41 or 45?) to accommodate a 788. https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delt...-767s-dca.html |
Not enough runway with fully fueled 787 at DCA to takeoff?
|
I simply dont think its feasible from a runway length perspective. MTOW on 787 is 228 tons - of which 100 tons is fuel. Even if you loaded 50% fuel but had a full passenger load, you're at 178 tons or 356,000 pounds. The numbers I see put a 787 at least 6000 feet of runway at flaps 15. Add some heat, and its going to get very close to DCA's limit on length (7169 feet).
I can think of three other problems: #1 DCA's gates are not designed for widebody aircraft. With a 787 you would lose two gates for 787 ops (the gate for the 787 and an adjacent gate). #2 I dont think DCA is set to use LD4 containers which are used on 787s. #3 I think it would be a tough call to maneuver a 787 around DCA's taxiways. |
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 33192691)
I simply dont think its feasible from a runway length perspective. MTOW on 787 is 228 tons - of which 100 tons is fuel. Even if you loaded 50% fuel but had a full passenger load, you're at 178 tons or 356,000 pounds. The numbers I see put a 787 at least 6000 feet of runway at flaps 15. Add some heat, and its going to get very close to DCA's limit on length (7169 feet).
I can think of three other problems: #1 DCA's gates are not designed for widebody aircraft. With a 787 you would lose two gates for 787 ops (the gate for the 787 and an adjacent gate). #2 I dont think DCA is set to use LD4 containers which are used on 787s. #3 I think it would be a tough call to maneuver a 787 around DCA's taxiways. |
The added capacity isn't really added capacity. AA added 14 jetbridges with 14 gates to replace 14 hardstands. So it was a 1:1 trade. That said, the E175 type aircraft could not practicably use a hardstand. Maybe in a pinch, but practically no. I'll add to this the fact that it was announced in an intra-company meeting that AA plans to completely phase out 45/50 seat operations at DCA. So if you have that many more CR7s (the logical replacement for an E145), you may not have as much gate space as you think you got.
|
Where’s mr FO757 Think that’s his username. I always enjoy hearing accurate info from someone who is an airline pilot.
|
Runway length shouldn’t be an issue. OGG has a shorter runway and yet 767s/777s/330s/787s manage to take off just fine with a full payload.
However, like IADDCAflyer said it’ll be an operational nightmare as the airport wasn’t built with large aircrafts in mind not to mention there aren’t the appropriate ground resources to support this kind of aircraft. I do not think Gate 41 or 45 will work as portion of the jetway is fixed into the ground not to mention is the jetway even capable of moving high enough to connect with the doors? 787’s wingspan is much larger than the 767 as well. With that being said I think if AA reconfigures their A321T fleet to eliminate first class and instead offer a configuration similar to United’s premium service configuration with high flat bed J layout that would give AA a lot more flexibility in tapping niche markets like DCA-LAX, certain Caribbean/Mexico/Hawaii routes, etc. |
Originally Posted by IADCAflyer
(Post 33192824)
The added capacity isn't really added capacity. AA added 14 jetbridges with 14 gates to replace 14 hardstands. So it was a 1:1 trade. That said, the E175 type aircraft could not practicably use a hardstand. Maybe in a pinch, but practically no. I'll add to this the fact that it was announced in an intra-company meeting that AA plans to completely phase out 45/50 seat operations at DCA. So if you have that many more CR7s (the logical replacement for an E145), you may not have as much gate space as you think you got.
|
Originally Posted by golfingboy
(Post 33192852)
Runway length shouldn’t be an issue. OGG has a shorter runway and yet 767s/777s/330s/787s manage to take off just fine with a full payload.
However, like IADDCAflyer said it’ll be an operational nightmare as the airport wasn’t built with large aircrafts in mind not to mention there aren’t the appropriate ground resources to support this kind of aircraft. I do not think Gate 41 or 45 will work as portion of the jetway is fixed into the ground not to mention is the jetway even capable of moving high enough to connect with the doors? 787’s wingspan is much larger than the 767 as well. |
Originally Posted by flyer703
(Post 33192873)
We're talking one gate on the end of the terminal- two arrivals/departures a day. No big deal... Think of how cool it would be :cool:
|
Originally Posted by flyer703
(Post 33192873)
We're talking one gate on the end of the terminal- two arrivals/departures a day. No big deal... Think of how cool it would be :cool:
The 787 is significantly heavier than the 767. In addition, the 787 fits in a different gate class due to wingspan, which would limit not only parking, but taxiway operations; I believe taxiways J and K would be far under minimum separation. |
How much demand is there currently between the DC area and LA? (I really have no idea, just know that a lot of transcon markets haven’t recovered yet when it comes to demand.)
|
Originally Posted by Antarius
(Post 33193007)
Airlines don't operate based on how cool things are.
But no, they’ll probably be boring and practical... |
788s - meh. Those birds have only 20 J seats so upgrades to Flagship J are probably non-existent. I also can't see why AA would not sell PE seats on this route, as now that they are even selling PE on ORD-ANC.
And AA has no West Coast connections any more. They only have service up to a couple of places near the Bay Area while most others are AS now. |
AA thrives on frequency not big planes (at least they used to). As I said the length of an 787 and the wingspan would screw two gates and likely interfere with traffic on Taxiway Kilo. No to mention jutting out into the alley between gates 23-34 and 46-59.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:23 pm. |
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.