Not only that - the aircraft choice can vary by time of year on the same airline and route.

I just looked up a route I've flown quite a few times over the years, from a large hub to a small hub. Choosing random dates between now and next July I saw service being offered via 757, 737-900, 737-800, MD-90, and MD-88. I'm actually surprised there was no rejoinal jet service on any of the dates I picked.

Service on any given date was on one or at most two aircraft types, with 5-7 flights per day depending on season.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that this is for a Route with a gate-to-gate time of around 1:15.

You can still find widebodies on hub-to-hub. We flew the 777 from DFW to MIA...kids got to spend 2 1/2 hours in the nice big J pods and now think flying any other way sucks.

Thanks for nothing, AA. :mad:

Don't blame AA. You should've booked Y basic or cargo hold for them. :D

BTW: That's another reason why you don't see widebodies on domestic routes. (At least in C/F) they are configured to be comfortable on >12H rides. Sending lie flats on 1,700 mi long routes is simply overkill. Airlines prefer to sell 3 recliners instead of 1 or 2 beds.

Very rarely. And it usually has less to do with runways and more to do with traffic rights or demand. LGA can handle 767s and DC10s. But airlines don't fly larger planes in because profits are better found elsewhere.

In some cases you'll get a triangle route but those are less common because, believe it or not, most pax prefer a smaller plane with nonstop service over the larger plane with the extra connection along the way.

As long as it's not a CRJ-200 or ERJ-145 I don't mind the smaller planes in Y. No middle seats to worry about and flight attendants get to you faster. The only hiccup is waiting for your carry-on bag on the jet bridge (if you don't check). But even that hiccup makes boarding and de-boarding a bit faster for everybody.

Or DH4s. If the weather's bad, the flight's usually rather bumpy, whereas the jet (be it a CRJ, 737, A320, A380) cruises over the clouds.

LGA has a distance limitation on flights in and out of there. They can go to Dallas and have a special exemption for DEN as I understand it. Also, I seem to recall talking to a flight crew and them telling me that SAN was limited on plane size due to runway length. I believe UA, AA and DL all fly wide bodies between JFK and LAX.

Delta frequently runs SAN<-->ATL with a 767-300/400; HA runs 767 and A330 flights to Hawaii ... there is also a fair amount of wide-body international service; two that come immediately to mind are BA to/from LHR with a 777 (sometimes a 747-400) and JAL to/from NRT with a 787

Okay. Good to know thanks. Maybe I had old information, or was just mistaken.

I'm guessing they were referring head-to-head operations at SAN. There are situations where landing aircraft must use the Runway 9 approach (i.e., landing from the west - whereas typically they land from the east on Rwy 27 at SAN due to the usual prevailing winds) due to weather conditions and the lower approach minimums available for Rwy 9.

Normally takeoffs would also occur in the same direction as landings. Yet some aircraft are unable to depart towards the east because the terrain necessitates a climb gradient that is too high for their weight and performance capability in that instance. So those departures take off towards the west (opposite the general flow of traffic in this case).

UA will have 777s and 787s on some flights like ORD-SFO or SFO-IAH/DEN where they are cycling through to their international flights.

Small commercial flights are fun. Did DEN-TEX-DEN a few times on Great Lakes' Beechcraft and Chiang Mai to Pai and back on Kaan Air Cessna Caravan.
I get people may not liking turbo prop planes but I don't get how a nervous flier would be more comfortable in a 767 over an A320.

Didn't the 744 stop in PHX on the way back to London?

ETA: It used to; then it didn't anymore. :o

I think some of it has to do with aircraft & engine design in the past ~20 years or so - newer versions of the 737, etc can fly further than they used to, so airlines can put those on routes that were served by widebody jets. In the airlines' view, it means flying with less empty seats which is good for them. Sometimes this also means more frequency on a route, which can be good for passengers (e.g. 4 narrowbody flights per day instead of 1-2 widebody flights). That being said, I do enjoy the few occasions I get to fly a domestic leg on a widebody jet!

(Also bigger planes don't always mean better seats either, at least in Y. The Delta E-170/5 seats often feel wider and have more seat pitch than the 757 seats!)

Not anymore.

UA does not serve JFK at all these days. AA flies narrow-body A321s on the route exclusively. DL uses a mix of narrow-body 757s and wide-body 767s on the route.

Wow, that's a big change since I last traveled that route. The AA 32Bs do have lie flat beds in first business though. I guess UA flues their transcons out if EWR now.