More Flights, Smaller Planes: A Deeper Look at How Transcon Has Evolved


When I took a look at how the interisland market has evolved in Hawaiʻi, several of you wanted to see a similar peek at the transcon market. Ask and ye shall receive.

There is no market more important market in the United States than the New York/JFK – Los Angeles route. It’s a huge market connecting two of the country’s most important cities. It is also a remarkably premium market that has the ability to generate incredible revenue. How much? In Q1 of this year, it took in over $101 million. In second place was Newark – San Francisco with shy of $70 million. The top four markets are JFK/Newark to LAX/San Francisco and were worth $280 million. In fifth place was Long Beach – Oakland. Just kidding. It was LaGuardia – Miami with a paltry $36 million. (Long Beach – Oakland, if you were wondering, came in 883rd place with just under $3.5 million.)

But to start this look, I wanted to expand the definition of transcon. First, I decided to include all New York airports plus Boston. On the West Coast I thought it worth including all the LA Basin airports and all the San Francisco Bay Area airports as well. It’s a broad definition, but it’s helpful to see how this has evolved.

So, let’s start off by looking at seats by airline over time thanks to Cirium’s T-100 data.

Seats by Airline on Key Transcon Routes

Data via Cirium, transcon defined as Boston/JFK/LaGuardia/Newark to all LA Basin and SF Bay Area airports

Back in the 1990s, this was a market in flux. There was a lot of capacity from the big domestic players. But at the time, those were American and United, not Delta. Continental had its presence from the old People Express Newark hub as well. But the big international carriers also added a ton of capacity. We had TWA and Pan Am flying big widebodies across the country. For those who wanted a truly premium experience, there was MGM Grand Air which had DC-8s and B727s flying important people in style for big money.

It wasn’t long after the dawn of the decade that we had the Gulf War and a major recession. Pan Am (and MGM) failed which instantly helped the market, but by the mid-1990s, capacity had grown past what had existed in the Pan Am days. As the economy boomed, Tower came into the market with its rickety B747s that somehow never fell out of the sky. It had cheap fares and a lot of capacity, which worked (sort of) until the turn of the century.

The combination of the .com bubble bursting and 9/11 sent the industry into a tailspin and capacity tanked. TWA was absorbed by American, but American still shrunk. And Tower disappeared. On the other side, this was about the time when JetBlue got started, and it would enter the transcon market right away, albeit to secondary airports in California.

There were a handful of quirky, failed attempts to make the market work from a low-cost carrier perspective. In the early 1990s, America West flew JFK to Orange County but that didn’t make it through bankruptcy. The airline tried again from LAX to do transcon in the mid-2000s, but this Scott Kirby idea failed miserably and disappeared just as fast as it started. In 2003/2004, even ATA tried to get in on the act with Newark and Boston flying to San Francisco. That didn’t last.

What did stick was JetBlue and Virgin America, which brought a lower-fare operation with staying power. Then, the Great Recession hit, and capacity sagged. But it rebounded quickly into the era of consolidation.

When Delta and Northwest merged, Northwest had no presence in transcon, but it did spur Delta to build its own presence. The mergers of United and Continental plus Alaska and Virgin America were the ones that had the biggest impact on the number of players in the market.

Southwest briefly tried transcon from Newark but that didn’t last, and then COVID hit. In the current era, United remains a major player — albet to Newark and not JFK, as is well known — along with Delta and JetBlue. American is… not what it once was. Alaska is, well, it’s there still. And Spirit is trying to skim off the top.

But just looking at the airlines doesn’t tell the whole story. Let’s look at the airplanes as well.

Data via Cirium, transcon defined as Boston/JFK/LaGuardia/Newark to all LA Basin and SF Bay Area airports

In those early days, it was three-holers, B747s, and yes, even the DC-8 and some A300s/A310s that flew the majority of operations. But even then, the B767 was a major player. By the end of the decade, the B767s and B757s were almost exclusively operating the route. I had no idea but apparently Continental had some B737-300s flying from Newark. (I really have to think this was a data problem, no?) And JetBlue had its Airbuses. Interestingly, over time, it’s the Airbus narrowbody that has become the primary aircraft to service these markets.

But ever since the end of the 2010s, widebodies have crept back in. That’s almost entirely Delta and United putting their big planes with fancy flat beds on these routes. I would expect we will see that shrink or even disappear when United gets its B737-10 MAX aircraft and Delta gets its A321neos with flat beds. I still wouldn’t be shocked by some hub-to-hub widebodies, but it will be less.

And now, let’s circle back to the JFK – LAX route specifically. The story of this route can be told through one, single line.

JFK – LAX Seats per Departure

Data via Cirium

In the early 1990s on this route, there were few departures, but they had a LOT of seats. These were the widebodies serving the most glamorous route in the US. Reality hit hard during the Gulf War. When Pan Am went away, so did a good chunk of those widebodies. The number of seats per departure dropped as more efficient, smaller airplanes (read: B757s) were used.

Interesting, TWA’s failure didn’t even register. It was just part of a long, downard trend until we reached a mini-cliff in 2004.

That was the year that United replaced its B767-200s with B757s using p.s. service. There were very few seats on this airplane, so the number of seats per departure dipped noticeably.

The market stayed steady for awhile, even climbing a bit when, I think, United started putting more seats on those airplanes. But there was another cliff in 2014. It’s a tale as old as time… American did the same thing as United but 10 years later. It took its B767-200s out of service and put the A321 with few seats onboard into service instead. That brought us to the current steady state.

Oh, that COVID spike? Remember, nobody could fly internationally, so widebodies made their way on to premier domestic routes. That was just a short-lived move that was never going to last.

Transcon today is in a pretty steady place, but that will change again when United’s B737-10 MAX’s arrive along with Delta’s A321neos. Both will have flat beds and fewer seats onboard than the widebodies. The seats per departure may shrink again, but what really matters is how many flat beds they can cram on there to generate the big revenue. Flat beds on JFK – LAX today account for about 15 percent of total seats, and in this market, there seems to be an insatiable appetite for more.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

Brett Avatar

15 responses to “More Flights, Smaller Planes: A Deeper Look at How Transcon Has Evolved”

  1. SEAN Avatar
    SEAN

    So in short, fewer seats while generating maximum revenue from the remaining seats is the moral of the post.

  2. Alan Z Avatar
    Alan Z

    Brett,

    Remember the good old days well. Talking about when Pan Am flew from JFK to LAX. Was on a 747/SP!

  3. Kilroy Avatar
    Kilroy

    Thanks so much for doing this analysis.

    The “Seats per Departure” graph is especially telling and a great creative way to look at things. The fact that (COVID blip notwithstanding) it has been essentially the same (+/- ~5-10%) for the past 20 years with only a few short term blips outside that range is particularly telling. That suggests that the “steady state” of transcon planes has long been reached, though as you point out, that may change with more premium seats on narrowbodies coming.

    I didn’t see RASM mentioned in this analysis, but that might also be interesting to look at if possible and if the data is there.

    1. abcdefg Avatar
      abcdefg

      I believe, based on analyses elsewhere, that the growth is in all the other markets which did not used to have transcontinental service obtaining it because of the capabilities of the 737-700/800 and A319/20 families in the early 2000s and moving connecting traffic over to those flights.

      In the 1990s had to connect somewhere but since those planes hit the skies in mass numbers many markets opened up.

      Here’s one, though the pictures seem to be gone: https://theaircurrent.com/analysis/visual-approach-can-the-a321xlr-replace-wide-body-aircraft-across-the-atlantic/

  4. MK03 Avatar
    MK03

    As a non-American, why does “transcon” mainly refer to California-New York (and Boston), as opposed to any non-stop West Coast to East Coast flight? For example, something like SEA-MIA.

    1. Doug Avatar
      Doug

      Most cross-country flights (like SEA-MIA) are just sold as standard domestic economy and first, just with particularly long flights. You’ll occasionally get a wide body as a happy accident, but the service up front will still be domestic first. The “trancon” markets are the only ones where US airlines sell their international business class as a product.

    2. SEAN Avatar
      SEAN

      In the technical sense you would be correct. However the definition carries two elements. The first is historic & the other being frequency/ breath of service.

      SEA – MIA may have a few flights a day if that while JFK – LAX has a flight every few minutes between all carriers on any given day. All one needs to do is look at http://www.flightaware.com or any site like it to see just how many flights exist along the route.

      As an aside, I remember when NW had a BOS – SEA non-stop flight & was not considered to be a transcon.

      1. Alex B. Avatar
        Alex B.

        Maybe this was more of an industry insider term, but I never knew that “transcon” was supposed to apply only to premium flights between NYC and California. Silly old me would’ve thought anything that is, you know, transcontinental would be a ‘transcon.’

        1. Outer Space Guy Avatar
          Outer Space Guy

          I agree. I think transcon should include any non-oceanic flight over say 4 hours. Or maybe 3.5 hours. Let’s say 3.5h. So that gets you everything from Phoenix+furtherWest to everything from Atlanta+furtherEast.

          I think that is a reasonable definition of a transcontinental flight. And Im guessing that would show not much of a difference up in the seats at the pointy end of the plane. The old Usair 737-301s and 737-401s (the ones with the TVs in the aisles) got replaced with A319s and A320s, and now grew slightly and mostly are 737-maxes and A321s, for example.

    3. CLT Flyer Avatar
      CLT Flyer

      I agree – and I think part of the downward trend at JFK is because many other east and west coast destinations now have direct links. I think a redefined transcon definition should take into account – at minimum – all airports/city pairs that are truly directly on either coast with a non-stop connection. There are non-stops from Miami, Fort Lauderdale and even Providence, Rhode Island to LA. The greater LA area has more airports, such as Ontario (not the one in Canada!) which also has non-stops to Boston, NY and Miami. As an example going the other way, there are non-stops to NYC from Seattle, San Francisco, LA and San Diego. Now add in non-stop combinations between any of these east and west coast city pairs (i.e. Seattle to Miami is served by 3 airlines; San Diego to Boston – also served by 3 airlines, or Fort Lauderdale to San Francisco which JetBlue serves 2x per day), and you have a lot more “transcon”.

  5. SubwayNut Avatar

    Now a graph I would be curious to see is what percentage of these Transcon flights offered complementary inflight meals in the economy cabin?

    My most memorable Transcon was getting an operational upgrade up to business class (an aisle seat right in front of the door staring at the flight attendants) flying to JFK to SFO on a pre-re-retrofitted ps 757 (it was when they were transitioning) in a barcalounger seat, getting a digEplayer to watch movies on because economy was oversold, and ordering a bloody merry with my breakfast. I’ve never had status on United but did have Amtrak Select+ status at the time and did use the UnitedClub with my Amtrak status so perhaps that got me priority? I just remember going to board and the gate agent saying “Just give me a moment please sir, I need to give you a new seat and you are going to like it.”

    I still remember after buying my ticket a screen flashing trying to get me to upgrade to business class for $2,000 on my computer, the kiosk then offered me like $900 to upgrade when I checked in that morning. When the gate agent upgraded me all I could think of was “No Thank you, free at the gate I’ll take it!”

  6. See_Bee Avatar
    See_Bee

    For years, the legacies wanted widebody product on the Transcons to win over the premium customer (i.e. direct aisle access, superior flat-bed product, etc.). However, overall flight profitability is really optimized with a narrowbody (especially the latest generation), as the airlines aren’t able to squeeze as much revenue out of the coach customer compared with a similar length of haul (e.g. JFK-western EU)

    The shrinking widebody fleets for US carriers (proportionally) has also exacerbated this as Network teams must make fleet/route trade-offs. An old saying in Network Planning departments: “it’s better to have not enough wide bodies than too many”

  7. Tim Dunn Avatar
    Tim Dunn

    welcome back, CF.

    There are a couple markets including JFK/EWR-LAX and SFO that have sustained widebody usage for years. The real question will be if airlines continue to use at least some widebodies even with premium configured narrowbodies. I suspect the answer will be a combination of widebodies and narrowbodies in some markets; the transcons are also big cargo markets in addition to the high levels of demand that exists at certain times of day. All of the NE airports are congested and/or slot controlled so it doesn’t make sense to operate narrowbody flights every 30 minutes – even for a short time – if a single widebody can do the job.

  8. GKK Avatar
    GKK

    CO leased a few 737-300s (I think 3Q8s?… not sure if the 3T0s did transcon, but I could be wrong) with aux tanks and video systems for transcons before the NGs arrived. This is in the 1995-1998 period IIRC.

    As far as widebodies on the transcons, I am certain UA will continue to fly them extensively on EWR-LAX/SFO even after UA is back in JFK. That’s as much a high-volume market for UA as it is premium.

  9. southbay flier Avatar
    southbay flier

    I remember flying CO from JFK to SFO in 1999 and was surprised to see a 737-800 on the route. I always remembered the 737 being a plane for regional routes, not transcons. It’s a trend that makes flights more uncomfortable. I miss the days when these routes were flown by a 767, which is much more comfortable than any narrow body.

Leave a Reply to CLT Flyer Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cranky Flier