Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA At SFO: Are They Planning Big Things Here?  
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5607 times:

Just leafing through things, I happened to come across the fact that only four American Airlines Admiral Clubs have Executive Centers in them, namely DFW, with 735 flights per day (493 mainline, 242 Eagle), ORD with 513 flights per day (277 mainline, 236 Eagle), LGA with 131 flights per day (69 mainline, 62 Eagle), and SFO with 40 flights per day (35 mainline, 5 Eagle). Call me crazy, but unlike DFW, ORD, and LGA, all of which are MAJOR operations for American (DFW and ORD being American's largest and second-largest hubs, respectively, and LGA was once the headquarters airport for American, and is their sixth-largest operation, and would without a doubt be larger if it wasn't for slot restrictions), SFO is just another spoke for American. Also given that American's Executive Center at SFO is fairly new, and also given that SFO is not operating at capacity as far as gates are concerned, even with an entire terminal under construction (the runway situation, of course, is another story), is it possible that American is planning big things at the airport? For what it's worth, here's American's current operation at San Francisco International Airport, on Wednesday, December 8, 2004:

BOS: 2x 757
DFW: 1x 763, 8x M80
HNL: 1x 763
JFK: 2x 763, 3x 762
LAX: 1x 738, 7x M80
MIA: 1x 763, 2x 757
ORD: 1x 763, 5x 738
SNA: 5x ERD (ERJ-140, operated by American Eagle)
STL: 1x M83

Obviously, I'm no clairvoyant, however, given the above factors, is it POSSIBLE that American is planning on suddenly exploding and taking on United and Virgin America at San Francisco International Airport?


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSLC1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5564 times:

Personal Opinion- I don't think airports that have executive centers in them is the best way to determine whether or not AA is planning to establish major operations. SFO probably has enough passengers to justify it and/or there are other factors. I don't think that AA would take on UA and Virgin at SFO.

User currently offlineQqflyboy From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2275 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5561 times:

I don't think so. The schedule you mention above has been AA's schedule at SFO for the past three years, give or take a few flights and different equipment. There are no new cities served, and the service that does exist, like I said, has been around for quite some time. The executive center has been there four or five years now, which surprised me when it opened because we were told AA would move to the old international terminal once it was renovated. I also know there were some rumblings about that between AA, UA and the airport. That was a few years ago and I am no longer based in San Francisco, so things may have changed. I hope we do move, or at least renovate that terminal, because it's downright dodgy.


The views expressed are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect my employer’s views.
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

IMO - humbly of course - it's a way for AA to compete with UA and RCC at SFO.

Question? I could look this up, but someone here will know - did AA reopen their club at HNL?


User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32728 posts, RR: 72
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5532 times:

Obviously, I'm no clairvoyant, however, given the above factors, is it POSSIBLE that American is planning on suddenly exploding and taking on United and Virgin America at San Francisco International Airport?

No, they aren't.



a.
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 5500 times:

MAH4546-You say that almost like they either are planning a small expansion, or they were considering an expansion but decided against it, or 9/11 tabled any planned expansion, or something. I know the "they aren't" part could very well be nonspeak, but just the way you said it makes me wonder if something is or was in the works.


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineFlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5395 times:

The big change coming to SFO is the replacement of 737s with Super80s. But no new routes or increase in frequency. Remember, AA is parking planes, not adding more. And Eagle expansion will be a lot of DFW into Mexico.

User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5362 times:

When I recently flew AA last month, in the magazine they had a map of SFO in the back where the other hub terminal maps were presented. I was surprised considering that SFO is Unitedland and AA really does not have THAT Much of a presence there. Personally, I was thinking to myself that AA was maybe trying to expand out there.


"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineACAfan From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 710 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5345 times:

Much to the pleasure of ERJ170, I think AA is more likely to expand hub operations at RDU than expand operations at crowded SFO.


Freddie Laker ... May be at peace with his maker ... But he is a persona non grata ... with IATA
User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5159 times:

...but just the way you said it makes me wonder if something is or was in the works.

About the only thing "in the works" for AA at SFO is the closing of the B737 and B777 pilot positions for that crew base. With that comes the probable addition of more MD80 flights to replace removed 737 flights. B777 flights will be crewed by pilots from other crew bases. Such a move (reduction of workers) indicates no significant expansion plans in the works.



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1522 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5141 times:

Just a personal opinion...I've felt that AA should consolidate most SJC ops at SFO. SFOs a higher yielding market, not as reliant on an industry as SJC, and better O/D market and better connectivity opportunites - particularly with oneworld partners.
I imagine that if AA were planning moves at SFO, we'd see much greater progress in converting tthe former pier D.



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineSjc>sfo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5044 times:

Consolidating the SJC ops isn't the greatest idea considering the industry traffic in the South Bay; they've managed there with Southwest for years, but with JetBlue coming into the longhaul market and eating away at profit margins (or widening losses), SJC days with AA may indeed be up.

User currently offlineDBCooper From Brazil, joined Jun 2004, 195 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5000 times:

Aaway - check again, SJC traffic is much higher yielding. This was one of the considerations in locating AA's Bay Area focus city in SJC way back when. Of course, back then, both UA and US were hubbing at SFO and no one was hubbing at SJC. Furthermore, WN's SJC operation was minimal.

Guess that means you can run, but you can't hide.


- DBC


User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32728 posts, RR: 72
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5001 times:

MAH4546-You say that almost like they either are planning a small expansion, or they were considering an expansion but decided against it, or 9/11 tabled any planned expansion, or something. I know the "they aren't" part could very well be nonspeak, but just the way you said it makes me wonder if something is or was in the works.

They were planning FLL-SFO, that was canned (though if another carrier decides to start-up an FLL-Bay Area non-stop, AA may consider it).

I had heard they were looking at possibily doing SFO-NRT, but that was canned too. Especially with all the aircraft they need with the new ORD-NGO service and resumed DFW-KIX, and the possible ORD-PVG service. Plus they have SJC-NRT already.



a.
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1522 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4902 times:

"Aaway - check again, SJC traffic is much higher yielding..."

Negative. Perhaps during the halcyon days of the tech era there. Certainly not now witness the gradual withdrawal of AA mainline at SJC since 2000 while the AA schedule at SFO has remained relatively stable.

"This was one of the considerations in locating AA's Bay Area focus city in SJC way back when. Of course, back then, both UA and US were hubbing at SFO and no one was hubbing at SJC."

The establishment of an AA-SJC hub was a direct result of AA's old hub-building strategy. Namely, creating hubs at mid-sized airports in order to capture a portion of certain geographic traffic flows that AA had identified as lucrative. Unfortunately, this stratagem proved to be flawed as AA underestimated the resolve of competitors and was never able to stimulate enough O/D pax to support substantial hub ops at BNA, RDU and SJC.
Of the 3, I suppose it could be argued that SJC had the most potential. Though it wasn't a success as a hub, the catchment area is huge. AA realized this by attempting to maintain a prescence via Reno Air (QQ). However, airlines can't wait forever for market potential to be fulfilled. AA's 1992-1993 SJC drawdown created an opportunity for WN. As a result of that opportunity, WN became (and remains) the primary hindrance to profitable yield for AA at SJC.

SFO is much more attractive because of the high percentage of leisure traffic in addition to business traffic. And, of course, the low cost segment hasn't penetrated SFO to the degree that SJC (or OAK, for that matter) have been.

[Edited 2004-12-06 00:03:05]


With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

AA needs to something at BOS. They were going to. 9/11 ruined that. They need to go head again. I am not just saying that because my company was to be the contractor.


Someone special in the air
User currently offlineJfrworld From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 365 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3518 times:

SFO may not be a large operation in terms of daily departures or destinations, but I'll bet SFO is one of AA's larger markets in terms of O&D traffic. I would also imagine that many of these O&D passengers are elite business travelers. Living in San Francisco, I have many friends who are elite FF's of AA commuting on a regular basis to Chicago and the east coast. Remember - SF is still the financial center of the west.

User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3491 times:

Jfrworld-to answer your question, SFO is American's 12th-largest airport in terms of O&D traffic, behind, in order, DFW, ORD, STL, LAX, LGA, MIA, BOS, JFK, SJU, SJC, and MCO. As far as average fare paid, however, among American's thirty-largest markets, SFO is second-highest, only trailing JFK.


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineRwylie77 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 367 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

SFO is second-highest, only trailing JFK.>

Excellent news then for Virgin America and all those doubters!


User currently offlineLaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4008 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3095 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe things will stay status quo for AA @ SFO....

What has happened with AA @ SJC? They used to have some great transcons [a couple of times pre 9/11] and international runs there. It seems they can't make up their mind about SJC. Having lived in the South Bay, as well as SF for many years, I prefer SJC any day over SFO-seldom delays due to bad weather, the ease to get in and out. AA has it really good at SJC. They are in the nice terminal compared to that ancient building the other carriers serve with the exception of WN. Are they just lazy or don't want to make up their minds about what they want to do? Are they embarrassed to serve a small airport as a hub?

Does anyone know how they are doing on their few remaining transcons? I was sad to hear that BOS is being eliminated after the first of the year. I thought that always did well. I took it once and was on the MD11 and had great service. How are their runs doing to HNL and OGG? NRT?

It was a shame when they dropped mainline on the SJC-LAX-SJC run for those ERJ's. I had a feeling that's when we would all see a "shift" there for them. I personally would rather fly WN on a short hop like that anyway no matter how much mileage I had and do so. I believe that's when they started "giving up" on SJC.

Any thoughts? What do AA ground/flight crews think?

Have a great day.


User currently offlineAAR90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3471 posts, RR: 47
Reply 20, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

It seems they can't make up their mind about SJC. Having lived in the South Bay, as well as SF for many years, I prefer SJC any day over SFO-seldom delays due to bad weather, the ease to get in and out.

There are actually quite a bit of delays going into/out of SJC. Quite often due to local weather (not as much as SFO or OAK though). Often it is ATC limits due to wx at SFO/OAK causing problems. And often it is simply the lack of airspace to move airplanes in (WN planes tended to fly on the slow side and taxi on the fast side a few years ago when I flew MD90s in/out of SJC multiple times per day).

AA has it really good at SJC.

Yes and no. Nice facilities, low passenger loyalty. Not a SJC thing as much as a California thing. CA pax have always been used to relatively low fares, just basic service and lots of competition from the early AirCal/PSA days.

Are they just lazy or don't want to make up their minds about what they want to do?

Just trying to "make it work" in SJC. The competitive environment keeps changing and the customer base remains "fickle" rather than "brand loyal."

Are they embarrassed to serve a small airport as a hub?

As a hub, no. OTOH, the AA marketing folks that live on the west coast have always recommended against a west-coast AA "hub" since the fickle pax (a) don't like connecting flights; (b) don't want connecting flights for short flights; and (c) operationally it made no sense to add 45-60 minute connections to 90-120 minute (longest) direct flights. They lost that debate (short term) because AA "decisions are made in TX."  Crying

I was sad to hear that BOS is being eliminated after the first of the year. I thought that always did well.

Not too bad, but its a matter of where to operate the planes that can fly that route to earn the greatest profit. 757s are/were being moved to "leasure" markets. Widebodies do "international" and the highest yielding domestic markets. That leaves 738s and they're getting redeployed away from the Bay Area primarily as a cost saving (as opposed to revenue generating) measure.

I personally would rather fly WN on a short hop like that anyway no matter how much mileage I had and do so.

Ahhh, the "fickle" customer.  Wink/being sarcastic

What do AA ground/flight crews think?

Well, now you know what at least one thinks. As a native Sunnyvale resident (and SHS graduate) I wish AA would put a lot of emphasis on SJC, but as a business school graduate, small business owner and long-time AA employee I understand why AA does not. I prefer the former, but accept the later as a fact of life.  Crying



*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
User currently offlineN276AASTT From US Virgin Islands, joined Jan 2004, 620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

The fact that there are so few flights compared other cities doesn't matter because a lot of AA's passengers to SFO are business men and women who are the primary users of the Executive Centers in the first place. AA has realized this and it is just their way of adjusting to local market conditions and offering a product they know would work there.


Dejale Caer tu el Peso! YOMO
User currently offlineBIGBlack From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 600 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (9 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

Also, as far as BOS in concerned, UA is the prime choice in the SFO run for me. I use AA to go to LAX.


Someone special in the air
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
UA At SFO: Have They Always Been This Small? posted Fri Nov 19 2004 09:55:26 by SHUPirate1
AA MIA-PAP: Are They Canceled? posted Tue Feb 24 2004 20:24:39 by As739x
AA Astrojets: Where Are They Now? posted Tue Oct 29 2002 18:39:03 by Ilyushin96M
AA MD-80 At SFO Video posted Tue Mar 21 2006 14:36:33 by SJC-Alien
What Are They Doing Here? posted Thu Feb 16 2006 04:03:03 by Blasphemystic
Ted/United At Midway (MDW) - How Are They Doing? posted Fri Feb 10 2006 21:46:57 by ORD747CLE
AA's 763s Scheduling At SFO posted Tue Aug 9 2005 22:40:21 by 777boy
IAM And United- Where Are They At? posted Tue May 17 2005 17:57:06 by F9HNLPLZ
Am At BOS -- How Are They Doing? posted Tue Jan 25 2005 23:59:37 by Chrisk
Since When Are They Allowed Here... posted Sat Nov 27 2004 06:09:25 by JrMafia90