ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 14 Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3651 times:
Now that Lufthansa AG has acquired or is in the process of acquiring a controlling stake in Swiss International Air Lines, it is likely that Swiss will finally become part of an alliance (Star).
American and Swiss code share on flights from JFK, DFW, ORD, MIA, and LAX to ZRH and from JFK to GVA. It is not likely that this will continue once Swiss is fully integrated into Star.
My guess is that American will drop at minimum the JFK to ZRH route. There is not enough feed at JFK to fill even a 767-300ER going to ZRH without connecting opportunities on the ZRH end to Africa and points beyond.
The DFW operation is so large, that it could probably continue to operate the DFW to ZRH flight, but my guess is that American would move it back to ORD and reopen nonstop ORD-ZRH service from there instead. The route was flown in the early 1990's and again, seasonally, in the late 90's.
JFKLGANYC From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2706 posts, RR: 5 Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3619 times:
I have to say . . . bad assesment. Not only from you, but I heard this same statement from others.
AA just opened a BILLION, yes BILLION, dollar terminal at JFK. They also just announced service to NCL . . . who the hell flies to NCL?? Apparently people do.
Back to the topic, JFK-ZRH connects an important European city with the world's most important city. Yes, there is competition, but AA should (and really has to) make this work. Who the heck is flying to DFW from ZRH . . . no one, they are all connecting.
Leaving DFW as your sole US gateway shuts off the whole eastern half of the country.
My prediction . . . if anything gets dropped its DFW. JFK stays.
FlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3618 times:
JFK-ZRH will soon be announced as ending, most likely in May 2006, according to AA management. In its place will be another Europe route to a OneWorld partner hub, like DFW-MAD or ORD-HEL. Remember, that terminal C opening up at JFK next month is for all domestic flights, plus some Caribbean routes. Europe flights won't get a new JFK terminal until spring 2007.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3625 times:
This will certainly be interesting to watch.......in the past, when US and European airlines have ended their codesharing relationship, flights are generally cut. For example, when DL and SN ended their relationship, the codeshare flights from BRU to CVG were dropped and service between BRU and ATL was cut back.
Regarding the AA/LX deal - JFK to Zurich may remain due to good O & D traffic between these two financial centers and the huge amount of traffic going to the NYC area. Also remember there are some serious rumors going around that AA is thinking about a major European expansion out of JFK based on O & D traffic (ie, the new Newcastle flight announced this week with suggestions that DUS, STR and BCN may follow) so in that case its likely that the JFK-ZRH would remain - we may see the flight downgraded from the 763 to a 752. As you probably know, AA seems to following CO's lead and wants to use the 752 more and more as a transatlantic airliner out of BOS and JFK - AA is also looking at upgrades (including winglets) to get 4000 miles of range out of the 752 and at that point will probably add a J class cabin the transatlantic 757s.
DFW-ZRH is hard to predict - on one hand, like you mention, the AA megahub at DFW provides a lot of feed and power at DFW, but we are talking about a flight based almost solely on connecting traffic and AA seems to prefer ORD over DFW as its transatlantic gateway. It can go either way, but DFW-ZRH is in jeopardy when the AA/LX deal goes forward. A lot depends upon what LX/LH will do at ZRH - will LX/LH and UA and US launch new flights (or increase service on) flights connecting ZRH with STAR alliance hubs in the US - if new flights from ZRH to IAD, ORD, SFO, PHL and even possibly CLT are quickly added to the schedule once the LX deal is final and LX is in STAR? I am not sure if AA will continue the ZRH-DFW flight - STAR will offer connections to all of the cities that AA can offer and the competition may result in AA deciding that it can use the 763 that flies DFW-ZRH more effectively elsewhere.
My guess is that once this all happens, AA will keep JFK-ZRH with a 752, will fly ORD-ZRH with a 763 and drop DFW-ZRH - but thats only a guess.
BigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2762 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3532 times:
Any thoughts JFK or DFW-ZRH would move to MIA-ZRH?
FlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3489 times:
AA has shelved all additional 757s to Europe for 2006. It has to do with pilot and flight attendant rest seats on flights over 8 hours in duration. The company and unions have not been able to come to an agreement, so unless a community guarantees a minimum $ for the route, like Newcastle England just did, there will be no additional 757 in 2006 to Europe
BigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2762 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 3448 times:
Wow FlewGSW, was this an "all-of-a-sudden" decision because it seemed (not just on A.net) that this was a strategy AA was adopting for next year.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31154 posts, RR: 76 Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3428 times:
Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 6): Any thoughts JFK or DFW-ZRH would move to MIA-ZRH?
If Swiss leaves MIA, than DFW-ZRH would likely transfer to MIA for the Caribbean/Latin American connections. Though, for now, everything will be staying as is.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3335 times:
Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 7): AA has shelved all additional 757s to Europe for 2006. It has to do with pilot and flight attendant rest seats on flights over 8 hours in duration. The company and unions have not been able to come to an agreement, so unless a community guarantees a minimum $ for the route, like Newcastle England just did, there will be no additional 757 in 2006 to Europe
This is very big news - I guess that the big transatlantic push out of JFK is on hold then. Is AA still working on the 4,000 mile range 757 project or has that been dropped in connection with this development?
Quoting SK601 (Reply 10): Sorry to be off-topic, but is AA planning non-stop flights to AMS?
AA did announce ORD-AMS a few years ago, but they never started this service because 9/11.
AA is the only major US carrier with no direct service to AMS, only in codeshare with BA via LHR.
No plans as far as I know regarding AA to AMS. You are right about AA's plans to open ORD-AMS pre 9/11, but those plans were dropped and now that UA flies the ORD-AMS route, I dont think that AA will jump in also. AA is the only major US carrier without a presence at AMS, but the US-AMS market is a bit crowded and very much dominated by KL/NW plus CO, the SkyTeam gang, with service to most major US destinations already covered (DFW is an exception however). Also remember that the yeilds on longhaul routes to/from AMS are OK but not great, and the demand for premium seats does not compare with other European cities such as LON or PAR or FRA. US was very close to dropping its PHL-AMS service about a year ago due to concerns over yeilds and profit. As you probably know, KL does quite well marketing AMS as a user-friendly and convenient hub to connect passengers travelling from the US to European, Middle Eastern and African destinations (and also does very well with its Cargo business), but O&D numbers and pax yeilds at AMS are not great - thus, I think that AA will pass on AMS for the time being.
There was a rumor that AA was looking into a big expansion to Europe out of JFK utilizing the 757 and that AMS was a possbility in that regard, but the post above seems to indicate that that plan has run into problems so JFK-AMS with AA also seems out of the question at the moment.
Panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4595 posts, RR: 25 Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
I fly JFK-ZRH on AA often and most of it is connecting traffic beyond ZRH on LX. AA will retain one transatlantic to ZRH (just like CO and DL both of whom have no feeds at ZRH) which may be DFW or they may move it to ORD instead. The problem with JFK is that they won't have significant feed on either end. At least with DFW, there would still be feed on the DFW end even after LX codeshares end. But ORD would be a better bet since they can get better O&D than DFW and also have very decent feed.
FlewGSW From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2738 times:
The 757 winglet project is still a go, with some 20 planes to be done first. Look for an announcement very soon so work can start after August 24 when AA goes to their fall reduced schedule (thought this has been hinted at on a.net for over a year). Since the return-on-investment for fuel savings has a seven(?) year payback, AA might stop with just the first 20 planes. But if the savings are larger, then the following year you might see additional 757s getting winglets too. AA is sooooo tight for cash that usually they only want projects costing over half a million $ with an R-O-I of less then a year. There are some exceptions, like getting a new reservations computer system by summer 2008, that just need to be done.
Winglets are all about saving fuel now, range was once a bigger plus but not with oil at $60 a barrel. AA said in their most recent quarterly report that their profit would have been half a billion $ if fuel was at the levels from just two years ago.
ContinentalEWR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, RR: 14 Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2644 times:
Just because a multi billion dollar terminal opens at JFK does not mean that a route has to stay. The terminal project replaces a downright awful and out of date facility that compared to Terminal 1 and 4, and a redeveloped Terminal 7, render it uncompetitive.
American has touted much ballyhooed expansion out of JFK to Europe many times before and pretty much fallen flat on its promises. When AA started expanding into Europe in the late 1980's, JFK was one of the first cities to see growth (JFK to FRA, LYS, ZRH, BRU). All of those routes were dropped, with only ZRH and BRU surviving. Even JFK-MAN didn't last, in the early 1990's after the Heathrow slots were acquired.
American relies very heavily on O&D from JFK. There is little connecting traffic opportunities beyond West Coast cities.
I predict JFK to ZRH will stick around for a bit, then cease. Same thing happened to JFK-FRA. It was restarted, then dropped again, a few years back.
American is a powerhouse to the Caribbean and Heathrow from JFK and makes money on the GRU, EZE, NRT longhauls.
However, even with a brand spanking new terminal that was badly needed, American is not the next Continental in the NY area.
C680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2554 times:
Another interesting related question:
With Swiss going into star, does this mean a return of LX to IAD, or an upgrade of the UA flight IAD-ZRH to a 777?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2509 times:
Quoting ContinentalEWR (Reply 15): American has touted much ballyhooed expansion out of JFK to Europe many times before and pretty much fallen flat on its promises. When AA started expanding into Europe in the late 1980's, JFK was one of the first cities to see growth (JFK to FRA, LYS, ZRH, BRU). All of those routes were dropped, with only ZRH and BRU surviving. Even JFK-MAN didn't last, in the early 1990's after the Heathrow slots were acquired.
American relies very heavily on O&D from JFK. There is little connecting traffic opportunities beyond West Coast cities.
I predict JFK to ZRH will stick around for a bit, then cease. Same thing happened to JFK-FRA. It was restarted, then dropped again, a few years back.
American is a powerhouse to the Caribbean and Heathrow from JFK and makes money on the GRU, EZE, NRT longhauls.
However, even with a brand spanking new terminal that was badly needed, American is not the next Continental in the NY area.
ContinentalEWR
I agree, AA has in and out of the JFK-Europe markets over the years......AA also launched, dropped and then re-entered JFK-BRU. Hamburg was an AA destinaton for a short period plus the others that you mentioned. Even after the TW deal, AA did not build on TW's legacy of transatlantic flying; thus, I am not totally convinced about this latest AA plan to increase transatlantic flying out of JFK. As you point out, AA is not the next CO in the NYC area simply because JFK is not a hub city of AA......connections on AA out of JFK are limited. Doing these routes on a strictly O&D basis out of JFK is risky business, it works fine for major capitals like London and Paris, but its a different story when it comes to smaller destinations; lets first see how the JFK-NCL route works because I have my doubts there as well.......AA still cannot get a pax from ORD to NCL or from NCL to MCO without airport changes or multiple connections.
Also, one must consider how DL, with its established international gateway at JFK, will counter AA's potential entry into new transatlantic markets out of JFK.
Quoting C680 (Reply 16): Another interesting related question:
With Swiss going into star, does this mean a return of LX to IAD, or an upgrade of the UA flight IAD-ZRH to a 777?
As you probably know, UA now has a major shortage of longhaul airliners, and recently losing a number of 763ERs due to the ruling in the bankruptcy proceeding has not helped. Its very hard to predict what UA can or will do.....we could see 2 daily flights on the route - one with UA metal and the other with LX metal or, depending on UA's situation, maybe LX will fly the route instead? Its too early to tell, I guess.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10223 posts, RR: 62 Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2471 times:
Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 14): The 757 winglet project is still a go, with some 20 planes to be done first. Look for an announcement very soon so work can start after August 24 when AA goes to their fall reduced schedule (thought this has been hinted at on a.net for over a year).
So 757s will start being pulled out of active rotation after 8/24 and go in for the mod work for the new international configuration. A few questions:
*Will only nAAtive 757s getting the mods?
*How many TWA 757s does AA still have and what will become of them?
*Where will the 757 mod work be done -- TUL, AFW or MCI?
*Any details on the new interiors? Is the interior footprint going to be the same? (i.e., are they just going to rip out the existing 22F seats and replace them in the same cabin area with 16J seats, or are interior monuments like restrooms and closets going to get moved around?)
*Will these modified 757s be getting the new Y interiors?
Thanks in advance for answers you could provide.
Quoting FlewGSW (Reply 14): There are some exceptions, like getting a new reservations computer system by summer 2008, that just need to be done.
Are you talking about a total replacement of everything -- CRS, res, fare inventory, departure control, etc.? Is AA seriously looking at replacing SABRE by summer 2008? If so, wow! That is quite some news ... any other info/details?
ME AVN FAN From Switzerland, joined May 2002, 13875 posts, RR: 27 Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2466 times:
If AA retreats from either route it simply would/will be a kind of surrender in face of the Star Alliance. And to "change" routes from one airport to the other may work with the airplanes, but you canNOT so easily change&switch the passengers. They at AA in fact have the possibility, in case the agreement with Swiss gets terminated and NOT prolonged, to get LX out of so many booking programs so that THEY will have the passengers and NOT LX .
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31154 posts, RR: 76 Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2425 times:
Quoting C680 (Reply 16): With Swiss going into star, does this mean a return of LX to IAD, or an upgrade of the UA flight IAD-ZRH to a 777?
If anything, it will be the latter.
Some other news: AA has pulled their codesahre with LX to O'Hare and Los Angeles, major Star Alliance hubs. They will continue codesharing to Miami, Boston, and New York City, where AA is larger. AA/LX do plan on keeping a reduced codeshare agreement, at least for now.
Dolphinflyer From Canada, joined May 2005, 188 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2308 times:
I definitely believe that AA's days in ZRH are numbered. I don't see how LH will allow the AA/LX partnership to continue longer-term. I think AA would be better served by shifting the current ZRH flights to MUC, operating JFK-MUC daily, yearround with a 763, and DFW-MUC seasonally (Apr-Oct). I say this because MUC is a larger local market than ZRH, and no US carrier currently serves MUC-NYC nonstop. Bottom-line, AA's feed at ZRH will begin to dry-up as LX (with LH's coaching) revises pro-rate agreements and tightening yield management availability.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10223 posts, RR: 62 Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2294 times:
Quoting Dolphinflyer (Reply 21): I definitely believe that AA's days in ZRH are numbered.
No way. AA will definitely maintain a presence in ZRH, in my opinion, albeit smaller then their current operation. I agree with the majority of posters on this thread -- ZRH will lose DFW or JFK, but not both, or perhaps ZRH might retain a single daily flight but it will switch to ORD. Either way, though, I simply don't see AA dropping ZRH completely. It is just too important and high-yield a business market for that, and the AA-LX partnership over the last few years has allowed AA to build up a rather strong business presence in Switzerland, at least some of which AA would no doubt retain even without LX.
Quoting Dolphinflyer (Reply 21): I think AA would be better served by shifting the current ZRH flights to MUC
Trade one Star-dominated hub for an even more Star-dominated hub? AA knows better.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31154 posts, RR: 76 Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2269 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 22): I agree with the majority of posters on this thread -- ZRH will lose DFW or JFK, but not both, or perhaps ZRH might retain a single daily flight but it will switch to ORD.
AA is looking at moving the JFK flight to O'Hare (not likely to happen, IMO) and the DFW flight to Miami (which would only happen if Swiss decided to leave MIA). Without a Swiss codeshare, that is the best way to go if they want to keep a strong pressence in Zurich.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2260 times:
Quoting Dolphinflyer (Reply 21): I think AA would be better served by shifting the current ZRH flights to MUC, operating JFK-MUC daily, yearround with a 763, and DFW-MUC seasonally (Apr-Oct). I say this because MUC is a larger local market than ZRH, and no US carrier currently serves MUC-NYC nonstop.
While its very unclear what AA will do with regard to Zurich, introducing service to Munich is not the answer.......Munich is STAR alliance territory, LH dominates strongly especially with premium pax, and Munich is a rather expensive airport to operate in and out of. LH is building its second hub at Munich, with more and more service to the US cities, and AA would face very tough competiton. There is a reason that US carriers have a limited presence at MUC.
CO dropped service to Munich many years ago and does not seem interested in going back even with their big transatlantic expansion, it was one of their few transatlantic routes that did not work......CO had no trouble filling the coach cabin on a daily basis, but the yeilds were poor and J class cabin was always nearly empty.
25 Panamair: True..DL did not reintroduce its 2nd daily ATL-MUC this summer either; instead it chose to introduce a 2nd daily ATL-FCO instead.
26 ZRH: With a 752 AA could not compete on the ZRH-NYC route. Swiss flies A 330 and 340, CO 762. What passenger would then fly a narrow-body? A narrow-body i
27 AbirdA: I'm not sure why people have such a hard time accepting the fact that narrow-bodied aircraft can work for certain transatlantic routes. The 707 and D
28 ZRH: I think you did not read my arguments. I agree that they can compete but only on routes where no wide-body competition is available. On the route bet
29 AbirdA: And I contend that there are enough passengers who either don't care about the widebody or want their AAdvantage miles to fill up a 752. Again, and n
30 Dutchjet: ZRH, you point is well taken and I do not necessarily disagree with you, but most pax select flights based on schedule, price and frequent flyer progr
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3762 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Thailand, joined Jul 2005, 645 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1289 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31154 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Jun 2005, 975 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2005, 188 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
