Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA/LX End LAX/ORD Codeshare; Keep JFK/MIA/BOS  
User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32799 posts, RR: 71
Posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

American Airlines and Swiss will be ending their codeshares on trans-Atlantic flights form Zurich to Los Angeles and O'Hare effective 30 October 2005. Not coincidently, O'Hare and LAX are Star Alliance hubs.

However, Swiss and American will continue to codeshare on routes from Zurcih to Boston, Dallas, Miami, and New York City, as well as intra-Europe, Africa, Tel Aviv, and Mumbai.

This is how it will be at least through the winter timetable. I've been hearing that LX/AA would like to keep a partnership going despite Star, though it will clearly be a reduced partnership. Keyword here is like to, because it may not be possible. There are issues with this, such as some immunity issues, that might make it difficult.

Until then, AA will continue to partner with LX on flights to the East Coast.


a.
27 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4504 posts, RR: 72
Reply 1, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4347 times:

This was bound to happed following the recent Lufthansa take over, and I fear this will only be the beginning. Apart from possible regulatory challenges, I can't possibly imagine that Lufthansa would be pleased with a continuing partnership between LX and AA. So, I believe that we will see the cooperation further stripped down in the future, likely with the abolishment of the remaining transatlantic joint operations and the beyond-hub codesharing.

For Swiss, such a move might mean the end of the MIA flight, as this flight relies at least partly on connecting traffic to and from the Carribean and Central America. I cannot believe that LH would sustain a year round MIA flight at MUC whereas this seems not possible at MUC. The end of the MIA flight would be detrimental for both AA and LX, as this flight is a moneyspinner. I do however not believe that AA would contemplate starting its own MIA-ZRH ops without beyond ZRH codeshare ops.

As for AA, the end of the LX-relationship might lead to a reinforced cooperation with SN and reliance on its extensive European network. AA might very well strengthen its position at BRU with the addition of a MIA/BOS/DFW link. It is also rumored that AA's future India plans call for a BOM operation with an intermediate BRU stop.


User currently offlineDeltaMIA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1672 posts, RR: 17
Reply 2, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 4321 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 1):
As for AA, the end of the LX-relationship might lead to a reinforced cooperation with SN and reliance on its extensive European network. AA might very well strengthen its position at BRU with the addition of a MIA/BOS/DFW link.

While I love SN and BRU I don't think AA would resort to them for anything beyond their current operation. SN sole feed from North America comes from the couple of AA BRU flights. Unless SN were to expand themselves into North America you can't say anything AA does would strengthen their position in Europe. Aside from that SN has limited service when compared to other European gateways of CDG, FRA, MUC, FCO, MXP, AMS. AA is better having BA or IB pick up the slack.

Quoting MAH4546 (Thread starter):
Keyword here is like to, because it may not be possible.

DL would have loved to keep SR...LX for their Atlantic partnership even with their new AF codeshare, but AF would have none of it and it was hard to compete against AF's limitless destinations. Basically it became one or the other and unfortunately for SR they had to go. I



It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32799 posts, RR: 71
Reply 3, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4306 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 1):
For Swiss, such a move might mean the end of the MIA flight, as this flight relies at least partly on connecting traffic to and from the Carribean and Central America. I cannot believe that LH would sustain a year round MIA flight at MUC whereas this seems not possible at MUC.

Lufthansa has decided not to operate MIA-MUC this winter, letting LTU have the route to themselves, because they rather have Swiss handle MIA-ZRH. MIA-ZRH is a stronger yielding market. For now, this is how it will be handled, with the ZRH flight essentially replacing LH's MUC flight. Swiss pulling out of MIA is definitley a possibility, but Lufthansa/Swiss have chosen to make Miami a FRA/ZRH station, rather than FRA/MUC, at least this winter. The high-yields in Miami<->Europe flights come from flights to southern Europe - especially France and Italy - and Zurich is a better hub for these high-yielding passengers. Miami traffic to northern Europe is traditionally lower yielding holiday traffic.

There has also been talk about Swiss leaving LAX, JNB, and/or BOS.

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 1):
I do however not believe that AA would contemplate starting its own MIA-ZRH ops without beyond ZRH codeshare ops.

AA actually is studying MIA-ZRH if Swiss pulls out, it is very possible. It would replace DFW-ZRH.

[Edited 2005-08-05 07:06:27]


a.
User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4504 posts, RR: 72
Reply 4, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4296 times:

Quoting DeltaMIA (Reply 2):
SN sole feed from North America comes from the couple of AA BRU flights. Unless SN were to expand themselves into North America you can't say anything AA does would strengthen their position in Europe. Aside from that SN has limited service when compared to other European gateways of CDG, FRA, MUC, FCO, MXP, AMS. AA is better having BA or IB pick up the slack.

SN European network is much more extensive than many would believe and connecting through BRU is a stroll through the park compared to connecting at Heathrow. As for IB and its MAD hub, it's hard to see how MAD would cater to connecting passengers to Berlin, Gotenborg or even Budapest. I'd say that SN is by far the best option for AA should the LX cooperation come to an end.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 3):
There has also been talk about Swiss leaving LAX, JNB, and/or BOS.

I'm aware of those lines of thought, and my money is on LAX. I somehow can't see LX leaving JNB, for sure not now that OS is contemplating a return. LAX has been a problem station for LX and before that for SR, with high loads but very questionable yields. SFO, served by SR between 1997 and 2001, was even worse but with a large Star Hub, that might change. Nevertheless, I believe it's likely LX will withdraw from the California market and relaunch some Asia flights, likely to India (DEL) and China (PEK and/or PVG).

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 3):
MIA-ZRH is a stronger yielding market. For now, this is how it will be handled, with the ZRH flight essentially replacing LH's MUC flight. Swiss pulling out of MIA is definitley a possibility, but Lufthansa/Swiss have chosen to make Miami a FRA/ZRH station, rather than FRA/MUC, at least this winter. The high-yields in Miami<->Europe flights come from flights to southern Europe - especially France and Italy - and Zurich is a better hub for these high-yielding passengers. Miami traffic to northern Europe is traditionally lower yielding holiday traffic.

It'll be interesting to see how LH is going to deal with the MUC and ZRH hubs, which are to a large extent each other's rivals. Spreading out secondary longhaul destinations over the 2 hubs, will necessitate sufficient European feed at both hubs, and therefore a lot of duplicate service. I would venture to predict that within the next 5 years, LH will choose for either MUC or ZRH as a longhaul hub, with the loser being left with very limited loghaul ops.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 3):
AA actually is studying MIA-ZRH if Swiss pulls out, it is very possible. It would replace DFW-ZRH.

I've always thought they would bring back the ORD-ZRH connection as a replacement of DFW-ZRH if and when the LX-cooperation ceases to exist. As for MIA, which one is more likely, a MIA-BRU or a MIA-ZRH?


User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32799 posts, RR: 71
Reply 5, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4260 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 4):

I've always thought they would bring back the ORD-ZRH connection as a replacement of DFW-ZRH if and when the LX-cooperation ceases to exist. As for MIA, which one is more likely, a MIA-BRU or a MIA-ZRH?

AA much rather open up the Latin America/Caribbean connections at MIA rather than the domestic connections in O'Hare. And Swiss isn't likely to be leaving Chicago anytime soon, so they wouldn't have the market to themselves.

As for what's more likely...MIA-BRU definitley, as long as Swiss is flying to MIA, and I personally don't think Swiss will be pulling out, with or without AA.



a.
User currently offlineDeltaMIA From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 1672 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 4268 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 4):
SN European network is much more extensive than many would believe and connecting through BRU is a stroll through the park compared to connecting at Heathrow.

I wasn't saying it isn't. I just don't see room for growth with the SN BRU hub for AA beyond what they have presently. I personally love BRU and I myself used SN to get to THF and CDG.



It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineHT From Germany, joined May 2005, 6525 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4248 times:

At peak-times MUC already now has insufficient runway capacity (that´s why they are planning to add a third parallel runway).

ZRH (or say: "Switzerland") is quite big when it comes to business-travel. So, pulling out flights to destinations like BOS probably would scare-away those high-yield travellers and invite-in other carriers to open up that route. That´s what happened with BSL - NYC when LX pulled out. A big pharmaceutical company in BSL is said to now run its own service to EWR, as they did no longer want to take the train to ZRH ...
Hopefully, somebody at LX (and LH) has learned from that  banghead 

Once the third runway @ MUC is operational, I do see a future for MUC and ZRH, where ZRH has intercontinental service at least to high-yield/high-capacity destinations plus *A-hubs and MUC (apart from the same market as for ZRH) caters also for the secondary routes (instead of or in addition to FRA).
-HT



Carpe diem ! Life is too short to waste your time ! Keep in mind, that today is the first day of the rest of your life !
User currently offlineBOSPMV From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 4192 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 3):
There has also been talk about Swiss leaving LAX, JNB, and/or BOS.

I doubt, very higly, that Swiss will leave BOS, or LAX, as for MIA, thats another story.

has LH ever operated a MIA-MUC route?


User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32799 posts, RR: 71
Reply 9, posted (9 years 1 month 3 weeks ago) and read 4189 times:

Quoting BOSPMV (Reply 8):

I doubt, very higly, that Swiss will leave BOS, or LAX, as for MIA, thats another story.

MIA is a better performing station for Swiss, financially, than either BOS or LAX. Swiss has publicly said to the media that the Boston flights, along with LA, Jo'Burg, Bangkok, Cairo, and Miami, are being re-evaluated. Adding to that, their LAX flights bleed money like crazy. It still amazes me they continue to fly the route. The question marker with Miami is whether or not the flight will continue to be profitable without an AA codeshare. Check your facts before saying "thats another story".

Quoting BOSPMV (Reply 8):

has LH ever operated a MIA-MUC route?

Yes, last winter and the winter before that. LTU also operates an MIA-MUC route year-round

There is a chance Lufthansa will be bringing MIA-MUC back this winter again, they haven't finalized the winter timetable, but for now they have called it a no-go, and it's for the better. With Swiss under their umbrella, they are better off leaving the market to Swiss. As I said, Miami-Southern Europe is where the money is, and Swiss better capitalizes on this. Alitalia's AZ 636/637 flight, for example, is the single best performing flight in their US network.

[Edited 2005-08-05 09:31:48]


a.
User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4911 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4124 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MAH4546 (Thread starter):
However, Swiss and American will continue to codeshare on routes from Zurcih to Boston, Dallas, Miami, and New York City, as well as intra-Europe, Africa, Tel Aviv, and Mumbai.

This is how it will be at least through the winter timetable. I've been hearing that LX/AA would like to keep a partnership going despite Star, though it will clearly be a reduced partnership. Keyword here is like to, because it may not be possible. There are issues with this, such as some immunity issues, that might make it difficult.

Until then, AA will continue to partner with LX on flights to the East Coast.

On the FF program and miles accumulation side however, by March 2006, AAdvantage members will no longer be able to earn miles on LX transatlantic flights except for JFK-ZRH and by end of October 2006, even JFK-ZRH miles earning will be gone. This is already an indication that the whole AA-LX partnership could be 'toast' by the end of the 2006 summer schedule.


User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4504 posts, RR: 72
Reply 11, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Quoting BOSPMV (Reply 8):
I doubt, very higly, that Swiss will leave BOS, or LAX, as for MIA, thats another story.

LAX has been losing money for as long as I can remember, and it's a wonder Swiss is still going there after several rounds of restructuring which saw the loss of many a longhaul destination. I presume, the LH/LX are planning to give LAX a very last chance, banking on the Star feed.

In the days of Swissair, BOS used to be a good destination for the airline and saw the B743 and later even double daily flights. I know those results have deteriorated, but I can't say whether the line is in the red.

As for MIA, and contrary to what you suggest, this route is profitable for the airline, and has been ever since Swissair started the route on September 16, 1998. However, the cooperation with AA is a vital contributing factor to the profitability of MIA, and with this cooperation in a dead end, the future of MIA is likely in jeopardy.

I guess that the decision to abandon MIA or any other station will, given the airline's limited available resources, also depend on future network development at LX after its entry in Star. In particular, LX might prefer to operate an extra interhub transatlantic flight to complement its daily ORD operation and UA's IAD flight. Such a move might entail Swiss' return to IAD, and the airline might even be looking into DEN and SFO (although its last experience there was rather dramatic). If IAD comes online once again, expect MIA to go.

Last but not least, there is the developments in Asia. I'm sure LH is keen on utilizing Swiss' dormant rights to India and China, but in order to do so, the airline might need to give up some other destination in order to free up airframes. Nothing has been heard lately about Lufthansa's pledge of additional widebody capacity to be stationed at ZRH.


User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4388 posts, RR: 19
Reply 12, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4070 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 1):
I can't possibly imagine that Lufthansa would be pleased with a continuing partnership between LX and AA.

If a continuing partnership with AA can contribute significantly more to the bottom line than an alternate arrangement, then LH will be all for it.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineGoodmanr From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 297 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4040 times:

Any word on JFK-GVA? I've taken that flight a bunch of times, It'll be nice to get Star miles for it!


USAirways - Chairmans Gold
User currently onlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2926 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3950 times:

Quoting Goodmanr (Reply 13):
Any word on JFK-GVA?

I was just going to ask about GVA. How does GVA fit into all of this? I know ZRH is the more popular of the two, but how are loads/yields to GVA?


User currently offlineAviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2481 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3917 times:

I have no information whatsoever on GVA, but taking into consideration that several international organizations are based or have offices there, the loads and yields must be sufficient for SWISS to continue operating this flight, despite their downsizing in the past few years.


About MIA, how big is United Airlines there? I remember they used to have quite a sizeable operation in the past. As for AA operating the ZRH-MIA flight, I'll agree with what others have said, only if SWISS decides to drop their own MIA flight. MIA is (IMO) the best airport, when one is connecting to Mexico, Caribbean or South America.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11642 posts, RR: 61
Reply 16, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3908 times:

Quoting AviationMaster (Reply 15):
About MIA, how big is United Airlines there? I remember they used to have quite a sizeable operation in the past.

Not now. UA is now a diminished shadow of its former self at MIA. They went from about 25 daily nonstop flights five years ago, including daily nonstop 767 or 777 departures to SCL, EZE, GRU and GIG, down to six daily flights -- two each to their U.S. hubs at ORD, DEN and IAD, all of which are going over to TED in a few months. The transcons to LAX and SFO are gone, as are all of their flights to Latin America and all of their feeder flights to and from major U.S. cities like LGA, DCA, ATL, MCO, etc. UA is pretty much a non-entity at MIA nowadays, relative to AA, and relative to their former position.


User currently offlineAviationMaster From Switzerland, joined Oct 1999, 2481 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

Thanks for the information and quick response Commavia.

I remember when I first passed thourgh MIA five years go and UA had quite an operation going on down there, but had no idea that they've downsized the operation to such a low level now.


User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32799 posts, RR: 71
Reply 18, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3813 times:

Yes, UA's position at MIA is ntohing like it used to be.

Though thanks to free landing fees, the UA flight to SFO may be back this winter (mainline, not Ted).



a.
User currently offlineChrisZRH From Switzerland, joined May 2004, 423 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3785 times:

Swiss would have loved to introduce the BBJ on the GVA-JFK leg together with the ZRH-EWR in co-operation with PrivatAir, but wasn't possible, and the yields & loads are quite good, so they kept / keep operating with their A330

chris



Christian Galliker - AirTeamImages
User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3699 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Why is LAX so problematic for LX? I thought they did very well and when I've taken it, the flights are full and a couple of times oversold?? SFO? Not a good destination for LX??

LACA773


User currently offlineILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3680 times:

One of the reasons for the dropping of the codeshare with AA to LAX has to do with the fact that Swiss and Lufthansa as of the 20th of July are profitsharing/booking on eachothers flights to LAX, MIA, JFK, BOS, ORD, YYZ.
Both airlines are keeping their own pricing structures for the time being but they will allow you to book a ticket on the others website.


User currently onlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2926 posts, RR: 6
Reply 22, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3675 times:

I am surprised that LAX yields are not robust. There is definitely a wealthy, high-yielding population in the LA metro area who would choose to fly non-stop (and can afford to do so) to Europe (i.e. ZRH). Also I imagine AA has quite a large FF base in SoCal, so it makes sense to me that there would be enough yield to make the LX flight work. But it appears this is not the case....

Speaking slightly off topic: are the high yields in/out of LAX mostly associated with the entertainment industry? Obviously Hollywood fills up the front cabins of NYC and LHR, but what about other destinations, such as (in this case) ZRH?


User currently onlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32799 posts, RR: 71
Reply 23, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

Los Angeles is a great yielding market to the big hubs - Paris/London/Frankfurt/Amsterdam - but outside of that airlines many airlines have struggled - like Swiss, Alitalia, Iberia, and SAS - although a few have found a strong niche - such as Aer Lingus. The long stage length of the flight combined with the fact that it commands little fare premiums over the East Coast makes it difficult to operate profitably for some smaller airlines. Swiss' LAX flights go out full, but the yield is horrendous, and SFO-ZRH performed even worse. And when you the block time of LAX-ZRH is roughly the same as flying ZRH-PVG, why not send the aircraft to Shanghai instead? The oppurtunity costs hurt here too.


a.
User currently offlineSemsem From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (9 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

The GVA to JFK LX flight is apparently profitable. Since 1 year CO started this service also to EWR. I have taken both on this route and they were always full. It seems there is enough traffic for both carriers. In the past TWA and Delta dropped the route.

25 LH423 : Swiss always publicly announces that they're evaluating routes and sometimes even announces reductions in frequency. At least in the case of Boston,
26 Aisak : I'm new here at a.net so forgive my newbie mistakes. I've been doing some homework here... Regarding to ZRH -AA operates daily JFK and DFW. -SWISS op
27 Travelin man : I would ask how do you guys know about Swiss' yields on the LAX route? I work in airline contract management for a very large company here in Souther
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...
AA To End BOS-LAS And JFK-PHX posted Fri Oct 1 2004 18:03:20 by MAH4546
LX/AA Lounges At LAX/JFK/EWR/ZRH posted Tue Jun 24 2003 05:08:53 by Elal106
AA 119 EWR-LAX In ORD Now? posted Wed Dec 28 2005 02:49:50 by N62NA
Nice To See AA 2x Daily On ORD-JFK! posted Sun Sep 25 2005 17:33:24 by SHUPirate1
AA/AE Service - JFK-MIA-EYW posted Thu Sep 15 2005 05:34:37 by JasYHZ
AA 738 Routings-no LAX/ORD posted Fri Aug 19 2005 20:48:05 by Deltaflyertoo
AA To Start 777 MIA-JFK-MIA posted Mon Oct 11 2004 01:34:53 by N62NA
AA To End JFK-LGB posted Fri Oct 1 2004 07:55:01 by MAH4546
AA: No Service Between ORD And JFK?! posted Wed Mar 24 2004 17:51:59 by MaverickM11
Thai Airways Considering JFK, MIA, SFO, And ORD posted Tue Mar 16 2004 18:24:53 by MAH4546