HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1024 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3151 times:
Quoting Teneriffe77 (Thread starter): I was looking at AA's schedule for January and the flights from ROC and SYR to DFW don't show and I also noticed that MDT-ORD is down to 2 daily. Does anyone know why the routes are being dropped?
I'd imagine they could make more on the DFW runs by doing 2 1 hour flights as opposed to 1 long flight.... granted I don't know for sure.. just a hypothesis....
ElmoTheHobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1524 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3151 times:
If this is true, which doesn't surprise as me as American has been on and off with its DFW-Upstate New York flights for the past 7 years, it means that we'll hear a new Eagle route announcement soon, maybe something from JFK?
Teneriffe77 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 448 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3151 times:
I doubt JFK because there's already DL and B6 on that route and JFK is having capacity issues at certain times of the day. What AA realy needs is some more planes. It seems as though every other carrier has some connection planes on order while AA can't seem to expand the Eagle fleet at all.
Baw2198 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 637 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2606 times:
some much for avoiding ORD now. AA doesn't make any sense not sending any equip to JFK when that is one of their major hubs, unless that status has changed recently. UA runs IAD and ORD out of ROC, and as for as i know, with preatty goods loads.
Quoting Teneriffe77 (Reply 3): I doubt JFK because there's already DL and B6 on that route
But AA doesn't code share with DL and B6, so that doesn't make any sense.
Capacity wise your right, it make for a bigger cluster at JFK.
"And remember, Keep your stick on the ice"--->Red Green
TAN FLYR From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1882 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
Well Gents it comes down to one thing,,PROFITABILITY! If those routes were not performing profitable enough to justify all the expenses...and the opportunities elsewhere are better, then they will probably be dropped. AA is under the gun from serveral angles right now. This is unfortunate because it gave you guys the much easier connections at DFW. I use the DFW-FWA route as often as possible just to save time so I uderstand.
In thend your loss will be someones gain..we will just have to watch and see where they pop up.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4424 posts, RR: 35 Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2397 times:
AA seems to just keep undermining itself in Upstate New York. As BAW and Tan Flyer noted, DFW was a really good option for avoiding the delay nightmare at O'Hare. An AA competitive advantage over UA on westbound gone.
I doubt very much, however, that these routes (or the dropped BUF-DFW for that matter) were unprofitable. DOT data for early 2007 showed daily pax from ROC and SYR to the Metroplex at well over 100 pax. These a/c, which probably have a good component of connecting pax, are likely being filled profitably.
But as Tan Flyer noted, AA is under the gun from several angles right now. Notably, AA's draconian scope clause limits them to their tiny fleet of 25 70-seaters, and those aircraft have to be husbanded carefully. Wth only 25 70-seaters, AA needs to put them in the most profitable places.
Not surprised, MAH, to hear of XNA-SFO as a possibility. The WalMart corporate udder seems to be giving Eagle lots of high-yield milk, given the nonstop XNA routes they've started. All Hail the Yellow Smiley!
EXAAUADL--I'd doubt the drops are seasonal, though I hope they are. In a number of our discussions, AA experts have noted that AA tries to avoid seasonal flying.
PanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2649 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2320 times:
If AA could get the scope clause altered when they do the negotiations with the pilots, and get more 70 seaters, does anyone think that DFW-SYR will be brought back? Is AA going to add an additional flight or 2 to ORD to compensate? I'd prefer JFK, to be honest. I doubt that'll happen, but one can hope .
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4424 posts, RR: 35 Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1905 times:
I would beg to differ about AA avoiding seasonal routes given their ski flights (in particular EGE) during the winter and their summer flights to places like TVC.
I'm just reporting what others much more informed about AA's schedules than I have been saying here. They'll need to chime in. I would note that TVC and Colorado skiing flights are a very tiny proportion of AA flights, though.
PanAm330--I was wondering the same thing about ORD, if AA would increase capacity to compensate. Current AA online timetable shows ROC-ORD 4x ER4 daily, and ROC-DFW 1x CR7 daily. January 15 and January 27 show the same schedule for ORD. Fri. Feb 15 shows 3x ER4 ROC-ORD and Feb. 27 shows 4x ER4 ROC-ORD. January 15 and 27, and February 15 and 27, show no ROC-DFW nonstops.
So at least according to the AA website today--which is more or less a placeholder this far out--AA does not seem to be compensating for the loss of ROC-DFW with more capacity on smaller RJ's to ORD. Just more cut capacity in Upstate NY.
I have to begin to wonder if AA is going to leave Upstate NY altogether at this rate. At ROC, this is by far the smallest capacity of any carrier except Air Canada's 2x daily Air Georgian B1900's to YYZ. I don't see how AA is going to compete long-term at ROC against UA, when UA runs around 6 weekday on ROC-ORD, including typically 3x weekday mainline.
PVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3395 posts, RR: 17 Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1723 times:
AA hasn't compensated much of anything in any market after a pull-down. When PVD went from 3X ORD M80 and 1X DFW M80, we got 3X ERD to ORD - and still have that exact schedule today. Perhaps what upstate and places like PVD need, is a way for AA to grow JFK again a bit. 2X ER3s on JFK-BUF/ROC/SYR/ALB/PVD would be great. BDL and BOS have second hub access (and more), so perhaps the northeast markets that have ORD only could get these JFK flights - who knows...
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10675 posts, RR: 62 Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1723 times:
The cuts aren't permanent!
Both flights will, indeed, be returning on April 7, 2008 - available for booking at AA.com. They're just going away from January to April - probably just so the CRJs can get maintenance or something.
Quoting Teneriffe77 (Reply 16): I would beg to differ about AA avoiding seasonal routes given their ski flights (in particular EGE) during the winter and their summer flights to places like TVC.
The Vail/other Colorado ski market flights are a rare exception, along with other one-offs like DFW-ANC. By and large, AA has, indeed, steered away from seasonal flying in recent years and is trying to avoid seasonally-intensive peak-demand markets that make money in the summer but lose buckets in the winter (Glasgow comes to mind, etc.). Arpey has said it himself on numerous occasions.
AA777LVR From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 196 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1723 times:
Actually, from what I've heard around the "shop"....we're likely to see quite a lot of trimming of the schedule in the first half of 2008. Apparently, it has to do with the fact that quite a number of flowbacks from AA (now in the left seat at Eagle) will be going back to AA. Therefore, to avoid a replay of the crew staffing fiasco seen at NW a few months ago....AA/AE is trimming the schedule to head off problems during the transition of AE captains to AE and upgrade training of FO's, etc. The company is going to use this time to put more aircraft into maintenance (i.e. the weight modifications on the E145's, etc.).
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10675 posts, RR: 62 Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1723 times:
Quoting AA777LVR (Reply 21): Apparently, it has to do with the fact that quite a number of flowbacks from AA (now in the left seat at Eagle) will be going back to AA. Therefore, to avoid a replay of the crew staffing fiasco seen at NW a few months ago
Makes sense given the extreme flight crew shortage at Eagle recently. At least - if the rumor is to be believed - the company is being proactive instead of following the NW model (over-schedule, blame pilots and weather, lather, rinse, repeat).
Buddys747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 502 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
Quoting Teneriffe77 (Thread starter): I also noticed that MDT-ORD is down to 2 daily. Does anyone know why the routes are being dropped?
I'm not sure why they keep dropping flights. They did have 4 daily MDT-ORD, now 3, then down to 2. Each month the load factors were in the upper 70% range, now they are in the 90% range due to 1 less flight a day. Cutting it down to 2 might send more customers to UA instead since the capacity won't be there, especially since they (UA) offer mainline service. The MDT-DFW service has had loads of upper 70%-90%. Hopefully that service will stay. Seems like AE needs more aircraft!