FlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7213 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 10024 times:
Really it is St. Louis how much demand can there be for european flights with DFW and ORD so close by. With AA downsizing its hub there it did not help either. I just dont see any demand for the flight. It would be nice if AA would run a 767 from STL to London but I dont see it happening in the future any time soon. I also cant see any other airline flying any STL-Euro flight either.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
AMEN Brother... I honestly feel that AA viewed them as a strong competitor, and had no intentions of putting the TWA employees in a good situation. AASSHOLES!!!
As much as people might love to hate on AA for the takeover, it's pretty much a given that 9/11 would have sent TWA out of business. Half an AA hub is better than no TWA hub at all, if you ask me.
I am in the minority, but I do believe AA will return to St. Louis-London in due time. A few things have to happen first, though. Noteably, AA needs to have a larger long-haul fleet and get ATI and profit-sharing with BA, both of which I think will happen by around late 2010.
Until then, though, 300 daily passengers is pitifully small (I even think that number might be an underestimate). Just to give a random comparison, daily O&D between Miami and just London is close to around 900 passengers, triple that of all of St. Louis-Europe. When you take into account AA's extremely limited long-haul fleet, it is no surprise that they have to concentrate their assets in the larger markets. When AA has more resources, they will be able to enter thinner markets.
St. Louis only has two chances for a Euro flight in the future, IMO: American Airlines and Lufthansa. I doubt Northwest is even an option. I don't think a 757 could make it, could it?
Alias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2777 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 22 hours ago) and read 9963 times:
Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 2): AMEN Brother... I honestly feel that AA viewed them as a strong competitor, and had no intentions of putting the TWA employees in a good situation. AASSHOLES!!!
I don't think AA really saw TWA as major threat to them. TWA was in poor financial health and their fortress hub was in STL. St. Louis is a nice city and very well situated geographically, but it simply isn't as big as either Chicago or the Dallas metroplex.
AA saw that their ORD and DFW hubs were getting clogged up with connecting domestic traffic, and needed some sort of relief valve for peak demand periods and bad weather. When the opportunity came up to buy TW's assets and STL hub for cheap, they pounced on it. Of course, not too long after the buyout, 9/11 took place and domestic travel tanked. Now AA had too much capacity in their network, and the best place to cut from was STL since it was a more marginal O&D market than either DFW or ORD.
AA didn't buy TWA because they feared them. They bought them because at the time they needed another midwest hub, and buying the STL hub and TWA fleet made the most sense.
p.s. I think the seniority integration (or lack of) was a total joke.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
WesternA318 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 5700 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 21 hours ago) and read 9910 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4): I am in the minority, but I do believe AA will return to St. Louis-London in due time.
As do I...when the pilots get their heads out of their asses and learn to play nice with management, lol.
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 5): I don't think AA really saw TWA as major threat to them.
We werent a threat to ANYONE by then. 180 MD-80s, a fistful of 717s, and another fistful of 757/767s by the end. Hell by the time of the buyout 1/5 of the DC-9 fleet was gone. Thats no threat to the worlds biggest airline.
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11752 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 16 hours ago) and read 9718 times:
Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 2): I honestly feel that AA viewed them as a strong competitor, and had no intentions of putting the TWA employees in a good situation. AASSHOLES!!!
Oh, come on, haven't we heard that same thing over and over again?
As other have said, TWA not only posed no real threat to AA, but AA didn't "screw" anybody - at least not by design. The series of unfortunate events that led up to what ultimately occurred to many of the TWA people had almost nothing at all to do with AA itself. It had far more to do with the unions and, above and beyond all else, 9/11 - 9/11, 9/11, 9/11.
The terrorist attacks changed the entire economic calculus that had governed the execution of the merger up to that point.
People love to say how AA "screwed" the TWA employees, or - as you put it - had "no intentions of putting the TWA employees in a good situation," but I think that is a bunch of b.s., respectfully. Sure, the unions guaranteed that the TWA people were put at the bottom of the list which is, in my opinion, perfectly fair considering that TWA was not the surviving carrier, and that those employees would have been at the bottom of unemployment rolls six months later anyway.
Beyond that, the other critical point that is often lost in the (quite understandable) emotion and passionate feelings about the plight of the TWA workers after 9/11 is that, had 9/11 not happened, everything would likely have been fairly good for the TWA people. It was just bad timing. The company offered jobs to 100% of TWA's unionized people, and also offered jobs to a substantial portion of TWA's non-union staff. TWA people, who had for a long time suffered from eroded pay scales because of year after year of losses, and several bankruptcies, also got a big raise. But, like with so many parts of our life, 9/11 changed everything. Had 9/11 not happened, the vast majority of TWA pilots and flight attendants would still have retained DOH seniority and would be nice and safe fenced into their SLT base.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - what happened to the TWA people was sad, sad, sad. Very sad. Incredibly sad. Horribly sad. Most of them - from my experience - were consummate professionals who knew their jobs and enjoyed serving customers. They were good at what they did. But, alas, the fates of history conspired against their careers: their carrier was an economic basket case from way back, got screwed by everybody including Icahn, and was headed for oblivion anyway with 9/11.
As others said - even if TWA had survived through the spring of 2001, the likelihood that TWA would have survived the enormous and unprecedented financial and societal shock of 9/11 is extremely slim. Thankfully, at least some of the TWA peoples' jobs were saved in the acquisition. And, still more lost their jobs but had recalled rights (which have since, unfortunately, been fought over, and only extended by pulling the company, which is a whole other story). The bottom line is that what happened to the TWA people was unfortunate, but not wrong.
Lexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 16 hours ago) and read 9662 times:
What I don't understand for you guys is why corporate St. Louis hasn't tried to subsidize a Europe flight. I mean the NW flight from BDL to AMS is partially subsidized and we all know the RDU-LHR flight is a subsidized flight. Seems like the chamber and members would work toward doing something like this at STL.
Bobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6490 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 16 hours ago) and read 9637 times:
Quoting LambertMan (Thread starter): As far as AMS goes, I think it would be far more difficult for NW to build up a contingency who use the flight religiously than it would for American.
Don't forget it is NW/KL and AMS is a very large hub on the Europe side, and dominated by KL/NW. Much larger than STL on the US side. Also remember that the Europe side would supply most of the passengers, same as on virtually all other trans-attlantic flights. So no, it would not be far more difficult for NW to build up a constituency.
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3922 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 9583 times:
I dont think we can ever know that TW would definately have gone under after 9/11. They would certainly have gone into Ch 11, but would probably have gotten a big payout from the government too. In bankruptcy they should have been able to have gotten rid of the Karabu agreement too. Ultimately they would have had to join an alliance. I dont think TWA should be written off so quickly, US and HP managed to turn themselves around. It might have been possible.
Quoting Commavia (Reply 7): Had 9/11 not happened, the vast majority of TWA pilots and flight attendants would still have retained DOH seniority and would be nice and safe fenced into their SLT base.
Lovely atitude. Keep THEM fenced up in STL. We might get STL cooties if THEY were unleashed across the system.
Im sad TWA is gone, but Im sadder still that AA is still around. Disgusting, battle weary, aged, tarnished and grey airline that it is.
Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
PSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7650 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 15 hours ago) and read 9491 times:
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 13): I dont think we can ever know that TW would definately have gone under after 9/11.
No, but pretty much everyone agrees that they would have gone under. Even the most die-hard TWA supporters acknowledge this.
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 13): I dont think TWA should be written off so quickly, US and HP managed to turn themselves around. It might have been possible
TWA couldn't turn themselves around during good times, let alone even try during bad times. They were losing money like no tomorrow during the best period of financial health in the industry. US was cruising along in the fat-cat mid/late 90's hey-day despite their bloated cost structure, unbalanced route network, and price gouching the Northeast.
Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 13): Lovely atitude. Keep THEM fenced up in STL. We might get STL cooties if THEY were unleashed across the system.
"Fenced" is the union term for seniority rights. Seriously. Its not meant to show any hatred toward anyone. Seniority list integration is a sticky situation and a fence in STL was the easiest way for the former TWA'ers to retain somewhat of their status associated with their seniority as well as not irritate the AA'ers. The reason being that if not the super-senior TWA workforce could bump traditional AA'ers out of other stations/bases.
Quickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2494 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 9432 times:
I often wonder how TWA could have done had they not been tied to Carl Icahn's Karabu agreement. (For those who don't know, the agreement allowed Icahn to buy an unlimited amount of TWA tickets at a 45% discount which he in turn sold on his website Lowestfare.com) The loan was made before internet travel sites became the norm, but once they did, Icahn made a killing selling tickets. While other airlines were making huge amounts of money in the mid to late 90s, TWA was enourmously limited on the upside by this agreement. Who knows what they could have done if not limited by this very costly loan.
MrSTL From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 468 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 13 hours ago) and read 9246 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4): St. Louis only has two chances for a Euro flight in the future, IMO: American Airlines and Lufthansa. I doubt Northwest is even an option. I don't think a 757 could make it, could it?
Lufthansa would work great for me, that along with a D concourse full of Blue tails
Hopefully AA will eventually get us some intl service.
AAL0616 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 272 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 9167 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4): As much as people might love to hate on AA for the takeover, it's pretty much a given that 9/11 would have sent TWA out of business. Half an AA hub is better than no TWA hub at all, if you ask me.
I am in the minority, but I do believe AA will return to St. Louis-London in due time.
As far as the now expanded (runways) Lambert facility, yes, it could be utilized differently. I agree that we should at least see LHR service when newer equipment comes on line such as the 787, although some where, some how, I wonder why a 763 can't be justified, as well as a restoration of the HNL service.
STL is too close to ORD to maintain twin major hubs despite arguments that STL would relieve ORD. TWA was acquired for the aircraft and people. Yes, AMR probably valued the equipment over the people but that is the reality of business. A job is better than no job at all. At least TWA was not abandoned after the deal was done like PAA was by DAL. We can argue that DAL was right to do so from a purely financial perspective, even if they walked away from a strategic asset in the MIA PAA hub, which they must have felt was already doomed by the AAL expansion which was then underway. Which takes us back to STL.
It can be justified again from a logical perspective that assets once deployed at RDU, BNA and, later, STL are better positioned at MIA or folded into ORD and DFW. I have some doubts about dropping the former TWA PW powered 757s, which with the winglets will now provide DAL with more lift from JFK to closer-in Atlantic points. That may have been a possible AAL strategy for JFK, BOS or even ORD, but the bean counters saw the costs of maintaining the PW engines within the overall RR fleet to be prohibitive. Unfortunately, this has furthered the "crammed" use of the MD80s on long domestic stage lengths like ORD-West Coast stations. The seats in front are better than the old brown 757 seats but cattle class is another story. The former TWA MD-83s are definitely seeing a lot of service, especially in and out of DFW to both coasts.
True, former TWA 763 international drivers and other senior types got dropped way back and we do not see them handling 772s or 763s at AAL, which is really unfair in some way but very understandable in terms of how the rules were enforced at AAL, by the union brothers as much or more than management. In the end, I am of the point of view that TWA people were rescued from unemployment, so something is better than nothing. But I also understand their frustration. It was not my seniority, pay scale or aircraft assignment that was so affected.
Most of the acquisitions since deregulation have not been true mergers (1-1 straight seniority combinations) as were done before deregulation, and to the winner or acquirer go the spoils. In the post-Jimmy Carter, Alfred B. Kahn world, the dog-eat-dog low fare start up world replaced the legacy world, which was home to true labor power. It is ironic to read all the pro-startup opinion on the site, as if no one before SWA, JBU or others knew what they were doing, and that at "legacies," everyone was an overpaid jerk. Not so. From the "legacy" perspective, the non-union, internet savvy, "cool" start ups are pirates who took advantage of the structural weaknesses of the legacies (high costs) to run amok, pleasing the public and turning the industry into an outsourced group of bus lines. Whatever. Which again leads us back to TWA.
Deregulation started the end for Jack Frye's "Lindbergh Line" and Howard Hughes' glamorous Constellation-loaded enterprise. It set up a JFK and STL based carrier that was ripe for the likes of Carl Ichan to rape, pillage, rape again and humiliatingly bleed. Ichan is no more or less than an amoral murderer who ought to be serving a life prison sentence. So AAL was not the villan, only the surgeon at the end who performed euthanasia to end the historic patient's suffering.
From an enthusiasts perspective, the TWA people should have our utmost respect for working their tails off under the circumstances to keep the company aloft as long as they did. It is very sad to see TWA gone, much like it is sad to see PAA gone. But the reality is that all but six of our pre-1980 "legacy" airlines have passed away. It can be said that we are not the better for it, but there it is.
AAL is the better for being enriched with the TWA history, dedicated people and assets. Perhaps these have not always been best appreciated or utilized since the takeover. However, we move forward. Visit the C. R. Smith Museum at the Fort Worth HQ some time and go to the now rather large and interesting TWA section. Doubters who vist might then agree that the TWA history, at least, is appreciated somewhere within AAL.
Lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13250 posts, RR: 100
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 9101 times:
Quoting LambertMan (Thread starter): The fact that American has no intentions of exploring LHR is certainly discouraging. I figured they at least had their eye on the route along with British Airways.
I think it comes down to slot costs. Can a STL-LHR flight make enough profit to pay off the $10 to $40 million estimated slot pair costs at LHR? Apparently AA has done the math and decided the ROI is not sufficient to launch the route.
Quoting Quickmover (Reply 15): Who knows what they could have done if not limited by this very costly loan.
The reason TWA had that costly loan was poor business management in the past which left them begging for money. Its a chicken and egg scenario... If TWA had been more profitable, they would never have needed such a loan.
Airlines are finally being run like the business they are. If a company doesn't keep enough of their profits in reserve to get through tough times, the deals they must make when weak can keep them from thriving. This is one reason why WN is so strong. They always make a profit and thus are always in a stronger position in determining their loans. If loan terms are too poor... they grow slower.
Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 14):
TWA couldn't turn themselves around during good times, let alone even try during bad times.
Sad but true. Partially due to STL being unable to generate the volumes of premium traffic required to keep the airline healthy. Cest la vie.
It will be interesting to see what happens at LHR next March when the US airlines are allowed to buy many more LHR slots. This has put a high floor on the price of LHR slot pairs. Not to mention EK, 9W, QR, and a few other airlines are also pursuing more LHR slots. Its become quite the competitive market. Obviously the solution is the 3rd runway. Seriously, if LHR doesn't build it, FRA, AMS, or CDG will achieve such a superior connecting hub that part of the draw of LHR will disappear. Oh, it will always have a large O&D market and good international connections... but airlines need to pursue the most profitable growth, not the most prestigious growth.
As for STL... It is now always going to be in the shadow of DFW and ORD. International connections can be met via JFK or ORD. Its O&D market for international travel isn't strong enough to pull flights from those two AA hubs. Not unless St. Louis has a large revitalization of business. But I haven't seen them laying the ground work to do more to attract business. They need to get a least as aggressive as Texas.
Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
LAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7684 posts, RR: 25
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 9092 times:
Quoting Orion737 (Reply 10): Why not STL-LGW like TW did, that way it wouldnt be using up AAs valuable LHR slots?
I dont think AA will expand LGW. If they decided to make a run from STL-Europe, it would be LHR or nothing.
Quoting Lexy (Reply 11): I mean the NW flight from BDL to AMS is partially subsidized and we all know the RDU-LHR flight is a subsidized flight.
I dont think the 757 could make STL-AMS and the 330 would be too much plane with no hub. If the city of St. Louis would step to the plate, it might be a good idea. Lord knows RDU-LHR wouldnt survive on its own accord. I wonder how quick AA would get rid of that flight if it wasnt subsidized.
Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 5): I don't think AA really saw TWA as major threat to them. TWA was in poor financial health and their fortress hub was in STL. St. Louis is a nice city and very well situated geographically, but it simply isn't as big as either Chicago or the Dallas metroplex.
I will never forget the day I read the article in the Dallas Morning News that AA was getting rid of most of the flights from STL (including LGW, YYZ, and YVR). I was at a Whataburger in Canton, TX on my way to Longview, TX to see family (and at college in Fort Worth, go HORNED FROGS!). I remember looking at where these flights would go to. As I recall AA didnt cancel the flights all together, they just moved them to ORD and DFW. DFW was by far the biggest beneficiary. ORD really didnt get that many of their flights. I think this one of the many moves that turned DFW into the monstrous hub that it is. It did turn STL into a shell of its former self.
LambertMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2078 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 9054 times:
Quoting Bobnwa (Reply 12): Don't forget it is NW/KL and AMS is a very large hub on the Europe side, and dominated by KL/NW. Much larger than STL on the US side. Also remember that the Europe side would supply most of the passengers, same as on virtually all other trans-attlantic flights. So no, it would not be far more difficult for NW to build up a constituency.
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4): Until then, though, 300 daily passengers is pitifully small (I even think that number might be an underestimate).
My thoughts exactly. I don't know where he got the numbers, but I too thought it was a number so small that no carrier could make a flight work.
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 4): Half an AA hub is better than no TWA hub at all, if you ask me.
The question you have to ask yourself is what would we have in place of American? I would say maybe a large NW focus city or a midwestern hub for F9, B6, or FL. Compare that to what we have today and yes I would say that we made out as well as we possibly could have. One thing is apparent; St. Louis needs AA more than AA needs St. Louis. Tough spot to be in when trying to play hardball.
MasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5494 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 8885 times:
Quoting Quickmover (Reply 15): I often wonder how TWA could have done had they not been tied to Carl Icahn's Karabu agreement.
This issue is probably good for another ten years of "if only" speculation. As far as we know, TWA didn't even try to get out of it; or else they didn't have management smart enough to figure a way out - and AMR did.
I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
B767300ER From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 184 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 8540 times:
What made STL a TWA hub for flights to LGW and CDG was the feed of TWA flights into STL. There wasn't much
O/D for STL. So whywould AA or for that fact any other carrier want to start a STL international route without a
strong feeder service into STL. AA has that at ORD and DFW no need for STL on international services.
Also what many seem to forget is the strong Caribbean markets TWA started to develop out of JFK as a turn around
strategy as they closed European routes. Its also time to put to bed the debate of what AA did or didn't do for
their TWA employees. They protected their own first inspite of their statements and the unions and TWA employees
went along for the rocky ride. As one of the formed TWA employees, I didn't wait for the entire senario to unfold but
got on my own two feet and went first to LH then DL as a LOD F/A.
: But, alas, the fates of history conspired against their careers: their carrier was an economic basket case from way back, got screwed by everybody inc
: As I said on a thread above, most of the passengers would come from the Europe side where NW has a huge hub. I am not saying a 330 would work, but ha
: A 757 would have struggled on the westbound leg. http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=L...E=best&RANGE-COLOR=navy&MAP-STYLE= If AA hadn't taken over whe
: AA seems to be more dedicated to STL than US is to PIT. At least AA isn't downsizing STL any further... If NW/KLM does plan on serving STL, it would b
: Im not so sure I agree. AA has the hub at STL and a large Codesharing operation at LHR with BA. Given that AA has feed on both end (with Codesharing
: Agreed! I wonder if STL would be better served by an airline that is lacking a midwest hub, like US. I would think they could create a feeder system
: I am not surprised at all that AA is not looking at STL-LHR. With 4 daily flights ORD-LHR and very fequent service connecting STL to ORD, it doesn't m
: I missed a JFK-LHR flight and had to use STL-LGW to get back to England. Agreed. 2010-11.
: Just because, in general, most USA-Europe traffic typically originates in Europe does not mean that is the case for St. Louis. In fact, my bet is tha
: In a sense, domestically, they have at least a point-to-point high volume carrier that fills the market need, SWA. Although, a slew of Eagle and Conn
: Is AA in a better position to operate STL-AMS than KL is to operate AMS-STL? Does AA have better feed in STL than KL/NW would have in AMS? I don't th
: How do KLM and NWA do in their other AMS-USA markets of similar o/d size to STL that are not NWA hubs or focus cities? That might answer the question
: I think he was talking about to Europe in general (correct me if im wrong Mark). If AA flies STL-Europe, it would be to LHR. Naturally if NW did the
: I was not referring to AA operating STL-AMS, but STL-Europe in general. Given that most St. Louis-Europe traffic is most likely St. Louis-originating
: Your love for St. Louis shines brightest in your optimism about air service for the city. I don't think that was ever a question. In fairness to US,
: You can say that again. We Pittsburghers were about to form an angry mom and storm US during their cuts. Yet, they still have a loyal frequent flier
: I think its time to throw my two cents in here... As am I, however, I no longer hold a grudge against AA, we simply had no choice. And that was only b
: The article didn't say that STL would never see transatlantic service, just that American was not looking into it for the time being. I still think AA
: Please enlighten me, what was the Karabu agreement?
: Nice attitude, yourself. As PSU said, a "fence" is a term used in the industry in union legal/contractual parlance, and it was putting into place by
: Connecting traffic is not the only driver. The issue is the consistent demand for Business Class seats and the STL area does not have the corporate pu
: It was our only way of getting rid of Icahn without shutting down the airline and liquidating. Good point. Perhaps AA might do a twice/thrice weekly
: I don't know about anybody else, but I would have rather gone down with the ship than sunk in the lifeboat.
: NW would need a 752-sized aircraft with 330 range to make STL-AMS work. While the arrival of 787s might make STL-AMS more likely, NW has many, many h
: I wouldn't put it at zero. Lufthansa has made Portland work to an extent and now that Northwest is starting Amsterdam, I'd say that you'd rather have
: Maybe even an add-on to STL-Europe? I could see AA doing DFW-MCI-STL-LGW/LHR...if the pilots wake up, lol.
: Well, the possibilities are there and history has proved it. All of TWA's concourses were crowded a majority of the time, yes - including D, , so the
: I thought TWE flew out of the B concourse?
: They did for the last few years, but for a long time they operated out of D. They would even board people on buses at the gate to take them to a park
: That's not a good indication at all, especially not during the 1990s. Full planes does not mean a hub is profitable or can support the level of servi
: Yes, yes.. they are subsidized.. but, you know what? they are both still running. And the RDU-London flight has been going for over 10 years.. so whe
: My personal opinion... I think there are many international routes AA would like to add, but are just very limited due to current fleet. If and when A
: I think STL-LON is also a question on aircraft availability and pax count. I could see AA adding STL-LON if they could get a couple of 767-400ER... or
: Even Pittsburgh is having its time at trying to bring back transatlantic service. With Bayer, one would think that FRA or MUC would be the ideal choi
: If only two people got on that airplane in RDU and flew to LHR, that flight would make money cause it's paid for for the most part. If you honestly t
: AA has stated, and I believe, that LHR isn't the gold mine everyone thinks it is, and now that everyone in the mother is going to start flying there s