Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Request DOT Delay Of Haneda Service Till 2012  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24813 posts, RR: 46
Posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8296 times:

On the coat tails of Delta managing to push back its authority to operate between Detroit and Tokyo Haneda (see Delta Further Delays Haneda Services (by LAXintl Jun 3 2011 in Civil Aviation) ), American Airlines now has itself filed with the DOT for a dormancy waiver to allow it delays in service between New York JFK and Haneda till June 1, 2012.

AA in its filings simply states it would like to avail itself to the same consideration and dormancy relief Delta was afforded to defer its Handea service till mid 2012.
AA states while it resumes its JFK-HND service on July 1st, demand remains depressed and request the waiver to give it flexibility in the coming months to manage Japan capacity, and be ready for peak season in 2012 instead.

OST-2010-0018


My personal take is that this should be an embarrassment for the DOT.
Now 2 out of the 4 daily limited entry slots not going to be utilized by the respective awarded carriers. All the while you have two other US carriers which repeatedly have stated their willingness to take on the commercial risk and fully utilize these unique traffic rights.
In my eyes the DOT just stepped on its own tail and was just check-mated by AA and its request.
So much for concern over 'consumer benefits', allegedly is one of the departments primary objectives in managing traffic rights with 50% of the slots going to sit idle.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7036 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8287 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
My personal take is that this should be an embarrassment for the DOT.
Now 2 out of the 4 daily limited entry slots not going to be utilized by the respective awarded carriers. All the while you have two other US carriers which repeatedly have stated their willingness to take on the commercial risk and fully utilize these unique traffic rights.
In my eyes the DOT just stepped on its own tail and was just check-mated by AA and its request.
So much for concern over 'consumer benefits', allegedly is one of the departments primary objectives in managing traffic rights with 50% of the slots going to sit idle.

I think AA's motives are better. DL is benefited by these slots sitting idle as they have a hub in NRT that their own flights to HND take traffic away from. AA is simply losing money. They have no hub to protect.


User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8239 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
My personal take is that this should be an embarrassment for the DOT.
Now 2 out of the 4 daily limited entry slots not going to be utilized by the respective awarded carriers. All the while you have two other US carriers which repeatedly have stated their willingness to take on the commercial risk and fully utilize these unique traffic rights.
In my eyes the DOT just stepped on its own tail and was just check-mated by AA and its request.
So much for concern over 'consumer benefits', allegedly is one of the departments primary objectives in managing traffic rights with 50% of the slots going to sit idle.

I could not have said it any better. The DOT completely flubbed this one.

Can they re-visit the DL decision to say that the market environment has changed and address these two together?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24813 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8224 times:

Now here is a good spin question.....

In the DOT explanation about permitting the Delta dormancy waiver, the department stated it wanted to protect service to Central/Eastern US and did not wish to move the gateway from DTW to proposed replacement service at SFO or HNL.

Now what happens if United comes out and says, they would offer a EWR-HND flight? The protecting an Eastern gateway argument would no longer be valid as NYC would still very much have a flight.
Then its simply if the DOT is willing to let the slot go vacant for the hell of it inlight of comperable replacement service being available.

hmm...


And so people understand the broader history. These slots were initially awarded for service commencement of October 2010. With one delay or another, we are now looking at almost 2-years later before they might be consistently be utilized.

[Edited 2011-07-01 09:54:45]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8084 times:

Only two weeks ago, in reply to Delta's request for dormancy which cited reduced demand, AA said:

Quote:
American would like to offer a somewhat different perspective because we intend to continue our Haneda service without further interruption.

Then the moment DOT gives DL dormancy relief, AA is singing a different tune and asking for the same thing themselves.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
My personal take is that this should be an embarrassment for the DOT.
Now 2 out of the 4 daily limited entry slots not going to be utilized by the respective awarded carriers. All the while you have two other US carriers which repeatedly have stated their willingness to take on the commercial risk and fully utilize these unique traffic rights.

   The whole thing is turning into a joke, and the DOT has only themselves to blame.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
Now what happens if United comes out and says, they would offer a EWR-HND flight? The protecting an Eastern gateway argument would no longer be valid as NYC would still very much have a flight.

That’s a good idea, and if I were UA/CO, that’s exactly what I would do.

As much as I am a very strong supporter of AA, I believe CO had the strongest application anyway for NYC-Haneda service, with a much stronger hub at Newark. In my opinion, if AA suspends the route again they are letting down all the businesses, passengers and politicians etc. that put their faith in AA by supporting their application and helping them to win the valuable rights for the only route between New York City and Haneda.



Ryan / HKG
User currently offlineaznmadsci From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 3658 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8066 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
Now what happens if United comes out and says, they would offer a EWR-HND flight?

In all likelihood, how realistic would UA start EWR-HND? Now for fun, what about IAH-HND, or is that not Central US? Would the flights be under the UA/NH JV?



The journey of life is not based on the accomplishments, but the experience.
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8005 times:

exactly as i've predicted. where are all those who insist it was a 3-month "temporary suspension" ?

1... 2... 3... cue the apologists

on an unrelated note, there's an article on WSJ today about AA's GREAT management (subscription required)


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7975 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

UA (assuming it could free up the proper aircraft) could service this route from EWR or IAH. I would think IAH would be considered the central United States and they have the domestic route system to drive traffic down there for the HND connection.

If UA is smart, they'll slam DOT with an immediate request to be assigned the route from either or both hubs. This should put DOT in a spot to either tell DL and AA to immediately start service or award the route(s) to UA.

I personally have a serious issue with a dormancy ruling by DOT if there is another airline that is ready and willing to service the route and has the appropriate aircraft and route structure to support such a flight.


User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7903 times:

The route has been deferred, cancelled and suspended so many times that people probably won't want to risk booking it in the future. Every time, the route is loaded and taking booking and then AA cancels it and messes up everyone's travel plans.

They have made no attempt to address the deficiencies of the 06:40 departure time from HND and lack of feed at either end. They said themselves a late evening departure would be much more competitive, so why don't they at least try it before suspending the route altogether?

They have not yet even received an answer to their request for an ex-bilateral waiver to allow a departure between 2300 and 0000. Why not wait and see if this helps before asking for a suspension?



Ryan / HKG
User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7868 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
In my eyes the DOT just stepped on its own tail and was just check-mated by AA and its request.

Well, honestly did anyone expect any less, including the DOT? I think not.

Quoting enilria (Reply 1):
I think AA's motives are better. DL is benefited by these slots sitting idle as they have a hub in NRT that their own flights to HND take traffic away from. AA is simply losing money. They have no hub to protect.

Bull. What you're saying makes zero sense enilria. they had the NRT interport hub before the HND slots came on hand so you're saying they knew the flight would have leaked traffic from NRT but ran with it anyway? AA's argument doesn't have a leg any more or less than DL. All this is, like i said BEFORE is a tit for tat game. Now, the DOT has all but no choice to grant AA's dormancy request.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineelmothehobo From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 1536 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7863 times:

They need to stop playing these games with Delta and American. Give the slots to Hawaiian. They've been practically beggining for them.

User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7839 times:

Quoting elmothehobo (Reply 10):
They need to stop playing these games with Delta and American. Give the slots to Hawaiian. They've been practically beggining for them.

Their pockets are deep but not deep enough apparently. In the end, these slots will stay with AA and DL.



What gets measured gets done.
User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7775 times:

Quoting elmothehobo (Reply 10):
They need to stop playing these games with Delta and American. Give the slots to Hawaiian. They've been practically beggining for them.

Yes, that is true for HA, but UA (PMUA and PMCO) have stated that they would want them as well.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
Now what happens if United comes out and says, they would offer a EWR-HND flight? The protecting an Eastern gateway argument would no longer be valid as NYC would still very much have a flight.

I would love to see UA do exactly that just to stick it to the DOT, but reality is that UA will only do that if they thought they could at least break-even.
I think UA (PMCO) could make a EWR-HND flight work with the same times that AA has over at JFK. I think they would get feed to the outbound (EWR) and feed the 1st bank on the inbound (EWR). I just don' think they will get any feed on the HND side given the departure & arrival times, even with ANA having a hub there.


User currently offlineSR117 From Mexico, joined Jun 2000, 793 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7757 times:

While this may look bad for the DOT, I think the bottom line is that these long haul operations into HND have mostly been a big fat flop. With the exception of HNL (where the schedule for flights works out just fine) and LAX (which benefits from a redeye schedule from both DL and NH, thus providing feed on both ends), all of the other gateways have done poorly, YVR didn't even get off the ground due to poor bookings, JFK and DTW have both been delayed and suspended even before the quake. How's JL's SFO flight doing?

Most European airlines didn't even try using their assigned slots due to the particularly bad timing for their operations. (http://tinyurl.com/3pwv5mr)

It's safe to say that the poor timing on these flights makes it hard to make a success out of most of them. And given UA's proposed SFO and EWR flights, it seems unlikely they would turn out different. Hawaiian is a different story though, they probably could fill up another plane to the islands.

Things are unlikely to improve much until daytime slots become available, or until the Japanese government backtracks on the lousy operation window (fat chance !).


User currently offlinegoldenstate From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 566 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7667 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
My personal take is that this should be an embarrassment for the DOT.

Washington has already done enough damage by agreeing to the bilateral. No need to add to it by forcing DL and AA to operate money losing services. The real embarrassment is that the U.S. agreed to an open skies treaty which is at best inconsistent and at worst quite harmful to the interests of U.S. carriers. The Americans should have insisted that Japan either completely open Haneda to longhaul operations with no curfew and a fair process to allow new entrants the opportunity to acquire slot pairs at market prices, or maintain the status quo with Narita the sole longhaul airport for the Tokyo region.

Japan wants to protect its two legacies and dislodge all U.S. flag operations from Japan to points beyond, which is perfectly understandable. But even if you accept the premise that recent administrations have generally viewed aviation bilaterals as bargaining chips to be used in pursuit of larger foreign policy goals, the U.S. should never have agreed to such a one-sided arrangement.


User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3249 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7670 times:

Quoting aznmadsci (Reply 5):
In all likelihood, how realistic would UA start EWR-HND? Now for fun, what about IAH-HND, or is that not Central US? Would the flights be under the UA/NH JV?

Anyone who thinks UA wants to do this in this environment is crazy. The only reason they are "objecting" is to try to force DL and AA to keep bleeding money.


User currently offlineripcordd From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1149 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7639 times:

70% is flight timings 30% is due to the quake as the reason the flights are not working....UA would be in the same boat from SFO and EWR....They will say all they want but when it comes down to it they will loose money on the route as well. AA/DL really should just give the slot up and unless the times are different

User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 7560 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 15):

Anyone who thinks UA wants to do this in this environment is crazy.

That may be true, but why not let them if they so desire to do that. Right now the DOT has allowed DL (and potentially) AA the chance to not lose money but hold onto an asset.

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 16):
They will say all they want but when it comes down to it they will loose money on the route as well.

But isn't that a business decision they UA should be willing to make.

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 16):
AA/DL really should just give the slot up and unless the times are different

Agreed, or conditional dormancy allowed.

Right now you have the DOT allowing a company to hold an asset (that in theory has value) that someone wants to use. Again, in theory.
If UA got the award and then decided not to start it (a la CAN) then they were rightly told it is a conditional dormancy that if someone else wants it then you get the choice start it or lose it.
It is mind boggling that the DOT did not give DL a 6-ish month extension then issue the conditional dormancy rule for post that timeframe.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17330 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7375 times:

Quoting ripcordd (Reply 16):
70% is flight timings 30% is due to the quake as the reason the flights are not working....

   I'd even say it's much higher given how little NRT has been cut long term. Even if the Japan crisis didn't happen I was convinced DL would downgrade, reduce, cancel asap whereas I wasn't sure how long AA would stick it out. Turns out not long for either 



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinejpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4375 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7345 times:

The whole HND situation is a joke. Nearly every advantage HND offers (which are numerous) is negated by the deplorable slot times.


The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
User currently offlinebreaker1011 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 938 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7080 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 15):
Anyone who thinks UA wants to do this in this environment is crazy. The only reason they are "objecting" is to try to force DL and AA to keep bleeding money.

  

Indeed.



Life's tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid. J. Wayne
User currently offlineDTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 788 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6964 times:

Quoting aznmadsci (Reply 5):
Now for fun, what about IAH-HND, or is that not Central US?
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7):
UA (assuming it could free up the proper aircraft) could service this route from EWR or IAH. I would think IAH would be considered the central United States and they have the domestic route system to drive traffic down there for the HND connection.

IAH can be considered Central US. But this would not work for CO/UA.
IAH is too far south if you want to get to the upper Midwest or Northeast regions. That would involve a lot of backtracking.
IAH may only be good for the south and southeast.

EWR may be in a slightly better position for connecting passengers from up and down the east coast.

I say ORD is in a much better postion to connect for the eastern half of the country.

But again, what is the guarantee that UA will be able to make it work from IAH or EWR.
For all you know, they were granted rights to HND and started services only to find out they are losing money and then requesting DOT to suspend services like AA and DL.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10345 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6691 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 1):
AA is simply losing money. They have no hub to protect.

Does the AA/JL connection mean nothing?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently onlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5608 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 6599 times:

Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 8):
They have made no attempt to address the deficiencies of the 06:40 departure time from HND and lack of feed at either end. They said themselves a late evening departure would be much more competitive, so why don't they at least try it before suspending the route altogether?

And how would "THEY" (I presume you mean AA) DO that. The slots at HND are fixed time slots and are non-negotiable by the airline, they are set by the Japanese government. The US government COULD intervene and lean on Japan, but they don't appear inclined to do so. International relations are more than just aviation bi-laterals.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineDFWEagle From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1071 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6555 times:

Quoting gemuser (Reply 23):
And how would "THEY" (I presume you mean AA) DO that. The slots at HND are fixed time slots and are non-negotiable by the airline, they are set by the Japanese government.

No the slots are not fixed. The SLOT WINDOW is fixed (22:00-07:00 with departures after 00:00 to the mainland USA) and carriers are free to request arrival and departure slots whenever they like within the window. AA was given slots within 20 minutes of the ones they requested. AA chose to have an early morning departure and if they wanted to, they could move it to an evening departure. They have asked for an extra-bilateral waiver for a 2300-hour departure, but they could have had an 0000-hour departure without any waiver.



Ryan / HKG
25 gemuser : Thanks for the information Gemuser
26 Aircellist : Well... Sounds like HND is not that much open to international traffic, after all... And, yes, airlines and DOT are caught totally on the wrong foot.
27 tsnamm : UA should ask for GUM/HND... Air Mike used to fly GUM/HND and was forced by the Japanese govt. to move operations to NRT when it was opened, and shoul
28 slclaxkixkhh : Another reason GUM-HND might work is that UA can use a smaller aircraft, like the 738. That would be fewer seats to fill as opposed to flying a 332/7
29 Post contains images MaverickM11 : DL doesn't have a Japanese partner to moderate any of the risk of the traffic flowing over TYO, and any traffic that diverts to HND is going to be to
30 tsnamm : If they got it , this would be more than likely.... currently Continental Micronesia only operate 767's GUM/NRT and GUM/HNL...( although these are to
31 DFWExecPlat : I agree whole heartedly with you on each point. I really doubt AA and DL don't want to operate these routes til next year, but obviously it must be a
32 mayor : I almost wish they would, just to shut some people up, around here.
33 delta2ual : Of course you do. LOL
34 aajfksjubklyn : Folks, atleast AA tried, and kept committed to the route as they could following Japan's largest disaster ever. Are you all kidding me, (with reagrds
35 mayor : Sounds good, but I don't buy it. AA waited until DL submitted their requests, in every case, just to let DL catch any and all flack...........why, on
36 jfklganyc : I got flames in another thread...but I called this. AA will never fly this route
37 ORDBOSEWR : I think the point is not about the fact that any deferral may be justified. That is fine. If UA/CO had gotten the route they very well may have or th
38 Post contains images lightsaber : Hey, one slot for each. Sadly, politics is involved... Lightsaber
39 MaverickM11 : Nor will DL, at least not at these times. The routes never had a prayer.
40 mayor : It seems that "open skies" does not apply to HND.
41 AADC10 : What UA needs is two pairs of slots. It could send an aircraft USA-HND for an early morning arrival, turn and go to GUM. From GUM the aircraft could
42 FlyASAGuy2005 : To be fair to the Japanese and HND, when LHR opened up, available slots were less than stellar. DL go their foot in the door through slots from anoth
43 mayor : As I recall, when LHR opened up, two airlines, BA and AA controlled most of the slots.
44 gemuser : Never true, not true today. BA has about 40% of slots at LHR and AFAIK it has never had more. Gemuser
45 MAH4546 : Never? Better tell that to everybody waiting at gate B16 right now. Their imaginary flight to Haneda leaves in about an hour.
46 FlyASAGuy2005 : Pre open skies, what percentage of the slots did AA hold. Further more, with BA holding 40%, i'm surethe #2 slot holder is a distant second so I don'
47 mayor : If BA had 40% of the slots how many did their partner AA have? If the slots were not basically controlled by those two carriers, why was it so diffic
48 Post contains images commavia : For summer 2008, the first season for which EU-U.S. Open Skies was in effect, and Heathrow was opened up, AA held 2.6% of the weekly slots at Heathro
49 DFWEagle : AA had 2.1%, which was less than quite a number of other carriers including BA (42.1%), BMI (11.5%), Lufthansa (4.5%), Virgin Atlantic (3.7%), Aer Li
50 gemuser : See reply49 for percentages. As to why it was difficult for other US airlines to get slots is simple. Pre-open skies agreement only UA & AA were
51 Post contains images LAXintl : Well as expected the responses to AA's proposed dormancy request are coming in. United filed with the DOT today the typical comments that speaks of ma
52 LAXintl : No surprise, but based on the same basic logic the department utilized in the Delta Haneda case, it approved AA dormancy request until June 2012. As w
53 SonomaFlyer : NICE! Not surprising UA came in with a hammer out. It's time for the DOT to get their act together and put the slots to use, NOW. They were allocated
54 Post contains images Tinosky : Come on, AC! Get in there while you can! [Edited 2011-07-21 14:30:35]
55 smoot4208 : What crap. If UA proposed EWR-HND there is no reason the DOT should have denied them using that slot
56 DFWEagle : AA's JFK-HND route will now end on 06SEP11.
57 skygypsy : ....end or suspended until 2012?
58 SonomaFlyer : If it's not in place already, these restricted slots should be awarded on a "use it or lose it" basis. Given AA is ending service, they should award
59 Post contains images MaverickM11 : Well done all around. Good for competition . Now I'm just waiting for DL's LGA dormancy request .
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 Request DOT To Use Dormant UA Brazil Rights posted Thu Aug 14 2008 10:54:46 by LAXintl
Delta Applies To Delay Haneda Service Start-up posted Tue Sep 7 2010 15:30:39 by LAXintl
AA Seeks To Delay Launch Of ORD-PEK posted Fri Aug 29 2008 14:22:46 by Miaami
End Of DL Service At YXU posted Fri Jan 7 2011 21:38:45 by yulguy
AA Applies To Delay JFK-HND Startup posted Mon Dec 20 2010 12:45:20 by LAXintl
UA/CO Delays IAH-AKL Till 2012 posted Mon Dec 6 2010 12:30:22 by United1
AA...Weird Cancellations Out Of NYC Tomorrow 10/27 posted Tue Oct 26 2010 18:52:16 by AAExecPlat
AA/BA/IB. Exchange Of Shares?. posted Thu Oct 7 2010 11:22:37 by dme
AA Applies For ORD-CZM Seasonal Service posted Wed Oct 6 2010 10:33:23 by LAXintl
Great Lakes Plans Shift Of ONT Service To LAX posted Thu Sep 2 2010 09:42:52 by LAXintl