Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA/US - Chances Of Opening An Asia Hub?  
User currently onlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 189 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10254 times:

Both DL and UA have hubs at NRT. What are the changes of the new AA opening up an Asian hub in order to beef up its very lacking presence in that continent?

[Edited 2013-02-17 18:46:41]

98 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5930 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10238 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Thread starter):

Both DL and UA have hubs at NRT. What are the changes of the new AA opening up an Asian hub in order to beef up its very lacking presence in that continent?

Very small chance...it's not really needed as they have a joint venture with JL which gives them a defacto hub at NRT and a strong codeshare partner with CX as well.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently onlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10127 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 1):

Very small chance...it's not really needed as they have a joint venture with JL which gives them a defacto hub at NRT and a strong codeshare partner with CX as well.

UA has a partner at NRT in NH and DL has a partner at ICN in KE, yet both airlines have hubs in Asia? Is there a reason they do it successfully and the new AA shouldn't? What if AA were to open a hub at PEK or PVG or something, maybe that would be the answer to Oneworld's weak presence in China?


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22737 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10111 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 2):
Is there a reason they do it successfully and the new AA shouldn't?

Define successful. Certainly, both carriers are increasingly trying to overfly the NRT hubs, which are basically historical relics.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7512 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10071 times:

Between zero and one percent.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5930 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10059 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 2):
UA has a partner at NRT in NH and DL has a partner at ICN in KE, yet both airlines have hubs in Asia? Is there a reason they do it successfully and the new AA shouldn't?

...both airlines had hubs at NRT before they formed alliances in the region. UA has been slowly shrinking its dependence on NRT and launching overflights and even DL has to an extent started doing the same thing. I am sure that AA will add more flights to Asia over the next few years but their is virtually no chance, as their is no need, for them to open a hub in Asia.

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 2):
What if AA were to open a hub at PEK or PVG or something, maybe that would be the answer to Oneworld's weak presence in China?

They would not be able to open hubs in either cities as the US and China do not have open skies in place...AA can fly to both of those cities but not beyond as both UA and DL can from NRT.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10037 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 2):
UA has a partner at NRT in NH and DL has a partner at ICN in KE, yet both airlines have hubs in Asia? Is there a reason they do it successfully and the new AA shouldn't? What if AA were to open a hub at PEK or PVG or something, maybe that would be the answer to Oneworld's weak presence in China?
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):
Define successful. Certainly, both carriers are increasingly trying to overfly the NRT hubs, which are basically historical relics.

As Cubsrule notes, the two hubs at NRT are there largely because of inertia at this point. Both airlines are attempting to reach a point where any routes commercially viable as non-stops from the USA are flown that way instead, only maintaining intra-Asia flying from NRT where it makes sense. UA is many years ahead of DL in this matter, owing largely to superior US hubs from which to overfly NRT (namely SFO).

Additionally, China would be a very undesirable place for such an operation. American wouldn't be allowed to fly intra-China routes or TPE. It would also be virtually impossible to get enough appropriately timed slots from the Chinese government at an airport like PEK to allow two banks similar to what UA/DL operate at NRT. Frankly, it would be hard just to get enough slots that would be commercially desirable from a scheduling perspective for USA-PEK flights (look at AA's struggles to get desirable times for even its existing portfolio), let alone the additional flights needed for beyond-PEK flights.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 10034 times:

The time for U.S. carriers to organically grow an Asian hub has truly passed. Being this late to the game in terms of Asia, AA has little left other than feeding the hubs of its partners, then codeshare to a wide and varied array of destinations which alone aren't able to support direct flights from any of AA's U.S. hubs yet.

AA should be putting its own metal into HKG, where CX may carry passengers onward as JL does at NRT, as has been discussed here many times before.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9978 times:

The NRT hubs date back to post WWII reconstruction. NRT is so slot restricted that DL being the third largest airline cannot be surpassed by a regional domestic airline. If it weren't for the slot situation and historical routes, tere would be no UA OR DL hubs there.

Such a situation no longer would happen. AA could grow PHX into an international hub, but the local market is heavily biased towards domestic routes. Other than PHL and PHX gaining NRT or China service, I doubt there will be any Asian expansion. There is a small chance of DFW or PHX getting SYD but I have few hopes.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9963 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
The time for U.S. carriers to organically grow an Asian hub has truly passed.

I think the time for U.S. carriers to have Asian hubs - grown organically or otherwise - has passed in general.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
Being this late to the game in terms of Asia, AA has little left other than feeding the hubs of its partners

AA may be late to the game, but that's got nothing to do with why an Asian hub makes little economic sense. Thus why the two airlines "early to the game" have both been actively deemphasizing their Asian hubs for years.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
then codeshare to a wide and varied array of destinations which alone aren't able to support direct flights from any of AA's U.S. hubs yet

The places I think AA would struggle to fly their own metal nonstop from the U.S. are the markets that are either quite low-yielding (MNL, TPE) or too far to be flown profitably (SIN, BKK). As was already alluded to, UA can make some of these work nonstop because they control the single best U.S.-Asia hub - SFO. DL might - might - be able to make some of these work from SEA. In my mind, all 4 of these markets are inaccessible to AA.

The other key East Asia markets (TYO, ICN, PEK, PVG, HKG), however, is a different story. AA already flies to 4 of those 5 with a total of 8 flights per day. AA needs to add HKG, and then they will have what I think is a fairly competitive overall network to Asia when coupled with their JAL JBA, and the CX codeshare.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22737 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 9948 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 6):
Both airlines are attempting to reach a point where any routes commercially viable as non-stops from the USA are flown that way instead, only maintaining intra-Asia flying from NRT where it makes sense.

  

We've also seen some limited use of other stopping points, such as HKG for SGN on UA and NGO for MNL on DL (and NW before them).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9853 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):
AA may be late to the game, but that's got nothing to do with why an Asian hub makes little economic sense. Thus why the two airlines "early to the game" have both been actively deemphasizing their Asian hubs for years.

I take a bit wider view of 'Asia' and include Guam. In my opinion, Guam will continue to grow as a successful outpost for UA, as the balance of military operations in the Pacific establishes itself on the island. It will make perfect sense for UA to continue to develop GUM to serve Asia and the U.S. territories in the region. I doubt at this point in time that AA or any other U.S. carrier would be able to take advantage of a similar hub, with the rich history CO and UA developed over the years in this particular region.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineinfinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 548 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9804 times:

As Commavia suggested, I think the US airlines have a good-enough presence in North Asia. But they're understandably poor in South East Asia/The 10-member ASEAN region which is now the fastest growing in Asia. Indonesia is expected to become the 8th largest economy by 2030, Vietnam and Myanmar are fast growing as well. Surely there should be enough of a demand to serve SIN or BKK.

I guess SQ's soon-to-be terminated ULH A345-served SIN-LAX and SIN-NYC routes aren't a good testament but is there a chance AA might be able to fly non-stop to SIN profittably?

Presently both Delta and United fly SIN-NRT.

About NRT not sufficing, note that many international airlines now fly to Haneda and it is significantly nearer to the city


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 9706 times:

IMO if it happens, it won't be LAX, because LAX is overly-saturated with asian service, and as you can tell with UA, it's starting to have an impact on loads.

Thinking like this.....guess what airport i'm going to suggest  

HINT---it's in my username 



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9682 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 13):
Thinking like this.....guess what airport i'm going to suggest

I believe general wisdom is going with that the OP was suggesting a hub situated on the other side of the Pacific. Not a U.S. gateway to Asia.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9663 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
I believe general wisdom is going with that the OP was suggesting a hub situated on the other side of the Pacific. Not a U.S. gateway to Asia.

Ohhhhhh i see.

in that case, not gonna happen, unless this new airline makes some serious business deals with JL.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9630 times:

The name of the game is to go nonstop.

The Narita hubs for DL and UA are primarily a thing of yesterday with both carriers (UA being faster) sheding such tag operations.

Its a bit like the olden days with US carriers having hubs in Europe with a cadre of 727s. As soon as small twins arrived which allowed nonstops, the 727 tag flying died.


Having said all this - AA does have a huge Pacific handicap. As of last summer it only had embarrassing 4.8% market share amongst US carriers in this hugely important and growing region.

Yes AA it does have its JAL JV, but who knows how much that can help plug the holes. Also seemingly CX is not much of a benefit choosing to do its own thing ignoring its OW partners.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCoronado From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 9513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

At $100+ fuel I have a hard time understanding this compulsion that in the future all flights from the US to Asia will all be point to point. If a compelling case could me made that fuel will in the future become only 10-15% of CASM I can buy this reasoning. If not simple geography dictates that a northeastern Asia point such as NRT or ICN will continue to be necessary and I will expect greater use of VLA's because their per pax CASM is so compelling.

related thought. The 787 when finally rolled out in decent numbers will be mostly deployed as a 767 replacement. If a 767 route is profitable think how much more profitable it can become with an aircraft with a 10-20% lower fuel burn per pax.



The Original Coronado: First CV jet flights RG CV 990 July 1965; DL CV 880 July 1965; Spantax CV990 Feb 1973
User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9349 times:

Quoting Coronado (Reply 17):
At $100+ fuel I have a hard time understanding this compulsion that in the future all flights from the US to Asia will all be point to point. If a compelling case could me made that fuel will in the future become only 10-15% of CASM I can buy this reasoning. If not simple geography dictates that a northeastern Asia point such as NRT or ICN will continue to be necessary and I will expect greater use of VLA's because their per pax CASM is so compelling.

I don't think people think flights will be point-to-point, but rather hub-to-point or hub-to-partner-hub. If an airline can fly USA hub to Asia spoke profitably, that's the place to be. If a market can't sustain a non-stop flight from the USA, the airline may well be better off leaving that market and shuttling passengers to a partner on the other side of the ocean. Some markets are commercially viable one-stop and not viable non-stop, for those markets you maintain stopping points. However, that need not always be the same city even - look at SQ and its use of many cities, both in Asia and Europe, as stopover points on the way to the USA.


User currently offlineANA787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 261 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9205 times:

PDX would be a great choice as an Asian hub. Easily can use 767s and a330s to reach several Asian destinations nonstop.
PDX-PEK
PDX-NRT
PDX-ICN
PDX-KIX
PDX-PVG
PDX-TPE
PDX-HKG


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2915 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9075 times:

Quoting ANA787 (Reply 19):

PDX would be a great choice as an Asian hub. Easily can use 767s and a330s to reach several Asian destinations nonstop.
PDX-PEK
PDX-NRT
PDX-ICN
PDX-KIX
PDX-PVG
PDX-TPE
PDX-HKG

As much as I'd love to see all of this service from PDX, I can't see it happening. We already have NRT and it's my understanding that it performs well. I can see ICN at some point in the next few years, but other than that, we probably won't see much else for a long, long time.


User currently onlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22737 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8729 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 18):
Some markets are commercially viable one-stop and not viable non-stop, for those markets you maintain stopping points. However, that need not always be the same city even - look at SQ and its use of many cities, both in Asia and Europe, as stopover points on the way to the USA.

Agreed, but I'm not sure that, once the 787 and 350 are up and running, that will be true of many routes. SFO-SIN, for instance, is probably doable on a 787 with the full advertised 8200 nm range, as are SFO-MNL, SFO-BKK and SFO-CGK. I admit a couple of those will have yield issues, but the aircraft to fly them will exist.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 408 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 8459 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8):
There is a small chance of DFW or PHX getting SYD but I have few hopes.
DFW already has SYD service on QF.

Agreed that it would be almost impossible for PHX to get OZ service though.

[Edited 2013-02-18 11:19:08]


Next
User currently offlineMAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2935 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8375 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 1):

And AA starts their codeshare with Malaysia Airlines soon which opens up Southeast Asia to AA/US passengers...


User currently offlinefoppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

I know this is wishful thinking but I wish AA/US would open an Asia hub in TPE. Well, I mostly would like a 3rd airline to chose from when I do JFK to TPE or LAX to TPE A lot of Taiwanese I know are fed up with CI and BR but are stuck flying them for direct flights to LAX or JFK. The oligopoly (did I use the term correctly?) gives CI and BR to fix prices for their North American routes.   UA is doing SFO to TPE direct in April...maybe AA/US should start to enter the TPE market with LAX to TPE.


I'm a TAIWANESE-American living in NYC and LA.
User currently offlineairdfw From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 182 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7361 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 7):
AA should be putting its own metal into HKG, where CX may carry passengers onward as JL does at NRT, as has been discussed here many times before.

Can 77W do this job from DFW?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7309 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 24):
I know this is wishful thinking but I wish AA/US would open an Asia hub in TPE.

Without home carrier partnership it stands little chance. With BR headed to Star and CI in Skyteam, AA would be left by itself.

Sure it might one day again try Taipei (remember AA briefly flew SJC-TPE), but a hub forget it.

Anyhow - you surprisingly mentioned fares. Taiwan is known as a notoriously lower yielding market especially when compared to other Far East peers like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineChazPilot From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7263 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 2):
maybe that would be the answer to Oneworld's weak presence in China?

Certainly OW's China presence isn't that of *Alliance or Skyteam, but not sure it's "weak." Between CX's service to the major cities, plus KA's routes which both overlap the CX ones and add on many second and third tier cities, almost all the current destinations for biz and leisure travel in China are covered. And although its besides the point here, it's worth stating that what OW lacks in quantity currently in China, it makes up in quality.

Anyways, the real answer is to recruit a China carrier to join the OW ranks. I believe HU has been the most likely future prospect, according to the dicussions in the related forums.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7197 times:

As others have pointed out, you basically have a very strong UA in NRT (with ANA,) AA at NRT (through JL,) and a moderate DL with no partner at NRT but a decent hub. I see DL only reducing NRT (but keeping a strong presence, still) and increasing ICN a bit. AA will probably connect more cities to NRT but why hub it when you already have it hubbed, through JL?

And I'm not too sure about China... would China allow foreign airlines to establish hubs on their turf?



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7182 times:

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 22):
DFW already has SYD service on QF.

I wanna know how this flight is doing. IIRC this route is the loooooongest route QF flies and I'd assume it would require a lot of weight penalties for fuel.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7177 times:

Quoting ChazPilot (Reply 27):
Between CX's service to the major cities, plus KA's routes

CX and KA might both indeed be great airlines, however neither does do too much cooperatively with its OW partners.

Also as a side note, for those coming from North America connecting via HKG is a backhaul to reach much of China.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7128 times:

Quoting MAS777 (Reply 23):
And AA starts their codeshare with Malaysia Airlines soon which opens up Southeast Asia to AA/US passengers.

I really don't see how MH helps AA. KUL is a useless hub for North Americans. It is at least 2-stops (usually 3) from anywhere in the US to SE Asia via KUL. That is not really competitive at all with the Chinese, Japanese, and Korean carriers.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24906 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 7092 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
Its a bit like the olden days with US carriers having hubs in Europe with a cadre of 727s. As soon as small twins arrived which allowed nonstops, the 727 tag flying died.

I think the arrival of the alliances and code-sharing was even more important as it then made more sense to use your alliance partners for the tag sectors than to base your own aircraft and crews in Europe. Some of the points operated as tags from FRA by Pan Am using 727s and 737s, for example, have no nonstop service today. A few that come to mind:

Belgrade
Bucharest
Budapest
Dubrovnik
St. Petersburg
Zagreb

[Edited 2013-02-18 19:33:43]

User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2167 posts, RR: 15
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7049 times:

DL noted in their earnings call for last quarter that the majority of its sagging transpac revenue performance recently hailed from its Japan routes. UA definitely has benefited from the inheritance of the Micronesia routes, although this is kind of out of scope for any future AA expansion, IMO.

Quoting commavia (Reply 9):

A HKG flight would be such a winner, and I do think it ought to go to DFW. However, I don't believe this necessarily satisfies the real missing equation: beefed up presence in mainland China. The CX codeshare, JAL JBA, and MH integration into OW can add value in the further-flung markets in Vietnam, Indonesia, Myanmar, etc.

Truthfully, in an ideal world, if AA could really get their hands on some sort of out-of-the-box strategy here by launching secondary Chinese routes from LAX/ORD/DFW (in that order of viability) then they would definitely have an edge over UA and DL. Lately, routes to cities like Nanjing, Qingdao, Chongqing, Chengdu, Shenyang, Xiamen, Hangzhou, Wuhan etc. on European and Chinese carriers (AF, KL, BA, AY, LH, CZ, CA) have become wildly popular.



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlinefoppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7058 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 26):
Anyhow - you surprisingly mentioned fares. Taiwan is known as a notoriously lower yielding market especially when compared to other Far East peers like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.

HKG, NRT, and SIN has higher yields because the homebase airlines have more extensive routes than CI and BR. Unless one is travelling to a more rural place in China (e.g. Wuhan, Nanchang, Wenzhou, etc), most people chose to connect in NRT for PVG, PEK, or ICN and HKG for Southeast Asia. Anyway, it is frustrating because lower yield --> less frequencies --> increase in demand --> increase in fare. Maybe UA's 3x weekly SFO-TPE and (hopefully) AA's 3x weekly LAX-TPE would help bring the fares down and introduce healthier competition. A little off topic but TransAsia Airways is planning to greatly expend their medium-haul Asian routes, maybe AA would want to entice GE to join OneWorld. Again, wishful thinking... 



I'm a TAIWANESE-American living in NYC and LA.
User currently onlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 6966 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 34):
HKG, NRT, and SIN has higher yields because the homebase airlines have more extensive routes than CI and BR. Unless one is travelling to a more rural place in China (e.g. Wuhan, Nanchang, Wenzhou, etc), most people chose to connect in NRT for PVG, PEK, or ICN and HKG for Southeast Asia. Anyway, it is frustrating because lower yield --> less frequencies --> increase in demand --> increase in fare. Maybe UA's 3x weekly SFO-TPE and (hopefully) AA's 3x weekly LAX-TPE would help bring the fares down and introduce healthier competition.

I am not following you here. HKG, NRT, and SIN have higher yields because they are global financial centres (banking = lots of C and F demand) while TPE is not. It has nothing to do with the size of the hub. I don't see how adding UA and AA into an already low yield market is going to help except to make fares even lower so that everyone looses alot of money. Remember when MH was flying LAX-TPE and you could regularly get tickets for $500 rt, I don't think any carrier wants that again.


User currently offlinequiet1 From Thailand, joined Apr 2010, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6846 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 34):
Maybe UA's 3x weekly SFO-TPE and (hopefully) AA's 3x weekly LAX-TPE would help bring the fares down and introduce healthier competition

I thought UA's SFO-TPE service was going to be daily?


User currently offlinefoppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6815 times:

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 35):
It has nothing to do with the size of the hub.

I'm sure most tourists visiting Asian destinations that cannot be reached with direct flights don't decide where to make the connection by the magnitude of the countries financial status. If TPE can become a bigger hub, making it more convenient to connect to inland China, South East Asia and even India with competitive fares than that of HKG, then yields to TPE would increase which would possibly lead to lowered fares.

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 35):
Remember when MH was flying LAX-TPE and you could regularly get tickets for $500 rt, I don't think any carrier wants that again.

I knew a lot of Taiwanese who would rather fly on CI or BR than MH for TPE to LAX. I don't know why but I guess given the choice, many Taiwanese would chose to fly an airline with at least one Mandarin-speaking FA. I don't believe MH provided Mandarin-speaking FA on the TPE to LAX sector. UA already has Mandarin speaking FA working the Asian routes and I'm sure AA has Mandarin speaking FAs for the PVG route.



You're right that no carrier would want the fares to drop to $500 again but consumers usually would rather pay less and get more. If AA can figure out the balance (premium vs non-premium cabin ratio) and have TransAsia join OneWorld, I think there would be a huge potential for an AA hub in TPE. I would also caughtion you on underestimating the C demand for TPE. As far as I know, C class on CI and BR's TPE/LAX yield is usually pretty high to a point that upgrades are usually not possible.


[Edited 2013-02-18 21:27:06]


I'm a TAIWANESE-American living in NYC and LA.
User currently offlinefoppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6803 times:

Quoting quiet1 (Reply 36):
I thought UA's SFO-TPE service was going to be daily?

I may have remembered the info incorrectly. Sorry!



I'm a TAIWANESE-American living in NYC and LA.
User currently onlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6760 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 37):
I'm sure most tourists visiting Asian destinations that cannot be reached with direct flights don't decide where to make the connection by the magnitude of the countries financial status. If TPE can become a bigger hub, making it more convenient to connect to inland China, South East Asia and even India with competitive fares than that of HKG, then yields to TPE would increase which would possibly lead to lowered fares.

I don't think we are agreeing on what yield means. In my mind, there is no way yields can increase and fares can decrease at the same time. Yield mainly has to do with the O/D traffic not connecting traffic (as connecting traffic is almost always low-yield). Tourist traffic is almost always low yield too. TPE needs more high-fare paying business passengers to be in the same echelon as NRT, HKG, SIN (and I would throw ICN in too).


User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6742 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 37):
I'm sure most tourists visiting Asian destinations that cannot be reached with direct flights don't decide where to make the connection by the magnitude of the countries financial status. If TPE can become a bigger hub, making it more convenient to connect to inland China, South East Asia and even India with competitive fares than that of HKG, then yields to TPE would increase which would possibly lead to lowered fares.

The point is that business traffic is high yielding, tourist traffic is traditionally lower yielding. HKG, NRT, SIN, etc, see a much larger proportion of high yielding business traffic, much of which is tied to the financial sector, compared to TPE. The flights are there because of the demand, not the other way around.

To say that yields would increase, thereby allowing lower fares, is an oxymoron. Yields are driven by fares, and you cannot extract greater yield with lower average fares without a significant change in your costs. Instead, flooding a market with seats just requires airlines to offer lower fares to fill the seats, which in turn dilutes yields significantly.


User currently offlinefoppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6743 times:

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 39):

I edited and added some info regarding C cabin demands. It's actually pretty high. I can't say the same for F but C demand is pretty high.



I'm a TAIWANESE-American living in NYC and LA.
User currently offlinefoppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 6717 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 40):

Okay. That much I understand. I guess what I'm trying to say is that consumers always want to pay less regardless of business traffic or not. I'm no economist and my background is far from economics but I am 100% sure that the airline with the cheapest fare would fill their seats provided that it has acceptable services and convenience of making connections. How do airlines afford to lower the fare is up to their management team to figure out. I'm just saying that TPE could have a potential given that many Taiwanese are fed up with paying a limb and organ to go home for a visit.



I'm a TAIWANESE-American living in NYC and LA.
User currently onlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 893 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6503 times:

I don't think AA will open an Asia hub Both DL and UA have slowly been flying by NRT choosing instead to offer nonstop flights from to select airports from the U.S. The problem AA has is where to launch these flights from DL is in the process of building an Asian gateway in SEA and UA has their gateway already built in SFO. Although someone suggested AA could go into PDX I don't really see that happening because they would first have to turn PDX into some sort of mini hub to start with and I think both DL and UA would do whatever they deemed necessary to keep AA out of PDX because it would probably siphon feed from both airlines operations in SEA and SFO. Which then leaves LAX and I don't think AA wants to get into the ring and fight all those Asian carriers for turf because it would delude yields in that market even further.

The biggest disappointment with this merger that I can see is the fact that US brings nothing to the table in the Asian market their small wide body fleet is already being fully utilized. Since AA probably won't be adding a lot of flights from the west coast to Asia that really leaves them with the midwest and flights to Asia from the midwest require 2 to 2.5 aircraft if AA intends to fly the route daily. So I don't see AA opening a hub but I think in the coming years as AA receives more wide bodies we will see add more non stops to major cities in Asia from either DFW or ORD


User currently onlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6123 times:

Thanks for clearing up the viability (or lack thereof) of starting an Asia hub.

On a slightly different note, I was looking through the http://newamericanarriving.com/customers/international-benefits/ website which seems to suggest that the new AA will be flying to Hong Kong (and I don't think they're referring to service via CX). DFW seems like it would be the logical choice given that ORD already sees service through CX, or maybe even from PHL now that US is in the mix. DFW still seems like it would be the best choice...


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2167 posts, RR: 15
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6134 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 44):
Thanks for clearing up the viability (or lack thereof) of starting an Asia hub.

On a slightly different note, I was looking through the http://newamericanarriving.com/customers/international-benefits/ website which seems to suggest that the new AA will be flying to Hong Kong (and I don't think they're referring to service via CX). DFW seems like it would be the logical choice given that ORD already sees service through CX, or maybe even from PHL now that US is in the mix. DFW still seems like it would be the best choice...

That is DEFINITELY bizarre, as it says:

Service to 5 destinations including Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo Narita, Tokyo Haneda, Hong Kong, and Shanghai

...and that list definitely does not count for code-shares or JBA partners.

Likely was a mistake that will be rectified soon. Nevertheless, one can dream!



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 6069 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 45):
Service to 5 destinations including Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo Narita, Tokyo Haneda, Hong Kong, and Shanghai

Odd, I don't see that text at all, neither is HKG on the "Where Can I Fly?" map.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6053 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 3):
Define successful. Certainly, both carriers are increasingly trying to overfly the NRT hubs, which are basically historical relics.

It is difficult to open a hub in a foreign country. Most countries have tight restrictions on flights to third countries, usually restricting them to only taking passengers brought in from the USA. Some do not allow any third country destinations. UA and DL have 5th freedom rights at NRT, allowing them to pick up passengers at NRT and carry them to third countries. I believe in exchange Japan was given the right to fly between SFO and New York. These rights were purchased by UA from PA and merged into DL from NW. The agreement has been modified and I do not know the current terms but I doubt that AA would be allowed to do something similar anywhere in Asia.

UA and to a lesser extent DL have been overflying NRT to get a non-stop premium and to reduce exposure to the decades long slump in the Japanese economy. Neither one will want to give up their position at NRT anytime soon however. AA will just have to add direct flight from the USA and continue to codeshare. There is really no place where they can build a hub in Asia.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32620 posts, RR: 72
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6084 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 26):
Anyhow - you surprisingly mentioned fares. Taiwan is known as a notoriously lower yielding market especially when compared to other Far East peers like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc.

While this is true, fares from the Southern U.S. to Taiwan are surprisingly high - especially Houston and Miami.



a.
User currently onlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6011 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 46):
Odd, I don't see that text at all, neither is HKG on the "Where Can I Fly?" map.

Go to the link and when the map populates click on Asia. You will see it under the first bullet point.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 49):
Go to the link and when the map populates click on Asia.

Ah, gotcha. I was clicking on the U.S., thinking HKG would be listed as a destination from here. I see it now—don't know what to make of it.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10351 posts, RR: 14
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5977 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 24):
I know this is wishful thinking but I wish AA/US would open an Asia hub in TPE.

This was one of Ron Allen's pet ideas at DL in the late 80s or early 90s, IIRC. I think the advent of "Leadership 7.5" put a stop to it.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2167 posts, RR: 15
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5831 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 51):

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 24):
I know this is wishful thinking but I wish AA/US would open an Asia hub in TPE.

This was one of Ron Allen's pet ideas at DL in the late 80s or early 90s, IIRC. I think the advent of "Leadership 7.5" put a stop to it.

This would have been a sheer utter disaster. The Taiwanese aviation environment has been turned on its head so many times over the past few years without any identifiable future growth strategy, neither for LCCs nor its homegrown legacy carriers. The concept would have bled money from the start and been very short-lasting.



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5823 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 34):
HKG, NRT, and SIN has higher yields because the homebase airlines have more extensive routes than CI and BR.

Nope. They have higher yields because they have higher demand in the front of the plan (F/C seats) Unless TPE becomes a major financial/industrial/technological hub, it will never attract high yield (business) traffic.

Passengers flying from TPE to US still have different options other than CI or BR. CX (via HKG) being one of them. With high frequency flights from TPE - HKG, and multiple flights to major cities in the US, CX, IMO, is the best option when flying TPE - US

JL and NH sometimes offer good connections. UA (via SFO) and DL (via NRT) are good options as well.


User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5812 times:

AA should be using their partnership with JL in NRT to serve N. Asia/China, and CX to SE Asia via HKG. If AA wants their OWN hub for Asia, their best bet is to shift their hub from PHX to PDX after the merger. (PHX is a touchy subject here...)

PDX can serve direct flights to secondary Chinese cities, as well as smaller/low yield markets (TPE, MNL, KIX)

PDX will be a gateway city to the rest of NW US as well and complement flights out of DFW


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 54):
PDX will be a gateway city to the rest of NW US as well and complement flights out of DFW

Even though as a resident of the market PDX serves, I would benefit directly from the increased service, I don't believe PDX would work as a multi-flight Pacific gateway for any airline either today or in the foreseeable future. The local traffic here is barely sufficient enough to support a single nonstop to NRT, and PDX is too far north and west to be useful as an efficient connection point for most of the intra-western travel flow.

Also worth mentioning, DL has tried this idea once before, and it didn't work out that well.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32620 posts, RR: 72
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5777 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 54):
If AA wants their OWN hub for Asia, their best bet is to shift their hub from PHX to PDX after the merger. (PHX is a touchy subject here...)

AA has LAX - while a segmented market that nobody domaintes, AA+US is the largest carrier at LAX, largest revenue share and largest O&D carrier. That's more than ample to develop secondary Asia to the extent where it makes sense, and outside of Osaka and Nagoya, it doesn't make sense right now. Maybe 5-10 years U.S. carriers will start delving into secondary China, and for that AA will have LAX, UA will have SFO and DL will have SEA.



a.
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2167 posts, RR: 15
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5700 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 54):
PDX can serve direct flights to secondary Chinese cities, as well as smaller/low yield markets (TPE, MNL, KIX)

The concept sounds great on paper, but would fail miserably in practice, because there are too many missing critical elements.

First, AA (or US) would need to have an established presence at PDX. Even in that case, you would have to weigh the cost/profit equations of doing business at that hub. Let's play devil's advocate and suppose US Airways had a hub at PDX (same level of ASMs, RPMs, Freqs, etc) as it does not at PHX. If the cost of operating the hub would inevitably rise as a result of the merger (as it will with PHX) then the new AA would need to bring in higher yielding traffic into PDX. Raising fares would be excruciatingly difficult given 1). the large LCC presence at PDX thanks to AS/WN and 2). the semi-bad economic state in Portland/Oregon.

Second, you would need a MUCH higher volume of O&D from PDX to Asia. I'm talking LAX and SFO levels, not even SEA levels would be sufficient. When DL tried to establish PDX as its Transpacific gateway, the airline attempted to create a small domestic focus operation by connecting Portland to JFK, BOS, YVR, LAS, DFW, CVG, ATL etc. to feed the Asian flights, but those weren't enough (FYI the real contributing factor to PDX's demise was the Asian Economic Crisis in the 90's and the subsequent dot.com bubble burst).

Wildcard situation: AS codeshare feed could help, but it's kind of a moot point, since AS would probably not be too happy competing alongside AA for domestic traffic in and out of PDX, so it's presumable they would rather codeshare with DL out of SEA on Asian routes rather than AA out of PDX.

So, pretty much without moving mountains (no pun intended) AA will probably never choose Portland to be its TPAC gateway.

It's not even really critical for AA to isolate one of the cornerstone markets and crown it the title as the Asia TPAC hub. AA can allocate its resources however it wants to do so. Right now, its Latin American network is sourced from 3/5 cornerstone hubs, Asian, 4/5, and European from all 5. Notice how AA is flying to Shanghai from LAX, Beijing from Chicago, Haneda from JFK, and Seoul from DFW, rather than doing all four strictly from LAX or ORD, etc.

[Edited 2013-02-20 14:40:50]


next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlineplanespotting From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3524 posts, RR: 5
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 5660 times:

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 22):
Agreed that it would be almost impossible for PHX to get OZ service though.

With combined AA and US feed from west of DFW/west of ORD I could see this working out. Combine pax from the Midwest, Plains, Mountains and Southwest and send a portion to PHX instead of DFW.

PHX is only 7,798 from SYD, which is about 600 miles shorter than BNE-DFW, so they could easily do it assuming they eventually get their ordered 787-9s. PHX would provide a non-stop Aussie-to-the-US option that avoids both LA/SF and links to a large domestic hub that feeds many medium-to-large sized cities in the west, midwest and east as well.

Granted the O&D wouldn't be as strong as at DFW, but with a 787 you wouldn't need to feed an A380, so you're talking only 250 instead of 500-plus.



Do you like movies about gladiators?
User currently offlineHPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4037 posts, RR: 8
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5516 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 57):
If the cost of operating the hub would inevitably rise as a result of the merger (as it will with PHX) then the new AA would need to bring in higher yielding traffic into PDX. Raising fares would be excruciatingly difficult given 1). the large LCC presence at PDX thanks to AS/WN and 2). the semi-bad economic state in Portland/Oregon.

Is AS an LCC? I thought their costs were fairly high. And WN has a decent presence at PDX but certainly not anything to scare another carriers into avoiding service to the airport.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 57):
(FYI the real contributing factor to PDX's demise was the Asian Economic Crisis in the 90's and the subsequent dot.com bubble burst).

Bam.


User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1069 posts, RR: 1
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5475 times:

On the Day the merger was announced . Doug Parker hosted an employee meeting in PHX later that day . The question was risen wether there is opportunity to expand into Asia . He immediately responded with a big Yes . He said that there will be extreme opportunity to expand into Asia from the DFW , ORD, and now PHL and PHX hubs . It's def is something to look forward too .

[Edited 2013-02-20 19:50:25]

User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5462 times:

Quoting etops1 (Reply 60):
He said that there will be extreme opportunity to expand into Asia from the DFW , ORD, and PHL and PHX hubs . It's def is something to look forward too .

If this is true, I hope it happens. DL and UA don't have good enough products to Japan.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1069 posts, RR: 1
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5396 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 61):

It's true . I wish I could post the video on here but it's in our company employee site and restricted to public view .


User currently onlinedirtyfrankd From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 189 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5389 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 61):
If this is true, I hope it happens. DL and UA don't have good enough products to Japan.

Would AA's product be all that much better?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5395 times:

Quoting dirtyfrankd (Reply 63):
Would AA's product be all that much better?

Never flew AA, but I am assuming all of them are in the process of updating the interiors. This is for the " Merger effects-interiors" thread though, right?  



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32620 posts, RR: 72
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5162 times:

Quoting etops1 (Reply 60):
On the Day the merger was announced . Doug Parker hosted an employee meeting in PHX later that day . The question was risen wether there is opportunity to expand into Asia . He immediately responded with a big Yes . He said that there will be extreme opportunity to expand into Asia from the DFW , ORD, and now PHL and PHX hubs . It's def is something to look forward too .

Asia will obviously see expansion. To tell employees it will happen from PHX is just one big lie. Not going to happen with it smushed between Los Angeles and Dallas.



a.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5071 times:

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 37):
then yields to TPE would increase which would possibly lead to lowered fares.

low fare = low yield.

high fare = high yield.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 65):
To tell employees it will happen from PHX is just one big lie.

I could see a PHX-NRT.

I think the the future size and scope of PHX as a hub will have much to do with its ability to support new flying to places like Asia or Europe under the new AA banner.

But yes I think a PHX-NRT is very doable for the combined airline with its JAL JV.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinecoreyrust From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 11 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5001 times:

Forgive me if this has been said, but in regards to the hub idea in PDX (I am biased as a resident here), I agree completely with the lack of O&D for a major expansion to Asian cities. But with the stronger relationship between AA/US and AS, wouldn't that help? That's how DL is making SEA work isn't it?

AA/US would obviously have to beef up it's ops at PDX, but they really wouldn't be competing with AS except for a lot of West Coast flights (to which AS could feed onto the AA/US flights), so AA/US could increase trans-cons to help with the feed?

I'm sure I'm missing something, but maybe it could happen? I know that O&D alone couldn't and wouldn't do it. There is no way possible, but with the right agreements, I guess you never know. Would be cool to see, but it is probably unlikely.


User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1069 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 65):

Why is that a lie ? You are not running the airline and have no idea what the plans are .


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32620 posts, RR: 72
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Quoting etops1 (Reply 68):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 65):


Why is that a lie ? You are not running the airline and have no idea what the plans are .

I'm sure Memphis, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, St. Louis and Pittsburgh all agree with you there.

Phoenix will be joining the club, and the suits at US/AA know it. Airline employees, as well as many other groups like local city officials, tend to be ignorant to airline business realities, airline management knows this, and leads them on. Every time.

[Edited 2013-02-21 14:05:08]


a.
User currently offlinefoppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 808 posts, RR: 0
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4855 times:

It sucks that pretty much everyone think the potential for TPE is very low. I know it's not a huge financial center nor a legitimate "country's" capital according to many governments but I guess being a Taiwanese, I always hope that TPE can raise to higher international standards and attract more foreign carriers. Thinking about AA having a hub in TPE may be a little far fetched but I hope AA would at least fly LAX to TPE direct since UA is starting SFO to TPE direct. TPE would be a good connecting point for inland China and the airports that does not have direct flights to US (i.e. Chengdu).

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 53):
Unless TPE becomes a major financial/industrial/technological hub, it will never attract high yield (business) traffic.

The demand for premium cabin is pretty high regardless of Business or Leisure Travel. I think CI should just get rid of First and put a few more Business seats like what BR did.



[Edited 2013-02-21 15:51:07]


I'm a TAIWANESE-American living in NYC and LA.
User currently offlinehoons90 From Malaysia, joined Aug 2001, 3003 posts, RR: 53
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4839 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting foppishbum (Reply 70):
Thinking about AA having a hub in TPE may be a little far fetched but I hope AA would at least fly LAX to TPE direct since UA is starting SFO to TPE direct.

Would ORD not be more likely than LAX? I can't think of any AA intercontinental destination served solely from LAX. NRT and PVG have flights to other AA cities in addition to LAX.

Keep hoping though... For years I've been hoping and hoping for the day that the venerable airline would serve ICN, and now I'm booked on the first flight.  



The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4746 times:

I wanna know why people have been allocating PDX to AA.... I thought that used to be with DL?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 66):

I could see a PHX-NRT.

I think the the future size and scope of PHX as a hub will have much to do with its ability to support new flying to places like Asia or Europe under the new AA banner.

But yes I think a PHX-NRT is very doable for the combined airline with its JAL JV.

As long as PHX's growth is maintained, a flight to Asia can easily be maintained here, especially if we begin to see an influx of Asians into the PHX area.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2915 posts, RR: 6
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4591 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 72):
As long as PHX's growth is maintained, a flight to Asia can easily be maintained here, especially if we begin to see an influx of Asians into the PHX area.

If anything, I can see Tokyo especially with the JV with JL. PHX could be a good gateway to LAS and other points in the desert that see traffic to/from Asia. Suffice to say it won't be exceptionally high yielding, so we would have to see what kind of appetite they have for it. Other than that, it will take some time to develop the transpac market from PHX and we will just have to see what kind of commitment the new AA makes to the hub. Any weight restrictions in the oven of summer? Does the BA jumbo take any?

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 72):
I wanna know why people have been allocating PDX to AA.... I thought that used to be with DL?

Yeah, as much as I would love it, Portland can only feasibly sustain one flight to Asia - which for now, is Tokyo on Delta. I doubt the new AA will show much interest in establishing an Asian gateway in the Pacific Northwest.


User currently offlineetops1 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1069 posts, RR: 1
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4566 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 69):

I am very well aware of Airline business realities . I just think you think you know things you simply just don't . I think your going to be extremely surprised at t outcome ..


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4549 times:

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 73):
Any weight restrictions in the oven of summer? Does the BA jumbo take any?

Nope, as far as I know. the BA departs in the evening anyway when it's a bit cooler. The runway is sufficient enough. We're not as hot as Riyadh where they have a 16,000ft rwy and still sometimes have weight restrictions lol

At the same time, though, the BA takes off from the longest, northern runway....however last year when they were repaving the runway, she took off fine from the longer southern runway. FX always uses the shorter southern runway (we have 3) for takeoffs and landings because it saves taxiing time.

IIRC the 787 doesn't require much takeoff length either, and also they brought her to AZA (10,000ft runways) for hot weather testing a while ago. No issues there either.

A lot of us here in the valley who were pulling for Asian service got a huge slap in the face with the 787 groundings. With DEN getting pushed back to May we're not sure when we will even hear about ours should it happen.



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 76, posted (1 year 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4070 times:

Here is some insight at to AA thinking about the Pacific

From employee Q&A this week.

Q. How soon will the new American (American plus US Airways) be able to turn the Asia Pacific market into strength?

A. As a combined company, we’ll be well positioned to take advantage of opportunities to compete and grow our Asia presence with our strong partners in the oneworld alliance.


http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2...ays-american-airlines-merger.html/

Sounds like there will be limited organic growth, instead reliance on partner flying instead.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinemercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 1310 posts, RR: 2
Reply 77, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3602 times:

What make American Airlines miss opportunity to grow Pacific rim destinations ?

Seems since 1980s US carrier focus growing in market like Pacific, but AA only really look to Japan.
There certainly is more to Pacific then Japan.

Was AA too focus on South America and Europe(they pull out of many markets there also) to remember Pacific ?

Seems like big strategic problem now compared to competitors.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2167 posts, RR: 15
Reply 78, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3534 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 77):
What make American Airlines miss opportunity to grow Pacific rim destinations ?

Seems since 1980s US carrier focus growing in market like Pacific, but AA only really look to Japan.
There certainly is more to Pacific then Japan.

Was AA too focus on South America and Europe(they pull out of many markets there also) to remember Pacific ?

Seems like big strategic problem now compared to competitors.

There have been a number of reasons why AA's growth in Asia has been lethargic over the past few decades. Some of it is AA's fault, some of it is not, and some of it has had to deal with advantages seized by competitors being in the right place at the right time.

Perhaps one of AA's biggest challenges was the lack of an identifiable trans-pacific gateway hub. United and Northwest were much more clear and precise about identifying which of their US gateway hubs would feed nonstop traffic to Asia over the year. AA, on the other hand, sort of just decided to rely on code-sharing with JL and CX when it made its way into NRT. It toyed with a few point-to-point routes (SJC-NRT, SJC-TPE,SEA-NRT, DFW-KIX, ORD-NAG) but overall, the strategy wasn't well-defined and a lot of experimentation has led to mixed results, at best. Moreover, the amount of drama and snafu issues AA has run into with slot awarding at HND and PEK has created much political and PR backlash along with plenty of headaches.

UA and NW also benefited from inheriting 5th freedom rights from Japan to Asia post WWII, and built up brand recognition over time. Mergers with CO and DL also helped solidify/stabilize their Asian networks and establish a strong TPAC network from virtually every major business center in the US.

Asian markets also tend to experience a lot of volatility. There was the crisis in the late 90s, followed by SARS, Tsunami, economic recession, H1N1, earthquake in Japan. The list goes on. It's really not been the panacea for AA's network gaps.



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2915 posts, RR: 6
Reply 79, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3476 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 78):
Perhaps one of AA's biggest challenges was the lack of an identifiable trans-pacific gateway hub.

Agreed. It seems now they appear to want LAX to be that primary gateway, but they have been sluggish to make it anything meaningful and even as such, limited gate space will make it challenging. SJC could have been it, but even in a parallel universe where it was kept as a hub I think the amount of TPAC flights would have been minimal (Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Taipei, if that).


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 80, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3280 times:

Personally I believe the ship sailed long time ago for US carriers to mount large scale trans pacific operations from LAX to Asia.

The market while large is heavily served by foreign carriers of all stripes and colors.
Not only do many have clear quality of service, frequency and network advantages, many also enjoy relative low cost base compared to US airlines.

Its a ever tougher nut to crack.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineQatarA340 From Qatar, joined May 2006, 1808 posts, RR: 6
Reply 81, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

Can AA partner up with Qatar Airways in Doha and expand its West Asian services at least? It can fly one or two daily flights and then team up with QR to carry the rest--sort of like the EK QF alliance.


لا اله الا الله محمد رسول الله
User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 82, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3230 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 69):
I'm sure Memphis, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, St. Louis and Pittsburgh all agree with you there.

Didn't NW announce MEM-NRT to start when the 787s came online?

I can really see at least a PHX-NRT service when the 787s and/or A350s get delivered.



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 83, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 78):
There have been a number of reasons why AA's growth in Asia has been lethargic over the past few decades. Some of it is AA's fault, some of it is not, and some of it has had to deal with advantages seized by competitors being in the right place at the right time.

  

AA was never as aggressive with regards to Asia than it was to Europe in the 1980s when it used a combination of steadily-liberalizing bilaterals and the advent of 767s and ETOPS to penetrate deeply into non-LHR Europe. I think by the time the "rise of Asia" really began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, AA's focus and attention were elsewhere, where it was busy digesting other acquisitions and consolidating its competitive position in LHR and South America. Frankly, looking back in hindsight, I honestly don't know if I can say that was a bad strategy. Sure, AA basically relegated themselves to a relatively weak position in Asia (as, eventually, did CO and DL), but what strength AA lacked in Asia it arguably more than made up for in LHR and South America.

Also, Asia was for decades among the most "closed" aviation markets in the world, with highly restrictive bilaterals that made it exceedingly difficult for non-UA/NW carriers to break in. I think that's why you saw CO and DL ultimately struggle just as much (some might say even moreso) with Asia than AA did. In many of the places in question here, UA (former PA) and DL (former NW) are trading to some extent on the commercial relationships and market experience that has been built over literally 5-6 decades during which time they were - by government intention - essentially a protected oligopoly among U.S. carriers.

And beyond all that, I think another big challenge AA had was honestly timing. I genuinely do think that by the mid-to-late 1990s - just in the years before the 777 arrived - AA was about ready to start stepping back into Asia in a more meaningful way. In 1996 Crandall gave a speech in which he talked excitedly about the prospects the 777 represented for AA to fly nonstop into markets like MNL, etc. But of course, soon after came the East Asian financial collapse, and relatively soon after that was 9/11, and of course we all know what has happened since.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 78):
Perhaps one of AA's biggest challenges was the lack of an identifiable trans-pacific gateway hub.

Agreed, although of course that didn't stop NW, which arguable had an inferior network for orientation to Asia for most of its history than AA has ever had. AA has long had hubs and large operations in generally larger markets with generally larger demand to Asia. But, of course, NW had NRT, and that was their ace in the hole for decades until the competition of liberalization rendered that hub somewhat obsolete.

UA, on the other hand, has of course always had by far the best U.S. hub system for orientation to Asia - with an enviable position in SFO (by far the prime U.S. gateway to Asia economically, demographically and geographically), plus extensive connectivity into the central and eastern U.S. via ORD and now also EWR and IAD, UA will always be the dominant U.S. carrier to Asia. Their structural advantage across the Pacific is similar to the systemic and impenetrable leadership position AA has between the U.S. and South America.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 78):
UA and NW also benefited from inheriting 5th freedom rights from Japan to Asia post WWII, and built up brand recognition over time.

Uh yeah - you can say that again.

That is - by far - the most important systemic advantage UA and NW have enjoyed for decades in Asia.

UA and NW milked the NRT 5th freedom rights for all they were worth, and UA very shrewdly saw the market shifting 20 years ago and started emphasizing nonstop flights overflying NRT. UA fully leveraged the strength of their U.S. hubs, and got ahead of the market, and as such today UA has not only an incredible network between the U.S. and NRT, but also to HKG and Mainland China, not to mention a still-quite-impressive network of flights into southeast Asia via NRT/HKG.

It is most definitely true that AA missed opportunities and made mistakes, but of course, realistically, no amount of smart decisions and opportunity-seeking would likely have ever allowed AA to build the scale UA and NW had to Asia. Their extraordinarily favorable regulatory position simply gave them in insurmountable advantage, in my view.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 79):
It seems now they appear to want LAX to be that primary gateway, but they have been sluggish to make it anything meaningful and even as such, limited gate space will make it challenging.

I'm not entirely sure AA wants LAX to be their "primary gateway" to Asia. I'm not saying AA doesn't want to grow LAX-Asia - they probably do. But I think it's unrealistic for AA to ever have any single "primary gateway" to Asia given its structural disadvantages, and if there was one single "primary gateway" it would probably be ORD, not LAX.

Gate space is an issue, but honestly I think that's overblown somewhat. Once the TBIT rebuild is finally complete, LAX is going to have plenty of widebody gate space. I think the larger issue is simply the market dynamics itself (high demand, but intensive competition, and in some cases low yields) rather than facility constraints.

And besides, again, I think AA is likely to pursue in the future much the same strategy it has for years with regards to Asia: spreading flights around multiple hubs and gateways that offer a mix of strong local demand and extensive connectivity.

Quoting QatarA340 (Reply 81):
Can AA partner up with Qatar Airways in Doha and expand its West Asian services at least? It can fly one or two daily flights and then team up with QR to carry the rest--sort of like the EK QF alliance.

I'm quite sure that's part of the plan.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 82):
I can really see at least a PHX-NRT service when the 787s and/or A350s get delivered.

I can't. I don't think the local market is large nor high-yielding enough, and I don't expect the PHX hub to be all that large enough to support additional connectivity beyond what other AA hubs already provide. I think PHL-NRT is far, far more plausible (indeed, I think quite likely).


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 84, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2999 times:

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 77):
What make American Airlines miss opportunity to grow Pacific rim destinations ?

Seems since 1980s US carrier focus growing in market like Pacific, but AA only really look to Japan.
There certainly is more to Pacific then Japan.

Was AA too focus on South America and Europe(they pull out of many markets there also) to remember Pacific ?

Seems like big strategic problem now compared to competitors.
.




The reason is because AA had to grow this region organically. UA and DL bought their way into the region.

Prior to deregulation, PA & NW owned the majority of US-Asian route authorities. After deregulation, UA bought PA's Pacific route authorities, and DL's merger with NW dramatically increased DL's presence in the region.

It is worth noting that every airline that tried to grow this region organically such as CO and DL (prior to the NW merger), had similar issues developing a strong Asian network.

[Edited 2013-03-18 19:32:27]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 85, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2889 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 83):
With an enviable position in SFO (by far the prime U.S. gateway to Asia economically, demographically and geographically),

I'm not sure how you derive that - LAX is a larger gateway to the Far East - about 23% larger.

We had a discussion previously about it, but here again are the traffic numbers by last country of arrival and first country of destination in 2011;

LAX
China - 743,502
Hong Kong - 498,092
Japan - 1,101,245
Korea - 893,932
Philippines - 295,987
Singapore - 38,259
Taiwan - 893,543
Thailand - 113,787
TOTAL: 4,577,797

SFO
China - 616,402
Hong Kong - 887,658
Japan - 810,164
Korea - 646,891
Philippines - 291,116
Taiwan - 471,649
TOTAL: 3,723,880

For fun here are a few more countries if you want to add the South Pacific.

LAX
Australia - 1,709,294
Cook Island - 23,836
Fiji - 163,376
French Polynesia - 189,594
New Zealand - 617,514
Samoa - 15,511
TOTAL: 2,719,125

SFO
Australia - 244,228
New Zealand - 210,852
TOTAL: 455,080

Source: DOT T-100

So combined you are looking at 7.3mil for LAX vs 4.2mil at SFO.


Yes UA has a nice operation at SFO, however if anything the 4.2mil SFO count is inflated due to the UA hub and all the transfer flow.
If we look at the local market you will see an even more significant disparity between the cities.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 86, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2845 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 85):
I'm not sure how you derive that - LAX is a larger gateway to the Far East - about 23% larger.

I meant that SFO is by far the best hub as a combination of the economic, demographic and geographic elements.

Economically, the SFO local market isn't as big as LAX but it also doesn't attracts quite as much competing capacity from Asian (or American) carriers, and as such it opens up an opportunity for one single U.S. carrier to dominate.

Demographically, SFO is a huge local market to Asia, owing to the enormous cultural ties, particularly to China.

Geographically, SFO is right in the middle of the west coast, and offers convenient and efficient connections both north and south up the western seaboard, and is additionally in the perfect location to serve connections between Asia and the non-western U.S. - not too far north or south to be too far out of the way.


User currently offlinePSA727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 974 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2681 times:

PHX-NRT service? Are people serious???

Right now AA is serving NRT from LAX and DFW. What niche does starting a flight from PHX fill? But more importantly, what other Asian destination could support a flight from PHX? Going forward, AA's expansion into Asia will be measured. But it will mainly be from LAX. In fact, here will be the international gateways: JFK-Europe/ MIA-LatAm & S America/ LAX-Asia. Of course, DFW and ORD will have flights to all 3 of those regions, and PHL and CLT to 1 or 2 of them. But PHX? Not a chance. It doesn't fill in any gap.



fly high, pay low...Germanwings!
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8289 posts, RR: 7
Reply 88, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 87):
PHX-NRT service? Are people serious???

Phoenix should have Tokyo service because its a large enough hub. With AA and US why couldn't a 787 work ? But its not going to ever be LAX, SFO or ORD in flights to Asia. Europe is also something PHX needs, one BA flights daily is a start.


User currently offlinerealsim From Spain, joined Apr 2010, 645 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2571 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 87):
Right now AA is serving NRT from LAX and DFW.

AA flies to Tokyo from LAX, DFW, ORD and JFK.

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 87):
Going forward, AA's expansion into Asia will be measured. But it will mainly be from LAX. In fact, here will be the international gateways: JFK-Europe/ MIA-LatAm & S America/ LAX-Asia. Of course, DFW and ORD will have flights to all 3 of those regions, and PHL and CLT to 1 or 2 of them. But PHX? Not a chance. It doesn't fill in any gap.

I don't doubt that there will be some Asian expansion from LAX now that AA has been building a stronger operation at LAX for the past two years. However, for now, there is no a main Asian gateway, as AA flies from ORD to NRT, PEK and PVG (3 daily flights), from LAX to NRT and PVG (2 daily flights) and from DFW to NRT and ICN (3 daily flights). AA is doing with Asia the same than they have done with Europe: fly to a smaller number of destinations than their competitors but trying to link these destinations with as many as possible hubs before launching new destinations. This is why we will probably see new routes to PEK and PVG before a new destination is added. At the end, we could see PEK linked with ORD, LAX and DFW, PVG with ORD, LAX and JFK and NRT with all 5 hubs. If HKG could be added to the list, I think that AA's position in Asia, while smaller than Delta's And United's, would be significant.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 90, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 88):
Phoenix should have Tokyo service because its a large enough hub.

Two things wrong with that, in my view: first, PHX should have a NRT flight if it makes economic sense, not merely on the basis of the hub being relatively large, and second, I highly doubt PHX is ultimately going to be as large of a hub post-merger as it was for US pre-merger.

And besides: "size" of hub matters only in context. If I'm not mistaken, among the U.S. hubs (not coastal mainly-O&D points like PDX and SAN that are not hubs) that currently have nonstop flights to NRT/Asia, PHX would be - by a fairly substantial margin - smaller than any of those other hubs.

The closest proxy would be SLC, and we see how that NRT flight worked out - and that was a hub that was arguably better-positioned geographically than PHX.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 88):
With AA and US why couldn't a 787 work ?

From what I understand, the market - like many in and out of PHX - is rather low-yielding. And unlike some other hubs/gateways like, say, EWR or ORD, PHX doesn't have a particularly large and/or high-yielding region to draw connecting traffic from.

Quoting realsim (Reply 89):
If HKG could be added to the list, I think that AA's position in Asia, while smaller than Delta's And United's, would be significant.

I have for some time been of the opinion that AA's position in Asia relative to its competitors was already approaching what it needed to be - or more realistically what it could be - at least on a nonstop U.S.-Asia basis. AA will never have the beyond-NRT hub flying UA and DL have, but then AA has an ATI/JV partner in JAL who provides the same feed. AA needs a few more surgical adds in the right places (DFW-HKG, LAX-PEK, now I would say PHL-NRT, etc.) and they will largely be where they need to be in terms of nonstops from U.S. hubs/gateways.


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1900 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 87):
PHX-NRT service? Are people serious???

Right now AA is serving NRT from LAX and DFW. What niche does starting a flight from PHX fill? But more importantly, what other Asian destination could support a flight from PHX? Going forward, AA's expansion into Asia will be measured. But it will mainly be from LAX. In fact, here will be the international gateways: JFK-Europe/ MIA-LatAm & S America/ LAX-Asia. Of course, DFW and ORD will have flights to all 3 of those regions, and PHL and CLT to 1 or 2 of them. But PHX? Not a chance. It doesn't fill in any gap.
.


Keep in mind that BA serves PHX even though they also serve LAX & DFW. In addition, they also serve DEN and LAS which are also in close proximity to PHX.

There does not have to be a large hub, or a hub at all, in PHX in order to support an Asian flight. The airline to start the flight will most likely be JL and not AA. One needs to keep in mind the connectivity on the NRT end (similar to how BA leverages connectivity on the LHR end for flights into PHX).


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 92, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2411 times:

US Airways has expressed interest in Tokyo several times.

Also remember as part of the DCA/LGA slot swap version-1, US was to get a NRT slot pair from DL.

So while Phoenix itself is not a huge market to/from Japan, a flight could be interesting for the broader Southwest especially under the AA-JL JV umbrella.

I don't see an issue with NRT-PHX especially if PHX is to remain relatively steady in activity the next few years.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offline9w748capt From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 562 posts, RR: 1
Reply 93, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2394 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 78):
ORD-NAG

Chicago-Nagpur on AA!? Hell yes! You can bet my fam would've been on this flight every summer   I'd have thought AA would chase ORD-BOM or even ORD-PNQ first, but hey us Nagpurians aren't complaining! I assume you meant NGO? Sorry to overreact, it was just awesome to see ORD-NAG typed out that's all. Plus a.net didn't even recognize NAG's code for the longest time so that's fixed too!

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 78):
Asian markets also tend to experience a lot of volatility. There was the crisis in the late 90s, followed by SARS, Tsunami, economic recession, H1N1, earthquake in Japan. The list goes on. It's really not been the panacea for AA's network gaps.

Great point - it's too bad really, but that really underscores the difficulty in relying significantly on Asia. My favorite part of the world! Add to that the lower cost base of most of the airlines there, and it just makes more sense for AA to penetrate via codeshares for the timebeing anyway.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 16):
Yes AA it does have its JAL JV, but who knows how much that can help plug the holes. Also seemingly CX is not much of a benefit choosing to do its own thing ignoring its OW partners.

Care to elaborate? AA has placed their code on pretty much every major destination ex-HKG, perfectly timed to connect with CX's services, so I'd say they're not exactly "ignoring" their partners. I wonder what they think of MH joining ow, but honestly MH is a minnow compared to big bad CX in the region, so I doubt they'll really care.

Quoting airdfw (Reply 25):
Can 77W do this job from DFW?

It can from JFK, and YYZ, so of course it can from DFW!

commavia, do you see AA starting DFW-HKG in the next year or two with the 77W? Would be a great add to the oneworld network IMO. Or would there not be enough premium traffic to justify it? And while DFW has done nothing but gain int'l service in the last few years, is there a large enough Asian population in the metroplex to support this route? I would think so, but I suppose that's for the AA beancounters to decide.


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7233 posts, RR: 17
Reply 94, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Quoting PSA727 (Reply 87):
What niche does starting a flight from PHX fill?
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 88):
Phoenix should have Tokyo service because its a large enough hub. With AA and US why couldn't a 787 work ? But its not going to ever be LAX, SFO or ORD in flights to Asia. Europe is also something PHX needs, one BA flights daily is a start.

Why? Because there's a growing demand for Asian service, the incentives are there, and my back-roomers have been saying something like this has been in the works for the last 5 years since the start-up date for Japanese 787s was becoming more apparent. People in PHX have been working for a long time to grab some Asian service.

PHX is....for the millionth time.... not a desolate wasteland. It's a growing city with lots of O&D.

I bet any one of you can name someone you know who has come out to PHX for business. And I can also bet any one of you can probably find someone u know or someone connected to you somehow that has worked with an Asian company with ties to Phoenix, either in PHX or in some waypoint.

Not to mention it's something some of my Japanese contacts have been trying to obtain. A buddy of mine works as a trading agent between PHX and Tokyo. He hates connecting in LAX and having a flight from PHX to NRT would probably bring a lot of businesses to the valley anyway.

Now I think I've said this about 20 times in the last month, so can we please stop accusing the 5th largest city in the USA of being worthless ?



One of the FB admins for PHX Spotters. "Zach the Expat!"
User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1610 posts, RR: 9
Reply 95, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 94):
PHX is....for the millionth time.... not a desolate wasteland. It's a growing city with lots of O&D.
Quoting PHX787 (Reply 94):
Now I think I've said this about 20 times in the last month, so can we please stop accusing the 5th largest city in the USA of being worthless ?

Nobody is saying it's a desolate wasteland, and nobody is saying it's worthless. For the most part, it's only the folks from the Phoenix side introducing that emotional reaction, the folks who question the value of the flights are basing it on O&D and yield statistics. Statistics can be manipulated, but they are decidedly unemotional. Speaking of those statistics, Phoenix is the 6th largest city in the USA and only the 14th largest metropolitan area.

The issue people are looking at is that, statistically, PHX tilts toward domestic O&D and hasn't seen the kind of yield/O&D combo to Asia that demands a flight be started. Other factors are certainly at play, and incentives can definitely change the math.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 94):
Not to mention it's something some of my Japanese contacts have been trying to obtain.

I've got several contacts at STL (by which I mean people who actually work for the airport) who are trying to set up a cargo hub, that doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen, let alone be a success.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11463 posts, RR: 61
Reply 96, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2178 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 95):
Nobody is saying it's a desolate wasteland, and nobody is saying it's worthless. For the most part, it's only the folks from the Phoenix side introducing that emotional reaction, the folks who question the value of the flights are basing it on O&D and yield statistics. Statistics can be manipulated, but they are decidedly unemotional. Speaking of those statistics, Phoenix is the 6th largest city in the USA and only the 14th largest metropolitan area.

  

Thank you.

Quoting steex (Reply 95):
The issue people are looking at is that, statistically, PHX tilts toward domestic O&D and hasn't seen the kind of yield/O&D combo to Asia that demands a flight be started. Other factors are certainly at play, and incentives can definitely change the math.

That, plus not to mention that not only does PHX O&D tend to be more domestic- (or Canada-) oriented, but it also tends to skew lower yielding than some other U.S. hub markets. I would guess that there are other U.S. hub markets that generate similar or even less overall O&D than PHX, but for which total onboard revenue for the market is higher owing to higher fares.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2915 posts, RR: 6
Reply 97, posted (1 year 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2137 times:

Quoting commavia (Reply 96):
That, plus not to mention that not only does PHX O&D tend to be more domestic- (or Canada-) oriented, but it also tends to skew lower yielding than some other U.S. hub markets. I would guess that there are other U.S. hub markets that generate similar or even less overall O&D than PHX, but for which total onboard revenue for the market is higher owing to higher fares.

Indeed. Although I wonder - AA could route traffic away from DFW-NRT to PHX (and LAS bound traffic away from LAX) to protect those higher yields. Ultimately it depends on how the new AA approaches their JV with JL and their Pacific operation in general. Truth be told - they wouldn't have a problem filling the plane from PHX it's just can they get the right mix of yields to make it worthwhile. Even so, Tokyo would be it for long time.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24888 posts, RR: 46
Reply 98, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 93):
Care to elaborate?

Yes certainly.

Cathay similar to Singapore in Star has had a tenuous relationship with most its OW partners.

On paper CX is a happy and big OW member, however in practice the manner it deals with its partners (or in some cases virtually ignores them) is a much more reality.

Yes AA codeshares with CX to 8 Asian cities and 23 in the Americas since 2003 but in commercial practice such as allocation and availability of seat capacity, and joint fare pricing has been difficult. The relationship is hardly as beneficial as it could be, particularly for AA.

Certainly CX is free to do as it wishes, and OW is loose enough of an alliance that is does not force members to work together in much of any degree.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
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...
B6 Going Forward, In Light Of AA/US posted Thu Feb 14 2013 07:02:48 by STT757
Impact Of AA/US On UA posted Wed Feb 13 2013 19:30:57 by ORD Boy 2
Sign Of Imminent Merger Between AA/US? posted Fri Jan 25 2013 10:25:23 by olddominion727
Would An AA/US/B6 Merger Work? posted Tue May 15 2012 17:31:21 by TWA85
PHL Hub For A Combined AA/US...could Work? posted Tue Jun 1 2010 19:31:10 by Seatback
US Use Of AA Gates In PHL posted Thu Sep 3 2009 14:58:50 by Rafflesking
Importance Of An Individual Hub To A Route Network posted Wed Jan 7 2009 14:00:45 by Jamincan
Pittsburgh: Death Of An Airline Hub posted Tue Oct 16 2007 22:00:04 by USADreamliner
LAX AA Engine Fire Of June 2 Leads To Changes... posted Tue Aug 29 2006 21:47:40 by Ikramerica
AA/TW: Tons Of Changes; Bye STL-CDG (for Now) posted Tue Sep 11 2001 02:41:02 by Mah4546