There are rumbles of AA starting up PHX-LHR ... I hope this is true its about time PHX gets some love!

Wouldn't ve surprised if they were using the 2nd BA flight as a test. I could see a smaller AA plane doing a 2nd daily, either 767/332/788.

sagechan wrote:

Wouldn't ve surprised if they were using the 2nd BA flight as a test. I could see a smaller AA plane doing a 2nd daily, either 767/332/788.

I here the ramp for AA in PHX there new bid starts soon and they will have crews for 3 wide bodies I see one to HNL in DEC then somewhere like CLT but where would the 3rd one be so it could be true

Is NRT on the AA radar for PHX, or would that flight if it happened be parceled out to JL?

jetsetterusa wrote:

sagechan wrote:

Wouldn't ve surprised if they were using the 2nd BA flight as a test. I could see a smaller AA plane doing a 2nd daily, either 767/332/788.

I here the ramp for AA in PHX there new bid starts soon and they will have crews for 3 wide bodies I see one to HNL in DEC then somewhere like CLT but where would the 3rd one be so it could be true

I havent seen any flights loaded to feed the HNL flight yet, id assume CLT or PHL but no reason couldnt do a W route via international, so its possible.

jetsetterusa wrote:

sagechan wrote:

Wouldn't ve surprised if they were using the 2nd BA flight as a test. I could see a smaller AA plane doing a 2nd daily, either 767/332/788.

I here the ramp for AA in PHX there new bid starts soon and they will have crews for 3 wide bodies I see one to HNL in DEC then somewhere like CLT but where would the 3rd one be so it could be true

If they started a flight to LHR it definitely wouldn't be in December. I'm guessing if there is another flight it's going to be a domestic turn. But I'll be happy to be proven wrong. AA now has the ability to gate widebodies on N1 and N3 so with the exception of any international inbound they're free of conflicts with the city gates.

jetsetterusa wrote:

There are rumbles of AA starting up PHX-LHR ... I hope this is true its about time PHX gets some love!

But wouldn't this ultimately lead to AA taking over the LHR route from BA? If that were the case, PHX would lose one of the few int'l flag cx serving Sky Harbor, along with the only pax-carrying 747 currently flying regularly in and out of the airport.

I personally would not like to see that happen if it were my home airport...

bb

Ramp rats are the last to know anything about anything. This same rumor was going around a couple years ago because they painted 777 parking lines at several gates.

Take it with a massive grain of salt until you hear something more credible....

Well, AA has acquired another slot at Heathrow from SAS and paid a lot of money for it. They must have a plan. At least one hopes they have a plan. PHX to replace the partial second BA flight, allowing BA to switch that to another new 787 destination would seem quite a likely bet.

ZuluTime wrote:

Well, AA has acquired another slot at Heathrow from SAS and paid a lot of money for it. They must have a plan. At least one hopes they have a plan. PHX to replace the partial second BA flight, allowing BA to switch that to another new 787 destination would seem quite a likely bet.

IINM they're being leased back to SAS for at least three years, so AA won't be using them for a while.

Seeing that BA and AA have the joint venture I dont see AA starting an LHR flight. I think the 777 is too many seats for HNL unless they go to 1x Daily for all the Hawaii flights and I don't really see that happening. I sure hope LHR on AA metal is true but...............

sagechan wrote:

Wouldn't ve surprised if they were using the 2nd BA flight as a test. I could see a smaller AA plane doing a 2nd daily, either 767/332/788.

I have heard some grumblings as well, nothing official, but just talk. The 2nd daily limited weekly flights on the 747 are a huge jump. Take those seats and spread them out on a smaller plane over more days. With the JV that isn't that un-realistic. Lots of 1 stop flight options either direction. Could also to be fend off LCCs.

travaz wrote:

Seeing that BA and AA have the joint venture I dont see AA starting an LHR flight. I think the 777 is too many seats for HNL unless they go to 1x Daily for all the Hawaii flights and I don't really see that happening. I sure hope LHR on AA metal is true but...............

Well AA is using a 333 between PHX and HNL this winter. The 333 seats 291 which is more than the 777-200's, but less than the two 757's that operated daily.

SANFan wrote:

jetsetterusa wrote:

There are rumbles of AA starting up PHX-LHR ... I hope this is true its about time PHX gets some love!

But wouldn't this ultimately lead to AA taking over the LHR route from BA? If that were the case, PHX would lose one of the few int'l flag cx serving Sky Harbor, along with the only pax-carrying 747 currently flying regularly in and out of the airport.

I personally would not like to see that happen if it were my home airport...

bb

Not necessarily, as BA/AA operate quite a few LHR routes from AA hubs in tandem with each other. PHX and CLT are the only AA hubs with existing service that don't see LHR flights on both airlines' metal. I think it's entirely possible that AA could operate a seasonal second LHR flight without putting the existing BA service at risk. As someone else already pointed out, it would probably make more sense to operate it daily but with a smaller aircraft next summer providing there are available slots to do so.

I'm curious to see what they do next summer with Condor entering the TATL market (albeit at 2x weekly). It is interesting to see DE operating from May to September whereas BA only went 10x weekly from May to June.

910A wrote:

travaz wrote:

Seeing that BA and AA have the joint venture I dont see AA starting an LHR flight. I think the 777 is too many seats for HNL unless they go to 1x Daily for all the Hawaii flights and I don't really see that happening. I sure hope LHR on AA metal is true but...............

Well AA is using a 333 between PHX and HNL this winter. The 333 seats 291 which is more than the 777-200's, but less than the two 757's that operated daily.

I would guess that AA is experimenting on whether a 333 will be enough to take care of the market without getting into a food fight with Hawaiian and their 332.

KanaHawaii wrote:

I would guess that AA is experimenting on whether a 333 will be enough to take care of the market without getting into a food fight with Hawaiian and their 332.

HA only flies the 763 to PHX as PHX is a mx base for the 767.

wn676 wrote:

I'm curious to see what they do next summer with Condor entering the TATL market (albeit at 2x weekly). It is interesting to see DE operating from May to September whereas BA only went 10x weekly from May to June.

I think because the European summer holiday ends at the end of August--which would be an indication of who they think the route is for.

AA probably could launch a daily service on a 763 to complement the BA744, and BA may even be able to downgrade to a 788/9. But if both flights are within an hour of each other, what's the point I say.

I would think that in theory, this route can handle at least BA and AA with the connectivity on either end.

The difficulty is that on the PHX it can get quite late for the mass of connections given the times of landing int'l heavies apparently need to operate at...

hz747300 wrote:

wn676 wrote:

I'm curious to see what they do next summer with Condor entering the TATL market (albeit at 2x weekly). It is interesting to see DE operating from May to September whereas BA only went 10x weekly from May to June.

I think because the European summer holiday ends at the end of August--which would be an indication of who they think the route is for.

AA probably could launch a daily service on a 763 to complement the BA744, and BA may even be able to downgrade to a 788/9. But if both flights are within an hour of each other, what's the point I say.

Just what I was thinking.

hz747300 wrote:

AA probably could launch a daily service on a 763 to complement the BA744, and BA may even be able to downgrade to a 788/9. But if both flights are within an hour of each other, what's the point I say.

Pretty sure that AA is not operating the 763 to LHR this summer, and since the 763 doesn't serve PHX it would be an orphan on both ends.

hz747300 wrote:

wn676 wrote:

I'm curious to see what they do next summer with Condor entering the TATL market (albeit at 2x weekly). It is interesting to see DE operating from May to September whereas BA only went 10x weekly from May to June.

I think because the European summer holiday ends at the end of August--which would be an indication of who they think the route is for.

And that's what I don't get; why did BA cut the flight short with two months left in the summer travel season?

910A wrote:

hz747300 wrote:

AA probably could launch a daily service on a 763 to complement the BA744, and BA may even be able to downgrade to a 788/9. But if both flights are within an hour of each other, what's the point I say.

Pretty sure that AA is not operating the 763 to LHR this summer, and since the 763 doesn't serve PHX it would be an orphan on both ends.

Correct, and it looks like it's staying that way through at least October. The 767s aren't the most competitive product for LHR - they'd have to source one from someplace like DFW, ORD, MIA, or JFK, which would mean downgrading a current frequency - and haven't exactly been stellar with their reliability either, so the prospects of seeing one routed in on a W pattern I'd say is highly unlikely too.

Seems fantastic if true. But when the first flight from central EU to PHX ? LH anyone? Please...

Aquila3 wrote:

But when the first flight from central EU to PHX ?

That title belongs to LT which flew DUS-PHX from November 1996 to October 1998. LH also flew FRA-PHX from March 2001 to February 2004. DE will be flying FRA-PHX starting next May.

wn676 wrote:

And that's what I don't get; why did BA cut the flight short with two months left in the summer travel season?

I'm thinking it has more to do with ex-PHX traffic than the other way around. A lot of schools in the valley have modified year-round schedules, so the summer break runs from May to July, not to mention ASU/UofA, which finishes up in early May. I would anticipate the majority of summer travels taking place earlier in the break than later, especially since fares deeper into the summer tend to be higher (at least in my experience).

I think more than anything though, it was a trial balloon to gauge increased seasonal service to see if demand and yield met expectations. I'm not sure I buy into the theory of AA operating PHX-LHR when AA/BA/IB have a metal-neutral JV, but I would anticipate the potential for increased frequency in the future, seasonally at least. At some point, they may consider experimenting with different fleet types as well.

kimimm19 wrote:

I would think that in theory, this route can handle at least BA and AA with the connectivity on either end.

The difficulty is that on the PHX it can get quite late for the mass of connections given the times of landing int'l heavies apparently need to operate at...

You mean for performance reasons? BA 289 regularly operates around the 5PM hour which is one of the hottest parts of the day without a problem. At any rate, any performance related issue would be on takeoff, not on landing.

As far as connections are concerned, a 5-6PM arrival into PHX is still far early enough to connect anywhere west of the Mississippi, although I imagine most connections would be to destinations on the west coast.

910A wrote:

Pretty sure that AA is not operating the 763 to LHR this summer, and since the 763 doesn't serve PHX it would be an orphan on both ends.

AA isn't starting any route to LHR with a 763 and its inferior product. I'm not at all convinced starting PHX-LHR is an intelligent idea for AA, but it would be operated with a 788 if anything.

atcsundevil wrote:

wn676 wrote:

And that's what I don't get; why did BA cut the flight short with two months left in the summer travel season?

I'm thinking it has more to do with ex-PHX traffic than the other way around. A lot of schools in the valley have modified year-round schedules, so the summer break runs from May to July, not to mention ASU/UofA, which finishes up in early May. I would anticipate the majority of summer travels taking place earlier in the break than later, especially since fares deeper into the summer tend to be higher (at least in my experience).

I think more than anything though, it was a trial balloon to gauge increased seasonal service to see if demand and yield met expectations. I'm not sure I buy into the theory of AA operating PHX-LHR when AA/BA/IB have a metal-neutral JV, but I would anticipate the potential for increased frequency in the future, seasonally at least. At some point, they may consider experimenting with different fleet types as well.

I think also with B25 closing tomorrow until late October, that certainly plays into considerations. The flight certainly did well when it was here and there is no reason why AA couldn't operate that second frequency but I still think BA is in a better position to operate it.

I wonder if the following might happen: AA adds a daily rotation PHX-LHR, and conversely we see CLT-LHR go to a split BA/AA operation. PHX and CLT are the only two hubs that don't see mixed services.

I wouldn't count on it.

GSP psgr wrote:

I wonder if the following might happen: AA adds a daily rotation PHX-LHR, and conversely we see CLT-LHR go to a split BA/AA operation. PHX and CLT are the only two hubs that don't see mixed services.

While I may want that (a lot), I don't think we will see BA here in CLT or for that matter. The hub doesnt really add that many destinations even remotely beneficial to BA, and capacity does not need to be increased much from what I've read. BA also has much more premium-heavy a/c than AA's 330s.

777PHX wrote:

kimimm19 wrote:

I would think that in theory, this route can handle at least BA and AA with the connectivity on either end.

The difficulty is that on the PHX it can get quite late for the mass of connections given the times of landing int'l heavies apparently need to operate at...

You mean for performance reasons? BA 289 regularly operates around the 5PM hour which is one of the hottest parts of the day without a problem. At any rate, any performance related issue would be on takeoff, not on landing.

As far as connections are concerned, a 5-6PM arrival into PHX is still far early enough to connect anywhere west of the Mississippi, although I imagine most connections would be to destinations on the west coast.

Yes indeed I mean performance as you highlighted. BA also operates the 747 which is fine with takeoff performance where especially a departure earlier than 5-6pm on the hottest of days might not be suitable (I'm not an expert obviously but going off of what I've seen qualified people write in takeoff performance threads). The later the departure from PHX, the less likely any connecting business travlers would take it as it's losing an entire day's worth of work unlike early morning European arrivals.

GSP psgr wrote:

I wonder if the following might happen: AA adds a daily rotation PHX-LHR, and conversely we see CLT-LHR go to a split BA/AA operation. PHX and CLT are the only two hubs that don't see mixed services.

We may see it in the future as BA/AA do split operations to many of AA hubs and as these hubs were gained from a merger not so long ago and they might of need to adjust a bit due to Heathrow slots

You know what would help an AA possible TATL flight-- not axing flights/frequencies from major cities that lack an overseas flight like MCI and STL.

stl07 wrote:

You know what would help an AA possible TATL flight-- not axing flights/frequencies from major cities that lack an overseas flight like MCI and STL.

Who in places like MCI and STL would fly to LHR via PHX except the lowest yielding bottom feeders? AA has ORD to take care of those markets.

stl07 wrote:

You know what would help an AA possible TATL flight-- not axing flights/frequencies from major cities that lack an overseas flight like MCI and STL.

Why would anyone fly from MCI/STL to PHX to catch a TATL flight?

Polot wrote:

stl07 wrote:

You know what would help an AA possible TATL flight-- not axing flights/frequencies from major cities that lack an overseas flight like MCI and STL.

Who in places like MCI and STL would fly to LHR via PHX except the lowest yielding bottom feeders? AA has ORD to take care of those markets.

The same AA loyalists that make a connection in DFW to go to LHR or CLT en route to SDF/IND. But the point I was trying to make was that an airline axing solid connecting flights from a hub isn't necessarily going to have a TALT flight on its radar for that city.

I've heard it all now....

Who would backtrack three hours to PHX to catch an even longer transatlantic flight?

stl07 wrote:

Polot wrote:

stl07 wrote:

You know what would help an AA possible TATL flight-- not axing flights/frequencies from major cities that lack an overseas flight like MCI and STL.

Who in places like MCI and STL would fly to LHR via PHX except the lowest yielding bottom feeders? AA has ORD to take care of those markets.

The same AA loyalists that make a connection in DFW to go to LHR or CLT en route to SDF/IND. But the point I was trying to make was that an airline axing solid connecting flights from a hub isn't necessarily going to have a TALT flight on its radar for that city.

The bulk of the connections for that route are on the LHR end, not the other way around. LAS and SAN used to represent nearly all of the connecting feed on the PHX end, but they both have nonstop options now.

777PHX wrote:

I've heard it all now....

Who would backtrack three hours to PHX to catch an even longer transatlantic flight?

AA.com has some crazy routings...recently I checked into flying from MIA to GRU and one of the routings was from MIA to LAX to GRU. Forgot the travel time but it was one long trip!

777PHX wrote:

KanaHawaii wrote:

I would guess that AA is experimenting on whether a 333 will be enough to take care of the market without getting into a food fight with Hawaiian and their 332.

HA only flies the 763 to PHX as PHX is a mx base for the 767.

Well, considering that the 763's are on their way out, I would think that there is a bit of pre-emption and maybe some experimentation on expansion of the market going on.

stl07 wrote:

Polot wrote:

stl07 wrote:

You know what would help an AA possible TATL flight-- not axing flights/frequencies from major cities that lack an overseas flight like MCI and STL.

Who in places like MCI and STL would fly to LHR via PHX except the lowest yielding bottom feeders? AA has ORD to take care of those markets.

The same AA loyalists that make a connection in DFW to go to LHR or CLT en route to SDF/IND. But the point I was trying to make was that an airline axing solid connecting flights from a hub isn't necessarily going to have a TALT flight on its radar for that city.

Or on the flip side they would be trying to capture the O/D or LHR connection options. The Nonstop to LHR gets in later in the day, so not the best for onward connections. Then again, you can just connect via PHL / ORD/ etc if they are linked.

763s/A333s/777s are getting up there in age, making most of the cost OpEx, certainly can experiment more. Could maybe see an additional flight during the Feb-April period. That is peak PHX season.

PHX-LHR on AA is becoming as annoying as LHR to BNA, CLE, CMH, CVG, IND, MCI, STL, etc.

Not all airports are "entitled" to BA service to LHR. Just ask DTW, they think they are entitled to a flight to any runway over 7,000 feet.

With PHX-HNL getting a 333 and a CLT-PHX run currently on a 332 (leaving PHX going to PHL), it seems like they're preparing PHX for more A330 service. If we did get LHR, my guess would be a 332.

globalcabotage wrote:

Not all airports are "entitled" to BA service to LHR.

Well Phoenix probably is...BA has served PHX for two decades, nearly all of it to LHR. The discussion is whether or not AA will add a second frequency to complement BA service, which recently went x11 B744 weekly for a few months. With the JV being metal neutral, I don't see the reason for AA to add service, to be honest. I would assume BA would just increase frequency if demand exists. I'm happy to eat humble pie should I be wrong, but I just don't see the case for it.

I wonder if the A330-300 could make it.

Varsity1 wrote:

I wonder if the A330-300 could make it.

It is about 150nm further than FCO-ATL, which I think is the longest non-IGW A330-300 flight to the U.S. right now (about the same length as AMS-PDX also). The airplane is at the edge of the envelope in that context. The question would be why, when the AA-BA JV has so many capable aircraft that work on this route, would they put an airplane on the trip that would be stretched extremely thin - especially when the BA 744 has been doing very well.

Also noteble the PHX F/A's (LUS) that are not already qualified on the A330 begin training on it in August in preparation for the PHX/HNL A330 flight. I did hear from a reliable source rhat the deciding factor was a near future additional opportunity utilizing the A330 from PHX. I've been hearing a lot of rumblings since that is happening and the A330 could very likely be taking that 2nd flight PHX-LHR that BA was going to operate and utilizing AA's purchased slot. This happened in PHL with BA as apart of the JV and route swaps with them. I'd say it's very likely to happen and that makes me happy!