Hey Anetters!

This is a question that can be easily Google'd, but I want to hear the response from all of the aviation nuts and those who remember vividly.
What exactly happened to AA and TLV? During the AA/US merger the New American only flew the PHL-TLV route for a matter of months before axing it because “The fact of the matter is that PHL-TLV has not performed well since its inception" (AA spokesperson).

What is the actual reasoning?

all you'll get on this forum is pure speculation on this topic. over and over again. the only people who really know how this did are AA employees, and they'll NEVER post how well the flight did/ didn't do in a public forum.

tkoenig95 wrote:

Hey Anetters!

This is a question that can be easily Google'd, but I want to hear the response from all of the aviation nuts and those who remember vividly.
What exactly happened to AA and TLV? During the AA/US merger the New American only flew the PHL-TLV route for a matter of months before axing it because “The fact of the matter is that PHL-TLV has not performed well since its inception" (AA spokesperson).

What is the actual reasoning?

Probably has something to do with factoring in the opportunity cost. It took two A330s to operate the route on a daily basis, and they probably thought that they could make more money using the two aircraft to fly two separate daily transatlantic flights than having two aircraft needing to operate one daily flight. I guess they weren't able to generate sufficient premium demand flying PHL-TLV that DL and UA could flying JFK/EWR-TLV.

To repeat what has been said ad nauseam on this forum: the "issue" over former TWA employees in Israel had nothing to do with the decision to stop flying.

But why wouldn't AA try flying JFK. - TLV? It's primarily O/D and they would have great connections from LAX and MIA, two large markets for TLV. admittedly, they aren't the connecting powerhouse at JFK that DL is, but the route should do well with the NYC and MIA/LAX markets, right?

DP is not Aggressive outside of DFW/PHL/LAX/ORD/MIA He's believes in his main hubs and JFK is before him/presently in OD/ Gateway Status.

I'll add I agree with you. AA with DP is conservative imop. -LAX and even there they almost lost the last China Award and have been matched by delta at LAX

My "theory" is that AA-TLV will restart in 2018.

Delta and United both have daily 777 flights from New York to TLV plus EL AL has both daily Newark and JFK daily flights too. Its a well flown route.

Living in South Florida I much preferred to take the US/AA flight through PHL without getting mired in the JFK/EWR congestion. I think it’s AA’s greatest asset compared to the over-served NY market.

Yeah, but most are not willing to pay $1 more to do it. An international flight needs O and D pax filled in with connectors such as yourself to work.

You may enjoy connecting to TLV from PHL, but the O and D obviously wasnt there.

tkoenig95 wrote:

Hey Anetters!

This is a question that can be easily Google'd, but I want to hear the response from all of the aviation nuts and those who remember vividly.
What exactly happened to AA and TLV? During the AA/US merger the New American only flew the PHL-TLV route for a matter of months before axing it because “The fact of the matter is that PHL-TLV has not performed well since its inception" (AA spokesperson).

What is the actual reasoning?

I'm not sure why you don't believe the company spokesperson.

If the flight is making money - you fly it unless you can make more money using the aircraft elsewhere (taking into account upline/downline contribution). If it isn't profitable, you cut it.

LUS senior management was very vocal that there were no sacred cows when it came to routes, and flights had to be profitable or be trending that way to survive. It just happens that this one was a LUS route, but plenty of LAA routes have been cut as well.

jfklganyc wrote:

(...)

You may enjoy connecting to TLV from PHL, but the O and D obviously wasnt there.

Evidently airlines do not cut profitable routes, so this one had to be losing money. PHL-TLV might not have high fares, but certainly it had to be popular with New Jersey travelers for whom driving to Newark or to Philly is nearly the same. I believe there was plenty of O&D traffic, but it was difficult to get them to pay more the rock bottom fare.

CobraKai wrote:

tkoenig95 wrote:

Hey Anetters!

This is a question that can be easily Google'd, but I want to hear the response from all of the aviation nuts and those who remember vividly.
What exactly happened to AA and TLV? During the AA/US merger the New American only flew the PHL-TLV route for a matter of months before axing it because “The fact of the matter is that PHL-TLV has not performed well since its inception" (AA spokesperson).

What is the actual reasoning?

I'm not sure why you don't believe the company spokesperson.

If the flight is making money - you fly it unless you can make more money using the aircraft elsewhere (taking into account upline/downline contribution). If it isn't profitable, you cut it.

LUS senior management was very vocal that there were no sacred cows when it came to routes, and flights had to be profitable or be trending that way to survive. It just happens that this one was a LUS route, but plenty of LAA routes have been cut as well.

My brother was a captain for US, and he and his wife flew PHL-TLV every year on passes. He told me on several occasions they didn't make the flight on the first try, and on one occasion had to stay an extra 6 days in TLV. That's not saying it was profitable, but at least is was going out full. It could just be that AA doesn't have a desire to fly the route. TLV seem well covered in the areas where the business is most likely to originate.

There is a financial/legal obstacle that prevents AA from continueing TLV. American Airlines have inherited a claim of USD 17 million. That's what the former Israeli workers demand as a compensation for being fired by TWA.

Here is an article from 2014 which isn't obsolete yet:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 14121.html

$17M isn't the decider if the flight is making good money.

Also, the airline publicly said it wasn't a profitable, which, if untrue, could be discoverable and could lead to massive fines should a court case ever develop. If it was profitable but they didn't want to fly it, then the language would be more vague, e.g. wasn't performing up to expectations, or assets better deployed elsewhere.

Kilopond wrote:

There is a financial/legal obstacle that prevents AA from continueing TLV. American Airlines have inherited a claim of USD 17 million. That's what the former Israeli workers demand as a compensation for being fired by TWA.

Here is an article from 2014 which isn't obsolete yet:

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 14121.html

That claim is moot. American Airlines never inherited the TWA worker claim because it never bought TWA's Israeli assets. Those workers had a claim against the estate of TWA, which was settled in the early 2000s. There was no attachment to American.

Problem was TLV-PHL wa sweight restricted on the 330 and always had to leave valuable cargo behind which hurt their profit margin. If this route was flown on a 787 it would have been a winner (they had a lot connections as well o&d the often drove up from NYC to take this flight)

yochai wrote:

Problem was TLV-PHL wa sweight restricted on the 330 and always had to leave valuable cargo behind which hurt their profit margin. If this route was flown on a 787 it would have been a winner (they had a lot connections as well o&d the often drove up from NYC to take this flight)

And yet planespotters.net shows AA with a fleet of 20 787-8s and 12 787-9s (plus 47 777s and 20 77Ws) but AA doesn't fly them to TLV. It's apparently not just an LUS A330 problem.

MIflyer12 wrote:

yochai wrote:

Problem was TLV-PHL wa sweight restricted on the 330 and always had to leave valuable cargo behind which hurt their profit margin. If this route was flown on a 787 it would have been a winner (they had a lot connections as well o&d the often drove up from NYC to take this flight)

And yet planespotters.net shows AA with a fleet of 20 787-8s and 12 787-9s (plus 47 777s and 20 77Ws) but AA doesn't fly them to TLV. It's apparently not just an LUS A330 problem.

It's a problem when you don't have a crew base at PHL

TLV is the center of the universe only on this forum, I swear

So why didn't US drop it?

yochai wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

yochai wrote:

Problem was TLV-PHL wa sweight restricted on the 330 and always had to leave valuable cargo behind which hurt their profit margin. If this route was flown on a 787 it would have been a winner (they had a lot connections as well o&d the often drove up from NYC to take this flight)

And yet planespotters.net shows AA with a fleet of 20 787-8s and 12 787-9s (plus 47 777s and 20 77Ws) but AA doesn't fly them to TLV. It's apparently not just an LUS A330 problem.

It's a problem when you don't have a crew base at PHL

Yep. AA has chosen to limit longhaul fleet diversity at it's various bases to provide for easier operational spares and a more consistent product. PHL is not slated to receive any 777s or 787s.

It's an opportunity cost issue with the 777s and the 787s. AA operates the 77Ws to LHR, GRU, EZE, HKG, and SYD where either the range of the aircraft or a premium cabin is in demand. The 787s are generally used on transpacific flights out of ORD, LAX, and DFW along with operating DFW-CDG/MAD, and ORD-LHR.

Given AA's current MO, for them to start PHL-TLV with a 777 would require them to start at least one other route from PHL using the 777--based off of how they are deploying the 763s in PHL next summer.

wenders825 wrote:

TLV is the center of the universe only on this forum, I swear

I thought that honor went to MIA?

acentauri wrote:

My "theory" is that AA-TLV will restart in 2018.

ORD is now the largest market in the US without a nonstop to TLV. It also would also serve as a more robust connecting hub than PHL. If AA would start ORD-TLV with a 788, plus significantly expand the LY code-share relationship, it would be a real winner!

Call me incorrect, but US never flew their A333 PHL-TLV. It only went as far as ATH. And their A332s should have had absolutely no problem doing TLV. Those airplanes are not 242T but they are still newish and should have high performance.

I really don't think this story explains why AA is not in TLV.

AA's VP of network planning was in PHL recently for a town hall. The question of TLV came up. He stated that PHL-TLV i a market that is looked at regularly. However, they way they exited the market makes reentry difficult. He stated that a number of travel agencies in Israel really drive the market, even for US origin travel. Instead of quickly exiting the market as they did, he stated that they should have tried things to save the route, like going seasonal. But PHL-TLV is a market AA wants to reenter.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

TLV is the center of the universe only on this forum, I swear

I thought that honor went to MIA?

DTW DTW DTW DTW

Flighty wrote:

Call me incorrect, but US never flew their A333 PHL-TLV. It only went as far as ATH. And their A332s should have had absolutely no problem doing TLV. Those airplanes are not 242T but they are still newish and should have high performance.

I really don't think this story explains why AA is not in TLV.

You are correct. The A332 was introduced into the US fleet in tandem with the start of TLV service. It was the perfect aircraft for the mission.

[url][/url]

AAlaxfan wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

wenders825 wrote:

TLV is the center of the universe only on this forum, I swear

I thought that honor went to MIA?

DTW DTW DTW DTW

Lol DTW is by far the winner of this category.

On topic, would AA use the 789 on ORD-TVL when they start to receive more of them? Or is 788 the only long haul used for intl at ORD no matter the route now?

willyj wrote:

But why wouldn't AA try flying JFK. - TLV? It's primarily O/D and they would have great connections from LAX and MIA, two large markets for TLV. admittedly, they aren't the connecting powerhouse at JFK that DL is, but the route should do well with the NYC and MIA/LAX markets, right?

American more than any other US carrier seeks to feed traffic into its oneworld partners. That said, the O&D would sustain it, although chances are that at least 2 aircraft would be doing the route at one time, ideally either a Boeing 787-9 or a Boeing 777-200ER. The US Airways A332s that did that route were 238t frames, more than capable of doing it. But from NYC, an A332 would not be enough capacity. Delta uses its highest-capacity non-A350 planes, the 242t A330-300, on JFK-TLV, and UA uses a 77E and a 77W on that route. LY is downgauging slowly to a B789 as the future largest plane in the LY passenger fleet, but trading that in for more frequencies. The problem though for AA is that AA for JFK is mostly O&D, while DL has feed from other areas, UA does as well, and LY has B6 and AM feed (the JFK-TLV flights have an AM codeshare while B6 flights to and from JFK have an LY codeshare). If AA needs network connections, I suspect it will be from PHL on a 238t A332, to try to capture the Delaware Valley and South Jersey market.

ILS28ORD wrote:

[url][/url]

AAlaxfan wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

I thought that honor went to MIA?

DTW DTW DTW DTW

Lol DTW is by far the winner of this category.

On topic, would AA use the 789 on ORD-TVL when they start to receive more of them? Or is 788 the only long haul used for intl at ORD no matter the route now?

ORD CDG is a 789 route, so yes, ORD sees the 789.

In a recent employee meeting in PHL. AA VP of network planning Vasu Raja partially answered the question about TLV . He said that he didn’t like the way AA pulled out of TLV . They announced it without letting travel agents know and many other important players . Asked if we would ever go back to tlv . He said that the way we pulled out caused a huge strain in the relationship between AA and Israel . Basically pissed the Israelis off. But that in order to get back in . We would have to work very hard in order to restore relations and trust with Israel . Something to that effect . So he didn’t give a reason as to why we pulled out . But said he didn’t like the way we did leave the market . Actually said it was done prematurely . They could’ve flown seasonally instead of a total pull out . But he wasn’t head of network planning at that time . That was Andrew Nocella who’s now at UA .

etops1 wrote:

In a recent employee meeting in PHL. AA VP of network planning Vasu Raja partially answered the question about TLV .

I pretty much said the same earlier. I see that it got ignored. Its more fun to spin theories than it is to actually get facts around here.