D L X wrote:

Can someone explain the MIA-Africa market for me?

It seems more of a geographic ideology seeing that MIA is the most diverse hub with respect to routes to/from the strong ethnically hybrid region of the West Indies (32 cities in the region). JFK once held that position. This is a random view from a West Indian.

D L X wrote:

Can someone explain the MIA-Africa market for me?

Not MIA to Africa, but MIA to South Africa:
1) MIA is the closest or nearly closest major hub (and AA hub) in North America to JNB. For example, JNB-MIA is 7,005nm while JNB-CLT is 7,184 nm (marginal though).
2) It allows connections to a very large number of North American destinations without backtracking. DFW or CLT would result in some backtracking.
3) It would give AA a strategic advantage for O&D services to the South Florida market, which is larger than CLT or PHL would provide.

evanb wrote:

D L X wrote:

Can someone explain the MIA-Africa market for me?

Not MIA to Africa, but MIA to South Africa:
1) MIA is the closest or nearly closest major hub (and AA hub) in North America to JNB. For example, JNB-MIA is 7,005nm while JNB-CLT is 7,184 nm (marginal though).
2) It allows connections to a very large number of North American destinations without backtracking. DFW or CLT would result in some backtracking.
3) It would give AA a strategic advantage for O&D services to the South Florida market, which is larger than CLT or PHL would provide.

Huh? If we're going by mileage, PHL is the closest hub to JNB.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-phl: 8,032 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-mia: 8,061 miles

PHL is also better optimized for connections from the Midwest and Northeast to South Africa. See ORD:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-phl-jnb: 8,710 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-mia-jnb: 9,257 miles

CLT:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-phl-jnb: 8,480 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-mia-jnb: 8,711 miles

The South African diaspora is not really a factor for these flights, we're talking a pretty minuscule population in the U.S. There are only 5,000 in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro, for example, and 8,000 in the NYC metro. For Miami-Fort Lauderdale, that's a grand total of 0.1% of the MSA's population.

If we're going by African population, then the case for PHL is much stronger than MIA or even DFW. NYC, DC, Minneapolis and Philly all have very large African immigrant populations. Those connections work better through PHL. I'm still not convinced that they would start a flight merely based on the ethnic population of the MSA, though.

Now, maybe AA would consider the flight based on business connections or leisure connections from U.S. tourists (see success of PHL-PRG, PHL-BUD and upcoming PHL-DBV flights).

stl07 wrote:

BA777FO wrote:

stl07 wrote:

BA has cut a BOM flight...
Interesting

No it hasn't. BA has been and remains double daily to BOM.

Look in june for BOM-LHR

But it came back in July now that I look again

It may be a temporary thing to accomodate some runway work in BOM. Though I dont know why BOM even schedule runway work in June considering the monsoons. For years now, BOM has been double daily for BA. I dont think it will change.

Subu

B1168 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

dfw88 wrote:

With the large Indian population and fortress hub at DFW I would be shocked if an AA return to India didn't originate from DFW. It would be close-ish to the 789 range, but I think it would be doable.

from DFW going east they probably could make it to India then come back going east to take advantage of the prevailing westerlies on their Tail the entire flight back to DFW or PHL if they chose to.

The DFW-DEL direct route brings us nearly over the Arctic point. Excluding the detour due to the Hindu Kush mountains, it seems quite reasonable that the outbound flight goes mostly North with some eastbound vector at DFW, probably some headings like 020.
Going eastbound on the inbound leg sound somewhat unrealistic. Frequently AI’s DEL-SFO routes south of the Himalayas, passing Bangladesh, China and Japan before joining the horde of transpacific flights. This routing usually takes them 14.5 hours. Extending that to DFW will result in 2 additional hours in air at best, and that is 16.5 hours. Reference? UA100/1 IAH-SYD taking up to 17.5 hours. That doesn’t sound too nice to me. Hopefully they can get some flight path instruments built North of DEL so that the flight can directly route the polar way.

You will not get a flight path directly NOrth or North east of Delhi. There a few small molehills called Himalayas that seem to hinder even quadjets with 1 engine out scenario

Subu

I'll go out on a limb here and say that while CMN is the most likely African airport for AA service followed by JNB (both most likely to be flown from PHL), CPT 3-4x weekly (NOT as a triangle with JNB) has a decent chance - it matches AA's latest overseas expansions of heavy leisure traffic to a destination underserved/not served nonstop from the US and just about every time I've looked at airfares to SA from the US, CPT has higher priced tickets.

bridge29 wrote:

Huh? If we're going by mileage, PHL is the closest hub to JNB.

I said closest or nearly closest ...

bridge29 wrote:

Huh? If we're going by mileage, PHL is the closest hub to JNB.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-phl: 8,032 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-mia: 8,061 miles

PHL is also better optimized for connections from the Midwest and Northeast to South Africa. See ORD:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-phl-jnb: 8,710 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-mia-jnb: 9,257 miles

CLT:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-phl-jnb: 8,480 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-mia-jnb: 8,711 miles

********

The South African diaspora is not really a factor for these flights, we're talking a pretty minuscule population in the U.S. There are only 5,000 in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro, for example, and 8,000 in the NYC metro. For Miami-Fort Lauderdale, that's a grand total of 0.1% of the MSA's population.

If we're going by African population, then the case for PHL is much stronger than MIA or even DFW. NYC, DC, Minneapolis and Philly all have very large African immigrant populations. Those connections work better through PHL. I'm still not convinced that they would start a flight merely based on the ethnic population of the MSA, though.

Now, maybe AA would consider the flight based on business connections or leisure connections from U.S. tourists (see success of PHL-PRG, PHL-BUD and upcoming PHL-DBV flights).

THANK YOU!!!

This was the point I was trying to make. MIA to Africa doesn't appear to me to make any more sense than any other east coast hub. It's not closer and it doesn't have a large African population. The idea that local markets would support the flight seems untenable to me.

SO if we're not relying on O/D, then we're relying on connections. AA has an EXCELLENT hub for connections that is dirt cheap to operate. It isn't MIA. It isn't PHL. It isn't DFW. So why are we laughing at CLT? If we're laughing at CLT, then we really should simply be laughing at AA for attempting Africa at all.

(Now, I say this being unaware of a large African population in Philly. If that's the case, then PHL makes sense.)

PS: as a Black guy, when someone says "Africa," Joburg is not what I envision. Not that it's not a nice place (my wife lived there and loved it) just that you've flown over* a lot of real Africa by the time you land in Joburg. (* okay, near. not over.)

If and when AA arrives in Africa, it'll be from MIA. Not JFK, not PHL, and certainly not CLT.

D L X wrote:

bridge29 wrote:

Huh? If we're going by mileage, PHL is the closest hub to JNB.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-phl: 8,032 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-mia: 8,061 miles

PHL is also better optimized for connections from the Midwest and Northeast to South Africa. See ORD:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-phl-jnb: 8,710 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-mia-jnb: 9,257 miles

CLT:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-phl-jnb: 8,480 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-mia-jnb: 8,711 miles

********

The South African diaspora is not really a factor for these flights, we're talking a pretty minuscule population in the U.S. There are only 5,000 in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro, for example, and 8,000 in the NYC metro. For Miami-Fort Lauderdale, that's a grand total of 0.1% of the MSA's population.

If we're going by African population, then the case for PHL is much stronger than MIA or even DFW. NYC, DC, Minneapolis and Philly all have very large African immigrant populations. Those connections work better through PHL. I'm still not convinced that they would start a flight merely based on the ethnic population of the MSA, though.

Now, maybe AA would consider the flight based on business connections or leisure connections from U.S. tourists (see success of PHL-PRG, PHL-BUD and upcoming PHL-DBV flights).

THANK YOU!!!

This was the point I was trying to make. MIA to Africa doesn't appear to me to make any more sense than any other east coast hub. It's not closer and it doesn't have a large African population. The idea that local markets would support the flight seems untenable to me.

SO if we're not relying on O/D, then we're relying on connections. AA has an EXCELLENT hub for connections that is dirt cheap to operate. It isn't MIA. It isn't PHL. It isn't DFW. So why are we laughing at CLT? If we're laughing at CLT, then we really should simply be laughing at AA for attempting Africa at all.

(Now, I say this being unaware of a large African population in Philly. If that's the case, then PHL makes sense.)

PS: as a Black guy, when someone says "Africa," Joburg is not what I envision. Not that it's not a nice place (my wife lived there and loved it) just that you've flown over* a lot of real Africa by the time you land in Joburg. (* okay, near. not over.)

I think the pushback against CLT is because cost per emplanement is literally it's only advantage over MIA or PHL. PHL actually does have a decent African population. MIA's is fairly small, but it's larger than Charlotte's. CLT's O/D traffic to Africa is extremely small - you'd be talking about almost exclusively connections with a flight like that. PHL and MIA would at least offer some originating traffic. Even if it's not much, it's almost certainly enough to overcome the CPE advantage that CLT has.

Boof02671 wrote:

anshabhi wrote:

Austin would also be a good choice for Indian flights. Its a decent tech hub and faces no competition from gulf carriers.

This makes no sense, no connectivity. Never happens.

If AUS gets any international flight, it would be MAN. Tech capital of the UK, and some connection options with partner BA. But even THAT is "pushing it".

jfk777 wrote:

ILS28ORD wrote:

GripenFan wrote:

Given the tech connections between the Chicago area and India the suggestion AA couldn't make this work appears to not bode well for the long-term viability of their ORD hub...

AA has shown no interest or intent to connect pax through ORD internationally on their own metal. Only JV carriers. ORD has become basically a domestic hub for them. Or seasonal INTL hub at best. But the hub itself isn't going anywhere.

AA's ORD is "only" a domestic hub, interesting, so who is the biggest airline on the biggest international route at ORD ? Not United. AA is the biggest to London. AA flies to quite a long list of European cities from ORD. One has to expect UA to be bigger to Asia since they didn't have to build their Asia Pacific system one route at a time like AA has done, UA purchased Pan Am's system in 1986 and became huge in Asia overnight.

While AA does have JV's with BA & JAL, UA does too with LH & ANA which operate from the United terminal at O"Hare.

UA is not paying attention, at all, when it comes to Europe, from it's "hometown" market. The general lack of Europe from ORD, is their "achilles heel".

iyerhari wrote:

UA benefits significantly from their AI codeshare.

Not to hijack a thread about AA, but UA and AI don't have codeshare. If they did, AI would be flying double daily flights to EWR and ORD and daily flights to IAD.

Re: AA to India, the safest origin would probably be JFK, the most profitable would probably be DFW and the out-of-the-box origin would be LAX (especially with a codeshare on AS to SJC). On the flip side, JFK yields would be terrible, DFW would be stretching the limits of any aircraft other than 77L and AA is terrible at LAX, not to mention having to compete with CX.

For all the people talking about a potential PHL-India flight, I'd like to point out that no one from the IAD or the EWR/JFK catchment areas would drive all the way to PHL to catch a direct flight to India, especially when UA and AI are competing for their business. I don't have the factfinder.census.gov report handy, so going by Wikipedia's numbers here, PHL area has about 90k people of Indian origin. Since NA-India flights are still predominantly VFR, that number has to be bolstered significantly by connecting passengers in order to make PHL-India work. QR also siphons away a significant chunk of the addressable market, which makes it so much more harder to sustain a PHL-India non-stop.

YoungDon wrote:

D L X wrote:

bridge29 wrote:

Huh? If we're going by mileage, PHL is the closest hub to JNB.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-phl: 8,032 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-mia: 8,061 miles

PHL is also better optimized for connections from the Midwest and Northeast to South Africa. See ORD:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-phl-jnb: 8,710 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-mia-jnb: 9,257 miles

CLT:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-phl-jnb: 8,480 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-mia-jnb: 8,711 miles

********

The South African diaspora is not really a factor for these flights, we're talking a pretty minuscule population in the U.S. There are only 5,000 in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro, for example, and 8,000 in the NYC metro. For Miami-Fort Lauderdale, that's a grand total of 0.1% of the MSA's population.

If we're going by African population, then the case for PHL is much stronger than MIA or even DFW. NYC, DC, Minneapolis and Philly all have very large African immigrant populations. Those connections work better through PHL. I'm still not convinced that they would start a flight merely based on the ethnic population of the MSA, though.

Now, maybe AA would consider the flight based on business connections or leisure connections from U.S. tourists (see success of PHL-PRG, PHL-BUD and upcoming PHL-DBV flights).

THANK YOU!!!

This was the point I was trying to make. MIA to Africa doesn't appear to me to make any more sense than any other east coast hub. It's not closer and it doesn't have a large African population. The idea that local markets would support the flight seems untenable to me.

SO if we're not relying on O/D, then we're relying on connections. AA has an EXCELLENT hub for connections that is dirt cheap to operate. It isn't MIA. It isn't PHL. It isn't DFW. So why are we laughing at CLT? If we're laughing at CLT, then we really should simply be laughing at AA for attempting Africa at all.

(Now, I say this being unaware of a large African population in Philly. If that's the case, then PHL makes sense.)

PS: as a Black guy, when someone says "Africa," Joburg is not what I envision. Not that it's not a nice place (my wife lived there and loved it) just that you've flown over* a lot of real Africa by the time you land in Joburg. (* okay, near. not over.)

I think the pushback against CLT is because cost per emplanement is literally it's only advantage over MIA or PHL. PHL actually does have a decent African population. MIA's is fairly small, but it's larger than Charlotte's. CLT's O/D traffic to Africa is extremely small - you'd be talking about almost exclusively connections with a flight like that. PHL and MIA would at least offer some originating traffic. Even if it's not much, it's almost certainly enough to overcome the CPE advantage that CLT has.

May I confirm that there is an active West African immigrant community in Philadelphia; not spectacularly large, nor what I would rely on for a daily flight on O&D alone, but enough to start with, and leverage PHL's connecting hub and air cargo strengths for the rest of the plane. This in reference to a flight to CMN for connections onwards, but I could also see something unusual from this adventurous AA, like a direct flight to LOS or ACC. Countries developing shale gas would do as well with a PHL flight as with a DFW.

As for breaking the DL/SA duopoly at JNB, there really isn't much difference in terms of GC distance between AA's various Eastern US hubs, but MIA has the critical advantage of having much more favorable winds in the westbound direction than any other US destination, which is the direction in which it is likely an AA 787 may have payload-range issues. For that reason, I would expect MIA. As a caveat, though, if AA is changing it up and launches South Africa as a (northern hemisphere) winter seasonal, then factors like terminal capacity come into play; PHL Terminal A is a lot lonelier in the winter than MIA.

D L X wrote:

bridge29 wrote:

Huh? If we're going by mileage, PHL is the closest hub to JNB.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-phl: 8,032 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-mia: 8,061 miles

PHL is also better optimized for connections from the Midwest and Northeast to South Africa. See ORD:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-phl-jnb: 8,710 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-mia-jnb: 9,257 miles

CLT:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-phl-jnb: 8,480 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-mia-jnb: 8,711 miles

********

The South African diaspora is not really a factor for these flights, we're talking a pretty minuscule population in the U.S. There are only 5,000 in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale metro, for example, and 8,000 in the NYC metro. For Miami-Fort Lauderdale, that's a grand total of 0.1% of the MSA's population.

If we're going by African population, then the case for PHL is much stronger than MIA or even DFW. NYC, DC, Minneapolis and Philly all have very large African immigrant populations. Those connections work better through PHL. I'm still not convinced that they would start a flight merely based on the ethnic population of the MSA, though.

Now, maybe AA would consider the flight based on business connections or leisure connections from U.S. tourists (see success of PHL-PRG, PHL-BUD and upcoming PHL-DBV flights).

THANK YOU!!!

This was the point I was trying to make. MIA to Africa doesn't appear to me to make any more sense than any other east coast hub. It's not closer and it doesn't have a large African population. The idea that local markets would support the flight seems untenable to me.

SO if we're not relying on O/D, then we're relying on connections. AA has an EXCELLENT hub for connections that is dirt cheap to operate. It isn't MIA. It isn't PHL. It isn't DFW. So why are we laughing at CLT? If we're laughing at CLT, then we really should simply be laughing at AA for attempting Africa at all.

(Now, I say this being unaware of a large African population in Philly. If that's the case, then PHL makes sense.)

PS: as a Black guy, when someone says "Africa," Joburg is not what I envision. Not that it's not a nice place (my wife lived there and loved it) just that you've flown over* a lot of real Africa by the time you land in Joburg. (* okay, near. not over.)

Yes! Thank you for this non-eurocentric and geographically assertive reply. There is a very high chance that AA will not step foot on anywhere south of Cameroon. The bulk of the money in Africa lies on and above the Equator.

devmapper wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

UA benefits significantly from their AI codeshare.

Not to hijack a thread about AA, but UA and AI don't have codeshare. If they did, AI would be flying double daily flights to EWR and ORD and daily flights to IAD.

Re: AA to India, the safest origin would probably be JFK, the most profitable would probably be DFW and the out-of-the-box origin would be LAX (especially with a codeshare on AS to SJC). On the flip side, JFK yields would be terrible, DFW would be stretching the limits of any aircraft other than 77L and AA is terrible at LAX, not to mention having to compete with CX.

For all the people talking about a potential PHL-India flight, I'd like to point out that no one from the IAD or the EWR/JFK catchment areas would drive all the way to PHL to catch a direct flight to India, especially when UA and AI are competing for their business. I don't have the factfinder.census.gov report handy, so going by Wikipedia's numbers here, PHL area has about 90k people of Indian origin. Since NA-India flights are still predominantly VFR, that number has to be bolstered significantly by connecting passengers in order to make PHL-India work. QR also siphons away a significant chunk of the addressable market, which makes it so much more harder to sustain a PHL-India non-stop.

I think you're underestimating the chance of PHL working. How do you know people that currently drive up to EWR/JFK today don't live closer to PHL, like my Indian parents in Central Jersey (EWR is technically closer, but PHL is way closer than JFK).

And plus PHL could easily be bolstered by connecting passengers given its sizable connecting traffic.

I have doubts of it working, the same way I have doubts that DL's JFK/ATL-BOM flight that is rumored can work. I honestly wonder how UA has made it work all these years (and I'm a UA 1K 2nd generation Indian).

PHL-BOM/DEL makes a ton of sense in a vacuum, the only issues being the issues that would plague any US to Indian flight (high % of VFR, long stage length, etc.)

I'm becoming more unclear why AA has a long haul component other than prestige, certainly at JFK. Their core business is selling miles to Citibank, followed by connecting flights through DFW and CLT. Flying to Africa or India plays to none of their strengths.

dmstorm22 wrote:

I think you're underestimating the chance of PHL working. How do you know people that currently drive up to EWR/JFK today don't live closer to PHL, like my Indian parents in Central Jersey (EWR is technically closer, but PHL is way closer than JFK).

Anecdotal evidence: I have close friends living in Allentown PA. They, along with all of their local friends, prefer to drive to EWR or in extreme cases to JFK, over flying out of PHL. That does not mean other people, especially those living closer to PHL wouldn't prefer it.

devmapper wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

I think you're underestimating the chance of PHL working. How do you know people that currently drive up to EWR/JFK today don't live closer to PHL, like my Indian parents in Central Jersey (EWR is technically closer, but PHL is way closer than JFK).

Anecdotal evidence: I have close friends living in Allentown PA. They, along with all of their local friends, prefer to drive to EWR or in extreme cases to JFK, over flying out of PHL. That does not mean other people, especially those living closer to PHL wouldn't prefer it.

EWR is closer to Allentown than PHL. it’s a straight shot down I-78 and you don’t have to pass through the city.

Jfk though makes no damn sense unless they’re flying an airline that just doesn’t go to ewr and PHL.

Would it not make sense for AA to enter in a JV with AT or QR ex LHR for an asset lite option into Africa or India?

RichardWelling wrote:

Would it not make sense for AA to enter in a JV with AT or QR ex LHR for an asset lite option into Africa or India?

QR probably not with all the Air Italy stuff going on. AT... one day possibly. They're most likely going to do codeshare at the very least.

KD5MDK wrote:

I'm becoming more unclear why AA has a long haul component other than prestige, certainly at JFK. Their core business is selling miles to Citibank, followed by connecting flights through DFW and CLT. Flying to Africa or India plays to none of their strengths.

You think there's logic behind AA's strategy at JFK?

As for Africa I could see AA code share on RAM's CMN-MIA service due to commence next month insteaf of venturing at it alone. What could have potential due to the "oil traffic" is DFW- W.Africa. Considering RAM's strong presence in the region, AA could consider DFW-CMN, having access to dozens of destinations on the African continent.

With Royal Air Maroc, AA should fly to Casablanca from DFW and Chicago eventually CLT & PHL too. South Africa sounds great but its 15 hours away and one of the best served destinations in Africa. AA has better uses for 787-9 airplanes, Melbourne would be a great addition to the AA system. More flights to Tokyo would be great too.

D L X wrote:

This was the point I was trying to make. MIA to Africa doesn't appear to me to make any more sense than any other east coast hub. It's not closer and it doesn't have a large African population. The idea that local markets would support the flight seems untenable to me.

SO if we're not relying on O/D, then we're relying on connections. AA has an EXCELLENT hub for connections that is dirt cheap to operate. It isn't MIA. It isn't PHL. It isn't DFW. So why are we laughing at CLT? If we're laughing at CLT, then we really should simply be laughing at AA for attempting Africa at all.

MIA (and later FLL) already supported a flight to South Africa in the 1990s, until South African moved it to either ATL when they started a codeshare with Delta. It’s one of the few long haul routes out of MIA that hasn’t been resumed yet.



If SAA could make it work 20 years ago, AA should be able to nowadays.

CLT will never happen. AA didn’t even keep the Brazil flights out of there.

This is how a potential AA service out of DFW could complement AT's existing (and future) US service

Avionics09 wrote:

As for Africa I could see AA code share on RAM's CMN-MIA service due to commence next month insteaf of venturing at it alone. What could have potential due to the "oil traffic" is DFW- W.Africa. Considering RAM's strong presence in the region, AA could consider DFW-CMN, having access to dozens of destinations on the African continent.

DFW is not an oil market - the primary oil center is Houston, 250 miles (350 km) away and with its own major airline hub. DFW is a business center, and the oil business which is here is corporate office type business (i.e., the Exxon corporate offices). Having said that, DFW is a major fortress hub for AA and could work for connecting traffic, but so could MIA and PHL. I'm not that sure CLT makes sense though, from a purely business standpoint, but "not sure" doesn't mean "won't work" either.

OB1504 wrote:

MIA (and later FLL) already supported a flight to South Africa in the 1990s, until South African moved it to either ATL when they started a codeshare with Delta. It’s one of the few long haul routes out of MIA that hasn’t been resumed yet.

If SAA could make it work 20 years ago, AA should be able to nowadays.

SAA made it work when there was only a single airline flying the route with far less capacity available through Europe and the Middle East. Furthermore, fuel prices were much lower which made the cost curve for ultra long haul flights a lot more pleasant.

One has seen similar changes between Europe and Australia during this time. At the time SAA served MIA, QF had four daily flights to Europe and BA two (plus) daily flights to Australia. Look at their operations now ...

I am sure if AA and QR teams up, AA could fly to India via DOH. QR was open to a JV with AA years ago.

J343 wrote:

I am sure if AA and QR teams up, AA could fly to India via DOH. QR was open to a JV with AA years ago.

QR was open to it but AA threw a temper tantrum and severed ties. After getting stung by the stupidity of that move, AA had to do something to avoid looking like they completely threw in the towel on India and Africa, hence this move.

D L X wrote:

This was the point I was trying to make. MIA to Africa doesn't appear to me to make any more sense than any other east coast hub. It's not closer and it doesn't have a large African population. The idea that local markets would support the flight seems untenable to me.

It's a two part equation though. It's not just what is closer, it's what is close but has the least backtracking. While JNB-PHL and JNB-MIA are very close in distance (8,032 mi and 8,061 mi, respectively), let's take a look at adding a few connecting options onto it:

West Coast is much the same:
JNB-PHL-LAX 10,433 mi
JNB-MIA-LAX 10,403 mi

Texas is shorter through MIA:
JNB-PHL-IAH 9,356 mi
JNB-MIA-IAH 9,025 mi

Midwest is shorter through PHL:
JNB-PHL-ORD 8,710 mi
JNB-MIA-ORD 9,257 mi

MIA is much further south than PHL, but PHL is much further east than MIA, so it depends on where AA expects to feed its traffic as to what hub is "closer". But then also, which has the best O&D traffic. I don't for a minute doubt the discussion on here regarding which cities have the largest African diasporas, the high yield traffic is not likely to come from this market so I doubt this will affect the decision.

evanb wrote:

D L X wrote:

This was the point I was trying to make. MIA to Africa doesn't appear to me to make any more sense than any other east coast hub. It's not closer and it doesn't have a large African population. The idea that local markets would support the flight seems untenable to me.

It's a two part equation though. It's not just what is closer, it's what is close but has the least backtracking. While JNB-PHL and JNB-MIA are very close in distance (8,032 mi and 8,061 mi, respectively), let's take a look at adding a few connecting options onto it:

West Coast is much the same:
JNB-PHL-LAX 10,433 mi
JNB-MIA-LAX 10,403 mi

Texas is shorter through MIA:
JNB-PHL-IAH 9,356 mi
JNB-MIA-IAH 9,025 mi

Midwest is shorter through PHL:
JNB-PHL-ORD 8,710 mi
JNB-MIA-ORD 9,257 mi

MIA is much further south than PHL, but PHL is much further east than MIA, so it depends on where AA expects to feed its traffic as to what hub is "closer". But then also, which has the best O&D traffic. I don't for a minute doubt the discussion on here regarding which cities have the largest African diasporas, the high yield traffic is not likely to come from this market so I doubt this will affect the decision.

Given this methodology, assuming AA roughly serves the whole country equally.... the mean center of population of the US is in southern Missouri, with the closest airport being SGF.

Considering all their hubs, CLT is actually the shortest connection point for SGF-JNB. Not to mention it is the most centrally located of the east coast hubs and provides the most connectivity.

mikejepp wrote:

Given this methodology, assuming AA roughly serves the whole country equally.... the mean center of population of the US is in southern Missouri, with the closest airport being SGF.

Considering all their hubs, CLT is actually the shortest connection point for SGF-JNB. Not to mention it is the most centrally located of the east coast hubs and provides the most connectivity.

But AA don't serve the whole country equally ...

AA are particularly weak in the midwest where they are probably well behind Delta and United in terms of market share. Areas of the country where they have much better market share include Texas and the South West, and South Florida.

I don't see AA flying to anywhere in Africa other than an airport that is tied with RAM, so most likely CMN.

MIA to South Africa or hubs with big populations to CMN are the only routes that make sense for AA to Africa.

As mentioned above, DFW is not an oil market! IAH is the oil market in Texas. DFW has some HQs, but the employees and commercial airline travelers are in IAH. DFW to West Africa would be a total waste of a plane (maybe slightly less of a waste than ORD or CLT).

India seems like a money losing proposition. Between connections via Europe and the ME3 in most AA hubs that could support India flights, I just don't see this working. Not to disappoint the AUS, BNA, CLT, PHX, RDU fans, it's not happening.

jfk777 wrote:

With Royal Air Maroc, AA should fly to Casablanca from DFW and Chicago eventually CLT & PHL too. South Africa sounds great but its 15 hours away and one of the best served destinations in Africa. AA has better uses for 787-9 airplanes, Melbourne would be a great addition to the AA system. More flights to Tokyo would be great too.

AA should dust the cobwebs off of the old TWA codeshare agreement with Royal Air Maroc. Talk about back to the future! https://aviationweek.com/awin/twa-royal ... code-share

“No to India and Africa”
https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... r-product/

Ishrion wrote:

“No to India and Africa”
https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... r-product/

Eh, take that with a grain of salt, just like the Skift article. What was actually written in the responses was:

For Africa: "We are always looking at new opportunities, like Africa, but no firm plans at this time."

For India: "No plans at this time."

The "at this time" is a total waffle phrase. The Skift article says that the plans would only come to fruition (if they happen, obviously) after the next batch of Dreamliners arrives. That's definitely not "at this time", so the two answers aren't mutually exclusive. Something along the lines of "We're thinking about it in a few years, but nothing definite and definitely not soon."

Note: I'm not saying I think AA will or won't fly to Africa and India, just that Gary's article and the Skift article can both be right, since they're addressing different timelines.

they have said "no plans at this time" to DBV and it was announced months later.

CMN at the least will happen.

wenders825 wrote:

they have said "no plans at this time" to DBV and it was announced months later.

CMN at the least will happen.

That's a great example of "no plans at this time", thanks for mentioning that. It's important to understand the setting where these meetings take place. It's a gathering of employees who all want their pet route ideas to be realized. There's also a certain need for confidentiality on some of these routes, either because of governmental approvals, or competitive reasons, or something else. So no, the NP department isn't going to go spilling the beans of everything they have in the works because they know it won't stay in that room or on that website (obviously, or Gary wouldn't have gotten it). So "no plans at this time" is essentially saying "maybe, maybe not". It's a disappointing answer, but it does make sense from AA's perspective.

Also, I agree about CMN. I think there's a solid chance that that's the only African route under consideration, though I sure hope I'm wrong.

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... 1519435946

"Parker then stammered, remembering the party line, “subsidized..umm… subsidized airlines that don’t care about making money.” Nevermind of course that Emirates is profitable, while American Airlines loses money flying and only shows a profit from selling frequent flyer miles to banks.

He says “there’s certainly enough demand for the United States to India for us to be flying there, the problem is the pricing. So we keep looking at it and indeed I have heard the team talk more about it. That’s as much as I know.” (Emphasis mine.)"

https://viewfromthewing.com/2019/09/24/ ... ext-month/

“American Airlines will absolutely fly to India and suggests more Africa”

Dallas to Delhi on 789 is something that could definitely happen IMO. I can also see LAX-Delhi.

I also think MIA-Africa is a possibility too.

AA said they want to build a gateway to India. I just don't see that being DFW. The only city AA could fly without using specialized equipment is DEL as BOM and BLR are out of reach from DFW. It does not make sense either for AA to fly from its hubs (DFW, LAX, ORD, etc...) to DEL since they have no natural partner there to provide connectivity. PHL might not be the best O&D choice, but if you wanted to build a gateway to connect to cities like BOM and BLR (after DEL) then it is all AA has.

bridge29 wrote:

evanb wrote:

D L X wrote:

Can someone explain the MIA-Africa market for me?

Not MIA to Africa, but MIA to South Africa:
1) MIA is the closest or nearly closest major hub (and AA hub) in North America to JNB. For example, JNB-MIA is 7,005nm while JNB-CLT is 7,184 nm (marginal though).
2) It allows connections to a very large number of North American destinations without backtracking. DFW or CLT would result in some backtracking.
3) It would give AA a strategic advantage for O&D services to the South Florida market, which is larger than CLT or PHL would provide.

Huh? If we're going by mileage, PHL is the closest hub to JNB.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-phl: 8,032 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-mia: 8,061 miles

PHL is also better optimized for connections from the Midwest and Northeast to South Africa. See ORD:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-phl-jnb: 8,710 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ord-mia-jnb: 9,257 miles

CLT:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-phl-jnb: 8,480 miles
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=clt-mia-jnb: 8,711 miles

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jnb-mia;jn ... nb;jfk-jnb

JFK is the least distance. AA is better off doing JFK-JNB; will get a lot of business traffic from the financial capital of the word; lots of O&D traffic + easy connections to the rest of USA since it is an AA hub with connections to all over US & Canada.

747megatop wrote:

JFK is the least distance. AA is better off doing JFK-JNB; will get a lot of business traffic from the financial capital of the word; lots of O&D traffic + easy connections to the rest of USA since it is an AA hub with connections to all over US & Canada.

And competing with SA and UA (EWR-CPT) from JFK. JFK may well be a hub, but will only offer connections to 27 destinations in the US and Canada, while MIA, for example, will offer 62. If they need connections, then JFK is not the hub for AA. It's why AA offer significant fewer long haul destinations from JFK (about 9) than its other hubs (for example, PHL has 17).

American has already stated in the past that Miami would be a great gateway to Africa.

Miami wrote:

American has already stated in the past that Miami would be a great gateway to Africa.

I vaguely remember, that sometime in the mid-late 90s, AA actually had a heavily advertised code-share thru flight from PHL - South Africa (Either CPT or JNB), via a supposedly seamless change of aircraft (short gate to gate proximity) at MIA to South African (SAA).

evanb wrote:

747megatop wrote:

JFK is the least distance. AA is better off doing JFK-JNB; will get a lot of business traffic from the financial capital of the word; lots of O&D traffic + easy connections to the rest of USA since it is an AA hub with connections to all over US & Canada.

And competing with SA and UA (EWR-CPT) from JFK. JFK may well be a hub, but will only offer connections to 27 destinations in the US and Canada, while MIA, for example, will offer 62. If they need connections, then JFK is not the hub for AA. It's why AA offer significant fewer long haul destinations from JFK (about 9) than its other hubs (for example, PHL has 17).

Good point(s). Didn't think of the points you raised. But, isn't JFK, the financial capital of the world a good enough reason alone to start JNB flights from? After all, JFK is a big business/financial destination and a big melting pot of cultures; one would think they can have a significant O&D load and the rest filled up by the 27 connections that you mentioned.