Jet-lagged
Posts: 874
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 11:58 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:05 am

Some years back we flew Tokyo to Denver via DFW. Looking at the gcmap, the great circle path passes over Denver.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:24 am

atx11 wrote:
dc10lover wrote:
Maybe Chicago is more of a major business destination than Dallas.


It’s a confusing thread title but Dallas has already “won” the battle here by being one of AA’s TPAC gateways.

Not sure why people keep chiming in to say why it should be Chicago instead of Dallas when it’s already been decided by management.

People seem to either not know or not understand that there is a tremendous amount of Asia traffic that gets routed through DFW to Latin/S. America. Trade between China specifically and S America is only going to grow and obviously there are a lack of direct options.


What’s more shocking is how much money AA looses in Asia.
Religion is the root of evil...
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:39 am

dfw88 wrote:
Can you provide a source for these numbers?

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elem ... spx?Data=6

The BTS treats AA mainline as one airline and Envoy Air as another. Envoy Air flies domestic and Latin American flights.

The BTS data may slightly disagree with AA quarterly reports which may combine the results.

LAXdude1023 wrote:
Looking at those pacific numbers I don’t know that ORD can be the scapegoat for all of it. There’s definitely money loss at LAX and DFW over the Pacific.


I did not mean to imply that assertion. I was responding to the following comment which was more a general observation about AAs TPAC and TATL operations in general.

golfingboy wrote:
AA's international route network (TATL and TPAC) is a hot mess IMHO. Not as well defined, structured, or connected as DL or UA's network.
Last edited by PacoMartin on Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5399
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 1:40 am

atx11 wrote:
People seem to either not know or not understand that there is a tremendous amount of Asia traffic that gets routed through DFW to Latin/S. America. Trade between China specifically and S America is only going to grow and obviously there are a lack of direct options.


Yeh? What fraction of AA's Asia traffic thru DFW connects to/from S America?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 2:43 am

jfk777 wrote:
While the seats are nice, but they need more of them. Only the 777 have enough J class seats.

Based on what criteria?[/quote]

Based on the criteria that successful international 787-9 operators have higher number of premium seats their 787-9. I would call BA, Qantas and JAL successful airlines and successful 787-9 operators. Or are you saying they are Not ? [/quote]
Uh no... I'm saying that what other airlines (with different cost bases, different revenue streams, different clientele, different route dynamics, etc) do, has no bearing on what constitutes an optimum seating configuration for AA.

What's particularly ridiculous on your part, is forgetting that AA's compatriot DL is arguably the most profitable global carrier on the face of the planet, yet tends to have a lower ratio of premium seats on its longhaul widebodies to just about any major network carrier in the US, Europe, or Asia. So there goes that argument.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 3:44 am

LAX772LR wrote:
What's particularly ridiculous on your part, is forgetting that AA's compatriot DL is arguably the most profitable global carrier on the face of the planet, yet tends to have a lower ratio of premium seats on its longhaul widebodies to just about any major network carrier in the US, Europe, or Asia. So there goes that argument.


A good metric is the average "net income" per available seat (of arbitrary flight length). For 2018
$16.62 Delta Air Lines
$11.76 Southwest Airlines
$10.99 United Airlines
$6.45 American Airlines

I was looking at a beer that was selling for $389 a case at the beer distributor, and I was puzzled at who would spend that much for beer (bottles were 750 ml). But nearly every luxury item you can think of measured in cost per hour to enjoy (even hotel rooms) is generally smaller than the cost per hour of luxury travel. It has to be the first thing that the CFO cuts in the event of a lull in business.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 9:05 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
What’s more shocking is how much money AA looses in Asia.


So far in the first quarter of 2019, AA has lost more money on Trans Atlantic than in Asia.

Latin TATL TPAC Foreign Operating Revenue millions $
$975 $1,458 $1281 $3,714 United
$879 $1,248 +$672 $2,799 Delta
$1,656 $915 +$544 $3,114 American

Latin TATL TPAC Foreign  Net Income millions $  
$30 $111 -$27 $114 United
$80 $180 +$65 $325 Delta
$231 -$90 -$79 $63 American

However, it is true that American has lost money in TPAC for the last 11 quarters, while they have lost money in TATL for 6 out of 11 quarters
 
User avatar
flyingclrs727
Posts: 2361
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:44 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:47 am

DocLightning wrote:
Almost the entire Asian continent lies north of the equator, which means that all great circle routes from the USA will tend north, so a southern city like Dallas is at a disadvantage because it is further from most of Asia than Chicago. Even in an era when aircraft can fly 16 hour routes, ORD is relatively more "on the way" to Asia for the majority of the US population (which lives east of the Mississippi and south of Chicago). DFW makes a great Latin America hub for the exact same reason.


All of the Asian continent is north of the equator. Even Singapore, which is on an island south of Asia, is a little over one degree north of the equator.
 
jfk777
Posts: 6973
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:12 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
While the seats are nice, but they need more of them. Only the 777 have enough J class seats.

Based on what criteria?


Based on the criteria that successful international 787-9 operators have higher number of premium seats their 787-9. I would call BA, Qantas and JAL successful airlines and successful 787-9 operators. Or are you saying they are Not ? [/quote]
Uh no... I'm saying that what other airlines (with different cost bases, different revenue streams, different clientele, different route dynamics, etc) do, has no bearing on what constitutes an optimum seating configuration for AA.

What's particularly ridiculous on your part, is forgetting that AA's compatriot DL is arguably the most profitable global carrier on the face of the planet, yet tends to have a lower ratio of premium seats on its longhaul widebodies to just about any major network carrier in the US, Europe, or Asia. So there goes that argument.[/quote]

What Delta does or how they decided to configure their A350 and 777 has no bearing on AA. Delta's merger with NW is an example of how not to do a merger, they killed everything they purchased NW for in Asia, DL can't even fly to Hong Kong anymore. OneWorld alliance airlines have heavy premium planes, since AA is a member there they should follow what works for other alliance members since they fly to many OW member hubs. You can point to what Delta does and it works for them, but if LHR ,GRU and EZE are your main international markets then AA needs heavy J planes. IF you want a text book on how to run airlines look to how Lord King revived British Airways.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21479
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 4:41 pm

flyingclrs727 wrote:
All of the Asian continent is north of the equator. Even Singapore, which is on an island south of Asia, is a little over one degree north of the equator.


Depends on whether you call Indonesia part of Asia or not. The Asian manland is north of the equator, certainly.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:19 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
What’s more shocking is how much money AA looses in Asia.


So far in the first quarter of 2019, AA has lost more money on Trans Atlantic than in Asia.

Latin TATL TPAC Foreign Operating Revenue millions $
$975 $1,458 $1281 $3,714 United
$879 $1,248 +$672 $2,799 Delta
$1,656 $915 +$544 $3,114 American

Latin TATL TPAC Foreign  Net Income millions $  
$30 $111 -$27 $114 United
$80 $180 +$65 $325 Delta
$231 -$90 -$79 $63 American

However, it is true that American has lost money in TPAC for the last 11 quarters, while they have lost money in TATL for 6 out of 11 quarters


Q1 is traditionally very weak for the airlines in the Atlantic sector. Looking at the numbers over time, AA is far more weak with Asia than the Atlantic.

AA seems happy to make money domestically and in Latin America, break even in Europe, and loose their shirt in Asia.
Religion is the root of evil...
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:04 pm

Step back and take a look at what just happened. I ask you:
LAX772LR wrote:
Based on what criteria?


Your response is:
jfk777 wrote:
Based on the criteria that successful international 787-9 operators have higher number of premium seats their 787-9. I would call BA, Qantas and JAL successful airlines and successful 787-9 operators. Or are you saying they are Not ?


To which I respond:
LAX772LR wrote:
what other airlines . . . do has no bearing on what constitutes an optimum seating configuration for AA.
(DL presented as an obvious counterpoint)


To which you HILARIOUSLY reply:
jfk777 wrote:
What Delta does or how they decided to configure their A350 and 777 has no bearing on AA.


....do you put the *slightest* bit of forethought into what you write?! :lol:

A 787 is plastic, not magic. There's no exemption that applies to it, to the exclusion of any other aircraft in its size or performance class. Who knows what convoluted criteria you use to define "successful," but the simple fact, whether you choose accept it or not, is that there's no carrier on the planet right now --not in Europe, not in eastern nor western Asia-- who's bringing home the bacon on the same level as a simple carrier based in the hick north of Georgia. And they've chosen a relatively lite premium ratio on all but one of their widebody aircraft, and do not only fine, but financially better than any other similar carrier.

So again, there goes whatever uncorroborated argument you were attempting (and failed) to make.

**********************************************************

jfk777 wrote:
Delta's merger with NW is an example of how not to do a merger

Find even one actual market analyst in agreement with that statement.
Last edited by LAX772LR on Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Ishrion
Posts: 888
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 7:12 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
I ask you:
LAX772LR wrote:
Based on what criteria?


Your response is:
jfk777 wrote:
Based on the criteria that successful international 787-9 operators have higher number of premium seats their 787-9. I would call BA, Qantas and JAL successful airlines and successful 787-9 operators. Or are you saying they are Not ?


To which I respond:
LAX772LR wrote:
what other airlines . . . do, has no bearing on what constitutes an optimum seating configuration for AA.
LAX772LR wrote:
What's particularly ridiculous on your part, is forgetting that AA's compatriot DL is arguably the most profitable global carrier on the face of the planet, yet tends to have a lower ratio of premium seats on its longhaul widebodies to just about any major network carrier in the US, Europe, or Asia.


To which you HILARIOUSLY reply:
jfk777 wrote:
What Delta does or how they decided to configure their A350 and 777 has no bearing on AA.


....dude, do you put the *slightest* bit of thought into what you write?! :lol: :lol:

**********************************************************

jfk777 wrote:
Delta's merger with NW is an example of how not to do a merger

Find even one actual market analyst in agreement with that statement.


Meanwhile AA/US’ merger is essentially destroying AA’s mainline domestic brand.
 
jfk777
Posts: 6973
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:05 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
Step back and take a look at what just happened. I ask you:
LAX772LR wrote:
Based on what criteria?


Your response is:
jfk777 wrote:
Based on the criteria that successful international 787-9 operators have higher number of premium seats their 787-9. I would call BA, Qantas and JAL successful airlines and successful 787-9 operators. Or are you saying they are Not ?


To which I respond:
LAX772LR wrote:
what other airlines . . . do has no bearing on what constitutes an optimum seating configuration for AA.
(DL presented as an obvious counterpoint)


To which you HILARIOUSLY reply:
jfk777 wrote:
What Delta does or how they decided to configure their A350 and 777 has no bearing on AA.


....do you put the *slightest* bit of forethought into what you write?! :lol:

A 787 is plastic, not magic. There's no exemption that applies to it, to the exclusion of any other aircraft in its size or performance class. Who knows what convoluted criteria you use to define "successful," but the simple fact, whether you choose accept it or not, is that there's no carrier on the planet right now --not in Europe, not in eastern nor western Asia-- who's bringing home the bacon on the same level as a simple carrier based in the hick north of Georgia. And they've chosen a relatively lite premium ratio on all but one of their widebody aircraft, and do not only fine, but financially better than any other similar carrier.

So again, there goes whatever uncorroborated argument you were attempting (and failed) to make.

**********************************************************

jfk777 wrote:
Delta's merger with NW is an example of how not to do a merger

Find even one actual market analyst in agreement with that statement.


There are two airlines right now bringing home the bacon Qantas and British Airways, right now today. United is doing well too.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 10:22 pm

jfk777 wrote:
There are two airlines right now bringing home the bacon Qantas and British Airways, right now today. United is doing well too.

Indeed, though nowhere near to the same level as DL, who does it without the large premium classes... which again, goes right back to the fallacy of your comparison.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5735
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sat Jul 06, 2019 11:54 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
There are two airlines right now bringing home the bacon Qantas and British Airways, right now today. United is doing well too.

Indeed, though nowhere near to the same level as DL, who does it without the large premium classes... which again, goes right back to the fallacy of your comparison.


I’m no DL fan boy and I only fly UA, but you’d be hard pressed to find a better run airline than DL worldwide.
Religion is the root of evil...
 
jfk777
Posts: 6973
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:03 am

LAX772LR wrote:
jfk777 wrote:
There are two airlines right now bringing home the bacon Qantas and British Airways, right now today. United is doing well too.

Indeed, though nowhere near to the same level as DL, who does it without the large premium classes... which again, goes right back to the fallacy of your comparison.


The reason your beloved Delta is doing so well is not internationally but domestically. The airlines have lowered First Class fares to a level people will actually pay for them. In recent history First Class cabins were full of upgrades and American Express cardholders getting upgrades.
 
N983AN
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 10:15 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:57 am

Another thing lost on many here is that circa 2006-2011 AA was restricted by APA on flying ultra long routes and some of the DFW-Asia flying would be pushing the block hour restriction. The pilots granted AMR a one time waiver for AA 292/293 ORD-DEL-ORD which operated November 2005-March 2012, but the attitude going into the fruitless negotiations that ultimately led to bankruptcy was for AMR to ease other demands and have this ULH language lifted.

Also, APA wanted multiple captains staffed not just 1x capt and 2-3x FO for cockpit crew bids which could significantly increases on already fairly marginal “investment” flying to build out the network.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12311
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:03 am

jfk777 wrote:
your beloved Delta

I'm more a fanboy of logic, than of any airline. Learn from my example.


jfk777 wrote:
is doing so well is not internationally but domestically. The airlines have lowered First Class fares to a level people will actually pay for them.

First, non sequitur much?

Second, you don't seem to realize that you once again undercut your own (attempt at a) point:
That DL can derive huge profits from its domestic network, speaks to the fact that it's designed to service a different manner of market than the likes of BA/QF/etc. And since you've yet to demonstrate proficiency in connecting simple dots, allow me to do it for you: AA's market type is far closer to DL's, than it is to BA/QF/etc.

So this falls right back to how ridiculous it is, to expect AA to configure their aircraft at a certain ratio based solely upon what other competitors do.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
SoEWR
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:39 am

Re: Why did AA choose ORD as its TPAC Gateway instead of DFW?

Sun Jul 07, 2019 5:42 am

What about JFK. Why doesn’t AA use JFK more as a TATL hub.

JakubH wrote:
golfingboy wrote:
AA's international route network (TATL and TPAC) is a hot mess IMHO. Not as well defined, structured, or connected as DL or UA's network.

A big part of AA's problem is trying to make main gateways at airports that simply do not have the operational resources to be a major hub or has the capacity to build out for AA (i.e. PHL and LAX).

DFW and CLT are the only two hubs that have this capability, however AA has little interest in making CLT a major TATL hub other than a handful of trunk routes and DFW is not as well positioned geographically for the vast majority of the connections plus longer stage lengths are more costly to operate.


I cannot agree.

PHL for TATL, LAX for TPAC, and DFW/MIA/LAX for LATAM seem like a good split, allowing AA to keep strengthening and growing its network.

I am most familiar with LAX: AA plans additional growth at the airport once new terminal space is added (https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... nt-450127/)

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos