I have heard rumour that AA will end NRT service.

This can be true. JL can simply just start new HND-DFW and HND-ORD in addition to existing NRT-DFW and NRT-DFW which replace AA's flights.

As AA and JL are mentally neutral, AA can let JL to do the heavy lifting for JV.

Why would they want to? Because JL and AA are such close partners, a lot of connections can flow through NRT.

With HND still bring more restricted than NRT, AA, and UA for that matter, will still send traffic to both airports. HND will see more O&D, while NRT will see more connections on big birds. I.e. 787s to HND and 77Ws to NRT. AA and UA can leverage connections at both airports, as well as Tokyo's immense O&D with their respective JVs, while DL doesn't have a Japanese partner so it makes more sense for them to focus solely on Tokyo O&D at HND while covering connections to, at lot of Chinese (and up until recently) Japanese cities that weren't possible for them before.

While I do respect Antarius, I disagree with the premise that NRT will diminish in significance. HND can only handle so much that NRT will still be very important for the market and all of Japan.

So the premise is that AA will be happy with it’s 2 just acquired HND slots and will dump it’s remaining Japan flying?

I don’t see it. It would shrink AA significantly with virtually zero opportunity for growth for many years.

Antarius wrote:

NRT is a vestige of years past. Given the choice, high yield is moving away.

NRT will still remain the primary longhaul hub for JL. They simply don’t have the slots or space at HND

The authorities are expanding NRT and creating additional slots at NRT as well for a reason. Demand is high as airport continues to set annual records in movements and passengers. NRT will still be very part of the JV equation for AA/JL and NH/UA.

Antarius wrote:

They dont fly a ton of NRT. 2x DFW, 1x LAX and that 3x weekly ORD, which was all but handed over to JL already. So it is possible that AA goes 2x DFW-HND, keeps LAX-HND and hands 3x NRT-ORD and 1x LAX-NRT to JL. Or 1x DFW and LAX and JL adds capacity at DFW. So, not a crazy reduction- and AA could use the spare metal..

The new DOT awards are for 1 LAX and 1 DFW. No more, no less.

I am of the impression AA will keep 1 DFW-NRT, since they only got 1 DFW HND.

With LAX getting a second AA HND flight I would assume JAL can handle LAX-NRT. I am assuming US-JP decisions will be made with close coordination with JV partner JL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Antarius wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Antarius wrote:

They dont fly a ton of NRT. 2x DFW, 1x LAX and that 3x weekly ORD, which was all but handed over to JL already. So it is possible that AA goes 2x DFW-HND, keeps LAX-HND and hands 3x NRT-ORD and 1x LAX-NRT to JL. Or 1x DFW and LAX and JL adds capacity at DFW. So, not a crazy reduction- and AA could use the spare metal..

The new DOT awards are for 1 LAX and 1 DFW. No more, no less.

That's right. Forgot- thanks.

So to update, AA would drop LAX-NRT for HND and drop 1 DFW-NRT frequency for HND.

IMO, this is still well possible. Dont see them losing out on much by this at all. AA has basically given up ORD-Asia and the other 2 hubs have materially better coverage to the preferred Tokyo airport now.

clearly in the DOT article where each airline requests routes to Haneda, American had requested to move its two daily flights from DFW to HND, only one was granted, still maintaining its two daily flights will only be DFW-NRT and DFW-HND, In the case of LAX American, I requested a new service. I never requested a transfer from NRT to HND at any time, it is illogical that they drastically reduce Tokyo, in addition DFW-NRT is one of the most profitable routes of the airport and American, failing that the only service that would go would be Chicago (ORD)

I think it's very likely that AA will end LAX-NRT when they start the 2nd daily LAX-HND service. I also think it's likely that AA will end their 3x weekly ORD-NRT service, while JL starts a daily ORD-HND and keeps 1x daily ORD-NRT. 1 of the 2 AA DFW-TYO frequencies will be moving to HND, so that would leave just one NRT flight on AA metal.

Since DFW-TYO isn't actually all that big of an O&D market, I think JL will probably keep flying their DFW flight from NRT for the connections. AA might well keep flying DFW-NRT, even if that ends up being their only NRT flight. However, they might also look at serving DFW-NGO or DFW-KIX instead (with a smaller 788), while dropping NRT. That could be an interesting opportunity to link Japan's second-tier cities to Latin America, where there are currently limited connecting opportunities (for example, I wonder if a potential Nagoya flight could be supported by some Toyota traffic to the Plano office and to Latin American factories, supplemented by connecting traffic to the likes of AUS, IAH, MIA, MCO, and dozens of smaller markets throughout the Southeast).

Antarius wrote:

NRT will continue to exist as a JL connecting hub
, yes. But that doesnt mean AA needs to be part of that.

While I'm unfamiliar with the terms of the JV, but wouldn't it still require AA to maintain some equipment to NRT to facilitate connections. Can AA just drop all US-NRT capacity and let JL take over? There are still many destinations that AA/JL can only serve from NRT, such as CGK/KUL/TPE, and depending on schedule, HND-SIN/BKK/SGN don't connect well with inbound TPAC flights.

Antarius wrote:

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

That's right. Forgot- thanks.

So to update, AA would drop LAX-NRT for HND and drop 1 DFW-NRT frequency for HND.

IMO, this is still well possible. Dont see them losing out on much by this at all. AA has basically given up ORD-Asia and the other 2 hubs have materially better coverage to the preferred Tokyo airport now.

clearly in the DOT article where each airline requests routes to Haneda, American had requested to move its two daily flights from DFW to HND, only one was granted, still maintaining its two daily flights will only be DFW-NRT and DFW-HND, In the case of LAX American, I requested a new service. I never requested a transfer from NRT to HND at any time, it is illogical that they drastically reduce Tokyo, in addition DFW-NRT is one of the most profitable routes of the airport and American, failing that the only service that would go would be Chicago (ORD)

It isn't drastically reducing service. It is transferring one frequency to JL, which would continue to maintain the same capacity, while consolidating all operations at HND.

Extra metal could be used elsewhere such as LAX-MEL or something like that or if AA gets real bold, ORD-HKG (highly doubtful).

Why is this so out of the realm of possibility?

I agree with you that AA closing NRT is possible, if not likely. If one believes that AA is going to end ORD-NRT (which I think will happen), we’re really just talking about whether AA wants to keep a single NRT flight from DFW. I’m not sure it’s worth it. AA flying DFW-HND on a 77W and JL upgauging their NRT flight could make up for the lost capacity. Also let’s not forget how many seats AA has added beyond TYO in the last few years. Plus, AA could soon provide better China connections through the new Beijing airport if they make that move with CZ.

While the JV is metal neutral, there still needs to be a good amount of feed volume coming from the U.S into NRT as JAL has significant Asian beyond flights that require such feed and provide the most realistic path within the AA network.

Weakening NRT and losing the seats with the ability to connect beyond hurts AA as it is already weaker in the region, and not all markets can be reached via HKG on CX which is not a JV partner anyhow for AA.

If anything I would image AA seeks to deepen or broaden the overall JAL JV flying, not reduce it.

If (someday) AA wants to start PHL/CLT/PHX/MIA-TYO wouldn't it make sense to keep the NRT station open? They'll likely have a long wait to get HND slots for those routes not to mention if they (ever) come to fruition they would benefit from the NRT-Asia connections available on JL.

AA/JL have a smaller footprint to the U.S than NH/UA. Walking away and reducing NRT flying simply hands even more of market to UA/NH. Not sure that is beneficial for AA/JL.

The rumor is highly credible (I've been reporting it for several months now,) which is *NOT* to say it's going to happen or even likely to happen, but it's definitely been discussed, so a JonNYC-caliber rumor.

Antarius wrote:

I'm not following this - I agree there needs to be feed to NRT for ongoing flights, but why does it need to be on AA?

In the last several years, AA has added service to HKG from DFW and LAX, which helps cover part of SE Asia, started codesharing with CZ, which handles a lot of China, started flying to ICN and also to SYD/AKL. NRT is still a connecting point, but it isn't what it was 5 years ago, where unless you wanted to go to PEK or PVG, you were going through NRT.

I would imagine that AA would get more share of the revenue if it flew to NRT on its own metal, rather than just selling AA-marketed/JL-operated flights. JL aircraft are also more premium configured and AA 772/787 are better able to provide Y capacity.

And as noted above, AA/JL Asia footprint is smaller than UA/NH. And with a newly-formed DL/KE JV, AA/JL will likely work closer so they can compete for US-Asia traffic.

heretothere wrote:

Antarius wrote:

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

clearly in the DOT article where each airline requests routes to Haneda, American had requested to move its two daily flights from DFW to HND, only one was granted, still maintaining its two daily flights will only be DFW-NRT and DFW-HND, In the case of LAX American, I requested a new service. I never requested a transfer from NRT to HND at any time, it is illogical that they drastically reduce Tokyo, in addition DFW-NRT is one of the most profitable routes of the airport and American, failing that the only service that would go would be Chicago (ORD)

It isn't drastically reducing service. It is transferring one frequency to JL, which would continue to maintain the same capacity, while consolidating all operations at HND.

Extra metal could be used elsewhere such as LAX-MEL or something like that or if AA gets real bold, ORD-HKG (highly doubtful).

Why is this so out of the realm of possibility?

I agree with you that AA closing NRT is possible, if not likely. If one believes that AA is going to end ORD-NRT (which I think will happen), we’re really just talking about whether AA wants to keep a single NRT flight from DFW. I’m not sure it’s worth it. AA flying DFW-HND on a 77W and JL upgauging their NRT flight could make up for the lost capacity. Also let’s not forget how many seats AA has added beyond TYO in the last few years. Plus, AA could soon provide better China connections through the new Beijing airport if they make that move with CZ.

I still don't understand why they insist that AA stay with DFW-NRT, when the proposals were made to Haneda's DOT, CLEARLY SPECIFYED TO THE AIRLINES IF THEY WANTED A NEW SERVICE OR TRANSFER THE FLIGHT FROM NARITA TO HANEDA, American in his request asked for a NEW SERVICE TO LAX from HND, if they want to cancel LAX-NRT they were requested in front of the DOT a transfer as United did with ORD and IAD the flights were transferred from NRT to HND, it is obvious that they canceled ORD-NRT, American has always kept 5 flights to Japan since decades, also JAL is very short of fleet to launch new destinations, at least American next year will be delivered 12 new Boeing 787-8 unlike JAL that will only receive 3 new Boeing 787-9

LAXintl wrote:

While the JV is metal neutral, there still needs to be a good amount of feed volume coming from the U.S into NRT as JAL has significant Asian beyond flights that require such feed and provide the most realistic path within the AA network.

Weakening NRT and losing the seats with the ability to connect beyond hurts AA as it is already weaker in the region, and not all markets can be reached via HKG on CX which is not a JV partner anyhow for AA.

If anything I would image AA seeks to deepen or broaden the overall JAL JV flying, not reduce it.

There does need to be capacity continuing to flow into NRT, but there doesn't need to be as much. Assuming a decent chunk of the TYO (and other Japan-bound) O&D traffic that currently uses NRT flights due to lack of HND options moves over to using new HND flights in the future, that will open up a bunch of seats on the remaining NRT flights for connections beyond Japan. I could see AA pulling out of NRT while JL keeps the existing NRT flights from LAX, ORD, and JFK on 77Ws and upgauges their DFW-NRT flight to a 77W as well. Maybe in the next 1-2 years they'd also start MIA-NRT or PHL-NRT using a 789.

kavok wrote:

That being said, it AAs Japanese flying is whittled down to DFW-HND & LAX-HNDx2.... well let’s just say that only 3 flights in total by AA is not a very balanced joint venture between AA and JAL.

What's the scope of the JV? I'm assuming mainland China is excluded similar to the DL-KE JV, but are AA's nonstops to ICN and HKG included?

Also, I don't think AA will drop DFW-NRT outright. Either they'll keep that single NRT flight, or they'll cut it and start a DFW or LAX-Secondary Japan flight in its place. I maintain that I'd be surprised if AA/JL feel they need two DFW-TYO flights to operate to HND given that the PDEW of DFW-TYO is somewhere around 60...

FSDan wrote:

kavok wrote:

That being said, it AAs Japanese flying is whittled down to DFW-HND & LAX-HNDx2.... well let’s just say that only 3 flights in total by AA is not a very balanced joint venture between AA and JAL.

What's the scope of the JV? I'm assuming mainland China is excluded similar to the DL-KE JV, but are AA's nonstops to ICN and HKG included?

Also, I don't think AA will drop DFW-NRT outright. Either they'll keep that single NRT flight, or they'll cut it and start a DFW or LAX-Secondary Japan flight in its place. I maintain that I'd be surprised if AA/JL feel they need two DFW-TYO flights to operate to HND given that the PDEW of DFW-TYO is somewhere around 60...

Unless I'm going crazy, I'm pretty sure China is included in the JV. HKG and ICN (as well as the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, and maybe something else I forgot) are definitely included.

The question of whether AA maintains a NRT presence or not also depends on how far and wide the partnership with China Southern goes. If AA depends on JL for connections through to Asia via NRT, then AA will need to stay (it can always add frequencies and routes from its hubs). If China Southern becomes more of a factor, then AA could overfly NRT.

I could see ORD-NRT ending soon, AA was never good with ORD-Asia flights tbh

YYZORD wrote:

I could see ORD-NRT ending soon, AA was never good with ORD-Asia flights tbh

Agreed. And it operates 3 x per week, with JL flying it daily. Unless AA can get more slots at HND (along with UA and DL) it can only add flights to NRT, which I don't see happening from CLT. DFW probably has what it can bear. MIA has often been rumored here, but also don't see it happening, nor is a PHX flight likely either. AA badly wanted LAS-HND and did not get it. I think 2 x daily on LAX-HND will mean the end of the NRT flight though LAX to TYO is a big market so who knows. A JFK flight would be great but with so little feed there on AA, it would depend on O&D mostly and on the US and Japan based firms that fly people to / from in business frequently and JL has 2 x daily already to NRT/HND. PHL? Maybe, but why?

Cointrin330 wrote:

AA badly wanted LAS-HND and did not get it.

Hardly. LAS was their last priority request.

They asked for LAX and double daily DFW as priority over Vegas.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Why would they want to? Because JL and AA are such close partners, a lot of connections can flow through NRT.

I agree I already think they cut to much to Narita. I'm pretty much forced to fly CX. I hardly ever get JL has a option and most the time it's priced too high.

OzarkD9S wrote:

If (someday) AA wants to start PHL/CLT/PHX/MIA-TYO wouldn't it make sense to keep the NRT station open?

Every single one of those airports has been in a hub-to-hub situation with NRT, long before AA took over US, for decades in fact........ and yet no respective airline (US, UA, NH, JL, AA) decided to offer anything to them.

If NRT is ever calculated as less-than-optimal for AA's current needs, their decision on what to do about it certainly won't hinge on the possibility of one of those duds suddenly blossoming into an Asian connector.

dfw88 wrote:

Unless I'm going crazy, I'm pretty sure China is included in the JV.

grbauc wrote:

I'm pretty much forced to fly CX. I hardly ever get JL has a option and most the time it's priced too high.

Find that very difficult to believe, considering AA's ticketing algorithm on its own site or external, and its financial incentive to favor one over the other.

But, for the sake of objectivity: from what destination, and via what means of ticketing, are you running into this issue?

janders wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

AA badly wanted LAS-HND and did not get it.

Hardly. LAS was their last priority request.

They asked for LAX and double daily DFW as priority over Vegas.

Um, no. AA wanted a slot at HND to operate LAS-HND. They did not get it. They asked for all. They got two out of 3.

DL is launching 2 x daily PDX-LAS flights, to offer LAS connections to HND via PDX, clearly capitalizing on what AA knows.

Cointrin330 wrote:

Um, no. AA wanted a slot at HND to operate LAS-HND. They did not get it. They asked for all. They got two out of 3.

DL is launching 2 x daily PDX-LAS flights, to offer LAS connections to HND via PDX, clearly capitalizing on what AA knows.

But what was the actual purpose of the slot request? In reading some of the rebuttals by both DL and UA they both seem to suggest HND-LAS was requested to help out AA's JV partner JL and not because there is tremendous demand for travel from the US side meaning LAS-HND. The DOT must have sided with DL and UA because AA was not awarded LAS.

If AA was serious about LAS-HND-LAS, then why not launch LAS-NRT-LAS or why hasn't their JV partner JL announced plans to launch HND-LAS-HND service with additional slots they were awarded. Keep in mind both NH and JL each received additional HND slots for 2020.

Outside of CES which triggers a huge spike in demand for around 10-14 days what does the PDEW data show as the actual daily demand for travel from LAS to HND.

With JL now knowing AA does not have the slot, if they (JL) do not launch HND-LAS-HND or NRT-LAS-NRT service then we know AA simply wanted the slot to keep it from going to a competitor and probably would have requested to have the slot moved at a later time.

If daily demand is as strong as AA claimed in their application then JL needs to jump on this route in 2020.

dfw88 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

kavok wrote:

That being said, it AAs Japanese flying is whittled down to DFW-HND & LAX-HNDx2.... well let’s just say that only 3 flights in total by AA is not a very balanced joint venture between AA and JAL.

What's the scope of the JV? I'm assuming mainland China is excluded similar to the DL-KE JV, but are AA's nonstops to ICN and HKG included?

Also, I don't think AA will drop DFW-NRT outright. Either they'll keep that single NRT flight, or they'll cut it and start a DFW or LAX-Secondary Japan flight in its place. I maintain that I'd be surprised if AA/JL feel they need two DFW-TYO flights to operate to HND given that the PDEW of DFW-TYO is somewhere around 60...

Unless I'm going crazy, I'm pretty sure China is included in the JV. HKG and ICN (as well as the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, and maybe something else I forgot) are definitely included.

China is excluded from the JV.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

dfw88 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

What's the scope of the JV? I'm assuming mainland China is excluded similar to the DL-KE JV, but are AA's nonstops to ICN and HKG included?

Also, I don't think AA will drop DFW-NRT outright. Either they'll keep that single NRT flight, or they'll cut it and start a DFW or LAX-Secondary Japan flight in its place. I maintain that I'd be surprised if AA/JL feel they need two DFW-TYO flights to operate to HND given that the PDEW of DFW-TYO is somewhere around 60...

Unless I'm going crazy, I'm pretty sure China is included in the JV. HKG and ICN (as well as the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, and maybe something else I forgot) are definitely included.

China is excluded from the JV.

I was too lazy to check last night, I did this morning and I was correct originally. Yes, China is included in the AA/JL JV. See, for example, page 6 of this document: https://www.americanairlines.fr/content/images/aboutUs/newsroom/jb_english.pdf. Here it says that Chinese approval is pending, but this is from 2011. It was given shortly thereafter and AA's China flights have been included ever since.

dfw88 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

dfw88 wrote:

Unless I'm going crazy, I'm pretty sure China is included in the JV. HKG and ICN (as well as the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, and maybe something else I forgot) are definitely included.

China is excluded from the JV.

I was too lazy to check last night, I did this morning and I was correct originally. Yes, China is included in the AA/JL JV. See, for example, page 6 of this document: https://www.americanairlines.fr/content/images/aboutUs/newsroom/jb_english.pdf. Here it says that Chinese approval is pending, but this is from 2011. It was given shortly thereafter and AA's China flights have been included ever since.

Do you have a link showing approval? China is definitely excluded from the DL/KE joint venture, so it would surprise me if it was part of the AA/JL one. Plus I thought an open skies treaty was a requirement for inclusion.

Cointrin330 wrote:

Um, no. AA wanted a slot at HND to operate LAS-HND. They did not get it. They asked for all. They got two out of 3.
.

Incorrect.

AA applied for 4 slots at HND, with LAS their last priority.

They were not betting very enthusiastically about LAS compared to LAX and their DFW request which they rated higher priority.

Actually, it was virtually assured LAS would not win simply the manner AA bid for it, with 4 other airlines chasing after the 12 slots.

China is excluded from the JV's because it's not an open-skies market.

At recent Boyd conference, it was actually talked about how U.S. airlines are hindered from getting closer to their Chinese partners due lack of open-skies which is a prerequisite for broad JV alliance agreement.
United for example has long wanted to deepen its relations with Air China but cant as result.

Here's the original application showing that China was included from the beginning: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0034-0001

It gets a little confusing because AA-JL made a motion to combine their application into a single docket with the UA-NH application, which motion was approved: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0034-0022. But if you read through the paper trail in both cases I can't find a single place where it says that China was written out of the application. The show cause was then given, which also does not state that any changes had been made to the application regarding China: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0059-0180. Finally, the final approval was given: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0059-0185.

In none of these documents, nor in any of the other documents posted, that I could find, was it directed that China should be excluded. If it was included from the very beginning, then never excluded, the logical conclusion is that it is still included in the JV. Annoyingly, a list of applicable countries is not found in any of the final orders, but it takes a pretty big leap to think that it's excluded.

P.S. - There's another angle here, in addition to all of the documents above, which is that I happen to be extremely familiar with the AA-JL JV. China is definitely included.

I think you guys are confused.
Things like codesharing, interline, prorate agreements are possible to China, however, the deeper combined revenue sharing, capacity allocation, metal neutral flying, and such is not allowed yet with China as its not an open-skies market.
This has held back U.S. airlines from reaching more comprehensive agreements in the region.

dfw88 wrote:

Here's the original application showing that China was included from the beginning: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0034-0001

It gets a little confusing because AA-JL made a motion to combine their application into a single docket with the UA-NH application, which motion was approved: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0034-0022. But if you read through the paper trail in both cases I can't find a single place where it says that China was written out of the application. The show cause was then given, which also does not state that any changes had been made to the application regarding China: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0059-0180. Finally, the final approval was given: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOT-OST-2010-0059-0185.

In none of these documents, nor in any of the other documents posted, that I could find, was it directed that China should be excluded. If it was included from the very beginning, then never excluded, the logical conclusion is that it is still included in the JV. Annoyingly, a list of applicable countries is not found in any of the final orders, but it takes a pretty big leap to think that it's excluded.

P.S. - There's another angle here, in addition to all of the documents above, which is that I happen to be extremely familiar with the AA-JL JV. China is definitely included.

I thought that all parties and destinations in a joint venture had to enjoy Open Skies with each other. Does this mean that China is included in the UA-NH, DL-KE, and AA-JL TPAC joint ventures, all three? I have read many times that it does not apply to DL-KE.

Cointrin330 wrote:

Um, no. AA wanted a slot at HND to operate LAS-HND. They did not get it. They asked for all. They got two out of 3.

AA asked for 4 Haneda slots, with LAS being their lowest priority.

As Nevada resident, it was all smoke and mirrors. They got a few nice supporting letters from celebrities, but the request was doomed from the day they applied for it and they basically knew it. If AA was serious they should have atleast ranked it as their #3 priority, not #4.

For those placing side-$ on the "is China included in the AA TPAC JV" debate-- smart $ goes on "China -is- included"

JonNYC wrote:

For those placing side-$ on the "is China included in the AA TPAC JV" debate-- smart $ goes on "China -is- included"

How could it be? China isnt an open skies market. Revenue sharing has been restricted to the mainland.

AA doesn’t even codeshare on JL’s NRT-PEK/PVG flights, so I’m still putting my money on China not being in the JV.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

JonNYC wrote:

For those placing side-$ on the "is China included in the AA TPAC JV" debate-- smart $ goes on "China -is- included"

How could it be? China isnt an open skies market. Revenue sharing has been restricted to the mainland.

It seems they did try to include China in the application, but I do not believe it did go through. Because of the reason you said.