OB1504 wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

LATAM just said today they will continue their relationship with all OW carriers except AA... I guess they don't really want to exit OW but the DL JV forced them to.

Are they immediately going for a JV? I thought it was just an ownership stake for now.

Yeah it's just 20% stake for now

SEAflyer97 wrote:

LATAM just said today they will continue their relationship with all OW carriers except AA... I guess they don't really want to exit OW but the DL JV forced them to.

Do you have a link/source to this information?

Ishrion wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

LATAM just said today they will continue their relationship with all OW carriers except AA... I guess they don't really want to exit OW but the DL JV forced them to.

Do you have a link/source to this information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyleff/2 ... 30790829e9

Cueto says he hopes to continue LATAM’s partnerships with British Airways, Iberia, and with Qantas.

SEAflyer97 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

LATAM just said today they will continue their relationship with all OW carriers except AA... I guess they don't really want to exit OW but the DL JV forced them to.

Do you have a link/source to this information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyleff/2 ... 30790829e9

Cueto says he hopes to continue LATAM’s partnerships with British Airways, Iberia, and with Qantas.

Thanks. Was looking for confirmation around its partnerships.

So it's basically like China Southern leaving SkyTeam... but continuing partnerships with its members...

Ishrion wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Do you have a link/source to this information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyleff/2 ... 30790829e9

Cueto says he hopes to continue LATAM’s partnerships with British Airways, Iberia, and with Qantas.

Thanks. Was looking for confirmation around its partnerships.

So it's basically like China Southern leaving SkyTeam... but continuing partnerships with its members...

That's not accurate. If you read the press release from late last year, CZ committed to until the end of 2019 as the transitional period. I would expect terminations with most members at year end.

SEAflyer97 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

LATAM just said today they will continue their relationship with all OW carriers except AA... I guess they don't really want to exit OW but the DL JV forced them to.

Do you have a link/source to this information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyleff/2 ... 30790829e9

Cueto says he hopes to continue LATAM’s partnerships with British Airways, Iberia, and with Qantas.

Additionally, Qantas have said that there will be no change to their partnership with Latam

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... in-skyteam

xiaotung wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyleff/2 ... 30790829e9

Cueto says he hopes to continue LATAM’s partnerships with British Airways, Iberia, and with Qantas.

Thanks. Was looking for confirmation around its partnerships.

So it's basically like China Southern leaving SkyTeam... but continuing partnerships with its members...

That's not accurate. If you read the press release from late last year, CZ committed to until the end of 2019 as the transitional period. I would expect terminations with most members at year end.

Thanks for clarifying. Are they ending the AF/KL/MF JV as well?

The biggest problem is the now lack of one world frequent flyers in Latin America.
I'll go out on a limb here. The three biggest markets in South America are Sao Paulo,
Buenos Aires and Rio De Janeiro. AA obviously serve them.

In the past QF flew to EZE and pax connected onwards from there... usually on a BA 744
That pulled up beside a QF 744 as a tag on LHR-GRU-EZE with the GRU segment used as a
shuttle for both QF and BA's pax. For QF Argentina was by the biggest O&D pax but SCL as
a hub offered better connections to Brazil as well as the ability to do things like fly into
Mendoza and out of say, Rio de Janeiro.

So here's what I propose. A couple of tag ons. All to EZE. AA operates to say GRU and has a tag on to EZE.
BA/IB operate a tag on from GIG to EZE and all of these meet up with QF in EZE and park beside each other.
They open a joint lounge in EZE and they have got the main markets covered and will be able to pick up
some local traffic as well. This will only work though if QF doesn't get LAN to connect to anymore.
Otherwise BA and AA will just down gage some of their aircraft.

Lufthansa wrote:

The biggest problem is the now lack of one world frequent flyers in Latin America.
I'll go out on a limb here. The three biggest markets in South America are Sao Paulo,
Buenos Aires and Rio De Janeiro. AA obviously serve them.

In the past QF flew to EZE and pax connected onwards from there... usually on a BA 744
That pulled up beside a QF 744 as a tag on LHR-GRU-EZE with the GRU segment used as a
shuttle for both QF and BA's pax. For QF Argentina was by the biggest O&D pax but SCL as
a hub offered better connections to Brazil as well as the ability to do things like fly into
Mendoza and out of say, Rio de Janeiro.

So here's what I propose. A couple of tag ons. All to EZE. AA operates to say GRU and has a tag on to EZE.
BA/IB operate a tag on from GIG to EZE and all of these meet up with QF in EZE and park beside each other.
They open a joint lounge in EZE and they have got the main markets covered and will be able to pick up
some local traffic as well. This will only work though if QF doesn't get LAN to connect to anymore.
Otherwise BA and AA will just down gage some of their aircraft.

Give that plan 5 minutes of thought and try again, please. I shall give you a clue: what do you think a BA passenger thinks about having to stop in GIG?

Lufthansa wrote:

The biggest problem is the now lack of one world frequent flyers in Latin America.
I'll go out on a limb here. The three biggest markets in South America are Sao Paulo,
Buenos Aires and Rio De Janeiro. AA obviously serve them.

In the past QF flew to EZE and pax connected onwards from there... usually on a BA 744
That pulled up beside a QF 744 as a tag on LHR-GRU-EZE with the GRU segment used as a
shuttle for both QF and BA's pax. For QF Argentina was by the biggest O&D pax but SCL as
a hub offered better connections to Brazil as well as the ability to do things like fly into
Mendoza and out of say, Rio de Janeiro.

So here's what I propose. A couple of tag ons. All to EZE. AA operates to say GRU and has a tag on to EZE.
BA/IB operate a tag on from GIG to EZE and all of these meet up with QF in EZE and park beside each other.
They open a joint lounge in EZE and they have got the main markets covered and will be able to pick up
some local traffic as well. This will only work though if QF doesn't get LAN to connect to anymore.
Otherwise BA and AA will just down gage some of their aircraft.

In this day and age why would BA/IB/AA be offering one stops, that is expensive and not competitive. They all fly nonstop to EZE/GRU/GIG and SCL today from their respective hubs, reverting to one stops would hinder the performance of their flights. QF has already said they will continue the partnership with LATAM, so no issues there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lufthansa wrote:

The biggest problem is the now lack of one world frequent flyers in Latin America.
I'll go out on a limb here. The three biggest markets in South America are Sao Paulo,
Buenos Aires and Rio De Janeiro. AA obviously serve them.

In the past QF flew to EZE and pax connected onwards from there... usually on a BA 744
That pulled up beside a QF 744 as a tag on LHR-GRU-EZE with the GRU segment used as a
shuttle for both QF and BA's pax. For QF Argentina was by the biggest O&D pax but SCL as
a hub offered better connections to Brazil as well as the ability to do things like fly into
Mendoza and out of say, Rio de Janeiro.

So here's what I propose. A couple of tag ons. All to EZE. AA operates to say GRU and has a tag on to EZE.
BA/IB operate a tag on from GIG to EZE and all of these meet up with QF in EZE and park beside each other.
They open a joint lounge in EZE and they have got the main markets covered and will be able to pick up
some local traffic as well. This will only work though if QF doesn't get LAN to connect to anymore.
Otherwise BA and AA will just down gage some of their aircraft.

And you mention lack of OW FF, yes LATAM will take many FF. But considering IB and AA have served these markets for years they also have a good number of FF in these locations. So to say OW FF will all of a sudden vanish from South America is a fallacy..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MalevTU134 wrote:

May I chip in from South America?
Almost everybody I know, in Peru, Colombia and Argentina (excluding here my poor Venezuelan friends, who lack the luxury of flying nowadays, let alone being choosy about choice of airlines) has LATAM as their last choice when flying. Just yesterday a friend told me she considered quitting her job since her employer keeps sending her on LATAM, and not Avianca, on her weekly Letícia-Bogotá- Letícia trips. The exceptions to this may be Chile and Brazil, its original home markets, where LATAM is held closer to heart.
My point is: LATAM is, in many places, far from being "Latin America's favourite airline" but rather its only choice or thereabouts. Personally, I have only had great moments on LATAM, but just wanted to share the sentiment many have.
Also, Antofagasta-Recife on LATAM generates exactly zero revenue or profit for AA, BA, IB et al even today, so their loss is just that - zero - on those flights with LA leaving OneWorld. And absolutely nothing prevents AA (for example) to offer interline fares on, say, ORD-AA-DFW-AA-SCL-LA-MDZ, even after the DL investment. Interline fares, SPAs and other fare collaborations are not limited to or by alliances.

Yes you are correct, but sadly most of the kids on here who are vocal and know very little about the airline industry, have NO idea what an interline fare (agreement is)

DWC wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

Is it a time for a global Qatar Airways?
Qatari American (ex-American)
Qatari African (ex Royal Air Maroc)
Qatari Atlantic (ex BA & Aer Lingus)
Qatari Europa (ex Iberia)
Qatari Indian (ex Malaysian airline)
Qatari Australian (ex Qantas)
Qatari Russian (ex S7)
Qatari China (ex Cathay)
Qatari Pacific (ex Japan Airlines)
Qatari Scandinavian (ex Finnair)

You are terrible at marketing
"OW whatever" looks better, plus some frames already have it written on their fuselage.

Am I delusionnal if I say that's the 3rd or 4th time I see that same post ?

Because it is the only way to win.

If AA needs a win they need to focus on the customer more.

Lufthansa wrote:

So here's what I propose. A couple of tag ons. All to EZE. AA operates to say GRU and has a tag on to EZE.
BA/IB operate a tag on from GIG to EZE and all of these meet up with QF in EZE and park beside each other.
They open a joint lounge in EZE and they have got the main markets covered and will be able to pick up
some local traffic as well. This will only work though if QF doesn't get LAN to connect to anymore.
Otherwise BA and AA will just down gage some of their aircraft.

Tag ons are no longer competitive in 2019, especially given that EZE and other major South American cities can support nonstop service to North America and Europe without LATAM feed.

SEAflyer97 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

LATAM just said today they will continue their relationship with all OW carriers except AA... I guess they don't really want to exit OW but the DL JV forced them to.

Do you have a link/source to this information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyleff/2 ... 30790829e9

Cueto says he hopes to continue LATAM’s partnerships with British Airways, Iberia, and with Qantas.

Seriously? Then what is all the fuss about leaving oneworld?
CX has JV with CA and NZ, CA holding 29% of CX and codeshare agreements with AC and LH
QF has a JV with EK
JL wants a JV with MU and HA
AA owns some 2% of CZ

oneworld has always been the more flexible alliance out of the 3 allowing partnerships outside of the alliance.

Varsity1 wrote:

QR is a toxic partner.

EK would be a great move. I think QR would lose their minds if that happened, plus QR owns part of IAG.

1000s of Oneworld partner ticket holders find themselves aboard an Emirates flight EVERY DAY out of and into Australia and Europe .
Far more than aboard grey and red planes with an ibex on the tail

Courtesy of the Marsupial !

J343 wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Do you have a link/source to this information?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/garyleff/2 ... 30790829e9

Cueto says he hopes to continue LATAM’s partnerships with British Airways, Iberia, and with Qantas.

Seriously? Then what is all the fuss about leaving oneworld?
CX has JV with CA and NZ, CA holding 29% of CX and codeshare agreements with AC and LH
QF has a JV with EK
JL wants a JV with MU and HA
AA owns some 2% of CZ

oneworld has always been the more flexible alliance out of the 3 allowing partnerships outside of the alliance.

I do think AA could be hurt a lot, but I doubt any other Oneworld airline would be largely impacted by this. I don't see LATAM switch their Madrid feed from Iberia to Air Europa unless they join SkyTeam.

MLIAA wrote:

After the earth shattering move by DL to acquire 20% of LATAM, AA/oneworld is left without a partner in Latin America, which was the standout bright spot of the airline/alliance.

oneworld needs a new partner in South America. Gol? Argentina? COPA? Further boost/invest in Interjet?

Personally, I’d love to see AA mend fences with QR and form the strongest North America-Middle East partnership to date. AA could use some cash right about now, maybe they will change their minds about QR investing in AA. It would give them a new and desperately needed advantage over Delta.

AA was a fence-rider with QR when the whole ME3-US3 saga started, but then later threw its weight to support the US3. I would not be surprised to see AA renege on this to spite DL, and get a cash injection from QR like MLIAA mentioned.

While I think this is a huge blow for AA, I don’t think that it matters in the grand scheme of thing. They weren’t going to be able to get the JV with LATAM in the near future. Therefore the partnership was never going to reach full potential. AA is better partnering with GOL or Azul, maybe they could get a JV approved with this partnership but eh who knows what value that would bring to AA in either of those airlines current state. Miami is always going to be a powerhouse to Latin/South America that they don’t need a partner in the region to sustain their current level of service. With the introduction of the A321xlr they can right size their markets and open new ones.

I think the whole idea of alliances groups are dead. The only people who seem to care now a days about them is us AvGeeks. I don’t think the general public knows anything about them, or frankly cares.

SEAflyer97 wrote:

OB1504 wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

LATAM just said today they will continue their relationship with all OW carriers except AA... I guess they don't really want to exit OW but the DL JV forced them to.

Are they immediately going for a JV? I thought it was just an ownership stake for now.

Yeah it's just 20% stake for now

There is immediate discussion of a DL/LATAM JV. Codesharing can come faster.

The first part is a commercial partnership which includes the proposed joint venture. The first step in this process
is codesharing which could be implemented as soon as the end of this year. The full strategic partnership will
require a longer approval process.

It's an opportunity for us to move from our current position in US-South American
flows that we're number 4, together with LATAM and the JV that we'll be putting together, we'll be number 1 in the
region across the flows between South America and the US.

https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/do ... script.pdf

No great loss, as a oneworld loyalist, LATAM offer a very poor web experience . Bookings on their English website have always failed to process right at the last stage, and you are also unable to add your FF number during booking. Just seems an almighty faff when trying to book and travel with them. Hardly a seamless experience.

chunhimlai wrote:

DWC wrote:

Am I delusionnal if I say that's the 3rd or 4th time I see that same post ?

Because it is the only way to win.

The LEVIATHAN is not the way to win for consumers. It is the way for virtual oligo-/monopolies.
People here speak of open skies, JVs, cross-participations, free-trade & the like without an ounce of knowledge of the basic tenets of market economy : atomicity of actors & perfect / symmetric information, none of which are prevailing. What we have now is a battle between oligopolistic majors in their own regions vying for world supremacy, while the unlearned public cheerfully applauds to bigger is better, tragic & pathetic.

Studies show that 5 majors in a given developped region (US, EU, ME, CN, R, A, LA ) is the optimum recipe for competition with efficient service to all places therein, with interlining or alliances beyond their sphere are enough. JVs & equity alliances are actually olipolistic maneuvring under the guise of free capital flows, they are anything but good for the consumer, excellent for the airline bottom-lines & to pass the bill to the consumer, that is why they are doing it !
Since when has service & competition to passengers interest been a priority with airlines ?

"Milk PAX as much as you can until they scream !"
FF programs are consistently devalued after constituting a captive pool, requirements always higher for lesser returns.
Does anyone remember the amenities given out free to Y in the 1970s-1990s ? None of that anymore, though IFE & Wi-Fi are sizable positive adds.

The Hell with alliances no matter what form, I for one go free agent everytime if I find better elsewhere.

No great loss, as a oneworld loyalist, LATAM offer a very poor web experience . Bookings on their english website have always failed to process right at the last stage, and you are also unable to add your FF number during booking. Just seems an almighty faff when trying to book and travel with them. Hardly a seamless experience.

The win for Oneworld is to recruit GOL in Brazil.

Losing LATAM but gaining GOL is an opportunity for AA to offer service to secondary cities in the region, boosting (or maintaining) one-stop connections e.g DFW- SaoPaolo- Uberlandia (isnt that the coolest city name?!?)

Surely many would agree that GOL service is superior to LATAM.

This is an exciting win for AA/OneWorld in Brazil and Hopefully the Southern Cone.

The challenge is finding a partner opportunity in the middle regions of LATAM - Peru, Chile, Columbia. But this is well covered by AA via Miami. Maybe some new flying to secondary cities here but I wonder how much demand from Business travellers would be generated.

Gaining GOL and losing LATAM. Every cloud has a silver lining

NYCAAer wrote:

gen2stew wrote:

How many more blunders and failures will the B.O.D. tolerate before removing team Tempe?

It boggles the mind. Employees, unhappy. Customers, unhappy. Shareholders, unhappy. Financial analysts aren’t convinced about anything that they’ve done. My favorite quote was from one who said AA is the ugliest house on the block and a fixer-upper. I thought it was a perfect metaphor.

Sadly this has been the case for 3 decades. The common denominator between AA being an unreliable and unfriendly place to fly has been the rank and file. They eventually get promoted to middle management and spawn more of the same culture. It doesn't matter who is at the top.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Lufthansa wrote:

The biggest problem is the now lack of one world frequent flyers in Latin America.
I'll go out on a limb here. The three biggest markets in South America are Sao Paulo,
Buenos Aires and Rio De Janeiro. AA obviously serve them.

In the past QF flew to EZE and pax connected onwards from there... usually on a BA 744
That pulled up beside a QF 744 as a tag on LHR-GRU-EZE with the GRU segment used as a
shuttle for both QF and BA's pax. For QF Argentina was by the biggest O&D pax but SCL as
a hub offered better connections to Brazil as well as the ability to do things like fly into
Mendoza and out of say, Rio de Janeiro.

So here's what I propose. A couple of tag ons. All to EZE. AA operates to say GRU and has a tag on to EZE.
BA/IB operate a tag on from GIG to EZE and all of these meet up with QF in EZE and park beside each other.
They open a joint lounge in EZE and they have got the main markets covered and will be able to pick up
some local traffic as well. This will only work though if QF doesn't get LAN to connect to anymore.
Otherwise BA and AA will just down gage some of their aircraft.

Give that plan 5 minutes of thought and try again, please. I shall give you a clue: what do you think a BA passenger thinks about having to stop in GIG?

nobody said REPLACE existing services... more an additional service. maybe you should give it a few minutes of thought.

Lufthansa wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Lufthansa wrote:

The biggest problem is the now lack of one world frequent flyers in Latin America.
I'll go out on a limb here. The three biggest markets in South America are Sao Paulo,
Buenos Aires and Rio De Janeiro. AA obviously serve them.

In the past QF flew to EZE and pax connected onwards from there... usually on a BA 744
That pulled up beside a QF 744 as a tag on LHR-GRU-EZE with the GRU segment used as a
shuttle for both QF and BA's pax. For QF Argentina was by the biggest O&D pax but SCL as
a hub offered better connections to Brazil as well as the ability to do things like fly into
Mendoza and out of say, Rio de Janeiro.

So here's what I propose. A couple of tag ons. All to EZE. AA operates to say GRU and has a tag on to EZE.
BA/IB operate a tag on from GIG to EZE and all of these meet up with QF in EZE and park beside each other.
They open a joint lounge in EZE and they have got the main markets covered and will be able to pick up
some local traffic as well. This will only work though if QF doesn't get LAN to connect to anymore.
Otherwise BA and AA will just down gage some of their aircraft.

Give that plan 5 minutes of thought and try again, please. I shall give you a clue: what do you think a BA passenger thinks about having to stop in GIG?

nobody said REPLACE existing services... more an additional service. maybe you should give it a few minutes of thought.

I did. And so did BA. (And LH, for that matter.) Result? They swapped direct flights to EZE for nonstop, some 10 years ago.

They way for American to win is for the leaders to understand where American Airlines came from, it's history and route development strategy. Today, I argue that AA is viewed as America West that inherited routes to South America and a Miami Hub. There is a disconnect between the trials and tribulations of how American purchased Eastern's Latin franchise and invested itself there quite substantially. I remember to my amazement how they curtailed European growth to put widebodies into the Southern hemisphere, really entrenching themselves with a passion. Remember "Latin American" ads everywhere. I am afraid American's future may depend on getting leaner and nimbler, focusing on delivering a world-class product, and getting people into the ranks that understand what American once was and protect the assets that ensure it's global stature. Losing Latam should never have happened!

I do think Latam is a better fit with Delta. The deal $ is a steal relative to the dynamics in the industry, that is, what other carrier offers the breadth and scope as Latam in South America? Delta is benefitting from first-move advantage here since their NW merger. Fiercly competitive move! This Latam deal changes Delta's game for a long time. WestJet-Delta-AeroMexico-Latam. Who will beat that?

TYWoolman wrote:

They way for American to win is for the leaders to understand where American Airlines came from, it's history and route development strategy. Today, I argue that AA is viewed as America West that inherited routes to South America and a Miami Hub. There is a disconnect between the trials and tribulations of how American purchased Eastern's Latin franchise and invested itself there quite substantially. I remember to my amazement how they curtailed European growth to put widebodies into the Southern hemisphere, really entrenching themselves with a passion. Remember "Latin American" ads everywhere. I am afraid American's future may depend on getting leaner and nimbler, focusing on delivering a world-class product, and getting people into the ranks that understand what American once was and protect the assets that ensure it's global stature. Losing Latam should never have happened!

Tell that to the former HP management occupying in Tempe AZ.

I don't mind AA to be the third among US3 and leaner. But the lack of direction and pride is making the mood very dark in AA. Doug Parker and his team needs to go. Let someone who understands AA haritage and pride in AA comes in.

chonetsao wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

They way for American to win is for the leaders to understand where American Airlines came from, it's history and route development strategy. Today, I argue that AA is viewed as America West that inherited routes to South America and a Miami Hub. There is a disconnect between the trials and tribulations of how American purchased Eastern's Latin franchise and invested itself there quite substantially. I remember to my amazement how they curtailed European growth to put widebodies into the Southern hemisphere, really entrenching themselves with a passion. Remember "Latin American" ads everywhere. I am afraid American's future may depend on getting leaner and nimbler, focusing on delivering a world-class product, and getting people into the ranks that understand what American once was and protect the assets that ensure it's global stature. Losing Latam should never have happened!

Tell that to the former HP management occupying in Tempe AZ.

I don't mind AA to be the third among US3 and leaner. But the lack of direction and pride is making the mood very dark in AA. Doug Parker and his team needs to go. Let someone who understands AA haritage and pride in AA comes in.

Heritage and pride is what brought AA into bankruptcy and US/HP taking over

BA744PHX wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

They way for American to win is for the leaders to understand where American Airlines came from, it's history and route development strategy. Today, I argue that AA is viewed as America West that inherited routes to South America and a Miami Hub. There is a disconnect between the trials and tribulations of how American purchased Eastern's Latin franchise and invested itself there quite substantially. I remember to my amazement how they curtailed European growth to put widebodies into the Southern hemisphere, really entrenching themselves with a passion. Remember "Latin American" ads everywhere. I am afraid American's future may depend on getting leaner and nimbler, focusing on delivering a world-class product, and getting people into the ranks that understand what American once was and protect the assets that ensure it's global stature. Losing Latam should never have happened!

Tell that to the former HP management occupying in Tempe AZ.

I don't mind AA to be the third among US3 and leaner. But the lack of direction and pride is making the mood very dark in AA. Doug Parker and his team needs to go. Let someone who understands AA haritage and pride in AA comes in.

Heritage and pride is what brought AA into bankruptcy and US/HP taking over

I'll reiterate that. Never forget where you came from, but there's gotta be a new direction to go, cause right now AA seems lost. It hurts to say that with them being my favorite airline, but there seems to be no sense of what they want to be.

BA744PHX wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

They way for American to win is for the leaders to understand where American Airlines came from, it's history and route development strategy. Today, I argue that AA is viewed as America West that inherited routes to South America and a Miami Hub. There is a disconnect between the trials and tribulations of how American purchased Eastern's Latin franchise and invested itself there quite substantially. I remember to my amazement how they curtailed European growth to put widebodies into the Southern hemisphere, really entrenching themselves with a passion. Remember "Latin American" ads everywhere. I am afraid American's future may depend on getting leaner and nimbler, focusing on delivering a world-class product, and getting people into the ranks that understand what American once was and protect the assets that ensure it's global stature. Losing Latam should never have happened!

Tell that to the former HP management occupying in Tempe AZ.

I don't mind AA to be the third among US3 and leaner. But the lack of direction and pride is making the mood very dark in AA. Doug Parker and his team needs to go. Let someone who understands AA haritage and pride in AA comes in.

Heritage and pride is what brought AA into bankruptcy and US/HP taking over

Look, go back to AA bankruptcy. AA does not need bankruptcy. The only reason AA went through the bankruptcy is to merge with US. If you have followed AA for decades like me, AA only decided to go through bankruptcy after it signed enormous new aircraft order with Boeing and Airbus. Do you still remember the largest aircraft order in history? The new aircraft order brought AA too much liability in paper thus to make sure airlines like DL or UA would not make hostile bid. The whole AA bankruptcy ordeal is orchestrated attempt to force a merger with US.

Of course many people would have their version of history. But AA does not need to sign 300 plus aircraft order at once, and AA does not need to declare bankruptcy at that time.

The win for AA is keeping JAL. Can you imagine if they were ever pryed away...

DWC wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

DWC wrote:

Am I delusionnal if I say that's the 3rd or 4th time I see that same post ?

Because it is the only way to win.

The LEVIATHAN is not the way to win for consumers. It is the way for virtual oligo-/monopolies.
People here speak of open skies, JVs, cross-participations, free-trade & the like without an ounce of knowledge of the basic tenets of market economy : atomicity of actors & perfect / symmetric information, none of which are prevailing. What we have now is a battle between oligopolistic majors in their own regions vying for world supremacy, while the unlearned public cheerfully applauds to bigger is better, tragic & pathetic.

Studies show that 5 majors in a given developped region (US, EU, ME, CN, R, A, LA ) is the optimum recipe for competition with efficient service to all places therein, with interlining or alliances beyond their sphere are enough. JVs & equity alliances are actually olipolistic maneuvring under the guise of free capital flows, they are anything but good for the consumer, excellent for the airline bottom-lines & to pass the bill to the consumer, that is why they are doing it !
Since when has service & competition to passengers interest been a priority with airlines ?

"Milk PAX as much as you can until they scream !"
FF programs are consistently devalued after constituting a captive pool, requirements always higher for lesser returns.
Does anyone remember the amenities given out free to Y in the 1970s-1990s ? None of that anymore, though IFE & Wi-Fi are sizable positive adds.

The Hell with alliances no matter what form, I for one go free agent everytime if I find better elsewhere.

Unfortunately airfares in the last thirty years don’t agree with your premise

Lemieux wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

Tell that to the former HP management occupying in Tempe AZ.

I don't mind AA to be the third among US3 and leaner. But the lack of direction and pride is making the mood very dark in AA. Doug Parker and his team needs to go. Let someone who understands AA haritage and pride in AA comes in.

Heritage and pride is what brought AA into bankruptcy and US/HP taking over

I'll reiterate that. Never forget where you came from, but there's gotta be a new direction to go, cause right now AA seems lost. It hurts to say that with them being my favorite airline, but there seems to be no sense of what they want to be.

US Airways didn't provide much upside to international markets, except give American a connecting European hub in Philadelphia, but at the expense of JFK. While US Airways provides Charlotte and Washington National domestically, it seems like this merger was more out of desperation than true synergistic opportunities. I get the feeling American is still in need of rationalizing the network so that it's historical investment in key assets remain strong.

I would argue who this hurts the most is DFWs routes.

MIA has enough O&D to those secondary cities in South America but DFW is highly dependent an on connections. I don’t think routes like gRU or EZE are in any danger, but it may destabilize a couple of the smaller ones.

grbauc wrote:

Unfortunately airfares in the last thirty years don’t agree with your premise

Fine-tune your perceptions :
US transcon (4-5h depending on the route ) in Y with the US3 is usually around $400
Within the EU, for a similar distance, I've flown CDG - SVO (3h30) on LH for less than 150€ ( true with a connection in FRA )
These days you can find CN3 transpac for $500-600.
LON/CDG-BKK (10 hours flight) in Y around $600 with the ME3.

So while fares have indeed plummeted since the 1990s, the US3 milk US costumers big time in any number of ways.
I often travel within the US & within the EU, EU FSCs are often half cheaper than the US3 for the same distances, I am not even mentionning LCCs.
Asia is even cheaper.
This is all because of higher competition within the EU, even more so in Asia, there are at least 5 majors players.
In both LCCs are way more numerous which also helps to cap fares charged by FSC.
That said, J in the EU is a joke.

DWC wrote:

grbauc wrote:

Unfortunately airfares in the last thirty years don’t agree with your premise

US transcon (4-5h depending on the route ) in Y with the US3 is usually around $400
Within the EU, for a similar distance, I've flown CDG - SVO (3h30) on LH for less than 150€ ( true with a connection in FRA )
These days you can find CN3 transpac for $500-600.
LON/CDG BKK (10 hours flight) in Y around $600 with the ME3.

So while fares have indeed plummeted since the 1990s, the US3 milk US costumers in any number of ways.
I travel extensively within the US & within the EU, travel on FSC is often half cheaper than the US for the same distances, I am not even mentionning LCCs. Asia is even cheaper. This is because the EU, and Asia even more, there are at least 5 majors players.

Based on that post you seem to think airlines are a charity not a business. Those airlines charging $500 for transpacific flights are making zilch on those tickets.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chepos wrote:

DWC wrote:

grbauc wrote:

Unfortunately airfares in the last thirty years don’t agree with your premise

US transcon (4-5h depending on the route ) in Y with the US3 is usually around $400
Within the EU, for a similar distance, I've flown CDG - SVO (3h30) on LH for less than 150€ ( true with a connection in FRA )
These days you can find CN3 transpac for $500-600.
LON/CDG BKK (10 hours flight) in Y around $600 with the ME3.

So while fares have indeed plummeted since the 1990s, the US3 milk US costumers in any number of ways.
I travel extensively within the US & within the EU, travel on FSC is often half cheaper than the US for the same distances, I am not even mentionning LCCs.

Based on that post you seem to think airlines are a charity not a business. Those airlines charging $500 for transpacific flights are making zilch on those tickets.

You are free to be happy to pay more in an uncompetitive market.

In a market economy, profits tend to near zero by definition, because any entrant can sell minus epsilon & steal consumers & so forth, which happens in the EU ; there is no doubt FSCs there are strugging relative to the sheer size of LCCs & the many smaller airlines that have folded in past years.
Yet what you have in the US is nothing less than oligopolistic pricing, agregators often show the same routings through any of the US3 hubs with the same fare to the dollar ( WTF, how is that even possible ??? ). In addition, the US3 post large profits to the tune of several billions a year showing evident market failure in economic terms. I am sure shareholders like it that way, but that is not what market economy is all about, which is the most efficient pricing, though often with the catch of the Pareto optimum crawling peg. Anyway, it is well covered in academic papers, not saying anything new.

DWC wrote:

grbauc wrote:

Unfortunately airfares in the last thirty years don’t agree with your premise

Fine-tune your perceptions :
US transcon (4-5h depending on the route ) in Y with the US3 is usually around $400
Within the EU, for a similar distance, I've flown CDG - SVO (3h30) on LH for less than 150€ ( true with a connection in FRA )
These days you can find CN3 transpac for $500-600.
LON/CDG-BKK (10 hours flight) in Y around $600 with the ME3.

So while fares have indeed plummeted since the 1990s, the US3 milk US costumers big time in any number of ways.
I often travel within the US & within the EU, EU FSCs are often half cheaper than the US3 for the same distances, I am not even mentionning LCCs.
Asia is even cheaper.
This is all because of higher competition within the EU, even more so in Asia, there are at least 5 majors players.
In both LCCs are way more numerous which also helps to cap fares charged by FSC.
That said, J in the EU is a joke.

For the amount of investment capital airlines have to put in, for the amount of profit that they get is low and not out of the realm of other industries.

grbauc wrote:

For the amount of investment capital airlines have to put in, for the amount of profit that they get is low and not out of the realm of other industries.

Correct, that is why aviation is defined as a "non-contestable market" because of both high entry barriers & high exit barriers ( basically bankrupcy ).
But K investment is immaterial to economic efficiency per se, K costs just need to be paid for by consumers, it is just it costs a lot to more to enter the game than say retail, but VX, JetBlue, Moxy show it is still possible even within the US - not that it is easy though.

How about AA codeshares with SKY in Chile and Peru?

DominoxX wrote:

How about AA codeshares with SKY in Chile and Peru?

Not directed towards you, but in general: why this obsession of codeshares? Does it make any passenger more satisfied or happy if the flight you are on has an AA flight number, even though everything else about it is SKY Airline? (Apart from the confusion it creates at airports where a single flight can have 5 or more different flight numbers...) Isn't it enough if you can have it issued in the same ticket as the rest of your AA intinerary (meaning an interline agreement is in place), so you are protected in case of delays or cancellations? And FF collaboration, so you get miles... What is the perceived advantage of having every airline's code on every other airline's flights? To me it is just a way of creating a delusion, bordering on fraud or at least misrepresentation.

MalevTU134 wrote:

May I chip in from South America?
Almost everybody I know, in Peru, Colombia and Argentina (excluding here my poor Venezuelan friends, who lack the luxury of flying nowadays, let alone being choosy about choice of airlines) has LATAM as their last choice when flying. Just yesterday a friend told me she considered quitting her job since her employer keeps sending her on LATAM, and not Avianca, on her weekly Letícia-Bogotá- Letícia trips. The exceptions to this may be Chile and Brazil, its original home markets, where LATAM is held closer to heart.
My point is: LATAM is, in many places, far from being "Latin America's favourite airline" but rather its only choice or thereabouts. Personally, I have only had great moments on LATAM, but just wanted to share the sentiment many have.
Also, Antofagasta-Recife on LATAM generates exactly zero revenue or profit for AA, BA, IB et al even today, so their loss is just that - zero - on those flights with LA leaving OneWorld. And absolutely nothing prevents AA (for example) to offer interline fares on, say, ORD-AA-DFW-AA-SCL-LA-MDZ, even after the DL investment. Interline fares, SPAs and other fare collaborations are not limited to or by alliances.

So what you're saying is...LATAM is South America's AA? Especially the part about choice.

I flew LATAM on an intra-Ecuador flight to Galapagos, and it was...bland. The BOB service didn't get past the first five rows, the FAs were missing in action, the safety briefing was a recorded message in Spanish (with a quick English afterthought at the end; "You can find details in the safety card"), the overhead TVs were sealed into the PSUs, the "LATAM+" section was nonexistent, the slogan was perfectly awful (Together further).

maps4ltd wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

May I chip in from South America?
Almost everybody I know, in Peru, Colombia and Argentina (excluding here my poor Venezuelan friends, who lack the luxury of flying nowadays, let alone being choosy about choice of airlines) has LATAM as their last choice when flying. Just yesterday a friend told me she considered quitting her job since her employer keeps sending her on LATAM, and not Avianca, on her weekly Letícia-Bogotá- Letícia trips. The exceptions to this may be Chile and Brazil, its original home markets, where LATAM is held closer to heart.
My point is: LATAM is, in many places, far from being "Latin America's favourite airline" but rather its only choice or thereabouts. Personally, I have only had great moments on LATAM, but just wanted to share the sentiment many have.
Also, Antofagasta-Recife on LATAM generates exactly zero revenue or profit for AA, BA, IB et al even today, so their loss is just that - zero - on those flights with LA leaving OneWorld. And absolutely nothing prevents AA (for example) to offer interline fares on, say, ORD-AA-DFW-AA-SCL-LA-MDZ, even after the DL investment. Interline fares, SPAs and other fare collaborations are not limited to or by alliances.

So what you're saying is...LATAM is South America's AA? Especially the part about choice.

I flew LATAM on an intra-Ecuador flight to Galapagos, and it was...bland. The BOB service didn't get past the first five rows, the FAs were missing in action, the safety briefing was a recorded message in Spanish (with a quick English afterthought at the end; "You can find details in the safety card"), the overhead TVs were sealed into the PSUs, the "LATAM+" section was nonexistent, the slogan was perfectly awful (Together further).

As I said: I always enjoyed them... But many people have voiced similar experiences to yours.

chonetsao wrote:

Yes, we need someone who can replace Dougie Parker with the slogan: make American great again!

(Disclaimer: just a casual remark for fun, no political stir up intended. If you could not see any fun side from my post, maybe you should not reply to it.)

Wow! Trump is becoming owner and CEO of American!

MalevTU134 wrote:

maps4ltd wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

May I chip in from South America?
Almost everybody I know, in Peru, Colombia and Argentina (excluding here my poor Venezuelan friends, who lack the luxury of flying nowadays, let alone being choosy about choice of airlines) has LATAM as their last choice when flying. Just yesterday a friend told me she considered quitting her job since her employer keeps sending her on LATAM, and not Avianca, on her weekly Letícia-Bogotá- Letícia trips. The exceptions to this may be Chile and Brazil, its original home markets, where LATAM is held closer to heart.
My point is: LATAM is, in many places, far from being "Latin America's favourite airline" but rather its only choice or thereabouts. Personally, I have only had great moments on LATAM, but just wanted to share the sentiment many have.
Also, Antofagasta-Recife on LATAM generates exactly zero revenue or profit for AA, BA, IB et al even today, so their loss is just that - zero - on those flights with LA leaving OneWorld. And absolutely nothing prevents AA (for example) to offer interline fares on, say, ORD-AA-DFW-AA-SCL-LA-MDZ, even after the DL investment. Interline fares, SPAs and other fare collaborations are not limited to or by alliances.

So what you're saying is...LATAM is South America's AA? Especially the part about choice.

I flew LATAM on an intra-Ecuador flight to Galapagos, and it was...bland. The BOB service didn't get past the first five rows, the FAs were missing in action, the safety briefing was a recorded message in Spanish (with a quick English afterthought at the end; "You can find details in the safety card"), the overhead TVs were sealed into the PSUs, the "LATAM+" section was nonexistent, the slogan was perfectly awful (Together further).

As I said: I always enjoyed them... But many people have voiced similar experiences to yours.

I have flown LATAM a few times, in my experience they are a mixed bag. I have flown them on EZE-SCL, SCL-EZE and LIM-UIO. Some airplanes had IFE, some had none. When flying SCL-EZE they upgraded me to J; they ran out of meals I got a bun of sorts from Y. Crews usually are not friendly nor mean, just there. Overall experience is not terrible but nothing memorable either.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is it possible AA lost LATAM as a partner? Everything started 2 years ago, when Parker rejected AAB offer to buy a stake in AA. Since then AA started to lose stock value, especially compared to DL and UA, while AAB bought a stake in LATAM and many other major world airlines. Parker is a man with no vision of the future while AAB anticipated a strategy that is being replicated by Bastian. You need to buy stakes in world major players to build a strong and profitable alliance. If Parker had accepted AAB's offer OW wouldn't have lost LATAM and AA stakeholders would have profited from selling their stocks to AAB, as a minimum. Now AA needs a win? Sack Parker and accept AAB as shareholder, before it's too late.