AS to join OneWorld / AA to make SEA an Intl gateway

dfw88 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:55 pm

SEAirliner wrote:
12. This is my last one – slightly out on a limb, but we all know that a new international hub doesn’t mean two flights. More is coming. Transpacific flights are the most reasonable. Flights to China aren’t in the cards financially, but any thoughts about these destinations:

b. Sapporo (Sydney seasonal and Finnair to Helsinki are the only intercontinental). Customers would have to backtrack to Tokyo to get on a JAL flight to stay within the partnership.

Sorry for the length! Thanks!

Just felt like I should point out that SEA-CTS is only 3800nm (4400mi), which means it may be doable with an A321XLR. Not saying it will happen, but it is an interesting thought.

Cointrin330 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:01 pm

ctrabs0114 wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
Agree. No relation at all. Plus, AA has 20+ more 787's on order with some deliveries this year.

I don't know about that. SEA-BLR will need 2.5 frames. The new 787's are basically replacing the 763's one for one. I don't see how AA gets airframe time for this route without cutting elsewhere.

I wonder if this means a 788/789 would be rotated in from DFW, MIA, LAX or ORD. For some reason, ORD makes sense because Chicago's is Boeing's home office and they have their plants in the Seattle area, but I wouldn't be shocked if the reposition flights end up being SEA-DFW or SEA-MIA.

MIA seems unlikely in the immediate, unless AA starts flying 789s regularly out of MIA, which I don't believe they do now, only the 788, which I think is used on the MIA-MVD route. ORD makes sense because it is close geographically, and a relatively short segment to SEA, as is LAX, which is AA's other West Coast gateway. DFW also seems plausible. I doubt AA would put a 789 on SEA-ORD-SEA strictly because Boeing is HQ'd in Seattle but the plants are near Seattle.

luckyone · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:02 pm

I also hope this means that more destinations will be eligible for AS mile redemption. For example, you could not book CWB or MVD on AA with AS miles.

RWA380 wrote:
AS does fine to FLL, they are a carrier that does a lot with the cruise lines, they will not be dropping FLL. If MIA is added, it'll likely be on AA metal & in addition to FLL on AS.

AA already serves MIA-SEA.

cschleic wrote:
Agree seems unlikely DL would drop one of the Europe flights. AMS is year-round and provides all the connection opportunities, don't necessarily need CDG too. LHR is seasonal, caters to leisure and connections on the U.K. side aren't an issue so why drop it unless they lose traffic to BA or have a better use for the plane and slot?

LHR-SEA is served year round by both VS (and thus DL) and BA.

SEAirliner wrote:

8. In peak time, there are four daily flights to Heathrow from Seattle. (BA dep. 13:50 and 19:20, VS dep. 19:55, DY dep. 13:45).

DY serves Gatwick, not Heathrow.

SEAirliner wrote:
10. Cathay and Qantas have already been Alaska partners, so what would the alliance do to increase the chances of those flights starting to Seattle? I actually don’t know, can someone tell me? Devoid of more details, Sydney and Hong Kong seem like no-brainers.

Cathay already serves SEA. But with the current political situation in Hong Kong and now the corona virus, service additions don't seem that likely. QF perhaps, but what connections does AS + AA (which will be AS operated AA codeshares) offer them in SEA that their existing LAX and DFW flights do not? Most connections outside the PacNW (how many Australians are coming??) would be backtracking.

Ishrion · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:03 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
ctrabs0114 wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:

I don't know about that. SEA-BLR will need 2.5 frames. The new 787's are basically replacing the 763's one for one. I don't see how AA gets airframe time for this route without cutting elsewhere.

I wonder if this means a 788/789 would be rotated in from DFW, MIA, LAX or ORD. For some reason, ORD makes sense because Chicago's is Boeing's home office and they have their plants in the Seattle area, but I wouldn't be shocked if the reposition flights end up being SEA-DFW or SEA-MIA.

MIA seems unlikely in the immediate, unless AA starts flying 789s regularly out of MIA, which I don't believe they do now, only the 788, which I think is used on the MIA-MVD route. ORD makes sense because it is close geographically, and a relatively short segment to SEA, as is LAX, which is AA's other West Coast gateway. DFW also seems plausible. I doubt AA would put a 789 on SEA-ORD-SEA strictly because Boeing is HQ'd in Seattle but the plants are near Seattle.

AA hasn’t started flying the 787 to MIA just yet. First routes will be MIA-MVD/GIG starting January 2021.

airzona11 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:11 pm

dfw88 wrote:
SEAirliner wrote:
12. This is my last one – slightly out on a limb, but we all know that a new international hub doesn’t mean two flights. More is coming. Transpacific flights are the most reasonable. Flights to China aren’t in the cards financially, but any thoughts about these destinations:

b. Sapporo (Sydney seasonal and Finnair to Helsinki are the only intercontinental). Customers would have to backtrack to Tokyo to get on a JAL flight to stay within the partnership.

Sorry for the length! Thanks!

Just felt like I should point out that SEA-CTS is only 3800nm (4400mi), which means it may be doable with an A321XLR. Not saying it will happen, but it is an interesting thought.

Not sure they would chase that route which would need lots of high paying passengers to make money when they can leverage the JV JAL hub in tokyo.

stl07 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:17 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Hmm, the out of the blue BA flight to PDX, the out of the blue bulk up of Fairbanks by AA...it all makes sense now

Nah, timeline doesn't match up.

FAI was announced in August, two months before Alaska & AA originally announced that they were planning on cutting back on their partnership.

BA & PDX had been in the works since early 2019, the PDX airport director hinted at it during the summer, and said it would be announced later in the year.

That's true, FAI was different, but I guess it was convenient. But PDX it looks like OW sealed the deal. BA STL/CVG have been officially "in the works" as well since 2014. But of course, there is nothing. The same thing happened with QR and PHL. It was "in the works" for about a year, but the second they found out PHL would be a OW hub, they sealed the deal and said that OW connections made us commit.

QXAS · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:23 pm

It wouldn’t work great for AS connections however SEA is small enough that I don’t think it would be a huge issue either, AA could swap gates with UA at SEA. UA rarely flies anything larger than 739 into SEA so D wouldn’t be a problem for them. A gives AA International Gates once the new IAF is set up as well as Gates capable of being used by widebody aircraft. The connections wouldn’t be much worse than what AS is already doing with its international partners as well as using B Gates.

slcdeltarumd11 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:27 pm

There's alot more potential now with one world. I would imagine ANC-Japan would be a good link with 321XLR. At least seasonally I bet ANC sees one world link to Asia.

Portland could see AA jump in too. They have AS feed and all the AA flights from hubs to keep the flights full.

Midwestindy · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:27 pm

stl07 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Hmm, the out of the blue BA flight to PDX, the out of the blue bulk up of Fairbanks by AA...it all makes sense now

Nah, timeline doesn't match up.

FAI was announced in August, two months before Alaska & AA originally announced that they were planning on cutting back on their partnership.

BA & PDX had been in the works since early 2019, the PDX airport director hinted at it during the summer, and said it would be announced later in the year.

That's true, FAI was different, but I guess it was convenient. But PDX it looks like OW sealed the deal. BA STL/CVG have been officially "in the works" as well since 2014. But of course, there is nothing. The same thing happened with QR and PHL. It was "in the works" for about a year, but the second they found out PHL would be a OW hub, they sealed the deal and said that OW connections made us commit.

1. There is a difference, as I said, the PDX airport director said they were going to have a new int'l flight by the end of the year. That is much different than speculation from airport consultants who "think" STL/CVG are a good fit for BA service.

2. BA doesn't need OW to connect passengers in PDX, AS & BA are already partners. AS & BA already connect numerous people on to each others flights in SEA.

ctrabs0114 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:29 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
MIA seems unlikely in the immediate, unless AA starts flying 789s regularly out of MIA, which I don't believe they do now, only the 788, which I think is used on the MIA-MVD route. ORD makes sense because it is close geographically, and a relatively short segment to SEA, as is LAX, which is AA's other West Coast gateway. DFW also seems plausible. I doubt AA would put a 789 on SEA-ORD-SEA strictly because Boeing is HQ'd in Seattle but the plants are near Seattle.

I guess I was thinking of the Boeing International Headquarters building in Downtown Chicago when I thought their world HQ was in Chicago:

http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildin ... rters/2704

That said, I thought there'd be a lot of ORD/MDW-SEA traffic because of Boeing, but that was just a guess more than anything.

Sydscott · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:34 pm

Fantastic move by AA and great to see AS integrating with Oneworld. I doubt AS will drop any of their existing relationships to do it as well so it's a great move by them.

We can also see an AA strategy emerging to leverage its strengths outside of hubs;

- re-expanding its footprint in Boston to ensure it comprehensively covers the Northeast;
- strengthening RDU and AUS, 2 cities where it has an historic strength to build on but hubs close by;
- initiating a dual hub strategy on the West Coast to match the rest of the country. AA will now have PHL, CLT & MIA as Eastern Gateways, ORD & DFW in the middle and now SEA complenting LAX in the West.

As others have said it'll now be interesting to see what happens in Portland. I personally doubt we see AA flying International but JL and BA covering Tokyo and London makes immense sense.

Good moves all round by AA, it's going to be an interesting 2020!

DFW17L · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:39 pm

N62NA wrote:
jfern022 wrote:
This would be news if AA did not have a trash can of an operation. AS loyals will expect a good run operation, which AA is not. DP better ensure focus is placed at SEA for their operation.

I'm at 1.6M miles with AA and I've not ONCE had a bad experience with them.

TTailedTiger · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:52 pm

The only winners here are AA passengers. They'll be able to book AS flights and get FF benefits. The AS domestic product is far superior to AA.

PacoMartin · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:57 pm

Themotionman wrote:
SEA-BLR - AA is not messing about! A complete reversal of the direction of the AA-AS relationship. I thought it was only a matter of time before AA returned to India, but I did not expect it to be from SEA!

Almost a new longest flight for American Airlines
13,072 km Dallas/Fort Worth Hong Kong
13,000 km Seattle Bangalore

If they end up flying from SEA to South America we could have a new record longest Latin American flights

Statute Miles (longest regularly scheduled flights from US)
6156 LAX GRU American Airlines Inc. Sao Paulo
6115 LAX EZE American Airlines Inc. Ezeiza, Buenos Aires
5290 EWR EZE United Air Lines Inc. Ezeiza, Buenos Aires
5286 DFW EZE American Airlines Inc. Ezeiza, Buenos Aires
5282 JFK EZE American Airlines Inc. Ezeiza, Buenos Aires

Is the first time two US carriers joined the same Global Alliance?

luckyone · Thu Feb 13, 2020 11:59 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Themotionman wrote:
SEA-BLR - AA is not messing about! A complete reversal of the direction of the AA-AS relationship. I thought it was only a matter of time before AA returned to India, but I did not expect it to be from SEA!

Almost a new longest flight for American Airlines
13,072 km Dallas/Fort Worth Hong Kong
13,000 km Seattle Bangalore

Is the first time two US carriers joined the same Global Alliance?

Back in the day we had Continental, Delta, and Northwestern in SkyTeam. United and US Airways in Star.

Ishrion · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:00 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Themotionman wrote:
SEA-BLR - AA is not messing about! A complete reversal of the direction of the AA-AS relationship. I thought it was only a matter of time before AA returned to India, but I did not expect it to be from SEA!

Almost a new longest flight for American Airlines
13,072 km Dallas/Fort Worth Hong Kong
13,000 km Seattle Bangalore

Is the first time two US carriers joined the same Global Alliance?

Right before AA/US merged in 2013 both US and United were in Star Alliance.

rentonview · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:02 am

ctrabs0114 wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
Agree. No relation at all. Plus, AA has 20+ more 787's on order with some deliveries this year.

I wonder if this means a 788/789 would be rotated in from DFW, MIA, LAX or ORD. For some reason, ORD makes sense because Chicago's is Boeing's home office and they have their plants in the Seattle area, but I wouldn't be shocked if the reposition flights end up being SEA-DFW or SEA-MIA.

The amount of Boeing traffic between ORD and SEA is minimal, so a 787 on the route would be overkill, considering the existing frequencies on AS, AA and UA (13 daily flights total, I think). But it'd be a fun ride on a 787 with a lot of empty seats!

blink182 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:12 am

Midwestindy wrote:
NameOmitted wrote:
SEAirliner wrote:

2. This I definitely don’t know, but I’d venture to say that few US cities, if any, do more work with Bangalore than Seattle. I’ve been with Amazon for seven years and the amount that each department is somehow integrated with Bangalore (or Hyderabad) is extensive. That, I’d think, be enough of a reason. Then, casually add in the other worldwide giant in Microsoft. And the handful of other companies in the region. Seattle has an INCREDIBLY outsized role in the world compared to its population and has also become a go-to destination on its own merits.

3. But, Amazon has a deal with Delta for employees. Employees can book travel outside of Delta if business warrants it, but I’m not sure if it’s as simple as just having people in Seattle with business there. Pushing through that agreement with Delta could be inhibiting, but I’m still not necessarily concerned. I think it’s important to remember that you can’t get to Bangalore anywhere in the US directly. And Seattle being closest, literally every connection just fans out. If you are from there or have family there, it’s hard to overlook the relatively convenient connection for such a far-away destination.

So... is the Bangalore non-stop enough to be a factor when it comes time to renegotiate Amazon's deal with Delta?

Delta is a "preferred carrier" with Amazon, that doesn't mean Delta swallows up all of their corporate travel, Alaska gets plenty of it too, as does American, United, e.t.c.

Amazon is too large and too spread out to only have one preferred carrier, especially since their second headquarters is not in a DL hub.

TWA902fly wrote:
I must admit, I am a little skeptical about all of this working out as planned;

1) What would stop AA from screwing over AS just like DL did? is that something they can even write into a cooperation agreement?
2) SEA (even with the new international arrivals area coming soon) is sort of bursting at the seams, how much can AA really add? Is their plan to displace DL out of SEA?
3) At this point, all DL has to do is add SEA-BLR, and whatever corporate tech contracts they have in SEA have no reason to jump to AA, especially if they can get the route started earlier than AA. Also, I think it's quite likely now that UA will add SFO-BLR. Is there room for more than one US-BLR nonstop?
4) What benefit does all of this have for AS as opposed to their current model of code sharing with anyone that flies to SEA? Is AA going to be okay with their buddy AS feeding every single one of their competitors at SEA (except for DL/AF)?
5) How is the DOJ/DOT going to respond - there were already some pretty heavy restrictions on their partnership - won't getting even closer bring even more scrutiny?
6) On the front of it, it really seems that AA is just trying to get back at DL for stealing LATAM... but what's really going to change? Basically one extra route? They're not stealing AS from DL... I expect Delta to push back hard.

I'd love to hear all of your thoughts on the above. This is an interesting development no matter what way you look at it.

'902

Given how unusual this add is per AA's history--and nearly double the stage length of any of their recent ORD/PHL-Eastern Europe adds--I suspect there are many revenue guarantees in place for SEA-BLR. Amazon, MSFT, and others I'm sure knew all about this route and committed to it long before we started discussing it here. Delta could jump in, but I think AA likely took most of what is there. This isn't AA trying to figure out what to do with excess widebody capacity; they use Hawaii and Cancun for that. AA probably has run the numbers and found the guarantees that they need to be successful to BLR for a determined period of time.

I'm curious about is what this will do to BA's own LHR-BLR flight? Surely high yields from the west coast are going to go to AA?

hiflyeras · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:13 am

SEAflyer97 wrote:
VX merger worked out great for AS -- they are dominating on the West Coast. Yes transcon out of LAX/SFO is not doing so well but they were not doing so well before anyway.

AS VP Andrew Harrison recently stated on their 4th quarter earnings call that "New York and California transcon performance were both among the top three TRASM improvement stories for Alaska."

tphuang · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:17 am

hiflyeras wrote:
SEAflyer97 wrote:
VX merger worked out great for AS -- they are dominating on the West Coast. Yes transcon out of LAX/SFO is not doing so well but they were not doing so well before anyway.

AS recently stated that their Calif-transcon flights are doing much better than previously. Seems they've found their niche.

Not if you look at the actual numbers. There is a reason they cancelled so many routes.

hiflyeras · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:19 am

tphuang wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
SEAflyer97 wrote:
VX merger worked out great for AS -- they are dominating on the West Coast. Yes transcon out of LAX/SFO is not doing so well but they were not doing so well before anyway.

AS recently stated that their Calif-transcon flights are doing much better than previously. Seems they've found their niche.

Not if you look at the actual numbers. There is a reason they cancelled so many routes.

We all know how much you love AS...you probably have an opinion about the joining of OneWorld?

TYWoolman · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:27 am

While this shows a good strategic move by American given the current airline domestic landscape, it also show its desperation. If this partnership fails, American will be stuck not having had invested its own resources making it fall further behind. For this partnership to truly be accretive to American, Alaska will have to fold into it at some point IMO. A successful international network out of Seattle without you owning the foundation will end up scaring shareholders in the long run. But if strategic partnerships like this is the next trend given the dwindling number of carriers in the U.S., then American made the first move. Others will probably follow: JetBlue/United, Delta/Southwest. An interesting concept at least.

LAXBUR · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:36 am

TYWoolman wrote:
While this shows a good strategic move by American given the current airline domestic landscape, it also show its desperation. If this partnership fails, American will be stuck not having had invested its own resources making it fall further behind. For this partnership to truly be accretive to American, Alaska will have to fold into it at some point IMO. A successful international network out of Seattle without you owning the foundation will end up scaring shareholders in the long run. But if strategic partnerships like this is the next trend given the dwindling number of carriers in the U.S., then American made the first move. Others will probably follow: JetBlue/United, Delta/Southwest. An interesting concept at least.

Delta/Southwest? Where do people get this stuff.

Anyways...I’m not a huge fan of AA. I’ve never had major issues on them but their customer service has always been apathetic and even unnecessarily combative. Although, recently I had very friendly reps at an Admirals Club in ORD. But this does bring back some of the connectivity Alaska and Mileage Plan was losing over the last few years. Seems like an all around win if Alaska keeps the mileage earn the same.

PSU.DTW.SCE · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:36 am

Anyone remember the bromance and DL-AS lovefest a decade ago when DL flew in a 744 and both CEOs had a press conference together.

Funny to thing of that now

gunsontheroof · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:37 am

x1234 wrote:
Considering BLR is the centre of the BPO and back-office business, increasingly call centres are also moving to MNL. I read on here DL was interested in eventually flying SEA-MNL. Where did that go!?

PR beat them to it, probably not a route that can support two carriers:

https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... s-angeles/

Stunning announcement from AA/AS. The OneWorld membership isn't the wildest surprise I've seen, but AA coming back to SEA for long-haul isn't what I would have expected. It will be interesting to see what DL does in response, this news probably wasn't received well in Atlanta...

Utah744 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:39 am

I can't see Delta tucking tail and run. They have a good hub in SEA (not as good as AS) and already Asia flights with a rapidly growing FF base. DL could lower their fares on competing AA routes and see who cries Uncle first. My guess it'd be AA.

PSU.DTW.SCE · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:39 am

I think AA may have gotten a hold of DL’s dartboard from years ago.

Which will last longer?
LAX-CHC or SEA-BLR?

I feel like, particularly now dependent on how China bounces back, that AA will have more 787s than they know what to do with.

delimit · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:44 am

AA reaffirmed they code share with AS, added a route at SEA and AS joined OW, which...changes nothing with their relationship with AA.

Am I missing something? The BLR is interesting. Hope that lasts.

gunsontheroof · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:52 am

PacoMartin wrote:
Is the first time two US carriers joined the same Global Alliance?

Nope. DL, CO and NW were all part of SkyTeam at the same time pre-mergers. US and UA were part of Star Alliance at the same time as well. Not sure if you're asking if it's the first time two have joined together, but AA is already a OneWorld member.

alasizon · Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:56 am

delimit wrote:
AA reaffirmed they code share with AS, added a route at SEA and AS joined OW, which...changes nothing with their relationship with AA.

Am I missing something? The BLR is interesting. Hope that lasts.

It's more so the announced partnership between AA and AS where they intend to use AS for additional domestic feed in along the West Coast that AA can't replicate on their own organically in order to power new longhaul routes that AS can't launch on their own.

ldvaviation · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:00 am

blink182 wrote:
I'm curious about is what this will do to BA's own LHR-BLR flight? Surely high yields from the west coast are going to go to AA?

Not just LHR-BLR, but also LAX-HKG-BLR (Cathay/Dragon).

I suspect that AA plans to recapture a lot of premium traffic that it's been sharing with BA and Cathay.

775899 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:02 am

alasizon wrote:
delimit wrote:
AA reaffirmed they code share with AS, added a route at SEA and AS joined OW, which...changes nothing with their relationship with AA.

Am I missing something? The BLR is interesting. Hope that lasts.

It's more so the announced partnership between AA and AS where they intend to use AS for additional domestic feed in along the West Coast that AA can't replicate on their own organically in order to power new longhaul routes that AS can't launch on their own.

Well, they did cancel the previous scale back of the codeshare relationship and it appears there will be more codeshare benefits in the future.

But frankly, I believe a first step towards an eventual merger. It won't be for a while yet, but it would make sense long term.

strfyr51 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:04 am

Well? I don't see where this is bad news. it wasn't like Delta was going to ask Alaska to join Skyteam. Maybe yjru should have tried that instead!

KlimaBXsst · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:05 am

Personally, I see American realizing that Delta made a logistical hub mistake by alienating Alaska in Seattle, a mistake American will not likely mistake with their Seattle focus city.

Going forward I also see Delta and American international ops being complimentary to one another to restrict foreign competition in Seattle, also with the ability to supplement Alaska’s ops with the ability to FIM on Delta and vice versus when irregular ops happen due to congestion, weather, unforeseen events, misconnects, or technical computer breakdowns which among the three carriers, will sometimes happen in Seattle.

AA acts as a big boy carrier. Alaska acts as a mature carrier. Delta is starting to realize, yeah we screwed up in Seattle regarding the INFRASTRUCTURE realities of Seattle, and could really have benefited by cooperating with Alaska.

Delta might realize now, not being so adversarial in Seattle or the West Coast will be their strongest hand now with the OneWorld thing. Alaska’s and American’s mature history towards meeting the needs of their business traveler will hopefully make SEA a premier hub instead of the “total show,” it has become due to Delta’s insistence upon loading capacity into an airport that is so over constrained and bursting with yield not warranting such foot traffic.

Congratulations to OneWord. I think Alaska will be a good addition to OneWorld, and hopefully in time should make SEA the premier mostly point to point destination again it once was instead of the connecting mess it is thanks to the need for Alaska NOT give one inch to Delta and the show SEA has become thanks to the recent misguided approach by from Atlanta.

Here is a little more history of the American Eagles “brand” predecessor airlines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Express_Airlines

D L X · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:12 am

I gotta tell ya: being DCA-based, AS joining Oneworld is huge! Lots more transcon options now.

Hello DCA-SFO! Hello DCA-SEA! Hello more DCA-LAX!

Gigity!

I wonder if AA brings back DCA-SAN now?

strfyr51 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:12 am

casinterest wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
aaflyer777 wrote:
Anyone know where this LHR slot is coming from?

They have a year to figure it out

Maybe they drop RDU.
For Seattle it would be a no brainer. But not sure if the times will line up.

they don't have to drop anything to make SEA a hub. SEA will just become another One World Gateway American can add longhaul flights from there? Or not. Or they can invite other One world members to aslo connect via SEA.. One thing is for sure? Delta will have to step up their game in SEA.

RWA380 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:17 am

I've not seen this posted yet, but here is the AS.com release, it's got some interesting time frame stuff on mileage accruel - https://www.alaskaair.com/content/onewo ... 00213_AW||

xiaotung · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:18 am

gunsontheroof wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Is the first time two US carriers joined the same Global Alliance?

Nope. DL, CO and NW were all part of SkyTeam at the same time pre-mergers. US and UA were part of Star Alliance at the same time as well. Not sure if you're asking if it's the first time two have joined together, but AA is already a OneWorld member.

I think at one point CO, US, and UA were all *A members as well.

China is the only other country that has more than 1 member in one alliance. And India and Brazil had a chance but didn't pan out.

TYWoolman · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:23 am

LAXBUR wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
While this shows a good strategic move by American given the current airline domestic landscape, it also show its desperation. If this partnership fails, American will be stuck not having had invested its own resources making it fall further behind. For this partnership to truly be accretive to American, Alaska will have to fold into it at some point IMO. A successful international network out of Seattle without you owning the foundation will end up scaring shareholders in the long run. But if strategic partnerships like this is the next trend given the dwindling number of carriers in the U.S., then American made the first move. Others will probably follow: JetBlue/United, Delta/Southwest. An interesting concept at least.

Delta/Southwest? Where do people get this stuff.

Anyways...I’m not a huge fan of AA. I’ve never had major issues on them but their customer service has always been apathetic and even unnecessarily combative. Although, recently I had very friendly reps at an Admirals Club in ORD. But this does bring back some of the connectivity Alaska and Mileage Plan was losing over the last few years. Seems like an all around win if Alaska keeps the mileage earn the same.

Ok, Delta/Southwest might be a stretch of my imagination. Alaska and JetBlue have more niche networks that can fill strategic holes, unlike Southwest can. But hey, a case can be made for any and every alliance, not excluding Southwest, not excluding Delta, not excluding anyone, whether that is codesharing, reciprocal frequent flyer benefits or just city-specific. With Delta weak in Texas and Southwest strong in Dallas Love Field and Houston...one hand can wash the other, if American gets too bold.

onwFan · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:26 am

kavok wrote:
QXAS wrote:
Is there a rendering of the AS OneWorld livery?

We had the discussion a while back about AS being a connect member but full membership will be great. My only wish is that it takes effect earlier than 2021 as I have a bunch of travel on AA scheduled for this summer. Excited to see what AA can do intercontinentally from SweEA. Thinking HND to complement JL from NRT could be a good option.

The problem with HND-SEA is OW doesn’t have that many HND slots that can be used, and they’d have to sacrifice an existing one to launch SEA-HND. AA only has 3 slots (LAX, LAX, DFW) and can’t move them anyway. JAL only has 8: (JFK, JFK, LAX, SFO, DFW, ORD, HNL, HNL). Only JAL could move their slot to SEA anyway, so which one of those 8 would they drop?

Oh, don’t worry about taht. When DL starts dropping HND routes one by one, they will be available. Come on, the only reason why DL requested the slots is because they knew they would get it and could delay them from going to AA/UA.

enilria · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:27 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
axiom wrote:
Sightseer wrote:
Like many others, I had to double-check to be sure it wasn't April Fool's, especially regarding SEA-BLR. I know it's been talked about a lot on a-net but have never seen any O&D numbers. My guess is they're banking on connections from AS, but that leads me to ... see

Exactly what I was thinking as well.

Make that three of us. What changed?

I don't see how this changes the 2016 settlement that permitted the AS/VX merger. That has restrictions on codeshares: Specifically, in order to reduce Alaska’s overall dependence on the codeshare and limit Alaska’s incentives to cooperate with American, the proposed settlement prohibits Alaska and American from codesharing on routes where Virgin and American compete today and on routes where Alaska would otherwise be likely to launch new service in competition with American following the merger.

I've read the AA press release and don't see how two new routes make SEA an AA international hub, either: that's not a claim made by AA. AA uses the word gateway. DL can claim IND as a gateway to Europe via its single flight to CDG.

The press release specifically speaks of an expanded code share with AS, both at LAX and SEA.

onwFan · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:34 am

TYWoolman wrote:
While this shows a good strategic move by American given the current airline domestic landscape, it also show its desperation. If this partnership fails, American will be stuck not having had invested its own resources makiung it fall further behind. For this partnership to truly be accretive to American, Alaska will have to fold into it at some point IMO. A successful international network out of Seattle without you owning the foundation will end up scaring shareholders in the long run. But if strategic partnerships like this is the next trend given the dwindling number of carriers in the U.S., then American made the first move. Others will probably follow: JetBlue/United, Delta/Southwest. An interesting concept at least.

Oh! Sorry - I don’t see the point. Because, without any reasonable domestic presence in MIA and just an intention to launch more routes in MIA, yet you think LA/DL are going to do magic in MIA?

Adipocere · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:41 am

Corpsnerd09 wrote:
Adipocere wrote:
Will this finally trigger the much anticipated end of PHX as a hub as AA builds up SEA instead?

They don't need to build a hub there, they have AS... Without a central mountain hub like DEN or SLC, a split PHX/SEA strategy with AS using their established loyalty and FF base could compete better with PHX reinforcing the American southwest than alone

At least this ends any hopes of PHX landing a route to Tokyo for now. AA has ignored its “hub” in starting LAS-Tokyo and now SEA-BLR with planes that could have picked up PHX-Tokyo.

775899 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:43 am

Adipocere wrote:
Corpsnerd09 wrote:
Adipocere wrote:
Will this finally trigger the much anticipated end of PHX as a hub as AA builds up SEA instead?

They don't need to build a hub there, they have AS... Without a central mountain hub like DEN or SLC, a split PHX/SEA strategy with AS using their established loyalty and FF base could compete better with PHX reinforcing the American southwest than alone

At least this ends any hopes of PHX landing a route to Tokyo for now. AA has ignored its “hub” in starting LAS-Tokyo and now SEA-BLR with planes that could have picked up PHX-Tokyo.

And if AA absorbs AS in the future, you can kiss the PHX hub goodbye completely. They'd likely have to give up a hub or two and that would be the first on the chopping block.

TYWoolman · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:56 am

onwFan wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
While this shows a good strategic move by American given the current airline domestic landscape, it also show its desperation. If this partnership fails, American will be stuck not having had invested its own resources makiung it fall further behind. For this partnership to truly be accretive to American, Alaska will have to fold into it at some point IMO. A successful international network out of Seattle without you owning the foundation will end up scaring shareholders in the long run. But if strategic partnerships like this is the next trend given the dwindling number of carriers in the U.S., then American made the first move. Others will probably follow: JetBlue/United, Delta/Southwest. An interesting concept at least.

Oh! Sorry - I don’t see the point. Because, without any reasonable domestic presence in MIA and just an intention to launch more routes in MIA, yet you think LA/DL are going to do magic in MIA?

Delta will be building Miami domestic presence from scratch using it's own resources and will OWN 20% of LATAM to boot. The Seattle focus will work for American best in the long-term if they eventually buy Alaska was my point.

questions · Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:57 am

BNAMealer wrote:
Adipocere wrote:
Corpsnerd09 wrote:

They don't need to build a hub there, they have AS... Without a central mountain hub like DEN or SLC, a split PHX/SEA strategy with AS using their established loyalty and FF base could compete better with PHX reinforcing the American southwest than alone

At least this ends any hopes of PHX landing a route to Tokyo for now. AA has ignored its “hub” in starting LAS-Tokyo and now SEA-BLR with planes that could have picked up PHX-Tokyo.

And if AA absorbs AS in the future, you can kiss the PHX hub goodbye completely. They'd likely have to give up a hub or two and that would be the first on the chopping block.

You can also kiss 5” of seat pitch in First goodbye.

tphuang · Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:00 am

hiflyeras wrote:
tphuang wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:

AS recently stated that their Calif-transcon flights are doing much better than previously. Seems they've found their niche.

Not if you look at the actual numbers. There is a reason they cancelled so many routes.

We all know how much you love AS...you probably have an opinion about the joining of OneWorld?

Of course, attacking me for stating the obvious. If you read earlier this thread, you would see that I think as is the biggest winner here. They will do well once they finally chase delta out of sea.

It seems to me that as management is quite brilliant in identifying where they are good at and not good at and adapting their network to perform to their strength but the fanboys are quite oblivious of these things and get annoyed when I state where they are weak at.

775899 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:04 am

tphuang wrote:
hiflyeras wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Not if you look at the actual numbers. There is a reason they cancelled so many routes.

We all know how much you love AS...you probably have an opinion about the joining of OneWorld?

Of course, attacking me for stating the obvious. If you read earlier this thread, you would see that I think as is the biggest winner here. They will do well once they finally chase delta out of sea.

It seems to me that as management is quite brilliant in identifying where they are good at and not good at and adapting their network to perform to their strength but the fanboys are quite oblivious of these things and get annoyed when I state where they are weak at.

Do you believe DL is going to be chased out of SEA completely?

I personally would love that because BNA-SEA on WN could be extended to daily year round with one less carrier on the route.

Boof02671 · Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:11 am

TYWoolman wrote:
onwFan wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
While this shows a good strategic move by American given the current airline domestic landscape, it also show its desperation. If this partnership fails, American will be stuck not having had invested its own resources makiung it fall further behind. For this partnership to truly be accretive to American, Alaska will have to fold into it at some point IMO. A successful international network out of Seattle without you owning the foundation will end up scaring shareholders in the long run. But if strategic partnerships like this is the next trend given the dwindling number of carriers in the U.S., then American made the first move. Others will probably follow: JetBlue/United, Delta/Southwest. An interesting concept at least.

Oh! Sorry - I don’t see the point. Because, without any reasonable domestic presence in MIA and just an intention to launch more routes in MIA, yet you think LA/DL are going to do magic in MIA?

Delta will be building Miami domestic presence from scratch using it's own resources and will OWN 20% of LATAM to boot. The Seattle focus will work for American best in the long-term if they eventually buy Alaska was my point.

With what gates?

D L X · Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:15 am

Adipocere wrote:
Corpsnerd09 wrote:
Adipocere wrote:
Will this finally trigger the much anticipated end of PHX as a hub as AA builds up SEA instead?

They don't need to build a hub there, they have AS... Without a central mountain hub like DEN or SLC, a split PHX/SEA strategy with AS using their established loyalty and FF base could compete better with PHX reinforcing the American southwest than alone

At least this ends any hopes of PHX landing a route to Tokyo for now. AA has ignored its “hub” in starting LAS-Tokyo and now SEA-BLR with planes that could have picked up PHX-Tokyo.

LAS-NRT is not year round. It’s only a week or two around CES.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net