[twoid][/twoid]

KLMatSJC wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

questions wrote:

AA and AS are currently co-located at SFO in T2. It was my understanding that AA was going to move to the new portion of T1. I wonder if AA and AS will remain in T2 or co-locate in T1.

AS is taking over entire T2(eventually). T1 does not have enough space for it.

Actually, UA will be getting AA's old gates in T2. AS will have the same gates and AA will move to T1B.

Hmm interesting. Since T2 is not connected to T3 post-security I wonder how is UA going to coordinate their flights.

SEAflyer97 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

KLMatSJC wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

AS is taking over entire T2(eventually). T1 does not have enough space for it.

Actually, UA will be getting AA's old gates in T2. AS will have the same gates and AA will move to T1B.

Hmm interesting. Since T2 is not connected to T3 post-security I wonder how is UA going to coordinate their flights.

SFO is building that connector right now. UA is making sure it gets expedited as well.

MAH4546 wrote:

chepos wrote:

kavok wrote:

Call me skeptical on this whole “AA making SEA an international gateway“ talk. To be clear, I think the AS to OW will benefit both AS and AA domestically. I think it also helps AS better compete with DL, and officially being part of OW will help them compete with DL’s international offerings. So yes, it is a good deal for AA and especially AS... but I will be very surprised if AA does much internationally with SEA on their own metal.

Expanding further, I view the proposed AA flight from SEA-Bangalore more of a situation where AA didn’t really have many good TPAC options that even made (somewhat) sense to offer, and Bangalore was the best they could come up with. As far as OW is concerned, HKG-SEA makes more sense to be flown by Cathay, TYO by JAL, etc. point being, it makes much more sense for almost any TPAC service to SEA to be flown by the OW international partner, and not AA. India was the best they could come up with. On the TATL side, BA already serves SEA double daily, and (besides MAD) there really isn’t anywhere else in Europe to fly that won’t be a significant competitive disadvantage with DL/SkyTeam or LH. So internationally speaking, I am not seeing it from AA metal. It doesn’t make sense, even with the AS feed.

Finally, realistically AA is not going to push many TPAC connections over SEA. They will push their own AA TPAC traffic through DFW, LAX, and to a lesser extent ORD, most of which will be flow on partner metal for the TPAC leg.

LHR was also announced on AA metal starting starting March 2021. I highly doubt they will just keep it at two long haul destinations. Definitely no need to fly Tokyo or HKG, since JL and CX are already on those routes and flown by AA metal out of LAX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What else are they going to add? Two is sufficient. They aren’t going to fly anything from Seattle that isn’t done from LA.

Exactly. As far as geography goes and SEA being a “great location for TPAC connections”, that is only true for 3 airports (LAX, PHX, DFW) where AA currently serves SEA. AA only flies to SEA from their hubs, and every other AA hub makes more sense to connect in ORD geographically for TPAC. And given DFW is the AA mothership and the current AA offerings from LAX (and size of the LA market), that leaves PHX as the only remaining AA hub where it makes sense to connect in SEA for TPAC, and even then LAX is only a short hop for PHX.

My whole point above is there is going to be minimal pax connecting to AA domestic metal in SEA. Just about all TATL or TPAC pax coming into SEA on OW will either be local O/D or connecting on AS. That greatly limits the incentive for AA to offer service, as arguably their OW partners are all better positioned to serve SEA with the onward international connections that JAL, Cathay, BA, etc can offer. For that reason, I don’t see where it makes sense for AA to fly to internationally. The only options are India where there is not a strong local airline, or LHR which has enough demand to be almost all OD. Otherwise, it makes sense for AA to just let the OW partner do it, and collect the JV profits.

I am a (big) Delta fan, but I must bow to this big strategic move by AS and AA. This commands respect. I must say that I have started worrying for Delta in Seattle and Portland over the past days.

I obviously don't have any data to support my reasoning but I will give my two (please take this with a grain of salt):

I think it would be best for Delta to add more U.S. and international destinations from Seattle and Portland. Delta went this far to create a hub in SEA (even if it is still a distant second place to AS). It would be a shame to give up. I understand there is barely enough space left to grow, but I can't imagine this could be already the end of the expansion plans for DL.

It certainly won't be a creative idea, but DL may copy AA to add a SEA-BLR and SEA-LHR to capture corporate contracts, and to limit the advance of AA.
For internal flights, DL may add SEA-MIA, SEA-DFW, and SEA-CLT.

Yes, there are OneWorld partners flying to Seattle, but so does SkyTeam partners: Air France, Virgin Atlantic, and Korean Air. DL may rely to these JV in place to fight back AA.

Last but not least, I think DL shouldn't underestimate the importance of Portland, and start expanding more, to give some reasons for AS frequent flyers based in Portland to jump ship.
Not everything happens in Seattle in this "battle". I would love to see DL adding the following: PDX-MCO, PDX-SFO, PDX-LAS, PDX-SJC, PDX-YVR, and PDX-CDG.

It is all wishful thinking of course, but I hope DL will never give up any efforts they have made over the past years to operate from the North-West corner of the U.S.

MAH4546 wrote:

chepos wrote:

kavok wrote:

Call me skeptical on this whole “AA making SEA an international gateway“ talk. To be clear, I think the AS to OW will benefit both AS and AA domestically. I think it also helps AS better compete with DL, and officially being part of OW will help them compete with DL’s international offerings. So yes, it is a good deal for AA and especially AS... but I will be very surprised if AA does much internationally with SEA on their own metal.

Expanding further, I view the proposed AA flight from SEA-Bangalore more of a situation where AA didn’t really have many good TPAC options that even made (somewhat) sense to offer, and Bangalore was the best they could come up with. As far as OW is concerned, HKG-SEA makes more sense to be flown by Cathay, TYO by JAL, etc. point being, it makes much more sense for almost any TPAC service to SEA to be flown by the OW international partner, and not AA. India was the best they could come up with. On the TATL side, BA already serves SEA double daily, and (besides MAD) there really isn’t anywhere else in Europe to fly that won’t be a significant competitive disadvantage with DL/SkyTeam or LH. So internationally speaking, I am not seeing it from AA metal. It doesn’t make sense, even with the AS feed.

Finally, realistically AA is not going to push many TPAC connections over SEA. They will push their own AA TPAC traffic through DFW, LAX, and to a lesser extent ORD, most of which will be flow on partner metal for the TPAC leg.

LHR was also announced on AA metal starting starting March 2021. I highly doubt they will just keep it at two long haul destinations. Definitely no need to fly Tokyo or HKG, since JL and CX are already on those routes and flown by AA metal out of LAX.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What else are they going to add? Two is sufficient. They aren’t going to fly anything from Seattle that isn’t done from LA.

You sure about that? Jonnyc sure feels differently: https://twitter.com/xJonNYC/status/1229 ... 56578?s=20

He's a pretty reliable leaker when it comes to AA. So if he tweets it I'd assume it's at least being talked about. I've always thought SIN is too important a market for AA to totally ignore or just rely on alliance partners, so SEA-SIN makes perfect sense, especially with AS feeding the flight.

With the AA - Aer Lingus JV expected to be approved very soon and Aer Lingus joining One World sooner or later, Dublin - Seattle on Aer Lingus is here to stay!

Ciel wrote:

I am a (big) Delta fan, but I must bow to this big strategic move by AS and AA. This commands respect. I must say that I have started worrying for Delta in Seattle and Portland over the past days.

I obviously don't have any data to support my reasoning but I will give my two (please take this with a grain of salt):

I think it would be best for Delta to add more U.S. and international destinations from Seattle and Portland. Delta went this far to create a hub in SEA (even if it is still a distant second place to AS). It would be a shame to give up. I understand there is barely enough space left to grow, but I can't imagine this could be already the end of the expansion plans for DL.

It certainly won't be a creative idea, but DL may copy AA to add a SEA-BLR and SEA-LHR to capture corporate contracts, and to limit the advance of AA.
For internal flights, DL may add SEA-MIA, SEA-DFW, and SEA-CLT.

Yes, there are OneWorld partners flying to Seattle, but so does SkyTeam partners: Air France, Virgin Atlantic, and Korean Air. DL may rely to these JV in place to fight back AA.

Last but not least, I think DL shouldn't underestimate the importance of Portland, and start expanding more, to give some reasons for AS frequent flyers based in Portland to jump ship.
Not everything happens in Seattle in this "battle". I would love to see DL adding the following: PDX-MCO, PDX-SFO, PDX-LAS, PDX-SJC, PDX-YVR, and PDX-CDG.

It is all wishful thinking of course, but I hope DL will never give up any efforts they have made over the past years to operate from the North-West corner of the U.S.

Although I am not sure if it would be wise for DL to expand both SEA and PDX, given that AS/AA will have the advantage of a much larger network at both these airports. On the other hand, any routes that AA adds will also be out of SEA and not PDX. I don’t see the chance of anyone other than JL and BA in PDX from oneworld. Is DL better off bringing back the PDX hub?

Ciel wrote:

I am a (big) Delta fan, but I must bow to this big strategic move by AS and AA. This commands respect. I must say that I have started worrying for Delta in Seattle and Portland over the past days.

I obviously don't have any data to support my reasoning but I will give my two (please take this with a grain of salt):

I think it would be best for Delta to add more U.S. and international destinations from Seattle and Portland. Delta went this far to create a hub in SEA (even if it is still a distant second place to AS). It would be a shame to give up. I understand there is barely enough space left to grow, but I can't imagine this could be already the end of the expansion plans for DL.

It certainly won't be a creative idea, but DL may copy AA to add a SEA-BLR and SEA-LHR to capture corporate contracts, and to limit the advance of AA.
For internal flights, DL may add SEA-MIA, SEA-DFW, and SEA-CLT.

Yes, there are OneWorld partners flying to Seattle, but so does SkyTeam partners: Air France, Virgin Atlantic, and Korean Air. DL may rely to these JV in place to fight back AA.

Last but not least, I think DL shouldn't underestimate the importance of Portland, and start expanding more, to give some reasons for AS frequent flyers based in Portland to jump ship.
Not everything happens in Seattle in this "battle". I would love to see DL adding the following: PDX-MCO, PDX-SFO, PDX-LAS, PDX-SJC, PDX-YVR, and PDX-CDG.

It is all wishful thinking of course, but I hope DL will never give up any efforts they have made over the past years to operate from the North-West corner of the U.S.

One of the reasons why AA chose Bangalore to kick off their new Seattle expansion is that DL doesn't have the right aircraft to respond. DL is at a disadvantage to AA and UA by not operating the 789, canceling the 787 order was one of the few missteps DL has made over the last seven years. AA should keep pressing that advantage over DL, Singapore would be another example where AA and the 789 would box out DL.

Let's see how long it takes for DL to start testing the waters in San Jose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

STT757 wrote:

Ciel wrote:

I am a (big) Delta fan, but I must bow to this big strategic move by AS and AA. This commands respect. I must say that I have started worrying for Delta in Seattle and Portland over the past days.

I obviously don't have any data to support my reasoning but I will give my two (please take this with a grain of salt):

I think it would be best for Delta to add more U.S. and international destinations from Seattle and Portland. Delta went this far to create a hub in SEA (even if it is still a distant second place to AS). It would be a shame to give up. I understand there is barely enough space left to grow, but I can't imagine this could be already the end of the expansion plans for DL.

It certainly won't be a creative idea, but DL may copy AA to add a SEA-BLR and SEA-LHR to capture corporate contracts, and to limit the advance of AA.
For internal flights, DL may add SEA-MIA, SEA-DFW, and SEA-CLT.

Yes, there are OneWorld partners flying to Seattle, but so does SkyTeam partners: Air France, Virgin Atlantic, and Korean Air. DL may rely to these JV in place to fight back AA.

Last but not least, I think DL shouldn't underestimate the importance of Portland, and start expanding more, to give some reasons for AS frequent flyers based in Portland to jump ship.
Not everything happens in Seattle in this "battle". I would love to see DL adding the following: PDX-MCO, PDX-SFO, PDX-LAS, PDX-SJC, PDX-YVR, and PDX-CDG.

It is all wishful thinking of course, but I hope DL will never give up any efforts they have made over the past years to operate from the North-West corner of the U.S.

One of the reasons why AA chose Bangalore to kick off their new Seattle expansion is that DL doesn't have the right aircraft to respond. DL is at a disadvantage to AA and UA by not operating the 789, canceling the 787 order was one of the few missteps DL has made over the last seven years. AA should keep pressing that advantage over DL, Singapore would be another example where AA and the 789 would box out DL.

Let's see how long it takes for DL to start testing the waters in San Jose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Delta has B777-200LR. Very capable to make routes like BLR work as the aircraft is already paid for. B789 might be lower operating cost, but it does not mean Delta does not have the aircraft to make the route work.

AA seems to be counting on the so-called huge underserved Bay Area-Bangalore market, particularly SJC/OAK-BLR, and SEA falls right on the track.

Even though the entire traffic number is thrown around as underserved, there are multiple stopover options.
Can AA compete with SQ, EK in service quality?
Would Bay Area corporate clients start using AA/AS?

chonetsao wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Ciel wrote:

I am a (big) Delta fan, but I must bow to this big strategic move by AS and AA. This commands respect. I must say that I have started worrying for Delta in Seattle and Portland over the past days.

I obviously don't have any data to support my reasoning but I will give my two (please take this with a grain of salt):

I think it would be best for Delta to add more U.S. and international destinations from Seattle and Portland. Delta went this far to create a hub in SEA (even if it is still a distant second place to AS). It would be a shame to give up. I understand there is barely enough space left to grow, but I can't imagine this could be already the end of the expansion plans for DL.

It certainly won't be a creative idea, but DL may copy AA to add a SEA-BLR and SEA-LHR to capture corporate contracts, and to limit the advance of AA.
For internal flights, DL may add SEA-MIA, SEA-DFW, and SEA-CLT.

Yes, there are OneWorld partners flying to Seattle, but so does SkyTeam partners: Air France, Virgin Atlantic, and Korean Air. DL may rely to these JV in place to fight back AA.

Last but not least, I think DL shouldn't underestimate the importance of Portland, and start expanding more, to give some reasons for AS frequent flyers based in Portland to jump ship.
Not everything happens in Seattle in this "battle". I would love to see DL adding the following: PDX-MCO, PDX-SFO, PDX-LAS, PDX-SJC, PDX-YVR, and PDX-CDG.

It is all wishful thinking of course, but I hope DL will never give up any efforts they have made over the past years to operate from the North-West corner of the U.S.

One of the reasons why AA chose Bangalore to kick off their new Seattle expansion is that DL doesn't have the right aircraft to respond. DL is at a disadvantage to AA and UA by not operating the 789, canceling the 787 order was one of the few missteps DL has made over the last seven years. AA should keep pressing that advantage over DL, Singapore would be another example where AA and the 789 would box out DL.

Let's see how long it takes for DL to start testing the waters in San Jose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Delta has B777-200LR. Very capable to make routes like BLR work as the aircraft is already paid for. B789 might be lower operating cost, but it does not mean Delta does not have the aircraft to make the route work.

AA has 47 789s , 22 on property 25 on form order, vs. DL’s ten 77L’s. DL is not going to win the long haul battle. Besides the cost advantage of the 789, only having ten 77Ls means DL has to pull them from elsewhere to move to SEA. Not ideal.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

chonetsao wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Ciel wrote:

I am a (big) Delta fan, but I must bow to this big strategic move by AS and AA. This commands respect. I must say that I have started worrying for Delta in Seattle and Portland over the past days.

I obviously don't have any data to support my reasoning but I will give my two (please take this with a grain of salt):

I think it would be best for Delta to add more U.S. and international destinations from Seattle and Portland. Delta went this far to create a hub in SEA (even if it is still a distant second place to AS). It would be a shame to give up. I understand there is barely enough space left to grow, but I can't imagine this could be already the end of the expansion plans for DL.

It certainly won't be a creative idea, but DL may copy AA to add a SEA-BLR and SEA-LHR to capture corporate contracts, and to limit the advance of AA.
For internal flights, DL may add SEA-MIA, SEA-DFW, and SEA-CLT.

Yes, there are OneWorld partners flying to Seattle, but so does SkyTeam partners: Air France, Virgin Atlantic, and Korean Air. DL may rely to these JV in place to fight back AA.

Last but not least, I think DL shouldn't underestimate the importance of Portland, and start expanding more, to give some reasons for AS frequent flyers based in Portland to jump ship.
Not everything happens in Seattle in this "battle". I would love to see DL adding the following: PDX-MCO, PDX-SFO, PDX-LAS, PDX-SJC, PDX-YVR, and PDX-CDG.

It is all wishful thinking of course, but I hope DL will never give up any efforts they have made over the past years to operate from the North-West corner of the U.S.

One of the reasons why AA chose Bangalore to kick off their new Seattle expansion is that DL doesn't have the right aircraft to respond. DL is at a disadvantage to AA and UA by not operating the 789, canceling the 787 order was one of the few missteps DL has made over the last seven years. AA should keep pressing that advantage over DL, Singapore would be another example where AA and the 789 would box out DL.

Let's see how long it takes for DL to start testing the waters in San Jose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Delta has B777-200LR. Very capable to make routes like BLR work as the aircraft is already paid for. B789 might be lower operating cost, but it does not mean Delta does not have the aircraft to make the route work.

The operating cost advantage of the 787-9 far exceeds the ownership cost benefits of the 777-200LR.

sxf24 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

STT757 wrote:

One of the reasons why AA chose Bangalore to kick off their new Seattle expansion is that DL doesn't have the right aircraft to respond. DL is at a disadvantage to AA and UA by not operating the 789, canceling the 787 order was one of the few missteps DL has made over the last seven years. AA should keep pressing that advantage over DL, Singapore would be another example where AA and the 789 would box out DL.

Let's see how long it takes for DL to start testing the waters in San Jose.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Delta has B777-200LR. Very capable to make routes like BLR work as the aircraft is already paid for. B789 might be lower operating cost, but it does not mean Delta does not have the aircraft to make the route work.

The operating cost advantage of the 787-9 far exceeds the ownership cost benefits of the 777-200LR.

Please show me the numbers. Last time I checked, AA could hardly break even on long haul flying, despite of the 45 strong B788 and B789.

STT757 wrote:

AA has 47 789s , 22 on property 25 on form order, vs. DL’s ten 77L’s. DL is not going to win the long haul battle. Besides the cost advantage of the 789, only having ten 77Ls means DL has to pull them from elsewhere to move to SEA. Not ideal.

Where is DL currently flying their 77Ls and which route would make sense to drop the 77L and move it to SEA-BLR? The current routes I can think of are JFK-BOM, ATL-JNB, LAX-SYD. What are the other routes - ATL-ICN? Something from DTW?

DTWLAX wrote:

STT757 wrote:

AA has 47 789s , 22 on property 25 on form order, vs. DL’s ten 77L’s. DL is not going to win the long haul battle. Besides the cost advantage of the 789, only having ten 77Ls means DL has to pull them from elsewhere to move to SEA. Not ideal.

Where is DL currently flying their 77Ls and which route would make sense to drop the 77L and move it to SEA-BLR? The current routes I can think of are JFK-BOM, ATL-JNB, LAX-SYD. What are the other routes - ATL-ICN? Something from DTW?

ATL-ICN is a 350 route.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chonetsao wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

Delta has B777-200LR. Very capable to make routes like BLR work as the aircraft is already paid for. B789 might be lower operating cost, but it does not mean Delta does not have the aircraft to make the route work.

The operating cost advantage of the 787-9 far exceeds the ownership cost benefits of the 777-200LR.

Please show me the numbers. Last time I checked, AA could hardly break even on long haul flying, despite of the 45 strong B788 and B789.

I think you're trying to draw a correlation where one does not exist. While demanding data gives you something to hide behind, it does not disprove a false claim.

AA could be loosing billions of dollars, yet still have equipment better suited for success on a particular route.

sxf24 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

The operating cost advantage of the 787-9 far exceeds the ownership cost benefits of the 777-200LR.

Please show me the numbers. Last time I checked, AA could hardly break even on long haul flying, despite of the 45 strong B788 and B789.

I think you're trying to draw a correlation where one does not exist. While demanding data gives you something to hide behind, it does not disprove a false claim.

AA could be loosing billions of dollars, yet still have equipment better suited for success on a particular route.

The data is available from the DOT on Form 41

Is there industry wisdom regarding what factors lead to a successful hub?

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

I am sure eventually American will question the long-term efficacy of investing in a Seattle gateway heavily reliant on connecting traffic of another carrier to which it doesn't have any skin in the game (investment).

Geography is in SEA’s favor for India. SEA is the closest major US city to BLR which has high dollar tech traffic. If the 787-9 could fly SFO-BLR, I expect UA would try. UA knows the capability of their 787s from flying SFO/LAX-SIN. SFO-BLR is the same distance as LAX-SIN, which United tried. Unfortunately the routes to BLR have to deviate around airspace restrictions over the Himalayas and China which adds flight time. I think this attempt is dependent on high dollar tech traffic that doesn’t like stopping in Europe or the Middle East.

AA needs some feed from California to make the route work. BA’s SJC flight misses the connection from BLR. I assume AA will be wanting AS’ feed from SJC for example since AA/AS will offer the only one stop connection from SJC to BLR.

I wouldnt be surprised if the 787 did a DFW - SFO SEA - BLR - SEA - SFO DFW rotation. It would make same plane service to BLR from SFO and can provide connections from OAK, SJC, LAX, SAN, PDX and Sacremento to BLR as one stop connections.

subramak1 wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

I am sure eventually American will question the long-term efficacy of investing in a Seattle gateway heavily reliant on connecting traffic of another carrier to which it doesn't have any skin in the game (investment).

Geography is in SEA’s favor for India. SEA is the closest major US city to BLR which has high dollar tech traffic. If the 787-9 could fly SFO-BLR, I expect UA would try. UA knows the capability of their 787s from flying SFO/LAX-SIN. SFO-BLR is the same distance as LAX-SIN, which United tried. Unfortunately the routes to BLR have to deviate around airspace restrictions over the Himalayas and China which adds flight time. I think this attempt is dependent on high dollar tech traffic that doesn’t like stopping in Europe or the Middle East.

AA needs some feed from California to make the route work. BA’s SJC flight misses the connection from BLR. I assume AA will be wanting AS’ feed from SJC for example since AA/AS will offer the only one stop connection from SJC to BLR.

I wouldnt be surprised if the 787 did a DFW - SFO SEA - BLR - SEA - SFO DFW rotation. It would make same plane service to BLR from SFO and can provide connections from OAK, SJC, LAX, SAN, PDX and Sacremento to BLR as one stop connections.

I doubt AA would fly SFOSEA with their own metal let alone a 789. IMHO the 789 will run DFW-SEA-BLR-SEA-DFW, probably take 3 frames to run the whole BLR operation.

AA747123 wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

Geography is in SEA’s favor for India. SEA is the closest major US city to BLR which has high dollar tech traffic. If the 787-9 could fly SFO-BLR, I expect UA would try. UA knows the capability of their 787s from flying SFO/LAX-SIN. SFO-BLR is the same distance as LAX-SIN, which United tried. Unfortunately the routes to BLR have to deviate around airspace restrictions over the Himalayas and China which adds flight time. I think this attempt is dependent on high dollar tech traffic that doesn’t like stopping in Europe or the Middle East.

AA needs some feed from California to make the route work. BA’s SJC flight misses the connection from BLR. I assume AA will be wanting AS’ feed from SJC for example since AA/AS will offer the only one stop connection from SJC to BLR.

I wouldnt be surprised if the 787 did a DFW - SFO SEA - BLR - SEA - SFO DFW rotation. It would make same plane service to BLR from SFO and can provide connections from OAK, SJC, LAX, SAN, PDX and Sacremento to BLR as one stop connections.

I doubt AA would fly SFOSEA with their own metal let alone a 789. IMHO the 789 will run DFW-SEA-BLR-SEA-DFW, probably take 3 frames to run the whole BLR operation.

Would agree - I wonder where the 77E for SEA-LHR will come from? Maybe DFW as well.

9w748capt wrote:

AA747123 wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

I wouldnt be surprised if the 787 did a DFW - SFO SEA - BLR - SEA - SFO DFW rotation. It would make same plane service to BLR from SFO and can provide connections from OAK, SJC, LAX, SAN, PDX and Sacremento to BLR as one stop connections.

I doubt AA would fly SFOSEA with their own metal let alone a 789. IMHO the 789 will run DFW-SEA-BLR-SEA-DFW, probably take 3 frames to run the whole BLR operation.

Would agree - I wonder where the 77E for SEA-LHR will come from? Maybe DFW as well.

LHR most probably will come in from LHR and go back out to LHR. Similar to PHX/RDU. Just purely a guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The 789's and 77E's could simply RON in SEA. The DL A330-NEO's stay in SEA. Of course, DL's advantage is the maintenance center in SEA.

In all this excitement about AA's SEA-BLR non-stop route announcement - I'd like to find out how the "regular" economy service is on board AA? For this ULH sector - will there be 2 meals + a mid-flight snack? Complimentary alcoholic beverages? Would would AA economy service on ULH flights compare to say DL or UA? I imagine it won't be anywhere close to that in say EK.

Nimish wrote:

In all this excitement about AA's SEA-BLR non-stop route announcement - I'd like to find out how the "regular" economy service is on board AA? For this ULH sector - will there be 2 meals + a mid-flight snack? Complimentary alcoholic beverages? Would would AA economy service on ULH flights compare to say DL or UA? I imagine it won't be anywhere close to that in say EK.

It’ll likely be similar to DFW-HKG which I believe has the main meal, mid-flight snack, then pre-arrival meal with snacks available in the galleys.

Nimish wrote:

In all this excitement about AA's SEA-BLR non-stop route announcement - I'd like to find out how the "regular" economy service is on board AA? For this ULH sector - will there be 2 meals + a mid-flight snack? Complimentary alcoholic beverages? Would would AA economy service on ULH flights compare to say DL or UA? I imagine it won't be anywhere close to that in say EK.

Considering flight time will be similar to DFW-HKG I am assuming it will be very similar service flow. Meal after takeoff, mid flight snack, meal before landing. Flights to HKG/Japan, NZ, Aus have free beer, wine and spirits. Not sure if India will be included in this list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ishrion wrote:

It’ll likely be similar to DFW-HKG which I believe has the main meal, mid-flight snack, then pre-arrival meal with snacks available in the galleys.

chepos wrote:

Considering flight time will be similar to DFW-HKG I am assuming it will be very similar service flow. Meal after takeoff, mid flight snack, meal before landing. Flights to HKG/Japan, NZ, Aus have free beer, wine and spirits. Not sure if India will be included in this list.

Thanks folks - I'm guessing India will be clubbed as a "Pacific" market and should include the free beverages and the 2 meals + mid-flight snack. That makes it a decent Economy product. Probably even better than UA by including complimentary "Spirits" and not just "wine and beer with the meal".

9 abreast in Y on the 789 - that's a battle that we lost a long time ago!

Nimish wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

It’ll likely be similar to DFW-HKG which I believe has the main meal, mid-flight snack, then pre-arrival meal with snacks available in the galleys.

chepos wrote:

Considering flight time will be similar to DFW-HKG I am assuming it will be very similar service flow. Meal after takeoff, mid flight snack, meal before landing. Flights to HKG/Japan, NZ, Aus have free beer, wine and spirits. Not sure if India will be included in this list.

Thanks folks - I'm guessing India will be clubbed as a "Pacific" market and should include the free beverages and the 2 meals + mid-flight snack. That makes it a decent Economy product. Probably even better than UA by including complimentary "Spirits" and not just "wine and beer with the meal".

9 abreast in Y on the 789 - that's a battle that we lost a long time ago!

I'm assuming we should expect elevated service similar to HKG/Japan/NZ/AUS considering this route is targeted at business travelers?

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

Interesting analysis from anna.aero:

1) American Airlines to start Seattle – Bangalore; big connectivity over Seattle
https://www.anna.aero/2020/02/18/americ ... r-seattle/

2) North America – India has 6.9 million passengers; Canada ~1/4 of market
https://www.anna.aero/2020/02/18/north- ... of-market/

Also this:

" "Bangalore is one of Amazon’s top three business-travel markets" said Brett Catlin, Alaska’s head of network planning and alliances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/airline ... r=sharebar

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

This statement proves the author has absolutely no idea what he's talking about:

Alaska could move to Terminal 4 (the American-terminal) at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX).

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

I literally laughed out loud when I read some things in that article. Move Alaska’s ops into T4 at LAX???? AA can’t fit’ it’s whole ops at T4, how are they going to squeeze in AS?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

That blogger is misinformed.

EA CO AS wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

That blogger is misinformed.

While I agree that article is poor journalism, I don’t think we can rule out the possibility of a merger. This move awfully smells like a first step in that direction.

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

Your phrase "says this is" is overstating what was actually published, which included speculative punctuation and phrases using "?", "seems to", "not surprised if" along with guesses of what might "between-the-lines" of a single sentence by an AA Exec.

Not much more credible than any of the idle chatter tossed about here on a daily basis.

BNAMealer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

That blogger is misinformed.

While I agree that article is poor journalism, I don’t think we can rule out the possibility of a merger. This move awfully smells like a first step in that direction.

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

LAXBUR wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

That blogger is misinformed.

While I agree that article is poor journalism, I don’t think we can rule out the possibility of a merger. This move awfully smells like a first step in that direction.

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

Some people on this board throw more darts at dart boards than F9.

LAXBUR wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

That blogger is misinformed.

While I agree that article is poor journalism, I don’t think we can rule out the possibility of a merger. This move awfully smells like a first step in that direction.

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

I never said it was happening or there was proof, I was simply stating an opinion. But to your second point, this new AA/AS partnership is a lot closer than the one before or their relationship with DL/NW (i.e AS is actually full on joining oneworld)

BNAMealer wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

While I agree that article is poor journalism, I don’t think we can rule out the possibility of a merger. This move awfully smells like a first step in that direction.

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

I never said it was happening or there was proof, I was simply stating an opinion. But to your second point, this new AA/AS partnership is a lot closer than the one before or their relationship with DL/NW (i.e AS is actually full on joining oneworld)

So joining oneworld is now a precursor to a merger? Yes, that is your opinion because there’s absolutely no proof of that.

LAXBUR wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

LAXBUR wrote:

Anything on here smells like a merger. “Alaska and United serve stroopwafel style cookies: merger ahead?”

AA and AS had partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and DL had a partnership before. They didn’t merge. AS and NW codeshared before. They didn’t merge.

Could it happen? Sure. But there’s no actual proof of that happening. Just folks looking for “I told you so points” in ten years by making various merger claims. I mean there was a Delta/Southwest merger suggestion on this thread.

I never said it was happening or there was proof, I was simply stating an opinion. But to your second point, this new AA/AS partnership is a lot closer than the one before or their relationship with DL/NW (i.e AS is actually full on joining oneworld)

So joining oneworld is now a precursor to a merger? Yes, that is your opinion because there’s absolutely no proof of that.

Indeed, so what’s your point?

wedgetail737 wrote:

The 789's and 77E's could simply RON in SEA. The DL A330-NEO's stay in SEA. Of course, DL's advantage is the maintenance center in SEA.

I believe AA has maintenance in SEA. And if they don’t, they will have to put them their if the new TA passes as line maintenance can’t be outsourced. So AA will have to have their own mechanics their to perform the ETOPS checks.

sand26391 wrote:

:

" "Bangalore is one of Amazon’s top three business-travel markets" said Brett Catlin, Alaska’s head of network planning and alliances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/airline ... r=sharebar

Oh weird. The airliners.net armchair analysts always say DL is losing so much money in SEA, but the real analysts say SEA is one of their most profitable hubs. Whom to believe...

DBCoop3r wrote:

sand26391 wrote:

:

" "Bangalore is one of Amazon’s top three business-travel markets" said Brett Catlin, Alaska’s head of network planning and alliances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/airline ... r=sharebar

Oh weird. The airliners.net armchair analysts always say DL is losing so much money in SEA, but the real analysts say SEA is one of their most profitable hubs. Whom to believe...

right, a comment by CNBC overrides all the domestic fare data we have access to. These guys must really be making boatloads on those China flights!

Boof02671 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

The 789's and 77E's could simply RON in SEA. The DL A330-NEO's stay in SEA. Of course, DL's advantage is the maintenance center in SEA.

I believe AA has maintenance in SEA. And if they don’t, they will have to put them their if the new TA passes as line maintenance can’t be outsourced. So AA will have to have their own mechanics their to perform the ETOPS checks.

AA has stores and Line MX in SEA already so that shouldn't be a problem.

DBCoop3r wrote:

sand26391 wrote:

:

" "Bangalore is one of Amazon’s top three business-travel markets" said Brett Catlin, Alaska’s head of network planning and alliances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/airline ... r=sharebar

Oh weird. The airliners.net armchair analysts always say DL is losing so much money in SEA, but the real analysts say SEA is one of their most profitable hubs. Whom to believe...

Probably split the difference. IMO, DL likely is somewhere between a -4% to +3% margin in SEA but some of that is loss leading in order to capture some of the corporate contracts that feed other hubs on a national level. The new AS/AA partnership will likely not change that by any large majority unless large companies choose to divest their travel more across multiple carriers.

DBCoop3r wrote:

sand26391 wrote:

:

" "Bangalore is one of Amazon’s top three business-travel markets" said Brett Catlin, Alaska’s head of network planning and alliances
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/18/airline ... r=sharebar

Oh weird. The airliners.net armchair analysts always say DL is losing so much money in SEA, but the real analysts say SEA is one of their most profitable hubs. Whom to believe...

Actually, I'd say I wouldn't believe either. For starters, Leslie Josephs own bio says she's an airline reporter, not an analyst. Also, that line you reference in the article is thrown in there without any attribution. Did DL say this? Wouldn't they be the only ones that know, since airlines don't break down profits or losses by hubs for all to see? Now, she could be right. However, without any attribution, it seems like it is on par with the speculation that runs rampant on this site. I can say with certainty that I don't know the numbers. I can also add that I can't recall DL ever breaking down their profitability in SEA, other than a throwaway line or two.

I wish AA all the best with it and hope it works but a big bold move like this can also backfire. Fuel could go up, demand go down etc. A lot can happen and a route getting allocated 3 aircraft needs to do very well to actually be profitable if all costs get attributed to the one route.

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

AS moving into T4 at LAX? Wow that kool aid must be strong. Last I checked AS utilized all but 2-3 gates of T6. AA spills into T5. What a laughable proposition.

QXAS wrote:

CobaltScar wrote:

This guy says this is a precursor to a Alaska/AA merger:

https://captainjetson.com/featured/alas ... t-partner/

AS moving into T4 at LAX? Wow that kool aid must be strong. Last I checked AS utilized all but 2-3 gates of T6. AA spills into T5. What a laughable proposition.

Yeah. This was hilarious. It showed the lack of knowledge this person has but they still write an article about a potential merger. Sounds like they must post on here. I get this is a discussion forum, but it is often full of baseless claims and completely fabricated rumors.