hohd wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

I am shocked at what happened on the India side. I can’t think of any other major airline that flies to BLR that already doesn’t fly to BOM and DEL. It’s shocking that AA bypassed India’s Tier 1 cities in DEL, BOM, CCU and MAA and went straight to BLR. MAA is southern India’s premier gateway city and has been shockingly bypassed. I hope AA knows it’s geography with this plan..

BLR is a Tier 1 city well AHEAD of MAA and far ahead of CCU (even HYD is ahead of CCU). BLR is a premium heavy yield city which MAA is lacking. Have you ever been to BLR ? The premier gateway city in southern India is BLR, not MAA, BLR has surpassed MAA almost a decade ago and CCU even before that.

If what you are saying is true, things sure have changed down there since 1986.

Adipocere wrote:

hohd wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

I am shocked at what happened on the India side. I can’t think of any other major airline that flies to BLR that already doesn’t fly to BOM and DEL. It’s shocking that AA bypassed India’s Tier 1 cities in DEL, BOM, CCU and MAA and went straight to BLR. MAA is southern India’s premier gateway city and has been shockingly bypassed. I hope AA knows it’s geography with this plan..

BLR is a Tier 1 city well AHEAD of MAA and far ahead of CCU (even HYD is ahead of CCU). BLR is a premium heavy yield city which MAA is lacking. Have you ever been to BLR ? The premier gateway city in southern India is BLR, not MAA, BLR has surpassed MAA almost a decade ago and CCU even before that.

If what you are saying is true, things sure have changed down there since 1986.

Considering 1986 was 34 years ago, I bet many places have changed since then.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

superjeff wrote:

JOYA380B747 wrote:

If given the choice to a OW premium FF on a West Coast-BLR route -
would he/she choose
AS - AA to BLR via SEA. OR
AA/BA- BA to BLR via LHR ??

Assuming similar fares and connecting times.

1. SEA on the West Coast-BLR route is a domestic to international connection, while SEA-LHR-BLR involves an international to international connection, and a possible T3 to T5 change in London. SEA is easier. Coming back has customs/immigration in SEA (mid flight) and for non-US citizens, particularly, could be a bit more complicated. BUT:

Most likely, you'd be on a BA flight as AA will have 3 out of the 14 or so from the West Coast between them and BA. That is a likely T5-T5, which at least saves you a bus ride. SEA INTL/Domestic is only better than LHR T3-T5, not T5-T5, on transfers. The facilities are certainly nicer at LHR.

That being said, saving 2.5 - 4 hours on flights each direction for PHX/SAN/LAX/SFO/SJC/YVR would be hard to pass up. The only thing a person might consider is the timings of the XXX-SEA/LHR-BLR flights. The AA flight will likely be timed like UA's SFO-DEL flight, so coming back, you would have the rest of your day after an earlier morning domestic flight from SEA. For me, I would rather arrive in the evening in the US, so there is not much time to "survive," before getting to bed.

superjeff wrote:

2. AA's Premium service (Business Class) hard product is generally regarded as equal to or better than BA's.

I'd argue BA's new hard product in J, which is on the LHR-BLR route, is better than anything AA has. The soft product is certainly better for BA.

Another question that I’m thinking about is what will be AA/AS’s strategy in the Hawaiian market? Seems like there’d be a lot of overlap. Maybe I’m wrong though.

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

Another question that I’m thinking about is what will be AA/AS’s strategy in the Hawaiian market? Seems like there’d be a lot of overlap. Maybe I’m wrong though.

They only directly overlap in 2 routes to HI (I believe). LAX-OGG/HNL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke.

How do you figure? Even if you take DL's international operation out of the equation, SEA is already a fairly substantial international gateway to/from Asia and Europe.

Aliqiout wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

but SEA already is a an international gateway...

No it isn't. It's an international airport where 58% of its international traffic is O/D and another 30% is from the local regional airports from the states I outlined earlier and YVR. Only 12% is from literally anywhere else. International gateway my right arm...

TFawkes wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

but SEA already is a an international gateway...

No it isn't. It's an international airport where 58% of its international traffic is O/D and another 30% is from the local regional airports from the states I outlined earlier and YVR. Only 12% is from literally anywhere else. International gateway my right arm...

It is an international gateway, the 3rd busiest on the U.S. west coast after LAX and SFO...

None of those statistics you shared have any bearing on whether it is an international gateway or not. International traffic could be 99% O&D and it would still be an international gateway based on the amount of international flights and destinations it has.

SEA has fairly substantial international service that has rapidly grown over the past decade putting heavy strain on its infrastructure which is why a new International Arrivals Facility is set to open later this year, which will help make connections smoother:
https://www.portseattle.org/projects/in ... s-facility

BA wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

but SEA already is a an international gateway...

No it isn't. It's an international airport where 58% of its international traffic is O/D and another 30% is from the local regional airports from the states I outlined earlier and YVR. Only 12% is from literally anywhere else. International gateway my right arm...

It is an international gateway, the 3rd busiest on the U.S. west coast after LAX and SFO...

None of those statistics you shared have any bearing on whether it is an international gateway or not. International traffic could be 99% O&D and it would still be an international gateway based on the amount of international flights and destinations it has.

SEA has fairly substantial international service that has rapidly grown over the past decade putting heavy strain on its infrastructure which is why a new International Arrivals Facility is set to open later this year, which will help make connections smoother:
https://www.portseattle.org/projects/in ... s-facility

Someone didn't read the article. AA and AS want to turn SEA into the new LAX/the DFW of the north, funneling much more 1-stoppers, which is hilarious given the proximity to YVR and inconvenience of travel time.

TFawkes wrote:

BA wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

No it isn't. It's an international airport where 58% of its international traffic is O/D and another 30% is from the local regional airports from the states I outlined earlier and YVR. Only 12% is from literally anywhere else. International gateway my right arm...

It is an international gateway, the 3rd busiest on the U.S. west coast after LAX and SFO...

None of those statistics you shared have any bearing on whether it is an international gateway or not. International traffic could be 99% O&D and it would still be an international gateway based on the amount of international flights and destinations it has.

SEA has fairly substantial international service that has rapidly grown over the past decade putting heavy strain on its infrastructure which is why a new International Arrivals Facility is set to open later this year, which will help make connections smoother:
https://www.portseattle.org/projects/in ... s-facility

Someone didn't read the article. AA and AS want to turn SEA into the new LAX/the DFW of the north, funneling much more 1-stoppers, which is hilarious given the proximity to YVR and inconvenience of travel time.

I read the article.

You don't have to be an LAX/DFW of the north type operation in order to be an "international gateway."

The definition of international gateway is not as rigid as you make it out to be.

BA wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

BA wrote:

It is an international gateway, the 3rd busiest on the U.S. west coast after LAX and SFO...

None of those statistics you shared have any bearing on whether it is an international gateway or not. International traffic could be 99% O&D and it would still be an international gateway based on the amount of international flights and destinations it has.

SEA has fairly substantial international service that has rapidly grown over the past decade putting heavy strain on its infrastructure which is why a new International Arrivals Facility is set to open later this year, which will help make connections smoother:
https://www.portseattle.org/projects/in ... s-facility

Someone didn't read the article. AA and AS want to turn SEA into the new LAX/the DFW of the north, funneling much more 1-stoppers, which is hilarious given the proximity to YVR and inconvenience of travel time.

I read the article.

You don't have to be an LAX/DFW of the north type operation in order to be an "international gateway."

The definition of international gateway is not as rigid as you make it out to be.

I'm using their definition. It's a bad joke.

TFawkes wrote:

AA and AS want to turn SEA into the new LAX/the DFW of the north

Where is that written? AA just wants to leverage the huge feed AS already provides into SEA, and AS wants to encourage that by growing, providing even more connecting opportunities to support whatever international growth AA has in mind from SEA. It's a win-win for both carriers, and their partners in oneworld like BA and JL who already serve SEA and will also benefit from more AS growth.

EA CO AS wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

I’d expect AS’s “focus cities” won’t see much growth

The entire 5 year plan hasn't been made public yet. All I'll say is that your expectation is incorrect.

One of the few times I’d be happy to be wrong

Thanks, dude. From your mouth to God’s (or AS CEOs) ears.

superjeff wrote:

JOYA380B747 wrote:

If given the choice to a OW premium FF on a West Coast-BLR route -
would he/she choose
AS - AA to BLR via SEA. OR
AA/BA- BA to BLR via LHR ??

Assuming similar fares and connecting times.

1. SEA on the West Coast-BLR route is a domestic to international connection, while SEA-LHR-BLR involves an international to international connection, and a possible T3 to T5 change in London. SEA is easier. Coming back has customs/immigration in SEA (mid flight) and for non-US citizens, particularly, could be a bit more complicated.

The domestic to international connections for SEA-BLR are most likely coming from cities that have tech companies, most likely the SEA region, the Bay area and some from the SoCal region. I doubt you will see connections to BLR from the smaller towns on the West Coast.
These tech centers already have one stop options to BLR. Is AA really expecting those people to switch to the AA flight from SEA?
In addition to the two options provided above, there is a third option as well - CX to BLR via HKG. Is the OW premium FF from the SFO/LAX region really going to jump ship on AA when CX has multiple daily flights, better onboard service and HKG is a far more convenient airport to transit compared to SEA and LHR? It may not be ideal to go through HKG in the current scenario (Coronavirus, protests, etc.) but that is not going to last forever.

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

Seems like we are missing a geography lesson. For Dakotas the closest International gateway would be MN or ORD. Both will be closer than SEA. The SEA hub can offer one stop connection from following cities to BLR,a big enough market. I am glad about this as the premium tickets for SEA to BLR on one stop option would probably come down slightly.

1. PDX - Intel, Nike
2. SFO - Many tech companies
3. SJC - Many tech companies
4. OAK - East Bay residing population of tech companies
5. SMF - Intel
6. LAX - Some tech but mainly non tech, finance
7. SAN - Qualcomm
8. YVR

KK

DTWLAX wrote:

superjeff wrote:

JOYA380B747 wrote:

If given the choice to a OW premium FF on a West Coast-BLR route -
would he/she choose
AS - AA to BLR via SEA. OR
AA/BA- BA to BLR via LHR ??

Assuming similar fares and connecting times.

1. SEA on the West Coast-BLR route is a domestic to international connection, while SEA-LHR-BLR involves an international to international connection, and a possible T3 to T5 change in London. SEA is easier. Coming back has customs/immigration in SEA (mid flight) and for non-US citizens, particularly, could be a bit more complicated.

The domestic to international connections for SEA-BLR are most likely coming from cities that have tech companies, most likely the SEA region, the Bay area and some from the SoCal region. I doubt you will see connections to BLR from the smaller towns on the West Coast.
These tech centers already have one stop options to BLR. Is AA really expecting those people to switch to the AA flight from SEA?
In addition to the two options provided above, there is a third option as well - CX to BLR via HKG. Is the OW premium FF from the SFO/LAX region really going to jump ship on AA when CX has multiple daily flights, better onboard service and HKG is a far more convenient airport to transit compared to SEA and LHR? It may not be ideal to go through HKG in the current scenario (Coronavirus, protests, etc.) but that is not going to last forever.

Timing will be a big factor. If you fly from SFO to BLR via HKG you lose 2 working days. If you fly the new SEA BLR flight, it will mean loss of 1 working day only. A Big thing for people travelling on Business and even for people on vacation.

KK

Before the coronavirus HKG was the most efficient route to BLR from the US West Coast (north enough for US non-stop with regular planes). With JL starting NRT-BLR soon NRT is also a hub.

Adipocere wrote:

hohd wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

I am shocked at what happened on the India side. I can’t think of any other major airline that flies to BLR that already doesn’t fly to BOM and DEL. It’s shocking that AA bypassed India’s Tier 1 cities in DEL, BOM, CCU and MAA and went straight to BLR. MAA is southern India’s premier gateway city and has been shockingly bypassed. I hope AA knows it’s geography with this plan..

BLR is a Tier 1 city well AHEAD of MAA and far ahead of CCU (even HYD is ahead of CCU). BLR is a premium heavy yield city which MAA is lacking. Have you ever been to BLR ? The premier gateway city in southern India is BLR, not MAA, BLR has surpassed MAA almost a decade ago and CCU even before that.

If what you are saying is true, things sure have changed down there since 1986.

That is a lot of time. Since 1986 India has liberalised and become the leading player in outsourcing market. Bangalore is the biggest player in India in this market. CCU is not a business hub. For example, before air travel grew exponentially in India, Chennai had more capacity to SIN than CCU. I am talking of 1999-2004 period here. 3 flights a day between Chennai CCU on B734/A320 as compared to B777, A300 and A320 between Chennai and SIN

In terms of Travel to western world, BLR has the premium demand that chennai lacks. If you are talking of connecting to manufacturing facilties , Chennai is well ahead of BLR. But that traffic does not support J class traffic like Tech world does

KK

EA CO AS wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

I’d expect AS’s “focus cities” won’t see much growth

The entire 5 year plan hasn't been made public yet. All I'll say is that your expectation is incorrect.

As I have a most definite interest in one of Alaska's "Focus Cities", my question regarding this exchange between EA CO AS and AirFiero is, are we referring to the "official" definition of "Focus City", meaning SAN and SJC, commonly known to be AS's "two Focus Cities" or a more generic meaning of any cities, including hubs, that are larger than just regular outstations? If the former, then I am paying a lot of attention to EA CO's comment implying there just might be lots of growth coming to SAN and/or SJC in the next 5 years; if the latter, then I'm still paying attention to the comment even though that growth and expansion could be spread among more cities. In any case, I can't wait to see more of AS's 5-year plan released!

Given one subject of this thread, "AS to join OW", it might be somewhat relevant that at SAN, AS and AA exclusively share the same terminal, T2E. Perhaps a coincidence, maybe not, but there they are, as of a year ago, AS and AA literally splitting Terminal 2E right down the middle! It might also be noted that AA's OW presence in SAN was at least partially responsible for our first two intercontinental foreign flag cx -- BA and JL -- coming to town back in 2011 & '12 and connecting our city nonstop to both Europe and Asia!

There's no question that OW already has a major footprint in SAN, and that AS's joining the alliance will only enhance its presence here. I can't foresee AA doing anything major here as they have done nothing positive for years (since starting MIA back in Summer 2013) but I am now more hopeful that we might see some exciting growth and expansion from our airport by Alaska over the next few years!

bb

subramak1 wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

superjeff wrote:

1. SEA on the West Coast-BLR route is a domestic to international connection, while SEA-LHR-BLR involves an international to international connection, and a possible T3 to T5 change in London. SEA is easier. Coming back has customs/immigration in SEA (mid flight) and for non-US citizens, particularly, could be a bit more complicated.

The domestic to international connections for SEA-BLR are most likely coming from cities that have tech companies, most likely the SEA region, the Bay area and some from the SoCal region. I doubt you will see connections to BLR from the smaller towns on the West Coast.
These tech centers already have one stop options to BLR. Is AA really expecting those people to switch to the AA flight from SEA?
In addition to the two options provided above, there is a third option as well - CX to BLR via HKG. Is the OW premium FF from the SFO/LAX region really going to jump ship on AA when CX has multiple daily flights, better onboard service and HKG is a far more convenient airport to transit compared to SEA and LHR? It may not be ideal to go through HKG in the current scenario (Coronavirus, protests, etc.) but that is not going to last forever.

Timing will be a big factor. If you fly from SFO to BLR via HKG you lose 2 working days. If you fly the new SEA BLR flight, it will mean loss of 1 working day only. A Big thing for people travelling on Business and even for people on vacation.

KK

How do you lose 2 working days flying CX when compared to AA? AA has not announced schedules for the BLR flight. Flying from SFO/LAX to BLR will take somewhere between 20-24 hours. Not sure why you think AA will save you one day.

Byrdluvs747 wrote:

jmc1975 wrote:

With AS joining OneWorld, could we see them restarting Russian Far East routes (ie VVO, KHV, GDX) to connect with S7 Airlines? They now have far more capable aircraft than the MD80s that were flown there in the 1990s.

I cant see AS doing any Russia flights until the sanctions and/or Putin are gone. Even then, what would drive these Russian routes? I can maybe understand VVO(I've always wanted to go there), but KHV and GDX? Are the old Russia cultural ties in Alaska enough to support these flights?

I sure wish AS would consider Russian Far East routes again, but agree that the political and economic situation has to improve first. There are a lot people in the Pacific Northwest and CA with personal and/or business ties to the region. Asiana cutting their routes to the Russian Far East made it much harder and more expensive to get there from the US west coast. ANA starts up service soon from Japan to VVO, so that helps a bit.

If things get a bit better, maybe AS will look into it. A SEA-ANC-KHV/VVO route a few times a week might just work.

Khvtosea, Japan Airlines is also flying soon NRT to VVO (main economic centre of the Russia Far East). Only place with good yield.

x1234 wrote:

Khvtosea, Japan Airlines is also flying soon NRT to VVO (main economic centre of the Russia Far East). Only place with good yield.

That’s good to know about JAL. There are a surprising number of Japanese and other Asian tourists visiting VVO and KHV (at least in the summer!) as well as those with business ties. I agree that there is a lot more business growth in VVO, and now JAL/NH/S7 are on the route from Japan. KHV is the old provincial capital of the region, while VVO is the faster growing port city.

All I know is that on the ANA lights to ICN from SEA, as well as the NH flights to NRT, there were always a sizable number of people going on to KHV. As an Alaska Gold 75k, I’d be one of the first to take a ANC-KHV flight, however I also know that doing business in Russia is always risky and not for the faint of heart!

subramak1 wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

Seems like we are missing a geography lesson. For Dakotas the closest International gateway would be MN or ORD. Both will be closer than SEA. The SEA hub can offer one stop connection from following cities to BLR,a big enough market. I am glad about this as the premium tickets for SEA to BLR on one stop option would probably come down slightly.

1. PDX - Intel, Nike
2. SFO - Many tech companies
3. SJC - Many tech companies
4. OAK - East Bay residing population of tech companies
5. SMF - Intel
6. LAX - Some tech but mainly non tech, finance
7. SAN - Qualcomm
8. YVR

KK

Fine, closest western gateway. Flying east to ORD to then go west and south loses time vs. SEA, and a lot of time vs. SFO/LAX.

Everything you just listed would prefer to connect through SFO/LAX except for YVR.

DTWLAX wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

The domestic to international connections for SEA-BLR are most likely coming from cities that have tech companies, most likely the SEA region, the Bay area and some from the SoCal region. I doubt you will see connections to BLR from the smaller towns on the West Coast.
These tech centers already have one stop options to BLR. Is AA really expecting those people to switch to the AA flight from SEA?
In addition to the two options provided above, there is a third option as well - CX to BLR via HKG. Is the OW premium FF from the SFO/LAX region really going to jump ship on AA when CX has multiple daily flights, better onboard service and HKG is a far more convenient airport to transit compared to SEA and LHR? It may not be ideal to go through HKG in the current scenario (Coronavirus, protests, etc.) but that is not going to last forever.

Timing will be a big factor. If you fly from SFO to BLR via HKG you lose 2 working days. If you fly the new SEA BLR flight, it will mean loss of 1 working day only. A Big thing for people travelling on Business and even for people on vacation.

KK

How do you lose 2 working days flying CX when compared to AA? AA has not announced schedules for the BLR flight. Flying from SFO/LAX to BLR will take somewhere between 20-24 hours. Not sure why you think AA will save you one day.

LAX/SFO-BLR distance is 14,500km and change, so basically Perth to London flight time, or anywhere from 16.5 hours to 18 hours depending on the winds.

You can do it in the improved 788 or in the standard A359/K easily enough.

TFawkes wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

Seems like we are missing a geography lesson. For Dakotas the closest International gateway would be MN or ORD. Both will be closer than SEA. The SEA hub can offer one stop connection from following cities to BLR,a big enough market. I am glad about this as the premium tickets for SEA to BLR on one stop option would probably come down slightly.

1. PDX - Intel, Nike
2. SFO - Many tech companies
3. SJC - Many tech companies
4. OAK - East Bay residing population of tech companies
5. SMF - Intel
6. LAX - Some tech but mainly non tech, finance
7. SAN - Qualcomm
8. YVR

KK

Fine, closest western gateway. Flying east to ORD to then go west and south loses time vs. SEA, and a lot of time vs. SFO/LAX.

Everything you just listed would prefer to connect through SFO/LAX except for YVR.

When you say, prefers to connect in SFO/LAX, what are you basing your argument on? Or is thus just you voicing your opinion.

As to your whole go east to ORD to then go west, I am not sure I understand your argument


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DTWLAX wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

The domestic to international connections for SEA-BLR are most likely coming from cities that have tech companies, most likely the SEA region, the Bay area and some from the SoCal region. I doubt you will see connections to BLR from the smaller towns on the West Coast.
These tech centers already have one stop options to BLR. Is AA really expecting those people to switch to the AA flight from SEA?
In addition to the two options provided above, there is a third option as well - CX to BLR via HKG. Is the OW premium FF from the SFO/LAX region really going to jump ship on AA when CX has multiple daily flights, better onboard service and HKG is a far more convenient airport to transit compared to SEA and LHR? It may not be ideal to go through HKG in the current scenario (Coronavirus, protests, etc.) but that is not going to last forever.

Timing will be a big factor. If you fly from SFO to BLR via HKG you lose 2 working days. If you fly the new SEA BLR flight, it will mean loss of 1 working day only. A Big thing for people travelling on Business and even for people on vacation.

KK

How do you lose 2 working days flying CX when compared to AA? AA has not announced schedules for the BLR flight. Flying from SFO/LAX to BLR will take somewhere between 20-24 hours. Not sure why you think AA will save you one day.

Since you just misquoted me, the question I was answering was a comparison of flying from the US West Coast via SEA on AA or AS/AA OR flying via LHR on AA/BA to BA at London Heathrow. CX wasn't mentioned.

This is a huge win for Alaska, American Airlines and the OneWorld alliance. If Delta had struck such a deal, this forum would be flooded with thousands of threads praising Delta.

The SEA-BLR GC flight path looks like this - http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sea-blr

Obviously, depending on the winds, the outbound flight would go NE accross hudson bay, green land...finland/norway i guess. And the return flight would go east/north east from BLR..somehwere east over Japan, over the North Pacific and onto Seattle i guess.

If the flight for some reason takes the GC path plotted in the GC mapper then what would be the diversion airports this side of the pole? YVR, Yellow Knife, Anchorage come to mind. What would be the diversion airports on the other side ?

Also, from an operational standpoint what would be the number of pilots manning this flight?

gaystudpilot wrote:

This will be very good for AS and AA. And DL is not sitting idly by. There will be a response to this. 1) Look for a select partnership with WN on specific routes. 2) Also, remember, not all Asian carriers are satisfied in their respective alliances. Someone is going to jump. 3) Deal teams are very active.

1) This is interesting. A limited partnership with WN. For example, specific routes into/out of LAX, SFO and SEA. Has something like this been done before with two US carriers?

2) I've said this before. Which one would benefit the most and which one would provide the most benefit to DL are the big questions. CX would make sense. SQ not so much.

3) Deal teams are always active. LOL At various stages, talks fall apart all the time and no one ever hears about them. I would not be surprised, and I know people are going to throw things at me, if DL and AS had talks post break up.

Detroit313 wrote:

This is a huge win for Alaska, American Airlines and the OneWorld alliance. If Delta had struck such a deal, this forum would be flooded with thousands of threads praising Delta.

Can you imagine. On the heels of the LA announcement. A.net would have crashed!

questions wrote:

gaystudpilot wrote:

This will be very good for AS and AA. And DL is not sitting idly by. There will be a response to this. 1) Look for a select partnership with WN on specific routes. 2) Also, remember, not all Asian carriers are satisfied in their respective alliances. Someone is going to jump. 3) Deal teams are very active.

1) This is interesting. A limited partnership with WN. For example, specific routes into/out of LAX, SFO and SEA. Has something like this been done before with two US carriers?

In the current Southwest pilots contract there cannot be codeshares with domestic airlines, only international. Their contract is amendable later this summer, however with the MAX not flying I really wouldn't expect the pilots to allow codeshares with domestic airlines.

I have no doubt China Southern will join OneWorld too now that such a big player on the West Coast of the US is part of OneWorld too.

O[list=][/list]quote="panamair"]

UALFAson wrote:

The deal will also turn AS into an even more formidable competitor against Delta, whose efforts to establish a West Coast/Trans-Pacific hub at SEA are not going as well as they had hoped..

Do you have any facts and figures to prove that this is true or are you just repeating a.net heresay? Do you know what they had hoped or expected? Sure they dropped HKG and some smaller destinations here and there, but this summer Delta will be at over 170 flights a day at SEA, the highest it’s ever been since they started building up SEA. There have been consistent mainline upgauges on many domestic routes etc., I am not saying that SEA is performing in the same league as ATL for DL, but it is also not a lost cause as some on here would like us to believe.[/quote]

Do You know which cities Delta has dropped from Seattle? I know they dropped Hong Kong. They dropped Osaka but brought it back. I thought they flew to Missoula sorry, but checking Wiki that doesn't show up anymore. I believe they dropped Victoria British Columbia too.

American's Seattle to Bangalore flight is now available for booking.

Inaugural flight is October 25, which is the same day as the inaugural LAX-CHC and DFW-AKL.

Depart Seattle 5:55 p.m. arrive Bangalore 10:45 p.m. next day.

And... here's the interesting timing.

Depart Bangalore 2:05 a.m. arrive Seattle 6:00 a.m.

I guess it's similar to the other India - U.S. flights anyway.

Also, the 787-9 will be coming from LAX as AA200 meaning there are 5 daily E-175s and 1 daily 789 on LAX-SEA...

Ishrion wrote:

American's Seattle to Bangalore flight is now available for booking. Depart Bangalore 2:05 a.m. arrive Seattle 6:00 a.m.

The departure out of Bangalore is at 3:05 AM for the Winter.

Either ways, the schedule is perfect for West Coast connections and fairly ideal both ways for SEA and the Bay Area Business travelers. Not very convenient for middle Americans from AUS/SAT/IAH etc unless we make a connection at DFW.

subramak1 wrote:

1. PDX - Intel, Nike 2. SFO - Many tech companies 3. SJC - Many tech companies
KK

Let us also throw in the giants based out of BLR - Infosys and Wipro. These companies have thousands of techies all over the US and a sizeable chunk of them are in Seattle and the Bay Area. You also have Oracle, Accenture, IBM, MindTree, Cognizant, HCL which are huge on both sides.

DTWLAX wrote:

The domestic to international connections for SEA-BLR are most likely coming from cities that have tech companies, most likely the SEA region, the Bay area and some from the SoCal region. I doubt you will see connections to BLR from the smaller towns on the West Coast.
These tech centers already have one stop options to BLR. In addition to the two options provided above, there is a third option as well - CX to BLR via HKG.

CX operates Dragon to BLR. The onboard product isn't overly exciting as compared to Cathay itself. JAL is still NOT an option for BLR, yet. JAL starts BLR only on March 30th. Even when it starts, much of the USA operations are steadily moving to HND where as the BLR flight will operate out of NRT. So JL may still not be a very convenient option. Airlines such as QR and EY operate only to LAX. Outside of LAX and SFO, cities such as SJC, PHX, SAN, LAS, DEN, SLC and PDX just have one ideal 1-stop options to BLR. Those options come with some extra travel time. While the onward legs are less than 24 hours, the return is almost always 26-29 hours. Also, the flights arrival and departures out of BLR for certain European carriers such as BA are jetlag inducing and not ideal. So, when the AS connections come in, the AA SEA-BLR flight will make it possible to have both legs of journey under 22 hours from all cities in the West Coast and Mountain West. This will be a pretty big advantage for techies and Business travelers.

SATexan wrote:

CX operates Dragon to BLR. The onboard product isn't overly exciting as compared to Cathay itself. JAL is still NOT an option for BLR, yet. JAL starts BLR only on March 30th. Even when it starts, much of the USA operations are steadily moving to HND where as the BLR flight will operate out of NRT. So JL may still not be a very convenient option. Airlines such as QR and EY operate only to LAX. Outside of LAX and SFO, cities such as SJC, PHX, SAN, LAS, DEN, SLC and PDX just have one ideal 1-stop options to BLR. Those options come with some extra travel time. While the onward legs are less than 24 hours, the return is almost always 26-29 hours. Also, the flights arrival and departures out of BLR for certain European carriers such as BA are jetlag inducing and not ideal. So, when the AS connections come in, the AA SEA-BLR flight will make it possible to have both legs of journey under 22 hours from all cities in the West Coast and Mountain West. This will be a pretty big advantage for techies and Business travelers.

The return leg to the cities you mentioned above are not "almost always 26-29 hours" as you say. Picking a random date of May 20, see below for flight times to the cities you mentioned. Except for PDX that does not have a 1-stop option, all other cities have return legs in the 21-24 hours range. Except for SLC (which is a DL hub) for which AF/DL is the fastest and DEN where LH is fastest, all other cities have a Oneworld carrier, mostly BA, that offer the fastest travel time.
BLR-SJC: 23h 20m via LHR on BA
BLR-PHX: 22h 35m via LHR on BA
BLR-SAN: 21h 05m via NRT on JL
BLR-LAS: 24h 50m via LHR on BA
BLR-DEN: 21h 35m via FRA on LH, 22h 00m via LHR on BA
BLR-SLC: 23h 23m via CDG on AF/DL
BLR-PDX: No 1-stop option

Regarding the arrival and departure times, AA is flying in and out of BLR around the same times as the European carriers, arriving at 10:45PM and departing at 2:00AM.

DTWLAX wrote:

Regarding the arrival and departure times, AA has not announced the schedules yet for SEA-BLR. So, I don't know how you are saying that the European carriers are jetlag inducing while AA will not be when we don't know the timings. Also if AA wants to get connections at SEA they will have to time their flights according to the connection banks and that may most likely result in AA flying in and out of BLR around the same times as the European carriers.

Read three posts above.

DTWLAX wrote:

SATexan wrote:

CX operates Dragon to BLR. The onboard product isn't overly exciting as compared to Cathay itself. JAL is still NOT an option for BLR, yet. JAL starts BLR only on March 30th. Even when it starts, much of the USA operations are steadily moving to HND where as the BLR flight will operate out of NRT. So JL may still not be a very convenient option. Airlines such as QR and EY operate only to LAX. Outside of LAX and SFO, cities such as SJC, PHX, SAN, LAS, DEN, SLC and PDX just have one ideal 1-stop options to BLR. Those options come with some extra travel time. While the onward legs are less than 24 hours, the return is almost always 26-29 hours. Also, the flights arrival and departures out of BLR for certain European carriers such as BA are jetlag inducing and not ideal. So, when the AS connections come in, the AA SEA-BLR flight will make it possible to have both legs of journey under 22 hours from all cities in the West Coast and Mountain West. This will be a pretty big advantage for techies and Business travelers.

The return leg to the cities you mentioned above are not "almost always 26-29 hours" as you say. Picking a random date of May 20, see below for flight times to the cities you mentioned. Except for PDX that does not have a 1-stop option, all other cities have return legs in the 21-24 hours range. Except for SLC (which is a DL hub) for which AF/DL is the fastest and DEN where LH is fastest, all other cities have a Oneworld carrier, mostly BA, that offer the fastest travel time.
BLR-SJC: 23h 20m via LHR on BA
BLR-PHX: 22h 35m via LHR on BA
BLR-SAN: 21h 05m via NRT on JL
BLR-LAS: 24h 50m via LHR on BA
BLR-DEN: 21h 35m via FRA on LH, 22h 00m via LHR on BA
BLR-SLC: 23h 23m via CDG on AF/DL
BLR-PDX: No 1-stop option

Regarding the arrival and departure times, AA has not announced the schedules yet for SEA-BLR. So, I don't know how you are saying that the European carriers are jetlag inducing while AA will not be when we don't know the timings. Also if AA wants to get connections at SEA they will have to time their flights according to the connection banks and that may most likely result in AA flying in and out of BLR around the same times as the European carriers.

Schedule has been loaded..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ishrion wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

Regarding the arrival and departure times, AA has not announced the schedules yet for SEA-BLR. So, I don't know how you are saying that the European carriers are jetlag inducing while AA will not be when we don't know the timings. Also if AA wants to get connections at SEA they will have to time their flights according to the connection banks and that may most likely result in AA flying in and out of BLR around the same times as the European carriers.

Read three posts above.

Don't know how I missed that post.

So the flight does leave BLR around the same time as most European flights, except for BA that departs at 7:00AM

DTWLAX wrote:

So the flight does leave BLR around the same time as most European flights, except for BA that departs at 7:00AM

With AA, you will arrive in SEA at 6:00 AM and can get a full day of work done. You can reach the Bay Area by 10 AM and still manage to get a fairly productive day.

Further, getting into BLR at 22:45 PM means, you can be in your hotel by 12:45 AM and get a good 6.5 to 7 hours rest before you head to work. A lot of teams out of BLR start work at 10 AM and work late into the evening to accommodate conference call(s) with their USA counterparts at their 8-10 AM window.

As far as European carriers are concerned, Lufthansa (FRA) arrives at 1:30 AM and BA at 4:45 AM. They are certainly worse than AA's timings. AF, KL and LH(Munich) have comparable timings but KL is only 3 weekly and LH(Munich) is 5 weekly. I'd argue that BA's present times are more suited for UK corporate traffic. Now, they have recently announced a new 3 weekly flight to BLR arriving at 22:45 that makes it more convenient for US originating travelers. This appears to be a Corona virus capacity cut from Shanghai that has been added to BLR. Not sure if this is a long term thing.

DTWLAX wrote:

The return leg to the cities you mentioned above are not "almost always 26-29 hours" as you say. Picking a random date of May 20, see below for flight times to the cities you mentioned. Except for PDX that does not have a 1-stop option, all other cities have return legs in the 21-24 hours range. Except for SLC (which is a DL hub) for which AF/DL is the fastest and DEN where LH is fastest, all other cities have a Oneworld carrier, mostly BA, that offer the fastest travel time.
BLR-SJC: 23h 20m via LHR on BA
BLR-PHX: 22h 35m via LHR on BA
BLR-SAN: 21h 05m via NRT on JL
BLR-LAS: 24h 50m via LHR on BA
BLR-DEN: 21h 35m via FRA on LH, 22h 00m via LHR on BA
BLR-SLC: 23h 23m via CDG on AF/DL

Can you tell me the outbound date and also what booking engine or site you are using to find this?

With this corona virus thing i am suspecting that the AA SEA-BLR non stop will be a casualty even before it gets off the ground. It may return once things settle down.

SATexan wrote:

With AA, you will arrive in SEA at 6:00 AM and can get a full day of work done. You can reach the Bay Area by 10 AM and still manage to get a fairly productive day

If someone is in a full lie flat first class/business seat then MAYBE yes. But rest of the folks? Hell no. Rest of the bus will be fully toast and would want to hit the sack after a gruelling 20+ hours (being on the road to the airport..checkin..flight...disembark..immigration+customs+bag claim+ride to the hotel); you realistically think someone will be in a shape to work after this? If they did then they would have to be smoking something because most of us are toast after a 10 to 12 hour work day + a 2 hour total commute (to/from work) even after a good night's sleep on a comfy bed that is light years ahead of a hotel bed or a lie flat bed 40,000 feet up in the air.

subramak1 wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

Seems like we are missing a geography lesson. For Dakotas the closest International gateway would be MN or ORD. Both will be closer than SEA. The SEA hub can offer one stop connection from following cities to BLR,a big enough market. I am glad about this as the premium tickets for SEA to BLR on one stop option would probably come down slightly.

1. PDX - Intel, Nike
2. SFO - Many tech companies
3. SJC - Many tech companies
4. OAK - East Bay residing population of tech companies
5. SMF - Intel
6. LAX - Some tech but mainly non tech, finance
7. SAN - Qualcomm
8. YVR

KK

AA & AS seems to have their booking system setup incorrectly and here is why
1) I tried searching (just for the heck of it) tickets for Oct 25th & 26th from SAN, SJC and SNA to BLR. For all 3 origin airports i got only 2 stop or even worse (3 stop) options being routed via PHX/LAX/DFW.
So, here is a negative score for AA and will turn off passengers like me living near SNA in the Orange County region hoping to avoid the dreaded drive to LAX and get to BLR via a one stop option. Same applies to passengers from ONT/SJC/SAN hoping for a 1 stop option.
Not sure if AA is going to fix this soon or it was just that i got unlucky in my search and got dished out 2+ stop options.
2) I went to Alaska Airlines website and BLR is not even a bookable option. LoL So much for all the marketing hype saying Alaska and AA are joining forces..blah blah blah. If they want customers, folks should be able to pull up BLR on Aalaska website and be able to book!!!

747megatop wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

Seems like we are missing a geography lesson. For Dakotas the closest International gateway would be MN or ORD. Both will be closer than SEA. The SEA hub can offer one stop connection from following cities to BLR,a big enough market. I am glad about this as the premium tickets for SEA to BLR on one stop option would probably come down slightly.

1. PDX - Intel, Nike
2. SFO - Many tech companies
3. SJC - Many tech companies
4. OAK - East Bay residing population of tech companies
5. SMF - Intel
6. LAX - Some tech but mainly non tech, finance
7. SAN - Qualcomm
8. YVR

KK

AA & AS seems to have their booking system setup incorrectly and here is why
1) I tried searching (just for the heck of it) tickets for Oct 25th & 26th from SAN, SJC and SNA to BLR. For all 3 origin airports i got only 2 stop or even worse (3 stop) options being routed via PHX/LAX/DFW.
So, here is a negative score for AA and will turn off passengers like me living near SNA in the Orange County region hoping to avoid the dreaded drive to LAX and get to BLR via a one stop option. Same applies to passengers from ONT/SJC/SAN hoping for a 1 stop option.
Not sure if AA is going to fix this soon or it was just that i got unlucky in my search and got dished out 2+ stop options.
2) I went to Alaska Airlines website and BLR is not even a bookable option. LoL So much for all the marketing hype saying Alaska and AA are joining forces..blah blah blah. If they want customers, folks should be able to pull up BLR on Aalaska website and be able to book!!!

Dude, flight was just loaded this weekend for an October launch. Bot even all fare classes are open for booking yet, chill. It appears you are just looking for excuses to claim this flight will be a flop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

747megatop wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

TFawkes wrote:

Make SEA an international gateway? That's a bad joke. Generally speaking you will be 1.5-2 hours faster flying from the East and Midwest down to SFO/LAX and then west on to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand vs. going first up to YVR, a mere 20 minute flight from SEA. The local traffic from Washington, Oregon, and the Dakotas is not enough to make SEA an international gateway, and those are the only states that would have SEA as the most convenient international airport.

Seems like we are missing a geography lesson. For Dakotas the closest International gateway would be MN or ORD. Both will be closer than SEA. The SEA hub can offer one stop connection from following cities to BLR,a big enough market. I am glad about this as the premium tickets for SEA to BLR on one stop option would probably come down slightly.

1. PDX - Intel, Nike
2. SFO - Many tech companies
3. SJC - Many tech companies
4. OAK - East Bay residing population of tech companies
5. SMF - Intel
6. LAX - Some tech but mainly non tech, finance
7. SAN - Qualcomm
8. YVR

KK

AA & AS seems to have their booking system setup incorrectly and here is why
1) I tried searching (just for the heck of it) tickets for Oct 25th & 26th from SAN, SJC and SNA to BLR. For all 3 origin airports i got only 2 stop or even worse (3 stop) options being routed via PHX/LAX/DFW.
So, here is a negative score for AA and will turn off passengers like me living near SNA in the Orange County region hoping to avoid the dreaded drive to LAX and get to BLR via a one stop option. Same applies to passengers from ONT/SJC/SAN hoping for a 1 stop option.
Not sure if AA is going to fix this soon or it was just that i got unlucky in my search and got dished out 2+ stop options.
2) I went to Alaska Airlines website and BLR is not even a bookable option. LoL So much for all the marketing hype saying Alaska and AA are joining forces..blah blah blah. If they want customers, folks should be able to pull up BLR on Aalaska website and be able to book!!!

Seriously!?? Why all this excitement about wanting this route to fail? If you want to book today itself, go to google flights and enter each of the above pairs you mentioned and check for 1-stops. All the AS/AA options are showing up at quite reasonable prices and are the shortest options.

And honestly, when I look at those flight options, they look great - I wish AS/AA patched things up earlier. I am one person who really hopes this flight stays, because after 9W collapsed, fares to India have skyrocketed.

747megatop wrote:

SATexan wrote:

With AA, you will arrive in SEA at 6:00 AM and can get a full day of work done. You can reach the Bay Area by 10 AM and still manage to get a fairly productive day

If someone is in a full lie flat first class/business seat then MAYBE yes. But rest of the folks? Hell no. Rest of the bus will be fully toast and would want to hit the sack after a gruelling 20+ hours (being on the road to the airport..checkin..flight...disembark..immigration+customs+bag claim+ride to the hotel); you realistically think someone will be in a shape to work after this? If they did then they would have to be smoking something because most of us are toast after a 10 to 12 hour work day + a 2 hour total commute (to/from work) even after a good night's sleep on a comfy bed that is light years ahead of a hotel bed or a lie flat bed 40,000 feet up in the air.

Wow are you serious? You seriously think that the poster is talking about Y pax when referring to going to work? You're joking right? Obviously he/she is referring to J pax!

I just cancelled my QR flight to BLR and booked SEA-BLR. Big advantage of connecting through US airports - no hassles of local security / immigration. US international departures are a breeze and requires very little connecting times. Plenty of one-stop options available when I booked from west coast. Mine was through LAX.

blr380 wrote:

I just cancelled my QR flight to BLR and booked SEA-BLR. Big advantage of connecting through US airports - no hassles of local security / immigration. US international departures are a breeze and requires very little connecting times. Plenty of one-stop options available when I booked from west coast. Mine was through LAX.

Point of connection can be important.

In which cabin are you flying?