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

Miami · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:03 pm

First of all. Wow. I’m shocked. But I must say I do like this move. Good luck to both American and Alaska.

Second. I look forward to seeing Alaska back at MIA. Lol.

TWA902fly · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:05 pm

32andBelow wrote:
BigGSFO wrote:
I wonder what routes will be considered out of PDX and ANC once this is fires up? Could we see JL in PDX? More ANC-Lower 48 nonstops? Seasonal ANC-Europe/Japan?

Why AA will already get the ANC feed from AS.

I could see Zipair (if they are also part of oneworld) flying NRT-ANC during high tourist seasons.

Also, for what it's worth, AA is adding ORD/DFW-FAI and ORD-ANC (in addition to DFW-ANC which is served with a 787) this upcoming summer. The state of Alaska as a whole is extremely loyal to AS, and their miles.

'902

precure787 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:05 pm

jbpdx wrote:
precure787 wrote:
Would that men there could be a possible merger between AS and AA? I know that shortly after CO joined Star Alliance, it merged with UA.

Let’s hope not. I’m an Alaska Mileage Plan flier and in general I like Alaska. After my connection fiasco in Charlotte on American last March, I vowed to never fly with them again.

Same thing with what happened with United after Continental merger. After that merger, the customer service is still less than satisfactory, with delays, flight cancellations, mishandled baggage (remember United Breaks Guitars?), and even incidents of overbooking.

MAH4546 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:07 pm

jbpdx wrote:
So American will now compete against British Airways on SEA-LHR?

No. They have a metal neutral joint venture. The reality is American will probably be replacing British Airways' second frequency.

UpNAWAy · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:08 pm

rbavfan wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
I foresee issues with DOT/DOJ in trying to get this through especially since AA/AS are so openly touting various forms of cooperating commercially.

Surprised they did not follow the UA/US model, where while alliance partners, the airlines did not work very closely or coordinate commercial activity very deeply.

They will not get Anti trust between 2 US based carriers though.

There are zero anti trust issues with this. There is no overlap or duplication.

MAH4546 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:09 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
I suppose this will mean the end of AS LAX-BOS.

On the contrary. Such behavior would be anti-competitive and possibly lead DOT/DOJ to denying the codeshare agreement.

In fact, I bet elements of the expanded/renewed codeshare will specifically state they must maintain competing presence in certain markets. If anything, this might see AS strenghten it's LAX network to places like BOS, FLL, etc. where it has been going back-and-forth with frequency.

EA CO AS wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
I suppose this will mean the end of AS LAX-BOS.

Not at all.

Agree.

JerseyFlyer · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:11 pm

A useful addition to OW, though not enough to balance the screw up that let Delta poach LATAM.

alasizon · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:11 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
There will have to be ATLEAST a 787 pilot base in SEA. Or a TDY base at a minimum. The rest requirements for ULR flying require it. It’s the same reason UA has A 787 base in IAH for only a SYD flight.

There is no requirement that requires the crews to be based in that city AFAIK; only that they have the minimum rest. Its not as if the crews are going to operate DFW-SEA-BLR in the same day.

AA might have a different deal worth the FAA but I’m sure it’s very similar. Any flying that requires a duty day over 18hours requires an FRMS exemption. At United all of these exemptions require 30hours in base rest prior to departure to be acclimated. Also when you get to BLR it requires 50 hours on the ground to get acclimated to the time zone then when you return you are required to have 56 hours of rest before you can be assigned another duty period.

That means DFW-SEA rest 30 hours 5days to get to BLR and back then 56 hours in SEA the SEA - DFW. That’s a 8 day trip minimum plus lots of hotel costs. And all of that is for a line holder. If a crew member called in sick it would almost 3 days to get a reserve there and ready to fly.

Again that is why there is a United 787 base in IAH for a sole SYD flight

I'm not denying that FRMS plays a role here but whatever setup AA has is different than the UA one as the DFW-HKG crews only have 44ish hours of rest in HKG before returning to DFW and DFW-HKG is longer than SEA-BLR. I'd imagine what will happen is there will be two crews in SEA each day with the required rest to operate SEA-BLR, one that is actually operating SEA-BLR and another that is operating a leg back to DFW/LAX that did not just operate BLR-SEA.

maps4ltd · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:12 pm

Are the BLR and LHR flights going to arrive at S and be towed over to D?

Boof02671 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:12 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

There will have to be ATLEAST a 787 pilot base in SEA. Or a TDY base at a minimum. The rest requirements for ULR flying require it. It’s the same reason UA has A 787 base in IAH for only a SYD flight.

For one 787 and one 777 flight they won’t open a crew base. AA flew an A330 from ORD-DUB for a summer they didn’t open a crew base for it, they have crews overnight. Just like there is no widebody crew base in PHX and AA flies 333s to HI at times from there and flies a 777 to LHR daily with no crew base.

THEY HAVE TO FOR FRMS REST!!! I don’t make this crap up I live it! This isn’t bullshit I pulled out of thin air.

Do they have too? no. but are they really going to fly 8 day trips with all those hotel costs and risk a crew member getting sick in SEA and cancelling the flight immediately? THIS IS WHY UA HAS A 787
BASE IN IAH.

ORD- BUB PHX- LHR PHX - HNL arenot ULR flying the rest requirements for FAR 117 exemptions do not apply.

For two international flights a day it is not cost effective to open a base and staff it with a chief pilot, etc.

UpNAWAy · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:16 pm

After listening to Vasu Raja a few thoughts. He said we will add more International flying flying from Seattle and we will be very aggressive. So what other markets appeal to AA from SEA? Almost all the international flying added in the last 2 years has been aggressive and non traditional and a little surprising I expect that will continue. Also he said this makes all 5 West Coast Cities International Gateways. For now that means San, SFO, PDX can fly to LAX or SEA to connect on a Trans Pacific flights, but in 5 years or so could we see AA flying direct from SAN, SFO, PDX?

babastud · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:19 pm

Granted I'm happy AA and AS are joining forces. It seems though that this should have happened years ago before DL moved into SEA. I can't really see BLR lasting. The O+D can't be that great, and the support would come from SFO and LAX which have more then enough 1 stop to BLR and HYD.

I can see UA launching SFO-BLR in response. UA has a ton a equipment free now that China and East Asia is going flat and not just for the next few months, but will take a while to recover, so if they wanted to play around this would be a good time to try.

alasizon · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:20 pm

maps4ltd wrote:
Are the BLR and LHR flights going to arrive at S and be towed over to D?

Not without losing some of the capability of the taxi lanes as it won't fit in the current gates. BLR will be an AM arrival so it's more like DL just lost a RON spot and one of AA's first AM departures will operate from S instead (I believe the first E75 to LAX already does due to gate space).

LHR, without knowing the timings we have no idea.

subramak1 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:22 pm

Ishrion wrote:
WTF?? BANGALORE? Did NOT see that coming

I thought there United would be first to BLR from EWR. This is a nice surprise. If AA can get this right, they can offer one stop service from San Jose, San Francisco and LAX to BLR on their own metal.

With LH adding service from MUC - BLR is now truly becoming gateway to Southern India, replacing MAA from that slot. If AA can get Vistara to offer connecting services to HYD , MAA from BLR that would be just perfect.

KK

CriticalPoint · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:23 pm

alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
alasizon wrote:

There is no requirement that requires the crews to be based in that city AFAIK; only that they have the minimum rest. Its not as if the crews are going to operate DFW-SEA-BLR in the same day.

AA might have a different deal worth the FAA but I’m sure it’s very similar. Any flying that requires a duty day over 18hours requires an FRMS exemption. At United all of these exemptions require 30hours in base rest prior to departure to be acclimated. Also when you get to BLR it requires 50 hours on the ground to get acclimated to the time zone then when you return you are required to have 56 hours of rest before you can be assigned another duty period.

That means DFW-SEA rest 30 hours 5days to get to BLR and back then 56 hours in SEA the SEA - DFW. That’s a 8 day trip minimum plus lots of hotel costs. And all of that is for a line holder. If a crew member called in sick it would almost 3 days to get a reserve there and ready to fly.

Again that is why there is a United 787 base in IAH for a sole SYD flight

I'm not denying that FRMS plays a role here but whatever setup AA has is different than the UA one as the DFW-HKG crews only have 44ish hours of rest in HKG before returning to DFW and DFW-HKG is longer than SEA-BLR. I'd imagine what will happen is there will be two crews in SEA each day with the required rest to operate SEA-BLR, one that is actually operating SEA-BLR and another that is operating a leg back to DFW/LAX that did not just operate BLR-SEA.

DFW is a crew base the crews are already acclimated. Also what you don’t see is the post flight rest that is required.

CriticalPoint · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:23 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
For one 787 and one 777 flight they won’t open a crew base. AA flew an A330 from ORD-DUB for a summer they didn’t open a crew base for it, they have crews overnight. Just like there is no widebody crew base in PHX and AA flies 333s to HI at times from there and flies a 777 to LHR daily with no crew base.

THEY HAVE TO FOR FRMS REST!!! I don’t make this crap up I live it! This isn’t bullshit I pulled out of thin air.

Do they have too? no. but are they really going to fly 8 day trips with all those hotel costs and risk a crew member getting sick in SEA and cancelling the flight immediately? THIS IS WHY UA HAS A 787
BASE IN IAH.

ORD- BUB PHX- LHR PHX - HNL arenot ULR flying the rest requirements for FAR 117 exemptions do not apply.

For two international flights a day it is not cost effective to open a base and staff it with a chief pilot, etc.

So you have done the cost be if it’s analysis already?

KlimaBXsst · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:23 pm

Personally I would love to see United jump in the fray of SEA international!

Do they (UA) currently do anything international out SEA, and if they did could they (UA) make anything international work?

Boof02671 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:28 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

THEY HAVE TO FOR FRMS REST!!! I don’t make this crap up I live it! This isn’t bullshit I pulled out of thin air.

Do they have too? no. but are they really going to fly 8 day trips with all those hotel costs and risk a crew member getting sick in SEA and cancelling the flight immediately? THIS IS WHY UA HAS A 787
BASE IN IAH.

ORD- BUB PHX- LHR PHX - HNL arenot ULR flying the rest requirements for FAR 117 exemptions do not apply.

For two international flights a day it is not cost effective to open a base and staff it with a chief pilot, etc.

So you have done the cost be if it’s analysis already?

Have you? I gave you clear cut examples just like when US flew BOS-FRA with the 767 we didn’t have a 767 crew base their either.

Boof02671 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:29 pm

babastud wrote:
Granted I'm happy AA and AS are joining forces. It seems though that this should have happened years ago before DL moved into SEA. I can't really see BLR lasting. The O+D can't be that great, and the support would come from SFO and LAX which have more then enough 1 stop to BLR and HYD.

I can see UA launching SFO-BLR in response. UA has a ton a equipment free now that China and East Asia is going flat and not just for the next few months, but will take a while to recover, so if they wanted to play around this would be a good time to try.

AA and AS use to be partners back in the day before

AA747123 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:29 pm

precure787 wrote:
Would that men there could be a possible merger between AS and AA? I know that shortly after CO joined Star Alliance, it merged with UA.

Would never pass DOJ approval! Not in a million years

CriticalPoint · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:31 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Boof02671 wrote:
For two international flights a day it is not cost effective to open a base and staff it with a chief pilot, etc.

So you have done the cost be if it’s analysis already?

Have you? I gave you clear cut examples just like when US flew BOS-FRA with the 767 we didn’t have a 767 crew base their either.

BOS- FRA is not FRMS!!!!!

THis proves you have ZERO clue about FAR 117 and what is required. So your credibility is effectively ZERO on this topic.

alasizon · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:33 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

AA might have a different deal worth the FAA but I’m sure it’s very similar. Any flying that requires a duty day over 18hours requires an FRMS exemption. At United all of these exemptions require 30hours in base rest prior to departure to be acclimated. Also when you get to BLR it requires 50 hours on the ground to get acclimated to the time zone then when you return you are required to have 56 hours of rest before you can be assigned another duty period.

That means DFW-SEA rest 30 hours 5days to get to BLR and back then 56 hours in SEA the SEA - DFW. That’s a 8 day trip minimum plus lots of hotel costs. And all of that is for a line holder. If a crew member called in sick it would almost 3 days to get a reserve there and ready to fly.

Again that is why there is a United 787 base in IAH for a sole SYD flight

I'm not denying that FRMS plays a role here but whatever setup AA has is different than the UA one as the DFW-HKG crews only have 44ish hours of rest in HKG before returning to DFW and DFW-HKG is longer than SEA-BLR. I'd imagine what will happen is there will be two crews in SEA each day with the required rest to operate SEA-BLR, one that is actually operating SEA-BLR and another that is operating a leg back to DFW/LAX that did not just operate BLR-SEA.

DFW is a crew base the crews are already acclimated. Also what you don’t see is the post flight rest that is required.

The post flight rest is also less or different as crews can turn around and operate a non-ULH 777 trip after 30 hours and another HKG trip after just 42 hours (i.e. whomever arrives on Thursday PM can operate the Saturday DFW-HKG).

Assuming similar plans, you are only paying for two extra hotel nights; one on the front end in SEA and one post arrival. Assuming a 19:00ish departure, a crew that operates into SEA in the AM on Day 1 can take out SEA-BLR on Day 2. You end up with a 7 day trip that credits around 38-42 hours depending on what base they originate out of.

Yes, there are implications with crew members calling out sick so I imagine there will need to be some planning going on to prevent that but it can be done without a base.

tphuang · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:37 pm

UpNAWAy wrote:
After listening to Vasu Raja a few thoughts. He said we will add more International flying flying from Seattle and we will be very aggressive. So what other markets appeal to AA from SEA? Almost all the international flying added in the last 2 years has been aggressive and non traditional and a little surprising I expect that will continue. Also he said this makes all 5 West Coast Cities International Gateways. For now that means San, SFO, PDX can fly to LAX or SEA to connect on a Trans Pacific flights, but in 5 years or so could we see AA flying direct from SAN, SFO, PDX?

Well, LAX is a terrible place as an TPAC gateway. With the current events, LAX-PEK/PVG are gone and probably never coming back. They could try SEA-PEK/PVG. SEA is a better location to handle AA/AS connection traffic than LAX. While LAX is a much larger market, they were clearly losing huge amount of money on the LAX China flights. Aside from that, I guess QF flights. If they are really adventurous, they could try SEA-SIN.

At this point, given AS has chosen OW, it's existing *A partnerships are probably going to slowly be reduced. So some of the places where AS gets *A feeds right now is where I'd expect AA to add to.

EA CO AS · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:41 pm

Dieuwer wrote:
EA CO AS wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
I suppose this will mean the end of AS LAX-BOS.

Not at all.

AA has plenty capacity on LAX-BOS. No need for also-ran AS.
If AS moves TCON capacity from LAX to SFO/SEA, they then can compete more effectively against DL/UA.

It’s an alliance, not a JV. AS isn’t about to drop a market that works for them and their customers.

CriticalPoint · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:44 pm

alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
alasizon wrote:

I'm not denying that FRMS plays a role here but whatever setup AA has is different than the UA one as the DFW-HKG crews only have 44ish hours of rest in HKG before returning to DFW and DFW-HKG is longer than SEA-BLR. I'd imagine what will happen is there will be two crews in SEA each day with the required rest to operate SEA-BLR, one that is actually operating SEA-BLR and another that is operating a leg back to DFW/LAX that did not just operate BLR-SEA.

DFW is a crew base the crews are already acclimated. Also what you don’t see is the post flight rest that is required.

The post flight rest is also less or different as crews can turn around and operate a non-ULH 777 trip after 30 hours and another HKG trip after just 42 hours (i.e. whomever arrives on Thursday PM can operate the Saturday DFW-HKG).

Assuming similar plans, you are only paying for two extra hotel nights; one on the front end in SEA and one post arrival. Assuming a 19:00ish departure, a crew that operates into SEA in the AM on Day 1 can take out SEA-BLR on Day 2. You end up with a 7 day trip that credits around 38-42 hours depending on what base they originate out of.

Yes, there are implications with crew members calling out sick so I imagine there will need to be some planning going on to prevent that but it can be done without a base.

I agree it CAN be done without a base but 1 cancelled round trip due to a sick crew member will wipe out any cost saving you have by NOT opening a base.

Also if every single day a crew 4 pilots start a 7 day trip that requires a BIG staffing plus up. 38-42 hour trip would mean all four of those pilots would only be able to work 2 trips a month and would be done. So is not having a base cheaper than paying extra pilots for 2-3 extra days of work every single day?

voxkel · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:45 pm

Ishrion wrote:
WTF?? BANGALORE? Did NOT see that coming

Yeah I had a gut AA would try BLR but just from DFW or ORD. Not SEA. This flight seemed less likely than if UA were to start EWR-AMD nonstop.

One thing that concerns me about this flight is that essentially everyone will be O/D at BLR due to its positioning in India. I don't know what the demand is from SEA but certainly less than SFO/JFK and maybe ORD/DFW.

I see UA announcing SFO-BLR in the coming weeks tbh. A DL ATL-BLR or JFK-BLR is also possible.

kavok · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:45 pm

KlimaBXsst wrote:
Personally I would love to see United jump in the fray of SEA international!

Do they (UA) currently do anything international out SEA, and if they did could they (UA) make anything international work?

Never going to happen. UA is the big winner in this as far as TPAC is concerned. Let SkyTeam and OneWorld duke it out and cancel-out each others profits on TPAC in the smaller market of Seattle, while UA/Star can monopolize TPAC from the larger market of SFO.

JoseSalazar · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:47 pm

AA747123 wrote:
precure787 wrote:
Would that men there could be a possible merger between AS and AA? I know that shortly after CO joined Star Alliance, it merged with UA.

Would never pass DOJ approval! Not in a million years

DOJ approved tmobile and sprint...I don’t think they would block it.

CriticalPoint · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:49 pm

alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
alasizon wrote:

I'm not denying that FRMS plays a role here but whatever setup AA has is different than the UA one as the DFW-HKG crews only have 44ish hours of rest in HKG before returning to DFW and DFW-HKG is longer than SEA-BLR. I'd imagine what will happen is there will be two crews in SEA each day with the required rest to operate SEA-BLR, one that is actually operating SEA-BLR and another that is operating a leg back to DFW/LAX that did not just operate BLR-SEA.

DFW is a crew base the crews are already acclimated. Also what you don’t see is the post flight rest that is required.

The post flight rest is also less or different as crews can turn around and operate a non-ULH 777 trip after 30 hours and another HKG trip after just 42 hours (i.e. whomever arrives on Thursday PM can operate the Saturday DFW-HKG).

Assuming similar plans, you are only paying for two extra hotel nights; one on the front end in SEA and one post arrival. Assuming a 19:00ish departure, a crew that operates into SEA in the AM on Day 1 can take out SEA-BLR on Day 2. You end up with a 7 day trip that credits around 38-42 hours depending on what base they originate out of.

Yes, there are implications with crew members calling out sick so I imagine there will need to be some planning going on to prevent that but it can be done without a base.

Also I appreciate the discussion you clearly have an understanding of FRMS and how it works.

I’m basing my times off of United SFO-SIN and IAH - SYD FRMS. as you know each route is a separate agreement with the FAA so what SEA-BLR will require is unknown, but probably pretty close to DFW - HKG.

alasizon · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:53 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

DFW is a crew base the crews are already acclimated. Also what you don’t see is the post flight rest that is required.

The post flight rest is also less or different as crews can turn around and operate a non-ULH 777 trip after 30 hours and another HKG trip after just 42 hours (i.e. whomever arrives on Thursday PM can operate the Saturday DFW-HKG).

Assuming similar plans, you are only paying for two extra hotel nights; one on the front end in SEA and one post arrival. Assuming a 19:00ish departure, a crew that operates into SEA in the AM on Day 1 can take out SEA-BLR on Day 2. You end up with a 7 day trip that credits around 38-42 hours depending on what base they originate out of.

Yes, there are implications with crew members calling out sick so I imagine there will need to be some planning going on to prevent that but it can be done without a base.

I agree it CAN be done without a base but 1 cancelled round trip due to a sick crew member will wipe out any cost saving you have by NOT opening a base.

Also if every single day a crew 4 pilots start a 7 day trip that requires a BIG staffing plus up. 38-42 hour trip would mean all four of those pilots would only be able to work 2 trips a month and would be done. So is not having a base cheaper than paying extra pilots for 2-3 extra days of work every single day?

I don't think you or I can answer the base cost question but if LHR is going to be done with a 777 then it makes more sense to open an FA base as opposed to a pilot base. If they were to open any base it would be a sattelite of LAX as opposed to a fully contained base.

The cost is not just in crew but also real estate and badging costs (as I recall, the Port of Seattle requires all crew members to be badged, or at least they used to).

Boof02671 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:53 pm

alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
alasizon wrote:

The post flight rest is also less or different as crews can turn around and operate a non-ULH 777 trip after 30 hours and another HKG trip after just 42 hours (i.e. whomever arrives on Thursday PM can operate the Saturday DFW-HKG).

Assuming similar plans, you are only paying for two extra hotel nights; one on the front end in SEA and one post arrival. Assuming a 19:00ish departure, a crew that operates into SEA in the AM on Day 1 can take out SEA-BLR on Day 2. You end up with a 7 day trip that credits around 38-42 hours depending on what base they originate out of.

Yes, there are implications with crew members calling out sick so I imagine there will need to be some planning going on to prevent that but it can be done without a base.

I agree it CAN be done without a base but 1 cancelled round trip due to a sick crew member will wipe out any cost saving you have by NOT opening a base.

Also if every single day a crew 4 pilots start a 7 day trip that requires a BIG staffing plus up. 38-42 hour trip would mean all four of those pilots would only be able to work 2 trips a month and would be done. So is not having a base cheaper than paying extra pilots for 2-3 extra days of work every single day?

I don't think you or I can answer the base cost question but if LHR is going to be done with a 777 then it makes more sense to open an FA base as opposed to a pilot base. If they were to open any base it would be a sattelite of LAX as opposed to a fully contained base.

The cost is not just in crew but also real estate and badging costs (as I recall, the Port of Seattle requires all crew members to be badged, or at least they used to).

See you get it. Thanks

SEAflyer97 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:54 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
While it may symbolically be a F-bomb toward DL, I don't think the SEA-BLR route is really a big actual threat at the end of the day. DL wasn't carrying uchof this traffic (connecting) anyways, don't have the aircraft to fly such a route, and it outside of their core. The LHR flight, lets see where the slot comes from and see if its a shell-game before jumping to any conclusions.

I do like the out of the box thinking here.

I think a bigger threat is that DL is advertising themselves as the "International Airline out of SEA" to steal customer from AS and AS is stopping that.

ABEguy · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:00 pm

I’m going to make a bold prediction right now. When China flights inevitably resume, you’re going to see AA eventually shift the LAX flights to SEA. better connection point than LAX. Less competition from the big State owned Chinese carriers. SEA-PEK is 800 miles shorter than from LAX as an example. With the benefit of Alaskas’ huge feed, I see AA serving China from DFW & SEA by the end of 2021. And it’ll free up space in LAX to grow the JV with QF. Let’s see how well this ages.

CriticalPoint · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:00 pm

Boof02671 wrote:
alasizon wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

I agree it CAN be done without a base but 1 cancelled round trip due to a sick crew member will wipe out any cost saving you have by NOT opening a base.

Also if every single day a crew 4 pilots start a 7 day trip that requires a BIG staffing plus up. 38-42 hour trip would mean all four of those pilots would only be able to work 2 trips a month and would be done. So is not having a base cheaper than paying extra pilots for 2-3 extra days of work every single day?

I don't think you or I can answer the base cost question but if LHR is going to be done with a 777 then it makes more sense to open an FA base as opposed to a pilot base. If they were to open any base it would be a sattelite of LAX as opposed to a fully contained base.

The cost is not just in crew but also real estate and badging costs (as I recall, the Port of Seattle requires all crew members to be badged, or at least they used to).

See you get it. Thanks

I have recently heard a number that a single international flight cancellation costs 1 million dollars. AA would be insanely stupid to take that risk. There is no chance a Reserve can be ready to fly in less than 24-35 hours. The flight to BLR would cancel the minute 1 pilot called in sick.

acavpics · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:03 pm

I would have expected SFO to get BLR service long before SEA.
For this flight, AA is gonna have to upgrade one of its existing SEA flights to a 787, as its not one of its hubs where they can have a bunch of 787s accessible for use.

Ishrion · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:04 pm

ABEguy wrote:
I’m going to make a bold prediction right now. When China flights inevitably resume, you’re going to see AA eventually shift the LAX flights to SEA. better connection point than LAX. Less competition from the big State owned Chinese carriers. SEA-PEK is 800 miles shorter than from LAX as an example. With the benefit of Alaskas’ huge feed, I see AA serving China from DFW & SEA by the end of 2021. And it’ll free up space in LAX to grow the JV with QF. Let’s see how well this ages.

They would need to apply for shifting its PEK/PVG slots.

They requested the ability to shift cities after they cut ORD-PVG/PEK but the DOT rejected it.

voxkel · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:05 pm

I am also shocked they chose BLR over Australia (SYD/MEL). They will get onward QF feed there.

ABEguy · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:07 pm

Ishrion wrote:
ABEguy wrote:
I’m going to make a bold prediction right now. When China flights inevitably resume, you’re going to see AA eventually shift the LAX flights to SEA. better connection point than LAX. Less competition from the big State owned Chinese carriers. SEA-PEK is 800 miles shorter than from LAX as an example. With the benefit of Alaskas’ huge feed, I see AA serving China from DFW & SEA by the end of 2021. And it’ll free up space in LAX to grow the JV with QF. Let’s see how well this ages.

They would need to apply for shifting its PEK/PVG slots.

They requested the ability to shift cities after they cut ORD-PVG/PEK but the DOT rejected it.

Right but flights now are suspended for a completely different reason. Extenuating circumstances.

jfern022 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:08 pm

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

LAXdude1023 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:08 pm

kavok wrote:
KlimaBXsst wrote:
Personally I would love to see United jump in the fray of SEA international!

Do they (UA) currently do anything international out SEA, and if they did could they (UA) make anything international work?

Never going to happen. UA is the big winner in this as far as TPAC is concerned. Let SkyTeam and OneWorld duke it out and cancel-out each others profits on TPAC in the smaller market of Seattle, while UA/Star can monopolize TPAC from the larger market of SFO.

This.

UA will just get out the popcorn and watch the dog fight.

dfw88 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:10 pm

Ishrion wrote:
ABEguy wrote:
I’m going to make a bold prediction right now. When China flights inevitably resume, you’re going to see AA eventually shift the LAX flights to SEA. better connection point than LAX. Less competition from the big State owned Chinese carriers. SEA-PEK is 800 miles shorter than from LAX as an example. With the benefit of Alaskas’ huge feed, I see AA serving China from DFW & SEA by the end of 2021. And it’ll free up space in LAX to grow the JV with QF. Let’s see how well this ages.

They would need to apply for shifting its PEK/PVG slots.

They requested the ability to shift cities after they cut ORD-PVG/PEK but the DOT rejected it.

My memory may be hazy, but did they actually request to shift the ORD slots? I thought they just requested the dormancy waiver then agreed to give up the slots after the waiver expired. They didn't request to shift cities because they didn't have anywhere better to put the flights. With this new agreement in place and with a plan to actually use their slots I would imagine they'd have a much better case to bring before the DOT if they do want to switch. Not saying it will happen, but I think it's not unreasonable either.

jspurg15 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:11 pm

N292UX wrote:
I find it interesting how BA just recently announced PDX too. I wonder if they had some sort of insight into the possibility of AS joining OneWorld.

BA has wanted to fly out of PDX for years and are finally getting a chance!

UpNAWAy · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:13 pm

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

The operation as been significantly improved since the day of the Mechanic Injunction, that is half a year of data to suggest the improvements are real, now they have a TA on top of that.

onwFan · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:16 pm

[url][/url]

BrianDromey wrote:
While this wont make up for the loss of LATAM in South America, it is a good move for AA and AS, against DL.

Im surprised that a major airline would join an alliance in the current climate - the direction seems to be away from alliances, rather than towards. A great addition for AA, AS and oneworld.

Alliances have made sense for most of the larger carriers, except DL. DL never made good use of SkyTeam, partly beause there was nothing much to make use of.

Even before the DL/LA deal (IIRC during oneworld aniversary event), AS announced that they were considering oneworld connect. So this must have been definitely a couple of months in the making and makes a lot of sense. In view of the DL/LA deal, it does make it appear like AA is attacking DL from the back. And also makes sense to strike DL at its weakest hub (although by no margin is MIA AA’s weakest hub).

But clearly looks like AA doesn’t want to make it easy for DL at BOS or SEA. The catch being this is exactly what AS been looking for in SEA - a marriage made in heaven.

Mightyflyer86 · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:21 pm

FSDan wrote:
TWA902fly wrote:
FSDan wrote:

Gate space, for one thing. It would be very difficult at this point for AA to acquire a meaningful number of gates at SEA for significant domestic expansion of their own. When DL started their buildup, there were gates available for the taking.

No, their plan is not to displace DL out of SEA (certainly not with their own metal, anyway - if further strengthening AS's position in SEA eventually led DL to pull back, I'm sure they would still count that as a win).

BLR seems like a targeted and opportunistic add (see further comments below), and LHR is already a place of strength for AA/BA. It sounds like we can expect to see one or two more adds along these lines (perhaps SIN eventually?), but don't expect AA to try to match DL in serving all the major Asian markets from SEA.

This is actually a very clever add by AA because DL doesn't have the right aircraft to retaliate on the route (77L would be too much capacity), and UA might not be able to launch SFO-BLR without severe weight restrictions (LAX-SIN reportedly failed for that reason, and SFO-BLR isn't much shorter). Maybe if the Bay Area-BLR fares are high enough, UA could still make SFO-BLR work even with weight restrictions, but I don't think that would necessarily take too much away from AA's potential on SEA-BLR.

DL 77L seats 288 people, AA 789 seats 285 people. I assume the 777 has larger cargo capacity however.

'902

Fair point - the capacity of a DL 77L and an AA 789 isn't so different in the end (I knew AA's 789s were more dense than UA's but I didn't realize they were so close to DL 777s)! Nonetheless, the difference in fuel efficiency would surely kill DL's chances of succeeding on this route with that aircraft, not to mention that DL only has 10 of them and they are pretty well accounted for at this point.

Does the A330neo have enough range to fly this mission? What about the A359?

questions · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:25 pm

Any data on DL/JV Partners/SkyTeam Members vs AS/AA/JV Partners/oneworld Members to international destinations from SEA? Destinations, flights, passengers, revenue?

questions · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:34 pm

I can’t imagine this caught DL off-guard. No doubt they analyze competitive risk assessments and scenarios for all of their major operations. I would be surprised if DL does not have a plan to address this — whether it includes a response or not.

AA and DL are weak TPAC players with DL having mostly third pick partners. DL will be aggressive in defending its ex-SEA market share.

lx2iah · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:35 pm

I just hope that AS doesn’t change their service levels to match AA’s poor service & employee morale.

QXAS · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:37 pm

Is there a rendering of the AS OneWorld livery?

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

DENfan · Thu Feb 13, 2020 8:37 pm

ABEguy wrote:
I’m going to make a bold prediction right now. When China flights inevitably resume, you’re going to see AA eventually shift the LAX flights to SEA. better connection point than LAX. Less competition from the big State owned Chinese carriers. SEA-PEK is 800 miles shorter than from LAX as an example. With the benefit of Alaskas’ huge feed, I see AA serving China from DFW & SEA by the end of 2021. And it’ll free up space in LAX to grow the JV with QF. Let’s see how well this ages.

Agreed, this is just the start...if Bangalore is now reachable w AA aircraft from SEA, what other destinations are reachable and more feasible w AA aircraft config and AS feed and non-LAX competition from SEA? SIN, MNL, more? Could AA knock Singapore out of Seattle w AS feed?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net