jplatts wrote:

AA adding SEA-BOS nonstop service might be a possibility with AA having recently added a few other point-to-point nonstop routes out of BOS.

AA adding SEA-AUS nonstop service might also be a possibility with AA having recently announced plans to resume SJC-AUS nonstop service and AA having recently added BOS-AUS nonstop service.

While JL already serves NRT nonstop from SEA, AA adding SEA-HND nonstop service might be a possibility if AA acquires extra slots at HND (beyond the extra slots that AA will be using on DFW-HND starting next month).

Maybe they will jump on the slots which will become available when DL drops MSP-HND after an unsuccessful request to trasfter them to HNL-HND (bound to hapen with 100% chance)

tphuang wrote:

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.

I totally disagree. The expanded AA-AS partnership creates a very interesting real estate situation at LAX. With AA set to rebuild T4 and T5 at LAX and AS next door in T6, they now the ability to create a massive and fully integrated combined operation with TBIT South gates included as well. Plus, it could be even more lethal to DL/UA at LAX if AA is able to focus more on longhaul flying with AS picking up some slack domestically.

I think BLR and any other TPAC expansion out of SEA by AA is just a show to jab back at DL and will be mostly short lived. Besides, there's not exactly a lot of room for physical expansion in SEA. As it is gate space is tight and there are currently no plans for any major expansion that would allow for any rapid growth by AA.

If anyone I would have expected Delta to start SEA-BLR, and it has the ground work whereby it's courting Microsoft $s and everything else you can imagine.

Now, will they start BLR themselves? Why have they not gone to India from SEA while even the links of AC do it from YVR?

As far as AS, it can't be the darling of everyone at SEA anymore. There's too much fish in that space and it's time grow on its own (which it won't do internationally) or partner up. DL ain't the partner for it, it's AA or UA and here we are.

Could the 787 theyre going to use come from ORD? Could we see them run 787 ORD-SEA-BLR like they did for ORD-LAS-NRT?

gregn21 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

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.

I totally disagree. The expanded AA-AS partnership creates a very interesting real estate situation at LAX. With AA set to rebuild T4 and T5 at LAX and AS next door in T6, they now the ability to create a massive and fully integrated combined operation with TBIT South gates included as well. Plus, it could be even more lethal to DL/UA at LAX if AA is able to focus more on longhaul flying with AS picking up some slack domestically.

I think BLR and any other TPAC expansion out of SEA by AA is just a show to jab back at DL and will be mostly short lived. Besides, there's not exactly a lot of room for physical expansion in SEA. As it is gate space is tight and there are currently no plans for any major expansion that would allow for any rapid growth by AA.

Exactly. It is just that both AA and AA are united in their goal to make DL suffer in SEA. More inportantly, DL is not going to be able to jiggle with both SEA and PDX, especially if both become large oneworld hubs. PDX-LHR and PDX-HND are going away next year.

A lot of folks speculating on how AA is going to route a 787 into SEA and most who are talking a domestic leg think DFW. I will say ORD instead. Back in the 80's and 90's (yeah, I know times change) UA flew four or five DC-10's a day ORD/SEA and I cannot imagine demand on the route has decreased in the ensuing years. AA could reduce one frequency a day ORD/SEA and put a 787 on the route once daily.

And not to beat a dead horse, but can we agree that SEA/BLR is a prime example of a "point to point" route that the 787 was supposed to create?

gregn21 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

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.

I totally disagree. The expanded AA-AS partnership creates a very interesting real estate situation at LAX. With AA set to rebuild T4 and T5 at LAX and AS next door in T6, they now the ability to create a massive and fully integrated combined operation with TBIT South gates included as well. Plus, it could be even more lethal to DL/UA at LAX if AA is able to focus more on longhaul flying with AS picking up some slack domestically.

I think BLR and any other TPAC expansion out of SEA by AA is just a show to jab back at DL and will be mostly short lived. Besides, there's not exactly a lot of room for physical expansion in SEA. As it is gate space is tight and there are currently no plans for any major expansion that would allow for any rapid growth by AA.

I agree that LAX is the bigger play.

It’s interesting that DL and AA are both going after a dual West Coast hub strategy.

Also interesting will be whether AA will want to take on LA/DL on LAX-South America. Oneworld will have LAX, SFO, SEA, PDX and SAN.

Does this OneWorld announcement trigger Skyteam or Star to tie in with JetBlue or Hawaiian?

questions wrote:

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.

SEA-BLR probably caught them off guard out of all the routes, but every airline has an idea of what possible cards their competitors could pull.

questions wrote:

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.

DL doesn't really have to defend against BLR right now since they are carrying likely a small percentage of traffic currently (and will probably continue to be that way).

Crosswind787 wrote:

Could the 787 theyre going to use come from ORD? Could we see them run 787 ORD-SEA-BLR like they did for ORD-LAS-NRT?

It could but DFW and LAX are more likely IMO as ORD will be busy with the transition of PHL to more 787s. Of course you also have the option of running planes and crews separately. Crews could DH to SEA while the aircraft could come from from a different base (heck, to get crazy you could even have it run from PHX in the winter while the crews came from a different base).

onwFan wrote:

gregn21 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

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.

I totally disagree. The expanded AA-AS partnership creates a very interesting real estate situation at LAX. With AA set to rebuild T4 and T5 at LAX and AS next door in T6, they now the ability to create a massive and fully integrated combined operation with TBIT South gates included as well. Plus, it could be even more lethal to DL/UA at LAX if AA is able to focus more on longhaul flying with AS picking up some slack domestically.

I think BLR and any other TPAC expansion out of SEA by AA is just a show to jab back at DL and will be mostly short lived. Besides, there's not exactly a lot of room for physical expansion in SEA. As it is gate space is tight and there are currently no plans for any major expansion that would allow for any rapid growth by AA.

Exactly. It is just that both AA and AA are united in their goal to make DL suffer in SEA. More inportantly, DL is not going to be able to jiggle with both SEA and PDX, especially if both become large oneworld hubs. PDX-LHR and PDX-HND are going away next year.

PDX - HND and PDX - LHR are going away?

KlimaBXsst wrote:

Does this OneWorld announcement trigger Skyteam or Star to tie in with JetBlue or Hawaiian?

I think either of those are very unlikely, HA is competing with all of those carriers from the mainland to HI, so a major codeshare doesn't really give them much. They can pursue agreements that fit them on their own, and they have.

What would be the advantage of a UA or DL tie-up both airlines are significant competitors in NYC, and DL in BOS.

I think DL's response will be out of SEA/LAX/MIA/BOS... Most likely being something along the lines of SEA-MNL/SIN/TPE etc... With the concern that AA may more aggressively expand there.

I don't think UA will have a significant direct response unless it appears there will be significant growth in SFO/SJC.

cschleic wrote:

onwFan wrote:

gregn21 wrote:

I totally disagree. The expanded AA-AS partnership creates a very interesting real estate situation at LAX. With AA set to rebuild T4 and T5 at LAX and AS next door in T6, they now the ability to create a massive and fully integrated combined operation with TBIT South gates included as well. Plus, it could be even more lethal to DL/UA at LAX if AA is able to focus more on longhaul flying with AS picking up some slack domestically.

I think BLR and any other TPAC expansion out of SEA by AA is just a show to jab back at DL and will be mostly short lived. Besides, there's not exactly a lot of room for physical expansion in SEA. As it is gate space is tight and there are currently no plans for any major expansion that would allow for any rapid growth by AA.

Exactly. It is just that both AA and AA are united in their goal to make DL suffer in SEA. More inportantly, DL is not going to be able to jiggle with both SEA and PDX, especially if both become large oneworld hubs. PDX-LHR and PDX-HND are going away next year.

PDX - HND and PDX - LHR are going away?

I don't see DL giving up any HND frequency it doesn't have to. I could see PDX-LHR dropping in favor of AMS & CDG if BA does really well, but I think that is unlikely.

Miami wrote:

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.

FLL is losing service like you wouldn't believe. That'll be the end of FLL-SEA nonstops for the foreseeable future as B6 is no position to start the route and NK took a stab at it once and failed.

B6 and WN are both in contraction mode at FLL (maybe when the MAX comes online it changes, but I am not confident). NK is doing very well still it must be said. Not only catering to a ULCC customer base but to VFR in Latin America as a low cost alternative to LATAM or AA at MIA.

FLL had a good run as a LCC alternative to MIA after being a p2p alternative as a focus city for DL and US. It seems the airport's run of good fortune is slowly ending. Unless Breeze comes to the rescue (which it might if it seeks to tie up with Azul).

I believe DL had publicly talked about SEA-BLR and SEA-India in general as part of its anti-ME3 campaign. Whether they were ever serious about it, who knows!

Hi all – longtime reader, maybe my second or third post ever. Life-long Seattlelite and constant obsession with the dynamics of airlines and route selection. These are just a few thoughts I had – don’t know if my assumptions are correct or if they make sense, but wanted to contribute. Please correct me if I’m wrong or if I should understand something better.
1. Seattle is the closest contiguous US city to everything West. Its position for receiving feeding traffic from anywhere over the Pacific has that potential flight time advantage (shorter journey time).

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

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

4. Vancouver is 15% South Asian. AC flies to Delhi, but I can see people driving the three hours to Seattle to save them a connection in Delhi.

5. Americans will start traveling to India in larger numbers as we’ve seen in China. It’ll happen. Seattleites are constantly looking for new places that are not the typical destinations. Some people, completely removed from the tech sector or biz travel will see this in the Seattle Times and say, “hmm, maybe we do think about that gigantic India trip we’ve been thinking about that before sounded like too difficult a journey to get there.”

6. Alaska currently code shares with Emirates and Singapore. Does Singapore go away because of Alaska joining OneWorld? Does Emirates go away because of Alaska joining any major alliance?

7. Someone mentioned plane noise in Seattle. I live below one of the normal flight paths and I honestly can say I haven’t noticed anything different.

8. In peak time, there are four daily flights to Heathrow from Seattle. (BA dep. 13:50 and 19:20, VS dep. 19:55, DY dep. 13:45). That sounds crazier to me than one direct flight from Bangalore to the entire US. I can’t imagine that American makes it a fifth. In fact, I feel like BA is going to need all the metal they can get for routes that VS is about to hammer them on with DL/AF/KL plans. So, anywhere a friend can take care of you (AA), they’ll probably do it.

9. If memory serves, DL did not try this with Alaska. Didn’t the international expansion at SEA happen after the divorce? Maybe there was a Tokyo and a Seoul flight, but I thought the other additions happened later on. So, not sure if comparing a past Delta effort with this one is fair. Again, could be wrong.

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

11. Manila for me needs to happen. Even if the biz traffic isn’t there. Again, SEA is closest and in addition to the easy connection to the rest of the country, Seattle has a huge Filipino community, and ever-growing. PAL flies to YVR – with WestJet helping codeshare on the other end. AA/AK wouldn’t have a codeshare for flights arriving in Manila, but maybe just connecting traffic from the US is sufficient – p.s., unless Duterte rescinding the American military agreement alters a lot of things, I think Manila/Philippines are going to rapidly join the frays of many multi-national companies looking to alternatives to increasing costs in other outsourcing locations that are getting more expensive. English is widely used in school and in business. The other thing here is that Delta had the SEA-NRT-MNL-NRT-SEA sewn up pretty well. Now, I think DL wants everyone to go through ICN to get to Manila because of the JV with Korean. AA flying to MNL could work in its own right, but could also be another hit against Delta.

12. This is my last one – slightly out on a limb, but we all know that a new international hub doesn’t mean two flights. More is coming. Transpacific flights are the most reasonable. Flights to China aren’t in the cards financially, but any thoughts about these destinations:
a. Busan (no flights outside of Asia). Could connect anywhere East of Seattle when they arrive. Could also be a jab at Delta and Korean.
b. Sapporo (Sydney seasonal and Finnair to Helsinki are the only intercontinental). Customers would have to backtrack to Tokyo to get on a JAL flight to stay within the partnership.
c. Osaka (could there be enough demand that it wouldn’t undercut JAL operations?)
d. Taipei (EVA flies to Seattle with no codesharing upon arrival except for flights to UA hubs)
e. Hanoi (Vietnam Airlines is partnered with Delta, but I don’t know if there’s a move to be made or an opportunity with Bamboo)
f. Ho Chi Minh City (Same as above)
g. Kuala Lumpur (Not as serious about this one – but definitely a part of OneWorld).

Sorry for the length! Thanks!

A few questions:
1. Do we know when the official date is when we can start flying AA and acquire AS miles? I am looking on booking a few flights in May and need to know who to book them with.
2. When flying AA will I be receiving 1 mile per mile flown just as I would be if I was flying with AS?

There are obviously others who know more inside information than me, but my question is this:

If AS+AA will be so much better off than DL in SEA, than why didn’t DL just get AS to join SkyTeam six-years ago? I mean, AS and DL used to be pretty close friends, but ultimately DL made the decision that it was better to grow SEA with its own metal and go-it alone than continue the AS partnership. Which again begs my question, if pairing up with AS (I.e. AA) is better than going it alone, than why didn’t DL do that before?

Now that this is established, anyone think that Qantas launching SYD-SEA is an even stronger possibility?

Or hell, SEA-SYD on AA metal given the JV?

Didn’t the state of Washington just announce an incentives package for Australian flights?

I expect to see how UA will respond to AA's shock move for launching SEA-BLR. In my point of view, UA should launch BOM/BLR/MAA from SFO. The demand between SFO and BLR is more than between SEA and BLR. Also from my observation, most of Indian population in Bay Area are not from Delhi and that's the reason they usually choose to transfer at DXB, HKG, SIN, LHR etc rather than the nonstop SFO-DEL by either AI or UA.

HPRamper wrote:

I have a hard time listening to the naysayers saying it should have been HYD instead of BLR. You know Microsoft isn't the only company in the Seattle metro, right? BLR is the tech capital of India and arguably all of Asia, and Boeing, Amazon, Microsoft and Google all have facilities in the Bengalaru region. Maybe from LAX it wouldn't have been the best choice, but from SEA in my opinion BLR was the correct market to nail down.

Yep, and this article tells that exact story: https://www.geekwire.com/2019/amazon-su ... across-us/

Osubuckeyes wrote:

cschleic wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Exactly. It is just that both AA and AA are united in their goal to make DL suffer in SEA. More inportantly, DL is not going to be able to jiggle with both SEA and PDX, especially if both become large oneworld hubs. PDX-LHR and PDX-HND are going away next year.

PDX - HND and PDX - LHR are going away?

I don't see DL giving up any HND frequency it doesn't have to. I could see PDX-LHR dropping in favor of AMS & CDG if BA does really well, but I think that is unlikely.

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

kavok wrote:

There are obviously others who know more inside information than me, but my question is this:

If AS+AA will be so much better off than DL in SEA, than why didn’t DL just get AS to join SkyTeam six-years ago? I mean, AS and DL used to be pretty close friends, but ultimately DL made the decision that it was better to grow SEA with its own metal and go-it alone than continue the AS partnership. Which again begs my question, if pairing up with AS (I.e. AA) is better than going it alone, than why didn’t DL do that before?

DL gave AS an ultimatum...become our exclusive partner and feed our international growth, or we are going to build the domestic network here ourselves. Alaska told DL to pound sand as they didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket and eventually become acquired by DL.

So what has changed?

The VX merger and California growth didn't work very well, leaving AS not many choices in terms of future growth. In hitching the wagon to AA, at least AA can't afford to buy AS now (unlike DL then), and likely won't be able to for the for the next several years. So this buys them time, while potentially turning the tide against DL in SEA by being able to match the DL network reach. It is a smart move by both AA and AS, in my opinion, but unfortunately I still think this ends with an AA/AS merger. I hope I'm wrong.

gregn21 wrote:

I wonder where this leaves LAX as their "major transpacific gateway" or whatever they like to call it. This also creates an interesting real estate situation at LAX. With AA set to rebuild T4 and T5 at LAX and AS next door in T6, the expanded partnership could give them the ability to create a massive and fully integrated combined operation with TBIT South gates included as well. Could be even more lethal to DL at LAX if AA is able to focus more on longhaul flying with AS picking up some slack domestically.

I totally LOVE what this means at LAX! We'll see T4, 5 and 6 all controlled by OneWorld carriers...no going through TSA if making a connection. It provides new opportunities for AS to grow to Central America with the new code sharing with AA. I'd look for AS to possibly restart MEX and GDL (again) and add PTY out of LAX.

CriticalPoint wrote:

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.

AA is hiring a new Analyst, FRMS so clearly they are planning to make additional changes in the ULH world (you don't hire an analyst for one incremental flight).

https://jobs.aa.com/job/Ft-Worth-Analys ... 631013500/

I see a great future! I see AA returning to Seattle-Tokyo, CX consolidates SEA with daily flights and the introduction of the A35k, QF with SYD-SEA with Boeing 787, JL could launch PDX-NRT

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

QXAS wrote:

Is there a rendering of the AS OneWorld livery?

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

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

alfa164 wrote:

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 DL's aversion to any 787 is coming back to bite them.

I sure hope they AA stays put. I’ll have to inquire next week.

Reply to the wrong post-sorry

TWA902fly wrote:

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

Unless it’s changed in the last few days, DFW-ANC right now is scheduled to be on an A321. Guessing with the ORD-ANC and Fairbanks adds they figured they didn’t need the 787 capacity from DFW.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Miami wrote:

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.

FLL is losing service like you wouldn't believe. That'll be the end of FLL-SEA nonstops for the foreseeable future as B6 is no position to start the route and NK took a stab at it once and failed.

B6 and WN are both in contraction mode at FLL (maybe when the MAX comes online it changes, but I am not confident). NK is doing very well still it must be said. Not only catering to a ULCC customer base but to VFR in Latin America as a low cost alternative to LATAM or AA at MIA.

FLL had a good run as a LCC alternative to MIA after being a p2p alternative as a focus city for DL and US. It seems the airport's run of good fortune is slowly ending. Unless Breeze comes to the rescue (which it might if it seeks to tie up with Azul).

Reading through this thread though I am recalling Microsoft having its LATAM HQ nearer to FLL than MIA did factor into AS' shift back in 2012. It's possible they keep FLL open just for SEA flights but connect MIA to SEA again on their metal and shift seasonal LAX/SFO service to MIA as well. Then again keeping AS at FLL on LAX/SFO may eat some B6 yields and that's strategic in general for AA.

SEAirliner wrote:

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

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

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

TW787 wrote:

kavok wrote:

There are obviously others who know more inside information than me, but my question is this:

If AS+AA will be so much better off than DL in SEA, than why didn’t DL just get AS to join SkyTeam six-years ago? I mean, AS and DL used to be pretty close friends, but ultimately DL made the decision that it was better to grow SEA with its own metal and go-it alone than continue the AS partnership. Which again begs my question, if pairing up with AS (I.e. AA) is better than going it alone, than why didn’t DL do that before?

DL gave AS an ultimatum...become our exclusive partner and feed our international growth, or we are going to build the domestic network here ourselves. Alaska told DL to pound sand as they didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket and eventually become acquired by DL.

So what has changed?

The VX merger and California growth didn't work very well, leaving AS not many choices in terms of future growth. In hitching the wagon to AA, at least AA can't afford to buy AS now (unlike DL then), and likely won't be able to for the for the next several years. So this buys them time, while potentially turning the tide against DL in SEA by being able to match the DL network reach. It is a smart move by both AA and AS, in my opinion, but unfortunately I still think this ends with an AA/AS merger. I hope I'm wrong.

Good information, and thanks for the response. I didn’t know much on the details behind the AS-DL breakup, and that context helps. Thanks!

ual763 wrote:

Well that’s going to piss Delta off! Good for AA! Never would have dreamed this happening in a thousand years.

DL is a strong Competitor.

precure787 wrote:

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.

United broke Dave Carroll’s guitar in spring 2008; 2 years prior to the announcement of the UA/CO merger. Overbooking was also something that predates the merger.

V/F

tphuang wrote:

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.

AS's only *A partner is SQ. I doubt they will lose any partners besides KE

I feel like this move by American is great to address the gaping hole in their network in the Pacific Northwest. Outside of a few Oregon destinations from PHX and some new GEG flights to DFW, the only AA flying in the region is done to PDX and SEA.

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.

It surely was a closely guarded secret, not one leak that I know of. I suppose if AS had already fully decided to join & it's plausible that it would have been alright to divulge their intent to another O/W member, but as BA is a founding member, I am sure BA knew via O/W, but it may explain why BA waited so long to announce the service into Dec 2019.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer wrote:

Miami wrote:

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.

FLL is losing service like you wouldn't believe. That'll be the end of FLL-SEA nonstops for the foreseeable future as B6 is no position to start the route and NK took a stab at it once and failed.

B6 and WN are both in contraction mode at FLL (maybe when the MAX comes online it changes, but I am not confident). NK is doing very well still it must be said. Not only catering to a ULCC customer base but to VFR in Latin America as a low cost alternative to LATAM or AA at MIA.

FLL had a good run as a LCC alternative to MIA after being a p2p alternative as a focus city for DL and US. It seems the airport's run of good fortune is slowly ending. Unless Breeze comes to the rescue (which it might if it seeks to tie up with Azul).

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

DENfan 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.

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?

Yes & I am sure that is the plan. BLR is a long flight & will be the beginning I hope, of a build up. SEA-NRT was flown by AA in the 90's. But I was the last person who thought a resumption of International Service at SEA by AA after 20-25 years hiatus, would ever happen.

If AA/AS are successful at building up a hub where AS feeds AA Intl, it sure would free up space at SEA as DL starts dropping domestic & transborder destinations. It would be better for AS travelers who had to make up their minds to split their allegiance over two carriers one for domestic & one for Intl. Bringing them back into the AAG fold.

NameOmitted wrote:

SEAirliner wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

MaxTrimm wrote:

I feel like this move by American is great to address the gaping hole in their network in the Pacific Northwest. Outside of a few Oregon destinations from PHX and some new GEG flights to DFW, the only AA flying in the region is done to PDX and SEA.

And BOI, and the service to EUG/RDM/MFR from LAX. It isn't as if AA needs to be doing the intra-PacNW flying nor do they intend to. The hole is not nearly as gaping as everyone believes it is.

If anything, this is more likely to assist in opening up PHX/LAX-PSC/BLI/SUN and maybe go back to year round ANC service.

kavok wrote:

There are obviously others who know more inside information than me, but my question is this:

If AS+AA will be so much better off than DL in SEA, than why didn’t DL just get AS to join SkyTeam six-years ago? I mean, AS and DL used to be pretty close friends, but ultimately DL made the decision that it was better to grow SEA with its own metal and go-it alone than continue the AS partnership. Which again begs my question, if pairing up with AS (I.e. AA) is better than going it alone, than why didn’t DL do that before?

Because rather than let AS be AS and enjoy the feed at SEA, DL demanded that AS jettison ALL their international partners, a move that would have been suicide for AS. When AS declined, DL decided to retaliate by building a connecting hub operation right on top of their partner.

onwFan wrote:

Also interesting will be whether AA will want to take on LA/DL on LAX-South America. Oneworld will have LAX, SFO, SEA, PDX and SAN.

AA already flies LAX-GRU/EZE. those are the two biggest markets, and they have zero nonstop competition

jfern022 wrote:

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

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

usflyer msp wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

Agree. No relation at all. Plus, AA has 20+ more 787's on order with some deliveries this year.

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

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

TW787 wrote:

kavok wrote:

There are obviously others who know more inside information than me, but my question is this:

If AS+AA will be so much better off than DL in SEA, than why didn’t DL just get AS to join SkyTeam six-years ago? I mean, AS and DL used to be pretty close friends, but ultimately DL made the decision that it was better to grow SEA with its own metal and go-it alone than continue the AS partnership. Which again begs my question, if pairing up with AS (I.e. AA) is better than going it alone, than why didn’t DL do that before?

DL gave AS an ultimatum...become our exclusive partner and feed our international growth, or we are going to build the domestic network here ourselves. Alaska told DL to pound sand as they didn't want to put all their eggs in one basket and eventually become acquired by DL.

So what has changed?

The VX merger and California growth didn't work very well, leaving AS not many choices in terms of future growth. In hitching the wagon to AA, at least AA can't afford to buy AS now (unlike DL then), and likely won't be able to for the for the next several years. So this buys them time, while potentially turning the tide against DL in SEA by being able to match the DL network reach. It is a smart move by both AA and AS, in my opinion, but unfortunately I still think this ends with an AA/AS merger. I hope I'm wrong.

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

stl07 wrote:

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

Nah, timeline doesn't match up.

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

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