Ishrion wrote:

Fair amount of pax connecting through AUS with some of AA's new routes: https://viewfromthewing.com/austin-is-q ... cting-hub/

For Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day, American expected a 97.6% load factor for its Austin flights. This was substantially helped by connecting traffic such as:

14 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and Miami
27 passengers on a single flight connecting between Miami and Dallas
47 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and Orlando
21 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and New Orleans
15 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and Nashville
18 passengers on a single flight connecting between Los Angeles and Miami
18 passengers on a single flight connecting between Phoenix and Miami
16 passengers on a single flight connecting between Nashville and Los Angeles
42 passengers on a single flight connecting between Miami and Los Angeles
10 passengers on a single flight connecting between Dallas and Phoenix
10 passengers on a single flight connecting between Dallas and Las Vegas
14 passengers on a single flight connecting between Orlando and Las Vegas

That’s kind of cool to see to be honest. AUS is nicely positioned geographically to offer east-west connections (like Dfw is). Can alleviate pressure from Dfw during weather distributions as there’s less connections to re-accommodate. Taxi times are much shorter in AUS. Gates are not spaced across multiple concourses. AA can offer a more competitive price to AUS O&D traffic as the cost is being spread across a wide variety of itineraries. If I was connecting between Florida and the west coast, I’d definitely prefer an AUS connection. Hope the trend continues.

On Memorial Day Sunday (with a lot of traffic in the evening disrupted by thunderstorms over the field) I discovered there was someone on my DFW-AUS flight connecting to LAX. It is sort of bizarre to see AA hub-hub traffic flow over connections like this (and that list shows there's actually a fair amount), but I guess it must be cheaper and/or there were seats available.

Ishrion wrote:

Fair amount of pax connecting through AUS with some of AA's new routes: https://viewfromthewing.com/austin-is-q ... cting-hub/

For Tuesday, the day after Memorial Day, American expected a 97.6% load factor for its Austin flights. This was substantially helped by connecting traffic such as:

14 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and Miami
27 passengers on a single flight connecting between Miami and Dallas
47 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and Orlando
21 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and New Orleans
15 passengers on a single flight connecting between Las Vegas and Nashville
18 passengers on a single flight connecting between Los Angeles and Miami
18 passengers on a single flight connecting between Phoenix and Miami
16 passengers on a single flight connecting between Nashville and Los Angeles
42 passengers on a single flight connecting between Miami and Los Angeles
10 passengers on a single flight connecting between Dallas and Phoenix
10 passengers on a single flight connecting between Dallas and Las Vegas
14 passengers on a single flight connecting between Orlando and Las Vegas

Not sure if it is intentional, but I've been in/out of LAS quite a few times in the last month and AA connections through AUS have been the cheapest by a meaningful amount.

How are the schedules for these connections. If it helps the flights become more profitable, why not? Let’s hope AA succeeds with their new AUS expansion.

On hub to hub sectors, AA's reservation system seems to add in a lot of connecting flights via outstations at a higher proportion than UA or DL. I've seen routings such as PHL-ALB-ORD and CLT-DEN-LAX for example on AA.com.

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

chonetsao wrote:

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

In theory yes there is logic to use the capacity and build such connections, but you also have higher misconnection rates and costs associated with such.

In past life, I worked for a carrier that also got creative by linking such segments, but in practice, they found they were problematic often stranding passengers in random spoke cities, with a single misconnect cost wiping away profit on dozen of other tickets, and leaving upset consumers in their wake.
Eventually, system logic was redesigned to deemphasize such options except day of flight availability for airport staff to assist them in recovering from IRROPS.

dcajet wrote:

After the previous week´s spat over frequencies and flights restrictions during COVID it seems Argentina and the US have reached an agreement moving forward to begin normalizing flights between the two countries. The announcement would come as early as tomorrow and as far as American is concerned, the following are the increase in # of frequencies:

Effective immediately

* MIA goes from 30 to 55 monthly flights
* DFW goes from 8 to 18 monthly flights

Effective 2nd half of June

* JFK service returns, initially 4x week

One of the MIA flights is upgauging to the 77W as of June 3rd (the plane for this service comes from MIA-GRU, which is being downgauged to the 77E). The additional MIA flights also see the return of MIA-based FAs to the route, as currently it´s just the EZE-based FAs covering the route.

Additionally, AR is going to 36 monthly frequencies on the EZE-MIA route, (9x week). Many, many Argentinians going to the US for COVID vaccines.

https://twitter.com/norbertodupesso/sta ... 8458270726

UPDATE

Changes went thru yesterday, with the exception of MIA-EZE-MIA that remains at one daily flight, albeit now operated with the 77W, offering a 15% capacity increase on the route.

I am curious about the yields on MIA-AUS-LAX compared to MIA-LAX. There is a ton of capacity on MIA-LAX, but no doubt it was busy during the long weekend and in general, so how good is an AUS connection point if it is a place for cheap connections...just a devil's advocate hypothesis.

slowrambler wrote:

On Memorial Day Sunday (with a lot of traffic in the evening disrupted by thunderstorms over the field) I discovered there was someone on my DFW-AUS flight connecting to LAX. It is sort of bizarre to see AA hub-hub traffic flow over connections like this (and that list shows there's actually a fair amount), but I guess it must be cheaper and/or there were seats available.

I was sitting next to somone flying DFW-ELP-PHX-LAX the other day. The ticket was bought that way (in first).

These kinds of connections used to be more common in the days before fare connectivity was severely restricted.

New Month New Routes

6/3 AUS-TPA (Tampa, FL)
6/3 BNA-RDU (Raleigh/Durham, NC)
6/3 BOS-AUS (Austin, TX)
6/3 BOS-ILM (Wilmington, NC)
6/3 BOS-IND (Indianapolis, IN)
6/3 BOS-LHR (London, UK)
6/3 BOS-TVC (Traverse City, MI)
6/3 CLT-FCA (Kalispell, MT)
6/3 CLT-MHH (Marsh Harbour, Bahamas)
6/3 CLT-RNO (Reno, NV)
6/3 DFW-HMO (Hermosillo, Mexico)
6/3 DFW-IDA (Idaho Falls, ID)
6/3 JFK-ATH (Athens, Greece)
6/3 LAX-DRO (Durango, CO)
6/3 LAX-FCA (Kalispell, MT)
6/3 LAX-MSO (Missoula, MT)
6/3 LGA-HHH (Hilton Head Island, SC)
6/3 ORD-BIL (Billings, MT)
6/3 ORD-FAI (Fairbanks, AK)
6/3 ORD-FAT (Fresno, CA)
6/3 ORD-GEG (Spokane, WA)
6/3 PHL-TVC (Traverse City, MI)
6/3 PHX-ACV (Arcata/Eureka, CA)
6/3 PHX-IDA (Idaho Falls, ID)
6/4 MIA-TLV (Tel Aviv, Israel)
6/5 AUS-ASE (Aspen, CO)
6/5 AUS-NAS (Nassau, Bahamas)
6/5 AUS-VPS (Destin/Ft Walton Beach, FL)
6/5 BOS-AVL (Asheville, NC)
6/5 BOS-JAC (Jackson, WY)
6/5 CLT-AZS (Samana, DR)
6/5 DCA-MLB (Melbourne, FL)
6/5 DFW-MID (Merida, Mexico)
6/5 DFW-SDQ (Santo Domingo DR)
6/5 DFW-SXM (St Maarten)
6/5 DFW-UVF (St Lucia)
6/5 JFK-PLS (Providenciales, Turks and Caicos)
6/5 JFK-UVF (St Lucia)
6/5 LAX-CUN (Cancun, Mexico)
6/5 LAX-SAF (Santa Fe, NM)
6/5 LGA-BZN (Bozeman, MT)
6/5 LGA-FCA (Kalispell, MT)
6/5 LGA-RAP (Rapid City, SD)
6/5 MCO-BHM (Birmingham, AL)
6/5 MCO-BNA (Nashville, TN)
6/5 MCO-DAY (Dayton,.OH)
6/5 MCO-IND (Indianapolis, IN)
6/5 MCO-MEM (Memphis, TN)
6/5 MCO-PIT (Pittsburgh, PA)
6/5 MCO-RDU (Raleigh/Durham, NC)
6/5 MCO-SDF (Louisville, KY)
6/5 MIA-HSV (Huntsville, AL)
6/5 MIA-JAN (Jackson, MS)
6/5 MIA-LIT (Little Rock, AR)
6/5 RDU-VPS (Destin/Ft Walton Beach, FL)
6/26 MIA-BGR (Bangor, ME)
6/26 ORD-ACK (Nantucket, MA)


Seasonal and/or Returning Routes restarting this month also include:

CLT to TVC MVY ACK
DCA to TVC
DFW to ACK MVY
JFK to JAC MAD EZE
ORD to ATH MSO SCE
LGA to TVC MYR HHH NAS BDA
MIA to OKC CAE MAD
PHL to ACK MVY
PHX to RAP EWR

https://www.instagram.com/beam5192/?hl=en

I am going PHX RNO and Non-stops in F on the outbound were 1100. By connecting thru LAX it is 660 RT. It is an hour layover in LAX so it was worth it to me to connect in LAX on the outbound and Non-Stop on the return all of the trip is in F.

Typo

As a Delta fan, I was highly impressed with the amount of legroom American Airlines provided on my all flights. My Memorial Day 7:05 am SFO flight to CLT was packed, and the CLT hub is bustling at the seams.

chonetsao wrote:

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

Connections through AUS are obviously less desirable than O&D (you would much rather have the AUS point of sale filling these flights) but they fall into two buckets:
Spoke-AUS-Spoke
Hub-AUS-Spoke/Hub

Spoke-AUS-Spoke connections are going to be the better of the two to have as they are going to typically yield better. For example LAS-AUS-BNA doesn't cost substantially more than LAS-DFW-BNA so as long as the ticket prices are roughly the same (although yield management can also steer certain connections towards AUS to help reserve higher yield BNA seats for DFW as opposed to dragging them down with LAS seats).

Hub-AUS-Spoke/Hub flights are always going to be less desirable. For example, the MIA-AUS-LAX pax did not help the yield one bit - nobody chooses to connect through AUS for more $ so you know that they likely overall paid less than the N/S MIA-LAX but at the added cost of an extra sector. Likewise the pax travelling DFW-AUS-LAS certainly cost AA more than the DFW-LAS N/S pax. These are not the connections AA wants to sell but they exist and are sold in larger amounts (without getting too technical) when the individual segments meet the price floor requirements for the non-stop. AA has a lot of these through SLC, DEN, IAH, STL, and DSM year-round so no real surprise this exists in AUS with the additional spokes.

What happened to the DFW-DUB direct flight? AA cancelled my direct flight in Sept. Did the route ever start?

When will the final August schedule be published?
Especially the US-EU flights scheduled for mid-month like JFK-BCN

https://www.flightglobal.com/networks/t ... 96.article

“Point-to-point is going to be more important that it was. How much remains to be seen,” adds American Airlines vice-president of network and schedule planning Brian Znotins.

With transatlantic travel demand in the gutter, American needs fewer connecting seats on domestic flights from Philadelphia, Znotins says.

“This summer, if you… [are] flying through Dallas-Fort Worth or Charlotte, it will look like a normal year,” he says.

The pandemic – and availability of otherwise parked jets – led American to experiment with new routes, Znotins says, citing a winter-season Kansas City-Cancun run.

American might eventually end some of its new routes, shifting those aircraft back to hub-and-spoke runs. But others proved successful enough to remain in the network after recovery, he adds.

Znotins says American will differentiate itself with schedule. “We are simply not going to stand by and have inferior schedules and make things easy for them (speaking about Breeze),” he says.

Atlwarrior wrote:

As a Delta fan, I was highly impressed with the amount of legroom American Airlines provided on my all flights. My Memorial Day 7:05 am SFO flight to CLT was packed, and the CLT hub is bustling at the seams.

A good chunk of AA’s fleet consisting of un-refurbished planes from the US fleet have 32 inch pitch in Y.

Jeez, what's with TVC?? Especially BOS-TVC? What's with that?

USAirALB wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

As a Delta fan, I was highly impressed with the amount of legroom American Airlines provided on my all flights. My Memorial Day 7:05 am SFO flight to CLT was packed, and the CLT hub is bustling at the seams.

A good chunk of AA’s fleet consisting of un-refurbished planes from the US fleet have 32 inch pitch in Y.

That’s the funny thing, every time someone says “oh it’s a legacy US bird”, it’s meant to be degrading. The US 321s are by far my favorite configuration (except row 22).

ABEguy wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

As a Delta fan, I was highly impressed with the amount of legroom American Airlines provided on my all flights. My Memorial Day 7:05 am SFO flight to CLT was packed, and the CLT hub is bustling at the seams.

A good chunk of AA’s fleet consisting of un-refurbished planes from the US fleet have 32 inch pitch in Y.

That’s the funny thing, every time someone says “oh it’s a legacy US bird”, it’s meant to be degrading. The US 321s are by far my favorite configuration (except row 22).

they had some seats in the row behind the exit row where you could have a window and literally limitless legroom. It was awesome. Paid extra for them several times on CLT-LAX/SEA/PHX back in the day.

ABEguy wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

As a Delta fan, I was highly impressed with the amount of legroom American Airlines provided on my all flights. My Memorial Day 7:05 am SFO flight to CLT was packed, and the CLT hub is bustling at the seams.

A good chunk of AA’s fleet consisting of un-refurbished planes from the US fleet have 32 inch pitch in Y.

That’s the funny thing, every time someone says “oh it’s a legacy US bird”, it’s meant to be degrading. The US 321s are by far my favorite configuration (except row 22).

I haven't been on an AA aircraft in 16 months so I don't know what changes have occurred. However, my main issue with the pmUS birds was the lack of at-seat power in the J cabin. Many pmUS aircraft did not have it. For anything more than a one hour flight, that is simply unacceptable in my book. I used to hunt around for Boeing aircraft to fly on AA in order to avoid the the US birds and lack of at-seat power.

cathay747 wrote:

Jeez, what's with TVC?? Especially BOS-TVC? What's with that?

It's a growing summer vacation spot. I also was originally a naysayer, but when I married into a 'Mitten' family was indocrinated. It's VERY nice and fun during the summer - especially compared to southern states.

cathay747 wrote:

Jeez, what's with TVC?? Especially BOS-TVC? What's with that?

Tons of money in Traverse City. AA now flies there from like 6-7 different cities. By far the largest carrier.

Midwestindy wrote:

https://www.flightglobal.com/networks/the-big-shift-how-the-pandemic-forced-us-airlines-to-revamp-networks/143996.article

“Point-to-point is going to be more important that it was. How much remains to be seen,” adds American Airlines vice-president of network and schedule planning Brian Znotins.

With transatlantic travel demand in the gutter, American needs fewer connecting seats on domestic flights from Philadelphia, Znotins says.

“This summer, if you… [are] flying through Dallas-Fort Worth or Charlotte, it will look like a normal year,” he says.

The pandemic – and availability of otherwise parked jets – led American to experiment with new routes, Znotins says, citing a winter-season Kansas City-Cancun run.

American might eventually end some of its new routes, shifting those aircraft back to hub-and-spoke runs. But others proved successful enough to remain in the network after recovery, he adds.

Znotins says American will differentiate itself with schedule. “We are simply not going to stand by and have inferior schedules and make things easy for them (speaking about Breeze),” he says.

Just went through CLT and DFW. Can confirm. Packed and very grateful for lounge access.

chonetsao wrote:

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

It's not a good thing. Spend a few minutes pricing fares on AA's website and you'll notice that the lowest fares most frequently involve a connection in AUS. That speaks volumes toward the flights' performance -- LF may be high, but AA is selling a ton of cheap tickets to achieve that. Nor are they protecting the local market, since fares are pretty low for the local market as well. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if these flights collectively are profitable.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

It's not a good thing. Spend a few minutes pricing fares on AA's website and you'll notice that the lowest fares most frequently involve a connection in AUS. That speaks volumes toward the flights' performance -- LF may be high, but AA is selling a ton of cheap tickets to achieve that. Nor are they protecting the local market, since fares are pretty low for the local market as well. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if these flights collectively are profitable.

You might be right, but few points to make:
1, You seems to suggest lower fares = trash yield = bad economics. Do you have any evidence to prove your point? As far as we know, lower fares does not ALWAYS translate to lower yield. There are many factors to consider, for example, the level closing in fares, the corporate contract buy outs, the subsidies, the higher yield from non-stop markets that may offsets lower fares on transit fares.
2, You seems to suggest an airline use its revenue management tools to bolster performance in a particular station is a bad thing. Don't other airlines do the same? Use lower price to allure passengers to fly through one underperforming hub to another?

One has to notice that airline revenue management is not to charge higher fares so that airplane fly empty or sit in some random airports because there is no profitable routes to fly. AA has many aircrafts that need routes to yield cash flow and revenue. In airline business you have to take penalties by flying less profitable routes as one stationary aircrafts means loosing money for every minute it does not fly. And sometimes one cheap fare on a less busy aircraft may means the entire profit made for that segment.

It is always a good thing when you see airlines trying to push sales of every single useable seats. If that seats got unsold, or the routes get cancelled because of performance issue, then that is a bad thing. Because that means the said airlines had to find an alternative routes to fly the surplus aircrafts. Not to forget there are investments needs to be made to find a new market.

Plus, it is a really good thing when an airline can uphold the higher fares through its hub, that means the said airlines are trying to defend the higher fares through its most important hubs, while using a focus city to compete on lower margin seats.

I don't think many of these new AUS routes will last very long. Too much competition on them from LCCs. There is not enough justification to have them when AA is already the dominant legacy carrier there. Force cheap connections through AUS is not a sustainable strategy for an airline with as high cost as AA.

WidebodyPTV wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

It's not a good thing. Spend a few minutes pricing fares on AA's website and you'll notice that the lowest fares most frequently involve a connection in AUS. That speaks volumes toward the flights' performance -- LF may be high, but AA is selling a ton of cheap tickets to achieve that. Nor are they protecting the local market, since fares are pretty low for the local market as well. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if these flights collectively are profitable.

Exactly. I'm willing to bet that yields on the new routes are absolutely garbage.

Some are probably higher-yielding than others. I am willing to bet that collectively AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS will have higher yields than say AUS-TPA/MSY/BNA.

USAirALB wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

It's not a good thing. Spend a few minutes pricing fares on AA's website and you'll notice that the lowest fares most frequently involve a connection in AUS. That speaks volumes toward the flights' performance -- LF may be high, but AA is selling a ton of cheap tickets to achieve that. Nor are they protecting the local market, since fares are pretty low for the local market as well. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if these flights collectively are profitable.

Exactly. I'm willing to bet that yields on the new routes are absolutely garbage.

Some are probably higher-yielding than others. I am willing to bet that collectively AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS will have higher yields than say AUS-TPA/MSY/BNA.

Going back to Gary's numbers from what started this conversation, its actually only about 5% connecting pax in Austin give or take a few % points. That's high for an outstation but AUS has a higher number of opportunities right now. We also don't know how much is booked connection versus creative rerouting. As business travel resumes I assume a lot of routes being added in 2020-2021 that are chasing butts in seats will go away as the yield profile for the airline changes back closer to pre-pandemic mix, but in a system-wide low yield environment these may be reasonable routes for now.

USAirALB wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

I actually think this a good thing (transit via non-hub). It takes advantage of the excessive capacity in non-hub while maintaining the network need. It is unconventional but hopefully the end of quarter numbers see some improvement. To many travellers smaller non-hub airports are easier to transit than giant hub location.

The hub to hub sector mentioned by USAirALB is very interesting too. I guess by doing that it can keep the higher yield on non-stop option, and leave rooms for Hub-Hub-Secondary City transit options.

Either way I find it fascinating. As a traveller, I always found this unconventional non-hub transit interesting.

It's not a good thing. Spend a few minutes pricing fares on AA's website and you'll notice that the lowest fares most frequently involve a connection in AUS. That speaks volumes toward the flights' performance -- LF may be high, but AA is selling a ton of cheap tickets to achieve that. Nor are they protecting the local market, since fares are pretty low for the local market as well. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if these flights collectively are profitable.

Exactly. I'm willing to bet that yields on the new routes are absolutely garbage.

Some are probably higher-yielding than others. I am willing to bet that collectively AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS will have higher yields than say AUS-TPA/MSY/BNA.

Why would you bet that AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS have higher yield? They all have too much competition.

tphuang wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

It's not a good thing. Spend a few minutes pricing fares on AA's website and you'll notice that the lowest fares most frequently involve a connection in AUS. That speaks volumes toward the flights' performance -- LF may be high, but AA is selling a ton of cheap tickets to achieve that. Nor are they protecting the local market, since fares are pretty low for the local market as well. Ultimately, I'd be surprised if these flights collectively are profitable.

Exactly. I'm willing to bet that yields on the new routes are absolutely garbage.

Some are probably higher-yielding than others. I am willing to bet that collectively AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS will have higher yields than say AUS-TPA/MSY/BNA.

Why would you bet that AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS have higher yield? They all have too much competition.

AUS-WAS has too much competition?

How does AUS-WAS have two much competition when only WN and UA are on the route in comparison to other segments such as ATL-AUS where you have four carriers serving the market.

AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS are more business-based than a flight to TPA.

USAirALB wrote:

tphuang wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Exactly. I'm willing to bet that yields on the new routes are absolutely garbage.

Some are probably higher-yielding than others. I am willing to bet that collectively AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS will have higher yields than say AUS-TPA/MSY/BNA.

Why would you bet that AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS have higher yield? They all have too much competition.

AUS-WAS has too much competition?

How does AUS-WAS have two much competition when only WN and UA are on the route in comparison to other segments such as ATL-AUS where you have four carriers serving the market.

AUS-RDU/IAD/BOS are more business-based than a flight to TPA.

business routes can have too much competition. Just because ATL-AUS has too much competition, it does not mean WAS-AUS does not have too much competition now.

WN gets a huge premium for having the only service to DCA. It also has service to BWI. UA does okay with IAD service. AA will be flying into the less attractive airport without much point of sale there.

AUS-RDU has way too much capacity for a route that had around 200 PDEW pre-COVID.

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

Fair enough I actually wanted to post the Flight Global link about it as they were the ones who did the interview with the AA VP but it's behind a paid wall so this was the next best thing I could find.

The first flight to Athens left from JFK yesterday. 777-200, totally packed.

The first flight from ORD to Athens is about to leave today. 787-8 totally packed too.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

I don't see to many A321XLR from JFK because of slots constrains. Probably better off using widebodies at JFK and PHL will be just a reliver hub mostly using A321xlrs.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

CLT can fill those in summer maybe but what about other times of year when they drop Euro routes from CLT with the exception of LHR and Germany?Maybe that's where a narrow body that can cross the Atlantic would be useful.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

Is there even anything new here? I thought it was obvious AA's plan is to put the XLRs on TATL flights as they've been mentioning it since the day they ordered the 50 aircraft.

Although, I can't remember them talking about BOS TATL flights with the XLRs.

Brickell305 wrote:

CLT can fill those in summer maybe but what about other times of year when they drop Euro routes from CLT with the exception of LHR and Germany?Maybe that's where a narrow body that can cross the Atlantic would be useful.

This. Vasu Raja pre-COVID even mentioned extending CLT-MAD through the winter with the A321XLR: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/20 ... 0eecd7759d

Looking farther ahead, Raja said that deliveries of Airbus A 321XLR aircraft to American, slated to begin in 2023, will allow for expanded international service from Charlotte. The A321XLR will be the longest-range narrowbody aircraft, usable on long-haul routes that may not have enough traffic to fill bigger aircraft.

“It’s hard for us to fit more widebodies into Charlotte without blocking (gates) and clogging customs,” Raja said. “With the 321XLR we can grow internationally and use the same gates that a 321 does. In Charlotte, so many gates are specific to [smaller] fleet types.”

One international route American is targeting is Charlotte-Madrid, which currently has seasonal summer service but can go to year-round with the 321XLR.

PHLspecial wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

I don't see to many A321XLR from JFK because of slots constrains. Probably better off using widebodies at JFK and PHL will be just a reliver hub mostly using A321xlrs.

I would flip that around. AA showed they can provide a premium product in the 321T's. Use that layout (maybe not AS premium heavy in JFK for pure local traffic (777s/787s to LHR & MAD partner hubs) and widebody from PHL to capture connecting traffic.

PHLspecial wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

I don't see to many A321XLR from JFK because of slots constrains. Probably better off using widebodies at JFK and PHL will be just a reliver hub mostly using A321xlrs.

That depends. If AA decides it wants to fly to some TATL out of JFK to places like AMS, BRU, DUB, and the like, where they will have stiff competition from DL, UA (at EWR), EI, etc..but feel the need to serve these markets for corporate contracts, or add frequency on JFK-CDG (back to 2 daily, where it was for a time), then I could see the 321XLR being the plane of choice for those routes. AA flies 777's out of JFK right now to its long haul international destinations for operational simplicity, it has a maintenance base at JFK, but the 777 (200ER or W) are too much plane for a lot of TATL that AA currently does not fly. The 321XLR with its anticipated premium configuration would be perfectly suited for a few JFK routes, including some to deep South America.

TWFlyGuy wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

I don't see to many A321XLR from JFK because of slots constrains. Probably better off using widebodies at JFK and PHL will be just a reliver hub mostly using A321xlrs.

I would flip that around. AA showed they can provide a premium product in the 321T's. Use that layout (maybe not AS premium heavy in JFK for pure local traffic (777s/787s to LHR & MAD partner hubs) and widebody from PHL to capture connecting traffic.

Yep, that's a good point.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

I don't see to many A321XLR from JFK because of slots constrains. Probably better off using widebodies at JFK and PHL will be just a reliver hub mostly using A321xlrs.

That depends. If AA decides it wants to fly to some TATL out of JFK to places like AMS, BRU, DUB, and the like, where they will have stiff competition from DL, UA (at EWR), EI, etc..but feel the need to serve these markets for corporate contracts, or add frequency on JFK-CDG (back to 2 daily, where it was for a time), then I could see the 321XLR being the plane of choice for those routes. AA flies 777's out of JFK right now to its long haul international destinations for operational simplicity, it has a maintenance base at JFK, but the 777 (200ER or W) are too much plane for a lot of TATL that AA currently does not fly. The 321XLR with its anticipated premium configuration would be perfectly suited for a few JFK routes, including some to deep South America.

I don't see XLR's ever being used for deep SA flights due to their lack of cargo capacity; that segment is key for SA routes. At least from JFK, I don't see where else in deep SA AA would fly to - they already have all of the big 4, EZE, GIG, SCL and GRU covered.

usflyer msp wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

I don't see to many A321XLR from JFK because of slots constrains. Probably better off using widebodies at JFK and PHL will be just a reliver hub mostly using A321xlrs.

That depends. If AA decides it wants to fly to some TATL out of JFK to places like AMS, BRU, DUB, and the like, where they will have stiff competition from DL, UA (at EWR), EI, etc..but feel the need to serve these markets for corporate contracts, or add frequency on JFK-CDG (back to 2 daily, where it was for a time), then I could see the 321XLR being the plane of choice for those routes. AA flies 777's out of JFK right now to its long haul international destinations for operational simplicity, it has a maintenance base at JFK, but the 777 (200ER or W) are too much plane for a lot of TATL that AA currently does not fly. The 321XLR with its anticipated premium configuration would be perfectly suited for a few JFK routes, including some to deep South America.

I don't see XLR's ever being used for deep SA flights due to their lack of cargo capacity; that segment is key for SA routes. At least from JFK, I don't see where else in deep SA AA would fly to - they already have all of the big 4, EZE, GIG, SCL and GRU covered.

AA and Vasu Raja have mentioned previously the 321XLR will be used on some South America markets where the 777 and 787 are too much plane. Hard to say exactly where but off-season MIA-MVD, a resumption of MIA-COR, MIA-ASU, could be candidates for it. From JFK, secondary Brazil perhaps and in a few years. It would be a bold move, risky, but only possible with this type of jet. Another JFK possibility though at 10+ hours a long one in a narrow body is JFK-SCL. I don't see this route lasting on the 772. The 787-8 yes, but AA has no crew base at JFK for the Dreamliner so would have to rotate one in which can be operationally complicated.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

During normal operations at CLT they can only accommodate about 4 or 5 widebody arrivals due to a lack of gates with customs. LH uses D12 for their MUC flight which leaves D10 D11 D9 and probably D3. D11 and D12 are the only gates that handle wide-bodies without shutting down a neighboring gate. The XLR could use D2 D3 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 and D13 simultaneously. Eventually CLT will be getting customs on other concourses but most likely after 2025. In past years they would park A330s on D gates quickly offload them and tow them off to the hangar or concourse B for departures which isn't ideal.

JohanTally wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA update on what US cities they plan to use the A321xlrs

https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... s-a321xlr/

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

During normal operations at CLT they can only accommodate about 4 or 5 widebody arrivals due to a lack of gates with customs. LH uses D12 for their MUC flight which leaves D10 D11 D9 and probably D3. D11 and D12 are the only gates that handle wide-bodies without shutting down a neighboring gate. The XLR could use D2 D3 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 and D13 simultaneously. Eventually CLT will be getting customs on other concourses but most likely after 2025. In past years they would park A330s on D gates quickly offload them and tow them off to the hangar or concourse B for departures which isn't ideal.

D concourse can accommodate a max of 6 widebody arrivals at once. D2X, D5X, D9X, D10X, D11, and D12(LH). Along with the existing hybrid widebody gates on B concourse, AA has modified parts of the A concourse to park widebodies(A4X, A8X, and A12X). Of course, those aren’t FIS capable but it does add some flexibility going forward.

CLT704 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

I wouldn't go by what Simple Flying reports. It's often inaccurate, not credible, and almost never well written. The A321XLRs will most likely operate form PHL, JFK, and MIA to start, and I don't see much use for them at ORD or CLT, as Simple Flying reports. CLT is such a massive hub, that it can fill 787s and 777s well. Same goes for ORD, which though a lot smaller than CLT, has the feed to fill a 787. I could see the 321XLR perhaps used in the winter to a few European destinations but that seems unlikely.

During normal operations at CLT they can only accommodate about 4 or 5 widebody arrivals due to a lack of gates with customs. LH uses D12 for their MUC flight which leaves D10 D11 D9 and probably D3. D11 and D12 are the only gates that handle wide-bodies without shutting down a neighboring gate. The XLR could use D2 D3 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 and D13 simultaneously. Eventually CLT will be getting customs on other concourses but most likely after 2025. In past years they would park A330s on D gates quickly offload them and tow them off to the hangar or concourse B for departures which isn't ideal.

D concourse can accommodate a max of 6 widebody arrivals at once. D2X, D5X, D9X, D10X, D11, and D12(LH). Along with the existing hybrid widebody gates on B concourse, AA has modified parts of the A concourse to park widebodies(A4X, A8X, and A12X). Of course, those aren’t FIS capable but it does add some flexibility going forward.

The A-Con gates definitely do help with departures and could handle along with B-Con flights arriving from locations with preclearance. My point is that the XLR would be a decent fit while D-Con has it's limitations especially with all the X gates referenced which cause a loss of a neighboring gate. During the TATL arrivals we also have Caribbean arrivals that need customs and the XLR could help and also allow a modest Intl expansion.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

That depends. If AA decides it wants to fly to some TATL out of JFK to places like AMS, BRU, DUB, and the like, where they will have stiff competition from DL, UA (at EWR), EI, etc..but feel the need to serve these markets for corporate contracts, or add frequency on JFK-CDG (back to 2 daily, where it was for a time), then I could see the 321XLR being the plane of choice for those routes. AA flies 777's out of JFK right now to its long haul international destinations for operational simplicity, it has a maintenance base at JFK, but the 777 (200ER or W) are too much plane for a lot of TATL that AA currently does not fly. The 321XLR with its anticipated premium configuration would be perfectly suited for a few JFK routes, including some to deep South America.

I don't see XLR's ever being used for deep SA flights due to their lack of cargo capacity; that segment is key for SA routes. At least from JFK, I don't see where else in deep SA AA would fly to - they already have all of the big 4, EZE, GIG, SCL and GRU covered.

AA and Vasu Raja have mentioned previously the 321XLR will be used on some South America markets where the 777 and 787 are too much plane. Hard to say exactly where but off-season MIA-MVD, a resumption of MIA-COR, MIA-ASU, could be candidates for it. From JFK, secondary Brazil perhaps and in a few years. It would be a bold move, risky, but only possible with this type of jet. Another JFK possibility though at 10+ hours a long one in a narrow body is JFK-SCL. I don't see this route lasting on the 772. The 787-8 yes, but AA has no crew base at JFK for the Dreamliner so would have to rotate one in which can be operationally complicated.

I would guess definitely the cities that have recently been cut from MIA. Such as BSB, VVI, COR could definitely see a return with the XLR.

JohanTally wrote:

CLT704 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

During normal operations at CLT they can only accommodate about 4 or 5 widebody arrivals due to a lack of gates with customs. LH uses D12 for their MUC flight which leaves D10 D11 D9 and probably D3. D11 and D12 are the only gates that handle wide-bodies without shutting down a neighboring gate. The XLR could use D2 D3 D5 D6 D7 D8 D9 D10 and D13 simultaneously. Eventually CLT will be getting customs on other concourses but most likely after 2025. In past years they would park A330s on D gates quickly offload them and tow them off to the hangar or concourse B for departures which isn't ideal.

D concourse can accommodate a max of 6 widebody arrivals at once. D2X, D5X, D9X, D10X, D11, and D12(LH). Along with the existing hybrid widebody gates on B concourse, AA has modified parts of the A concourse to park widebodies(A4X, A8X, and A12X). Of course, those aren’t FIS capable but it does add some flexibility going forward.

The A-Con gates definitely do help with departures and could handle along with B-Con flights arriving from locations with preclearance. My point is that the XLR would be a decent fit while D-Con has it's limitations especially with all the X gates referenced which cause a loss of a neighboring gate. During the TATL arrivals we also have Caribbean arrivals that need customs and the XLR could help and also allow a modest Intl expansion.

FIS for CLT was going to be expanded but was put on hold with COVID. Considering CLT is back to 2019 levels maybe the customs + D expansion will show back up.