USAirALB wrote:

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

AA did fly SEA-NRT. The flight flew MIA-SEA-NRT with a change of equipment in SEA. It was discontinued shortly after 9/11.

What was the equipment's routing? Something like LAX-NRT-SEA-NRT-LAX?

AA wasn’t flying LAX-NRT at the time, so it was rotated through DFW/ORD/SJC.

AA’s Asian network pre-9/11 was DFW-NRT/KIX, ORD-NRT, SJC-NRT/TPE, SEA-NRT.

DFW-KIX was cut the same time as SEA-NRT. SJC-TPE was immediately cut. SJC-NRT lasted until 2006 IIRC. They also ran NGO at one point...I can’t recall but I think it was from ORD.

They also applied at one point for HNL-NRT.

NGO was from ORD as you stated. SJC-TPE lasted only six months total, although I heard load factors were good.

SJC-NRT was cut in 2006 not long after AA issued a press release reaffirming their commitment to the SJC-NRT flight.

illinicmi wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

If cute how you list all those problems for Delta but act like American doesn't have the same issue.

AA/BA aren't tossing a ton of money losing capacity on SEA-LHR, just like DL/VS
AA is going to have the same exact limits to China that Delta/United will. Its highly unlikely anyone is flying going to be able to add more than a handful of weekly flying to China any time soon. (first mover will of course be United via SFO)
Not sure what PDX/MSP-HND have to do with Seattle other than the typical ownFan rant about how Delta is screwed in literally everything they do. But if Delta were to give up on PDX/MSP-HND, it certainly will have absolutely nothing to do with what American does in Seattle (or American period)

right now, Delta has a much, much better balance sheet and isn't staring yet another Chapter 11 run in the face. American is. The only thing any of these stupid pie in the sky adds like SEA-PVG/BLR does for American is drive them into bankruptcy faster. Right now, or anything in the near term, will be nothing more than a dumpster fire.

I love how DL fanboys like to bash AA fanboys on here without a hint of irony.

All airlines, including AA and DL, are facing tough times right now, up to and including Chapter 11. Just a fact of the world we live in right now.

We all know AS still owns Seattle, so whoever is in bed with them has the advantage there. Period.

Lets get a few things straight. I don't give a flying fudge what Delta does in Seattle. All I care about right now is two simple things. 1) getting back to positive cash flow 2) Delta not using COVID as an excuse to outsource more work and cut jobs, ala 9/11 and bankruptcy.
and I hate to break this to you, I hope the exact same thing for every other airline in the US. (really the world)

As for the "whoever is in bed with AS deal", hey if you wanna stick your head in the sand and ignore that we have already done this little "international gateway with Alaska feeding it" thing, and it being a massive failure that's fine with me. But if anyone on this web site thinks Delta brought in its own domestic flying into Seattle, with its higher cost employees, out of the goodness of their hearts and not profitability, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd LOVE to sell you.

More importantly if you think American (or Delta, Or United, Or insert any airline here) is going to magically go and dump a ton of long haul capacity into any marketplace right now, you need to get off of anet and look at said airline's finances.

onwFan wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

onwFan wrote:

What are the odds that that SEA-LHR even launches? Even VS doesn’t fly on the route now. There is no way DL/VS are flying 2x daily anytime soon. SEA-PKX cannot come back for probably another year. Watch out for PDX/MSP-HND next when the slot waivers end.

DL previously had the privilege to dilly-dally with a lot of things like HND, SEA, BOS, MIA (not to mention all those focus cities), but right now? I doubt it, especially for the next few years with depressed business demand. AA knows that DL will have to make numerous adjustments to their TPAC operations, especially with the KE/OZ merger. AA’s west coast strategy will be closely tied to DL’s plans at HND and SEA.

If cute how you list all those problems for Delta but act like American doesn't have the same issue.

AA/BA aren't tossing a ton of money losing capacity on SEA-LHR, just like DL/VS
AA is going to have the same exact limits to China that Delta/United will. Its highly unlikely anyone is flying going to be able to add more than a handful of weekly flying to China any time soon. (first mover will of course be United via SFO)
Not sure what PDX/MSP-HND have to do with Seattle other than the typical ownFan rant about how Delta is screwed in literally everything they do. But if Delta were to give up on PDX/MSP-HND, it certainly will have absolutely nothing to do with what American does in Seattle (or American period)

right now, Delta has a much, much better balance sheet and isn't staring yet another Chapter 11 run in the face. American is. The only thing any of these stupid pie in the sky adds like SEA-PVG/BLR does for American is drive them into bankruptcy faster. Right now, or anything in the near term, will be nothing more than a dumpster fire.

PDX/MSP-HND is relevant because it is part of their TPAC operation and evidently the weakest routes (based on the fact that these are not even planned daily in the future). DL needs to make a decision on how to strike a balance on TPAC capacity at SEA, ICN and HND. OW dominance in the PNW and AA’s adds will definitely play a role in DL’s restructuring, immediately at PDX, and soon at SEA.

PS: As for the rest of your rant, I think personal attacks like these are totally unnecessary. Looks like you are simply upset that DL’s TPAC strategy is starting to blow up on their face.

So you are saying Delta pulling capacity out of HND.....hurts SEA-HND? make sense. total sense.

and since you clearly haven't paid attention to the industry since March(ish) everyones everything is blowing up in their face. As i said above, as long as Delta doesn't use this time to outsource more work, I don't give a single shit where they fly from. I'd like for Atlanta to keep what it has/had simply because it makes my life easier. If they decide to drop Seattle-Asia then so be it. Profits matter to me, no "ohhhh my airline flies this route or that route". But if you wanna compare numbers, I'll be happy to do it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
FWIW if Delta were to try something as stupid as SEA-BLR, I'd be happy to point out how stupid it is. If you'll look back in the days of Delta/Alaska playing this same stupid game, you'll see I was very much against it because I knew it wouldn't work. Guess what, it didn't. Changing the name from American to Delta it isn't going to magically make it work now. Especially in a world where International demand probably wont get back to pre-COVID levels for 3-5-7-10 years.

BoeingGuy wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

What was the equipment's routing? Something like LAX-NRT-SEA-NRT-LAX?

AA wasn’t flying LAX-NRT at the time, so it was rotated through DFW/ORD/SJC.

AA’s Asian network pre-9/11 was DFW-NRT/KIX, ORD-NRT, SJC-NRT/TPE, SEA-NRT.

DFW-KIX was cut the same time as SEA-NRT. SJC-TPE was immediately cut. SJC-NRT lasted until 2006 IIRC. They also ran NGO at one point...I can’t recall but I think it was from ORD.

They also applied at one point for HNL-NRT.

NGO was from ORD as you stated. SJC-TPE lasted only six months total, although I heard load factors were good.

SJC-NRT was cut in 2006 not long after AA issued a press release reaffirming their commitment to the SJC-NRT flight.

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

Hi, anyone know where the AA fleet thread is? I can't find it.

A question: how many Oasis-retrofitted A321s are buzzing around?

Located Here:
viewtopic.php?p=22614949#p22614949

deltal1011man wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

NGO was from ORD as you stated. SJC-TPE lasted only six months total, although I heard load factors were good.

SJC-NRT was cut in 2006 not long after AA issued a press release reaffirming their commitment to the SJC-NRT flight.

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

Well considering the flight (and SJC-CDG) began on April 1, 2001, it's not particularly hard to see why it got cut.

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

deltal1011man wrote:

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

TPE is somewhat low-yielding from the US and it is very-much a VFR market. TPE traffic IIRC is stronger from the Los Angeles basin than it is from the Bay Area. I was always surprised that AA never attempted LAX-TPE, then again I think the aircraft that they have that could do it wouldn't be able to do so profitability because it is so low-yielding.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I firmly believe AA will be back on LAX-HKG (along with LAX-GRU, but that's a different story) and they are apparently internally debating on what type of suspension LAX-HKG will be.

USAirALB wrote:

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

deltal1011man wrote:

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

TPE is somewhat low-yielding from the US and it is very-much a VFR market. TPE traffic IIRC is stronger from the Los Angeles basin than it is from the Bay Area. I was always surprised that AA never attempted LAX-TPE, then again I think the aircraft that they have that could do it wouldn't be able to do so profitability because it is so low-yielding.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I firmly believe AA will be back on LAX-HKG (along with LAX-GRU, but that's a different story) and they are apparently internally debating on what type of suspension LAX-HKG will be.

That's the situation from 2 years ago. Things have changed big time. There has been a huge run on multinational business dollar out of Hong Kong to Singapore and Taiwan. There really is not a lot of advantage for a Western company to be in Hong Kong right now vs say Shanghai. So this exodus of Western business out of Hong Kong will likely continue.

USAirALB wrote:

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

deltal1011man wrote:

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

TPE is somewhat low-yielding from the US and it is very-much a VFR market. TPE traffic IIRC is stronger from the Los Angeles basin than it is from the Bay Area. I was always surprised that AA never attempted LAX-TPE, then again I think the aircraft that they have that could do it wouldn't be able to do so profitability because it is so low-yielding.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I firmly believe AA will be back on LAX-HKG (along with LAX-GRU, but that's a different story) and they are apparently internally debating on what type of suspension LAX-HKG will be.

Very unlikely AA will restart LAX-HKG. Pre-pandemic and during the civil unrest there traffic was starting to fall off a cliff and with the pandemic, traffic in and out of HKG is down nearly 90%. I can see AA trying SEA-HKG if the AS partnership and code share through OW proves successful but a further TPAC route out of HKG on AA metal is not going to happen now or anytime soon aside from what has been announced. LAX-GRU, maybe, but not until COVID is under control in Brazil and the US, two of the world's largest case counts.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

deltal1011man wrote:

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

TPE is somewhat low-yielding from the US and it is very-much a VFR market. TPE traffic IIRC is stronger from the Los Angeles basin than it is from the Bay Area. I was always surprised that AA never attempted LAX-TPE, then again I think the aircraft that they have that could do it wouldn't be able to do so profitability because it is so low-yielding.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I firmly believe AA will be back on LAX-HKG (along with LAX-GRU, but that's a different story) and they are apparently internally debating on what type of suspension LAX-HKG will be.

Very unlikely AA will restart LAX-HKG. Pre-pandemic and during the civil unrest there traffic was starting to fall off a cliff and with the pandemic, traffic in and out of HKG is down nearly 90%. I can see AA trying SEA-HKG if the AS partnership and code share through OW proves successful but a further TPAC route out of HKG on AA metal is not going to happen now or anytime soon aside from what has been announced. LAX-GRU, maybe, but not until COVID is under control in Brazil and the US, two of the world's largest case counts.

An LAXHKG restart (and PVG) is in the cards. AA said it publicly at their employer townhall. They want to restart it. Of course every month the situation changes so who knows.

MAH4546 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

TPE is somewhat low-yielding from the US and it is very-much a VFR market. TPE traffic IIRC is stronger from the Los Angeles basin than it is from the Bay Area. I was always surprised that AA never attempted LAX-TPE, then again I think the aircraft that they have that could do it wouldn't be able to do so profitability because it is so low-yielding.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I firmly believe AA will be back on LAX-HKG (along with LAX-GRU, but that's a different story) and they are apparently internally debating on what type of suspension LAX-HKG will be.

Very unlikely AA will restart LAX-HKG. Pre-pandemic and during the civil unrest there traffic was starting to fall off a cliff and with the pandemic, traffic in and out of HKG is down nearly 90%. I can see AA trying SEA-HKG if the AS partnership and code share through OW proves successful but a further TPAC route out of HKG on AA metal is not going to happen now or anytime soon aside from what has been announced. LAX-GRU, maybe, but not until COVID is under control in Brazil and the US, two of the world's largest case counts.

An LAXHKG restart (and PVG) is in the cards. AA said it publicly at their employer townhall. They want to restart it. Of course every month the situation changes so who knows.

The PVG route authority was successfully transferred to SEA to operate it from there, was it not?

Ishrion wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

An LAXHKG restart (and PVG) is in the cards. AA said it publicly at their employer townhall. They want to restart it. Of course every month the situation changes so who knows.

The PVG route authority was successfully transferred to SEA to operate it from there, was it not?

It was, but there's still 7x weekly U.S. to PVG frequencies available for U.S. carriers after AA dropped ORD-PVG.

Delta applied for MSP-PVG and United applied for a second EWR-PVG, but I'm unsure what happened after that.

IIRC DL and UA objected to AA’s request for a dormancy waiver on ORD-PEK/PVG saying they could launch the routes a year later. DOT denied their objection & asked them to apply later. I don’t think they applied - which means there are 21x weekly authorities available.

LAX-PVG is not coming back anytime soon. There is no telling when China will even re-open its border to foreign traffic. The entire thing is so crazy right now. There are quite a few steps that need to happen before Americans can freely enter China again.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Very unlikely AA will restart LAX-HKG. Pre-pandemic and during the civil unrest there traffic was starting to fall off a cliff and with the pandemic, traffic in and out of HKG is down nearly 90%. I can see AA trying SEA-HKG if the AS partnership and code share through OW proves successful but a further TPAC route out of HKG on AA metal is not going to happen now or anytime soon aside from what has been announced. LAX-GRU, maybe, but not until COVID is under control in Brazil and the US, two of the world's largest case counts.

An LAXHKG restart (and PVG) is in the cards. AA said it publicly at their employer townhall. They want to restart it. Of course every month the situation changes so who knows.

The PVG route authority was successfully transferred to SEA to operate it from there, was it not?

Yes but there are plenty of unallotted U.S.-China frequencies right now. I’m pretty confident AA will be back in LAX-PVG/HKG/GRU by 2024.

MAH4546 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

An LAXHKG restart (and PVG) is in the cards. AA said it publicly at their employer townhall. They want to restart it. Of course every month the situation changes so who knows.

The PVG route authority was successfully transferred to SEA to operate it from there, was it not?

Yes but there are plenty of unallotted U.S.-China frequencies right now. I’m pretty confident AA will be back in LAX-PVG/HKG/GRU by 2024.

GRU perhaps the least, with the Asia connections being served via DFW as well nowadays, but I’d imagine Greater China should come back soon.

(Speaking of A319 EOW, that’s how I found the forum many years ago-looking to figure out what the EOW meant on a US safety card)

ahj2000 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The PVG route authority was successfully transferred to SEA to operate it from there, was it not?

Yes but there are plenty of unallotted U.S.-China frequencies right now. I’m pretty confident AA will be back in LAX-PVG/HKG/GRU by 2024.

GRU perhaps the least, with the Asia connections being served via DFW as well nowadays, but I’d imagine Greater China should come back soon.

(Speaking of A319 EOW, that’s how I found the forum many years ago-looking to figure out what the EOW meant on a US safety card)

Yeah, but GRU isn't about Asia connections. It's a local market of 150,000+ annual passengers (obviously in normal times, not now). That's why it'll relaunch (and who knows, maybe somebody else will beat AA to it).

MAH4546 wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Yes but there are plenty of unallotted U.S.-China frequencies right now. I’m pretty confident AA will be back in LAX-PVG/HKG/GRU by 2024.

GRU perhaps the least, with the Asia connections being served via DFW as well nowadays, but I’d imagine Greater China should come back soon.

(Speaking of A319 EOW, that’s how I found the forum many years ago-looking to figure out what the EOW meant on a US safety card)

Yeah, but GRU isn't about Asia connections. It's a local market of 150,000+ annual passengers (obviously in normal times, not now). That's why it'll relaunch (and who knows, maybe somebody else will beat AA to it).

Believe the LAX-GRU flight did well, but was split eventually when AA launched LAX-EZE (I think it was something like 4 x weekly to GRU and 3 x weekly to EZE). Only other airline I can see adding GRU-LAX is LATAM.

USAirALB wrote:

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

deltal1011man wrote:

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

TPE is somewhat low-yielding from the US and it is very-much a VFR market. TPE traffic IIRC is stronger from the Los Angeles basin than it is from the Bay Area. I was always surprised that AA never attempted LAX-TPE, then again I think the aircraft that they have that could do it wouldn't be able to do so profitability because it is so low-yielding.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I firmly believe AA will be back on LAX-HKG (along with LAX-GRU, but that's a different story) and they are apparently internally debating on what type of suspension LAX-HKG will be.

RE: the L-AA 319's out of CLT, this is due to them having superior performance out of STT and SXM to CLT, as in addition to the sharklets, they also have higher thrust engines than the LUS 319's. Apparently the LUS aircraft occasionally can have weight restrictions out of those airports to CLT, although USAirways operated those routes for years with those airplanes.

747fan wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

RE: the L-AA 319's out of CLT, this is due to them having superior performance out of STT and SXM to CLT, as in addition to the sharklets, they also have higher thrust engines than the LUS 319's. Apparently the LUS aircraft occasionally can have weight restrictions out of those airports to CLT, although USAirways operated those routes for years with those airplanes.

Strange that performance is all of a sudden an issue, especially given that SXM/STT aren't particularly long-hauls, nor do they have particularly short runways. US used to run everything down to SXM/STT from A319s/A320s to 734s/752s/762s...I think the A332s made an appearance at one point as well. A321s weren't as frequently scheduled IIRC as they are not EOW and only have vests.

The only route operating out of CLT that *needs* the L-AA at present IIRC is JAC.

747fan wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Somewhat random, but why are the majority of A319 flights into/out of CLT now being operated by the L-AA Enhanced A319 (equipped with sharklets and IFE). I have never really seen them in CLT since the merger. It cannot be for EOW reasons (I see some are flying CLT-STT/SXM) as LUS had EOW A319s.

deltal1011man wrote:

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

TPE is somewhat low-yielding from the US and it is very-much a VFR market. TPE traffic IIRC is stronger from the Los Angeles basin than it is from the Bay Area. I was always surprised that AA never attempted LAX-TPE, then again I think the aircraft that they have that could do it wouldn't be able to do so profitability because it is so low-yielding.

I have said this before and I'll say it again, I firmly believe AA will be back on LAX-HKG (along with LAX-GRU, but that's a different story) and they are apparently internally debating on what type of suspension LAX-HKG will be.

RE: the L-AA 319's out of CLT, this is due to them having superior performance out of STT and SXM to CLT, as in addition to the sharklets, they also have higher thrust engines than the LUS 319's. Apparently the LUS aircraft occasionally can have weight restrictions out of those airports to CLT, although USAirways operated those routes for years with those airplanes.

Actually out of CLT the 757s were used to STT and STX for a long time.

Ishrion wrote:

AA's resuming JFK-GIG on December 16, 2021. Does anyone know what their timings were the last time they operated it?

The schedule for this upcoming flight doesn't seem familiar:

- Depart JFK 2:59 PM Arrive GIG 2:59 AM
- Depart GIG 12:01 AM Arrive JFK 8:00 AM

Here's what I have from 2018 (might be off +/- 1 hr):

- AA973, Depart JFK 9:30PM Arrive GIG 9:30AM
- AA974, Depart GIG 9:25PM Arrive JFK 6:05AM

Ishrion wrote:

AA's resuming JFK-GIG on December 16, 2021. Does anyone know what their timings were the last time they operated it?

The schedule for this upcoming flight doesn't seem familiar:

- Depart JFK 2:59 PM Arrive GIG 2:59 AM
- Depart GIG 12:01 AM Arrive JFK 8:00 AM

It was 9/10pm departure before.

Midwestindy wrote:

AA is back to pre-COVID frequencies on a majority of their routes from DFW for March, similar story for CLT but slightly less for most routes.

Coastal hubs (except MIA) are still significantly down.

Any idea how many flights will be out of both DFW and CLT for March? Maybe DFW will come out of this larger than ATL.

Midwestindy wrote:

AA is back to pre-COVID frequencies on a majority of their routes from DFW for March, similar story for CLT but slightly less for most routes.

Coastal hubs (except MIA) are still significantly down.

Many DFW-West Coast routes are still down significantly (although improved from February).

PHX appears to be much closer to pre-COVID levels as well. Similar to CLT.

Looks like ORD, PHL and LAX are still suffering quite a bit.

AC4500 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

AA is back to pre-COVID frequencies on a majority of their routes from DFW for March, similar story for CLT but slightly less for most routes.

Coastal hubs (except MIA) are still significantly down.

Many DFW-West Coast routes are still down significantly (although improved from February).

PHX appears to be much closer to pre-COVID levels as well. Similar to CLT.

Looks like ORD, PHL and LAX are still suffering quite a bit.

They are still killing all of their northeast routes. PHL-TPA should not be all regional.

tphuang wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

AA is back to pre-COVID frequencies on a majority of their routes from DFW for March, similar story for CLT but slightly less for most routes.

Coastal hubs (except MIA) are still significantly down.

Any idea how many flights will be out of both DFW and CLT for March? Maybe DFW will come out of this larger than ATL.

CLT will be around 600-650 flights on most days in March. We will have 400 regional flights on peak days. A reduced schedule will happen on Sundays Tuesdays and Wednesdays with no 7am or 10pm banks. Technically March 2021 on peak days will have more express flights scheduled than in March 2020. Get ready for long taxi times at CLT.

JohanTally wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

AA is back to pre-COVID frequencies on a majority of their routes from DFW for March, similar story for CLT but slightly less for most routes.

Coastal hubs (except MIA) are still significantly down.

Any idea how many flights will be out of both DFW and CLT for March? Maybe DFW will come out of this larger than ATL.

CLT will be around 600-650 flights on most days in March. We will have 400 regional flights on peak days. A reduced schedule will happen on Sundays Tuesdays and Wednesdays with no 7am or 10pm banks. Technically March 2021 on peak days will have more express flights scheduled than in March 2020. Get ready for long taxi times at CLT.

With 5/23 continuing to act as a taxiway, things will flow a little better from E. Not saying long taxi times will magically disappear, but it will help things out. Of course, things will improve as CLT continues to improve the airfield.

With the 7am/10pm banks coming back, things are starting to look “normal” again. Which is great to see

CLT704 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Any idea how many flights will be out of both DFW and CLT for March? Maybe DFW will come out of this larger than ATL.

CLT will be around 600-650 flights on most days in March. We will have 400 regional flights on peak days. A reduced schedule will happen on Sundays Tuesdays and Wednesdays with no 7am or 10pm banks. Technically March 2021 on peak days will have more express flights scheduled than in March 2020. Get ready for long taxi times at CLT.

With 5/23 continuing to act as a taxiway, things will flow a little better from E. Not saying long taxi times will magically disappear, but it will help things out. Of course, things will improve as CLT continues to improve the airfield.

With the 7am/10pm banks coming back, things are starting to look “normal” again. Which is great to see

They are planning on adding some concrete to expand the taxiway around D and E but are awaiting results from an EIS. Right now a 40 minute taxi from 18R/36L to E concourse is extremely common with no immediate relief in sight. Pilots often taxi for longer than their flight times from cities like AVL GSO GSP CAE. It will be great to see 9 banks back at CLT. Last I checked LH had their MUC flight resuming in late March which is great but adds to the bottleneck around D concourse.

tphuang wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

AA is back to pre-COVID frequencies on a majority of their routes from DFW for March, similar story for CLT but slightly less for most routes.

Coastal hubs (except MIA) are still significantly down.

Any idea how many flights will be out of both DFW and CLT for March? Maybe DFW will come out of this larger than ATL.

ATL's average gauge size is still significantly larger than DFW's. It will be interesting if this schedule holds. Business travel certainly isn't back so no reason to be running 10-12x daily flights to any markets outside the largest leisure markets in Florida.

Jeremy

Ishrion wrote:

AA's launching another P2P route - MCI to TPA

https://twitter.com/AmericanAir/status/ ... 6760419329

There is probably just 6 or so flights on this one right?

Ishrion wrote:

AA's launching another P2P route - MCI to TPA

https://twitter.com/AmericanAir/status/ ... 6760419329

Are you sure this isn't just one or two flights to get Chiefs fans to the Super Bowl?

It’s just one flight on an E175. Down Friday back Monday. It will be interesting to see how many flights get added. Usually it’s half a dozen or so combined but with less fans and covid it probably won’t be much.

Also the first time the host city is playing in it. So only one city will have flights instead of two.

deltal1011man wrote:

illinicmi wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

If cute how you list all those problems for Delta but act like American doesn't have the same issue.

AA/BA aren't tossing a ton of money losing capacity on SEA-LHR, just like DL/VS
AA is going to have the same exact limits to China that Delta/United will. Its highly unlikely anyone is flying going to be able to add more than a handful of weekly flying to China any time soon. (first mover will of course be United via SFO)
Not sure what PDX/MSP-HND have to do with Seattle other than the typical ownFan rant about how Delta is screwed in literally everything they do. But if Delta were to give up on PDX/MSP-HND, it certainly will have absolutely nothing to do with what American does in Seattle (or American period)

right now, Delta has a much, much better balance sheet and isn't staring yet another Chapter 11 run in the face. American is. The only thing any of these stupid pie in the sky adds like SEA-PVG/BLR does for American is drive them into bankruptcy faster. Right now, or anything in the near term, will be nothing more than a dumpster fire.

I love how DL fanboys like to bash AA fanboys on here without a hint of irony.

All airlines, including AA and DL, are facing tough times right now, up to and including Chapter 11. Just a fact of the world we live in right now.

We all know AS still owns Seattle, so whoever is in bed with them has the advantage there. Period.

Lets get a few things straight. I don't give a flying fudge what Delta does in Seattle. All I care about right now is two simple things. 1) getting back to positive cash flow 2) Delta not using COVID as an excuse to outsource more work and cut jobs, ala 9/11 and bankruptcy.
and I hate to break this to you, I hope the exact same thing for every other airline in the US. (really the world)

As for the "whoever is in bed with AS deal", hey if you wanna stick your head in the sand and ignore that we have already done this little "international gateway with Alaska feeding it" thing, and it being a massive failure that's fine with me. But if anyone on this web site thinks Delta brought in its own domestic flying into Seattle, with its higher cost employees, out of the goodness of their hearts and not profitability, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd LOVE to sell you.

More importantly if you think American (or Delta, Or United, Or insert any airline here) is going to magically go and dump a ton of long haul capacity into any marketplace right now, you need to get off of anet and look at said airline's finances.

onwFan wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

If cute how you list all those problems for Delta but act like American doesn't have the same issue.

AA/BA aren't tossing a ton of money losing capacity on SEA-LHR, just like DL/VS
AA is going to have the same exact limits to China that Delta/United will. Its highly unlikely anyone is flying going to be able to add more than a handful of weekly flying to China any time soon. (first mover will of course be United via SFO)
Not sure what PDX/MSP-HND have to do with Seattle other than the typical ownFan rant about how Delta is screwed in literally everything they do. But if Delta were to give up on PDX/MSP-HND, it certainly will have absolutely nothing to do with what American does in Seattle (or American period)

right now, Delta has a much, much better balance sheet and isn't staring yet another Chapter 11 run in the face. American is. The only thing any of these stupid pie in the sky adds like SEA-PVG/BLR does for American is drive them into bankruptcy faster. Right now, or anything in the near term, will be nothing more than a dumpster fire.

PDX/MSP-HND is relevant because it is part of their TPAC operation and evidently the weakest routes (based on the fact that these are not even planned daily in the future). DL needs to make a decision on how to strike a balance on TPAC capacity at SEA, ICN and HND. OW dominance in the PNW and AA’s adds will definitely play a role in DL’s restructuring, immediately at PDX, and soon at SEA.

PS: As for the rest of your rant, I think personal attacks like these are totally unnecessary. Looks like you are simply upset that DL’s TPAC strategy is starting to blow up on their face.

So you are saying Delta pulling capacity out of HND.....hurts SEA-HND? make sense. total sense.

and since you clearly haven't paid attention to the industry since March(ish) everyones everything is blowing up in their face. As i said above, as long as Delta doesn't use this time to outsource more work, I don't give a single shit where they fly from. I'd like for Atlanta to keep what it has/had simply because it makes my life easier. If they decide to drop Seattle-Asia then so be it. Profits matter to me, no "ohhhh my airline flies this route or that route". But if you wanna compare numbers, I'll be happy to do it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
FWIW if Delta were to try something as stupid as SEA-BLR, I'd be happy to point out how stupid it is. If you'll look back in the days of Delta/Alaska playing this same stupid game, you'll see I was very much against it because I knew it wouldn't work. Guess what, it didn't. Changing the name from American to Delta it isn't going to magically make it work now. Especially in a world where International demand probably wont get back to pre-COVID levels for 3-5-7-10 years.

BoeingGuy wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

AA wasn’t flying LAX-NRT at the time, so it was rotated through DFW/ORD/SJC.

AA’s Asian network pre-9/11 was DFW-NRT/KIX, ORD-NRT, SJC-NRT/TPE, SEA-NRT.

DFW-KIX was cut the same time as SEA-NRT. SJC-TPE was immediately cut. SJC-NRT lasted until 2006 IIRC. They also ran NGO at one point...I can’t recall but I think it was from ORD.

They also applied at one point for HNL-NRT.

NGO was from ORD as you stated. SJC-TPE lasted only six months total, although I heard load factors were good.

SJC-NRT was cut in 2006 not long after AA issued a press release reaffirming their commitment to the SJC-NRT flight.

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

DING DING DING DING DING! Everyone is acting like this AA-AS tie up is some sort of groundbreaking agreement. DL tried it with AS, it didn’t work (because domestic airlines aren’t allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share) then and it won’t work this time either. Same thing with the AA-B6 codeshare. They’ve tried it before and it didn’t work. B6 and AS passengers are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find themselves in economy on AA... AA first class passengers aren’t going to be happy when they find themselves on a B6 codeshare with no first class cabin. I think this is AA’s last ditch effort to try to keep from becoming more irrelevant in the New York market (outside JFK-LHR) and to (yet again after their SJC and LAX experiments) attempt to get a foothold in the TPAC market.

Side note, I’ve seen comments on here about DL and UA being “water only” like AA. I can attest that is not the case. I flew UA in November and December AMA-DEN-RDU (two times), RDU-ORD-DEN-AMA, and RDU-IAD-DEN-AMA. I was in economy AMA-DEN (both ways), RDU-ORD, and IAD-DEN. Full nonalcoholic beverage services were provided on all of those flights in economy including coffee and tea.

A.Net braintrust:

Do any other airlines in the world operate the same 172 seat configuration as AA? I can't find anything that dense with 16 dedicated 2x2 first class seats.

AMALH747430 wrote:

DING DING DING DING DING! Everyone is acting like this AA-AS tie up is some sort of groundbreaking agreement. DL tried it with AS, it didn’t work (because domestic airlines aren’t allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share) then and it won’t work this time either. Same thing with the AA-B6 codeshare. They’ve tried it before and it didn’t work. B6 and AS passengers are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find themselves in economy on AA... AA first class passengers aren’t going to be happy when they find themselves on a B6 codeshare with no first class cabin. I think this is AA’s last ditch effort to try to keep from becoming more irrelevant in the New York market (outside JFK-LHR) and to (yet again after their SJC and LAX experiments) attempt to get a foothold in the TPAC market.

Excellent summary of what so many have failed to grasp... "Domestic airlines aren't allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share" is really key here. The previous DL/AS tie up was in a far more optimal market, and granted SEA has grown since that ended in 2017 but that all might as well have been wiped away by COVID for years to come (Especially the business traffic from Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, etc..., IIRC many of whom heavily feed AS and would be critical to the success of a partnership like this). The single upside I can think of with all this is the elimination of E145s on the LGA routes with the B6 partnership. Even still there's no guarantee B6 will make them work, there's been no announcement about B6 moving to concourse B which means going through the Marine Air Terminal, and their E190s are still a step down from the presumptive alternative of upgauging to an AA E175.

OscarAlphaKilo wrote:

AMALH747430 wrote:

DING DING DING DING DING! Everyone is acting like this AA-AS tie up is some sort of groundbreaking agreement. DL tried it with AS, it didn’t work (because domestic airlines aren’t allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share) then and it won’t work this time either. Same thing with the AA-B6 codeshare. They’ve tried it before and it didn’t work. B6 and AS passengers are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find themselves in economy on AA... AA first class passengers aren’t going to be happy when they find themselves on a B6 codeshare with no first class cabin. I think this is AA’s last ditch effort to try to keep from becoming more irrelevant in the New York market (outside JFK-LHR) and to (yet again after their SJC and LAX experiments) attempt to get a foothold in the TPAC market.

Excellent summary of what so many have failed to grasp... "Domestic airlines aren't allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share" is really key here. The previous DL/AS tie up was in a far more optimal market, and granted SEA has grown since that ended in 2017 but that all might as well have been wiped away by COVID for years to come (Especially the business traffic from Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, etc..., IIRC many of whom heavily feed AS and would be critical to the success of a partnership like this). The single upside I can think of with all this is the elimination of E145s on the LGA routes with the B6 partnership. Even still there's no guarantee B6 will make them work, there's been no announcement about B6 moving to concourse B which means going through the Marine Air Terminal, and their E190s are still a step down from the presumptive alternative of upgauging to an AA E175.

Wasn’t the real reason that the AS/DL partnership in SEA didn’t work was because DL demanded that AS sever ties with its other international partners and exclusively feed DL? AS refused.

I believe others have reported this. Is it correct? AA is making no such demand as far as we know.

AMALH747430 wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

illinicmi wrote:

I love how DL fanboys like to bash AA fanboys on here without a hint of irony.

All airlines, including AA and DL, are facing tough times right now, up to and including Chapter 11. Just a fact of the world we live in right now.

We all know AS still owns Seattle, so whoever is in bed with them has the advantage there. Period.

Lets get a few things straight. I don't give a flying fudge what Delta does in Seattle. All I care about right now is two simple things. 1) getting back to positive cash flow 2) Delta not using COVID as an excuse to outsource more work and cut jobs, ala 9/11 and bankruptcy.
and I hate to break this to you, I hope the exact same thing for every other airline in the US. (really the world)

As for the "whoever is in bed with AS deal", hey if you wanna stick your head in the sand and ignore that we have already done this little "international gateway with Alaska feeding it" thing, and it being a massive failure that's fine with me. But if anyone on this web site thinks Delta brought in its own domestic flying into Seattle, with its higher cost employees, out of the goodness of their hearts and not profitability, I've got some ocean front property in Arizona I'd LOVE to sell you.

More importantly if you think American (or Delta, Or United, Or insert any airline here) is going to magically go and dump a ton of long haul capacity into any marketplace right now, you need to get off of anet and look at said airline's finances.

onwFan wrote:

PDX/MSP-HND is relevant because it is part of their TPAC operation and evidently the weakest routes (based on the fact that these are not even planned daily in the future). DL needs to make a decision on how to strike a balance on TPAC capacity at SEA, ICN and HND. OW dominance in the PNW and AA’s adds will definitely play a role in DL’s restructuring, immediately at PDX, and soon at SEA.

PS: As for the rest of your rant, I think personal attacks like these are totally unnecessary. Looks like you are simply upset that DL’s TPAC strategy is starting to blow up on their face.

So you are saying Delta pulling capacity out of HND.....hurts SEA-HND? make sense. total sense.

and since you clearly haven't paid attention to the industry since March(ish) everyones everything is blowing up in their face. As i said above, as long as Delta doesn't use this time to outsource more work, I don't give a single shit where they fly from. I'd like for Atlanta to keep what it has/had simply because it makes my life easier. If they decide to drop Seattle-Asia then so be it. Profits matter to me, no "ohhhh my airline flies this route or that route". But if you wanna compare numbers, I'll be happy to do it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
FWIW if Delta were to try something as stupid as SEA-BLR, I'd be happy to point out how stupid it is. If you'll look back in the days of Delta/Alaska playing this same stupid game, you'll see I was very much against it because I knew it wouldn't work. Guess what, it didn't. Changing the name from American to Delta it isn't going to magically make it work now. Especially in a world where International demand probably wont get back to pre-COVID levels for 3-5-7-10 years.

BoeingGuy wrote:

NGO was from ORD as you stated. SJC-TPE lasted only six months total, although I heard load factors were good.

SJC-NRT was cut in 2006 not long after AA issued a press release reaffirming their commitment to the SJC-NRT flight.

I'm sure they probably were. TPE is fairly easy to fill, incredibly hard to make money on. Oddly enough it is very much like HKG. The only US carrier with a chance to make money is United.

DING DING DING DING DING! Everyone is acting like this AA-AS tie up is some sort of groundbreaking agreement. DL tried it with AS, it didn’t work (because domestic airlines aren’t allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share) then and it won’t work this time either. Same thing with the AA-B6 codeshare. They’ve tried it before and it didn’t work. B6 and AS passengers are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find themselves in economy on AA... AA first class passengers aren’t going to be happy when they find themselves on a B6 codeshare with no first class cabin. I think this is AA’s last ditch effort to try to keep from becoming more irrelevant in the New York market (outside JFK-LHR) and to (yet again after their SJC and LAX experiments) attempt to get a foothold in the TPAC market.

Side note, I’ve seen comments on here about DL and UA being “water only” like AA. I can attest that is not the case. I flew UA in November and December AMA-DEN-RDU (two times), RDU-ORD-DEN-AMA, and RDU-IAD-DEN-AMA. I was in economy AMA-DEN (both ways), RDU-ORD, and IAD-DEN. Full nonalcoholic beverage services were provided on all of those flights in economy including coffee and tea.

Yeah, it didn’t work for DL because AS refused to succumb to DL’s wish to be a sole DL/Sky feeder. At that time, AS had an equal partnership with AA, DL and many oneworld & SkyTeam partners & was just helping DL the same way it did other carriers. AS FFs had no incentive to choose DL over oneworld or other carriers. Since then, DL has forced all their partners to cut ties with AS. So now, thanks to DL, AS is already mostly a oneworld feeder, plus they are joining oneworld.

You can of course underestimate the partnership in whatever way you want; but it is not going to change the fact that it will still put pressure on DL’s SEA operations, esp. when oneworld’s market share will be thrice that of Sky...

OscarAlphaKilo wrote:

AMALH747430 wrote:

DING DING DING DING DING! Everyone is acting like this AA-AS tie up is some sort of groundbreaking agreement. DL tried it with AS, it didn’t work (because domestic airlines aren’t allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share) then and it won’t work this time either. Same thing with the AA-B6 codeshare. They’ve tried it before and it didn’t work. B6 and AS passengers are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find themselves in economy on AA... AA first class passengers aren’t going to be happy when they find themselves on a B6 codeshare with no first class cabin. I think this is AA’s last ditch effort to try to keep from becoming more irrelevant in the New York market (outside JFK-LHR) and to (yet again after their SJC and LAX experiments) attempt to get a foothold in the TPAC market.

Excellent summary of what so many have failed to grasp... "Domestic airlines aren't allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share" is really key here. The previous DL/AS tie up was in a far more optimal market, and granted SEA has grown since that ended in 2017 but that all might as well have been wiped away by COVID for years to come (Especially the business traffic from Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, etc..., IIRC many of whom heavily feed AS and would be critical to the success of a partnership like this).

So, just to make sure I get it right - you are saying that all this traffic has vanished for AS, but somehow still exists only for a new entrant like DL to justify both their domestic + international operations at SEA, right? Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense!!

onwFan wrote:

OscarAlphaKilo wrote:

AMALH747430 wrote:

DING DING DING DING DING! Everyone is acting like this AA-AS tie up is some sort of groundbreaking agreement. DL tried it with AS, it didn’t work (because domestic airlines aren’t allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share) then and it won’t work this time either. Same thing with the AA-B6 codeshare. They’ve tried it before and it didn’t work. B6 and AS passengers are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find themselves in economy on AA... AA first class passengers aren’t going to be happy when they find themselves on a B6 codeshare with no first class cabin. I think this is AA’s last ditch effort to try to keep from becoming more irrelevant in the New York market (outside JFK-LHR) and to (yet again after their SJC and LAX experiments) attempt to get a foothold in the TPAC market.

Excellent summary of what so many have failed to grasp... "Domestic airlines aren't allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share" is really key here. The previous DL/AS tie up was in a far more optimal market, and granted SEA has grown since that ended in 2017 but that all might as well have been wiped away by COVID for years to come (Especially the business traffic from Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, etc..., IIRC many of whom heavily feed AS and would be critical to the success of a partnership like this).

So, just to make sure I get it right - you are saying that all this traffic has vanished for AS, but somehow still exists only for a new entrant like DL to justify both their domestic + international operations at SEA, right? Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense!!

Not what I was saying... never brought up current DL ops in my original post. I don’t think DL is justified in the domestic ops right now and certainly not in their int’l... if anything I’d think they would be in a worse position than AS. It has nothing to do with AS or DL or AA or any airline, I just tend to think SEA (and the other regions targeted by these partnerships) will be disproportionately hurt by COVID in the short to medium term (BOS is another prime example).

FWIW I’d like to see them make it work with AA and think its due time someone turns up the heat on DL. Just giving my assessment but I get it’s more fun to get defensive when someone remotely implies Delta’s success at the expense of AAs.

BoeingGuy wrote:

OscarAlphaKilo wrote:

AMALH747430 wrote:

DING DING DING DING DING! Everyone is acting like this AA-AS tie up is some sort of groundbreaking agreement. DL tried it with AS, it didn’t work (because domestic airlines aren’t allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share) then and it won’t work this time either. Same thing with the AA-B6 codeshare. They’ve tried it before and it didn’t work. B6 and AS passengers are going to be in for a rude awakening when they find themselves in economy on AA... AA first class passengers aren’t going to be happy when they find themselves on a B6 codeshare with no first class cabin. I think this is AA’s last ditch effort to try to keep from becoming more irrelevant in the New York market (outside JFK-LHR) and to (yet again after their SJC and LAX experiments) attempt to get a foothold in the TPAC market.

Excellent summary of what so many have failed to grasp... "Domestic airlines aren't allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share" is really key here. The previous DL/AS tie up was in a far more optimal market, and granted SEA has grown since that ended in 2017 but that all might as well have been wiped away by COVID for years to come (Especially the business traffic from Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, etc..., IIRC many of whom heavily feed AS and would be critical to the success of a partnership like this). The single upside I can think of with all this is the elimination of E145s on the LGA routes with the B6 partnership. Even still there's no guarantee B6 will make them work, there's been no announcement about B6 moving to concourse B which means going through the Marine Air Terminal, and their E190s are still a step down from the presumptive alternative of upgauging to an AA E175.

Wasn’t the real reason that the AS/DL partnership in SEA didn’t work was because DL demanded that AS sever ties with its other international partners and exclusively feed DL? AS refused.

I believe others have reported this. Is it correct? AA is making no such demand as far as we know.

I think I was able to corroborate this, thanks for sharing! If that’s the case than it gives some reason for optimism that the AS partnership might be more successful. Them having joined OW is an entirely different dynamic and would be prohibitive of AA requiring a similar level of exclusivity in feeding traffic. Saw an article recently that they’re already coordinating to feed with other OW members like QF, JL, BA, etc...

OscarAlphaKilo wrote:

onwFan wrote:

OscarAlphaKilo wrote:

Excellent summary of what so many have failed to grasp... "Domestic airlines aren't allowed to coordinate schedules or revenue share" is really key here. The previous DL/AS tie up was in a far more optimal market, and granted SEA has grown since that ended in 2017 but that all might as well have been wiped away by COVID for years to come (Especially the business traffic from Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, etc..., IIRC many of whom heavily feed AS and would be critical to the success of a partnership like this).

So, just to make sure I get it right - you are saying that all this traffic has vanished for AS, but somehow still exists only for a new entrant like DL to justify both their domestic + international operations at SEA, right? Yeah, makes a whole lot of sense!!

Not what I was saying... never brought up current DL ops in my original post. I don’t think DL is justified in the domestic ops right now and certainly not in their int’l... if anything I’d think they would be in a worse position than AS. It has nothing to do with AS or DL or AA or any airline, I just tend to think SEA (and the other regions targeted by these partnerships) will be disproportionately hurt by COVID in the short to medium term (BOS is another prime example).

FWIW I’d like to see them make it work with AA and think its due time someone turns up the heat on DL. Just giving my assessment but I get it’s more fun to get defensive when someone remotely implies Delta’s success at the expense of AAs.

In that case, isn’t it actually an advantage that AS/AA have that DL does not? AA hasn’t even started the international flights, and AS’ domestic network was already there even without AA feed. Which means they need to just lie waiting till demand returns to phase in the partnership slowly...

We're probably a ways out from anything more on the subject, but are there any ideas as to what the next JFK Int'l route launches would be per the AA/B6 partnership? I'd assume another announcement is predicated upon success in A) Actually implementing the codeshare and B) Launching TLV/ATH.

OscarAlphaKilo wrote:

We're probably a ways out from anything more on the subject, but are there any ideas as to what the next JFK Int'l route launches would be per the AA/B6 partnership? I'd assume another announcement is predicated upon success in A) Actually implementing the codeshare and B) Launching TLV/ATH.

The only other long haul international route that has been lumped into the AA/B6 partnership announcement is JFK-GIG, which has been operated on and off (mostly off) since the early 1990s). It ran as a year-round route for a time in the last decade, and was changed to seasonal but not restarted in 2020 for obvious reasons. The most recent flight times announced for this service are a 2:59PM departure and a 2:59AM arrival, or something like that. With international travel being what it is these days, I don't see AA making any more moves at JFK when it comes to long haul (and likely any other gateway other than restarting further some dormant flights). The JFK-GIG route, if it goes ahead, will not start/resume until 12/21/21.

TLV/ATH, which have dates and schedules published for JFK, could just as easily be cancelled or pushed to a later date.

For any other destination, I just don't see anything else for 2021 though some further route announcements for 2022 could be, but it all depends on whether the AA/B6 partnership is not re-reviewed by the DOT/DOJ under the new administration and of course, COVID19.

x1234 wrote:

AA serves the majority of Latin destinations from JFK except for MEX. Any chance of AA adding JFK-MEX? AA has great Mexico POS unlike JetBlue which pulled out. The market is there as AM runs widebodies (789) on the route.

This is not true. AA serves very few Latin destinations from JFK. It would get slaughtered on JFK-MEX.

x1234 wrote:

AA serves the majority of Latin destinations from JFK except for MEX. Any chance of AA adding JFK-MEX? AA has great Mexico POS unlike JetBlue which pulled out. The market is there as AM runs widebodies (789) on the route.

Not even close. AA serves very few Latin American destinations from JFK.