USAirALB wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Does AA have any other aircraft that have takeoff performance that is somewhat close to the LAA 319s? CLT-STT is exclusively on 319s(completely full) now after the 757 retirement and I'm wondering if another AA aircraft could be used without penalties after the increased passenger weights. MIA-STT is utilizing the Max8 and I wonder if that might work or possibly the 321Neo.

I'm confused about the need for a LAA A319 on CLT-STT. I'm not familiar with STT itself, but is there some sort of terrain issue on departure from STT that makes the LAA A319 necessary?

B6 uses their standard A320s on JFK-STT, and US has used A320s and A321s on CLT-STT in the past.

There is a hill/mountain at the end of the runway that they have to clear, and the LAA 319's have the higher thrust engines than the LUS ones do, as AA ordered them for short runways and hot/high routes like BOG, SNA, etc. B6 was doing a triangle route stopping in either SJU or STX before they dropped STX, but they must now be blocking seats.

MLIAA wrote:

DFW-ICN loads seem very strong right now, as well as pre-Covid.

While loads and yields are two different things, is there a play that AA could make to add service to ICN?

LAX and SEA are full of competition, but what about JFK or ORD? The ORD route only has KE for competition, and they seem to do very well on it, so much so that they were planning on bringing the 747-8 onto the route.

JFK has both Asiana and Korean on the route but that could change with the merger.

ICN could be an opportunity for AA to bolster its weak presence in Asia, particularly for the US point of sale.

I don't think you'll see much expansion from any of the US3 on TPAC to Asia for the foreseeable future. Corporate travel demand to the region is muted and COVID and geopolitical considerations have altered the landscape considerably. You likely won't see AA expand ICN service beyond what it has at DFW, and that itself is helped by the KE code-share that is unique to this route. I don't see AA adding any North Asia service out of JFK or ORD. From ORD, the market has effectively been written off by AA with the pull down of PEK, PVG, and NRT gradually and pre-pandemic. At JFK, ICN service is covered by KE and OZ and regardless of what happens with the merger there, I don't see any US airline adding a NYC-ICN service. If they wanted to, they would have already.

The future of AA on TPAC routes will be focused on code-share partners, with its own metal focused around DFW and perhaps, SEA but further and deeper integration with JL, MH, and depending on what happens with CX, that or a replacement carrier if it can find one. AA is short wide bodies, and so routes that require 2 frames will be difficult to launch in that environment.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The future of AA on TPAC routes will be focused on code-share partners, with its own metal focused around DFW and perhaps, SEA but further and deeper integration with JL, MH, and depending on what happens with CX, that or a replacement carrier if it can find one. AA is short wide bodies, and so routes that require 2 frames will be difficult to launch in that environment.

JL or AA adding SEA-KIX nonstop service might be a possibility with
(a) there being some global Japanese companies with a presence in the U.S. that have their headquarters in the Keihanshin (Kyoto/Osaka/Kobe) region, including Asics, Daikin, Funai, Glico, GS Yuasa, Hi-Lex, Kawasaki, Kobelco, Kubota, Kyocera, Mizuno, Nintendo, Nissin, Omron, Onkyo, Panasonic, Sanyo, Sharp, Shimano, Toyo Tires, and Zojirushi,
(b) Kyoto-based Nintendo having its North American headquarters in Redmond, WA in the Greater Seattle area,
(c) the connections that JL or AA would be able to offer onto AS and AA domestic flights out of SEA from KIX if either JL or AA adds SEA-KIX nonstop service, and
(d) JL/AA having JL's FF base in Japan and AA/AS's FF bases in the U.S. to support SEA-KIX nonstop service on JL or AA.

JL/AA can more easily make SEA-KIX nonstop service work than DL could with
(a) the stronger Japanese point-of-sale that JL/AA would have on SEA-KIX with JL/AA/AS all being in the oneworld alliance and SkyTeam not having any Japanese-based member airlines (even though Japan is served by some non-Japanese airlines in the SkyTeam alliance such as AF/CI/MU/DL/KE/VN) and
(b) there being far more connecting opportunities to/from JL/AA SEA-KIX (including connections to/from AS flights out of SEA and connections to/from JL flights out of KIX to other Asian destinations) than what DL had offered on SEA-KIX if either JL or AA adds SEA-KIX nonstop service.

Both AA and JL have much bigger fish to fry and network gaps to resume than chase after a new marginal market like KIX-SEA.

JL operates no longhaul services from KIX with exception of LAX which is down to 2x weekly, and barely manages NRT-SEA 4x weekly with its smallest type(788).
Also JL has no viable "other Asian destinations" connections beyond KIX. Its pre-pandemic routes to Taipei and Shanghai are suspended, and likely would not have connected to a US flight anyhow, plus Bangkok which operates merely 1x weekly on weekends for local tourist.

As history has shown both KIX and NGO has struggled to maintain Transpac services, and hardly a market worth AA looking at these days imo.

LAXintl wrote:

JL operates no longhaul services from KIX with exception of LAX which is down to 2x weekly, and barely manages NRT-SEA 4x weekly with its smallest type(788).

That JL ‘barely manages NRT-SEA 4x weekly’ is an exaggeration given that the route is going up to daily from June 1. On the other hand, DL is reducing HND-SEA to 4x weekly. While I am not saying that secondary Japan has a chance to print money, DL has attempted SEA-KIX many times, so I assume there is a market. And I think JL/AA probably have a better chance of making it work than DL had.

Would AA ever swap out the B38M on GEO-JFK (7x weekly) which is almost always booked for something a bit larger like the A21N?

onwFan wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

JL operates no longhaul services from KIX with exception of LAX which is down to 2x weekly, and barely manages NRT-SEA 4x weekly with its smallest type(788).

That JL ‘barely manages NRT-SEA 4x weekly’ is an exaggeration given that the route is going up to daily from June 1. On the other hand, DL is reducing HND-SEA to 4x weekly. While I am not saying that secondary Japan has a chance to print money, DL has attempted SEA-KIX many times, so I assume there is a market. And I think JL/AA probably have a better chance of making it work than DL had.

SEA is probably JL's weakest North America station looking at their loads, plus it only launched in 2019, and was suspended entirely for one-year so it hardly has strong feet to stand on.
Let them figure out this route before folks start daydreaming about a KIX flight.

Plus lets also not ignore the number of failed airlines between SEA-Tokyo - AA, CO, UA. SEA-Asia is a finite market as DL has found out. At UA for example NRT-SEA was well known as a great non-rev option.

And speaking of UA, its own SFO-KIX was one of the network's weaker Pacific performers, and still remains suspended to this day. If UA cant make KIX work out of SFO with feed benefits on both ends, SEA-KIX would do even worse.

LAXintl wrote:

SEA is probably JL's weakest North America station looking at their loads, plus it only launched in 2019, and was suspended entirely for one-year so it hardly has strong feet to stand on.
Let them figure out this route before folks start daydreaming about a KIX flight.

Plus lets also not ignore the number of failed airlines between SEA-Tokyo - AA, CO, UA. SEA-Asia is a finite market as DL has found out. At UA for example NRT-SEA was well known as a great non-rev option.

And speaking of UA, its own SFO-KIX was one of the network's weaker Pacific performers, and still remains suspended to this day. If UA cant make KIX work out of SFO with feed benefits on both ends, SEA-KIX would do even worse.

There are some contiguous U.S. markets with AS nonstop service to SEA that don't currently have UA nonstop service to SFO, including BLI, BIL, CHS, CVG, DTW, ELP, GTF, HLN, IDA, MCI, MKE, MSP, OKC, OMA, PUW, STL, ALW, EAT, ICT, and YKM.

SEA is also in a much better geographical location for connections to Japan (and other East Asian countries) from the Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast than SFO is since connections to the Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast from Japan (and other East Asian countries) through SFO require more backtracking.

JL would be able to get more connecting traffic onto its SEA-NRT nonstop flights by adding its code to more of AS's nonstop flights out of SEA.

The issues that JL is currently facing on the SEA-NRT route include (a) Japan not yet fully re-opened and (b) the frequency reductions that AS has recently made on some of its nonstop routes out of SEA (due to the operational issues that AS is currently facing) is limiting the connecting feed that is there onto JL SEA-NRT nonstop flights.

There are many global Japanese companies headquartered in Greater Tokyo that do business in the U.S., including Ajinomoto, Alps, Asahi, Bridgestone, Canon, Casio, Citizen, Clarion, Epson, Fujifilm, Fujitsu, Hino, Honda, Isuzu, JVCKenwood, Kao, Kikkoman, Kioxia, Kirin, Komatsu, Konami, Konica Minolta, Korg, Maruchan, Maxell, Mitsubishi, NEC, NTT, Nikon, Nissan, Oki, Olympus, Pentax, Pentel, Pioneer, Rakuten, Renesas, Ricoh, SII, Sansui, Sega, Seiko, Seven & i Holdings, Sigma (camera lens manufacturer), Sony, Subaru, TDK, TEAC, Takeda, Toshiba, Uniden, Wacom, YKK, Yamasa, and Yokohama Tire.

The contiguous U.S. is a very important market for JL with the contiguous U.S. being a major business destination for global Japanese companies.

JL also likely needs to serve TYO nonstop from SEA to remain relevant to AS's FF base in Greater Seattle, and TYO is a business destination for some global companies headquartered in Greater Seattle such as Amazon, Costco, Microsoft, and Starbucks.

jplatts wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

SEA is probably JL's weakest North America station looking at their loads, plus it only launched in 2019, and was suspended entirely for one-year so it hardly has strong feet to stand on.
Let them figure out this route before folks start daydreaming about a KIX flight.

Plus lets also not ignore the number of failed airlines between SEA-Tokyo - AA, CO, UA. SEA-Asia is a finite market as DL has found out. At UA for example NRT-SEA was well known as a great non-rev option.

And speaking of UA, its own SFO-KIX was one of the network's weaker Pacific performers, and still remains suspended to this day. If UA cant make KIX work out of SFO with feed benefits on both ends, SEA-KIX would do even worse.

There are some contiguous U.S. markets with AS nonstop service to SEA that don't currently have UA nonstop service to SFO, including BLI, BIL, CHS, CVG, DTW, ELP, GTF, HLN, IDA, MCI, MKE, MSP, OKC, OMA, PUW, STL, ALW, EAT, ICT, and YKM.

SEA is also in a much better geographical location for connections to Japan (and other East Asian countries) from the Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast than SFO is since connections to the Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast from Japan (and other East Asian countries) through SFO require more backtracking.

JL would be able to get more connecting traffic onto its SEA-NRT nonstop flights by adding its code to more of AS's nonstop flights out of SEA.

The issues that JL is currently facing on the SEA-NRT route include (a) Japan not yet fully re-opened and (b) the frequency reductions that AS has recently made on some of its nonstop routes out of SEA (due to the operational issues that AS is currently facing) is limiting the connecting feed that is there onto JL SEA-NRT nonstop flights.

There are many global Japanese companies headquartered in Greater Tokyo that do business in the U.S., including Ajinomoto, Alps, Asahi, Bridgestone, Canon, Casio, Citizen, Clarion, Epson, Fujifilm, Fujitsu, Hino, Honda, Isuzu, JVCKenwood, Kao, Kikkoman, Kioxia, Kirin, Komatsu, Konami, Konica Minolta, Korg, Maruchan, Maxell, Mitsubishi, NEC, NTT, Nikon, Nissan, Oki, Olympus, Pentax, Pentel, Pioneer, Rakuten, Renesas, Ricoh, SII, Sansui, Sega, Seiko, Seven & i Holdings, Sigma (camera lens manufacturer), Sony, Subaru, TDK, TEAC, Takeda, Toshiba, Uniden, Wacom, YKK, Yamasa, and Yokohama Tire.

The contiguous U.S. is a very important market for JL with the contiguous U.S. being a major business destination for global Japanese companies.

JL also likely needs to serve TYO nonstop from SEA to remain relevant to AS's FF base in Greater Seattle, and TYO is a business destination for some global companies headquartered in Greater Seattle such as Amazon, Costco, Microsoft, and Starbucks.

Do you realize how little demand there is for service between Japan (and the rest of Asia) and the US? It will be years before airlines even think of adding to their network. For a long time they will simply be focused on rebuilding what they had pre-Covid.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

Do you realize how little demand there is for service between Japan (and the rest of Asia) and the US? It will be years before airlines even think of adding to their network. For a long time they will simply be focused on rebuilding what they had pre-Covid.

I am aware that demand is weak to Japan and the rest of Asia from the U.S. due to the international border closures that have happened as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The contiguous U.S. is still a very important business market for JL, AA, NH, and UA with more than 90 global Japanese companies that have a presence in the U.S., and most of these global Japanese companies are household names in the U.S.

In addition to the presence that most global Japanese companies have in the U.S., there are also many global American companies that have offices in Greater Tokyo.

jplatts wrote:

JL also likely needs to serve TYO nonstop from SEA to remain relevant to AS's FF base in Greater Seattle, and TYO is a business destination for some global companies headquartered in Greater Seattle such as Amazon, Costco, Microsoft, and Starbucks.

Just keep in mind, a couple of those companies you just listed won't be onboard JAL. They have corporate agreements with an Atlanta based airline that cover SEA-Japan.

jplatts wrote:

JL would be able to get more connecting traffic onto its SEA-NRT nonstop flights by adding its code to more of AS's nonstop flights out of SEA.

Can they even do that with the AA/JL JV?

SEA-NRT was excluded when AS/JL expanded their codeshare relationship. There is YVR-NRT with AS code however.

SESGDL wrote:

Do you realize how little demand there is for service between Japan (and the rest of Asia) and the US? It will be years before airlines even think of adding to their network. For a long time they will simply be focused on rebuilding what they had pre-Covid.

I just dont see a SEA-KIX link on the horizon if ever on JL.

I am retired AA, and having dealt with JL in the past, KIX is not much an international gateway let alone longhaul market for JL (with single LAX route being exception) for them. All their eggs since restructuring are focused on NRT/HND.

I also remember the poor experience AA had on its own KIX service. It really was bottom of barrel tourist traffic, with minimal paid upfront loads. Was a great non-rev option, but certainly not a money maker.
I hear much of the same for UA's suspended SFO-KIX service.

janders wrote:

I am retired AA, and having dealt with JL in the past, KIX is not much an international gateway let alone longhaul market for JL (with single LAX route being exception) for them. All their eggs since restructuring are focused on NRT/HND.

I also remember the poor experience AA had on its own KIX service. It really was bottom of barrel tourist traffic, with minimal paid upfront loads. Was a great non-rev option, but certainly not a money maker.
I hear much of the same for UA's suspended SFO-KIX service.

The same was also the case for AA's old ORD-NGO service that lasted a whopping seven months IIRC.

While Osaka and Nagoya are both large, vibrant metro areas, the reality is that long-haul traffic from Japan is very Tokyo centric. Non-Tokyo-US routes have consistently not done well (AA ORD-NGO, NW DTW-KIX, AA DFW-KIX, UA SFO-NGO, UA LAX-OSA in the 90s, etc.), outside of maybe DTW-NGO which is supported by the auto industry, SFO-KIX (which has yet to resume), and LAX-KIX.

AA or JL would be foolish to launch KIX-SEA.

USAirALB wrote:

janders wrote:

I am retired AA, and having dealt with JL in the past, KIX is not much an international gateway let alone longhaul market for JL (with single LAX route being exception) for them. All their eggs since restructuring are focused on NRT/HND.

I also remember the poor experience AA had on its own KIX service. It really was bottom of barrel tourist traffic, with minimal paid upfront loads. Was a great non-rev option, but certainly not a money maker.
I hear much of the same for UA's suspended SFO-KIX service.

The same was also the case for AA's old ORD-NGO service that lasted a whopping seven months IIRC.

While Osaka and Nagoya are both large, vibrant metro areas, the reality is that long-haul traffic from Japan is very Tokyo centric. Non-Tokyo-US routes have consistently not done well (AA ORD-NGO, NW DTW-KIX, AA DFW-KIX, UA SFO-NGO, UA LAX-OSA in the 90s, etc.), outside of maybe DTW-NGO which is supported by the auto industry, SFO-KIX (which has yet to resume), and LAX-KIX.

AA or JL would be foolish to launch KIX-SEA.

NGO is only feasible from one market in North America: DTW. If the airline in question cant launch it from DTW, its a waste of money. Even SFO or YVR dont work.

As far as KIX is concerned, its best left only to Asia specific hubs like LAX, SFO, or YVR. Outside there, it isnt worth it. I dont think SEA really can make that work.

Jdv wrote:

ncflyer wrote:

Pardon me if it’s been posted I’m not a big reader of this thread but CLT used to be such a pleasant connecting airport. Now it’s just terrible. Passed through tonight for first time in a while 2/3 restaurants closed, 75% of shops closed at 7pm. Restrooms were not clean. What the heck happened? Forget about more international if it’s going to be run as a second rate airport. If labor is short pay more, like every other business is having to.

CLT isn't different than most airports in the US in this regard. I flew through TPA yesterday, and many stores/restaurants closed altogether or have limited hours. RDU still has some stores closed. This is not unique to CLT.

I totally get the business situation of the concession operators. But the airport should at the very least keep the place clean and sanitary.

Airline Weekly (paid subscription) had a story about MIA and how it managed to retain much of its traffic during the pandemic and become the busiest international gateway in the U.S. during 2021 with 13.2mil international travelers.

AA represents 2/3 of MIA enplanements and the airline plans to operate peak 355 daily departures this summer, offering 9% more seats than its 2019 peak.
Juan Carlos Liscanco, AA's VP Caribbean and Latin America mentions the carriers top 5 markets out of MIA are Cancun, Havana, Mexico City, San Juan and Santa Domingo, all leisure or VFR markets.
He says longer haul travel is "coming back now", though, across the Atlantic, AA will only serve 4 markets this summer from MIA.
For deeper into South America he terms Brazil "starting to look great" again, Argentina "remains strong" and Colombia is "incredibly strong" with 7 destinations served.

Certainly becoming clear some AA hubs like CLT, DFW and MIA are going bonkers while others LAX, PHX, ORD are a drag.
Will be interesting to see if the strong ones can financially make up for the ones that are struggling as the recovery continues to be uneven domestically and in AA's international markets.

UPlog wrote:

Certainly becoming clear some AA hubs like CLT, DFW and MIA are going bonkers while others LAX, PHX, ORD are a drag.
Will be interesting to see if the strong ones can financially make up for the ones that are struggling as the recovery continues to be uneven domestically and in AA's international markets.

Slight correction it’s been stated by AA CLT DFW MIA & PHX are doing above average

BA744PHX wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Certainly becoming clear some AA hubs like CLT, DFW and MIA are going bonkers while others LAX, PHX, ORD are a drag.
Will be interesting to see if the strong ones can financially make up for the ones that are struggling as the recovery continues to be uneven domestically and in AA's international markets.

Slight correction it’s been stated by AA CLT DFW MIA & PHX are doing above average

PHL, however…

BA744PHX wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Certainly becoming clear some AA hubs like CLT, DFW and MIA are going bonkers while others LAX, PHX, ORD are a drag.
Will be interesting to see if the strong ones can financially make up for the ones that are struggling as the recovery continues to be uneven domestically and in AA's international markets.

Slight correction it’s been stated by AA CLT DFW MIA & PHX are doing above average

I haven’t seen MIA including in these lists for a long time. MIA is being pummeled by ULCC competition and an influx of capacity. Yields have dramatically decreased at MIA over the last few years. CLT, DFW and DCA are carrying the network and are the cities AA has recently listed as performing best. I would estimate that MIA and LAX are at the bottom.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Certainly becoming clear some AA hubs like CLT, DFW and MIA are going bonkers while others LAX, PHX, ORD are a drag.
Will be interesting to see if the strong ones can financially make up for the ones that are struggling as the recovery continues to be uneven domestically and in AA's international markets.

Slight correction it’s been stated by AA CLT DFW MIA & PHX are doing above average

I haven’t seen MIA including in these lists for a long time. MIA is being pummeled by ULCC competition and an influx of capacity. Yields have dramatically decreased at MIA over the last few years. CLT, DFW and DCA are carrying the network and are the cities AA has recently listed as performing best. I would estimate that MIA and LAX are at the bottom.

Jeremy

MIA is more the middle. Domestically, it doesn't perform particularly well as AA generally matches ULCC/FLL fares. Internationally, it still performs well as AA is the king of Caribbean/Latin America point-of-sale which is significantly higher yield.

ahj2000 wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Certainly becoming clear some AA hubs like CLT, DFW and MIA are going bonkers while others LAX, PHX, ORD are a drag.
Will be interesting to see if the strong ones can financially make up for the ones that are struggling as the recovery continues to be uneven domestically and in AA's international markets.

Slight correction it’s been stated by AA CLT DFW MIA & PHX are doing above average

PHL, however…

Completely anecdotal but I have been on a couple of overbooked regional flights ex-PHL in the past week. I think AA really needs to rebuild the critical mass of the PHL network to be healthy, though.

SESGDL wrote:

BA744PHX wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Certainly becoming clear some AA hubs like CLT, DFW and MIA are going bonkers while others LAX, PHX, ORD are a drag.
Will be interesting to see if the strong ones can financially make up for the ones that are struggling as the recovery continues to be uneven domestically and in AA's international markets.

Slight correction it’s been stated by AA CLT DFW MIA & PHX are doing above average

I haven’t seen MIA including in these lists for a long time. MIA is being pummeled by ULCC competition and an influx of capacity. Yields have dramatically decreased at MIA over the last few years. CLT, DFW and DCA are carrying the network and are the cities AA has recently listed as performing best. I would estimate that MIA and LAX are at the bottom.

Jeremy

MIA has ebbed and flowed since pre-COVID in terms of its overall profitability for AA. Yes, there's more ULCC competition, which is a response to spike in demand since the pandemic to South Florida and Miami/Dade in particular, but it would be the ULCCs to pull back first, and not AA. Latin America + Caribbean traffic, plus all the cargo AA moves through MIA means AA is not going anywhere. Yields are under pressure in markets where there is overlap with the ULCCs, but I wouldn't expect much significant change in AA's MIA operation and if anything, barring more variants or other external pressures on air travel, look for AA to add back and expand further in terms of capacity to South America and some expansion to Europe too, with seasonal adjustments. The wild card is the wide body shortage.

Comparing MIA and LAX is apples to oranges. At LAX, AA can hand off some traffic to AS and right size again to meet adjusting demand there.

Just like they did in previous years since dropping their daily nonstop service, AA is again adding a daily flight on an A321T on LAX-YYZ for TIFF.

Does anyone have any insights on the reason the route was dropped in the first place? I was under the impression that the flight did extremely well up front (IIRC AA did LAX-YYZ twice daily), but yields in the back were pretty bad.

USAirALB wrote:

Just like they did in previous years since dropping their daily nonstop service, AA is again adding a daily flight on an A321T on LAX-YYZ for TIFF.

Does anyone have any insights on the reason the route was dropped in the first place? I was under the impression that the flight did extremely well up front (IIRC AA did LAX-YYZ twice daily), but yields in the back were pretty bad.

Even if AA offered a twice daily frequency (I believe that frequency was reduced to a single daily operation long before the route ended altogether), AC was and very much still is a formidable competitor on the LAX-YYZ route. I just flew AC LAX-YVR earlier this month, and our flight was delayed for an hour while a 787 headed to YYZ blocked our adjacent gate. Given how nice the AC 737 Max product is today, I can only imagine how nice their 787 is!

When I flew AC on LAX-YYZ, I had a wonderful experience on the 767. I believe that the AA product isn't even remotely competitive to O&D travelers, never mind the fact that AC and the other operator on the route - WS - both enjoy extensive FFer loyalty and onward connectivity at YYZ. In fact, WS starting service on the LAX-YYZ may have led to AA's demise on a route that IIRC it had flown for years. Also consider the fact that VX was not successful on this route, nor AS before them. All that said, a Canadian or perhaps even American ULCC very well might take a crack at it in the future.

USAirALB wrote:

Just like they did in previous years since dropping their daily nonstop service, AA is again adding a daily flight on an A321T on LAX-YYZ for TIFF.

Does anyone have any insights on the reason the route was dropped in the first place? I was under the impression that the flight did extremely well up front (IIRC AA did LAX-YYZ twice daily), but yields in the back were pretty bad.

YYZ-LAX was flown to feed QF.
When QF launched DFW and ORD it was no longer needed.

usflyer msp wrote:

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

CIDFlyer wrote:

Just wondering what smaller markets are seeing some mainline upgrades. I noticed MSN-CLT is getting a flight on the A319. LIT also is seeing a mainline flight now.

AVL-CLT getting mainline for the first time in 20 years.

I remember when that was one of the original 757 routes.

I don’t think the 757 ever started on the CLT-AVL route. If I remember correctly, it was supposed to do a turn in/out of AVL, but there were problems with engine clearance on the taxiways (they hung over the grass) and they pulled the 757 from AVL and sent it in/out to GSP instead.

One tidbit about LAX-YYZ is that its primary point of sale (as with most Canada routes) is from the Canada end, so a Canadian carrier will have a natural sales advantage.

For decades, no US carrier has been able to make LAX-YYZ work long term, even as one of the largest transborder markets.(819,248 passengers in 2019)

What is happening to the proposed AA/PR codeshare partnership? If I recall, AA will codeshare with PR from Japan to the Philippines.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Non-Tokyo-US routes have consistently not done well (AA ORD-NGO, NW DTW-KIX, AA DFW-KIX, UA SFO-NGO, UA LAX-OSA in the 90s, etc.), outside of maybe DTW-NGO which is supported by the auto industry, SFO-KIX (which has yet to resume), and LAX-KIX.

NGO is only feasible from one market in North America: DTW. If the airline in question cant launch it from DTW, its a waste of money. Even SFO or YVR dont work.

DFW might possibly be able to support nonstop service to NGO with the presence that a few companies headquartered in Greater Nagoya such as Toyota, Buffalo, and Makita have in Texas, including
(a) Toyota's North American headquarters in Plano, TX,
(b) Buffalo's North American headquarters in Austin, TX,
(c) Toyota plant in San Antonio, TX, and
(d) Makita warehouse/offices in Wilmer, TX.

There are also very few connecting options to NGO through TYO from DFW on JL/AA with JL currently only operating 1x daily nonstop to NGO from HND and 1x daily nonstop to NGO from NRT.

NGO-DTW-DFW is also more than 900 miles longer than NGO-DFW nonstop.

AA/JL would be able to capture some traffic on NGO-DFW that DL would not be able to capture on a NGO-DTW-DFW connection if either AA or JL adds NGO-DFW nonstop service with AA having a much bigger FF base in Texas than DL and with JL having a much bigger FF base in Greater Nagoya than DL does.

There would also likely be some business traffic by Buffalo and Makita in addition to Toyota on the NGO-DFW route if either AA or JL adds NGO-DFW nonstop service.

While there is some demand to Texas from NGO due to the presence that Toyota, Buffalo, and Makita have in Texas, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly weakened demand for flights to the U.S. from Japan. Toyota, Buffalo, and Makita can also now conduct meetings remotely, which lessens the need to get employees to Texas from NGO.

SurfandSnow wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Just like they did in previous years since dropping their daily nonstop service, AA is again adding a daily flight on an A321T on LAX-YYZ for TIFF.

Does anyone have any insights on the reason the route was dropped in the first place? I was under the impression that the flight did extremely well up front (IIRC AA did LAX-YYZ twice daily), but yields in the back were pretty bad.

Even if AA offered a twice daily frequency (I believe that frequency was reduced to a single daily operation long before the route ended altogether), AC was and very much still is a formidable competitor on the LAX-YYZ route. I just flew AC LAX-YVR earlier this month, and our flight was delayed for an hour while a 787 headed to YYZ blocked our adjacent gate. Given how nice the AC 737 Max product is today, I can only imagine how nice their 787 is!

When I flew AC on LAX-YYZ, I had a wonderful experience on the 767. I believe that the AA product isn't even remotely competitive to O&D travelers, never mind the fact that AC and the other operator on the route - WS - both enjoy extensive FFer loyalty and onward connectivity at YYZ. In fact, WS starting service on the LAX-YYZ may have led to AA's demise on a route that IIRC it had flown for years. Also consider the fact that VX was not successful on this route, nor AS before them. All that said, a Canadian or perhaps even American ULCC very well might take a crack at it in the future.

American doesn’t really have a true partner in Canada like UA and DL do. AA has certainly come a long way in the last 10 years or so, especially to YVR and YYC, but is still not a big player for north of the border point of sale.

MLIAA wrote:

AA has certainly come a long way in the last 10 years or so, especially to YVR and YYC

On the contrary, haven't they retrenched somewhat as well?

PHX-YYC/YVR/YEG are gone, YEG-DFW was dropped, YOW-PHL was dropped, YEG-LAX was added and then quickly dropped, and I believe they are the only member of the US3 not to fly to YVR from any of their East Coast hubs.

To be fair, not having an alliance partner probably hurts them, and they have added frequencies elsewhere. LAX-YVR, CLT-YUL, and CLT-YYZ are all mainline this summer, and I believe that this summer, AA is the largest US carrier in Toronto, both by number of departures (27) and number of nonstop destinations (8).

MLIAA wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Just like they did in previous years since dropping their daily nonstop service, AA is again adding a daily flight on an A321T on LAX-YYZ for TIFF.

Does anyone have any insights on the reason the route was dropped in the first place? I was under the impression that the flight did extremely well up front (IIRC AA did LAX-YYZ twice daily), but yields in the back were pretty bad.

Even if AA offered a twice daily frequency (I believe that frequency was reduced to a single daily operation long before the route ended altogether), AC was and very much still is a formidable competitor on the LAX-YYZ route. I just flew AC LAX-YVR earlier this month, and our flight was delayed for an hour while a 787 headed to YYZ blocked our adjacent gate. Given how nice the AC 737 Max product is today, I can only imagine how nice their 787 is!

When I flew AC on LAX-YYZ, I had a wonderful experience on the 767. I believe that the AA product isn't even remotely competitive to O&D travelers, never mind the fact that AC and the other operator on the route - WS - both enjoy extensive FFer loyalty and onward connectivity at YYZ. In fact, WS starting service on the LAX-YYZ may have led to AA's demise on a route that IIRC it had flown for years. Also consider the fact that VX was not successful on this route, nor AS before them. All that said, a Canadian or perhaps even American ULCC very well might take a crack at it in the future.

American doesn’t really have a true partner in Canada like UA and DL do. AA has certainly come a long way in the last 10 years or so, especially to YVR and YYC, but is still not a big player for north of the border point of sale.

Does it really need a Canadian partner? The two biggest Canadian airlines with network heft are both spoken for already so what else is there really? The POS originating in Canada is likely pretty much captured by AC/UA and WS/DL so likely not much of a priority for AA when it can fill its own metal from its hubs just fine.

jplatts wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

Non-Tokyo-US routes have consistently not done well (AA ORD-NGO, NW DTW-KIX, AA DFW-KIX, UA SFO-NGO, UA LAX-OSA in the 90s, etc.), outside of maybe DTW-NGO which is supported by the auto industry, SFO-KIX (which has yet to resume), and LAX-KIX.

NGO is only feasible from one market in North America: DTW. If the airline in question cant launch it from DTW, its a waste of money. Even SFO or YVR dont work.

DFW might possibly be able to support nonstop service to NGO with the presence that a few companies headquartered in Greater Nagoya such as Toyota, Buffalo, and Makita have in Texas, including
(a) Toyota's North American headquarters in Plano, TX,
(b) Buffalo's North American headquarters in Austin, TX,
(c) Toyota plant in San Antonio, TX, and
(d) Makita warehouse/offices in Wilmer, TX.

There are also very few connecting options to NGO through TYO from DFW on JL/AA with JL currently only operating 1x daily nonstop to NGO from HND and 1x daily nonstop to NGO from NRT.

NGO-DTW-DFW is also more than 900 miles longer than NGO-DFW nonstop.

AA/JL would be able to capture some traffic on NGO-DFW that DL would not be able to capture on a NGO-DTW-DFW connection if either AA or JL adds NGO-DFW nonstop service with AA having a much bigger FF base in Texas than DL and with JL having a much bigger FF base in Greater Nagoya than DL does.

There would also likely be some business traffic by Buffalo and Makita in addition to Toyota on the NGO-DFW route if either AA or JL adds NGO-DFW nonstop service.

While there is some demand to Texas from NGO due to the presence that Toyota, Buffalo, and Makita have in Texas, the COVID-19 pandemic has significantly weakened demand for flights to the U.S. from Japan. Toyota, Buffalo, and Makita can also now conduct meetings remotely, which lessens the need to get employees to Texas from NGO.

I doubt there will be much growth on TPAC broadly, until traffic levels, and specifically business demand picks up. These are nice to have routes but secondary Japan hasn't really ever worked well for anyone and given the fact that AA is short wide bodies and specifically 787s, I don't see them adding routes that require multiple frames, even if not daily. The future of AA to Asia will be focused around DFW, with the potential for one addition at SEA. South Asia, and not North Asia, will be the driver of AA growth down the road.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

Even if AA offered a twice daily frequency (I believe that frequency was reduced to a single daily operation long before the route ended altogether), AC was and very much still is a formidable competitor on the LAX-YYZ route. I just flew AC LAX-YVR earlier this month, and our flight was delayed for an hour while a 787 headed to YYZ blocked our adjacent gate. Given how nice the AC 737 Max product is today, I can only imagine how nice their 787 is!

When I flew AC on LAX-YYZ, I had a wonderful experience on the 767. I believe that the AA product isn't even remotely competitive to O&D travelers, never mind the fact that AC and the other operator on the route - WS - both enjoy extensive FFer loyalty and onward connectivity at YYZ. In fact, WS starting service on the LAX-YYZ may have led to AA's demise on a route that IIRC it had flown for years. Also consider the fact that VX was not successful on this route, nor AS before them. All that said, a Canadian or perhaps even American ULCC very well might take a crack at it in the future.

American doesn’t really have a true partner in Canada like UA and DL do. AA has certainly come a long way in the last 10 years or so, especially to YVR and YYC, but is still not a big player for north of the border point of sale.

Does it really need a Canadian partner? The two biggest Canadian airlines with network heft are both spoken for already so what else is there really? The POS originating in Canada is likely pretty much captured by AC/UA and WS/DL so likely not much of a priority for AA when it can fill its own metal from its hubs just fine.

No I don’t think it necessarily needs a partner, just pointing out that YYZ-LAX didn’t work because it’s weak in Canada point of sale without a partner.

AA started ORD-YVR at some point in the last 10 years and it is good enough to serve the eastern half of the US, no need to serve it from CLT or PHL. YYC seems to be a fairly strong city for AA as well, and even YYZ is decent compared to DL and UA. But you’re right, YEG is gone and YHZ is very patchy.

With UA flying EWR-NAP I was wondering if NAP would be a reasonable destination for AA to serve in the future. If they did I feel like it would most likely be served from either PHL, JFK or ORD.

What are everyone else’s thoughts?

IFLYUA767 wrote:

With UA flying EWR-NAP I was wondering if NAP would be a reasonable destination for AA to serve in the future. If they did I feel like it would most likely be served from either PHL, JFK or ORD.

What are everyone else’s thoughts?

Maybe from PHL when the A321XLR arrives?

IFLYUA767 wrote:

With UA flying EWR-NAP I was wondering if NAP would be a reasonable destination for AA to serve in the future. If they did I feel like it would most likely be served from either PHL, JFK or ORD.

What are everyone else’s thoughts?

Maybe a thrice weekly 321 from PHL in high season, but UA has a lead in marketing both in Italian and at US forces where they have ads at the navy base at Capo for example.

UA was going to fly to PMO but COVID axed before starting. So PMO or in my view even better CTA to the USA would do well . PMO has the name recognition but CTA is the bigger airport and tourist area not to mention plenty of Americans at Sig.

USAirALB wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Does AA have any other aircraft that have takeoff performance that is somewhat close to the LAA 319s? CLT-STT is exclusively on 319s(completely full) now after the 757 retirement and I'm wondering if another AA aircraft could be used without penalties after the increased passenger weights. MIA-STT is utilizing the Max8 and I wonder if that might work or possibly the 321Neo.

I'm confused about the need for a LAA A319 on CLT-STT. I'm not familiar with STT itself, but is there some sort of terrain issue on departure from STT that makes the LAA A319 necessary?

B6 uses their standard A320s on JFK-STT, and US has used A320s and A321s on CLT-STT in the past.

Not necessarily complaining, as CLT has become a haven for those LAA birds...they look great with the sharklets and its nice to have the IFE system. I think right now they are used for CLT-EYW/STT/SXM/BDA and frequently do short turns and RONs at East coast outstations.

The LAA 319 is a necessity for STT to be able to go out full and with fuel to CLT. Whenever a LUS 319 is subbed, it takes a significant weight penalty and often capped around 110ish passengers vs full. I think the LAA 319 is more necessary at STT than SXM really.

nc3rd wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Does AA have any other aircraft that have takeoff performance that is somewhat close to the LAA 319s? CLT-STT is exclusively on 319s(completely full) now after the 757 retirement and I'm wondering if another AA aircraft could be used without penalties after the increased passenger weights. MIA-STT is utilizing the Max8 and I wonder if that might work or possibly the 321Neo.

I'm confused about the need for a LAA A319 on CLT-STT. I'm not familiar with STT itself, but is there some sort of terrain issue on departure from STT that makes the LAA A319 necessary?

B6 uses their standard A320s on JFK-STT, and US has used A320s and A321s on CLT-STT in the past.

Not necessarily complaining, as CLT has become a haven for those LAA birds...they look great with the sharklets and its nice to have the IFE system. I think right now they are used for CLT-EYW/STT/SXM/BDA and frequently do short turns and RONs at East coast outstations.

The LAA 319 is a necessity for STT to be able to go out full and with fuel to CLT. Whenever a LUS 319 is subbed, it takes a significant weight penalty and often capped around 110ish passengers vs full. I think the LAA 319 is more necessary at STT than SXM really.

Would the A21N with a half empty fuel tank not be able to take a full pax load?

nc3rd wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Does AA have any other aircraft that have takeoff performance that is somewhat close to the LAA 319s? CLT-STT is exclusively on 319s(completely full) now after the 757 retirement and I'm wondering if another AA aircraft could be used without penalties after the increased passenger weights. MIA-STT is utilizing the Max8 and I wonder if that might work or possibly the 321Neo.

I'm confused about the need for a LAA A319 on CLT-STT. I'm not familiar with STT itself, but is there some sort of terrain issue on departure from STT that makes the LAA A319 necessary?

B6 uses their standard A320s on JFK-STT, and US has used A320s and A321s on CLT-STT in the past.

Not necessarily complaining, as CLT has become a haven for those LAA birds...they look great with the sharklets and its nice to have the IFE system. I think right now they are used for CLT-EYW/STT/SXM/BDA and frequently do short turns and RONs at East coast outstations.

The LAA 319 is a necessity for STT to be able to go out full and with fuel to CLT. Whenever a LUS 319 is subbed, it takes a significant weight penalty and often capped around 110ish passengers vs full. I think the LAA 319 is more necessary at STT than SXM really.

Granted I realize that both CLT-STT/SXM were largely 752 routes in the US days, but was the weight restriction always in place? I recall US also used to do STT-BOS with an A319 on the weekends.

I vaguely recall (although I could be 100% wrong) that CLT-SXM was at one point flown by a EOW 734.

nc3rd wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Does AA have any other aircraft that have takeoff performance that is somewhat close to the LAA 319s? CLT-STT is exclusively on 319s(completely full) now after the 757 retirement and I'm wondering if another AA aircraft could be used without penalties after the increased passenger weights. MIA-STT is utilizing the Max8 and I wonder if that might work or possibly the 321Neo.

I'm confused about the need for a LAA A319 on CLT-STT. I'm not familiar with STT itself, but is there some sort of terrain issue on departure from STT that makes the LAA A319 necessary?

B6 uses their standard A320s on JFK-STT, and US has used A320s and A321s on CLT-STT in the past.

Not necessarily complaining, as CLT has become a haven for those LAA birds...they look great with the sharklets and its nice to have the IFE system. I think right now they are used for CLT-EYW/STT/SXM/BDA and frequently do short turns and RONs at East coast outstations.

The LAA 319 is a necessity for STT to be able to go out full and with fuel to CLT. Whenever a LUS 319 is subbed, it takes a significant weight penalty and often capped around 110ish passengers vs full. I think the LAA 319 is more necessary at STT than SXM really.

Watching YouTube trip reports from before the pandemic, it seemed like some of the CLT-Caribbean routes were amongst the first to be shift to L-AA 757 metal. There had to be a reason for that, as it's what AA did with its RDU hub back in the 1990s flying to the Caribbean.

I do think AA made a mistake retiring younger 757s and 763s during the pandemic. Definitely short-sighted and the 763s found their places on PHL-Euro routes and the 757 were staffed on the higher density routes which needed more performance at shorter runway airports (EG: PHX-Hawaii, MIA/CLT-Caribbean, etc.) In the long run maybe they'll return, but I have no idea.

aerace wrote:

FlyingSicilian wrote:

IFLYUA767 wrote:

With UA flying EWR-NAP I was wondering if NAP would be a reasonable destination for AA to serve in the future. If they did I feel like it would most likely be served from either PHL, JFK or ORD.

What are everyone else’s thoughts?

Maybe a thrice weekly 321 from PHL in high season, but UA has a lead in marketing both in Italian and at US forces where they have ads at the navy base at Capo for example.

UA was going to fly to PMO but COVID axed before starting. So PMO or in my view even better CTA to the USA would do well . PMO has the name recognition but CTA is the bigger airport and tourist area not to mention plenty of Americans at Sig.

I wouldn't be surprised to see AA go for southern Italy with split NAP/PMO or NAP/CTA. Huge Italian-American base in the PHL area plus major spotlight on that region which could fill an 321XLR with ease. AA experimented with BLQ in 2019 so once the XLR fleet is actually delivered and in service, I'd expect a lot of unique summer seasonals from PHL on AA's map. Will just take a couple of years.

PHL-BLQ was a flop. Loads, and yields were so bad, AA ended the flight weeks before the scheduled run as I recall. But yes, the 321XLR will allow AA to add more summer seasonal service as well as operate some flights year round that are hard to do with a bigger plane like the 787 and 777.

aerace wrote:

Oh most definitely, but just saying AA was willing to throw an older 763 on that route to see what would happen. Clearly shortsighted in that decision, but the XLR will naturally minimize the risk with less seats to fill on a more efficient aircraft.

XLRs don't fix yields, other than by having fewer seats to sell. If other markets get higher yields, that's where XLRs will go.

NAP, PMO, CTA... PSA. It will be interesting to see what they try, and what works.

aerace wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

aerace wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised to see AA go for southern Italy with split NAP/PMO or NAP/CTA. Huge Italian-American base in the PHL area plus major spotlight on that region which could fill an 321XLR with ease. AA experimented with BLQ in 2019 so once the XLR fleet is actually delivered and in service, I'd expect a lot of unique summer seasonals from PHL on AA's map. Will just take a couple of years.

PHL-BLQ was a flop. Loads, and yields were so bad, AA ended the flight weeks before the scheduled run as I recall. But yes, the 321XLR will allow AA to add more summer seasonal service as well as operate some flights year round that are hard to do with a bigger plane like the 787 and 777.

Oh most definitely, but just saying AA was willing to throw an older 763 on that route to see what would happen. Clearly shortsighted in that decision, but the XLR will naturally minimize the risk with less seats to fill on a more efficient aircraft.

The XLR is, on paper, the more suitable plane for a route like PHL-BLQ, but it will be a premium strong aircraft and that makes it most likely not suited for a route that simply doesn't work. I flew BLQ-PHL the summer it operated and there were 23 passengers total, 2 in Business Class. Not a sign of success or failure, but weeks into the service, there was plenty of chatter on board among the crew that the route was a flop. Cargo load was also poor, which is telling. I think the future of secondary Italy for AA once it has the right planes, is more year-round service to FCO, more VCE, and potentially NAP. PMO and CTA? Very unlikely.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

aerace wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

PHL-BLQ was a flop. Loads, and yields were so bad, AA ended the flight weeks before the scheduled run as I recall. But yes, the 321XLR will allow AA to add more summer seasonal service as well as operate some flights year round that are hard to do with a bigger plane like the 787 and 777.

Oh most definitely, but just saying AA was willing to throw an older 763 on that route to see what would happen. Clearly shortsighted in that decision, but the XLR will naturally minimize the risk with less seats to fill on a more efficient aircraft.

The XLR is, on paper, the more suitable plane for a route like PHL-BLQ, but it will be a premium strong aircraft and that makes it most likely not suited for a route that simply doesn't work. I flew BLQ-PHL the summer it operated and there were 23 passengers total, 2 in Business Class. Not a sign of success or failure, but weeks into the service, there was plenty of chatter on board among the crew that the route was a flop. Cargo load was also poor, which is telling. I think the future of secondary Italy for AA once it has the right planes, is more year-round service to FCO, more VCE, and potentially NAP. PMO and CTA? Very unlikely.

I wonder if ORD-VCE will come back. I imagine it won’t come back until the 788’s that are delayed arrive on property. I read an article somewhere that at a conference Isom mentioned that VCE could become a year-round destination for them when the XLR arrives on property.

I think AA might at least try PMO down the road as a seasonal route out of PHL.

IFLYUA767 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

aerace wrote:

Oh most definitely, but just saying AA was willing to throw an older 763 on that route to see what would happen. Clearly shortsighted in that decision, but the XLR will naturally minimize the risk with less seats to fill on a more efficient aircraft.

The XLR is, on paper, the more suitable plane for a route like PHL-BLQ, but it will be a premium strong aircraft and that makes it most likely not suited for a route that simply doesn't work. I flew BLQ-PHL the summer it operated and there were 23 passengers total, 2 in Business Class. Not a sign of success or failure, but weeks into the service, there was plenty of chatter on board among the crew that the route was a flop. Cargo load was also poor, which is telling. I think the future of secondary Italy for AA once it has the right planes, is more year-round service to FCO, more VCE, and potentially NAP. PMO and CTA? Very unlikely.

I wonder if ORD-VCE will come back. I imagine it won’t come back until the 788’s that are delayed arrive on property. I read an article somewhere that at a conference Isom mentioned that VCE could become a year-round destination for them when the XLR arrives on property.

I think AA might at least try PMO down the road as a seasonal route out of PHL.

I would think yes, ORD-VCE will return once more 78s are on property. Seasonal Europe does well out of ORD for AA and given FCO, ATH, CDG and BCN are all served, it makes sense for VCE to be in the mix. UA announced EWR-PMO for Summer 2020 on a 763 but with the pandemic, it never launched. I think there is a market for East Coast-PMO and I can see AA adding it in the future.

USAirALB wrote:

nc3rd wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

I'm confused about the need for a LAA A319 on CLT-STT. I'm not familiar with STT itself, but is there some sort of terrain issue on departure from STT that makes the LAA A319 necessary?

B6 uses their standard A320s on JFK-STT, and US has used A320s and A321s on CLT-STT in the past.

Not necessarily complaining, as CLT has become a haven for those LAA birds...they look great with the sharklets and its nice to have the IFE system. I think right now they are used for CLT-EYW/STT/SXM/BDA and frequently do short turns and RONs at East coast outstations.

The LAA 319 is a necessity for STT to be able to go out full and with fuel to CLT. Whenever a LUS 319 is subbed, it takes a significant weight penalty and often capped around 110ish passengers vs full. I think the LAA 319 is more necessary at STT than SXM really.

Granted I realize that both CLT-STT/SXM were largely 752 routes in the US days, but was the weight restriction always in place? I recall US also used to do STT-BOS with an A319 on the weekends.

I vaguely recall (although I could be 100% wrong) that CLT-SXM was at one point flown by a EOW 734.

The 757 is the perfect STT airplane, but it isnt worth keeping that fleet for a handful of cities like that. The 319 Sharklet does a great job with STT. There has always been challenges with a started 319 and STT, It can be done but its a juggling act or a fuel stop in SJU.

Bit funny.

After 11-years of litigation that started with US Airways against Sabre, AA managed to win the case, but the federal jury awarded it only $1 as damages.

https://skift.com/2022/05/19/american-a ... rust-case/