Brian Znotins VP Network during this weeks employee news update shared following as insight to where the schedules are headed.

"We are always following demand, and we are looking to see where demand is headed. Our network has really been focused on leisure destinations coming out of the pandemic, and that will continue going forward. We do see business demand recovering especially small and medium sized businesses. The corporate demand, that typical consultant, lawyer, finance, that demand has been slower, so you have seen our schedules reflect that. You will see us focus on many of the same things we focused on last year which is visiting friends and relatives and small and medium business travel."

LAXintl wrote:

Brian Znotins VP Network during this weeks employee news update shared following as insight to where the schedules are headed.

"We are always following demand, and we are looking to see where demand is headed. Our network has really been focused on leisure destinations coming out of the pandemic, and that will continue going forward. We do see business demand recovering especially small and medium sized businesses. The corporate demand, that typical consultant, lawyer, finance, that demand has been slower, so you have seen our schedules reflect that. You will see us focus on many of the same things we focused on last year which is visiting friends and relatives and small and medium business travel."

That's exactly why the airlines across the board have pulled down so much of their schedules in September and October. Business travel has picked up somewhat, but it is years from ever going back to 2019 levels, if at all. Leisure demand drops dramatically post Labor Day and so when the airlines, AA, included, say they are reducing their schedules to better support operational reliability, it is a lot of b/s. It is simply adjusting to the demand cycle, which in a market focused on VFR/Leisure, means it cycles back up from Thanksgiving to January 2nd, then drops again until Spring, as we all know. Q4 airline revenues/performance will show that and that's why the big uptick in the most recent quarters are useless for guidance.

LAXintl wrote:

Brian Znotins VP Network during this weeks employee news update shared following as insight to where the schedules are headed.

"We are always following demand, and we are looking to see where demand is headed. Our network has really been focused on leisure destinations coming out of the pandemic, and that will continue going forward. We do see business demand recovering especially small and medium sized businesses. The corporate demand, that typical consultant, lawyer, finance, that demand has been slower, so you have seen our schedules reflect that. You will see us focus on many of the same things we focused on last year which is visiting friends and relatives and small and medium business travel."

Well yes the typical consultant is being forced to do more virtual. Recruiters at two of the four largest consulting firms have told me that consultants are traveling less and clients are demanding more Zoom calls and that this will is permanent. On the sales side the decrease will be smaller because no firm wants to gamble with a revenue opportunity that gets lost on a Zoom call.

Make no mistake a personal interaction WILL ALWAYS be a better experience over a Zoom Call, despite what the promoters of the virtual world want you to think. It's true with visiting Grandma and it's true in business. But then there's a cost trade off.

miami123 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Brian Znotins VP Network during this weeks employee news update shared following as insight to where the schedules are headed.

"We are always following demand, and we are looking to see where demand is headed. Our network has really been focused on leisure destinations coming out of the pandemic, and that will continue going forward. We do see business demand recovering especially small and medium sized businesses. The corporate demand, that typical consultant, lawyer, finance, that demand has been slower, so you have seen our schedules reflect that. You will see us focus on many of the same things we focused on last year which is visiting friends and relatives and small and medium business travel."

Well yes the typical consultant is being forced to do more virtual. Recruiters at two of the four largest consulting firms have told me that consultants are traveling less and clients are demanding more Zoom calls and that this will is permanent. On the sales side the decrease will be smaller because no firm wants to gamble with a revenue opportunity that gets lost on a Zoom call.

Make no mistake a personal interaction WILL ALWAYS be a better experience over a Zoom Call, despite what the promoters of the virtual world want you to think. It's true with visiting Grandma and it's true in business. But then there's a cost trade off.

I could not agree with your more about the importance of face to face interactions in the sales world but the reality is that even in sales we are being forced to reduce travel costs significantly. That means Zoom or Teams whenever possible and when we have to be there in person, having the minimum number of people onsite. I do not think we will ever go back to the way it was before and that is from the perspective of a $6B in revenue global company. (They have even indicated a likely end to the annual recognition event for salespersons who meet their quotas)

Welcome to the new normal

LAXintl wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

This confuses me only because they are saying that currently they’re facing a WB shortage while at the same time saying they want to drop WB routes and use the planes domestically. They need more WBs for DFW-LAX? And if they’re cutting back in places like NY, then what’s the purpose of the A321XLRs?

On the XLRs, we probably need to remember they were ordered in a different world, and under a different management team.

Its clear Vasu and company as trying to reinvent the network so what was once the XLR plan, may no longer be. I suspect the model will still be kept busy with some flying from places like PHL and CLT to Europe along with opportunities into South America. Plus we now have the rumor of them taking over transcons from 321Ts.
As they have told us before, NYC has been a struggle and only select markets work and they will be judicious in deploying capacity there.

On domestic widebodies, the more I think about it, seems to me models like the 787-8 with mere 20 F seats, might indeed make a good year-round domestic workhorse with cargo capacity as added bonus instead of using the capacity to chase seasonal European crowds.

For DFW-LAX, the example Vasu gave was AA could not add enough flights to cater to the underlying demand from Knoxville and ton of other similar markets wanting to head West, so having the ability to upgauge and slot in some widebodies would be a positive move and further builds on AA market performance out of Knoxville and similar feeder cities.

(to illustrate his comments, tomorrow DFW-LAX has 13 flights, so I agree with him that there is not much room to add frequency, so gauge is probably the answer if he needs the seats)

One issue with LAX in the near term is with the construction going on at T4, AA really doesnt have a lot of gates in LAX that can take Widebodies. Not sure if this will constrain upgauging in the near term, but it is something to consider.

miami123 wrote:

Well yes the typical consultant is being forced to do more virtual. Recruiters at two of the four largest consulting firms have told me that consultants are traveling less and clients are demanding more Zoom calls and that this will is permanent.

As a consultant that used to fly 200k annually, my entire business air travel since Feb 2020, has been a single trip, and that only because it was an emergency for the client and they almost begged.

We've largely proven that nearly all work can be done remotely, and business goes on. Had record revenues in 2021, and not traveling just added to the profit. Heck, even if we wanted to travel, much of the client base is work from home also, including bunch of airline clients themselves.

brooklynchris13 wrote:

I could not agree with your more about the importance of face to face interactions in the sales world but the reality is that even in sales we are being forced to reduce travel costs significantly. That means Zoom or Teams whenever possible and when we have to be there in person, having the minimum number of people onsite. I do not think we will ever go back to the way it was before and that is from the perspective of a $6B in revenue global company. (They have even indicated a likely end to the annual recognition event for salespersons who meet their quotas)

Welcome to the new normal

As much as many dont want to see it, there is a new normal emerging. Wife is a divisional head for a global consumer brand, and similarly, they have far reduced travel going on, and what there is has a high health and financial bar to clear before being approved.

apodino wrote:

One issue with LAX in the near term is with the construction going on at T4, AA really doesnt have a lot of gates in LAX that can take Widebodies. Not sure if this will constrain upgauging in the near term, but it is something to consider.

Dont think its much an issue. So long as AA does not flood the schedule with WB's, should be able to gate at TBIT among all the other AA flights there.

LAXintl wrote:

miami123 wrote:

Well yes the typical consultant is being forced to do more virtual. Recruiters at two of the four largest consulting firms have told me that consultants are traveling less and clients are demanding more Zoom calls and that this will is permanent.

As a consultant that used to fly 200k annually, my entire business air travel since Feb 2020, has been a single trip, and that only because it was an emergency for the client and they almost begged.

We've largely proven that nearly all work can be done remotely, and business goes on. Had record revenues in 2021, and not traveling just added to the profit. Heck, even if we wanted to travel, much of the client base is work from home also, including bunch of airline clients themselves.

brooklynchris13 wrote:

I could not agree with your more about the importance of face to face interactions in the sales world but the reality is that even in sales we are being forced to reduce travel costs significantly. That means Zoom or Teams whenever possible and when we have to be there in person, having the minimum number of people onsite. I do not think we will ever go back to the way it was before and that is from the perspective of a $6B in revenue global company. (They have even indicated a likely end to the annual recognition event for salespersons who meet their quotas)

Welcome to the new normal

As much as many dont want to see it, there is a new normal emerging. Wife is a divisional head for a global consumer brand, and similarly, they have far reduced travel going on, and what there is has a high health and financial bar to clear before being approved.

apodino wrote:

One issue with LAX in the near term is with the construction going on at T4, AA really doesnt have a lot of gates in LAX that can take Widebodies. Not sure if this will constrain upgauging in the near term, but it is something to consider.

Dont think its much an issue. So long as AA does not flood the schedule with WB's, should be able to gate at TBIT among all the other AA flights there.

All you need to do to gage over all demand is look at this:

https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput

People are traveling about 85-90% as much as they were for 2019. I work as an airline industry analyst at a corporate travel company. Everyone is working 12 hour days because we cant staff fast enough. This is only corporate travel not leisure.

Load factors are high and fares are high. If this is the new normal, I dont see airlines complaining about demand. If anything, we dont have near enough supply. People can say what they want, but aside from short staffing, my Corporate Travel based company couldnt be doing any better where profit is concerned.

apodino wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Brickell305 wrote:

This confuses me only because they are saying that currently they’re facing a WB shortage while at the same time saying they want to drop WB routes and use the planes domestically. They need more WBs for DFW-LAX? And if they’re cutting back in places like NY, then what’s the purpose of the A321XLRs?

On the XLRs, we probably need to remember they were ordered in a different world, and under a different management team.

Its clear Vasu and company as trying to reinvent the network so what was once the XLR plan, may no longer be. I suspect the model will still be kept busy with some flying from places like PHL and CLT to Europe along with opportunities into South America. Plus we now have the rumor of them taking over transcons from 321Ts.
As they have told us before, NYC has been a struggle and only select markets work and they will be judicious in deploying capacity there.

On domestic widebodies, the more I think about it, seems to me models like the 787-8 with mere 20 F seats, might indeed make a good year-round domestic workhorse with cargo capacity as added bonus instead of using the capacity to chase seasonal European crowds.

For DFW-LAX, the example Vasu gave was AA could not add enough flights to cater to the underlying demand from Knoxville and ton of other similar markets wanting to head West, so having the ability to upgauge and slot in some widebodies would be a positive move and further builds on AA market performance out of Knoxville and similar feeder cities.

(to illustrate his comments, tomorrow DFW-LAX has 13 flights, so I agree with him that there is not much room to add frequency, so gauge is probably the answer if he needs the seats)

One issue with LAX in the near term is with the construction going on at T4, AA really doesnt have a lot of gates in LAX that can take Widebodies. Not sure if this will constrain upgauging in the near term, but it is something to consider.

They use gates 153, 155, 157, and 159 in TBIT regularly for widebody flights to ORD, LHR, and MIA. What is the current preferential setup for AA in the TBIT? I know they were permitted to use those widebody gates in the morning and the narrow-body gate 151 all day. Has that changed with MSC now open and many gates closed in T4?

rjbesikof wrote:

They use gates 153, 155, 157, and 159 in TBIT regularly for widebody flights to ORD, LHR, and MIA. What is the current preferential setup for AA in the TBIT? I know they were permitted to use those widebody gates in the morning and the narrow-body gate 151 all day. Has that changed with MSC now open and many gates closed in T4?

Generally, they have been using 151/153/155 all day. This afternoon/evening for example AA has AUS, JFK, LAS, and PHX flights in addition to international LHR,MEX and SJD flights using these gates.

LAXintl wrote:

Brian Znotins VP Network during this weeks employee news update shared following as insight to where the schedules are headed.

"We are always following demand, and we are looking to see where demand is headed. Our network has really been focused on leisure destinations coming out of the pandemic, and that will continue going forward. We do see business demand recovering especially small and medium sized businesses. The corporate demand, that typical consultant, lawyer, finance, that demand has been slower, so you have seen our schedules reflect that. You will see us focus on many of the same things we focused on last year which is visiting friends and relatives and small and medium business travel."

I really wonder if high cost legacy carriers will be able to transform themselves enough if the marketplace remains so leisure focused and the high spend business travelers continue to stay away.

Its clear, AA is willing to adjust its network to cater to such traffic, but can it survive long term with a foundation and cost base largely built on serving what once was steady flow of high spend big corporate clients.

MAH4546 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

A full flight isn't necessarily a profitable flight...

I highly doubt you will see CLT-HNL return. HNL is easily served over DFW/PHX/LAX. CLT-HNL-CLT essentially eats up a frame for 24 hours. In that same 24 hours, a plane can do several Caribbean and/or Continental US segments, and likely earn more profits doing so than any CLT-HNL flight.

It had good yields but likely won't happen again until CLT is a 787 base.

It clearly didn’t because it’s permanently gone.

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

N62NA wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

It had good yields but likely won't happen again until CLT is a 787 base.

It clearly didn’t because it’s permanently gone.

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

By no means did AA close the door completely just that it would be a while and Hawaii yields would have to improve.

Asked by Forbes whether it's likely to return, Brian Znotins, American's vice president for network and schedule planning, said:

“Never is a long time, but it’s going to be a while. We need the widebodies to fly to Europe in the wake of Boeing's failures to deliver 787s to us. If we see Hawaii yields improve significantly, that would be a good sign for it to come back.”

N62NA wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

It had good yields but likely won't happen again until CLT is a 787 base.

It clearly didn’t because it’s permanently gone.

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

You can’t book it. Pretty clear.

MAH4546 wrote:

N62NA wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

It clearly didn’t because it’s permanently gone.

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

You can’t book it. Pretty clear.

You can't book LAX-HKG does that mean it's permanently gone?

N62NA wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

It had good yields but likely won't happen again until CLT is a 787 base.

It clearly didn’t because it’s permanently gone.

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

It’s unavailable through the rest of the schedule. That’s the usual standard for saying a route is “permanently” dropped. Although, obviously it could technically be re-added at any point.

JohanTally wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

N62NA wrote:

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

You can’t book it. Pretty clear.

You can't book LAX-HKG does that mean it's permanently gone?

Don't believe it was ever officially announced but LAX-HKG and the LAX TPAC gateway for AA are both as good as gone. The future of LAX intercontinental long haul for AA is going to be limited to LHR, SYD, and NRT/HND and that's pretty much it. HKG's role as an air hub is, at least for now and the medium term, much diminished. DFW-HKG has been pushed back numerous times too. The rest of the LAX TPAC network that AA had (PVG, PEK, AKL) isn't coming back. AKL has already been moved to DFW. PVG was moved to SEA and hasn't started.

MAH4546 wrote:

N62NA wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

It clearly didn’t because it’s permanently gone.

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

You can’t book it. Pretty clear.

So by that logic, MIA-BSB/MAO/CNF are "permanently" gone as well?

JohanTally wrote:

N62NA wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

It clearly didn’t because it’s permanently gone.

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

By no means did AA close the door completely just that it would be a while and Hawaii yields would have to improve.

Asked by Forbes whether it's likely to return, Brian Znotins, American's vice president for network and schedule planning, said:

“Never is a long time, but it’s going to be a while. We need the widebodies to fly to Europe in the wake of Boeing's failures to deliver 787s to us. If we see Hawaii yields improve significantly, that would be a good sign for it to come back.”

"It's going to be a while" is as close to saying permanent as you are going to hear.

LAXintl wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

They use gates 153, 155, 157, and 159 in TBIT regularly for widebody flights to ORD, LHR, and MIA. What is the current preferential setup for AA in the TBIT? I know they were permitted to use those widebody gates in the morning and the narrow-body gate 151 all day. Has that changed with MSC now open and many gates closed in T4?

Generally, they have been using 151/153/155 all day. This afternoon/evening for example AA has AUS, JFK, LAS, and PHX flights in addition to international LHR,MEX and SJD flights using these gates.

Those 3 gates (TBIT 151, 153, 155) are preferential for AA or are they common use?

JohanTally wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

N62NA wrote:

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

You can’t book it. Pretty clear.

You can't book LAX-HKG does that mean it's permanently gone?

Correct. AA has permanently discontinued LAX- HKG.

USAirALB wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

N62NA wrote:

It's clearly permanently gone? Source?

You can’t book it. Pretty clear.

So by that logic, MIA-BSB/MAO/CNF are "permanently" gone as well?

Yes, correct. MAO and BSB being essentially farmed out to Gol. LATAM has MIACNF on radar for next year, so maybe that will trigger AA to relaunch, but until then. It’s permanently discontinued.

Schedule has been updated through 1/9/23 now

According to AA.com. AA is up-gauging one MIA-PHX-MIA to 772 from Dec 15 thru Jan 09. Surprising cuts during the Holidays at MIA. MIA-IAH and MIA-MSY reduced to just 2 daily. MIA-ATL reduced to 4 daily.

miaami wrote:

According to AA.com. AA is up-gauging one MIA-PHX-MIA to 772 from Dec 15 thru Jan 09. Surprising cuts during the Holidays at MIA. MIA-IAH and MIA-MSY reduced to just 2 daily. MIA-ATL reduced to 4 daily.

MIA-ATL (1x E175, 2x A319, 1x 738)
MIA-IAH (1x E175, 1x 738)
MIA-MSY (1x E175, 1x A321)

So it’s not just they reduced the number of flights on those but are also sending fairly low capacity on the flights they do have.

With this schedule extension, CLT-LAX sees a 772.

Brickell305 wrote:

miaami wrote:

According to AA.com. AA is up-gauging one MIA-PHX-MIA to 772 from Dec 15 thru Jan 09. Surprising cuts during the Holidays at MIA. MIA-IAH and MIA-MSY reduced to just 2 daily. MIA-ATL reduced to 4 daily.

MIA-ATL (1x E175, 2x A319, 1x 738)
MIA-IAH (1x E175, 1x 738)
MIA-MSY (1x E175, 1x A321)

So it’s not just they reduced the number of flights on those but are also sending fairly low capacity on the flights they do have.

EWR down from 27 to 22 daily flights now.

Roots1 wrote:

With this schedule extension, CLT-LAX sees a 772.

Now there's a sight for sore eyes. CLT almost never gets a widebody for transcon.

Roots1 wrote:

With this schedule extension, CLT-LAX sees a 772.

It looks like it starts 12/15 and on the schedule through 1/9. Let's see if it goes much past that or if it was a holiday addition.

MAH4546 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

You can’t book it. Pretty clear.

You can't book LAX-HKG does that mean it's permanently gone?

Correct. AA has permanently discontinued LAX- HKG.

Leaving that route exclusively to CX I would think.

American 767 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

You can't book LAX-HKG does that mean it's permanently gone?

Correct. AA has permanently discontinued LAX- HKG.

Leaving that route exclusively to CX I would think.

Yes. And sadly CX is only flying regularly 5 flights a week as Hong Kong traffic has crippled. They are adding a few extra flights over the next few weeks, but that's no surprise since schools on the quarter system - including UCLA - are starting back up, and that's probably represents the huge bulk of HK/China-U.S. travel right now. While Boston is back to 1x a week on the regular, there was a point during the pandemic that CX was only serving BOS during the obvious school travel periods - August/September, winter break and May.

How is AA doing with bookings on DFW-AKL?

MIAHPN is back. Resumes January 10, daily E175.

MAH4546 wrote:

American 767 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Correct. AA has permanently discontinued LAX- HKG.

Leaving that route exclusively to CX I would think.

Yes. And sadly CX is only flying regularly 5 flights a week as Hong Kong traffic has crippled. They are adding a few extra flights over the next few weeks, but that's no surprise since schools on the quarter system - including UCLA - are starting back up, and that's probably represents the huge bulk of HK/China-U.S. travel right now. While Boston is back to 1x a week on the regular, there was a point during the pandemic that CX was only serving BOS during the obvious school travel periods - August/September, winter break and May.

Cathay is flying to HKG almost daily from JFK & LAX and once or twice weekly from Boston and ORD. SFO is three or four times weekly. Vancouver is daily or almost. Its going to be years before we see the thrice daily LAX and JFK as before this terrible pandemic. We may never see Cathay as it was, Air China may force Swire to sell their controlling interest to them. Let's hope we see the Cathay we all knew and love in some form soon.

Robert Isom and Derek Kerr were speakers at yesterdays Cowen global transportation forum.

Some notes from comments

○ Some rocky patches this summer with really difficult operating challanges, but ended with strong Labor Day performance.
○ More work to do on running a reliable airline
○ One area is staffing up - hired almost 20,000 people over the last year, but there is a learning curve before people mature into their positions and become fully proficient.
○ Keeping a buffered schedule into winter
○ Have physical assets in place to fly a much larger airline. Between mainline and regional partners had the equivalent capacity of 150 planes not flying in Q2.
○ Over time will become more efficient and better utilize assets. This will bring revenue opportunities, and reduce unit cost
○ Without PSP (Payroll Support Program) would have a different industry today. Airlines are vital part of American commerce and economy.
○ As a country wishes we would be longer term vision to better invest in aviation infrastructure (ATC modernization, airports)
○ Want to craft a win-win solution with APA pilots union
○ Youngest fleet among majors - almost $25bil invested in aircraft last 6-years
○ Simplifying fleet down to two narrowbody models, and two widebody models has helped both operationally and financially, plus modern planes with new engines burn less fuel and are more sustainable compared to legacy types.
○ 2022 trans-Atlantic revenues exceeded 2019 performance, though its been rough with so many issues on the continent (airport/staffing, economy, war)
○ For LHR specifically worked closely by BA to isolate AA ops to take pressure off. Today operation is running much better than what we saw earlier in summer. BA will rebuild as time goes on
○ See upside internationally as head in 2023
○ Cant wait for other key market like Japan to open
○ Post Labor Day leisure bookings into fall look strong still
○ Domestic business revenue 105% of 2019 levels, pushed by higher fares. Biz demand driven by small and medium sized businesses. The big corporates - banking, consulting, and entertainment only about 75% of 2019 revenues.
○ A murky picture identifying biz travel vs blended leisure travel. People are living in different places and trip patterns have change.
○ AA regional network and ability to serve more smaller city pairs than anyone else is a strength.
○ Network will move to where people want to fly
○ Financially, making progress with highest ever revenues in Q2 and achieved a profit
○ Have $15bil in liquidity today. Pre-pandemic was $7bil range. Over time will see drop to $10-12bil and use cash to pay off debt and reduce leverage.
○ No major obligations except aircraft financing and a term loan due in 2023, so have some flexibility on timing. Target is to retire $15bil in debt by end of 2025 if not sooner.

That's an interesting narrative from the Cowen global transportation forum at a time the NEA is soon to go into litigation. A lot of those optimistic points Mr. Isom speaks of begs the question: do you really need B6? In fact, not a mention of the NEA in those comments, as if it won't even exist, or doesn't need to. Interesting.

I didn't notice anything posted but CLT-FRA resumed yesterday after being axed all summer. So right now until the seasonal flights end CLT has DUB FCO FRA LHR(2X) MAD and MUC.

TYWoolman wrote:

That's an interesting narrative from the Cowen global transportation forum at a time the NEA is soon to go into litigation. A lot of those optimistic points Mr. Isom speaks of begs the question: do you really need B6? In fact, not a mention of the NEA in those comments, as if it won't even exist, or doesn't need to. Interesting.

NEA is effectively on life support. AA is probably prepping a rotation of arrests to address J6+NK merger.

I think with EWR bring declassified as a NY airport we're going to see some interesting market positioning.

BarrenLucidity wrote:

TYWoolman wrote:

That's an interesting narrative from the Cowen global transportation forum at a time the NEA is soon to go into litigation. A lot of those optimistic points Mr. Isom speaks of begs the question: do you really need B6? In fact, not a mention of the NEA in those comments, as if it won't even exist, or doesn't need to. Interesting.

NEA is effectively on life support. AA is probably prepping a rotation of arrests to address J6+NK merger.

I think with EWR bring declassified as a NY airport we're going to see some interesting market positioning.

That EWR change is going to hurt UA and B6 I’d think. It also seems ridiculous as EWR is well within the NYC metro area and is every. But as close to the central city as JFK is.

jfk777 wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

American 767 wrote:

Leaving that route exclusively to CX I would think.

Yes. And sadly CX is only flying regularly 5 flights a week as Hong Kong traffic has crippled. They are adding a few extra flights over the next few weeks, but that's no surprise since schools on the quarter system - including UCLA - are starting back up, and that's probably represents the huge bulk of HK/China-U.S. travel right now. While Boston is back to 1x a week on the regular, there was a point during the pandemic that CX was only serving BOS during the obvious school travel periods - August/September, winter break and May.

Cathay is flying to HKG almost daily from JFK & LAX and once or twice weekly from Boston and ORD. SFO is three or four times weekly. Vancouver is daily or almost. Its going to be years before we see the thrice daily LAX and JFK as before this terrible pandemic. We may never see Cathay as it was, Air China may force Swire to sell their controlling interest to them. Let's hope we see the Cathay we all knew and love in some form soon.

If Hong Kong's stature as a hub of global finance continues to diminish, you'll never see 3 x daily JFK-HKG again.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

If Hong Kong's stature as a hub of global finance continues to diminish, you'll never see 3 x daily JFK-HKG again.

Even if Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub remains I don't think we will ever see 3x daily JFK-HKG again. As several people have already mentioned the pandemic has change everything in terms of business travel and the bulk of CX's business on their JFK-HKG route was primarily business travelers.

Once Hong Kong fully reopens without restrictions it will be interesting to watch how CX adapts to this new environment.

Back to AA and their LAX-HKG route I don't think that route will return, I even have my doubts if DFW-HKG returns. But there is a better chance of DFW-HKG than LAX-HKG on AA.

TYWoolman wrote:

That's an interesting narrative from the Cowen global transportation forum at a time the NEA is soon to go into litigation. A lot of those optimistic points Mr. Isom speaks of begs the question: do you really need B6? In fact, not a mention of the NEA in those comments, as if it won't even exist, or doesn't need to. Interesting.

I would not really blame Isom or Kerr for not discussing NEA.
The meeting format was largely Q&A with only brief intro remarks, and they answered the questions posed to them. No inquiry really dove into AA hubs, or network or even partnerships much.where NEA would be logical to discuss. Only partnership question was about analyst having seen Isom meeting JAL chairman recently and hopes Japan would reopen soon, along with a bit of comment about Europe and BA.

BB78710 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

If Hong Kong's stature as a hub of global finance continues to diminish, you'll never see 3 x daily JFK-HKG again.

Even if Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub remains I don't think we will ever see 3x daily JFK-HKG again. As several people have already mentioned the pandemic has change everything in terms of business travel and the bulk of CX's business on their JFK-HKG route was primarily business travelers.

Once Hong Kong fully reopens without restrictions it will be interesting to watch how CX adapts to this new environment.

Back to AA and their LAX-HKG route I don't think that route will return, I even have my doubts if DFW-HKG returns. But there is a better chance of DFW-HKG than LAX-HKG on AA.

100% agreed. Hong Kong will likely remain a hub of finance, but in a different way than it was until 2019. It won't be displaced, as the mainland China market remains hugely important to global finance and global banks, but it won't be what it was and unlikely to be so. Expats simply don't want to live there anymore. The costs are sky high to keep talent there and Hong Kong as a center of finance will be displaced a bit (if that has not happened already) by Singapore. The 3 x daily flights that operated to JFK were filled by bankers. Business travel as it existed in 2019 is not likely to return to those levels, ever. Hong Kong's position as a connector hub is also going to be diminished. There will be unease and concern with transits through there, even if COVID restrictions were lifted 100% which they won't be. Cathay Pacific's future is very uncertain. It has a sterling reputation relative to mainland China's airlines but it can't survive under the parameters that made it what it became going forward.

I also doubt DFW-HKG will return, but if AA were to resume HKG, that's the only place it would do it from.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

If Hong Kong's stature as a hub of global finance continues to diminish, you'll never see 3 x daily JFK-HKG again.

Even if Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub remains I don't think we will ever see 3x daily JFK-HKG again. As several people have already mentioned the pandemic has change everything in terms of business travel and the bulk of CX's business on their JFK-HKG route was primarily business travelers.

Once Hong Kong fully reopens without restrictions it will be interesting to watch how CX adapts to this new environment.

Back to AA and their LAX-HKG route I don't think that route will return, I even have my doubts if DFW-HKG returns. But there is a better chance of DFW-HKG than LAX-HKG on AA.

100% agreed. Hong Kong will likely remain a hub of finance, but in a different way than it was until 2019. It won't be displaced, as the mainland China market remains hugely important to global finance and global banks, but it won't be what it was and unlikely to be so. Expats simply don't want to live there anymore. The costs are sky high to keep talent there and Hong Kong as a center of finance will be displaced a bit (if that has not happened already) by Singapore. The 3 x daily flights that operated to JFK were filled by bankers. Business travel as it existed in 2019 is not likely to return to those levels, ever. Hong Kong's position as a connector hub is also going to be diminished. There will be unease and concern with transits through there, even if COVID restrictions were lifted 100% which they won't be. Cathay Pacific's future is very uncertain. It has a sterling reputation relative to mainland China's airlines but it can't survive under the parameters that made it what it became going forward.

I also doubt DFW-HKG will return, but if AA were to resume HKG, that's the only place it would do it from.

I'm not nearly as optimistic on the future of Hong Kong. I think it is dead. Hong Kong's niche was "China but with rule of law". If you are going to be subject to the whims of the CCP, as the last 5 years has shown, you might as well just set up shop in Shanghai. It will continue to be a big city but more on the level of a Kuala Lumpur or Taipei as opposed to Tokyo or Singapore.

usflyer msp wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

Even if Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub remains I don't think we will ever see 3x daily JFK-HKG again. As several people have already mentioned the pandemic has change everything in terms of business travel and the bulk of CX's business on their JFK-HKG route was primarily business travelers.

Once Hong Kong fully reopens without restrictions it will be interesting to watch how CX adapts to this new environment.

Back to AA and their LAX-HKG route I don't think that route will return, I even have my doubts if DFW-HKG returns. But there is a better chance of DFW-HKG than LAX-HKG on AA.

100% agreed. Hong Kong will likely remain a hub of finance, but in a different way than it was until 2019. It won't be displaced, as the mainland China market remains hugely important to global finance and global banks, but it won't be what it was and unlikely to be so. Expats simply don't want to live there anymore. The costs are sky high to keep talent there and Hong Kong as a center of finance will be displaced a bit (if that has not happened already) by Singapore. The 3 x daily flights that operated to JFK were filled by bankers. Business travel as it existed in 2019 is not likely to return to those levels, ever. Hong Kong's position as a connector hub is also going to be diminished. There will be unease and concern with transits through there, even if COVID restrictions were lifted 100% which they won't be. Cathay Pacific's future is very uncertain. It has a sterling reputation relative to mainland China's airlines but it can't survive under the parameters that made it what it became going forward.

I also doubt DFW-HKG will return, but if AA were to resume HKG, that's the only place it would do it from.

I'm not nearly as optimistic on the future of Hong Kong. I think it is dead. Hong Kong's niche was "China but with rule of law". If you are going to be subject to the whims of the CCP, as the last 5 years has shown, you might as well just set up shop in Shanghai. It will continue to be a big city but more on the level of a Kuala Lumpur or Taipei as opposed to Tokyo or Singapore.

I am thinking AA will cozy up to MH and add service to KUL down the road, especially if CX is going to be a shell of its former self.

rjbesikof wrote:

I am thinking AA will cozy up to MH and add service to KUL down the road, especially if CX is going to be a shell of its former self.

This, however, is very unlikely to happen. MH is transitioning to be a semi regional carrier, and it does not provide any value or opportunities to AA. Nevertheless, AA does not need to fly to every corner of the world. It is perfectly OK to have JAL as an important western Asia Pacific rim partner. If anything happens next it would be AA and JAL expand their corporation first.

MH unfortunately is a political airliner that is too involved with its nation's politics and state controls. MH can never return to its former self and it is surviving only on the nation's will to clinch on the flag carrier. AA would be smart to walk away from entities like MH. The investment in CZ will always remind AA not to get too involved in a country where national pride is over the viability of business operation.

AA and CX was never buddies. Its relationship only improved moment before Covid. AA's only friend in Asia is JAL (before that it was MU). AA never really needed CX nor MU back in the days. So even if CX demises (I hope not), it is business as usual for AA.

rjbesikof wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

100% agreed. Hong Kong will likely remain a hub of finance, but in a different way than it was until 2019. It won't be displaced, as the mainland China market remains hugely important to global finance and global banks, but it won't be what it was and unlikely to be so. Expats simply don't want to live there anymore. The costs are sky high to keep talent there and Hong Kong as a center of finance will be displaced a bit (if that has not happened already) by Singapore. The 3 x daily flights that operated to JFK were filled by bankers. Business travel as it existed in 2019 is not likely to return to those levels, ever. Hong Kong's position as a connector hub is also going to be diminished. There will be unease and concern with transits through there, even if COVID restrictions were lifted 100% which they won't be. Cathay Pacific's future is very uncertain. It has a sterling reputation relative to mainland China's airlines but it can't survive under the parameters that made it what it became going forward.

I also doubt DFW-HKG will return, but if AA were to resume HKG, that's the only place it would do it from.

I'm not nearly as optimistic on the future of Hong Kong. I think it is dead. Hong Kong's niche was "China but with rule of law". If you are going to be subject to the whims of the CCP, as the last 5 years has shown, you might as well just set up shop in Shanghai. It will continue to be a big city but more on the level of a Kuala Lumpur or Taipei as opposed to Tokyo or Singapore.

I am thinking AA will cozy up to MH and add service to KUL down the road, especially if CX is going to be a shell of its former self.

Very unlikely to almost zero chance American Airlines will launch a flight to KUL on its own metal. That is a long, very thin market, with not a heavy flow of O&D traffic to make it worth sucking up multiple frames. MH doesn't have a good reputation for many reasons so the marketing tie-ups are not worth the headaches. AA has the benefit of JAL as bigger and long-standing partner, and that was made very clear in recent Robert Isom comments. AA and CX were not quite at arms length, but the deepening of ties were actually much more short lived than CX being a OW member, and those were in the years leading up to 2019 when AA had LAX and DFW to HKG. AA will be fine with a smaller CX or no CX as all.

BB78710 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

If Hong Kong's stature as a hub of global finance continues to diminish, you'll never see 3 x daily JFK-HKG again.

Even if Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub remains I don't think we will ever see 3x daily JFK-HKG again. As several people have already mentioned the pandemic has change everything in terms of business travel and the bulk of CX's business on their JFK-HKG route was primarily business travelers.

Once Hong Kong fully reopens without restrictions it will be interesting to watch how CX adapts to this new environment.

Back to AA and their LAX-HKG route I don't think that route will return, I even have my doubts if DFW-HKG returns. But there is a better chance of DFW-HKG than LAX-HKG on AA.

North America-HKG traffic is not dominated by business travellers...Actually CX has captured a lot of VFR demand between North America and Hong Kong...

reply1984 wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

If Hong Kong's stature as a hub of global finance continues to diminish, you'll never see 3 x daily JFK-HKG again.

Even if Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub remains I don't think we will ever see 3x daily JFK-HKG again. As several people have already mentioned the pandemic has change everything in terms of business travel and the bulk of CX's business on their JFK-HKG route was primarily business travelers.

Once Hong Kong fully reopens without restrictions it will be interesting to watch how CX adapts to this new environment.

Back to AA and their LAX-HKG route I don't think that route will return, I even have my doubts if DFW-HKG returns. But there is a better chance of DFW-HKG than LAX-HKG on AA.

North America-HKG traffic is not dominated by business travellers...Actually CX has captured a lot of VFR demand between North America and Hong Kong...

Most routes are dominated by VFR and/or tourism. A. Net’s hyper focus on business travel tends to come from the fact that it’s usually the most profitable demand for airlines and what makes many routes worthwhile for the airlines. However, there’s an obvious reason that there are usually 4-8x times as many seats in the back of the plane than there are in the front of the plane. A relevant question in the case of HKG is whether with reduced business travel, if it makes financial sense to serve places like JFK nonstop as even if you fill the back of the plane, it may not be worth serving such a long flight based on that. Repeat that with routes like AA’s LAX-HKG and DFW-HKG.

Brickell305 wrote:

reply1984 wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

Even if Hong Kong's status as a global financial hub remains I don't think we will ever see 3x daily JFK-HKG again. As several people have already mentioned the pandemic has change everything in terms of business travel and the bulk of CX's business on their JFK-HKG route was primarily business travelers.

Once Hong Kong fully reopens without restrictions it will be interesting to watch how CX adapts to this new environment.

Back to AA and their LAX-HKG route I don't think that route will return, I even have my doubts if DFW-HKG returns. But there is a better chance of DFW-HKG than LAX-HKG on AA.

North America-HKG traffic is not dominated by business travellers...Actually CX has captured a lot of VFR demand between North America and Hong Kong...

Most routes are dominated by VFR and/or tourism. A. Net’s hyper focus on business travel tends to come from the fact that it’s usually the most profitable demand for airlines and what makes many routes worthwhile for the airlines. However, there’s an obvious reason that there are usually 4-8x times as many seats in the back of the plane than there are in the front of the plane. A relevant question in the case of HKG is whether with reduced business travel, if it makes financial sense to serve places like JFK nonstop as even if you fill the back of the plane, it may not be worth serving such a long flight based on that. Repeat that with routes like AA’s LAX-HKG and DFW-HKG.

I do wonder though if the profitable business client is being replaced by high spend leisure travelers. Up front has been sold out on many routes I’ve been on domestic and international before upgrades can even go through. They may not be at the same frequency as business but I am wondering how that’s been looking on the sales side

Can anyone give a run down on AA's relationship with CZ? I have heard very little about the tie up lately.