Welcome to the American Airlines Network thread - 2022 edition. Please continue to post your news and discussions below.

Link to the locked 2021 edition:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1455973

I do wonder what AA core long-haul international network will look like in the next few years once the immediate Covid related drama subsides.

Outside LatAm, looks like AA will increasingly be putting its eggs into feeding partner hubs, taking a step back a decade to Gerard Arpey days. Interestingly JAL president recently stated he believes full service carriers whom historically had networks built around the business travelers would likely see smaller organic networks, with greater reliance on partners to connect with, pointing to AA-JL across the Pacific.

LAXintl wrote:

I do wonder what AA core long-haul international network will look like in the next few years once the immediate Covid related drama subsides.

Outside LatAm, looks like AA will increasingly be putting its eggs into feeding partner hubs, taking a step back a decade to Gerard Arpey days. Interestingly JAL president recently stated he believes full service carriers whom historically had networks built around the business travelers would likely see smaller organic networks, with greater reliance on partners to connect with, pointing to AA-JL across the Pacific.

I think he's probably right, because the pandemic, I firmly believe, is going to cause a permanent dent in business travel; I'm expecting a reduction of as much as ~20%. And it's simply because a LOT of organizations have found that they can have virtual meetings with Zoom and the like quite effectively for a hell of a lot less expense than traveling. This isn't just my opinion or prediction, there are others in the airline/travel industry who have voiced this, although I admit I can't remember who and I have no links to any article(s).

cathay747 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I do wonder what AA core long-haul international network will look like in the next few years once the immediate Covid related drama subsides.

Outside LatAm, looks like AA will increasingly be putting its eggs into feeding partner hubs, taking a step back a decade to Gerard Arpey days. Interestingly JAL president recently stated he believes full service carriers whom historically had networks built around the business travelers would likely see smaller organic networks, with greater reliance on partners to connect with, pointing to AA-JL across the Pacific.

I think he's probably right, because the pandemic, I firmly believe, is going to cause a permanent dent in business travel; I'm expecting a reduction of as much as ~20%. And it's simply because a LOT of organizations have found that they can have virtual meetings with Zoom and the like quite effectively for a hell of a lot less expense than traveling. This isn't just my opinion or prediction, there are others in the airline/travel industry who have voiced this, although I admit I can't remember who and I have no links to any article(s).

The only people denying the permanent reduction in business travel are simply disconnected. Especially as long as COVID and it’s effects remains a top concern for businesses.

COVID was simply an accelerating event for reducing business travel. It sounds silly now, but with the new “VR revolution” of things like the metaverse, going forward, demand for business travel will continue to decrease for some time as more and more meetings go remote and people continue to work remote.

Until international travel stability returns (IF it ever does), I suspect AA and others will continue the emphasis on domestic leisure, though it is currently hardly proving profitable

joeblow10 wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I do wonder what AA core long-haul international network will look like in the next few years once the immediate Covid related drama subsides.

Outside LatAm, looks like AA will increasingly be putting its eggs into feeding partner hubs, taking a step back a decade to Gerard Arpey days. Interestingly JAL president recently stated he believes full service carriers whom historically had networks built around the business travelers would likely see smaller organic networks, with greater reliance on partners to connect with, pointing to AA-JL across the Pacific.

I think he's probably right, because the pandemic, I firmly believe, is going to cause a permanent dent in business travel; I'm expecting a reduction of as much as ~20%. And it's simply because a LOT of organizations have found that they can have virtual meetings with Zoom and the like quite effectively for a hell of a lot less expense than traveling. This isn't just my opinion or prediction, there are others in the airline/travel industry who have voiced this, although I admit I can't remember who and I have no links to any article(s).

The only people denying the permanent reduction in business travel are simply disconnected. Especially as long as COVID and it’s effects remains a top concern for businesses.

COVID was simply an accelerating event for reducing business travel. It sounds silly now, but with the new “VR revolution” of things like the metaverse, going forward, demand for business travel will continue to decrease for some time as more and more meetings go remote and people continue to work remote.

Until international travel stability returns (IF it ever does), I suspect AA and others will continue the emphasis on domestic leisure, though it is currently hardly proving profitable

I also agree that Business travel is not coming back anytime soon. IMHO I think this is the cause of the "race to the bottom" as carriers are no longer chasing the premium traveler. First Class on most Airlines is really just the Spirit big front seat . In my last 2.5 hour flight on AA in FC I received 1 cup of coffee and I had to request that. Its LCC for all of them to try and cut cost.

LAXintl wrote:

I do wonder what AA core long-haul international network will look like in the next few years once the immediate Covid related drama subsides.

Outside LatAm, looks like AA will increasingly be putting its eggs into feeding partner hubs, taking a step back a decade to Gerard Arpey days. Interestingly JAL president recently stated he believes full service carriers whom historically had networks built around the business travelers would likely see smaller organic networks, with greater reliance on partners to connect with, pointing to AA-JL across the Pacific.

Sort of agree, but the problem isn't unique to AA. Business travel, as it existed until December 2019, will quite likely never return to such levels, for variety of reasons. The pandemic has fundamentally shifted the workplace and triggered a number of lasting changes to cost structures and globalization that, combined with increasing efforts to at least adhere to some ESG baselines, will result in less business travel in the future.

American's Asia footprint on its own metal was always fragile. The LAX gateway didn't make money, AA could not make China or Japan work from ORD, and positioning the China network at DFW (PEK, PVG, HKG) was the only option. HKG is more than likely gone for good. The fundamentals and dynamics there are changed substantially. PEK and PVG will see AA service, as will ICN, because from DFW they can work given the size and scale of the hub and the 787's operational benefits. I'm not sure JL does the job AA needs though to be relevant in Asia. There needs to be some connectivity deeper in Asia and in closer proximity to those destinations AA can't or won't serve on its own metal, but perhaps more service from key AA hubs to NRT or HND (if it can get the slots) aren't unrealistic. The issue is what will AA do to replicate what it was getting from CX at HKG? I don't think MH is the answer, and QF, while a strong alliance, is more about Australia and New Zealand than Asia. India is an open question. JFK-DEL seems to be doing quite well, in spite of operational headwinds. JFK-BOM is probably going to happen before SEA-BLR, which might as well be off the table for a year or more.

Europe will look more or less what it planned now for Spring/Summer '22 with some seasonal additions once the 787 deliveries resume and the 321XLR arrive on property. If anything, there will be some limited rotating of 787/777 between Latin America and Europe during the Winter/Summer months for each hemisphere. The 321XLR will help with that and also give AA a bit of an edge should it use those planes out of JFK to secondary and tertiary Europe (even primary in some cases).

Latin America will not change much and exist as is. AA will just have to figure out its onward connectivity there, with GOL and JetSmart.

Should the pandemic grind on for another year or more, additional industry consolidation isn't off the table. The balance sheets are strained, yes, but Wall Street, and Private Equity in particular, will continue to develop clever ways for integration to happen, either because it will happen naturally, or activist shareholders / hedge funds will play that game. Look for some type of combination involving AS/B6 and AA, not necessarily all three, in the future, and I'd put WN, F9, and NK potentially in play as well. If the industry stares down another bailout like 2020, you can bet the US government will do the industry what it did to the banks in 2008 and force mergers.

Outside of Latin America, I see AA reverting to its cornerstone strategy albeit internationally to funnel traffic into JV partners.

Europe - LHR
Far East - NRT/HND
South Pac - SYD
South Asia - DOH

From comments by folks like Vasu, it's quite clear they see that focusing on partner hubs provides them the greatest return(and probably least risk), while any additional flying is more opportunistic that might make sense seasonally or for specific particular reasons.

Lets see how things play out in the years ahead.

I can't believe AA293 (DEL-JFK) still is avoiding Russian airspace and approaching 16 hours on the edge of the 77W's range. Tonights flight is diverting to BGR for fuel I presume. Too bad we have bad US-Russia relations and its the countdown to Orthodox Christmas (1/7) so I don't see this issue being resolved soon.

UPlog wrote:

Outside of Latin America, I see AA reverting to its cornerstone strategy albeit internationally to funnel traffic into JV partners.

Europe - LHR
Far East - NRT/HND
South Pac - SYD
South Asia - DOH

From comments by folks like Vasu, it's quite clear they see that focusing on partner hubs provides them the greatest return(and probably least risk), while any additional flying is more opportunistic that might make sense seasonally or for specific particular reasons.

Lets see how things play out in the years ahead.

+MAD for Europe. Not just LHR.

cathay747 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I do wonder what AA core long-haul international network will look like in the next few years once the immediate Covid related drama subsides.

Outside LatAm, looks like AA will increasingly be putting its eggs into feeding partner hubs, taking a step back a decade to Gerard Arpey days. Interestingly JAL president recently stated he believes full service carriers whom historically had networks built around the business travelers would likely see smaller organic networks, with greater reliance on partners to connect with, pointing to AA-JL across the Pacific.

I think he's probably right, because the pandemic, I firmly believe, is going to cause a permanent dent in business travel; I'm expecting a reduction of as much as ~20%. And it's simply because a LOT of organizations have found that they can have virtual meetings with Zoom and the like quite effectively for a hell of a lot less expense than traveling. This isn't just my opinion or prediction, there are others in the airline/travel industry who have voiced this, although I admit I can't remember who and I have no links to any article(s).

I'm a business consultant who used to travel 100 percent. Now, I am 100 percent remote permanently. Companies have found that with Zoom they can save a lot of $$ with minor inconveniences. I think all airlines will have to readjust to a leisure leaning model rather than business traveler model.

Since when did AA start YYZ-LAS?

seatback wrote:

Since when did AA start YYZ-LAS?

It looks like it is a one-off flight that only operates on 1/8.

Unrelated, but I had forgotten AA dropped LAX-YYZ. I remember the service being twice daily at one point.

USAirALB wrote:

seatback wrote:

Since when did AA start YYZ-LAS?

It looks like it is a one-off flight that only operates on 1/8.

Probably for CES?

I think the business demand will return, maybe not 100% but not as dramatic as people think. Jaime Dimon (JP Morgan Chase CEO) noted that the majority of deals they lost during the pandemic were to a competitor who went in person in some form vs their total virtual. Unless you can truly show a client/customer that you are passing the savings to them, you will see visits return. As for int'l on AA, I think we'll see more focus on the 321XLR from PHL/JFK in the summer to more than MAD/LHR since that aircraft can easily be put on the domestic system in the winter or even the Carib. Widebodies being less desireable in the domestic system (from a finance perspective) will focus on hub to int'l partner hub and likely be limited in fleet size. That will drive a smaller footprint for CLT int'l likely.

seatback wrote:

Since when did AA start YYZ-LAS?

They are only flying it this week for CES. They also are flying SJC-LAS.

International business travel will never die, nor seriously impacted after pandemic. International business will still require face to face meeting, signing of contracts, networking etc. It may have a reduced start to avoid unnecessary travel due to nervousness about the virus, but many countries would not simply get on zoom-wagon. For instance, Japanese business would be less reluctant to confirm a business relation or deals over zoom. And an American business would not agree a big deal without actual meet the counterpart from an unknown market.

So my personal belief is that immediately after the pandemic, international business travel may be reduced by 40% in initial stage, slowly raise back to be down 20% over 3-4 quarters. However, any reduction may be eventually filled/offset by premium leisure traffic. Premium leisure traffic will grow, as people value the business class suite for its space and flat bed. This coupled with inflation, rising in real estate price, growth in exposable income for certain middle and upper class, savings from last two years due to little to no travel...it all point out to a trend that people that often take Premier Economy class may be ready to purchase business class outright to offset the reduction of business travel at the recovery stage.

So yes all airline will now pay more attention to leisure travel. But, I think we should amend that to legacy airlines will have to pay more attention to premium leisure travel. BA was very good at attracting premium leisure travel in last two decades by going for premium heavy configuration. I don't think AA has the right tools (aircraft, configuration and marketing tools like BA holidays) nor the right mindset to implement such strategy.

If there is any horse I would bet on for the most prepared airlines for a premium leisure traffic environment, I would choose BA and UA. Followed by SQ and CX, but CX is in so much trouble, and Singapore is still half closed its border. So here we are.

chonetsao wrote:

So yes all airline will now pay more attention to leisure travel. But, I think we should amend that to legacy airlines will have to pay more attention to premium leisure travel. BA was very good at attracting premium leisure travel in last two decades by going for premium heavy configuration.

BA is in London. Not every market is London. You're not going to find the same numbers of people willing to pay for premium products out of Amsterdam, nor Madrid, nor Philadelphia, in the same way that Jakarta isn't Singapore. Carriers put big numbers of business suites in planes expecting to sell $8000 tickets for 20,000km journeys. Selling those seats for an avg of $3K to leisure travelers doesn't work. Carriers will rip out (some) business suites and put in Premium economy or E+ (or even plain old Y) because the name of the game is maximizing revenue per unit of weight and per unit of floor area. Plenty of business got done - even by Asians - in 2020 and 2021 with much-reduced business travel.

chonetsao wrote:

International business travel will never die, nor seriously impacted after pandemic. International business will still require face to face meeting, signing of contracts, networking etc. It may have a reduced start to avoid unnecessary travel due to nervousness about the virus, but many countries would not simply get on zoom-wagon. For instance, Japanese business would be less reluctant to confirm a business relation or deals over zoom. And an American business would not agree a big deal without actual meet the counterpart from an unknown market.

So my personal belief is that immediately after the pandemic, international business travel may be reduced by 40% in initial stage, slowly raise back to be down 20% over 3-4 quarters. However, any reduction may be eventually filled/offset by premium leisure traffic. Premium leisure traffic will grow, as people value the business class suite for its space and flat bed. This coupled with inflation, rising in real estate price, growth in exposable income for certain middle and upper class, savings from last two years due to little to no travel...it all point out to a trend that people that often take Premier Economy class may be ready to purchase business class outright to offset the reduction of business travel at the recovery stage.

So yes all airline will now pay more attention to leisure travel. But, I think we should amend that to legacy airlines will have to pay more attention to premium leisure travel. BA was very good at attracting premium leisure travel in last two decades by going for premium heavy configuration. I don't think AA has the right tools (aircraft, configuration and marketing tools like BA holidays) nor the right mindset to implement such strategy.

If there is any horse I would bet on for the most prepared airlines for a premium leisure traffic environment, I would choose BA and UA. Followed by SQ and CX, but CX is in so much trouble, and Singapore is still half closed its border. So here we are.

Business travel, global and domestic, will most likely never see their 2019 levels again for a number of reasons. The pandemic has changed many things, but so have environmental, social, and governance benchmarks which will impact travel as well. The predicted growth of business travel's return here are trivial as there are too many unknown variables. Leisure travel along won't sustain the industry in its current size and shape.

seatback wrote:

cathay747 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

I do wonder what AA core long-haul international network will look like in the next few years once the immediate Covid related drama subsides.

Outside LatAm, looks like AA will increasingly be putting its eggs into feeding partner hubs, taking a step back a decade to Gerard Arpey days. Interestingly JAL president recently stated he believes full service carriers whom historically had networks built around the business travelers would likely see smaller organic networks, with greater reliance on partners to connect with, pointing to AA-JL across the Pacific.

I think he's probably right, because the pandemic, I firmly believe, is going to cause a permanent dent in business travel; I'm expecting a reduction of as much as ~20%. And it's simply because a LOT of organizations have found that they can have virtual meetings with Zoom and the like quite effectively for a hell of a lot less expense than traveling. This isn't just my opinion or prediction, there are others in the airline/travel industry who have voiced this, although I admit I can't remember who and I have no links to any article(s).

I'm a business consultant who used to travel 100 percent. Now, I am 100 percent remote permanently. Companies have found that with Zoom they can save a lot of $$ with minor inconveniences. I think all airlines will have to readjust to a leisure leaning model rather than business traveler model.

Apart from complete structural changes like this, in the short term for companies that do desire to go back to the "old way", international travel will be extremely difficult. As long as a negative test is required to return to the US, I see few companies willing to risk their employees contracting COVID abroad and unable to return for two weeks. The potential liability is too great.

Does anyone know if the DFW-STS flight is scheduled to resume? It was a great alternative to get to Napa vs. SMF.

MIflyer12 wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

So yes all airline will now pay more attention to leisure travel. But, I think we should amend that to legacy airlines will have to pay more attention to premium leisure travel. BA was very good at attracting premium leisure travel in last two decades by going for premium heavy configuration.

BA is in London. Not every market is London. You're not going to find the same numbers of people willing to pay for premium products out of Amsterdam, nor Madrid, nor Philadelphia, in the same way that Jakarta isn't Singapore. Carriers put big numbers of business suites in planes expecting to sell $8000 tickets for 20,000km journeys. Selling those seats for an avg of $3K to leisure travelers doesn't work. Carriers will rip out (some) business suites and put in Premium economy or E+ (or even plain old Y) because the name of the game is maximizing revenue per unit of weight and per unit of floor area. Plenty of business got done - even by Asians - in 2020 and 2021 with much-reduced business travel.

You are assuming two things:
1, Airlines needs to sell J trip for US$8,000 for a 12,000 miles return journey (instead of US$3,000)
2, Air travel demands will be robust so airlines has to take out business class seats to ADD Y+ or PE seats.

Your first assumption is not entirely correct. Although your points on revenue based on unit of weight and floor area is correct. But there are other ways to calculate profitability. Assume airlines break even at USD$0.09 per ASM. Then average fare of USD$1,080 on a particular 12,000 miles journey would break even. Let us raise the break even point to US$0.15, at US$1,800 fare, airline breaks even. So a USD$3,000 ticket would still make the airline $1,200 profit. Of course you are right on revenue per floor area. But airline quarterly report does not provide such breakdown. The total revenue matters more. So if the airline can sell one flight full of USD$3,000 return on business rather than a flight full of $500 return in coach, the airline management would be celebrating. If an idiot had to pay $8,000 for the same business class seat, that is even nicer.

So now let us look at your second argument. The first thing I want you to agree with me, is that the total passenger number post pandemic will be down. 2019 is the peak of travelling public for a while to come, right? Would you agree?

Let us assume you agree with that. So what is the point to remove business class seats and add more PE or Y, if we know coach passenger numbers will be down?

Of course I get what you were saying that airline should try to sell more PE and Y+ to make up the revenue difference. However, the revenue or upsell from Y to Y+ is typically USD$100-150 per sector, from Y to PE is USD$300-600 per sector. Would you not rather like to upsell from Y to J for USD$500-1,200 per sector? or from PE to J for USD$350-800 per sector?

Simply add PE seats and Y+ seats inflate the capacity by 20% or more. When the projected total number of passengers are going to be lower for a period to come, airline would be effectively paying for a refit, then transport empty coach seats on its own expense, while severely restrict its own ability to upsell and cut off a possible revenue stream. Very genius idea don't you think?

USAirALB wrote:

seatback wrote:

Since when did AA start YYZ-LAS?

It looks like it is a one-off flight that only operates on 1/8.

Unrelated, but I had forgotten AA dropped LAX-YYZ. I remember the service being twice daily at one point.

I didn't know that either; wow, they've operated LAX-YYZ nonstop since the early 70's at least if not the late 60's (with 707's).

DFW-TLV delayed again to 5/7

I thought it was interesting to read Simple Flying's most recent article about AA and TLV:
-It mentions that the JFK and MIA flights are geared at VFR type visits.
-DFW (which will tentatively now start in May) is geared at more at tourists.
Why is that?
https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... el-return/

rjbesikof wrote:

I thought it was interesting to read Simple Flying's most recent article about AA and TLV:
-It mentions that the JFK and MIA flights are geared at VFR type visits.
-DFW (which will tentatively now start in May) is geared at more at tourists.
Why is that?
https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... el-return/

NYC and MIA have large Israeli diasporas, while Dallas does not.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium ... -1.5252590
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Americans

janders wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

I thought it was interesting to read Simple Flying's most recent article about AA and TLV:
-It mentions that the JFK and MIA flights are geared at VFR type visits.
-DFW (which will tentatively now start in May) is geared at more at tourists.
Why is that?
https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... el-return/

NYC and MIA have large Israeli diasporas, while Dallas does not.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium ... -1.5252590
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Americans

A rule of thumb is to always take Simple Flying with a grain of salt. A large one. Typically, articles are poorly written and not always accurate. While the NY Area and Miami have large diasporas, yes, and are among the largest gateways to Israel, the Dallas/Ft. Worth route was more about connections, and specifically about capturing those connections from points west. It was not really ever a route about O&D.

AA appears to have found success (and profitability) with JFK-TLV and MIA-TLV, perhaps rendering the need for a DFW-TLV less crucial now, and given the shortage of wide bodies owing to the 787 delivery issues, it stands to reason DFW-TLV, a 3 x weekly service as planned, has been pushed off.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Outside of Latin America, I see AA reverting to its cornerstone strategy albeit internationally to funnel traffic into JV partners.

Europe - LHR
Far East - NRT/HND
South Pac - SYD
South Asia - DOH

From comments by folks like Vasu, it's quite clear they see that focusing on partner hubs provides them the greatest return(and probably least risk), while any additional flying is more opportunistic that might make sense seasonally or for specific particular reasons.

Lets see how things play out in the years ahead.

+MAD for Europe. Not just LHR.

+DUB It's the new JV hub since it was only approved as part of the JV late in 2020.

dfwfanboy wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

UPlog wrote:

Outside of Latin America, I see AA reverting to its cornerstone strategy albeit internationally to funnel traffic into JV partners.

Europe - LHR
Far East - NRT/HND
South Pac - SYD
South Asia - DOH

From comments by folks like Vasu, it's quite clear they see that focusing on partner hubs provides them the greatest return(and probably least risk), while any additional flying is more opportunistic that might make sense seasonally or for specific particular reasons.

Lets see how things play out in the years ahead.

+MAD for Europe. Not just LHR.

+DUB It's the new JV hub since it was only approved as part of the JV late in 2020.

Not sure there will be much more service to DUB on AA metal though, than what is already scheduled/announced. Guessing it stays PHL/CLT and perhaps DFW (though I heard it performed poorly). Unclear on that last point.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

+MAD for Europe. Not just LHR.

+DUB It's the new JV hub since it was only approved as part of the JV late in 2020.

Not sure there will be much more service to DUB on AA metal though, than what is already scheduled/announced. Guessing it stays PHL/CLT and perhaps DFW (though I heard it performed poorly). Unclear on that last point.

AA has also been flying ORD-DUB in summer season for a long time… it would be nice to see AA go year round with EI (which is 2x daily in winter) so that EI can resume MIA.

Are there any updates on how the new flights from AUS are doing?

ContinentalEWR wrote:

janders wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

I thought it was interesting to read Simple Flying's most recent article about AA and TLV:
-It mentions that the JFK and MIA flights are geared at VFR type visits.
-DFW (which will tentatively now start in May) is geared at more at tourists.
Why is that?
https://simpleflying.com/american-airli ... el-return/

NYC and MIA have large Israeli diasporas, while Dallas does not.

https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/.premium ... -1.5252590
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Americans

A rule of thumb is to always take Simple Flying with a grain of salt. A large one. Typically, articles are poorly written and not always accurate. While the NY Area and Miami have large diasporas, yes, and are among the largest gateways to Israel, the Dallas/Ft. Worth route was more about connections, and specifically about capturing those connections from points west. It was not really ever a route about O&D.

AA appears to have found success (and profitability) with JFK-TLV and MIA-TLV, perhaps rendering the need for a DFW-TLV less crucial now, and given the shortage of wide bodies owing to the 787 delivery issues, it stands to reason DFW-TLV, a 3 x weekly service as planned, has been pushed off.

Off topic a bit, I agree about Simple Flying. The article about AA’s historical fleet had tremendous errors and omissions and looked like a grammar school writing project. It was a pathetic joke.

Having said that, the author of this SF article on AA’s service to Israel is pretty decent. Jay is easily the best SF author. His stuff is a bit more credible. He’s about the only competent on on their staff.

Western727 wrote:

miaami wrote:

Are there any updates on how the new flights from AUS are doing?

Reply #56 in the Austin 2022 thread by Midwestindy states that AUS-CVG and AUS-IAD didn't do well in Q3: viewtopic.php?p=23121751#p23121751

Anecdotally, a friend of mine flew AUS-IAD and it was 100% in early December.

ahj2000 wrote:

Western727 wrote:

miaami wrote:

Are there any updates on how the new flights from AUS are doing?

Reply #56 in the Austin 2022 thread by Midwestindy states that AUS-CVG and AUS-IAD didn't do well in Q3: viewtopic.php?p=23121751#p23121751

Anecdotally, a friend of mine flew AUS-IAD and it was 100% in early December.

It's been iffy. I've flown it quite a lot and I've never seen it terribly busy, and there always seem to be free seats in F on a 319 (meaning they aren't selling it and there aren't enough elites on the flight to upgrade). I suspect they overestimated how many people would be willing to switch from National. Dulles is enough of a pain to get to that if you start in DC, using DCA and taking a connection to Austin may still be of similar total time, and of course DCA has a lot more options in case of IRROPS. And it doesn't make sense to park at one and fly back to the other.

That said I hope that Metrorail to Dulles (coming soon™️) will make it a more acceptable alternative.

slowrambler wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

Western727 wrote:

Reply #56 in the Austin 2022 thread by Midwestindy states that AUS-CVG and AUS-IAD didn't do well in Q3: viewtopic.php?p=23121751#p23121751

Anecdotally, a friend of mine flew AUS-IAD and it was 100% in early December.

It's been iffy. I've flown it quite a lot and I've never seen it terribly busy, and there always seem to be free seats in F on a 319 (meaning they aren't selling it and there aren't enough elites on the flight to upgrade). I suspect they overestimated how many people would be willing to switch from National. Dulles is enough of a pain to get to that if you start in DC, using DCA and taking a connection to Austin may still be of similar total time, and of course DCA has a lot more options in case of IRROPS. And it doesn't make sense to park at one and fly back to the other.

That said I hope that Metrorail to Dulles (coming soon™️) will make it a more acceptable alternative.

I believe AUS is beyond the DCA perimeter rule, and they aren’t able to fly AUS-DCA (without an exemption slot).

Western727 wrote:

MLIAA wrote:

slowrambler wrote:

It's been iffy. I've flown it quite a lot and I've never seen it terribly busy, and there always seem to be free seats in F on a 319 (meaning they aren't selling it and there aren't enough elites on the flight to upgrade). I suspect they overestimated how many people would be willing to switch from National. Dulles is enough of a pain to get to that if you start in DC, using DCA and taking a connection to Austin may still be of similar total time, and of course DCA has a lot more options in case of IRROPS. And it doesn't make sense to park at one and fly back to the other.

That said I hope that Metrorail to Dulles (coming soon) will make it a more acceptable alternative.

I believe AUS is beyond the DCA perimeter rule, and they aren’t able to fly AUS-DCA (without an exemption slot).

Correct, AUS is just beyond the perimeter. WN has an exemption slot for their single daily, I'm presuming.

They do. They got one of the awarded exemptions several years back.

https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2 ... fault.aspx

AA code on DUB-LHR,AMS,BHX,LGW,MAN; LHR-BHD,ORK,SNN.
EI code on ORD-ABQ,BNA,DFW,LAX,SEA,SFO,SJC,TUS.
Been in the cards for a while now—good to see it get started. The PR says that it’s going to be expanded on soon, as one would expect with EI joining the JBA last year.
I imagine UA doesn’t have long with their Irish partner once the next round of codeshare comes out, but EI has been surprisingly clingy for someone who theoretically earns money by keeping people on AA instead of UA over the pond.


(Yes, I know this has technically been announced here. However, this is big enough news that it doesn’t deserve to get hidden in the Irish thread. PSA: if it’s big news or it affects more than just your own thread, it may deserve a separate post!)

I would love to see IND with a A321XLR to DUB

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

ibthebigd wrote:

I would love to see IND with a A321XLR to DUB

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

Wouldn't even need the XLR for it. the LR has the range.

I am excited to see what markers the XLR opens up though as they start rolling out. Could be a big gamechanger for some of these mid sized midwest markets.

Until EI fully join the joint venture this will mean little for customers on either end. As it stands, AA customers can already transit DUB-LHR or BHD-LHR using BA & they fly to AMS themselves. EI customers can already fly on a through ticket to the US destinations named using their current partners UA or B6.

Even though EI officially joined the JV last year, they offer few reciprocal benefits for the elites from the other carriers (lounge access, priority boarding etc) and you can’t book the EI transatlantic legs on an AA or IB ticket & it’s difficult to do so on a BA one.

Like everything with EI, it moves at a glacial pace. That said, it seems the wheels are in motion. AA have retained their flights to DUB for the summer, apparently to connect to the EI flights mentioned

Noticeably missing is JFK and BOS where EI and B6 have a long-standing codeshare and EI is serviced at each station by B6. Why is that?

Some random city pairs thrown in there (ABQ, TUS)?

Good to see this move forward though. Wondered the same about JFK and BOS, though the B6 alignment there probably part of that.

usflyer msp wrote:

As long as EI uses it's own proprietary reservations system thing will be slow. I imagine hiring programmers to upgrade your system to play nice with others is quite expensive - this expense is why the left OW back in the day. I don't know why they don't just migrate to Amadeus like everyone else.

Probably because their ASTRAL system costs them virtually nothing as it's in house. From what I understand, the big GDS systems charge a fee per passenger for one thing, not sure what else comes under distribution, but EI avoid all this by continuing with their own system. It went live in 1968 would you believe - https://travelupdate.com/aer-lingus-reservations-computer/

ClassicLover wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

As long as EI uses it's own proprietary reservations system thing will be slow. I imagine hiring programmers to upgrade your system to play nice with others is quite expensive - this expense is why the left OW back in the day. I don't know why they don't just migrate to Amadeus like everyone else.

Probably because their ASTRAL system costs them virtually nothing as it's in house.
From what I understand, the big GDS systems charge a fee per passenger for one thing, not sure what else comes under distribution, but EI avoid all this by continuing with their own system. It went live in 1968 would you believe - https://travelupdate.com/aer-lingus-reservations-computer/

The GDSs charge airlines a fee per passenger per segment booked.
IIRC the fee is typically USD.1.50.
However, the fee is usually reduced for an airline in its home market because in that scenario the GDS may need the airline more than the airline needs the GDS.
So:
For one passenger travelling NCL-LON the fee is USD1.50
For four passengers travelling NCL-LON-NCL the fee is 4 (pax) x 2 (segments) @USD1.50 = USD12
For four passengers travelling NCL-LON-NCE-LON-NCL the fee would be 4 (pax) x 4 (segments) @USD1.50 = USD24
Some time ago Travelport offered fees based on journey type (longhaul, shorthaul) but there were few takers.
Airlines want a more radical change.
In recent years a number of airlines have been working on ways of encouraging Travel Agents to bypass GDSs.
..
The system an airline uses to manage its pricing and seat availability must be capable of communicating in real time with GDSs so Travel Agents can see what is available.
For an airline to interline and code-share, the system it uses to manage its pricing and seat availability must be capable of communicating in real time with other airlines so they can see the seat availability you have.
Astral is certainly capable of interline and code-share.
When Aer Lingus decided not to go ahead with joining oneworld, it was partly because they would have had to upgrade Astral to manage frequent flyers across the alliance.

Eirules wrote:

you can’t book the EI transatlantic legs on an AA or IB ticket & it’s difficult to do so on a BA one.

Actually you can now book all EI transatlantic legs on AA ticket. Moreover, you can even mix and match connecting segments on not only AA/BA/IB/AY, but even UA, retaining the same interline rates that EI/UA have. You can search for any combination on Google flights and book directly with AA website.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Some random city pairs thrown in there (ABQ, TUS)?

Good to see this move forward though. Wondered the same about JFK and BOS, though the B6 alignment there probably part of that.

I suspected because ABQ and TUS on UA didn't connect well to the EI flight but do on AA and that SJC is probably the same case (UA not even operating ORD-SJC currently).

However, that only seems true for TUS.

AA isn't even flying ORD-SJC right now either (maybe they resume when the codeshare goes into effect) and AA's ORD-ABQ is just as poorly timed as UA's.

AA adds a second daily MIA-GIG effective 03FEB22, operates during February only,

AA263 MIA 22:45 GIG 09:05+1 X 77E
AA262 GIG 22:30 MIA 05:10+1 X 77E

dcajet wrote:

AA adds a second daily MIA-GIG effective 03FEB22, operates during February only,

AA263 MIA 22:45 GIG 09:05+1 X 77E
AA262 GIG 22:30 MIA 05:10+1 X 77E

I'm guessing this isn't for Carnival then (other than the tail end of it for those going to GIG), cuz I just looked that up and it's running 25FEB-05MAR this year. Curious.