usairways85 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

usairways85 wrote:

CLT as a mega-hub still perplexes me as it has defied the odds. The mantra with so many current or long-gone hubs is that it must have a solid O&D base or face the axe. CLT with US was a necessity and CLT with AA is the gateway to the southeast and N-S traffic flows along the east coast. That said, the O&D seems to pale in comparison against other large-mega hubs...ATL, DFW, IAH, DEN, ORD, EWR, JFK, etc. Even PHL has more PDEW vs CLT on routes where there is no PHL nonstop or 50+% less capacity. So AA banks on the efficiency of the hub, both in cost and operation. But anecdotally the operation is starting to show signs of cracks...crowded terminals, tarmac delays / delays waiting for gates, run down lounges (yes, the new club was just announced but still years away). At what point (if ever), does that start to catch up with AA.

AA still has nonstop service out of CLT to a few smaller regional destinations in the Carolinas and Virginia that don't currently have nonstop service to other AA hubs such as FLO, PGV, LYH, and EWN.

There are also some other smaller regional destinations in the South with AA nonstop service to both DFW and CLT that don't currently have nonstop service to other AA hubs such as FAY, GPT, LFT, MOB, SHV, and TRI.

There are also a few destinations in the Midwest such as ATW and EVV where AA currently only has nonstop service to CLT and 1 other AA hub.

CLT also very likely has a solid O&D base with the business travel that is there by companies headquartered in Greater Charlotte such as Albemarle Corporation, Bank of America, Belk, Bojangles, Cato, Duke Energy, Hendrick Automotive Group, Honeywell, LendingTree, Lowe's, Maaco, Meineke, Snyder's-Lance, Sonic Automotive, and Truist.

AA also has a decent amount of O&D demand on some nonstop routes out of CLT that aren't to an AA/DL/UA/AS hub such as CLT-ALB/AUS/BUF/CVG/CLE/BDL/IND/MCI/LAS/MKE/BNA/MSY/MCO/PIT/SMF/STL/SAT/SAN/SYR/TPA.

Is there though? I'm not saying there is zero O&D but I wouldn't say there is a ton of O&D on many of these markets either. A very rough (not apples to apples) look at numbers shows 15-30% of capacity being O&D, in line with higher level metrics out there.

2022 Q3 PDEW | 7/17/2023 planned capacity (approx)
ALB - 103 | 406
AUS - 227 | 1,032
BUF - 141 | 543
CVG - 98 | 633
CLE - 191 | 860
BDL - 185 | 905
IND - 146 | 878
MCI - 148 | 693
LAS - 464 | 1,297
MKE - 114 | 459
BNA - 313 | 1,046
MSY - 146 | 905
MCO - 480 | 1,991
PIT - 134 | 905
SMF - 99 | 181
STL - 218 | 869
SAT - 120 | 816
SYR - 110 | 450

I assume these are just sample cities and not just the top ones in the CLT market?

JohanTally wrote:

The refreshed 77Ws with 70J seats will be used on most of the proven premium routes. Until the 77E retirements start the 789s will be used for growth.

Yes that is correct. 20 B77W will be used in some of the current LHR routes (which including JFK/MIA/DFW/LAX) and others which i won't count one by one, hence I mentioned some of the current B789/B777 routes that are likely to see premium heavy B789. TYO is not a B77W market hence more likely to see premium heavy B789. SYD is likely to be switched to B789. I even believe one day LAX-LHR will be switched to premium heavy B789 too to make LAX a B787s only hub in order to simplify fleet.

You also seemed to think B77W will be converted to 70J overnight. It won't. I think earlier post someone mentioned the B77W will go into conversion in the winter of 2024. And guess which aircraft will be used to replace the current B77W route?

You are not going to see meaningful growth in terms of long haul market in 2024. By 2025 when AA have enough premium heavy B789s, and the B77W finished conversion, it is also close to the point that AA will have to plan for B77E retirement soon. The math does not support 2024 expansion theory. By 2025, the fleet will be there, but it will be even harder to break into SIN market as SQ and UA would be in total control after 4 years of operation.

Call me whatever you like, but if you have even followed what went on in AA since AA-US merger, you would understand the AA management are too conservative and bean counting to be brave. And I truly believe AA's premium product would not stand a chance to be competitive against SQ and other Asian airlines in terms of cabin service (hardware great, service? price? Value? I leave it to others to dig in).

chonetsao wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

The refreshed 77Ws with 70J seats will be used on most of the proven premium routes. Until the 77E retirements start the 789s will be used for growth.

Yes that is correct. 20 B77W will be used in some of the current LHR routes (which including JFK/MIA/DFW/LAX) and others which i won't count one by one, hence I mentioned some of the current B789/B777 routes that are likely to see premium heavy B789. TYO is not a B77W market hence more likely to see premium heavy B789. SYD is likely to be switched to B789. I even believe one day LAX-LHR will be switched to premium heavy B789 too to make LAX a B787s only hub in order to simplify fleet.

You also seemed to think B77W will be converted to 70J overnight. It won't. I think earlier post someone mentioned the B77W will go into conversion in the winter of 2024. And guess which aircraft will be used to replace the current B77W route?

You are not going to see meaningful growth in terms of long haul market in 2024. By 2025 when AA have enough premium heavy B789s, and the B77W finished conversion, it is also close to the point that AA will have to plan for B77E retirement soon. The math does not support 2024 expansion theory. By 2025, the fleet will be there, but it will be even harder to break into SIN market as SQ and UA would be in total control after 4 years of operation.

Call me whatever you like, but if you have even followed what went on in AA since AA-US merger, you would understand the AA management are too conservative and bean counting to be brave. And I truly believe AA's premium product would not stand a chance to be competitive against SQ and other Asian airlines in terms of cabin service (hardware great, service? price? Value? I leave it to others to dig in).

They might not have a sizeable premium 789 fleet until S25 and by then the 77W fleet may have been finished. During the slow W24 they should be able to rotate through most of 77W fleet. The point is they are looking at flying to SIN and they will need the new 789s for that to happen. Boeing has a very low 787 production rate currently and until the rework is done I don't foresee a major jump in new aircraft rolling off the line.

JohanTally wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

SEA-SIN is a much smaller market than LAX-SIN. LAX-SIN has 10x weekly off peak and 14x weekly flights nonstop along with the 7x weekly LAX-NRT-SIN flight. If anything, LAX-SIN has the bigger potential as AA also has feeder connections at LAX along with AS.

AA isn't looking for direct competition that drive down yields. They tried to compete in Asia from ORD and they burned cash that's why DFW is their current Asia gateway.

You’re aware that SIN already flies SEA-SIN and is an AS partner? How is AA starting SEA-SIN not “looking for direct competition”?

BoeingGuy wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

portola2727 wrote:

SEA-SIN is a much smaller market than LAX-SIN. LAX-SIN has 10x weekly off peak and 14x weekly flights nonstop along with the 7x weekly LAX-NRT-SIN flight. If anything, LAX-SIN has the bigger potential as AA also has feeder connections at LAX along with AS.

AA isn't looking for direct competition that drive down yields. They tried to compete in Asia from ORD and they burned cash that's why DFW is their current Asia gateway.

You’re aware that SIN already flies SEA-SIN and is an AS partner? How is AA starting SEA-SIN not “looking for direct competition”?

I just noticed that my mistake. Is it ever daily or do they always operate thrice weekly?

JohanTally wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

AA isn't looking for direct competition that drive down yields. They tried to compete in Asia from ORD and they burned cash that's why DFW is their current Asia gateway.

You’re aware that SIN already flies SEA-SIN and is an AS partner? How is AA starting SEA-SIN not “looking for direct competition”?

I just noticed that my mistake. Is it ever daily or do they always operate thrice weekly?

It's currently 3 times a week, it was 4 immediately pre-COVID with plans to increase to 5x, but those appear to have been pushed to the back burner.

JohanTally wrote:

AA internally looking at launching Singapore once the new 789s start being delivered also shared by JonNYC. It's referenced that with the HKG economy in decline and SIN on the rise this is a market they are looking at.

https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... oyee-leak/

Unbelievable! That would be AA's first logical destination in Southeast Asia. But is it really true that they're looking at SIN?

Philippine333 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

AA internally looking at launching Singapore once the new 789s start being delivered also shared by JonNYC. It's referenced that with the HKG economy in decline and SIN on the rise this is a market they are looking at.

https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... oyee-leak/

Unbelievable! That would be AA's first logical destination in Southeast Asia. But is it really true that they're looking at SIN?

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

1. Logistics
A daily route would require 3-4 frames. AA is already short of WBs due to the poor COVID decisions.

2. Crew Base
They don’t have a 787 crew base in SEA. Not insurmountable but expensive. The only base you could DH crews in from would be LAX due to acclimation for FRMS. After a crew returns from SIN they are required 48 hours off before they could DH home. That makes a trip crewed by LAX 8 days…..expensive and inefficient.

3. No partners other then CX in the region.
This is a problem because a cancelation is very difficult to recover from on such a long flight. Especially if it is not daily. UA has 3 other flights a day in SFO to accommodate passengers due to a cancel. This route is going to be high paying passengers who will mot enjoy being days late.

4. LAX will be weight restricted.
This route will be marginal for AA at best. A heavy weight restriction makes it pointless to operate. If UA couldn’t make it work with more J seats then why would it work for AA using the same aircraft?

CriticalPoint wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

AA internally looking at launching Singapore once the new 789s start being delivered also shared by JonNYC. It's referenced that with the HKG economy in decline and SIN on the rise this is a market they are looking at.

https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... oyee-leak/

Unbelievable! That would be AA's first logical destination in Southeast Asia. But is it really true that they're looking at SIN?

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

1. Logistics
A daily route would require 3-4 frames. AA is already short of WBs due to the poor COVID decisions.

2. Crew Base
They don’t have a 787 crew base in SEA. Not insurmountable but expensive. The only base you could DH crews in from would be LAX due to acclimation for FRMS. After a crew returns from SIN they are required 48 hours off before they could DH home. That makes a trip crewed by LAX 8 days…..expensive and inefficient.

3. No partners other then CX in the region.
This is a problem because a cancelation is very difficult to recover from on such a long flight. Especially if it is not daily. UA has 3 other flights a day in SFO to accommodate passengers due to a cancel. This route is going to be high paying passengers who will mot enjoy being days late.

4. LAX will be weight restricted.
This route will be marginal for AA at best. A heavy weight restriction makes it pointless to operate. If UA couldn’t make it work with more J seats then why would it work for AA using the same aircraft?

A daily route would only need two frames right? 17hours westbound and 14hours eastbound unless my math isn't adding up. SQ flies SIN-SEA arriving at 815am and departs for SIN 90 minutes later.

The new schedule is up.

PHL - MAD has been suspended from May 5th until June 9th.

Any other changes?

JohanTally wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

Unbelievable! That would be AA's first logical destination in Southeast Asia. But is it really true that they're looking at SIN?

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

1. Logistics
A daily route would require 3-4 frames. AA is already short of WBs due to the poor COVID decisions.

2. Crew Base
They don’t have a 787 crew base in SEA. Not insurmountable but expensive. The only base you could DH crews in from would be LAX due to acclimation for FRMS. After a crew returns from SIN they are required 48 hours off before they could DH home. That makes a trip crewed by LAX 8 days…..expensive and inefficient.

3. No partners other then CX in the region.
This is a problem because a cancelation is very difficult to recover from on such a long flight. Especially if it is not daily. UA has 3 other flights a day in SFO to accommodate passengers due to a cancel. This route is going to be high paying passengers who will mot enjoy being days late.

4. LAX will be weight restricted.
This route will be marginal for AA at best. A heavy weight restriction makes it pointless to operate. If UA couldn’t make it work with more J seats then why would it work for AA using the same aircraft?

A daily route would only need two frames right? 17hours westbound and 14hours eastbound unless my math isn't adding up.

You need 3 because of the flights departure and arrival times unless AA just does a turn which seems unlikely. Also the aircraft will arrive in the AM and need to sit until the PM or be routed to another hub and back to be useful. This is where you get possibly 4 frames.

CriticalPoint wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

1. Logistics
A daily route would require 3-4 frames. AA is already short of WBs due to the poor COVID decisions.

2. Crew Base
They don’t have a 787 crew base in SEA. Not insurmountable but expensive. The only base you could DH crews in from would be LAX due to acclimation for FRMS. After a crew returns from SIN they are required 48 hours off before they could DH home. That makes a trip crewed by LAX 8 days…..expensive and inefficient.

3. No partners other then CX in the region.
This is a problem because a cancelation is very difficult to recover from on such a long flight. Especially if it is not daily. UA has 3 other flights a day in SFO to accommodate passengers due to a cancel. This route is going to be high paying passengers who will mot enjoy being days late.

4. LAX will be weight restricted.
This route will be marginal for AA at best. A heavy weight restriction makes it pointless to operate. If UA couldn’t make it work with more J seats then why would it work for AA using the same aircraft?

A daily route would only need two frames right? 17hours westbound and 14hours eastbound unless my math isn't adding up.

You need 3 because of the flights departure and arrival times unless AA just does a turn which seems unlikely. Also the aircraft will arrive in the AM and need to sit until the PM or be routed to another hub and back to be useful. This is where you get possibly 4 frames.

4? No where near if, ok we don’t know a proposed schedule, AA would run LAX-TYO at midday or so wouldn’t they? SIN is much longer but suppose a similar departure to SIN, you could have presuming they choose LAX or SEA it would be similar.

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

2 aircraft and that is with 12hrs on the ground at SIN, and no they would necessarily use the same 2 aircraft if day SYD which departs slightly later could use the same configuration ex LAX.

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900

ZK-NBT wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

A daily route would only need two frames right? 17hours westbound and 14hours eastbound unless my math isn't adding up.

You need 3 because of the flights departure and arrival times unless AA just does a turn which seems unlikely. Also the aircraft will arrive in the AM and need to sit until the PM or be routed to another hub and back to be useful. This is where you get possibly 4 frames.

4? No where near if, ok we don’t know a proposed schedule, AA would run LAX-TYO at midday or so wouldn’t they? SIN is much longer but suppose a similar departure to SIN, you could have presuming they choose LAX or SEA it would be similar.

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

2 aircraft and that is with 12hrs on the ground at SIN, and no they would necessarily use the same 2 aircraft if day SYD which departs slightly later could use the same configuration ex LAX.

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900

The issue is efficiency. AA is not going to sit a new 787 all day in LAX it will be sent to DFW at a minimum. And if you don’t have a spare? Then the flight will be doomed.

You don’t need to sit a spare but you will need to run another frame through the airport for support.

ZK-NBT wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

A daily route would only need two frames right? 17hours westbound and 14hours eastbound unless my math isn't adding up.

You need 3 because of the flights departure and arrival times unless AA just does a turn which seems unlikely. Also the aircraft will arrive in the AM and need to sit until the PM or be routed to another hub and back to be useful. This is where you get possibly 4 frames.

4? No where near if, ok we don’t know a proposed schedule, AA would run LAX-TYO at midday or so wouldn’t they? SIN is much longer but suppose a similar departure to SIN, you could have presuming they choose LAX or SEA it would be similar.

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

2 aircraft and that is with 12hrs on the ground at SIN, and no they would necessarily use the same 2 aircraft if day SYD which departs slightly later could use the same configuration ex LAX.

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900

Thanks because when I saw 4 frames mentioned it seemed like some of the worst aircraft utilization possible.

JohanTally wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

You need 3 because of the flights departure and arrival times unless AA just does a turn which seems unlikely. Also the aircraft will arrive in the AM and need to sit until the PM or be routed to another hub and back to be useful. This is where you get possibly 4 frames.

4? No where near if, ok we don’t know a proposed schedule, AA would run LAX-TYO at midday or so wouldn’t they? SIN is much longer but suppose a similar departure to SIN, you could have presuming they choose LAX or SEA it would be similar.

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

2 aircraft and that is with 12hrs on the ground at SIN, and no they would necessarily use the same 2 aircraft if day SYD which departs slightly later could use the same configuration ex LAX.

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900

Thanks because when I saw 4 frames mentioned it seemed like some of the worst aircraft utilization possible.

You want to see poor aircraft utilization? Park a 787 for 12hours.

CriticalPoint wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

4? No where near if, ok we don’t know a proposed schedule, AA would run LAX-TYO at midday or so wouldn’t they? SIN is much longer but suppose a similar departure to SIN, you could have presuming they choose LAX or SEA it would be similar.

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

2 aircraft and that is with 12hrs on the ground at SIN, and no they would necessarily use the same 2 aircraft if day SYD which departs slightly later could use the same configuration ex LAX.

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900

Thanks because when I saw 4 frames mentioned it seemed like some of the worst aircraft utilization possible.

You want to see poor aircraft utilization? Park a 787 for 12hours.

Which is exactly what they do in many South American ports maybe not all 787s but several 777s.

CriticalPoint wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

You need 3 because of the flights departure and arrival times unless AA just does a turn which seems unlikely. Also the aircraft will arrive in the AM and need to sit until the PM or be routed to another hub and back to be useful. This is where you get possibly 4 frames.

4? No where near if, ok we don’t know a proposed schedule, AA would run LAX-TYO at midday or so wouldn’t they? SIN is much longer but suppose a similar departure to SIN, you could have presuming they choose LAX or SEA it would be similar.

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

2 aircraft and that is with 12hrs on the ground at SIN, and no they would necessarily use the same 2 aircraft if day SYD which departs slightly later could use the same configuration ex LAX.

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900

The issue is efficiency. AA is not going to sit a new 787 all day in LAX it will be sent to DFW at a minimum. And if you don’t have a spare? Then the flight will be doomed.

You don’t need to sit a spare but you will need to run another frame through the airport for support.

Sure it can go where ever after arriving at LAX, doesn’t TYO leave around midday ex LAX? No you don’t need a spare I agree, there will be slack in the system somewhere and probably a spare with a sleet the size of AA.

ZK-NBT wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

4? No where near if, ok we don’t know a proposed schedule, AA would run LAX-TYO at midday or so wouldn’t they? SIN is much longer but suppose a similar departure to SIN, you could have presuming they choose LAX or SEA it would be similar.

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

2 aircraft and that is with 12hrs on the ground at SIN, and no they would necessarily use the same 2 aircraft if day SYD which departs slightly later could use the same configuration ex LAX.

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900

The issue is efficiency. AA is not going to sit a new 787 all day in LAX it will be sent to DFW at a minimum. And if you don’t have a spare? Then the flight will be doomed.

You don’t need to sit a spare but you will need to run another frame through the airport for support.

Sure it can go where ever after arriving at LAX, doesn’t TYO leave around midday ex LAX? No you don’t need a spare I agree, there will be slack in the system somewhere and probably a spare with a sleet the size of AA.

Agree LAX would be easier than SEA

CriticalPoint wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

AA internally looking at launching Singapore once the new 789s start being delivered also shared by JonNYC. It's referenced that with the HKG economy in decline and SIN on the rise this is a market they are looking at.

https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... oyee-leak/

Unbelievable! That would be AA's first logical destination in Southeast Asia. But is it really true that they're looking at SIN?

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

1. Logistics
A daily route would require 3-4 frames. AA is already short of WBs due to the poor COVID decisions.

2. Crew Base
They don’t have a 787 crew base in SEA. Not insurmountable but expensive. The only base you could DH crews in from would be LAX due to acclimation for FRMS. After a crew returns from SIN they are required 48 hours off before they could DH home. That makes a trip crewed by LAX 8 days…..expensive and inefficient.

3. No partners other then CX in the region.
This is a problem because a cancelation is very difficult to recover from on such a long flight. Especially if it is not daily. UA has 3 other flights a day in SFO to accommodate passengers due to a cancel. This route is going to be high paying passengers who will mot enjoy being days late.

4. LAX will be weight restricted.
This route will be marginal for AA at best. A heavy weight restriction makes it pointless to operate. If UA couldn’t make it work with more J seats then why would it work for AA using the same aircraft?

For an airline who has shrunk considerably in the Asia-Pacific, even sending only 788s to NRT/HND where their Asian JV partner is located...

DL would start SIN long before AA does.

Detroit313 wrote:

The new schedule is up.

Where is this schedule to be found?

CriticalPoint wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

The issue is efficiency. AA is not going to sit a new 787 all day in LAX it will be sent to DFW at a minimum. And if you don’t have a spare? Then the flight will be doomed.

You don’t need to sit a spare but you will need to run another frame through the airport for support.

Sure it can go where ever after arriving at LAX, doesn’t TYO leave around midday ex LAX? No you don’t need a spare I agree, there will be slack in the system somewhere and probably a spare with a sleet the size of AA.

Agree LAX would be easier than SEA

I understand this article is from 18 months ago but AA wants to make SEA an Asian gateway. They have struggled executing with a lack of widebody aircraft and Russian overflight rights. SEA-BLR isn't feasible without those rights which has put that route in Carbonite.

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... an-gateway

Any idea why AA156 SEA-LHR has what looks like a planned diversion to JFK?

https://www.flightradar24.com/AAL156/2fa80e8d Heading east across Montana now, looks like it did the same thing yesterday as well:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KSEA/KJFK
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/AAL ... /KJFK/EGLL

AS737MAX wrote:

Any idea why AA156 SEA-LHR has what looks like a planned diversion to JFK?

Crew availability.

Pontiac wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

The new schedule is up.

Where is this schedule to be found?

Good question! I have been notified My flight from SRQ in July has been changed, but no info as to what and my new options. When I go to do a dummy book, my flight is still available to be booked even though internally it has been changed so I don’t know what gives. Usually I get an updated schedule and my new options if I don’t like the change. I usually give myself some extra time with all these changes happening, but this departure was perfect for my schedule. Ughhh lol

Pontiac wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

The new schedule is up.

Where is this schedule to be found?

The summer schedule (June 1 - August 14) has some minor tweaks to it, but not too many changes overall.

SRQLOT wrote:

Pontiac wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

The new schedule is up.

Where is this schedule to be found?

Good question! I have been notified My flight from SRQ in July has been changed, but no info as to what and my new options. When I go to do a dummy book, my flight is still available to be booked even though internally it has been changed so I don’t know what gives. Usually I get an updated schedule and my new options if I don’t like the change. I usually give myself some extra time with all these changes happening, but this departure was perfect for my schedule. Ughhh lol

Are you sure it wasn’t just a slight time change? Sometimes even if it changes by a few minutes you get notified.

Detroit313 wrote:

SRQLOT wrote:

Pontiac wrote:

Where is this schedule to be found?

Good question! I have been notified My flight from SRQ in July has been changed, but no info as to what and my new options. When I go to do a dummy book, my flight is still available to be booked even though internally it has been changed so I don’t know what gives. Usually I get an updated schedule and my new options if I don’t like the change. I usually give myself some extra time with all these changes happening, but this departure was perfect for my schedule. Ughhh lol

Are you sure it wasn’t just a slight time change? Sometimes even if it changes by a few minutes you get notified.

You are right! My arrival to SLC was moved up by 8 minutes from the connection hehe. Well hopefully it stays! This is the least dramatic change by a mile on any of my flights with AA!! Still though I haven’t received the update and the seat selection is unavailable.

SRQLOT wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

SRQLOT wrote:

Good question! I have been notified My flight from SRQ in July has been changed, but no info as to what and my new options. When I go to do a dummy book, my flight is still available to be booked even though internally it has been changed so I don’t know what gives. Usually I get an updated schedule and my new options if I don’t like the change. I usually give myself some extra time with all these changes happening, but this departure was perfect for my schedule. Ughhh lol

Are you sure it wasn’t just a slight time change? Sometimes even if it changes by a few minutes you get notified.

You are right! My arrival to SLC was moved up by 8 minutes from the connection hehe. Well hopefully it stays! This is the least dramatic change by a mile on any of my flights with AA!! Still though I haven’t received the update and the seat selection is unavailable.

A few weeks ago I went to look at a booking for June and saw a note on the web site that there had been changes. I did not get any notice sent to me until about a week later.

AdEd wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

Philippine333 wrote:

Unbelievable! That would be AA's first logical destination in Southeast Asia. But is it really true that they're looking at SIN?

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

1. Logistics
A daily route would require 3-4 frames. AA is already short of WBs due to the poor COVID decisions.

2. Crew Base
They don’t have a 787 crew base in SEA. Not insurmountable but expensive. The only base you could DH crews in from would be LAX due to acclimation for FRMS. After a crew returns from SIN they are required 48 hours off before they could DH home. That makes a trip crewed by LAX 8 days…..expensive and inefficient.

3. No partners other then CX in the region.
This is a problem because a cancelation is very difficult to recover from on such a long flight. Especially if it is not daily. UA has 3 other flights a day in SFO to accommodate passengers due to a cancel. This route is going to be high paying passengers who will mot enjoy being days late.

4. LAX will be weight restricted.
This route will be marginal for AA at best. A heavy weight restriction makes it pointless to operate. If UA couldn’t make it work with more J seats then why would it work for AA using the same aircraft?

For an airline who has shrunk considerably in the Asia-Pacific, even sending only 788s to NRT/HND where their Asian JV partner is located...

DL would start SIN long before AA does.

DL operated to SIN until September 2019, operating NRT-SIN. The route was cancelled when DL consolidated at HND. The NRT-SIN segment was inherited through the merger with NW. DL is even less likely to fly a US-SIN nonstop. It doesn't have the aircraft capable of making this work, without substantial penalties. Flying to SIN via another Asian city on its own metal also unlikely, as it can just as well leverage KE.

As to AA, the new batch of 789s will be more premium heavy, but it seems improbable that AA will fly a US-SIN nonstop route, either.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

AdEd wrote:

For an airline who has shrunk considerably in the Asia-Pacific, even sending only 788s to NRT/HND where their Asian JV partner is located...

DL would start SIN long before AA does.

DL operated to SIN until September 2019, operating NRT-SIN. The route was cancelled when DL consolidated at HND. The NRT-SIN segment was inherited through the merger with NW. DL is even less likely to fly a US-SIN nonstop. It doesn't have the aircraft capable of making this work, without substantial penalties. Flying to SIN via another Asian city on its own metal also unlikely, as it can just as well leverage KE.

As to AA, the new batch of 789s will be more premium heavy, but it seems improbable that AA will fly a US-SIN nonstop route, either.

That's completely fair. Except for:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

It doesn't have the aircraft capable of making this work, without substantial penalties.

The 280t A359s on property at DL can do SEA-SIN without much penalty, if at all. LAX-SIN is more questionable in DL's 306-seater configuration, but for SQ – who operates LAX-SIN in a slightly less dense configuration – their 280t A359s are perfectly capable of doing the job. I am sure many arguments have been done on a.net regarding the range/endurance of the A350s, but I do believe that a 280t A359 has equal, if not slightly more, range than a 260t 789, which AA will be taking delivery of.

DL has about 16 A359s left on order from Airbus, and it is entirely possible that these will be the new 283t models. It is also rumored that there will be a seat count reduction to 284. These factors would allow for a DL A359 to serve LAX-SIN without penalties, should it one day choose to.

Detroit313 wrote:

It is sad to see United is going to have FOUR flights to Edinburgh this summer season and AA has ZERO.

And that’s just one of many examples.

It's all across the continent. This is something that sadly is a legacy AA thing that wasnt helped at all by LUS coming online. AA has never felt the need for "breadth" of schedule for international service, either out of sheer incompetence in selling those markets or just a desire to send every single person non top-10 Europe markets over LHR. This has been a thing at AA for decades and while they will "try a market" it seems AA never has the right aircraft or hub to serve them.

I, along with frankly many of people, were very excited about the prospect of getting a real Trans Atlantic hub at PHL, but for whatever reason, AA cant figure out how to operate PHL like EWR, JFK or even IAD at times. My personal hope is that AA will try with 321XLRs soon, but their track record isnt great.

If the XLR's 4000nm range comes to fruition in real-world airline ops (Airbus claims 4700 nm overall), that would open up everything from secondary Italy, most of former Yugolslavia and up into Warsaw and all of Scandanvia.

AA could literally decide to fly anything from PHL in Europe at that point and not need to fill up a 240+ seat aircraft. My concern is that AA just has never been able to do it. They need to grossly pull back on LHR capacity across all of their hubs if they do this, and then essentially force feed traffic through PHL. But until that happens, AA will continue to sell RIC-PHL-LHR-WAW over a hypothetical RIC-LHR-WAW. It drives me nuts, but AA always prices connections over LHR way less than the connections in the US to a nonstop Trans Atlantic. By a very large margin.

enterusername wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

It is sad to see United is going to have FOUR flights to Edinburgh this summer season and AA has ZERO.

And that’s just one of many examples.

It's all across the continent. This is something that sadly is a legacy AA thing that wasnt helped at all by LUS coming online. AA has never felt the need for "breadth" of schedule for international service, either out of sheer incompetence in selling those markets or just a desire to send every single person non top-10 Europe markets over LHR. This has been a thing at AA for decades and while they will "try a market" it seems AA never has the right aircraft or hub to serve them.

I, along with frankly many of people, were very excited about the prospect of getting a real Trans Atlantic hub at PHL, but for whatever reason, AA cant figure out how to operate PHL like EWR, JFK or even IAD at times. My personal hope is that AA will try with 321XLRs soon, but their track record isnt great.

If the XLR's 4000nm range comes to fruition in real-world airline ops (Airbus claims 4700 nm overall), that would open up everything from secondary Italy, most of former Yugolslavia and up into Warsaw and all of Scandanvia.

AA could literally decide to fly anything from PHL in Europe at that point and not need to fill up a 240+ seat aircraft. My concern is that AA just has never been able to do it. They need to grossly pull back on LHR capacity across all of their hubs if they do this, and then essentially force feed traffic through PHL. But until that happens, AA will continue to sell RIC-PHL-LHR-WAW over a hypothetical RIC-LHR-WAW. It drives me nuts, but AA always prices connections over LHR way less than the connections in the US to a nonstop Trans Atlantic. By a very large margin.

I'm not sure what AA is trying to do with PHL when the XLRs are delivered. As of now I see AA very focused on JFK. I understand that AA is short on airplanes but cancelling PHL-MAD for a month during the build up of TATL season for the main TATL gateway does not good sound. I question about the XLR making PHL into a bigger TATL hub like EWR or JFK

They have said the XLRs are made for Philly and also they would have liked to grow Philly back sooner but the lack of deliveries has been the issue. Expect PHL to see a large share of the new 787 and XLR aircraft along with MIA.

UpNAWAy wrote:

They have said the XLRs are made for Philly and also they would have liked to grow Philly back sooner but the lack of deliveries has been the issue. Expect PHL to see a large share of the new 787 and XLR aircraft along with MIA.

As most recently supported here https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... a-and-lax/:

Philadelphia Is Still Their Transatlantic Hub, It Just May Not Seem That Way
The airline still sees Philadelphia as their primary connecting hub to Europe, with New York JFK as predominantly for local traffic. But without as much local demand in Philadelphia, they haven’t brought back as much domestic capacity. And that means fewer connecting passengers to support transatlantic flying.

This should grow back as the airline receives Airbus A321XLRs, smaller planes that can profitably fly with fewer passengers. (I’d note that they have retired the planes that could have made transatlantic work under this scenario, the Boeing 757s and 767s.)

enterusername wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

It is sad to see United is going to have FOUR flights to Edinburgh this summer season and AA has ZERO.

And that’s just one of many examples.

It's all across the continent. This is something that sadly is a legacy AA thing that wasnt helped at all by LUS coming online.

this is total nonsense, as LUS was larger across the pond than LAA in terms of destinations sold. LAA didn't even serve AMS, MUC, or LIS at the time of the merger, LUS did

wenders825 wrote:

enterusername wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

It is sad to see United is going to have FOUR flights to Edinburgh this summer season and AA has ZERO.

And that’s just one of many examples.

It's all across the continent. This is something that sadly is a legacy AA thing that wasnt helped at all by LUS coming online.

this is total nonsense, as LUS was larger across the pond than LAA in terms of destinations sold. LAA didn't even serve AMS, MUC, or LIS at the time of the merger, LUS did

Well, US had a number of routes across the Atlantic, pre-merger, that's true, but overall, it was a fairly marginal player, relative to the rest of the US airlines, particularly around corporate contracts (though CLT-FRA/MUC was a standout).

The merger did help AA pick up routes to markets it didn't serve previously, like AMS, MUC, or LIS, that's true, but the pandemic and the elimination of the 757, 767-300ER, and A330 fleets rendered those, and newer, leisure markets like BUD, PRG, etc...unworkable with the 777/787 fleet. It was the pandemic that really shut down post-merger plans for more leisure markets across the Atlantic.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

The merger did help AA pick up routes to markets it didn't serve previously, like AMS, MUC, or LIS, that's true, but the pandemic and the elimination of the 757, 767-300ER, and A330 fleets rendered those, and newer, leisure markets like BUD, PRG, etc...unworkable with the 777/787 fleet. It was the pandemic that really shut down post-merger plans for more leisure markets across the Atlantic.

I went looking for the numbers because I was curious and during the pandemic American retired:

16 767-300ERs
9 A330-300s
15 A330-200s
34 757-200s

For a total reduction of 40 widebody frames and 74 frames overall capable of TATL flying. That's a big bite out of the overall widebody/TATL capable fleet, which currently stands at 123 widebody frames, with a few more 788s remaining to deliver to bring that up to 126. The fleet would be 40% larger with those frames still in it.

I might be off by a couple here and there, as I'm trusting Wikipedia to be up to date. But that's still a staggering stat.

50 XLR plus 30 789 on order will reverse that trend, but the numbers show why it hurts in the short term.

aerace wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

They have said the XLRs are made for Philly and also they would have liked to grow Philly back sooner but the lack of deliveries has been the issue. Expect PHL to see a large share of the new 787 and XLR aircraft along with MIA.

As most recently supported here https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... a-and-lax/:

Philadelphia Is Still Their Transatlantic Hub, It Just May Not Seem That Way
The airline still sees Philadelphia as their primary connecting hub to Europe, with New York JFK as predominantly for local traffic. But without as much local demand in Philadelphia, they haven’t brought back as much domestic capacity. And that means fewer connecting passengers to support transatlantic flying.

This should grow back as the airline receives Airbus A321XLRs, smaller planes that can profitably fly with fewer passengers. (I’d note that they have retired the planes that could have made transatlantic work under this scenario, the Boeing 757s and 767s.)

Could we end up seeing a lot of XLR Europe flying out of CLT? It has significantly more feed than PHL

mikejepp wrote:

aerace wrote:

UpNAWAy wrote:

They have said the XLRs are made for Philly and also they would have liked to grow Philly back sooner but the lack of deliveries has been the issue. Expect PHL to see a large share of the new 787 and XLR aircraft along with MIA.

As most recently supported here https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... a-and-lax/:

Philadelphia Is Still Their Transatlantic Hub, It Just May Not Seem That Way
The airline still sees Philadelphia as their primary connecting hub to Europe, with New York JFK as predominantly for local traffic. But without as much local demand in Philadelphia, they haven’t brought back as much domestic capacity. And that means fewer connecting passengers to support transatlantic flying.

This should grow back as the airline receives Airbus A321XLRs, smaller planes that can profitably fly with fewer passengers. (I’d note that they have retired the planes that could have made transatlantic work under this scenario, the Boeing 757s and 767s.)

Could we end up seeing a lot of XLR Europe flying out of CLT? It has significantly more feed than PHL

We will definitely see some. I suspect that the first XLRs out of CLT will mainly be used to extend some of the seasonal TATL routes like MAD/CDG to year-round. After that I imagine a few frames will add some new destinations out of CLT. But not expecting CLT to get the name amount of XLR ops as PHL/MIA though.

aerace wrote:

As most recently supported here https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... a-and-lax/:

Philadelphia Is Still Their Transatlantic Hub, It Just May Not Seem That Way
The airline still sees Philadelphia as their primary connecting hub to Europe, with New York JFK as predominantly for local traffic. But without as much local demand in Philadelphia, they haven’t brought back as much domestic capacity. And that means fewer connecting passengers to support transatlantic flying.

This should grow back as the airline receives Airbus A321XLRs, smaller planes that can profitably fly with fewer passengers. (I’d note that they have retired the planes that could have made transatlantic work under this scenario, the Boeing 757s and 767s.)

I wonder how much PHL loses out to EWR due to lower fares at EWR. Probably one of the causes of lower local demand in Philadelphia

N292UX wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

aerace wrote:

As most recently supported here https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... a-and-lax/:

Philadelphia Is Still Their Transatlantic Hub, It Just May Not Seem That Way
The airline still sees Philadelphia as their primary connecting hub to Europe, with New York JFK as predominantly for local traffic. But without as much local demand in Philadelphia, they haven’t brought back as much domestic capacity. And that means fewer connecting passengers to support transatlantic flying.

This should grow back as the airline receives Airbus A321XLRs, smaller planes that can profitably fly with fewer passengers. (I’d note that they have retired the planes that could have made transatlantic work under this scenario, the Boeing 757s and 767s.)

Could we end up seeing a lot of XLR Europe flying out of CLT? It has significantly more feed than PHL

We will definitely see some. I suspect that the first XLRs out of CLT will mainly be used to extend some of the seasonal TATL routes like MAD/CDG to year-round. After that I imagine a few frames will add some new destinations out of CLT. But not expecting CLT to get the name amount of XLR ops as PHL/MIA though.

CLT- Europe relies on low yield bulk connections largely from California and Florida. The 321LR makes zero sense. You don’t need to fly Madrid and Paris in the winter when 90% of the traffic is going to Miami anyway.

wenders825 wrote:

enterusername wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

It is sad to see United is going to have FOUR flights to Edinburgh this summer season and AA has ZERO.

And that’s just one of many examples.

It's all across the continent. This is something that sadly is a legacy AA thing that wasnt helped at all by LUS coming online.

this is total nonsense, as LUS was larger across the pond than LAA in terms of destinations sold. LAA didn't even serve AMS, MUC, or LIS at the time of the merger, LUS did

And yet, AA is still massively underserved to Europe vs UA/DL. So they were bad before and it wasnt helped when LUS came online. Simple logic.

PHLspecial wrote:

aerace wrote:

As most recently supported here https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... a-and-lax/:

Philadelphia Is Still Their Transatlantic Hub, It Just May Not Seem That Way
The airline still sees Philadelphia as their primary connecting hub to Europe, with New York JFK as predominantly for local traffic. But without as much local demand in Philadelphia, they haven’t brought back as much domestic capacity. And that means fewer connecting passengers to support transatlantic flying.

This should grow back as the airline receives Airbus A321XLRs, smaller planes that can profitably fly with fewer passengers. (I’d note that they have retired the planes that could have made transatlantic work under this scenario, the Boeing 757s and 767s.)

I wonder how much PHL loses out to EWR due to lower fares at EWR. Probably one of the causes of lower local demand in Philadelphia

That and let's be honest here. A very large percentage of PHL's population is much poorer on a percentage basis compared to NYC. So not only is NYC 3x the population of PHL, a very significant chunk of PHL population has never left the region much less the country.

MAH4546 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Could we end up seeing a lot of XLR Europe flying out of CLT? It has significantly more feed than PHL

We will definitely see some. I suspect that the first XLRs out of CLT will mainly be used to extend some of the seasonal TATL routes like MAD/CDG to year-round. After that I imagine a few frames will add some new destinations out of CLT. But not expecting CLT to get the name amount of XLR ops as PHL/MIA though.

CLT- Europe relies on low yield bulk connections largely from California and Florida. The 321LR makes zero sense. You don’t need to fly Madrid and Paris in the winter when 90% of the traffic is going to Miami anyway.

CLT to Germany seems to be doing well especially MUC which has nearly 600 seats a day. AA has pretty large catch basin at CLT and there's no reason why a off-season XLR wouldn't work for MAD. Even if it is primarily Florida traffic it doesn't mean it's strictly MIA passengers. TPA and MCO don't offer direct MAD service so a one stop through CLT is more efficient than MIA.

LAXintl wrote:

AS737MAX wrote:

Any idea why AA156 SEA-LHR has what looks like a planned diversion to JFK?

Crew availability.

Is this going to be happening frequently? I'm on that flight next week and arriving at 9PM from an originally scheduled noon arrival (before departure changed to 10:40PM) will be frustrating.

enterusername wrote:

a very significant chunk of PHL population has never left the region much less the country.

That's a pretty bold statement. Got any data to back that up?

enterusername wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

aerace wrote:

As most recently supported here https://viewfromthewing.com/american-ai ... a-and-lax/:

Philadelphia Is Still Their Transatlantic Hub, It Just May Not Seem That Way
The airline still sees Philadelphia as their primary connecting hub to Europe, with New York JFK as predominantly for local traffic. But without as much local demand in Philadelphia, they haven’t brought back as much domestic capacity. And that means fewer connecting passengers to support transatlantic flying.

This should grow back as the airline receives Airbus A321XLRs, smaller planes that can profitably fly with fewer passengers. (I’d note that they have retired the planes that could have made transatlantic work under this scenario, the Boeing 757s and 767s.)

I wonder how much PHL loses out to EWR due to lower fares at EWR. Probably one of the causes of lower local demand in Philadelphia

That and let's be honest here. A very large percentage of PHL's population is much poorer on a percentage basis compared to NYC. So not only is NYC 3x the population of PHL, a very significant chunk of PHL population has never left the region much less the country.

Complete nonsense of course lol. The median household income of the Philadelphia metro is higher than Houston, Charlotte, Dallas, and Atlanta. Is Philadelphia New York? Of course not, only New York is New York and it's unique among cities, wealth, and scale in the U.S.

panam330 wrote:

enterusername wrote:

a very significant chunk of PHL population has never left the region much less the country.

That's a pretty bold statement. Got any data to back that up?

Of course they don't. Philadelphia is the sixth largest city in the U.S. and punches below its weight in air travel because it's biggest business connections are on the Amtrak corridor and tons of leakage to EWR but people like to make stuff up.