Larnaca wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

The XLR won’t be used trans-Atlantic from Miami unless maybe AA decides to venture into secondary Spain (doubtful). MIAMXP/CDG are huge and dense markets. MIAZRH is traditionally even a bigger market than MIAMXP, AA won’t do well on it because it’s so insanely leaning toward Swiss-originating traffic. MIAAMS is also a large market but the yield is weak, it makes no sense for a low density A321. Long story short, you don’t fly them with a narrowbody. The economics are going to be horrible.

This is a good point. A low yielding tourist destination such as MIA probably won’t do well using a narrow body.

AMERICAN AIRLINES ANUNCIA MÁS VUELOS A BUENOS AIRES PARA LA TEMPORADA DE VACACIONES

American operará hasta 42 vuelos semanales en Buenos Aires para la temporada de vacaciones.
La aerolínea tendrá un aumento del 20% en la capacidad de asientos durante la temporada alta en comparación con 2022-2023.

BUENOS AIRES- American Airlines refuerza su compromiso con Argentina al incrementar su operación en el Aeropuerto Internacional Ministro Pistarini (EZE) durante la temporada de vacaciones 2023-2024.

Del 21 de diciembre al 29 de marzo de 2024, American aumentará sus operaciones en Miami (MIA) de 18 a 21 vuelos semanales. La ruta será operada por aeronaves Boeing 777-300 con capacidad para 304 pasajeros, y Boeing 787-8 con capacidad para 234 pasajeros.

Además, a partir del 5 de diciembre y hasta el 13 de febrero de 2024, la aerolínea aumentará sus vuelos diarios a Nueva York (JFK) a 10 vuelos semanales, operados por aviones Boeing 777-200 con capacidad para 273 pasajeros, ofreciendo a los clientes una experiencia de vuelo de primera categoría con cabinas Flagship® Business y Premium Economy, así como interiores de última generación, Wi-Fi de alta velocidad y cientos de películas y programas de televisión on-demand en cada asiento.

Con estas frecuencias adicionales, American ofrecerá hasta seis vuelos diarios durante la temporada alta desde Buenos Aires a tres destinos en Estados Unidos, incluyendo hasta tres vuelos al día a Miami, hasta dos vuelos al día a Nueva York y un servicio diario a Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW).

“American tiene un compromiso de 33 años con Argentina y estamos orgullosos de aumentar nuestras operaciones en Buenos Aires durante la temporada de vacaciones, dando a nuestros clientes aún más opciones para viajar a sus destinos favoritos en los Estados Unidos”, dijo Gonzalo Schames, Director de Operaciones para América del Sur y Alianzas Estratégicas de American.

Durante la temporada de vacaciones 2023-2024, American aumentará su operación en Argentina en un 23% y su capacidad de asientos en un 20%, en comparación con el mismo período en 2022-2023.

Con este servicio vacacional, American refuerza su posición como la mayor aerolínea que une América Latina y el Caribe con Estados Unidos, operando hasta 361 vuelos diarios desde 90 destinos.

Los clientes pueden adquirir sus pasajes en aa.com.

MAH4546 wrote:

Larnaca wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

The XLR won’t be used trans-Atlantic from Miami unless maybe AA decides to venture into secondary Spain (doubtful). MIAMXP/CDG are huge and dense markets. MIAZRH is traditionally even a bigger market than MIAMXP, AA won’t do well on it because it’s so insanely leaning toward Swiss-originating traffic. MIAAMS is also a large market but the yield is weak, it makes no sense for a low density A321. Long story short, you don’t fly them with a narrowbody. The economics are going to be horrible.

This is a good point. A low yielding tourist destination such as MIA probably won’t do well using a narrow body.

MIA isn’t a low yielding tourist destination from the vast majority of Europe (Benelux tends to be junky yield and Scandanvia strong enough to support non-stops to all the capitals but super seasonal).

But it’s still bulk market that’s not what an A321XLR is designed for. Also AA has always been at a disadvantage because the market skews Europe-originating and the Europeans carriers much better at capturing the high yield traffic.

dcajet wrote:

NW 2023-24 will be a record season for American Airlines at EZE in its 33 years of operations in Argentine, with up to 42 weekly departures, the airline said today.

AMERICAN AIRLINES ANUNCIA MÁS VUELOS A BUENOS AIRES PARA LA TEMPORADA DE VACACIONES

American operará hasta 42 vuelos semanales en Buenos Aires para la temporada de vacaciones.
La aerolínea tendrá un aumento del 20% en la capacidad de asientos durante la temporada alta en comparación con 2022-2023.

BUENOS AIRES- American Airlines refuerza su compromiso con Argentina al incrementar su operación en el Aeropuerto Internacional Ministro Pistarini (EZE) durante la temporada de vacaciones 2023-2024.

Del 21 de diciembre al 29 de marzo de 2024, American aumentará sus operaciones en Miami (MIA) de 18 a 21 vuelos semanales. La ruta será operada por aeronaves Boeing 777-300 con capacidad para 304 pasajeros, y Boeing 787-8 con capacidad para 234 pasajeros.

Además, a partir del 5 de diciembre y hasta el 13 de febrero de 2024, la aerolínea aumentará sus vuelos diarios a Nueva York (JFK) a 10 vuelos semanales, operados por aviones Boeing 777-200 con capacidad para 273 pasajeros, ofreciendo a los clientes una experiencia de vuelo de primera categoría con cabinas Flagship® Business y Premium Economy, así como interiores de última generación, Wi-Fi de alta velocidad y cientos de películas y programas de televisión on-demand en cada asiento.

Con estas frecuencias adicionales, American ofrecerá hasta seis vuelos diarios durante la temporada alta desde Buenos Aires a tres destinos en Estados Unidos, incluyendo hasta tres vuelos al día a Miami, hasta dos vuelos al día a Nueva York y un servicio diario a Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW).

“American tiene un compromiso de 33 años con Argentina y estamos orgullosos de aumentar nuestras operaciones en Buenos Aires durante la temporada de vacaciones, dando a nuestros clientes aún más opciones para viajar a sus destinos favoritos en los Estados Unidos”, dijo Gonzalo Schames, Director de Operaciones para América del Sur y Alianzas Estratégicas de American.

Durante la temporada de vacaciones 2023-2024, American aumentará su operación en Argentina en un 23% y su capacidad de asientos en un 20%, en comparación con el mismo período en 2022-2023.

Con este servicio vacacional, American refuerza su posición como la mayor aerolínea que une América Latina y el Caribe con Estados Unidos, operando hasta 361 vuelos diarios desde 90 destinos.

Los clientes pueden adquirir sus pasajes en aa.com.

They better add more space to that Admirals club at EZE soon. It is already almost standing-room only in the evenings, with multiple AA and Iberia departures after 8 pm.

dcajet wrote:

Contrary to previous years' peak travel seasons, 2023-24 will not see a day time departure from EZE to MIA, all 3 flights will be redeyes,

AA900 EZE 21:00 MIA 05:00+1 77W D
AA908 EZE 23:35 MIA 06:55+1 788 D
AA934 EZE 00:55 MIA 08.15+1 788 D

LAXPolaris wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Contrary to previous years' peak travel seasons, 2023-24 will not see a day time departure from EZE to MIA, all 3 flights will be redeyes,

AA900 EZE 21:00 MIA 05:00+1 77W D
AA908 EZE 23:35 MIA 06:55+1 788 D
AA934 EZE 00:55 MIA 08.15+1 788 D

I know everyone says the yields to South America are trash on daytime flights, but why is that? Would think there are people are there that would prefer to avoid a redeye? And then it's better aircraft utilization as well.

dcajet wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Contrary to previous years' peak travel seasons, 2023-24 will not see a day time departure from EZE to MIA, all 3 flights will be redeyes,

AA900 EZE 21:00 MIA 05:00+1 77W D
AA908 EZE 23:35 MIA 06:55+1 788 D
AA934 EZE 00:55 MIA 08.15+1 788 D

I know everyone says the yields to South America are trash on daytime flights, but why is that? Would think there are people are there that would prefer to avoid a redeye? And then it's better aircraft utilization as well.

Because the benefits of designing its schedule around the travel habits of those who pay top dollar for a full price seat on the pointy end of the plane probably outweigh the cost of having 6 planes sitting pretty all day at EZE. And as stated many times on this board, it is not all lost time for AA. The airline has a sizeable maintenance operation at EZE and minor routine maintenance is performed on those planes while on the ground at EZE.

LAXPolaris wrote:

dcajet wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

I know everyone says the yields to South America are trash on daytime flights, but why is that? Would think there are people are there that would prefer to avoid a redeye? And then it's better aircraft utilization as well.

Because the benefits of designing its schedule around the travel habits of those who pay top dollar for a full price seat on the pointy end of the plane probably outweigh the cost of having 6 planes sitting pretty all day at EZE. And as stated many times on this board, it is not all lost time for AA. The airline has a sizeable maintenance operation at EZE and minor routine maintenance is performed on those planes while on the ground at EZE.

I understand the redeyes are more profitable, but given they have 3x per day from MIA you'd think at least one of them could be a day flight.

dcajet wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Because the benefits of designing its schedule around the travel habits of those who pay top dollar for a full price seat on the pointy end of the plane probably outweigh the cost of having 6 planes sitting pretty all day at EZE. And as stated many times on this board, it is not all lost time for AA. The airline has a sizeable maintenance operation at EZE and minor routine maintenance is performed on those planes while on the ground at EZE.

I understand the redeyes are more profitable, but given they have 3x per day from MIA you'd think at least one of them could be a day flight.

There are some good fares available on daytime departures out of EZE, but they all involve a connection enroute, on the likes of Boliviana. But that is not the client American is chasing in Argentina. And why should they offer a daytime flight when they can get top dollar with fares starting at US$2.5K r/t EZE-MIA? AA is lining its pockets in Argentina. For comparison, if you were to buy a MIA-EZE r/t on American at the US POS, the same itinerary that is priced at $2,500 in Argentina, can be had for $1,100.

voxkel wrote:

I was wondering if JFK-GRU will be underserved this Southern Summer (with only 3 daily flights on AA/LA/DL). Maybe AA can add a second flight using a schedule like this:

AA949 18:35 JFK 06:05+1 GRU 77E D (new flight; would get into GRU on time for morning meetings)
AA951 22:35 JFK 10:05+1 GRU 77W D (existing)

AA948 10:55 GRU 18:50 JFK 77E D (new flight; daytime)
AA950 22:00 GRU 05:55+1 JFK 77W D (existing)

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

dcajet wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

I understand the redeyes are more profitable, but given they have 3x per day from MIA you'd think at least one of them could be a day flight.

There are some good fares available on daytime departures out of EZE, but they all involve a connection enroute, on the likes of Boliviana. But that is not the client American is chasing in Argentina. And why should they offer a daytime flight when they can get top dollar with fares starting at US$2.5K r/t EZE-MIA? AA is lining its pockets in Argentina. For comparison, if you were to buy a MIA-EZE r/t on American at the US POS, the same itinerary that is priced at $2,500 in Argentina, can be had for $1,100.

Does anyone have sharable data on how much of the US-Argentina (and US-Deep South America, for that matter) traffic is US-originating vs. Arg or Brazil-originating? Given the history of rampant inflation in the region, I'm curious as to how the pricing works out on that.

Or are most flights sold in the South America POS still quoted/paid in dollars?

LAXPolaris wrote:

I posed this question in a different thread but probably makes more sense to ask here, can anyone give me some insight into why AA doesn't have more flights to Tokyo? Management frequently talks about how a big part of their international strategy now is to filter passengers through JV hubs, and then rely on the JV partner to get them to their final destination. They definitely seem to be doing this at a large scale in LHR given the amount of flights they have to London, but they have very few into Tokyo. Couldn't AA support more flights to Tokyo, and then offer connections to many destinations in Asia beyond Tokyo?

UA, who also has a JV partner in Tokyo, has flights from every hub, and has flights to both HND and NRT from SFO, EWR, and soon LAX. I feel like AA could be more like this, but am I wrong for thinking that? Maybe not as big of a scale as UA, but at least flights from a few more hubs than just DFW and LAX I feel could work?

Curious to hear what others think on this. Maybe there is something about AA and Tokyo/Asia that I'm missing, but just seems odd to me.

NLINK wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

I posed this question in a different thread but probably makes more sense to ask here, can anyone give me some insight into why AA doesn't have more flights to Tokyo? Management frequently talks about how a big part of their international strategy now is to filter passengers through JV hubs, and then rely on the JV partner to get them to their final destination. They definitely seem to be doing this at a large scale in LHR given the amount of flights they have to London, but they have very few into Tokyo. Couldn't AA support more flights to Tokyo, and then offer connections to many destinations in Asia beyond Tokyo?

UA, who also has a JV partner in Tokyo, has flights from every hub, and has flights to both HND and NRT from SFO, EWR, and soon LAX. I feel like AA could be more like this, but am I wrong for thinking that? Maybe not as big of a scale as UA, but at least flights from a few more hubs than just DFW and LAX I feel could work?

Curious to hear what others think on this. Maybe there is something about AA and Tokyo/Asia that I'm missing, but just seems odd to me.

Originally per the 1952 agreement only Pan Am, Northwest Airlines and Japan Airlines were the only carriers allowed to fly into Tokyo. I believe American finally gained rights to fly into Tokyo in 1987. It is extremely costly to break into the market this late in the game. With joint immunity it doesn't make a lot of financial sense as you would be competing with yourself to an extent by reducing the fares from the joint venture.

Sydscott wrote:

AA has a different strategy to UA. The UA way is very much to do as much own metal flying as possible whereas AA has taken, historically, a much more minimalist approach to basically all stations other than LHR.

LAXPolaris wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

AA has a different strategy to UA. The UA way is very much to do as much own metal flying as possible whereas AA has taken, historically, a much more minimalist approach to basically all stations other than LHR.

So for transatlantic, it seems AA wants to get you there on AA metal, and then connect you over to BA, whereas for transpacific AA is fine with you being on JAL metal both on the US to Tokyo flight and then wherever beyond there? Why the difference between the two markets? They're both metal neutral JVs aren't they?

LAXPolaris wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

AA has a different strategy to UA. The UA way is very much to do as much own metal flying as possible whereas AA has taken, historically, a much more minimalist approach to basically all stations other than LHR.

So for transatlantic, it seems AA wants to get you there on AA metal, and then connect you over to BA, whereas for transpacific AA is fine with you being on JAL metal both on the US to Tokyo flight and then wherever beyond there? Why the difference between the two markets? They're both metal neutral JVs aren't they?

YVR744CP wrote:

I don't understand your obsession with AA and their using JV partners. It's what they have chosen to do. Just because UA flies more flights across the Pacific, it doesn't mean AA or anyone else has to.

dfwfanboy wrote:

Tad simplistic on the TATL component considering AA flies to VCE, MAD, DUB, AMS, CDG, FCO, BCN, FRA, LIS, ATH, TLV and ZRH on their own metal and, when they had the planes for it, plenty of other random obscure places from Tuscany to Croatia to Prague.

If customers prefer to fly JAL, which they seem to (unlike BA where there doesn't seem to be that clear preference), why should AA choose to fly to more Asian destinations than they already do when United has the hub for it and AA doesn't? Their paying customers seem to enjoy taking JL and I'd probably take JAL too over AA if my company was paying for it.

LAXPolaris wrote:

YVR744CP wrote:

I don't understand your obsession with AA and their using JV partners. It's what they have chosen to do. Just because UA flies more flights across the Pacific, it doesn't mean AA or anyone else has to.

LAXPolaris wrote:

Sydscott wrote:

AA has a different strategy to UA. The UA way is very much to do as much own metal flying as possible whereas AA has taken, historically, a much more minimalist approach to basically all stations other than LHR.

So for transatlantic, it seems AA wants to get you there on AA metal, and then connect you over to BA, whereas for transpacific AA is fine with you being on JAL metal both on the US to Tokyo flight and then wherever beyond there? Why the difference between the two markets? They're both metal neutral JVs aren't they?

LAXPolaris wrote:

YVR744CP wrote:

I don't understand your obsession with AA and their using JV partners. It's what they have chosen to do. Just because UA flies more flights across the Pacific, it doesn't mean AA or anyone else has to.

Not sure what you're saying here. I don't have an "obsession" with AA's JV partners? I am simply asking why AA doesn't have more flights into Tokyo to feed passengers to their transpacific JV partner, similar to what they do at LHR. I didn't say it was a bad thing AA doesn't have as many flights, was simply trying to understand the reasoning behind it. Given DL has 5 routes currently operating to Tokyo with no partner on the other end, it made me think AA could support more capacity. I personally would like to see a flight like PHX-NRT on AA metal, so simply was trying to better understand if there is a reason AA has held off on these type of routes.

onwFan wrote:

NLINK has already answered your question accurately above. You are viewing UA and AA’s TPAC networks while forgetting the entire history attached to them. UA’s TPAC network did not originate around the NH JV. It was a standalone TPAC NRT operation inherited from PanAm. If anything, a lot of routes ended up being reorganized and shifted to UA hubs or dropped entirely to reorganize it around the NH JV, including all of the intra-Asia routes. In fact nothing has changed except that instead of UA which used to carry passengers intra-Asia from NRT on its own metal, NH does it now through the JV. Coincidentally, UA has ended up with a JV partner in Japan which made such a reorganization possible on top of bulking it up.

On the other hand, AA never had a historical presence at TYO, so everything it has was built upon JAL’s presence. As pointed out earlier, we are talking about decades long operations when other carriers like AA were not even allowed to enter. And you also seem to mention AA at LHR - even that was bought from TWA and it helped that they found a JV partner in BA.

PS: You also point out DL flies 5 routes - again that is the remnant of NW’s (coincidentally the same company that helped found JL) TPAC hub at NRT (which was even larger than UA’s?). But it is a shadow of what it was, largely the result of the lack of a JV partner in Japan). Again talking about decades long historical advantage.

alasizon wrote:

First - the Pacific ocean itself is much larger than the Atlantic so your opportunity cost with an aircraft is much higher as it takes a lot more aircraft time. US-Europe is far larger than US-East Asia on a traffic basis as well so there are just going to be more flights. Compare the number of AA+JL flights US-Tokyo compared to the number of AA+BA flights US-LHR and you'll find it is a striking difference.

Second - TPAC would be a loss maker (for the most part) if you deployed the same amount of capacity on US-China/Japan as is deployed US-Western Europe as you don't have nearly the same yield that you get from European flights so AA is going to deploy its assets more liberally in Europe and a lot more conservatively for TPAC.

dfwfanboy wrote:

plenty of other random obscure places from Tuscany to Croatia to Prague.

dfw88 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

plenty of other random obscure places from Tuscany to Croatia to Prague.

Half non-serious nitpick, half serious question: has AA ever flown to Tuscany? I think the only airport there that can handle transatlantic service is PSA (Pisa) and I don't recall AA ever serving there, and certainly not recently. They did serve BLQ, which I bet is what you were thinking of, but Bologna is in Emilia-Romagna, not Tuscany.

dfwfanboy wrote:

dfw88 wrote:

dfwfanboy wrote:

plenty of other random obscure places from Tuscany to Croatia to Prague.

Half non-serious nitpick, half serious question: has AA ever flown to Tuscany? I think the only airport there that can handle transatlantic service is PSA (Pisa) and I don't recall AA ever serving there, and certainly not recently. They did serve BLQ, which I bet is what you were thinking of, but Bologna is in Emilia-Romagna, not Tuscany.

Fair counter. If memory serves, the brief PHL-BLQ was an attempt to serve an airport close to Tuscany but you’re right. They’ve never flown into Tuscany proper:

“American is canceling one European route for summer 2020. The airline's flights to Bologna, Italy, which begin this summer, will not return, Raja said. The airline was hoping to attract vacationers headed to Tuscany but found they preferred Florence. “

This article is a fun trip down memory lane of the AA dreams of 2020 in late 2019…

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/a ... 937550001/

LAXPolaris wrote:

I posed this question in a different thread but probably makes more sense to ask here, can anyone give me some insight into why AA doesn't have more flights to Tokyo? Management frequently talks about how a big part of their international strategy now is to filter passengers through JV hubs, and then rely on the JV partner to get them to their final destination. They definitely seem to be doing this at a large scale in LHR given the amount of flights they have to London, but they have very few into Tokyo. Couldn't AA support more flights to Tokyo, and then offer connections to many destinations in Asia beyond Tokyo?

UA, who also has a JV partner in Tokyo, has flights from every hub, and has flights to both HND and NRT from SFO, EWR, and soon LAX. I feel like AA could be more like this, but am I wrong for thinking that? Maybe not as big of a scale as UA, but at least flights from a few more hubs than just DFW and LAX I feel could work?

Curious to hear what others think on this. Maybe there is something about AA and Tokyo/Asia that I'm missing, but just seems odd to me.

3D101CA wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

I posed this question in a different thread but probably makes more sense to ask here, can anyone give me some insight into why AA doesn't have more flights to Tokyo? Management frequently talks about how a big part of their international strategy now is to filter passengers through JV hubs, and then rely on the JV partner to get them to their final destination. They definitely seem to be doing this at a large scale in LHR given the amount of flights they have to London, but they have very few into Tokyo. Couldn't AA support more flights to Tokyo, and then offer connections to many destinations in Asia beyond Tokyo?

UA, who also has a JV partner in Tokyo, has flights from every hub, and has flights to both HND and NRT from SFO, EWR, and soon LAX. I feel like AA could be more like this, but am I wrong for thinking that? Maybe not as big of a scale as UA, but at least flights from a few more hubs than just DFW and LAX I feel could work?

Curious to hear what others think on this. Maybe there is something about AA and Tokyo/Asia that I'm missing, but just seems odd to me.

As mentioned before, the purchase of the PanAm routes to Asia by United played a role in why United was so big in Tokyo at one point.

Another important thing to remember is that United has a large presence in Tokyo as well, due to the fact that they took over the service originally served by Continental. Before United merged with Continental, excluding the tag on routes to Asia that they served out of NRT, I believe they served HNL, SEA, SFO, LAX, ORD, and IAD in North America. So while United did operate a focus out of NRT at that time, the merger resulted in them taking over the Continental flights to GUM, IAH, and EWR.

So yes, while United had a focus city out of NRT and a large presence in the market, the merger with Continental added several new routes to their network to GUM, IAH, and EWR.

Being granted access to Tokyo quite late for American played a part, and they only served LAX, ORD, and DFW at their peak. Service from ORD to NRT was cut, since American struggled in the ORD-Asia market. Even service on American from ORD to PVG and PEK didn't work out either.

119297 wrote:

Less than stellar results for AA

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/16/best-ai ... study.html

PHLspecial wrote:

I noticed that both UA and DL have flights over 8000mi while AA doesn't. Can the AA 789 fly these missions? What's stop AA flying the DFW-SYD/MEL on their own metal?

PHLspecial wrote:

I noticed that both UA and DL have flights over 8000mi while AA doesn't. Can the AA 789 fly these missions? What's stop AA flying the DFW-SYD/MEL on their own metal?

voxkel wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

I noticed that both UA and DL have flights over 8000mi while AA doesn't. Can the AA 789 fly these missions? What's stop AA flying the DFW-SYD/MEL on their own metal?

AA flies JFKDEL which clocks in over 8,000mi due to no Russia overflight.

Qantas and AA have a metal neutral venture. It doesn’t need to fly those routes from DFW. Qantas handles it, while AA does AKL.

Maybe AA can try MIA-JNB on the 789 - good connections from the Southeast and Western US? UA makes JNB-EWR work on the 789 which is about the same distance.

usflyer msp wrote:

119297 wrote:

Less than stellar results for AA

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/16/best-ai ... study.html

Meh, that survey loses all credibility when it says B6 has the 2nd best PE customer satisfaction when B6 has no PE product.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

With the newer, premium heavy 787-9s to be delivered, it's possible, but unlikely. MIA-JNB has been rumored for years. It is a premium-leisure heavy market and its probable that the market to JNB is well enough served from ATL on DL and EWR on UA. I just don't see AA flying to CPT or JNB.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

With the newer, premium heavy 787-9s to be delivered, it's possible, but unlikely. MIA-JNB has been rumored for years. It is a premium-leisure heavy market and its probable that the market to JNB is well enough served from ATL on DL and EWR on UA. I just don't see AA flying to CPT or JNB.

I agree. As much as I'd like to see AA serve South Africa, it's unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future.

As mentioned, the market is big on premium-leisure, which even today is pretty thin. And I think airlines are starting to recognize that those premium-leisure markets may get thinner as consumers go through their built-up Covid savings. In addition, the political and economic situation in South Africa isn't great, and isn't likely to get better any time soon. That would have a bigger impact on the market if it were more business-oriented, but it those conditions still affect leisure markets (especially with such an extended stage length).

MAH4546 wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

I noticed that both UA and DL have flights over 8000mi while AA doesn't. Can the AA 789 fly these missions? What's stop AA flying the DFW-SYD/MEL on their own metal?

AA flies JFKDEL which clocks in over 8,000mi due to no Russia overflight.

Qantas and AA have a metal neutral venture. It doesn’t need to fly those routes from DFW. Qantas handles it, while AA does AKL.

NYCAAer wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

I noticed that both UA and DL have flights over 8000mi while AA doesn't. Can the AA 789 fly these missions? What's stop AA flying the DFW-SYD/MEL on their own metal?

AA flies JFKDEL which clocks in over 8,000mi due to no Russia overflight.

Qantas and AA have a metal neutral venture. It doesn’t need to fly those routes from DFW. Qantas handles it, while AA does AKL.

I work the flight all the time, the mileage is in the 7,300-7,400 range, depending on the route taken.

MAH4546 wrote:

NYCAAer wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

AA flies JFKDEL which clocks in over 8,000mi due to no Russia overflight.

Qantas and AA have a metal neutral venture. It doesn’t need to fly those routes from DFW. Qantas handles it, while AA does AKL.

I work the flight all the time, the mileage is in the 7,300-7,400 range, depending on the route taken.

It was 8,104 miles yesterday. 8,099 the day before. 8,209 on Sunday. Rarely less than 8,000.

MAH4546 wrote:

NYCAAer wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

AA flies JFKDEL which clocks in over 8,000mi due to no Russia overflight.

Qantas and AA have a metal neutral venture. It doesn’t need to fly those routes from DFW. Qantas handles it, while AA does AKL.

I work the flight all the time, the mileage is in the 7,300-7,400 range, depending on the route taken.

It was 8,104 miles yesterday. 8,099 the day before. 8,209 on Sunday. Rarely less than 8,000.

NYCAAer wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

NYCAAer wrote:

I work the flight all the time, the mileage is in the 7,300-7,400 range, depending on the route taken.

It was 8,104 miles yesterday. 8,099 the day before. 8,209 on Sunday. Rarely less than 8,000.

AA only gives 7,308 AAdvantage miles for the flight so that’s the number I was using.

MAH4546 wrote:

NYCAAer wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

It was 8,104 miles yesterday. 8,099 the day before. 8,209 on Sunday. Rarely less than 8,000.

AA only gives 7,308 AAdvantage miles for the flight so that’s the number I was using.

Yes totally, as that’s the direct route. But AA can’t fly that route because it can’t overfly Russia, so it takes a much longer routing over Europe and then diving below Russia before going to India. Lots of crazy routings like that these days but especially for European airlines. British Airways now operates London-Tokyo as a trans-Atlantic flight!

dcajet wrote:

American's competitive response to Delta's entry into the JFK-EZE segment: it will increase service on the route to 10x w effective 5DEC23 - 13FEB24.

AA953 JFK 21:55 EZE 10:45+1 D 77E
AA954 EZE 21:00 JFK 06:00+1 D 77E

New flight

AA941 JFK 20:00 EZE 09:00+1 257 77E
AA942 EZE 23:55 JFK 08:55+1 136 77E

For the peak southern summer season, AA will once again be operating, 5-6 daily US-bound departures at EZE: 3 MIA, 2 JFK and 1 DFW.

(*) Delta will operate a daily seasonal service between JFK-EZE from 28OCT23 to 30MAR24. Delta is experiencing increased US-source demand to Argentina for the Antarctica summer cruise season, which begins on 1NOV. Aerolineas Argentinas will operate to JFK 3x w during that time, no new service announcements have been made yet.