Irehdna wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

American was officially the No1 airline in RDU by market share in 2022 too.

https://simpleflying.com/raleigh-durham ... ines-2022/

With AA's size in RDU, is there possibility of starting a second TATL route? Probably RDU-MAD to leverage IB/OW across the pond?

RDU-LHR runs in part (or did) due to some guarantees and commitments from corporations dually located in the Triangle and in the UK, and then also picks up some traffic for beyond LHR that can feed into BA's network there. I doubt we'll see AA add more Europe out of RDU. They can just flow through CLT or JFK. If there are companies on both ends of the RDU/MAD route that would want to be catered to in the same way, then anything's possible. The AA RDU-LHR flight carries a lot of cargo too. It must continue to perform well (and is a long running route, that originally operated to LGW then switched over). I'd guess AA would sacrifice the slot for another city pair if it wasn't meeting expectations. I wonder if the 321XLR will eventually show up in RDU, but that probably won't happen until AA fulfill most or all of the routes it would want to fly out of JFK, CLT, and MIA on the 321XLR first, since those are the hubs + PHL, likely to see the bulk of the XLR flying.

I called this about three years ago. In the end, I think AA will de-hub ORD and focus elsewhere. I think UA will absorb the lion's share of their real estate. There are structural deficiencies at AA. To keep blaming LAA won't cut it. At some point, everyone needs to row in the same direction. The merger is over. Get on with it. And I don't think the cuts will stop at just ORD. They're getting weaker in several major markets. They better pray their NE alliance doesn't get scuttled.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

American was officially the No1 airline in RDU by market share in 2022 too.

https://simpleflying.com/raleigh-durham ... ines-2022/

With AA's size in RDU, is there possibility of starting a second TATL route? Probably RDU-MAD to leverage IB/OW across the pond?

RDU-LHR runs in part (or did) due to some guarantees and commitments from corporations dually located in the Triangle and in the UK, and then also picks up some traffic for beyond LHR that can feed into BA's network there. I doubt we'll see AA add more Europe out of RDU. They can just flow through CLT or JFK. If there are companies on both ends of the RDU/MAD route that would want to be catered to in the same way, then anything's possible. The AA RDU-LHR flight carries a lot of cargo too. It must continue to perform well (and is a long running route, that originally operated to LGW then switched over). I'd guess AA would sacrifice the slot for another city pair if it wasn't meeting expectations. I wonder if the 321XLR will eventually show up in RDU, but that probably won't happen until AA fulfill most or all of the routes it would want to fly out of JFK, CLT, and MIA on the 321XLR first, since those are the hubs + PHL, likely to see the bulk of the XLR flying.

It’s my understanding that the LHR-RDU route hasn’t been subsidized for years.
Also, historically, the equipment used for the route has been dependent on which equipment is being used on the other LHR routes as AA uses LHR as a scissor hub for RDU. So, unless AA uses the 321XLR on other LHR routes, we probably won’t see it on LHR-RDU.

Tyroneguy wrote:

I called this about three years ago. In the end, I think AA will de-hub ORD and focus elsewhere. I think UA will absorb the lion's share of their real estate. There are structural deficiencies at AA. To keep blaming LAA won't cut it. At some point, everyone needs to row in the same direction. The merger is over. Get on with it. And I don't think the cuts will stop at just ORD. They're getting weaker in several major markets. They better pray their NE alliance doesn't get scuttled.

This prediction has been made before but then the issue is that AA doesn’t have another hub that can absorb and serve the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. AA would be completely ceding a region more populous than all of California to UA and DL. ORD may not be a very important hub for AA in the future, but to the extent that AA wants to remain a carrier with robust national coverage, it needs ORD.

chonetsao wrote:

5, Again, I blame the LUS management. They kept shouting PHL is the cheapest airport to operate from, and moved lots of summer only TA routes to PHL. Think what routes ORD had lost in past decade, I can think of MAN, DUB, BUD etc. But when you loose some of the long haul routes, you loose the feed on regional routes too. Then suddenly you found yourself no longer need some of the feeder routes or frequencies and it became a downward spiral. Look at what happened to JFK, endless cut in order to achieve profitability led to bare bone network. What is AA's market share in JFK nowadays? AA might be in better shape in JFK today, but that is built on the premises that all heavy aircrafts are paid, so less operational cost. Lots of routes are no longer operating because AA can not afford to. When competitors launch attack on the remaining AA JFK domestic routes, AA would have no way to defend and may risk loosing more market share, hence it was vital for AA to have the NEA agreement with JetBlue. I really hope ORD won't repeat the story of JFK. But as long as the mentality of LUS is dominating AA management, I am afraid it is not impossible that AA will further retreat from ORD and make costly mistake by reinvest in PHL.

AA doesn't have to much investing with PHL, it's a fortress hub. NK and F9 aren't taking over the airport. They stopped investing in the flagship lounge. The only thing you will see is some routes getting replaced with the XLR. ORD will be fine with once AA gets more plane deliveries. AA can do nothing for the next 5 years with PHL and still be the lead carrier.

Detroit313 wrote:

ORD is United’s biggest hub. It is supposed to be what DFW is for AA except UA doesn’t have a hub the size of DFW in terms of daily departures.

If you want to be fair, compare UA’s ORD operation to DFW or even CLT.

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

jspams20 wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

ORD is United’s biggest hub. It is supposed to be what DFW is for AA except UA doesn’t have a hub the size of DFW in terms of daily departures.

If you want to be fair, compare UA’s ORD operation to DFW or even CLT.

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

It makes you realize how tiny United is domestically compared to AA. AA operates two giant hubs that are almost double the size of UA’s largest hubs and people’s issue is that it hasn’t fully restored ORD? You fully restore first the hubs where the money is. It only makes sense.

jspams20 wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

ORD is United’s biggest hub. It is supposed to be what DFW is for AA except UA doesn’t have a hub the size of DFW in terms of daily departures.

If you want to be fair, compare UA’s ORD operation to DFW or even CLT.

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

I'm not sure where those numbers came from but they are slightly off.

For S23 UA
ORD - 483
DEN - 458
EWR- 423
IAH - 410

UA doesn't have a fortress hub like DFW and CLT and probably never will have any type of fortress hub but DEN isn't UA's largest hub. Although UA has acquired more gates at DEN which will help with expansion they've also acquired most of DL's former gates in T2 at ORD.

With AA taking their foot off the gas at ORD and with UA set to received I think over 75 narrowbody aircraft this year alone it won't be long before UA gets ORD back to 600 daily flights and DEN won't be far behind but I doubt DEN will ever become UA's largest hub simply because they are Chicago's hometown airline.

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

With AA's size in RDU, is there possibility of starting a second TATL route? Probably RDU-MAD to leverage IB/OW across the pond?

RDU-LHR runs in part (or did) due to some guarantees and commitments from corporations dually located in the Triangle and in the UK, and then also picks up some traffic for beyond LHR that can feed into BA's network there. I doubt we'll see AA add more Europe out of RDU. They can just flow through CLT or JFK. If there are companies on both ends of the RDU/MAD route that would want to be catered to in the same way, then anything's possible. The AA RDU-LHR flight carries a lot of cargo too. It must continue to perform well (and is a long running route, that originally operated to LGW then switched over). I'd guess AA would sacrifice the slot for another city pair if it wasn't meeting expectations. I wonder if the 321XLR will eventually show up in RDU, but that probably won't happen until AA fulfill most or all of the routes it would want to fly out of JFK, CLT, and MIA on the 321XLR first, since those are the hubs + PHL, likely to see the bulk of the XLR flying.

It’s my understanding that the LHR-RDU route hasn’t been subsidized for years.
Also, historically, the equipment used for the route has been dependent on which equipment is being used on the other LHR routes as AA uses LHR as a scissor hub for RDU. So, unless AA uses the 321XLR on other LHR routes, we probably won’t see it on LHR-RDU.

Oh, I wasn't suggesting RDU-LHR was necessarily going to be served on the 321XLR in the future. If AA were to consider adding more Europe, and specifically, OW hubs, from RDU, then maybe.

Detroit313 wrote:

jspams20 wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

ORD is United’s biggest hub. It is supposed to be what DFW is for AA except UA doesn’t have a hub the size of DFW in terms of daily departures.

If you want to be fair, compare UA’s ORD operation to DFW or even CLT.

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

It makes you realize how tiny United is domestically compared to AA. AA operates two giant hubs that are almost double the size of UA’s largest hubs and people’s issue is that it hasn’t fully restored ORD? You fully restore first the hubs where the money is. It only makes sense.

United's US domestic market share is smaller than WNs and DLs as well. It has bulked up US domestic flying considerably in recent years, swapping out single-cabin RJs for mainline or using larger RJs like the E170/75 but it still trails Southwest, Delta, and American in overall share. And yes, DEN is where UA's biggest growth is.

CHI787ORD wrote:

Tyroneguy wrote:

I called this about three years ago. In the end, I think AA will de-hub ORD and focus elsewhere. I think UA will absorb the lion's share of their real estate. There are structural deficiencies at AA. To keep blaming LAA won't cut it. At some point, everyone needs to row in the same direction. The merger is over. Get on with it. And I don't think the cuts will stop at just ORD. They're getting weaker in several major markets. They better pray their NE alliance doesn't get scuttled.

This prediction has been made before but then the issue is that AA doesn’t have another hub that can absorb and serve the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. AA would be completely ceding a region more populous than all of California to UA and DL. ORD may not be a very important hub for AA in the future, but to the extent that AA wants to remain a carrier with robust national coverage, it needs ORD.

AA still needs a hub at ORD to remain relevant in the Midwest as there are markets in the Midwest where AA currently has a bigger presence than UA such as CVG, CMH, DAY, DSM, IND, MCI, STL, and SGF.

AA also has a stronger presence in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast than it did 10 years ago due to the AA-US merger to support the AA ORD hub operation.

BB78710 wrote:

jspams20 wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

ORD is United’s biggest hub. It is supposed to be what DFW is for AA except UA doesn’t have a hub the size of DFW in terms of daily departures.

If you want to be fair, compare UA’s ORD operation to DFW or even CLT.

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

I'm not sure where those numbers came from but they are slightly off.

For S23 UA
ORD - 483
DEN - 458
EWR- 423
IAH - 410

UA doesn't have a fortress hub like DFW and CLT and probably never will have any type of fortress hub but DEN isn't UA's largest hub. Although UA has acquired more gates at DEN which will help with expansion they've also acquired most of DL's former gates in T2 at ORD.

With AA taking their foot off the gas at ORD and with UA set to received I think over 75 narrowbody aircraft this year alone it won't be long before UA gets ORD back to 600 daily flights and DEN won't be far behind but I doubt DEN will ever become UA's largest hub simply because they are Chicago's hometown airline.

Those are just in the ballparks of what I was seeing a month or so back

chonetsao wrote:

3, With the proposed expansion in ORD, the coming 5 to 10 years will be a mess in ORD, the redevelopment and relocation phase involved with the central terminal concept will cause major headache for AA. If you look at plan carefully, you can see terminal 5 will have minimum impact (So Delta and other airlines will be fine), UA's operation will be intact mostly. The major change and reconstruction will happen to AA's side of terminal. Keep this in mind, it is mutual beneficial to both Airport Authority and AA to have a conservative approach in scheduling.

UA is losing ALL of Terminal 2 in this process and will have to move its regionals to a new satellite terminal.

AA is losing maybe 2-3 gates in an underutilized G concourse, if that.

How will this massively affect AA more than UA?

BB78710 wrote:

jspams20 wrote:

Detroit313 wrote:

ORD is United’s biggest hub. It is supposed to be what DFW is for AA except UA doesn’t have a hub the size of DFW in terms of daily departures.

If you want to be fair, compare UA’s ORD operation to DFW or even CLT.

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

I'm not sure where those numbers came from but they are slightly off.

For S23 UA
ORD - 483
DEN - 458
EWR- 423
IAH - 410

UA doesn't have a fortress hub like DFW and CLT and probably never will have any type of fortress hub but DEN isn't UA's largest hub. Although UA has acquired more gates at DEN which will help with expansion they've also acquired most of DL's former gates in T2 at ORD.

With AA taking their foot off the gas at ORD and with UA set to received I think over 75 narrowbody aircraft this year alone it won't be long before UA gets ORD back to 600 daily flights and DEN won't be far behind but I doubt DEN will ever become UA's largest hub simply because they are Chicago's hometown airline.

Are we solely comparing these based on number of departures? I would be interested to see available seats and ASMs.

jplatts wrote:

CHI787ORD wrote:

Tyroneguy wrote:

I called this about three years ago. In the end, I think AA will de-hub ORD and focus elsewhere. I think UA will absorb the lion's share of their real estate. There are structural deficiencies at AA. To keep blaming LAA won't cut it. At some point, everyone needs to row in the same direction. The merger is over. Get on with it. And I don't think the cuts will stop at just ORD. They're getting weaker in several major markets. They better pray their NE alliance doesn't get scuttled.

This prediction has been made before but then the issue is that AA doesn’t have another hub that can absorb and serve the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. AA would be completely ceding a region more populous than all of California to UA and DL. ORD may not be a very important hub for AA in the future, but to the extent that AA wants to remain a carrier with robust national coverage, it needs ORD.

AA still needs a hub at ORD to remain relevant in the Midwest as there are markets in the Midwest where AA currently has a bigger presence than UA such as CVG, CMH, DAY, DSM, IND, MCI, STL, and SGF.

AA also has a stronger presence in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast than it did 10 years ago due to the AA-US merger to support the AA ORD hub operation.

The problem for AA is that a lot of their strength in the 1980's/1990's is that is was built on three things they seem to be unable to replicate: cheap plans (MD80's at a great price because MD couldn't sell them), cheaper maintenance (B scale mechanics) and cheap fuel. The only way they are able to get to the first two is through regional RJs. It doesn't help 3 in general but those first two are big rocks.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

jspams20 wrote:

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

I'm not sure where those numbers came from but they are slightly off.

For S23 UA
ORD - 483
DEN - 458
EWR- 423
IAH - 410

UA doesn't have a fortress hub like DFW and CLT and probably never will have any type of fortress hub but DEN isn't UA's largest hub. Although UA has acquired more gates at DEN which will help with expansion they've also acquired most of DL's former gates in T2 at ORD.

With AA taking their foot off the gas at ORD and with UA set to received I think over 75 narrowbody aircraft this year alone it won't be long before UA gets ORD back to 600 daily flights and DEN won't be far behind but I doubt DEN will ever become UA's largest hub simply because they are Chicago's hometown airline.

Are we solely comparing these based on number of departures? I would be interested to see available seats and ASMs.

EWR is definitely #1 by ASMs and DEN would lag tremendously given it’s mostly domestic.

Jeremy

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

jspams20 wrote:

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

I'm not sure where those numbers came from but they are slightly off.

For S23 UA
ORD - 483
DEN - 458
EWR- 423
IAH - 410

UA doesn't have a fortress hub like DFW and CLT and probably never will have any type of fortress hub but DEN isn't UA's largest hub. Although UA has acquired more gates at DEN which will help with expansion they've also acquired most of DL's former gates in T2 at ORD.

With AA taking their foot off the gas at ORD and with UA set to received I think over 75 narrowbody aircraft this year alone it won't be long before UA gets ORD back to 600 daily flights and DEN won't be far behind but I doubt DEN will ever become UA's largest hub simply because they are Chicago's hometown airline.

Are we solely comparing these based on number of departures? I would be interested to see available seats and ASMs.

Agree with this. Even though AA is indisputably huge, domestically, you can't ignore all the widebody planes that UA flies on domestic routes.

UA may not ever have a single fortress hub like DFW, CLT, or ATL - but flying big planes on a more distributed network can still work very well.

Lot of 787s (-10s?), MAX9, and MAX10s coming online in the coming years

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

jspams20 wrote:

Regarding United - DEN is going to beat out ORD for the top spot in S23. They are gaining at least 10 more gates in the next year or so as well.

DEN - 460
ORD - 435
EWR - 425

I'm not sure where those numbers came from but they are slightly off.

For S23 UA
ORD - 483
DEN - 458
EWR- 423
IAH - 410

UA doesn't have a fortress hub like DFW and CLT and probably never will have any type of fortress hub but DEN isn't UA's largest hub. Although UA has acquired more gates at DEN which will help with expansion they've also acquired most of DL's former gates in T2 at ORD.

With AA taking their foot off the gas at ORD and with UA set to received I think over 75 narrowbody aircraft this year alone it won't be long before UA gets ORD back to 600 daily flights and DEN won't be far behind but I doubt DEN will ever become UA's largest hub simply because they are Chicago's hometown airline.

Are we solely comparing these based on number of departures? I would be interested to see available seats and ASMs.

For S23 and for the first time in nearly 2 decades UA's mainline departures out of ORD is 60% UAL, and UAX is now down to 40%. Even back in 2019 UA's mainline v.s. UAX was 42% mainline, 58% UAX.
Over at AA at ORD AA is still in around 40%-42% mainline the rest of AA's departures are all on Eagle.

Even though UA has lost a few UAX partners during covid they've somehow managed to still turn that into a positive at ORD through upguaging. The downside of upguaging is reduced frequency on certain routes which is why UA for now is only scheduled to operate around 483 daily departures out of ORD in S23. We know UA can run 600+ departures out of ORD they did so in S19 and that was before they acquired most of DL's former gates. If AA continues to drag their feet and basically ignore ORD that only plays into hand. With UA set to receive at least 75 new narrowbody aircraft this year and even more in 2024 they can easily pull away from AA in a very important market. If AA opens the door United can and will get ORD back to 600+ daily departures even with upguaging aircraft.

rta wrote:

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

I'm not sure where those numbers came from but they are slightly off.

For S23 UA
ORD - 483
DEN - 458
EWR- 423
IAH - 410

UA doesn't have a fortress hub like DFW and CLT and probably never will have any type of fortress hub but DEN isn't UA's largest hub. Although UA has acquired more gates at DEN which will help with expansion they've also acquired most of DL's former gates in T2 at ORD.

With AA taking their foot off the gas at ORD and with UA set to received I think over 75 narrowbody aircraft this year alone it won't be long before UA gets ORD back to 600 daily flights and DEN won't be far behind but I doubt DEN will ever become UA's largest hub simply because they are Chicago's hometown airline.

Are we solely comparing these based on number of departures? I would be interested to see available seats and ASMs.

Agree with this. Even though AA is indisputably huge, domestically, you can't ignore all the widebody planes that UA flies on domestic routes.

UA may not ever have a single fortress hub like DFW, CLT, or ATL - but flying big planes on a more distributed network can still work very well.

Lot of 787s (-10s?), MAX9, and MAX10s coming online in the coming years

Yeah you can ignore them because UA is flying what UA needs to fly to compete while AA is doing the same. What AA has built domestically via their fortress hubs is a huge frequency advantage over their competitors which, as Isom has said, now that they have the best operation of all of the US Carriers they can put to use increasing yields and capturing more bums on seats.

AA doesn't need to re-build ORD yet primarily because it has alot of other places where planes can go more profitably AND they are running short of regional jets and with Mesa leaving DFW and PHX they need to backfill that in priority to re-building ORD. If Air Wisconsin can bring in more CRJ's then you'll see frequency increases at ORD but considering AA's strategy has been to build up some non-hub routes in their key cities, (take CVG-RDU/BOS as an example of that or TPA- RDU/BNA/AUS), it would seem that those sorts of routes are alot more important to AA's network than taking that same capacity and re-building ORD with it.

It'll also be interesting to see what happens if the NEA is struck out. AA has 19 narrowbodies for delivery this year and 9 738's to re-activate. Those plus the net 21 increase in regional jets will be needed in the Northeast to backfill BOS/LGA etc if that is struck out. Not sure how that will effect expansion plans or CLT and DFW.

AAtakeMeAway wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

With AA's size in RDU, is there possibility of starting a second TATL route? Probably RDU-MAD to leverage IB/OW across the pond?

RDU-LHR runs in part (or did) due to some guarantees and commitments from corporations dually located in the Triangle and in the UK, and then also picks up some traffic for beyond LHR that can feed into BA's network there. I doubt we'll see AA add more Europe out of RDU. They can just flow through CLT or JFK. If there are companies on both ends of the RDU/MAD route that would want to be catered to in the same way, then anything's possible. The AA RDU-LHR flight carries a lot of cargo too. It must continue to perform well (and is a long running route, that originally operated to LGW then switched over). I'd guess AA would sacrifice the slot for another city pair if it wasn't meeting expectations. I wonder if the 321XLR will eventually show up in RDU, but that probably won't happen until AA fulfill most or all of the routes it would want to fly out of JFK, CLT, and MIA on the 321XLR first, since those are the hubs + PHL, likely to see the bulk of the XLR flying.

It’s my understanding that the LHR-RDU route hasn’t been subsidized for years.
Also, historically, the equipment used for the route has been dependent on which equipment is being used on the other LHR routes as AA uses LHR as a scissor hub for RDU. So, unless AA uses the 321XLR on other LHR routes, we probably won’t see it on LHR-RDU.

Let's just put it this way. For the average traveler out of RDU to LHR. it is cheaper to go through CLT , JFK, IAD, PHL, BOS, KEF, or a host of other cities when the flight needs to be booked less than 6 weeks out.
I would say AA is doing quite well on the RDU LHR flight .

After several years of litigation, AA lost its appeal to have DL stripped of two LHR slots.

AA in 2013 transferred to DL two LHR slots as part of its US Airways merger in agreement with European competition authorities.
AA subsequently asked to have DL stripped of the slot for failing to fulfill its obligation to use the slots regularly. The European court ruled against AA claim in 2020 and was subsequently appealed to Court of Justice of the European Union which this week upheld the original 2020 decision.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/american ... 02862.html

Isom appeared at JP Morgan conference this week.

Much of the same talking points.

○ Solid operation performance key
○ Believes it has the best domestic network offering most city pair options.
○ CLT and DFW are the places for AA to make the most money
○ Have strong global partnerships
○ AAdvantage program members very engaged
○ Still have ~150 regional aircraft grounded due to lack of staffing
○ Have an equivalent of 30-50 mainline plane capacity due to underutilization. Starting to push up utilization this year
○ Prior to Covid saw 3 times as many day-trip business customers.
○ No plan-B if NEA is blocked. “I can't envision it being ruled against”

LAXintl wrote:

Isom appeared at JP Morgan conference this week.

○ No plan-B if NEA is blocked. “I can't envision it being ruled against”

Of course there is a Plan B...for many reasons, they can't or won't divulge publicly. They need the Regulators to think this is the ONLY option for competition and they can't tip their hand to competitors.

LAXintl wrote:

Isom appeared at JP Morgan conference this week.

Much of the same talking points.

○ Solid operation performance key
○ Believes it has the best domestic network offering most city pair options.
○ CLT and DFW are the places for AA to make the most money
○ Have strong global partnerships
○ AAdvantage program members very engaged
○ Still have ~150 regional aircraft grounded due to lack of staffing
○ Have an equivalent of 30-50 mainline plane capacity due to underutilization. Starting to push up utilization this year
○ Prior to Covid saw 3 times as many day-trip business customers.
○ No plan-B if NEA is blocked. “I can't envision it being ruled against”

Would just add, I thought there was a thoughtful response to a question as to how they see international and domestic. Takeaway that I took from it was that the network only works with BOTH. They are going to do International. They are just not designed to cater to secondary cities. They make long-haul international work in big business centers. I thought important too that he talked about how an airline as big as AA needs all segments. Basic economy all the way up through the most premium. I think that's true. When you have such a massive fleet, and operate where they do, you really do need it all. You can't just be Cathay, and you can't be Frontier either. With 1000+ fleet, in the biggest market in the world, you need it all.

Was disappointed though he didn't, as they never do, talk about all the work they're doing on the premium front around the new lounges, the Flagship product, the new IFE hardware in the block 2 787s. They're doing the work, but never talk about it so other define the narrative.

They need an investor day to level set the narrative.

rising wrote:

Would just add, I thought there was a thoughtful response to a question as to how they see international and domestic. Takeaway that I took from it was that the network only works with BOTH. They are going to do International. They are just not designed to cater to secondary cities. They make long-haul international work in big business centers. I thought important too that he talked about how an airline as big as AA needs all segments. Basic economy all the way up through the most premium. I think that's true. When you have such a massive fleet, and operate where they do, you really do need it all. You can't just be Cathay, and you can't be Frontier either. With 1000+ fleet, in the biggest market in the world, you need it all.

Agreed. It's mentioned from time to time on this board, but many often forget that AA has three significant JVs with major partners (BA, JL, and QF), all of which have antitrust immunity. This is significant, allowing AA to generate metal-neutral revenue to Europe, Asia, and Oceania. From what I can gather, these JVs allow AA to be more than content shuttling passengers on its partners to 'last mile' destinations such as EDI, MNL, SIN, etc.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

Agreed. It's mentioned from time to time on this board, but many often forget that AA has three significant JVs with major partners (BA, JL, and QF), all of which have antitrust immunity. This is significant, allowing AA to generate metal-neutral revenue to Europe, Asia, and Oceania. From what I can gather, these JVs allow AA to be more than content shuttling passengers on its partners to 'last mile' destinations such as EDI, MNL, SIN, etc.

I am not so sure if AA/QF relationship has the antitrust immunity.

A data point for the seasonal return of DFW-AKL, as purser thanked passengers for flying AA upon landing and said that while seasonal service was coming to a close, but they’ll be back. FWIW

chonetsao wrote:

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

Agreed. It's mentioned from time to time on this board, but many often forget that AA has three significant JVs with major partners (BA, JL, and QF), all of which have antitrust immunity. This is significant, allowing AA to generate metal-neutral revenue to Europe, Asia, and Oceania. From what I can gather, these JVs allow AA to be more than content shuttling passengers on its partners to 'last mile' destinations such as EDI, MNL, SIN, etc.

I am not so sure if AA/QF relationship has the antitrust immunity.

What is antitrust immunity? Or the difference between having it and not?

DENfan wrote:

A data point for the seasonal return of DFW-AKL, as purser thanked passengers for flying AA and that the seasonal service was coming to a close, but they’ll be back. FWIW

I guess a purser isn’t the best person to know but I am quite sure they will be back. Curious if LAX-AKL will return and LAX-CHC will be added also?

ZK-NBT wrote:

DENfan wrote:

A data point for the seasonal return of DFW-AKL, as purser thanked passengers for flying AA and that the seasonal service was coming to a close, but they’ll be back. FWIW

I guess a purser isn’t the best person to know but I am quite sure they will be back. Curious if LAX-AKL will return and LAX-CHC will be added also?

LAX-AKL is unlikely, as AA has made it pretty clear that LAX's days as a TPAC gateway, other than TYO and SYD, are over, but with DL entering LAX-AKL and NZ operating it for *A, it leaves a bit of a hole in the OW map, if that truly does need to be filled. QF once flew AKL-LAX, with the 332. As to CHC, it would be pure leisure and if it ever happened, would be during peak season only. LAX-CHC was supposed to run 3 x weekly on a 788 and was announced just before the pandemic. Obviously, it never happened.

ZK-NBT wrote:

DENfan wrote:

A data point for the seasonal return of DFW-AKL, as purser thanked passengers for flying AA and that the seasonal service was coming to a close, but they’ll be back. FWIW

I guess a purser isn’t the best person to know but I am quite sure they will be back. Curious if LAX-AKL will return and LAX-CHC will be added also?

The plan is LAXAKL coming back but who knows.

MAH4546 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DENfan wrote:

A data point for the seasonal return of DFW-AKL, as purser thanked passengers for flying AA and that the seasonal service was coming to a close, but they’ll be back. FWIW

I guess a purser isn’t the best person to know but I am quite sure they will be back. Curious if LAX-AKL will return and LAX-CHC will be added also?

The plan is LAXAKL coming back but who knows.

Thanks, so basically no new updates then.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

DENfan wrote:

A data point for the seasonal return of DFW-AKL, as purser thanked passengers for flying AA and that the seasonal service was coming to a close, but they’ll be back. FWIW

I guess a purser isn’t the best person to know but I am quite sure they will be back. Curious if LAX-AKL will return and LAX-CHC will be added also?

LAX-AKL is unlikely, as AA has made it pretty clear that LAX's days as a TPAC gateway, other than TYO and SYD, are over, but with DL entering LAX-AKL and NZ operating it for *A, it leaves a bit of a hole in the OW map, if that truly does need to be filled. QF once flew AKL-LAX, with the 332. As to CHC, it would be pure leisure and if it ever happened, would be during peak season only. LAX-CHC was supposed to run 3 x weekly on a 788 and was announced just before the pandemic. Obviously, it never happened.

Did they specifically say other than SYD and TYO? It seems unlikely QF would fly AKL-LAX again despite adding AKL-JFK, AA 787s are better suited. LAX-AKL and now DFW-AKL only run seasonally as would LAX-CHC most likely. It will be interesting to see an AKL flight from somewhere goes year round at some point, I had my doubts on DFW-AKL given LAX is by far the largest market and not many of any will back track LAX-DFW-AKL.

ZK-NBT wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

Agreed. It's mentioned from time to time on this board, but many often forget that AA has three significant JVs with major partners (BA, JL, and QF), all of which have antitrust immunity. This is significant, allowing AA to generate metal-neutral revenue to Europe, Asia, and Oceania. From what I can gather, these JVs allow AA to be more than content shuttling passengers on its partners to 'last mile' destinations such as EDI, MNL, SIN, etc.

I am not so sure if AA/QF relationship has the antitrust immunity.

AA and QF received immunity for their JV in 2019.

ZK-NBT wrote:

What is antitrust immunity? Or the difference between having it and not?

Think of airline alliances in two separate ways: A basic alliance (i.e., oneworld, Star, SkyTeam) is where airlines codeshare and offer mileage and other benefits to one another's customers. This does not involve common scheduling, pricing, or similar joint efforts; it's essentially a marketing arrangement for which the airlines need only the most cursory of approvals from national authorities.

An antitrust-immune joint venture (like AA has with BA, JL, and QF, and DL has with LatAm) is much more involved and integrated. This arrangement requires a long period of review and approval from national competition authorities. In addition to code-sharing, FF benefits, and marketing, the joint venture involves the airlines cooperating with one another to set common schedules, pricing, and other levels of coordination. In industry parlance, the term is "metal-neutral." That means that if AA and BA share the revenue (and profit) on transatlantic flying. The details are largely proprietary, but in essence, the arrangement allows both airlines to benefit mutually from their cooperative efforts.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

AA and QF received immunity for their JV in 2019.

According to this article:
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... nt-venture

The JV was tentatively approved, but not full antirust immunity. They key word is severe restrictions and tentative approval.

The Australian side only approved 2 years until 2021 back in 2019. I have not checked ACCC's latest news assume the trial period is extended due to Covid.

The CH-Aviation article specified four major areas DOT had reservations:

[QUOTE=Ch-Aviation]Market Capacity: Qantas/AA would provide seat and departure numbers per distinct nonstop O/D market served on a quarterly basis during the evaluation period;
Technological Investment: Qantas/AA would report the status of their efforts to implement the revenue management and pricing systems that allow greater availability for passengers travelling on interline itineraries involving both American and Qantas;
Market Stimulation: Measured against Qantas/AA's estimate of up to 180,000 new passengers annually in the US–Australasian market, Qantas/AA would quantify the total market size in US–Australasia on a quarterly basis, with particular focus on the incremental passengers their cooperation has added to the total market size;
Non-exclusivity: Qantas/AA would detail the third-party cooperation undertaken by either carrier at their gateways in the US and Australasia (e.g., Qantas and Alaska Airlines at San Francisco, CA and Los Angeles International).[/QUOTE]

The non-exclusivity requirement alone would make a mockery of antitrust immunity. There are even more restrictions quoted in Ch-Aviation article, it makes this JV sounding like a prison sentence for airline cartels.

I have no chance to check what ACCC did for the original 2021 expiration. When I have more time I will have a look but if you have any source please do share!

https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/pu ... rlines.pdf

extended until April 16 2026

https://www.accc.gov.au/public-register ... n-airlines

Effective 5MAY American will suspend one of the 3 daily flights between the Miami hub and Lima, Peru. The third daily frequency will return in July.

dcajet wrote:

Effective 5MAY American will suspend one of the 3 daily flights between the Miami hub and Lima, Peru. The third daily frequency will return in July.

I guess it's doubtful that DFW-LIM will ever return, at least in the foreseeable future.

What aircraft are currently used on the MIA-LIM routes?

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Effective 5MAY American will suspend one of the 3 daily flights between the Miami hub and Lima, Peru. The third daily frequency will return in July.

I guess it's doubtful that DFW-LIM will ever return, at least in the foreseeable future.

What aircraft are currently used on the MIA-LIM routes?

All three are A321NEO's

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Effective 5MAY American will suspend one of the 3 daily flights between the Miami hub and Lima, Peru. The third daily frequency will return in July.

I guess it's doubtful that DFW-LIM will ever return, at least in the foreseeable future.

What aircraft are currently used on the MIA-LIM routes?

321NEOs are the aircraft of choice. 196 pax, 20F/176Y. DFW-LIM ended in November, before the political unrest had really heated up- it was also on an A321NEO.

This coming weekend, with the beginning of the IATA NS 23 season will see a reduction in the capacity and frequency of AA's services in deep SA, as the slow winter season begins down south.

Any chance of AA starting a PHL flight to either Middle East or India, like the recent flight from JFK to DOH and DEL? I've heard of BOM being rumored for a while as a possible new ULH route for AA.

Or can we expect such north eastern ultra long haul routes to run entirely out of JFK? I thought PHL would make sense since it is night near a major O&D source (New Jersey) to South Asia and has a much stronger AA domestic network. Unlike at JFK, where they have to rely on B6 connections. Also, PHL has a lot less competition. Literally, the only other flight to central Asia is QR.

AA's is far better flying to Auckland from DFW as LAX is very well flown by Air New Zealand and soon Delta. United flies from their San Francisco hub. ANZ also flies to Chicago, Houston and JFK.

acavpics wrote:

Any chance of AA starting a PHL flight to either Middle East or India, like the recent flight from JFK to DOH and DEL? I've heard of BOM being rumored for a while as a possible new ULH route for AA.

Or can we expect such north eastern ultra long haul routes to run entirely out of JFK? I thought PHL would make sense since it is night near a major O&D source (New Jersey) to South Asia and has a much stronger AA domestic network. Unlike at JFK, where they have to rely on B6 connections. Also, PHL has a lot less competition. Literally, the only other flight to central Asia is QR.

I think there’s two things blocking any chance of a AA PHL-DOH or DEL flight:

1). It would cannibalize and erode loads on the current JFK-DOH & DEL flights.

2). Any demand currently from PHL-DOH or DEL is well served by QR’s daily flight.

Curious where you’re getting your info that that the JFK flights rely on B6 connections? Those flights are too long to chase cheap connecting traffic. NYC is large enough that AA can fill DEL on O&D and there’s clearly enough demand to DOH that warranted AA starting it in addition to QR’s 2x daily services. PHL doesn’t have that level of demand or even close to it and is lucky to at least have QR. If there was more demand to India, the ME or SE Asia in PHL you’d see EK or TK there. They’re not because there’s no money to be made.

Magnum9 wrote:

PHL doesn’t have that level of demand or even close to it and is lucky to at least have QR. If there was more demand to India, the ME or SE Asia in PHL you’d see EK or TK there. They’re not because there’s no money to be made.

Funny it's almost been a decade since QR started service at PHL and its been lucky. I guess QR has been pissing away money for the last decade or money was found on the route.

acavpics wrote:

Any chance of AA starting a PHL flight to either Middle East or India, like the recent flight from JFK to DOH and DEL? I've heard of BOM being rumored for a while as a possible new ULH route for AA.

Or can we expect such north eastern ultra long haul routes to run entirely out of JFK? I thought PHL would make sense since it is night near a major O&D source (New Jersey) to South Asia and has a much stronger AA domestic network. Unlike at JFK, where they have to rely on B6 connections. Also, PHL has a lot less competition. Literally, the only other flight to central Asia is QR.

Also, is there any chance of AA launching flights between the DFW hub to India like launching a DFW-DEL route? I'd definitely love to see that, because Texas should have a link to India. Now I would've wanted to mention LAX-DEL, but with AA shrinking internationally at LAX, I was too hesitant to mention that, and assumed that it ain't happening.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

dcajet wrote:

Effective 5MAY American will suspend one of the 3 daily flights between the Miami hub and Lima, Peru. The third daily frequency will return in July.

I guess it's doubtful that DFW-LIM will ever return, at least in the foreseeable future.

What aircraft are currently used on the MIA-LIM routes?

Are yields to LIM faring poorly due to pressure from LCCs to the US, plus the absence of the LATAM partnership?

PHLspecial wrote:

Funny it's almost been a decade since QR started service at PHL and its been lucky. I guess QR has been pissing away money for the last decade or money was found on the route.

I am sure QR found a niche market from PHL, maybe that is is why QR does not serve EWR? (OK I am half jokingly referring to another A.net myth).

I think the thing is, I don't remember when was last time QR had a serious talk about increase the frequency in PHL. Maybe you can add the information? QR basically almost owns the PHL-DOH-India/Africa/SE Asia market, if it can not increase the frequency, only means the market may not have room for another player.

Also, PHL is a B787 base, not B777 base. That means AA does not have the right aircraft in PHL for such long route. Would B789 work? Maybe. Yet knowing AA management's philosophy on cost vs revenue, B789 would be too expensive to make the route work (AA management had made reference on newer/unpaid aircraft being too costly to operate some marginal routes to justify moving routes out of JFK previously).

Lastly, PHL's role in AA's international route network is very clear in last few years: a seasonal hub for summer traffic between US and Europe with selected year round routes. I hope PHL the best. But I felt unless the role of PHL changes in AA''s international route network planning, I don't see PHL add significant new routes especially the non-conventional routes.

PHLspecial wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

PHL doesn’t have that level of demand or even close to it and is lucky to at least have QR. If there was more demand to India, the ME or SE Asia in PHL you’d see EK or TK there. They’re not because there’s no money to be made.

Funny it's almost been a decade since QR started service at PHL and its been lucky. I guess QR has been pissing away money for the last decade or money was found on the route.

Wow, such an emotional reply over a factual post. You do realize that over the last decade not one ME or Asian carrier aside from QR have expressed interest in PHL let alone started service there. If PHL wasn’t an AA hub QR wouldn’t be there either. Try not to get too triggered

Magnum9 wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

Magnum9 wrote:

PHL doesn’t have that level of demand or even close to it and is lucky to at least have QR. If there was more demand to India, the ME or SE Asia in PHL you’d see EK or TK there. They’re not because there’s no money to be made.

Funny it's almost been a decade since QR started service at PHL and its been lucky. I guess QR has been pissing away money for the last decade or money was found on the route.

Wow, such an emotional reply over a factual post. You do realize that over the last decade not one ME or Asian carrier aside from QR have expressed interest in PHL let alone started service there. If PHL wasn’t an AA hub QR wouldn’t be there either. Try not to get too triggered

At one time, there was public mention about EK here:
https://www.anna.aero/2015/07/08/leak-w ... ly-philly/

And more recently there was mention about TK interested in PHL in an interview here:
https://simpleflying.com/istanbul-europ ... t-airport/