Checking not-so-recent stats from right before Covid: LAX remains the 5th largest US metro for Indian-born and Indian-American population in total (behind NYC, SFO, CHI, and WAS), but the only one lacking a nonstop.

Seen a lot of false starts over the recent years, both immediately pre-covid and afterward:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/in ... 006846.cms



Pretty wild, as all of the above have multiple, and most on multiple carriers.
L.A. on the other hand, hasn't even had a 1stop direct service, since Air India scratched FRA-LAX in 2008.


I understand the basic limitations:

While LAX has more than enough population (a quick drive through Artesia will confirm that it comparatively lacks a large amount of Indian HQs or major business links. As such, the populace is more than content to fly EK/QR/CX/SQ/etc 1stop to India.

However, I do remember there were several "announcements" pre-Covid, and afterward the airport announced a sizable incentive for a nonstop to India.
https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/l ... ogram.ashx

So any updates to anything in the works, especially in the post-TATA reacquisition world?

I think AI will launch DEL-LAX at some point. It could have been done years ago, but I think AI chose to increase service to SFO instead of launching LAX. At minimum, I think AI could sustain a once daily service from DEL to LAX. Compared to SFO, the LAX to India market is smaller. However, a nonstop service from LAX to India will no doubt attract a large portion of the market that wants to fly nonstop instead of taking a connection. As well, AI would also be carrying connecting traffic beyond from LAX beyond DEL to other Indian cities.

AI came closest to starting DEL-LAX in 2017 but canned it at the last minute.
I believe they had even announced a service start date.

AI has service to SFO from BOM/DEL/BLR. I'm surprised they don't at least have one service to LAX given all the flights to SFO.

Then again, it's highly likely that AI will add flights given their WB expansion.

With the issues of Russian overflight, Indian airlines would be the only ones in the position to launch flights.

Yes, the flight was scheduled to start Sep 1, 2017 per then-chair Ashwin Lohani. He also announced DEL-IAD on Jul 7, 2017 which came into fruition.

https://liveandletsfly.com/air-india-lo ... es-dallas/

The flight # was AI105/106 on a 77W. I couldn't find anywhere with the intended schedule.

Seems like with the TATA acqusition, the high WB order, AI has expansion on the mind, and I have to imagine LAX would be on the docket.

Aside from AI, having a US airline do it is a non-starter it would seem for now with the US airlines not overflying Russia and having shorter routes not resume.

A while back, I saw one analyst's take on LAX-DEL, finding that it would've never worked with the economics of the 77L (but this was pre-pandemic). Then there was a recent interview with the new AI CEO who suggests that AI is looking to expand more on the US West Coast- "Los Angeles has largely been constrained by aircraft range...that is not going to be a constraint moving forward." Maybe the A350 coming online + LAWA's incentives will finally make the conditions favorable for the launch of LAX-DEL, but I'd still expect AI to max out SFO before dipping their toes into LAX. The flight would be pushing 17 hours with a VFR-oriented demographic.

hl8208 wrote:

A while back, I saw one analyst's take on LAX-DEL, finding that it would've never worked with the economics of the 77L (but this was pre-pandemic).

Which is interesting and odd, if accurate... seeing as the difference in distance is only 270nm, and both AI + the usual 1stop providers all charge similar publicly-advertised fares in 3 cabins, from both gateways.

So either AI is killing it with private-treaty corporate revenue from the SFO-based tech companies (doubt it), or there's something else at play that we're missing.

I'm guessing there just isn't enough corporate Indian traffic to guarantee enough seats per day, at whatever rate? Or, since 77L was specifically mentioned (vs 77W), maybe they can't sell Y at a high enough rate vis-a-vis 1stop operators to sate the economics of the shorter aircraft, and need extra seat volume to make the costs work?

....then again, no need to assume "or," it's probably both.

As US airlines lobbying to restrict using Russian airspace, i dont think such route would exists in near future

LAX772LR wrote:

Checking not-so-recent stats from right before Covid: LAX remains the 5th largest US metro for Indian-born and Indian-American population in total (behind NYC, SFO, CHI, and WAS), but the only one lacking a nonstop.

Among the big 5 US destinations you mentioned, LAX is quite disadvantaged.

First, it's the furthest away from India among the 5. It's also at a corner of US that it doesn't make sense to act as a connecting point for any other US-India traffic. Thus, any LAX-India non-stop will need to rely almost solely in traffic to/from LA area directly. The other 4 main destinations are all more favorable as connecting airports.

For originating traffic
1. SFO has a vibrant tech sector that provides lucrative business traffic
2. IAD provides quite a lot of government traffic which are again high yielding, especially to DEL
3. NYC has a lot of financial and banking traffic
4. ORD is in the middle of the industrial heartland so it either cater for industrial and agricultural business traffic directly or it's a convenient connecting airport for those.

Whereas LAX's O&D traffic are largely VFR, which would be highly seasonal and low yielding. Couple that with a long flight (flying over Russia or not, it's a ultra-long flight) that is sensitive to yield, it's difficult to be profitable. Definitely not with the 77L, may be AI can give it a try with the more efficient A359. But still it probably would not be a highly profitable route.

In Mumbai itself I heard chatter about BOM-LAX on AI (I was on the inaugural "new AI" SFO-BOM, which was an experience akin to if not better than SQ/QR/ect.), but chatter is chatter even though the flight was full of executives.

If you want standstill traffic, a smog layer covering the city, poverty-lines streets, dirty beaches, film industry, nightclubs, and palm trees, you can just visit BOM. Why even make the 17 hour flight to LAX?

I checked 2019 stats and LAX fell to 6th place for having the largest Indian-born and Indian-American population among US metro areas behind Dallas, which also doesn’t have an India flight. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-tren ... tion-2019/

stl07 wrote:

In Mumbai itself I heard chatter about BOM-LAX on AI (I was on the inaugural "new AI" SFO-BOM, which was an experience akin to if not better than SQ/QR/ect.), but chatter is chatter even though the flight was full of executives.

When they were here 2004-2008, it was a direct BOM-LAX flight via FRA, so there's that at least.

hl8208 wrote:

A while back, I saw one analyst's take on LAX-DEL, finding that it would've never worked with the economics of the 77L (but this was pre-pandemic). Then there was a recent interview with the new AI CEO who suggests that AI is looking to expand more on the US West Coast- "Los Angeles has largely been constrained by aircraft range...that is not going to be a constraint moving forward." Maybe the A350 coming online + LAWA's incentives will finally make the conditions favorable for the launch of LAX-DEL, but I'd still expect AI to max out SFO before dipping their toes into LAX. The flight would be pushing 17 hours with a VFR-oriented demographic.

Unless, AI ops for the A359LR, it is highly unlikely that DEL-LAX-DEL can be operated by any of the airplanes on order by the carrier. Definitely BOM-LAX-BOM nonstop isnt possible.

Apart from LAX, even IAH/DFW nonstop are not possible with any of the aircraft on order by AI.

So for these 3 cities, AI needs to look at alternative one stop options either via EU or via the Pacific.

For IAH/DFWATL, I would suggest to recreate the BRU scissors hub using B787/A359 in the below manner:

Daily HYD-BRU-DFW
Daily BLR-BRU-IAH
Daily MAA-BRU-BOS
Daily BOM-BRU-ATL
Daily DEL-BRU-DEL

Fellow Star member, SN does not fly to these above mentioned 4 USA cities, so they can code share and provide useful feed from both their EU + African network alike.

For LAX though, it would need to be via Japan (preferably KIX in order to have less competition on the 5th freedom sector)

More than LAX, I think DFW and IAH might be more lucrative for Air India imo. LAX doesn't have the premium paying corporate customers that SFO has, and at this point DFW might have more (I mention traffic particularly to India, not that LAX in general lacks any premium customers). Not to mention LAX is almost overserved by Asian airlines, which means cheaper one stop options to compete against.

behramjee wrote:

hl8208 wrote:

A while back, I saw one analyst's take on LAX-DEL, finding that it would've never worked with the economics of the 77L (but this was pre-pandemic). Then there was a recent interview with the new AI CEO who suggests that AI is looking to expand more on the US West Coast- "Los Angeles has largely been constrained by aircraft range...that is not going to be a constraint moving forward." Maybe the A350 coming online + LAWA's incentives will finally make the conditions favorable for the launch of LAX-DEL, but I'd still expect AI to max out SFO before dipping their toes into LAX. The flight would be pushing 17 hours with a VFR-oriented demographic.

Unless, AI ops for the A359LR, it is highly unlikely that DEL-LAX-DEL can be operated by any of the airplanes on order by the carrier. Definitely BOM-LAX-BOM nonstop isnt possible.

Current factory standard 283T A359 is more capable than A359ULRs SQ uses. SIN-LAX has been done by A359 with economy seats(I believe 275T one, but not sure about the loads it carried).

I wouldn't be surprised if SQ removes ULR specific modifications when those birds get pulled for major servicing. Its outdated already and hence were made in a way that those birds can be converted back to regular A359s

behramjee wrote:

Unless, AI ops for the A359LR, it is highly unlikely that DEL-LAX-DEL can be operated by any of the airplanes on order by the carrier.

The A359ULR is more or less defunct, because standard A359s now have the same fuel capacity and 3 more tonnes of MTOW with which to opt toward using it.

behramjee wrote:

Definitely BOM-LAX-BOM nonstop isnt possible.

What makes you think that?

BOM-LAX is shorter than SIN-LAX, which standard A350s do every day, even without the most current MTOW boost. And the standard A35K has even greater range than that.

behramjee wrote:

Apart from LAX, even IAH/DFW nonstop are not possible with any of the aircraft on order by AI.

Incorrect.

DEL - DFW/IAH is shorter than the SYD - DFW/IAH routes which have been operated at both respective airports for years, by planes with less range than the A359 and A35K... so not sure where you're getting that from.

behramjee wrote:

Daily HYD-BRU-DFW
Daily BLR-BRU-IAH
Daily MAA-BRU-BOS
Daily BOM-BRU-ATL

Why would anyone believe this would be is a viable idea, when we lost millions attempting this strategy back in a far less competitive market than today?

~signed,
ghost of Jet Airways

sibibom wrote:

SIN-LAX has been done by A359 with economy seats(I believe 275T one, but not sure about the loads it carried).

SIN-SFO-SIN was launched with the 275t birds, LAX was not.

However, ships 9V-SMV, -SMW, -SMY, -SMZ, and all of the -SJ* series, operate at 280t w/v, and fly SIN-LAX-SIN between them, with all seats available.

These aircraft also launched SIN-JFK-SIN during the first few months of its existence, due to their ability to utilize the forward cargo hold, which the -ULRs cannot. All premium seats were offered, but only full-fare Y was sold, in order to keep the economy cabin weight down.

sibibom wrote:

More than LAX, I think DFW and IAH might be more lucrative for Air India imo. LAX doesn't have the premium paying corporate customers that SFO has, and at this point DFW might have more (I mention traffic particularly to India, not that LAX in general lacks any premium customers). Not to mention LAX is almost overserved by Asian airlines, which means cheaper one stop options to compete against.

This seems to be right. LA area may be a large city, but DFW area now has more Indians settling in. Even Houston area's Indian population is comparable or more than LA. However if the Russian air space ban extends to foreign carriers, then AI will not only have to forget about any future ops to LAX, DFW and IAH, they may have to curtail SF flights.

raylee67 wrote:

2. IAD provides quite a lot of government traffic which are again high yielding, especially to DEL.

Two questions: Is government traffic (especially on a route with a stage length like IAD-DEL) really that high-yielding? Also, is there that much government traffic on IAD-DEL?

sibibom wrote:

More than LAX, I think DFW and IAH might be more lucrative for Air India imo. LAX doesn't have the premium paying corporate customers that SFO has, and at this point DFW might have more (I mention traffic particularly to India, not that LAX in general lacks any premium customers). Not to mention LAX is almost overserved by Asian airlines, which means cheaper one stop options to compete against.

I doubt this will happen anytime soon. Both IAH and DFW's India-bound traffic is well-served by EK and QR (and, to a lesser extent, BA), which allows passengers 1-stop access to places like BOM, BLR, MAA, etc.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

2. IAD provides quite a lot of government traffic which are again high yielding, especially to DEL.

Two questions: Is government traffic (especially on a route with a stage length like IAD-DEL) really that high-yielding? Also, is there that much government traffic on IAD-DEL?

sibibom wrote:

More than LAX, I think DFW and IAH might be more lucrative for Air India imo. LAX doesn't have the premium paying corporate customers that SFO has, and at this point DFW might have more (I mention traffic particularly to India, not that LAX in general lacks any premium customers). Not to mention LAX is almost overserved by Asian airlines, which means cheaper one stop options to compete against.

I doubt this will happen anytime soon. Both IAH and DFW's India-bound traffic is well-served by EK and QR (and, to a lesser extent, BA), which allows passengers 1-stop access to places like BOM, BLR, MAA, etc.

Considering AI's huge order though and their desire to compete with EK/QR I definitely see LAX/DFW/IAH happening eventually.

LAX772LR wrote:

Checking not-so-recent stats from right before Covid: LAX remains the 5th largest US metro for Indian-born and Indian-American population in total (behind NYC, SFO, CHI, and WAS), but the only one lacking a nonstop.

Its not the 5th most, its the 6th if you lump San Jose and SF in the same group or the 7th if you go by metro area. Below are the numbers per 2021, data.census.gov, by metro area.

New York City: 357,012
Chicago: 146,171
San Francisco: 143,267
Dallas/Fort Worth: 129,370
San Jose: 128,853
Washington DC: 106,105
Los Angeles: 95,957
Houston: 88,109
Atlanta: 87,840
Philadelphia: 84,338

And here was Indian growth between 2010-2020. I listed LA and all the metro areas that had higher Indian growth. When we look at growth, LA isn't really on the radar for Indian immigrants:
San Francisco: 71,556
Dallas/Fort Worth: 69,811
New York City: 68,400
San Jose: 52,576
Seattle: 50,109
Atlanta: 41,604
Chicago: 36,632
Houston: 35,129
Washington DC: 30,578
Boston: 25,498
Philadelphia: 24,401
Phoenix: 19,944
Los Angeles: 19,819

LAX772LR wrote:

hl8208 wrote:

A while back, I saw one analyst's take on LAX-DEL, finding that it would've never worked with the economics of the 77L (but this was pre-pandemic).

So either AI is killing it with private-treaty corporate revenue from the SFO-based tech companies (doubt it), or there's something else at play that we're missing.

....then again, no need to assume "or," it's probably both.

I'm sure the corporate traffic is larger coming out of the bay area, but I also wonder if the Indian population in the bay area is relatively wealthier than the Indian population in Southern California.

I've taken EWR-BOM four times and EWR-DEL once, and J was packed every time with seemingly booked rev passengers filling nearly all seats, many of the "elderly mother/father of immigrant families traveling to/from the US and India" or "Mom with 1-2 kids traveling to visit their parents in India" variety.

India is a lot of VFR, but very crucially a lot of wealthy VFR (at least US point of sale), which is why the non-stops have survived and expanded (flyover issues excepted) for years now.
The New York / New Jersey market is an animal unlike any other in the US for the Indian sub-continent in size, but if there's a longer / wealthier base of folks in the bay area willing to pay for J tickets than there is in SoCal, that could tip the scales (along with the slightly shorter flight and better corporate traffic).

LAX772LR wrote:

behramjee wrote:

Unless, AI ops for the A359LR, it is highly unlikely that DEL-LAX-DEL can be operated by any of the airplanes on order by the carrier.

The A359ULR is more or less defunct, because standard A359s now have the same fuel capacity and 3 more tonnes of MTOW with which to opt toward using it.

behramjee wrote:

Definitely BOM-LAX-BOM nonstop isnt possible.

What makes you think that?

BOM-LAX is shorter than SIN-LAX, which standard A350s do every day, even without the most current MTOW boost. And the standard A35K has even greater range than that.

behramjee wrote:

Apart from LAX, even IAH/DFW nonstop are not possible with any of the aircraft on order by AI.

Incorrect.

DEL - DFW/IAH is shorter than the SYD - DFW/IAH routes which have been operated at both respective airports for years, by planes with less range than the A359 and A35K... so not sure where you're getting that from.

behramjee wrote:

Daily HYD-BRU-DFW
Daily BLR-BRU-IAH
Daily MAA-BRU-BOS
Daily BOM-BRU-ATL

Why would anyone believe this would be is a viable idea, when we lost millions attempting this strategy back in a far less competitive market than today?

~signed,
ghost of Jet Airways

sibibom wrote:

SIN-LAX has been done by A359 with economy seats(I believe 275T one, but not sure about the loads it carried).

SIN-SFO-SIN was launched with the 275t birds, LAX was not.

However, ships 9V-SMV, -SMW, -SMY, -SMZ, and all of the -SJ* series, operate at 280t w/v, and fly SIN-LAX-SIN between them, with all seats available.

These aircraft also launched SIN-JFK-SIN during the first few months of its existence, due to their ability to utilize the forward cargo hold, which the -ULRs cannot. All premium seats were offered, but only full-fare Y was sold, in order to keep the economy cabin weight down.

I work in Flight Operations / Network Planning and I can assure you that the A359 with 300 pax on board (AI configuration) with 2 pcs checked luggage per passenger will not be able to perform BOM-LAX/IAH/DFW nonstop without a payload restriction. Just to give you two real life examples:

i. At Arik Air, our ex-Kingfisher A332s which only had 217 seats could not fly LOS-JFK with a full payload of pax + luggage even though the block time was only 10 hours 15 minutes !

ii. Pre-covid, Cathay's A359 faced payload limits flying ORD/BOS. If you know someone at VN, do ask them if their SFO-SGN sector (16:20 hours block) has payload limits or not of any type flying the A359 as that should be another interesting example to cite.

SYD-DFW/IAH is operated by those airlines having a B789 in premium heavy configurations hence less seats on board + the baggage characteristics of DFW-Australia is way different than DEL-Texas !

9W lost millions flying via BRU to EWR/YYZ/JFK because their revenue management and sales strategy was bewildering. They were selling on average US$ 900-950 round trip tickets to/from India when oil prices were sky high. I know because I was involved in pricing benchmarking against them as they were a competitor for a few years before I moved to Lagos. Remember oil prices were for two years (I think 2013-14) were averaging $120-140 per barrel and yet 9W had very low fares.

SQ's A359s nonstop to JFK seat 161 pax only whilst AI's shall seat 300+ so nearly double the amount hence much more fuel to uplift etc. Definitely not a fair comparison I'm afraid to say ! Even the 253 seater A359 would still offer 20% less on board capacity than AI's A359.

BOM-Texas and BOM-LAX are around 17:00-17:30 hours block time and slightly more from LAX returning back. There is no realistic way the A359 can be able to fly that with a full payload in AI's cabin configuration more so especially in winter season !

dmstorm22 wrote:

India is a lot of VFR, but very crucially a lot of wealthy VFR (at least US point of sale), which is why the non-stops have survived and expanded (flyover issues excepted) for years now.
The New York / New Jersey market is an animal unlike any other in the US for the Indian sub-continent in size, but if there's a longer / wealthier base of folks in the bay area willing to pay for J tickets than there is in SoCal, that could tip the scales (along with the slightly shorter flight and better corporate traffic).

N=1, but I have one friend based in LA whose parents in India refuse to fly any carrier other than AI. She schleps up to SFO twice a year to pick them up and drop them off when they visit LA. They obviously represent a small minority of passengers, but the demand for nonstop option to LAX definitely exists and there are those who are probably willing to pay handsomely for it.

behramjee wrote:

BOM-Texas and BOM-LAX are around 17:00-17:30 hours block time and slightly more from LAX returning back. There is no realistic way the A359 can be able to fly that with a full payload in AI's cabin configuration more so especially in winter season !

Not to mention SFO-BOM regularly deviates from the direct flight routing, often exceeding 9,000 mi when the direct distance is 8,400 mi.

dmstorm22 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

hl8208 wrote:

A while back, I saw one analyst's take on LAX-DEL, finding that it would've never worked with the economics of the 77L (but this was pre-pandemic).

So either AI is killing it with private-treaty corporate revenue from the SFO-based tech companies (doubt it), or there's something else at play that we're missing.

....then again, no need to assume "or," it's probably both.

I've taken EWR-BOM four times and EWR-DEL once, and J was packed every time with seemingly booked rev passengers filling nearly all seats, many of the "elderly mother/father of immigrant families traveling to/from the US and India" or "Mom with 1-2 kids traveling to visit their parents in India" variety.

India is a lot of VFR, but very crucially a lot of wealthy VFR (at least US point of sale), which is why the non-stops have survived and expanded (flyover issues excepted) for years now.
The New York / New Jersey market is an animal unlike any other in the US for the Indian sub-continent in size, but if there's a longer / wealthier base of folks in the bay area willing to pay for J tickets than there is in SoCal, that could tip the scales (along with the slightly shorter flight and better corporate traffic).

This is a very valid point. Indian VFR unlike other VFR tends to be somewhat wealthier and this drives the J traffic in VFR. In my circle, most of our friends have been here for 20 plus years, all are dual income and easily in the 96th percentile ( 360 K). Paying J class for parents seems to be norm and at current fares it represents about 2 weeks of earning for most people. Given that it is typically divided by more than 1 kid in US , the costs work out even cheaper.

Thanks, Subramanian

Nobody is willing to pay handsomely to fly AI. It’s hands down the worst international carrier in/ out of the US. Extending a presence out of LAX will require investments that would necessitate high fares - and most Indian-Americans will look for the best price over loyalty to their home country carrier and vegetarian meal options. Let’s not forget AI’s awful hard product currently in use and their awful maintenance and on-time performance. It’s just not going to happen for LAX, thankfully.

hl8208 wrote:

N=1, but I have one friend based in LA whose parents in India refuse to fly any carrier other than AI. She schleps up to SFO twice a year to pick them up and drop them off when they visit LA. They obviously represent a small minority of passengers, but the demand for nonstop option to LAX definitely exists and there are those who are probably willing to pay handsomely for it.

Any reason why they don't just connect on UA and fly to LAX?

subramak1 wrote:

Indian VFR unlike other VFR tends to be somewhat wealthier and this drives the J traffic in VFR. In my circle, most of our friends have been here for 20 plus years, all are dual income and easily in the 96th percentile ( 360 K). Paying J class for parents seems to be norm and at current fares it represents about 2 weeks of earning for most people. Given that it is typically divided by more than 1 kid in US , the costs work out even cheaper.

I don't know that VFR passengers are 'driving' J traffic to India, but you bring up a very important point: VFR traffic to and from India (regardless of whether it's J or Y) is massive, and one of the few VFR markets that can stand on its own. I've seen many posters on these boards ask why there's no service to market X, given the "large Xian population in market Y," and the answer is almost always that VFR doesn't have sufficient yields. India is definitely different.

LAXdenizen wrote:

Nobody is willing to pay handsomely to fly AI. It’s hands down the worst international carrier in/ out of the US. Extending a presence out of LAX will require investments that would necessitate high fares - and most Indian-Americans will look for the best price over loyalty to their home country carrier and vegetarian meal options. Let’s not forget AI’s awful hard product currently in use and their awful maintenance and on-time performance. It’s just not going to happen for LAX, thankfully.

I think hl8208 and subramak1 have countered this point somewhat. AI's issues are well-known, but things should only get better with the privatization and their recent large order. I said earlier that it would be hard for me to see AI serve places like DFW and IAH, but if they have the aircraft and the growth/product improvement mindset, anything is possible.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

hl8208 wrote:

N=1, but I have one friend based in LA whose parents in India refuse to fly any carrier other than AI. She schleps up to SFO twice a year to pick them up and drop them off when they visit LA. They obviously represent a small minority of passengers, but the demand for nonstop option to LAX definitely exists and there are those who are probably willing to pay handsomely for it.

Any reason why they don't just connect on UA and fly to LAX?

To avoid having to make a connection with any city where the primary language isn't Hindi.

LAXdenizen wrote:

Nobody is willing to pay handsomely to fly AI. It’s hands down the worst international carrier in/ out of the US. Extending a presence out of LAX will require investments that would necessitate high fares - and most Indian-Americans will look for the best price over loyalty to their home country carrier and vegetarian meal options. Let’s not forget AI’s awful hard product currently in use and their awful maintenance and on-time performance. It’s just not going to happen for LAX, thankfully.

Yet AI seems to be doing just fine in places like NYC/SFO despite its misgivings. I know several Indian-Americans in SF/NY/CHI who prefer to take AI nonstop even when they're spoiled for choice with the likes of EK/QR/TK/UA. By no means am I implying that these types of individuals will drive the success of a hypothetical LAX-DEL, but they exist.

LAXdenizen wrote:

Nobody is willing to pay handsomely to fly AI. It’s hands down the worst international carrier in/ out of the US. Extending a presence out of LAX will require investments that would necessitate high fares - and most Indian-Americans will look for the best price over loyalty to their home country carrier and vegetarian meal options. Let’s not forget AI’s awful hard product currently in use and their awful maintenance and on-time performance. It’s just not going to happen for LAX, thankfully.

Wow. So many prejudices in 1 post. AI is not worst international carrier out to US. AA and UA are pretty terrible in Y Class and not to mention a few others. Not all Indian AMericans are Vegeterians, a small minority are. I flew AI last month and it was far better than EK, which is miles ahead of any american carrier except may be DL.

behramjee wrote:

the A359 with 300 pax on board (AI configuration)

has that been confirmed?

behramjee wrote:

to perform BOM-LAX/IAH/DFW nonstop without a payload restriction

There's no aircraft extant nor planned that could perform any such route "without a payload restriction," the question is, if they want them done nonstop, what payload will they opt to take.

Your overly-simplistic blanket statement of "no aircraft they have can do it" remains incorrect.

behramjee wrote:

Pre-covid, Cathay's A359 faced payload limits flying ORD/BOS.

As any aircraft flying such a route would. Again, there's no aircraft in the skies that's going to fly HKG-BOS with zero limitations.

Yet, CX found success doing it, without even the highest w/v of that aircraft.

behramjee wrote:

9W lost millions flying via BRU to EWR/YYZ/JFK because their revenue management and sales strategy was bewildering. They were selling on average US$ 900-950 round trip tickets to/from India when oil prices were sky high. I know because I was involved in pricing benchmarking against them as they were a competitor for a few years before I moved to Lagos. Remember oil prices were for two years (I think 2013-14) were averaging $120-140 per barrel and yet 9W had very low fares.

You're confusing that with 2008-2009.
In 2013 and 2014, oil averaged $108.56 and $98.97 respectively.

But regardless, what'd be different now?

Oil's sky high, isn't likely going down any appreciable degree any time soon, and the ME2+TK are infinitely more powerful over the Atlantic and regionally, than they were back then.

behramjee wrote:

SQ's A359s nonstop to JFK seat 161 pax only whilst AI's shall seat 300+ so nearly double the amount hence much more fuel to uplift etc. Definitely not a fair comparison I'm afraid to say ! Even the 253 seater A359 would still offer 20% less on board capacity than AI's A359.

So what? DL has 2% more seats than you allege AI will, yet they fly a route similar to BOM-LAX while departing at 5600ft elevation

behramjee wrote:

BOM-Texas and BOM-LAX are around 17:00-17:30 hours block time and slightly more from LAX returning back. There is no realistic way the A359 can be able to fly that with a full payload in AI's cabin configuration more so especially in winter season !

So then guess what AI would have to do if it wants to serve those routes. You act like this is rocket science..... it's really not.

hl8208 wrote:

To avoid having to make a connection with any city where the primary language isn't Hindi.

They might have trouble doing that in several parts of India itself. Doubt they'd be all that bothered.

...then there's the fact the country with the most English speakers in the world is--- India.

LAX will definitely come online sooner than later.

But AI's real challenge will arise from the Tata’s groups own aviation management inadequacies. As the sheen of the morally satisfying return of Air India to the Tata's wears off, one observes that this isn’t the same group JRD Tata or Ratan Tata helmed. This one’s run by highly qualified (educationally) but aviation-business ignorant people who have a history of rather silly decisions (cue, appointing a Turkish national as AI CEO for one, putting 77Ls up for sale and then reversing it, Vistara's poor decision to not have crew rest areas on 789s that cut them off US routes, etc.).

One swallow does not make summer and neither will one Campbell Wilson surrounded by 20 non-Aviation guys from various Tata companies who come in armed with an MBA and a pretty low opinion of the experienced old airline hands at AI who know a thing or two about the airline industry. I feel for this well intentioned and highly experienced old AI staffers who were earlier hamstrung by non-aviation Govt of India Babus and now by pvt sector non-aviation Babus.

This assorted management bunch, without a decisive and knowledgeable leader at the top who is given a free hand to set the airline right - has to manage integrating 4 different airline working cultures, manage an aircraft order that seems like Mallya on steroids and above all get the right people for the job. That is simply beyond them. There will be untold changes, tweaks, alterations, additions and deletion to their orders, their personnel, their structure and nearly everything else at AI, and plenty of red-ink on their balance sheets for years to come, before they come up with a product that would be choice number one for the market.

brgds//Vimanav

Aside from flight distance, the reason LA has been passed over is the fact that it has not seen as much recent immigration from Indian (I mean in the last 25 years). LA metro was the #2 metro in the 80’s and early 90’s (believe it or not SF was so much smaller wrt Indian population). That original group (while large and relatively affluent) just doesn’t go back to india as much as recent immigrants. You now have the kids from the 80’s grown up with their own kids (both all born in the US). That said, LA will get a nonstop LA-DEL on AI. There is still good business and VFR and tourist traffic. But I think AI was correct in going with 2X DEL-SFO and BOM_SFO and BLR-SFO. SFO is really ideal to be the AI hub for CA (and neighboring states). Flying LA-Far East-India or LA-EU-India is a pain (I did it every year as a child). AI’s flights from SFO really give you good options (flight departure times). Btw I think AI will launch 3X LA-BOM and 4X LA-DEL this way people can connect is SFO one way and get a nonstop one way.

subramak1 wrote:

LAXdenizen wrote:

Nobody is willing to pay handsomely to fly AI. It’s hands down the worst international carrier in/ out of the US. Extending a presence out of LAX will require investments that would necessitate high fares - and most Indian-Americans will look for the best price over loyalty to their home country carrier and vegetarian meal options. Let’s not forget AI’s awful hard product currently in use and their awful maintenance and on-time performance. It’s just not going to happen for LAX, thankfully.

Wow. So many prejudices in 1 post. AI is not worst international carrier out to US. AA and UA are pretty terrible in Y Class and not to mention a few others. Not all Indian AMericans are Vegeterians, a small minority are. I flew AI last month and it was far better than EK, which is miles ahead of any american carrier except may be DL.

Not prejudices. Observations and experience. My family is Gujarati. Yours?

My flight SFO-DEL in December had non-functioning IFE. That’s 17 hours. Crew awful. They ran out of vegetarian meals. Not even getting into plane cleanliness. This is a flagship international route. Inexcusable. TATA might turn the ship around, but talk to me in a decade.

behramjee wrote:

I work in Flight Operations / Network Planning

When will ACL announce the "final" slot allocation for London Heathrow? Doesn't the summer season (Summer'23) start in less than a week? Previously, ACL had only announced an "initial" slot allocation. Thanks.

subramak1 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

So either AI is killing it with private-treaty corporate revenue from the SFO-based tech companies (doubt it), or there's something else at play that we're missing.

....then again, no need to assume "or," it's probably both.

I've taken EWR-BOM four times and EWR-DEL once, and J was packed every time with seemingly booked rev passengers filling nearly all seats, many of the "elderly mother/father of immigrant families traveling to/from the US and India" or "Mom with 1-2 kids traveling to visit their parents in India" variety.

India is a lot of VFR, but very crucially a lot of wealthy VFR (at least US point of sale), which is why the non-stops have survived and expanded (flyover issues excepted) for years now.
The New York / New Jersey market is an animal unlike any other in the US for the Indian sub-continent in size, but if there's a longer / wealthier base of folks in the bay area willing to pay for J tickets than there is in SoCal, that could tip the scales (along with the slightly shorter flight and better corporate traffic).

This is a very valid point. Indian VFR unlike other VFR tends to be somewhat wealthier and this drives the J traffic in VFR. In my circle, most of our friends have been here for 20 plus years, all are dual income and easily in the 96th percentile ( 360 K). Paying J class for parents seems to be norm and at current fares it represents about 2 weeks of earning for most people. Given that it is typically divided by more than 1 kid in US , the costs work out even cheaper.

Thanks, Subramanian

I’m sorry but your situation is not normal. I know Indian Americans are wealthy but your comment is just absurd to be honest.

Malayil wrote:

I’m sorry but your situation is not normal.

To be fair, where did he say it was?

Usually when someone speaks of "in my circle," they're expressly indicating that this is a subjective to their own personal experience, and not objective to a whole.

stl07 wrote:

If you want standstill traffic, a smog layer covering the city, poverty-lines streets, dirty beaches, film industry, nightclubs, and palm trees, you can just visit BOM. Why even make the 17 hour flight to LAX?

I was hoping some marketing slogan on a modified livery saying "From Bollywood to Hollywood."

If it is mostly O&D market and that too VFR, where do most of India - LAX travelers originate from?

LAX772LR wrote:

Malayil wrote:

I’m sorry but your situation is not normal.

To be fair, where did he say it was?

Usually when someone speaks of "in my circle," they're expressly indicating that this is a subjective to their own personal experience, and not objective to a whole.

How is anecdotal evidence relevant as support for an argument on viability about service between LAX and India? I don’t know the comment sounds quite crass to me and doesn’t really add to the discussion other than to flaunt one’s wealth, but I guess I’m in the minority here.

oceanvikram wrote:

stl07 wrote:

If you want standstill traffic, a smog layer covering the city, poverty-lines streets, dirty beaches, film industry, nightclubs, and palm trees, you can just visit BOM. Why even make the 17 hour flight to LAX?

I was hoping some marketing slogan on a modified livery saying "From Bollywood to Hollywood."

If it is mostly O&D market and that too VFR, where do most of India - LAX travelers originate from?

Well, the QR flight from LAX is always filled with college aged kids from Mumbai who were lucky enough to have Bollywood parents that could "donate" their way into LMU and USC film around the holidays

Malayil wrote:

subramak1 wrote:

dmstorm22 wrote:

I've taken EWR-BOM four times and EWR-DEL once, and J was packed every time with seemingly booked rev passengers filling nearly all seats, many of the "elderly mother/father of immigrant families traveling to/from the US and India" or "Mom with 1-2 kids traveling to visit their parents in India" variety.

India is a lot of VFR, but very crucially a lot of wealthy VFR (at least US point of sale), which is why the non-stops have survived and expanded (flyover issues excepted) for years now.
The New York / New Jersey market is an animal unlike any other in the US for the Indian sub-continent in size, but if there's a longer / wealthier base of folks in the bay area willing to pay for J tickets than there is in SoCal, that could tip the scales (along with the slightly shorter flight and better corporate traffic).

This is a very valid point. Indian VFR unlike other VFR tends to be somewhat wealthier and this drives the J traffic in VFR. In my circle, most of our friends have been here for 20 plus years, all are dual income and easily in the 96th percentile ( 360 K). Paying J class for parents seems to be norm and at current fares it represents about 2 weeks of earning for most people. Given that it is typically divided by more than 1 kid in US , the costs work out even cheaper.

Thanks, Subramanian

I’m sorry but your situation is not normal. I know Indian Americans are wealthy but your comment is just absurd to be honest.

There is some truth but agreed it is not the overall reality. Having said that AI have been cheaper on their J class even on non stop flights between North America and India than even CN3. A family friend in the States said that AI J class non-stop ORD-DEL was roughly $200 more expensive than Y with LH. I also think that solo travelers will be able to indulge in Y+ and J rather that if they traveled with a family.

But none the less I agree with you.

edealinfo wrote:

behramjee wrote:

I work in Flight Operations / Network Planning

When will ACL announce the "final" slot allocation for London Heathrow? Doesn't the summer season (Summer'23) start in less than a week? Previously, ACL had only announced an "initial" slot allocation. Thanks.

Deadline for carriers to hand back un-wanted historic slots at slot constrained airports was 31st January. Those that have wait list requests are then usually cleared off within 2 weeks from that date.

has that been confirmed?

for the first 6 A359 units of AI, yes it has as they stated officially it will remain in the same Aeroflot configuration i.e. 316 seats - 28J + 24W + 264Y

So what? DL has 2% more seats than you allege AI will, yet they fly a route similar to BOM-LAX while departing at 5600ft elevation

I assume you are referring to JNB-ATL on DL's A359 right? If so that also has a payload limit departing JNB + the block time as per the GDS system is 15:50 hours only.

There's no aircraft extant nor planned that could perform any such route "without a payload restriction," the question is, if they want them done nonstop, what payload will they opt to take.

Your overly-simplistic blanket statement of "no aircraft they have can do it" remains incorrect.

Please re-read what I have written which clearly states that no aircraft that AI has on order can fly it with a full payload of pax + luggage.

behramjee wrote:

that also has a payload limit departing JNB

Do you not understand that any aircraft operating beyond 14ish hours is going to "have a payload limit"..................

behramjee wrote:

the block time as per the GDS system is 15:50 hours only.

................or that 16hrs departing from 5600ft elevation, is going to be significantly more constrained than 17hrs departing from 40ft?

behramjee wrote:

Please re-read what I have written which clearly states that no aircraft that AI has on order can fly it with a full payload of pax + luggage.

I read it fine the first time, hence writing what I wrote; which I still stand by, especially in light of the above responses.

I highly doubt LAX would be next in line for nonstop service to India.

DFWGlobeTrotter wrote:

I doubt this will happen anytime soon. Both IAH and DFW's India-bound traffic is well-served by EK and QR (and, to a lesser extent, BA), which allows passengers 1-stop access to places like BOM, BLR, MAA, etc.

Well SFO, ORD and IAD also have many 1 stop options, but AI introduced the flights and it has been successful. Now after the pandemic, passengers have rediscovered nonstops and have found it more appealing than 1 stops. Flying via DEL opens several more Indian cities on AI than just the handful that EK or QR fly to. Also note that both EK and QR are generally more expensive when flying to HYD, AMD, MAA, COK, since they know they dont have any or limited 1 stop competition from other airlines. And BA flights to HYD and MAA are generally priced for LHR O&D and are rarely competitive.

However the flight to LAX would still be a challenge, at most I can see 3x from DEL, since this will require only one aircraft. BOM is not a true hub for AI, only DEL is.

Malayil wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Malayil wrote:

I’m sorry but your situation is not normal.

To be fair, where did he say it was?

Usually when someone speaks of "in my circle," they're expressly indicating that this is a subjective to their own personal experience, and not objective to a whole.

How is anecdotal evidence relevant as support for an argument on viability about service between LAX and India? I don’t know the comment sounds quite crass to me and doesn’t really add to the discussion other than to flaunt one’s wealth, but I guess I’m in the minority here.

Is it that anecdotal - granted in our case (or at least mine) we are mostly talking about why NYC-India non-stops have remained viable for everything but airspace closures for 18 years now.
Obviously there is a bunch of corporate traffic in the front cabin, but speaking for myself (who has only ever traveled J to India due to lucking out and getting one of the few available seats via upgrade) I've walked through the J cabin and there is a sizable population every time that is not your standard corporate J flying passenger.

Fair to comment that saying flying a parent out in J is not "the norm", so fair call there. But there is enough of a demand for that scenario.

That matters. And I'm just positing that one reason why ORD-India could work where LAX-India may not is beyond corporate traffic do they have enough of the wealthy Indian immigrant community to pay for J to give them the high-yielding VFR traffic that floods the NYC-India market.

Looking at the demographics ref ethnicity and a slower more domestic population growth rate in greater Los Angeles I’d say no.

( by domestic I mean across the ethnic board but from people already there )

raylee67 wrote:

....
1. SFO has a vibrant tech sector that provides lucrative business traffic [whereas LAX's O&D traffic are largely VFR, which would be highly seasonal and low yielding

I agree SFO will have more business traffic, given Indian's importance in tech. But surely it is hasty to dismiss the second-largest US city, and a global alpha city, as irrelevant to business.

In particular, no one has mentioned Hollywood/Bollywood and the entertainment industry yet. Hollywood has an ever-more-global mindset and there has got to be some traffic between these two entertainment industry powerhouses.