Per an employee leak, American Airlines is considering flying to Singapore once it receives its new 787s. Definitely interesting news considering United seems to have cornered this market from the US airline perspective with double daily SIN-SFO, and SQ with its multiple daily flights to USA as well.

Thoughts on potential routes - LAX or SEA seems to be most likely..

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

I can see them starting LAX and filling the role as a competitor to SQ. Hopefully this would mean a recommitment to LAX long haul.

I would guess DFW-SIN. But makes sense. Premium market.

AS will drop SQ partnership and AA will do SEA-SIN is my guess

If AA adds a SIN flight, it will become AA's longest route. If it's DFW-SIN, that will be a full 1600 miles farther than its current longest route, DFW-HKG.

ERJ170 wrote:

I would guess DFW-SIN. But makes sense. Premium market.

What carrier is presently doing 8,436nm TPAC runs with 787-9s in a config comparable to AA's from hot airports?

While I would love nothing more than an AA from LAX to Singapore, its 16 hours flying time. AA has no feed at the SIN end and any flight that long is always challenged when fuel prices are high. For an airline with many hubs needing all the 787 it can get for flights to Europe, an adventure to Singapore now would ill timed.

We can only pray! Would be nice to have some more non-stop competition on US to SIN non-stop. Fits the big business center focus for intl.

This is already being discussed in American Airlines Network thread

JohanTally wrote:

This is already being discussed in American Airlines Network thread

This is the problem with the monster all encompassing threads - stuff gets lost. I’m interested in this, but most of the thread is I heard AA is upgauging DFW-FAR to x times daily.

Would be something to see them launch a flight like this. Always amazed me that AA and DL have struggled with this but UA & SQ can have the market share they have.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

This is already being discussed in American Airlines Network thread

This is the problem with the monster all encompassing threads - stuff gets lost. I’m interested in this, but most of the thread is I heard AA is upgauging DFW-FAR to x times daily.

Would be something to see them launch a flight like this. Always amazed me that AA and DL have struggled with this but UA & SQ can have the market share they have.

I agree but as of right now it's purely speculation especially if it's dependent on 787 production/deliveries. If that's the case 2024 could be optimistic for a launch.

jfk777 wrote:

While I would love nothing more than an AA from LAX to Singapore, its 16 hours flying time. AA has no feed at the SIN end and any flight that long is always challenged when fuel prices are high. For an airline with many hubs needing all the 787 it can get for flights to Europe, an adventure to Singapore now would ill timed.

Why no feed? Do they not have an interline agreement with SQ? Or maybe they’re setting a new/better one up to support it?

Seems like non-news, honestly. I'm sure there are many destinations AA is "considering" flying to in the future, a good chunk of which will never end up happening. I hope SIN does come to fruition, but the referenced source material is hardly an indication of any firm plan... If I had to put money on it, I'd say the first high-premium 789 routes will be LHR-centric.

ERJ170 wrote:

I would guess DFW-SIN. But makes sense. Premium market.

Not a premium market and forget about that route with a 787, or even an A350ULR.

MIflyer12 wrote:

ERJ170 wrote:

I would guess DFW-SIN. But makes sense. Premium market.

What carrier is presently doing 8,436nm TPAC runs with 787-9s in a config comparable to AA's from hot airports?

This seems most logical i doubt this is happening. AA and Asia has had inconsistent results this would be a very very bold move for them.

JohanTally wrote:

This is already being discussed in American Airlines Network thread

And now there is a dedicated thread. It should be discussed here.

DFW—SIN is too long to really make work. Houston is a premium and large market to Singapore but DFW is neither. If such a flight were to run, it would live and die by how much of the Houston market it could capture. Given that SQ is at IAH, probably not a ton.

The new premium heavy 787s with 51 business class seats would probably be required to make LAX-SIN work. I don’t see a 787-9 with 285 seats in AA’s configuration flying the route without blocking a high number of seats. The lower density 787 configuration would help. SEA may work with the current 787 configuration with 30 business class seats.

jfk777 wrote:

AA has no feed at the SIN end and any flight that long is always challenged when fuel prices are high.

That is not quite true. SIN is a major scissor hub for AA’s TPAC JV partner, QF. On any evening in SIN, there’s a bank of QF aircraft heading to points all over Australia. If you were in PER or CNS, say, a one-stop routing to SEA/DFW via SIN would be preferable to two stops via SYD and LAX on QF. I’m not certain if this is the plan for the SIN flight, but it’s something AA and QF should consider.

Plus, there’s Jetstar, and Jetstar Asia.

Can they add on from NRT, ICN, PKX, or PVG?

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The new premium heavy 787s with 51 business class seats would probably be required to make LAX-SIN work. I don’t see a 787-9 with 285 seats in AA’s configuration flying the route without blocking a high number of seats. The lower density 787 configuration would help. SEA may work with the current 787 configuration with 30 business class seats.

The 789 IGW version will have at least 400 nmi more range. It should be able to make LAX-SIN with no seats blocked without a problem.

AA could have some feed from Qantas subsidiary/affiliate Jetstar Asia. Not as big as SQ, but still provides enough coverage of most destinations that can not be better routed via NRT/HND on JAL. Yes Jetstar is an LCC, but AA has clearly demonstrated the value in partnering with LCCs for short-haul feed.

SQ canned YVR-SIN and operates SEA-SIN 3x weekly. There is more than enough capacity for AA to launch SEA-SIN /w AS.

How many aircraft would it take to operate daily?

Sounds like AA has hired the DL route planners who scheduled based on the dart board.

I would be surprised to see AA llaunch another overseas destination out of SEA, since they essentially canned both Bangalore and Shanghai. The only overseas route AA flies from SEA is LHR. I would imagine LAX would be more likely.

ERJ170 wrote:

I would guess DFW-SIN.

No 787, offered or envisioned, would have the range for that, with a typical load.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

This is already being discussed in American Airlines Network thread

This is the problem with the monster all encompassing threads - stuff gets lost.

^This.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

Always amazed me that AA and DL have struggled with this but UA & SQ can have the market share they have.

UA has the ultimate weapon of the SFO hub, with AS and foreign flag as its only real competition directly from that gateway.

Imagine if DL had AA+UA+WN+B6's facilities and resources at LAX, with only [email protected] or foreign flags offering significant competition?
....it'd be Atlanta 2.0, with every strip of pavement in the Pacific that's longer than a driveway, having a DL flight to L.A.

N1120A wrote:

or even an A350ULR.

A359ULR could do SIN-DFW with no difficulty. The problem would be DFW-SIN.
A westbound would bring it to the very end of its brochure range. A continued eastbound/northbound would exceed it.

The Sunrise A35K should be able to do both though, should SQ order it (likely for IAH, et al).

x1234 wrote:

SQ canned YVR-SIN and operates SEA-SIN 3x weekly. There is more than enough capacity for AA to launch SEA-SIN /w AS.

It doesn't give you pause that the carrier with far more experience (and let's face it: reason to be) in those markets, pulled back or ran away entirely, even without direct competition?

MDC862 wrote:

Sounds like AA has hired the DL route planners who scheduled based on the dart board.

Is there a purpose for saying stuff like this?

When is the 787 delivery issue set to be resolved. Seems like everything I see/hear seems to pin everything bad on 787 delays.

bhxdtw wrote:

When is the 787 delivery issue set to be resolved. Seems like everything I see/hear seems to pin everything bad on 787 delays.

Bet Boeing would love to know the answer for that themselves, if anyone had a crystal ball.

Alas, the most recent 787 delivery-halt has ended a few weeks ago. Here's hoping (for Boeing's sake) that there's not 4th one.

I would have hoped for MIA-NRT nonstop instead which is around 15:30 hours block approximately.

Good demand from Florida to Japan plus OW connections beyond NRT with JAL as well as from the other end via its own MIA mega hub. They could start initially with a 3 weekly B789 and then expand from there onwards.

vhtje wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

That is not quite true. SIN is a major scissor hub for AA’s TPAC JV partner, QF. On any evening in SIN, there’s a bank of QF aircraft heading to points all over Australia. If you were in PER or CNS, say, a one-stop routing to SEA/DFW via SIN would be preferable to two stops via SYD and LAX on QF. I’m not certain if this is the plan for the SIN flight, but it’s something AA and QF should consider.

It would be weird for someone to fly 18 hours plus 8 hours or more to Australia, when the literal Australian airline is offering nonstop flights to the same country you are in… maybe to get more status on One World? lol

ElroyJetson wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The new premium heavy 787s with 51 business class seats would probably be required to make LAX-SIN work. I don’t see a 787-9 with 285 seats in AA’s configuration flying the route without blocking a high number of seats. The lower density 787 configuration would help. SEA may work with the current 787 configuration with 30 business class seats.

The 789 IGW version will have at least 400 nmi more range. It should be able to make LAX-SIN with no seats blocked without a problem.

Not true it would still be weight restricted especially westbound.

LAX-SIN is 7621 NM and the 787-9 has a range limit according to Boeing of 8200 NM.

Even with the IGW LAX-SIN is still outside the limits of the 789 even with AA's 51 business class seats and 32 premium economy seats because AA's overall seat count on their future 789 deliveries is still to dense to fly this route without blocking seats. To get that 8200 NM a 787-9 would need to be in an ultra-premium heavy configuration (example BA's 77Ws have one of the lowest density configurations of any 77W flying today), if I'm not mistaken AA's 789s capacity would be closer to what is currently found on UA's 789s and once your takeoff weight is over 250,000kg the range on the 789 IGW begins to plummet. There is no way an AA 789 could fly fully loaded LAX-SIN in AA's new configuration and still weigh less than 250,000kg.

LAX-SIN isn't going to happen at all on AA not without a daily weight restriction where AA would be forced to most likely block 4-8 rows of seats in coach depending on the time of year.

BB78710 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The new premium heavy 787s with 51 business class seats would probably be required to make LAX-SIN work. I don’t see a 787-9 with 285 seats in AA’s configuration flying the route without blocking a high number of seats. The lower density 787 configuration would help. SEA may work with the current 787 configuration with 30 business class seats.

The 789 IGW version will have at least 400 nmi more range. It should be able to make LAX-SIN with no seats blocked without a problem.

Not true it would still be weight restricted especially westbound.

LAX-SIN is 7621 NM and the 787-9 has a range limit according to Boeing of 8200 NM.

Even with the IGW LAX-SIN is still outside the limits of the 789 even with AA's 51 business class seats and 32 premium economy seats because AA's overall seat count on their future 789 deliveries is still to dense to fly this route without blocking seats. To get that 8200 NM a 787-9 would need to be in an ultra-premium heavy configuration (example BA's 77Ws have one of the lowest density configurations of any 77W flying today), if I'm not mistaken AA's 789s capacity would be closer to what is currently found on UA's 789s and once your takeoff weight is over 250,000kg the range on the 789 IGW begins to plummet. There is no way an AA 789 could fly fully loaded LAX-SIN in AA's new configuration and still weigh less than 250,000kg.

LAX-SIN isn't going to happen at all on AA not without a daily weight restriction where AA would be forced to most likely block 4-8 rows of seats in coach depending on the time of year.

My understanding is that for United the extra 300 miles flying SIN-LAX over SIN-SFO ended up with more blocked seats westbound. It hurt profitability for United having to block seats. The extra range of the IGW version of the 787-9 combined with a premium heavy configuration could make AA successful where UA failed.

jetblueguy22 wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

This is already being discussed in American Airlines Network thread

This is the problem with the monster all encompassing threads - stuff gets lost. I’m interested in this, but most of the thread is I heard AA is upgauging DFW-FAR to x times daily.

Would be something to see them launch a flight like this. Always amazed me that AA and DL have struggled with this but UA & SQ can have the market share they have.

Agreed - much preferred when all the news would be in separate threads

santi319 wrote:

vhtje wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

That is not quite true. SIN is a major scissor hub for AA’s TPAC JV partner, QF. On any evening in SIN, there’s a bank of QF aircraft heading to points all over Australia. If you were in PER or CNS, say, a one-stop routing to SEA/DFW via SIN would be preferable to two stops via SYD and LAX on QF. I’m not certain if this is the plan for the SIN flight, but it’s something AA and QF should consider.

It would be weird for someone to fly 18 hours plus 8 hours or more to Australia, when the literal Australian airline is offering nonstop flights to the same country you are in… maybe to get more status on One World? lol

If you're flying to PER from a good portion of the USA, a SE Asia connection is as good as or even better than a SYD connection. (LAX is not included in "a good portion of the USA.") DRW is only better by a few hundred miles over BNE as well.

It's the exception to the rule, though. SIN is way out of the way for the most important USA-Australia traffic.

hpff wrote:

santi319 wrote:

vhtje wrote:

It would be weird for someone to fly 18 hours plus 8 hours or more to Australia, when the literal Australian airline is offering nonstop flights to the same country you are in… maybe to get more status on One World? lol

If you're flying to PER from a good portion of the USA, a SE Asia connection is as good as or even better than a SYD connection. (LAX is not included in "a good portion of the USA.") DRW is only better by a few hundred miles over BNE as well.

It's the exception to the rule, though. SIN is way out of the way for the most important USA-Australia traffic.

Except it adds more time and another stop. Unless I live in one of three US cities with nonstop to Southeast Asia, I have to transfer over a hub as it is. Why would I take a connection that only adds to my journey?

I would think Delta would be the one flying SEA/LAX-SIN, especially since they will be required to grow their intl flying per the new pilot contract

hpff wrote:

If you're flying to PER from a good portion of the USA, a SE Asia connection is as good as or even better than a SYD connection. (LAX is not included in "a good portion of the USA.") DRW is only better by a few hundred miles over BNE as well.

It's the exception to the rule, though. SIN is way out of the way for the most important USA-Australia traffic.

Where are you seeing this? I did gcmapper and unless you mean Guam, it really adds almost 10 hrs to the trip lol.

TWA85 wrote:

AA could have some feed from Qantas subsidiary/affiliate Jetstar Asia. Not as big as SQ, but still provides enough coverage of most destinations that can not be better routed via NRT/HND on JAL. Yes Jetstar is an LCC, but AA has clearly demonstrated the value in partnering with LCCs for short-haul feed.

QF also interlines and use JetStar Asia (3K) so I believe they have some options for onboard product for full service interline - sadly lounges are no longer possible, Singapore airport forced them down to the LCC terminal to protect SQ and TZ interline. Sad as I could be wrong but OneWorld flyers on 3K get access to the excellent QF F and J lounge in SIN. 3K are starting to grow again, so could help one world carriers at SIN?

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

My understanding is that for United the extra 300 miles flying SIN-LAX over SIN-SFO ended up with more blocked seats westbound. It hurt profitability for United having to block seats. The extra range of the IGW version of the 787-9 combined with a premium heavy configuration could make AA successful where UA failed.

You are simply focusing on the extra 300 miles but that 300 miles only matters at a certain weight. American still intends to pack em in in coach even on their 51 seat business class 787-9. American even on their"premium heavy" 787-9s will still have somewhere between 240-255 total seats. When fully loaded that is to much to make LAX-SIN without blocking seats. They won't have to block as many seats at United did when they operated LAX-SIN if I remember correctly United was blocking somewhere between 8-12 rows depending on the time of year. American's 789s will no be premium enough to not block rows because they still will have way to many seats in coach which would put them north of 250,000kg which in turn would cost them on range.

No way AA launches LAX-SIN.

Agreed that such a flight would almost certainly need to be out of SEA, given the distance issues from everywhere else. It'd likely doom the AS-SQ partnership but there's certainly a chance of both airlines coexisting on SEA-SIN by targeting different traffic flows.

The current SQ SEA-SIN flight is perfectly timed to hit a connection bank to/from India and doesn't seem to be priced competitively nor timed well for many connections on the SEA side other than close-in cities like PDX/BOI (10:20 or 8:45 am departure depending on time of year), so one can assume it's mostly made up of SEA-SIN traffic and connections beyond. Ergo, if AA times their hypothetical SEA-SIN flight similarly to UA 1/2 (~10-11 pm departure headed to SIN, with an early morning arrival back into SEA) it could hit the early morning bank of AS departures to the East Coast/country as a whole that get back later at night and thus attempt to serve more US-SIN traffic than the SQ flight.

I highly doubt AA would launch this. AA for the most part is very weak in Asia, always has been always will be. China has always lost money, they are constantly moving their China routes around to different hubs, none have worked. Hong Kong was a money loser, and Tokyo is barely profitable. ICN seems to hold OK but thats about it. AA has always been the weakest in Asia.

Good luck to AA on any route it decides to operate, but why would anyone fly AA instead of SQ except for miles loyalist. Interesting

Regardless if it is SEA-SIN or LAX-SIN, I wonder how it will compete against the existing flights between the US and Singapore on SQ and UA.

BB78710 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Weatherwatcher1 wrote:

The new premium heavy 787s with 51 business class seats would probably be required to make LAX-SIN work. I don’t see a 787-9 with 285 seats in AA’s configuration flying the route without blocking a high number of seats. The lower density 787 configuration would help. SEA may work with the current 787 configuration with 30 business class seats.

The 789 IGW version will have at least 400 nmi more range. It should be able to make LAX-SIN with no seats blocked without a problem.

Not true it would still be weight restricted especially westbound.

LAX-SIN is 7621 NM and the 787-9 has a range limit according to Boeing of 8200 NM.

Even with the IGW LAX-SIN is still outside the limits of the 789 even with AA's 51 business class seats and 32 premium economy seats because AA's overall seat count on their future 789 deliveries is still to dense to fly this route without blocking seats. To get that 8200 NM a 787-9 would need to be in an ultra-premium heavy configuration (example BA's 77Ws have one of the lowest density configurations of any 77W flying today), if I'm not mistaken AA's 789s capacity would be closer to what is currently found on UA's 789s and once your takeoff weight is over 250,000kg the range on the 789 IGW begins to plummet. There is no way an AA 789 could fly fully loaded LAX-SIN in AA's new configuration and still weigh less than 250,000kg.

LAX-SIN isn't going to happen at all on AA not without a daily weight restriction where AA would be forced to most likely block 4-8 rows of seats in coach depending on the time of year.

Nope. LAX-SIN is certainly within range of the 789 IGW. QF currently flies PER-LHR which is 7829 nmi. That is over 200 nmi shorter than LAX-SIN and that is without the minimum 400 nmi boost of the 789 IGW version.

https://www.airmilescalculator.com/distance/per-to-lhr/

https://leehamnews.com/2022/01/05/hotr- ... the-787-9/

You can argue QF has a premium heavy configuration. What you cannot argue is LAX-SIN is a 200 nmi shorter route and the 789 IGW will carry 6 tonnes more fuel or payload. If AA chooses to fly the route the 789 IGW can certainly do the mission.

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

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

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

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

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

7,621nm is with ZERO wind.

Add a wind component in, and LAX-SIN becomes over 8,000nm during summers, and close to 8.500 during winters fighting the strong Pacific jetstream.

To show how this works, look at UA SFO-SIN blocks times

March - 17:25
June - 16:25
September: 16:40
December: 17:35

Some 1:10 block difference seasonally.

vhtje wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

AA has no feed at the SIN end and any flight that long is always challenged when fuel prices are high.

That is not quite true. SIN is a major scissor hub for AA’s TPAC JV partner, QF. On any evening in SIN, there’s a bank of QF aircraft heading to points all over Australia. If you were in PER or CNS, say, a one-stop routing to SEA/DFW via SIN would be preferable to two stops via SYD and LAX on QF. I’m not certain if this is the plan for the SIN flight, but it’s something AA and QF should consider.

Plus, there’s Jetstar, and Jetstar Asia.

While factually accurate the Singapore flights are designed to connect to the Kangaroo route to London not for flights from the USA. Singapore is too far west for US connections unless Perth is your destination. Cathay Pacific has a full schedule from Hong Kong to Aussie cities if AA needs to connect people through HKG. Australia's Major cities of Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney are well covered by Qantas and AA's own flight to SYD.

LAXintl wrote:

:old:

7,621nm is with ZERO wind.

Add a wind component in, and LAX-SIN becomes over 8,000nm during summers, and close to 8.500 during winters fighting the strong Pacific jetstream.

To show how this works, look at UA SFO-SIN blocks times

March - 17:25
June - 16:25
September: 16:40
December: 17:35

Some 1:10 block difference seasonally.

Explain PER-LHR westbound at over 200 nmi longer. Also, explain why it will not work with 6 tonnes more fuel with the IGW version of the 789.

CriticalPoint wrote:

I give this zero percent chance of happening this decade.

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

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

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

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

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

LAX 2200 SIN 0700
SIN 1900 LAX 2000

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

Or
LAX 2100 SIN 0600
SIN 0800 LAX 0900