Delta Ask DOT To Revoke AA LAX-HND Authority

HPRamper · Fri Oct 16, 2015 10:24 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 96):
By AA failing to honor its commitments to launch the service American travelers are suffering, and since AA clearly violated its back up award, it would be deeply unjust for the department to allow it to retain the slots. Instead the DOT should require AA to return the slots to the unallocated pool from where other interested parties can pursue them.

Of course DL passes up an opportunity to take the high road and instead AA when AA had pretty much zero control over the situation. This is like someone winning a drawing for a reserved parking spot in a full lot and then someone else demanding they lose the award because the lot is full.

Quoting wn676 (Reply 97):
Given the way the slot process works, wouldn't any other carrier be in basically the same situation as AA?

Seems that way.

jc2354 · Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:13 am

And to think back, we were confused over the Wright Amendment and Bermuda II. I guess we will remember those as our "salad days"

PW100 · Sat Oct 17, 2015 4:07 pm

Quoting wn676 (Reply 97):
Given the way the slot process works, wouldn't any other carrier be in basically the same situation as AA?

Quoting steex (Reply 99):
It's not hard to argue that a few flights per month, which might be all DL would've chosen to operate during the fall/winter low period if left to its own devices, provides little benefit to US consumers over having the slot go unused.

Well even if DL would only have operated a handful of flights per week/month, that would still be more than what AA is/will be doing. Surely a handful of flights would be better for US consumers than no flights . . .

Wouldn't it have been better to have allowed/forced DL to continued use of "their" slots until AA was *really* ready . . . ?
Not picking sides, just an honest thought.

Polot · Sat Oct 17, 2015 6:05 pm

Quoting PW100 (Reply 102):
Wouldn't it have been better to have allowed/forced DL to continued use of "their" slots until AA was *really* ready . . . ?
Not picking sides, just an honest thought.

DL was one who gave up the slot, and the DOT is not going to force any airline to continue operating something they don't want to unless it is something like an EAS market.

AA94 · Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:57 am

Quoting PW100 (Reply 102):
Wouldn't it have been better to have allowed/forced DL to continued use of "their" slots until AA was *really* ready . . . ?

It's important to note that no one forced DL to give up their slot. The DOT set over a certain set of terms pertaining to the utilization of the slot, and DL decided that, for whatever reason, they were either unable or unwilling to meet those terms.

Web500sjc · Sun Oct 18, 2015 1:20 am

Quoting AA94 (Reply 104):

It's important to note that the DOT determined the limited amount of HND slot allocations nessecitsted daily service by the operating carrier, different than any other route allocation. DL alerted the DOT that it would be unable to economically fulfill the revised allocation. The DOT did not take the allocation away, but they would have when it became apparent Delta was unwilling to follow the revised allocation

Delta made sure they remained in the DOT's good graces by proactively alerting the DOT to their inability. Now there may have been some gamesmanship by alerting the dot late enough that AA could not secure the slots at HND. I'm sure that this complaint is similar in painting AA in the same light AA painted DL; not operating the limited slot allocation to its full capability.

In the end DL is quickly trying to paint the picture that AA is slot sitting, and their limited service form SEA is more useful than a 3rd service from LAX.

A question I Have, Once AA commences operation in to HND, will they be required to maintain the service level DL was required to from SEA? Can that service level requirement be applied to the three other allocations?

uberflieger · Sun Oct 18, 2015 6:49 am

Quoting web500sjc (Reply 105):
Once AA commences operation in to HND, will they be required to maintain the service level DL was required to from SEA?

The flight is highly unlikely to be less than daily, with or without conditions. Assuming timing similar to ANA, partner JAL offers perfect connections to & from all major Japanese markets, never mind its large Tokyo customer / corporate base.
Asking the DOT to revoke the authority is Delta's last effort to keep down competition in a market, where it's the weakest link - goodbye

LAXintl · Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:40 pm

Hawaiian Air chimed in with some comments.

HA states is believes any carrier attempting to use the DL slots surrendered on Oct 1st would encounter similar problems obtaining their own slots in such a short time frame.

Accordingly HA does not oppose AA's request for startup extension, however believes it would be prudent for the DOT to require AA to initiate the service within 60-days of such receipt to ensure AA's stated commitment to serve the LAX-HND route.

HA also takes this opportunity to suggest it would be happy to be awarded backup authority for any AA, DL or UA services to HND should any of the incumbent carriers fail to operate services at levels promised and agreed to.

HPRamper · Thu Oct 22, 2015 12:31 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 107):
HA states is believes any carrier attempting to use the DL slots surrendered on Oct 1st would encounter similar problems obtaining their own slots in such a short time frame.

Accordingly HA does not oppose AA's request for startup extension, however believes it would be prudent for the DOT to require AA to initiate the service within 60-days of such receipt to ensure AA's stated commitment to serve the LAX-HND route.

HA takes the high road. I love it.

LAXintl · Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:33 pm

AA follows up with a filling in response to DL comments;

Some juicy stuff for government documents

Delta continues to pursue its Haneda vendetta against American and the United States
Government through a concoction of repeated inaccuracies, disingenuous “suggestions,” and
huge doses of chutzpah.
.....
The clear and undeniable set of circumstances that has taken this issue out of American’s
control should have been a sufficient basis to end Delta’s tirade.
Instead, Delta again suggests that because the JCAB has effectively prevented American
from inaugurating Los Angeles-Haneda service, American should suffer the consequences
and return the slots to the Department for reallocation.
.....
As everyone who has been involved in U.S.-Japan aviation issues already knows, U.S. carriers
are in the current “meager traffic rights” situation precisely because of Delta’s persistent
intransigence and very public opposition in allowing U.S.-Japan aviation liberalization to evolve.
At every step since 2010, Delta has created roadblocks and obstacles to liberalizing or resolving
the Haneda slot issues. If there is any finger pointing to be done for who is to blame for the
limited access to Haneda, that finger must point solely to Delta.
.....
In summary, AA once again, states for the record that it is fit, willing, and able to commence Los Angeles-Haneda service, and will do so as soon as American receives slots. American is actively working with the U.S. Government and the Japanese Government to quickly achieve this objective.

Mcmax · Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:01 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 81):
As the Department is well aware, American has tried repeatedly to obtain slot times that are commercially viable. American has had numerous executives travel to Japan in order to secure slots.

In AA's original response to DL's effort, I was concerned about the words "commercially viable." From plain reading, this implied to me that AA had been awarded some slots, but it wasn't happy with the slots it was awarded--hence, the words "commercially viable." If AA was complaining about the slot times, then it sounded like DL had a good argument. But, then...

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 109):
In summary, AA once again, states for the record that it is fit, willing, and able to commence Los Angeles-Haneda service, and will do so as soon as American receives slots.

Now, in the new AA response, AA seems to indicate it had not received any slots from JCAB. And, this is the cause of delay for LAX-HND, not AA wanting better slots. If this is indeed the case, then it does seem DL is being unreasonable.

(Sorry, as an attorney, it's a nasty habit of mine to parse every single word.)

DeltaB717 · Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:42 am

Quoting Mcmax (Reply 110):
But, then...

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 109):In summary, AA once again, states for the record that it is fit, willing, and able to commence Los Angeles-Haneda service, and will do so as soon as American receives slots.
Now, in the new AA response, AA seems to indicate it had not received any slots from JCAB. And, this is the cause of delay for LAX-HND, not AA wanting better slots. If this is indeed the case, then it does seem DL is being unreasonable.

But then, as I've said before, in order to be "fit, willing, and able to commence Los Angeles-Haneda service" surely AA would have to have a slot pair at HND. I mean, that's certainly how it works at slot-managed airports in Australia - if you have slots, you're able to operate a route... if you don't have slots, you're not able to operate a route.

Polot · Tue Oct 27, 2015 1:12 pm

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 111):
But then, as I've said before, in order to be "fit, willing, and able to commence Los Angeles-Haneda service" surely AA would have to have a slot pair at HND

You are over interpreting the statement. It just means once AA has the slots AA has all the proper aircraft, finances, infrastructure (IT, ground contracts, etc), and government/company (pilots etc) approvals in order to immediately start the service.

LAXintl · Tue Oct 27, 2015 4:55 pm

Hawaiian might gets it wish to be designated for back-up authority on existing US-Haneda routes.

DOT asked other carriers to submit their responses to the proposal by Oct 30th and follow up comments by Nov. 7th.

OST-2010-0018

Mcmax · Tue Oct 27, 2015 7:45 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 109):
In summary, AA once again, states for the record that it is fit, willing, and able to commence Los Angeles-Haneda service, and will do so as soon as American receives slots.

Wait a minute here--I just read AA's reply, and you left out two very key words in this quote. AA's actual reply states:

"American, once again, states for the record that it is fit, willing, and able to commence Los Angeles-Haneda service, and will do so as soon as American receives COMMERCIALLY VIABLE slots." (emphasis added)

So, it appears AA did indeed receive a slot allocation from JCAB--it's just that those slots were not "commercially viable." In reading AA's reply (at the regulations.gov website for this docket), it does acknowledge the receipt of slots from JCAB, but states:

"Despite American's own initiatives and the intervention of the U.S. Government, the Japanese Government has not provided American with slots that have a semblance of commercial viability, e.g., the last proposal from the Japanese did not even allow enough time to "turn" the aircraft."

In summary, it looks like AA received a slot allocation from JCAB, but AA deemed those slots as not commercially viable because, I presume, the departure slot was so close to the arrival slot that AA couldn't even properly turn and prepare the aircraft for the return to the U.S. Based on AA's reply, it does not appear it deemed those slots as not commercially viable because it didn't receive daytime (or other) slots, but solely because it would be difficult to conduct standard operations.

Does anyone have any information on what slot times AA was allocated by JCAB?

mercure1 · Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:08 pm

Quoting Mcmax (Reply 114):

I think you are wasting time parsing words.

Of course airline slots have to be commercially viable. There is zero benefit to them if they are not feasible operationally or marketable to consumer. Same fact holds at LHR as its at JFK or HND.

Unfortunately for US carriers based on government agreement combined with time zone changes and hub operations on US end, AA has a very small timeframe window it must achieve both an arrival slot and departure slot in.

Basically arrive at 2200 or shortly after and depart back to US around midnight. Lining up both arrival and departure slot is not always achievable especially after AA missed the formal IATA allocation process.

JCAB could have given AA 10-slots, but until AA receives something that it coherently line up (call it commercially viable if you desire), such slots are useless and cannot commence services with.

p.s. - I have experience with this. Took TN almost 2-years to receive viable slots at NRT. There was long time discrepancy on matching available arrival and departure slot times. It took almost 4 IATA scheduling seasons before TN could achieve what it needed to operate intended flights. TN even had to commence alternate service to Osaka as achieving viable slots at NRT was so challenging.

DeltaB717 · Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:15 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 112):
You are over interpreting the statement. It just means once AA has the slots AA has all the proper aircraft, finances, infrastructure (IT, ground contracts, etc), and government/company (pilots etc) approvals in order to immediately start the service.

With respect, I don't believe mine is the invalid interpretation. There are a number of things an airline must do and must have in place in order that they be 'able' to commence service on any given route, and one of those things is to have slots granted to it. Without slots, you cannot land and takeoff, and if you cannot land and takeoff then you cannot operate the route... it's pretty simple. Without slots, AA is not, in fact, able to operate LAX-HND.

Does AA have a number of slots 'up its sleeve' so to speak for LAX, or is there a pool of unallocated slots that AA can choose from if and when they are granted acceptable slots at HND? I'm surprised noone has raised this question yet.

AA says this:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 109):
Delta continues to pursue its Haneda vendetta against American and the United States Government through a concoction of repeated inaccuracies, disingenuous “suggestions,” and huge doses of chutzpah.

...

.. then this:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 109):
As everyone who has been involved in U.S.-Japan aviation issues already knows, U.S. carriers are in the current “meager traffic rights” situation precisely because of Delta’s persistent intransigence and very public opposition in allowing U.S.-Japan aviation liberalization to evolve. At every step since 2010, Delta has created roadblocks and obstacles to liberalizing or resolving the Haneda slot issues. If there is any finger pointing to be done for who is to blame for the limited access to Haneda, that finger must point solely to Delta.

It's pretty rich to come out swinging about another company's 'hyperbole' and then follow up with your own. Laying the blame at DL's feet for the fact that the Japanese and US governments have failed to reach an agreement re HND that provides equally for the commercial benefits of carriers from both sides (and Australia's situation is the same, by the way) is... convenient, it seems.

I've said this before and I stand by it. AA wanted DL held to 'use it or lose it' on this route authority and best practice regulation says AA should now be held to the same standard.

mercure1 · Tue Oct 27, 2015 10:20 pm

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 116):
Does AA have a number of slots 'up its sleeve' so to speak for LAX

LAX is not slot controlled.

Come and go as you wish, though obviously they need certain time frames to maximize connections and be attractive for local clients.

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 116):
A wanted DL held to 'use it or lose it' on this route authority and best practice regulation says AA should now be held to the same standard.

Indeed. But first AA must gain access to launch service before you can measure them.

You cannot hold AA at fault for something outside its control unlike DL which clearly felt it was not worth to operate the flight during certain time frames and was squandering the rights.

surfdog75 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:25 pm

Wasn't it AA that complained about DL not operating operating daily in the off season and lobbying the DOT for DLs slots in the first place?

HPRamper · Wed Oct 28, 2015 3:36 pm

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 118):
Wasn't it AA that complained about DL not operating operating daily in the off season and lobbying the DOT for DLs slots in the first place?

Indeed. But DL's slots were not given to AA - they ended up back in the slot pool. AA was unable to obtain the proper slots, through no fault of their own.

alfa164 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:01 pm

Quoting Mcmax (Reply 114):
Does anyone have any information on what slot times AA was allocated by JCAB?

Quoting HPRamper (Reply 119):
But DL's slots were not given to AA - they ended up back in the slot pool. AA was unable to obtain the proper slots, through no fault of their own.

If believe that DL's slots were actually takem by UA, and UA adjusted their schedule accordingly. That should mean that UA's (slightly later departure from HND) shots should be available to AA.

AA knew - or, with the proper due diligence, should have known - that available slots would be limited and not at prime times. I am starting to think that, when AA started its campaign to take DL's SEA-HND authority, they thought more favorable slots might be coming along sooner, rather than later.

If they are waiting for those prime-time slots, they may have a lot longer wait than they expected.

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 118):
Wasn't it AA that complained about DL not operating operating daily in the off season and lobbying the DOT for DLs slots in the first place?

Definitely.

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 117):
You cannot hold AA at fault for something outside its control unlike DL which clearly felt it was not worth to operate the flight during certain time frames and was squandering the rights.

Why was DL "squandering the rights" when operating the route with less-than-daily service, while AA is not squandering the rights when it isn't operating the route at all (because it doesn't like the avaible slot times)?

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 116):
I've said this before and I stand by it. AA wanted DL held to 'use it or lose it' on this route authority and best practice regulation says AA should now be held to the same standard.

Absolutely. I think HA is still waiting in the wings, ready to fly.

MAH4546 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 4:13 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 120):
Why was DL "squandering the rights" when operating the route with less-than-daily service, while AA is not squandering the rights when it isn't operating the route at all (because it doesn't like the avaible slot times)?

So AA is supposed to operate a flight without enough time to turn a plane around? Because those are the slots AA got - so close together that a plane could not reasonably turn around.

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 116):
It's pretty rich to come out swinging about another company's 'hyperbole' and then follow up with your own. Laying the blame at DL's feet for the fact that the Japanese and US governments have failed to reach an agreement re HND that provides equally for the commercial benefits of carriers from both sides (and Australia's situation is the same, by the way) is... convenient, it seems.

Except AA isn't using hyperbole. Delta has actively been hindering attempts for the U.S. and Japan to go to true Open Skies. This is well known and documented. Delta wants to move it's entire Tokyo operation to Haneda.

Polot · Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:24 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 120):
AA knew - or, with the proper due diligence, should have known - that available slots would be limited and not at prime times. I am starting to think that, when AA started its campaign to take DL's SEA-HND authority, they thought more favorable slots might be coming along sooner, rather than later.

AA campaigned to get the slots stripped from DL and failed. Rather the DOT imposed harsh restrictions on DL and assigned AA as an alternate, but DL still had the rights. DL gave up the rights (at about the last possible moment), after which is was too late for AA to get favorable slots in the winter as the slots had already been divided up before DL gave up the authority.

AA couldn't obtain slots at HND without the authority...the Japanese government (or whoever makes the slot decisions) would never give high demand slots to an airline that can't actually fly to the airport "just in case".

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 120):
Absolutely. I think HA is still waiting in the wings, ready to fly.

Except HA recognizes that it is unlikely that AA could get viable slots this quickly and does not oppose AA's request for an extension (see reply 107). HA only asks that the extension be for 60 days and if AA can't still find slots, or decides not to operate the route, that the HND authority be granted to them and not into another rebid open to any airline.

The reasoning behind HA's lack of opposition is because they know they would likely not have any better luck and don't want the authority effective immediately either. DL also knows this, but they don't really want the authority and are just trying to make things difficult for AA and stall competition on LAX-HND, which of course they also operate.

alfa164 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:30 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 122):
DL also knows this, but they don't really want the authority and are just trying to make things difficult for AA and stall competition on LAX-HND, which of course they also operate.

While I don't have any source inside DL's Boardroom (as you apparently do), I suspect DL is hoping AA will lost its authority and it will revert to HA.

Denying AA flights from LAX to HND would be mush better than simply delaying them.

Polot · Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:37 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 123):
While I don't have any source inside DL's Boardroom (as you apparently do), I suspect DL is hoping AA will lost its authority and it will revert to HA.

Denying AA flights from LAX to HND would be mush better than simply delaying them.

Well yes, that is their dream scenario and is why they are asking the DOT to remove the authority from AA and make it available to other interested airlines. I suspect, however, that DL knows that the DOT will likely grant AA an extension long before they immediately strip them of the rights. In the meantime DL can be an annoyance and keep AA distracted with fighting for the authority and trying to get good slots (from people who can see that AA has to fight to keep the authority) at the same time.

MAH4546 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:40 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 123):
I suspect DL is hoping AA will lost its authority and it will revert to HA.

Too late for that, as DOT didn't buy Delta's ridiculous argument and AA is keeping the slots.

DOT, however, is opening up a proceeding to select a back-up for AA.

wn676 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 5:49 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 120):
Why was DL "squandering the rights" when operating the route with less-than-daily service, while AA is not squandering the rights when it isn't operating the route at all (because it doesn't like the avaible slot times)?

If an airline can't operate during "commercially viable" hours at HND, then there's no greater benefit to the consumer either. Isn't that the whole point of what's transpired here? People are insisting that AA be forced to operate with useless and/or impossible slot times just because supposedly unfair restrictions were placed on DL, yet seemingly missing the point that putting AA in that position adds no value whatsoever to the US-HND market. And HA's response only validates AA's position on the matter of slots. If it was so obvious that AA were "squandering its rights" because it didn't like the slot times, don't you think an airline that's already familiar with HND and has been attempting to gain additional rights to fly there would be jumping on the opportunity to strip the award from AA?

NickLAX · Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:00 pm

Doesn't JSC allocate initial slots for S16 end of this week?

http://www.schedule-coordination.jp/calendar/index.html

Wasn't sure if JSC allocates the slots for process or does actual awards?

This would mean nearest AA has to a start would be March 2016 - unless JSC has a released slot (which not sure how that process works for HND)

Polot · Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:27 pm

Quoting NickLAX (Reply 127):
This would mean nearest AA has to a start would be March 2016 - unless JSC has a released slot (which not sure how that process works for HND)

AA had to start within 60 days of getting the authority, a time period which ended on Oct 1. As you can see that is Summer '15, and the deadline for Winter '15 slot requests occurred before AA had the rights. That is why AA is trying to work with the Japanese to get slots in the mean time so they can start service ASAP.

RyanairGuru · Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:35 pm

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 116):

I'm sorry but I think you are parsing at words. In context it is pretty clear that they're saying that they are ready, willing and able to operate the route but for the lack of available slots. Having a condition on your readiness doesn't of itself detract from your readiness otherwise.

alfa164 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:42 pm

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 129):
I'm sorry but I think you are parsing at words. In context it is pretty clear that they're saying that they are ready, willing and able to operate the route but for the lack of available slots. Having a condition on your readiness doesn't of itself detract from your readiness otherwise.

Maybe not. Other posters - who are usually "in the know" - say AA has available slots, but doesn't like them (limited turn-around time was the example given).

So no, he is not parsing words... those are the facts.

HeeseokKoo · Wed Oct 28, 2015 6:52 pm

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 120):
If believe that DL's slots were actually takem by UA, and UA adjusted their schedule accordingly. That should mean that UA's (slightly later departure from HND) shots should be available to AA.

I bet UA's old slot was already arranged to the others even before DL announced quitting. Several airlines (from HKG and PVG) had already been operating with a different day-by-day schedule based on available slot. Also in the winter season, several new flights are scheduled at 10pm hours such as JAL flight from PVG, ANA 10pm flight to PVG, etc.

I guess DL didn't even have a winter season slot or not prioritized due to not have operated last winter season. But I don't want to think that way because if then, DL would've understood AA's situation and not started an argument.

DeltaB717 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 10:45 pm

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 117):
LAX is not slot controlled.

That would be why nobody else raised the question, thank you!

Quoting Polot (Reply 122):
HA only asks that the extension be for 60 days and if AA can't still find slots, or decides not to operate the route, that the HND authority be granted to them and not into another rebid open to any airline.

The reasoning behind HA's lack of opposition is because they know they would likely not have any better luck and don't want the authority effective immediately either. DL also knows this, but they don't really want the authority and are just trying to make things difficult for AA and stall competition on LAX-HND, which of course they also operate.

When you put it like that, HA & DL are both playing quite smart at their own agendas here. What HA is asking seems very reasonable.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 121):
Delta has actively been hindering attempts for the U.S. and Japan to go to true Open Skies. This is well known and documented. Delta wants to move it's entire Tokyo operation to Haneda.

You contradicted yourself in that statement. If DL truly wanted to move its entire operation to HND it'd be the last party to 'actively hinder' true open skies.

Quoting wn676 (Reply 126):

Which outcome of the 2 so far (DL holding the authority and operating erratic schedules or AA holding the authority and not operating at all) has best served the community's interests?

MAH4546 · Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:10 pm

Quoting DeltaB717 (Reply 132):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 121):
Delta has actively been hindering attempts for the U.S. and Japan to go to true Open Skies. This is well known and documented. Delta wants to move it's entire Tokyo operation to Haneda.

You contradicted yourself in that statement. If DL truly wanted to move its entire operation to HND it'd be the last party to 'actively hinder' true open skies.

There is no contradiction. Wider access to Haneda does not create a jackpot of slots. Delta does not want such wider access unless it is handed the slots to move it's Narita ops to Haneda. Since that won't happen, it has been very vigorously and actively campaigning against open access to Haneda.

Notice how Delta hasn't even bothered disputing American's assertions? That's because they are true.

[Edited 2015-10-28 16:13:43]

Carpethead · Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:06 pm

In the meantime, additional HND-China flights have started during the daylight hours. Something along the lines of 4 additional flights for each country.
If the US (particularly DL) don't get their act together those slots maybe re-distributed to other countries.

AADC10 · Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:16 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 59):
Per MOU

Scheduled operations between the United States and Haneda will be subject to the following timing conditions:
(1) U.S. operations at Haneda will be permitted between 2200 and 0700 hours local time;
(2) departures from Haneda to a point in the 48 contiguous U.S. states are not permitted prior to midnight; and
(3) extra sections are not permitted.

Does that mean that points outside the 48 contiguous states can depart prior to midnight, such as Hawaii and GUM?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
Nope. Canadians and Euros have access to reasonable slot times.

USA carriers are artificially restricted from such.

One of the reasons for this may be payback for the decades of PA/UA and NW/DL 5th freedom rights out of NRT while JL only got SFO-JFK in return.

LAXintl · Thu Oct 29, 2015 4:23 pm

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 134):
In the meantime, additional HND-China flights have started during the daylight hours. Something along the lines of 4 additional flights for each country.
If the US (particularly DL) don't get their act together those slots maybe re-distributed to other countries.

Those are per the 2013 agreement that slowly rolled out additional frequencies between the nations in 2014 and 2015. Nothing new has happened.

LAXintl · Fri Oct 30, 2015 10:17 pm

AA filed comments that it has no objection to HA being granted backup authority.

AA states HND slots are valuable public asset that should be fully utilized by US side.
To this end AA reiterates is ready to commence LAX-HND service within a 60-day window once it receives slots that conform to time window requirements which matches existing US carrier services at HND.

HeeseokKoo · Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:45 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 135):
Does that mean that points outside the 48 contiguous states can depart prior to midnight, such as Hawaii and GUM?

Yes. All three HND-HNL flights leave between 10pm-midnight. In fact, there are plenty of departure slots at 10pm-1055, and none until 1:30am. That's how HA is a good backup as long as HA is willing to park a fleet all day long in HND: for example, arrive HND at 5am, leave at 10pm. Or HA can operate charters which may arr. at 1:30am & dep. at 3am and still be okay.

To be specific, arrival slot is available only between 1am-555am, and departure is available 8pm-1055pm & 130am-555am. That means, even if US succeeds in converting slots into daytime, getting a right-time slot is another problem.

[Edited 2015-10-30 16:55:24]

[Edited 2015-10-30 16:57:39]

LAXintl · Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:09 pm

A few more comments to the DOT:

United
Says HA's request for backup authority is unprecedented in its breadth and outside the scope of the issue at hand which is American’s need to seek a startup extension for services. The DOT historically has not awarded backup authority on route cases and certainly not the broad authority HA seeks. UA sees no justification for the DOT to deviate from this precedent.
Additionally UA takes issue with the HA comment that asserts that UA is providing “reduced levels of service” to HND as it shifts from 269 seat 777s to 252 seat 787 aircraft. UA draws the attention to its application for SFO-HND service which states it may switch to 787 at a future date as they are added in larger quantities to the fleet. Similarly the DOT's own grating order makes mention of the 787 type.

Delta
After 3 previous rejections by the DOT, HA now seeks to create a new administrative burden by inserting itself into AA's startup extension pleading. DL urges the DOT to reject HA's backup authority request as it would forfeit the departments ability to review unknown number of future applications for service by carriers should another HND authority become vacant. Additionally even holding backup authority provides no assurance HA would be anymore successful than AA in starting service in required timely manner.

=

ty97 · Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:21 pm

AA has acquired slots. LAX-HND goes on sale 11/8. Flights start February 11.

http://hub.aa.com/en/nr/american-air...-and-tokyo-haneda-in-february-2016

a380787 · Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:34 pm

LAX-HND
AA27
Departs LAX at 6 p.m.
Arrives at HND at 11 p.m. the following day

HND-LAX
AA26
Departs HND at 1:30 a.m.
Arrives at LAX at 6:20 p.m.

Slightly late on the eastbound departure, but I guess that's why AA meant by not being able to obtain good slots.

As a point of comparison, ANA's schedule is :

LAX 0005 - HND 0505
HND 0005 - LAX 1700

... and DL's schedule is :

LAX 1650 - HND 2220
HND 0010 - LAX 1800

.... and UA's schedule up at SFO is :

SFO 1830 - HND 2235
HND 0020 - SFO 1645

LAXintl · Wed Nov 04, 2015 2:55 pm

AA just filed notice with the DOT stating that it expects to be in receipt of HND slots effective December 31st.

Accordingly it plans to initiate LAX-HND service effective February 11th well within the 60-day start-up requirement.

The carrier urges the DOT to move forward and grant the AA the filed start up delay motion which would be valid until Feb 29th 2016 based on receipt authority of issued slots.

surfdog75 · Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:07 pm

The whole thing is kinda stupid. Multiple airlines already fly HND-LAX and the dot gives AA the same route. If they are going to insert themselves on these things they should have insisted the awarded carrier fly a route not already served.

jfk777 · Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:16 pm

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 143):
The whole thing is kinda stupid. Multiple airlines already fly HND-LAX and the dot gives AA the same route. If they are going to insert themselves on these things they should have insisted the awarded carrier fly a route not already served.

LAX to Tokyo is the biggest US to Japan route. All US3 airlines also fly LAX to Shanghai and soon LAX to Sydney NSW, Australia. For AA to make a Haneda flight work it has to be from LAX.

commavia · Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:26 pm

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 143):
The whole thing is kinda stupid. Multiple airlines already fly HND-LAX and the dot gives AA the same route. If they are going to insert themselves on these things they should have insisted the awarded carrier fly a route not already served.

The problem is that there realistically isn't anywhere else left. Other cities have been tried, and all have failed due to the horrible slot conditions at HND. The only places that work - west coast and Hawaii - are, unsurprisingly, the only places left that still have HND flights.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:40 pm

Well now the DOT needs to act on 2 things.

1) Will it allow AA the start up delay till February? I think its near certainly it will, as it seems the department has been involved and well aware of AA's difficulty in attaining HND slots all along.

2) Will it seek to designate a back-up authority for this or any other HND routes at this time?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net