AA's LAX-AKL fight has been running for about 14 months now. Does anyone know how it has been performing? With the arrival of 789s, does anyone think that this flight would be upgraded to that aircraft?

Load wise seems to do exceptionally well, of course that's only half the equation on performance. I'd expect a 788/789 rotation between Peak and off season at some point when enough 789's are in fleet.

I believe that AA started in June?

NZ is a highly seasonal market, so I'm sure AA is still gauging its success on the route. I wonder if the failed (or at least delayed) JV with QF will have any impact on the route?

Despite its JV with NZ, UA recently announced going seasonal on SFOAKL (but up to 10 weekly during southern summer).

Route launched June 2016 - only about 8 months ago.

I would guess AA launched the route with anticipated benefits of a QF JV in mind, but without that, I suspect routes performance is lower than hoped for.

LAXintl wrote:

Route launched June 2016 - only about 8 months ago.

I would guess AA launched the route with anticipated benefits of a QF JV in mind, but without that, I suspect routes performance is lower than hoped for.

True, but AA + QF hasn't thrown in the towel on the JV quite yet. They are removing the AA codeshare on some overlapping routes, as well as from DFW to SYD and LAX to JFK to send a message to the DOT.

My guess is that they'll hold onto the route for the time being, and having UA exit SFO-AKL certainly doesn't hurt, either, particularly as AA seeks to build up a hub at LAX.

Given AA has quietly seen off UA, and replaced QF with the aircraft that is perfect - they are going nowhere.

Also I was sitting at Manukau the other week, saw AA and UA depart within a few minutes of each other. I LOVE the new AA livery. It's striking. My non-plane loving girlfriend was sitting next to me and said how good American worked as a brand.

I would say regardless of JV, AA is pretty much "forced" to keep LAX-AKL if they want to continue build up and be serious about LAX as a gateway to Asia and Oceania. They need to add more routes such as ICN, TPE, PEK and not drop routes.

sagechan wrote:

Load wise seems to do exceptionally well, of course that's only half the equation on performance. I'd expect a 788/789 rotation between Peak and off season at some point when enough 789's are in fleet.

Sure, loads are well, when you charge next to nothing to get to New Zealand, you will fill up the plane. Walk up coach fare for tonights flight is only $800 bucks. Try and book the same flight a month or two from now and its only $50.00 bucks less.

a tad off topic but look at AA'S LAX-HKG NS flight. You can get a walk up coach fare on that flight for $570.00. Obviously coach fares don't tell the whole story but fares that low can be indicative of problems filling up the back of the plane.

jumbojet wrote:

sagechan wrote:

Load wise seems to do exceptionally well, of course that's only half the equation on performance. I'd expect a 788/789 rotation between Peak and off season at some point when enough 789's are in fleet.

Sure, loads are well, when you charge next to nothing to get to New Zealand, you will fill up the plane. Walk up coach fare for tonights flight is only $800 bucks. Try and book the same flight a month or two from now and its only $50.00 bucks less.

As I said, loads are only half the equation. Since it's pretty hard to tell the real yields as anecdotal lowest available isn't the whole picture either. But unlike UA, AA hasn't pulled Southern Winter Ops yet. So, how it's doing is relatively hard to say. Signs point to strong loads and weak yields, but we have no idea what AA's expectations are.

jumbojet wrote:

AA'S LAX-HKG NS flight. You can get a walk up coach fare on that flight for $570

A walk-up fare?
But yup, there's some great deals to HKG right now, got an alert for UA ORD-HKG $522.

HKG fares in the low $800's till mid may for economy and mid $1300's to $1600 for economy to AKL these fares im getting on google flights. That's on the map of monthly fares. So ive dug in a little bit more and am trying to pick off days and short or long turn around dates to find better fares. After many tries on Akl Monday is the trigger day to get the lowest fares has low has $1096.00 otherwise fares are in the above range. 13-16 hundred dollars. HKG is always in the $750+ range no matter the day.

uberflieger wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

AA'S LAX-HKG NS flight. You can get a walk up coach fare on that flight for $570

A walk-up fare?
But yup, there's some great deals to HKG right now, got an alert for UA ORD-HKG $522.

yes, a walk up fare. I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800 and change or to HKG for $500. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

LAX-HKG is a key premium market and CX commands $5.5-6k a seat. It looks like AA has finally priced to near CX levels ($4.5-5k), only a few hundred below...

Flight was completely full a couple weeks ago and when I went to NZ. With the efficient 787, I'm sure it's performing well for them.

jumbojet wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

AA'S LAX-HKG NS flight. You can get a walk up coach fare on that flight for $570

A walk-up fare?
But yup, there's some great deals to HKG right now, got an alert for UA ORD-HKG $522.

yes, a walk up fare. I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800 and change or to HKG for $500. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

Wonder how much an AKL departing walk up fare is!

x1234 wrote:

LAX-HKG is a key premium market and CX commands $5.5-6k a seat. It looks like AA has finally priced to near CX levels ($4.5-5k), only a few hundred below...

With it being a premium market, the bulk of those premium passengers are not paying those headline prices. Corporate discounts can be substantial.

You can also utilize the many consolidators in Asia that hawk business class seats at large discounts.

sagechan wrote:

As I said, loads are only half the equation. Since it's pretty hard to tell the real yields as anecdotal lowest available isn't the whole picture either. But unlike UA, AA hasn't pulled Southern Winter Ops yet. So, how it's doing is relatively hard to say. Signs point to strong loads and weak yields, but we have no idea what AA's expectations are.

Well United has the ability to balance capacity thanks to its JV with NZ, a benefit AA does not have.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Flight was completely full a couple weeks ago and when I went to NZ. With the efficient 787, I'm sure it's performing well for them.

It is peak season to SouthPac so yes I'd hope plane be full.

If imagine AA has QF feed where QF is fullish with high yields. Be interesting when more capacity his the AU- NAM market with VA/QF both boosting MEL-LAX. I doubt NZ would feed into UA when they have their own flights.

coolian2 wrote:

Given AA has quietly seen off UA...

How do you work that one out? They fly different routes; UA AKL-SFO, AA AKL-LAX. AA competes with NZ and they're not going anywhere when it comes to LAX.

jumbojet wrote:

yes, a walk up fare. I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

Are you going to swim back?

"Sure, loads are well, when you charge next to nothing to get to New Zealand, you will fill up the plane. Walk up coach fare for tonights flight is only $800 bucks."

$800 OW is not "charge next to nothing".

I challenge you to "walk up" to the ticket counter tonight

uberflieger wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

yes, a walk up fare. I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

Are you going to swim back?
"Sure, loads are well, when you charge next to nothing to get to New Zealand, you will fill up the plane. Walk up coach fare for tonights flight is only $800 bucks."

$800 OW is not "charge next to nothing".
I challenge you to "walk up" to the ticket counter tonight

I just checked AA.com; Monday's one-way fare is $729.00. The flight doesn't operate on Sunday, so no fare there.

Do you want to dare me, too?

777ER wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

A walk-up fare?
But yup, there's some great deals to HKG right now, got an alert for UA ORD-HKG $522.

yes, a walk up fare. I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800 and change or to HKG for $500. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

Wonder how much an AKL departing walk up fare is!

Monday's fare AKL-LAX is $637.00.. Same on Tue and Wed and Thur...

LAX-AKL began in mod-2016, not 14 months ago. The UA nonstop from SFO to AKL started around the same time. The 787-8 is the right aircraft for this route, with the 787-9 up gauge sensible during peak travel periods. The leisure market to NZ is seasonal and so it will be key to see how the route performs through the northern hemisphere summer. Believe AA/QF hope the Trump Administration will look more favorably at their proposed JV expansion and so I'd expect this route to stick around for the time being. The UA situation is a bit different. UA and NZ have broader code share in place and there is plenty of capacity on NZ to the USA (IAH, LAX x 2, and SFO). UA dropping back to seasonal makes a lot more sense though sorry to see not last year-round. Interesting that UA swapped the 787-8 and occasional -9 for the 777-200ER. Not the ideal plane for this market. Suppose UA has been short on 787's hence the swap out.

uberflieger wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

yes, a walk up fare. I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

Are you going to swim back?

"Sure, loads are well, when you charge next to nothing to get to New Zealand, you will fill up the plane. Walk up coach fare for tonights flight is only $800 bucks."

$800 OW is not "charge next to nothing".

I challenge you to "walk up" to the ticket counter tonight

I will, just give me $825.00. PM me for my paypal information.

777ER wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

A walk-up fare?
But yup, there's some great deals to HKG right now, got an alert for UA ORD-HKG $522.

yes, a walk up fare. I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800 and change or to HKG for $500. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

Wonder how much an AKL departing walk up fare is!

funny, I don't know where you are getting such a fare.... Per AA.com, here's the lowest avaiable fares for the coming week LAX-AKL nonstop:

2/19 - $2142
2/20 - $1396
2/21 - $1496
2/22 - $1396
2/23 - $1691
2/24 - $1612

That being said, there may be a consolidator offering such a low fare, but they're likely doing it based on the overall amount of volume they give AA. But since you haven't posted a source of your "walk up" fare, I'll sound the BS horn right now.

Looking in GDS available AA LAX-AKL no-advance purchase fares are:

Mon 2/20 - $729 (base fare 674+tax)
Tue 2/21 - $1087
Wed 2/22 - $729
Thu 2/23 - $1087
Fri 2/24 - $1152
Sat 2/25 - $729
Sun 2/26 - $729
Mon 2/27 - $729
Tue 2/28 - $729

I compared this to AA.com and shows the same.

I also looked up return no-advance purchase fares from AKL. They are USD $637 ($558 base fare) which is available every day during the upcoming week.

smi0006 wrote:

I doubt NZ would feed into UA when they have their own flights.

UA/NZ have an immunized j/v, so the revenue is shared between them whether NZ feeds into them or not.... meaning it makes no sense for NZ to not feed them, and vice versa.

B747forever wrote:

I would say regardless of JV, AA is pretty much "forced" to keep LAX-AKL if they want to continue build up and be serious about LAX as a gateway to Asia and Oceania. They need to add more routes such as ICN, TPE, PEK and not drop routes.

NOT to be negative--- But why would anyone fly AA to Asia cities when you coul dfly Cathay Pacific or any other carrier that there uniforms are not shiny from be washed too much, lol??

panampreflight wrote:

B747forever wrote:

I would say regardless of JV, AA is pretty much "forced" to keep LAX-AKL if they want to continue build up and be serious about LAX as a gateway to Asia and Oceania. They need to add more routes such as ICN, TPE, PEK and not drop routes.

NOT to be negative--- But why would anyone fly AA to Asia cities when you coul dfly Cathay Pacific or any other carrier that there uniforms are not shiny from be washed too much, lol??

So all US carriers should just give up and cease all their Asia operations?

threads like this get me thinking, you see a lot of, how is AA performing on XYZ. Invariably, the replies are, the planes are packed, yet AA is making the least amount of money out of the big US3. I mean, you would think with all these new AA high profile routes and all of those brand new AA planes, they would be making money hand over fist; you would think they would be making more of a profit.

Motorhussy wrote:

coolian2 wrote:

Given AA has quietly seen off UA...

How do you work that one out? They fly different routes; UA AKL-SFO, AA AKL-LAX. AA competes with NZ and they're not going anywhere when it comes to LAX.

Sorry, I fell into a.net hyperbole. I really should have known better. Genuine error!

Cointrin330 wrote:

The leisure market to NZ is seasonal and so it will be key to see how the route performs through the northern hemisphere summer. Believe AA/QF hope the Trump Administration will look more favorably at their proposed JV expansion and so I'd expect this route to stick around for the time being.

Monthly visitor arrivals fall dramatically in the southern winter.

In January 2016 there were 343,446 visitor arrivals. In June they fell to 193,643. In December, effective start of summer, they more than doubled from the winter low to 494,193.

The US ranks third largest in visitor arrivals at 291,392 for the full year 2016 (up 19% from 2015), after China (409,008 up 15%) and Australia (1,409,200 up 6.2%)

Cointrin330 wrote:

The UA situation is a bit different. UA and NZ have broader code share in place and there is plenty of capacity on NZ to the USA (IAH, LAX x 2, and SFO). UA dropping back to seasonal makes a lot more sense though sorry to see not last year-round. Interesting that UA swapped the 787-8 and occasional -9 for the 777-200ER. Not the ideal plane for this market. Suppose UA has been short on 787's hence the swap out.

mariner

B747forever wrote:

panampreflight wrote:

B747forever wrote:

I would say regardless of JV, AA is pretty much "forced" to keep LAX-AKL if they want to continue build up and be serious about LAX as a gateway to Asia and Oceania. They need to add more routes such as ICN, TPE, PEK and not drop routes.

NOT to be negative--- But why would anyone fly AA to Asia cities when you coul dfly Cathay Pacific or any other carrier that there uniforms are not shiny from be washed too much, lol??

So all US carriers should just give up and cease all their Asia operations?

I'm just saying, but a Good Question NONETHELESS.

B747forever wrote:

panampreflight wrote:

B747forever wrote:

I would say regardless of JV, AA is pretty much "forced" to keep LAX-AKL if they want to continue build up and be serious about LAX as a gateway to Asia and Oceania. They need to add more routes such as ICN, TPE, PEK and not drop routes.

NOT to be negative--- But why would anyone fly AA to Asia cities when you coul dfly Cathay Pacific or any other carrier that there uniforms are not shiny from be washed too much, lol??

So all US carriers should just give up and cease all their Asia operations?

There is probably a stronger case for that than many realize.

Flighty wrote:

B747forever wrote:

panampreflight wrote:

NOT to be negative--- But why would anyone fly AA to Asia cities when you coul dfly Cathay Pacific or any other carrier that there uniforms are not shiny from be washed too much, lol??

So all US carriers should just give up and cease all their Asia operations?

There is probably a stronger case for that than many realize.

YES, Sad but true.

jumbojet wrote:

I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800 and change or to HKG for $500. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

And if you do, notwithstanding other factors, you will be high up the profiled list for interception on arrival. Don't plan to be at your hotel quickly after arrival.

Planesmart wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

I can buy a one way ticket on tonight's AA LAX-AKL flight for $800 and change or to HKG for $500. Walk to the counter, buy the ticket and walk on the plane...A walk up fare.

And if you do, notwithstanding other factors, you will be high up the profiled list for interception on arrival. Don't plan to be at your hotel quickly after arrival.

Boy, you got that right..if the airline even let's you board the plane in LAX. A year ago so, an individual was trying to check-in for a TN flight to PPT, the customer demanded proof that the individual had a way to leave French Polynesia. Turns out he was hired to bring a yacht back to the states.

IrishAyes wrote:

True, but AA + QF hasn't thrown in the towel on the JV quite yet. They are removing the AA codeshare on some overlapping routes, as well as from DFW to SYD and LAX to JFK to send a message to the DOT.

It will be really interesting to see whether or not AA and QF went far enough with those codeshare actions. In their initial ATI filing, both AA and QF made it absolutely clear that an antitrust immunized JV was absolutely necessary for all three of the launched routes to be successful (AA LAXSYD, AA LAXAKL, QF SFOSYD).

However, when ATI was denied, all three routes were kept, and instead of sending a firm message by cancelling all three routes (which would compliment their initial filing), the carriers sent a watered down message in saying that overlapping codeshare would be removed (in September I think?) and frequent flier benefits somewhat scaled back. Both carriers have said that they'll re-file, but they've put a serious dent in their case by keeping routes in the marketplace that they said couldn't exist without ATI for what may be a full year and a half in the case of AA LAXSYD and QF SFOSYD. You had an objection from HA and a 'me too!' from B6 when ATI was first filed for, but I'll bet you have significantly more objections the second time around; and they'll be objections on firm grounds given the market concentration and the fact that the capacity in question has remained absent ATI.

Starting and stopping the routes will end up costing more $$$ than sucking it up and keep flying the route while they re-file with a admin that seems to be more business friendly. With that being said I can see SYD going to a 789 5x a week and akl going 3x a week if they don't get it approved.

ripcordd wrote:

Starting and stopping the routes will end up costing more $$$ than sucking it up and keep flying the route while they re-file with a admin that seems to be more business friendly.

I agree, but I feel as though the financial hit of cancelling and starting the routes back up will have been worth it if the alternative is, twelve or so months from now, the DOT denying ATI and formally ending any hope for a JV under the rationale that the carriers clearly didn't need ATI to operate LAXSYD and SFOSYD for two years and LAXAKL for a year and a half. By keeping the capacity in the marketplace even after a tentative denial of ATI from the DOT the carriers are flying in the face of their primary argument for ATI.

In hindsight might have been better if AA did not launch AKL+SYD and QF to SFO while the JV was pending.

It does put them in a quandary with their consumer benefit arguments that the 3 flights were made possible based on partnering with each other, while now the routes have been operating without benefits JV.

Will be interesting to see what new arguments they come up with if they refile the application. Also will be rather odd weaker JV if they carve out routes like LAX-SYD the single largest market between the nations.

ripcordd wrote:

Starting and stopping the routes will end up costing more $$$ than sucking it up and keep flying the route while they re-file with a admin that seems to be more business friendly. With that being said I can see SYD going to a 789 5x a week and akl going 3x a week if they don't get it approved.

The White House might be more business friendly,but has anything changed at the DOT? There really isn't a compelling argument for this to be approved. I'll bet the local AA SYD team is worried.

panampreflight wrote:

B747forever wrote:

I would say regardless of JV, AA is pretty much "forced" to keep LAX-AKL if they want to continue build up and be serious about LAX as a gateway to Asia and Oceania. They need to add more routes such as ICN, TPE, PEK and not drop routes.

NOT to be negative--- But why would anyone fly AA to Asia cities when you coul dfly Cathay Pacific or any other carrier that there uniforms are not shiny from be washed too much, lol??

If you're doing a fair unbiased look at Cathy Pacific service to Hong Kong from LAX or DFW American Airlines service is not that far off Cathy Pacific's service. And More so in the past but also now Cathy Pacific's prices definitely charge for that premium. There have been many posts on Cathy declining service.

jumbojet wrote:

I will, just give me $825.00. PM me for my paypal information

Walk-up fare: You go to the counter, get your credit card out and buy a ticket for the next flight. American will charge you $45 to do that to AKL (international).
PM me for my Venmo.

AA should be so lucky to have the kind of Y fares it currently charges to AKL on all its Pacific routes, IMHO.

eta unknown wrote:

ripcordd wrote:

Starting and stopping the routes will end up costing more $$$ than sucking it up and keep flying the route while they re-file with a admin that seems to be more business friendly. With that being said I can see SYD going to a 789 5x a week and akl going 3x a week if they don't get it approved.

The White House might be more business friendly,but has anything changed at the DOT? There really isn't a compelling argument for this to be approved.

NZ DOT and ACCC seemed to think there was. And yes, things have changed at the DOT. Expect the next application be more political, especially in regards to trade.

I also don't think AA are rushing to scale down the ANZ operations just yet. They've been operating without a JV this entire time.

mercure1 wrote:

In hindsight might have been better if AA did not launch AKL+SYD and QF to SFO while the JV was pending.

In fairness to QF and AA, while they probably weren't expecting that decision they probably didn't think it would take 17 months. Only to be told they had 2 weeks to respond to the show cause order.
All the new arguments will be around tourism and trade, ie US jobs.

LHUSA wrote:

I believe that AA started in June?

NZ is a highly seasonal market, so I'm sure AA is still gauging its success on the route. I wonder if the failed (or at least delayed) JV with QF will have any impact on the route?

Despite its JV with NZ, UA recently announced going seasonal on SFOAKL (but up to 10 weekly during southern summer).

Yes it isn't 14 months - 8 months.
The failed JV with QF will be hurting but I think the market has grown enough for it to work. It will be hurting mostly from May-Nov which is the low season in New Zealand both inbound and outbound to the US mainland.

It is quite likely that the only reason why UA is going seasonal is BECAUSE of it's JV with NZ. They can still sell seats and get $$ on NZ metal (and not have complaints from FF due to NZ being a superior product in most regards, along with keeping the NZ planes full) and then take advantage of the high season with additional services (which helps NZ out on the capacity side of things too, and that is also mostly a low season -barring the holidays for UA in Nth America).
Quite a smart move really.