Bringing this comment to its own thread so not to go horribly off topic in the China Southern thread ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1358449 ), Commavia pointed out in the AA investors call the following:

"American is also aware of the competition that new long range narrowbodies will create for the airline. Mr Mohan remarked that some of those new aircraft have a range of seven hours, which makes it possible to operate from South Florida to almost any destination in South America."

What kind of changes/additions could the substantial number of 7+ hour narrowbodies bring to AA's South American operations? While the 757 could also do these types of missions the new aircraft bring much better CASM performance to the table.

Nonstop to Cusco (IIRC AA still technically has rights to extend a MIA-LIM to CUZ)
Return to Asunción
Return to Viracopos-Campinas (against Azul), Salvador, Recife, Porto Alegre with JJ/LA codeshare/JV
Regional Argentina such as Córdoba, Mendoza
Separate Santa Cruz and La Paz

Anywhere that has ever had service to MIA from Latin America is fair game IMO. Maybe even parts of Africa.

It sounds to me the quote was less about expansion from AA and more about the risk of increased competition on current routes as other carriers (re: [U]LCCs) no longer have to purchase widebody equipment to operate the flight, but instead can use an aircraft with full commonality with the rest of their fleet.

Assuming the A321LR delivers on the 4100nm range, that puts as far as ANC, SCL/Cordoba, and CDG as the farthest realistic cities AA can reach with it from MIA comfortably.

Secondary Spanish cities is where AA can make a killing with the 321L, as well as deep SA. As far as Africa goes, the only meaningful city AA could make work are CMN and Dakar. Anything else would require a 763 or 788. Secondary UK cities could also be reached and would be a great supplement to their JV with BA.

Central and South America, as well as Caribbean are natural places for the 737 MAX 8s and A321neos to go!

TGU might be a challenge!

Make no mistake about it, the real winners from long range narrowbodies will not be the big 3. They will be hurt.

Can you imagine the damage Jetblue can do with the 321neoLR? They have hubs in BOS/JFK/FLL. What about Easyjet?

TWA772LR wrote:

Assuming the A321LR delivers on the 4100nm range, that puts as far as ANC, SCL/Cordoba, and CDG as the farthest realistic cities AA can reach with it from MIA comfortably.

Secondary Spanish cities is where AA can make a killing with the 321L, as well as deep SA. As far as Africa goes, the only meaningful city AA could make work are CMN and Dakar. Anything else would require a 763 or 788. Secondary UK cities could also be reached and would be a great supplement to their JV with BA.

4100NM is still air range. It will fly significantly less distance westbound, 3500nm or less when winds are 100knots.

Varsity1 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Assuming the A321LR delivers on the 4100nm range, that puts as far as ANC, SCL/Cordoba, and CDG as the farthest realistic cities AA can reach with it from MIA comfortably.

Secondary Spanish cities is where AA can make a killing with the 321L, as well as deep SA. As far as Africa goes, the only meaningful city AA could make work are CMN and Dakar. Anything else would require a 763 or 788. Secondary UK cities could also be reached and would be a great supplement to their JV with BA.

4100NM is still air range. It will fly significantly less distance westbound, 3500nm or less when winds are 100knots.

Taking that into consideration, the 321L wouldn't barely be able to clear Paraguay, and Europe and Africa are out of the question. I'm surprised AA hasn't considered the 757 for secondary Europe hops out of MIA.

I do think that competitors with longer range narrow bodies, especially LLCs will cut into the Majors' loads in Latin America. However many of the Deep South markets sell out premium cabins, so the LCCs and perhaps ULCCs could cut only into the lowest fare market. Business travelers are not go to be happy long haul in the pitch of an NK flight.

If I read correctly some time ago, the 321LR would take a hit on cargo capacity (volume) due to expanded fuel tanks, never mind long range fuel weight penalty. As AA carries a lot of belly freight, I don't see it the right mix for AA. Perhaps for B6 or others that don't carry much freight. AA is not going to forgo the big cargo revenue.
They may not get it down the road, but the South American market wants big planes and a lot of food, so the business of wide bodies and full service will probably still be strong. Especially where the number of flights may be restricted by one government or another.

I could guess that AA would do well with the 321NEO in mid-South America if they expand the 3-class fleet...or at least lie-flat Business. (I think they are going to have to do that domestically too, with the success and spread of Mint into markets beyond JFK-LAX/SFO, but that's topic for another thread.

I think the 737-8 has a place in the Latin America network. There are cities in Colombia and Ecuador that require high performance so I hope they get some with higher thrust ratings. UIO and BOG do well with 757s. How does the A321LR takeoff performance compare on hot high operations?

here is 3500 nm from FLL.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=fll-gig%0D ... =wls&DU=mi
GIG, GRU are right at the edge. I don't know if there are the same issues limiting range (like north atlantic wind), but they are certainly comfortably within 4000 nm range. EZE is a little further out, so I don't think it makes sense unless airbus find ways to extend a321LR range even more. All other major South American cities seem to be within range from South Florida.

Wingtips56 wrote:

I do think that competitors with longer range narrow bodies, especially LLCs will cut into the Majors' loads in Latin America. However many of the Deep South markets sell out premium cabins, so the LCCs and perhaps ULCCs could cut only into the lowest fare market. Business travelers are not go to be happy long haul in the pitch of an NK flight.

The problem is if leisure travelers suddenly disappear AA can't make enough off just the premium traffic and freight to pay for a widebody (in most cases).

And of course jetblue would have mint.

airbazar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

here is 3500 nm from FLL.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=fll-gig%0D ... =wls&DU=mi
GIG, GRU are right at the edge. I don't know if there are the same issues limiting range (like north atlantic wind), but they are certainly comfortably within 4000 nm range. EZE is a little further out, so I don't think it makes sense unless airbus find ways to extend a321LR range even more. All other major South American cities seem to be within range from South Florida.

GIG and GRU are not markets for the NEO/MAX anyway. Those markets are simply too large. What the NEO/MAX will allow is for secondary cities north of GIG/GRU to be served from MIA/FLL, thus saving the customers from having to connect at GIG/GRU and needing to backtrack.

Yes in Brazil, Salvador, Recife, Belo Horizonte, Brazilia, Forteleza and Manaus are the markets that AA may want 738s or A321s for. Which cities can the planes make it too?

MKIAZ wrote:

The problem is if leisure travelers suddenly disappear AA can't make enough off just the premium traffic and freight to pay for a widebody (in most cases).

And of course jetblue would have mint.

If leisure traffic suddenly disappears, Copa is going to suddenly disappear. They will have a much bigger problem than AA.

MKIAZ wrote:

The problem is if leisure travelers suddenly disappear AA can't make enough off just the premium traffic and freight to pay for a widebody (in most cases).

incitatus wrote:

If leisure traffic suddenly disappears, Copa is going to suddenly disappear. They will have a much bigger problem than AA.

I agree that additional low-fare competition between the U.S. and South America is inevitable, and almost certainly will eat into some of the existing market for existing carriers in those markets - including AA. As markets and aircraft technology develop, it's just a matter of time.

But that said, I also agree that AA is likely to be able to withstand that competition somewhat better, and for somewhat longer, than some other airlines - both because of its entrenched position in many of these markets, particularly among premium passengers, and also because of MIA. It shouldn't be lost on us that a significant portion of the premium traffic between the U.S. and South America is tied to MIA specifically - not just Florida or South Florida, including FLL, but MIA. That alone is going to tend to give AA an advantage going forward if (when) low fare airlines continue to proliferate and grow capacity between FLL and South America.

Newbiepilot wrote:

airbazar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

here is 3500 nm from FLL.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=fll-gig%0D ... =wls&DU=mi
GIG, GRU are right at the edge. I don't know if there are the same issues limiting range (like north atlantic wind), but they are certainly comfortably within 4000 nm range. EZE is a little further out, so I don't think it makes sense unless airbus find ways to extend a321LR range even more. All other major South American cities seem to be within range from South Florida.

GIG and GRU are not markets for the NEO/MAX anyway. Those markets are simply too large. What the NEO/MAX will allow is for secondary cities north of GIG/GRU to be served from MIA/FLL, thus saving the customers from having to connect at GIG/GRU and needing to backtrack.

Yes in Brazil, Salvador, Recife, Belo Horizonte, Brazilia, Forteleza and Manaus are the markets that AA may want 738s or A321s for. Which cities can the planes make it too?

There seems to only be 2 AA flights a day to GIG right now, one from Miami and one from JFK. Manaus should be no problem. And Salvador should be within range also. I don't think you will get much of a market for the other cities. The problem is with Zika and not having visa on arrival, not that many Americans actually visit Brazil. When I was there, I couldn't find many English speakers even in Rio.

For B6, I also tried from JFK, BOS should be about the same.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JFK-LIM%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
that puts lima, bogota and manaus all within the range as well as cape verde, canaries and all the major financial centers in europe

And for AS, I tried 3100 nm from LAX
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=LAX-BOG&R= ... =wls&DU=mi
puts bogota in range

And SEA
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3100nm%40SEA&MS=wls&DU=mi
puts HNL in range but not Japan

And for HA, I tried from HNL
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?R=3500nm%40HNL&MS=wls&DU=mi
puts all of Japan in range

Bogota is a high altitude airport. Avianca has favored smaller A318s and A319s for their superior performance. An A321 is going to have trouble making it to New York and a 737 will have trouble making it to LAX.

TWA772LR wrote:

I'm surprised AA hasn't considered the 757 for secondary Europe hops out of MIA.

UA (rather infamously) and DL demonstrated that effective 757 range on TATL routes is about 4,000 statute miles. That doesn't do much for TATL out of MIA. Play with Great Circle Mapper and see.

Now back to 321LR and MAX to S America...

MIflyer12 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I'm surprised AA hasn't considered the 757 for secondary Europe hops out of MIA.

UA (rather infamously) and DL demonstrated that effective 757 range on TATL routes is about 4,000 statute miles. That doesn't do much for TATL out of MIA. Play with Great Circle Mapper and see.

Now back to 321LR and MAX to S America...

The farthest that a 757 can reliably fly is most likely Keflavik Iceland. Icelandair I believe flies a 757 to MCO. MIA-KEF is the same distance as SEA-KEF. I don't think it is economical to fly 757s from further south than IAD-Europe. I expect similar results with the A321LR.

A321LR and 737-8 will be better used to South America. Altitude can be a problem in South America but usually not winds. North and south bound flights usually have similar flight times,

Kelly has repeatedly stated Central and South America ares the near term targets for the MAX for WN.

Can anyone spell out the requirements for B6 or WN getting access to some of the smaller cities in Brazil (I agree GIG/GRU are probably too far and not the right market). Are there any legislative roadblocks?

Brazil has frequency limits but last I heard they were under utilized from US carriers.

I don't see southwest entering Brazil. Fares are low enough where it is hard to make money. The visa costs either direction makes it an expensive holiday vacation. There is significant demand from Brazilians going to the US, but I don't think B6 or WN will do as well as LATAM, Azul and American in that market.

I think Colombia, Ecuador and Peru with the VFR traffic is a better opportunity.

barney captain wrote:

Kelly has repeatedly stated Central and South America ares the near term targets for the MAX for WN.

Can anyone spell out the requirements for B6 or WN getting access to some of the smaller cities in Brazil (I agree GIG/GRU are probably too far and not the right market). Are there any legislative roadblocks?

B6 could try to fly into one of the hubs of Azul from JFK like Recife or Manaus. The former is a larger hub, but right at edge of A321LR limitation of 3500 nm, the latter is a larger O/D destination. From FLL, they will have to try fly into one of the sao paulo airport I would imagine, due to the large O/D traffic between south florida and sao paulo. Other than that, Brasilia, belo horizonte and Salvador.

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=FLL-BRA%3B ... =wls&DU=mi
WN can probably fly into Brasilia and Manaus from FLL. I don't see any other obvious location that's within 738MAX range. If they had 321lr, they'd be to fly to all the other one i have in the link above.