flymco753 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

klm617 wrote:

For many years BA coexisted in the Detroit market with Pan Am and competed very well why do you think it can't coexist with Delta they provide a much better on board product than Delta .I think at the time BA exited Detroit it really didn't matter to the airport and they didn't fight it to much as NWA was very committed to this market but I wonder in hindsight if they knew Delta was going to take over Northwest and shrink the Detroit London market if they should have lobbied harder to keep BA here. Remember too that at the time BA was in the McNamara terminal and NWA wanted all the competition out of their new crown jewel.

I am aware of British Airways and Pan Am coexisting on LHR to Detroit for many years plus competition with Northwest operating LGW to Detroit.

Detroit has shrunk since then with Delta having a monopoly on the route plus a huge customer base that British Airways will find hard to up against so I personally don't see British Airways returning to Detroit anytime soon as the airline is obviously in the position of looking at new markets as seen with their latest USA destinations.

In all due respect, I disagree with you. Yes, DL has a monopoly, but I don't think you realize how negatively that effected the amount of local travel to London, and I'm stating blatant facts, nor am I being biased. I've taken the time to average fares between DTW-LON and other monopolized markets by prospective airlines, not only did DTW have to pay 6% more than ATL, DTW has to pay over 10% more than its peers. Is BA the ultimate solution? No, but DL's cuts in the market clearly shows that they have DTW-LON by the behind and will continue to trim the market until there's virtually little market left. Would you pay $1800 RT out of your airport where you can travel an additional hour across an international border to catch a one-stop flight for $800 or drive to the next biggest US city that offers RT's for an average of $1K? I don't see why BA can't do it if they secure a decent cargo or premium contract, though I think WW or FI are the better options, I trend an LCC to make a greater effect and stimulate more markets quicker.

I expect that if DTW was this bottomless pit of LHR demand that you seem to assume, you would not have seen BA running the IAH tag pretty consistently through DTW toward the end of Bermuda II.

STL, while in and of itself deserving of TATL service, suffers largely due its proximity to other hubs. Having lived in the region off and on for 18 years. STL residents essentially fly 3 airlines, AA, DL & WN. UA largely only operates RJ's into STL. If you are flying overseas, it is just too easy (cheaper) to connect in ORD/DTW/MSP, and to lesser extend ATL. All of those connecting flights are less than 110 minutes and generally follow the flight path you would take anyways. An IcelandAir i don't feel would work in STL as that is not really where people wish to go, residents of places like MSP are much more interested in Scandinavia and the like. Same for WOW Air. LH doesn't really make sense as the connectivity with UA is minimal. If STL gets service in the near future my bet would be on DL to CDG or BA to LHR.

And no, STL isn't a second class city. St. Louis suffers because it is simply a lot older than the neighboring cities it is surrounded by, it has learned lessons the hard way. The first section of the interstate highway system, the first enclosed airport terminal, etc. And besides, you discount the cultural value of a city like STL, would you honestly compare the cultural and entertainment offerings with Columbus or Indianapolis? STL, like PIT, are trying and have a large amount of talent and old money to build it.

Adam

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Cunard wrote:

I am aware of British Airways and Pan Am coexisting on LHR to Detroit for many years plus competition with Northwest operating LGW to Detroit.

Detroit has shrunk since then with Delta having a monopoly on the route plus a huge customer base that British Airways will find hard to up against so I personally don't see British Airways returning to Detroit anytime soon as the airline is obviously in the position of looking at new markets as seen with their latest USA destinations.

In all due respect, I disagree with you. Yes, DL has a monopoly, but I don't think you realize how negatively that effected the amount of local travel to London, and I'm stating blatant facts, nor am I being biased. I've taken the time to average fares between DTW-LON and other monopolized markets by prospective airlines, not only did DTW have to pay 6% more than ATL, DTW has to pay over 10% more than its peers. Is BA the ultimate solution? No, but DL's cuts in the market clearly shows that they have DTW-LON by the behind and will continue to trim the market until there's virtually little market left. Would you pay $1800 RT out of your airport where you can travel an additional hour across an international border to catch a one-stop flight for $800 or drive to the next biggest US city that offers RT's for an average of $1K? I don't see why BA can't do it if they secure a decent cargo or premium contract, though I think WW or FI are the better options, I trend an LCC to make a greater effect and stimulate more markets quicker.

I expect that if DTW was this bottomless pit of LHR demand that you seem to assume, you would not have seen BA running the IAH tag pretty consistently through DTW toward the end of Bermuda II.

Many seem to forget that the IAH tag was originally added to the LHR-ORD flight does that mean ORD-LHR was a poor performer I think not so why would you assume that the DTW-LHR was also a bad performer.

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

In all due respect, I disagree with you. Yes, DL has a monopoly, but I don't think you realize how negatively that effected the amount of local travel to London, and I'm stating blatant facts, nor am I being biased. I've taken the time to average fares between DTW-LON and other monopolized markets by prospective airlines, not only did DTW have to pay 6% more than ATL, DTW has to pay over 10% more than its peers. Is BA the ultimate solution? No, but DL's cuts in the market clearly shows that they have DTW-LON by the behind and will continue to trim the market until there's virtually little market left. Would you pay $1800 RT out of your airport where you can travel an additional hour across an international border to catch a one-stop flight for $800 or drive to the next biggest US city that offers RT's for an average of $1K? I don't see why BA can't do it if they secure a decent cargo or premium contract, though I think WW or FI are the better options, I trend an LCC to make a greater effect and stimulate more markets quicker.

I expect that if DTW was this bottomless pit of LHR demand that you seem to assume, you would not have seen BA running the IAH tag pretty consistently through DTW toward the end of Bermuda II.

Many seem to forget that the IAH tag was originally added to the LHR-ORD flight does that mean ORD-LHR was a poor performer I think not so why would you assume that the DTW-LHR was also a bad performer.

The tag ran on 294/295 at times, but keep in mind that ORD had multiple daily 744 flights in that timeframe. Hardly a poor performer, and hardly analogous to DTW's single daily smaller aircraft.

ADrum23 wrote:

CMH needs to focus on expanding their domestic network right now, as opposed to trying to land TATL service. They lack a fair amount of destinations that other airports that either landed or are trying to land TATL service (such as MSY, BNA, IND) have.

Interesting, none of the above have nonstops to PDX.

jbpdx wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

CMH needs to focus on expanding their domestic network right now, as opposed to trying to land TATL service. They lack a fair amount of destinations that other airports that either landed or are trying to land TATL service (such as MSY, BNA, IND) have.

Interesting, none of the above have nonstops to PDX.

I anticipate it is only a matter of time before BNA lands a nonstop to PDX. MNAA has stated it is their top domestic priority and it is the only major west coast city they don't have direct service to. I think AS will eventually launch BNA-PDX within the next few years (even if it is only seasonal).

EarlyLateORD wrote:

STL, while in and of itself deserving of TATL service, suffers largely due its proximity to other hubs. Having lived in the region off and on for 18 years. STL residents essentially fly 3 airlines, AA, DL & WN. UA largely only operates RJ's into STL. If you are flying overseas, it is just too easy (cheaper) to connect in ORD/DTW/MSP, and to lesser extend ATL. All of those connecting flights are less than 110 minutes and generally follow the flight path you would take anyways. An IcelandAir i don't feel would work in STL as that is not really where people wish to go, residents of places like MSP are much more interested in Scandinavia and the like. Same for WOW Air. LH doesn't really make sense as the connectivity with UA is minimal. If STL gets service in the near future my bet would be on DL to CDG or BA to LHR.

And no, STL isn't a second class city. St. Louis suffers because it is simply a lot older than the neighboring cities it is surrounded by, it has learned lessons the hard way. The first section of the interstate highway system, the first enclosed airport terminal, etc. And besides, you discount the cultural value of a city like STL, would you honestly compare the cultural and entertainment offerings with Columbus or Indianapolis? STL, like PIT, are trying and have a large amount of talent and old money to build it.

Adam

You could make some of the same arguments about BNA and MSY. BNA is not far from ATL or even CLT, and MSY is not terribly far from IAH. Yet, both landed TATL service.

ADrum23 wrote:

2. Do you think there is some corruption going on within the airport board in St. Louis (whatever it's called) that is hampering their ability to become more attractive? It seems odd that they have not landed any TATL service whatsoever.

I have zero problem with the Airport Board or how the airport has been run the last few years. They have focused on domestic routes (especially west coast) and the director has done a really good job rounding that out. There aren't really any domestic holes left that I feel STL has on their must have list. They have (or will have by the end of the year for SAN) 2 carriers on each of the routes to SAN/LAX/SFO/PDX/SEA/LAS/PHX. Frequencies to each have also increased over the last couple years. I think that had been the bigger focus over TATL. As a STL user, I am more than happy with that approach. I would guess more people fly to the west coast more often than they do to Europe. I fly out west about every other month so personally I am happy. I think only in the last year or so they really have focused more attention on TATL service. Not to say they weren't working on it before, but I don't think it was priority number 1 until then. They also have upped the airports credit rating in the last year and refinanced bonds at better rates, saving money. I am good with how thing are going. Would I like to have had the TATL flight by now, of course, but I think their order of business has been fine.

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I expect that if DTW was this bottomless pit of LHR demand that you seem to assume, you would not have seen BA running the IAH tag pretty consistently through DTW toward the end of Bermuda II.

Many seem to forget that the IAH tag was originally added to the LHR-ORD flight does that mean ORD-LHR was a poor performer I think not so why would you assume that the DTW-LHR was also a bad performer.

The tag ran on 294/295 at times, but keep in mind that ORD had multiple daily 744 flights in that timeframe. Hardly a poor performer, and hardly analogous to DTW's single daily smaller aircraft.

Ok, because ORD isn't monopolized, and fares are affordable for ORD based pax.Where my point comes in is you have cities with the same caliber as DTW, who have affordable fares to LON. Use AUS for example, 2 carriers to LON and there's significantly less travel to the UK than DTW. How about PHX? 14 weekly 744's next summer, a significantly smaller UK market than DTW. It's simple, and as I said before, I'm not giving a biased opinion I'm stating a fact that DL holds DTW-LON by the you know what, fares to LON are 10% more than peer airports, and the market still has 45K+ per year from the DTW end according to MIDT. I understand BA would be going against DL, but the 788 is the perfect sized and DTW is the right distance to be able to compete and make a profit.

EarlyLateORD wrote:

STL, while in and of itself deserving of TATL service, suffers largely due its proximity to other hubs.

Honestly, proximity to other hubs is irrelevant. I am not blaming you for this but I see the proximity argument tossed out and it really has no substance behind it. The only time proximity could be a real issue is if heavy traffic from one hub is causing delays with a hub very close by. But as you can see in Chicago they still make it work. WHEN STL gets the service it will be based on O&D traffic and some revenue guarantees plus some marketing money to start out. It won't have anything to do with the proximity of another hub. It will happen and since U.S. carriers are sitting on their hands while EU carriers poach passengers from midsize U.S. markets, you can probably speculate it will be an EU carrier that picks up the route. Man, U.S. legacy carriers are really missing the boat here.

Indy wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

STL, while in and of itself deserving of TATL service, suffers largely due its proximity to other hubs.

Honestly, proximity to other hubs is irrelevant. I am not blaming you for this but I see the proximity argument tossed out and it really has no substance behind it. The only time proximity could be a real issue is if heavy traffic from one hub is causing delays with a hub very close by. But as you can see in Chicago they still make it work. WHEN STL gets the service it will be based on O&D traffic and some revenue guarantees plus some marketing money to start out. It won't have anything to do with the proximity of another hub. It will happen and since U.S. carriers are sitting on their hands while EU carriers poach passengers from midsize U.S. markets, you can probably speculate it will be an EU carrier that picks up the route. Man, U.S. legacy carriers are really missing the boat here.

I do wonder why BA is starting all these routes and AA isn't. I guess it might be slot related? Maybe AA has higher costs? Does AA fly any international TATL flights from non hubs? For the old AA hub cities, you would have thought they would have been more likely than BA to start the route. Even if the route is to somewhere else than London. DL seems like the only one of the legacies that will run a TATL route from a non hub.

As I say this now people will probably list off a bunch of AA non hub routes but I just don't know their route tree well enough off hand.

Jshank83 wrote:

I do wonder why BA is starting all these routes and AA isn't. I guess it might be slot related? Maybe AA has higher costs? Does AA fly any international TATL flights from non hubs? For the old AA hub cities, you would have thought they would have been more likely than BA to start the route. Even if the route is to somewhere else than London. DL seems like the only one of the legacies that will run a TATL route from a non hub.

As I say this now people will probably list off a bunch of AA non hub routes but I just don't know their route tree well enough off hand.

My bet is that BA has more slots than they are using while foreign airlines use every slot they have allocated and have permanent requests on file for more.

BA and AA have a full Joint Venture on transatlantic flights (along with IB and AY). That means that it doesn't really matter whether AA or BA actually operate a flight, both airlines share the proceeds (or the losses if the route doesn't work). Slots are routinely leased between airlines in the JV, so they aren't an issue.
AA does in fact have a non-hub route - RDU-LHR. There are significant customer contracts involved.
But it is probably better to stop thinking of hubs and think of pilot bases, f/a bases, and mx bases.It is always going to be cheaper to operate a transatlantic flight if there are bases at at one end of the route. Fly US base - Europe, have whatever overnight rest period the contracts require, fly back to base again means the airline has to pay for less overnight accommodation and less subsistence compared to a 4-leg trip where there are probably three overnight stays involved, one of them at a non-base US airport.Obviously airlines don't pay accommodation or subsistence when people are at their own homes.
Exactly the same thing happens with flights from the US to places in Europe where none of the European JV partners have bases - AA flies from the US to UK regional airports and locations such as Rome, Milan, Frankfurt, Munich, Amsterdam, Zurich, Lisbon. It would be more expensive for BA/AY/IB to operate these routes.

Finally it is easier to schedule crews and plan maintenance if they return "home" every 48 hours and the plane returns every 24 hours, and far easier to recover from irrops.

There is a 'major' announcement at STL tomorrow.

atypical wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

I do wonder why BA is starting all these routes and AA isn't. I guess it might be slot related? Maybe AA has higher costs? Does AA fly any international TATL flights from non hubs? For the old AA hub cities, you would have thought they would have been more likely than BA to start the route. Even if the route is to somewhere else than London. DL seems like the only one of the legacies that will run a TATL route from a non hub.

As I say this now people will probably list off a bunch of AA non hub routes but I just don't know their route tree well enough off hand.

My bet is that BA has more slots than they are using while foreign airlines use every slot they have allocated and have permanent requests on file for more.

BA is notorious for slot squatting at LHR, in the past it has actually flown empty planes on intra-UK routes to comply with the minimum slot use clauses

XRadar98 wrote:

The runway at 8500' probably is not very desirable.

8500ft runway is fine for a 787 to Europe.

BA routinely selects MSY's Rwy02/20 for departure to LHR, despite being only 7000ft, and despite the far longer 11/29 being available.

kelvin933 wrote:

atypical wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

I do wonder why BA is starting all these routes and AA isn't. I guess it might be slot related? Maybe AA has higher costs? Does AA fly any international TATL flights from non hubs? For the old AA hub cities, you would have thought they would have been more likely than BA to start the route. Even if the route is to somewhere else than London. DL seems like the only one of the legacies that will run a TATL route from a non hub.

As I say this now people will probably list off a bunch of AA non hub routes but I just don't know their route tree well enough off hand.

My bet is that BA has more slots than they are using while foreign airlines use every slot they have allocated and have permanent requests on file for more.

BA is notorious for slot squatting at LHR, in the past it has actually flown empty planes on intra-UK routes to comply with the minimum slot use clauses

No it is the old Hub system at work. Much the same way BA cant make UK regions to USA work, AA/DL and UA find it harder to operate non Hub/Focus to regional UK destinations.

And whilst BA has some spare slots now waiting for long haul frames, historically it had a shortage of slots and would cut the least profitable routes if they thought they could make a bigger profit elsewhere. DTW may well have been profitable just not profitable enough.

Then again the UK US motor industry connections drove a lot of the traffic and those links have seriously diminished. GM is just selling its UK operations, Ford sold of Jaguar, Aston Martin et al and has shrunk back its UK manufacturing dramatically. Not sure Fiat Chrysler has anything in the UK. So undoubtedly traffic has fallen on the LHT DTW and may fall further when GM cuts ties.,

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

Midwestindy wrote:

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

AA was the other airline that IND was talking to for LHR service. Could be why nothing happened with FI or WW. If they are (hypothetically) getting anything close to daily service then that would I believe tie up most of their incentive money leaving nothing to offer FI/WW.

Midwestindy wrote:

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

If that is true (and I hope it is), then IND seems like the most logical choice. Even though AA tends to shy away from TATL service to non-hubs (with the exception of RDU), they really ought to follow Delta's lead and start launching TATL service to non-hubs (otherwise, they will fall behind DL).

Plus, BA and AA are barely distinguishable, so it's would almost be like BA launching there. I'd bet AA would use a 788 as well.

I guess AA should move their ORD-LHR slots to IND, MCI, STL, and another city and let BA run 4-5 daily 380/744. A win / win for everyone (unless you are the day trip city getting ORDs 9am departure).

ADrum23 wrote:

Plus, BA and AA are barely distinguishable

Said no J customer... ever.

Taco2sDay wrote:

I guess AA should move their ORD-LHR slots to IND, MCI, STL, and another city and let BA run 4-5 daily 380/744. A win / win for everyone (unless you are the day trip city getting ORDs 9am departure).

This.

Between the two of them, AA/BA already operate 6 daily flights on ORD-LHR, 4 by AA and two by BA. All of the AA flights on ORD-LHR are operated using 788's. It would not surprise me at all if AA moved one of those daily flights on the 788 to IND and had BA take over the sixth flight at ORD, making it an even 3-3 split between the two.

ADrum23 wrote:

Taco2sDay wrote:

I guess AA should move their ORD-LHR slots to IND, MCI, STL, and another city and let BA run 4-5 daily 380/744. A win / win for everyone (unless you are the day trip city getting ORDs 9am departure).

This.

Between the two of them, AA/BA already operate 6 daily flights on ORD-LHR, 4 by AA and two by BA. All of the AA flights on ORD-LHR are operated using 788's. It would not surprise me at all if AA moved one of those daily flights on the 788 to IND and had BA take over the sixth flight at ORD, making it an even 3-3 split between the two.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm on this persons part. J alone on ORD offers more than IND, MCI, STL, etc. can offer.

As a Chicago native living in Dallas, I would much prefer BA and the option of F class.

AA will not move a 788 from ORD-LHR to IND-LHR. Route requires frequency and the corporate contracts dictate it.

No offense to Indy, but an LHR slot on AA is not coming from DFW, JFK, LAX, or ORD.

DLPMMM wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start.

Why would AA dehub CLT???

Lowest cost per enplanement, southeastern connecting hub AA was missing in their network of, and arguably their most profitable hub.

That statement lost you all credibility.

I may fly AA to often but avoid CLT at all cost, extremely long distances between gates, lack of air trains to shorten connections, LUS aircraft, minimally trained staff, and TSA that leaves before the last flight is out and IMHO a 90s interior that really needs a make over..

Not going into details but I've been left to the wolves by the staff there.. I don't see them dehubbing but honestly I find it one of the worst connection experiences in the AA system.

phluser wrote:

How come AA flies RDU-LHR and not BA? With GlaxoSmithKline , a British company being the top supporter, wouldn't it make sense that BA cover the route? AA and BA coordinate schedules to LHR and share revenue, so RDU might be viewed as covered, but I think the operating carrier makes a difference for pax. AA runs BWI-LHR and CLT-LHR while BA does not. Could there be likelihood of BA ceasing LHR-PHL and LHR-PHX and letting AA picking up those flights? How do AA and BA decide on such coverage to these secondary cities?

It's not just the Glaxo contract, AA has a long history with the pharma companies (pre open skies) and continues to win the contract. Now that they have the ATi in place, I suspect they fly aa metal to appease the frequent flyers who can use upgrades and mile on the route as well which would not be the case if BA metal flew it.

CHI2DFW wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Taco2sDay wrote:

I guess AA should move their ORD-LHR slots to IND, MCI, STL, and another city and let BA run 4-5 daily 380/744. A win / win for everyone (unless you are the day trip city getting ORDs 9am departure).

This.

Between the two of them, AA/BA already operate 6 daily flights on ORD-LHR, 4 by AA and two by BA. All of the AA flights on ORD-LHR are operated using 788's. It would not surprise me at all if AA moved one of those daily flights on the 788 to IND and had BA take over the sixth flight at ORD, making it an even 3-3 split between the two.

I'm guessing this is sarcasm on this persons part. J alone on ORD offers more than IND, MCI, STL, etc. can offer.

As a Chicago native living in Dallas, I would much prefer BA and the option of F class.

AA will not move a 788 from ORD-LHR to IND-LHR. Route requires frequency and the corporate contracts dictate it.

No offense to Indy, but an LHR slot on AA is not coming from DFW, JFK, LAX, or ORD.

My point there was if slots are an issue, then AA could do something like that and it wouldn't surprise me if they did. I didn't say that's what would happen. Perhaps AA could gain a new slot at LHR for an IND-LHR flight as well. Idk.

But it would be nice if AA started some TATL service out of more cities outside of their main hubs, similar to what DL is doing. This would be the perfect place to start.

Midwestindy wrote:

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

This has to be IND or CMH.

HPAEAA wrote:

DLPMMM wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start.

Why would AA dehub CLT???

Lowest cost per enplanement, southeastern connecting hub AA was missing in their network of, and arguably their most profitable hub.

That statement lost you all credibility.

I may fly AA to often but avoid CLT at all cost, extremely long distances between gates, lack of air trains to shorten connections, LUS aircraft, minimally trained staff, and TSA that leaves before the last flight is out and IMHO a 90s interior that really needs a make over..

Not going into details but I've been left to the wolves by the staff there.. I don't see them dehubbing but honestly I find it one of the worst connection experiences in the AA system.

That, and if the airline industry suffers a major crisis and AA has to cut back at their hubs, CLT would be in huge trouble, since 90% of the air traffic there is controlled by AA. CLT hasn't done a great job of diversifying their airline roster. I had said dehub CLT so they can focus on expanding with new carriers and focus on building more O&D.

DeltaRules wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

This has to be IND or CMH.

More likely IND. CMH has a ways to go before attracting TATL service.

ADrum23 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

This has to be IND or CMH.

More likely IND. CMH has a ways to go before attracting TATL service.

Right, but there were verified media reports in Columbus which said CMH had been in talks with BA at one point fairly recently. A BA 787 would be too much airplane, but an AA 757 might not be.

DeltaRules wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

This has to be IND or CMH.

AA does have the 75L which BA doesn't have, and the 75L could be a nice 'starter' aircraft should AA/BA try a new 'thin' Midwest/East Coast-LHR flight such as IND/CMH/CLE/PIT-LHR...

DeltaRules wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

There isn't really a relevant thread that I can post this in, but according to Flyertalk, AA will soon be announcing at least one new n/s flight to LHR. This new flight(s) is going to be from a US destination that currently doesn't have n/s service to LHR, not going to read too much into it but the poster gave off the impression that it will also be a place that currently doesn't have service to LON.

This has to be IND or CMH.

I think it is a stretch to say it HAS to be one of those two. We don't even know for sure it is somewhere that doesn't have LON service. Assuming they are adding at all.

DeltaRules wrote:

This has to be IND or CMH.

Could be both. Maybe one with BA and the other with AA.

Indy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

This has to be IND or CMH.

Could be both. Maybe one with BA and the other with AA.

I will eat my hat if CMH gets LHR service by itself, let along at the same time that IND does.

IND is possible, but I'm not sure that AA needs to cannibalize ORD in this case.

WWads wrote:

Indy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

This has to be IND or CMH.

Could be both. Maybe one with BA and the other with AA.

I will eat my hat if CMH gets LHR service by itself, let along at the same time that IND does.

IND is possible, but I'm not sure that AA needs to cannibalize ORD in this case.

I don't know how much a 4x or 5x weekly is going to cannibalize ORD. I never fly AA but I would start if STL got it to London and I am sure plenty of IND people are the same way. If you are the only legacy flying the route I would think you would get some people changing allegiances. I am sure they would pick up enough new travelers in the city added to offset some losses connecting in ORD. I think ORD will be just fine.

WWads wrote:

Indy wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

This has to be IND or CMH.

Could be both. Maybe one with BA and the other with AA.

I will eat my hat if CMH gets LHR service by itself, let along at the same time that IND does.

IND is possible, but I'm not sure that AA needs to cannibalize ORD in this case.

AA has a ton of LHR service out of ORD. I doubt daily service is going to matter one bit to ORD. Certainly not for the kind of incentive money IND is offering.

Jshank83 wrote:

WWads wrote:

Indy wrote:

Could be both. Maybe one with BA and the other with AA.

I will eat my hat if CMH gets LHR service by itself, let along at the same time that IND does.

IND is possible, but I'm not sure that AA needs to cannibalize ORD in this case.

I don't know how much a 4x or 5x weekly is going to cannibalize ORD. I never fly AA but I would start if STL got it to London and I am sure plenty of IND people are the same way. If you are the only legacy flying the route I would think you would get some people changing allegiances. I am sure they would pick up enough new travelers in the city added to offset some losses connecting in ORD. I think ORD will be just fine.

There is no way that AA is chopping up a valuable LHR slot and moving it to a second-tier city. It's either 7x weekly or nothing.

WWads wrote:

There is no way that AA is chopping up a valuable LHR slot and moving it to a second-tier city. It's either 7x weekly or nothing.

I doubt any airline uses that kind of logic. They go where the money is. If they can get higher fares plus a ton of incentive money they can't turn a blind eye. That is just bad business.

Indy wrote:

WWads wrote:

There is no way that AA is chopping up a valuable LHR slot and moving it to a second-tier city. It's either 7x weekly or nothing.

I doubt any airline uses that kind of logic. They go where the money is. If they can get higher fares plus a ton of incentive money they can't turn a blind eye. That is just bad business.

There would have to be an absurd amount of inventive money to justify letting 2-3 LHR slots go idle each week. I don't think you understand just how valuable they are in this industry.

Since service would likely be a weight-restricted 757, fares would have to be excessively high. If IND has to put up that much money to gain service, how sustainable would it be in the long run? Sure, if you build it, they might come, but IND is so much on the margin that I don't see AA bothering.

I think IND is more likely to get AMS or CDG on DL in the long-run.

WWads wrote:

[There would have to be a absurd amount of inventive money to justify letting 2-3 LHR slots go idle each week. Since service would likely be a weight-restricted 757, fares would have to be excessively high. If IND has to put up that much money to gain service, how sustainable would it be in the long run? Sure, if you build it, they might come, but IND is so much on the margin that I don't see AA bothering.

I think IND is more likely to get AMS or CDG on DL in the long-run.

And yet AA has been talking to IND. But I'm with you on the DL thing. IND has also been talking to them about AMS service. That is my #1 choice.

And BA (and I'm guessing, by association, AA) had also been talking to CMH.

Can an airline split an LHR slot between two cities? 4x/week IND, 3x CMH or vice versa?

With Norwegian continually hounding BA and diluting traffic into many of the 'new' destinations that BA has opened over the last few years I wouldn't be surprised if BA withdrew from some of these destinations altogether. Something has got to give.

DeltaRules wrote:

And BA (and I'm guessing, by association, AA) had also been talking to CMH.

Can an airline split an LHR slot between two cities? 4x/week IND, 3x CMH or vice versa?

Easily. The slot pairs cover 1 takeoff and 1 landing at LHR. Where the plane comes from before landing and where it goes to when it takes off isn't part of the slot.
Indeed there are airlines whose entire service to/from LHR is less than daily.
It is also possible for one airline to lease slots to another, and again to different airlines on different days, or to use a slot pair itself some days and lease it out on others. BA and AA as joint venture members are each using slots that nominally belong to the other because the timings suit both airlines that way round.

LAX772LR wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Plus, BA and AA are barely distinguishable

Said no J customer... ever.

Or anyone trying to use miles for a reward flight.

Jonnyc(the person that stated the rumor) liked this message "But AA does have the 75L which BA doesn't have, and the 75L could be a nice 'starter' aircraft should AA/BA try a new 'thin' Midwest/East Coast-LHR flight such as IND/CMH/CLE/PIT-LHR"

Meaning it is likely IND/CMH/CLE/or PIT are where this flight will be announced from.

DeltaRules wrote:

Rumor on FlyerTalk (posted by Midwestindy in the BA thread) is AA is adding LHR service to a new city to "bypass JFK" which doesn't already have London nonstops.

This feels an awful lot like CMH or IND. Thanks to the magic of Twitter, I've got The Columbus Dispatch's travel writer looking into it.

I know better to count any city out in terms of air travel, but I would be shocked if CMH got this flight over IND...... I just don't see the advantages of CMH over IND.

DeltaRules wrote:

Can an airline split an LHR slot between two cities? 4x/week IND, 3x CMH or vice versa?

I would guess so, seeing as BA have quite a few destinations that aren't daily. That slot will be used for something else other days of the week.

On his twitter he also mentioned last weekend that, "apparently, there were some TATL decisions that weren't quite ready to be made for this weekends big schedule load, more to come"

So based on this I would expect the service(wherever it is going) will be announced soon...

¿portland?

ADrum23 wrote:

DLPMMM wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

CLT and CVG already have TATL service due to being a AA and DL hub respectively. Personally, I think both airports should be dehubbed though, so if in the (highly unlikely) event that ever happened, BA could start.

Why would AA dehub CLT???

Lowest cost per enplanement, southeastern connecting hub AA was missing in their network of, and arguably their most profitable hub.

That statement lost you all credibility.

Calm down, I know AA is not going to dehub CLT (at least not anytime in the near future). It is their most profitable only because they control 90% of the traffic in the airport and there is a lack of competition. It has the lowest O&D of the hubs and is not extremely convenient to connect in. Plus, Miami isn't in the southeast?

If AA ever dehubbed or significantly scaled back CLT, they (CLT) would crash and burn economics wise. I don't think I'd want one airline controlling most of the traffic out of my local airport. I'd rather have competition and a more diverse set of airlines.

The main reason other airlines haven't been able to offer as much service out of CLT is because there aren't enough slots for them, but with the expansion going on there this will change. As for Miami, it is too inconveniently located in relation to a lot of the smaller cities in the Southeast to serve as an effective connecting hub to the continental United States. For example, my hometown airport is AVL, and I frequently connect through CLT when traveling to the Northeast or out West. But connecting MIA would involve going an hour and a half in the opposite direction and then having to backtrack additional time to get to a lot of places. As for Latin America though, MIA has CLT beat by a long shot.

pabloeing wrote:

¿portland?

PDX has service to LHR