I must have missed this, and I couldn't find it anywhere: American has suspended service between Los Angeles and Auckland from August 7th through October 6th.

I only discovered it when trying to book a flight for August 18th... no go...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news ... d=11837619

Whether this is a sign of disappointment (suspensions usually are) or success (they are adding a larger plane in October) will be an interesting discussion...

It's basically a political move to get the QF JBA approved.

I was surprised AA jumped.into NZ, and disappointed to hear this.

Like UA, AA struggled in the depths of (southern) winter. Both carriers are resuming service again in October for the southern summer season, and both are adding capacity compared to last year. I wouldn't read too much into this other than the observation that AKL is quite seasonal.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Like UA, AA struggled in the depths of (southern) winter. Both carriers are resuming service again in October for the southern summer season, and both are adding capacity compared to last year. I wouldn't read too much into this other than the observation that AKL is quite seasonal.

Exactly, and if I'm not mistaken, this is what was said in the original thread that came out when the route suspension was announced months ago.

It will return as a 789 upgauged from a 788.

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

It will return as a 789 upgauged from a 788.

The economics of the 788 are very poor. The only reason to retain it on a route is if there is no possible way to fill increased seats and gain increased incremental revenue. You can look at the routes where AA and UA retains the 788 when there are enough 789s in their systems.

AKL has enough demand that can be stimulated in the US winter to make it work reducing the CASM for all passengers.

They and AA will still serve fewer passengers even with a 789 on a seasonal basis than they would have with their plans for year round service.

AA and UA jumped into AKL only to find out there isn't enough year round demand as they thought esp. when they are both determined to serve anything the other serves.

AKL becomes a seasonal route (like United) - announced back in April.

Discussed at the time...

MAH4546 wrote:

It's basically a political move to get the QF JBA approved.

The JV has always been the premise for the route.

when I search for a cheap flight SYD/LAX/SYD almost always an option pops up flying LAX/SYD via AKL with AA LAX/AKL, but there's invariably no decent connection AKL/SYD so option means long day at AKL. Who wants to do that? Obviously AA can't link up with the best connections which are probably on NZ, being the opposition, at least for a cheap fare.

This tell me, that the AA LAX/AKL flight isn't selling very well, whether that's the case or not. get the impression with all U.S. airlines to OZ & NZ, that most of their passengers are Americans & the only Australians/Kiwis flying them are those after cheap, but nonstop flights.

UA, AA, DL out of SYD to LAX (or UA to SFO) are almost always much cheaper than QF, VA options. Sometimes the DL cheap option is actually flying on VA metal in one direction.

uberflieger wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

It's basically a political move to get the QF JBA approved.

The JV has always been the premise for the route.

as in AA wanted to have a rounded out portfolio in the S. Pacific - but jumped the gun w. AKL before the DOT approved the AA-QF JV.

now that the DOT says they won't approve it based on the huge concentration in the Australia market, there is little reason to think that AKL is anything more than another Asia-Pacific market that AA can serve based on its own abilities.

Just like with BA, AA loves to choose partners that are so dominant in the marketplace that even Open Skies and a JV doesn't pass the sniff test of regulators.

The AA-BA JV passed because of divestitures but there is nothing to divest in Australia so AA-QF will have to work separately. Whatever AA can do in AKL will be what it is without the JV.

From what I gather AKL has done better than expected while SYD hasn't faired as well with more competition. They will soon have the same capacity. Weather either last long term will be interesting if the JV doesn't go through.

atl100million wrote:

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

It will return as a 789 upgauged from a 788.

The economics of the 788 are very poor. The only reason to retain it on a route is if there is no possible way to fill increased seats and gain increased incremental revenue. You can look at the routes where AA and UA retains the 788 when there are enough 789s in their systems.

AKL has enough demand that can be stimulated in the US winter to make it work reducing the CASM for all passengers.

They and AA will still serve fewer passengers even with a 789 on a seasonal basis than they would have with their plans for year round service.

AA and UA jumped into AKL only to find out there isn't enough year round demand as they thought esp. when they are both determined to serve anything the other serves.

The 788 does not have poor economics. It is an extremely efficient plane. It is true however, that it doesn't cost that much more to run a 789, so in most cases, using the 789 works.

With that said, if you can't fill the 789 and in other scenarios, the 788 is the better bet. It's a great 763 replacement and very efficient.

ZK-NBT wrote:

SYD hasn't faired as well with more competition. They will soon have the same capacity.

I sorta wonder if int'l F is worth it to AA anymore... since it's such an inconsistent product now, as the routes that previously got it consistently (LHR, EZE, GRU, NRT, HKG, SYD) no longer do.

Wpuld it be worth while for UA to resume year-round service with AA going seasonal, especially given their feed in AKL from NZ?

LAX772LR wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

SYD hasn't faired as well with more competition. They will soon have the same capacity.

I sorta wonder if int'l F is worth it to AA anymore... since it's such an inconsistent product now, as the routes that previously got it consistently (LHR, EZE, GRU, NRT, HKG, SYD) no longer do.

Besides the better seat its hard to tell the difference. LAX LHR And LAX/JFK are HKG are maybe the only routes that should have the service

TWA772LR wrote:

Wpuld it be worth while for UA to resume year-round service with AA going seasonal, especially given their feed in AKL from NZ?

With the way airlines are able to tailor routes with today's technology seasonal and not flying a couple days of the week is pretty much the norm. I don't think UA needs to run on the slow period.

TWA772LR wrote:

Wpuld it be worth while for UA to resume year-round service with AA going seasonal, especially given their feed in AKL from NZ?

UA have a JV with NZ, it's probably imo not worth them going year round unless maybe UA switch to the larger LAX-AKL market, But NZ run 2 daily 77W's year round there and a daily 77W/772 SFO-AKL. It's a pretty seasonal market really, hense both UA and AA have gone seasonal but will increase capacity in the time they are here.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

atl100million wrote:

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

It will return as a 789 upgauged from a 788.

The economics of the 788 are very poor. The only reason to retain it on a route is if there is no possible way to fill increased seats and gain increased incremental revenue. You can look at the routes where AA and UA retains the 788 when there are enough 789s in their systems.

AKL has enough demand that can be stimulated in the US winter to make it work reducing the CASM for all passengers.

They and AA will still serve fewer passengers even with a 789 on a seasonal basis than they would have with their plans for year round service.

AA and UA jumped into AKL only to find out there isn't enough year round demand as they thought esp. when they are both determined to serve anything the other serves.

The 788 does not have poor economics. It is an extremely efficient plane. It is true however, that it doesn't cost that much more to run a 789, so in most cases, using the 789 works.

With that said, if you can't fill the 789 and in other scenarios, the 788 is the better bet. It's a great 763 replacement and very efficient.

I agree with your comments regarding the 788, and I must say I find the frequent negative comments about the 788 humorous because they do not in anyway reflect reality. The 788 is roughly 16 to 21% more efficient than a 763 or A330-200. That is huge.

That has been verified by a number of airlines including ANA, who said the 788 had a 21% lower fuel burn from NRT to FRA than a 763.

To be fair, maybe the negative comments are due to the problematic roll out of the 788 a number of years ago, but that is long past. The 788 is an excellent and highly efficient plane as you said.

MAH4546 wrote:

It's basically a political move to get the QF JBA approved.

And it is winter and ferkin' cold. I live in the north of the north island of NZ - called the winterless north - and all I want to do is get to a warm beach. They're not so very far away.

If I go to Sydney in August, chums are huddled around an electric heater puzzling that it is never this cold but - it always is, every August.

I think people have forgotten what Alan Joyce said at the launch of this route:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/news/7391 ... ndla-route

"The thing with the Pacific has always been the seasonality of it. You get parts of the year which you have to stimulate with lower airfares.

"There will be a lot more people travelling, probably on lower airfares, but we think the economics will work."

But the most important thing is what Mr. Parker said, giving the alert to that:

"We'll launch daily in June of 2016 with some minor seasonal adjustments during the off peak period and late winter.""

And here we are in off-peak, late winter, so whatever conspiracy theories some A.netters dream up, I urge you not to forget what Mr. Parker proposed. The South Pacific isn't all Bali Ha'i, that the majority of Kiwi's are off to the island resorts - the real Bali has just been increased again - and we're lucky to get the number of American tourists that we do, in winter. But it's pretty much half the number we get in out summer.

mariner

That has been verified by a number of airlines including ANA, who said the 788 had a 21% lower fuel burn from NRT to FRA than a 763

- interesting comment considering they never flew the 763 NRT to FRA

grbauc wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

SYD hasn't faired as well with more competition. They will soon have the same capacity.

I sorta wonder if int'l F is worth it to AA anymore... since it's such an inconsistent product now, as the routes that previously got it consistently (LHR, EZE, GRU, NRT, HKG, SYD) no longer do.

LAX LHR And LAX/JFK are HKG are maybe the only routes that should have the service

IINM, HKG is losing all F from AA, so obviously they believe otherwise on that one.

LAX772LR wrote:

grbauc wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

I sorta wonder if int'l F is worth it to AA anymore... since it's such an inconsistent product now, as the routes that previously got it consistently (LHR, EZE, GRU, NRT, HKG, SYD) no longer do.

LAX LHR And LAX/JFK are HKG are maybe the only routes that should have the service

IINM, HKG is losing all F from AA, so obviously they believe otherwise on that one.

Where are you getting this from?

LAX772LR wrote:

grbauc wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

I sorta wonder if int'l F is worth it to AA anymore... since it's such an inconsistent product now, as the routes that previously got it consistently (LHR, EZE, GRU, NRT, HKG, SYD) no longer do.

LAX LHR And LAX/JFK are HKG are maybe the only routes that should have the service

IINM, HKG is losing all F from AA, so obviously they believe otherwise on that one.

DFW/LAX-HKG is operating with the 77W for the foreseeable future, unless you have some insider knowledge we are not privy to.

LAX772LR wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I sorta wonder if int'l F is worth it to AA anymore

Seeing how much AA is investing in Flagship Lounges and gourmet dining before boarding 1st class my guess is it's paying off.

atl100million wrote:

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

It will return as a 789 upgauged from a 788.

The economics of the 788 are very poor. The only reason to retain it on a route is if there is no possible way to fill increased seats and gain increased incremental revenue. You can look at the routes where AA and UA retains the 788 when there are enough 789s in their systems.

AKL has enough demand that can be stimulated in the US winter to make it work reducing the CASM for all passengers.

They and AA will still serve fewer passengers even with a 789 on a seasonal basis than they would have with their plans for year round service.

AA and UA jumped into AKL only to find out there isn't enough year round demand as they thought esp. when they are both determined to serve anything the other serves.

To say the 788 has "poor economics" is a gross overstatement. You could say "the 789 has better economics and would be utilized better on this route."

The 788 does very well on plenty of routes, like DFW-PEK and DFW-SCL

LAX772LR wrote:

grbauc wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

I sorta wonder if int'l F is worth it to AA anymore... since it's such an inconsistent product now, as the routes that previously got it consistently (LHR, EZE, GRU, NRT, HKG, SYD) no longer do.

LAX LHR And LAX/JFK are HKG are maybe the only routes that should have the service

IINM, HKG is losing all F from AA, so obviously they believe otherwise on that one.

That's not going to happen. Those routes are operated by the 777-300ER. That aircraft will be the only aircraft at AA with Int'l F going forward.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

atl100million wrote:

nutsaboutplanes wrote:

It will return as a 789 upgauged from a 788.

The economics of the 788 are very poor. The only reason to retain it on a route is if there is no possible way to fill increased seats and gain increased incremental revenue. You can look at the routes where AA and UA retains the 788 when there are enough 789s in their systems.

AKL has enough demand that can be stimulated in the US winter to make it work reducing the CASM for all passengers.

They and AA will still serve fewer passengers even with a 789 on a seasonal basis than they would have with their plans for year round service.

AA and UA jumped into AKL only to find out there isn't enough year round demand as they thought esp. when they are both determined to serve anything the other serves.

The 788 does not have poor economics. It is an extremely efficient plane. It is true however, that it doesn't cost that much more to run a 789, so in most cases, using the 789 works.

With that said, if you can't fill the 789 and in other scenarios, the 788 is the better bet. It's a great 763 replacement and very efficient.

I think the 788 vs 789 economics are blown out of the water.

From all of the purchase/leasing rates I've seen, the 789 is 20-30% more expensive of an aircraft to purchase or lease. In addition, you'll need an additional flight attendant due to the increase in capacity and have higher airport fees due to higher MTOWs.

So while fuel costs might be similar, if you can't fill the extra 30-40 seats or fill the extra cargo consistently, the 788 makes more sense on a route.

uberflieger wrote:

Seeing how much AA is investing in Flagship Lounges and gourmet dining before boarding 1st class my guess is it's paying off.

Remember Flagship lounge access is hardly only restricted to F class passengers (which there are very few).

Flagship lounges are open customers on qualifying longhaul international or premium transcon routes, Plat, Plat Pro, and EXP AAdvantage members plus oneworld emerald and sapphire.

In otherwords they are hardly exclusive, nor only focused on sliver of actual F class customer base.