Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
DFWandOMA wrote:With these new routes, here is a list of all European routes that AA flies from major hubs:
CLT:
Barcelona
Dublin
Frankfurt
London
Madrid
Paris
Rome
ORD:
Barcelona
Dublin
London
Manchester
Madrid
Paris
Rome
Venice
DFW:
Amsterdam
Frankfurt
London
Madrid
Paris
Rome
LAX:
London
MIA:
Barcelona
London
Madrid
Milan
Paris
JFK:
Barcelona
Dublin
Edinburgh
London
Manchester???
Madrid
Milan
Paris
Rome
Zurich???
PHL:
Amsterdam
Athens
Barcelona
Budapest
Dublin
Frankfurt
Glasgow
Lisbon
London
Madrid
Manchester
Munich
Paris
Prague
Rome
Shannon
Venice
Zurich???
Pretty impressive list from PHL. With all of this in mind, what other routes could you see AA try and from where? I think ORD and PHL are in the position to gain the most.
DFWandOMA wrote:Pretty impressive list from PHL. With all of this in mind, what other routes could you see AA try and from where? I think ORD and PHL are in the position to gain the most.
jfklganyc wrote:If this is true, to be confirmed publicly, AA is headed for the dust bin at JFK.
Sad day. But as we saw with TW and UA, once you start cutting at JFK, you become more irrelevant and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
DEN will stay one season.
AA has a long history of non hub, within perimeter, mainline flying from JFK. It is all bad.
Only flights that meet that category and have stuck around (for now) is MCO and 2 feeders from BOS (used to be 3)
redwingspilot wrote:It was reported in a company newsletter one of the JFK-CDG flights and JFK-MAN would be cancelled.
atl100million wrote:If you at least mark on each route if is only summer seasonal or year-round, you will see that AA's presence at JFK is very thin and it is increasingly shifting its entire transatlantic network to not be year round. They are also reducing their presence in the largest and most competitive business markets while adding smaller, secondary markets.
Leisure fares to Europe can be very high in the summer but the number of year round routes on a carrier's network is a strong indication of the premium business revenue that a carrier gets.
ILS28ORD wrote:Are the AA 772/773 ever going to make a regular return to ORD on international routes or are most staying 788/789?
winginit wrote:ILS28ORD wrote:Are the AA 772/773 ever going to make a regular return to ORD on international routes or are most staying 788/789?
Given most of AA's transatlantic flights from ORD pivot off of transpacific rotations, it's likely that the 788/9s will stay.
commavia wrote:Wow, very surprised by BUD and PRG - did not expect either, and I am highly skeptical of both routes working. Guess we'll see.
JFK-ZRH, I suppose, shouldn't be that much a surprise since it's yet another example of AA being the odd man out on a route dominated by Star JV partners with an incremental Delta presence buoyed by a stronger JFK hub. Also sad to see JFK lose MAN and the second CDG (as reported elsewhere), but then I wouldn't be surprised if MAN is backfilled - as long rumored - by BA. This would also imply to me that the remaining, primary, JFK-CDG flight is virtually guaranteed to upgauge to a 777 next summer. Finally, also as reported elsewhere, happy to see AA finally entering NYC-DEN from JFK.
ORD-VCE is interesting - seems somewhat questionable, but then it also seems just like ORD-BCN, which is to say a massive tourism market (and higher-end tourism, too) in the summer when planes aren't hard to fill, and where AA will have a monopoly in the market.
All in all - very, very interesting news today.
DFWandOMA wrote:With these new routes, here is a list of all European routes that AA flies from major hubs:
CLT:
Barcelona
Dublin
Frankfurt
London
Madrid
Paris
Rome
ORD:
Barcelona
Dublin
London
Manchester
Madrid
Paris
Rome
Venice
DFW:
Amsterdam
Frankfurt
London
Madrid
Paris
Rome
LAX:
London
MIA:
Barcelona
London
Madrid
Milan
Paris
JFK:
Barcelona
Dublin
Edinburgh
London
Manchester???
Madrid
Milan
Paris
Rome
Zurich???
PHL:
Amsterdam
Athens
Barcelona
Budapest
Dublin
Frankfurt
Glasgow
Lisbon
London
Madrid
Manchester
Munich
Paris
Prague
Rome
Shannon
Venice
Zurich???
Pretty impressive list from PHL. With all of this in mind, what other routes could you see AA try and from where? I think ORD and PHL are in the position to gain the most.
9w748capt wrote:Antarius wrote:redwingspilot wrote:
I've heard Dave Seymour mention something that the 767 reliability is a hot topic and that current cabins are not up to par. So I expect, like you said, this fall/winter there could be some heavy maintenance and cabin mods done to the 767.
The cabins just got redone.. the J NGBC angle flat seats were replaced with all aisle Thomson seats. Cabin is not bad in J, although there is no IFE in the entire aircraft which I thought was a poor choice. Not sure what they plan on doing.
Actual overhead bins in Y would be a decent start. IIRC only a small fraction of AA's 767s have the newer, more spacious overheads in Y. AA even half-assedly installed new bins up front only to leave the ancient bins in Y - which don't come close to accommodating a standard rollaboard. I'm too lazy to check this but has AA installed inflight streaming on 767s? Or still just the overhead monitors?
commavia wrote:Wow, very surprised by BUD and PRG - did not expect either, and I am highly skeptical of both routes working. Guess we'll see.
JFK-ZRH, I suppose, shouldn't be that much a surprise since it's yet another example of AA being the odd man out on a route dominated by Star JV partners with an incremental Delta presence buoyed by a stronger JFK hub. Also sad to see JFK lose MAN and the second CDG (as reported elsewhere), but then I wouldn't be surprised if MAN is backfilled - as long rumored - by BA. This would also imply to me that the remaining, primary, JFK-CDG flight is virtually guaranteed to upgauge to a 777 next summer.
NichCage wrote:I would think that it would be better to serve BUD and PRG from JFK instead of PHL.
I find it kind of weird how quite a while back, AA cut the PHL-ZRH route, leaving only JFK-ZRH. Now they are cutting JFK-ZRH in favour of PHL-ZRH? Why didn't they keep ZRH at PHL before they cut it and later on cut JFK from ZRH? Kind of weird, but nice to see PHL gain service to three new European destinations.
PHLapproach wrote:AA announced internally that PHL will be gaining seasonal service for 2018 to BUD and PRG as well as having the JFK-ZRH service moved to PHL. Official announcement should be shortly.
NichCage wrote:I would think that it would be better to serve BUD and PRG from JFK instead of PHL.
I find it kind of weird how quite a while back, AA cut the PHL-ZRH route, leaving only JFK-ZRH. Now they are cutting JFK-ZRH in favour of PHL-ZRH? Why didn't they keep ZRH at PHL before they cut it and later on cut JFK from ZRH? Kind of weird, but nice to see PHL gain service to three new European destinations.
usflyer msp wrote:PHL-ZRH was a terrible performer after the partnership with LX ended. AA had the UBS and Credit Suisse corporate accounts to support JFK-ZRH. It made complete sense to consolidate on JFK-ZRH at that time. AA recently lost the corporate contracts to DL so now it makes more sense to fly PHL-ZRH with its more robust connection opportunities on the PHL end...
Austin787 wrote:Since the merger was announced, I always felt AA would eventually focus its northeast hub, and TATL gateway, at PHL. With some JFK flights possibly shifted to PHL. Looks that is happening. AA/US continues the merger tradition of closing, or significantly cutting back on a hub and in this case it's JFK.
LIPZ wrote:Just wondering why they don't switch the overcrowded JFK-MXP route (too much competion) to PHL as well (just like ZRH).
usflyer msp wrote:NichCage wrote:I would think that it would be better to serve BUD and PRG from JFK instead of PHL.
I find it kind of weird how quite a while back, AA cut the PHL-ZRH route, leaving only JFK-ZRH. Now they are cutting JFK-ZRH in favour of PHL-ZRH? Why didn't they keep ZRH at PHL before they cut it and later on cut JFK from ZRH? Kind of weird, but nice to see PHL gain service to three new European destinations.
PHL-ZRH was a terrible performer after the partnership with LX ended. AA had the UBS and Credit Suisse corporate accounts to support JFK-ZRH. It made complete sense to consolidate on JFK-ZRH at that time. AA recently lost the corporate contracts to DL so now it makes more sense to fly PHL-ZRH with its more robust connection opportunities on the PHL end...
MIflyer12 wrote:usflyer msp wrote:NichCage wrote:I would think that it would be better to serve BUD and PRG from JFK instead of PHL.
I find it kind of weird how quite a while back, AA cut the PHL-ZRH route, leaving only JFK-ZRH. Now they are cutting JFK-ZRH in favour of PHL-ZRH? Why didn't they keep ZRH at PHL before they cut it and later on cut JFK from ZRH? Kind of weird, but nice to see PHL gain service to three new European destinations.
PHL-ZRH was a terrible performer after the partnership with LX ended. AA had the UBS and Credit Suisse corporate accounts to support JFK-ZRH. It made complete sense to consolidate on JFK-ZRH at that time. AA recently lost the corporate contracts to DL so now it makes more sense to fly PHL-ZRH with its more robust connection opportunities on the PHL end...
Rather than having some JFK O&D and filling half the plane with garbage fares, they can fill a whole plane PHL-ZRH with garbage fares. There are lots of ways to get from major U.S. points to ZRH in two segments; AA will compete only on price.
HVNandrew wrote:PHL-BUD is interesting. BUD has lacked service to the US since DL and AA pulled out (back around 2008, I want to say). I'm kind of surprised that AA isn't trying this out of JFK - seems like it would be a much larger market, and I'm not sure how large the Hungarian population is around PHL. Also, this will be a very different route now, with Malev out of the picture and no connecting traffic on the BUD end.
OslPhlWasChi wrote:The only routes left I could see making the switch from JFK to PHL are MXP and EDI.
Cointrin330 wrote:All in all it's sad really. AA has never, pre- or post-merger developed a good strategy for JFK and now it's likely too late.
winginit wrote:I don't entirely disagree, but it's simply a different strategy that's been the forced consequence of the merger with US. Yes, if you isolate a transatlantic presence out of NYC (EWR/JFK) AA is a distant third (excluding JV partners), and a mere shell of their former selves. However, bunch PHL into the mix and AA has a larger transatlantic presence measured by ASMs when compared to DL and UA for FY2017 (again excluding JV partners):
AA: 15.1B
UA: 14.3B
DL: 13.8B
So no, AA is not, and likely never will be again, any sort of NYC powerhouse, but they're far from washed up in the TATL marketplace, and they'll be just fine so long as they can balance a dual-hub TATL strategy where the local NYC traffic is covered while emphasizing profitable flow via PHL.
commavia wrote:I, too, find it sad that there is no escaping that, at this point, AA is and always will be perpetually, structurally and insurmountably disadvantaged in NYC related to Delta and United. That is the manifestation of decisions made 5-10 years ago by AA management to take its eye off the ball at JFK and USAirways management to trade away LGA slots for DCA slots that were then confiscated by antitrust regulators months later.
commavia wrote:winginit wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that I think some perspective is still in order. Immediately prior to the TWA acquisition, AA had eight daily transatlantic flights from JFK to precisely two destinations (LHR and CDG). AA, next summer, excluding JV partners, will operate eleven daily transatlantic flights from JFK to eight destinations.
jbs2886 wrote:Personally, I'd prefer them to spend investment money on ORD
MLIAA wrote:This lack of dominance in New York no doubt is why AA is throwing everything at LAX. It may be OK to not dominate the #1 metro area if you can win the O&D battle for 6 out of the top 8 in the US. (LAX ORD DFW DCA PHL & MIA)
cheapgreek wrote:
BUD and PRG should do well, these are undiscovered European cities as many are tired of the usual assortment of cities in Europe. Reasonable hotel rates, good mass transit and new sights to see will be a draw for many. Won't be too hard to fill 767's and the draw of non-stop service from the states will be another incentive to go there.
Cointrin330 wrote:BUD and PRG is seasonal to service the growing river cruise market that touch both of these destinations. It would make sense for AA to fly those routes from PHL which is the airline's largest TATL gateway with good connecting traffic feed. Moving ZRH to PHL makes no sense. The JFK to ZRH route has operated since the late 1980's when AA expanded into Europe. AA does have competition from LX and DL at JFK and UA at EWR, but given AA's history of cutting international long haul routes quickly if they don't result in profit, it's surprising to see the ZRH go to PHL. There is no natural market here between PHL and ZRH, just zero competition. Swiss pharmaceutical companies will likely prefer EWR and the LX and UA services from there. Dropping MAN from JFK isn't surprising. The second JFK-CDG (AA 120/121) is a surprise as AA has been strong in the Paris market. All in all it's sad really. AA has never, pre- or post-merger developed a good strategy for JFK and now it's likely too late.
SCHATC422 wrote:AA Press Release: http://news.aa.com/press-releases/press ... 06407158=1
TSA125 wrote:I though ORD would see a flight to MXP way before VCE. Is this a sign that MXP is upcoming? Surely AA can fill a 788 to MXP in the summer.
kavok wrote:I also think the fact that many pax will pay more to avoid connecting in New York gets overlooked on the PHL add.
People will pay more for a direct flight, and they will pay more to avoid connecting in problematic airports (ie JFK). Given how often there are connection issues, people simply don't want to connect in NYC, so they will fly another route that cost a littl more if it makes reasonable sense. Shifting some TATL to PHL helps AA avoid that problem.
TSA125 wrote:I thought ORD would see a flight to MXP way before VCE. Is this a sign that MXP is upcoming? Surely AA can fill a 788 to MXP in the summer.
atl100million wrote:kavok wrote:I also think the fact that many pax will pay more to avoid connecting in New York gets overlooked on the PHL add.
People will pay more for a direct flight, and they will pay more to avoid connecting in problematic airports (ie JFK). Given how often there are connection issues, people simply don't want to connect in NYC, so they will fly another route that cost a littl more if it makes reasonable sense. Shifting some TATL to PHL helps AA avoid that problem.
PHL has ATC delays as often as JFK does at least during the peak afternoon periods.
I have sat on taxiways at PHL as long as I have at JFK.
TSA125 wrote:I thought ORD would see a flight to MXP way before VCE. Is this a sign that MXP is upcoming? Surely AA can fill a 788 to MXP in the summer.