I wonder if LX will consider adding an extra flight into JFK now (daily or only some days of the week).

This thread has gone off topic (as they typically do).
ORD-VCE and PHL-PRG/BUD are seasonal right?
These routes sound like slam dunks, if they are only operating for 4 months a year.
PHL-Zurich is certainly worth lots of discussion.
I agree with what someone else said, some of you act like it's the end of the world for AA at JFK.
Also, LAX expansion isn't the panacea for AA either.

klwright69 wrote:

This thread has gone off topic (as they typically do).
ORD-VCE and PHL-PRG/BUD are seasonal right?
These routes sound like slam dunks, if they are only operating for 4 months a year.

They are operating for nearly six months of the year from May 4 to Oct 27.

It's really sad how far AA has fallen in NYC. If there's one single example of a decade's long mistake that still clearly affects a network carrier in the US, its AA at JFK. I mean, AA used to be #1 from the US to the Caribbean (especially SJU and the DR) and in less than a month they'll be down to flying a few 737s and 757s to vacation islands in the Caribbean.

It's nice that AA now has PHL, but I feel like AA would still be struggling in JFK had the merger not happened. At this point, I wonder if it makes sense for any global corporation based in NY to maintain a contract with AA vs with DL or UA.

NYCVIE wrote:

It's really sad how far AA has fallen in NYC. If there's one single example of a decade's long mistake that still clearly affects a network carrier in the US, its AA at JFK. I mean, AA used to be #1 from the US to the Caribbean (especially SJU and the DR) and in less than a month they'll be down to flying a few 737s and 757s to vacation islands in the Caribbean.

It's nice that AA now has PHL, but I feel like AA would still be struggling in JFK had the merger not happened. At this point, I wonder if it makes sense for any global corporation based in NY to maintain a contract with AA vs with DL or UA.

I imagine corp contracts would need major Business cities and a network that covers regions of interest. Dominating a city with direct route coverage is prob not necessary for many contracts?

just as with any business, corporate travel often goes to the supplier that can serve the largest amount of business for a company for the most amount of money. Legacy carriers frequently have corporate contracts in their own hubs.

The challenge for AA is that there might be companies that can be serviced exclusively by AA's network but the vast majority of companies have travel that goes beyond AA's nonstop NYC network. Other airlines can do everything AA does nonstop from NYC plus more. The same is true in reverse in AA's hubs (including PHL) and is also why low cost carriers often base their pricing around "everyday value for everyone" instead of size and product complexity to try to win negotiated business.

NYCVIE wrote:

It's really sad how far AA has fallen in NYC. If there's one single example of a decade's long mistake that still clearly affects a network carrier in the US, its AA at JFK. I mean, AA used to be #1 from the US to the Caribbean (especially SJU and the DR) and in less than a month they'll be down to flying a few 737s and 757s to vacation islands in the Caribbean.

It's nice that AA now has PHL, but I feel like AA would still be struggling in JFK had the merger not happened. At this point, I wonder if it makes sense for any global corporation based in NY to maintain a contract with AA vs with DL or UA.

Actually, I would argue that aa with its allies offer the best coverage for big corporations in New York City.

Consider that the biggest corporate contracts here are Wall Street money. The most important destinations is London and aa/bad offers by far the best schedule. When my colleagues go to London, nobody is flying delta. Aside from that, the next important business destinations are Chicago Boston D.C. La and sf. Out of those, aa offers th best or comparable schedule to all of them with only sf being noticeably weaker than delta. Nobody really cares about schedule to Atlanta, Detroit and Minnesota.

Aside from that, the corporate events and vacation homes of the rich New York folks are mostly in south beach and aa offers best schedule there. A lot of them have homes in Scottsdale because of the golf course and AA offers best schedule to Phoenix.

For international travel, the best schedule to Tokyo Hong Kong and Singapore are with one world alliance through jal and Cathay. THey also provide the best lounges. Nothing in skyteam really compares. Interesting enough, I consider star alliance to be almost there with Ana and sia.

The only area where aa is not the strongest is to continental Europe, but star alliance is strongest there.

So in terms of what the legacies offer, I think it's aa first, united second and delta last. If UA had a stronger LHR schedule, it might be #1.

717atOGG wrote:

Jo8338 wrote:

The unreliable 763's are the newest ones. Ships 342-350 built in 2003. Those also have high lease payments.
AA should have refurbed the older ones (ships 351 -365)and returned these.

Well, why are those particular planes unreliable? Logic would dictate that those would be the most reliable, the lease payments notwithstanding.

From what I hear 342 -350 have been hanger queens since new in 2003.

Jo8338 wrote:

Ships 342-350 built in 2003 have high lease payments

Remember bankruptcy? Just saying

NYCVIE wrote:

AA used to be #1 from the US to the Caribbean

American Airlines is the largest carrier to the Caribbean and since 1990 it dominates the primer US gateway to boot

AA's route network on a whole just feels very disorganized. I hope this is just a product of the recency of the US/AA merger..

uberflieger wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

AA used to be #1 from the US to the Caribbean

American Airlines is the largest carrier to the Caribbean and since 1990 it dominates the primer US gateway to boot

The largest origin MARKET for flights to the Caribbean is NYC and has been for years – and specifically JFK airport. Miami might offer more flights to Latin America/Caribbean on a combined basis but B6 has built a huge part of their JFK operation around the Caribbean resort markets that AA had the most nonstop service to from NYC until the 4th quarter of 2008 when B6 became the largest carrier and has remained in that position ever since.

For this winter, B6 has always twice as many seats to the Caribbean from NYC than either DL or UA which are about the same size – UA is a little larger than DL depending on the month. AA is #4 out of the 4 US carriers that hub at JFK or EWR. AA has about one-fourth the number of seats to the Caribbean from JFK that it had in early 2008.

While this thread is about Europe, it helps highlight the dramatic changes that have taken place in the JFK-Caribbean market and were one of the first major phases of AA’s JFK service reductions which were followed by the transcon and now European cutbacks.

atl100million wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

The largest origin MARKET for flights to the Caribbean is NYC

Dominated by a low cost operator only one legacy can compete with and that's United, because of the power of its EWR hub.

But we're digressing

BUD/PRG/ZRH additions are giving us a glimpse of what's possible @ PHL, a key argument for the merger.

I agree it is sad to see the shrinking of AA at JFK. As an AA Fan I can only hope it is temporary and that AA will add flights when and where it is possible from JFK. I think Commavia mentioned some 788's might help and I agree. Although they are most cost-effective when used on longer routes, their lower cost in general could perhaps work from JFK to key business markets in Europe, although really the only major business market they evidently are leaving is ZRH at the moment.

If AA's rebuilding of ORD is successful, perhaps they can upgauge the operation there to 789's in a year or 2 and make JFK a 788 Hub with the exception of flights to OW hubs which could be 772 or 773.. This could help in both directions (Asia as well) as some have mentioned. With a metal-nuetral JV with JAL, there is no reason why AA cannot operate at least one flight to NRT. JAL is now flying to DFW and AA/JAL have been partners for a while.

I also agree with others who have said AA and really OW could use another partner in mainland Europe. I wonder if BA is part of the holdup here. IIRC they were mainly responsible for keeping LX out of OW which ended up with LX turning to LH and entering Star. Others have mentioned LO as a possible defector to OW. I think this makes sense. I think LO could make more money, and do more flying in OW than by being in Star and being next door to LH in Germany. This is a lesson that MA learned too late. AA and LO were code share partners in the past. With AB having an uncertain future this could evolve in different directions. If LH and its affiliates absorb AB, then I really think LO should change if LH ends up with large hubs at FRA, DUS and whatever happens in BER/TXL. I think regulators could have a lot to say about what happens to AB though. I can see many possible anti-trust concerns.

As part of this announcement by AA, I understand they are trying to move to seasonal flying in some hubs. Supposedly these seasonal PHL flights to Europe are being operated by equipment that will move to LAX and go to Oceania or Asia. I find it interesting that AA evidently said no new longhaul from MIA are being planned. They surely could use some for European flights to MIA in the winter. That is a high season for Europeans escaping the cold to MIA and the Caribbean. I think this is an oversight that AA should consider. I know AA has tried MIA FRA in the past, but with European demand in the winter, I think a 787 could work to MIA from FRA, ZRH and MUC. At the time of the merger, AA had only one flight to FRA but now has several more. I think AA's name recognition has improved in Deutschland. Every time I fly out of FRA, there are many Germans on the flights. Probably a lot of VFR traffic in the winter, but they have to put the planes somewhere right?

uberflieger wrote:

With its long history & experience of a split NYC operation AA long ago decided JFK is important, but can't & doesn't have to be its main hub for international flying. The merger finally added an ideal Northeast gateway to complement LGA (NYC domestic) / JFK (NYC international / West Coast). It's an enviable set-up and seems to be working.

This is the bottom line. AA no longer needs to try and force JFK into being a major connecting hub. That was a challenging, and likely always inevitably futile, effort driven by the limitations of AA's network pre-merger. AA today dominates the second best network carrier hub - overall - in the northeast, right down I-95 at PHL. While PHL will obviously never come close to NYC in terms of raw O&D and premium traffic generation, PHL - as a hub - is capable of handling a volume, and diversity, of connecting flows that no other airport in the northeast except EWR can match. So with that, it is entirely logical and predictable that AA is continuing to optimize both of its NYC "cornerstones" (JFK and LGA) more and more for O&D and less and less for connections - indeed, many of us predicted precisely this when the merger was announced. Now having said that, it is, indeed, unfortunate to see longstanding AA routes out of JFK end but, alas, such is the nature of network evolution in the context of broader merger integration and optimization, and such is the nature of having a smaller overall slot/frequency portfolio in NYC metro than competitors who actually are trying to use one or multiple NYC airports as hubs.

I will say - it is notable that, at least from the sense I get, AA management seems strikingly less concerned about the long-term viability of AA's franchise in NYC than prognosticators here on A.net. Perhaps they know something we don't.

uberflieger wrote:

atl100million wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

The largest origin MARKET for flights to the Caribbean is NYC

Dominated by a low cost operator only one legacy can compete with and that's United, because of the power of its EWR hub.

But we're digressing

BUD/PRG/ZRH additions are giving us a glimpse of what's possible @ PHL, a key argument for the merger.

I meant JFK. Mistake on my part. AA used to be #1 from NYC to the Caribbean and they basically allowed B6 to take that market.

Also, am I missing something? Does DL not compete to the Caribbean from NYC?
UA and B6 are clearly doing a lot of Caribbean flying but DL is holding its own in the most important markets.

DL is flying to AUA, BDA, HAV, MBJ, NAS, PUJ, SXM, SJU, STI, SDQ, and STT year round in addition to GND, PLS, and SKB seasonally.
AA is flying to ANU, BDA, PAP, PLS, STT year round and PUJ, SKB, and SXM seasonally.

Clearly AA dropped the ball in JFK. Even SJU will be gone in a few days!


PHL is my second home however, so I'm not crying a river

One wonders if the people complaining about the evolution of AA's NYC operations are the same people who confidently predicted that PHL and the other US hubs would be wound down in favor of the far superior AA ones...

slowrambler wrote:

One wonders if the people complaining about the evolution of AA's NYC operations are the same people who confidently predicted that PHL and the other US hubs would be wound down in favor of the far superior AA ones...

I very clearly remember those predictions... It would be interesting to dig up those old threads and see what people were saying.

Jeremy

NYCVIE wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

atl100million wrote:

Dominated by a low cost operator only one legacy can compete with and that's United, because of the power of its EWR hub.

But we're digressing

BUD/PRG/ZRH additions are giving us a glimpse of what's possible @ PHL, a key argument for the merger.

I meant JFK. Mistake on my part. AA used to be #1 from NYC to the Caribbean and they basically allowed B6 to take that market.

Also, am I missing something? Does DL not compete to the Caribbean from NYC?
UA and B6 are clearly doing a lot of Caribbean flying but DL is holding its own in the most important markets.

DL is flying to AUA, BDA, HAV, MBJ, NAS, PUJ, SXM, SJU, STI, SDQ, and STT year round in addition to GND, PLS, and SKB seasonally.
AA is flying to ANU, BDA, PAP, PLS, STT year round and PUJ, SKB, and SXM seasonally.

Clearly AA dropped the ball in JFK. Even SJU will be gone in a few days!


PHL is my second home however, so I'm not crying a river

DL and UA both fly more capacity from NYC to the Caribbean than AA did in 2008, its last peak year. B6 is larger than either.

More significantly, AA has shifted that capacity to MIA and is far less of a competitor in the direct NE-Caribbean market.

With Europe, AA is shifting from JFK to PHL as its primary European gateway and it is becoming harder and harder to argue that JFK is a niche market. Cancellation of markets while other carriers from the same city are not doing so says the notion of operating as a niche carrier doesn't work.

AA runs a larger hub there and can funnel more traffic from Europe to the rest of the US but PHL misses the huge NYC market and AA is also winding down its last BOS to Europe service on its own metal. Very few of the traffic from either of those two metro areas will flow over PHL.

AA is also using 767s which are larger and more efficient than 757s that flew several of these routes that are being pulled.

AA is simply removing the duplication of service from its hubs in the NE that was expected to come years ago... many people simply believed that the former US hubs would get the short end of the stick. It now appears CLT got trimmed significantly but PHL is getting boosted.

tphuang wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

It's really sad how far AA has fallen in NYC. If there's one single example of a decade's long mistake that still clearly affects a network carrier in the US, its AA at JFK. I mean, AA used to be #1 from the US to the Caribbean (especially SJU and the DR) and in less than a month they'll be down to flying a few 737s and 757s to vacation islands in the Caribbean.

It's nice that AA now has PHL, but I feel like AA would still be struggling in JFK had the merger not happened. At this point, I wonder if it makes sense for any global corporation based in NY to maintain a contract with AA vs with DL or UA.

Actually, I would argue that aa with its allies offer the best coverage for big corporations in New York City.

Consider that the biggest corporate contracts here are Wall Street money. The most important destinations is London and aa/bad offers by far the best schedule. When my colleagues go to London, nobody is flying delta. Aside from that, the next important business destinations are Chicago Boston D.C. La and sf. Out of those, aa offers th best or comparable schedule to all of them with only sf being noticeably weaker than delta. Nobody really cares about schedule to Atlanta, Detroit and Minnesota.

Aside from that, the corporate events and vacation homes of the rich New York folks are mostly in south beach and aa offers best schedule there. A lot of them have homes in Scottsdale because of the golf course and AA offers best schedule to Phoenix.

For international travel, the best schedule to Tokyo Hong Kong and Singapore are with one world alliance through jal and Cathay. THey also provide the best lounges. Nothing in skyteam really compares. Interesting enough, I consider star alliance to be almost there with Ana and sia.

The only area where aa is not the strongest is to continental Europe, but star alliance is strongest there.

So in terms of what the legacies offer, I think it's aa first, united second and delta last. If UA had a stronger LHR schedule, it might be #1.

I Agree AA corporate coverage is still sufficient I'd guess for many companies.

stlgph wrote:

Where you folks been? Playing Flight Simulator?

Yes.

atl100million wrote:

AA is also using 767s which are larger and more efficient than 757s

How does that work?

Some people have compared AA' recent actions at JFK to what UA and TW did in the past. I don't think this is apt, as AA is much bigger at JFK, than either of those airlines ever were. AA is a big part of what Oneworld does at JFK, does that factor into this? I really wonder what the future holds for them at JFK. They have a lot of infrastructure there- terminal, hangars, and slots of course, are they willing to walk away from that?

Could we possibly be looking at WN or someone else taking over all these slots, and terminal in the future? Or will they retrench with new routes, and other aircraft? Will BA picking up JFK-MAN? This route has been flown by either BA, or AA for a very long time. Will be curious to see what flights they add to the west coast.

I know some here were questioning the source of the information regarding JFK-MAN/ZRH and JFK/BOS-CDG; per AA's schedule update last night, these changes are now effective for S18.

CXA330300 wrote:

commavia wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

also clarification:

MAN and CDG havent changed...unless you have insider info for us

I'm going by comments reported on Twitter - JFK losing MAN and the second CDG in addition to ZRH, but gaining DEN.

Perhaps false information - if so, apologies on my mistake. Guess we'll see shortly.

Source for JFK-DEN?

Now for sale, starts June 8th on a B738:

AA1427 JFK 20:50 DEN 23:00
AA1428 DEN 23:50 JFK 05:35+1

That JFK-DEN schedule is practically useless. I don't see it sticking around long term if it mintains those times...

Also loaded this morning - as expected/predicted, PHL-AMS will, indeed, be getting upgauged to the 767 next summer.

So a few interesting takeaways for S18, at least based on schedules as presently loaded:

(1) AA will be using 767s on five transatlantic routes out of PHL (AMS, BUD, LIS, PRG, ZRH)
(2) AA will be using 757s on just four transatlantic routes overall (JFK-DUB, JFK-EDI, PHL-GLA, PHL-SNN)
(3) AA will have 468 daily seats out of AMS during the summer, over 2.5x the daily seats AA had in the market at merger close

Will the vacated AA slots in JFK be used on other routes (one is going to DEN but not sure about the others)? Can they be sold to another airline or made to be part of a trade for an asset in another airport?

commavia wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

With its long history & experience of a split NYC operation AA long ago decided JFK is important, but can't & doesn't have to be its main hub for international flying. The merger finally added an ideal Northeast gateway to complement LGA (NYC domestic) / JFK (NYC international / West Coast). It's an enviable set-up and seems to be working.

This is the bottom line. AA no longer needs to try and force JFK into being a major connecting hub. That was a challenging, and likely always inevitably futile, effort driven by the limitations of AA's network pre-merger. AA today dominates the second best network carrier hub - overall - in the northeast, right down I-95 at PHL. While PHL will obviously never come close to NYC in terms of raw O&D and premium traffic generation, PHL - as a hub - is capable of handling a volume, and diversity, of connecting flows that no other airport in the northeast except EWR can match. So with that, it is entirely logical and predictable that AA is continuing to optimize both of its NYC "cornerstones" (JFK and LGA) more and more for O&D and less and less for connections - indeed, many of us predicted precisely this when the merger was announced. Now having said that, it is, indeed, unfortunate to see longstanding AA routes out of JFK end but, alas, such is the nature of network evolution in the context of broader merger integration and optimization, and such is the nature of having a smaller overall slot/frequency portfolio in NYC metro than competitors who actually are trying to use one or multiple NYC airports as hubs.

I will say - it is notable that, at least from the sense I get, AA management seems strikingly less concerned about the long-term viability of AA's franchise in NYC than prognosticators here on A.net. Perhaps they know something we don't.

Not sure when AA tried to make JFK a connecting hub. A handful of RJ flights, one or two flights a day to ORD, capacity reductions from the west coast and trying to route passengers to JFK through LGA flights are not consistent with forcing JFK into a connection hub.

Although PHL is the second largest network carrier hub in the northeast, it is experiencing lower passenger numbers on a year to year basis. It was recently reported that AA's capacity at PHL is down 4%. Now some of this represents cuts from smaller markets, but not all (AA eliminated the last bank of flights at PHL). Although it has been reported that PHL is a very profitable hub for AA, the fact that capacity is down when airline traffic is stronger than even overall is a good indication that PHL is where it needs to be and will show little growth. Give AA management credit for recognizing this. http://www.philly.com/philly/business/t ... 70817.html.

Therefore, these new flights from PHL will do little to reverse this trend. Although passengers can easily connect through PHL through multiple flights from DFW, ORD and CLT, there are less frequencies from other AA hubs (MIA and LAX) and other major markets. Passengers at other AA hubs (DFW, LAX and ORD) have other choices rather than flying through PHL, and my guess is that most of the O&D traffic AA had on its JFK-ZRH flight will not be seen on PHL-ZRH.

These high profile PHL and JFK international flights will continue to ebb and flow. I don't think it is about the two markets competing as much as it is about allocation of resources. AA continues to rank poorly on passenger preference polls, and so it is better off using its more basic 767 product in a less competitive market such as PHL. Nevertheless, PHL and JFK are both on downward trends in the overall AA network, and these few flights are not going to have much impact from that perspective.

AAplat4life wrote:

Not sure when AA tried to make JFK a connecting hub. A handful of RJ flights, one or two flights a day to ORD, capacity reductions from the west coast and trying to route passengers to JFK through LGA flights are not consistent with forcing JFK into a connection hub.

2003-2011 - that's when. The summer of 2003 saw the launch of JFK-FCO and JFK-BCN, and was, in hindsight, the turning point where it became quite clear that AA's center of gravity for transatlantic connectivity was shifting from ORD to JFK. During that time, AA did, indeed, attempt to create more of a connection-oriented "hub" at JFK, including trying domestic routes like TPA, FLL and IAH, and the partnership with JetBlue, among others. I'm not talking about double-connects over LGA which have never, at any point in the modern era, been a large dynamic and which are irrelevant to the point being made.

AAplat4life wrote:

Although PHL is the second largest network carrier hub in the northeast, it is experiencing lower passenger numbers on a year to year basis. It was recently reported that AA's capacity at PHL is down 4%. Now some of this represents cuts from smaller markets, but not all (AA eliminated the last bank of flights at PHL). Although it has been reported that PHL is a very profitable hub for AA, the fact that capacity is down when airline traffic is stronger than even overall is a good indication that PHL is where it needs to be and will show little growth.

Agreed. PHL is a strong hub that is being optimized in the context of the merged carrier's network which means fewer connecting banks and larger aircraft.

AAplat4life wrote:

Therefore, these new flights from PHL will do little to reverse this trend.

Okay, although I don't think that is the intent, anyway. No need to "reverse" anything since, as rightly said, PHL is largely "where it needs to be."

AAplat4life wrote:

Although passengers can easily connect through PHL through multiple flights from DFW, ORD and CLT, there are less frequencies from other AA hubs (MIA and LAX) and other major markets.

"Less frequencies" is largely meaningless since only one frequency is really necessary.

That's the good thing about scheduling domestic flights for transatlantic connectivity - the vast majority of all U.S.-Europe flights arrive and depart within roughly the same window. So, to be specific, as long as AA has one flight a day from any given city that arrives in PHL in the late afternoon, and one flight a day from PHL back to that given city that leaves in the late afternoon/early evening, that city has 2-way connectivity to Europe.

Thus, as an illustrative example, ZRH - AA is obviously foregoing virtually all of its presence in the NYC-ZRH O&D market, but the shift to PHL has opened up literally dozens of additional single-connection city pair markets in which AA was previously absent.

AAplat4life wrote:

Passengers at other AA hubs (DFW, LAX and ORD) have other choices rather than flying through PHL

Indeed they do. But I suspect plenty AA-loyal frequent flyers and corporate customers will still connect over PHL, just like they do today to get to the multiple other European cities only reachable on AA metal through PHL.

AAplat4life wrote:

my guess is that most of the O&D traffic AA had on its JFK-ZRH flight will not be seen on PHL-ZRH.

Yeah, that seems pretty obvious since AA has almost no capacity between NYC and ZRH, so it kind of stands to reason that any JFK-ZRH O&D AA was carrying on its nonstop flight in that market will now either connect over LHR or fly another airline.

AAplat4life wrote:

These high profile PHL and JFK international flights will continue to ebb and flow. I don't think it is about the two markets competing as much as it is about allocation of resources.

Agreed. AA is clearly optimizing its European network to respond to increased competition and depressed yields across the Atlantic. The approach AA appears to be taking is (1) greater seasonality, with capacity dramatically ramping up for just May-September, and (2) greater optimization across AA's major transatlantic gateways which include not just PHL, JFK, ORD and to a lesser extent MIA, CLT and DFW, but also leveraging the JV hub at LHR which, itself, facilitates more one-stop connecting city pairs between the U.S. and Europe than just about any other European hub.

AAplat4life wrote:

AA continues to rank poorly on passenger preference polls

And it continues to rank favorably in passenger preference polls, too.

I guess the perspective just depends, to some extent, on how much people want to focus on the negative.

AAplat4life wrote:

it is better off using its more basic 767 product in a less competitive market such as PHL.

Agreed. The 767 product is not competitive - especially in Y - with major competitors' widebodies. As such, it makes total sense to concentrate that aircraft in markets where AA faces minimal competition.

AAplat4life wrote:

Nevertheless, PHL and JFK are both on downward trends in the overall AA network, and these few flights are not going to have much impact from that perspective.

I'm not so sure. We'll see about the "downward trends" - at both PHL and JFK.

commavia wrote:

Also loaded this morning - as expected/predicted, PHL-AMS will, indeed, be getting upgauged to the 767 next summer.

So a few interesting takeaways for S18, at least based on schedules as presently loaded:

(1) AA will be using 767s on five transatlantic routes out of PHL (AMS, BUD, LIS, PRG, ZRH)
(2) AA will be using 757s on just four transatlantic routes overall (JFK-DUB, JFK-EDI, PHL-GLA, PHL-SNN)
(3) AA will have 468 daily seats out of AMS during the summer, over 2.5x the daily seats AA had in the market at merger close

it looks like JFK-EDI is gone per recent update.

tphuang wrote:

it looks like JFK-EDI is gone per recent update.

Perhaps, although unlike JFK-MAN, JFK-EDI is still loaded and available for sale for next summer - beginning 24 March 2018.

tphuang wrote:

commavia wrote:

Also loaded this morning - as expected/predicted, PHL-AMS will, indeed, be getting upgauged to the 767 next summer.

So a few interesting takeaways for S18, at least based on schedules as presently loaded:

(1) AA will be using 767s on five transatlantic routes out of PHL (AMS, BUD, LIS, PRG, ZRH)
(2) AA will be using 757s on just four transatlantic routes overall (JFK-DUB, JFK-EDI, PHL-GLA, PHL-SNN)
(3) AA will have 468 daily seats out of AMS during the summer, over 2.5x the daily seats AA had in the market at merger close

it looks like JFK-EDI is gone per recent update.

And interestingly enough it seems that AA will be placing the B777 on JFK-MXP:

https://www.webcruiter.no/WcMain/Advert ... ource_id=0

I was expecting them to move it to PHL.

lesfalls wrote:

And interestingly enough it seems that AA will be placing the B777 on JFK-MXP

Indeed. Not surprised. In any market where there is considerable competition, the 767 is simply not a competitive product - in J and especially in Y. And - needless to say - JFK, and in particular JFK-Europe, has lots of competition. AA's reconfigured 777s offer a solid product, so it makes complete sense to concentrate those (and 787s) in markets with considerable competition and shift the 767s to markets where AA faces minimal competition.

Personally, I expect AA's entire JFK-Europe operation, except DUB and EDI, to be 777 next summer. If I'm not mistaken, the only two remaining JFK-Europe routes still loaded as 767s for S18, as of now, are CDG and MAD.

tphuang wrote:

commavia wrote:

Also loaded this morning - as expected/predicted, PHL-AMS will, indeed, be getting upgauged to the 767 next summer.

So a few interesting takeaways for S18, at least based on schedules as presently loaded:

(1) AA will be using 767s on five transatlantic routes out of PHL (AMS, BUD, LIS, PRG, ZRH)
(2) AA will be using 757s on just four transatlantic routes overall (JFK-DUB, JFK-EDI, PHL-GLA, PHL-SNN)
(3) AA will have 468 daily seats out of AMS during the summer, over 2.5x the daily seats AA had in the market at merger close

it looks like JFK-EDI is gone per recent update.

Where did you get this from (JFK EDI), ending?.

PHL-ZRH did not work previously when PHL had more traffic and a better product with the A330. A smaller 767 may have a chance of working, but that's offset by a very basic, unreliable aircraft. I'm not sure that ZRH has really worked from any of the AA hubs (ORD and DFW used to have service), but sure go ahead and try it at PHL and see what happens.

With all due respect, Commavia, quoting AA's website on its favorable passenger ratings is not credible. Look at the more objective sources please.

AAplat4life wrote:

With all due respect, Commavia, quoting AA's website on its favorable passenger ratings is not credible. Look at the more objective sources please.

How laughable.

http://www.theharrispoll.com/equitrend-rankings/2017

Still not "credible" and "objective" enough?

chepos wrote:

tphuang wrote:

commavia wrote:

Also loaded this morning - as expected/predicted, PHL-AMS will, indeed, be getting upgauged to the 767 next summer.

So a few interesting takeaways for S18, at least based on schedules as presently loaded:

(1) AA will be using 767s on five transatlantic routes out of PHL (AMS, BUD, LIS, PRG, ZRH)
(2) AA will be using 757s on just four transatlantic routes overall (JFK-DUB, JFK-EDI, PHL-GLA, PHL-SNN)
(3) AA will have 468 daily seats out of AMS during the summer, over 2.5x the daily seats AA had in the market at merger close

it looks like JFK-EDI is gone per recent update.

Where did you get this from (JFK EDI), ending?.

I see this in the OAG thread. Maybe this just means JFK-EDI is starting later next year.
AA JFK-CDG APR 1.9>1.0
AA JFK-EDI MAR 0.3>0
AA JFK-MAN APR 0.9>0
*AA JFK-ZRH MAR 0.9>0.7 APR 1.0>0

That's probably what it is actually, never mind.

NYCVIE wrote:

uberflieger wrote:

atl100million wrote:

Dominated by a low cost operator only one legacy can compete with and that's United, because of the power of its EWR hub.

But we're digressing

BUD/PRG/ZRH additions are giving us a glimpse of what's possible @ PHL, a key argument for the merger.

I meant JFK. Mistake on my part. AA used to be #1 from NYC to the Caribbean and they basically allowed B6 to take that market.

Also, am I missing something? Does DL not compete to the Caribbean from NYC?
UA and B6 are clearly doing a lot of Caribbean flying but DL is holding its own in the most important markets.

DL is flying to AUA, BDA, HAV, MBJ, NAS, PUJ, SXM, SJU, STI, SDQ, and STT year round in addition to GND, PLS, and SKB seasonally.
AA is flying to ANU, BDA, PAP, PLS, STT year round and PUJ, SKB, and SXM seasonally.

Clearly AA dropped the ball in JFK. Even SJU will be gone in a few days!

I'm pretty sure DL has a lot more slots at JFK than AA, in which case it's easier for them to opt to (possibly) lower-yielding leisure markets. If (and that's an IF at this point) AA is canceling some of these flights to redeploy to business markets, I think that makes sense with a limited slot portfolio.

Certainly AA is still a very different animal from what it once was at JFK, particularly before B6 became a behemoth there.

AA was never a powerhouse at JFK in terms of a connecting hub.

Delta always offered more feed, more flights to Europe, and more connecting opportunities.

AA flew large (garbage) planes to Ethnic Islands with high frequency as the background of their Island network from JFK.

The death of JFK began in Nov 2001. A300-> 767 -> 757 -> 0

The backbone of AA routes at JFK has always been on the plane that is retiring. Even these Euro reductions reflect that.

I flew the 767 to MXP. It was a 1980s cabin in Y. Maybe early 90s.

That is where JFK ranks in AA land.

This is just the latest group of old planes going bye bye and corresponding JFK reduction.

History tells us there will be no build up in the future. Sorry guys.

Predictions:

DEN lasts one season

More cuts to come at JFK. BA will move over and take over a wing of T8 when B6 starts building towards T7.

jfklganyc wrote:

AA was never a powerhouse at JFK in terms of a connecting hub.

Delta always offered more feed, more flights to Europe, and more connecting opportunities.

I agree - AA was never a "powerhouse" at JFK. AA was, in 2001, larger at JFK than Delta, but that changed long ago and is unlikely to ever change back. But then, again, AA doesn't need JFK to be a major connecting hub in the way Delta is using the airport.

jfklganyc wrote:

The backbone of AA routes at JFK has always been on the plane that is retiring.

Not really. JFK was, for instance, the first market to get the then-brand-new 767, one of the only markets to get the then-competitive A300 premium configuration, obviously the entire raison d'être for the extremely successful A321T transcon product, one of the first markets to get lie-flat J to LHR on the 77W and then 772, etc.

jfklganyc wrote:

I flew the 767 to MXP. It was a 1980s cabin in Y. Maybe early 90s.

There is just no question that AA's 767 offering is not competitive in 2017. Thus why, just as many of us have long predicted, that aircraft does, indeed, appear to be steadily making its way to markets where AA faces little or no competition - like DFW-Hawaii, PHL-Europe, and MIA-South America. Thankfully, JFK-MXP appears to be shifting to a retrofitted, modern 777 next summer. And as said, I expect CDG and MAD (the only two remaining 767 transatlantic routes left out of JFK) to also shift to the 777 next summer.

jfklganyc wrote:

History tells us there will be no build up in the future. Sorry guys.

"Build up?" No, I agree, that isn't happening. But personally, I doubt AA is relinquishing any of the prime (peak hour) JFK slots it has.

I just don't buy the doom and gloom. Again - from what I've seen and heard, it is striking how much less concerned AA itself seems to be about the long-term viability of NYC as compared with some here A.net.

AAplat4life wrote:

PHL-ZRH did not work previously when PHL had more traffic and a better product with the A330. A smaller 767 may have a chance of working, but that's offset by a very basic, unreliable aircraft. I'm not sure that ZRH has really worked from any of the AA hubs (ORD and DFW used to have service), but sure go ahead and try it at PHL and see what happens.

With all due respect, Commavia, quoting AA's website on its favorable passenger ratings is not credible. Look at the more objective sources please.

PHL-ZRH was flown on a B762 for years; an A332 was only placed on the route for around 5 months before a B763 took over. I'd say the 330 was too much capacity more than anything else, and now with JFK-ZRH being dropped, the route should do just fine being consolidated through PHL.

Interesting to note that AA now displays Boeing 787-8 operation from Chicago to all the European destinations in S18

BCN
CDG
DUB
FCO
LHR (4x)
MAN
VCE

LIPZ wrote:

Interesting to note that AA now displays Boeing 787-8 operation from Chicago to all the European destinations in S18

BCN
CDG
DUB
FCO
LHR (4x)
MAN
VCE

And, of course, AA's three ORD-Asia flights are also, now, all 787. And it makes sense - the 787 is the aircraft for the underdog. It's economics are tailored made for a carrier at a competitive disadvantage. That's AA at ORD - United has a permanent, structural and insurmountable lead at ORD in terms of flights and gates, so AA has to use the tools at its disposal to make its hub there financially successful. One of those tools is clearly the 787 - it has a modern product offering in J and Y, and it burns so much less fuel.

PHL-Europe will be up to 21 oneworld JBA TATL flights next summer. That is quite the growth. I remember back in the early 90's when PHL had to pay pre-merger AA to run domestic flights out of its new international Concourse A (now A-East) because otherwise it was going be empty (other than BA to LHR). PHL has come a long way...

And Delta adds another overseas destination from JFK on same day.

Sums up the past 17 years well!

Also interesting to look at the schedules, as presently programmed, in the context of AA's capacity into the dual SkyTeam-dominated hubs of AMS and CDG.

If I did the math correctly ... for S18 vs S17, AA frequency will be flat in AMS and down 25% (8 daily to 6 daily) at CDG, but capacity at the two airports combined will be down considerably less. CDG capacity will be down 21%, with about 19% of that reduction due to the loss of the BOS and second JFK, and about 2% of that 21% due to the introduction of PE on the 777/A330. But what's notable is how much this is offset by the increase (25% YOY) in seats at AMS due to PHL going to a 767 and DFW going to a 777. Net-net, AA capacity in these two markets overall is down 13%, with average gauge to the two cities up 8%.

Personally, I'm still skeptical that JFK-CDG will remain a 767, and if it does, in fact, end up going to a 777, that would yield an overall capacity reduction of 17% at CDG and 10% for CDG/AMS combined. I will also believe the daily 777 DFW-AMS when I see it.

I still have a hard time thinking DFW AMS will go 777, as I mentioned earlier in the thread rumor was that it was going 787 (which would make more sense). 777 would seem like too much aircraft, considering I do not recall DFW-AMS with crazy high loads this season. Good to see PHL AMS going 767, as to JFK EDI going away (mentioned earlier in this thread), that is the first I hear of this (I had not heard of this in any of the communications so far).

chepos wrote:

I still have a hard time thinking DFW AMS will go 777, as I mentioned earlier in the thread rumor was that it was going 787 (which would make more sense). 777 would seem like too much aircraft, considering I do not recall DFW-AMS with crazy high loads this season.

Agreed. I'll believe it when I see it - but the 777 seems too big for DFW-AMS, even in peak summer. Without having the knowledge AA obviously has, I can't say for sure, but it seems far more logical - to me - to put that 777, with a very solid hard product, on a route as high-volume, premium and competitive as JFK-CDG and put a 787 or, frankly, just keep the 767, on DFW-AMS.

And regarding CDG - depending on what AA decides it needs/wants in terms of higher yield mix versus sheer volume (potentially to compensate for the loss of two daily 757s to CDG coming out of the northeast), I also wouldn't be totally surprised to see PHL-CDG upgauged from the 3-class A332 to a higher-density 2-class A333.