AA Starting PHL-BUD/PRG; ORD-VCE; Move JFK-ZRH to PHL

winginit · Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:40 pm

sagechan wrote:
Lots of NYC bias here. Yes NYC is the largest market by far, but it is also the most competitive.

And the most expensive US market to do business in (at least when it comes to commercial aviation). Let's not forget the cost side of this equation.

commavia · Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:42 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
While I agree that is the likely outcome, AA certainly could make a big push to change its disadvantaged position. I have no doubt, however, that such a push would be extremely expensive and at the expense of PHL. It would make DL's push into NYC (which wasn't that long ago now) look easy.

Frankly, even setting the cost aside, I'm not sure AA could make such a push at this point - even if it wanted to. The reality is that new slots at NYC airports aren't being created, so any hypothetical AA expansion beyond its present schedule would require acquiring slots from a competitor, and I am skeptical as to whether antitrust regulators would allow it at this point. Thus why, I continue to believe, the ultimate objective for AA should be to make the most of the slots it has - more tailored O&D flying to bigger markets from JFK, and concentrating the large LGA slot portfolio on 2-class aircraft flying to major business markets.

hispanola wrote:
AA flew to LHR, ORY (then CDG), BRU, and ZRH before merging with TWA. Other destinations were added and dropped after that.

In the summer of 2001, the last schedule built prior to the TWA acquisition and 9/11, AA flew from JFK to only two European airports - LHR (6x daily) and CDG (2x daily, plus 1x daily TWA). Both BRU and ZRH, in their most recent iterations, occurred post-TWA.

winginit wrote:
Not sure that I agree with the notion that a lack of New York dominance has much to do with LAX apart from transcon presence. AA is throwing everything at LAX because they have nowhere else to establish a transpacific hub unless they intend to start from scratch or try to revive SJC - not because they need to win an arbitrary number of top metro areas or because DL has so successfully built up NYC. Additionally, it's highly unlikely that any carrier will ever dominate LAX as the facility is simply too constrained to house the growth that would be necessary to establish dominance - AA knows this, as do DL, UA, and WN.

Agreed on all counts. AA is building a gateway at LAX because it supports the broader objective of a viable, competitive transpacific offering. That said, I have to think that the speed and conviction with which AA is building a gateway at LAX must, even if only subconsciously, be informed to at least some degree by the shared, collective experience of the LAA management, if not also the LUS management, in watching AA lose its focus, and then lose its leadership position, at JFK.

As I've said before, JFK is probably the place, more than anywhere else, where the opportunity costs of AA's decision not to seek bankruptcy sooner are most acutely evident. Had AA filed for bankruptcy sooner, and thus had more competitive union contracts and costs sooner, I strongly suspect that AA would have been in a far, far stronger position to repel Delta's post-bankruptcy focus on JFK and NYC. As said - it is intriguing to think of the "what if" prospect of LAA circa 2001's presence at JFK combined with LUS circa 2008's presence at LGA. But, alas, it is what it is at this point. AA is now at a structural and insurmountable disadvantage in NYC relative to its two network peers that, I suspect, will be permanent.

The best AA can do at this point - and it's not bad at all - is optimize its still-quite-significant NYC slot portfolio to cater to the region's massive O&D market, and I continue to believe that will ultimately take the form of more O&D-based flying, to larger markets, out of JFK, and transitioning much if not all of the LGA schedule to 2-class RJs. Thankfully for AA, the saving grace is that now with having such an excellent omni-directional, all-throughout-the-day, domestic-and-international, relatively-minimally-competitive megahub right down I-95 at PHL, AA needs JFK as a connecting hub far less than it did pre-merger.

runway23 wrote:
They are also two destinations where yields will be atrocious - there's close to zero business demand compared to other destinations in Europe. It can work for 3 months in peak summer time but outside of that it will be a disaster.

Indeed. Thus precisely why, I suspect, these routes are both going to operate for pretty much exactly three months during peak summer and nothing more. I agree that filling these planes won't be tough - it isn't hard to fill a plane to just about anywhere in Europe during peak summer. The issue will be yields - and thus premium traffic. There, too, I agree that both of these markets certainly do generate premium demand - some business, but mostly premium leisure, and that the latter, is, indeed, pretty much entirely concentrated during essentially a 90-day window from June to August. The question is whether or not AA will be able to capture a sufficient portion of this premium leisure demand to make these flights viable. I'll be as genuinely interested as everybody else to find out the answer.

usflyer msp · Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:45 pm

If AA continues on this seasonal trend, I wonder if they might create a subset of densely configured 763's for Caribbean/Northern South America/Hawaii routes in the winter and leisure Europe/Hawaii flying in the summer - something like 18C/230Y. Flying around planes with 30 business class seats to PRG and BUD is leaving money on the table IMHO...

commavia · Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:53 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
If AA continues on this seasonal trend, I wonder if they might create a subset of densely configured 763's for Caribbean/Northern South America/Hawaii routes in the winter and leisure Europe/Hawaii flying in the summer - something like 18C/230Y. Flying around planes with 30 business class seats to PRG and BUD is leaving money on the table IMHO...

Yep. Wouldn't surprise me at all. These numbers will change somewhat with the PE installations, but based on today's configurations, the 767s are AA's most premium-heavy longhaul aircraft after the 77W and the small J45 subfleet of the 772 - which is, indeed, pretty amazing given where they're flying. At this point, given the missions the 767s are most likely to be doing for the remainder of their career at AA, 28 J does seem like too many. Hawaii, MIA-MVD/CNF and seasonal PHL-Europe seem too leisure-oriented to justify that large a premium cabin. The question at this point becomes whether the payback on the cost of modifying the cabin makes sense given AA's expectation of the remaining useful life of these planes.

oc2dc · Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:54 pm

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)

I too see this as the beginning of the end for AA at JFK. They left room for DL to get in the back door and DL has been enormously successful in expanding at JFK over the past 10 years.

It is clear now that US management doesn't have a strategy for JFK and would prefer to use PHL as their Northeast hub. I'm not saying AA is fully giving up on JFK, but I think the importance of JFK to AA management has diminished and they have a relatively viable alternative at PHL.

Anecdotal note:
I've flown JFK-ZRH extensively on AA and J was almost always full. I imagined it was made up of a lot of NYC bankers and businessmen. On my last flight, when the flight attendant came around to say her goodbyes before landing, she was asking where everyone was going. Quite literally half the J cabin was going to LAX while others were off to MIA. I was surprised to see how much connecting traffic there was on the flight. Clearly, AA can take those same passengers through PHL without a problem.

atl100million · Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:55 pm

winginit wrote:
sagechan wrote:
Lots of NYC bias here. Yes NYC is the largest market by far, but it is also the most competitive.

And the most expensive US market to do business in (at least when it comes to commercial aviation). Let's not forget the cost side of this equation.

With all due respect, NYC was expensive when AA had a larger operation there... and that didn't stop them from operating there.

The cost of operation in NYC isn't the driver.

Further, AA has a very nice terminal at JFK which becomes more and more costly per passenger as flights continue to be cancelled.

AA does have a very nice slot portfolio at LGA and they need to make the most of it.

I believe they are past the point of having a critical size in NYC to destinations which B6 DL and UA can serve from JFK or EWR. The best alternative for AA in NYC is for the perimeter restrictions at LGA be removed so that they can build a decent-sized west coast presence from LGA and leave JFK just for its oneworld international hubs and a much smaller domestic presence. B6 would gladly buy the slots from AA.

MIAFLLPBIFlyer · Wed Aug 16, 2017 11:59 pm

hispanola wrote:
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.

AA flew to LHR, ORY (then CDG), BRU, and ZRH before merging with TWA. Other destinations were added and dropped after that.

I think BRU was off and on. It was off when the merger took place. ZRH I think wasn't served until after the merger.

Most TATL prior to the merger was from ORD. Over time it shifted to JFK. BRU was served from ORD consistently in the 90's and 00's, for example.

tphuang · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:02 am

oc2dc wrote:
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)

I too see this as the beginning of the end for AA at JFK. They left room for DL to get in the back door and DL has been enormously successful in expanding at JFK over the past 10 years.

It is clear now that US management doesn't have a strategy for JFK and would prefer to use PHL as their Northeast hub. I'm not saying AA is fully giving up on JFK, but I think the importance of JFK to AA management has diminished and they have a relatively viable alternative at PHL.

Anecdotal note:
I've flown JFK-ZRH extensively on AA and J was almost always full. I imagined it was made up of a lot of NYC bankers and businessmen. On my last flight, when the flight attendant came around to say her goodbyes before landing, she was asking where everyone was going. Quite literally half the J cabin was going to LAX while others were off to MIA. I was surprised to see how much connecting traffic there was on the flight. Clearly, AA can take those same passengers through PHL without a problem.

AA has been shrinking slowly for a while and I'm concerned that flights to MAD/ROM/MXP/BCN will all get cut, which is a huge bummer.

Really stinks for me since I don't want to transit at LHR everytime I fly to Europe

Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

I hear JFK-SFO aren't getting great yields in premium cabins. And they haven't redeployed those cut slots elsewhere. So, I don't buy this slot argument. They are just cutting down JFK operation.

EarlyLateORD · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:02 am

Within AA's various intl changes, i would love to see ORD-EZE return on AA. Demand has grown considerably over the past year.

Adam

wenders825 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:07 am

EarlyLateORD wrote:
Within AA's various intl changes, i would love to see ORD-EZE return on AA. Demand has grown considerably over the past year.

Adam

I'm sure AA would love to beat UA to the punch like they did with ORD-VCE

at the least, despite the pullbacks, AA remains strong in ORD and isn't afraid to compete hard with UA there. new gates and all

BUD/PRG will be successful seasonal operations

grbauc · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:11 am

wn676 wrote:
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.

Having no connectivity on the BUD end may be why they're trying to utilize a large connecting hub - PHL - over a more point-to-point operation out of JFK. I think this was the strategy that a few were predicting here regarding the dynamic between JFK and PHL going forward in AA's network.

commavia · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:18 am

tphuang wrote:
Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

Interesting comment, given that AA apparently plans to improve its offering in transcon markets like JFK-SAN and JFK-SEA next year.

chepos · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:29 am

tphuang wrote:
oc2dc wrote:
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)

I too see this as the beginning of the end for AA at JFK. They left room for DL to get in the back door and DL has been enormously successful in expanding at JFK over the past 10 years.

It is clear now that US management doesn't have a strategy for JFK and would prefer to use PHL as their Northeast hub. I'm not saying AA is fully giving up on JFK, but I think the importance of JFK to AA management has diminished and they have a relatively viable alternative at PHL.

Anecdotal note:
I've flown JFK-ZRH extensively on AA and J was almost always full. I imagined it was made up of a lot of NYC bankers and businessmen. On my last flight, when the flight attendant came around to say her goodbyes before landing, she was asking where everyone was going. Quite literally half the J cabin was going to LAX while others were off to MIA. I was surprised to see how much connecting traffic there was on the flight. Clearly, AA can take those same passengers through PHL without a problem.

AA has been shrinking slowly for a while and I'm concerned that flights to MAD/ROM/MXP/BCN will all get cut, which is a huge bummer.

Really stinks for me since I don't want to transit at LHR everytime I fly to Europe

Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

I hear JFK-SFO aren't getting great yields in premium cabins. And they haven't redeployed those cut slots elsewhere. So, I don't buy this slot argument. They are just cutting down JFK operation.

I highly doubt FCO/MAD/BCN will get cut. Come on now!

atl100million · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:37 am

commavia wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

Interesting comment, given that AA apparently plans to improve its offering in transcon markets like JFK-SAN and JFK-SEA next year.

You didn't say how they are going to improve but if they are going to add int'l configured 757s and have AVOD throughout the plane, then they are in the same hard product ballpark as B6 and DL.

I suspect that AA and DL would both roll out a 321 version of their int'l 757s IF they knew that the LGA perimeter restriction wasn't going to change. But if the restrictions are relaxed and AA and DL esp. can add a number of LGA transcon flights, the 321 won't work in any configuration.

chepos wrote:
I highly doubt FCO/MAD/BCN will get cut. Come on now!

MAD and BCN are "safe" as long as Iberia is a key part of the JV.

However, AA is making a play for Italy while AZ's future is figured out. How AA does long-term in Italy is as unknown as how anyone does there - given no outcome for AZ or FCO and MXP as hubs

chepos · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:47 am

FCO is a market all 3 US majors will serve (particularly in peak summer), regardless if AZ survives or not. It is one of Europes biggest summer destinations. Mind you AA flies it in the summer from ORD, PHL, CLT, JFK and DFW.

Austin787 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 12:52 am

tphuang wrote:
oc2dc wrote:
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)

I too see this as the beginning of the end for AA at JFK. They left room for DL to get in the back door and DL has been enormously successful in expanding at JFK over the past 10 years.

It is clear now that US management doesn't have a strategy for JFK and would prefer to use PHL as their Northeast hub. I'm not saying AA is fully giving up on JFK, but I think the importance of JFK to AA management has diminished and they have a relatively viable alternative at PHL.

Anecdotal note:
I've flown JFK-ZRH extensively on AA and J was almost always full. I imagined it was made up of a lot of NYC bankers and businessmen. On my last flight, when the flight attendant came around to say her goodbyes before landing, she was asking where everyone was going. Quite literally half the J cabin was going to LAX while others were off to MIA. I was surprised to see how much connecting traffic there was on the flight. Clearly, AA can take those same passengers through PHL without a problem.

AA has been shrinking slowly for a while and I'm concerned that flights to MAD/ROM/MXP/BCN will all get cut, which is a huge bummer.

Really stinks for me since I don't want to transit at LHR everytime I fly to Europe

Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

I hear JFK-SFO aren't getting great yields in premium cabins. And they haven't redeployed those cut slots elsewhere. So, I don't buy this slot argument. They are just cutting down JFK operation.

I think any JFK route not touching the other hubs or LHR is in jeopardy of being cut. As for the slots, I think Doug Parker could look to trade slots - I'm sure Delta, JetBlue, United, and maybe Southwest would be interested in buying AA's unused slots.

wenders825 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:05 am

atl100million wrote:
commavia wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

Interesting comment, given that AA apparently plans to improve its offering in transcon markets like JFK-SAN and JFK-SEA next year.

You didn't say how they are going to improve but if they are going to add int'l configured 757s and have AVOD throughout the plane, then they are in the same hard product ballpark as B6 and DL.

I suspect that AA and DL would both roll out a 321 version of their int'l 757s IF they knew that the LGA perimeter restriction wasn't going to change. But if the restrictions are relaxed and AA and DL esp. can add a number of LGA transcon flights, the 321 won't work in any configuration.

chepos wrote:
I highly doubt FCO/MAD/BCN will get cut. Come on now!

MAD and BCN are "safe" as long as Iberia is a key part of the JV.

However, AA is making a play for Italy while AZ's future is figured out. How AA does long-term in Italy is as unknown as how anyone does there - given no outcome for AZ or FCO and MXP as hubs

came here to say FCO/MAD/BCN are safe bets to stay at JFK. AA/IB dominate US-Spain (I'm actually shocked DFW-BCN wasn't announced today, I fully expect that in the future) and AA is really looking to have a very strong share of US-Italy. I would've bet on MIA-FCO but ORD-VCE is a brilliant move - UA isn't on that route. sure it's leisure but still. I don't forsee those changing

MXP is an interesting one. it's been said that the large majority of US-MXP demand is MIA and JFK. so I imagine AA will remain the dominate player there. time will tell...

JFK-EDI totally will become PHL-EDI I think

rbavfan · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:21 am

IrishAyes wrote:
what about the operational reliability of the 767s to use on PHL-BUD/PRG? This has been a disaster for DFW-AMS this summer.

DFW has higher heat than PHL during summers and DFW-AMS is longer range.

EMB170 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:29 am

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 at JFK, people simply don't want to connect in NYC, so they will fly another route that cost a little more if it makes reasonable sense. Shifting some TATL to PHL helps AA avoid that problem, and keeps those pax who may have chose other airlines.

The problem with connecting over NYC in general is that for any airports within the LGA perimeter, AA and DL generally don't offer flights to JFK but will offer them to LGA (or if they offer JFK service, it's TATL-connection-based and is only 1x a day). Then, if the flight cancels (and again, most of these flights are on Eagle/DCI, which generally have higher cancellation probabilities) the passengers are stranded and don't get to go out until the next day. I can personally attest to this.

acentauri · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:30 am

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
.............................

With these changes, and several more yet to come, it appears that merged AA may be starting to seriously rightsize/re-define their Hubs.
It'll be interesting to watch how CLT evolves or devolves, particularly in its historic role as a reliever hub for domestic-international traffic flows. People seem to credit DL with "overtaking" AA at JFK, but remember that much of DL's JFK portfolio (including Slots) comes from their PAN AM asset acquisition.

jbs2886 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:34 am

acentauri wrote:
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
.............................

With these changes, and several more yet to come, it appears that merged AA may be starting to seriously rightsize/re-define their Hubs.
It'll be interesting to watch how CLT evolves or devolves, particularly in its historic role as a reliever hub for domestic-international traffic flows. People seem to credit DL with "overtaking" AA at JFK, but remember that much of DL's JFK portfolio (including Slots) comes from their PAN AM asset acquisition.

The vast majority of DL's JFK portfolio is after DL got the Pan Am assets, then discontinued those operations, and started them again in the most recent post-bankruptcy push. DL basically dismantled much of their Pan Am acquisition, so I'm not sure of your point.

EMB170 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:36 am

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 just about 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.

The point isn't that PHL doesn't have the same ATC delays as JFK (if not worse). The point is that PHL is one airport[i][/i]- any airline operating into PHL, flies into PHL. The problem is that most airlines (but specifically AA and DL) tend to offer more LGA service than they do JFK service. So if your flight into PHL goes MX, it's possible to still get to PHL and make your connecting flight...it's not as if international departures from Philadelphia all operate from PHL but the bulk of Philly's domestic departures are from PNE.

acentauri · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:41 am

jbs2886 wrote:
acentauri wrote:
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
.............................

With these changes, and several more yet to come, it appears that merged AA may be starting to seriously rightsize/re-define their Hubs.
It'll be interesting to watch how CLT evolves or devolves, particularly in its historic role as a reliever hub for domestic-international traffic flows. People seem to credit DL with "overtaking" AA at JFK, but remember that much of DL's JFK portfolio (including Slots) comes from their PAN AM asset acquisition.

The vast majority of DL's JFK portfolio is after DL got the Pan Am assets, then discontinued those operations, and started them again in the most recent post-bankruptcy push. DL basically dismantled much of their Pan Am acquisition, so I'm not sure of your point.

DL did not dismantle the key asset - the SLOTS.

ty97 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:44 am

Austin787 wrote:

I think any JFK route not touching the other hubs or LHR is in jeopardy of being cut. As for the slots, I think Doug Parker could look to trade slots - I'm sure Delta, JetBlue, United, and maybe Southwest would be interested in buying AA's unused slots.[/quote]

The question would be where / which slots that AA would be interested in for any JFK slots?

Maybe AA wouldn't mind getting some LGA slots back, but they can't reacquire any of those for at least 5 years post-merger, and I don't see any of those airlines wanting to give up LGA slots. Plus Doug just gave away a bunch of LGA slots to DL a few years ago for DCA slots. B6, UA, and WN have limited LGA slots so are unlikely to want to give any up.

WN has DAL, but I doubt they are giving that up, I doubt AA wants it with the DFW down the road, and their may also be merger limits there on what AA can acquire / not acquire for a period of time.

EWR isn't slot restricted anymore but why would AA want EWR slots over JFK slots?

Where else are these airlines operating that is slot restricted? I can't think of any place in the US at the moment. LAX is gate restricted but I don't think slot restricted. LHR maybe, but doubtful anyone is giving up LHR slots.

I just don't see anyone having anything AA would want, other than perhaps LHR which I doubt anyone would be willing to give.

jbs2886 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:47 am

acentauri wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
acentauri wrote:
With these changes, and several more yet to come, it appears that merged AA may be starting to seriously rightsize/re-define their Hubs.
It'll be interesting to watch how CLT evolves or devolves, particularly in its historic role as a reliever hub for domestic-international traffic flows. People seem to credit DL with "overtaking" AA at JFK, but remember that much of DL's JFK portfolio (including Slots) comes from their PAN AM asset acquisition.

The vast majority of DL's JFK portfolio is after DL got the Pan Am assets, then discontinued those operations, and started them again in the most recent post-bankruptcy push. DL basically dismantled much of their Pan Am acquisition, so I'm not sure of your point.

DL did not dismantle the key asset - the SLOTS.

So holding slots and using them predominately for JFK-Florida traffic means DL didn't really "overtake" AA? Whether you like DL or not, DL's creation of a huge network, including a large TATL operation is significant and impressive.

winginit · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:56 am

atl100million wrote:
With all due respect, NYC was expensive when AA had a larger operation there... and that didn't stop them from operating there.

Actually, as the carrier fell deeper and deeper into difficult financial times - that's exactly what it did... Were you of the impression that AA began to shift their focus away from NYC just for kicks and giggles? It is very, very difficult to turn a profit in New York (granted, for reasons apart from being expensive) as I'm sure you're aware.

atl100million · Thu Aug 17, 2017 1:57 am

DL closed the FRA hub it acquired from Pan Am but they started new routes from JFK to many of the cities that were served via the FRA hub - ATH, IST, PRG etc

DL's JFK transatlantic operation did not grow for much of the 90s but it wasn't dismantled and didn't shrink.

EMB170 wrote:
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 just about 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.

The point isn't that PHL doesn't have the same ATC delays as JFK (if not worse). The point is that PHL is one airport[i][/i]- any airline operating into PHL, flies into PHL. The problem is that most airlines (but specifically AA and DL) tend to offer more LGA service than they do JFK service. So if your flight into PHL goes MX, it's possible to still get to PHL and make your connecting flight...it's not as if international departures from Philadelphia all operate from PHL but the bulk of Philly's domestic departures are from PNE.

Most of DL's slots at JFK in the 2000s were "acquired" when JFK was not slot controlled - and it wasn't for several years in the mid-2000s which coincided with its greatest growth spurt. When slot controls were added back, DL's additional "slots" were grandfathered.

Slot restrictions at LGA were also dropped for a period in the post 9/11 period but for a shorter period of time. DL also added flights during that time which they were able to retain when slot controls were added there.

Specific to AA, since that is the focus of this discussion, AA's desire during the mid-2000s was that a percentage of slots at LGA be permanently removed to improve on-time performance. Of course that strategy did not happen in large part because it would have reduced the ability for low fare carriers to enter the market. It also highlights that AA didn't take advantage of the opportunity to grow its NYC franchise when slot controls were removed but instead was pushing for slot controls to be retained but with a reduction in the number of flights.

As for flights between JFK and LGA, DL actually duplicates a number of cities served from both LGA and JFK. DL has more slots at LGA than JFK. Not all cities served from LGA have JFK service since JFK also has international and outside the perimeter markets. In many markets where there are lengthy ATC delays, DL offers passengers the option to fly into LGA and then provides ground transportation to JFK. On the return from Europe, they do the opposite. Pan Am did it to some cities and DL does it where it works to a much larger network.

DL also publishes schedules connecting between LGA and JFK and some people do buy those flights. I believe the minimum connect time for a LGA to JFK outbound international connection is about 3 hours.

AA and DL BOTH have more nonstop flights to Florida from LGA than JFK.

Many of AA's cities served from JFK with RJs are also served from JFK although many of their JFK RJ markets only have one flight/day which makes it hard to make a ground transportation connection work.

And further, if flights at PHL are cancelled due to extended delays, many international connections don't work. AA's biggest fallback when NE ATC is really bad is connections via LHR just as DL also uses AMS/CDG and UA uses FRA/MUC/BRU/ZRH for connections.

WROORD · Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:01 am

Hold your excitement people both BUD and PRG will be gone after the summer season. There is just not enough demand for the routes. US turists that go there usually start somewhere else and make an extension via train or intra-European flight.Mediocre business at best. VCE and BCN could probably stay as seasonal - not sure about VCE, but BCN is a starting point for a lot of Mediterranean cruises

ty97 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:02 am

WROORD wrote:
Hold your excitement people both BUD and PRG will be gone after the summer season. There is just not enough demand for the routes.

They were announced as summer seasonal routes so we know they'll be gone after the summer season.

N292UX · Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:16 am

Boy, that escalated quickly.
Surprised they added PRG before GVA

tphuang · Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:27 am

commavia wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

Interesting comment, given that AA apparently plans to improve its offering in transcon markets like JFK-SAN and JFK-SEA next year.

That would be great if it is happening. Can you provide more info? I just haven't seen anything on this on ft.

WROORD · Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:28 am

winginit wrote:
sagechan wrote:
Lots of NYC bias here. Yes NYC is the largest market by far, but it is also the most competitive.

And the most expensive US market to do business in (at least when it comes to commercial aviation). Let's not forget the cost side of this equation.

I meant gone for good after one season.

wn676 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:42 am

tphuang wrote:
commavia wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Even domestically, routes like JFK-SAN/SEA are in trouble now that competitors are all stepping up and AA has the worst product on the market.

Interesting comment, given that AA apparently plans to improve its offering in transcon markets like JFK-SAN and JFK-SEA next year.

That would be great if it is happening. Can you provide more info? I just haven't seen anything on this on ft.

At this point all they've hinted at is "better schedules" on JFK-SAN/SEA/PHX next year. What that will really entail hasn't been made clear yet, although it was mentioned that eliminating JFK-MAN/BOS-CDG and reducing JFK-CDG will fund the flying for these changes. So one would presume it will involve the 75L fleet, unless it's a more muddled shifting of aircraft.

wenders825 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 2:55 am

N292UX wrote:
Boy, that escalated quickly.
Surprised they added PRG before GVA

I think they know UA/LX dominate GVA and BA can pick up what's left. I don't see AA adding GVA maybe ever - but who knows

PRG is a very popular - and only increasing - destination for Americans. tourism and lots of students studying abroad. Budapest too, someone joked earlier up thread that it's the new Iceland. they're right!

ADrum23 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:06 am

So is the AA hub at JFK living on borrowed time? I hope not. I'd be surprised if they ultimately closed it, considering it would leave NYC and a decent portion of the TATL market at the mercy of DL.

jfklganyc · Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:11 am

ty97 wrote:
Austin787 wrote:

I think any JFK route not touching the other hubs or LHR is in jeopardy of being cut. As for the slots, I think Doug Parker could look to trade slots - I'm sure Delta, JetBlue, United, and maybe Southwest would be interested in buying AA's unused slots.

The question would be where / which slots that AA would be interested in for any JFK slots?

Maybe AA wouldn't mind getting some LGA slots back, but they can't reacquire any of those for at least 5 years post-merger, and I don't see any of those airlines wanting to give up LGA slots. Plus Doug just gave away a bunch of LGA slots to DL a few years ago for DCA slots. B6, UA, and WN have limited LGA slots so are unlikely to want to give any up.

WN has DAL, but I doubt they are giving that up, I doubt AA wants it with the DFW down the road, and their may also be merger limits there on what AA can acquire / not acquire for a period of time.

EWR isn't slot restricted anymore but why would AA want EWR slots over JFK slots?

Where else are these airlines operating that is slot restricted? I can't think of any place in the US at the moment. LAX is gate restricted but I don't think slot restricted. LHR maybe, but doubtful anyone is giving up LHR slots.

I just don't see anyone having anything AA would want, other than perhaps LHR which I doubt anyone would be willing to give.[/quote]

You hit on something here.

I was thinking earlier...UA left JFK for EWR. DL has JFK and LGA. AA is pulling down NYC for PHL.

It's a problem.

Then again, Dougie let LGA flounder and then swapped it all away. Few people talk about it, but in the end, US at LGA was a beautiful terminal run into the ground with duct tape on the 1992 carpet, USAIR signage 10 years after USAirways was in place, and a bunch of slots transitioned from 1990s 737s to 2000s turboprops and small RJs. And the food court pigeons...cant forget those.

US had the LARGEST and BEST SLOT portfolio and TERMINAL in the most coveted business airport in the country (perhaps the world)

That was how much Dougie thought of NYC.

Sydscott · Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:25 am

jfklganyc wrote:

US had the LARGEST and BEST SLOT portfolio and TERMINAL in the most coveted business airport in the country (perhaps the world)

That was how much Dougie thought of NYC.

And he couldn't make money on it so rather than try he swapped the slots for DCA slots that, by all accounts, does make a significant amount of money. So everything in context.

grbauc · Thu Aug 17, 2017 3:56 am

chepos wrote:
I had heard internally DFW AMS was going 787 next year. But who knows.

That needs to go 787. Reports have been lots of Maintenance delays due to aircraft.

wenders825 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:01 am

grbauc wrote:
chepos wrote:
I had heard internally DFW AMS was going 787 next year. But who knows.

That needs to go 787. Reports have been lots of Maintenance delays due to aircraft.

it's loaded as a 772 now but could go 787. then again, RDU-LHR was rumored for ages to go 787 and yet it appears to be staying 772 year round as well.

as long as DFW-AMS stays, I don't mind either the 772 or 787.

bpat777 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 4:47 am

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 just about 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.

Also, how many main runways does PHL have compared to JFK? I believe PHL only has 2?

I've flown out of JFK 11x in the past 12 months and never waited more than 20-25 minutes to take off. But the same goes for PHL,I don't remember waiting long the times I've flown from there.

LeaderOne · Thu Aug 17, 2017 5:14 am

bpat777 wrote:
Also, how many main runways does PHL have compared to JFK? I believe PHL only has 2?

I've flown out of JFK 11x in the past 12 months and never waited more than 20-25 minutes to take off. But the same goes for PHL,I don't remember waiting long the times I've flown from there.

PHL and JFK both have four runways.

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.

This is completely irrelevant. If ATC issues factored into route-making decisions, then UA would have ditched EWR and SFO for IAD and LAX, respectively, a long time ago and nobody would ever consider flying into LGA or LHR.

Besides, as people have already mentioned, PHL has delay issues, too.

Cointrin330 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:10 am

Adding flights from Philadelphia to Europe does make strategic sense, as this is where AA can capture a good balance of connecting traffic plus O&D as it is a large market, but essentially "ceding" traffic at JFK is a strategic mistake. There is no market like the Greater NYC market. It is the single largest O&D market in the USA with a large amount of corporate traffic and a good base of demand for premium cabin service. The market is fragmented with DL, UA, and B6 being the biggest in terms of market share (not necessarily in that order). AA has a strong presence at LGA (being the #2 carrier there, behind DL) and a very efficient terminal at JFK. The fact that AA management, pre and post-merger haven't been able to figure out a way to make NY work for the airline better is really sad. I see more cuts at JFK on the horizon, with many more domestic markets cast off. As for international routes, MXP might hold on depending on what will happen to AZ. It's a business oriented route, for sure, but with EK in the market, with a lot of inventory on that A380, pricing is challenged. They've managed to co-exist for a few years now. We'll see what happens. LHR is really BA now, with only 3 daily AA flights. CDG going down to one will most likely see an up gauge to the 777 and BCN will stay on as its a code share with IB and likely profitable year-round as the demand is very much there. I can see MAD being cut (just have IB fly it, as they do, twice daily). GRU, GIG, and EZE will stay. These are AA's bread and butter long haul markets.

Cointrin330 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:12 am

runway23 wrote:
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.

They are also two destinations where yields will be atrocious - there's close to zero business demand compared to other destinations in Europe. It can work for 3 months in peak summer time but outside of that it will be a disaster.

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.

This year is actually AA's 30th year in Switzerland. Don't forget that during those 30 years AA became SR's main transatlantic partner (when DL gave SR the boot) then LX got bought up by LH and partnered with UA. AA's presence in ZRH is historic but now a shadow of what it used to be.

Regardless of corporate contracts, JFK-ZRH even recently was one of the best performers for AA out of JFK in terms of premium demand, which makes the decision all the more weird and points to a lack of strategy out of JFK or at least one drifting towards PHL.

In the late 1980's, AA actually had DFW, ORD, and JFK to ZRH. The DFW route was dropped only to come back when the SR code share agreement was forged. It reportedly did well, but not once the transfer opportunities disappeared with SR's demise. ORD was dropped around 1994 or 1995 and never came back.

grbauc · Thu Aug 17, 2017 7:56 am

wenders825 wrote:
grbauc wrote:
chepos wrote:
I had heard internally DFW AMS was going 787 next year. But who knows.

That needs to go 787. Reports have been lots of Maintenance delays due to aircraft.

it's loaded as a 772 now but could go 787. then again, RDU-LHR was rumored for ages to go 787 and yet it appears to be staying 772 year round as well.

as long as DFW-AMS stays, I don't mind either the 772 or 787.

I thought they were still running the 767 that were giving them the delay issues.

grbauc · Thu Aug 17, 2017 8:32 am

jbs2886 wrote:
acentauri wrote:
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
.............................

With these changes, and several more yet to come, it appears that merged AA may be starting to seriously rightsize/re-define their Hubs.
It'll be interesting to watch how CLT evolves or devolves, particularly in its historic role as a reliever hub for domestic-international traffic flows. People seem to credit DL with "overtaking" AA at JFK, but remember that much of DL's JFK portfolio (including Slots) comes from their PAN AM asset acquisition.

And dismantled there LAX operation and have built it back up..
The vast majority of DL's JFK portfolio is after DL got the Pan Am assets, then discontinued those operations, and started them again in the most recent post-bankruptcy push. DL basically dismantled much of their Pan Am acquisition, so I'm not sure of your point.

OslPhlWasChi · Thu Aug 17, 2017 9:42 am

Not sure if its news or not but it appears that in addition to JFK losing one of its flights to CDG, Boston is also losing its seasonal service to CDG.
http://airlinegeeks.com/2017/08/16/amer ... 18-routes/

chepos · Thu Aug 17, 2017 10:39 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
Adding flights from Philadelphia to Europe does make strategic sense, as this is where AA can capture a good balance of connecting traffic plus O&D as it is a large market, but essentially "ceding" traffic at JFK is a strategic mistake. There is no market like the Greater NYC market. It is the single largest O&D market in the USA with a large amount of corporate traffic and a good base of demand for premium cabin service. The market is fragmented with DL, UA, and B6 being the biggest in terms of market share (not necessarily in that order). AA has a strong presence at LGA (being the #2 carrier there, behind DL) and a very efficient terminal at JFK. The fact that AA management, pre and post-merger haven't been able to figure out a way to make NY work for the airline better is really sad. I see more cuts at JFK on the horizon, with many more domestic markets cast off. As for international routes, MXP might hold on depending on what will happen to AZ. It's a business oriented route, for sure, but with EK in the market, with a lot of inventory on that A380, pricing is challenged. They've managed to co-exist for a few years now. We'll see what happens. LHR is really BA now, with only 3 daily AA flights. CDG going down to one will most likely see an up gauge to the 777 and BCN will stay on as its a code share with IB and likely profitable year-round as the demand is very much there. I can see MAD being cut (just have IB fly it, as they do, twice daily). GRU, GIG, and EZE will stay. These are AA's bread and butter long haul markets.

JFK LHR is operated 4 X daily on AA metal, the daytime flight and 3 evening departures.

wn676 · Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:07 am

[twoid][/twoid]

grbauc wrote:
wenders825 wrote:
grbauc wrote:

That needs to go 787. Reports have been lots of Maintenance delays due to aircraft.

it's loaded as a 772 now but could go 787. then again, RDU-LHR was rumored for ages to go 787 and yet it appears to be staying 772 year round as well.

as long as DFW-AMS stays, I don't mind either the 772 or 787.

I thought they were still running the 767 that were giving them the delay issues.

It remains a 767 through the end of this season; next summer it is currently scheduled to operate with a 772.

lesfalls · Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:40 am

I flew JFK-MXP in March. Biz was 90-100% full while on the other hand Eco was around 50%-60% full. I defitnetly could see MXP getting moved to PHL with there being more connections there.

jfklganyc · Thu Aug 17, 2017 11:43 am

Yes, for a while AA did go down to 3x. They brought back morning flight last year.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net