Terminal 1 was the old blue box... Terminal 2 is where the old AA hub terminal was located

ERJ170 wrote:

Terminal 1 was the old blue box... Terminal 2 is where the old AA hub terminal was located

The terminal AA used as their hub is technically gone. They removed all of Terminal C (also known as the Red Roof Terminal) with the renovation. AA owned Terminal C for long after they dehubbed.

Correct.. that’s why I said T2 WAS where AA hub terminal was located..

WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4

EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!

https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969

RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.

RDUflyer wrote:

WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4

EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!

https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969

RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.

Did not see WN being the carrier to pull the trigger on SJC.

WN is getting two more gates at AUS in February, so this isn’t too big of a surprise. Very nice add.

rajincajun01 wrote:

RDUflyer wrote:

WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4

EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!

https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969

RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.

Did not see WN being the carrier to pull the trigger on SJC.

WN is getting two more gates at AUS in February, so this isn’t too big of a surprise. Very nice add.

The Tweet say SJC-RDU is ONCE PER WEEK.
Is that correct?
What is the point in that? Why bother.

LovePrunesAnet wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

RDUflyer wrote:

WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4

EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!

https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969

RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.

Did not see WN being the carrier to pull the trigger on SJC.

WN is getting two more gates at AUS in February, so this isn’t too big of a surprise. Very nice add.

The Tweet say SJC-RDU is ONCE PER WEEK.
Is that correct?
What is the point in that? Why bother.

Connections to Hawaii, currently RDU has no service to any of WN's mainland gateways to Hawaii.

LovePrunesAnet wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

RDUflyer wrote:

WN adding daily AUS service beginning June 9.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... G3eX75oIA4

EDIT: RDU Airport Twitter just confirmed this, and RDU CEO also says WN is adding weekly SJC!

https://twitter.com/RDUAirport/status/1 ... 0080211969

RDUAA is having its monthly board meeting. CEO says October up 8.2 percent (1.1 million total pax for the month) — DL, UA and F9 the primary drivers. I'll keep an eye out for any other news.

Did not see WN being the carrier to pull the trigger on SJC.

WN is getting two more gates at AUS in February, so this isn’t too big of a surprise. Very nice add.

The Tweet say SJC-RDU is ONCE PER WEEK.
Is that correct?
What is the point in that? Why bother.

Airlines often do this to test new routes. Aircraft utilization is often lowest on Saturday. If planes are idle, they aren’t making money.

ERJ170 wrote:

Terminal 1 was the old blue box... Terminal 2 is where the old AA hub terminal was located

So is that section of Terminal 1 that had its jetways removed where all the other carriers used to be based? Can it be used again? Or is it space that is just not functional anymore? Looking at it from Google Earth, it looks like there is room for at least 6 gates there. (note: I've dropped people off at RDU a couple of times, but have never flown out of it myself).

They 4 gates that are available (T1-T4) are being brought online and will be up by 2020... from what I understand, the baggage system wasn’t connected to those gates so they have to fix that.. of course, why they would do that is beyond not bright to me...

Would have rather seen DL or AS begin RDU-SJC daily than WN on a weekly flight.

Noise wrote:

Would have rather seen DL or AS begin RDU-SJC daily than WN on a weekly flight.

Also once per week on Saturday as a test route is not going to expose this route to the best utilization. It’s not a test route in a vacuum but competes against RDU-SFO on UA and AS with multiple frequencies daily. Saturday is the lightest utilization on this route - if you’re coming home from a week at work you cut out early on Friday so that you’re home by evening. If you’re heading out for work you wait until Sunday or even Monday morning. Also the value propostion of not having to drive the 30 miles from Silicon Valley to SFO by flying out of SJC makes more sense in weekday traffic. On a weekend it’s easy to zip up 101 or 280 to SFO.

blueheronNC wrote:

Noise wrote:

Would have rather seen DL or AS begin RDU-SJC daily than WN on a weekly flight.

Also once per week on Saturday as a test route is not going to expose this route to the best utilization. It’s not a test route in a vacuum but competes against RDU-SFO on UA and AS with multiple frequencies daily. Saturday is the lightest utilization on this route - if you’re coming home from a week at work you cut out early on Friday so that you’re home by evening. If you’re heading out for work you wait until Sunday or even Monday morning. Also the value propostion of not having to drive the 30 miles from Silicon Valley to SFO by flying out of SJC makes more sense in weekday traffic. On a weekend it’s easy to zip up 101 or 280 to SFO.

No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.

The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further south and east of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.

rajincajun01 wrote:

blueheronNC wrote:

Noise wrote:

Would have rather seen DL or AS begin RDU-SJC daily than WN on a weekly flight.

Also once per week on Saturday as a test route is not going to expose this route to the best utilization. It’s not a test route in a vacuum but competes against RDU-SFO on UA and AS with multiple frequencies daily. Saturday is the lightest utilization on this route - if you’re coming home from a week at work you cut out early on Friday so that you’re home by evening. If you’re heading out for work you wait until Sunday or even Monday morning. Also the value propostion of not having to drive the 30 miles from Silicon Valley to SFO by flying out of SJC makes more sense in weekday traffic. On a weekend it’s easy to zip up 101 or 280 to SFO.

No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.

The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further north of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.

This. I have family in the south Bay and SJC is a much easier trip.

I would've loved to see WN add some level of service between RDU and SAN - even once weekly as they did to SJC.

I feel it's just a matter of time before F9 gives up on RDU-SAN -- I have no idea what routes F9 still flies out of SAN -- and it seems that F9 eventually ends most of its 'experiments' and moves on to some other longshot. And AS is not acting fast enough these days to grab any much-needed routes from SAN. (Example - WN just announced ORF-SAN service.)

Anyway, when RDU-SAN is again un-served, I expect/hope we will see WN jump into that market with daily service.

bb

[list=][/list] RDU-SJC is my most frequent domestic route. But once a week on weekend is of no use to me. I need a daily, at least weekday flight. I think most people on this route is like me. This is a business route. If DL can step up and offer it, it'll be the best.

rajincajun01 wrote:

No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.

The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further south and east of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.

Again, they aren't running the flight for business travelers, it is a Sun-only flight that will connect RDU to the Hawaii network.

In the future it might be meant to appeal to business travelers, but for now it is not

SJC-RDU is Sunday, not Saturday.

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local ... 12890.html

RDU officials have long sought nonstop service between the Triangle and Silicon Valley. The Southwest flights, however, will only happen one day a week, on Sundays, and airport officials are still hoping for more frequent service.

Midwestindy wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.

The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further south and east of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.

Again, they aren't running the flight for business travelers, it is a Sun-only flight that will connect RDU to the Hawaii network.

In the future it might be meant to appeal to business travelers, but for now it is not

WN doesn’t even serve Hawaii yet. No start date announced. Tickets not even on sale.

MonAmQB wrote:

[list=][/list] RDU-SJC is my most frequent domestic route. But once a week on weekend is of no use to me. I need a daily, at least weekday flight. I think most people on this route is like me. This is a business route. If DL can step up and offer it, it'll be the best.

It would be my most frequent route instead of RDU-SFO if it ran on weekdays. 10min from my office instead of an hour in traffic. As I stands I take the nonstop RDU-SFO instead of a connection to SJC so I imagine there would be some poaching from SFO. Looking at pure SJC O&D numbers doesn’t capture how successful this route would be.

rajincajun01 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

No one is saying it’s optimal, but again this is a way to test a route while there is slack in the fleet on Saturdays. Southwest is well aware that Saturday is a slower traffic day and will adjust their data accordingly.

The route isn’t designed to cater to SFO passengers necessarily. There is plenty of traffic out of RDU that prefers SJC, esp with tech companies. Just because the airports are a 30-40 min drive apart doesn’t mean people that live further south and east of SJC don’t want a shorter commute, where it would easily be over an hour long.

Again, they aren't running the flight for business travelers, it is a Sun-only flight that will connect RDU to the Hawaii network.

In the future it might be meant to appeal to business travelers, but for now it is not

WN doesn’t even serve Hawaii yet. No start date announced. Tickets not even on sale.

Flights are tentatively slated to start in February, and even if they are delayed, the Hawaii flights will have started by the time RDU-SJC launches

WN will not start Hawaii flights on two, maybe three, months notice.

The flight to RDU is too early for HI connections unless WN is starting redeyes now too.

I guarantee ever dollar I got you won’t even have 50 people regularly connecting to/from HI on this flight, never mind 100-130 like you seem to think. Hawaii is too low of a yield as is and it will only be more trash when Southwest starts service.

rajincajun01 wrote:

WN will not start Hawaii flights on two, maybe three, months notice.

Yes they will:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/10/ ... a-bit.aspx

"This suggests that Southwest is at least a few weeks away from achieving ETOPS certification. Yet it does expect to complete the process before year-end. The first half of December now seems like the most likely time frame for receiving ETOPS approval."

"Southwest Airlines plans to publish schedules and begin selling tickets for Hawaii flights just a few days after that. Moreover, the first flight could occur as soon as a few weeks after ticket sales begin, which is a much shorter interval than normal."

rajincajun01 wrote:

I guarantee ever dollar I got you won’t even have 50 people regularly connecting to/from HI on this flight, never mind 100-130 like you seem to think. Hawaii is too low of a yield as is and it will only be more trash when Southwest starts service.

Almost no WN flight is 50%-100% connections (especially a TCON flight), but to say that there won't be a significant amount of connecting passengers is simply not true.

“...AT LEAST a few weeks away...”. Could always be more. Especially around holidays. This process has already taken longer than WN expected.

“...first flight could occur”. Doesn’t mean it will. WN is a financially responsible airline and won’t be flying over the Pacific with LFs of 50-60% and cheap fares.

You said this route is mostly to feed a Hawaii network. There will be zero inbound connections from HI unless WN starts redeyes.

An airline will never start a transcon route to feed a historically low yield network based off of 10-25 connections in only one direction.

rajincajun01 wrote:

“...AT LEAST a few weeks away...”. Could always be more. Especially around holidays. This process has already taken longer than WN expected.

“...first flight could occur”. Doesn’t mean it will. WN is a financially responsible airline and won’t be flying over the Pacific with LFs of 50-60% and cheap fares.

You said this route is mostly to feed a Hawaii network. There will be zero inbound connections from HI unless WN starts redeyes.

An airline will never start a transcon route to feed a historically low yield network based off of 10-25 connections in only one direction.

I am not going to argue around in circles about "could, should, would, e.t.c, but just to clarify

https://beatofhawaii.com/southwest-hawa ... ne-update/
"FAA sign-off on ETOPS certificate (required for Hawaii) has been delayed for up to 90 days. That could translate into a December/January announcement and February flights."

Southwest EVP and Chief Revenue Officer Andrew Watterson, https://crankyflier.com/2018/09/18/an-u ... aii-plans/:
"Southwest would rather just wait and then start flying quickly even though it won’t have a long booking window to prop up those early flights."

It isn't a coincidence that WN has started numerous TCON routes from SMF/OAK/SJC/SAN right before they announce Hawaii service. There is no doubt O&D associated for these flights, but I believe that WN's build up for Hawaii is a primary reason for these flights, similar to how WN started IND-OAK and is bringing back CMH-OAK

Midwestindy wrote:

rajincajun01 wrote:

“...AT LEAST a few weeks away...”. Could always be more. Especially around holidays. This process has already taken longer than WN expected.

“...first flight could occur”. Doesn’t mean it will. WN is a financially responsible airline and won’t be flying over the Pacific with LFs of 50-60% and cheap fares.

You said this route is mostly to feed a Hawaii network. There will be zero inbound connections from HI unless WN starts redeyes.

An airline will never start a transcon route to feed a historically low yield network based off of 10-25 connections in only one direction.

I am not going to argue around in circles about "could, should, would, e.t.c, but just to clarify

https://beatofhawaii.com/southwest-hawa ... ne-update/
"FAA sign-off on ETOPS certificate (required for Hawaii) has been delayed for up to 90 days. That could translate into a December/January announcement and February flights."

Southwest EVP and Chief Revenue Officer Andrew Watterson, https://crankyflier.com/2018/09/18/an-u ... aii-plans/:
"Southwest would rather just wait and then start flying quickly even though it won’t have a long booking window to prop up those early flights."

It isn't a coincidence that WN has started numerous TCON routes from SMF/OAK/SJC/SAN right before they announce Hawaii service. There is no doubt O&D associated for these flights, but I believe that WN's build up for Hawaii is a primary reason for these flights, similar to how WN started IND-OAK and is bringing back CMH-OAK

Think you’re misinterpreting some of these routes as growth for a Hawaii launch instead of a reaction to Alaska’s growth out west. Alaska is focusing, optimizing and bolstering the California market, which has been Southwest’s turf previously.

Show me the PDEW for CMH-Hawaii or IND-Hawaii. Guarantee those numbers don’t come close to supporting the routes. There are better routes WN could use to feed HI. BOS, DTW, MKE, and PIT all lack SJC & OAK service on WN and would certainly have a higher ceiling for drawing HI traffic than CMH or IND.

https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/ne ... nsion.html

"In an exclusive interview, he talks through Frontier’s successes at RDU, and what’s coming next.

“We want to make sure there’s enough space for us to grow, because we’ve been very happy with this market,” he says. In the next couple of months, Frontier expects to announce even more new nonstop flights from RDU, including unserved destinations."

"For Frontier, the local growth may not be limited to new flights. He doesn’t rule out adding an RDU crew base in the next two years. “Assuming we continue to see success with our new winter schedule, as we head into 2019, we’ll certainly be analyzing where we want to open crew bases in 2020,” he says. “I would definitely say Raleigh is under consideration for that.”

casinterest wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I hate to sound like a broken record (cause I know I've asked this before), but do we have any load factor % for both AA RDU-LHR and DL RDU-CDG? I'm curious to know how the 777 and 767 on those routes respectively are holding up.

They must be holding well, as they both exist and are not going away. I will probably be able to tell you for one flight what it is in about 6 weeks. ( a return leg) the outbound through boston was cheaper if that gives you any ideas.

Yep, CDG-RDU was full last week. I would put the number for my flight at above 90% Probably above 93%. Was also the best service I have had on my overseas flights. (The warm cookie was a great mid flight snack) I have flown a few foreign carriers on other flights.

Only saw the AC news about RDU two days ago. YUL is an excellent addition to the RDU network, particularly because it even further expands one-stop TATL options to areas not covered by the likes of JFK, such as non-Paris parts of France or North Africa. Considering the fast-growing int'l market from RDU, it's a highly welcome flight. The RDU-YUL O&D base isn't that large right now, but I can imagine it being quite elastic and expandable in the presence of daily non-stops. I can only imagine that if this route is as successful as I expect that it will be, AM will have to consider trying out RDU-MEX next.

hockyluv21 wrote:

particularly because it even further expands one-stop TATL options to areas not covered by the likes of JFK, such as non-Paris parts of France or North Africa.

Air Canada usually is pretty aggressive with their pricing for International connections through Toronto from RDU. I'd expect the same through YUL, as the pure O&D numbers aren't there yet (like you mentioned).

Looks like AA is throwing RDU a bone with PHX-RDU. Definitely didn't see that coming, especially with WN and F9 currently on the route.

https://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/ne ... oenix.html

I think it’s more geared for PHX than for RDU.. but an add is an add.. I’m hoping DL has an announcement or 2 soon.. except Chicago, it’s been pretty quiet...

Bravo AA for N/S to PHX. PHX only AA hub without N/S to RDU. For biz travelers who refuse to fly WN this is a great addition.

What are the biggest holes in the network for RDU? Domestically, I only see PDX and regular daily flights to SJC, SAN and RSW. That's it.

Internationally, I see FCO, FRA and AMS.

Noise wrote:

What are the biggest holes in the network for RDU? Domestically, I only see PDX and regular daily flights to SJC, SAN and RSW. That's it.

Internationally, I see FCO, FRA and AMS.

I'd add daily to MSY as well.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

Noise wrote:

What are the biggest holes in the network for RDU? Domestically, I only see PDX and regular daily flights to SJC, SAN and RSW. That's it.

Internationally, I see FCO, FRA and AMS.

I'd add daily to MSY as well.

Fair enough.

If also add regional flights (CHS, GSP, AVL, ORF, BMH, JAX, SAV, etc), Caribbean (BDA, NAS, etc), Latin America (Panama City, Costa Rica, Quito), and European (AMS, FRA).. Not all daily..

ERJ170 wrote:

If also add regional flights (CHS, GSP, AVL, ORF, BMH, JAX, SAV, etc), Caribbean (BDA, NAS, etc), Latin America (Panama City, Costa Rica, Quito), and European (AMS, FRA).. Not all daily..

Not sure there is much of a market for regional southeast flights to CHS, SAV and AVL although I admit they would be convenient. People tend to drive to those locations.

The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower? It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.

csweet wrote:

The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower? It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.

Demand is increasing in RDU. Just because it is lower than the hub fortresses doesn't mean there are not opportunities to grow in RDU. Delta does not operate in a vacuum at RDU. The other airlines will be more than happy to pick up non stop direct flights should RDU drop them. Transatlantic flights still have a lot of people connecting through BOS. CLT, NYC, PHL and other sites. There is room to grow there, especially for American and Delta. The issue is getting slots on the other side of the world. FCO would be a great site for Delta to send traffic to if AZ gets it's act together as it offers great connections to eastern Europe and the Med. Maybe even get AZ to run it. Either way as RDU increases in traffic, the economics are there to offer more flights from RDU when capacity can be guaranteed. The newer A321neo and 737 max might make it worthwhile to run traffic more than once a day to some of these sites. Time will tell from here on out.

I think the China flight might happen first though as that region is growing fast and there are more demands from business to make inroads into China.

casinterest wrote:

csweet wrote:

The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower? It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.

Demand is increasing in RDU. Just because it is lower than the hub fortresses doesn't mean there are not opportunities to grow in RDU. Delta does not operate in a vacuum at RDU. The other airlines will be more than happy to pick up non stop direct flights should RDU drop them. Transatlantic flights still have a lot of people connecting through BOS. CLT, NYC, PHL and other sites. There is room to grow there, especially for American and Delta. The issue is getting slots on the other side of the world. FCO would be a great site for Delta to send traffic to if AZ gets it's act together as it offers great connections to eastern Europe and the Med. Maybe even get AZ to run it. Either way as RDU increases in traffic, the economics are there to offer more flights from RDU when capacity can be guaranteed. The newer A321neo and 737 max might make it worthwhile to run traffic more than once a day to some of these sites. Time will tell from here on out.

I think the China flight might happen first though as that region is growing fast and there are more demands from business to make inroads into China.

Why would AA add flights to RDU? Your logic does not make sense as they can link these flights through so many nearby hubs. Traffic is increasing, but not at a rate similar to the other hubs that you listed. Asia flights are far away and airlines are not going to base their neo's and max's in RDU.

csweet wrote:

casinterest wrote:

csweet wrote:

The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower? It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.

Demand is increasing in RDU. Just because it is lower than the hub fortresses doesn't mean there are not opportunities to grow in RDU. Delta does not operate in a vacuum at RDU. The other airlines will be more than happy to pick up non stop direct flights should RDU drop them. Transatlantic flights still have a lot of people connecting through BOS. CLT, NYC, PHL and other sites. There is room to grow there, especially for American and Delta. The issue is getting slots on the other side of the world. FCO would be a great site for Delta to send traffic to if AZ gets it's act together as it offers great connections to eastern Europe and the Med. Maybe even get AZ to run it. Either way as RDU increases in traffic, the economics are there to offer more flights from RDU when capacity can be guaranteed. The newer A321neo and 737 max might make it worthwhile to run traffic more than once a day to some of these sites. Time will tell from here on out.

I think the China flight might happen first though as that region is growing fast and there are more demands from business to make inroads into China.

Why would AA add flights to RDU? Your logic does not make sense as they can link these flights through so many nearby hubs. Traffic is increasing, but not at a rate similar to the other hubs that you listed. Asia flights are far away and airlines are not going to base their neo's and max's in RDU.

I wasn't really directly targeting AA, but they would add direct flights for the same reason others would . Direct flights are possible out of RDU at a profit. If AA doesn't make those choices, then they lose out on the Traffic through their hubs. This is why DL currently has more market share in RDU by quite a bit than AA. If you go back Jan of 2008, American(without US Airways and America West) had more market share than Delta and Northwest combined.
So yes AA can continue to "Make more of less money" by funneling through their hubs, but direct flights would be better for market share if AA wanted to grow out of RDU at the rate RDU is growing. It is as if the merger with US Airways made AA less competitive in the real market place outside of their fortress hubs.

China is probably 2-5 years away, but the groundwork is being laid now for those flights. Lenovo has a huge presence here, and other companies have a lot of supplies from China, so the flight will happen at some point.

AA is pretty clear about their strategy everywhere— hubs or bust. RDU to LHR is an outlier. I’m blown away that for many years AA fills up 8-10 large narrow bodies per day on the hop to CLT. I can’t think of too many city pairs like that around the country— can’t be much if any O&D on a short flight like that. I assume AA is very happy with that arrangement, and I also assume market share at RDU is not the highest priority in Dallas.

csweet wrote:

The only airline that is willing to grow both regionally and internationally for RDU, currently, is DL. As they continue to expand at DTW and ATL, why would they add regional aircraft here where demand is much lower?

Supply and demand. History has shown pax (esp business pax) not only prefer a non-stop, but are willing to pay more for it.

csweet wrote:

It makes much more sense to funnel pax through DTW or ATL before going TATL than adding a new widebody to RDU. The market just is not there, relative to CLT, ATL,etc.

Recent history (@ RDU and beyond) proves that theory wrong, but yes, like most cities, the US3 funnel traffic through their hubs. When it makes sense to add non-stop service P2P they do it. CLT and ATL are both major hubs and aren't comparable when discussing P2P TATL flights.

ncflyer wrote:

AA is pretty clear about their strategy everywhere— hubs or bust. RDU to LHR is an outlier. I’m blown away that for many years AA fills up 8-10 large narrow bodies per day on the hop to CLT. I can’t think of too many city pairs like that around the country— can’t be much if any O&D on a short flight like that. I assume AA is very happy with that arrangement, and I also assume market share at RDU is not the highest priority in Dallas.

There's still a lot of PI/US/AA frequent flyers in the Carolinas.

casinterest wrote:

casinterest wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

I hate to sound like a broken record (cause I know I've asked this before), but do we have any load factor % for both AA RDU-LHR and DL RDU-CDG? I'm curious to know how the 777 and 767 on those routes respectively are holding up.

They must be holding well, as they both exist and are not going away. I will probably be able to tell you for one flight what it is in about 6 weeks. ( a return leg) the outbound through boston was cheaper if that gives you any ideas.

Yep, CDG-RDU was full last week. I would put the number for my flight at above 90% Probably above 93%. Was also the best service I have had on my overseas flights. (The warm cookie was a great mid flight snack) I have flown a few foreign carriers on other flights.

On the London Heathrow to Raleigh route:
Entire 2016: 111,152
Entire 2017: 125,410 (+13% Year on Year)

January 2018: 10,121 (+30% YoY)
February 2018: 7,166 (+20% YoY)
March 2018: 11,452 (+20% YoY)
April 2018: 10,004 (-13% YoY)
May 2018: 11,370 (-7% YoY)
June 2018: 13,638 (+11% YoY)
July 2018: 13,589 (+6% YoY)
August 2018: 12,635 (+4% YoY)
September 2018: 9,177 (-15% YoY)
October 2018: 10,905 (+6% YoY)

So whilst months fluctuate, generally the London Heathrow to Raleigh route is increasing year on year. As flights are operated on a Boeing 777-200ER with 273 seats. That means roughly 199,290 total seats (both directions combined) annually. In the first 10 months of 2018, 165,984 seats were on offer and 110,057 seats were occupied meant a current load factor of approximately 67%

Data from UK Civil Aviation Authority

SeanM1997 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

casinterest wrote:

They must be holding well, as they both exist and are not going away. I will probably be able to tell you for one flight what it is in about 6 weeks. ( a return leg) the outbound through boston was cheaper if that gives you any ideas.

Yep, CDG-RDU was full last week. I would put the number for my flight at above 90% Probably above 93%. Was also the best service I have had on my overseas flights. (The warm cookie was a great mid flight snack) I have flown a few foreign carriers on other flights.

On the London Heathrow to Raleigh route:
Entire 2016: 111,152
Entire 2017: 125,410 (+13% Year on Year)

January 2018: 10,121 (+30% YoY)
February 2018: 7,166 (+20% YoY)
March 2018: 11,452 (+20% YoY)
April 2018: 10,004 (-13% YoY)
May 2018: 11,370 (-7% YoY)
June 2018: 13,638 (+11% YoY)
July 2018: 13,589 (+6% YoY)
August 2018: 12,635 (+4% YoY)
September 2018: 9,177 (-15% YoY)
October 2018: 10,905 (+6% YoY)

So whilst months fluctuate, generally the London Heathrow to Raleigh route is increasing year on year. As flights are operated on a Boeing 777-200ER with 273 seats. That means roughly 199,290 total seats (both directions combined) annually. In the first 10 months of 2018, 165,984 seats were on offer and 110,057 seats were occupied meant a current load factor of approximately 67%

Data from UK Civil Aviation Authority

Actually AA operates it with the following setup for 260 seats. there were a few cancellations . However 260 seats at 730 offered days =189900 annualty or 158167 through october and we have close to a 70% load factor, but slightly less. Probably around 180 passengers each way a day. November and December will make it higher.

https://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Ameri ... -200_B.php

All of this on a subsidized route with little to no connecting traffic that uses a 777 for the cargo as much as the passengers. Not bad . Remember they upgraded this flight in 2017 for a 777-2 from a 767.

Based on your figures for 2017 and 2016, I would imagine 130,000 +for 2018 is in range.

casinterest wrote:

All of this on a subsidized route with little to no connecting traffic that uses a 777 for the cargo as much as the passengers. Not bad . Remember they upgraded this flight in 2017 for a 777-2 from a 767.

I thought the whole thing with the subsidy was that it was available but not necessarily being used? And that when Delta originally asked for it for CDG, AA threatened to cancel their flight (just because they never actually got any subsidy money)? I might be remembering this wrong, but I just thought it was there just in case it would ever be needed.

Janj wrote:

casinterest wrote:

All of this on a subsidized route with little to no connecting traffic that uses a 777 for the cargo as much as the passengers. Not bad . Remember they upgraded this flight in 2017 for a 777-2 from a 767.

I thought the whole thing with the subsidy was that it was available but not necessarily being used? And that when Delta originally asked for it for CDG, AA threatened to cancel their flight (just because they never actually got any subsidy money)? I might be remembering this wrong, but I just thought it was there just in case it would ever be needed.

I am not sure if the subsidy has ever been issued, my understanding is the Cargo/First/Business travelers make this flight worth it all the time.

I totally see SJC.