With AA downsizing their JFK operations and gradually moving most TATL flights to PHL, it really doesn't make much sense for them to keep their JFK hub anymore. On the other hand DL has their primary TATL gateway at JFK.

What would be the feasibility of AA and DL doing a slot swap where AA dehubs JFK (retaining only flights to hubs and perhaps LHR) and giving those unused slots to DL, allowing DL to fortify their position at JFK and create an even bigger gap between themselves and B6. In exchange, DL gives AA most of its LGA slots (only retaining flights to hubs within the perimeter), allowing AA to have LGA as their NYC hub.

Now, I get there would be some barriers to this getting done (the stupid perimeter rule, DL investing money in their LGA terminal redevelopment, etc), but it would be something to consider. In AA's case, I don't think the current setup makes much sense of having hubs at both JFK and LGA, yet not having a dominant position at either.

Doubtful, especially on the AA end. Even though they're flowing less connections through JFK, the routes they do (Transcons and major foreign cities) are vital for corporate contracts. Likewise, some of the non-hub markets DL serves out of LGA (ORD and DCA, for example) are favored by businesspeople, and would be at a competitive disadvantage ex-JFK. Oh, and did I mention antitrust?

Why would either airline (or regulators) agree to any of this?

DL doesn't want a consolidated NYC hub at JFK for one thing; if they did, they wouldn't have sunk the money that they have into LGA. And they're already larger than AA at JFK as it stands. What would they gain from this?

What would AA gain by going to a place where their TransCons can't follow? They'd lose contracts left and right.

Neither airline would gain anything through this.

LAX772LR wrote:

Why would either airline (or regulators) agree to any of this?

Why not? How would it hurt competition? Regulators didn't seem to have a problem with the previous US Airways/Delta slot swap at LGA, allowing Delta to become the dominant carrier at two of the three NYC airports. And do you not think DL would jump at a chance to grow their JFK (one of the world's busiest international gateways) market share even higher, especially at a time when they are trying to fend off B6? DL would gain an unrivaled international gateway if they gained AA's slots at JFK.

LAX772LR wrote:

DL doesn't want a consolidated NYC hub at JFK for one thing; if they did, they wouldn't have sunk the money that they have into LGA. And they're already larger than AA at JFK as it stands. What would they gain from this?

See the last two sentences in my response to your first question.

LAX772LR wrote:

What would AA gain by going to a place where their TransCons can't follow? They'd lose contracts left and right.

This is a fair point. In that case, their TransCons could be among the flights they retain at JFK with their remaining slots. Unlike UA, they wouldn't be pulling out of JFK completely.

ADrum23 wrote:

With AA downsizing their JFK operations and gradually moving most TATL flights to PHL, it really doesn't make much sense for them to keep their JFK hub anymore. On the other hand DL has their primary TATL gateway at JFK.

What would be the feasibility of AA and DL doing a slot swap where AA dehubs JFK (retaining only flights to hubs and perhaps LHR) and giving those unused slots to DL, allowing DL to fortify their position at JFK and create an even bigger gap between themselves and B6. In exchange, DL gives AA most of its LGA slots (only retaining flights to hubs within the perimeter), allowing AA to have LGA as their NYC hub.

Now, I get there would be some barriers to this getting done (the stupid perimeter rule, DL investing money in their LGA terminal redevelopment, etc), but it would be something to consider. In AA's case, I don't think the current setup makes much sense of having hubs at both JFK and LGA, yet not having a dominant position at either.

DL is not stupid enough to give up much more valuable LGA slots for JFK slots en masse, so I dont get the point? What you have proposed makes no financial sense. Delta dominates one of the most valuable, high yield, and profitable airports in the world...and you think they'd trade that to struggle on domestic with B6 at JFK? I give this 0% chance. I'm sure if AA wants to just bail out of New York, maybe in exchange for something in LAX it is more of a conversation, but neither carrier wants to surrender something as valuable as access to a gigantic market.

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Why would either airline (or regulators) agree to any of this?

Why not? How would it hurt competition?

EASY: DL may be larger at both, but it's not "dominant" at either-- it faces effective competition in essentially everything it does at both airports. This could, and likely would change that.

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

DL doesn't want a consolidated NYC hub at JFK for one thing; if they did, they wouldn't have sunk the money that they have into LGA. And they're already larger than AA at JFK as it stands. What would they gain from this?

See the last two sentences in my response to your first question.

I saw them, and yet still asked the question... meaning that they don't adequately address it.

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

In that case, their TransCons could be among the flights they retain at JFK with their remaining slots. Unlike UA, they wouldn't be pulling out of JFK completely.

UA also couldn't justify the cost of that station for just transcons.

Why would AA be exempt from the same difficulties, especially with an ever-growing B6 and a now-stronger DL right there?

LAX772LR wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Why would either airline (or regulators) agree to any of this?

Why not? How would it hurt competition?

EASY: DL may be larger at both, but it's not "dominant" at either-- it faces effective competition in essentially everything it does at both airports. This could, and likely would change that.

And? What is the problem there? How would it be any different than the numerous other large hubs airlines operate around the country?

LAX772LR wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

DL doesn't want a consolidated NYC hub at JFK for one thing; if they did, they wouldn't have sunk the money that they have into LGA. And they're already larger than AA at JFK as it stands. What would they gain from this?

See the last two sentences in my response to your first question.

I saw them, and yet still asked the question... meaning that they don't adequately address it.

I meant the last two sentences in my response to your first set of questions. How is saying DL would gain a major, unrivaled, international gateway not adequate?

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

In that case, their TransCons could be among the flights they retain at JFK with their remaining slots. Unlike UA, they wouldn't be pulling out of JFK completely.

UA also couldn't justify the cost of that station for just transcons. Why would AA be exempt from the same difficulties, especially with an ever-growing B6 and a now-stronger DL right there?

They'd likely still keep their lucrative JFK-LHR route in this scenario. Their flights would be LHR, TransCons and a few hubs. That is more than the two destinations UA served at the end of their time at JFK.

You’re missing something important. Delta doesnt need anything from AA.

They have a large hub at LGA and a large hub at JFK.

They almost have too many slots at LGA with perimeter rule. They simply dont have enough cities to serve with the slots they have.

And they dont need more JFK slots. They are worthless to serve small/medium cities within the LGA perimeter.

Delta clearly made themselves the Victor in NYC. AA is a bystander. Not equals negotiating

Delta benefits from having a JFK and a LGA hub and I don't see why they would want to consolidate everything at JFK (or simply increase JFK domestic P2P at the expense of what they have at LGA). AA has been chipping away at JFK, yes, and flowing a lot less connecting traffic, but it serves markets vital to its corporate contracts, which are considerable in the NY/NJ/CT tri-state area as well as the markets from which it serves JFK. You probably will see a few more TATL routes shift to PHL (MXP) at some point, but AA will continue with what they have at JFK.

I also don't think Delta need more slots at this point in NYC. And it seems like AA doesn't have enough ambition in NYC to need more LGA slots.

Even if that wasn't the case, this would be a terrible swap for Delta. LGA slots are just a lot more valuable. And JFK might even loose the slot restrictions in the future.

If there is anyone that really needs slots, that would be JetBlue at LGA, but I doubt any legacies will do swap deals with them.

If AA is drawing down at JFK with a focus on select strategic routes, would DL be a better fit in T8 than T2 and T4B?

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Why not? How would it hurt competition?

EASY: DL may be larger at both, but it's not "dominant" at either-- it faces effective competition in essentially everything it does at both airports. This could, and likely would change that.

And? What is the problem there? How would it be any different than the numerous other large hubs airlines operate around the country?

Quite simply because those aren't the largest O&D/Business market in the country. Controlling XX% of Charlotte or Portland is in no way akin to controlling the same of New York City.

Come now, let's be real.

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

See the last two sentences in my response to your first question.

I saw them, and yet still asked the question... meaning that they don't adequately address it.

I meant the last two sentences in my response to your first set of questions. How is saying DL would gain a major, unrivaled, international gateway not adequate?

Because it wouldn't be true. What is AA going to give DL at JFK that it doesn't already have, or can't already easily attain?

ADrum23 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

In that case, their TransCons could be among the flights they retain at JFK with their remaining slots. Unlike UA, they wouldn't be pulling out of JFK completely.

UA also couldn't justify the cost of that station for just transcons. Why would AA be exempt from the same difficulties, especially with an ever-growing B6 and a now-stronger DL right there?

They'd likely still keep their lucrative JFK-LHR route in this scenario. Their flights would be LHR, TransCons and a few hubs. That is more than the two destinations UA served at the end of their time at JFK.

UA did too, until they lost too many contracts to make the intercons worthwhile.

[twoid][/twoid]You do realize that AA already provided DL those LGA slots you are talking about.... right...

I think things are very well balanced already. Both airlines already have what they want.

JetBlue, and for good measure, Alaska, and probably just for the hell of it, Sun Country and even United would throw every in house attorney possible, and hire whatever small town attorney they could find for cheap to file every motion possible to put a stop from such a thing from ever happening.

It would be nice for DL if AA weren’t at JFK, just like it would be nice if BA, LH and LX weren’t there. But what would DL gain at JFK by giving up slots at LGA to AA? They need those slots to serve the markets they can while AA needs the slots at JFK to serve the markets they can. Neither carrier owns NYC; they are both still fighting hard for share, especially against cheap B6. Nothing will change as long as that’s the case.

stlgph wrote:

JetBlue, and for good measure, Alaska, and probably just for the hell of it, Sun Country and even United would throw every in house attorney possible, and hire whatever small town attorney they could find for cheap to file every motion possible to put a stop from such a thing from ever happening.

You forgot WN, the biggest crybaby of them all.

Hypothetical as it is, it just wouldn't be a feasible swap, and definitely would not come without court ordered divestitures. Both LGA and JFK offer their benefits to the NYC Area Market. LGA's close proximity to Midtown is one, JFK's being the country's largest international gateway with an abundance of international carriers is another. JFK does not have a perimeter rule which allows both DL and AA to focus transcontinental flights out of JFK. Another thing to consider is that I don't even think AA would be that interested in extra slots at LGA. They have a pretty sizable operation there as it is, and they're the second largest carrier right now. They took over a lot of slots after the merger with US Airways and now they're focused more on Philadelphia, which is heavily weighted in AA's favor.

questions wrote:

If AA is drawing down at JFK with a focus on select strategic routes, would DL be a better fit in T8 than T2 and T4B?

I think AA owns Terminal 8 at JFK, or leases it directly from the Port Authority. With many of the SkyTeam partners in T4, and their JV Partner VS in T4, DL's current location is more ideal to funnel passengers to their codeshare partners.

Just because AA moved a couple of European bound 767 like JFK to Zurich to PHL everyones feels AA is "closing" their JFK hub. JFK has a huge new AA Terminal 8 operating many of AA's most impoortant flights to all corners of the world and the west coast. The LAX & SFO flights are the cornerstone of AA JFK domestic operations. AA flies 777 to EZE, GRU and LHR six times daily to those three destinations. T8 also is the JFK home of Qatar, Latam and Cathay Pacific. AA is doing quite well at JFK and has been doing some flights that were acquired from TWA and some that were flown by AA since the days of the piston planes. AA will stay at JFK since that is New York's long haul airport and who knows they may fly from JFK to Tokyo again, yeap they have flown from JFK to both Haneda and Narita.

How does it "not make sense" to have a hub in New York City? I thought I'd read it all here.

I don't see AA's CEO accepting LGA slots after he gave Delta 130+ LGA slots in exchange for 40+ DCA slots. AA may be willing to give JFK slots to DL if it could get something valuable in return, such as additional gates at LAX or PHL. AA may also decide to sell its unused JFK slots to UA (if they want to return to JFK), JetBlue, or maybe even Southwest (if they want to serve JFK).

evank516 wrote:

I think AA owns Terminal 8 at JFK, or leases it directly from the Port Authority. With many of the SkyTeam partners in T4, and their JV Partner VS in T4, DL's current location is more ideal to funnel passengers to their codeshare partners.

I believe the land is owned by the PANYNJ but the Terminal itself was built/owned by AA. So yeah, unless DL paid AA for it, I doubt there would be any switch.

I don't see Delta's strategy having changed that much since the original DL/US slot swap deal that gave them the biggest market share at LGA in the first place, it's been less 7 years since the final swap deal got approved. They're already bigger than AA at LGA, and much bigger than AA in JFK. They wouldn't have much to gain they need or don't have, they would be giving up a decade of sunk resources into LGA, and they wouldn't get back the DCA slots they deliberately traded to build LGA.

questions wrote:

If AA is drawing down at JFK with a focus on select strategic routes, would DL be a better fit in T8 than T2 and T4B?

not really. T4 is expandable and could one day be linked to T1.

I don't believe Delta could build out T8 so that its operations plus its alliances operations could fit.

I expect over time the land of T2/T3 will be used to expand T4 plus expand and connect to T1, which will allow seamless connections between Delta and all of its partner airlines.

Considering how American has been gearing up at PHL lately, it seems that JFK is increasingly less relevant for the airline.

Meanwhile, Delta could actually grow its JFK further if terminal/slot capacity became available.

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the big three would have their preferred airports in the NYC metro in a way that infrastructure could be used in a more optimal manner. The US-DL slot swap was very positive in terms of increasing the average aircraft gauge at LGA.

If a FIS is built at LGA, the only market that American would really have to abandon from NYC would be CDG. EZE/GRU/GIG could be covered by LATAM, LHR/MAD/BCN/DUB/EDI by IAG and MXP/FCO by Air Italy.

What do you think? It would even have the potential of facilitating the effort of streamlining the terminal structures at JFK, which has been latest topic of discussions.

If they apply the apply the "Make American Great Again" banner to it, would even receive a blessing from the current administration.

Why would Delta swap anything they own both airports with large operations at both.

There is NO WAY DL is going to give an inch in NYC at LGA or JFK but especially not LGA. It is the combined presence at both airports that gives us an equal footing to United's operation at EWR. LGA is the preferred airport for business travelers. How foolish would it be to trade their commanding presence there with the new facility being built to AA if the perimeter rule gets dropped??? Intellectually, I see your logic but I don't see it happening.

Given the capital spending Delta has committed at LGA, what makes you think Delta doesn't want LGA?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new- ... SKBN1A52SM

'Transportation officials on Thursday approved a revised $4 billion plan from Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) to renovate its terminal at New York’s LaGuardia Airport after Goldman, Sachs & Co (GS.N), a financial partner in the project, exited the deal.

Delta now plans to pay for nearly the entire project by itself, although the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will still contribute up to $600 million as previously agreed.'

C010T3 wrote:

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

LGA is the preferred O&D airport over JFK. If the perimeter was removed, that gives DL even more reason to want LGA.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Given the capital spending Delta has committed at LGA, what makes you think Delta doesn't want LGA?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-new- ... SKBN1A52SM

'Transportation officials on Thursday approved a revised $4 billion plan from Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) to renovate its terminal at New York’s LaGuardia Airport after Goldman, Sachs & Co (GS.N), a financial partner in the project, exited the deal.

Delta now plans to pay for nearly the entire project by itself, although the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will still contribute up to $600 million as previously agreed.'

Because they could want a JFK more if they could grow there beyond what United can at EWR. It is the only way a US airline could ever build a real transatlantic gateway that can challenge LHR.

The investment at LGA would be taken over by American, which would be able to practice a strategy focused on O&D to several airport across the continental US.

Meanwhile, Delta, United and several other smaller airlines would focus at LGA in routes to their respective hubs and in transcontinental high-yielding flights.

C010T3 wrote:

Considering how American has been gearing up at PHL lately, it seems that JFK is increasingly less relevant for the airline.

Meanwhile, Delta could actually grow its JFK further if terminal/slot capacity became available.

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the big three would have their preferred airports in the NYC metro in a way that infrastructure could be used in a more optimal manner. The US-DL slot swap was very positive in terms of increasing the average aircraft gauge at LGA.

If a FIS is built at LGA, the only market that American would really have to abandon from NYC would be CDG. EZE/GRU/GIG could be covered by LATAM, LHR/MAD/BCN/DUB/EDI by IAG and MXP/FCO by Air Italy.

What do you think? It would even have the potential of facilitating the effort of streamlining the terminal structures at JFK, which has been latest topic of discussions.



If they apply the apply the "Make American Great Again" banner to it, would even receive a blessing from the current administration.

For AA to abandon all long haul from JFK is absolutely absurd, AA has a huge terminal at JFK and lots of flights to places people want to go. A far better idea would be for Delta to give its JFK slots to AA and AA give DL their LGA slots. Delta is lousy at anything outside of Atlanta, it would be far better for them to reduce their New York hub to LGA and let Air France, KLM and Virign handle all the flight to Europe. Only one problem with that, the Delts unions would take a (blank) if all Atlantic flying was from Europe.

In the hall of fame of bad ideas this is really good.

ty97 wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

LGA is the preferred O&D airport over JFK. If the perimeter was removed, that gives DL even more reason to want LGA.

Delta has invested heavily in the NY market and has no reason to swap slots or even entertain such a proposal. Even if the perimeter rule were to be lifted at LGA, Delta would still need the JFK operation for its long haul international service, and LGA, even post-renovation will never be able to handle the volume of transcons that JFK features. LGA and JFK serve different purposes in the Delta network and both are prized to the airline. AA will continue being happy as the #2 airline at LGA and JFK will remain what it is, a focus for its corporate contracts in the region which are still sizeable.

Not sure where you are getting your information but LGA is certainly not the preferred O&D airport over JFK. It depends on where the user lives and where they are going to. Same could be said for EWR.

C010T3 wrote:

Considering how American has been gearing up at PHL lately, it seems that JFK is increasingly less relevant for the airline.

Meanwhile, Delta could actually grow its JFK further if terminal/slot capacity became available.

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the big three would have their preferred airports in the NYC metro in a way that infrastructure could be used in a more optimal manner. The US-DL slot swap was very positive in terms of increasing the average aircraft gauge at LGA.

If a FIS is built at LGA, the only market that American would really have to abandon from NYC would be CDG. EZE/GRU/GIG could be covered by LATAM, LHR/MAD/BCN/DUB/EDI by IAG and MXP/FCO by Air Italy.

What do you think? It would even have the potential of facilitating the effort of streamlining the terminal structures at JFK, which has been latest topic of discussions.

If they apply the apply the "Make American Great Again" banner to it, would even receive a blessing from the current administration.

The only thing standing in the way is Delta would be crazy to give up LGA slots to anybody because they are in a dominant position at probably America's most profitable airport. So that will never happen under any circumstances. They'd just be helping AA compete with them. It would be moronic. So that's a bit of an obstacle.

jfk777 wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

Considering how American has been gearing up at PHL lately, it seems that JFK is increasingly less relevant for the airline.

Meanwhile, Delta could actually grow its JFK further if terminal/slot capacity became available.

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the big three would have their preferred airports in the NYC metro in a way that infrastructure could be used in a more optimal manner. The US-DL slot swap was very positive in terms of increasing the average aircraft gauge at LGA.

If a FIS is built at LGA, the only market that American would really have to abandon from NYC would be CDG. EZE/GRU/GIG could be covered by LATAM, LHR/MAD/BCN/DUB/EDI by IAG and MXP/FCO by Air Italy.

What do you think? It would even have the potential of facilitating the effort of streamlining the terminal structures at JFK, which has been latest topic of discussions.



If they apply the apply the "Make American Great Again" banner to it, would even receive a blessing from the current administration.

For AA to abandon all long haul from JFK is absolutely absurd, AA has a huge terminal at JFK and lots of flights to places people want to go. A far better idea would be for Delta to give its JFK slots to AA and AA give DL their LGA slots. Delta is lousy at anything outside of Atlanta, it would be far better for them to reduce their New York hub to LGA and let Air France, KLM and Virign handle all the flight to Europe. Only one problem with that, the Delts unions would take a (blank) if all Atlantic flying was from Europe.

In the hall of fame of bad ideas this is really good.

What kind of crazy A.net idea is this?

DL now dominates the NYC market, and AA has no interest in expanding its JFK operation. If anything, I could see them de-hubbing soon.

You say AA abandoning long-haul flying at JFK is absurd, yet that's exactly what they're doing. They've moved several secondary EU destinations to PHL, and I could see a scenario where only a basic L/S America, Europe, and TCON presence remains. I don't see the RJ feeder operation surviving outside of a few key cities pairs as well.

Part of the issue is the decision by US to swap all those LGA slots for DL's DCA slots. Sure the DC market is valuable, but more valuable than NYC? To be fair, the decision was made before the merger, but without the premier operation at LGA, AA is never going to be able to keep up with DL in the corporate contract game. I think that's why you're seeing the general decay of their ops at JFK. NYC business is increasingly choosing Delta. The NYC air travel market used to be quite fragmented, but now it's much more consolidated, heavily in DL's favor.

there was a time when AA did dominate at NYC but like Latam is doing at the moment
they handed over the market on a silver platter to competitors

WWads wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

Considering how American has been gearing up at PHL lately, it seems that JFK is increasingly less relevant for the airline.

Meanwhile, Delta could actually grow its JFK further if terminal/slot capacity became available.

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the big three would have their preferred airports in the NYC metro in a way that infrastructure could be used in a more optimal manner. The US-DL slot swap was very positive in terms of increasing the average aircraft gauge at LGA.

If a FIS is built at LGA, the only market that American would really have to abandon from NYC would be CDG. EZE/GRU/GIG could be covered by LATAM, LHR/MAD/BCN/DUB/EDI by IAG and MXP/FCO by Air Italy.

What do you think? It would even have the potential of facilitating the effort of streamlining the terminal structures at JFK, which has been latest topic of discussions.



If they apply the apply the "Make American Great Again" banner to it, would even receive a blessing from the current administration.

For AA to abandon all long haul from JFK is absolutely absurd, AA has a huge terminal at JFK and lots of flights to places people want to go. A far better idea would be for Delta to give its JFK slots to AA and AA give DL their LGA slots. Delta is lousy at anything outside of Atlanta, it would be far better for them to reduce their New York hub to LGA and let Air France, KLM and Virign handle all the flight to Europe. Only one problem with that, the Delts unions would take a (blank) if all Atlantic flying was from Europe.

In the hall of fame of bad ideas this is really good.

What kind of crazy A.net idea is this?

DL now dominates the NYC market, and AA has no interest in expanding its JFK operation. If anything, I could see them de-hubbing soon.

You say AA abandoning long-haul flying at JFK is absurd, yet that's exactly what they're doing. They've moved several secondary EU destinations to PHL, and I could see a scenario where only a basic L/S America, Europe, and TCON presence remains. I don't see the RJ feeder operation surviving outside of a few key cities pairs as well.

Part of the issue is the decision by US to swap all those LGA slots for DL's DCA slots. Sure the DC market is valuable, but more valuable than NYC? To be fair, the decision was made before the merger, but without the premier operation at LGA, AA is never going to be able to keep up with DL in the corporate contract game. I think that's why you're seeing the general decay of their ops at JFK. NYC business is increasingly choosing Delta. The NYC air travel market used to be quite fragmented, but now it's much more consolidated, heavily in DL's favor.

Aside from ZRH, which secondary market has AA shifted to PHL? Prior to the merger, the only real secondary markets they were serving were MXP, EDI, and ZRH, and of those only ZRH has shifted to PHL. It is true that AA has added some new destinations out of PHL since the merger, but nothing at the expense of JFK.

I love the A.Net and employee forums stating how much AA has retreated from JFK. But in the grand scheme of things, the number of Departures that AA runs out of JFK today, is pretty comparable to the number they had prior to 9-11, roughly 100 or so. The real major business route missing currently is NRT. They tried to shift it to HND, but got poor yields due to a bad slot time, and instead of shifting it back to NRT, they just cancelled it. You wonder if they may bring it back.

WWads wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

Considering how American has been gearing up at PHL lately, it seems that JFK is increasingly less relevant for the airline.

Meanwhile, Delta could actually grow its JFK further if terminal/slot capacity became available.

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the big three would have their preferred airports in the NYC metro in a way that infrastructure could be used in a more optimal manner. The US-DL slot swap was very positive in terms of increasing the average aircraft gauge at LGA.

If a FIS is built at LGA, the only market that American would really have to abandon from NYC would be CDG. EZE/GRU/GIG could be covered by LATAM, LHR/MAD/BCN/DUB/EDI by IAG and MXP/FCO by Air Italy.

What do you think? It would even have the potential of facilitating the effort of streamlining the terminal structures at JFK, which has been latest topic of discussions.



If they apply the apply the "Make American Great Again" banner to it, would even receive a blessing from the current administration.

For AA to abandon all long haul from JFK is absolutely absurd, AA has a huge terminal at JFK and lots of flights to places people want to go. A far better idea would be for Delta to give its JFK slots to AA and AA give DL their LGA slots. Delta is lousy at anything outside of Atlanta, it would be far better for them to reduce their New York hub to LGA and let Air France, KLM and Virign handle all the flight to Europe. Only one problem with that, the Delts unions would take a (blank) if all Atlantic flying was from Europe.

In the hall of fame of bad ideas this is really good.

What kind of crazy A.net idea is this?

DL now dominates the NYC market, and AA has no interest in expanding its JFK operation. If anything, I could see them de-hubbing soon.

You say AA abandoning long-haul flying at JFK is absurd, yet that's exactly what they're doing. They've moved several secondary EU destinations to PHL, and I could see a scenario where only a basic L/S America, Europe, and TCON presence remains. I don't see the RJ feeder operation surviving outside of a few key cities pairs as well.

Part of the issue is the decision by US to swap all those LGA slots for DL's DCA slots. Sure the DC market is valuable, but more valuable than NYC? To be fair, the decision was made before the merger, but without the premier operation at LGA, AA is never going to be able to keep up with DL in the corporate contract game. I think that's why you're seeing the general decay of their ops at JFK. NYC business is increasingly choosing Delta. The NYC air travel market used to be quite fragmented, but now it's much more consolidated, heavily in DL's favor.

Someone should tell UA that. Last numbers I saw had UA out in front of AA and DL in the greater NYC market.

77H

Ridiculous thread worthy of a seventh grader,

WWads wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

C010T3 wrote:

Considering how American has been gearing up at PHL lately, it seems that JFK is increasingly less relevant for the airline.

Meanwhile, Delta could actually grow its JFK further if terminal/slot capacity became available.

One could wonder if a joint proposal from American and Delta to end the perimeter rule at LGA combined with a slot swap, so that the slot share of American at LGA increases to the equivalent of United at EWR, while Delta moves most operations to JFK, wouldn't make sense.

In the end, the big three would have their preferred airports in the NYC metro in a way that infrastructure could be used in a more optimal manner. The US-DL slot swap was very positive in terms of increasing the average aircraft gauge at LGA.

If a FIS is built at LGA, the only market that American would really have to abandon from NYC would be CDG. EZE/GRU/GIG could be covered by LATAM, LHR/MAD/BCN/DUB/EDI by IAG and MXP/FCO by Air Italy.

What do you think? It would even have the potential of facilitating the effort of streamlining the terminal structures at JFK, which has been latest topic of discussions.



If they apply the apply the "Make American Great Again" banner to it, would even receive a blessing from the current administration.

For AA to abandon all long haul from JFK is absolutely absurd, AA has a huge terminal at JFK and lots of flights to places people want to go. A far better idea would be for Delta to give its JFK slots to AA and AA give DL their LGA slots. Delta is lousy at anything outside of Atlanta, it would be far better for them to reduce their New York hub to LGA and let Air France, KLM and Virign handle all the flight to Europe. Only one problem with that, the Delts unions would take a (blank) if all Atlantic flying was from Europe.

In the hall of fame of bad ideas this is really good.

What kind of crazy A.net idea is this?

DL now dominates the NYC market, and AA has no interest in expanding its JFK operation. If anything, I could see them de-hubbing soon.

You say AA abandoning long-haul flying at JFK is absurd, yet that's exactly what they're doing. They've moved several secondary EU destinations to PHL, and I could see a scenario where only a basic L/S America, Europe, and TCON presence remains. I don't see the RJ feeder operation surviving outside of a few key cities pairs as well.

Part of the issue is the decision by US to swap all those LGA slots for DL's DCA slots. Sure the DC market is valuable, but more valuable than NYC? To be fair, the decision was made before the merger, but without the premier operation at LGA, AA is never going to be able to keep up with DL in the corporate contract game. I think that's why you're seeing the general decay of their ops at JFK. NYC business is increasingly choosing Delta. The NYC air travel market used to be quite fragmented, but now it's much more consolidated, heavily in DL's favor.

Just because AA moves a flight to Europe to Philadelphia everyone suggests AA cancel everything at JFK. What a silly idea, AA has a huge new terminal and has been at JFK for 70 years. AA is stronger in the major markets then Delta, just because DL is bigger to Continental Europe doesn't mean they own JFK. Delta is not even a two ocean airline from New York and they merged with Northwest Orient, United is the only two ocean airline from NYC. To have a presence in London Delta had to buy 49% of Virgin Atlantic, AA does not own stock in BA's IAG. AA is stronger to the west coast. AA is fine at JFK and will be there as long as Boeing makes long haul planes.

apodino wrote:

WWads wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

For AA to abandon all long haul from JFK is absolutely absurd, AA has a huge terminal at JFK and lots of flights to places people want to go. A far better idea would be for Delta to give its JFK slots to AA and AA give DL their LGA slots. Delta is lousy at anything outside of Atlanta, it would be far better for them to reduce their New York hub to LGA and let Air France, KLM and Virign handle all the flight to Europe. Only one problem with that, the Delts unions would take a (blank) if all Atlantic flying was from Europe.

In the hall of fame of bad ideas this is really good.

What kind of crazy A.net idea is this?

DL now dominates the NYC market, and AA has no interest in expanding its JFK operation. If anything, I could see them de-hubbing soon.

You say AA abandoning long-haul flying at JFK is absurd, yet that's exactly what they're doing. They've moved several secondary EU destinations to PHL, and I could see a scenario where only a basic L/S America, Europe, and TCON presence remains. I don't see the RJ feeder operation surviving outside of a few key cities pairs as well.

Part of the issue is the decision by US to swap all those LGA slots for DL's DCA slots. Sure the DC market is valuable, but more valuable than NYC? To be fair, the decision was made before the merger, but without the premier operation at LGA, AA is never going to be able to keep up with DL in the corporate contract game. I think that's why you're seeing the general decay of their ops at JFK. NYC business is increasingly choosing Delta. The NYC air travel market used to be quite fragmented, but now it's much more consolidated, heavily in DL's favor.

Aside from ZRH, which secondary market has AA shifted to PHL? Prior to the merger, the only real secondary markets they were serving were MXP, EDI, and ZRH, and of those only ZRH has shifted to PHL. It is true that AA has added some new destinations out of PHL since the merger, but nothing at the expense of JFK.

I love the A.Net and employee forums stating how much AA has retreated from JFK. But in the grand scheme of things, the number of Departures that AA runs out of JFK today, is pretty comparable to the number they had prior to 9-11, roughly 100 or so. The real major business route missing currently is NRT. They tried to shift it to HND, but got poor yields due to a bad slot time, and instead of shifting it back to NRT, they just cancelled it. You wonder if they may bring it back.

A few things
Aa has been at low 80s in daily flights all winter. Not 100 as you suggested.

They are not bringing back Tokyo. Their oneworld partners get better yield to Asia and aa international ambitions have been shrinking.

Delta is definitely not dominating in nyc. They are the least profitable of all major carriers in nyc. Aa dominated them to lhr lax and all the aa hubs. JetBlue dominates them to Florida and the islands. And they have even lost their yield advantage on flights to San and las that they used to command.

The only dominating legacy is united at Newark.

This is all so ridicules on so many levels.
If you look at 2015 vs 2017 AA has reduced JFK flying by about 6% and PHL flying by about 7.5%.
That was mostly normal merger related duplication. Now AA is focused on making every flight the most profitable so all they are doing at this point is tinkering. There is no huge draw down at JFK or big increase at PHL.

If you look at the past decade, you will see AA has shrunk JFK significantly. SDQ,SJU,IAH,ZRH,MAN,BHX,BRU,plus others I'm forgetting - all cancelled. Plus, many routes have been downgauged to smaller equipment and frequencies reduced. I was at terminal 8 recently - almost a ghost town. While DL and B6 terminals are bustling. AA's actions speak clearly - they are dehubbing JFK while concentrating its northeast and trans-Atlantic ops at PHL.

AA and DL may want to consider trading JFK terminals - AA moves to terminal 2 and DL moves to terminal 8. DL gets a modern terminal with ample space for growth while AA consolidates its shrinking JFK presence into fewer gates.

JFK is an AA hub in name only. On any given day, only 10-20% of traffic connects. What it appears that AA is doing is smart. You have B6 connecting their traffic (are they truly a LCC any longer?) DL connects the masses over both airports, but I suspect both have high % of local O&D. AA seems to be focused on high yield markets that can stand on O&D alone. Not trying to be the competition.

Austin787 wrote:

If you look at the past decade, you will see AA has shrunk JFK significantly. SDQ,SJU,IAH,ZRH,MAN,BHX,BRU,plus others I'm forgetting - all cancelled. Plus, many routes have been downgauged to smaller equipment and frequencies reduced. I was at terminal 8 recently - almost a ghost town. While DL and B6 terminals are bustling. AA's actions speak clearly - they are dehubbing JFK while concentrating its northeast and trans-Atlantic ops at PHL.

AA and DL may want to consider trading JFK terminals - AA moves to terminal 2 and DL moves to terminal 8. DL gets a modern terminal with ample space for growth while AA consolidates its shrinking JFK presence into fewer gates.

DL is a lot more than just terminal 2. Look at the concourse on terminal 4 and that's about all you see. If AA doesn't need all of 8, they can certainly lease out portions of it. Especially BA, a topic being discussed in another thread. The prize is LGA, and Delta is not dumb enough to let any part of that go.

Austin787 wrote:

If you look at the past decade, you will see AA has shrunk JFK significantly. SDQ,SJU,IAH,ZRH,MAN,BHX,BRU,plus others I'm forgetting - all cancelled. Plus, many routes have been downgauged to smaller equipment and frequencies reduced. I was at terminal 8 recently - almost a ghost town. While DL and B6 terminals are bustling. AA's actions speak clearly - they are dehubbing JFK while concentrating its northeast and trans-Atlantic ops at PHL.

AA and DL may want to consider trading JFK terminals - AA moves to terminal 2 and DL moves to terminal 8. DL gets a modern terminal with ample space for growth while AA consolidates its shrinking JFK presence into fewer gates.

and we've taken this topic to a new low.

Austin787 wrote:

If you look at the past decade, you will see AA has shrunk JFK significantly. SDQ,SJU,IAH,ZRH,MAN,BHX,BRU,plus others I'm forgetting - all cancelled.

AUA, BGI, CCS, KIN, MBJ, STT, SXM

It would be helpful to quote statistics based on 2017 calendar year:

JFK:
DL market share: 26.81%
AA market share: 11.69%

LGA:
DL market share: 39.44%
AA market share: 26.86%

DL is definitely ahead of AA in both JFK and LGA - I am not saying it is easy and I am sure it takes a lot in a super-competitive market.

Makes sense for AA

Makes no sense for DL... why would DL give up LGA capacity? Sure they have a hub at JFK but LGA isn't exactly insignificant to them in it's own right.

I do wonder what will happen to aa at jfk going forward. Right now, they are trying different ways to use their slots. They are still in the 80s in number of daily flights. Going forward, some of their transcon flights like San, sea and las are seeing real depressed fc sales due to competition moving to flat bed. Their yields on these are really going to suffer. If they are only keeping stuff that’s not loosing money, then las will be gone in a year and sea will be in trouble. As they cut more of these longer flights, the shorter within perimeter stuff won’t have enough connection traffic to work. So more flights will become unprofitable. Thankfully, they still have a bunch of one world partners that can be connected to. I just can’t see how their current strategy will not lead to more cuts over the next year. Delta would be mad to trade lga slots to aa when aa is on the verge of loosing them unused.

jfk777 wrote:

For AA to abandon all long haul from JFK is absolutely absurd, AA has a huge terminal at JFK and lots of flights to places people want to go. A far better idea would be for Delta to give its JFK slots to AA and AA give DL their LGA slots. Delta is lousy at anything outside of Atlanta, it would be far better for them to reduce their New York hub to LGA and let Air France, KLM and Virign handle all the flight to Europe. Only one problem with that, the Delts unions would take a (blank) if all Atlantic flying was from Europe.

In the hall of fame of bad ideas this is really good.

LOL what is this?

I won't go as far as to say that AA is unprofitable at JFK because they could have shrunk to profitability but to say AA hasn't struggled at JFK over the past decade or so is to be out of touch with reality. From JFK, AA has a a negligible portfolio to Europe, they struggle with mainline domestic outside of hubs and SFO, and have been basically obliterated to the Caribbean by B6. And I say all of this as a NYC based AAdvantage member. Why would DL let their partners do the Europe flying (which is basically AA's NYC strategy - let BA handle it), when they themselves have a dozens of flights to all over Europe and three points in Africa???


On topic, like everyone is saying there isn't really anything in this for either carrier.
DL has enough slots at LGA and JFK but they would absolutely not give up LGA as its the preferred NYC area airport for higher yielding business traffic. UA can also somewhat capture this traffic as depending on where in Manhattan you are EWR isn't too far. JFK is far from Manhattan and there is a lot of traffic on the route and poor transit connections. DL has also invested a HUGE amount of money on LGA.

AA is probably fine with where they are in NYC right now and most likely aren't interested in substantially growing NYC and really competing with UA, B6, and DL when they could just dominate down the road at PHL. They also have T8 at JFK which they paid for not too long ago and is by far the nicest terminal at JFK. In addition, like other posters noted, AA themselves (well US but with the same management they have now) gave up the LGA slots to DL to grow DCA. I doubt the logic that drove that decision has changed much.