Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RJNUT wrote:with all the scheduling issues for QX due to pilot shortage, do they REALLY need to maintain such frequency PDX-SEA at the expense of so much of their network cuts and substitutions elsewhere?
tphuang wrote:Thanks as usual enilria.
What an interesting week for AA!enilria wrote:
*AA CLT-PDX JUL 1.0>1.9 AUG 1.0>2 SEP 1.0>2 OCT 1.0>2 NOV 1.0>2
AA CLT-SEA JUN 3>4 JUL 2>4 AUG 2>4 SEP 2>4 OCT 2>4 NOV 2>4
AA DFW-PDX SEP 4>5 OCT 4>5 NOV 4>5
AA DFW-SEA SEP 9>10 OCT 9>10
*AA ORD-PDX JUN 1.2>3 JUL 1.0>3 AUG 1.0>3 SEP 1.0>3 OCT 1.0>3 NOV 1.0>3
AA ORD-SEA JUN 4>6 JUL 3>6 AUG 3>6 SEP 3>6 OCT 3>6 NOV 3>6
Who wants to fly from ORD-PSP in late summer?
A lot of adds to SEA/PDX this week. Makes a lot of sense since this is a major weak point.AA DCA-MCO JUN 6>5 JUL 6>5 AUG 6>5 SEP 6>5 OCT 6>5 NOV 6>5
B6/WN are happy hereSlot sitting?
*AA JFK-BOS JUN 3>5 JUL 2>5 AUG 2>5 SEP 2>5 OCT 2>5 NOV 2>5
AA JFK-BWI JUN 1.0>1.8
*AA JFK-CLE JUN 1.2>3 JUL 1.0>3 AUG 1.0>2 SEP 1.0>2 OCT 1.0>2 NOV 1.0>2
*AA JFK-LAS JUN 2>3 JUL 2>3 AUG 2>3 SEP 2>3 OCT 2>3 NOV 2>3
*AA JFK-ORF JUN 1.2>2 JUL 1.0>2 AUG 1.0>2 SEP 1.0>2 OCT 1.0>2 NOV 1.0>2
AA JFK-RDU JUN 5>4 JUL 5>4 AUG 5>4 SEP 5>4 OCT 5>4 NOV 5>4
AA JFK-SAN JUN 3>1.8
AA JFK-SEA JUN 3>1.8
Here's where the slots above came from
**AA PHL-JFK JUN 6>1.9 JUL 6>1.0 AUG 6>1.0 SEP 6>1.0 OCT 6>1.0 NOV 6>1.0
really seems like AA is just throwing darts on a board out of JFK and hope something would work. If they are going cut JFK-PHL down from 6 to 1, I don't understand why they are still keeping it at all?
JFK-SAN/SEA is just readjustment to what they've run last summer. Not a surprise. I'm sure we will see rest of summer cut back to 2 a daily for those 2. Bigger question is if the lie flats are coming. If not, the yields will be really bad this summer.
JFK-LAS is a surprise. I personally think this route is in a lot of trouble. It's becoming another LAX-MCO in yield. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets cut in the next year.AA LAX-RDU NOV 1.0>1.7
hope they keep trying 2 daily here to compete with DLAA ORD-BOS JUN 9>10 JUL 9>10 AUG 9>11 SEP 9>10 OCT 9>11 NOV 9>11
reaction to B6 increases?jetbluefan1 wrote:enilria wrote:Putting recent changes together, big capacity drop for AS
**AS DEN-SFO JUN 2>0.3 JUL 2>0 AUG 2>0 SEP 2>0 OCT 2>0 NOV 2>0
This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
If that actually happens, then they basically wasted $2.6 billion.
enilria wrote:AA PHL-RDU JUN 8>6 JUL 8>6 AUG 8>6 SEP 8>6 OCT 8>6 NOV 8>6
EvanWSFO wrote:yellowtail wrote:ahj2000 wrote:Thanks Enilria!
Seems AA wants to expand in Portland. The CLT has been a tad under 2 in summers past but the 2 extra ORD flights are new right?
Sad to see AA cut Bolivia (and subject it to the 7M8) but I suppose LA/LP Lima connections will Be available for those who need them. I wonder how much market share will be lost to Copa/Avianca over Panamá and Bogotá.
The are not cutting Bolivia. Seems the flight is being moved from La Paz (LPB) to Santa Cruz (VVI)
Am I correct that LPB cannot carry a full compliment of pax and cargo to MIA, which is why the VVI stop?
Chuska wrote:I read a recent trip report where someone flew AA SFO-PHL on the 332. When did that start, and is this swapping the aircraft from SFO to LAX?
The SFO-LAX A330 will stay as well. Looks like that started back last October. TWA did both of these transcons with L-1011's in the 70's, nice to see AA bringing back the widebodies although they probably have no idea that TWA did it over 40 years ago.
kondoo wrote:Chuska wrote:Yes, AA is dropping LPB altogether. No longer in the website effective July 4. Possibly due to 757 retirements?
Mostly because they are a bunch of idiots. They could not make a route work where they had a monopoly. Heard they could not get good yields anywhere (go figure)
jetbluefan1 wrote:This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
phluser wrote:jetbluefan1 wrote:This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
phluser wrote:jetbluefan1 wrote:This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
SFOtoORD wrote:phluser wrote:jetbluefan1 wrote:This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
It is still problematic for AS, but does not herald the end of the hub. The #1 player in any hub tends to take the most profits and I’m sure it’s hard for the finance team at AS to compare the margins on incremental adds at SEA vs less profitable and lower frequency adds at SFO. They’ll figure out their equilibrium over time, but for now they may have overestimated a few markets.
SFOtoORD wrote:phluser wrote:jetbluefan1 wrote:This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
It is still problematic for AS, but does not herald the end of the hub. The #1 player in any hub tends to take the most profits and I’m sure it’s hard for the finance team at AS to compare the margins on incremental adds at SEA vs less profitable and lower frequency adds at SFO. They’ll figure out their equilibrium over time, but for now they may have overestimated a few markets.
AirFiero wrote:phluser wrote:jetbluefan1 wrote:This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
I wasn’t implying the dismantling of the SFO hub. At the time of the AS/VX merger, some people predicted a build up at SFO and the possibility that the SJC focus city status would suffer due to the SFO hub, that they wouldn’t continue building up SJC especially with the proximity to SFO. This doesn’t seem to be the trend. SJC continues to grow, and SFO has been losing flights. True, we can’t come to any final conclusions, but we *might* be seeing a trend. Doesn’t that seem possible?
phluser wrote:It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network.
rajincajun01 wrote:phluser wrote:It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network.
AS has already announced it will be using E175s at PAE. Not Airbus or Boeing until the routes mature.
enilria wrote:FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
enilria wrote:
I predicted they would build SFO because 1) SFO is less competitive than LAX, 2) the fares are higher, 3) AS is 2nd largest carrier rather than 4th or 5th like in LAX, and 4) DAL is more problematic than any of their other hubs.
I really don't get backing off in SFO, particularly since they haven't even gotten the merger complete yet, so it is too soon o be backing off. I understand it may be shaky now, but tere is no growth path in LAX and its a low-yield turf war. If they are going to build up SJC then buying VX was pointless. I have to hope this is just part of the plan for waiting till more gates are available in SFO coupled with their pilot shortage, but I still question taking SFO apart to any extent so early in the merger.
FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
AirFiero wrote:phluser wrote:jetbluefan1 wrote:This was speculated last week and now confirmed. DEN is a Top 10 domestic destination...if AS couldn't make this work, then it makes me question their overall plan for SFO. Perhaps moving more capacity to SJC at some point?
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
I wasn’t implying the dismantling of the SFO hub. At the time of the AS/VX merger, some people predicted a build up at SFO and the possibility that the SJC focus city status would suffer due to the SFO hub, that they wouldn’t continue building up SJC especially with the proximity to SFO. This doesn’t seem to be the trend. SJC continues to grow, and SFO has been losing flights. True, we can’t come to any final conclusions, but we *might* be seeing a trend. Doesn’t that seem possible?
Chuska wrote:I read a recent trip report where someone flew AA SFO-PHL on the 332. When did that start, and is this swapping the aircraft from SFO to LAX?
The SFO-LAX A330 will stay as well. Looks like that started back last October. TWA did both of these transcons with L-1011's in the 70's, nice to see AA bringing back the widebodies although they probably have no idea that TWA did it over 40 years ago.
FA9295 wrote:RJNUT wrote:with all the scheduling issues for QX due to pilot shortage, do they REALLY need to maintain such frequency PDX-SEA at the expense of so much of their network cuts and substitutions elsewhere?
They're probably hoping to connect PDX passengers to SEA with some other markets, now including STL, apparently...
enilria wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:phluser wrote:
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
It is still problematic for AS, but does not herald the end of the hub. The #1 player in any hub tends to take the most profits and I’m sure it’s hard for the finance team at AS to compare the margins on incremental adds at SEA vs less profitable and lower frequency adds at SFO. They’ll figure out their equilibrium over time, but for now they may have overestimated a few markets.AirFiero wrote:phluser wrote:
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
I wasn’t implying the dismantling of the SFO hub. At the time of the AS/VX merger, some people predicted a build up at SFO and the possibility that the SJC focus city status would suffer due to the SFO hub, that they wouldn’t continue building up SJC especially with the proximity to SFO. This doesn’t seem to be the trend. SJC continues to grow, and SFO has been losing flights. True, we can’t come to any final conclusions, but we *might* be seeing a trend. Doesn’t that seem possible?
I predicted they would build SFO because 1) SFO is less competitive than LAX, 2) the fares are higher, 3) AS is 2nd largest carrier rather than 4th or 5th like in LAX, and 4) DAL is more problematic than any of their other hubs.
I really don't get backing off in SFO, particularly since they haven't even gotten the merger complete yet, so it is too soon o be backing off. I understand it may be shaky now, but tere is no growth path in LAX and its a low-yield turf war. If they are going to build up SJC then buying VX was pointless. I have to hope this is just part of the plan for waiting till more gates are available in SFO coupled with their pilot shortage, but I still question taking SFO apart to any extent so early in the merger.
FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
RJNUT wrote:with all the scheduling issues for QX due to pilot shortage, do they REALLY need to maintain such frequency PDX-SEA at the expense of so much of their network cuts and substitutions elsewhere?
Rookie87 wrote:Thank you Enilria!
When did DFW-OAK start? I’m surprised and glad to see it’s at 2x daily now
RJNUT wrote:with all the scheduling issues for QX due to pilot shortage, do they REALLY need to maintain such frequency PDX-SEA at the expense of so much of their network cuts and substitutions elsewhere?
ucdtim17 wrote:AirFiero wrote:phluser wrote:
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
I wasn’t implying the dismantling of the SFO hub. At the time of the AS/VX merger, some people predicted a build up at SFO and the possibility that the SJC focus city status would suffer due to the SFO hub, that they wouldn’t continue building up SJC especially with the proximity to SFO. This doesn’t seem to be the trend. SJC continues to grow, and SFO has been losing flights. True, we can’t come to any final conclusions, but we *might* be seeing a trend. Doesn’t that seem possible?
SFO has been losing flights recently but I believe they’re still up on SJC since the merger. There was a lot of growth and now they’re dialing back in places, but they’re still significantly up from where they were two years ago at SFO.
enilria wrote:FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
phxsanslcpdx wrote:enilria wrote:FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
Those DAL gates still belong to AA, don't they? I'd assume that the sublease contract bars AS from selling them. And I believe the consent decree from the AA-US merger is still in effect until November 2018... meaning that DOJ gets to decide who can use those slots if AS walks away... so I don't think AS has any way of getting any cash out of abandoning DAL. I wonder if AA has managed to sweeten the lease terms enough to keep AS there until November, fully expecting to take the slots themselves at that point.
Where AS COULD cash out is by selling the LGA and DCA slots. But my take is that AS still hopes to make better use of those slots in the future, and they worry (probably rightly) that they won't be able to get those slots back if they sell them now. So they'll give it a few more months to see if they can get any traction in DAL, and then if it's still not working, maybe they'll be ready to unveil new plans for a new within-perimeter focus city. Or they can always just pull out of DAL and send planes from LGA and DCA down to Florida.
WaywardMemphian wrote:knope2001 wrote:Thanks as always, enilria!enilria wrote:J1 ALB-PIT APR 1.4>0.7 MAY 1.5>0.7 JUN 1.4>0.7
J1 CVG-PIT APR 1.4>0 MAY 1.5>0 JUN 1.4>0
J1 MKE-PIT APR 1.4>0.7 MAY 1.5>0.7 JUN 1.4>0.7
J1 PIT-PVD APR 1.4>0.7 MAY 1.5>0.7 JUN 1.4>0.7
J1 PIT-RIC APR 1.4>0 MAY 1.5>0 JUN 1.4>0
Apparent results of acute pilot availability issues.
What their schedule recently had for BE40 flying:
3 lines of PIT flying (2x ALB/MKE, BDL/SDF, IND/PVD)
1 line of MKE flying (2x CMH/OMA)
4th line of PIT flying returning March 7 (2x CVG/RIC)
In the past several weeks they posted pretty awful completion results trying to run four total lines of flying, especially routes out of PIT.
What the new schedule has for BE40 fling
2 lines of PIT flying (2x BDL, IND, SDF, 1x ALB, MKE)
1 line of MKE flying (2x CMH/OMA)
The E135 flying BUF-ALB has been running without issue and the PIT-MCI E135 coming later in March has not been delayed either.
No word on the start of the PIT-MEM-MCI route originally announced for late March, but when OneJet announces a date for something months out they often miss it. I do wonder if Countour (the airline operating flights for OneJet) winning the CEC-OAK route with E135 may put a crimp in plans to use an E135 for OneJet on PIT-MEM-MCI. But that's just my own speculation.
The big boys asked MEM to delay the closure of B/consolidation to A and C till after Spring Break season. That may have something to do with it. Noticed AA upping DFW, PHX, ORD and PHL while cutting a frequency to CLT from MEM. Wonder what the advance sales of F9's MEM/PHL flights are like. MEM O&D continues to climb posting a 6% gain in Jan 2018 over Jan 2017.
AirFiero wrote:Here it is from SANfan from the previous OAG thread:
SFO in '17 & '18: +MCO, SNA, MSP, MEX, PHL, BNA, ABQ, MCI, MSY, IND, BWI, RDU, KOA (+13) & - CUN, MEX, MCO, MSP, FLL (-5) NET +8
SJC IN '17 & '18: +EWR, BUR, AUS, TUS, LAX, DAL (+6) & -SLC (-1) NET +5
With the SFO-DEN now a -1, it’s down to +4 SFO
SFOtoORD wrote:AirFiero wrote:Here it is from SANfan from the previous OAG thread:
SFO in '17 & '18: +MCO, SNA, MSP, MEX, PHL, BNA, ABQ, MCI, MSY, IND, BWI, RDU, KOA (+13) & - CUN, MEX, MCO, MSP, FLL (-5) NET +8
SJC IN '17 & '18: +EWR, BUR, AUS, TUS, LAX, DAL (+6) & -SLC (-1) NET +5
With the SFO-DEN now a -1, it’s down to +4 SFO
Is that just a list of cities or frequencies? The best measure would be ASMs on VX + AS right before the merger announcement vs current (including recent subtractions) as a measure of build-up. I really think for AS these moves are all about shoring up their margins which seems to be overruling the desire to build SFO more quickly.
evank516 wrote:Interesting, AA is cutting a frequency on CLT-MLB during the summer but adding one on CLT-DAB.
enilria wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:phluser wrote:
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
It is still problematic for AS, but does not herald the end of the hub. The #1 player in any hub tends to take the most profits and I’m sure it’s hard for the finance team at AS to compare the margins on incremental adds at SEA vs less profitable and lower frequency adds at SFO. They’ll figure out their equilibrium over time, but for now they may have overestimated a few markets.AirFiero wrote:phluser wrote:
I think the deletion of SFO-DEN and MSP with the thought then that AS will be ending it's hub in SFO is an overreaction. It could be just needing the planes to start service at PAE, and choosing competitive and underperforming routes that haven't really matured in their network. They were newer routes added by in 2016 or later. At some point, I wouldn't be surprised if AS resumed SFO-DEN/MSP. DAL-DCA/LGA is less strategically fitted in it's network, and AS might be trying to sell these in perimeter slots, in which B6 should be interested.
I wasn’t implying the dismantling of the SFO hub. At the time of the AS/VX merger, some people predicted a build up at SFO and the possibility that the SJC focus city status would suffer due to the SFO hub, that they wouldn’t continue building up SJC especially with the proximity to SFO. This doesn’t seem to be the trend. SJC continues to grow, and SFO has been losing flights. True, we can’t come to any final conclusions, but we *might* be seeing a trend. Doesn’t that seem possible?
I predicted they would build SFO because 1) SFO is less competitive than LAX, 2) the fares are higher, 3) AS is 2nd largest carrier rather than 4th or 5th like in LAX, and 4) DAL is more problematic than any of their other hubs.
I really don't get backing off in SFO, particularly since they haven't even gotten the merger complete yet, so it is too soon o be backing off. I understand it may be shaky now, but tere is no growth path in LAX and its a low-yield turf war. If they are going to build up SJC then buying VX was pointless. I have to hope this is just part of the plan for waiting till more gates are available in SFO coupled with their pilot shortage, but I still question taking SFO apart to any extent so early in the merger.
FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
usairways85 wrote:Chuska wrote:Oops, meant to say the SFO-PHL AA A330 will stay as well. This is in response to Phatfarmlines question, #25.
Yes, the 332 on PHL-SFO was extended again until at least late July. So PHL-LAX/SFO will both have a 332 rotation through much of the summer.
No surprise on JFK-PHL. I thought they might actually up the remaining flight to a 763 more for rotation purposes.
phluser wrote:enilria wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:
It is still problematic for AS, but does not herald the end of the hub. The #1 player in any hub tends to take the most profits and I’m sure it’s hard for the finance team at AS to compare the margins on incremental adds at SEA vs less profitable and lower frequency adds at SFO. They’ll figure out their equilibrium over time, but for now they may have overestimated a few markets.AirFiero wrote:
I wasn’t implying the dismantling of the SFO hub. At the time of the AS/VX merger, some people predicted a build up at SFO and the possibility that the SJC focus city status would suffer due to the SFO hub, that they wouldn’t continue building up SJC especially with the proximity to SFO. This doesn’t seem to be the trend. SJC continues to grow, and SFO has been losing flights. True, we can’t come to any final conclusions, but we *might* be seeing a trend. Doesn’t that seem possible?
I predicted they would build SFO because 1) SFO is less competitive than LAX, 2) the fares are higher, 3) AS is 2nd largest carrier rather than 4th or 5th like in LAX, and 4) DAL is more problematic than any of their other hubs.
I really don't get backing off in SFO, particularly since they haven't even gotten the merger complete yet, so it is too soon o be backing off. I understand it may be shaky now, but tere is no growth path in LAX and its a low-yield turf war. If they are going to build up SJC then buying VX was pointless. I have to hope this is just part of the plan for waiting till more gates are available in SFO coupled with their pilot shortage, but I still question taking SFO apart to any extent so early in the merger.
FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
It might have little choice and have to back out of some routes in SFO, even though it's larger in SFO than LAX. It's likely going to have to balance SFO with SJC, and SAN and LAX for it's California strategy. Covering SFO-DEN might have been worse than one of the LAX routes it has at the moment. I was just looking at Southwest fares this week for SFO-DEN and walk up fares on the route are under $150. Is this typical of the route, and could it be WN is keeping low fares because of F9, which is screwing it up for AS that the fares are just too low?
Even though it's a longer distance and not intra-West, B6 also overflies and doesn't cover FLL-DEN with FLL-SLC instead (a smaller market) likely because DEN is too competitive. Even AA has underwhelming service on PHL-DEN at 1x daily, through part of the year. DEN is important but it might be tougher than expected. Technically VX introduced this SFO-DEN route, and AS that inherited it, but in the case of SFO-MSP, which is also cut, it was introduced by AS management; it's add then cut was more an overestimation. It really wasn't long ago that even UA wasn't covering SFO-MSP.
Maverick623 wrote:RJNUT wrote:MIA-LPB on AA must be now making a stop at VVI both directions . It used to be just the northbound due to elevation out of LPB. J1 might as well just call it a day. Must be GROSSLY mismanaged. DTW-TVC on DL appears to be a reversal correction from last weeks load.
LPB is being cut entirely.
WaywardMemphian wrote:Via is adding AUS/BKG again for summer 2018. I don't know how much good will they have considering previous cancellations.
ahj2000 wrote:evank516 wrote:Interesting, AA is cutting a frequency on CLT-MLB during the summer but adding one on CLT-DAB.
I typically don’t put too much into what these threads say about CLT’s east coast ops. It seems that AA changes them often, and these numbers are just the airlines current rough estimate of what they will serve.
AirFiero wrote:phluser wrote:enilria wrote:
I predicted they would build SFO because 1) SFO is less competitive than LAX, 2) the fares are higher, 3) AS is 2nd largest carrier rather than 4th or 5th like in LAX, and 4) DAL is more problematic than any of their other hubs.
I really don't get backing off in SFO, particularly since they haven't even gotten the merger complete yet, so it is too soon o be backing off. I understand it may be shaky now, but tere is no growth path in LAX and its a low-yield turf war. If they are going to build up SJC then buying VX was pointless. I have to hope this is just part of the plan for waiting till more gates are available in SFO coupled with their pilot shortage, but I still question taking SFO apart to any extent so early in the merger.
FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
It might have little choice and have to back out of some routes in SFO, even though it's larger in SFO than LAX. It's likely going to have to balance SFO with SJC, and SAN and LAX for it's California strategy. Covering SFO-DEN might have been worse than one of the LAX routes it has at the moment. I was just looking at Southwest fares this week for SFO-DEN and walk up fares on the route are under $150. Is this typical of the route, and could it be WN is keeping low fares because of F9, which is screwing it up for AS that the fares are just too low?
Even though it's a longer distance and not intra-West, B6 also overflies and doesn't cover FLL-DEN with FLL-SLC instead (a smaller market) likely because DEN is too competitive. Even AA has underwhelming service on PHL-DEN at 1x daily, through part of the year. DEN is important but it might be tougher than expected. Technically VX introduced this SFO-DEN route, and AS that inherited it, but in the case of SFO-MSP, which is also cut, it was introduced by AS management; it's add then cut was more an overestimation. It really wasn't long ago that even UA wasn't covering SFO-MSP.
Does WN fly SFO-DEN? Does F9? I’m pretty sure WN is flying SJC-DEN.
AirFiero wrote:phluser wrote:enilria wrote:
I predicted they would build SFO because 1) SFO is less competitive than LAX, 2) the fares are higher, 3) AS is 2nd largest carrier rather than 4th or 5th like in LAX, and 4) DAL is more problematic than any of their other hubs.
I really don't get backing off in SFO, particularly since they haven't even gotten the merger complete yet, so it is too soon o be backing off. I understand it may be shaky now, but tere is no growth path in LAX and its a low-yield turf war. If they are going to build up SJC then buying VX was pointless. I have to hope this is just part of the plan for waiting till more gates are available in SFO coupled with their pilot shortage, but I still question taking SFO apart to any extent so early in the merger.
FRANKLY, there is no way DAL is doing better than SFO. They just know they can't hold the gates at DAL if they shrink further. They should just sell DAL to DAL (Delta), getting out of the losses, getting some cash, and freeing up planes and pilots for other things.
It might have little choice and have to back out of some routes in SFO, even though it's larger in SFO than LAX. It's likely going to have to balance SFO with SJC, and SAN and LAX for it's California strategy. Covering SFO-DEN might have been worse than one of the LAX routes it has at the moment. I was just looking at Southwest fares this week for SFO-DEN and walk up fares on the route are under $150. Is this typical of the route, and could it be WN is keeping low fares because of F9, which is screwing it up for AS that the fares are just too low?
Even though it's a longer distance and not intra-West, B6 also overflies and doesn't cover FLL-DEN with FLL-SLC instead (a smaller market) likely because DEN is too competitive. Even AA has underwhelming service on PHL-DEN at 1x daily, through part of the year. DEN is important but it might be tougher than expected. Technically VX introduced this SFO-DEN route, and AS that inherited it, but in the case of SFO-MSP, which is also cut, it was introduced by AS management; it's add then cut was more an overestimation. It really wasn't long ago that even UA wasn't covering SFO-MSP.
Does WN fly SFO-DEN? Does F9? I’m pretty sure WN is flying SJC-DEN.
*AA CLT-EYW JUN 3>1.2 JUL 3>1.0 AUG 3>1.0 SEP 3>1.0 OCT 3>1.0 NOV 3>1.0
ckfred wrote:I can understand AA cutting back ORD to FLL and RSW in the summer. But, I don't understand that reduced frequencies in November. That's when the snowbirds start heading to Florida for the winter, but do need to travel back north for short times during the winter. My family spent a couple of Thanksgivings in Orlando, when our son was younger. I know other families who will fly to various destinations in Florida over the holidays, as well as weekends from November to March.
Dropping ORD-PSP really makes no sense. Just like Florida, I know snowbirds (in this case, wealthy snowbirds), who spend the winter in Palm Springs, and then fly back for various events. The only thing I can think of is that Palm Springs is no longer a popular vacation destination for non-retirees, when compared to Florida, Arizona, or San Diego.
Dominion301 wrote:graham697 wrote:AA's EYW cuts are pretty painful especially DCA-EYW. I hope this isn't a permanent realignment because the region has been bouncing back after the storm. Looks like I am moving over to Delta in the meantime.
Any chance this has to do with EYW’s runway expansion?
