LAXintl wrote:

Like Raja says, AA basically threw darts at a board and would fly anything they could get rights for in Asia.

Now 10-20 years later, the losses compared to the rest of the system are so significant they cant be ignored and tough decisions need to be made about culling underperforming routes.

Its not just Asia. Look at their international since 2001. And how much its changed.

WIsh AA would just transfer the slots to CZ and be done with ORD. Have CZ fly PEK and CAN perhaps.

I know that is not how it works but at this point, they need to release the slots, focus on seasonal europe (there are opportunities they can snatch from UA), and rely on partners for Asia and South America.

How long until the PHX-NRT rumors start?

mattnrsa wrote:

I thought ORD-NRT would perform well since it’s a OneWorld hub-to-hub flight. Though, given the capacity increases and pricing pressure in the region, I wouldn’t be surprised if DL and UA also see challenges in this area. Or maybe they’ve already made the necessary route adjustments?

AA ORD-NRT has been suffering for a while. It went less than daily for a while before it was downgauged to the 788.

It seems clear that AA Asia ORD is challenged by competitive forces. AA is not the first choice on these routes. That devastates an otherwise viable operation.

Again it's not about what is the "best city to Asia." Those are already served. Adding also-ran services to them does not make money AFAIK. Never heard anything different. Airline business is about unique business models with a moat around them.

We should be open to the idea that maybe US carriers should have far less Asia service than they do. The glassy-eyed optimism about the business is likely a relic from decades ago. Do today's numbers warrant it? Is it time to reevaluate?

I agree on PHL/CLT-Asia flight(s), particularly TYO with the JL JV. It wouldn't shock me to see an ORD-Asia 788 flip to PHL/CLT-TYO. With them talking more about Europe, I'd expect 788s to start appearing in PHL/CLT next year for some of the 763 flying that will need to be covered as those birds are retired/sent to new destinations, especially when they reduce the J count to 20 on the 788.

Any specific reason why they are losing money to NRT? I can understand China but why Japan?

I don't mean to be so negative on AA at ORD but why can't they seem to gain any ground against UA? Not in Europe, not in Asia... and not even in Latin America where they are strongest.

I think it might just be an economy of scale/volume problem. Is UA preferred for premium frequent fliers and corporate contracts because they fly the routes that AA doesn't. When travelling internationally, UA always has so many more options out of ORD. To Europe, if AA doesn't take you there non-stop, you will likely be routed through LHR. To Asia, if AA doesn't take you there you non-stop, you will likely be routed through NRT or maybe HKG. To Latin America, AA probably doesn't take you there non-stop so you will be routed through MIA. I am simplifying but that is my experience. Not only does AA fly to a lot less places non-stop when compared to UA, it's partners are more limited.

I wonder how much this is residual effects of the early One World strategy being more selective to only "premier" partners: BA, QF, JL, CX, LA etc. which aren't all really held to the same regard they were 10-15 years ago. Star Alliance on the other hand, focused more on quantity and connectivity and ended up with an overall better network... albeit with some great airlines and some mediocre ones.

United787 wrote:

I don't mean to be so negative on AA at ORD but why can't they seem to gain any ground against UA? Not in Europe, not in Asia... and not even in Latin America where they are strongest.

I think it might just be an economy of scale/volume problem. Is UA preferred for premium frequent fliers and corporate contracts because they fly the routes that AA doesn't. When travelling internationally, UA always has so many more options out of ORD. To Europe, if AA doesn't take you there non-stop, you will likely be routed through LHR. To Asia, if AA doesn't take you there you non-stop, you will likely be routed through NRT or maybe HKG. To Latin America, AA probably doesn't take you there non-stop so you will be routed through MIA. I am simplifying but that is my experience. Not only does AA fly to a lot less places non-stop when compared to UA, it's partners are more limited.

I wonder how much this is residual effects of the early One World strategy being more selective to only "premier" partners: BA, QF, JL, CX, LA etc. which aren't all really held to the same regard they were 10-15 years ago. Star Alliance on the other hand, focused more on quantity and connectivity and ended up with an overall better network... albeit with some great airlines and some mediocre ones.

Yield premium. UA is strongest internationally, mediocre on domestic.

AA is strong on domestic, weak international. The China fares and loads for them are/were terrible. 30-50% in Winter, 300-500 dollar fares...

It reflects on the service too, but the gap is closing.

I think OneWorld needs to have more interlines and more alliance partners here. But who else is left?

From Raja's comments sounds like since ORD-Asia is primarily reliant on transfer passenger traffic to fill, the pricing AA can sell the connection is simply too low yielding.

On the other hand, DFW has benefits more from Latin connections that generate higher yields, while LAX is a huge local market that fills plane itself from Raja comments.

Sounds like Delta might have been one step ahead of the game, the way they are handling Asia. Delta has had to readjust their Asia strategy, now American is having to readjust its Asia strategy. A lot of adjustments going on in the industry in regards to Asia. Smart for Delta and now American to tackle the problem head-on now.

To be honest, the big three kind of have international pretty well split up. Delta basically has Europe, American has South American, and UA has Asia. Isn't competition a wonderful thing!.

Its true, does seem like AA-DL-UA seem to each have a primary area of strength - much thanks to assets they purchased from folks like Pan Am and Eastern.

Regarding Asia, seems UA saw all the changes coming more than a decade ago, having worked to adapt its network away from Tokyo and focused on building SFO combined with JV partnerships. Appears this is paying big dividends not while both AA and DL must adapt and figure out their own new strategies to serve the region.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Like Raja says, AA basically threw darts at a board and would fly anything they could get rights for in Asia.

Now 10-20 years later, the losses compared to the rest of the system are so significant they cant be ignored and tough decisions need to be made about culling underperforming routes.

Its not just Asia. Look at their international since 2001. And how much its changed.

WIsh AA would just transfer the slots to CZ and be done with ORD. Have CZ fly PEK and CAN perhaps.

I know that is not how it works but at this point, they need to release the slots, focus on seasonal europe (there are opportunities they can snatch from UA), and rely on partners for Asia and South America.

The US-China slots AA has are US carriers only...they can't be transferred to CZ.

What I find interesting in this, is that AA, DL, and UA have been running an operation of (East Coast Feed)-to -ORD/DTW- to- (East Asia Primary cities).

And of AA/DL/UA, AA really has the most east coast hub traffic (CLT, DCA, PHL) of hubs that do not have their own TPAC flight. So what I find interesting (and troubling for AA), is that you have all this traffic in the AA hubs listed above, with these hubs being in good geographical location to collect in ORD before flying to East Asia... and AA isn’t able to make it work.

Conversely, DL and UA are both able to make their DTW/ORD hubs work in collecting pax heading to East Asia, despite not having as large of an East Coast cachement area as AA. Further of the DL/UA hubs in that cachement area, ATL and IAD have their own TPAC flights as well on their own metal or on a partners metal. For that reason, it would seem AA would actually have an advantage over DL/UA at DTW/ORD... and yet they can’t make it work. Why is that?

kavok wrote:

What I find interesting in this, is that AA, DL, and UA have been running an operation of (East Coast Feed)-to -ORD/DTW- to- (East Asia Primary cities).

And of AA/DL/UA, AA really has the most east coast hub traffic (CLT, DCA, PHL) of hubs that do not have their own TPAC flight. So what I find interesting (and troubling for AA), is that you have all this traffic in the AA hubs listed above, with these hubs being in good geographical location to collect in ORD before flying to East Asia... and AA isn’t able to make it work.

Conversely, DL and UA are both able to make their DTW/ORD hubs work in collecting pax heading to East Asia, despite not having as large of an East Coast cachement area as AA. Further of the DL/UA hubs in that cachement area, ATL and IAD have their own TPAC flights as well on their own metal or on a partners metal. For that reason, it would seem AA would actually have an advantage over DL/UA at DTW/ORD... and yet they can’t make it work. Why is that?

From my experience working with my colleagues who do a lot of international travel and based off of CLT, DCA and PHL - they prefer to take BOS for most of the Asia connections. The service with CX, JL is better than AA in their opinion. Plus with AA JV with JL and CX, they get reciprocal miles and EQMs. I just do not know how much percent of traffic to these destinations are O&D vs. connecting.

It does feel good to see BOS being spoken well by Vasu Raja - none of the US3 carriers were keen to start any decent international service but good reputed carriers came in and were able to use the global reach of BOS. Once BOS adds ICN and who knows maybe BOM if ever, it would make it even better.

kavok wrote:

What I find interesting in this, is that AA, DL, and UA have been running an operation of (East Coast Feed)-to -ORD/DTW- to- (East Asia Primary cities).

And of AA/DL/UA, AA really has the most east coast hub traffic (CLT, DCA, PHL) of hubs that do not have their own TPAC flight. So what I find interesting (and troubling for AA), is that you have all this traffic in the AA hubs listed above, with these hubs being in good geographical location to collect in ORD before flying to East Asia... and AA isn’t able to make it work.

Conversely, DL and UA are both able to make their DTW/ORD hubs work in collecting pax heading to East Asia, despite not having as large of an East Coast cachement area as AA. Further of the DL/UA hubs in that cachement area, ATL and IAD have their own TPAC flights as well on their own metal or on a partners metal. For that reason, it would seem AA would actually have an advantage over DL/UA at DTW/ORD... and yet they can’t make it work. Why is that?

We don’t know how well delta actually does on those Asia flights. At least the ones to china, I don’t see how anyone can do well.

And for aa, people prefer to fly cx and jl. The mileage earning is pretty good when you are not traveling in economy on partner airlines. And also Qatar air also gets some traffic although that’s a much smaller portion.

The issue for aa hubs in east coast is that they outside of jfk, they are not exactly huge o&d airport to east Asia. And they are so weak in jfk that they concede all Asia flying to partner airlines.

Also don't forget the behemoth up north that routes a ton East Coast to East Asia flights through YYZ. There really isn't anything in US East Coast outside of NYC that has the O&D numbers of Toronto.

Interesting to hear that AA's ORD-NRT struggles. I guess that makes sense given that there are 5x daily flights on ORD-TYO - definitely plenty of capacity.

Either way, a decision on ORD-NRT would need to be made in cooperation with JL given the JV. They would need to decide if going down to 1x daily (on JL) in ORD-NRT would strategically weaken AA-JL too much against UA-NH, who have 2x daily ORD-NRT and 1x daily ORD-HND.

On the positive side, it's good to hear that ORD-Europe does well for AA. That's not necessarily what you'd guess given how much the service drops off in the winter (as compared to UA, which keeps much of it's ORD-Europe network in tact year round). Hopefully that bodes well for additional future summer-seasonal routes like ORD-PRG or ORD-ATH.

kavok wrote:

What I find interesting in this, is that AA, DL, and UA have been running an operation of (East Coast Feed)-to -ORD/DTW- to- (East Asia Primary cities).

And of AA/DL/UA, AA really has the most east coast hub traffic (CLT, DCA, PHL) of hubs that do not have their own TPAC flight. So what I find interesting (and troubling for AA), is that you have all this traffic in the AA hubs listed above, with these hubs being in good geographical location to collect in ORD before flying to East Asia... and AA isn’t able to make it work.

Conversely, DL and UA are both able to make their DTW/ORD hubs work in collecting pax heading to East Asia, despite not having as large of an East Coast cachement area as AA. Further of the DL/UA hubs in that cachement area, ATL and IAD have their own TPAC flights as well on their own metal or on a partners metal. For that reason, it would seem AA would actually have an advantage over DL/UA at DTW/ORD... and yet they can’t make it work. Why is that?

What you propose is that someone would fly XXX - CLT/PHL/DCA - ORD - YYY in Asia, or even -ZZZ for other airports in Asia. That's double or triple connect. Not an attractive option

nmdrdh787 wrote:

How long until the PHX-NRT rumors start?

I've been preaching this forever. PHX is a nascent Asia market. It could sustain something to Asia. ONT even has an Asia flight.

tphuang wrote:

kavok wrote:

What I find interesting in this, is that AA, DL, and UA have been running an operation of (East Coast Feed)-to -ORD/DTW- to- (East Asia Primary cities).

And of AA/DL/UA, AA really has the most east coast hub traffic (CLT, DCA, PHL) of hubs that do not have their own TPAC flight. So what I find interesting (and troubling for AA), is that you have all this traffic in the AA hubs listed above, with these hubs being in good geographical location to collect in ORD before flying to East Asia... and AA isn’t able to make it work.

Conversely, DL and UA are both able to make their DTW/ORD hubs work in collecting pax heading to East Asia, despite not having as large of an East Coast cachement area as AA. Further of the DL/UA hubs in that cachement area, ATL and IAD have their own TPAC flights as well on their own metal or on a partners metal. For that reason, it would seem AA would actually have an advantage over DL/UA at DTW/ORD... and yet they can’t make it work. Why is that?

We don’t know how well delta actually does on those Asia flights. At least the ones to china, I don’t see how anyone can do well.

And for aa, people prefer to fly cx and jl. The mileage earning is pretty good when you are not traveling in economy on partner airlines. And also Qatar air also gets some traffic although that’s a much smaller portion.

The issue for aa hubs in east coast is that they outside of jfk, they are not exactly huge o&d airport to east Asia. And they are so weak in jfk that they concede all Asia flying to partner airlines.

Also don't forget the behemoth up north that routes a ton East Coast to East Asia flights through YYZ. There really isn't anything in US East Coast outside of NYC that has the O&D numbers of Toronto.

While I'm guessing United does okay with their ORD - China flights, I'm kinda with you that neither UA nor DL (and the Chinese carriers) are doing well. Too much capacity was added to China too quickly! It has become a bit of a bloodbath.

lowfareair wrote:

I agree on PHL/CLT-Asia flight(s), particularly TYO with the JL JV. It wouldn't shock me to see an ORD-Asia 788 flip to PHL/CLT-TYO. With them talking more about Europe, I'd expect 788s to start appearing in PHL/CLT next year for some of the 763 flying that will need to be covered as those birds are retired/sent to new destinations, especially when they reduce the J count to 20 on the 788.

Are they really going down to 20 J on the 788? Wow, that’s 16 seats less than UA and 15 less than BA. If true, upgrades may become impossible on the 788.

Can anyone confirm?

danj555 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

How long until the PHX-NRT rumors start?

I've been preaching this forever. PHX is a nascent Asia market. It could sustain something to Asia. ONT even has an Asia flight.

PHX put an RFP out last year for an ASD consultant to focus on Asian service... wonder what happened with it and if we will see such a service soon.

SonaSounds wrote:

US carriers seem to be having a harder time in China this past year. The promise land of unlimited growth finally seems to be slowing.

i think UA is on the only US airline that can make China work, they grew a lot in the past few years. UA serves what: PEK, PVF, CTU, XIY(seasonal), HKG.
DL pulled out of HK, now AA is pulling out of PEK from ORD.

My question is, how is UA able to maintain these routes while AA, and DL pull out?

gwrudolph wrote:

tphuang wrote:

kavok wrote:

What I find interesting in this, is that AA, DL, and UA have been running an operation of (East Coast Feed)-to -ORD/DTW- to- (East Asia Primary cities).

And of AA/DL/UA, AA really has the most east coast hub traffic (CLT, DCA, PHL) of hubs that do not have their own TPAC flight. So what I find interesting (and troubling for AA), is that you have all this traffic in the AA hubs listed above, with these hubs being in good geographical location to collect in ORD before flying to East Asia... and AA isn’t able to make it work.

Conversely, DL and UA are both able to make their DTW/ORD hubs work in collecting pax heading to East Asia, despite not having as large of an East Coast cachement area as AA. Further of the DL/UA hubs in that cachement area, ATL and IAD have their own TPAC flights as well on their own metal or on a partners metal. For that reason, it would seem AA would actually have an advantage over DL/UA at DTW/ORD... and yet they can’t make it work. Why is that?

We don’t know how well delta actually does on those Asia flights. At least the ones to china, I don’t see how anyone can do well.

And for aa, people prefer to fly cx and jl. The mileage earning is pretty good when you are not traveling in economy on partner airlines. And also Qatar air also gets some traffic although that’s a much smaller portion.

The issue for aa hubs in east coast is that they outside of jfk, they are not exactly huge o&d airport to east Asia. And they are so weak in jfk that they concede all Asia flying to partner airlines.

Also don't forget the behemoth up north that routes a ton East Coast to East Asia flights through YYZ. There really isn't anything in US East Coast outside of NYC that has the O&D numbers of Toronto.

While I'm guessing United does okay with their ORD - China flights, I'm kinda with you that neither UA nor DL (and the Chinese carriers) are doing well. Too much capacity was added to China too quickly! It has become a bit of a bloodbath.

Way too much capcity from ORD - China, something had to give. Also, AA and JLs flights from ORD - NRT leave within 30 minutes of each other. Maybe AA should change their time?

Glad to hear ORD - Europe is doing well and AA is talking about 789s on ORD - LHR. Maybe a few more seasonal routes and extend BCN similar to FCO.

xxcr wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

US carriers seem to be having a harder time in China this past year. The promise land of unlimited growth finally seems to be slowing.

i think UA is on the only US airline that can make China work, they grew a lot in the past few years. UA serves what: PEK, PVF, CTU, XIY(seasonal), HKG.
DL pulled out of HK, now AA is pulling out of PEK from ORD.

My question is, how is UA able to maintain these routes while AA, and DL pull out?

SFO is the short answer.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

United787 wrote:

I don't mean to be so negative on AA at ORD but why can't they seem to gain any ground against UA? Not in Europe, not in Asia... and not even in Latin America where they are strongest.

I think it might just be an economy of scale/volume problem. Is UA preferred for premium frequent fliers and corporate contracts because they fly the routes that AA doesn't. When travelling internationally, UA always has so many more options out of ORD. To Europe, if AA doesn't take you there non-stop, you will likely be routed through LHR. To Asia, if AA doesn't take you there you non-stop, you will likely be routed through NRT or maybe HKG. To Latin America, AA probably doesn't take you there non-stop so you will be routed through MIA. I am simplifying but that is my experience. Not only does AA fly to a lot less places non-stop when compared to UA, it's partners are more limited.

I wonder how much this is residual effects of the early One World strategy being more selective to only "premier" partners: BA, QF, JL, CX, LA etc. which aren't all really held to the same regard they were 10-15 years ago. Star Alliance on the other hand, focused more on quantity and connectivity and ended up with an overall better network... albeit with some great airlines and some mediocre ones.

Yield premium. UA is strongest internationally, mediocre on domestic.

AA is strong on domestic, weak international. The China fares and loads for them are/were terrible. 30-50% in Winter, 300-500 dollar fares...

It reflects on the service too, but the gap is closing.

I think OneWorld needs to have more interlines and more alliance partners here. But who else is left?

So do you think the end game here is AA only ends up serving ORD-LHR year round on its own metal?

travelin man wrote:

xxcr wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

US carriers seem to be having a harder time in China this past year. The promise land of unlimited growth finally seems to be slowing.

i think UA is on the only US airline that can make China work, they grew a lot in the past few years. UA serves what: PEK, PVF, CTU, XIY(seasonal), HKG.
DL pulled out of HK, now AA is pulling out of PEK from ORD.

My question is, how is UA able to maintain these routes while AA, and DL pull out?

SFO is the short answer.

SFO, and the fact that UA has longstanding strength in East Asia in general. ORD's not exactly a small market to Asia - it's just that there's lots of competition right now, and AA has a relatively weaker position than UA in the market.

United787 wrote:

I don't mean to be so negative on AA at ORD but why can't they seem to gain any ground against UA? Not in Europe, not in Asia... and not even in Latin America where they are strongest.

I think it might just be an economy of scale/volume problem. Is UA preferred for premium frequent fliers and corporate contracts because they fly the routes that AA doesn't. When travelling internationally, UA always has so many more options out of ORD. To Europe, if AA doesn't take you there non-stop, you will likely be routed through LHR. To Asia, if AA doesn't take you there you non-stop, you will likely be routed through NRT or maybe HKG. To Latin America, AA probably doesn't take you there non-stop so you will be routed through MIA. I am simplifying but that is my experience. Not only does AA fly to a lot less places non-stop when compared to UA, it's partners are more limited.

I wonder how much this is residual effects of the early One World strategy being more selective to only "premier" partners: BA, QF, JL, CX, LA etc. which aren't all really held to the same regard they were 10-15 years ago. Star Alliance on the other hand, focused more on quantity and connectivity and ended up with an overall better network... albeit with some great airlines and some mediocre ones.

The issue is simple: AA is, has been, and always will be second fiddle to UA at ORD. UA has more options because they have more gates and a much more extensive network via their alliance. It is a miracle AA is even able to compete at ORD (though one has to wonder how profitable their ORD hub really is).

The Chicago market is big, but can it really support UA's largest hub, AA's third largest hub and WN's largest focus city all at the same time?

ADrum23 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

United787 wrote:

I don't mean to be so negative on AA at ORD but why can't they seem to gain any ground against UA? Not in Europe, not in Asia... and not even in Latin America where they are strongest.

I think it might just be an economy of scale/volume problem. Is UA preferred for premium frequent fliers and corporate contracts because they fly the routes that AA doesn't. When travelling internationally, UA always has so many more options out of ORD. To Europe, if AA doesn't take you there non-stop, you will likely be routed through LHR. To Asia, if AA doesn't take you there you non-stop, you will likely be routed through NRT or maybe HKG. To Latin America, AA probably doesn't take you there non-stop so you will be routed through MIA. I am simplifying but that is my experience. Not only does AA fly to a lot less places non-stop when compared to UA, it's partners are more limited.

I wonder how much this is residual effects of the early One World strategy being more selective to only "premier" partners: BA, QF, JL, CX, LA etc. which aren't all really held to the same regard they were 10-15 years ago. Star Alliance on the other hand, focused more on quantity and connectivity and ended up with an overall better network... albeit with some great airlines and some mediocre ones.

Yield premium. UA is strongest internationally, mediocre on domestic.

AA is strong on domestic, weak international. The China fares and loads for them are/were terrible. 30-50% in Winter, 300-500 dollar fares...

It reflects on the service too, but the gap is closing.

I think OneWorld needs to have more interlines and more alliance partners here. But who else is left?

So do you think the end game here is AA only ends up serving ORD-LHR year round on its own metal?

Honestly how I feel unless things change.

I think AA has alot of opportunity for seasonal longhaul however. I feel that adding seasonal destinations would be a wise move.

ADrum23 wrote:

United787 wrote:

I don't mean to be so negative on AA at ORD but why can't they seem to gain any ground against UA? Not in Europe, not in Asia... and not even in Latin America where they are strongest.

I think it might just be an economy of scale/volume problem. Is UA preferred for premium frequent fliers and corporate contracts because they fly the routes that AA doesn't. When travelling internationally, UA always has so many more options out of ORD. To Europe, if AA doesn't take you there non-stop, you will likely be routed through LHR. To Asia, if AA doesn't take you there you non-stop, you will likely be routed through NRT or maybe HKG. To Latin America, AA probably doesn't take you there non-stop so you will be routed through MIA. I am simplifying but that is my experience. Not only does AA fly to a lot less places non-stop when compared to UA, it's partners are more limited.

I wonder how much this is residual effects of the early One World strategy being more selective to only "premier" partners: BA, QF, JL, CX, LA etc. which aren't all really held to the same regard they were 10-15 years ago. Star Alliance on the other hand, focused more on quantity and connectivity and ended up with an overall better network... albeit with some great airlines and some mediocre ones.

The issue is simple: AA is, has been, and always will be second fiddle to UA at ORD. UA has more options because they have more gates and a much more extensive network via their alliance. It is a miracle AA is even able to compete at ORD (though one has to wonder how profitable their ORD hub really is).

The Chicago market is big, but can it really support UA's largest hub, AA's third largest hub and WN's largest focus city all at the same time?

Domestic- its pretty profitable. International , not so much.

janders wrote:

xxcr wrote:

My question is, how is UA able to maintain these routes while AA, and DL pull out?

Its largely because of California. UA can own the local SF traffic.


Even Vasu speaks highly of LAX

"Asia has not been nearly as profitable. In the case of Beijing, Chicago is impaired versus our other hubs because in LA you have a gigantic non-stop market of people who want to go from LA to China and we can tend to do really well there."

I suspect whatever is profitable for AA to Asia is out of LAX, while Dallas might or might not breakeven, and we now know ORD is clearly a loss maker.

For years DFW-NRT was AA's most profitable Asia route. DFW-HKG is also gangbusters. Id be surprised if anything out of LAX matches those in profitability but I dont know for certain.

xxcr wrote:

My question is, how is UA able to maintain these routes while AA, and DL pull out?

Its largely because of California. UA can own the local SF traffic.


Even Vasu speaks highly of LAX

"Asia has not been nearly as profitable. In the case of Beijing, Chicago is impaired versus our other hubs because in LA you have a gigantic non-stop market of people who want to go from LA to China and we can tend to do really well there."

I suspect whatever is profitable for AA to Asia is out of LAX, while Dallas might or might not breakeven, and we now know ORD is clearly a loss maker.

ADrum23 wrote:

It is a miracle AA is even able to compete at ORD (though one has to wonder how profitable their ORD hub really is).

If you look at the domestic side, AA is competitive with or stronger than UA in most of the biggest markets: NYC, LAX, DFW, WAS, BOS, MIA, etc. They match or beat UA in many small and medium markets as well (think XNA, BNA, RDU, OKC, ABQ...), although UA serves quite a few small to medium destinations that AA doesn't (and probably won't) serve.

International is another story - UA easily outstrips AA pretty much everywhere except LHR (and the few summer seasonal Europe destinations UA doesn't serve).

danj555 wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

How long until the PHX-NRT rumors start?

I've been preaching this forever. PHX is a nascent Asia market. It could sustain something to Asia. ONT even has an Asia flight.

Unless the PDEW numbers have changed significantly since 2015, which I doubt, PHX isn’t capable of supporting a NRT flight. 35 PDEWs isn’t going to get it done.

With the JAL JV and how fares are to Asia, it probably makes a lot of sense to let JAL serve the route and move their own metal somewhere else.

How does JL and CX make it work so well in BOS - does anyone know how much percent of approximate traffic in BOS is O&D vs connections to NRT or HKG?

iyerhari wrote:

How does JL and CX make it work so well in BOS - does anyone know how much percent of approximate traffic in BOS is O&D vs connections to NRT or HKG?

No competition

SFOA380 wrote:

iyerhari wrote:

How does JL and CX make it work so well in BOS - does anyone know how much percent of approximate traffic in BOS is O&D vs connections to NRT or HKG?

No competition

But neither is it a hub! LFs have been very good too!

A few years ago I remember a UA executive talking about our route structure and how and when UA decides to add international routes. One of the things that stood out to me was this executive said when UA adds a international route the first thing they want to make sure of is that the new route will not severely cannibalize an existing international route, meaning LAX-SIN should not cannibalize SFO-SIN.

I'm not sure AA has always struggled in the ORD-Asia market in fact in the late 90's early 2000s they had quite a few nonstop to Asia from ORD. I think (and I could be wrong) but I think when AA decided to grow in Asia from both DFW and LAX those additional flights siphoned a lot of connecting traffic their ORD flights were dependent upon. The entrance of Chinese carriers at ORD and other U.S. hubs didn't help AA either. However I wonder how much of AA's problems with their ORD-Asia flights are of their own making because of the aggressive expansion we've witnessed over the past few years at both DFW and LAX. Did AA in a bid to try and close the gap between themselves and UA, DL in the Pacific area sacrifice ORD-Asia in order to grow both DFW/LAX-Asia? AA has added quite a few flights to Asia over the past few years I wonder how those additions effected ORD.

BroadwayLimited wrote:

And not a word, (that I know of), of Delta or United going after those slots. At least not yet.

I hadn't seen a docket post yet of AA relinquishing the slots authority. Knowing how nasty they were with Delta last time on LAX-PEK, they will wait until the last possible moment to notify the DOT.

Ironic they were telling Delta and the DOT to move NRT-PVG, when they themselves could have moved ORD-PEK.

tphuang wrote:

kavok wrote:

What I find interesting in this, is that AA, DL, and UA have been running an operation of (East Coast Feed)-to -ORD/DTW- to- (East Asia Primary cities).

And of AA/DL/UA, AA really has the most east coast hub traffic (CLT, DCA, PHL) of hubs that do not have their own TPAC flight. So what I find interesting (and troubling for AA), is that you have all this traffic in the AA hubs listed above, with these hubs being in good geographical location to collect in ORD before flying to East Asia... and AA isn’t able to make it work.

Conversely, DL and UA are both able to make their DTW/ORD hubs work in collecting pax heading to East Asia, despite not having as large of an East Coast cachement area as AA. Further of the DL/UA hubs in that cachement area, ATL and IAD have their own TPAC flights as well on their own metal or on a partners metal. For that reason, it would seem AA would actually have an advantage over DL/UA at DTW/ORD... and yet they can’t make it work. Why is that?

We don’t know how well delta actually does on those Asia flights. At least the ones to china, I don’t see how anyone can do well.

And for aa, people prefer to fly cx and jl. The mileage earning is pretty good when you are not traveling in economy on partner airlines. And also Qatar air also gets some traffic although that’s a much smaller portion.

The issue for aa hubs in east coast is that they outside of jfk, they are not exactly huge o&d airport to east Asia. And they are so weak in jfk that they concede all Asia flying to partner airlines.

Also don't forget the behemoth up north that routes a ton East Coast to East Asia flights through YYZ. There really isn't anything in US East Coast outside of NYC that has the O&D numbers of Toronto.

I am not claiming to know how well DL does on their DTW-China routes, because I don’t. And I doubt DL would ever reveal those numbers. I also don’t know how well UA does from ORD, but they are still there.

What is interesting about DL, is that DL has recently added ATL-China. What makes that route interesting is that the flight path nearly goes directly over DTW. This leads me to believe that DL on DTW-China has to be doing decently well, else DL would have either 1) routes ATL traffic over DTW, or 2) end DTW-China and route everyone over ATL. But both DTW/ATL-China exist now.

The only conclusion I can come to about AA TPAC at ORD was that it was relying mostly on local traffic, and that local traffic at ORD was more loyal to UA.

I’m very curious about how successful UA really is when it comes to its TPAC routes. I’ve seen a lot of people state how well they do compared to DL and AA. But are they really successful? Are they just willing to fly these routes at a loss? When comparing the financials of the US3, UA lags quite a bit. Is this because they are not as likely to pull the plug on loss generating flights, like DL and AA?

I think the fact of the matter is that ORD is just simply over served by flights to PEK. ORD has the most amount of carriers of any US city to PEK, even more then JFK and LAX!! Some of this has to do with the one Chinese carrier policy by CAAC, but certainly not all of it, otherwise we would see more of the US3 to PEK out of LAX, JFK, and BOS.

ORD- UA(1), AA(1), HU(1), daily except HU which is 5w
LAX - AA(1), CA(3) daily
JFK - CA(2) daily
EWR-CA(1), UA(1) daily
IAD- CA(1), UA(1), daily
BOS - HU(1), daily
DTW - DL(1), daily
DFW-AA(1), daily
IAH-CA(1), 5w
LAS-HU(1) 3w
SEA-DL(1), HU(1) daily
SFO - CA(1), UA(1), daily
SJC- HU(1), 5w

So something had to give in ORD and that something was AA. Possible that HU goes daily sometime next year. If not, then UA will definitely be the beneficiary of AA withdrawing from the market. As for the PEK route, I believe AA will move it to PHL and give it a try there. If that doesn't work then LAX will get a second daily.

mikejepp wrote:

Not a single AA east coast hub (JFK, PHL, CLT, MIA) has service to Asia.

...and of course, the natural followup should be to ask: "Hmm, why is that?"

JFK - massive market, but massive competition; of which AA has little reason/appetite to go up against.
PHL - weak market that no carrier (in its days as a Star or OneWorld hub) has ever bothered even a single east Asian route from.
CLT - same problem as PHL, but way worse, due to nonexistent O&D
MIA - worst location in the country for a gateway to east Asia

mikejepp wrote:

PHL seems to make the most sense

piedmontf284000 wrote:

AA should concede and move Asia ops to PHL.

Based on WHAT: the pittance of an O&D, the low yields, the nonexistent history of any transportation connection.... or were you thinking of another reason?

LAX772LR wrote:

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

mikejepp wrote:

PHL seems to make the most sense

piedmontf284000 wrote:

AA should concede and move Asia ops to PHL.

Based on WHAT: the pittance of an O&D, the low yields, the nonexistent history of any transportation connection.... or were you thinking of another reason?

Get real. AA could make PHL work to Asia the same way it makes PHL work as a major European Hub - with connections as well as O&D. Complete dumping JFK, except for O&D and transfer appropriate connecting traffic to Asia through PHL. If it's not too much trouble, what are the PHL CATCHMENT "Low Yields" to Asia - 3 Years history (with reference) will do.

LAX772LR wrote:

mikejepp wrote:

Not a single AA east coast hub (JFK, PHL, CLT, MIA) has service to Asia.

...and of course, the natural followup should be to ask: "Hmm, why is that?"

JFK - massive market, but massive competition; of which AA has little reason/appetite to go up against.
PHL - weak market that no carrier (in its days as a Star or OneWorld hub) has ever bothered even a single east Asian route from.
CLT - same problem as PHL, but way worse, due to nonexistent O&D
MIA - worst location in the country for a gateway to east Asia

mikejepp wrote:

PHL seems to make the most sense

piedmontf284000 wrote:

AA should concede and move Asia ops to PHL.

Based on WHAT: the pittance of an O&D, the low yields, the nonexistent history of any transportation connection.... or were you thinking of another reason?

Uh, based on the fact there is ZERO competition to anywhere in Asia from PHL. O&D is not great, but when you don't have anyone to share it with, then whatever there is all gravy. As for low yields, how can you measure something that has never occurred? The route needs to be run before you make a claim against low yields. I think that PHL has enough of a feed to warrant a flight to an Asia gateway. If it doesn't work, so be it. It still can't be any worse than what AA has in ORD....you want to talk about LOW yields, have at it.

I get it... the catchment for ex-PHL to Asia would be Europe. ... Wait, wrong direction. [/humour]

AA's best yields to Asia are ex-DFW because... catchment is East of the Mississippi (but not TATL), and it certainly helps that AA ex-DFW to China has monopoly nonstop routes.

acentauri wrote:

Get real. AA could make PHL work to Asia the same way it makes PHL work as a major European Hub - with connections as well as O&D.

Lol, "get real".... that's cute.

Okay then, here's some reality for you:
A 6million person MSA straddling two different alliances for the span of 15yrs, with hub-hub connections possible on both ends to nearly every major east-Asian gateway for either alliance within their respective duration of prominence at that gateway, and (by its own admission) the second lowest CPE for the incumbent carrier until the day it ceased independent operations, and publicly touting incentives for any airline who wants to try...... yet not one has EVER bothered starting an east Asian flight.

Should tell you all you need to know about the market. But hey, common sense isn't always so common.

piedmontf284000 wrote:

Uh, based on the fact there is ZERO competition to anywhere in Asia from PHL

Again, ask yourself "why"-- there's a REASON no one wants to compete there despite the massive population and decent corporate base: the market isn't lucrative to Asia, relative to just about any other alternative.

Does that mean the place will never get one? No.

But the above proposal of taking a money-losing system and thinking that moving it all to an untested market with a consistent history of failing to incentivize even a single flight to the region-- is going to somehow stem the bleed? Pretty ridiculous.

They already started DFW flights for the purposes you want at PHL.

They dont need more O and D challenged flights for connectors.

Real shift in strategy coming and the fat lady is singing for ORD Asia.

The VP makes a good point...flying has changed, as Delta is finding in NRT.

JVs with lower costs flying nonstop to multiple US cities is much more effective than a single daily to US hub flights with connectors.

Couple that with too much capacity to Asia and rock bottom fares and US-Upper MidWest-Asia seems as relevant as an Oldsmobile 88.

this is not surprising
considering AA's strategy of growth ( JFK) involves cutting routes...
no wonder they are cutting routes trans pacific.

I imagine they will cut more...

By 2021 they will start their process of cutting Latin America as well to further enhance their network...

AA can't make a flight from Chicago to Beijing work.... the only reason this airline exists is because of the monopoly power handed to them by the government

I mean
Chicago
to Beijing...