mattnrsa wrote:

What are the chances of the dormancy waiver being granted? DL’s was approved a couple of times for the SEA route before it was eventually discontinued. Does that mean AA will also get an approval or are chances less likely since DL is (presumably) wanting another shot at LAX-PEK?

Well atleast DL argued that their dormancy was temporary, or in other case desired to move authorities to another gateway.

We will see how AA frames this, but based on their own VP statement today, this route was a terrible performer so the odds of them coming back soon seem dim.
In reality if AA wanted to retain the authority and truly had plans to resume, they could easily have framed this as a seasonal reduction, with plans to resume for spring 2019.

ADrum23 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

With UA having their primary/dominant hub at ORD, and them having a much bigger Asian presence than AA, I never understood why AA flies ORD-BEK/PVG when it can't even do routes like ORD-CDG year round.

I do seriously wonder if PVG will be cut as well, and what the future of Asian flying on AA out of ORD will be.

Lol talk about dramatic. Apparently PVG is doing fine; I suspect NRT is, too. I don't anticipate AA adding Asian destinations, but I would be surprised to see a cut back. AA just won't be competitive for corporate contracts if its Asian presence is so limited (other than Cathay and JAL).

Does Cathay still fly out of ORD? I can't seem to book anything (maybe I'm reading the website wrong). Also, don't they have a JV with AA?

Yes they fly out of ORD, no they do not have a JV with AA. JAL has a JV with AA.

ADrum23 wrote:

Does Cathay still fly out of ORD? I can't seem to book anything (maybe I'm reading the website wrong). Also, don't they have a JV with AA?

Yes CX is daily 77W.
No JV. Cant have one as no open-skies

psa1011 wrote:

Any idea why AA hasn't tried ORD-EZE/GRU?

They have - and failed.

ADrum23 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

With UA having their primary/dominant hub at ORD, and them having a much bigger Asian presence than AA, I never understood why AA flies ORD-BEK/PVG when it can't even do routes like ORD-CDG year round.

I do seriously wonder if PVG will be cut as well, and what the future of Asian flying on AA out of ORD will be.

Lol talk about dramatic. Apparently PVG is doing fine; I suspect NRT is, too. I don't anticipate AA adding Asian destinations, but I would be surprised to see a cut back. AA just won't be competitive for corporate contracts if its Asian presence is so limited (other than Cathay and JAL).

Does Cathay still fly out of ORD? I can't seem to book anything (maybe I'm reading the website wrong). Also, don't they have a JV with AA?

No they don’t. Over the pacific, AA has a JV only with JL

AA has tried tons of longhaul routes over the years from ORD -- EZE, DEL, GRU, FRA, HEL, DME, etc.

As AA VP of Networks stated today, Chicago international flying has historically been "chronically loss-making - some of the worst in the network."

They seem to do OK with seasonal flying, but maintaining consistent year-round flying seems to be more a challenge for AA at ORD.

LAXintl wrote:

AA has tried tons of longhaul routes over the years from ORD -- EZE, DEL, GRU, FRA, HEL, DME, etc.

As AA VP of Networks stated today, Chicago international flying has historically been "chronically loss-making - some of the worst in the network."

They seem to do OK with seasonal flying, but maintaining consistent year-round flying seems to be more a challenge for AA at ORD.

Well, since they have to compete with UA in ORD, it's a wonder they can even do anything. I'd like to know how profitable the AA hub at ORD is.

mattnrsa wrote:

What are the chances of the dormancy waiver being granted? DL’s was approved a couple of times for the SEA route before it was eventually discontinued. Does that mean AA will also get an approval or are chances less likely since DL is (presumably) wanting another shot at LAX-PEK?

Huh? DL still flies both PEK and PVG from SEA.

You're probably thinking of HND. Different market and different dynamics; and DL hung on to the rights, just transferred to MSP.

zakuivcustom wrote:

chicawgo wrote:

I believe HU is upping to 789

Seems to me HU usually goes with 788 in Winter (Oct-Mar) and 789 in Summer (Mar-Oct). On the other hand, maybe AA is really the only loser in this route b/c they can't beat UA's network and brand recognition or HU's cost.

I don’t believe they ever had scheduled 789 for all flights.

ADrum23 wrote:

Does Cathay still fly out of ORD?

Sure! Once daily: CX807, departs 3:30pm, arrives HKG 8:20+1

LAXintl wrote:

AA has tried tons of longhaul routes over the years from ORD -- EZE, DEL, GRU, FRA, HEL, DME, etc.

As AA VP of Networks stated today, Chicago international flying has historically been "chronically loss-making - some of the worst in the network."

They seem to do OK with seasonal flying, but maintaining consistent year-round flying seems to be more a challenge for AA at ORD.

AA has never flown ORD-GRU and I doubt they ever will. Look at all the markets they have dropped from ORD over the years. Sure ORD-PEK never had good slots (leave in the evening from ORD and arrive ORD early in the morning), but still a dog.

fAAilure at ORD:

ARN: Can't compete with SK
BHX: Gone
BRU: Gone (at one time was a 777)
CDG: Now seasonal
DEL: AI killed the yields, but the flight was packed.
DME: Started with a 777 due to 767 unable to land there. But still a dog.
DUS: Can't compete with UA/LH JV
EZE: Only worked in Dec.
FRA: Can't compete with UA/LH JV
GLA: Gone
HEL: Moved to AY
MAN: Struggling, down to a few months a year
MEX: Gone
MUC: Can't compete with UA/LH JV
MXP: Gone
NGO: No yields. Filled the back, but not the front.
PEK: Going away.
STN: Gone
YKF: Gone
YWG: Gone
ZRH: Gone

AMS: Announced, never started.
WAW: Announced, never started.

GRU: Talked about, never started.

The one time gAAteway to world is a flop.

AA has tried ORD EZE and it did not work out.

LAX772LR wrote:

mattnrsa wrote:

What are the chances of the dormancy waiver being granted? DL’s was approved a couple of times for the SEA route before it was eventually discontinued. Does that mean AA will also get an approval or are chances less likely since DL is (presumably) wanting another shot at LAX-PEK?

Huh? DL still flies both PEK and PVG from SEA.

You're probably thinking of HND. Different market and different dynamics; and DL hung on to the rights, just transferred to MSP.

Indeed. The only Chinese routes DL ever dropped was ATL-PVG (twice). I believe they switch that to NRT-PVG first time around in 2009, and use the rights to start SEA-PVG after the 2nd suspension in 2011. They are trying for the 3rd time soon, ironically switching the (ATL-)NRT-PVG back to ATL-PVG.

With DL so eagered to start LAX-PEK, 100% chance that DL will try as hard as they could to block the dormancy application and then take the air route authority to themselves.

yeogeo wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Does Cathay still fly out of ORD?

Sure! Once daily: CX807, departs 3:30pm, arrives HKG 8:20+1

How come when I go to search for it, it only shows connections via LAX?

ADrum23 wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Does Cathay still fly out of ORD?

Sure! Once daily: CX807, departs 3:30pm, arrives HKG 8:20+1

How come when I go to search for it, it only shows connections via LAX?

We don't know how you are searching so we can't answer that question. Are you searching to book a flight rather than schedule? Are you searching only one day? Are you searching only one fare class? Where are you searching? So many factors.

globalcabotage wrote:

CDG: Now seasonal
HEL: Moved to AY
MAN: Struggling, down to a few months a year

There's really no need to try to make things sound worse than they actually.

MAN and CDG are still around, and can easily be increased should demand actually warrant. Same for FCO.
HEL is a J/V route, so AA and its customers lose nothing in having AY op the route.

psa1011 wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

AA has tried, and tried and tried to make money in Asia outside of Japan and the yields just aren't there. Meanwhile they are printing money on their flights to Argentina/Chile...

Adam

Any idea why AA hasn't tried ORD-EZE/GRU?

They tried ORDEZE several years ago but it only lasted a season IIRC.

LAX772LR wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

CDG: Now seasonal
HEL: Moved to AY
MAN: Struggling, down to a few months a year

There's really no need to try to make things sound worse than they actually.

MAN and CDG are still around, and can easily be increased should demand actually warrant. Same for FCO.
HEL is a J/V route, so AA and its customers lose nothing in having AY op the route.

Clearly AA/BA make a killing on ORD-LHR. They've dominated that route for years.

That CX's ORD-HKG flight do carry AA's code.

jbs2886 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

yeogeo wrote:

Sure! Once daily: CX807, departs 3:30pm, arrives HKG 8:20+1

How come when I go to search for it, it only shows connections via LAX?

We don't know how you are searching so we can't answer that question. Are you searching to book a flight rather than schedule? Are you searching only one day? Are you searching only one fare class? Where are you searching? So many factors.

I was looking on the Cathay Pacific website (dummy booking as I was interested to see what the flights were) and I searched for Wednesday June 13th outbound and Wednesday June 20th inbound. I only saw connections through LAX unless I was reading the website wrong.

ADrum23 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

How come when I go to search for it, it only shows connections via LAX?

We don't know how you are searching so we can't answer that question. Are you searching to book a flight rather than schedule? Are you searching only one day? Are you searching only one fare class? Where are you searching? So many factors.

I was looking on the Cathay Pacific website (dummy booking as I was interested to see what the flights were) and I searched for Wednesday June 13th outbound and Wednesday June 20th inbound. I only saw connections through LAX unless I was reading the website wrong.

It is showing up for me.

If you are on their non-mobile website, sometimes you have to scroll down to select the flight you want. It does indeed default to the LAX connection. (On a side note...wow, 1450USD RT in Summer...in March or October it's usually 650-800USD, sometimes as low as 500USD ).

At one point I believe UA was either double daily or 10x a week on ORD-HKG. I believe that was prior to CX entering the market.

CHI787ORD wrote:

At one point I believe UA was either double daily or 10x a week on ORD-HKG. I believe that was prior to CX entering the market.

I couldn't really find anything on that. The UA flight was on a 744, though, so there were more seats on that flight than now. On the flip side, I avoided UA895/896 for years just b/c it was on those old, tired UA 744s (Usually transit at EWR instead, as those ex-CO 772s are way better).

On the other hand, CX did try to increased the frequency to 10/wk for Summer 2013 and Summer 2014 IIRC. It has stayed 1/day year-round for now, though.

jayunited wrote:

I think the biggest announcement that was missed but is tucked away in the article is AA will relaunch ORD-HNL seasonally (winter season) utilizing a 788.

lol

psa1011 wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

AA has tried, and tried and tried to make money in Asia outside of Japan and the yields just aren't there. Meanwhile they are printing money on their flights to Argentina/Chile...

Adam

Any idea why AA hasn't tried ORD-EZE/GRU?

AA operated ORD-EZE in 2008 for a brief period. It did not work. It was flown with a 767-300ER. UA flies ORD-GRU and has for years and that is probably enough for the market, given that Brazil's economy isn't improving as quickly. AA has cut capacity to Brazil by dropping 1 frequency on MIA-GRU, making JFK-GIG seasonal, and rotating LAX-GRU with an EZE frequency 3 days of the week.

psa1011 wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

AA has tried, and tried and tried to make money in Asia outside of Japan and the yields just aren't there. Meanwhile they are printing money on their flights to Argentina/Chile...

Adam

Any idea why AA hasn't tried ORD-EZE/GRU?

They did try ORD-EZE like 10 years ago? It did not work out so well.

DeltaXNA wrote:

psa1011 wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

AA has tried, and tried and tried to make money in Asia outside of Japan and the yields just aren't there. Meanwhile they are printing money on their flights to Argentina/Chile...

Adam

Any idea why AA hasn't tried ORD-EZE/GRU?

They did try ORD-EZE like 10 years ago? It did not work out so well.

From what I've heard ORD-DME takes the cake for worst performing route AA launched from ORD since 2001. Planes were basically going out and coming back less than 1/3 full. Huge money loser.

ORD-DEL never made a profit but it was a flight were atleast the traffic was there. Planes would go out packed, just not always in J. When EY entered the market and AI went nonstop, it was the nail in the coffin. Now with QR and EK also serving South Asia, its really hard to imagine AA making a comeback to this route.

Given the previous hoopla with Delta and SEA-HND dormancy and the recent fight between AA and DL over LAX-PEK, it would be surprising if Delta doesn't go all in and apply for LAX-PEK. I doubt DOT will approve the dormancy slot for AA and the seven weekly slots will return to the pool. Its very unlikely UA will be looking to add any additional PEK/PVG service anytime soon. They had a chance last time with LAX-PEK allocation and did nothing. Besides UA has nine daily flights to PEK/PVG, whereas DL and AA both have six. AA will drop down to five when ORD-PEK ends. Unlikely DOT will favour UA in a slot allocation between UA and DL given their high number of flights. So basically, unless DOT grants AA dormancy, which let's be honest here it would be rather shocking considering previous DOT actions over China/HND route allocations, its Delta's to lose and they'll gain LAX-PEK.

On a somewhat related note, Delta adding LAX-PEK probably won't be the last LAX-Pacific route Delta adds. I suspect more are on the way, especially if Delta does take the final 10 A350-900s instead of converting them to A330-900neo. With the JV with KE, Delta metal on LAX-ICN is good possibility. As VA does not have the aircraft, the next flight DL/VA add between LAX and Australia will be on Delta metal. LAX-HKG is also rumoured as Delta really needs a second HKG flight. Once T2 and T3 reconstruction and the new midfield concourse is complete, Delta should be able to add several more longhaul flights ex-LAX.

zakuivcustom wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

mattnrsa wrote:

What are the chances of the dormancy waiver being granted? DL’s was approved a couple of times for the SEA route before it was eventually discontinued. Does that mean AA will also get an approval or are chances less likely since DL is (presumably) wanting another shot at LAX-PEK?

Huh? DL still flies both PEK and PVG from SEA.

You're probably thinking of HND. Different market and different dynamics; and DL hung on to the rights, just transferred to MSP.

Indeed. The only Chinese routes DL ever dropped was ATL-PVG (twice). I believe they switch that to NRT-PVG first time around in 2009, and use the rights to start SEA-PVG after the 2nd suspension in 2011. They are trying for the 3rd time soon, ironically switching the (ATL-)NRT-PVG back to ATL-PVG.

With DL so eagered to start LAX-PEK, 100% chance that DL will try as hard as they could to block the dormancy application and then take the air route authority to themselves.

Nope. Delta started ATL-PVG Pre-merger and wanted ATL-PEK

ATL-PVG got dropped (along with a crap ton of other stupid China flying) in 2007 or 2008.
Post merger they gave it a go again because China frequencies were easy to get but it was less than daily.... failed part 2

Then the newest start.


Delta never moved the unrestricted NRT-PEK/PVG frequencies till they gave up 7 (PEK and it was stupid to do so) and then the 7 for ATL-PVG part 3


The only other unrestricted frequencies moved were NRT-CAN from Northwest that went to SEA-PEK, pre-merger. Delta tried NRT-CAN later and it failed



I wouldn't be overly shocked if Delta leaves these alone. Airplanes are in short supply and China is a dumpster fire. Makes sense to grab them (can't see anyone beating them out for LAX-PEK, if they ask) but China is a mess and PEK is even worse if you aren't United.
Delta can always sit back and wait to see how ATL-PVG works and if it doesn't they can move those unrestricted frequencies to LAX-PEK


As I have said before, If Delta wants to burn money in China, it should be in HKG. A new bilateral will come and LAX-PEK will be a possibility for Delta if they want it. Hong Kong is,IMO, a much bigger issue.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Given the previous hoopla with Delta and SEA-HND dormancy and the recent fight between AA and DL over LAX-PEK, it would be surprising if Delta doesn't go all in and apply for LAX-PEK. I doubt DOT will approve the dormancy slot for AA and the seven weekly slots will return to the pool. Its very unlikely UA will be looking to add any additional PEK/PVG service anytime soon. They had a chance last time with LAX-PEK allocation and did nothing. Besides UA has nine daily flights to PEK/PVG, whereas DL and AA both have six. AA will drop down to five when ORD-PEK ends. Unlikely DOT will favour UA in a slot allocation between UA and DL given their high number of flights. So basically, unless DOT grants AA dormancy, which let's be honest here it would be rather shocking considering previous DOT actions over China/HND route allocations, its Delta's to lose and they'll gain LAX-PEK.

On a somewhat related note, Delta adding LAX-PEK probably won't be the last LAX-Pacific route Delta adds. I suspect more are on the way, especially if Delta does take the final 10 A350-900s instead of converting them to A330-900neo. With the JV with KE, Delta metal on LAX-ICN is good possibility. As VA does not have the aircraft, the next flight DL/VA add between LAX and Australia will be on Delta metal. LAX-HKG is also rumoured as Delta really needs a second HKG flight. Once T2 and T3 reconstruction and the new midfield concourse is complete, Delta should be able to add several more longhaul flights ex-LAX.

FWIW, even is VA had 5758384728472 aircraft on order, Delta must add the next 7 frequencies.

Pilots union agreement for that JV is 2 VA to 1 DL

For VA to get to 4 DL must be at 2

deltal1011man wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Huh? DL still flies both PEK and PVG from SEA.

You're probably thinking of HND. Different market and different dynamics; and DL hung on to the rights, just transferred to MSP.

Indeed. The only Chinese routes DL ever dropped was ATL-PVG (twice). I believe they switch that to NRT-PVG first time around in 2009, and use the rights to start SEA-PVG after the 2nd suspension in 2011. They are trying for the 3rd time soon, ironically switching the (ATL-)NRT-PVG back to ATL-PVG.

With DL so eagered to start LAX-PEK, 100% chance that DL will try as hard as they could to block the dormancy application and then take the air route authority to themselves.

Nope. Delta started ATL-PVG Pre-merger and wanted ATL-PEK

ATL-PVG got dropped (along with a crap ton of other stupid China flying) in 2007 or 2008.
Post merger they gave it a go again because China frequencies were easy to get but it was less than daily.... failed part 2

Then the newest start.


Delta never moved the unrestricted NRT-PEK/PVG frequencies till they gave up 7 (PEK and it was stupid to do so) and then the 7 for ATL-PVG part 3


The only other unrestricted frequencies moved were NRT-CAN from Northwest that went to SEA-PEK, pre-merger. Delta tried NRT-CAN later and it failed



I wouldn't be overly shocked if Delta leaves these alone. Airplanes are in short supply and China is a dumpster fire. Makes sense to grab them (can't see anyone beating them out for LAX-PEK, if they ask) but China is a mess and PEK is even worse if you aren't United.
Delta can always sit back and wait to see how ATL-PVG works and if it doesn't they can move those unrestricted frequencies to LAX-PEK


As I have said before, If Delta wants to burn money in China, it should be in HKG. A new bilateral will come and LAX-PEK will be a possibility for Delta if they want it. Hong Kong is,IMO, a much bigger issue.

Thanks for the correction. It gets too complicated to follow what's drop for what, which one is newly allocated route, etc., especially since 2007-2011 was during the period where China-US flight slots were greatly expanded, and also was around the time when DL and NW merged, which further complicated the "who had applied for which route" even more.

HKG is a totally separate issue than route allocation to mainland Chinese cities anyway (HK has its own aviation authority and a separate bilateral). Also, I just don't see much from DL for HKG. DTW-HKG? Minimal O&D and low yield. ATL-HKG? If they want to fly around a plane that's 70% empty. JFK-HKG? CX dominates that route. LAX-HKG? Between CX-AA and HX they're left with scraps (Even UA quit flying that route for a reason). SFO-HKG? UA-SQ on one side, CX on the other, throw in HX as well. BOS-HKG? Is the market big enough for both CX and DL?

Also, keep in mind CX-AA and to lesser extent, HX has that huge advantage of connection beyond HKG, while DL to HKG would be connection at US end only.

On the flip side, even UA only fly to 4 destinations from HKG. The 3 in US mainland are SFO (Huge O&D and tons of connection opportunities), EWR (Again huge O&D), and ORD (Smaller O&D relatively, but the O&D is still larger than DTW. Also, tons of connection opportunities to Midwest or even Southeast US/Texas/Florida). The last one on UA is GUM, which is a totally separate discussion anyway. UA also has way better brand recognition (for good or bad) in Hong Kong, while Delta is still somewhat of an unknown (Northwest is better known, not necessarily for how good they are either, though).

I wonder if AA ever considering transferring the ORD-PEK authority over to MIA-PEK. At 7,771 miles, I'm not sure what aircraft would be required to operate MIA-PEK.

AA never did ORD-STN, and LH dropped ORD-DUS years back.

ORD still has a decent summer seasonal network to 7 markets: LHR, CDG, MAN, DUB, FCO, VCE, BCN, plus NRT and PVG year-round.

IrishAyes wrote:

AA never did ORD-STN, and LH dropped ORD-DUS years back.

ORD still has a decent summer seasonal network to 7 markets: LHR, CDG, MAN, DUB, FCO, VCE, BCN, plus NRT and PVG year-round.

LHR is also year-round.

IrishAyes wrote:

AA never did ORD-STN

June 1992 - April 1993

dolphinflyer wrote:

I wonder if AA ever considering transferring the ORD-PEK authority over to MIA-PEK. At 7,771 miles, I'm not sure what aircraft would be required to operate MIA-PEK.

If AA can't make ORD-PEK work, then there's absolutely no way that they could pull off MIA-PEK...

deltal1011man wrote:

As I have said before, If Delta wants to burn money in China, it should be in HKG. A new bilateral will come and LAX-PEK will be a possibility for Delta if they want it. Hong Kong is,IMO, a much bigger issue.

That's what I'm screamin'... though DL's been so historically weak in HKG going back to its 1995 attempt.

zakuivcustom wrote:

LAX-HKG? Between CX-AA and HX they're left with scraps (Even UA quit flying that route for a reason).

That's essentially the same thing that was said when DL launched SYD... and yet, DL made it work rather well, even prior to the J/V with VA.

Don't see why the same couldn't happen with HKG, should they be patient enough to endure the initial market shock.

zakuivcustom wrote:

HX has that huge advantage of connection beyond HKG, while DL to HKG would be connection at US end only.

Which is why I don't understand why DL (or even UA) haven't partnered up with HX, who has no US ally. Or at least UO.

The routes to China aren't worth much, as I doubt they'd be allowed to codeshare; but there would be the increase in Hong Kong point of sale.

dolphinflyer wrote:

I wonder if AA ever considering transferring the ORD-PEK authority over to MIA-PEK. At 7,771 miles, I'm not sure what aircraft would be required to operate MIA-PEK.

Not that they have a chance in hell of making that work at this point, but MIA-PEK could easily be done by the 789 and 77W, and also by the 788 and 77E if you push them. AA would likely need to uprate the MTOW on the latter, in order to reliably make the distance with it.

Understandable move. ORD is currently overserved by transpacific flights. It's surprising that the SF Bay Area, with a much larger O&D market and Asian population, has comparable service levels to several Asian cities as ORD.

From SF Bay Area:
Tokyo: 2x daily SFO-NRT (UA, NH), 2x daily SFO-HND (UA, JL), 1x daily SJC-NRT (NH), (35x weekly total)
Beijing: 2x daily SFO-PEK (UA, CA), 5x weekly SJC-PEK (HU), (19x weekly total)
Shanghai: 3x daily SFO-PVG (UA, MU), 3x weekly SJC-PVG (CA), (24x weekly total)
Taipei: 4x daily + 4x weekly SFO-TPE (UA, BR, CI) (32x weekly total)
Hong Kong: 5x daily + 4x weekly SFO-HKG (UA, CX, SQ, HX) (39x weekly total)

From Chicago:
Tokyo: 4x daily ORD-NRT (UA, NH, AA, JL), 1x daily ORD-HND (NH), (35x weekly total)
Beijing: 2x daily + 4x weekly ORD-PEK (UA, AA, HU), (18x weekly total)
Shanghai: 2x daily + 5x weekly ORD-PVG (UA, AA, MU), (19x weekly total)
Taipei: 5x weekly ORD-TPE (BR) (5x weekly total)
Hong Kong: 2x daily ORD-HKG (UA, CX) (14x weekly total)

San Francisco-San Jose has roughly 6 times the Chinese population and 4 times the Japanese population of the Chicagoland area. Yet only TPE and HKG have significantly more coverage from SFO. The numbers for TYO, PEK, and SHA are very much comparable. Anecdotally, a much larger proportion of the transpacific traffic from Chicago is connecting from places like NYC, BOS, PHL, TOR, WAS, Florida, and the Midwest.

Since 2012, the markets that provided the most feed have seen a capacity glut.
At JFK: NH, JL, CA, MU, BR, CX increased frequency and CZ, MF, HU began service
BOS went from no transpacific service to 1x daily JL to NRT, 11x weekly HU to PEK and PVG, and 1x daily CX to HKG
YYZ got HU, MU and CZ

These new non-stop flights diminished the role of ORD as a connection hub for Asia-bound travelers from the East Coast. The situation remains largely unchanged for the Midwest and Southeast US, but Asia demand is also lower from those areas. Meanwhile at ORD, as HU, MU, BR, CX began service, UA and AA downgauged capacity. UA went from 744s to 772s, and AA went from 772s to 788s. ORD simply does not have the volume of local traffic to support 14+ daily transpacific flights. Heck, BR is struggling to fill their ORD flights, while IAH is doing well.

zakuivcustom wrote:

chicawgo wrote:

I believe HU is upping to 789

Seems to me HU usually goes with 788 in Winter (Oct-Mar) and 789 in Summer (Mar-Oct). On the other hand, maybe AA is really the only loser in this route b/c they can't beat UA's network and brand recognition or HU's cost.

I wonder if HU will jump to daily? My wife flew HU from BOS to PEK and back last year, she was pretty pleased with her experience in economy. I am booked to fly HU from PEK to ORD this summer, it was just so cheap, it seemed worth the cost savings, even though I won’t earn any miles. I live in Kunming, and HU not only is getting me to Chicago for $600 one way during peak travel season, they are covering my hotel for my overnight layover in PEK (it is nearly impossible to find a same day connection for KMG to the U.S.).

FA9295 wrote:

dolphinflyer wrote:

I wonder if AA ever considering transferring the ORD-PEK authority over to MIA-PEK. At 7,771 miles, I'm not sure what aircraft would be required to operate MIA-PEK.

If AA can't make ORD-PEK work, then there's absolutely no way that they could pull off MIA-PEK...

Except that the only reason AA even discontinued this was because of competition, which doesn't exist in MIA... or the entire southeast!

theasianguy wrote:

Understandable move

Thanks for the summary of current Asian Pacific flying.

Dropping the ORD route only 3 months after adding 40 something CZ connections at PEK is significant. This was the plan all along.

neomax wrote:

which doesn't exist in MIA... or the entire southeast!

Nor does sufficient O&D or yield, for that matter... which is why no one's flying between PEK and the entire southeast

IrishAyes wrote:

AA never did ORD-STN, and LH dropped ORD-DUS years back.

ORD still has a decent summer seasonal network to 7 markets: LHR, CDG, MAN, DUB, FCO, VCE, BCN, plus NRT and PVG year-round.

AA's ORD-MAN service appears to be hanging on by a thread!

zakuivcustom wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

If only UA could get that for IAH-PVG...

I thought MU planned to operated that route for awhile. I don't see UA jumping on that route either way (Even CA can't make IAH-PEK work daily).

ADrum23 wrote:

What about AA’s ORD-PVG and NRT routes? Are those in danger as well?

The only path for AA dropping ORD-NRT, IMO, is if additional US slots open up for HND. There are definitely premium demand on that route anyway.

As for ORD-PVG, well, I guess the business market is still strong enough for AA to keep that flight around.

On a side note:
https://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/new ... icago.html

Basically AA never make any money on ORD-PEK. That was before the Chinese carriers flood the market with capacity also.

A couple of things:

IAH-PVG is hardly a risk. The market is sizable and J heavy. UA May very well feel their planes are better off elsewhere, but it’s still a solid opportunity. PVG generates more J traffic to IAH than PEK.

It’s not as if UA is scared of losing money in China. The fares on LAX-PVG are garbage.

Also, CA will be daily in IAH starting in the summer. That has to do with the PTY tag.

I doubt there is a single China - US route making money. If it does it's probably after taking into account some "big picture" effects like these routes could help to secure some big corporate contracts.
The " incentives " given my the Chinese provinces are largely responsible fot this mess.

LAX772LR wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

LAX-HKG? Between CX-AA and HX they're left with scraps (Even UA quit flying that route for a reason).

That's essentially the same thing that was said when DL launched SYD... and yet, DL made it work rather well, even prior to the J/V with VA.

Don't see why the same couldn't happen with HKG, should they be patient enough to endure the initial market shock.

It is one thing to enter the competition when, let say, CX only operate 1 daily and AA operate 1 daily flights, between LAX-HKG. It is another when CX operate 3 daily flights now. If anything, there is a higher chance that UA would jump back on that route before DL.

LAX772LR wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

HX has that huge advantage of connection beyond HKG, while DL to HKG would be connection at US end only.

Which is why I don't understand why DL (or even UA) haven't partnered up with HX, who has no US ally. Or at least UO.

The routes to China aren't worth much, as I doubt they'd be allowed to codeshare; but there would be the increase in Hong Kong point of sale.

HX/UO falls under HNA Group. For routes to China it is hard to partner with HX, but not HU. DL, though, has no incentive to partner with HU when MU is a much stronger partner.

theasianguy wrote:

Understandable move. ORD is currently overserved by transpacific flights. It's surprising that the SF Bay Area, with a much larger O&D market and Asian population, has comparable service levels to several Asian cities as ORD.

To be fair, there are more TPAC destinations from SFO than ORD (SIN, CTU, KIX on UA, TAO on MH, WUH on CZ). And IIRC most Chinese in SF Bay Area are from HK and Southern China (Guangdong Province, specifically, Toishan area), along with Taiwan, with the "Northerner" mainly immigrating to NYC and LA (They are pretty much everywhere nowaday, though).

LAX772LR wrote:

neomax wrote:

which doesn't exist in MIA... or the entire southeast!

Nor does sufficient O&D or yield, for that matter... which is why no one's flying between PEK and the entire southeast

Yep. DL with that megahub can't make ATL-PEK works, and can barely make ATL-PVG (with feeds on both side) works, what makes anyone think MIA would work?

Also, for any Latin America connection, there is already DFW for that.

If anything, PHL got a much higher chance than MIA. At the minimum, there is actually a decent size Chinese population in Philly area.

IrishAyes wrote:

AA never did ORD-STN, and LH dropped ORD-DUS years back.

ORD still has a decent summer seasonal network to 7 markets: LHR, CDG, MAN, DUB, FCO, VCE, BCN, plus NRT and PVG year-round.

AA also flew DUS for a couple of years before Air Berlin took it over. There were actually 2 DUS flights for a short time I believe. AA started the route just before LH pulled out.

psa1011 wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

AA has tried, and tried and tried to make money in Asia outside of Japan and the yields just aren't there. Meanwhile they are printing money on their flights to Argentina/Chile...

Adam

Any idea why AA hasn't tried ORD-EZE/GRU?

The demand that exists to ORD is easily covered on AA’s flights to DFW and MIA from EZE/GRU. Additionally, United is already on GRU-ORD nonstop, and fulfills the demand between Brazil & Chicago. AA has no real reason to start either from Chicago.

LAXintl wrote:

c933103 wrote:

I doubt they would as if I counted correctly, after UA terminate GUM-PVG and does not reuse it on another flight, there are now space in the bilateral that allow US carriers add service to PEK/PVG/CAN and none of them moved forward

Those GUM frequencies are rather useless as there only 3 of them.
US carriers don't operate longhaul routes 3x per week, but instead, seek to run routes generally on a daily basis.

Now with 7 weekly frequencies coming into play, its much more attractive option for others to pursue.

HA is 3/wx to PEK, because that's all the market really needs. If it were a business market, daily frequency is a must. I'm sure HAL would love to get their hands on 3/wk PVG slots to keep building the China strategy.

theasianguy wrote:

Understandable move. ORD is currently overserved by transpacific flights. It's surprising that the SF Bay Area, with a much larger O&D market and Asian population, has comparable service levels to several Asian cities as ORD.

From SF Bay Area:
Tokyo: 2x daily SFO-NRT (UA, NH), 2x daily SFO-HND (UA, JL), 1x daily SJC-NRT (NH), (35x weekly total)
Beijing: 2x daily SFO-PEK (UA, CA), 5x weekly SJC-PEK (HU), (19x weekly total)
Shanghai: 3x daily SFO-PVG (UA, MU), 3x weekly SJC-PVG (CA), (24x weekly total)
Taipei: 4x daily + 4x weekly SFO-TPE (UA, BR, CI) (32x weekly total)
Hong Kong: 5x daily + 4x weekly SFO-HKG (UA, CX, SQ, HX) (39x weekly total)

From Chicago:
Tokyo: 4x daily ORD-NRT (UA, NH, AA, JL), 1x daily ORD-HND (NH), (35x weekly total)
Beijing: 2x daily + 4x weekly ORD-PEK (UA, AA, HU), (18x weekly total)
Shanghai: 2x daily + 5x weekly ORD-PVG (UA, AA, MU), (19x weekly total)
Taipei: 5x weekly ORD-TPE (BR) (5x weekly total)
Hong Kong: 2x daily ORD-HKG (UA, CX) (14x weekly total)

San Francisco-San Jose has roughly 6 times the Chinese population and 4 times the Japanese population of the Chicagoland area. Yet only TPE and HKG have significantly more coverage from SFO. The numbers for TYO, PEK, and SHA are very much comparable. Anecdotally, a much larger proportion of the transpacific traffic from Chicago is connecting from places like NYC, BOS, PHL, TOR, WAS, Florida, and the Midwest.

Since 2012, the markets that provided the most feed have seen a capacity glut.
At JFK: NH, JL, CA, MU, BR, CX increased frequency and CZ, MF, HU began service
BOS went from no transpacific service to 1x daily JL to NRT, 11x weekly HU to PEK and PVG, and 1x daily CX to HKG
YYZ got HU, MU and CZ

These new non-stop flights diminished the role of ORD as a connection hub for Asia-bound travelers from the East Coast. The situation remains largely unchanged for the Midwest and Southeast US, but Asia demand is also lower from those areas. Meanwhile at ORD, as HU, MU, BR, CX began service, UA and AA downgauged capacity. UA went from 744s to 772s, and AA went from 772s to 788s. ORD simply does not have the volume of local traffic to support 14+ daily transpacific flights. Heck, BR is struggling to fill their ORD flights, while IAH is doing well.

Your comparisons are meaningless because a huge factor is business traffic filling the front. Remember Chicago metro has the fifth largest GDP in the world. So it makes perfect sense that huge business routes like Tokyo and Shanghai will have lots of flights and the other markets significantly less. O&D and large Asian populations don't tell the whole story.