Flighty wrote:

I don’t know why people keep posting that UA is doing substantially better to China than AA is out of Chicago. Is it? Is any carrier making money ORD to Asia? Why would you want to be in a market like that?

1. UA hasn’t canned any of their ORD-China routes like AA just did.
2. No one from UA has said ( as far as I know ) that UA is losing money to China like AA has.
3. Is any US carrier making any money to China from any US city?

Flighty wrote:

I don’t know why people keep posting that UA is doing substantially better to China than AA is out of Chicago. Is it? Is any carrier making money ORD to Asia? Why would you want to be in a market like that?

UA flies a 777 to PEK and PVG, while AA flies a smaller 787-8 to those cities. UA also flies ORD-HKG while AA is nonexistent. If UA is losing money flying ORD-China, I think they would be flying 787s instead of 777s on its ORD-China routes. Plus UA is stronger in Asia, so maybe in the bigger picture its other Asia routes balance any losses on ORD-China.

Alphazone wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

Alright, bro enjoy the trip in TK.

So what is nonsense to you? Certainly you have an answer for it so you made the claim.

Alright, already in the first clause that sentence is not clear,

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD. "

Here is from AA website list of AA "partner airlines" which doesn't contain UA:
Partner airlines
Earn and redeem miles with our partner airlines
Earn miles
oneworld® airline partners
American Airlines
British Airways
Cathay Pacific
Finnair
Iberia
Japan Airlines
LATAM Airlines
Malaysia Airlines
Qantas
Qatar Airways
Royal Jordanian Airlines
S7 Airlines
SriLankan Airlines
Other airline partners
Air Tahiti Nui
Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air
Cape Air
Etihad Airways
Fiji Airways
Gulf Air
Hawaiian Airlines
Interjet
Jet Airways
Seaborne Airlines
WestJet

I digress to tell you that "Partner airlines" doesn't have practical significance. For example departing MUC on LH metal I wanted to same-day change to either of two LO flights departing earlier. But LH would not allow it. Though LH and LO sell tickets on the same metal and they claim they are partner airlines. The airline has a chance to help the passenger and doesn't help, that makes it clear that the airline is not the customer's friend.

And ideas of that entire post by "piedmontf284000" are entirely wrong. Both about China-US market and about next steps of AA in ORD. He writes hyperbole that AA will halt international flying from ORD, that is nonsense. AA has many widebody aircraft which must be used. China must send many students to the US.

You wrote the post was accurate, which part of the post did you find reasonable?

Lets go back to the statement:

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD."

Thats pretty much what AA has been in the process of doing. The only European route AA flies to in the winter from ORD is LHR. If you go back about 6-8 years, you had LHR, CDG, BRU, MAN, and FRA all being flown year round from ORD. They also flew ORD-DEL/MEX. Thats a LOT of flying to give up from ORD. ORD also went from being the number one Asia gateway for AA to a distant third place.

Based on what Ive heard, AA's domestic network at ORD does very well but their international network does not outside a couple of routes. Given that, the best path forward seems to be let their partners feed ORD instead and to focus their international flying at more profitable hubs like DFW and MIA. AA has been doing that already. They downsizing of international flying for AA at ORD is crystal clear.

LO and LH isnt a good example for how partners work. LH and UA would be a better example. Partner airlines take on many forms. AA's partner airlines that are spoken of at ORD are BA, IB, JL, and AY. They all have joint ventures with AA. Its a different ball game. They also have CX, but they arent as close.

It is entirely possible (and I think probable) that ORD-NRT will be the only ORD-Asia flight that AA flies long term.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

So what is nonsense to you? Certainly you have an answer for it so you made the claim.

Alright, already in the first clause that sentence is not clear,

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD. "

Here is from AA website list of AA "partner airlines" which doesn't contain UA:
Partner airlines
Earn and redeem miles with our partner airlines
Earn miles
oneworld® airline partners
American Airlines
British Airways
Cathay Pacific
Finnair
Iberia
Japan Airlines
LATAM Airlines
Malaysia Airlines
Qantas
Qatar Airways
Royal Jordanian Airlines
S7 Airlines
SriLankan Airlines
Other airline partners
Air Tahiti Nui
Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air
Cape Air
Etihad Airways
Fiji Airways
Gulf Air
Hawaiian Airlines
Interjet
Jet Airways
Seaborne Airlines
WestJet

I digress to tell you that "Partner airlines" doesn't have practical significance. For example departing MUC on LH metal I wanted to same-day change to either of two LO flights departing earlier. But LH would not allow it. Though LH and LO sell tickets on the same metal and they claim they are partner airlines. The airline has a chance to help the passenger and doesn't help, that makes it clear that the airline is not the customer's friend.

And ideas of that entire post by "piedmontf284000" are entirely wrong. Both about China-US market and about next steps of AA in ORD. He writes hyperbole that AA will halt international flying from ORD, that is nonsense. AA has many widebody aircraft which must be used. China must send many students to the US.

You wrote the post was accurate, which part of the post did you find reasonable?

Lets go back to the statement:

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD."

Thats pretty much what AA has been in the process of doing. The only European route AA flies to in the winter from ORD is LHR. If you go back about 6-8 years, you had LHR, CDG, BRU, MAN, and FRA all being flown year round from ORD. They also flew ORD-DEL/MEX. Thats a LOT of flying to give up from ORD. ORD also went from being the number one Asia gateway for AA to a distant third place.

Based on what Ive heard, AA's domestic network at ORD does very well but their international network does not outside a couple of routes. Given that, the best path forward seems to be let their partners feed ORD instead and to focus their international flying at more profitable hubs like DFW and MIA. AA has been doing that already. They downsizing of international flying for AA at ORD is crystal clear.

LO and LH isnt a good example for how partners work. LH and UA would be a better example. Partner airlines take on many forms. AA's partner airlines that are spoken of at ORD are BA, IB, JL, and AY. They all have joint ventures with AA. Its a different ball game. They also have CX, but they arent as close.

It is entirely possible (and I think probable) that ORD-NRT will be the only ORD-Asia flight that AA flies long term.

I think there was ORD-FCO too.

Alphazone wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

Alright, already in the first clause that sentence is not clear,

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD. "

Here is from AA website list of AA "partner airlines" which doesn't contain UA:
Partner airlines
Earn and redeem miles with our partner airlines
Earn miles
oneworld® airline partners
American Airlines
British Airways
Cathay Pacific
Finnair
Iberia
Japan Airlines
LATAM Airlines
Malaysia Airlines
Qantas
Qatar Airways
Royal Jordanian Airlines
S7 Airlines
SriLankan Airlines
Other airline partners
Air Tahiti Nui
Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air
Cape Air
Etihad Airways
Fiji Airways
Gulf Air
Hawaiian Airlines
Interjet
Jet Airways
Seaborne Airlines
WestJet

I digress to tell you that "Partner airlines" doesn't have practical significance. For example departing MUC on LH metal I wanted to same-day change to either of two LO flights departing earlier. But LH would not allow it. Though LH and LO sell tickets on the same metal and they claim they are partner airlines. The airline has a chance to help the passenger and doesn't help, that makes it clear that the airline is not the customer's friend.

And ideas of that entire post by "piedmontf284000" are entirely wrong. Both about China-US market and about next steps of AA in ORD. He writes hyperbole that AA will halt international flying from ORD, that is nonsense. AA has many widebody aircraft which must be used. China must send many students to the US.

You wrote the post was accurate, which part of the post did you find reasonable?

Lets go back to the statement:

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD."

Thats pretty much what AA has been in the process of doing. The only European route AA flies to in the winter from ORD is LHR. If you go back about 6-8 years, you had LHR, CDG, BRU, MAN, and FRA all being flown year round from ORD. They also flew ORD-DEL/MEX. Thats a LOT of flying to give up from ORD. ORD also went from being the number one Asia gateway for AA to a distant third place.

Based on what Ive heard, AA's domestic network at ORD does very well but their international network does not outside a couple of routes. Given that, the best path forward seems to be let their partners feed ORD instead and to focus their international flying at more profitable hubs like DFW and MIA. AA has been doing that already. They downsizing of international flying for AA at ORD is crystal clear.

LO and LH isnt a good example for how partners work. LH and UA would be a better example. Partner airlines take on many forms. AA's partner airlines that are spoken of at ORD are BA, IB, JL, and AY. They all have joint ventures with AA. Its a different ball game. They also have CX, but they arent as close.

It is entirely possible (and I think probable) that ORD-NRT will be the only ORD-Asia flight that AA flies long term.

I think there was ORD-FCO too.

ORD-FCO is flown seasonal. In fact, AA has a lot of transatlantic flying for the summer season from ORD. CDG, DUB, MAN, VCE, BCN are currently being operated summer only.

Austin787 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

I don’t know why people keep posting that UA is doing substantially better to China than AA is out of Chicago. Is it? Is any carrier making money ORD to Asia? Why would you want to be in a market like that?

UA flies a 777 to PEK and PVG, while AA flies a smaller 787-8 to those cities. UA also flies ORD-HKG while AA is nonexistent. If UA is losing money flying ORD-China, I think they would be flying 787s instead of 777s on its ORD-China routes. Plus UA is stronger in Asia, so maybe in the bigger picture its other Asia routes balance any losses on ORD-China.

For ORD-HKG: There's CX for that. If anything, AA didn't fly to HKG for many years until they started the DFW flight, and then fly LAX-HKG on their own metal (A route that's dominated by CX for years after UA stop flying that route, only now that HX provided some competition against CX/AA).

But either way - UA are not only historically strong (along with NW) in APAC region, nowaday, as alliance become more important, *A simply dominates the region with hubs in most of the strongest market (The only exception I can think of is HKG and maybe Shanghai, as MU+FM is a lot larger than HO). OW is also very weak in the PRC market, relying mostly on connection from HKG to CX/KA, but that's quite a backtrack for pax coming from N. America. There's JL also, but their PRC network is small, at least compare to NH.

AASAP777 wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Lets go back to the statement:

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD."

Thats pretty much what AA has been in the process of doing. The only European route AA flies to in the winter from ORD is LHR. If you go back about 6-8 years, you had LHR, CDG, BRU, MAN, and FRA all being flown year round from ORD. They also flew ORD-DEL/MEX. Thats a LOT of flying to give up from ORD. ORD also went from being the number one Asia gateway for AA to a distant third place.

Based on what Ive heard, AA's domestic network at ORD does very well but their international network does not outside a couple of routes. Given that, the best path forward seems to be let their partners feed ORD instead and to focus their international flying at more profitable hubs like DFW and MIA. AA has been doing that already. They downsizing of international flying for AA at ORD is crystal clear.

LO and LH isnt a good example for how partners work. LH and UA would be a better example. Partner airlines take on many forms. AA's partner airlines that are spoken of at ORD are BA, IB, JL, and AY. They all have joint ventures with AA. Its a different ball game. They also have CX, but they arent as close.

It is entirely possible (and I think probable) that ORD-NRT will be the only ORD-Asia flight that AA flies long term.

I think there was ORD-FCO too.

ORD-FCO is flown seasonal. In fact, AA has a lot of transatlantic flying for the summer season from ORD. CDG, DUB, MAN, VCE, BCN are currently being operated summer only.

Here is the evidence, for the people who are claiming the contrary.

Alphazone wrote:

AASAP777 wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

I think there was ORD-FCO too.

ORD-FCO is flown seasonal. In fact, AA has a lot of transatlantic flying for the summer season from ORD. CDG, DUB, MAN, VCE, BCN are currently being operated summer only.

Here is the evidence, for the people who are claiming the contrary.

Not really. Summer seasonal flying does nothing for the corporate travelers which are the ones that support any market. Summer seasonal flying is packed with tourists that may travel once a year to that region of the world. It doesnt display much commitment to a market by itself. If you have a internationally flaccid hub for 8 months out of the year and it comes alive for the other four, it isnt proof of much commitment.

I would argue that there is some value with AA's increased summer European and winter Caribbean leisure destinations. Frequent fliers want to be able get to their business destinations non-stop but they also want to be able to use their miles to take them on vacations. For an ORD based road warrior that does business domestically, AA is probably just fine.

But, will this be sustainable for AA? Will they have trouble getting premium fares if ORD becomes essentially a domestic hub when they are up against UA who has a full network from ORD? It sounds like they may already have trouble demanding the same fares UA does. Does AA need to maintain a certain market share at ORD to be profitable. If they slip below their historic market share, could it be a slippery slope to irrelevance?

United787 wrote:

I would argue that there is some value with AA's increased summer European and winter Caribbean leisure destinations. Frequent fliers want to be able get to their business destinations non-stop but they also want to be able to use their miles to take them on vacations. For an ORD based road warrior that does business domestically, AA is probably just fine.

But, will this be sustainable for AA? Will they have trouble getting premium fares if ORD becomes essentially a domestic hub when they are up against UA who has a full network from ORD? It sounds like they may already have trouble demanding the same fares UA does. Does AA need to maintain a certain market share at ORD to be profitable. If they slip below their historic market share, could it be a slippery slope to irrelevance?

AA does very well on their domestic network from ORD. They could theoretically only operate a select number of international routes year round and be quite profitable. That appears to be what they are doing anyway.

Every major non aa hub routes I looked at, ua does better. Sometimes, quite substantially. I don’t have connection fare data so maybe aa does really well there. But I don’t see this narrative that aa does well domestically at ord.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

AASAP777 wrote:

ORD-FCO is flown seasonal. In fact, AA has a lot of transatlantic flying for the summer season from ORD. CDG, DUB, MAN, VCE, BCN are currently being operated summer only.

Here is the evidence, for the people who are claiming the contrary.

Not really. Summer seasonal flying does nothing for the corporate travelers which are the ones that support any market. Summer seasonal flying is packed with tourists that may travel once a year to that region of the world. It doesnt display much commitment to a market by itself. If you have a internationally flaccid hub for 8 months out of the year and it comes alive for the other four, it isnt proof of much commitment.

By virtue of existing, the service is proof of commitment to the market.

What is the reason to press the topic further?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

United787 wrote:

I would argue that there is some value with AA's increased summer European and winter Caribbean leisure destinations. Frequent fliers want to be able get to their business destinations non-stop but they also want to be able to use their miles to take them on vacations. For an ORD based road warrior that does business domestically, AA is probably just fine.

But, will this be sustainable for AA? Will they have trouble getting premium fares if ORD becomes essentially a domestic hub when they are up against UA who has a full network from ORD? It sounds like they may already have trouble demanding the same fares UA does. Does AA need to maintain a certain market share at ORD to be profitable. If they slip below their historic market share, could it be a slippery slope to irrelevance?

AA does very well on their domestic network from ORD. They could theoretically only operate a select number of international routes year round and be quite profitable. That appears to be what they are doing anyway.

Exactly. They're focusing on what makes money from ORD and if summer seasonal flying, LHR, NRT and domestic is what makes money the real question is why waste the time and effort on other flying? AA, and indeed all of the airlines, don't need to be all things to all people from everywhere they fly.

Second shoe dropped.

ORD-PVG route ends also

ORD-NRT reduced to 3x weekly.

Posted today, per Vasu the ORD-Asia flying was generating "colossal losses".

He also states AA will seek dormancy waivers from DOT for China frequencies in the short term while it works things out.

What’s the point of seeking dormancy waivers on routes that hemorrhage money?

AA sure is handing UA a nice present at ORD to Asia

LAXintl wrote:

Second shoe dropped.

ORD-PVG route ends also

ORD-NRT reduced to 3x weekly.

Posted today, per Vasu the ORD-Asia flying was generating "colossal losses".

He also states AA will seek dormancy waivers from DOT for China frequencies in the short term while it works things out.

Wow. I bet AA loses a fair amount of corporate contracts. I guess the cost (losses) for TPAC routes were outweighed the benefits of the network for those contracts.

Edit: I anticipate DL will seek some of these frequencies.

I suspect AA will look at options of moving authorities and maybe swapping routes - for example start a LAX-CAN, or who knows maybe interior China market or additional frequency in existing market from LAX or DFW.

What's happening to you American with your Asian routes in Chicago ???? Why do they finish Shanghai and Beijing? that sincerely madness, and also reduce Tokyo, I hope that China Eastern, Hainan Airlines and United take the opportunity to increase frequencies

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Alphazone wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

So what is nonsense to you? Certainly you have an answer for it so you made the claim.

Alright, already in the first clause that sentence is not clear,

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD. "

Here is from AA website list of AA "partner airlines" which doesn't contain UA:
Partner airlines
Earn and redeem miles with our partner airlines
Earn miles
oneworld® airline partners
American Airlines
British Airways
Cathay Pacific
Finnair
Iberia
Japan Airlines
LATAM Airlines
Malaysia Airlines
Qantas
Qatar Airways
Royal Jordanian Airlines
S7 Airlines
SriLankan Airlines
Other airline partners
Air Tahiti Nui
Alaska Airlines/Horizon Air
Cape Air
Etihad Airways
Fiji Airways
Gulf Air
Hawaiian Airlines
Interjet
Jet Airways
Seaborne Airlines
WestJet

I digress to tell you that "Partner airlines" doesn't have practical significance. For example departing MUC on LH metal I wanted to same-day change to either of two LO flights departing earlier. But LH would not allow it. Though LH and LO sell tickets on the same metal and they claim they are partner airlines. The airline has a chance to help the passenger and doesn't help, that makes it clear that the airline is not the customer's friend.

And ideas of that entire post by "piedmontf284000" are entirely wrong. Both about China-US market and about next steps of AA in ORD. He writes hyperbole that AA will halt international flying from ORD, that is nonsense. AA has many widebody aircraft which must be used. China must send many students to the US.

You wrote the post was accurate, which part of the post did you find reasonable?

Lets go back to the statement:

"I definitely think AA has conceded the Int'l market (especially Asia) to their partners, UA, and foreign carriers and will instead focus on domestic operations out of ORD."

Thats pretty much what AA has been in the process of doing. The only European route AA flies to in the winter from ORD is LHR. If you go back about 6-8 years, you had LHR, CDG, BRU, MAN, and FRA all being flown year round from ORD. They also flew ORD-DEL/MEX. Thats a LOT of flying to give up from ORD. ORD also went from being the number one Asia gateway for AA to a distant third place.

Based on what Ive heard, AA's domestic network at ORD does very well but their international network does not outside a couple of routes. Given that, the best path forward seems to be let their partners feed ORD instead and to focus their international flying at more profitable hubs like DFW and MIA. AA has been doing that already. They downsizing of international flying for AA at ORD is crystal clear.

LO and LH isnt a good example for how partners work. LH and UA would be a better example. Partner airlines take on many forms. AA's partner airlines that are spoken of at ORD are BA, IB, JL, and AY. They all have joint ventures with AA. Its a different ball game. They also have CX, but they arent as close.

It is entirely possible (and I think probable) that ORD-NRT will be the only ORD-Asia flight that AA flies long term.

BUT...with the JVs, AA does “fly” to MAD, NRT, HEL in addition to their seasonal routes BCN, VCE, and now ATH...
CDG doesn’t operate for what? 2-3 weeks?

Good decisions by AA to axe ORD-PEK/PVG and reduce NRT. They should also axe NRT entirely and hand it over to JAL.

First of all, The Asian carriers have driven the yields to the toilet.

Further, ORD isn't the city that it used to be 10 years ago. IMHO the Overall business climate in Chicago is down a notch. Besides, other cities such as Dallas, Houston, Boston which didn't really have many options to Asia 7-8 years ago have done exceedingly well lately both in terms of economy and airline connectivity. This also provides multiple connecting points to Asia and hence ORD's value as a connecting hub to Asia is significantly diminished. Also, AA now has the luxury of multiple hubs (some with very little competition) that they can spread the wealth around.

So I guess AA is really doing what has to be done.

Besides, I still remember AA's ORD-PEK application. It was never meant to be ORD-PEK in the first place. It was supposed to be DFW-PEK until the pilots union forced the change!!

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

What's happening to you American with your Asian routes in Chicago ???? Why do they finish Shanghai and Beijing? that sincerely madness, and also reduce Tokyo, I hope that China Eastern, Hainan Airlines and United take the opportunity to increase frequencies

Chinese carriers seem have used all traffic right.
United airline has already mentioned the yield for flight to China is too low and will not increase China service.

Boy o boy, AA just threw the towel in.

Got to admit though its admirable to cut losses and move on. It seems too many airlines hang onto loss-making route for prestige or nostalgia. Its clear AA is unwilling to carry these losses any longer and rather use the equipment on other opportunities.

Yes, its good airlines are willing to cut loss-making routes, though rarely are they so high profile as these.

Also pretty interesting NRT was a loss maker also even with the JAL JV.

SATexan wrote:

Further, ORD isn't the city that it used to be 10 years ago. IMHO the Overall business climate in Chicago is down a notch.

You're kidding right? I understand that is the popular feeling from people who have never been to Chicago but it is so far from truth.

1) There are more construction cranes for residential highrises in downtown Chicago than in any other City in the US.
2) There have been an enormous shift of HQ from the suburbs to downtown: McDonald's; Beam-Suntory; ConAgra Foods; Kraft Heinz; Motorola Solutions; United; Mead Johnson; Gogo; Hillshire; Wilson Sporting Goods...
3) Plus more HQ moves from elsewhere to Chicago including: GE Healthcare; Caterpillar...
4) ORD is just finishing the largest airport construction project in the US (OMP - runway reconfiguration) and about to start on a close second (O'Hare 21 - terminal expansion)

Chicago has a incredibly diversified economy on a global scale; a huge young talent base; relatively affordable when compared to NYC, SFO, LAX, MIA, SEA; excellent transportation options...

But, I am shocked that AA just handed over Asia... and NRT is just 3x week? What is the point? I understand this just as much about Asia yields as it is about AA but wow.

SATexan wrote:

Further, ORD isn't the city that it used to be 10 years ago. IMHO the Overall business climate in Chicago is down a notch.

Care to share any facts to back this up??

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?

I know that UA tried ORD-EZE, and I think AA tried ORD-EZE. Apparently, there simply isn't enough demand out of ORD and the Great Lakes region for service to some of the major, albeit distant. cities in South America.

United787 wrote:

SATexan wrote:

Further, ORD isn't the city that it used to be 10 years ago. IMHO the Overall business climate in Chicago is down a notch.

You're kidding right? I understand that is the popular feeling from people who have never been to Chicago but it is so far from truth.

1) There are more construction cranes for residential highrises in downtown Chicago than in any other City in the US.
2) There have been an enormous shift of HQ from the suburbs to downtown: McDonald's; Beam-Suntory; ConAgra Foods; Kraft Heinz; Motorola Solutions; United; Mead Johnson; Gogo; Hillshire; Wilson Sporting Goods...
3) Plus more HQ moves from elsewhere to Chicago including: GE Healthcare; Caterpillar...
4) ORD is just finishing the largest airport construction project in the US (OMP - runway reconfiguration) and about to start on a close second (O'Hare 21 - terminal expansion)

Chicago has a incredibly diversified economy on a global scale; a huge young talent base; relatively affordable when compared to NYC, SFO, LAX, MIA, SEA; excellent transportation options...

Exactly what I wanted to say. Actually has had the most corporate relocations of any city in the US over the past few years. I wish people would actually come here and see for themselves how the city is thriving instead of forming opinions from Trump tweets and the national media's obsessive hyperbolically negative press.

ckfred 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?

I know that UA tried ORD-EZE, and I think AA tried ORD-EZE. Apparently, there simply isn't enough demand out of ORD and the Great Lakes region for service to some of the major, albeit distant. cities in South America.

Demand is low and as a connecting hub for Asia/Europe, ORD is simply too far north. ATL/IAH/DFW are better located for connections.

UpNAWAy wrote:

BTW for those having trouble understanding AA's ORD-Asia problem watch the video from AA.com.

http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/20 ... a-Service/

AA operates under completely different rules than the other US carriers and has much less flexibility. No problem if the market is gangbusters but a huge problem if the market is marginal or seasonal.

Just watched the video, very informative, thank you.

Some specific questions regarding AA's China rights relative to UA and ORD. He gave 3 specific differences:

1) He said UA could move their flights from one gateway to another whereas AA is stuck with the route. Has UA moved any of their China routes from or to ORD as demand has changed?
2) He said UA could stop in an intermediate point such as NRT, where as AA could not. UA/DL have both been moving away from that, no? Has UA shifted any of their ORD China routes to stop in NRT or anywhere else as demand has changed?
3) He said UA could allow their routes to go dormant without risk of losing their rights. Has UA allowed any of its ORD flights to China to go dormant at anytime?

I understand that these are all real differences between the rights that UA is blessed with and AA is stuck with but have they really affected the ORD-China routes?

Chicago lost 200,000 people between the last two census and is estimated to be stagnant ever since.

That coupled with weekly shooting statistics from a war zone arent the images of a thriving city.

Especially when cities like DFW IAH and ATL are rapidly growing.

Chicago was secondary to NYC and LA in modern times...but now it has other cities nipping at its heels.

Furthermore, those cities will likely meet or surpass Chicago in terms of importance unless the rustbelt to sunbelt trend disappears.

ORD as an airport has done a great job planning ahead for the future, but like JFK to Europe in the 1980s, the upper Midwest stopover is now a thing of the past for those in secondary (growing) US cities going to Asia.

That, combined with a flood of Asian carriers, a much larger connection system at AA and Chicago’s loss of status, plays a role.

duplicate post

jfklganyc wrote:

Chicago lost 200,000 people between the last two census and is estimated to be stagnant ever since.

That coupled with weekly shooting statistics from a war zone arent the images of a thriving city.

Especially when cities like DFW IAH and ATL are rapidly growing.

Chicago was secondary to NYC and LA in modern times...but now it has other cities nipping at its heels.

Furthermore, those cities will likely meet or surpass Chicago in terms of importance unless the rustbelt to sunbelt trend disappears.

ORD as an airport has done a great job planning ahead for the future, but like JFK to Europe in the 1980s, the upper Midwest stopover is now a thing of the past for those in secondary (growing) US cities going to Asia.

That, combined with a flood of Asian carriers, a much larger connection system at AA and Chicago’s loss of status, plays a role.

There you are!! It wouldn't be a real thread without jfklganyc dumping on Chicago! Do you do this just to piss people off?

You can think whatever you want. That doesn't change the facts. Just a few of them:

The Chicago economy continues to grow

The people that are moving here are young educated professionals

Every year sees record tourism to the city

Int'l passengers are up 10% YTD at ORD

Most building construction of any US city

More corporate relocations than any US city

Are you aware that no assessor of Global Cities has ever even put LA as high as Chicago? Chicago is considered an Alpha global city by every organization that ranks them. Take your trolling elsewhere.

jfklganyc wrote:

Chicago lost 200,000 people between the last two census and is estimated to be stagnant ever since.

That coupled with weekly shooting statistics from a war zone arent the images of a thriving city.

Especially when cities like DFW IAH and ATL are rapidly growing.

Chicago was secondary to NYC and LA in modern times...but now it has other cities nipping at its heels.

Furthermore, those cities will likely meet or surpass Chicago in terms of importance unless the rustbelt to sunbelt trend disappears.

ORD as an airport has done a great job planning ahead for the future, but like JFK to Europe in the 1980s, the upper Midwest stopover is now a thing of the past for those in secondary (growing) US cities going to Asia.

That, combined with a flood of Asian carriers, a much larger connection system at AA and Chicago’s loss of status, plays a role.

To each of your points:

The loss of 200,000 people is mostly "black flight" from rough neighborhoods. It is concerning and definitely a new problem but doesn't reflect Chicago as a whole.

You should come visit so you don't need to read headlines to create an image in your mind. There is a lot more to the US then NYC, FL and LA. No doubt the shootings are a problem that needs to be resolved but again it doesn't reflect the whole City. Chicago IS thriving despite that issue.

Chicago's economy is not really considered "rustbelt" economically having become extremely diversified over the past 40+ years. Maybe geographically but that is about it.

I don't think Chicago is losing Asia flights because smaller cities are now connected to Asia. Maybe if AA was flying from CLT, PHL and MIA to Asia, you could say AA is passing up ORD to fly from these other cities to Asia but they aren't. AA has no other flights to Asia outside of DFW and LAX.

LAXintl wrote:

I suspect AA will look at options of moving authorities and maybe swapping routes - for example start a LAX-CAN, or who knows maybe interior China market or additional frequency in existing market from LAX or DFW.

Aren't there a lot of unused frequencies to secondary cities in China from the U.S? Is CAN considered a tier 1 frequency like PVG and PEK or is it tier 2?

I can't see AA adding additional frequencies to either PVG or PEK from LAX, and if AA needs more capacity out of DFW wouldn't it be cheaper to upguage DFW-PVG/PEK to a larger aircraft than go daily double? I think AA want's to sit on these slots to prevent either DL or UA from acquiring them. For now AA will probably be allowed to get away with this however if in the future either DL or UA were to put up a fight I can see the DOT telling AA use them or loose them. AA won't be able to sit on these valuable slot for very long in fact.

United787 wrote:

[You're kidding right? I understand that is the popular feeling from people who have never been to Chicago but it is so far from truth.

1) There are more construction cranes for residential highrises in downtown Chicago than in any other City in the US.
2) ...

according to whom?

This article says that Seattle is the king of construction cranes.


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/r ... shrinking/

United787 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Chicago lost 200,000 people between the last two census and is estimated to be stagnant ever since.

That coupled with weekly shooting statistics from a war zone arent the images of a thriving city.

Especially when cities like DFW IAH and ATL are rapidly growing.

Chicago was secondary to NYC and LA in modern times...but now it has other cities nipping at its heels.

Furthermore, those cities will likely meet or surpass Chicago in terms of importance unless the rustbelt to sunbelt trend disappears.

ORD as an airport has done a great job planning ahead for the future, but like JFK to Europe in the 1980s, the upper Midwest stopover is now a thing of the past for those in secondary (growing) US cities going to Asia.

That, combined with a flood of Asian carriers, a much larger connection system at AA and Chicago’s loss of status, plays a role.

To each of your points:

The loss of 200,000 people is mostly "black flight" from rough neighborhoods. It is concerning and definitely a new problem but doesn't reflect Chicago as a whole.

You should come visit so you don't need to read headlines to create an image in your mind. There is a lot more to the US then NYC, FL and LA. No doubt the shootings are a problem that needs to be resolved but again it doesn't reflect the whole City. Chicago IS thriving despite that issue.

Chicago's economy is not really considered "rustbelt" economically having become extremely diversified over the past 40+ years. Maybe geographically but that is about it.

I don't think Chicago is losing Asia flights because smaller cities are now connected to Asia. Maybe if AA was flying from CLT, PHL and MIA to Asia, you could say AA is passing up ORD to fly from these other cities to Asia but they aren't. AA has no other flights to Asia outside of DFW and LAX.

People are leaving all areas of Chicago. Poor minorities dont really have the means to move and set up life in a new region. Illinois is a basketcase financially and will likely lose 2 congressional districts in 2020

I think it’s a Hail Mary pass asking the DOT for dormancy on the routes. If DL, UA, HA, heck, even AS or WN want to take a try on the routes, they should be allowed.

jumbojet wrote:

United787 wrote:

[You're kidding right? I understand that is the popular feeling from people who have never been to Chicago but it is so far from truth.

1) There are more construction cranes for residential highrises in downtown Chicago than in any other City in the US.
2) ...

according to whom?

This article says that Seattle is the king of construction cranes.


https://www.seattletimes.com/business/r ... shrinking/

2nd in total cranes.
2nd isn't bad for a "dying" city.
https://www.constructionjunkie.com/blog ... wer-cranes

but that isn't what I said...

1st in cranes for residential buildings in the US
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/16/real ... ranes.html

Bobloblaw wrote:

Poor minorities dont really have the means to move and set up life in a new region.

Middle-class minorities do and are leaving depressed areas if they have the means to.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... story.html

Sorry not to takeover the Chicago thread, but I believe Hainan does very well in BOS and had read an article somewhere although months back that BOS was their profitable station. I believe PVG from BOS also does well. How's that BOS is doing well compared to ORD? The reason I say is people who are very cost conscious wouldn't mind taking a flight from BOS-JFK-PEK or PVG and saving dollars.

United787 wrote:

Just watched the video, very informative, thank you.

Some specific questions regarding AA's China rights relative to UA and ORD. He gave 3 specific differences:

1) He said UA could move their flights from one gateway to another whereas AA is stuck with the route. Has UA moved any of their China routes from or to ORD as demand has changed?
2) He said UA could stop in an intermediate point such as NRT, where as AA could not. UA/DL have both been moving away from that, no? Has UA shifted any of their ORD China routes to stop in NRT or anywhere else as demand has changed?
3) He said UA could allow their routes to go dormant without risk of losing their rights. Has UA allowed any of its ORD flights to China to go dormant at anytime?

I understand that these are all real differences between the rights that UA is blessed with and AA is stuck with but have they really affected the ORD-China routes?

Your questions are spot on and we all know the answer to all 3 questions is no. What I heard from the video was a bunch of excuses as to why UA is flying ORD-Asia and AA is now reducing ORD-Asia. Take for instance your question number 2, AA is in a JV with JL they claim UA has the ability to do an intermediate stop at NRT which we can but through their JV so could AA. However in addition to canceling both ORD-PVG and PEK AA is now reducing ORD-NRT to 3x weekly. If China is the problem why is AA reducing ORD-NRT? I think the problem that people don't want to face is UA probably has a larger piece of the ORD-Asia O&D market whereas AA was probably more dependent on connecting traffic. When ORD-China was AA's only gateway to China AA didn't have any problems filling 77E's. Their problems started to begin when DFW-China was added however LAX-China exacerbated the issues AA was already facing on their ORD-China flights. Instead of having all the connecting traffic flow through ORD that traffic is now involved in the 3 way split. There is no way AA would ever reduce DFW-China because they own that market. LAX-China is so competitive it wouldn't surprise me if AA is sacrificing ORD-China to make LAX-China work. I understand AA needs LAX-China but LAX-China is so fragmented no single carrier can dominate on these routes the only exception is LAX-HKG where CX/AA are the dominate carriers.

None of this still explains reduction of ORD-NRT. UA/NH maintains 3 daily flights to Tokyo, whereas AA/JL will reduce their frequency to 10x weekly.

iyerhari wrote:

Sorry not to takeover the Chicago thread, but I believe Hainan does very well in BOS and had read an article somewhere although months back that BOS was their profitable station. I believe PVG from BOS also does well. How's that BOS is doing well compared to ORD? The reason I say is people who are very cost conscious wouldn't mind taking a flight from BOS-JFK-PEK or PVG and saving dollars.

B/c HU has a monopoly on BOS-PEK and BOS-PVG. Meanwhile, AA is not even the only US-based carrier that fly to PEK and PVG from ORD (Cough...UA), along with MU on ORD-PVG and HU on ORD-PEK.

Bobloblaw wrote:

People are leaving all areas of Chicago. Poor minorities dont really have the means to move and set up life in a new region. Illinois is a basketcase financially and will likely lose 2 congressional districts in 2020

People are leaving the Chicagoland area not because of economic reasons but because other areas that are either have a lower COL or better amenities (outdoors, weather, etc) are booming and becoming more attractive. I grew up in the Chicago suburbs. I don't hate the city nor all of the job opportunities. But as an outdoorsy person, Denver better fit what I wanted with great weather year-round and a ton of trails and forests to explore.

That being said, as others have noted, the economy in Chicago is booming. It is one of the cheapest "world class" cities in the US as far as cost of living is concerned. Offers many of the amenities of NYC or LA for a fraction of the price.

As far as AA in Asia from ORD - they're just handing over passengers to UA. I have no idea why they can't make the routes work, but if they can't get a non-stop flight to the major Asian cities for their corporate clients, the corporate clients are going to go elsewhere.

UpNAWAy wrote:

BTW for those having trouble understanding AA's ORD-Asia problem watch the video from AA.com.

http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/20 ... a-Service/

AA operates under completely different rules than the other US carriers and has much less flexibility. No problem if the market is gangbusters but a huge problem if the market is marginal or seasonal.

and he is more full of shit than a christmas turkey. That is simply spinning some small truth to make it seem like they are at some disadvantage that isn't there.

what is talking about unrestricted frequencies. I'm not exactly sure how many United has. I know SFO-PVG #2, LAX-PVG, IAD-PEK, EWR-PEK and EWR-PVG are restricted and I believe at least one set of 7 in ORD are restricted. SFO-PEK/PVG #1 came over from Pan Am and are unrestricted and I believe the other set of 7 were awarded to united back when they were unrestricted.

For Delta they only have 14 unrestricted frequencies. SEA-PEK and ATL-PVG. LAX-PVG, SEA-PVG, DTW-PEK and DTW-PVG are no different than what American has. If Delta wants to cut one of those routes they would have to seek dormancy just like American will have to do.

finally, even with the unrestricted frequencies American could have still requested for the DOT to remove them.

More importantly, how many NRT-China flights are United/Delta operating? none
How many frequencies are dormant for Delta/United? none. Both are actually still growing to China while American is getting smaller.

Fact is, American has always got its butt handed to them on ORD-China (I'd id bet DFW/LAX-China aren't much better) and they have been making excuses for years why they can't make it work. "we can't find the slots" "we don't have a partner" etc. etc.

jayunited wrote:

United787 wrote:

Just watched the video, very informative, thank you.

Some specific questions regarding AA's China rights relative to UA and ORD. He gave 3 specific differences:

1) He said UA could move their flights from one gateway to another whereas AA is stuck with the route. Has UA moved any of their China routes from or to ORD as demand has changed?
2) He said UA could stop in an intermediate point such as NRT, where as AA could not. UA/DL have both been moving away from that, no? Has UA shifted any of their ORD China routes to stop in NRT or anywhere else as demand has changed?
3) He said UA could allow their routes to go dormant without risk of losing their rights. Has UA allowed any of its ORD flights to China to go dormant at anytime?

I understand that these are all real differences between the rights that UA is blessed with and AA is stuck with but have they really affected the ORD-China routes?

Your questions are spot on and we all know the answer to all 3 questions is no. What I heard from the video was a bunch of excuses as to why UA is flying ORD-Asia and AA is now reducing ORD-Asia. Take for instance your question number 2, AA is in a JV with JL they claim UA has the ability to do an intermediate stop at NRT which we can but through their JV so could AA. However in addition to canceling both ORD-PVG and PEK AA is now reducing ORD-NRT to 3x weekly. If China is the problem why is AA reducing ORD-NRT? I think the problem that people don't want to face is UA probably has a larger piece of the ORD-Asia O&D market whereas AA was probably more dependent on connecting traffic. When ORD-China was AA's only gateway to China AA didn't have any problems filling 77E's. Their problems started to begin when DFW-China was added however LAX-China exacerbated the issues AA was already facing on their ORD-China flights. Instead of having all the connecting traffic flow through ORD that traffic is now involved in the 3 way split. There is no way AA would ever reduce DFW-China because they own that market. LAX-China is so competitive it wouldn't surprise me if AA is sacrificing ORD-China to make LAX-China work. I understand AA needs LAX-China but LAX-China is so fragmented no single carrier can dominate on these routes the only exception is LAX-HKG where CX/AA are the dominate carriers.

None of this still explains reduction of ORD-NRT. UA/NH maintains 3 daily flights to Tokyo, whereas AA/JL will reduce their frequency to 10x weekly.

Two things.

first now that USA-Japan have open skies I don't see why American couldn't operate at NRT-PVG/PEK flight just like Delta/United can. That is a lame ass excuse that wouldn't happen
second, none of the USA-Asia JVs (UA/NH, AA/JL, DL/KE) include China. They can't till the US/China agree to an open skies, if they ever do.

What if AA wet leased CX crew and equipment for a route like this? CX could probably earn better yields and also rotate aircraft for their HKG routes more efficiently. Anyone think that they could pull that off?

iyerhari wrote:

Sorry not to takeover the Chicago thread, but I believe Hainan does very well in BOS and had read an article somewhere although months back that BOS was their profitable station. I believe PVG from BOS also does well. How's that BOS is doing well compared to ORD? The reason I say is people who are very cost conscious wouldn't mind taking a flight from BOS-JFK-PEK or PVG and saving dollars.

Significant amounts of Chinese students from all over the country studying in universities near the Boston area, many of whom are far from cost conscious. There's also pretty decent corporate links between both ends, considering Boston's size.