After leaving the market in January 2016, would you be ready to return? AA is focusing on hubs like MIA, LAX, DFW and PHL to continue adding more destinations and frequencies with the purchase of the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner to fly to TLV from DFW, which is its main hub for connections, LAX and PHL that are important cities of Jewish descent, I think the Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner is better to return to TLV better fuel efficiency than when they did PHL-TLV with Airbus A330-200

I've said all along that AA needs to RETURN to Tel Aviv from PHL, JFK, MIA, LAX or DFW! After they added Hong Kong and Sydney a few years ago (high yielding markets in the Pacific), there is ONLY 1 market left over the Atlantic that is high yielding and that is Tel Aviv! Dunno why they left TLV, its so high yielding Delta is adding a 2nd daily from JFK in summer 2019.

Wasn't there some TWA contract that isn't allowing them to return?

I guess time will Tel...

DFW-TLV would be an interesting add with the loads of 787s AA has.

Bigant0408 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

I've said all along that AA needs to RETURN to Tel Aviv from PHL, JFK, MIA, LAX or DFW! After they added Hong Kong and Sydney a few years ago (high yielding markets in the Pacific), there is ONLY 1 market left over the Atlantic that is high yielding and that is Tel Aviv! Dunno why they left TLV, its so high yielding Delta is adding a 2nd daily from JFK in summer 2019.

AA apparently left TLV because they were loosing money on the route. There were several articles of AA member stating about it. Granted majority of the flights were almost full I guess the profitability was there according to them.

AA got the authority from the TWA purchase. TWA owed money to the government there. I seem to recall AA did not want to pay the old fees from TWA's bancrupcy. Result no AA service.

rbavfan wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

I've said all along that AA needs to RETURN to Tel Aviv from PHL, JFK, MIA, LAX or DFW! After they added Hong Kong and Sydney a few years ago (high yielding markets in the Pacific), there is ONLY 1 market left over the Atlantic that is high yielding and that is Tel Aviv! Dunno why they left TLV, its so high yielding Delta is adding a 2nd daily from JFK in summer 2019.

AA apparently left TLV because they were loosing money on the route. There were several articles of AA member stating about it. Granted majority of the flights were almost full I guess the profitability was there according to them.

AA got the authority from the TWA purchase. TWA owed money to the government there. I seem to recall AA did not want to pay the old fees from TWA's bancrupcy. Result no AA service.

Pretty sure this theory has been debunked repeatedly,not to mention that PHL-TLV ended AFTER the merger not at the merger.

kjeld0d wrote:

I guess time will Tel...

Who knows.... AA might be forecasting it

If AA returns to TLV, I'm guessing it would be from PHL or DFW on a 787.

AA left a lot of cargo behind in TLV every day as the A330-200 just couldn't make it to PHL with a full load. I guess with a 787 this flight could be very profitable for them, but they seem to focused on other markets leaving it to El Al (various frequencies JFK,EWR,LAX,MIA,BOS and soon SFO,LAS and MCO) (United EWR daily 77W+78J, SFO daily 77W ,IAD 3 weekly 772 and DL 2 daily A333 from JFK).

x1234 wrote:

I've said all along that AA needs to RETURN to Tel Aviv from PHL, JFK, MIA, LAX or DFW! After they added Hong Kong and Sydney a few years ago (high yielding markets in the Pacific), there is ONLY 1 market left over the Atlantic that is high yielding and that is Tel Aviv! Dunno why they left TLV, its so high yielding Delta is adding a 2nd daily from JFK in summer 2019.

"high yielding" is relative.

Just because a route gives particular yield for airline-A's structure, doesn't mean it can do the same for airline-B, even if "B" is of similar location and business model as "A."

DL@HKG is a good example: they've attempted a nonstop to HKG from five different gateways since 1995, and couldn't make any of them work longterm... despite HKG being one of the world's premier business and tourism locations. By contrast, UA and AA do just fine at HKG.

Same for AA@SIN, again one of the world's premier destinations that UA/DL both serve, but AA hasn't even attempted.

Antarius wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA apparently left TLV because they were loosing money on the route. There were several articles of AA member stating about it. Granted majority of the flights were almost full I guess the profitability was there according to them.

AA got the authority from the TWA purchase. TWA owed money to the government there. I seem to recall AA did not want to pay the old fees from TWA's bancrupcy. Result no AA service.

Pretty sure this theory has been debunked repeatedly,not to mention that PHL-TLV ended AFTER the merger not at the merger.

So from the mill on the non AA side, it was true that there was outstanding debt issues for AMR, but what killed the route (PHL-TLV) were 2 other factors, 1. The flight was too reliant on connections in Y and the yields in J were bottom of the barrel.. 2. At the time, BA didn’t want to give up the premium US traffic they had to a nonstop vs letting it flow over LHR...

Would live to see a TLV route return, but honestly, other than JFK/MIA/DFW, not sure which if any of the other gateways could sustain the traffic year round... that plus, the 788 had a tiny J cabin, you’d likely need something larger to make any inroads against the established players.

LAX772LR wrote:

x1234 wrote:

I've said all along that AA needs to RETURN to Tel Aviv from PHL, JFK, MIA, LAX or DFW! After they added Hong Kong and Sydney a few years ago (high yielding markets in the Pacific), there is ONLY 1 market left over the Atlantic that is high yielding and that is Tel Aviv! Dunno why they left TLV, its so high yielding Delta is adding a 2nd daily from JFK in summer 2019.

"high yielding" is relative.

Just because a route gives particular yield for airline-A's structure, doesn't mean it can do the same for airline-B, even if "B" is of similar location and business model as "A."

DL@HKG is a good example: they've attempted a nonstop to HKG from five different gateways since 1995, and couldn't make any of them work longterm... despite HKG being one of the world's premier business and tourism locations. By contrast, UA and AA do just fine at HKG.

Same for AA@SIN, again one of the world's premier destinations that UA/DL both serve, but AA hasn't even attempted.

AA in Singapore has a tall mountain to climb, first UA & Delta have west coast hubs which can handle nonstops. DFW is too far east and LAX is owned by Singapore Airlines to SIN. AA has better uses for a 787-9 then LAX to SIN. AA expanding Asia Pacific portfolio would be better served by flying to more Australian cities. AA coming to Singapore a very long time from now.

jfk777 wrote:

AA in Singapore has a tall mountain to climb, first UA & Delta have west coast hubs which can handle nonstops.

DL does not fly nonstop from the US mainland to SIN, and AA's operation at LAX is larger than DL's....

jfk777 wrote:

AA has better uses for a 787-9

Indeed, you've just succeeded in making the case as to why any given airline doesn't fly to any given destination.

Ishrion wrote:

Wasn't there some TWA contract that isn't allowing them to return?

Though the bindings is a big rumor for leaving the TLV market, AA stated that it was too expensive of a route. They claimed that at any given time they needed to aircraft on the route, and they could better utilize equipment in other forms.

On another note, I wonder what their A330 fleet utilization looks like? Last Wednesday I counted five A330s sitting on a MX ramp at CLT in the late morning. Couldn't have been European arrivals so I assume they use them for the short east coast sectors and PHX/LAX turns.

tkoenig95 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Wasn't there some TWA contract that isn't allowing them to return?

Though the bindings is a big rumor for leaving the TLV market, AA stated that it was too expensive of a route. They claimed that at any given time they needed to aircraft on the route, and they could better utilize equipment in other forms.

On another note, I wonder what their A330 fleet utilization looks like? Last Wednesday I counted five A330s sitting on a MX ramp at CLT in the late morning. Couldn't have been European arrivals so I assume they use them for the short east coast sectors and PHX/LAX turns.

CLT doesn't have any A330 flights to LAX/PHX at the moment. The only domestic A330 flight is from phl, but it doesn't land til about 1pm. Obviously, there's a little bit of wiggle room right now since the full summer Euro schedule isn't in full effect yet. DUB/BCN both resume out of CLT this Friday on A332s.

tkoenig95 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Wasn't there some TWA contract that isn't allowing them to return?

Though the bindings is a big rumor for leaving the TLV market, AA stated that it was too expensive of a route. They claimed that at any given time they needed to aircraft on the route, and they could better utilize equipment in other forms.

On another note, I wonder what their A330 fleet utilization looks like? Last Wednesday I counted five A330s sitting on a MX ramp at CLT in the late morning. Couldn't have been European arrivals so I assume they use them for the short east coast sectors and PHX/LAX turns.

Last week was around spring break holiday and there could have been some 1-2 week utilization on Florda/Caribbean flights. I know PHL saw some widebodies on MCO, PUJ, SXM flights.

Vasu Raja has stated repeatedly in recent months that AA pulled out of TLV too soon, so then the trick is how to go back in there after some ill will that may have been created.

PHL is going to rely exclusively on connections to work. TLV tends to attract two types of fliers. One is the religious Christian group that goes on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. This is not a group an airline is going to make a ton of money off of. The second group is the Jewish population, particularly those that still have Israeli citizenship. This is where the airline is going to make most of their money outside of Cargo. One issue with PHL as a connecting hub is that most of the Jewish Population in the US is located in other locations on the East Coast where PHL makes no sense as a connection. The exception here is Southern California, but I think it is easier for AA to put them on BA metal out of LHR than to try to connect in PHL.

Truthfully the hub that makes the most sense is MIA. Broward County has a huge Jewish population, which provides a natural O and D population that could enhance some connections, but MIA is not really an ideal connection for Europe. The other gateway that makes sense is JFK, with the largest Jewish Population in the country. JFK would have to be almost exclusively O and D though as they have all but decimated the connection market at JFK.

I would also suspect AA gave up TLV as costs for security as well as general operational ones were just too high vs. fare yields. The plane allocated to TLV could be better used to someplace without the security costs and much lower ground ops costs like destinations in Asia.

The problem for PHL-TLV is that UA is double daily less than an hour away, operating a B77W and a B78X to TLV, plus up to 2x daily (excluding the Sabbath) on LY on the B789...over 1300 seats to TLV at EWR on select days. PHL is largely a connecting airport, and while UA likely has connecting passengers at EWR, much of it is O&D. For AA, connections at LHR or MAD make more sense. Nonstop makes no sense from PHL from a business standpoint.

apodino wrote:

Vasu Raja has stated repeatedly in recent months that AA pulled out of TLV too soon, so then the trick is how to go back in there after some ill will that may have been created.

PHL is going to rely exclusively on connections to work. TLV tends to attract two types of fliers. One is the religious Christian group that goes on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. This is not a group an airline is going to make a ton of money off of. The second group is the Jewish population, particularly those that still have Israeli citizenship. This is where the airline is going to make most of their money outside of Cargo. One issue with PHL as a connecting hub is that most of the Jewish Population in the US is located in other locations on the East Coast where PHL makes no sense as a connection. The exception here is Southern California, but I think it is easier for AA to put them on BA metal out of LHR than to try to connect in PHL.

Truthfully the hub that makes the most sense is MIA. Broward County has a huge Jewish population, which provides a natural O and D population that could enhance some connections, but MIA is not really an ideal connection for Europe. The other gateway that makes sense is JFK, with the largest Jewish Population in the country. JFK would have to be almost exclusively O and D though as they have all but decimated the connection market at JFK.

PHL makes sense for connections from ANYWHERE on the East Coast and the rest of the country for that matter going to Europe or TLV

apodino wrote:

Vasu Raja has stated repeatedly in recent months that AA pulled out of TLV too soon, so then the trick is how to go back in there after some ill will that may have been created.

PHL is going to rely exclusively on connections to work. TLV tends to attract two types of fliers. One is the religious Christian group that goes on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. This is not a group an airline is going to make a ton of money off of. The second group is the Jewish population, particularly those that still have Israeli citizenship. This is where the airline is going to make most of their money outside of Cargo. One issue with PHL as a connecting hub is that most of the Jewish Population in the US is located in other locations on the East Coast where PHL makes no sense as a connection. The exception here is Southern California, but I think it is easier for AA to put them on BA metal out of LHR than to try to connect in PHL.

Truthfully the hub that makes the most sense is MIA. Broward County has a huge Jewish population, which provides a natural O and D population that could enhance some connections, but MIA is not really an ideal connection for Europe. The other gateway that makes sense is JFK, with the largest Jewish Population in the country. JFK would have to be almost exclusively O and D though as they have all but decimated the connection market at JFK.

Sigh......do think UA flies SFO to TLV because of religious pilgrims? TLV is a business market. Diamonds from NYC and tech from tech cities around the USA. That Israel is nothing more than a religious destination is so trite

ltbewr wrote:

I would also suspect AA gave up TLV as costs for security as well as general operational ones were just too high vs. fare yields. The plane allocated to TLV could be better used to someplace without the security costs and much lower ground ops costs like destinations in Asia.

Conceptually, maybe, but AA does not fly an a330 TPAC.

Bobloblaw wrote:

apodino wrote:

Vasu Raja has stated repeatedly in recent months that AA pulled out of TLV too soon, so then the trick is how to go back in there after some ill will that may have been created.

PHL is going to rely exclusively on connections to work. TLV tends to attract two types of fliers. One is the religious Christian group that goes on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. This is not a group an airline is going to make a ton of money off of. The second group is the Jewish population, particularly those that still have Israeli citizenship. This is where the airline is going to make most of their money outside of Cargo. One issue with PHL as a connecting hub is that most of the Jewish Population in the US is located in other locations on the East Coast where PHL makes no sense as a connection. The exception here is Southern California, but I think it is easier for AA to put them on BA metal out of LHR than to try to connect in PHL.

Truthfully the hub that makes the most sense is MIA. Broward County has a huge Jewish population, which provides a natural O and D population that could enhance some connections, but MIA is not really an ideal connection for Europe. The other gateway that makes sense is JFK, with the largest Jewish Population in the country. JFK would have to be almost exclusively O and D though as they have all but decimated the connection market at JFK.

Sigh......do think UA flies SFO to TLV because of religious pilgrims? TLV is a business market. Diamonds from NYC and tech from tech cities around the USA. That Israel is nothing more than a religious destination is so trite

Bingo. TLV is a massive tech hub. And the business traffic is what fills the pointy end and makes such flights viable.

Sure, AA wants to fill their planes with jewish visitors, pilgrims, general tourists etc. but none of these make TLV a viable route to operate.

apodino wrote:

Vasu Raja has stated repeatedly in recent months that AA pulled out of TLV too soon, so then the trick is how to go back in there after some ill will that may have been created.
PHL is going to rely exclusively on connections to work. .................The other gateway that makes sense is JFK, with the largest Jewish Population in the country. JFK would have to be almost exclusively O and D though as they have all but decimated the connection market at JFK.

That statement requires that you knew the average O&D % for PHL-TLV during the last 2 years (or more) the route was served - which was 30 - 35%. 65 -70% connecting is not "exclusive". Further, and I have said this a few times, if PHL performance was the reason for AA's decision to drop TLV, why wasn't the flight moved to JFK - same range, more O&D to support less connecting traffic.
AA will return to TLV with the 788-900 - that's my "exclusive" prediction. The A330-200 was never an efficient, competitive aircraft for the route.

apodino wrote:

Vasu Raja has stated repeatedly in recent months that AA pulled out of TLV too soon, so then the trick is how to go back in there after some ill will that may have been created.

PHL is going to rely exclusively on connections to work. TLV tends to attract two types of fliers. One is the religious Christian group that goes on pilgrimages to the Holy Land. This is not a group an airline is going to make a ton of money off of. The second group is the Jewish population, particularly those that still have Israeli citizenship. This is where the airline is going to make most of their money outside of Cargo. One issue with PHL as a connecting hub is that most of the Jewish Population in the US is located in other locations on the East Coast where PHL makes no sense as a connection. The exception here is Southern California, but I think it is easier for AA to put them on BA metal out of LHR than to try to connect in PHL.

Truthfully the hub that makes the most sense is MIA. Broward County has a huge Jewish population, which provides a natural O and D population that could enhance some connections, but MIA is not really an ideal connection for Europe. The other gateway that makes sense is JFK, with the largest Jewish Population in the country. JFK would have to be almost exclusively O and D though as they have all but decimated the connection market at JFK.

Your post really needs more thought put into it.
1) There is HUGE Jewish population in Philadelphia and it's suburbs.
2) Miami is in Dade County. Ft. Lauderdale is in Broward County

AA as far as I know does not owe money to the Israeli gov't. Rather they owe money (some $15-20 million) under Israeli labor law to the 80 TWA employees who were terminated when AA discontinued TWA's TLV flights upon acquiring TWA. Many of the 80 employees had greater than 25 years seniority and were over 50 years old and therefore protected under Israeli law. For AA to return to Israel these debts would need to be paid it would seem. When AA took over the US Airways route to TLV this issue resurfaced and may have contributed to AA's decision.

obenyehuda wrote:

AA as far as I know does not owe money to the Israeli gov't. Rather they owe money (some $15-20 million) under Israeli labor law to the 80 TWA employees who were terminated when AA discontinued TWA's TLV flights upon acquiring TWA. Many of the 80 employees had greater than 25 years seniority and were over 50 years old and therefore protected under Israeli law. For AA to return to Israel these debts would need to be paid it would seem. When AA took over the US Airways route to TLV this issue resurfaced and may have contributed to AA's decision.

I remember reading somewhere that AA's senior management said that this had been resolved in some manner. Sadly I haven't been able to find the source of that.

FWIW, AA did fly into Israel for a while. If the judgement was still active, one would think that AA's assets in Israel (Bank accounts, airplanes, and other equipment.) Would have been seized. I do know that AA had 19 employees in Israel when they shut down the route the last time.

Ishrion wrote:

Wasn't there some TWA contract that isn't allowing them to return?

I believe so. I believe this was because US served TLV from PHL and after the merger, AA dropped it because of TWA ties. I can't confirm what it was, but I believe it was potentially because after AA/TWA merged, AA shut down the TLV base of F/A's randomly and left them high and dry. I believe US on PHL-TLV was profitable but legacy AA's dirty laundry at TLV was so bad that they pulled out of PHL over 10-years later.

It seems trivial as to why AA just didn't resolve this after 9/11 but perhaps it was costly on the legacy TWA side of the house. I honestly think that if AA was to return to TLV, it would've happened already.

IMHO, they blew it, likely because Doug Parker didn't want to rip open band-aids from the TWA wounds back nearly 15+ years ago at this point. If it did happen I would wager MIA-TLV seasonally several times a week and/or PHL-TLV on a 763ER.

USAirKid wrote:

obenyehuda wrote:

nagement said that this had been resolved in some manner. Sadly I haven't been able to find the source of that.

FWIW, AA did fly into Israel for a while. If the judgement was still active, one would think that AA's assets in Israel (Bank accounts, airplanes, and other equipment.) Would have been seized. I do know that AA had 19 employees in Israel when they shut down the route the last time.

I had no idea. Were these legacy AA, TWA, US folks in TLV? I'd imagine it was TWA, unless post merger they sent over AA or US employees there. IMHO, post TWA integration would have been a great legacy AA JFK-TLV 777 route in the early 2000s.

USAirKid wrote:

obenyehuda wrote:

AA as far as I know does not owe money to the Israeli gov't. Rather they owe money (some $15-20 million) under Israeli labor law to the 80 TWA employees who were terminated when AA discontinued TWA's TLV flights upon acquiring TWA. Many of the 80 employees had greater than 25 years seniority and were over 50 years old and therefore protected under Israeli law. For AA to return to Israel these debts would need to be paid it would seem. When AA took over the US Airways route to TLV this issue resurfaced and may have contributed to AA's decision.

I remember reading somewhere that AA's senior management said that this had been resolved in some manner. Sadly I haven't been able to find the source of that.

FWIW, AA did fly into Israel for a while. If the judgement was still active, one would think that AA's assets in Israel (Bank accounts, airplanes, and other equipment.) Would have been seized. I do know that AA had 19 employees in Israel when they shut down the route the last time.

AA bought TWA's assets, they did not buy all of TWA. The claim in Israel is with TWA, not TWA Airlines LLC, which was formed as a subsidiary of AA with the newly acquired assets.

Also, as you rightfully pointed out as well, AA flew to TLV after the merger. Simply put, if there was a lawsuit and AA was persona non grata, their a332 would likely have been impounded.

CLT704 wrote:

tkoenig95 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

Wasn't there some TWA contract that isn't allowing them to return?

Though the bindings is a big rumor for leaving the TLV market, AA stated that it was too expensive of a route. They claimed that at any given time they needed to aircraft on the route, and they could better utilize equipment in other forms.

On another note, I wonder what their A330 fleet utilization looks like? Last Wednesday I counted five A330s sitting on a MX ramp at CLT in the late morning. Couldn't have been European arrivals so I assume they use them for the short east coast sectors and PHX/LAX turns.

CLT doesn't have any A330 flights to LAX/PHX at the moment. The only domestic A330 flight is from phl, but it doesn't land til about 1pm. Obviously, there's a little bit of wiggle room right now since the full summer Euro schedule isn't in full effect yet. DUB/BCN both resume out of CLT this Friday on A332s.

That is actually not true, there is an HNL-PHX-CLT turn with a 330

csweet wrote:

That is actually not true, there is an HNL-PHX-CLT turn with a 330

This service is back to a 2x 752 for the summer season.

I thought AA left TLV because of the relationship with Cutter

obenyehuda wrote:

AA as far as I know does not owe money to the Israeli gov't. Rather they owe money (some $15-20 million) under Israeli labor law to the 80 TWA employees who were terminated when AA discontinued TWA's TLV flights upon acquiring TWA. Many of the 80 employees had greater than 25 years seniority and were over 50 years old and therefore protected under Israeli law. For AA to return to Israel these debts would need to be paid it would seem. When AA took over the US Airways route to TLV this issue resurfaced and may have contributed to AA's decision.

If that is still the case, then AA should pay their obligations whether they start service or not.

still hoping for ORD-TLV----

Coexstud wrote:

I thought AA left TLV because of the relationship with Cutter

That would be like Delta leaving TLV because of their relationship with Saudia. If anything, AA would serve TLV just to stick it to QR as they are not friends at the moment.

jfk777 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

x1234 wrote:

I've said all along that AA needs to RETURN to Tel Aviv from PHL, JFK, MIA, LAX or DFW! After they added Hong Kong and Sydney a few years ago (high yielding markets in the Pacific), there is ONLY 1 market left over the Atlantic that is high yielding and that is Tel Aviv! Dunno why they left TLV, its so high yielding Delta is adding a 2nd daily from JFK in summer 2019.

"high yielding" is relative.

Just because a route gives particular yield for airline-A's structure, doesn't mean it can do the same for airline-B, even if "B" is of similar location and business model as "A."

DL@HKG is a good example: they've attempted a nonstop to HKG from five different gateways since 1995, and couldn't make any of them work longterm... despite HKG being one of the world's premier business and tourism locations. By contrast, UA and AA do just fine at HKG.

Same for AA@SIN, again one of the world's premier destinations that UA/DL both serve, but AA hasn't even attempted.

AA in Singapore has a tall mountain to climb, first UA & Delta have west coast hubs which can handle nonstops. DFW is too far east and LAX is owned by Singapore Airlines to SIN. AA has better uses for a 787-9 then LAX to SIN. AA expanding Asia Pacific portfolio would be better served by flying to more Australian cities. AA coming to Singapore a very long time from now.

From my understanding a lot of the 787-9’s AA have bought are for the QF / AA JV. What would be interesting is round 2 if it will get passed? If it doesn’t get approved I do think route options may have to be reassessed and maybe adding TLV would be one of them....

rbavfan wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

I've said all along that AA needs to RETURN to Tel Aviv from PHL, JFK, MIA, LAX or DFW! After they added Hong Kong and Sydney a few years ago (high yielding markets in the Pacific), there is ONLY 1 market left over the Atlantic that is high yielding and that is Tel Aviv! Dunno why they left TLV, its so high yielding Delta is adding a 2nd daily from JFK in summer 2019.

AA apparently left TLV because they were loosing money on the route. There were several articles of AA member stating about it. Granted majority of the flights were almost full I guess the profitability was there according to them.

AA got the authority from the TWA purchase. TWA owed money to the government there. I seem to recall AA did not want to pay the old fees from TWA's bancrupcy. Result no AA service.

Correct. TW failed to properly pay TLV employee upon station closing for their Retirement Insurance IIRC. Consequently, its aircrafts (or those of the successor, in this case AA) could be impounded by the Israeli government as collateral for payment.

More details here: http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com ... in-israel/

FCOTSTW wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Bigant0408 wrote:

AA apparently left TLV because they were loosing money on the route. There were several articles of AA member stating about it. Granted majority of the flights were almost full I guess the profitability was there according to them.

AA got the authority from the TWA purchase. TWA owed money to the government there. I seem to recall AA did not want to pay the old fees from TWA's bancrupcy. Result no AA service.

Correct. TW failed to properly pay TLV employee upon station closing for their Retirement Insurance IIRC. Consequently, its aircrafts (or those of the successor, in this case AA) could be impounded by the Israeli government as collateral for payment.

More details here: http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com ... in-israel/

So ... that article is from 2014. The AA-US merger closed in 2013. The PHL-TLV flight, originally started ny US, continued into early 2016. If someone was going to impound AA planes over this dispute, wouldn’t they have once the merger closed? I don’t think I’ve seen a reliable announcement of the resolution of this dispute, but the lack of asset seizures in the more than two years between closure of the merger and the cessation of TLV flying suggests that it was either settled or the matter is unenforceable.

As to the old PHL-TLV flight, if AA was leaving cargo in TLV because the A330-200 wasn’t able to haul it the whole way westbound, then that definitely would have impacted the decision to pull out. However, prior to the merger, the 332 was the only aircraft in the US fleet able to do the route nonstop, as the -300s (older variants) couldn’t. If they were to return, I agree that one of the 787 types would be the most likely type used.

United787 wrote:

kiowa wrote:

still hoping for ORD-TLV----

Well wait no longer.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business ... story.html

El Al Israel Airlines will fly between Chicago and Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv three times per week starting in March 2020, with flights departing O’Hare International Airport on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, city and airline officials said in a news release. El Al plans to use a 235-seat Boeing 787 for the flights.

If you are hoping for AA to fly ORD-TLV... don't hold your breath. I think UA is more likely given the large presence they have developed in TLV but I don't see UA adding any international routes at ORD until the new Global Terminal 2 is built with more widebody gates...

I was hoping for UAL or AA on ord-tlv

Coexstud wrote:

I thought AA left TLV because of the relationship with Cutter

Who/Where is Cutter???

soflaflyer wrote:

Coexstud wrote:

I thought AA left TLV because of the relationship with Cutter

Who/Where is Cutter???

Qatar

crownvic wrote:

Your post really needs more thought put into it.
1) There is HUGE Jewish population in Philadelphia and it's suburbs.
2) Miami is in Dade County. Ft. Lauderdale is in Broward County

I admit when I am wrong, but I never thought of Philadelphia as a huge jewish population center, but I don't know the city that well. Places I think of are Boston, South Florida, New York, Southern California, and Minneapolis when I think of Jewish Population.

As for your second point, I am well aware that MIA is in Dade County and FLL is in Broward County. Broward County happens to be right next to Dade county, and although FLL sees international service, MIA has the AA hub and is also a much bigger player on the international flight scene. People in Broward County would drive to MIA before flying out of FLL and connect somewhere. The best comparison of what I was trying to say would be SJC and SFO. Silicon Valley tends to be closer to SJC, but the international service comes from SFO and people will drive to SFO for that.

flyingisthebest wrote:

From my understanding a lot of the 787-9’s AA have bought are for the QF / AA JV.

And where exactly do you get said understanding from?

apodino wrote:

TLV tends to attract two types of fliers. One is the religious Christian group that goes on pilgrimages to the Holy Land.... The second group is the Jewish population.

Tel-Aviv is a very important business destination, especially in industries such as tech, mineral processing, and agriculture. It is not merely religious tourism and VFR traffic.

LAX772LR wrote:

flyingisthebest wrote:

From my understanding a lot of the 787-9’s AA have bought are for the QF / AA JV.

And where exactly do you get said understanding from?

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... this-year/
This is the best quote I have found so far... But yeah I did remember reading about it I have to do some digging...

phlwok wrote:

FCOTSTW wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

AA got the authority from the TWA purchase. TWA owed money to the government there. I seem to recall AA did not want to pay the old fees from TWA's bancrupcy. Result no AA service.

Correct. TW failed to properly pay TLV employee upon station closing for their Retirement Insurance IIRC. Consequently, its aircrafts (or those of the successor, in this case AA) could be impounded by the Israeli government as collateral for payment.

More details here: http://www.frequentbusinesstraveler.com ... in-israel/

So ... that article is from 2014. The AA-US merger closed in 2013. The PHL-TLV flight, originally started ny US, continued into early 2016. If someone was going to impound AA planes over this dispute, wouldn’t they have once the merger closed? I don’t think I’ve seen a reliable announcement of the resolution of this dispute, but the lack of asset seizures in the more than two years between closure of the merger and the cessation of TLV flying suggests that it was either settled or the matter is unenforceable.

As to the old PHL-TLV flight, if AA was leaving cargo in TLV because the A330-200 wasn’t able to haul it the whole way westbound, then that definitely would have impacted the decision to pull out. However, prior to the merger, the 332 was the only aircraft in the US fleet able to do the route nonstop, as the -300s (older variants) couldn’t. If they were to return, I agree that one of the 787 types would be the most likely type used.

Correct. The article is from 2014 but the issue is even older. It dates back to 2001 and it is still current, as it went neither through settlement nor judgment. The merger happened in December 2013 and in April 2015 US officially ceased to exist. During this timeframe, the combined airlines were able to fly to TLV on a US' operating certificate without being subject to legal action.