joejones

I seriously doubt that we will ever see MIA-HKG. It would be an extremely long flight, in the same general distance range as NYC/LAX-SIN, where SQ could not get the economics to work despite a lower cost base and (what I assume is) much, much higher O&D demand.

DFW, maybe, but I think the real demand to/from HKG is with the financial sector out of JFK, ORD and LAX.

nall

Really, at this point, any AA-operated non-stop to Asia to MIA would be welcome.

(I think Cathay is rumored to be interested in operating DFW-HKG.)

This might be getting kind of off-topic for a merger thread, though.

grahampros

Of course either us can know. it's easily available public information from required government reporting. It's just not a big market. It would be mostly connecting traffic. Now can they make that work is another question. It's just not a big O&D market.

dmbtr3

Right - but still lots of connecting passengers (people like me from RDU for example). What is more profitable to AA: routing people through CX to HKG or routing people on AA metal? Sometimes I route through DFW-NRT onward to SE Asia. That's JL on a longer second leg. What does it mean for AA if I fly on to HKG on AA metal and then onto SE Asia on CX metal. What does that mean for partnerships with CX and JL? Heck, we can throw MH in the mix soon. You could do AA metal to NRT and then MH metal to KUL for example. But, NRT-KUL could be on JL metal. You could also route CX through HKG. Or on a today non-existent AA metal flight to HKG. I honestly don't know the answer, and you can see it gets complicated quickly.

Anyway, my point is it's more than O&D in DFW. O&D is a factor (maybe AA starts its own JKF-HKG or LAX where there is more O&D). But there is a complex feeder network to SE Asia plus general HKG traffic across all AA cities. DFW has more feeders but less O&D.

AAClubGeek

Point of clarification - it wasn't pilot consent that AA was missing before, but rather union consent - not the same thing. I was chatting with a pilot and a FA on an ORD-PVG flight last summer and both were quite annoyed that a flight AA had tried to implement wasn't allowed by the union. According to them, AA had tried to implement a DFW-CAN route a couple years back and was denied by the union because it was a bit too long under the old contract. A lot of pilots and FAs would have loved to have that flight available.

Dr. HFH

I don't see AA going head-to-head against CX at this point, despite the apparently high demand from the NYC area. Sure, AA does compete directly with JL, but JL was on very shaky ground just a few years ago. As I said, though, I could easily see AA initiating DFW/HKG.

nkedel

AA has an ATI with revenue sharing with JL; there's no competition on the TPAC legs, and they don't overlap on any non-TPAC routes.

Also, without the issue of interlining fares (which seems to drive up prices on CX a lot), O/D is probably less of an issue for AA on DFW-HKG where you'd be getting one-stop fares through DFW wherever it would be a shorter domestic leg than ORD or the west coast.

joejones

No, they don't. That's the point of their JV.

elitetraveler

Well, the pilots elect their union leadership.

FWAAA

Here's the AA press release announcing the joint venture from January 11, 2011:

http://aa.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=3119

I'd bet against it. AA may intiate DFW-HKG, but unless there are a lot of DFW-only small town HKG-bound passengers, it would make more sense to fly from a city with a lot of O&D (like LAX) and make those 20 DFW and unknown number of small-town DFW-only passengers O&D passengers connect at LAX.

Sure, that would require some of those small-town HKG passengers double-connect, but the higher O&D city will attract more nonstop fares (which tend to be higher). As I've said before, if DFW-HKG made a lot of financial sense, then wouldn't CX be all over that and flying from DFW already?

Dr. HFH

I stand corrected on the joint business arrangement, I had overlooked it. But part of the reason is that I've always been skeptical of these, including the one with BA. Do they really share the revenue in a metal-neutral manner? How is it allocated? 50/50? I get the coordinating schedules, etc., but I'm still not sold on the complete financial metal-neutrality of these arrangements.

nkedel

Interesting; I did not realize that the US-China routes (where there is no non-stop overlap) were covered by the ATI.

Differences in owning the feeder network and codesharing for it. Also, CX might well be considering it when the 787 comes in -- that will change the economics a bit on those longer routes.

diver858

I also find it interesting that most TATL J, F saaver awards on aa.com tend to be on BA metal, which incur hundreds in fees.

nall

I'm not certain why that is, but when AA announced DFW-ICN, they mentioned it would be covered as part of the JL JV, as well.

joejones

Two things come to mind:

(1) JL and AA would compete to some extent on Korea to US flights, e.g. ICN-NRT-ORD versus ICN-DFW-ORD.
(2) It's pretty common for business travelers to hit multiple Asian cities on one visit, e.g. MIA-DFW-ICN-NRT-ORD-MIA, where it would make sense for JL and AA to offer a coordinated fare and product.