New agreement btw AA/LY?
Aug 29, 2015, 11:42 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2009
Programs: All of 'em
Posts: 438
New agreement btw AA/LY?
Per this DDF poster, AA is now allowing LY as an option from NYC.
http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.ph...718#msg1247718
I've heard rumors of this as well.
Can anyone confirm?
http://forums.dansdeals.com/index.ph...718#msg1247718
I've heard rumors of this as well.
Can anyone confirm?
Aug 30, 2015, 1:48 am
#2
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Zichron Yakov, Israel
Programs: SPG Gold
Posts: 808
This is nothing special, just for people who's AA flights from PHL have been canceled after January 4th they are now offering EL Al as an option for rebooking. That doesnt mean anything about any agreement being re-established between the airlines.
Aug 30, 2015, 4:46 pm
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
This isn't... but given that nobody outside of AA senior management actually knows why they withdrew, its too early to determine what they'll do.
The timing of the termination of AA/LY partnership seemed to indicate AA intended to compete with LY head-on, and if that was the intention, then it would make sense to re-kindle the FF relationship.
The timing of the termination of AA/LY partnership seemed to indicate AA intended to compete with LY head-on, and if that was the intention, then it would make sense to re-kindle the FF relationship.
Aug 31, 2015, 2:08 pm
#4
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Sep 2, 2015, 5:03 pm
#5
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CLE
Programs: UA GS+LT UC, AA EXP+LT PLT, Fairmont LT PLT, Marriott PLT, Hilton DIA, Hyatt Glob, Avis CHM
Posts: 4,671
This isn't... but given that nobody outside of AA senior management actually knows why they withdrew, its too early to determine what they'll do.
The timing of the termination of AA/LY partnership seemed to indicate AA intended to compete with LY head-on, and if that was the intention, then it would make sense to re-kindle the FF relationship.
The timing of the termination of AA/LY partnership seemed to indicate AA intended to compete with LY head-on, and if that was the intention, then it would make sense to re-kindle the FF relationship.
-US says it's one of their most lucrative routes.
-AA puts out notices that they're looking into JFK/MIA-TLV flights.
-AA breaks off LY partnership.
And then they abandon?
Sep 2, 2015, 10:27 pm
#6
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
1. US sells itself (to investors, creditors, the public) as having made a good decision to serve TLV;
2. US/AA sells idea that merger is beneficial to passengers and that new services will spring to life;
3. US/AA realizes that with BA/IB/AB it does not need deep relationship with LY;
4. US/AA merger completed, time to move away from rhetoric about serving customers and move towards improving the bottom line - viz. cancel TLV - especially since it is well served in parternship with OneWorld.
All very typical behavior of U. S. Airliners.
Sep 3, 2015, 8:49 am
#7
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
Nothing at all bizarre about this.
1. US sells itself (to investors, creditors, the public) as having made a good decision to serve TLV;
2. US/AA sells idea that merger is beneficial to passengers and that new services will spring to life;
3. US/AA realizes that with BA/IB/AB it does not need deep relationship with LY;
4. US/AA merger completed, time to move away from rhetoric about serving customers and move towards improving the bottom line - viz. cancel TLV - especially since it is well served in parternship with OneWorld.
All very typical behavior of U. S. Airliners.
1. US sells itself (to investors, creditors, the public) as having made a good decision to serve TLV;
2. US/AA sells idea that merger is beneficial to passengers and that new services will spring to life;
3. US/AA realizes that with BA/IB/AB it does not need deep relationship with LY;
4. US/AA merger completed, time to move away from rhetoric about serving customers and move towards improving the bottom line - viz. cancel TLV - especially since it is well served in parternship with OneWorld.
All very typical behavior of U. S. Airliners.
Seems when it comes to TLV and LY some folks come up with explanations why it doesnt make sense, yet AA has relationships with other carriers that fall into that same area
Sep 3, 2015, 11:27 am
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
Saudia isn't preventing skyteam partners AZ/AF, etc to stop service to TLV.
And despite being 49% owned by Ethiad, AZ isn't stopping TLV service.
QR hasn't stopped BA and IB from flying to TLV.
The explanation that QR pressured AA to drop TLV makes no sense.
And despite being 49% owned by Ethiad, AZ isn't stopping TLV service.
QR hasn't stopped BA and IB from flying to TLV.
The explanation that QR pressured AA to drop TLV makes no sense.
Sep 3, 2015, 5:29 pm
#9
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CLE
Programs: UA GS+LT UC, AA EXP+LT PLT, Fairmont LT PLT, Marriott PLT, Hilton DIA, Hyatt Glob, Avis CHM
Posts: 4,671
True, only other thing that seems remotely plausible is something to do with TWA, which is the same reason AA never picked up TLV despite CO calling TLV their most profitable route (though that profitability did go down once DL and US jumped in as well).
Sep 4, 2015, 2:17 pm
#10
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
Which is not at all remotely plausible. Not only is the amount of money relatively minor, AA has been flying into TLV for some time and will continue to fly into TLV for some time more. If AA's liability for TW's obligation was a significant issue, then AA would have long ago ceased its flights to TLV and would not be continuing them into January.
Sep 4, 2015, 5:10 pm
#11
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CLE
Programs: UA GS+LT UC, AA EXP+LT PLT, Fairmont LT PLT, Marriott PLT, Hilton DIA, Hyatt Glob, Avis CHM
Posts: 4,671
Been under a US flight number, though granted that's ending in October.
$20MM isn't that small, but perhaps it would set a precedent of paying for TWA debts that they don't want to set?
Either way, the situation is strange IMHO. AC, DL, LY, and UA can all do it profitably but the world's largest airline with hubs in 2 cities with massive O/D traffic to TLV really can't make a go of it? What does that say about AA?
And do you really believe Parker would run a route for 6 years at massive losses? And brag about how lucrative it had been for them?
And why cut out LY if there were no plans to compete at a higher level?
Something is fishy here.
$20MM isn't that small, but perhaps it would set a precedent of paying for TWA debts that they don't want to set?
Either way, the situation is strange IMHO. AC, DL, LY, and UA can all do it profitably but the world's largest airline with hubs in 2 cities with massive O/D traffic to TLV really can't make a go of it? What does that say about AA?
And do you really believe Parker would run a route for 6 years at massive losses? And brag about how lucrative it had been for them?
And why cut out LY if there were no plans to compete at a higher level?
Something is fishy here.
Sep 4, 2015, 5:29 pm
#12
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The route's profitability was likely premised on PHL as a hub, not O&D traffic. With hubs at JFK, MIA, ORD and DFW, I don't expect PHL to last long and with the deemphasis, the profitability of a route can go poof overnight.
Sep 4, 2015, 5:32 pm
#13
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/bu...tion.html?_r=0
http://flightaware.com/live/findflig...stination=LLBG
Perhaps some just like to advance conspiracy theories.