Originally Posted by
skycubbie
NYC may well have more O/D internationally than any other US gateways. Why, then, didn't AA run year-round more flights to major European cities?
Until a few weeks ago (when AA's pilots finally accepted their bankruptcy contract), AA had the highest costs in the industry. That's a big part of why AA didn't fly to more European cities from JFK. I get the impression that some may not appreciate just how much higher AA's costs were compared to the competition. High cost airlines tend to shrink, and low-cost airlines tend to grow. Until recently, AA was in the former group.
Another reason is historical. When the domestic legacy airlines began flying to Europe in the 1980s, before AA had access to Heathrow, AA flew from Chicago to several European cities. Once AA gained access to LHR by purchasing the TWA routes, Crandall was quoted saying that AA only flew to AMS, MUC, DUS, etc.
because it couldn't serve LHR, and that once it bought those rights, that's where the money was and thus, the flights to secondary European cities were reduced.
Until 2008, when Open Skies took effect between USA and LHR, and anyone could fly to LHR if they obtained slots, US, CO and DL had no choice but to fly to all the other European cities because they could not serve LHR. AA (and UA, BA and VS) could serve LHR and rake in the money there. And with LHR-based partners, they could connect passengers from LHR to many other places.
When Open Skies took effect, AA had about 16 daily flights to London. But thanks to Open Skies, the growth to London has stopped. Last year, AA had about 19 daily flights to LHR. Now that anyone and everyone can serve LHR, margins there have been reduced and it's time to look at serving those other European cities. But think about recent history: Open Skies took effect in March, 2008. Economic meltdown not long afterward. As the economy improved, AA was clearly the highest cost airline. European expansion? Not until costs came down, either thru waiting for others' costs to increase (Arpey's plan) or thru Ch 11 (the board of directors' eventual choice). Now, costs are down.
Originally Posted by
skycubbie
I cannot imagine business travellers wanting to transit through LHR to FRA or MUC or - worse yet - AA business travellers needing to double connect through both JFK and LHR to get to Germany or Italy. Someone posted a list of those European cities US serves from PHL that does not face comparable AA competition out of JFK. If anything I see international feed from/to PHL expanding to other major European and Middle Eastern cities on AA/US metal.
As I've posted, I suspect that the PHL-European routes are safe. Perhaps they'll be expanded. And now with lower costs, I suspect that new AA will expand at JFK. It's not an either/or proposition. Both cities are huge markets. I don't see anyone in NYC (where there is substantial international O&D) voluntarily choosing to fly down to PHL to get to Europe anymore than you envision business travelers wanting to connect at LHR on their way to non-London European cities.