Originally Posted by
FWAAA
I agree that both JFK and PHL can and will remain big operations for the new AA. As I've posted before, AA has been sitting (squatting) on a couple dozen prime-time departure slots while it lowered its costs in bankruptcy.
For example, a new flight from JFK to TLV (an obvious addition) does not require feed from any 50-seat CRJ markets. The vast majority of TLV O&D is in NYC. PHL, on the other hand, accounts for about 3% of the TLV O&D. MIA, BOS, LAS, SFO, LAX, etc. each account for about 3% of the TLV O&D. You don't need dozens of 50-seaters to and from small towns to make JFK-TLV successful.
Many of the big TLV O&D markets are already served by AA at JFK as they're outside the LGA perimeter and thus must be served from JFK (or EWR) if they're going to be flown nonstop. To the extent that you find 50-seaters in the current AA JFK schedule, many of those are place-holders, as the slots are "use-it or lose-it."
PHL is a huge metro area and has demonstrated that it can support numerous European flights. Perhaps even a Tokyo flight. Parker didn't leverage his years of industry-lowest labor costs to give that one a try. Now with Open Skies and an immunized joint venture with JAL, it's probably time to actually fly to Asia from PHL (instead of the ridiculous "we'll obtain suitable planes for PHL-PEK if we're awarded the route;" route was awarded, no planes were acquired).
Why the focus on O&D? Because filling a plane with connecting passengers generally means filling the plane with lower fares. Connecting passengers generally pay less than nonstop passengers. About three-quarters of PHL-TLV passengers are connecting. Want higher average fares? Fly from the markets with a lot more nonstop passengers.
Quoting all of it - well stated. I agree.
It's a common misconception on Flyertalk and elsewhere that AA actually connects domestic passengers at MIA. It doesn't. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role MIA plays in the AA network. AA has simply ignored southeast domestic connecting traffic like the mythical RIC-JAX passengers that Jamie Baker focused on. CLT is well-suited for connecting domestic passengers.
There are limited domestic connections at MIA, like LAX-MIA-MCO. Why not fly the LAX-MCO 738 nonstop? AA flies 3-class international 777s on LAX-MIA and flies multiple MIA-MCO flights.
If MIA shrinks, it's because the brain trust in Tempe can't read spreadsheets. In the most recent quarter, AA obtained average fares (yield) to Latin America of 18 cents per mile, 50% more than its yield on TPAC routes. Most of that Latin American strength is due to the high fares AA attracts at MIA. For example, AA flies four daily 777s in peak season between MIA and GRU. MIA is the largest O&D market between the USA and Brazil. CLT? The daily O&D between CLT and GRU could fit in a CRJ200 with empty seats to spare. Most of the passengers on the CLT flight from GIG are connecting to MCO, and it's likely that the same will hold true for the CLT-GRU flight.
If anything, MIA continues to grow. No slot controls, plenty of gate space, plenty of runways and usually decent weather. And very high fares to the Caribbean, Central and South America. AA's MIA operations have been subsidizing its money-losing Pacific network.
I'll cop to ignorance on the second part. I knew MIA was mostly for central/south america flights, but I didn't know AA wasn't connecting flights to the SE through there. I'd agree that based on your numbers, MIA isn't going anywhere.