virmaior

doesn't it "Flyer Talk" in the page title and at the base of the forum

MAH4546

Delta and V Australia are planning a joint venture; as are American and Qantas.

So it is technically soon-to-be three carriers: AA/QF, UA and VA/DL.


Anywhere from 8-24 months. Delta and V Australia applied for the same thing about a year ago. The problem is that while Australia has approved the DL/VA application, the United States has not, and AA/QF are likely to run into a similar hurdle.

The grand plan, I am told, is to create a mega-trans Pacific JBA with QF/JL/AA/CX all as one. The problem is that it would require Open Skies across the board between all four nations, so its not going to happen soon. Right now CX/AA JBA isn't at all possible due to the lack of Open Skies, and US/Australia are on a limited Open Skies-type deal that also places a hurdle on approval.

There is, though, value in having the brand name fly to Australia. And with a JBA with Qantas, the risk is significantly reduces as are the costs, because there is no need to open a station in Sydney, Qantas handles everything. I honestly do think that seeing AA fly LAX-SYD in 4-6 years is a very realistic possibility as long as AA and QF are in a metal neutral joint venture. It can use an AA 787 and be timed more for local traffic than connections.

We are going to see markets that in the new airline culture AA will have to enter to keep up with DL, such as Bombay, Dubai, Lagos and Tel Aviv. Not now, not next year, not even in 2013, but sometime by mid-decade, or AA is in trouble.

kebosabi

Hopefully the new terminal expansion at AMM will allow for more expanded flight windows to better ease the connections to other parts in the Middle East.

Connecting through there ain't so bad either. Nice spacious lounge IMO.

IflyonAA

As the 300 is a larger/longer aircraft, could we see the birth of Premium Economy/Coach on AA.

Range aside, does AA need the increase in capacity that a 300 would offer? What routes would that increased capacity benefit as a oversold 200 flight is pretty hit and miss.

kebosabi

NRT to make up for JL's reduction of 744s?

zman

If the 777-300ER happens it will be at least two years from now.
No one knows for sure what routes AA will be interested in two years from now to use the planes. I am sure they have a lot of options on their list.
JL reductions are do to lack of business. If they could fill a 747 every day, they would still use them.

FWAAA

I agree completely, but here's a writer for Bloomberg who disagrees:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-0...tml?cmpid=yhoo

I'm not sure I follow the writer.

MAH4546

The writer who can't spell "Qantas" does not disagree, he is just stating a fact. AA does not fly to Australia, so AA can't jointly set schedules and fares with Qantas. However, under the proposed venture, if AA were to fly to Australia, it would be able to work with Qantas to set schedules and fares. Therefore, I believe the proposed venture povides a huge incentive for AA to seriously consider flying to Australia. And if AA were to order 773s, or with AA's upcoming 789s, it has the perfect plane for the route.

I do think that we will see 773s in the AA fleet sooner rather than later, maybe around 2013 replacing the 772s that are supposed to be delivered around that time. But I don't really put much weight on the rumors that a 773 order is imminent, but I hope I'm wrong on that.

zman

Maybe AA needs to re-start their HNL to SYD again
DFW-HNL-SYD in a 777 or ORD-HNL-SYD
No Pilot contract approval needed

N830MH

Actually, I think AA will even started nonstop LAX-SYD and that won't be necessary to stopover in HNL.

Jacobin777

-Thanks for the kind words..

-Yes, AA with current equipment (i.e-B77E) can fly ORD-DXB-ORD if they want. Restrictions (especially on DXB-ORD) would depend on the time the flight would depart. An early a.m. departure would have low restrictions while a daytime departure, especially out of DXB would have a bit of restrictions. I think the flight would leave very early a.m. or late p.m.

DL: DXB 11:20 p.m.- ATL-6:05 a.m.
UA: DXB 12:50 a.m.- IAD- 6:26 a.m.
EY: AUH 10:25 a.m.- ORD 3:25 p.m.

EY use the A346 so they have a bit more "oomph" which allows a later flight time.

I would think AA would follow DL's/UA's timeframe for departure out of DXB.

I also wouldn't mind using AA to DXB rather than connecting @ LHR. It would make life a lot easier for me!

Too bad....

That's what I was thinking along the lines of. ^

I do agree it would take a while before there are all the Open Skies agreements amongst all of the various countries. Look how long USA-Europe and USA-Japan took.

At least OneWorld is moving in the right direction.


I agree. As I mentioned above, I would rather fly SJC-ORD-DXB rather than say SFO-LHR-DXB. Even though I know a number of AA pax who are going to start flying BA TPAC, I also know a number of pax (myself included) who will still stick with flying on AA. I recently flew TPAC to LHR in J on both AA and BA...while BA's overall service was better, I had no problems flying on AA J either.

If AA decided to fly LAX/DFW-SYD, I probably would fly AA over QF.

I also agree that AA really needs to "get on the ball" in the next few years. I will "cut them some slack" though because they have had to wait a number of extra years to get JV/ATI which the other alliance members didn't have to. That being said, AA needs to start taking a bit more "initiative" (some would say "risk" or "chances") on other routes.

kebosabi

Reading what's going on between JAL and the major Japanese banks, JL's decision to reduce their 744s are more about flipping the bird against their shareholders who wanted JL to find more ways to cut costs. However, the same shareholders are now angry why JL's scrapping the jumbos

Shareholders (banks): I've had enough of bailing you out all the time! Figure out a way to cut costs and run it like a business!
JAL: Fine

<JAL starts fleet consolidation to ERJ-190s, 738s and 777s and scrapping inefficient 744s, 74Ds, and A300s>

Shareholders (banks): Waaah! What are you doing!? Are you nuts!? We love those planes, we use them all the time to fly in F on our business trips!?
JAL: [flips them off] You asked for cost-cutting, that's what we're doing.

MAH4546

At the JAL/AMR press conference earlier this week, the topic of Cathay joining the ATI was brought up, and it sounds like AA and JL are pushing for it. But, again, it needs U.S.-Hong Kong open skies.

N830MH

I think it is right choices for AA will likely to flying nonstop LAX/DFW-SYD. Becuase the 777-300ER has increased the weight restrictions. Because 77W does not have payload restricted over further south. I think 77W will have to stop in BNE to get refuel the plane and ongoing continued the flight to SYD. It could be work out very well and it will have to do easily way to flying one-stop in BNE instead of going to flying nonstop from DFW-SYD. That will be problems the headwinds gusts over TPAC flight.

bzcat

IF (and that's a big if) AA does order 77W, I'm sure it will first go to additional capacity on their most high demand routes. I'm thinking JFL-LHR, LAX-LHR, ORD-LHR, DFW-LHR, and maybe LAX-NRT or US-Brazil/Argentina.

The spare 77E from substitute 77W on those LHR routes can then rotate to the highest demand 763 routes like JFK-FCO, ORD-FCO, and CDG.

And the spare 763 from substitute 77E on those European routes can be refurbished for 3-class LAX-JFK service.

And that means the 762 can finally be retired when they are up for the next D-check.