Can't cite statistics, but the LAS economy is back, WN is the only major carrier with any significant presence (other than Allegiant, Spirit), is enjoying some premium fares, ripe for competition.

LAS is an international destination, lots of opportunity for leisure and business flights to secondary markets. For example - we live in SAN area, traveling family and clients visiting LAS are surprised to learn that there are no nonstop flights on any major alliance carriers.

Talking again from memory, could be wrong: US made money in PIT, local economy is strong, governmental agencies are offering significant incentives to attract one or more carriers.

I think it is more likely the combined airline would downsize LGA, LAX and JFK than add hubs. PIT and LAS just make no sense. DFW and MIA might get reduced a lot too.

You've not been on a US 762 lately, have you ;)

Why would a profitable middle of the country fortress hub in quickly growing area of the country be reduced? Why would the most successful, profitable AA hub of the last decade (MIA) be reduced when the US-Latin American market - that AA clearly dominates - is again growing quickly?

And why would AA reduce its presence that it has worked hard to establish/maintain in the two most lucrative US travel markets (NYC and LAX) be reduced?

The US 762 product is a lie flat, herringbone suite. Yes, they are old aircraft that are certainly sub par to a 777. But the hard product in J is better than AA NGBC.

None of that justifies a hub. It justifies maybe some increased presence (which AA and US already have to a certain extent, its just another spoke - they just only fly to hubs but with large aircraft and good frequencies).

You're not going to get that in the merged carrier or any carrier in the not so distant future. The trend is clear on how uprgrades are gonna work in the future. Middle tier will get few for free.

It isn't the herringbone. It's 2-2-2, 170 degree recline. Pretty old school, and not all that comfortable IMHO. The A330's are the new herringbone product.

I stand corrected then. I thought the 762s were converted.

The US website says that the 762s feature a "near lie flat" 170 degree recline seat. Have the seats been updated but not the website?

http://www.usairways.com/en-US/trave...nvoyclass.html

Anyway, those don't matter much as the 762s will likely be retired during 2013 and 2014 as the new A330-200s are delivered to US.

This is probably my lack of industry knowledge showing but why is speculation of any new asian routes being narrowed down to Tokyo, PEK and possibly HKG? Wouldn't it be more logical to expand by creaing a service that isn't currently supplied by a partner, like a service to SIN for example? That's a location that, I'm guessing, a lot of US flyers use *A to get to so it would seem to make sense.

(I'm aware that Malaysian will offer a SIN service via KUL but I was hoping for a direct flight).

Erm....if they downsize LAX, LGA, JFK, DFW and MIA where are they going to fly from? CLT? :confused:

DFW and MIA? Every analyst says those are the only bright spots in AA's inferior network. Why would they be downsized? From MIA, AA leads the industry in yield and RASM; AA's Latin America network subsidizes AA's very poor Pacific and Atlantic yields - where AA lags both UA and DL.

If Parker downsizes LGA, LAX and JFK, that would be proof that he doesn't want to run an airline that caters to business travelers.

It is very unlikely that any airline (other than SQ) will ever attempt a nonstop to SIN. Fuel prices are simply too high. And don't most SQ flights stop at NRT along the way?

Even Thai stops along the way between BKK and LAX.

I doubt that any USA gateway has enough O&D to fill a plane to SIN or BKK (without requiring connecting passengers), so if you're going to have to connect somewhere along the way, why not NRT?

SQ couldn't even make their SIN non-stops work (both as Y+ and J and as all J).