ARCHIVE: Routes (Flights) and Hubs (Speculation, News and Discussion)
Dec 16, 2013, 2:14 pm
#211
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 709
The bolded part is curious, since that's exactly how Parker is already operating US Airways. Given that 99% of US ASMs currently touch CLT, PHL, DCA, PHX or the shuttle (LGA and BOS), how is US not following its own "cornerstone strategy?" 100% of US TATL flights depart from PHL or CLT. What's he going to do differently? Will new AA fly TATL flights from non-hubs? Right now, AA's long-haul international flights depart from JFK, BOS, RDU, MIA, ORD, DFW and LAX. From my vantage point, the only difference is that now, Parker has seven additional international gateways besides CLT and PHL.
...
As I pointed out above, the Parker-US way of doing business is exactly the same as the old pre-merger AA way of doing business. Hub and spoke. Arpey was big on corporate-speak cutesy names for things, and in 2009 named it his "cornerstone strategy." In 2011, Parker trumpeted that 99% of US ASMs would employ the same strategy.
...
As I pointed out above, the Parker-US way of doing business is exactly the same as the old pre-merger AA way of doing business. Hub and spoke. Arpey was big on corporate-speak cutesy names for things, and in 2009 named it his "cornerstone strategy." In 2011, Parker trumpeted that 99% of US ASMs would employ the same strategy.
The similar strategy at US has worked the past few years because (in addition to the lower cost structure that you alluded to) CLT and PHL are fortress hubs, and US is the dominant carrier at DCA (I'm not sure about PHX - I'm not sure how big the WN operation is there in comparison to the US operation...but regardless, US still has 250+ daily flights in PHX).
So yeah, same strategy, but I think very different situations in the cornerstone markets between AA and US.
Dec 16, 2013, 2:28 pm
#212
Join Date: Jul 2013
Programs: AA EXP; UA 1k; MR Platinum; SPG Gold
Posts: 167
The problem with AA's "cornerstone" strategy is that they don't have great stones, in my opinion. In order for a cornerstone strategy to work, I think you need to be the dominant carrier at your cornerstones. If you look at AA's "hubs," the only one's where they really dominate are DFW and MIA. LAX, ORD, and NYC are all varying degrees of not being the leading airline in those cities.
Those are literally the 3 LARGEST metropolitan areas in the country.
It is a much different beast to be dominant in the 25th largest metro area (charlotte) than to be dominant in the other 3 you listed. There isn't even a need to be dominant in those 3 to be a successful carrier and to run a successful "cornerstone" hub.
*Edit - DCdeacon --> only realized after I posted that you are based in charlotte, pure chance that I used charlotte in my example! - didn't want it to come across as a shot at you
Dec 16, 2013, 2:43 pm
#213
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: CLE
Programs: UA,WN,AA,DL, B6
Posts: 4,168
Here's my Guesses:
JFK - Limited Growth to very select international O&D markets - e.g., TLV. Re-strategize JFK-LAX to increase profitability.
PHL - The majority of AA international growth, via the Northeast U.S., will be from PHL. BA will increase it's presence with the PHL-LHR JV and associated new connecting traffic. Domestic-International connecting traffic will increase.
CLT - Some downsizing. Majority of reductions will not be replaced/transferred to other hubs. International will be reduced to LHR, possibly seasonal MAD and a few Caribbean resorts. CLT will become primarily a connecting source for NS-EW domestic flights. If it's determined CLT is significantly cheaper to fly connecting passengers through and from, than MIA or JFK, the single CLT-GRU flight might remain.
PHX - About the same domestic routes, but significantly reduced capacity (number of flights) in favor of DFW and LAX. Majority of reductions will not be replaced/transferred to other hubs. International - BA stays and that's about it, except for possibly Mexico.
DFW - Limited Growth to select cities.
ORD - No Growth - turn it over to UA. Concentrate on JFK/PHL for international growth.
MIA - Limited Growth to Latin America. Not really too familiar with MIA. It would appear that most un-served Europe/Asia/Middle East expansion will be limited to Latin American connecting traffic, because of MIA's unfavorable geographic location compared to other Hubs (JFK, PHL, DFW, etc..).
LAX - Probably the key to Asia expansion. The new AA needs much more exposure to Asia and quickly. How that materializes will be interesting. The ? is how is Parker going to position AA in the large U.S.- Asia O&D markets where competition is fierce (LAX, SFO, JFK).
JFK - Limited Growth to very select international O&D markets - e.g., TLV. Re-strategize JFK-LAX to increase profitability.
PHL - The majority of AA international growth, via the Northeast U.S., will be from PHL. BA will increase it's presence with the PHL-LHR JV and associated new connecting traffic. Domestic-International connecting traffic will increase.
CLT - Some downsizing. Majority of reductions will not be replaced/transferred to other hubs. International will be reduced to LHR, possibly seasonal MAD and a few Caribbean resorts. CLT will become primarily a connecting source for NS-EW domestic flights. If it's determined CLT is significantly cheaper to fly connecting passengers through and from, than MIA or JFK, the single CLT-GRU flight might remain.
PHX - About the same domestic routes, but significantly reduced capacity (number of flights) in favor of DFW and LAX. Majority of reductions will not be replaced/transferred to other hubs. International - BA stays and that's about it, except for possibly Mexico.
DFW - Limited Growth to select cities.
ORD - No Growth - turn it over to UA. Concentrate on JFK/PHL for international growth.
MIA - Limited Growth to Latin America. Not really too familiar with MIA. It would appear that most un-served Europe/Asia/Middle East expansion will be limited to Latin American connecting traffic, because of MIA's unfavorable geographic location compared to other Hubs (JFK, PHL, DFW, etc..).
LAX - Probably the key to Asia expansion. The new AA needs much more exposure to Asia and quickly. How that materializes will be interesting. The ? is how is Parker going to position AA in the large U.S.- Asia O&D markets where competition is fierce (LAX, SFO, JFK).
Why would you move PHX flights to DFW and LAX. PHX is more centrally located especially compared to DFW which is too far south. DFW and LAX are more congested. I like the PHX airport for connections. This airport was the foundation for HP, it would sad to rip it apart.
Dec 16, 2013, 2:48 pm
#214
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: BOS
Programs: Marriott LTG, HHonors Diamond, Nat'l Exec
Posts: 3,581
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but it appears that you've not convinced that Parker has substantially raised the US labor costs and raised the AA labor costs.
The US pilots (East and West) estimated their wage and benefit improvements at $1.6 billion over six years, or $267 million per year on average. This week, they get retroactive pay raises for nine months since February 13, or approximately $200 million. That's an average of $50k per US Airways pilot. It's a very Merry Christmas season at the US Airways pilots' homes. US East pilots had their pay whacked in 2002 and haven't seen improvements since. US West pilots made a little more money than East, but they haven't seen raises in a long time.
The US pilots (East and West) estimated their wage and benefit improvements at $1.6 billion over six years, or $267 million per year on average. This week, they get retroactive pay raises for nine months since February 13, or approximately $200 million. That's an average of $50k per US Airways pilot. It's a very Merry Christmas season at the US Airways pilots' homes. US East pilots had their pay whacked in 2002 and haven't seen improvements since. US West pilots made a little more money than East, but they haven't seen raises in a long time.
Confused: How is routing traffic through ORD backtracking. ORD is actually slightly closer to the majority of European cities than is CLT...by virtue of Chicago (and Europe's) most northerly geography. Plus, ORD is much more central to the country's population center, so connecting traffic times to the hub would generally be shorter in for the majority.
The reality is, as a connection point ORD is really only unique in its ability to collect TATL traffic from small cities in the Midwest. Traffic from the NE isn't going to connect in ORD or CLT when it can connect in PHL or JFK. If flyers in the SE can't connect through CLT, they're better off flying north to PHL than west to ORD. And DFW can capture a lot of non-coastal South flyers. That really only leaves connecting traffic from the west coast, which can go through pretty much any gateway east of the Rockies without noticing the difference.
Dec 16, 2013, 3:01 pm
#215
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 709
You just listed LAX, ORD, and NYC as not being cities they are "dominant" in...
Those are literally the 3 LARGEST metropolitan areas in the country.
It is a much different beast to be dominant in the 25th largest metro area (charlotte) than to be dominant in the other 3 you listed. There isn't even a need to be dominant in those 3 to be a successful carrier and to run a successful "cornerstone" hub.
*Edit - DCdeacon --> only realized after I posted that you are based in charlotte, pure chance that I used charlotte in my example! - didn't want it to come across as a shot at you
Those are literally the 3 LARGEST metropolitan areas in the country.
It is a much different beast to be dominant in the 25th largest metro area (charlotte) than to be dominant in the other 3 you listed. There isn't even a need to be dominant in those 3 to be a successful carrier and to run a successful "cornerstone" hub.
*Edit - DCdeacon --> only realized after I posted that you are based in charlotte, pure chance that I used charlotte in my example! - didn't want it to come across as a shot at you
I realize LAX/ORD/NYC are huge markets, and while no, you don't necessarily have to have a fortress hub in those cities in order to be successful, the fact that there is so much competition in those markets makes it more difficult to have the pricing power needed for profitability.
For example, literally the only route that AA flies out of LGA where there isn't at least one other airline flying to the same city is LGA-XNA. At LAX, it's a similar story. The only route I'm seeing where AA is the only carrier flying are LAX to BDL, PBI, RDM, SAF, and XNA.
Compare that to AA's operations at DFW or MIA, where they are the only carrier on probably 80-90% of the routes.
To me, Delta at LGA and United at EWR are examples of operations in these markets that are dominant in a way that AA isn't, and that's the difference.
Dec 16, 2013, 3:45 pm
#216
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SJC/SFO & ORD
Programs: LT Gold/BA Executive Club/AS MP/Marriott
Posts: 1,646
I wish I could see the actual math on how that claim works out.
I can't tell if it is just positive spin to get support and buy-in for the union and the New AA's direction forward OR... if it really IS a jump in salaries/labor cost.
If it is the latter, it seems likely that AA picked up a non-refundable round-trip ticket, instead of the one-way out of restructuring.
I can't tell if it is just positive spin to get support and buy-in for the union and the New AA's direction forward OR... if it really IS a jump in salaries/labor cost.
If it is the latter, it seems likely that AA picked up a non-refundable round-trip ticket, instead of the one-way out of restructuring.
According to Parker, it will come from the $1 billion in "synergies" by 2015 Parker has been talking about.
Since we have a semi-oligopoly, I expect Parker will be able to raise fares and have them "stick" as well as the aforementioned "route rationalization" as well as removing and/or reducing benefits for FF. Those are probably 3 of the many items Parker & Co. have in store for the new AA.
Will it work? Lets see. I'm not as sanguine however.
Me too.
I agree.
Old AA trimmed an enormous amount of capacity between 2001 and 2011. Over that period, AA retired almost as many mainline planes as the entire US fleet contains today. In 2008-09, AA retired 34 A300s, more widebody capacity that the entire US widebody fleet at that time. My point is that AA frequent flyers are no stranger to reductions. Old AA management was forced to retreat and run away from competition, primarily in Chicago and New York, due to its very high labor costs compared to US, DL and UA.
I'm not so sure if I see Parker as a good strategist. For example, signing the LGA-DCA deal with DL...well, no comment.
And you're right - Parker raised the US labor costs by a huge amount to get this deal done, and also raised the AA labor costs by agreeing to give back some of the concessions that AA employees had yet to make (as AA unions were negotiating with Tortious Interference Parker when they should have been negotiating their 1113 concessions with Horton).
The APA with their negotiations with Parker did well short-term but I'm not so sure they did themselves any favors looking out 2-5 years from now.
The US pilots (East and West) estimated their wage and benefit improvements at $1.6 billion over six years, or $267 million per year on average. This week, they get retroactive pay raises for nine months since February 13, or approximately $200 million. That's an average of $50k per US Airways pilot. It's a very Merry Christmas season at the US Airways pilots' homes. US East pilots had their pay whacked in 2002 and haven't seen improvements since. US West pilots made a little more money than East, but they haven't seen raises in a long time.
For the combined new AA, Parker estimated the wage and benefit improvements at $400 million a year:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1
For the combined new AA, Parker estimated the wage and benefit improvements at $400 million a year:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1
$400 is a huge increase in costs. Is this going to be a yearly increase or a "one-off"? Ostensibly to me it sounds like a yearly increase.
I also saw this from the presentation:
"Labor Harmonization ($400)". That to me sounds like "layoffs/retirements".
As the saying goes, "be careful for what you wish for, you just might get it".
From the link I provided above, it also seemed from the APA's comments that this was just as much about removing Horton as it was merging with US.
As Confucius once said:
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves."
Dec 16, 2013, 4:15 pm
#217
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: PHL
Programs: AA EXP, Marriott Lifetime Plat, SPG Plat, AMEX Plat, Hertz PC, Travels too Much Platinum
Posts: 3,290
Confused: How is routing traffic through ORD backtracking. ORD is actually slightly closer to the majority of European cities than is CLT...by virtue of Chicago (and Europe's) most northerly geography. Plus, ORD is much more central to the country's population center, so connecting traffic times to the hub would generally be shorter in for the majority.
2 segment path: 4320 mi
JAX CLT (N) 328 mi
CLT LHR (NE) 3992 mi
2 segment path: 4817 mi
JAX ORD (N) 864 mi
ORD LHR (NE) 3953 mi
Source: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=jax-clt-lhr,jax-ord-lhr
I didn't realize that CLT and ORD were just a 39 mile difference on distance to LHR - I would've guessed a few hundred - but the difference is in whether it makes sense for someone in the SE to fly to ORD, which it generally doesn't. Naturally ORD does make sense as a European gateway for points from roughly Nashville west though.
The mean center of the US population is in southern Missouri (https://www.census.gov/geo/reference...p_mean2010.pdf) but I think a focus on which metropolitan areas can get the most source traffic, and how to most efficiently route them to a hub when they're not already in one, is probably more relevant.
Dec 16, 2013, 4:48 pm
#218
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
That's the annual $400 million to buy labor peace, most of it to raise the US Airways employees to AA's payrates. [/QUOTE]
Dec 16, 2013, 5:07 pm
#219
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Why would you move PHX flights to DFW and LAX. PHX is more centrally located especially compared to DFW which is too far south. DFW and LAX are more congested. I like the PHX airport for connections. This airport was the foundation for HP, it would sad to rip it apart.
Right now, US flies passengers between LAX and ORD via PHX. Yep, the bargain-hunting crowd paying the US Advantage fares. Since AA has long flown numerous LAX-ORD nonstops, new AA won't need as many LAX-PHX flights nor will it need as many PHX-ORD flights. US has also been flying passengers between LAX and DFW via PHX. Same issue. Once those markets are rationalized, the number of connecting passengers at PHX may drop.
The other easy example is this: Right now, US uses its "barbell" hub system to double-connect passengers wishing to fly TUS-JAX. US sells a routing TUS-PHX-CLT-JAX. Some of those are regional jets, which are high-cost ways of flying low-fare double connects. AA already flies mainline jets between both TUS and DFW plus between DFW and JAX. See how DFW may supplant some of the inefficient PHX connecting traffic?
There are lots more examples - that's why corporate headquarters has plenty of high-paid MBAs, and why new AA may even supplement them with some consultants.
To be fair, there may be some opportunities for PHX to pick up some nonstop O&D with the merger. PHX has the 7th largest share of domestic O&D in the country - unlike some big places, PHX is a place that people actually like to visit (like LAS, MCO, SFO, etc), in other words, a destination. As PHX is about the 12th largest metro area by population, it gets more domestic O&D than its population would suggest.
Some point to PHX as an "intermountain" hub like DEN or SLC. I'd posit that they haven't looked at the map lately, as PHX is not geographically ideal to connect very many people within the west. Most people not in PHX or other huge cities are located north of PHX, and like MIA, it doesn't make sense to fly so far south if your destination is so far north. For example, PHX doesn't make any sense for Boise to Denver traffic. Or Spokane to Salt Lake City. You get the idea. No single airline can connect every two dots on the map. Some markets will belong to DL and some will belong to UA by virtue of their hubs at SLC and DEN. Likewise, AA owns some markets from its MIA hub.
Dec 16, 2013, 7:10 pm
#220
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SJC/SFO & ORD
Programs: LT Gold/BA Executive Club/AS MP/Marriott
Posts: 1,646
Dec 16, 2013, 8:54 pm
#221
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 709
PHX connections aren't going to move to LAX, but quite a few of them might move to DFW and/or ORD, and some might become nonstop from LAX. Here's a couple of easy examples:
Right now, US flies passengers between LAX and ORD via PHX. Yep, the bargain-hunting crowd paying the US Advantage fares. Since AA has long flown numerous LAX-ORD nonstops, new AA won't need as many LAX-PHX flights nor will it need as many PHX-ORD flights. US has also been flying passengers between LAX and DFW via PHX. Same issue. Once those markets are rationalized, the number of connecting passengers at PHX may drop.
The other easy example is this: Right now, US uses its "barbell" hub system to double-connect passengers wishing to fly TUS-JAX. US sells a routing TUS-PHX-CLT-JAX. Some of those are regional jets, which are high-cost ways of flying low-fare double connects. AA already flies mainline jets between both TUS and DFW plus between DFW and JAX. See how DFW may supplant some of the inefficient PHX connecting traffic?
Right now, US flies passengers between LAX and ORD via PHX. Yep, the bargain-hunting crowd paying the US Advantage fares. Since AA has long flown numerous LAX-ORD nonstops, new AA won't need as many LAX-PHX flights nor will it need as many PHX-ORD flights. US has also been flying passengers between LAX and DFW via PHX. Same issue. Once those markets are rationalized, the number of connecting passengers at PHX may drop.
The other easy example is this: Right now, US uses its "barbell" hub system to double-connect passengers wishing to fly TUS-JAX. US sells a routing TUS-PHX-CLT-JAX. Some of those are regional jets, which are high-cost ways of flying low-fare double connects. AA already flies mainline jets between both TUS and DFW plus between DFW and JAX. See how DFW may supplant some of the inefficient PHX connecting traffic?
Dec 16, 2013, 9:09 pm
#222
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: los angeles, calif.
Programs: Alaska Airlines Gold MVP
Posts: 7,170
DFW, yes. MIA? Only domestically. AA competes on every major international route from MIA, often with two or three other airlines - Bogota, London, Paris, Madrid, Rio de Janeiro, Caracas, Lima, Mexico City, just to name a few, all have three airlines.
Dec 16, 2013, 11:05 pm
#223
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 3,528
PHX connections aren't going to move to LAX, but quite a few of them might move to DFW and/or ORD, and some might become nonstop from LAX. Here's a couple of easy examples:
Right now, US flies passengers between LAX and ORD via PHX. Yep, the bargain-hunting crowd paying the US Advantage fares. Since AA has long flown numerous LAX-ORD nonstops, new AA won't need as many LAX-PHX flights nor will it need as many PHX-ORD flights. US has also been flying passengers between LAX and DFW via PHX. Same issue. Once those markets are rationalized, the number of connecting passengers at PHX may drop.
The other easy example is this: Right now, US uses its "barbell" hub system to double-connect passengers wishing to fly TUS-JAX. US sells a routing TUS-PHX-CLT-JAX. Some of those are regional jets, which are high-cost ways of flying low-fare double connects. AA already flies mainline jets between both TUS and DFW plus between DFW and JAX. See how DFW may supplant some of the inefficient PHX connecting traffic?
There are lots more examples - that's why corporate headquarters has plenty of high-paid MBAs, and why new AA may even supplement them with some consultants.
To be fair, there may be some opportunities for PHX to pick up some nonstop O&D with the merger. PHX has the 7th largest share of domestic O&D in the country - unlike some big places, PHX is a place that people actually like to visit (like LAS, MCO, SFO, etc), in other words, a destination. As PHX is about the 12th largest metro area by population, it gets more domestic O&D than its population would suggest.
Some point to PHX as an "intermountain" hub like DEN or SLC. I'd posit that they haven't looked at the map lately, as PHX is not geographically ideal to connect very many people within the west. Most people not in PHX or other huge cities are located north of PHX, and like MIA, it doesn't make sense to fly so far south if your destination is so far north. For example, PHX doesn't make any sense for Boise to Denver traffic. Or Spokane to Salt Lake City. You get the idea. No single airline can connect every two dots on the map. Some markets will belong to DL and some will belong to UA by virtue of their hubs at SLC and DEN. Likewise, AA owns some markets from its MIA hub.
Right now, US flies passengers between LAX and ORD via PHX. Yep, the bargain-hunting crowd paying the US Advantage fares. Since AA has long flown numerous LAX-ORD nonstops, new AA won't need as many LAX-PHX flights nor will it need as many PHX-ORD flights. US has also been flying passengers between LAX and DFW via PHX. Same issue. Once those markets are rationalized, the number of connecting passengers at PHX may drop.
The other easy example is this: Right now, US uses its "barbell" hub system to double-connect passengers wishing to fly TUS-JAX. US sells a routing TUS-PHX-CLT-JAX. Some of those are regional jets, which are high-cost ways of flying low-fare double connects. AA already flies mainline jets between both TUS and DFW plus between DFW and JAX. See how DFW may supplant some of the inefficient PHX connecting traffic?
There are lots more examples - that's why corporate headquarters has plenty of high-paid MBAs, and why new AA may even supplement them with some consultants.
To be fair, there may be some opportunities for PHX to pick up some nonstop O&D with the merger. PHX has the 7th largest share of domestic O&D in the country - unlike some big places, PHX is a place that people actually like to visit (like LAS, MCO, SFO, etc), in other words, a destination. As PHX is about the 12th largest metro area by population, it gets more domestic O&D than its population would suggest.
Some point to PHX as an "intermountain" hub like DEN or SLC. I'd posit that they haven't looked at the map lately, as PHX is not geographically ideal to connect very many people within the west. Most people not in PHX or other huge cities are located north of PHX, and like MIA, it doesn't make sense to fly so far south if your destination is so far north. For example, PHX doesn't make any sense for Boise to Denver traffic. Or Spokane to Salt Lake City. You get the idea. No single airline can connect every two dots on the map. Some markets will belong to DL and some will belong to UA by virtue of their hubs at SLC and DEN. Likewise, AA owns some markets from its MIA hub.
This is not to say that PHX will necessarily cease to be a hub, but it can certainly expect MASSIVE service reductions regardless.
Dec 17, 2013, 1:00 am
#224
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: AA, DL Gold Med , UA, AS, WN, HHonors Silver, Marriott, IHG Rewards Club, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 323
Implicit in your earlier statement was the assertion that JFK-LAX was not profitable enough and that AA's long-planned solution to that problem (the high-cost old 762s) was an inadequate solution. I was hoping to hear some idea of what might be done (the re-strategize part) to make it more profitable.
Aren't AA plans regarding its JFK-LAX route already well known?
It revolves around their brand new A321 Trancons with four distinct classes of seating (F, J, Y+, Y). By next June, AA plans to offer 13 daily non-stops between JFK and LAX, all flights on the new A321Ts:
https://www.aa.com/i18n/aboutUs/ourP...airbus321t.jsp
Dec 17, 2013, 1:21 am
#225
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: AA, DL Gold Med , UA, AS, WN, HHonors Silver, Marriott, IHG Rewards Club, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 323
In regards to PHX, I expect to see some services reductions after the three year freeze is lifted. With existing AA hubs in ORD and DFW, logically, there won't be a need for some of the current US flights flying out of PHX.
That said, one of the main goals of the new AA is to EXPAND its network and not just to hunker down and retrench and lower its carrying capacity. One area where AA could expand are by offering more international flights from PHX, DFW and LAX down south to the major business/manufacturing centers in Mexico and Central America. Of the three, PHX is nicely positioned because its the least gate restrained. So while eliminating some domestic routes from PHX, the new AA could expand its routes south of the border from PHX.
And besides all this speculation regarding PHX, I'm curious what others think are other destinations that the new AA could offer new or expanded service to?
That said, one of the main goals of the new AA is to EXPAND its network and not just to hunker down and retrench and lower its carrying capacity. One area where AA could expand are by offering more international flights from PHX, DFW and LAX down south to the major business/manufacturing centers in Mexico and Central America. Of the three, PHX is nicely positioned because its the least gate restrained. So while eliminating some domestic routes from PHX, the new AA could expand its routes south of the border from PHX.
And besides all this speculation regarding PHX, I'm curious what others think are other destinations that the new AA could offer new or expanded service to?