FWAAA

Given that EY already flies DFW-AUH, is there any business justification for AA to also fly a very long route to a small city that attracts practically zero tourists from the United States? Or maybe I'm looking at it from the wrong direction: are there zillions of residents of Abu Dhabi looking to vacation in North Texas?

The lack of onward connections at TLV has never been a concern for DL, CO, UA or US in serving Tel Aviv. Israel is the destination if you fly to TLV, just like Orlando or Vegas are the reasons airlines fly to MCO or LAS - it's not about connecting anyone beyond those cities.

PHL-TLV failed because it lacked sufficient high-yield nonstop passengers who wanted to fly from PHL to TLV, not because US had no ability to connect them beyond TLV. Similarly, AA doesn't fret about the lack of connections available in Paris - everyone on AA's multiple flights to CDG is actually visiting Paris (and/or other nearby cities and countries).

I'm still unsure about why AA would add flights in competition with one of the ME3 in hopes of picking up some connecting passengers to/from India or other low-yield connecting traffic?

DWFI

AA would be flying 4x weekly to complement the existing 3x weekly Etihad service.

The justification would be to allow AA travelers to get to central Asia substantially on AA metal - whether that's Pakistan, India, Kazakhstan, UAE, Saudi, Egypt.
This is as close to serving India as AA is going to realistically get.

There is practically zero OD between Dallas and Abu Dhabi and that's certainly not the goal of this service.

Gardyloo

I guess I'm still a little puzzled at AA's (potential) wooing of EY when QR is already a member of Oneworld, codeshares numerous flights with AA, and has a network that's (I'm pretty sure) bigger than EY's, with many of the same destinations.

ashill

Obviously TLV is not about connections. Those other airlines all started with NYC-TLV, which we now know pretty clearly is a dramatically different and larger market than trying to feed USA connections on PHL-TLV.

My point is really that TLV is entirely about serving a single destination, whereas AUH would be (almost) entirely about serving a region through connecting traffic (on a non-immunized partner). This seems like an odd strategic choice, very different than the recent focus of most US airlines. Starting long haul routes to hubs of immunized joint venture partners (SYD, HND) and cities served as part of a joint venture (AKL, any new city in Europe and, if I understand the JL joint venture correctly, east Asia) is one thing, but starting a route to a partner hub where they can't even coordinate schedules, let alone share revenue, is quite another.

But it does enable AA to get a slice of revenue to an entire region that they don't serve very well now. So throw it against the wall and see if it sticks, DL-style? If it doesn't work, I can't imagine that they'll give it six years like they did TLV.

There isn't a bilateral agreement that would allow antitrust immunity between AA and EY, is there?

(All of this assuming that JonNYC is correct, we're reading his hints correctly, and AA's decision is made.)

nall

Same here. Not only QR, but RJ, as well.

FWAAA

Ahh, thanks.

An 8000+ flight devoid of substantial O&D would be a very big surprise. If one of the ME3 thinks that 3x a week between DFW and their ME hub is enough, gotta wonder why AA would think the route needs another 4x weekly? And what happens when EY starts flying those other four times a week?

That would be an extremely expensive flight - why not fly it from PHL and shave 1,100 miles off the distance, or from JFK, saving 1,200 miles? Those last 1,100 to 1,200 miles are the most expensive due to all the fuel that is burned to carry the fuel for those final 1,100-1,200 miles.

I think we're in complete agreement.

AA can fly people on its own metal to LON and connect the passengers to BA to get to most of those destinations, and while AA-BA don't have antitrust immunity to the ME or Central Asia, AA would get to keep the revenue for the USA-LON segment, and if selling an AA codeshare on BA metal, would also get a tiny slice of that revenue.

So I'm still lost as to the financial benefit to AA of operating an 8,000+ mile long-haul route that consists solely of connecting passengers. Isn't that the business model of the state-owned ME3?

True, but AA can fly those same passengers to LON and get a slice of the revenue, as discussed above. If AA is set to propose an immunized joint venture with EY, then everything goes out the window, because then AA wouldn't be competing with EY, but would be legally conspiring with EY. That brings up the questions about QR and RJ - why not propose an immunized joint venture with one of them?

Although I've read this thread, and admire JonNYC, I did not realize that his posts in this thread have hinted at DFW-AUH.

If AA is set to begin flying DFW-AUH without antitrust immunity, then AA has apparently run out of new destinations to which it believes it can profitably fly its aircraft. Destinations that people actually want to travel, like JFK-TYO, JFK-China, ORD-ICN, LAX-ICN and a few others would seem to be better choices than an oddball route like DFW-AUH. Yes, those routes are flown by other airlines, in some case, by joint venture partners, and would require that AA actually compete with those other airlines (except JAL). But none of those routes is flown by the ME3, and that's what DFW-United Arab Emirates represents. If that's AA's next new route, it will be extremely surprising.

rasheed

If I was to rank the options for ME for AA.

1) DFW-AMM

AMM does provide pretty good access to Israel as well (unlike UAE or Qatar). It is always a good thing for an OW airline to fly to an OW hub. RJ has also not been part of the ME3 discussion.

The issue is AMM does not have the connections as RJ doesn't fly enough to the Subcontinent countries and the cities there. That could change though.

However, it would not be a non-stop service they compete with another carrier. Always helpful.

RJ Route Map: http://www.rj.com/en/home/routeMap

2) DFW-AUH

Why? Pre-clearance! AUH connects everywhere via EY and EY/AA are working together just fine despite all of the rhetoric. Codesharing will be no problem on EY flights and EY/AA are apparently good friends at LAX (I think I made an old post about American being mentioned when EY came to LAX).

EY Route Map: http://flights.etihad.com/routemap/

3) DFW-DOH

DOH is good for connections, but QR is pushing so fast that it might be best to stay out the way in the meantime. This would sense a need for JV. Possible.

QR Route Map: http://www.qatarairways.com/global/en/route-map.page

4) DFW-DXB

Dubai is pretty useless at this point. The airport has been designed for EK and that is about it. If you are not an EK friend, forget it. EK will destroy on pricing and the A380 service. Not worth the battle.

Other possibilities:
DFW-MCT
Unlikely: https://www.aa.com/i18n/aboutUs/code...rs/gulfair.jsp
DFW-BAH
No connections.

Rasheed

Ldnn1

If AUH were to happen, could it be a signal that EY might look to buy a (minority) equity stake in AA?

We know EY has done this with a number or airlines and obviously favours the equity approach over traditional alliances. QR has similarly bought a ~10% stake in BA and is building ties based on that.

It will certainly be very interesting to see how the AA-EY relationship develops *if* AA does launch this route.

Patriots

Or.... Why not just join OneWorld?

scnzzz

Can't see EY joining OW with QR already in there (and with EY's publicly stated position about not intending to join any of the alliances)

DWFI

EY's comments about not wanting to join an alliance are completely meaningless. Akbar al Baker insisted repeatedly - until the day before Qatar announced its membership in oneworld!!! - that Qatar had no intent of joining an alliance. And lets not forget how US outwardly insinuated that PHL TLV was extremely profitable, only for them to do an about face and declare that the route never made money.

With all due respect, it is insulting for someone to suggest that AA is about to send a 77W on a mission they believe will be loss making and with no purpose.

AA has all the data and we have almost zero. If AA intends to start DFW AUH, it's because they (a) think they can make a profit or (b) need the route for other strategic reason(s) and profitability is of little consequence.

LovePrunes

i asked because you seem to be the first to post new routes accurately. wasn't sure if speculation or information! thx for having good info

scnzzz

Their actions speak otherwise - their equity positions and partnerships with assorted airlines in different alliances (as well as some non-aligned carriers) really do suggest IMO that they are not interested in OW or any other alliance. And seeing as to how competitive the ME3 are, I really find it hard to believe 2 of the 3 would be in any one alliance.

That is not to say AA couldn't do AUH on their own metal with some degree of profitability; it's just hard to imagine from DFW (oil company contracts perhaps?). But who knows - as you say, they have more data than we do.

Microwave

Some off topic and unfriendly exchanges have been removed. Let's keep it on topic, and stick to the friendly and welcoming attitude expected of FlyerTalk members.

~Moderator

DWFI

Absolutely agreed - I think the chance of EY joining OW is near zero. Even if they wanted to, Qatar would not allow it.

However, could EY join Skyteam? Possibly, if they wanted to. They could drag their portfolio into the group as well. Or they could start a 4th alliance?

That doesn't, however, stop AA and Etihad from entering into an extra-alliance relationship in the same way Qantas and Emirates have done.