Gardyloo

Since the word "speculation" is in the thread title, I'll speculate that since Alaska's relationship with Delta is circling the drain due to DL's aggressive moves on AS routes and making SEA a west coast hub, and, in light of AS's existing very close and reciprocal agreements with AA, and, given the possibility that KE and AA making nice at DFW is a portent of a closer relationship, maybe even a move to have KE come into Oneworld, then, I think more talk of AS also joining Oneworld will be a distinct possibility.

sagechan

Yes, that's why I said on AA metal, 2-3x daily on AA metal, either 175 or 738 to improve the actual aa network in the PacNW. Is it absolutely necessary, probably not with AS codeshare, but codeshare isn't like JV revenue share so getting some of that traffic on own metal without overloading it at AS expense isn't an awful idea.

MAH4546

AA needs to run its own metal to PDX and SEA regardless.

Back maybe about two years ago, at an LAX airline forum, AA said it intended to start SEA (5x 738) and PDX (3x CR7). Due to gate limitations at the airport, it's common for airlines to announce their plans and give a heads up. Neither game to fruition, but AA is now in a situation where gates are less constrained, and even less so starting next year.

ashill

I agree. Running your own metal to your partner's hub from your own hub 1000 miles away is totally normal and expected. AA (and QF, BA, and JL) can't coordinate schedules with AS, so particularly for optimizing timing and capacity for connecting traffic for all these new trans-Pacific flights, it seems like SEA at least and probably PDX are obvious needs. Certainly they'd go somewhat for local traffic as well.

When DL first started LAX-SEA (their first domestic non-hub route from SEA), that was pretty clearly the motivation. But there's no danger that AA starting LAX-SEA and LAX-PDX will lead to AA turning SEA or PDX into hubs or fraying the relationship with AS.

eponymous_coward

The gate constraints aren't going to be at LAX. They'll be at SEA...

pineapplejet

LAX/PEK would be a lovely route. Hopefully much better than that CA flight which goes out in the middle of the night. Hope they schedule it around PVG flight like they did for ORD to PVG PEK.

Also wondering, why wouldn't 788 or 789 work for an African destination and why wouldn't they exercise fifth freedom from Brazil to somewhere in Africa. All the South Americans who work in Africa I know either transfer in JNB or MAD/LHR. The load factors are good, ticket price inelastic, why not?

PWMTrav

LAX-SEA/PDX is well covered by AS. That's kind of the point of that partnership, I'd think.

Longboater

The 788 would be the appropriate aircraft should AA decide to operate MIA-LOS/ACC in the future. Those are the only two destinations outside of ZA that have a chance of being profitable.

The A350-900 is the only aircraft that AA has on order that could make JNB-MIA. The high altitude at JNB is an absolute killer for aircraft flying ultra longhaul distances to North America.

Previously, only two commercial widebody aircraft had the capability to fly from JNB to the US nonstop year round: DL's 77L and SAL's A346. Delta worked with Boeing to increase the tire speed on the Worldliner to ensure it could takeoff from JNB. SAL's A346 is weight restricted and its JNB-JFK route is unprofitable by their own admission. This compares to DL's admission that their ATL-JNB route is performing quite well, even mentioning the route's success in Earnings Calls. Twin engine aircraft suck at high altitude with a few exceptions.

The A350-900's takeoff performance at "hot and high" airports is significantly improved over comparable aircraft. It can fly longer with a heavier payload than the 789. The 789 can do MIA-JNB but would need a fuel stop to make it back to MIA. The A350-900 would face weight restrictions on JNB-MIA but nowhere near the 789. I originally thought AA was going to wait for the A350 before they flew their own metal to Australia. My speculation is that, along with the 789, the A350 will end up doing mostly TransPac flights.

1kBill

CA has 2 or 3 LAX-PEK flights each day, spread out over the day. (I think they added a third not too long ago.) I've gotten quite used to the flights that leave late at night - get on, eat something, sleep 7-8 hours and flight is almost over. Just wish AA or UA would add some late night flights to HKG or China.

Microwave

In the interests of keeping this rather lengthy thread on topic, I've removed a post about other airlines possibly expanding at MIA.

~Moderator

pineapplejet

You are right. Totally forgot about the whole altitude situation at JNB but I'm all rooting for ACC as its my African base.

UA pulled its IAD route some time ago after DL killed it with ATL and JFK nonstop daily. Then DL killed ATL and slashed JFK to 4x weekly. LH just killed FRA with Brussels coming in 4x week to Belgium. It's SO frustrating as if I'm stuck in ACC when I visit. I dislike DL with passion and EK just doesn't play well with my mix. BA is my only option to North America while to Asia I can choose between ET on a 160 degree recliner or TK on a big couch that looks like the one owned by Joey tribiani to IST. QR announced their ACC route only for it to be a cargo only route...

I'd kill to have another OW or *A option to NA especially. BA J on the 744 is always packed, most on the flights are onward pax according to a recent conversation with BA personnel. Really think an AA 788 would do very well, can easily canabalize some DL and BA pax on that dread old 744 and absorb some former LH transfer pax

MAH4546

If we are referring to SAA's rumored service from Miami to South Africa and the Ivory Coast, there is some possible relevance, because SAA is seeking an exemption from Star Alliance in order to codeshare outside the alliance on the proposed route, and that codeshare could very well be AA (purely my speculation, but who else would that codeshare partner be?).

Unlike OW, Star has especially strict rules about codesharing outside of the alliance.

Longboater

Honestly, I see AA serving JNB on their own metal in the future than relying on SAL. SAL is an absolute mess which I wouldn't want to partner with if I were AA.

beyondhere

I was looking at 2014 PDEW data between PHL and domestic cities, and noticed that MSN PHL has close to 80 PDEW except for Q1. If AA added a nonstop, that number would probably increase to 110 PDEW or so. It's 764 mile distance and it overflies ORD, but it only overflies one other hub that is ORD.

On one hand, AA doesn't want to fly PHL-SAT/AUS/PDX year round or at all even though PHL has higher PDEW to those markets than several markets with nonstop. But those overfly atleast 3 hubs, and the distance is over 1400 miles.

From a hub network perspective, it seems that AA is selling a two stop itinery to several secondary east markets from MSN since there is no PHL, CLT, DCA connection from MSN, which makes AA likely less able to sell connections as well as DL can sell connections there.

Would it be strategic for AA to add MSN-PHL? Or would it consider MSN-CLT?

I assume MSN could pull in more traffic than other markets similar in size. The city/region is generally known for the U Wisconsin, and it's educated workforce.

ashill

I hadn't realized the PHL-MSN O&D is that high. It may not have made sense for US to start a station in MSN just to serve PHL, but given that AA (Eagle) has a station there anyway, it does make some sense given the O&D numbers.

You failed to mention by far the largest driver of traffic out of MSN: Epic Systems (a small company which accounts for something ridiculous like 10% of the O&D at MSN by itself). Between that and the fact that leisure travelers out of MSN can easily drive or take the bus to MKE or ORD, MSN has some of the highest airfares in the nation, another reason it strikes me as plausible. Hell, given this management's propensity for adjusting schedules to meet day-to-day demand, fly an Epic special MSN-PHL Monday afternoon and PHL-MSN Thursday afternoon, rotating the plane on to ORD.*

DL does operate 6x weekly MSN-DCA nonstops on E170s and has since NW started it around 2005 (except for a brief interruption after the DCA/LGA slot swap; F9 operated it in on A320s in the interim).

*That isn't really a serious suggestion, if the sarcasm detector isn't working.