PWMTrav

I'd love to see some additional TCON service from BOS, but I'm not holding my breath. AA is already flying BOS-LAX, and their partnership with AS will get you BOS-PDX/SEA/SAN. The only major hole there is SFO, but UA, B6 and VX already fly it non-stop. I just picked a random Tuesday on ITA and I'm seeing 11 BOS-SFO runs between those 3. Not to mention, it'd be pure O&D for AA, as neither city is a hub/focus. I don't see how they could support the route.

That said, I'd love to see them try, because I'd love to pay a lower fare to visit SFO this year.

DistrictOfColumbia

It would seem logical that DCA will get flights to UA's hubs and perhaps Delta's given UA's IAD routes will not be available.

Maybe:

DCA-ORD
DCA-EWR
DCA-DEN (if there is someway to get exemption)
DCA-ATL

jbsay

AA already offers several DCA-ORD flights daily. DCA-DEN is already serviced by F9 (3x daily) and UA (1x daily) so I doubt US/AA would swap one of their slots for it. US/AA currently have DCA-LAX (1x), DCA-PHX (3x), DCA-LAS (1X), DCA-SAN (1x). If US/AA were to switch these slots, adding a DCA-LAX and dropping a DCA-PHX would make more sense than another DCA-DEN.

Fanjet

The beyond-perimeter flights are route-specific. They have to fly them, or surrender them. They cannot swap them out. And AA/US have to streamline their flights out of DCA. To the tune of 44 fewer flights. Yes, some of that will be done by reducing the number of combined flights to RDU and BNA. As well as flights to PHL and JFK. But taking on new competition is probably not the best way to utilize their remaining slots.

DistrictOfColumbia

I agree with you here. Out of the 10 PHL-DCA flights, eight are CRJ's and DASH-8's which seems to be a huge waste.

I would think they could easily go head to head on exclusive UA/IAD routes and add capacity to routes they overlap and still make money.

BoeingBoy

Assuming that the previous table is based on BTS data, two things jump out. One is that the 1st qtr is a slow travel period so annual averages would probably change some results. The second is that BTS domestic data doesn't show international connections, so routes like GSO - MIA shows MIA as the destination of connecting traffic to international destinations.

Throw in potential domestic connections and a route like GSO-ORD might have double the traffic but that's still only a couple of RJ flights a day - hardly enough to serve that route.

As for DCA, most if not all the slots to be given up are within perimeter so other in perimeter slots could be swapped around. The big exception is the commuter slots, used for planes with 75 or fewer seats. One of the requirements is that AA/US use their commuter slots for small city service and not hub service. That, especially for CLT and PHL, could mean loss of frequency to those two hubs to provide the required small city service OR using mainline slots for CLT/PHL instead.

Jim

jayzeemd

So I am probably one of about 17 people but I am excited about a True RedEye from SFO-LAX-BDL. So Hard to get there and be alive with a connection at 6AM out of PHL/CLT and will enjoy actually having 5 hours sleep!

http://www.usairways.com/en-US/Resou...outeMap_LG.jpg

Happy Flying

rasheed

I want to mention that BOS-SFO is a non-stop route you can get full RDM AA miles on via B6. Yes, it is not EQM, but you don't have to have any orphan miles in another program situation.

http://www.aa.com/i18n/AAdvantage/ea...es/jetBlue.jsp

Okay, maybe you think the B6 relationship may have a troubled future, but B6 is a great product and AA would know EXACTLY how many of its flyers are demanding a BOS-SFO option. Of course, I would recommend you fly VX if the BOS-LAX or BOS-SFO route is that important.

From my experience the LAX-BDL flight seems popular as a relatively new AA option. I saw a number of bags with DL tags onboard. Pretty creative use of aircraft overnight I think as well. So, it is a guess if this route would have been launched (re-launched) if it was up for decision after the acquisition. I would hope so, but I am not sure.

Rasheed

ubernostrum

If you're going to call yourself a "realist", you need to, you know, be realistic. Doug Parker doesn't know who you are or have a personal vendetta to make your flying experience miserable. So tell us what business motivation you think new AA would have to do these things.

If you think Parker's going to salt the earth at the pmUS hubs, well, tell us why you think the airline would do that, and why there would be a difference from other mergers. DL, for example, has done quite well out of keeping some of the former NW hubs -- what about the pmUS hubs do you think would motivate a slash-and-burn approach?

In other words, come up with some actual argument based on what a business would do, rather than the same old end-of-the-world grousing we've been subjected to since the merger announcement.

For example, here's a rundown for two pmUS hubs, as I see them.

CLT:

• Location: fills a gaping hole in the pmAA domestic network, offering a far more convenient location for east-coast business traffic to connect, and is a decent-sized metro area in its own right if that matters.
• Location: is in less-congested airspace than the major northeast US airports, and doesn't have the frequency of winter-weather issues.
• Location: is in ATL's backyard, offering the opportunity to compete realistically with DL (and WN's expanded operations, post-merger) in the US southeast.
• Operations: largest RJ farm in the country, run far more successfully than other major carriers' regional ops.
• International prospects: probably never a huge TATL hub, but has the ability to take some of the load off other hubs with capacity issues.

Based on that, I'd expect that new AA keeps CLT much as it currently is: a major domestic hub, with some international traffic.

Now, how about DCA?

• Significant O&D, extremely convenient to the major public and private-sector neighborhoods of the DC metro area.
• But is a cramped little airport stuck in a spot with no room to expand, in congested airspace.
• And has the perimeter restriction.
• And the merged airline has to divest there.

Which adds up to DCA probably keeping a lot of traffic, but likely not a true hub; connections that currently happen in DCA will probably move elsewhere, and it'll become more of an O&D focus.

See how easy it is to make real arguments for/against keeping hubs?

Ambraciot

That only applies to coach and most of the Boston based AA elites I know (myself included) don't bother getting AA RDM on the eligible B6 flights. AA has excess 762 capacity and that excess will increase as the 321s come online, on 3 class 762 flights the majority of revenue should come from the premium cabins. There isn't any 3 class premium competition on BOS-SFO and AA wouldn't risk cannibalizing yields on its own 2 class flights like it would on BOS-LAX. BOS-LAX is also a more competitive market with DL also running flights most of the year. On my occasional JFK-SFO AA 762 F flights there have usually been as many Boston based F pax as JFK O/Ds, though that does change if I exclude myself from the tally. BOS-LAX also has a very high 2 class F load/fare, quite possibly the highest average F fare of any domestic 2 class flight, that may suggest BOS-SFO has similar premium demand.

eponymous_coward

762s are fuel pigs, and AA would have never dropped BOS-SFO if it was a mint because of heavy paid F/C demand. I don't see it being anything other than ad-hoc.

However... I think BOS is where newAA might decide to expand as a new "cornerstone". Lots of existing capacity and routes, and with B6 stepping it up a notch with premium JFK service it makes a decent place to strike back. I don't think they will do 321T's... But maybe a widebody on a domestic reposition flight or three...

eponymous_coward

It is the same argument I make about PHX. A city with 4-5 million people probably has enough native O/D demand to support rational hub operations, and if AA is silly enough to give that traffic up, WN or someone will happily serve those customers. In fact, WN's entire model for expansion has been to pick up customers the legacies have sloughed off in places like SAN, LAS, Bay Area, STL, BWI and so on. And WN, unlike the legacies, makes consistent profits...

Ambraciot

762s are far from fuel efficient, but AA was flying one JFK-BOS-JFK-BOS-JFK last week in place of a 738, by comparison the idea that the extra premium class/seats/revenue will offset the incremental fuel cost of a 762 vs a 752 doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't think the BOS-SFO cancellation was about a lack of premium demand, it was one of the final routes to be cut for violating the cornerstone strategy.

eponymous_coward

AA is more than willing to run routes that violate cornerstone strategy if it is worth money: RDU-LHR.

Still wouldn't hold my breath for anything other than random, ad-hoc things for a few months while they wind things down, though.

Biggie Fries

First, poor editing on my part. I was just trying to give a stylized (if tendentious) lay of the land, at least in terms of thinking on this matter. I meant to distinguish "realists" (which I don't claim to be) from the sort of grousers (or "losers") which I admit to being. You got that right!

Second, I hope you are right -- especially as regards PHL, which is what I care most about, since I live hereabouts and have enjoyed a rather amazing set of non-stops for the better part of two decades. I can still remember flying to PIT to fly to Europe.

However ... while there are all sorts of particulars and possibilities for each place, such as those you mention, I have no doubt (based on some pretty elementary economic theory and some great quotes from Parker in his charmingly frank moments) that the overall strategy of the new AA (like the other two oligopoly legacies) is to raise profit margins by shrinking supply of seats. From that I deduce that there will eventually be fewer seats, not more seats, from XXX to YYY. Although I admit that I don't know how that will work out for every GSO and every MCI; and I also admit that, arithmetically, you could shrink capacity while actually expanding (via the merger) the number of intermediate points WWW in the transit XXX-WWW-YYY; the standard business rationale of reducing fixed costs (which I would say trumps high-end products for increased customer satisfaction) will soon enough lead to a tipping point wherein one or more of the current US hubs starts looking more like PIT/STL/CVG/etc. All this was the logic that makes me think that more service from a new AA between, say, GSO and ORD is not in the cards unless service from GSO to CLT/PHL/DCA is cut; and that if that is the case, it will be part of a negative cascade for that or those particular hubs. Time will tell ....