|
Originally Posted by nova08
(Post 22210085)
Set aside the O&D, EWR is set up much like PHL, runways the same direction, tight taxiways, weather issues.
UPS flies MD11s into PHL on a near daily basis, BA/LH/Swiss have all flown 747s into PHL on a routine basis, and recently BA has flown the 77W into PHL on a several times a month basis. Is PHL structurally prepared for dozens of large widebody flights like a JFK or LAX...no, but PHL is not some Podunk airport, it can handle the QR 77Ws. |
Originally Posted by WhatsInYourBackpack
(Post 22209691)
1) Any word on what will happen with the murmurs about AA and Emirates? EY is coming to LAX very shortly and Qatar is starting in PHL. It is hilarious for me personally on the supposed demand for AA metal to places like India. I was told the main reason was use of SWUs, well I think we can agree that is of little to no interest to AA. Now, I also do see a lot of 'corporate' folks book non-ME carriers for these trips. Maybe some have an airline flag policy, maybe the other carriers appear 'too foreign' to others, but if you can take the A380 from LAX/JFK (and some of the other AA hubs down the road) -- do it, in a premium class, even better (showers!). Still, the Qantas/EK hook-up is a bizarre situation. To have that without the oneworld tie (at EK's insistance no doubt) does not make sense. If EK was some small, local/regional carrier, it would seem fine, but that is not the case. There may come an ultimatum to EK unless they continue to dominate the traffic in every market they touch. Rasheed |
Originally Posted by FWAAA
(Post 22210208)
The thing about NYC is that it provides the vast majority of the O&D for places like VCE or ATH. No need to fly hundreds of RJs in and out of JFK to fill TATL flights (or TPAC flights).
An easy example is TLV. PHL represents about 3% of the nation's O&D to/from TLV. The PHL-TLV flight is full, albeit with about 3/4 of the passengers being connecting passengers. NYC (JFK and EWR) are about 60% of the nation's TLV O&D market. About 20 times the size of PHL's TLV passengers. Other big TLV markets include MIA, LAX, SAN, PHX, LAS, SFO, SEA and ORD. Except for MIA and ORD, they're outside the LGA perimeter, and thus the only way to serve them nonstop from NYC is from JFK. And magically enough, they're already served. So if new AA added a second TLV flight, from where should it depart? A second daily PHL departure (so the two flights could split that 1/4 O&D passenger share)? Or MIA? Or JFK? Or maybe one at MIA and one at JFK. The JFK flight would not require an army of RJs to feed it. Nor would it require huge frequency increases from those spokes. If more seats were needed (because JFK-New TATL flights were wildly successful), then easy enough to upgauge the flights to/from JFK. What's now a 738 could easily become an A321 or 757. Current 757s could become 763s if necessary. New AA certainly has a varied assortment of planes from which to choose. :D Nothing in the above is meant to suggest that PHL will lose any flights. :D But at the same time, NYC is the center of the USA universe for TATL travel. It's the one airport where large numbers of CRJs are not required to make long-haul flights successful. So why doesn't AA already fly all these new long-haul flights from JFK? Most will remember the "pre-bankruptcy high costs" that were recently fixed. |
Originally Posted by FWAAA
(Post 22210208)
The thing about NYC is that it provides the vast majority of the O&D for places like VCE or ATH. No need to fly hundreds of RJs in and out of JFK to fill TATL flights (or TPAC flights).
An easy example is TLV. PHL represents about 3% of the nation's O&D to/from TLV. The PHL-TLV flight is full, albeit with about 3/4 of the passengers being connecting passengers. NYC (JFK and EWR) are about 60% of the nation's TLV O&D market. About 20 times the size of PHL's TLV passengers. Other big TLV markets include MIA, LAX, SAN, PHX, LAS, SFO, SEA and ORD. Except for MIA and ORD, they're outside the LGA perimeter, and thus the only way to serve them nonstop from NYC is from JFK. And magically enough, they're already served. So if new AA added a second TLV flight, from where should it depart? A second daily PHL departure (so the two flights could split that 1/4 O&D passenger share)? Or MIA? Or JFK? Or maybe one at MIA and one at JFK. The JFK flight would not require an army of RJs to feed it. Nor would it require huge frequency increases from those spokes. If more seats were needed (because JFK-New TATL flights were wildly successful), then easy enough to upgauge the flights to/from JFK. What's now a 738 could easily become an A321 or 757. Current 757s could become 763s if necessary. New AA certainly has a varied assortment of planes from which to choose. :D Nothing in the above is meant to suggest that PHL will lose any flights. :D But at the same time, NYC is the center of the USA universe for TATL travel. It's the one airport where large numbers of CRJs are not required to make long-haul flights successful. So why doesn't AA already fly all these new long-haul flights from JFK? Most will remember the "pre-bankruptcy high costs" that were recently fixed. Your knowledge of aviation is nothing short of incredible. I enjoy reading your posts and you clearly know what you are talking about -- and back it up with facts, stats, etc. You bring a tremendous credibility to this site for individuals like myself who seek inside knowledge. Thanks. To use the old EF Hutton commercials, when FWAAA posts, flyertalk subscribers read! :) |
Originally Posted by FWAAA
(Post 22209086)
Just 8? My count is 12, including BCN, DUB, DUS, FRA, HEL, LHR, MAD, MAN, MXP, CDG, FCO and ZRH. Adding the nine unique US European dots not served by old AA of ATH, LIS, BRU, VCE, AMS, GLA, SNN, MUC and TLV, new AA has 21, comparable to its peers.
As Crandall pointed out many years ago, AA built up service to some secondary European dots when AA's access to LHR was rebuffed. Then after he was able to get access to LHR with the purchase of the rest of TWA's London operations, AA scaled back those secondary dots. CO, DL, NW and US had no LHR access until 2008 and thus had no choice but to fly to all those other dots. AA was focused on London (since that's the destination of many of the F and J tickets across the Atlantic). Additionally, AA served various other European dots, although never as many as CO, DL, NW or US. Never before has there been an airline with both a huge LHR presence and numerous other European dots, until now, that is. AA generally has 16-19 peak-season daily flights to LHR plus 20 other dots. Only fly in the ointment is that US has lagged the industry in TATL yields since at least 1995. The real comparisons are UA and DL... For non-believers, Swelbar's MIT site shows the historic industry-lagging TATL yields of US Airways. |
Originally Posted by FWAAA
(Post 22210208)
The thing about NYC is that it provides the vast majority of the O&D for places like VCE or ATH. No need to fly hundreds of RJs in and out of JFK to fill TATL flights (or TPAC flights).
An easy example is TLV. PHL represents about 3% of the nation's O&D to/from TLV. The PHL-TLV flight is full, albeit with about 3/4 of the passengers being connecting passengers. NYC (JFK and EWR) are about 60% of the nation's TLV O&D market. About 20 times the size of PHL's TLV passengers. Other big TLV markets include MIA, LAX, SAN, PHX, LAS, SFO, SEA and ORD. Except for MIA and ORD, they're outside the LGA perimeter, and thus the only way to serve them nonstop from NYC is from JFK. And magically enough, they're already served. So if new AA added a second TLV flight, from where should it depart? A second daily PHL departure (so the two flights could split that 1/4 O&D passenger share)? Or MIA? Or JFK? Or maybe one at MIA and one at JFK. The JFK flight would not require an army of RJs to feed it. Nor would it require huge frequency increases from those spokes. If more seats were needed (because JFK-New TATL flights were wildly successful), then easy enough to upgauge the flights to/from JFK. What's now a 738 could easily become an A321 or 757. Current 757s could become 763s if necessary. New AA certainly has a varied assortment of planes from which to choose. :D Nothing in the above is meant to suggest that PHL will lose any flights. :D But at the same time, NYC is the center of the USA universe for TATL travel. It's the one airport where large numbers of CRJs are not required to make long-haul flights successful. So why doesn't AA already fly all these new long-haul flights from JFK? Most will remember the "pre-bankruptcy high costs" that were recently fixed.
Originally Posted by perseus11
(Post 22210776)
Although your theories are reasonable, one aspect of JFK versus PHL that cannot be overlooked is competition for resources - especially with Parker's history. At PHL, the competition for routes and slot resources (zero) is miniscule compared to JFK.
Originally Posted by Ambraciot
(Post 22210307)
But the previous poster was suggesting PHL as a better catchment/hub versus ORD, which is essentially EWR and PHL laid on top of each other with better angling and extra support runways. PHL has a role to play in the network, but it will not be picking up any of ORD's long haul widebody traffic. PHL will not see service to India or China and will not gain Tokyo service at the expense of ORD, it is far more likely to lose its comparatively short routes to Europe.
|
Originally Posted by FWAAA
(Post 22210208)
The thing about NYC is that it provides the vast majority of the O&D for places like VCE or ATH. No need to fly hundreds of RJs in and out of JFK to fill TATL flights (or TPAC flights).
An easy example is TLV. PHL represents about 3% of the nation's O&D to/from TLV. The PHL-TLV flight is full, albeit with about 3/4 of the passengers being connecting passengers. NYC (JFK and EWR) are about 60% of the nation's TLV O&D market. About 20 times the size of PHL's TLV passengers. Other big TLV markets include MIA, LAX, SAN, PHX, LAS, SFO, SEA and ORD. Except for MIA and ORD, they're outside the LGA perimeter, and thus the only way to serve them nonstop from NYC is from JFK. And magically enough, they're already served. So if new AA added a second TLV flight, from where should it depart? A second daily PHL departure (so the two flights could split that 1/4 O&D passenger share)? Or MIA? Or JFK? Or maybe one at MIA and one at JFK. The JFK flight would not require an army of RJs to feed it. Nor would it require huge frequency increases from those spokes. If more seats were needed (because JFK-New TATL flights were wildly successful), then easy enough to upgauge the flights to/from JFK. What's now a 738 could easily become an A321 or 757. Current 757s could become 763s if necessary. New AA certainly has a varied assortment of planes from which to choose. :D Nothing in the above is meant to suggest that PHL will lose any flights. :D But at the same time, NYC is the center of the USA universe for TATL travel. It's the one airport where large numbers of CRJs are not required to make long-haul flights successful. So why doesn't AA already fly all these new long-haul flights from JFK? Most will remember the "pre-bankruptcy high costs" that were recently fixed. Didn't mean to add confusion - the RJ comment was really just specific to the hope of the MHT service for another poster. The cost thing was the big issue before. Costs+Contracts killed AA at JFK. It should be an exciting time going forward for JFK. |
Originally Posted by rasheed
(Post 22210702)
So, I can't remember if EY (Eithad) came before or after those article mentions, but I think this was on the table before any AA/US. However, I think the answer is AA and EY are now together. And what is interesting is the EY and AA relationship is fine even with Qatar in the mix. There is definitely no room to have EY and EK. Also, EK went with AS since the murmurs I think. It is CRAZY that you can get better EQM with ASMP than EK's own program.
EY is coming to LAX very shortly and Qatar is starting in PHL. It is hilarious for me personally on the supposed demand for AA metal to places like India. I was told the main reason was use of SWUs, well I think we can agree that is of little to no interest to AA. Now, I also do see a lot of 'corporate' folks book non-ME carriers for these trips. Maybe some have an airline flag policy, maybe the other carriers appear 'too foreign' to others, but if you can take the A380 from LAX/JFK (and some of the other AA hubs down the road) -- do it, in a premium class, even better (showers!). Still, the Qantas/EK hook-up is a bizarre situation. To have that without the oneworld tie (at EK's insistance no doubt) does not make sense. If EK was some small, local/regional carrier, it would seem fine, but that is not the case. There may come an ultimatum to EK unless they continue to dominate the traffic in every market they touch. Rasheed I think the last EK statement on AA had something that indicated they understood AA had to sort out its restructuring stuff as priority #1. AA's ORD-DEL flight was also getting killed by AI's huge loss making flights. In 09/10 AI lost $63M (USD) on the ORD-India route. That year US-India routes on AI accounted for 41% of total losses at AI. AA's ORD-DEL flight had a legacy AA cost problem while, at the same time, competing against a competitor who was burning cash like it was going out of style. Artificially low prices + a terrible cost structure = disaster. (you also had 9W creating problems on pricing as well - but I don't think they ever flew ord-bru-india, just jfk/ewr) I thought AA+EY hadn't changed since it started? Did I miss something? |
I would strongly bet against AA starting any ULH service from any hub. The costs of operating those flights are too high. Aside from the fact that they have to carry an emormous amount of fuel (which adds to the weight), they utilize two aircraft per day to complete the roundtrip journey. Compare that with an eastern U.S.-Europe RT flight which utilizes just one per day.
|
Originally Posted by perseus11
(Post 22210776)
Although your theories are reasonable, one aspect of JFK versus PHL that cannot be overlooked is competition for resources - especially with Parker's history. At PHL, the competition for routes and slot resources (zero) is miniscule compared to JFK. Imagine JFK without DL and very limited AF, LH. My theory, as I've stated many times, is that JFK has/will have very limited growth. That limitation + the fierce competition will force Parker to restrict JFK to the most profitable O&D routes, milk the JV and shift (regardless of your RJ theory) most other flights to PHL. As PHL's international routes are expanded, so will its O&D, as less catchment passengers will bleed to JFK and especially EWR. And let's not ignore the significantly higher per-passenger enplanement costs of JFK versus PHL. Ignoring basic favoritism, I find it a lot easier and more pleasant as a passenger to transit internationally through PHL than JFK and even ORD.
OTOH, I do not see how the merger greatly improved AA's position in NYC. In fact, US just traded away most of its LGA assets for ownership of DCA slots it had been long leasing from DL (and previously NW). Competition in the NYC market is fierce, much of the market is stagnate and thus successful new services are more-or-less cannibalizing the competition. Any build-up of the market would require a lot of capital and a lot of patience (and Parker has sometimes been intolerant toward patience). I expect that over the next 3-5 years, AA will be vested in synergizing its network; the new AA will likely have the biggest make over (in terms of hub composition) of the three mergers. For example, I believe ORD will play a predominate role for the new AA. While ORD has always been a large operation for AA, service has always been disproportionately tilted toward major business markets. When ORD peaked for AA in the late '90s/early '00s, more than a quarter of the seats were to just five destinations. This is because regulation handicap AA from truly competing with UA. ORD's breadth didn't expand until AIR-21, and then again when slot restrictions were completely removed. But 9-11 came quickly after. Much of the short-term focus will continue to be domestic; Atlantic flying still isn't as attractive as it was before the global recession. DL, for comparison, which has whacked more than a dozen Atlantic destinations (and made others seasonal) from JFK in recent years, has turned its emphasis toward domestic operations, although it still lags behind AA & UA (and even B6 by some metrics) on transcontinental flying. |
Originally Posted by Bagels
(Post 22212553)
I agree with the first portion of your argument, but the second is completely misguided. AA's operation at JFK is limited; the only Atlantic route not also serviced by US at PHL is MXP and US previously unsuccessfully operated PHL-MXP in the late 2000s/early 2010s. All of AA's JFK services have little connecting traffic, so moving them to PHL would be foolhardy. Nor do I see AA moving PHL's Atlantic services to JFK, since PHL relies primarily on connecting traffic. It would make sense to move service from PHL to JFK only if that service would otherwise be cancelled -- for example, if PHL-TLV is underperforming, but AA did not wish to exit the TLV market, it may choose to launch JFK-TLV instead. Otherwise, new service from JFK would be organic.
OTOH, I do not see how the merger greatly improved AA's position in NYC. In fact, US just traded away most of its LGA assets for ownership of DCA slots it had been long leasing from DL (and previously NW). Competition in the NYC market is fierce, much of the market is stagnate and thus successful new services are more-or-less cannibalizing the competition. Any build-up of the market would require a lot of capital and a lot of patience (and Parker has sometimes been intolerant toward patience). I expect that over the next 3-5 years, AA will be vested in synergizing its network; the new AA will likely have the biggest make over (in terms of hub composition) of the three mergers. As FWAAA and others have pointed out on this thread and in past discussions on NYC/JFK - JFK today is largely the way it is because it had to be this way given the old contracts and cost structure (on the international side you also had the addition of: poor financial performance leading to inability to sufficiently invest in the fleet to optimize config of 772s/763s and to finance the 75L conversions that DL and CO had years and years before AA could get them rolling out) Now that the cost and contract factors have been eliminated + 772/763 conversions, we will see JFK change. |
Originally Posted by WhatsInYourBackpack
(Post 22213618)
AA's reduced presence at JFK was not by choice - it was a result of circumstances. There seems to be some revisionist history going on (not directed at Bagels, but in general from what I have been reading).
As FWAAA and others have pointed out on this thread and in past discussions on NYC/JFK - JFK today is largely the way it is because it had to be this way given the old contracts and cost structure (on the international side you also had the addition of: poor financial performance leading to inability to sufficiently invest in the fleet to optimize config of 772s/763s and to finance the 75L conversions that DL and CO had years and years before AA could get them rolling out) Now that the cost and contract factors have been eliminated + 772/763 conversions, we will see JFK change. |
Originally Posted by Bagels
(Post 22213901)
Is it really "revisionist history" though? The reasons for AA's diminished position in NYC are irrelevant; all that matters is that AA's position is diminished. AA is not going to be able to pull the A300 from the desert and immediately start dominating SJU once again. Other airlines have heavily invested in NYC and while AA still has a large consumer base, it isn't nearly as large as it once was. Alas, new (resumed) service will require a lot of capital and a lot of patience to ensure success within the market. While NYC will likely see further expansion, I doubt aggressive expansion will be a short-term priority of the new HP dba AA.
|
Originally Posted by WhatsInYourBackpack
(Post 22212099)
I thought AA+EY hadn't changed since it started? Did I miss something?
http://www.etihad.com/en-us/about-us...o-los-angeles/ As some may remember, you cannot earn AA miles on EY coded routes from the USA and Canada. However, if you buy it under the AA codeshare (I've done this on AB from LAX), you get RDM, EQM, Bonus RDM, the whole deal (and 100% which is pretty interesting). I hope AA codeshares are priced the same as EY from LAX, but we shall see. http://www.aa.com/i18n/AAdvantage/ea...nes/etihad.jsp So basically every time EY adds a USA destination, this is truly good stuff for AA flyers to accrue EQMs and not just for RDM purposes. It is not hard to deny that Star Alliance and its carriers made Asia a priority, but I don't think oneworld made a mistake focusing on Europe/ME. I think ME's massive growth and connection capability is very credible. As a West Coast flyer, I am not so interested in flying a ME carrier to Asia (and have not as yet found cheap options via MH, but I am hopeful this will change), but for the Subcontinent, it is likely a better choice. I won't be sad to stop flying EK and accruing a measly 8000 tier miles in total for what should accrue something closer to 22000 tier miles. Yet another reason for T4 to TBIT connection to get done. Rasheed |
Isnt the JFK issue that slots are limited for prime TATL hours. What business person wants to leave JFK at 2PM to arrive in somewhere in Europe at 4AM. Same for South America.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 3:08 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.