george 3

JL is in T1 and is part of the consortium that owns the leasehold. However it would be nice for it to join its fellow OW partners under an expanded T8 roof.

Himeno

Is there scope to tunnel under the JFK expressway and turn a rebuilt T7 into a new concourse of T8?

jmr50

I think the plan would be to finish T8. Here's the original design:

http://www.airport-technology.com/pr...ages/1-jfk.jpg

The main terminal building can have a mirror image with more gates, most of them wide body capable. If they planned it from the outset, I assume they could make several 388 capable too.

They could also add some additional winglets for 738s and those RJs they just ordered. There should be plenty of capability to both house OneWorld partners and grow AA's presence there.

The bigger challenge is slots.

Microwave

This was also mentioned upthread; I mentioned JL as they are in a JBV with AA and it would seem to make sense from a customer perspective to have such partners in one place.

dtremit

Dallas only has one business meeting that standard.

You do realize the INC5000 only considers private companies, right?

perseus11

The PHL airport facility is no where near capacity for international departures/arrivals, if you're referring to that. My comment is primarily based on a premise that international routes will increase as more OW connecting traffic is routed via PHL, rather than JFK. Yes, PHL is already filling it's international flights with passengers from other locations, but from the much smaller US Airways (volume) network and with a much weaker alliance affiliation - e.g., NO JV relationships. Obviously, you're not going to get NYC O&D traffic through PHL, or anywhere else. My belief is that Parker is not going to just duplicate the AA pre-bankruptcy method of operation - e.g., the "cornerstone strategy". He'll likely concentrate on the cost of doing business at each hub versus the real profit levels of its O&D - e.g., it's supremely more expensive to operate at JFK versus PHL. That fact alone could very well be the basis for routing domestic-international connecting traffic via PHL, rather than JFK.

Yep. and has 5x the competition for that O&D than does PHL or CLT (for their O&D).

If I knew how to make JFK-LAX profitable, I'd have Parker's job.

Just a general observation, not related to this singular post. Seems to me that a lot of the expert refuting comments to these FF layman's Speculations are based on the Old, pre-merger AA way of doing business. My bet is that Parker will have little patience with routes/hubs and fluff, which do not produce acceptable financial results and without hesitation will back away from the competition in those cases. IMO, unless it can be proven that existing AA methodology, routes, hubs are producing a profit, everything presented here, including dissenting comments is pure speculation.

JPG3392

Thanks for this information about Vueling. I wasn't aware of their expansion, and it's helpful to know. What will help me get across the water is that the new AA will fly DCA-BOS and DCA-LGA. BOS has transatlantic flights on AA and IB, and LGA can be used to get to and from JFK.

pbarnette

BOS? BOS is tough and will remain tough. B6 is firmly entrenched at this point, Massport supports them like nobody's business, they have a pretty big terminal all to themselves when UA leaves, and a pretty strong brand. International? you have what might be the single most crowded long-haul market of any city, when you adjust for the size of the market, and it will get more crowded. DL, especially, also has some strength there with a pretty strong international network and UA has some strength in the TCON traffic.

Frankly, I'd think you will see the new AA retrench a little bit, maybe add a service or two here or there (domestic, methinks, not long-haul), but scale back some of the US regional stuff.

chasgoose

Exactly. Phoenix isn't a huge business center by any means, but it's not like some barren wasteland either. Freeport McMoran is one of the largest mining companies in the world to mention one. Also, even though it doesn't have the banking industry like CLT does, it's metro area is about twice the size and unlike CLT, people outside the PHX metro area have no real options for air travel outside of PHX (AZA doesn't really count given that its entirely leisure travelers and most flights from TUS connect through PHX anyways). Not to mention that PHX has a lot more O&D than CLT. Finally, even though PHX is a tourist destination, a lot of tourism comes from corporate conventions/retreats/meetings which are a different type of passenger.

I would compare PHX to DEN in terms of size/businesses/etc. If UA has managed to keep DEN going when its surrounded by SFO and LAX (with a similar amount of flights as AA) on one side and IAH and ORD (with almost 3x as many flights as AA) on the other, not to mention a rapidly expanding WN operation, certainly AA should be able to maintain the current level of service in PHX (which is a smaller operation than UA's in DEN) with only LAX (that can't really expand) on the west and ORD and DFW to the east.

I'm not saying PHX is going to expand or suddenly get a bunch of new flights and new international flights are pretty much a pipe dream (at most I could see an extra LHR flight, maybe a flight to SCL given the mining connections, and mayyyyybe a 787 to NRT on JL, but probably none of these are going to happen), but it's not going the way of STL/MEM/CVG/CLE. Shutting down PHX would essentially cede mountain west/west coast connections to UA and DL and cut needed service to a relatively large population.

GaryZ

And create a massive void that WN would surely fill - a fact that seems to have been mostly left out of the discussion.

jmr50

Sorry, many of my best resources aren't public. It's still not a major center for business travel. Golf alone doesn't make an airline

ty97

AA is a public company, so you can look at the financials for proof of profitability or lack thereof.

You are correct that basically everything in this thread is speculation. The thread title is "Routes and Hubs (Speculation Discussion)" so that seems entirely appropriate.

ty97

AA flies DCA-JFK also. Save yourself the pain of transferring LGA-JFK!

ty97

It does seem inevitable that WN would ramp up PHX if AA draws down there. However, I don't expect that WN's potential reaction will factor into AA's decision making. Parker and Co will make the determination whether or not there is enough profit for AA to maintain PHX service at current levels. If yes, service continues. If not, service draws down. (NB: I have no clue what this answer will actually be). AA's leaders need to focus on AA's profits, not potential increased profits at WN.

jmr50

I think you're right on comparing PHX and DEN. UA has made DEN a solid domestic hub, but international efforts have been mixed: DEN-LHR doesn't stick, a couple of flights to Mexico and Canada exist, but NRT is really the only intercontinental flight at the moment. And the story there is still a question mark.

It's fine - United needs the domestic connections, especially to smaller markets in the west, and DEN serves its purpose. So can PHX. Doesn't mean we'll ever see PHX-HKG, and that's perfectly fine.