TrojanHorse

I hear you, being IAD/DCA based, OW is not the greatest for me to EUR either. although CO dropping IAD has taking some of the sting out of this.
Although the Asia stuff doesn't affect me, I'd definitely like to see a better domestic presence in another airline and well I'd agree our Euro options from DC just stink unless we could start using BA TATL

cstead

AA's hubs just aren't conducive to extensive Asia Ops - they're too far, and LAX is overly saturated. The only routes I can really see them going for are ORD-HKG and the expanded NRT flying they want(think about NW in Europe - its CDG, AMS, and what, 2 other cities? Works for them). More realistically, they should concentrate on working with CX to expand to ORD and possibly DFW.

Really, if AA wants to look towards Asia more, they should look at BR, MH and MU. BR already has a codeshare relationship with AA to TPE, and CO will likely IMO get rid of theirs upon admission to *A. AA can push for further codesharing with BR, and focus on pushing some stateside traffic to them. I'm not sure what will happen to the MH-NW relationship with the DL merger, but I my understanding is that MH is not slated to enter ST anytime soon. MH is so highly underrated and overlooked because of their geographic location and lack of alliance membership. But they do offer some good connectivity to that part of SE Asia, much as TG and SQ cover this area well for *A. Lastly, there's MU. With CA and FM recently entering *A, this puts even more pressure on OW to do something about getting MU into the fold. CX and KA do a good job of connecting to HKG to China, as does JL to NRT, but that's not the same as P2P intra-China flights.

AA currently lacks the aircraft, not to mention this isn't the environment to take big risks, so expanding and growing codeshares is going to be the way AA is going to expand in Asia.

billgrates3

AA has codeshares with SN, and the combination of BA and SN covers a lot of Africa. Probably only AirFrance is better for Africa coverage.

Tango

This will be in the next round of cost savings---cheap fares will get few if any miles. It is not logical but when are the airlines logical?

bdemaria

If you check the board for CO, you'll find lots of complaints there too, esp. w/regard to European destinations.

bdemaria

BA I can envision, WN - not so much.

jabrams72

1) Add AS (this should hopefully happen sooner rather than later now)

2) BA/AA revised agreement

3) Add SN and 9W (and SU) all together for 2010

4) After US goes belly-up, use the position vis-a-vis *A to buy key assets (but none of the staff)

chj

Integrated TATL operation with BA, while I may wish for it, may not be what many posters on this forum want. First, I know BA quite well, and the ethos of the BAEC is very much geared towards H fare and up passengers. They are simply not going to give meaningful status miles to AA flyers on fares below H/T (T fares are cheap Y+, about $1,500 roundtrip JFK-LHR, H fares are the same as on AA, flexible Y, about $2,000 roundtrip JFK-LHR). They also do not allow upgrades from Y to J, or from cheap Y to Y+. So even if AA elites could "earn and burn" on BA, and even if that included mileage upgrades (which is not, of course, guaranteed), AA fliers would not see much benefit unless their points-to-miles ratio was pretty close to 1.5 to 1.

Also, I would not be surprised to see some division of US destinations into "A market" and "B market" with the former (JFK and ORD by way of example) seeing more BA and less AA metal, and the latter (MCO, TPA, perhaps even MIA) shifting over entirely to AA. If BA could shift its current Gatwick "B market" longhaul operation onto AA at T3 that would be a big win for them. It would also allow some real capacity reduction TATL by both airlines while retaining frequency and nonstop destinations for the high-value passengers who demand those things. The extra planes could be deployed to Asia or used to displace less efficient types.

Finally, being able to use BA transatlantic would allow AA to attack the "sick men" of the US aviation scene. AA could expand in PHL, PHX, DEN, IAD, and SFO, all of which are served by BA TATL. This would really put the screws on UA and US. The final blow would be redeploying some of the grounded MD-80s on DCA-LGA-BOS and making the service hourly. Getting US and UA into Chapter 7 ASAP should be AAs first priority at this point.

malcolmkettering

Isn't this CO's strategy? Be there with open arms and wallets when UA dissolves?

As mentioned earlier, for Europe AA needs to compensate IB to allow 100% AAdvantage earning on all fare classes or wildly expand codeshare availability and add some major new options for transit through MAD and BRU.

Could AA redeploy 763s and put in LAX-MAD, DFW-MAD, JFK-MAD and ORD-MAD? LAX-MAD could replace the seasonal 2nd LAX-LHR for instance and that 777 could be used for a new Asia route. IB has at least two banks of flights to all European capitals each day, plus one or two to N. Africa and Middle East. This is underexploited by AA, there is tons of capacity at MAD. For N. Europe, also maybe DFW-BRU and/or MIA-BRU connecting to SN.

Hate to broach the subject, but couldn't some of the 763s currently running SFO-JFK and HNL be better utilized in this manner and replaced with 757s (gasp!)? At least those 757s could be the first with the redesigned interior to take the sting out a bit.

chj

I think you misunderstand the nature of these arrangements. AA doesn't pay IB to give its frequent fliers miles, rather IB buys or trades for AA miles in order to make its flights more attractive to AAdvantage members, and vice versa. AFAIK, IB members do not earn full miles on cheap fares on any airline, and IB clearly doesn't feel it needs to give full AAdvantage miles to sell its cheap seats. Pretty much all-non-US programs are like this. Not uncoincidentally, non-US airlines are also very much more profitable.

In a world of $135 oil, deep discount economy passengers should quit whining about miles/benefits and feel lucky to be on the plane.

Boraxo

This is just silly. You are at one of UA's largest international hubs. Why would you expect good options on AA? Do you think UA flyers have good options from DFW?

Not that I can't sympathize as our AA options are also limited here at SFO (not to mention the recent erasure of OAK from the AA map).

As for the heinous BA policy on TATL miles, that is often erroneously blamed on the regulators but I'd bet BA and AA would have no problems providing miles (as UA/LH do) in the current environment - they just choose not to as the planes are already full.

CO FF

by the way, what do people think about a 2009 return of AADER? Timed, maybe, for 8 months after the DL-NW merger date (since IIRC, CO needs 9 months' to get out of ST)?

yellow77

OT: that isn't much of a reason since CO has listed TUS-EWR service to be cut this fall.

KD5MDK

3 US members to an alliance is too much. CO is probably expecting UA or US (or both!) to die and they'll reap the rewards of being the dominant American partner in *A.

malcolmkettering

OK, I don't profess to know all the ins-and-outs of the airline marketing deals, but to take your point about $135 oil, all airlines need to think outside the box. The old days are over and almost everything has changed except: customer loyalty. It is the only thing they have left.

If AA can only make money on international, then they need to do what they can to improve their international operations without investing money they don't have on a bunch of new planes. Wouldn't one way be to steer more traffic over the Atlantic by offering better terms to AAdvantage members and thus undercutting what's offered by DL, CO, UA and the flag carriers? If it isn't feasible to offer 100% mileage on partners' flights, then certainly AA can increase the number of code share routes and the number of available seats in order to create more 'capacity' on international.