sdsearch

The other thing AA has to wait for at LAX is gates. They're going to have 4 gates at TBIT (next door to T4) with an airside connector once all that construction is finished. But that's going to be when?

Longboater

I last saw this was going to be 2016 when they receive the 4 guaranteed gates at TBIT. With LAX expanding over the next decade, American's access to gates will allow the airline to greatly enlarge its hub. Combined with 787/A350s arriving, LAX will become American's primary Pacific hub as previously stated by Parker/Kirby on more than one occasion.

ashill

Although they both flew it with A330s or 747s. This seems like the kind of route that a 787 would be a very good fit for -- maybe the bigger planes were just too much capacity? I assume AA and the Qantas group would up the AA/JQ partnership to a full-fledged one if AA started this route, which would be in cooperation with JBV partner Qantas. And airfares to Australia and New Zealand are a heck of a lot higher than they were a few years ago.

Yeah, I assume the schedule would be not too different than LAX-SYD: leave LAX late Monday night, arrive first thing Wednesday morning. Then leave midday Wednesday and arrive in LAX first thing Wednesday. So the aircraft leaves LAX late Monday night and is back early Wednesday morning. So 2.0 airframes as an absolute maximum if the plane sits on the ground all day at LAX, which there's no chance of.

This is another reason why it makes more sense for AA to run the route than QF: the best schedule has the plane arriving in LAX in the morning and leaving LAX late at night. It's easy for AA to use the plane during the day in LAX, while QF has to sit it on the ground, since they can only run so many US domestic tag legs profitably.

Both the ABT and the stuff.co.nz article on which it's based are far from certain though: "American Airlines is running the numbers on Los Angeles-Auckland". That hardly sounds like a firm rumor to me.

3544quebec

Sheep don't get much pocket money.

nall

I'm sure they're running the numbers of lots of routes, many of which will never see the light of day.

JonNYC

It's funny how some people think such a report makes this a fait accompli-- there have been SO many routes rumored every bit this strongly that never came to pass. This rumor has been very strongly reported on airliners.net as well, adding to much of the "push" for/behind this rumor.

Longboater

Do you anticipate American flying their own metal to Australia/New Zealand within the next five years?

JonNYC

Five years a very long time, I'd take a pass on that prediction.

As far as the immediate future (say next 12-18 months), I still see AA metal to AKL in particular as unlikely and have been told as much many times. The printed report certainly gives me some doubt in my position, but I still don't see it.

I go to New Zealand once a year-- sometimes more-- and I have a very nice car there, in Wellington, 'aint too many people who'd love to see this rumor pan out much more than me!

Longboater

I assume American has much higher priorities for LAX-Pacific flying than AKL. When does American receive access to the four gates they are guaranteed at TBIT? I thought it was next year but I could be mistaken.

Col Ronson

AA will not fly to aus because any direct competition with QF will require a reevaluation of the JBV by the government. The AKL route makes most sense because it does not compete with QF and it provides them with feeder traffic as well. Australia is already well served with a lot of capacity from QF.

When AA starts LAX routes with the 787 this will make perfect sense. I.e. A Monday night departure and Wednesday morning arrival/return would give enough TAT for an onwards to either Europe or Asia im the afternoon

ashill

What makes you say this would be in competition with QF? Doesn't the JBV include US-NZ traffic?

From the AA press release announcing the JBV (emphasis added):

Col Ronson

I think you misunderstood.

I said AA will not fly to Australia: meaning syd,bne,Mel. All those routes are served by QF so if AA flies to any of those cities it will be in competition with QF and thus require the govt to reevaluate the JBV. Flying to AKL provides AA a means of flying to that region and thus avoiding any JBV Issues.

Honestly I would prefer to fly AA down under simply because international wifi. Even though UA and ek are onboard with it, QF is like nah.

FWAAA

I assume that the government would approve of AA flying US-Australia as part of the JBA. That said, I doubt that SYD or MEL is a high priority for AA.

Application of AA and QF: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2011-0111-0001

DOT Order: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2011-0111-0010

Col Ronson

Yes there's no reason why AA and QF can't both fl to aus. DL/VA do it so the government would probably approve AA/QF. But AA seems content to let QF do all the flying for them and every experience they've had flying to Australia in the past has failed for them. My wager would be QF will let AA do AKL flying for them with a QF tag while AA will continue to let QF do their flying to aus with the same code shares.

Longboater

I don't see why the government would deny American flying to Australia in a renegotiated JBA with Qantas. With a new pilot agreement that allowed DFW-PEK/PVG/HKG due to flight length, 62 787/A350s coming online by the end of the decade, and management committed to expanding LAX-Pacific flying, I would assume Australia/New Zealand is in American's long term plans, but not next year.