AA / US ends PHL-TLV flights 4 Jan 2016 (consolidated)
#46
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA (BOS)
Programs: AA PLT 2MM, DL Gold, UA Silver, Marriott Ambassador + LT Plat, COFC Venture X, HHonors Diamond
Posts: 5,585
Outrageous. Only somewhat valuable component of USAIR gone, and besides standalone AA would have gone anyway from MIA. We have less than a 90-day window to book SWU travel.
Have to wonder how the BDS types will be celebrating.
Have to wonder how the BDS types will be celebrating.
#47
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Matre-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
A BoD decision of this kind generally does not imply micromanagement or intruding into executive decision making on its own. IMO, this talk is unsubstantiated and clouds the true issues.
The usual, and there's no reason to suspect this decision is any different, is revenue analysis drives management decision making which results in a report to the BoD recommending a certain action.
The implication here is loads might have been high, but revenue never was.
There's no other reason an airline would cancel a route, unless there was a political reason or action on the ground that would imperil airline passengers, employees or materiel. And in this case, the latter don't wash as reasons for cancelation of a six year route that has otherwise been a "feather in the hat" route.
The usual, and there's no reason to suspect this decision is any different, is revenue analysis drives management decision making which results in a report to the BoD recommending a certain action.
The implication here is loads might have been high, but revenue never was.
There's no other reason an airline would cancel a route, unless there was a political reason or action on the ground that would imperil airline passengers, employees or materiel. And in this case, the latter don't wash as reasons for cancelation of a six year route that has otherwise been a "feather in the hat" route.
#48
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
I provided some background in this thread as well: AA Metal (AA color scheme US metal) at TLV
Mods may want to merge the two...
Mods may want to merge the two...
#49
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Matre-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
You certainly called it, and in spite of that route's dedicated advocates (everyone remained respectful ^).
I've redacted the recurring links.
/Moderator
#50
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
Can't say it enough, super-impressed with YtravelF's fore-knowledge on this. Very very popular on FT to state with an air of authority "XXX-XXX is among AA's most profitable routes.." (Along with "it's always full!").
I had no idea the TLV route was -so- unprofitable-- and certainly wouldn't have known it from the posts confidently indicating otherwise.
I had no idea the TLV route was -so- unprofitable-- and certainly wouldn't have known it from the posts confidently indicating otherwise.
#51
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYF/YLW
Programs: AA, DL, AS, VA, WS Silver
Posts: 5,950
I wonder if, in addition to much-higher costs at post-merger US and the cited falling fares, BA is a factor. Does the AA/BA/IB/AY joint venture include TLV? If so, post-merger US/AA can still fly passengers to TLV just on BA, IB, or AY metal, an option that wasn't available to pre-merger US. This might make them less willing to absorb losses on the route in hopes that the fare situation will improve.
(This is pure speculation on a route about which I know little.)
(This is pure speculation on a route about which I know little.)
#52
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
Much of that thread was about the end of TLV service, so the threads have been merged, retitled and a permanent trailing link left in the USpm / LUS forum.
You certainly called it, and in spite of that route's dedicated advocates (everyone remained respectful ^).
I've redacted the recurring links.
/Moderator
You certainly called it, and in spite of that route's dedicated advocates (everyone remained respectful ^).
I've redacted the recurring links.
/Moderator
Or I wouldnt put it past AA do do another TW move, on 1 hand say we will continue flying till 1/16 and then make the 10/15 flight out of TLV the last one. Dont forget TW claimed MX for the reason the JFK-TLV didnt go, when the real reason was there was a plane on the ground in TLV and they didnt want it to be held. Of cause the 10/15 from PHL will go MX and not fly so that the plane in TLV will beable to fly out since it will still be a US and not AA flight
So much for all those who claimed AA was gonna start up MIA-TV,ORD-TLV and move PHL to JFK
Now if its true that the flights have been losing $$ all along, why didnt AA simply pull the plug long before this as it has done with other flights? Me thinks its back to AA not willing to pay off TWAs old debts and wanting to bring in as much $$ as they can before they know a plane will be held unless payment is made in full to what they agreed to a few months ago in the Israeli court.
#53
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Matre-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
Maybe thats why AA agreed to pay the old TWA bills still oustanding but never actually paid anything. It would cost them millions. I think even thou the plane is painted 'AA" and not "US" that since its still operated as US they cant/wont cease the plane. Now what will happen after 10/16 when its all "AA" is unknown unless AA has in writting promises that ceasing of a plane wont occur.
Or I wouldnt put it past AA do do another TW move, on 1 hand say we will continue flying till 1/16 and then make the 10/15 flight out of TLV the last one. Dont forget TW claimed MX for the reason the JFK-TLV didnt go, when the real reason was there was a plane on the ground in TLV and they didnt want it to be held. Of cause the 10/15 from PHL will go MX and not fly so that the plane in TLV will beable to fly out since it will still be a US and not AA flight
So much for all those who claimed AA was gonna start up MIA-TV,ORD-TLV and move PHL to JFK
Now if its true that the flights have been losing $$ all along, why didnt AA simply pull the plug long before this as it has done with other flights? Me thinks its back to AA not willing to pay off TWAs old debts and wanting to bring in as much $$ as they can before they know a plane will be held unless payment is made in full to what they agreed to a few months ago in the Israeli court.
Or I wouldnt put it past AA do do another TW move, on 1 hand say we will continue flying till 1/16 and then make the 10/15 flight out of TLV the last one. Dont forget TW claimed MX for the reason the JFK-TLV didnt go, when the real reason was there was a plane on the ground in TLV and they didnt want it to be held. Of cause the 10/15 from PHL will go MX and not fly so that the plane in TLV will beable to fly out since it will still be a US and not AA flight
So much for all those who claimed AA was gonna start up MIA-TV,ORD-TLV and move PHL to JFK
Now if its true that the flights have been losing $$ all along, why didnt AA simply pull the plug long before this as it has done with other flights? Me thinks its back to AA not willing to pay off TWAs old debts and wanting to bring in as much $$ as they can before they know a plane will be held unless payment is made in full to what they agreed to a few months ago in the Israeli court.
As someone else has pointed out, if the assumed debt were a problem, might not have a lien been slapped on a nice A330-200 already? AA-US has been under a single corporate roof and even single operating certificate for a while now. If the debt were such a concern, we'd wake up to a discontinuation announcement one morning, not an announcement serving as a red flag for a planned lien and impoundment of an aircraft or other resources.
It's all really much less complicated than it appears, I promise you.
Last edited by JDiver; Oct 12, 2015 at 8:26 am Reason: Typoe
#54
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
Then came 2008 and besides the situation on the ground keeping toursits away the cargo end especially last min where the $$ were great fell out as well. I dont know UAs #s today and know its not near what it once was, but UA still maintains 2 daily flights. Those guys wouldnt keep a flight in tact at the 1st sight of any Red #s
I may be wrong but when factoring in what AA will have to pay to settle TWAs debts no matter how small, with the increasing lower profits these days that might have KOed it
I remember having to get to London and the only availability was BOS-LGW on an A300 of some type. The plane had all of 12 passengers and not much more coming back. They were trying to snag a ton of cargo biz, which they never did and thusly pulled the route
#55
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,431
#56
Suspended
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: FIND ME ON TWITTER FOR THE LATEST
Posts: 27,730
The flight hadn't made money in a long time and there was no sign it ever would.
So they cancelled it.
Won't be the last long-haul international flight AA canceled in this cycle either.
Interesting reading here:
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=...&id=8b4a197134
So they cancelled it.
Won't be the last long-haul international flight AA canceled in this cycle either.
Interesting reading here:
http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=...&id=8b4a197134
#58
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 24,153
Methinks there's some catastrophization and much unnecessary speculation herein. AA's "debt", if it hasn't been wiped out by a statute of limitations, reorganization, etc. is $16 million - hardly much to pay if it means boatloads of revenue, particularly if there's even more to be made by expansion, e.g. JFK and MIA services to TLV. In fact, YtravelF has called it pretty accurately; this was always a dry well.
As someone else has pointed out, if the assumed debt were a problem, might not have a lien been slapped on a nice A3:0-200 already? AA-US has been under a single corporate roof and even single operating certificate for a while now. If the debt were such a concern, we'd wake up to a discontinuation announcement one morning, not an announcement serving as a red flag for a planned lien and impoundment of an aircraft or other resources.
It's all really much less complicated than it appears, I promise you.
As someone else has pointed out, if the assumed debt were a problem, might not have a lien been slapped on a nice A3:0-200 already? AA-US has been under a single corporate roof and even single operating certificate for a while now. If the debt were such a concern, we'd wake up to a discontinuation announcement one morning, not an announcement serving as a red flag for a planned lien and impoundment of an aircraft or other resources.
It's all really much less complicated than it appears, I promise you.
I just cant believe (and I can be wrong) that the BoD or whomever didnt go everything with a fine tooth comb well before today.Then knew from get go where they were making $$ and where they werent. So fine they were losing $ so why didnt they pull the plug way before this? Not restarting up after last summers Azza War would have been a great time, yes its possible they were busy with the Hubs rather then individual routes, but it doesnt make sense to me that they would continue flying a route where they claim they were losing tons of $$.
And its very possible they were losing $$ on it, but why then agree to pay off TWAs debts a few months ago and why keep running the route if your losing so much? Is what I dont understand and sorry I can be wrong AA may just be using a play out of TWAs play book and claim what they may and that the flight will continue till 1/16 and then on 10/15 announce thats it. Since the Holidays end on 10/6 and its Peak time (fares) they probably want to take it all in but after the 15th it gets slow till the winter holidays, why lose millions to make a few thousand, sorry that doesnt make sense to me
. Unless they crunched the #s and will be profitable till 1/16 overall
And Ye Ole FT Saying still rings true, '.. just cause a flight is packed doesnt mean its turning a profit..'.
Just wanted to add I could understand it all if AA took over US, but thats not what happened,US took over US and Parker was the CEO of US and is the CEO of the new AA. So the CEO had to know what the story was all along and most Carriers KO a route way before 5 yrs passes w/o making any $$ on it. To claim you lost $$ every year but kept flying it anyways just doesnt make sense to me, I would have shut it a long time ago. Im not saying they were making $$ or enough $$ but 1+1 isnt = 2 in this case at least to me. But that doesnt change anything AA wont be paying off the TWA debt as it agreed to and will stop flying into TLV
Last edited by craz; Aug 20, 2015 at 1:34 pm
#59
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,431
The Israeli court case was Ezra Berman v Trans World Airlines, Inc., Tel Aviv District Court 1225/01, 2001(1) 29448. A related case was Insolvency Case - Trans World Airlines 2005(4) 10352.
Some of the details are described in the book Private International Law in Israel by Talia Einhorn. Here is a link to the relevant page on Google Books. According to Ms. Einhorn, the court ordered that the Israeli assets of TWA be seized and sold to pay the Israeli employees in a similar manner to that used to pay TWA's employees in France. After those claims were paid, any leftover proceeds from the sale of the assets were to be turned over to the US bankruptcy court trustee for distribution among all the other creditors on an equal basis.
There weren't enough assets in Israel to satisfy the court order. The balance is owed by the of estate Trans World Airlines, Inc., in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, not by American Airlines or its then parent AMR or its successor American Airlines Group.
#60
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: LAX
Programs: oneword Emerald
Posts: 20,431
Here is another source: