TheBOSman

Was NZ AKL-ORD. The 787-9 just doesn't have commercially viable range for ORD-SYD, and DFW is a better connecting hub anyway.

I'd also guess LAX-BNE or LAX-MEL, though there have been rumblings of DFW-MEL. DFW-MEL is only about 250 miles shorter than ORD-SYD though so there might be some weight penalty, but I think it would make more sense than ORD-SYD. There are just so few markets served only out of ORD compared to DFW, and DFW is more convenient to a lot of larger markets served from both, like IAH/MCO/MIA/Central America.

ashill

I certainly agree re ORD-SYD. It's possible that AA/QF think a 789 is a better match to SYD-DFW than the current A380, if a 789 can do that nonstop (I don't know). QF did upgauge the route from a 747, but that may have more an indication that the loads/revenue on the 747 were good enough so that the ability to do it nonstop both ways outweighed the A380 being too much capacity. If that's the case, an AA 789 makes sense. If not, seems unlikely. I know the A380s are pretty heavily weight restricted such that they have to keep 100 empty seats in coach (which makes for a relatively comfortable ride in the back). If AA replaces some or all of the SYD-DFW frequencies, QF could up SFO from 6x to 7x weekly, for example.

But assuming a second Australia route would be out of LAX, any idea if it's likely to replace/augment existing QF service (MEL or BNE) or allow a new city (operated by either QF or AA)? CBR and CNS seem like the least-implausible new cities for LAX service, and both seem like long shots; both would probably have to be 787, not 77W/747/A380 markets, which would argue for AA operating.

TheBOSman

If they were going to open a new (as in not MEL/SYD/BNE) Australian city out of LAX I have absolutely no idea what it would be. ADL would be among the largest markets in Australia not currently served (PER would be larger but that is zero chance as it is even longer than ORD-SYD, unless the mining market came back with an absolute and almost unprecedented vengeance), but CNS is much closer (about 1000 miles closer than ADL) and might make some sense purely for that reason. I don't know if there's enough of a market in the north Queensland area for a regular LAX service though, and AA has shown little interest in doing anything less than daily so I doubt that AA would go 4x weekly as an example. I highly doubt it would be CBR before ADL, CBR is just too small of a market and much of the CBR market is Australian government related travel. CBR is just getting their first international service in quite a while now, SQ starting to SIN, but even then CBR is basically splitting it with WLG as SQ is flying SIN-CBR-WLG-CBR-SIN.

QF still needs a 747 daily flight to LAX in order to fly their LAX-JFK-LAX flight (I doubt they want to go A380 on this), which is normally the LAX-BNE plane. So, I would guess LAX-MEL, replacing the extra 747 frequency that QF currently operates on LAX-MEL.

Fanjet

I would love to see something like LAX-Brisbane-Adelaide. As well as LAX-Melbourne.

As for ORD-SYD, it has very little market purpose. Sure, it makes it easier for someone traveling from MSN to SYD. But there are probably very few people trying to do so to begin with. And most of the larger cities in the eastern 1/3 of the U.S. already have nonstop service to LAX (and DFW). Plus, the additional CASMs for such a long route would be very hard to justify.

jmr50

I'd be interested in seeing some more diverse service to western Europe from JFK. Can they not make AMS or BRU work? Or any city in Germany (FRA? MUC? HAM? TXL?) Nothing at all in Northern Europe (CPH, ARN)?

American serves LHR, ZRH, BCN, MAD, FCO, EDI, DUB, MXP, MAN, BHX, and CDG. That's 11 destinations in summer 2016.

Delta covers DUB, SNN, MAN, EDI, LHR, CDG, BRU, AMS, BCN, AGP, MAD, NCE, MXP, VCE, FCO, ATH, ZRH, FRA, CPH, ARN, PRG, IST, even KEF and TLV as a bonus. That's 24 destinations in summer 2016.

United covers DUB, SNN, GLA, EDI, MAN, BHX, LHR, CDG, BRU, AMS, GVA, ZRH, BCN, FCO, LIS, HAM, FRA, TXL, MUC, MXP, FCO, VCE, ATH, OSL, ARN, and TLV. That's 26 destinations in summer 2016.

I get that the old AA didn't make NYC O&D a goal, but they're going to force us NYC folks to jump ship if they don't start putting a little emphasis on this market. Zero Asia service! And just EZE and GRU?

Longboater

DFW-MEL would face similar problems as its almost 9,000 miles. QF hasn't detailed what their planned configuration is for the 787-9, but if they want to open routes that would be the longest nonstops in the world (Until SQ resumes EWR-SIN), they better plan on having around 200 pax.

QF recently made DFW-SYD daily, up from six times a week. The loads over the past few months have been pretty solid with the high season to Australia. I think its pretty safe to say that QF will be keeping DFW-SYD as it is and adding DFW-BNE/MEL could potentially cannibalise the route. I personally don't see the obsession over adding routes to Australia/New Zealand outside of the West Coast. The market is just isn't there. DFW/IAH are the beneficiaries of the only nonstops down under outside of the West Coast because of geography and being fortress hubs for respective airline partners.

Based on comments from management, it sounds like all future expansion across the Pacific will be from LAX, with the exception of AA looking to add a second HND frequency. I seriously doubt AA would contemplate adding ADL/CBR before QF. I doubt CBR would sustain an even less than daily nonstop to North America but ADL is definitely a route QF may consider with the 787-9, especially if its lower density.

As for AA, I think either LAX-BNE or LAX-MEL would be the next. BNE is only served by LAX on QF/VA but zero competition on the US side while MEL has UA's LAX-MEL to compete with but VA ended their LAX-MEL nonstop a few years ago. I'd give a slight edge to LAX-MEL but I wouldn't be surprised if its LAX-BNE. I do see AA operating both routes four years from now.

ashill

That strikes me as very unlikely. Why do a tag when QF already serves ADL well via any of the three US gateways? There's no utilization reason, since timing allows planes flying USA-Australia-USA to sit on the ground for as little time as it takes to turn them around anyway (unlike Australia-USA-Australia, at least with the usual flight timing).

Even MSN already has good one-stop service via DFW. It's only a handful of very small markets that would benefit from ORD-SYD. I think we all agree that that idea makes no sense.

The main advantage of switching more AA/QF Australia flights to AA is probably utilization: AA doesn't have to either sit their planes in Australia for many hours or find a tag to keep them busy, whereas QF does in the US (west coast; much less so at DFW).

That utilization argument is, to me, yet another strong reason that I expect any additional AA-operated Oz flights to be from LAX.

Fanjet

There is a direct QF route between ADL and the U.S.?

Austin787

AA doesn't have enough JFK slots (at least prime time slots) to expand JFK significantly. With the competition in NYC, maybe AA believes it's not worth fighting for a bigger NYC share and instead prefers to concentrate its Trans Atlantic network in PHL, where they have a monopoly.

TheBOSman

I think the poster means the Australian gateways to the USA, i.e. MEL/SYD/BNE, and not the gateways in the USA.

DA201

AA only operates a hub at JFK/LGA because the city has so much O&D traffic. They will only operate routes that can be essentially all O&D, and will route connecting passengers through PHL. And of the routes they are operating, 7 of them (LHR, BCN, MAD, EDI, DUB, MAN, BHX) have codeshares from overseas flag carriers that enable more passengers (BA and IB). This is unlike DL and UA, who both operate actual hubs at LGA/JFK and EWR respectively.

AA also relies heavily on partners for international travel in general. They operate the least amount of flights to Asia out of the big three. They also heavily rely on BA connections at LHR and JL connections at NRT for most of their European and Asian traffic. Their strategy is Origin-AA hub-Partner hub-destination. Some of the new routes they are offering show that they may be shifting from this strategy, which would be good news.

Fanjet

So having to connect at MEL/SYD/BNE to get to/from ADE and the U.S. is somehow a better alternative to flying direct ADE-BNE-LAX as part of a tag-on service? AA serves LAX-JFK quite well with multiple frequencies. But QF still flies a tag-on flight on this route.

TheBOSman

There would likely be no local traffic rights for ADL-BNE if AA flew it. The tag flight is not much different than just flying ADL-MEL/SYD/BNE-LAX as exists already. QF also is connecting passengers from multiple of their LAX flights to/from the LAX-JFK flight. AA wouldn't be connecting from multiple of their own flights at BNE, and more of the other connections would go through MEL/SYD anyway (MEL/SYD also have 40-50% of Australia's entire population and probably an even higher percentage of the business traffic). The only connections that BNE works better for are the north Queensland locations (i.e. CNS, TSV, most of the others are much smaller than those two), and DRW but DRW is quite small and also served from MEL and SYD.

QF also does well with the cargo on LAX-JFK, and it utilizes a frame that would otherwise just sit at LAX all day accruing parking charges. AA can easily fly LAX-BNE-LAX without having the plane sit at BNE all day, so this isn't a concern. I wouldn't be surprised to see AA take over LAX-BNE for QF in the long term, depending on how QF wants to get a plane to LAX for LAX-JFK-LAX, as that is normally the BNE flight's plane as it is now.

Fanjet

UA flew a tag from SYD to MEL for several years until they took delivery of 789s.
Adding a BNE-ADE-BNE tag-on wouldn't require that aircraft to sit on the ground for much time in Australia, either. That would only be an issue if AA would want that BNE-LAX segment to arrive first thing in the morning. If they are OK with that flight arriving around noon, it would work fine.

ashill

That flight was aggregating passengers from two UA flights to SYD, not just one. Also, since UA has no Australian partner, when they had no nonstop (couldn't make it work with a 747), they had no choice but a tag if they wanted to serve MEL. AA isn't in that situation.

The point is that QF's choices are a) plane sits in LAX all day doing nothing or b) plane flies to JFK and back.

AA's choices are a) plane continues to ADL (not ADE), spending minimal time on the ground but delaying the flight back to LAX and thus the next lucrative long haul that plane could be operating or b) plane turns around without a tag, also spending minimal time on the ground.

That's just the way the flight times and time zones work to Oz.

ADL is a much, much smaller city than SYD or MEL. There's just not the demand for AA to delay the return of a 77W or 789 to the US. The idea makes no sense at all.