BearX220

This is more stick than carrot for the slice of the AS customer base that has to fly to the whole CONUS. (And I think UA proved this decade that an airline can't "compel" its core HVCs to put up with too much.)

It is weird to me that AS picks this moment to narrow its attractiveness. Yes, they need to raise awareness and book more journeys to the west coast corridor as well as from. No, this is not going to help -- it's going to drive those elsewhere-based customers to an all-AA or all-DL strategy.

Bear in mind that many of those weird AS point-to-point routes are tit-for-tat revenge action against DL, and I would expect the AS network to rationalize around SEA, SFO and LAX as that emotion subsides.

eponymous_coward

Why should AA expand service out of SFO and not JFK or ORD, where AA actually has hubs which make them considerably more compelling, as opposed to starting out as third banana with zero non-spoke routes?

I seriously doubt it was AS's choice other than the choice to purchase VX, which triggered this. I think AA was not interested in competition for their own elites for routes like SFO/LAX-ORD/JFK. Too much overlap. It was OK for SEA/PDX, but once California was part of the overall mix, AA decided to bow out of a closer partnership.

Aliquot

I doubt AS did the picking.

AS has always had more point-to-point routes than the big 3. The only ones that had anything to do with DL were the SLC ones. BOI-GEG, FAI-BRW, ABQ-SNA...etc have nothing to do with DL

ashill

+1

AS has had a lot of success with point to point routes with little or no competition. My impression is that even in their major hubs (SEA and PDX) they're much less dependent on connections than the big three are in ATL, ORD, DFW, PHL, IAH, MSP, and the like, largely due to geography (there are only so many trips for which SEA and PDX, as well as SFO and LAX, make any sense as a connecting point, particularly for an airline that's not feeding their own intercontinental flights) but also due to cost structure. When your network is more based on O&D traffic even in your hubs, you have more flexibility to operate point to point routes. And when you have a lower cost structure, you can be profitable in markets that don't generate much premium demand more easily.

beckoa

Agree this appears to be an AA initiated change...

FullFare

Well, the SF Bay Area is either the 3rd or 4th largest market in the country, and that should be worth a look, no? It's been continuing downhill out of SFO for us AA flyers for the past decade, with only the US merger looking like there are extra destinations (PHX, CLT, and PHL).

A real bummer is lack of an SFO-HNL route for us. AA's pullback out of SFO helped make a DM status flyer on DL out of me and my wife. (Disclosure, it was 2.5 continuous bad years on UA that was the trigger for that).

And, finally, flying to LAX (a vexing airport even on a good day) via regional jets just to get to many other places on AA has gotten very old. Just putting back the HNL route would appease me. Earning AS miles out of the Bay Area made flying doable. This divorce will cause many of us pain.

golfingboy

I want to point something out regarding T1 redevelopment. Terminal 1 always had 24 gates and will have 24 gates after the redevelopment, so there won't be any net gain of gates at SFO as result of this redevelopment.

Some airlines are using INTL terminal and they will be relocated to T1 along with AA. AS basically will move into T2 with VX replacing AA, so there won't be much room for growth for AS/VX since like you mentioned many airlines want to beef up a little at SFO (AA, DL, and WN).

eponymous_coward

My point is if you want to get into a shooting war for market share with UA (which is what moving into SFO is, we'll just ignore the fact that the airport can't physically handle THREE airlines using it as a hub + current service), you don't have to start from zero non-hub routes in a hub that already has someone nipping at their heels (AS/VX)... not to mention that WN is a player in the Bay Area too out of OAK/SJC (and they have enough SFO service that they aren't insubstantial). AA already has ORD, LAX and NYC where they could throw a bunch of new planes into the market if they really want to try and launch attacks on UA. Doesn't require them to build up a station.

And yes, it would be nice for AA loyalists in SFO to get a bunch of new nonstop AA routes. I bet free ice cream, ponies and million dollar checks would be nice too. A lot of our pipe dreams as flyers don't really have much to do with how you run a profitable airline well.

Fourteen gates at 7-8 flights a day... that's not insubstantial. That's not far behind what WN has at DAL (sixteen).

FWAAA

I predict that expansion by AA at SFO is as likely as UA expanding at DFW or ATL or AA expanding at IAH or ATL or IAD or BOS. In other words - notta chance. AA is currently the second biggest airline at SFO but will fall to third place with the AS-VX merger.

WN now has 18 gates at DAL with 10 flights a day each for a total of 180 flights.

I agree with you - attacking UA and AS at SFO would be a financial disaster.

golfingboy

Yes, but I think they already have close to the same amount of gates right now.

I do not think they will be able to deliver the same gate utilization level as WN does at DAL as SFO is a delay prone airport. Is the tradeoff of having more flights but high risk of delay with little chance of same day recovery worth it? Something AS will need to decide, but I won't be surprised if they settle for 1 hr turn times unlike WN's 30-40 minutes turn times.

Right now, the combined airline has around 125 flights a day with the recent expansion. Kind of already close to the max with almost 9 flights per day per gate once they move to T2.

This is why I feel there won't be any significant growth at SFO for AS/VX that some are predicting unless they can get more gates. Most of the growth will come from upgauging and eliminating some PNW redundancies. They will be a force at SFO for sure, but will be inferior to UA's offering at SFO.

Regarding AA - I agree there won't be any meaningful expansion at SFO. The new terminal 1 will have widebody capable gates that can accommodate the A380 with a secure connector to customs, so I could see BA/QF using those gates to centralize operations with AA (reduce expenses) and building a large shared lounge. That is probably going to be the extent of the AA/OW "expansion" at SFO.

GSP flyer

If they were to get a bit adventurous, I could see BOS-SFO, and if they ever got another beyond perimiter slot for it, DCA-SFO, but that's about it.

formeraa

I agree that AA won't significantly expand in SFO. There might be some minor adjustments, but no large expansion. AA has "right-sized" the PHX, reducing frequencies in some West Coast markets. I wonder if they will reverse some of those decisions when the partnership with AS is gone. It wouldn't be a huge number of flights, but just reinstating a few of the eliminated flights.

tphuang

I thought there were going to be other carriers like B6/HA/SY also moving into T2 after AA moves out. If AA moves to T1, there won't be space for any more airlines. T3 is united and they are not going to allow any more airlines to come in. Unless SFO is okay with domestic airlines out of international terminal permanently, the only place I can see for these 3 are T2 and that would take up at least 3 gates.

Just looking at today, VX has 65 flights out of SFO and AS has 21, so 86 in total. Those new route announcement might put it close to 100, which is probably the max for the forseeable future.

AA could at least start to improve its SFO position by bringing back main line on LAX-SFO.

JDiver

Mentioned rather prominently in the Wikipost at the top of the page; reciprocal lounge access will continue, at this point.

ashill

My AA eticket receipts always list my baggage allowance accounting for elite status as the ticketed bag allowance. That means it should apply no matter who operates the first segment, since whatever the eticket receipt says is supposed to be binding according to DOT rules. Anyone know if this is likely to continue? If so, that would mean that AA elites purchasing an AA*/AS codeshare should still have no bag fee as if the reciprocal bag fee waivers were still in place after January 1.