|
Originally Posted by jmr50
(Post 28802035)
A few observations as a NY-based, premium-heavy, domestic + international flyer:
- I fly both AA's A321T and B6's Mint product fairly regularly (roughly monthly) and split between the two. My preferences are basically AA F > > > B6 Mint > AA J -- the Mint/AA J product is fairly comparable (even with the Mint "suite", which I find awkward). I've found the AA food service roughly comparable to Mint, slightly worse in drinks. B6's AVOD is solidly worse than AA's (although occasionally live TV is a reason to prefer B6), and B6's internet is slightly better than AA. Lack of lounges is a problem for B6, although I try to minimize my time at the airport period. I split my travel about 60/40 between AA and B6, mostly on JFK/SFO (which neither have tons of flights on, but are CONSISTENTLY vs. United who has a crazy assortment of equipment, or DL who just seems to half-... that route). - I find the AA/BA mix on NYLON to be great from a "quantity of options" perspective, however BA isn't a great partner (anymore). Their aircraft are in poor condition on that route (albeit I still love the 747 upper deck) with a dated business class and no wifi (really? in 2017?!?). Food and alcohol quality has fallen off, JFK T7 is a ....-show of a terminal in many ways, and BA has made their connecting flights within Europe miserable to fly (Club Europe feels like "old BA" economy, and their new economy feels worse than Ryanair). I try to stick to the AA 77W as much as possible -- best hard product, solid wifi, great AVOD, and reasonably good food / alcohol in both J and F. Plus, you have a solid lounge on both the JFK (Flagship) and LHR end (CX) now. - Beyond London, I hate AA for int'l service. There are very few options from JFK and many are served by dismal 757 and 767 aircraft, neither of which I'll take if i can possibly avoid. There's no Asia service from JFK and not much S. America. I tend to fly other carriers non-stops -- preferring but not exclusively OneWorld. I actually like the IB A330s quite a bit (in spite of mediocre wifi), and AY isn't too bad either. AA isn't really a choice to most int'l destinations out of JFK. - Beyond JFK/LAX domestically: B6 Mint pretty much crushes everybody else on every route they fly it on -- SEA, LAS, SAN. That aside, all domestic premium cabins are fairly equally unimpressive. I'll avoid CRJ200s and E145s as much as possible but aside from that, all the A320 and 737s pretty much smell the same in domestic premium: I optimize for a non-stop as much as possible, which often takes me off AA (and sometimes to B6's Core) just to get where I'm going. I hate connecting in DFW/IAH/IAD/ATL/MIA -- SLC/PHX/CLT/DEN are pretty solid for me. In sum, AA/OW beat DL/ST and UA/*A pretty handily, and they cover the major cities in both the north and south, except for BOG. |
Originally Posted by Fanjet
(Post 28800703)
It appears that AA is focusing on their core strengths at JFK: LHR, certain important markets in Europe and South America, and flights to the west coast. I do not think they can be everything to everyone at JFK. Mainly because of their lack of access to additional viable time slots. B6 would still have a domestic advantage there. And DL a TATL one.
|
Originally Posted by dkc192
(Post 28802087)
I agree with most of your points above except the lack of service to South America. AA flies its own metal daily to GRU, GIG, and EZE. In addition, its alliance partner LATAM flies to SCL (1x daily nonstop, 1x daily via LIM), GRU, GIG, GYE, and the aforementioned LIM, all at least daily. DL flies its own metal to GRU and GIG and codeshares with AR to EZE. UA flies its own metal to GRU and (soon) EZE and codeshares with AV to BOG and SAL (IIRC).
In sum, AA/OW beat DL/ST and UA/*A pretty handily, and they cover the major cities in both the north and south, except for BOG. |
Originally Posted by jmr50
(Post 28802940)
Flying to 3 large cities in S. America is even worse than they do in Europe (London, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Milan). AA is supposed to be very strong in South America -- and in Miami they are (amazing number of destinations in Central & South America). At JFK, they basically match DL/UA (GRU/GIG/EZE pick 2).
But it just doesn't make financial sense. It's not an if-you-build-it kind of thing. They are focusing on markets that are premium and warrant non-stop service from JFK. The others are better served from Miami, and other markets can connect. They don't HAVE to offer more destinations to S. America than DL and UA just because, or as a statement, or for pride, or for bragging rights. The fact that no other airline is offering more destinations from NYC doesn't mean it's a lost opportunity. It seems like it means that the market isn't there, at the cost/revenue ratio AA needs for it to be as profitable as it wants. |
Originally Posted by jmr50
(Post 28802940)
Flying to 3 large cities in S. America is even worse than they do in Europe (London, Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Milan). AA is supposed to be very strong in South America -- and in Miami they are (amazing number of destinations in Central & South America). At JFK, they basically match DL/UA (GRU/GIG/EZE pick 2).
|
Originally Posted by theYipster
(Post 28800182)
Bringing back a quote JonNYC said well up thread in regards to JFK: "the party's over..."
From my point of view, A broader pull up from JFK would be tough to defend. AA has all of the tools necessary to succeed against DL |
Originally Posted by swingaling
(Post 28802906)
I agree. JFK is clearly positioned as a largely international airport, much more so than most other "international" airports. Roughly 55% of JFK's passenger traffic is from international flights, whereas EWR is 30% and LGA is 6%. Given that space at JFK is limited (and in high demand), it makes sense for AA to prioritize JFK for their premium routes (tcon, tatl, etc) and use EWR and LGA for other routes.
Even with all of that, they have so many advantages that they are still more competitive than DL to some of the most important corporate markets out of NYC. Outside of SFO, CDG and SEA, there aren't any markets that DL actually has better schedule on. And those markets are certainly less relevant than the market that AA dominates on like LON, LAX, DCA, MIA, ORD and APAC financial centers. |
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 28805980)
Except that AA has been cutting back internationally from JFK. And I would expect that to continue to EDI/MXP/FCO/BCN. I don't think AA is fully utilizing its slots at this point. JFK slots are also not in as high demand as LGA/DCA slots, especially the non prime time slots. So it's my opinion that AA is not putting a great effort to utilize what they have in NYC. And my guess is a lot of the regional flights out of JFK will get cut now going forward.
Even with all of that, they have so many advantages that they are still more competitive than DL to some of the most important corporate markets out of NYC. Outside of SFO, CDG and SEA, there aren't any markets that DL actually has better schedule on. And those markets are certainly less relevant than the market that AA dominates on like LON, LAX, DCA, MIA, ORD and APAC financial centers. Speaking of Europe, how can AA be credible to Europe if they don't have ANY their-metal (and soon no alliance flights) to Germany from JFK? Nothing to Scandinavia (Norwegian, right?) but two destinations in Spain and zero in German feels like madness. Nothing between NYC and Geneva seems weird. Ditto Brussels. They know about the UN, right? |
Originally Posted by jmr50
(Post 28806890)
This is my point about the S. America destinations -- it MIGHT justify the lack of flights to Europe and Asia if they had superior service SOMEWHERE.
Speaking of Europe, how can AA be credible to Europe if they don't have ANY their-metal (and soon no alliance flights) to Germany from JFK? Nothing to Scandinavia (Norwegian, right?) but two destinations in Spain and zero in German feels like madness. Nothing between NYC and Geneva seems weird. Ditto Brussels. They know about the UN, right? http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-t...G_JUN_2017.pdf (Note that PANYNJ hasn't aggregated the US counts back 12 months.) Anyone flying a robust set of TATL destinations from NYC might be very much better served by DL from JFK or UA from EWR. The question becomes how much of a hit to big corporate contracts will AA take from being a relatively weaker presence in NYC. |
Originally Posted by jmr50
(Post 28806890)
Speaking of Europe, how can AA be credible to Europe if they don't have ANY their-metal (and soon no alliance flights) to Germany from JFK? Nothing to Scandinavia (Norwegian, right?) but two destinations in Spain and zero in German feels like madness. Nothing between NYC and Geneva seems weird. Ditto Brussels. They know about the UN, right?
AA appears to be adding international routes primarily at its other hubs (PHL, CLT, MIA, DFW, ORD, LAX), which makes a lot of sense. The big problem with JFK is the relative lack of connecting flights (on AA) to smaller airports around the country. This limits the number of people who will realistically want to fly out of JFK on AA. AA can fill a plane on certain premium routes (LHR, CDG, etc) from JFK mainly with local NYC pax, but I doubt the same can be said for other ex-JFK routes. Add to that the fact that the majority of mainline AA pax traveling to JFK would likely have comparable international options at their home airports anyway (either on AA or a OW partner). PHL and CLT make more sense for expanded international operations due to the volume and diversity of AA connecting passengers they already push through there. Personally, I'd much rather take an international flight from PHL/ORD/CLT than from JFK. The other hubs have plenty of connecting flights to my home airport (PVD) daily; JFK has none. For example, I live 180 miles from NYC, but if I want to get to JFK on AA I'd need to connect in PHL/CLT/DCA. Or take a direct from BOS, which is a pain. In contrast, UA has direct flights to their EWR hub several times daily. So, while NYC (JFK+LGA) is nominally considered a hub for AA, PHL is their true hub in the Northeast. Perhaps AA should make NYC a focus and expand domestic operations there (and cut back at PHL/CLT). One drawback is traveling between LGA and JFK is a pain. Absent an express light rail line connecting the airports, flying through PHL/CLT is going to be a much better experience for those (non-mainline pax) who are not local to NYC (barring PHL wx delays). Unless they want to fly international routes from LGA... |
Originally Posted by ijgordon
(Post 28804833)
Except strong management, perhaps?
|
Originally Posted by 3Cforme
(Post 28806932)
You're not speaking of the #1 or #2 carrier at NYC - AA is a distant #3 , perhaps soon sliding behind JetBlue to be #4 .
http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-t...G_JUN_2017.pdf (Note that PANYNJ hasn't aggregated the US counts back 12 months.) Anyone flying a robust set of TATL destinations from NYC might be very much better served by DL from JFK or UA from EWR. The question becomes how much of a hit to big corporate contracts will AA take from being a relatively weaker presence in NYC. The real question is whether the large and very wealthy NYC metro area can support 3 major airline hubs. LAX is the only other place where that's sort of the case -- but NYC is probably bigger, so what gives? |
As long as AA has the JFK-LHR-X, JFK-CDG, or the JFK-SFO routes, I am fine with whatever AA does in NYC. :D
|
Originally Posted by jmr50
(Post 28806890)
This is my point about the S. America destinations -- it MIGHT justify the lack of flights to Europe and Asia if they had superior service SOMEWHERE.
Speaking of Europe, how can AA be credible to Europe if they don't have ANY their-metal (and soon no alliance flights) to Germany from JFK? Nothing to Scandinavia (Norwegian, right?) but two destinations in Spain and zero in German feels like madness. Nothing between NYC and Geneva seems weird. Ditto Brussels. They know about the UN, right? On the other side, while DL has the biggest operation out of JFK/LGA, it also has the lowest margin. What would happen to DL if the economy takes a downturn and fuel prices spike leading to negative margins. And if B6 gets more LGA slots and start flying to Europe, it will kill DL's margin in NYC even more. While AA has already downsized or about to downsize to just the corporate market and its other hubs. |
Originally Posted by tphuang
(Post 28808988)
one stop flight over LHR to continental Europe is actually better than a lot of the once or twice flights a day offered by skyteam to places other than CDG and AMS. Star alliance certainly offer more options, but LHR position gives AA such a huge advantage in Europe travel out of NYC.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:33 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.