Does anyone have more floor plans for clubs NOT at NYC airports? Perhaps we can start a mini discussion about traffic at LGA in this thread. Or with the pull back at JFK how come there's not going to be a flagship lounge at CLT? Any CLT floor plans available? Let's make this thread the Omni of AA, yes?

/Sarcasm off

Fine, do whatever you want, I'd mostly like to know the new city getting LHR service we are still waiting to hear...that seems like eons ago, brought up by JonNYC but it's getting buried by all the noise

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, considering that their niche--as we know--is O&D, premium heavy markets, and US-EU travel.

Compared to DL, AA has:

- The BA joint venture: with more seats, more options, more corporate contracts, and--crucially--one hell of a connecting network at LHR.

- The NYLON market: see above... DL may have bought 49% of VS to compete, but DL/VS offer no real connecting hub (outside of the lousy SkyTeam hub at T4, and DL goes out of its way to make their SkyTeam partners seem like they're not partners at all.)

- JFK-LAX/SFO: Product is far superior to LAX and SFO, and LAX frequencies are far superior. SFO frequencies are competitive.

- A better terminal: Agree that T8 can use better shops and restaurants, but in terms of layout and logistics, the place is a dream compared to T4. T8 over T4 can mean 30 minutes or more spent not in an airport.

- A better international product, especially in J or F. DL flies mostly 767s, and while they may have AVOD unlike the AA birds, the screens are smaller and they can hold less content than AA's tablets. AA's 777s are far superior to anything in DL's fleet.

- A better alliance and better JVs: folks complain--rightly so--that the difference between AAdvantage and the lambasted SkyMiles is ever shrinking, but having access to first class lounges (and first class redemptions) matters.

I could go on, but as a (formally) NYC-based premium-heavy, international-heavy, corporate flyer, I think pulling out of JFK would be a huge mistake. Instead I'd invest in a refreshed T8 and some very strong, well placed marketing campaigns... I'd also get the 788s and 789s to NY for the thin routes. The 767s can live out their lives at PHL where the audience is either truly captive or connecting...

The UA equation also warrants consideration, but it's already been proven not to matter. UA (as CO) has had their fortress hub at EWR long before:

- B6 got their start
- AA opened the new T8, or, most importantly
- DL built up their presense

Don't mean to rekindle an EWR debate... just suggesting it's already been decided.

I didn't get the impression that AA was going to cut back on JFK-LHR or JFK-LAX/SFO.

I never suggested they were. I was responding to the broader argument regarding AA's strategy and direction in NY in relation to their other hubs... that a pull back is a mistake and that they have the tools to compete against DL.

If executed properly, AA should be able to build share in JFK. If AA can't run an O&D and premium-market connecting hub at JFK along with a general connecting hub at PHL, then I would find a way to build and preference JFK over PHL, just as we see UA preferencing EWR over IAD.

I generally agree with this. AA is no longer competitive all the recreational routes, but it's still got a very competitive corporate base.

DL has tried very hard, put a lot of effort into it, but it just has many inherent disadvantages like weakness of skyteam in Uk, which forced it to invest into VS just to get some slots into LHR. OneWorld doesn't have as many members, but has more blue chip members that you'd want to fly on. And to important financial markets in other continents, OW really has ST crushed. These are advantages that DL just can't overcome. And AA has hubs to many major corporate O&D destinations out of NYC in ORD/BOS/DCA/LAX/MIA. DL tries to be the go to carrier for both corporate and leisure out of NYC and all it got is the worst margin of the major carriers in NYC.

For example, DL's efforts in asia are basically KE and MU, which are just not attractive partnerships compared to what CX and JL offer to the region. And product wise to Europe, 777s are pretty good compared to what DL offers.

A couple of things I disagree on:
A321T isn't a superior product unless you are referring to F and even that is probably more equal to mint suites. And in frequency, it's 13 to 11 against b6, which isn't fare superior.

While T4 is not that great. T8 really isn't either. The long distance to Concourse C is quite annoying.

Fair points -- especially on the strength of OW vs ST. Completely agree.

Another point: compared to AA's second market cutbacks, you could argue DL had a much more serious cutback from JFK earlier this year: NRT. Today, there is no way for a DL or SkyTeam flyer to get from NYC to Japan without connecting.

On the A321T -- I haven't flown Mint but I would argue that AA and JetBlue cater to different markets. The 321T was configured for and marketed to Hollywood clientele and what I'll call, for lack of a better term, top tier corporate contracts (those that spend, in volume, the most with AA -- typically large consulting and IT firms.) JetBlue's 321s may have a nice cabin up front, but their configuration is still much more coach heavy, and B6 is still very much an airline that caters and markets to leisure flyers.

Compared to DL -- AA wins hands-down. DL flies a mix of 757s and 767s (with one daily A330 sometimes on the schedule.) These aircraft are also coach heavy compared to AA... The 757s have the same BE Diamond seats as AA has in J, but tapered an inch or two width-wise to fit the smaller 757 diameter. There are also fewer of them up front (16 on DL vs 20 on AA.) The 767s have 1-2-1 seating, but with an aging product that, despite the all-aisle access, has a number of drawbacks compared to the Diamond and is wholly inferior to AA's Zodiac Cirrus seats in F. (DL's 767 product has the same bones as JetBlue's Mint, but I assume Mint has much nicer finishes and a far better IFE system.)

Only the once-daily, seasonal A330 offers a competing product with essentially the same seat as AA's F seat, but again angled and tapered in a way to fit a narrower format and a higher density. (NB: I mean angled as in terms of the angle away from fuselage center-line, not in terms of the bed.)

DL/KL/AF has a better connecting network in Europe at AMS/CDG than AA/BA at LHR.

On the A321Ts, F is ahead of anything else, but J is nothing special. JFK-LAX has a ton of flights per day, but it's hard to say JFK-SFO is competitive. The have just over half of the JFK-SFO flights as DL.

This one is really debatable and depends on where you are flying. For South America and Oceania, AA has an advantage. ST and OW are both strong in Europe. However, OW has no members in Africa and is extremely weak in Asia. It looks like China Southern may come to OW or at least have an extensive partnership with AA in the future. However, OW would still be way behind ST in Asia even if they stole China Southern.

Pretty much agree with these points.

I also think pulling out of NYC would be a mistake, and I do not think they would ever entirely pull themselves out. However, I do think AA has demonstrated (and will continue to demonstrate) that JFK will be almost entirely O&D and any route must have sizable premium demand or exist on a seasonal basis so NYC-based flyers will fly AA when they go on vacation. They have a fortress hub at PHL and seem to prefer connecting passengers there, so there is no need to do the same up I-95.

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.

Interesting that LGA is often left out of these discussions. Half of my AA flying is out of LGA (generally terminal C). I was happy that AA brought back the ATL flights after cancelling them post merger - I hope routes like that stay.

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.

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.

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.

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).

I don't quite get what you're frustrated about. Would it be awesome if AA served LIM, BOG, SCL, MVD, CNF, MAO, CCS, BSB, UIO, etc. non-stop from JFK? Sure.

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.

As I said, their alliance and codeshare partner LATAM covers SCL, LIM, and GYE. Not sure how much more comprehensive you can get for a continent that is at minimum a 7-hour flight from JFK and doesn't have nearly as large a population base or business travel demand as Europe.

Except strong management, perhaps?

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.

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?

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.

I agree that the loss of airberlin leaves a big hole in the EU for OW. Presumably, AA relies on BA/IB/AY to get EU pax to the US for connecting flights on AA (in theory, anyways)?

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...

I was hoping to get hired at AA when I graduate this coming spring from Monkey See - Monkey Do University. Perhaps I should consider a transfer to Trainwreck CC

Cyclical logic: "they're not providing better service because they're small" -> "they're small because they're not providing better service"

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

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.

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.

​​​​​​I very much disagree with this. SkyTeam offers all those smaller destinations nonstop plus more than duplicates the connections available via LHR with CDG and AMS. In no way is LHR better than that. AA/BA only really has an advantage if you require frequent NYC-LHR service.

I thought that the word was that the pilot and flight attendant base and hours flown would remain the same no matter what the flight situation. So, while some destinations might change, the total seats, pilots and FAs out of NYC airports would remain static.

That's a good point however it's likely that NYC-LHR is probably the route with the highest profit margin among all the TATL routes.

There might not be one specific reasons why AA transferred some of the JFK-Europe flights to PHL. It's probably because that is what their latest math models are advising them to do.


If I were speculate without supporting evidence: I think AA crunched the numbers, which showed that those other JFK TATL routes to non-LHR destinations would have a higher margin if flown out of PHL. Additionally their model also showed that those routes have very little impact on their "money" routes from JFK which is JFK to LHR, JFK to SFO/LAX and possibly JFK to the big South American cities. Also it's possible that the model showed that the people who flies the JFK-non-LHR flights on AA will actually be more likely to switch to JFK-LHR-non-LHR on AA/BA rather than switching to Delta or *shudders* United out of EWR. Of course this all random guessing on my part.

Can't help but wonder if UA's moves at JFK were prescient. Back in the day, UA served LHR, NRT, LAX, SFO, ORD, and I believe SJU. While, UA never had what AA does, this thread seems to me that the UA strategy of retreating to fortress hubs is being followed to some extent here by AA.

deleted - replied before reading the full thread.

I don't see your point in the cyclical logic statement. 'Quality' of service is your argument, not mine.

CHI also arguably supports three carrier hubs. WN doesn't have the flight count but it's all mainline.

AA's problem in NYC is PHL. It can't have big hubs that close together - they compete to aggregate traffic. Even US Air (ways) was smart enough to figure this out and rationalize BWI (with a lot of help from WN) and PIT in favor of PHL. AA can have 400+ flights a day at PHL; that's not going to happen at JFK.

Sticking to hubs is a long-standing AA strategy: AA's term was cornerstone. You can find plenty of references in this forum.

US wasn't much different - it had nothing but hubs and a BOS focus city.

LHR is by far the largest market out of NYC. For finance industry in NYC, their European office in vast majority of cases is London and secondarily in Dublin (due to language/culture similarity and low taxes in Ireland). If Aer Lingus joins OneWorld at some point, then OW would dominate NYC to these two markets. Both LHR and DUB are better located for transit than continental Europe. I don't see how skyteam more than duplicate connections vs LHR, when I can fly to anywhere I care to fly to in Europe with short layover at LHR.

Outside of CDG and possibly AMS, the other locations ST flies to are vacation spots. LHR by itself is more important than those 2.

Eh, I'd think ZRH and BRU would be relatively important business centers (even if *I* fly to ZRH to go skiing ;)). AA dropped JFK-BRU years ago and will be dropping JFK-ZRH.
And of course none of this seems to consider the impact of Brexit on LHR; seems likely that at least some business will shift back to the continent. Are LHR (and PHL) really where AA wants to put its European eggs? I guess so.

You obviously don't have AA's data or analysis and neither do pretty much any of us here, but in my mind the biggest challenge with the analysis is getting the "network effect" right. Walmart years ago started to trim its merchandise offering, focusing on products that weren't selling particularly well. But the people that did go to Walmart for those products then started shopping elsewhere and sales performance was poor. While UA's routes out of JFK weren't profitable, didn't they recently say they regretted exiting that market because of the broader impact (e.g., attractiveness for corporate deals)?

The point is, it's larger than the profitability of individual routes, and the analysis gets more and more complicated, and even if the airline has a lot of data, you need to make a lot of assumptions. These decisions are not a science. If it was so easy, no company would ever make a strategic mistake. ;)

I really don't think BRU, FRA, ZRH, MXP or TLV are mainly vacation spots. I personally don't see how an LHR connection (especially with a T3-T5 transfer) ever beats a nonstop. Unless it is my final destination, I find LHR is a pain to deal with (plus BA intra-europe sucks big time). While AA/BA's position on JFK-LHR is a strength for them it is not the end all of NYC marketplace - lots of business goes on in other destinations...

Did you forget FRA and ZRH? Nobody is going to mistake those for vacation spots! AA and OW don't have a nonstop at all to FRA and soon won't have one to ZRH either...and DL/VS is more than competitive to LHR from JFK, offering flights every 30-60 mins in the evening. At least they are even co-located in the same terminal compared to AA/BA at JFK, so if you miss one flight you can get on the next one without having to switch terminals...

True which is why I mentioned this bit of speculation:
AA for whatever reason believe that the low-hanging fruits at JFK are almost completely decoupled from the money makers. I am not saying that AA's analysis is correct. It may well be that they are making assumptions in their model that are simply not true. It happens to the best of us in the STEM field.

Perhaps if anything, we'll see increased travel until Brexit is executed, as people fly over to "make changes" in the UK. Then, I do agree that DUB and others may become a bigger market once Brexit is done.

14 daily flights from NYC to LHR for Oneworld and 8 to 9 for SkyTeam. Not comparable. Delta has tried very hard and is a distance second place in this market.

the vast majority of European offices for finance firms are in london. Even when I had to deal with UBS, socgen, bnp, and Credit suisse's european desk, I'm still calling their London office. A lof this really has to deal with language and culture.

In fact, Dublin is more important than BRU, FRA, ZRH, MXP, TLV, CDG and AMS based on my experience.

I was focusing on markets that ST dominated in Europe. ST has 1 flight a day to ZRH, FRA, BRU. *A dominates these markets.

London will not get replaced in its role in the financial world. It was important before and will be important after EU. Are rest of Europe suddenly going to start speaking English and become culturally more like US?

If anything, Dublin will benefit. So I think it would be important for IAG to move EI to OneWorld. The biggest challenge to Oneworld from nyc to europe is *A, not ST.

If Brexit is such a game changer, why would Delta spend even more money buying into VS through AF/KL?

JOOC, what is that percentage for PHL?

--woodstock