I don't think filling FC with paid customers was ever a precondition to the profitability of a domestic route (exception being the significantly less dense premium transcon aircraft configurations).

But filling it with business travelers that skew toward more expensive (i.e., less advance purchase) fares certainly is important, and this schedule is pretty terrible for business travelers (IMO). Not to mention that business travelers want options, not one daily flight.
It's what has skewed me away from AA for years on the secondary transcons (or near-transcons) when I used to do those fairly often for business (e.g., SAN, SEA, LAS until recently, etc.).

Corporate contract is different from a subsidy. AA surely has corporate clients that use RDU-LHR. They used to have a revenue guarantee in place on RDU-LHR from a non-government consortium (also totally different from a subsidy), but a number of published sources and FT threads have repeatedly stated that they never had to invoke it. In other words, the flight is/was generating more revenue organically than had been guaranteed.

Certainly, I agree that any new route to LHR operated by AA from a non-hub would likely coincide with (new?) corporate contracts. It's also quite possible that they could receive incentives from the airport authority (such as waived landing fees).

If there will indeed be a new city for AA to fly to LHR that they don't already, then this list of top 30 AA cities, from a different thread might be relevant.

Someone added clubs to the list of top 30

Quote:Originally Posted by AAerSTL
Sunday, June 4, 2017:

1. AA DFW 761 (CLUB) (AA LHR service)
2. AA CLT 662 (CLUB) (AA LHR service)
3. AA ORD 474 (CLUB) (AA LHR service)
4. AA PHL 384 (CLUB) (AA LHR service)
5. AA MIA 340 (CLUB) (AA LHR service)
6. AA PHX 292 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
7. AA DCA 235 (CLUB) (can't do LHR service)
8. AA LAX 208 (CLUB) (AA LHR service)
9. AA LGA 141 (CLUB) (can't do LHR service)
10. AA JFK 97 (CLUB) (AA and BA LHR service)
11. AA BOS 85 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
12. AA SFO 53 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
13. AA MCO 52 (CLUB)
14. AA RDU 52 (CLUB) (AA LHR service)
15. AA CMH 47
16. AA ATL 46 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
17. AA BNA 46 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
18. AA LAS 45 (BA service to LHR)
19. AA PIT 43 (CLUB)
20. AA STL 40 (CLUB)
21. AA IND 39
22. AA DTW 38
23. AA DEN 36 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
24. AA TPA 36 (CLUB)
25. AA IAH 35 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
26. AA SAN 34 (CLUB - CONTRACT) (BA service to LHR)
27. AA SEA 33 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
28. AA AUS 32 (CLUB) (BA service to LHR)
29. AA CVG 32
30. AA CLE 31

Seems like highest likelihood for a new LHR citiy would be
1) has a club and
2) is a fairly busy AA city

MCO, PIT, STL, TPA
I'd be shocked it if was PIT, where AA has been shrinking.

My money is on MCO or STL. TPA could be dark horse possibility (It actually has more AA flights than SAN)

Will be interesting to see which one it is

Who flies from CLE to Europe and where do they fly?

It isn't listed on the CLE airport page here:
http://www.clevelandairport.com/flig...on-stop-cities

For years, when CLE was a CO hub, they did have several flights to Europe. Perhaps even shortly after the CO-UA merger. But those have since dropped away.

While not to LHR, MCO does see at least daily and at times more than daily service to LGW on BA. Also MIA has plenty of LHR service and is a pretty easy transfer. If MCO were to gain LHR service it would seem to make more sense for BA to simply switch one of their services to LHR. AA's gates at MCO in Airside 3 are not able to handle international arrivals.

That said, the other options would all be pretty equally surprising.

TPA also has a LGW flight on BA, so same argument re: BA just moving the LGW service if TPA-LHR is desired.

STL? CMH? IND? PIT? Though STL has no JFK flight on AA, so if we're reading into JonNYC's hint properly that would be out...

The point I was trying to get at was that it makes little sense for AA to fly a non hub-LHR route when they have a JV with BA, and BA could fly the route instead. Why have AA worry about rotating a plane/crew around like JFK-LHR-XXX-LHR-JFK when BA can fly a similarly size aircraft in a simple LHR-XXX-LHR routing.

In the past two days CLE got CLE-KEF on WW and CLE-KEF on FI.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/cleve...ment/466651034

Furthermore, WW also announced KEF-STL/CVG/DTW, so considering that, IND/CMH look like the best bets for TATL on AA/BA.

But AA does have the 75L which BA doesn't have, and the 75L could be a nice 'starter' aircraft should AA/BA try a new 'thin' Midwest/East Coast-LHR flight such as IND/CMH/CLE/PIT-LHR

With no built in AVOD.

I can easily see how it might have been read that way now, but, no didn't mean to imply that aspect.

Can you provide any further detail? If not, can you at least say that is all you are allowed to say? Thanks for the information either way though!

Was it reported that the new route was from a non-hub? I missed that.

Pretty sure it would have to be. All the hubs already have LHR service to my knowledge.

That list is very helpful. Have to imagine it is either Florida or Midwest at this point, but as others have mentioned TPA and MCO have LGW service.

In the Midwest:

IND has certainly been making a LOT of noise about trying to attract TATL service, with London repeatedly mentioned as top destination. I would be very surprised though given the proximity to ORD (I know people south of IND who regularly drive to ORD for TATL/TPAC), although perhaps they see opportunity to get in as the only TATL carrier (no WW/FI) and poach demand that would be going to other carriers at ORD.

On the other hand, CVG or CLE would be really interesting as DL/UA have drawn down those hubs so much... could be enough to lure major corporate contracts?

CMH seems the wild card to me.