Is AA wide body service returning to SFO?
May 19, 2022, 11:02 am
#31
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PHX/NYC/LA
Programs: AA Plt, Marriott Gold, National EE, Hertz PC, El Mambero De Mucci, PWP Aide to Generalissimo Godot
Posts: 4,893
All this talk of widebodies makes me sad that Boeing decided not to make the 787-3 as that would have been the perfect premium widebody for the transcons. Sadly, we must make do with the skinny sausage that is the A321T.
May 19, 2022, 12:45 pm
#32
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU/KIAH
Programs: AA EXP | Marriott Bonvoy Titanium| Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 11,222
Shrinks rarely are successful. Other than the a332, a319 there's a long list -a342, 736, a318, a380 (it was designed with a stretch in mind, so it had woefully over engineered wingbox), 747SP, a338, a358 etc. of failures.
A 767neo on the other hand, that would have been a whole different story.
May 19, 2022, 2:47 pm
#33
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PHX/NYC/LA
Programs: AA Plt, Marriott Gold, National EE, Hertz PC, El Mambero De Mucci, PWP Aide to Generalissimo Godot
Posts: 4,893
I'm not convinced that the 787-3 was going to be successful. Way too heavy for a regional people hauler as it's got the wingbox and build of a aircraft with a much higher MTOW.
Shrinks rarely are successful. Other than the a332, a319 there's a long list -a342, 736, a318, a380 (it was designed with a stretch in mind, so it had woefully over engineered wingbox), 747SP, a338, a358 etc. of failures.
A 767neo on the other hand, that would have been a whole different story.
Shrinks rarely are successful. Other than the a332, a319 there's a long list -a342, 736, a318, a380 (it was designed with a stretch in mind, so it had woefully over engineered wingbox), 747SP, a338, a358 etc. of failures.
A 767neo on the other hand, that would have been a whole different story.
May 19, 2022, 4:48 pm
#34
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,158
It seems unprecedented for AA to have international service from an airport that not only isn't a hub, but doesn't even have an AC. Most flights rely on both O&D and connecting traffic, and AA would have very little of the latter at SJC. They would have to make SJC a focus city for this to be realistic.
May 19, 2022, 5:22 pm
#35
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: PHX/NYC/LA
Programs: AA Plt, Marriott Gold, National EE, Hertz PC, El Mambero De Mucci, PWP Aide to Generalissimo Godot
Posts: 4,893
It seems unprecedented for AA to have international service from an airport that not only isn't a hub, but doesn't even have an AC. Most flights rely on both O&D and connecting traffic, and AA would have very little of the latter at SJC. They would have to make SJC a focus city for this to be realistic.
May 19, 2022, 8:04 pm
#36
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,600
It seems unprecedented for AA to have international service from an airport that not only isn't a hub, but doesn't even have an AC. Most flights rely on both O&D and connecting traffic, and AA would have very little of the latter at SJC. They would have to make SJC a focus city for this to be realistic.
May 19, 2022, 8:27 pm
#37
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU/KIAH
Programs: AA EXP | Marriott Bonvoy Titanium| Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 11,222
SJC was a hub and they served NRT as well as JFK, BOS etc. I can't remember if they ever operated London - it would have been LGW if they did.
May 19, 2022, 9:02 pm
#38
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: San Francisco
Programs: AA EXP; Marriott BonVoy Titanium Elite, Marriott LT Plat.
Posts: 1,717
Eastbay1K , Antarius , El_Chiflero
Once BART connects to SJC, I bet a lot more traffic will be willing to consider it as an option.
I know for sure when I was recently in a jam on AA and my options were to arrive at SJC past midnight or wait until early next morning arrival at SFO, I would have taken the option of going to SJC if it were connected to BART. Instead, I opted to take the hotel stay in DFW for the night then deal with BART to get me to home (SFO) then work in EB (Oakland). Sucks that OAK is no longer an option for AA flights.
Once BART connects to SJC, I bet a lot more traffic will be willing to consider it as an option.
I know for sure when I was recently in a jam on AA and my options were to arrive at SJC past midnight or wait until early next morning arrival at SFO, I would have taken the option of going to SJC if it were connected to BART. Instead, I opted to take the hotel stay in DFW for the night then deal with BART to get me to home (SFO) then work in EB (Oakland). Sucks that OAK is no longer an option for AA flights.
May 20, 2022, 3:09 am
#39
Ambassador: Alaska Airlines
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: BWI
Posts: 7,390
AA shot themselves in the foot when they went aggressive in retiring (rather than storing) a large chunk of their long haul fleet during the pandemic. DL/UA are certainly enjoying less competition this summer in certain markets.
Hopefully once Boeing gets their act together on the 787s AA will, at least, resume 1x daily widebody service between PHL/DFW-SFO that is timed for the TATL/SA connections otherwise they will be woefully uncompetitive against UA and DL for international connections.
Hopefully once Boeing gets their act together on the 787s AA will, at least, resume 1x daily widebody service between PHL/DFW-SFO that is timed for the TATL/SA connections otherwise they will be woefully uncompetitive against UA and DL for international connections.
May 20, 2022, 9:46 am
#41
Join Date: Jan 2000
Programs: UA 1k, AA EXPLT, NZ GE, VA PLT Hyatt Diam, Marr Plat, HH Diam
Posts: 3,445
Agree. AA has decided that they can’t compete against the 800 lb gorilla in SFO (UA), so their focus is on SFO being a destination for customers rather than a point of origin. Was most noticeable during the pandemic when the JFK service was timed primarily to serve NYC based, rather than SFO based customers. SFOORD is now, and for the foreseeable future, just 2 daytime flights.
May 20, 2022, 9:59 am
#42
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: CLT
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Lifetime Admirals Club member
Posts: 419
If AA had kept the planes ready to fly, would they have the crew today to fly and staff them?
May 20, 2022, 10:29 am
#43
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K;[url=tel:34264907
34264907[/url]]If my mind isn't failing me much, SJC was once a little hub (and perhaps had an AC), and I don't recall if AA also had an SFO/LHR flight for a short time (but it could have been UA using an AA domestic gate for an LHR flight.
On the Monday flight to Austin the crew was nearly always the same as were the pax. Same for the Friday return.
Those were the days!
May 20, 2022, 10:31 am
#44
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Antarius;[url=tel:34264968
34264968[/url]]SJC was a hub and they served NRT as well as JFK, BOS etc. I can't remember if they ever operated London - it would have been LGW if they did.
May 20, 2022, 10:32 am
#45
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by Antarius;[url=tel:34264968
34264968]SJC was a hub and they served NRT as well as JFK, BOS etc. I can't remember if they ever operated London - it would have been LGW if they did.