RMINIONE

Any chance some of the seasonal international routes get expanded to full time to now compete against UA? . Some of the flights out of PHL that come to mind are to BCN, BRU, GLA, LIS.

rrgg

I think there is, or was not long ago, still an AA logo around one of the PVD gates.

BoeingBoy

The terms of the US/AA merger changed so while the same two carriers are merging the end product isn't what was proposed by the carriers. Heck, just the DCA slot divestures make a big difference to the merged carrier when the proposal was to have it maintain all the combined DCA slots and it will end up with less than US has today. Add in the requirement that "commuter" slots be used for small/medium markets and there are even fewer true useful slots to use for larger markets.

In other words you can't have been positive about the proposed merger going through yet claim to have been right based on the changes "negotiated."

Jim

rltycheck

RMINIONE: Maybe, but for us PHX flyers, we do get a nice option set with the addition of BA. Our routing to BRU is much better via LHR than it was via PHL. Southern Europe opens up with the addition of IB, and the thought of never connecting via FRA puts a HUGE smile on my face (although I may learn to dread MAD and LHR equally).

My big question is when will our EQMs combine, will it be for next year Elite qual? Combined I'm clear as I tested the water with AA on a couple flights to Europe (disappointing compared to the US Envoy on the 330s), but if not, I need to add a final dash to the east coast to 100k on US...

thphilly

If you need more miles in 2013 for status, I wouldn't expect to be able to combine US and AA before the end of 2013 so you'd better get that mileage run before the end of the year.

GNRMatt

Looking at the route map for AA, I see it adding the following new Int'l destinations to US Airways flyers without having to go to another airline partner:

• Tokyo
• China
• A lot more of South America
• Pretty much the entire Caribbean that wasn't covered before
• Helsinki
• Milan
• A little more of Mexico

While these are nice to add to the system, it is still leaps and bounds beneath what other major carriers are doing to me (with the exception of South America, but for me, that isn't a big deal). I really hope they look to expand their network in Canada, Europe and Asia beyond just asking customers to use a partner airline.

Also, one huge drop-off to me when it comes to partners taking up the slack is the loss of Air Canada. This now takes all of the non-major airports in Canada off of the map. I see WestJet is a partner, but not a OneWorld member and from PHL, they won't even let you book to certain destinations of theirs (at least as of right now) in Eastern Canada. Also, for a lot of the non-major airports in Europe, the network is much smaller with the OneWorld partner airlines available than it was with Star Alliance.

FWAAA

I agree that both JFK and PHL can and will remain big operations for the new AA. As I've posted before, AA has been sitting (squatting) on a couple dozen prime-time departure slots while it lowered its costs in bankruptcy.

For example, a new flight from JFK to TLV (an obvious addition) does not require feed from any 50-seat CRJ markets. The vast majority of TLV O&D is in NYC. PHL, on the other hand, accounts for about 3% of the TLV O&D. MIA, BOS, LAS, SFO, LAX, etc. each account for about 3% of the TLV O&D. You don't need dozens of 50-seaters to and from small towns to make JFK-TLV successful.

Many of the big TLV O&D markets are already served by AA at JFK as they're outside the LGA perimeter and thus must be served from JFK (or EWR) if they're going to be flown nonstop. To the extent that you find 50-seaters in the current AA JFK schedule, many of those are place-holders, as the slots are "use-it or lose-it."

PHL is a huge metro area and has demonstrated that it can support numerous European flights. Perhaps even a Tokyo flight. Parker didn't leverage his years of industry-lowest labor costs to give that one a try. Now with Open Skies and an immunized joint venture with JAL, it's probably time to actually fly to Asia from PHL (instead of the ridiculous "we'll obtain suitable planes for PHL-PEK if we're awarded the route;" route was awarded, no planes were acquired).

Why the focus on O&D? Because filling a plane with connecting passengers generally means filling the plane with lower fares. Connecting passengers generally pay less than nonstop passengers. About three-quarters of PHL-TLV passengers are connecting. Want higher average fares? Fly from the markets with a lot more nonstop passengers.

It's a common misconception on Flyertalk and elsewhere that AA actually connects domestic passengers at MIA. It doesn't. There's a fundamental misunderstanding of the role MIA plays in the AA network. AA has simply ignored southeast domestic connecting traffic like the mythical RIC-JAX passengers that Jamie Baker focused on. CLT is well-suited for connecting domestic passengers.

There are limited domestic connections at MIA, like LAX-MIA-MCO. Why not fly the LAX-MCO 738 nonstop? AA flies 3-class international 777s on LAX-MIA and flies multiple MIA-MCO flights.

If MIA shrinks, it's because the brain trust in Tempe can't read spreadsheets. In the most recent quarter, AA obtained average fares (yield) to Latin America of 18 cents per mile, 50% more than its yield on TPAC routes. Most of that Latin American strength is due to the high fares AA attracts at MIA. For example, AA flies four daily 777s in peak season between MIA and GRU. MIA is the largest O&D market between the USA and Brazil. CLT? The daily O&D between CLT and GRU could fit in a CRJ200 with empty seats to spare. Most of the passengers on the CLT flight from GIG are connecting to MCO, and it's likely that the same will hold true for the CLT-GRU flight.

If anything, MIA continues to grow. No slot controls, plenty of gate space, plenty of runways and usually decent weather. And very high fares to the Caribbean, Central and South America. AA's MIA operations have been subsidizing its money-losing Pacific network.

TravelingPeanut

I skimmed the last few pages of the thread and didn't see this mentioned. It looks like US will be making a very quick exit from *A to OW - "begin[ing] during the first quarter of 2014".

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...iance/3507955/

BoeingBoy

The only thing I'd quibble slightly with is PHL supporting multiple European flights - adding in the connecting traffic PHL can support those European flights. PHL is certainly no NYC. Take away the connecting traffic PHL could only support a few of them - TLV specifically comes to mind.

Jim

radiowell

I agree. I don't know if AA/US will abandon PHX like they abandoned LAS, but the key thing is that PHX is basically a WN hub. US/HP has a history with WN, and they react either by ramping up to compete against WN at the hub (e.g. present day PHX) or by just waving the white flag (e.g. LAS).

The fact that HQ moving/staying to DFW is telling. And DAL/MDW/LAX/PHX (and to a lesser extent, BWI) is one too many WN hubs near or at the AA/US hubs.

oneworld82

The new AA is much stronger than before though and much better able to price-compete with WN

Superguy

I don't think PHX is in as much danger as people think. I don't see PHX ever being an international hub due to the heat causing problems (maybe seasonal winter flights). However, PHX has one thing LAX doesn't have - expandability. There's plenty of space to grow at PHX if needed. LAX is very constrained.

I could see LAX taking a more international focus, with routes to hubs and select major cities. PHX then would take a more domestic focus, with some select international routes, like the BA PHX-LHR and Mexico/Central America.

MOC991

It sounds like MIA is more about Latin American destinations so I guess I can take that out of the comparison to CLT. I guess my question is how will they decide which hub gets the European flights. It would basically be CLT vs PHL vs JFK, and I imagine JFK would be the safest. I feel like CLT is in danger since Lufthansa probably played a big role in expanding their European flights from there.

cubachao

I think after US exit from *A, LH will stop flying to CLT. No codeshare flights for LH to other destinations. It will be tough without US in CLT

FWAAA

Excellent point and I agree.

In numerous markets where AA and WN directly compete right now, WN is attracting higher average fares than AA. If anything, the merger should permit new AA to raise fares, not lower them.

You may be right, but what you've described is basically what PHX has right now. PHX does have plenty of room for expansion. PIT has a lot of room to expand also, but PHL is where the O&D is. Same thing with PHX and LAX.

Quite a few of the smaller cities in the west already have AA service from ORD or DFW (and some, both). For short-haul intra-west connecting traffic, PHX fills the bill. For long-haul connecting traffic between the west and east, ORD and DFW are already there. To be sure, PHX enjoys a lot of O&D. So do LAS and MCO, and neither of those is a traditional hub anymore. No need to fly a small plane from Fresno or Tucson to PHX if you're headed somewhere in the Midwest or East, as AA flies mainline planes between DFW and FAT/TUS. It's those types of connections for which PHX is not necessary with the new AA.