BoeingBoy

For flights to Europe, JFK is pretty much on the way. So routing (connecting) there doesn't take people away from Europe first. ORD, depending on the origin city, can be convenient or out-of-the-way. Both are more hassle and delay prone than CLT, admittedly. To me, the one thing that may weigh in PHL's favor is the amount of O&D at NYC - another airport with a decent amount of O&D could be useful for additional service to European destinations.

ORD serves a pretty large area as well as JFK does plus it also has a rather large base of O&D traffic. Unfortunately, CLT has low O&D relative to either JFK or ORD - most European carriers serve ORD/JFK and not CLT/PHL for a reason.

Jim

CMK10

Glad to see all these options, very helpful for someone in North Carolina who wants to avoid EWR, IAD, ORD etc. and have an easy trip to Europe ^

SFTNYC

I am of the opinion that PHL will retain a good chunk, if not all of its TATL service. While JFK has far more O&D, there is substantially more competition, and AA is a distant #3 in NY among the US majors. Furthermore, AA can't come close to replicating the domestic feed that DL and UA have in NY to support a gigantic European departure bank like they can at PHL, and the geographic position is more optimal than ORD.

I think JFK will keep what O&D can support in addition to what's at PHL, but I don't think PHL will lose much at all to JFK.

In terms of CLT, most of that service is seasonal in any case - if its largely connection based, CLT is a good option for the summer peak with its huge feeder operation. In any case, all of the CLT service also already exists at PHL (most of it on a year-round basis).

Alphaguy

From what I was reading Spain and very likely Portugal are experiencing large crowds compared to past years, because of turmoil in previous areas of Northern Africa. I'm not sure how much BCN has to do with OW. If the merger does go through, it certainly might help. I view MAN as a tourist and cargo destination. BRU is the kicker here, since its a hub for Brussels air (*A) and a place in recent European listings being used as a way to funnel traffic though Europe. It is the head of the EU, but I don't think its a huge final destination.....

As Rick Steves says... its low on sites, but big on atmosphere.... good beer!

BoeingBoy

I didn't mean to imply that PHL would be abandoned. However, a good bit of PHL-Europe is to *A hubs that might not be profitable flying without the *A connection - remember that a few passengers make the difference between profit and loss. That flying would have to stand on it's own without relying on a connection to a *A partner in Europe. Alternatively, European destinations from PHL to that aren't to a OW hub could be consolidated with AA flight(s) to the same destination from JFK - AA has a lot more capability to up-size equipment in order to add capacity to Europe flights, giving JFK more capacity where needed without necessarily adding flights. So I could see PHL having fewer Europe flights.

Jim

perseus11

Premium, high volume business travel expansion at JFK (where the $ are) is restricted to available/owned/leased Prime time slots, which has to include slot times for dependent domestic-international connecting flights. Also, the competition at JFK is intense, including with a now entrenched DL. JFK is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive to land/takeoff and process passengers through than PHL (per passenger enplanement costs); consequently, I would envision primarily high O&D premium flights would be routed through JFK and the remainder through PHL - you can bet this scenario will be even more pronounced once Parkerism takes over. Further, although some of the PHL-Europe flights (primarily FRA and MUC) may have been supported with *A connections at either end, IMO, that benefit will at least be = with BA (which pre-OW, already has 2 essentially 100% O&D PHL-LHR flights), via both LHR and PHL and to a lesser extent with IB at MAD. The other potential is with QR, which has announced PHL 777-300 service starting in 2014. QR, via DOH, should provide almost seemless connections to India and Southeast Asia - as well as Australia at prices less (in many cases far less in premium cabins) than via LHR. You ask, why not expand CLT, which is CURRENTLY the cheapest major airport in the U.S.? 2 reasons; DL at ATL will likely put up a fierce battle to retain Southeast dominance and CLT, unlike PHL, only has a fraction of the NE corridor infrastructure/population to offset it; 2nd, again due to CLT's comparative population/O&D/infrastrucure limitations, it would seem doubtful sufficient (if any) foreign OW carriers would be enticed to support it as an international Hub. Further, it is tough to see how the new AA can support both CLT and RDU at their current domestic levels.

As far as Parker's ongoing/past comments regarding CLT and any interpretation of a rosy future based on adding 4 seasonal, Low Yielding European flights, I wouldn't bet even 1 Share on it.

BoeingBoy

I agree with your CLT comments and didn't mean to imply that CLT would see significant growth, either international or domestic. There will be some reshuffling of traffic flows and some adjustment of service but that's about it.

As for PHL/JFK, we'll just have to see what happens if the merger is approved. I actually think there's a good chance for a negotiated settlement once the trial begins and there is a feel for the judges sentiments if not before. In this case, it depends on who wants to settle and what divestitures the DOJ wants for a settlement. I think DCA slots are a given, but there may be some changes in PHL/JFK.

Jim

DCdeacon

RDU? What does that have to do with anything? RDU is just another spoke on the map for both AA and US, with routes just to hub airports, with the exception of RDU-PIT 3x day on 50 seat RJ's, and the one-off RDU-LHR flight, which is very much a local traffic thing that would seemingly be totally unaffected by the merger.

CMK10

Well RDU is a little more than another spoke for AA, they also have the DCA flight, one of their very few point to point flights. But by in large I agree.

SkyTeam777

I am absolutely surprised by this move. Obviously, post-merger, CLT would lose many of the Caribbean flights that could be supported wholly through Miami. CLT can support some of them, but not all of them, especially when it is better to offer greater frequency in MIA. But, to see this buildup of Europe from CLT is surprising...and exciting.

Pushing more of the leisure routes that depend upon connecting traffic is an interesting move and keeping more of the business-heavy destinations from PHL makes sense.

So will there be both CLT/PHL departures to MAN/LIS/BRU/BCN now? Or will this eventually be a total shift in capacity?

I wonder if the 757 product will ever see lie-flat seating. I am sure the CLT crew base is ecstatic over these new destinations, but the rather informal service delivery that many of them offer may need a little bit of a cultural retraining.

And if these are supposed to be post-merger, I wonder if CLT-MUC/FRA (x2)/CDG would stick around? My guess is at least one FRA and CDG could make the cut.

BoeingBoy

Given the practical limits on PHL departures for a number of years it'll either be offering more departure times or a shift of capacity - at least to some degree. If both PHL and CLT can support a particular European flight it could be an increase in frequency to two from one flight per day (or 3 from 2).

The 757 is getting pretty old - it's either get newer used 757-300's or replacements. There's not a good replacement right now unless the A321NEO will gain enough range. Or the 737MAX, which AA has ordered (and if the merger goes through).

The 767 lie flat on a slant seats might work in a 2 x 2 configuration - it just depends on the width of a 2 seat unit. There's also the cost to consider - is it worth it to spend the money on what is really a temporary airframe - since the 757's will need replacing by 2020 or so.

As for post-merger, flights to *A hubs will need to support themselves - no *A feed on the other end. It may be that a combined AA/US would have better feed to CLT/PHL/JFK and the flights could support themselves. Only time and a merger will tell...

Jim