AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[Dont call me Shirley]

Anyway, back to subject.  I hope that AA becomes a great airline and gets some 777LRs or follows through with the A350 for AU and NZ service.  I find it great that through US Airways, AA has finally gotten a good foot-print in Europe.
 
 

 
 
Thanks.  While the discussion of in flight service standards and whatnot has been interesting, it's nice to get back on topic.   The thread started with a discussion of post merger plans for Pacific markets.  While I agree that they do need to be developed, I am also curious about what might happen in TATL markets. 
 
Not to get too far into airline fantasy games, but perhaps more secondary markets in Europe?
 
As for Africa, it is great that US carriers are back after a decades long absence, but the market is quite small and there is not much room beside UA and DL.

 

[737823]

Thanks.  While the discussion of in flight service standards and whatnot has been interesting, it's nice to get back on topic.   The thread started with a discussion of post merger plans for Pacific markets.  While I agree that they do need to be developed, I am also curious about what might happen in TATL markets. 
 
Not to get too far into airline fantasy games, but perhaps more secondary markets in Europe?
 
As for Africa, it is great that US carriers are back after a decades long absence, but the market is quite small and there is not much room beside UA and DL.

Didn't US just announce seasonal PHL service to EDI? AA served ORD-GLA seasonally til 2006 so the 'new' AA is once again back in Scotland. They announced four seasonal cities from CLT back in the fall. Hopefully US management won't adapt the US network planning strategy and completely ignore Asia. I doubt well see more anytime soon especially following the additions to DFW.

Josh

 

[IORFA]

Anyway, back to subject.  I hope that AA becomes a great airline and gets some 777LRs or follows through with the A350 for AU and NZ service.  I find it great that through US Airways, AA has finally gotten a good foot-print in Europe.
 
Now, please go back down Under and into Africa and Asia..  Doggie Parker, please move away from that believe you said you had a few years ago, of "not starting a route because it's just neat."  IT IS NEAT to try new things that help EXPANSION!!!  Be a true risk taker.  You take all the bad risks anyway.  Now, take some good risks as well.

Why do we need 777LR's? The current 777's we have can do 99.9% of the flying we could want. Even your precious down under and Asia. You really need to seek help. You are obviously not happy with yourself or your life. It is projecting through your off topic posts here.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Anyway, back to subject.  I hope that AA becomes a great airline and gets some 777LRs or follows through with the A350 for AU and NZ service.  I find it great that through US Airways, AA has finally gotten a good foot-print in Europe.
 
Now, please go back down Under and into Africa and Asia..  Doggie Parker, please move away from that believe you said you had a few years ago, of "not starting a route because it's just neat."  IT IS NEAT to try new things that help EXPANSION!!!  Be a true risk taker.  You take all the bad risks anyway.  Now, take some good risks as well.

 
 
The 777-200LR like the A340-500, is a niche airplane with little market value, which explains why so few were built and haven't sold well. The 777-300ER makes way more sense for AA.
 
http://crankyflier.com/2012/10/25/singapore-ditches-the-a340-500-an-airplane-that-was-destined-for-mediocrity-at-best/

 

[ContUNITEus]

To be polite, you should stick to serving customers and being a safety professional. Network planning and analysis doesn't appear to be amongst your strengths.
It's a business, not a dream factory. No airline starts up routes just because it might be neat.... You can't invent demand for long-haul routes if it isn't already there.

IDIOT, I am quoting Doug Parker and being sarcastic.

 

[ContUNITEus]

Btw AA flies iFC, because it's neat, not because it makes money.

 

[WorldTraveler]

It is NOT correct that a FC cabin on an intl flight translates into higher revenues or that 2 cabin carriers don't get lower fares or that 3 class carroers get higher fares.


There are many directly competitive routes where CO DL or NW had higher average fares than AA or UA and where DL gets higher revenues than AA or UA esp. To NRT.
Remember AA pulled 2 NYC TYO routes while DL continues w much higher fares on a 2 class 744.

Market strength is far more significant and explains higher average fares for AA DL UA or US

The 777LR is a high gross weight high performance aircraft. DL uses it to carry cargo and carry full loads on routes that other aircraft cannot

The ME3 exist by siphoning traffic off other carriers just like LCCs. The Euro govts might realize what is happening before their long haul carriers all fall. maybe

 

[robbedagain]

If AA were to start Australia service what citiesnin the us would be the best place to launch it and whats the best aircraft suited for it?

 

[Dont call me Shirley]

If AA were to start Australia service what citiesnin the us would be the best place to launch it and whats the best aircraft suited for it?

DFW?    I don't think the 787 has the range; alliance partner QF might  not like it.   
LAX? Again, competing with a partner carrier.  Not that it is a show stopper.

 

[FWAAA]

If AA were to start Australia service what citiesnin the us would be the best place to launch it and whats the best aircraft suited for it?

There are really only two viable gateways, LAX and SFO.   If fuel prices moderate (or at least stay where they are for a few years, getting relatively cheaper), then perhaps DFW via a 787 might work.   If fuel prices don't cooperate, then flying to Australia from interior gateways isn't going to be economically viable.   
 
From LAX, the only plane AA has that would be a fit is the 77W (777-300ER).   
 

DFW?    I don't think the 787 has the range; alliance partner QF might  not like it.   
LAX? Again, competing with a partner carrier.  Not that it is a show stopper.

The good news is that AA and QF anticipated this when they applied for and got antitrust immunity for a joint business agreement:
 
http://www.aa.com/i18n/amrcorp/newsroom/jba_aa_qantas.jsp
 
http://www.americanairlines.co.uk/i18n/pressReleases/pr_jbUpdate_nov2011.jsp?locale=en_GB
 
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2011/05/american-airlines-qantas-airwa.html/
 
Far from being upset, QF would likely welcome the world's largest airline starting flights to SYD or MEL from LAX.    That way, not only would AA and QF be able to coordinate prices, schedules and capacity, but they'd be able to share revenues/profits just like the JAL and BA/IB joint agreements.   

 

[robbedagain]

Would say a 787 from sfo or sea to syd or mel be good route or no? Also can a A330 do lax syd or sfo to mel or syd

 

[ContUNITEus]

To be polite, you should stick to serving customers and being a safety professional. Network planning and analysis doesn't appear to be amongst your strengths.

It's a business, not a dream factory. No airline starts up routes just because it might be neat.... You can't invent demand for long-haul routes if it isn't already there.

 
Just US Airways: They would spend a shitload of money to apply for the route that doesn't exist, fight for years to try to get approval for that route authority (SPECIFICALLY A PHL-CHINA PAIRING), finally get the route, not have a plan (whatsoever) right thereafter, not have an aircraft that can fly the route for years thereafter, come up with excuses about the economy and fuel costs - when finally pressured to start the route that was awarded, and then be forced to give it back.
 
http://atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/II29Cb01.html
 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-airways-drops-planned-philly-beijing-route-2009-10-28
 
 
 
 
Or they would, start CLT-HNL, (because of the prestige of east coast to Hawaii, since pretty much every major airline was doing it at one point), not dedicate a compatible aircraft and then drop the route, because it was a failure.
 
http://www.usairways.com/EN-US/SPECIALS/PROMOTIONS/CLT-HNL.HTML
 
Or wait, maybe it was because of this reason that they started CLT-HNL
 
Putting a plane to fly CLT-HNL, because you have nowhere else where to put the plane?  Sure, why not?  IT MIGHT EVEN MAKE IT!!!!! We could leave people behind, OR STOP IN PHX!!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-airways-charlotte-to-honolulu-flight-might-just-work/
 
 
Granted that it requires a little bit of digging, I can tell you that I have seen the articles before - left and right, where major airlines, months after launching a route, found out the hard way, that they shouldn't have.  Most of them did it just for the sake of prestige and making the whole thing - well - "the whole package airline, the global airline thing, the airline with the most non-stop flights to Europe, etc...."
 
AA's Budapest?
http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2012/02/american-airlines-to-drop-buda.html/
 
DL's MIA-LHR when there are already about 20 nonstops a day to LHR alone?
http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/delta-drops-heathrow-miami-route
 
 
I could go on and on and on... but, it's time to go to bed.

 

[eolesen]

I'm guessing you missed the part about JFK-BUD being there to feed oneworld partner Malev's hub, and the route being killed off after Malev ceased operations?...

You'll have to look a little harder to find the "lets invent a market" moves at AA. They've been conservative to a fault since 2001, with almost all of their international growth in the last 10 years having either been new routes into China and Brasil (smart) or routes into oneworld partner hubs (some smart, some questionable). That's not to say there weren't a few mistakes like ORD-DEL (remember Emirates?...), but a lot less of the "let's throw darts at a map" approach that some airlines seem to have taken.

In US's defense, there was only so much they could do that didn't compete with what UA or other Star partners had to offer, and given the choice, I know a lot of people who accrued US miles but flew UA as much as they could. I unfortunately had to do the opposite -- we had a corporate discount with US that was hard to avoid, but all my miles were dumped into Mileage Plus.

 

[ContUNITEus]

You are again assuming what I know about airlines and alliances. ALL THESE ASSUMPTIONS always with you.

 

[ContUNITEus]

You are going around making these absolutist statements, just to find yourself making excuses on behalf of your sacred airline. Anyway, I'm on the Note... too uncomfortable to type. Besides, it's pointless. You, go back to telling people to go sling cokes, and I'll go back to my job here.