[blockquote]
----------------
On 2/5/2003 11:57:32 AM eolesen wrote:
AA's core business can't continue to rely on business travel as much as it has in the past, so I think you'll start to see a lot more of these "huh?" type routes going forward.
----------------
[/blockquote]
When I said this wasn't AA's core business, I didn't mean that AA's core business is entirely business travel. AA's core business is making money by flying routes that make sense for AA's network, as opposed to fighting pointless battles with startups in order to salvage a few scraps of pride.
Obviously plenty of routes are and always have been driven by leisure demand. Not a whole lot of AA's enormous Caribbean presence, for example, has ever been based on business travel, nor has AA's extensive winter service to ski destinations. But that doesn't mean they don't make money.
With that in mind, I wouldn't call those routes you cited "huh?" routes. Vegas is popular with people from all over the world (heck, Singapore Airlines and JAL even fly there all the way from Asia). I'm sure people from Latin America and New England are no exception, so given AA's gateway in MIA and regional hub in BOS, both make perfect sense to me. JFK-BCN makes sense, too, given the high seasonal demand for the route, combined with the Iberia codeshare. These may not be business routes, but like I said, AA has always had plenty of leisure routes that presumably make money.
So, if you can tell me with a straight face that JFK-LGB makes sense for AA right now, then that's great. If there is a huge untapped demand for service to Long Beach, then I stand corrected. But if I were an AA stockholder or employee, having watched what happened with JFK-OAK and JFK-ONT (not to mention the whole Love Field fiasco), I'd be pretty annoyed to see AA pouring money down the drain at LGB just to save face.