AA should launch LAX-ICN and ORD-ICN immediately

jcw  the sad reality is  is that no other air carrier will ever beat delta nor come close to it in the eyes of that 1 man.   that is one major reason why I have him on my ignore    he has to interject dl does it better in every flippin thread and when he is called out on things he changes it to fit his lit narrative to make dl look good    me thinks he is getting paid by dl to make em look good....bec of his rants about how dl does it better than anyone else
and yet you have some compulsive need to respond to what I right, often while commenting on exactly what I say.

I get paid nothing by DL including to post on here.

I do understand the dynamics of the industry.

In this case, it is apparent that AA is building a Pacific network as FWAAA and I have agreed upon.

I still have yet to hear someone address the future of the AA 777-200ER fleet given the sheer number of aircraft that AA has on order; even if AA added two new route to Asia per year, they couldn't begin to use all of the aircraft on order while significantly reducing their current fleet - beyond the 767s.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #78
WorldTraveler said:
AA will have to choose what it wants to develop as a gateway to Asia and the best chances are from monopoly hubs; I have consistently said that DFW has the best chance of being profitable given the size of AA's network. DFW doesn't have ideal geography which lengthens flight times to Asia but it isn't near as competitive as LAX or JFK or ORD, all of which are highly competitive and where AA will spend a lot of coin to develop a presence.
Agreed.  Fortress hubs are ideal, but counterbalancing that is that NYC, CHI and LAX are giant business markets with lots of outbound business travelers and they're actual destinations for foreign business people and tourists.    Outbound business travelers in premium cabins will want nonstops from NYC, CHI and LAX.   I'm certain they won't tolerate connections in PHL, DFW or other mega-hubs if there's a nonstop option on another airline from NYC, CHI or LAX.   
DFW might work for AA.   I publicly predicted failure for DFW-HKG and DFW-PVG when they were announced.   My reasons were the lower O&D of DFW plus the very long stage lengths that will make those two of AA's longest flights.   Not terribly dissimilar to ATL, a giant hub and a very large business market, to be sure, but not a city where DL has concentrated its Asian network. To succeed at DFW,  AA will have to attract an awful lot of paid F and/or J business travelers.   DFW now has two daily NRT flights plus ICN, HKG and PVG.
Neither ATL nor DFW are desirable, in-demand destinations for foreign visitors to the USA.   They'll never be NYC, BOS, MIA, CHI, MCO, LAS, SFO, SAN, SEA or LAX.    Those are all places where foreign visitors want to visit.   Just like we tend to visit London and Paris but skip Birmingham and Toulouse.   Charlotte, Houston and Detroit all suffer from the same fate.   Important business and manufacturing centers, but not where Europeans and Asians want to go.  
So does AA focus on DFW to Asia (and LAX to Asia) but ignore JFK?   NYC is a top O&D market for most world-wide cities.  UA flies to NRT, HKG, PEK and PVG from EWR.   Mainland Chinese carriers are increasing service to JFK.   KE flies two daily A380s to JFK plus OZ with one 77W to JFK.    I predicted failure for the two new DFW flights (HKG and PVG).   If they succeed, I'll have been proven wrong by AA.  
WorldTraveler said:
I still have yet to hear someone address the future of the AA 777-200ER fleet given the sheer number of aircraft that AA has on order; even if AA added two new route to Asia per year, they couldn't begin to use all of the aircraft on order while significantly reducing their current fleet - beyond the 767s.
Dunno.   Haven't given it much thought.
AA sat down 34 AB6s during the Great Recession/fuel price spike, and since the economic improvement began, we've seen some 763s backfill some of the former AB6 routes.   
AA has 42 787s (12-20 of them will be smaller 787-8s, the rest will be larger -9s).    That will be enough to replace the 763s that fly the TATL routes, leaving some 763s for Caribbean, Latin American and Hawai'i routes.   
The 77Ws surprised me (I think they surprised a lot of people).   As they've primarily been placed on existing LHR and GRU routes, they haven't been directly responsible for growth.    Could be that they were placed on those routes as much for their superior business class seats as anything else.    That and the fact that LHR and GRU are high-volume, frequency-restricted markets.    If so, then some reconfigured 2-class 772s might replace some of those 77Ws as the reconfiguration progresses.   

So where does new AA fly those 20 77Ws (20 of them by end of 2016)?   HKG, of course, uses a 77W, and the AA manager in Korea said that DFW-ICN will eventually get a 77W once enough 772s are reconfigured.   
Plus, pmUS has those A350-900s on order.   I'm not sure, but they may have been ordered not just for eventual growth of pmUS to Asia, but some to replace the oldest A330s.   
One thing's for sure:   AA has no shortage of long-haul widebodies already on the property and on order.  My grand plan for another half-dozen flights to Asia isn't limited by the number of airplanes at AA.   
good discussion, FWAAA.

the only real answer to JFK vs LAX vs DFW and ORD is that JFK/NYC and LAX are far more competitive markets than ORD where AA has more feed.

Ideally, having a presence in all 4 markets is what any carrier would want but any strategist would say that it is better to be strong in a few markets than spread out in multiple markets and not in the #1 position in any of them.

As for DFW, the biggest risk I see is that ICN sits right on the way between DFW and the rest of Asia and KE, who now faces stiff competition from AA on a route that KE flew for a long time before AA decided to start DFW-ICN, has the ability to make it very difficult for AA to succeed on DFW-PVG and HKG because KE can undercut AA's fares in those markets. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if part of AA's zeal to add more ICN service is precisely because the larger AA's footprint is to ICN, the harder it is for KE to target AA without also hurting KE itself.

It's also very high stakes poker and I still find it hard to believe that KE, the largest foreign TPAC carrier, is going to give up easily on AA's efforts to significantly expand its presence in key markets.

as to the question of the 777s, it's not a question that AA has enough planes to fly but that likely they have too many or more than they can realistically put in profitable long-term service without parking most of their 767s and 772s.

since all of those new aircraft are heavier and larger than the 767-300ER, AA would be adding a lot of capacity to the market just in upgrading existing 767 flights to new aircraft or even US' 330s.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #80
It certainly highlights the distinctions between the USA and most other countries.   Here, we have a dozen or more logical gateways to Europe and Asia.   Britain has one (LHR).   France has one (CDG).   Japan has one (TYO) split across two airports (I don't see KIX as a long-term successful gateway).   And Korea has one (ICN).   Germany has more than one, but FRA is the key gateway.   India has, at most, three for now.   China is one country with several possible gateways (and more probably on the way).
Because we have so many logical gateways and so many big world-wide airlines (AA, DL and UA), not every one of them can serve every possible gateway.   Difficult choices will have to be made.   AA will likely never capture any significant portion of international traffic to DTW, MSP, SFO, SEA, ATL, IAH or DEN.   There may be AA hubs that don't have many (if any)  DL or UA international nonstops.   
Emirates is one foreign airline that might end up serving every possible logical gateway in the USA.   BA probably already does.   Both, of course, to their one and only hubs.   
certainly true but the US is one of the very few, perhaps only, major country that has 3 large viable int'l carriers, each of which does have strengths in their networks as well as holes.

None of the 3 can or will be equally strong in every part of the world - and I'm not even sure each of them will ever have service from all of the major gateways that each other serves, let alone in the major markets.

I doubt DL or UA will ever serve DFW to Asia and short of a joint venture between DL and KE, there might not even be more than a cursory alliance presence.

NYC, CHI, and LAX are major markets but not all of the 3 carriers are going to serve even the largest markets from all of those.

I may not see far enough down the road, but I think the perceived need by any of the big 3 to be all things to all people will not succeed and I don't think there is a need or a penalty for not having an "everything for everyone" network.
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #82
WorldTraveler said:
certainly true but the US is one of the very few, perhaps only, major country that has 3 large viable int'l carriers, each of which does have strengths in their networks as well as holes.
Agreed.    My cursory review would add the big airlines of China to the short list of countries with more than two viable big airlines:   Air China, China Eastern and China Southern.   All three have more than 350 planes and appear to fly to several continents between them.
Several countries on my earlier list have two big airlines like UK with both BA and VS, Japan with JL and NH and Korea with KE and OZ.   And even in the two-airline countries, generally one is substantially bigger/stronger than the other.   
The problem with using "China" and "viable" in the same sentence is that the Chinese continue to prevent CZ and MU from competing with CA, and vice versa.
if say UA is profitable on the CTU-SFO run  is it possible that after enough 787s are on the property at AA that we could potentially see CTU to DFW   or perhaps PHL n ORD
AA/US, in my opinion, has potential to start PHL to Asia. The market is still strategically located on the east coast but is far less competitive than NYC; the 787 is ideal for starting PHL to Asia.