AA to cancel BRU service

[WorldTraveler]

AA is cancelling their BRU service from JFK as of November according to http://airlineroute.net/.

BRU is one of AA's oldest European cities.

With the cancellation of BRU, it appears that AA will serve only 4 cities on a year round basis in Europe that are not in the UK or Spain, home of oneworld/JV partners. From JFK, it will be CDG, MXP, and ZRH; FRA is served from DFW but not JFK.

ORD-HEL and ORD-FCO service has been reloaded on a seasonal basis for 2013.

 

[eolesen]

Not saying it isn't true, but last week, that site also said that HEL and FCO were canceled because the schedule file transmissions were out of synch.

Either way, I'm not surprised. When Sabena was still a going concern, there was good cause to fly to BRU. Likewise with SN Brussels, especially since AA had a codeshare with them.

And then, in 2009, LuftAnschluss bought them. Brussels Airlines shifted to Star Alliance, and Belgium once again became a suburb of the Germany, at least as far as air transport is concerned.

As DL found out in MIA-LHR and BOS-LHR, being the third or fourth place carrier in a market like JFK-BRU simply doesn't make sense. Those planes and crews are far better used elsewhere.

 

[TWU informer]

AA is cancelling their BRU service from JFK as of November according to http://airlineroute.net/.

BRU is one of AA's oldest European cities.

With the cancellation of BRU, it appears that AA will serve only 4 cities on a year round basis in Europe that are not in the UK or Spain, home of oneworld/JV partners. From JFK, it will be CDG, MXP, and ZRH; FRA is served from DFW but not JFK.

ORD-HEL and ORD-FCO service has been reloaded on a seasonal basis for 2013.

Not saying it isn't true, but last week, that site also said that HEL and FCO were canceled because the schedule file transmissions were out of synch.

Either way, I'm not surprised. When Sabena was still a going concern, there was good cause to fly to BRU. Likewise with SN Brussels, especially since AA had a codeshare with them.

And then, in 2009, LuftAnschluss bought them. Brussels Airlines shifted to Star Alliance, and Belgium once again became a suburb of the Germany, at least as far as air transport is concerned.

As DL found out in MIA-LHR and BOS-LHR, being the third or fourth place carrier in a market like JFK-BRU simply doesn't make sense. Those planes and crews are far better used elsewhere.

Gald to see you two are having adult conversation and debating like men. Bravo!

 

[jersey777]

Not saying it isn't true, but last week, that site also said that HEL and FCO were canceled because the schedule file transmissions were out of synch.

Either way, I'm not surprised. When Sabena was still a going concern, there was good cause to fly to BRU. Likewise with SN Brussels, especially since AA had a codeshare with them.

And then, in 2009, LuftAnschluss bought them. Brussels Airlines shifted to Star Alliance, and Belgium once again became a suburb of the Germany, at least as far as air transport is concerned.

As DL found out in MIA-LHR and BOS-LHR, being the third or fourth place carrier in a market like JFK-BRU simply doesn't make sense. Those planes and crews are far better used elsewhere.

It is definitely true. We got a message from flight service today that it ends November 1st.

 

[Kellerguy]

May just be a casualty of he EU problems. Europe is in recession.There are probably better places to deploy the resources for now.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Gald to see you two are having adult conversation and debating like men. Bravo!

Eric is a good guy and has plenty of positive things to contribute; I never doubted that. We both seemed to figure out how to push each other's buttons but I'd like to think we have both learned alot over the past several months.
I absolutely enjoy the more positive dialogue I have had w/ E of late.

May just be a casualty of he EU problems. Europe is in recession.There are probably better places to deploy the resources for now.

Yes, Europe is in a crisis but AA has had a hard time making routes other than to its alliance partners work for quiet some time. The same is true to Asia as well.
Being number three in both NYC and in Europe - and behind US in continental Europe - makes it very hard to compete against European carriers as well as stronger US carriers.

AA has consistently been able to shift assets to Latin America and make them work so that is likely where the planes will move - but AA has said they are going to reduce their 767 fleet in BK.
Latin America is the smallest global region - smaller than transatlantic or transpacific and is actually much more asset intensive given that many flights are double redeyes.

Latin America is also one of the most protected regions of the world w/ respect to market access... something LHR was not that long ago. Many countries in Latin America are slated to become full Open Skies with the US in the next couple years which will allow other carriers to increase their presence.

As DL found out in MIA-LHR and BOS-LHR, being the third or fourth place carrier in a market like JFK-BRU simply doesn't make sense. Those planes and crews are far better used elsewhere.

but DL does still operate BOS-LHR and according to the most recent DOT data, DL obtained average fares HIGHER than AA got on its own metal... probably because DL made the decision to put its 764s w/ lie flat seats on the route while AA was using 757s - something that other posters commented about a year ago. They were right. BA operated flights get higher average fares due to their superior product but AA operated flights do not get the revenue DL does whether marketed by AA or BA. DL doesn't carry the volume that AA or BA does but DL gets average fares on par w/ or superior to AA/BA which makes sense given that DL's presence at LHR is much smaller than AA/BA or UA.

BTW, DL devoted one of its very few 767-300s (as of now) with the same lie flat seats as on its 764s to the JFK-BRU route this summer. Too early to know but I wouldn't be surprised if DL's product helped shift some of the corporate traffic that AA used to carry.
DL uses the same 763 type on ATL-BRU though not on a daily basis.
UA uses 3 cabin 777s on its two BRU flights.

Product really does matter when you want to compete for the highest value passengers.

 

[737823]

As DL found out in MIA-LHR and BOS-LHR, being the third or fourth place carrier in a market like JFK-BRU simply doesn't make sense. Those planes and crews are far better used elsewhere.

Hmm DL 624 departs Logan for LHR on 767-400ER. MIA may have ended and BOS has been reduced to 1x but its still there and doing ok from how things seem. I haven't taken the flights since last May (on the $2000 r/t offer) but *may* have a trip this fall on the route, if I can get myself to take an overnight flight. The BA morning flight is awesome.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

BOS is a city where AA and DL have both been historically strong; DL was stronger north-south while AA was stronger east-west.
DL recognizes that there is alot of corporate traffic from BOS and the combined operation of AF/KL/AZ/DL from BOS provides a fairly strong int'l network.
DL tried to get into the BOS transcon market but backed out given that VX and B6 continue to push down fares while AA and UA pull back on routes where they have historically been strong.

As for MIA-LHR, I still don't understand how DL did it but they added a 3rd daily ATL-LHR at the same time that they dropped MIA-LHR - and ATL-LGW. MIA probably helped give DL more mass at LHR but no one can really believe DL would turn down an ATL-LHR flight if there was a choice between ATL and MIA. Even if the two events weren't directly related, DL might have gained enough mass in the SE to decide it wasn't worth going after the MIA market.
BOS is not only a market where Skyteam is stronger but is it also close enough to Europe to reduce operational costs quite a bit compared to MIA.

 

[Jacobin777]

Not saying it isn't true, but last week, that site also said that HEL and FCO were canceled because the schedule file transmissions were out of synch.

Those flights are coming back next spring.

Yes, Europe is in a crisis but AA has had a hard time making routes other than to its alliance partners work for quiet some time. The same is true to Asia as well.
Being number three in both NYC and in Europe - and behind US in continental Europe - makes it very hard to compete against European carriers as well as stronger US carriers.

AA has consistently been able to shift assets to Latin America and make them work so that is likely where the planes will move - but AA has said they are going to reduce their 767 fleet in BK.
Latin America is the smallest global region - smaller than transatlantic or transpacific and is actually much more asset intensive given that many flights are double redeyes.

Latin America is also one of the most protected regions of the world w/ respect to market access... something LHR was not that long ago. Many countries in Latin America are slated to become full Open Skies with the US in the next couple years which will allow other carriers to increase their presence.

-The discrepancy between AA and the others to Latin America is huge. Once Latam joins OneWorld, it will become even larger.

-And how many European routes has DL recently axed the past year or so? Hint-its a lot.

 

[IberiaMAL]

Hm. Philadelphia has Service to Brussels, Athens, Rome, Barcelona, Madrid, Zurich, Vienna, Dublin, Frankfurt, Munich, Manchester, London, Lisbon, Glasgow, Venice, and Paris.

Too bad when that will disappear when US and AA merge for the vastly superior JFK hub because the 2 transatlantic operations Overlap. Oh wait.... They only overlap on London... Woops.


Even us in Charlotte have nearly as many European Destinations from US/*A as AMR/IAG has from JFK... Sure we have less seats, but still...

 

[eolesen]

DL may have higher average fares in BOSLHR but the last data I saw still had DL running at a double-digit deficit for LFs.

If it weren't for the JV, DL would have dropped the route months ago. And that comes from people inside DL.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yet DL is in a JV and shows no signs of walking away from BOSLHR. AIrlines don't walk away from routes because they can't fill the back of the bus but have plenty of premium traffic; they walk away because they can't get average fares high enough. DL has been very careful not to trash the fares in its LHR markets which is why they are getting fares on par w/ much larger AA/BA and UA - but DL could easily start discounting to fill seats if they wanted to.
They could also - and very well may - put one of the 763s with the same interior as on the 764s on the route - and pull out about 35 seats which would easily push the load factor up by double digits. They just don't have enough 763s converted w/ the new interior to use one - and apparently are content w/ their performance using a larger 764.

As much as you and others want to avoid admitting it, AA has lost its ability to generate premium international revenues. In virtually international every market that AA flies competing against DL and/or UA, one or both of those two match or outperform AA, even to/from AA partner hubs. Here are a few uncomfortable factoids:
1. AA does not have a revenue premium in ANY int'l longhaul market from NYC to Europe or Asia relative to DL or UA including to/from Spain and LHR.
2. In markets from JFK or ORD to other carrier partner hubs or where AA and its partner are smaller than other carriers, AA underperforms DL and UA by a significant amount. Example, despite holding onto its position in CDG, AA underperforms DL/AF by a significant amount - and the gap is growing. AA has already walked away from many Star competitive markets such as FRA.
3. AA obtains average fares that are only about 40% of what DL gets in the NYC-NRT market (we're not even talking about AA's startup HND service) and half of what UA gets from EWR. The gap is almost as large from LAX. These are gaps that the JL JV was supposed to help close - yet it hasn't happened yet and either DL and UA are making money hand over fist in NYC-NRT or AA is losing it by the bucketload.
4. AA continues to underperform UA's revenue performance in the entire Chicago - East Asia market group.
5. Even in JFK/EWR-GRU, DL and UA continue to improve their revenue performance at a faster rate than AA who continues to dump seats into Latin markets because that is the only place they can generate revenues high enough to cover costs.

And it's not just international markets.
1. DL quickly obtained 15% of the local LGA-ORD market despite operating it on 2 class RJs and also operating it on a point to point basis; LGA-ORD flights operate from the Marine Air Terminal and do not receive feed from other flights at LGA. DL's average fares are on par with AA and UA.
2. DL is now on par with AA in a number of former AA strength markets from LGA including RDU.
3. DL has matched AA's market share and average fares in the JFK-MIA market.

The simple fact is that CO built up EWR more than a decade ago and proved that they could command a revenue premium based on hub size. AA and DL "split" most ot the top markets from LGA and JFK for years. Over the past five years, DL has gone after AA's key markets in NYC and is shifting NYC to be a market dominated by DL at LGA and JFK and UA at EWR -with AA being pushed relegated to insignificance.

The sad reality is that AA's best revenues come from DFW and MIA and Latin America which are markets where AA dominates or monopolizes.
Not so ironically, that is exactly the position US is in with much of its network relative to the big 3. To think that AA and US combined can regain a competitive position in the key markets which both have been unable to defend against larger DL and UA is more than a stretch. I see nowhere in US airline history where a legacy carrier has regained its position relative to other legacy carriers in key markets once it has been lost. AA's international network is looking more and more like US' which generates revenues at a significant deficit to the big 3, providing basis to Parker's comments that US can't pay its people on par with other carriers because its revenues don't support it.

AA's historic international strategy was to serve the key global markets from which it believed it could obtain sufficient revenues to compete.
Problem is that DL and UA didn't buy that strategy and decided to serve much more of the globe from their hubs. They not only serve all of those key markets that AA said was all they needed to serve but also serve dozens more cities that AA said weren't necessary or can't make work.
It isn't hard to figure out what airline will be chosen for the largest contracts.

The significance of thiis information for AA people and creditors is enormous - and most people don't understand the challenge that AA faces in attempting to rewrite its future.
As a standalone airline, there is little evidence that AA can successfully compete in key markets up against DL and UA, and many of those markets are "pillars" of AA's cornerstone plan.
AA's international network is increasingly looking like US' in terms of its inability to generate revenues comparable with DL and UA outside of monopoly hubs and in Latin America where the market has limited access and AA operates the majority of its service from fortress hubs.
In a couple years, though, those markets will begin to open up to new competition - and as we have seen in LHR, AA has not done a very good job of keeping competitors at bay.
As we know, AA faces growing low fare competition at DFW now and an even greater challenge in a couple years when the Wright Amendment falls.
And AA's Latin America network is only about 20% of the total size of the company - which means it is not capable of supporting a network that cannot generate revenue premiums in the most competitive markets.



AA people need to think long and hard about their options and the company they want to work for. The notion they can command salaries on par with DL and UA are not reasonable unless AA can generate revenues on par with DL and UA in markets where AA is deploying a significant amount of capacity and where it needs to have a viable presence in order to remain viable in key high revenue markets throughout the US and the world.

 

[737823]

AA's service BOS-LHR is ridiculous I don't even know why they bother operating it anymore perhaps just to keep the slots until IAG wants to open new routes. The FAs I know from flying the route say it often goes out with 50-70 people and J is most awards, upgrades, and non-revs. People that pay for their tickets my BA, DL, or VS on this route. AA is a joke.

Josh

 

[ContUNITEus]

For a bankrupt carrier to drop BRU here and there is normal. US Airways cancelled BRU a number of times during its two BKs, and even after that, they would still cancel it if the economy wasn't doing too well.

 

[Hopeful]

For a bankrupt carrier to drop BRU here and there is normal. US Airways cancelled BRU a number of times during its two BKs, and even after that, they would still cancel it if the economy wasn't doing too well.

But when AA gets out of a market, or abandons a route, right away it's major news.