Personally I think ORD will not be that drastically pulled down, yes I think there will be some cuts out of ORD, but I think there will also be cuts more everywhere in the system, expect MIA and Possibly JFK. I wasn't surprise with ORD-EZE getting the axe though. I had a gut feeling that route wouldn't last very long. It actually lasted longer than I thought.
AMR Corporation Announces Initial Round of Capacity Reductions
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
A little factoid about the three hubs that you can't ignore...
MIA is mostly O&D, running about 35% connecting pax and 65% O&D.
ORD historically ran at about 50/50.
DFW runs at 65/35. Take away the connecting opportunities, and DFW sucks wind moneywise.
STL used to run 70/30. RDU and BNA were also in that range (if not a little higher...).
If ORD is already running as high for O&D, you don't want to cut it down because O&D is always more profitable than connecting flow.
If anything should be cut back, it's DFW. It does sit atop the fourth largest metro area in the US, but 50% O&D tends to lead to better profitability if you look at yields for MIA & ORD vs. DFW.
But running DFW as a pure domestic hub? Nonsense. There's demand for key Europe cities and NRT, and it's silly to expect anyone wanting to go to Mexico or Central America to backtrack via MIA.
TW might have fared a little better if they didn't subscribe to the "all international (except LON) goes via JFK" strategy.
UA was doing the same to Europe (funneling everything via IAD) for most of the 80's, and they let AA get a lead that they've never been able to recover from.
MIA is mostly O&D, running about 35% connecting pax and 65% O&D.
ORD historically ran at about 50/50.
DFW runs at 65/35. Take away the connecting opportunities, and DFW sucks wind moneywise.
STL used to run 70/30. RDU and BNA were also in that range (if not a little higher...).
If ORD is already running as high for O&D, you don't want to cut it down because O&D is always more profitable than connecting flow.
If anything should be cut back, it's DFW. It does sit atop the fourth largest metro area in the US, but 50% O&D tends to lead to better profitability if you look at yields for MIA & ORD vs. DFW.
But running DFW as a pure domestic hub? Nonsense. There's demand for key Europe cities and NRT, and it's silly to expect anyone wanting to go to Mexico or Central America to backtrack via MIA.
TW might have fared a little better if they didn't subscribe to the "all international (except LON) goes via JFK" strategy.
UA was doing the same to Europe (funneling everything via IAD) for most of the 80's, and they let AA get a lead that they've never been able to recover from.
Code:
2007 Population Estimates
1 New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 18,815,988
2 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,875,587
3 Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI 9,524,673
4 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 6,145,037
5 Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,827,962
6 Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX 5,628,101
7 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL 5,413,212
8 Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV 5,306,565
9 Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA 5,278,904
10 Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH 4,482,857
11 Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI 4,467,592
12 San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 4,203,898
13 Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ 4,179,427
14 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA 4,081,371
15 Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,309,347
16 Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI 3,208,212
17 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos, CA 2,974,859
18 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,803,707
19 Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL 2,723,949
20 Baltimore-Towson, MD 2,668,056
21 Denver-Aurora, CO /1 2,464,866
22 Pittsburgh, PA 2,355,712
23 Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA 2,175,113
24 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN 2,133,678
25 Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH 2,096,471
27 Orlando-Kissimmee, FL 2,032,496
29 Kansas City, MO-KS 1,985,429
30 Las Vegas-Paradise, NV 1,836,333
31 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA 1,803,643
35 Charlotte-Gastonia-Concord, NC-SC 1,651,568
38 Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI 1,544,398
39 Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN 1,521,437
41 Memphis, TN-MS-AR 1,280,533
48 Salt Lake City, UT 1,099,973
49 Raleigh-Cary, NC 1,047,629I expected STN to go away - with 18+ other daily flights to LHR, AA's got London covered. More so than any other USA-based airline. Classic show 'em a thing or two type move; one which I fully support and with which I completely agree. Maxjet and the others were no different than Legend. Anyone who tries to siphon off the premium passengers like that should be taught a lesson, and AA's the best teacher in that subject. 
Wait, is this supposed to be a serious post? It honestly makes zero sense... This is just the beginning for AMR, especially with all the work groups in a tiff over their concessions, it looks like their will be another round in order.. Time will tell...
MCI transplant
Veteran
- Jun 4, 2003
- 5,311
- 587
Exactly. Until Mayor Daley did an about-face on ORD runway reconfiguration after September 11, he was adamant that ORD would never be reconfigured with multiple parallel runways. He insisted that ORD didn't have any traffic-jam problems. That was one of the stated goals in buying TWA: AA would get more runway space on the cheap for connecting flights that were being crowded out of ORD. Carty took Daley at his word that ORD would never be fixed.
But after the horrific events of 2001, Mayor Daley relented and whaddaya know - ORD is now building several parallel runways. STL's new runway suddenly became completely unecessary. What that cost those people in St Louis? A billion or two dollars? Ouch.
I personally am surprised about the STN cut. The route itself was doing quite well; what really killed it was the high fixed cost of operating the station.
On the plus side, despite the ending of Buenos Aires-Chicago, AA will actually be increasing service to EZE this winter.
MIA-EZE will see a third frequency starting this November (daylight service, 772); JFK-EZE will be upgraded to a 772 and see an extra seasonal 763 flight (4x weekly).
Also, with OW pulling out of Samana, AA might be pulling with 738s from Miami starting in November. We should know that answer as soon as next week.
On the plus side, despite the ending of Buenos Aires-Chicago, AA will actually be increasing service to EZE this winter.
MIA-EZE will see a third frequency starting this November (daylight service, 772); JFK-EZE will be upgraded to a 772 and see an extra seasonal 763 flight (4x weekly).
Also, with OW pulling out of Samana, AA might be pulling with 738s from Miami starting in November. We should know that answer as soon as next week.
I know this is a brand new route, but flight loads are still relatively lite when looking at jetnet for this route.
IMO it will stay on 767 once all the 767 ORD crews are given the polar training and visa'd up. It is also too expensive to swap from one equip to another when you factor in the visa's required to purchase for the flight crews. It is much better to keep the same equipment, then switching it out seasonally.
That may help explain the somewhat cheap introductory fare sale running right now - about $1,100 all-in thru the end of summer, with lots of availability.
When it was announced last year, the press release said it would be flown with a 763; that it was loaded into the schedules with a 777 right off the bat was surprising.
It has nothing to do with the metric rumor. A simple 81/2x11 sheet of paper with feet to metric tables will solve that problem. The problem is with the runway. The way it was explained to me is that the runway is made of huge pavers that could be removed and replaced quickly if it was bombed. This has the side effect of causing increased wear and tear on the landing gear. Supposedly, the airport is doing something to alleviate this problem, but isn't quite done yet. Thus the 767 was changed to the 777 because the 777 has a sturdier landing gear that won't need all the extra maintenance. It is planned to go back to a 767, unless the loads justify a 777. Stay tuned.
P.S. MAH4546 Once again, we were told just this week AGAIN that 737's will be back in ORD first quarter 2009.
P.S. MAH4546 Once again, we were told just this week AGAIN that 737's will be back in ORD first quarter 2009.
The follow routes end in September and have been removed from AA.com's schedules:
San Juan to Baltimore, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, Newark, Orlando, and Washington.
Flights to Caracas, Hartford, Philadelphia, and Tampa remain; flights to Miami continue at 7x daily; all other SJU-Mainline routes see frequency cuts, typically one daily cut off the remaining.
Also, mainline will end service from San Juan to ANU, STT, SXM, and SDQ. Eagle will still run those; so no more intra-Caribbean mainline flying.
As for 738s at ORD, yes, that is now in the plan again, starting with flights on ORD-DCA/LGA/LAX, probably starting around 31JAN09.
San Juan to Baltimore, Fort Lauderdale, Los Angeles, Newark, Orlando, and Washington.
Flights to Caracas, Hartford, Philadelphia, and Tampa remain; flights to Miami continue at 7x daily; all other SJU-Mainline routes see frequency cuts, typically one daily cut off the remaining.
Also, mainline will end service from San Juan to ANU, STT, SXM, and SDQ. Eagle will still run those; so no more intra-Caribbean mainline flying.
As for 738s at ORD, yes, that is now in the plan again, starting with flights on ORD-DCA/LGA/LAX, probably starting around 31JAN09.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
I know this is the way it is quoted in the Gov't stats, but why is Baltimore and Washington 2 Seperate Metro Areas just as San Francisco and San Jose. They should be all 1. Then again you can put Washington to Boston as Merto area as one too.
BuffaloJoe
Veteran
I a surprised keeping Philadelphia-San Juan. That used to be 3 times daily. PHL-MIA I was on three times this past month and all my flights were booked heavy. The one day it seemed that 1/2 the flight was returning from a cruise. Cutting back MIA and SJU frees up 737's, am I correct?
I think you're seeing the difference between msas (metropolitan areas) and csas (combined statistical areas). The latter generally lumps the metro areas into larger combined areas.
