The reason is because AA does not have the equipment to fly all those extra routes you mention. Loose a couple triples to OTS and someone in the system isnt getting to their destination. Arpey and Co took the money he sqeezed out of us and instead of buying widebodys, bought 73s, which we need. But squandared it on winglets and interiors on tired old 76s and 75s; countless terminal and Admiral club upgrades as well. And any other capitol improvement that has come down the pike.
I'm not a route planning expert, but it seems to me AA's 777/767 fleet is underutilized. For example-why is it that every time I'm at ORD/DFW/JFK I see multiple 777s lined up-unusued (not making money). As much as I like have a 763 on BOS-LAX, why can't that aircraft be used for a more lucrative international route? I'm just throwing out there that CO has significantly fewer widebodies-22 777s and 22 767 (unlike AA they are -200ER and -400ER) but has significantly more internationally configured 757s. Delta on the other hand, only has 16 777s (-200ER & -200LR) but more A330s, 747s, 767 and they both fly to a plethora of international destinations. The Delta 777 fleet is stretched incredibly thin yet they manage to fly to Dubai, Hong Kong, Shangahi, Tel Aviv, etc.
The problem is rather than sending 757s to secondary markets AA is sending them to places like Heathrow, Paris, Brussels, etc. The Continental 757s are being outfitted with the lie flat seats and offer entertainment systems in the back. Why didn't AA install them (let alone on the 767s)? I was on BOS-CDG earlier this summer and overheard people complaining about the tiny aircraft and said they took AA because it was $100 cheaper than Air France with a 777.
I'd hardly say AA squandered money on terminal improvements. When I lived in NYC, the old JFK terminal was awful. Now it's much, much better and gives AA a leg up compared to both DL and CO. DFW Terminal D is very nice as well and MIA has come along way too. Unless you are advocating AA invests the money in its employees (presumably you are) I think it was well spent.
The Admrials Clubs and Flagship lounges are very weak in my opinion. Im not expecting a British Airways Concorde Room or Cathay Pacific Pier lounge, but seriously the Laguardia Admirals club is a dump. The new Boston club is very nice but only adequate. AA really should provide complimentary wifi to all guests, free liquor/wine/beer (like all except UAL) and more substantial food offerings. The new Heathrow Flagship lounge is a welcomed improvement, but I still prefer the BA First class lounge which I have access to. I'm sorry employees don't like AA investing in premium products for their most lucrative customers.
The winglets will make the 763's more marketable on the secondhand market.
Equipment is part of the reason a lot of the secondary markets Josh pines away for aren't served, but don't overlook the fact they're already served by codeshare partners or aren't going to generate the type of traffic that AA's network can support. UA, CO and DL can make markets work from IAD, EWR, and JFK that will be loss leaders from any other hub. AA could try to be the third (or fourth) carrier at JFK serving the same markets as DL or CO, but again, it's a matter of where you can make money year round.
That speaks volumes about the problem-AA management lacks the vision and planning to enter markets that could be successful before they get saturated. I suppose they are fairly conservative but it also seems they don't send the proper equipment places. I remember the Chicago-Moscow route on 777s two summers ago why does that route need a 777 if it doesn't have sufficient premium traffic and awful loads? Perhaps to keep the non-revs happy?
I prefer non-stop service or convenient connections whenever possible. I'm sick of the Heathrow terminal changes and connecting in Newark is far more convenient.
There are no matters for AA to resolve in Israel. AA never operated in that market and has no obligations there.
When AMR bid for select assets of TWA in bankruptcy court, it made it known that if it won it would stop flying between JFK and TLV for economic reasons (
Dallas Business Journal). TWA had over a hundred employees in Israel servicing just one daily 767-300 round trip. Most other foreign airlines operating in Tel Aviv use contractors to handle their ground services. The route was a money loser for TWA. The Delaware bankruptcy court never put AMR on the hook for TWA's pension and severance obligations for its Israeli employees.
When TWA's TLV employees found out that AA was not picking up the route, they petitioned the Tel Aviv bankruptcy court to seize and liquidate TWA's assets in Israel. When the court granted that order, TWA suspended service to TLV indefinitely to prevent seizure of its aircraft (
Reuters).
Yes, but under Israeli severance law AA is being held accountable and the government has lien on AA. I'd support them using contractors like Continental does (frankly CO has better ground service-shorter lines, faster service in TLV than LY, except the King David Lounge is amazing compared to the awful Dan Lounge CO contracts). Again I don't know the operational specifics as I don't have any airline experience, but 100 employees for a 767 does seem excessive. I imagine if AA tried to pull something like this in the United States, the unions would be up in arms too. Again-in the United States AA has no problem complying with all of the laws, FAA regulations and in other countries as well. Their US based employees are well compensated and enjoy generous benefits.
But both as a Jew (Shana Tova!) and a dual Israeli citizen, I wholeheartedly disapprove of AA/TWAs handling of the situation. I'm not boycotting AA or petitioning their management, they really could have used this as an opportunity to grow in the Tel Aviv market. If I recall correctly, Delta started their JFK-TLV shortly after AA/TWA suspended theirs.
Josh