MIA new routes

[boston]

I was wondering if anyone has heard of Miami starting up DUB,LIS resuming service to MAN and as we have heard TLV. My friend based at JFK had asked me if we were already flying MAN  last week, told her no, anyway now the talk is of the above routes. TLV, I find surprising would be on a 777-300.
 
Cheers
 

 

[zethya]

I was wondering if anyone has heard of Miami starting up DUB,LIS resuming service to MAN and as we have heard TLV. My friend based at JFK had asked me if we were already flying MAN  last week, told her no, anyway now the talk is of the above routes. TLV, I find surprising would be on a 777-300.
 
Cheers
 

Your post seems to imply that MIA-TLV has been announced by AMR and that it will be on a 777-300. Has it ?

 

[MAH4546]

While Miami-Tel Aviv has not been announced, an manager for US/AA in Israel told local press that Miami-Tel Aviv would launch in 2015.
 
http://www.exmiami.org/index.php/american-airlines-nonstop-miami-tel-aviv-flights-start-soon-spring-2015/
 
More Europe service is likely. I've heard US Airways management is really eager to connect MIA with a bunch of existing European stations at less-than daily.
 
If you look at O&D numbers from just about any city in mainland Europe, Miami is almost always in the top five local markets and is often second after New York. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Because MIA is a major origin for existing US carrier flights to Europe, AA's growing MIA to Europe will either have to come at the cost of other routes on AA's network or there will be a tit for tat of new capacity added by other carriers to ensure that AA's current relative #3 position in Europe among US carriers is maintained.

there is enough price discipline in the industry that there are dozens of new routes that can be added by any one of the well-run US carriers. It doesn't mean that other carriers are strategically going to allow another carrier to grow their presence without challenge.

AA chose a merger partner that still kept AA as #3 out of 3 to Europe and Asia. Neither DL or UA are going to sit back and allow to change that statistic without challenging AA either in its own core Europe markets or in Latin America, the only global region where AA is currently dominant.

Perhaps AA will achieve at diversifying its network and growing to a larger position in Asia and Europe but it will come at the cost of its relative size in Latin America.

Competitively run companies don't allow others to move into key markets without responding. It is hardly a new concept and AA doesn't get a pass from it because of their merger.

 

[MetalMover]

Because MIA is a major origin for existing US carrier flights to Europe, AA's growing MIA to Europe will either have to come at the cost of other routes on AA's network or there will be a tit for tat of new capacity added by other carriers to ensure that AA's current relative #3 position in Europe among US carriers is maintained.

there is enough price discipline in the industry that there are dozens of new routes that can be added by any one of the well-run US carriers. It doesn't mean that other carriers are strategically going to allow another carrier to grow their presence without challenge.

AA chose a merger partner that still kept AA as #3 out of 3 to Europe and Asia. Neither DL or UA are going to sit back and allow to change that statistic without challenging AA either in its own core Europe markets or in Latin America, the only global region where AA is currently dominant.

Perhaps AA will achieve at diversifying its network and growing to a larger position in Asia and Europe but it will come at the cost of its relative size in Latin America.

Competitively run companies don't allow others to move into key markets without responding. It is hardly a new concept and AA doesn't get a pass from it because of their merger.

Oh look out AA!!!!!  Delta will be taking over Miami next!

 

[WorldTraveler]

didn't say that but if they do, I'll not complain.

Does that other carriers will protect their key markets. AA didn't bother to serve TLV for years. Because they now decide to add MIA-TLV or other MIA-Europe routes which are key O&Ds on other carriers' existing routes to Europe doesn't mean that AA will be allowed to grow unchecked.

That is just competition and the free market system at its best.


Survival of the fittest.

 

[commavia]

Oh look out AA!!!!!  Delta will be taking over Miami next!

 
Exactly.  Par for the course.  Some are still stuck in the paradigm of sheer rankings without context, of course all in service to the glorification of Delta.
 
It's true that AA is "still" "#3 out of 3 to Europe and Asia," but of course that gap has now narrowed dramatically across the Atlantic, to the point where it really no longer matters and, more importantly, AA now offers broadly comparable network access in the region.  AA now flies to all the major European markets - particularly business markets - of consequence, and most importantly, AA and its JV partner BA still handily dominate what is by far the largest and most important European market from the U.S., LHR.  As for Asia, there, too, context is critical.  It's true that AA is smaller there than Delta or United, but there, too, the gap is closing, particularly as United and now Delta progressively dismantle their NRT-Asia networks in favor of nonstops from U.S. hubs.  AA now offers nonstop service to the five most important business markets in East Asia - NRT, ICN, PEK, PVG and HKG - including an extensive JV network to/from the NRT hub with JAL.  With respect to nonstop U.S.-Asia, AA is effectively now at parity with Delta (excluding Hawaii), and I suspect the gap will narrow further as Delta continues to draw down beyond-NRT flying and reaches the realistic economic and operational upper limits of what it can do in SEA.
 
Finally, the assertion that AA growth in Europe and/or Asia must necessarily "come at the cost" of anything in Latin America is comical, and laughably, nakedly baseless.  It's certainly no wonder why Baghdad Bob has for years wanted to continue asserting over and over how AA cannot hold onto its dominance in Latin America, despite the fact that AA has managed to do just that.  AA has such a massive, structural advantage there that neither Delta nor United can replicate in either Europe or Asia.  Specifically, MIA is a more dominant regional gateway to Latin America than any other U.S. hub is to any other world region, so as long as AA dominates MIA, it will dominate Latin America - it's as simple as that.

 

[WorldTraveler]

say what?

first you argue that size doesn't matter and then you launch into a defense of how AA is growing to Europe and Asia in order to grow larger? which is it? size matters or it doesn't?

then you argue that DL and UA are dismantling their NRT hubs and then argue that AA's size matters because it has a JV with JAL which has a, drum roll please, a NRT hub?

you have yet to go thru one combined AA/US schedule and it is an absolute certainty that there will be routes or flights dropped given that AA and US were in different alliances and US' network is not going to work the same in oneworld.

And then we all know you have to factor in that US cannot undercut competitor markets like it has done for years unless AA wants to receive the same treatment and AA/US' costs are going to be higher than US'

It is precisely because MIA is the most concentrated market to Latin America and AA is the only US carrier that serves it that makes it so vulnerable.

Add in that AA is in bed with the largest Latin America carrier in the region and the market is crying for choice and competition.

Competition is coming to MIA Latin America.

AA is free to push into other markets to Europe in an attempt to balance out what is cut but it doesn't mean at all that other carriers won't respond in other key markets such as LHR and Latin America- and to be honest with you, wouldn't have done so anyway because AA's fares in those regions are above average in yield and AA's market concentration is also high.

 

[hp-csr-phx]

Why did UA fail with its MIA hub? Didn't Eastern and Braniff compete in MIA to Latin America?

 

[700UW]

Remember UA tried to have a hub in MIA and closed it down, and pulled all their Latin America and Caribbean flying out of MIA.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Why did UA fail with its MIA hub? Didn't Eastern and Braniff compete in MIA to Latin America?

because UA didn't have what it took to make MIA-Latin America including the commitment to do what was necessary to compete with AA who pulled resources from other hubs which don't exist anymore in order to grow MIA.

It should be obvious but is worth restating that UA is not DL and the UA of today is not the UA of a few decades ago.


A more significant comparison would be the number of markets that each of the big 3 carriers have started in each others' key markets in the past 5-10 years.

on that basis, it should be obvious that there is at least one carrier that has what it takes to add MIA-Latin America flying competitive with AA and can succeed at doing so.

 

[700UW]

And you have been preaching for months how DL is going to take on AA in the MIA to Latin America, yet nothing has transpired.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and I have never said it would come tomorrow... but I have been saying for years that DL would grow LAX and they have the highest growth rate of any US carrier at LAX this year... and they have abundant opportunities to upgrade to mainline aircraft.

What has happened at LAX and is happening there will happen at MIA to Latin America precisely because of the very reason that commavia touts and that is that MIA is a highly concentrated market to a profitable region of the world and it is dominated by one US airline which has an alliance with the largest Latin America carrier.

it is ripe for the picking... and it will happen.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

didn't say that but if they do, I'll not complain.

Does that other carriers will protect their key markets. 
 
[blah blah blah]

Survival of the fittest.

 
Wait, just as you say AA will have to pull resources from elsewhere, wouldn't other carriers have to do the same if they tried to make a run at LatAm?
 
Point negated.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You missed the point.

AA can grow but doing so will mean it is growing in someone else's key markets. MIA is highly vulnerable to competitive incursions by other carriers.

If AA wants to grow MIA-Europe given that AA is the #3 out of 3 US carriers to Europe, it will come at the cost of AA's strength in Latin America or in other markets to Europe from other key markets.

That is just the way the industry works.

you and others think that AA is entitled to grow without being checked just because they have a merger which didn't do for them enough to make a difference in any key int'l region. AA was #3 from the US to Europe and Asia before and still are.