Potential New Routes

[Jester]

PHX-Asia can indeed be done from a technical standpoint; LAS can and does have high temperatures and yet there have consistently been flights from LAS to Asia. PHX is not a whole lot cooler when flights to Europe depart and the distance to Europe is not a whole lot less to than to Asia from PHX.

PHX does have a serious disadvantage with a substantially shorter runway given the similar LAS climate environment. The longest LAS runway is 14,510 feet vs. PHX longest is 11,489 feet... over a 3,000 foot difference!

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPHX

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLAS

PHX had issues with RJs in July due to excessive heat and not enough runway, which caused delays in departures. We have weight restricted flights with A320s and A321s on a regular basis during transcons, so I would imagine that flights to Asia would suffer a payload penalty during the worse of summer heat, as well. As I recall, many of the LAS to Asia flights were triangle flights with stops in LAX or YVR under Fifth Freedom Rights, which I do not see as a viable plan for the well-heeled, business traveler connecting into PHX, when LAX (or DFW?) work better. In essence, I don't see much chance of PHX getting any non-stop flights from Asia, especially after the merger.

I think I would also respectfully disagree with your assessment that PHX-LGW vs. PHX-Asia are comparable in distance. For example, using the great circle map, PHX-LGW is 5,294 miles while PHX-HKG = 7,553 miles, PHX-ICN = 6,276 miles, PHX-HND = 5,801 miles, PHX-PEK = 5,800 miles, and PHX-MNL = 7,635 miles, so at a minimum, it is an extra 500 miles or about an extra hour of fuel burn. Conservatively, we can estimate 15,500 pounds of fuel burned per hour on a B777 (it will be substantially higher on the BA B747-400s out of PHX), and that could be the difference as to whether a flight will suffer a weight penalty at departure time, if one figures a passenger weighting 200 pounds, plus 30 pounds per standard bag, or worse case, about 65 passengers with one bag each. Clearly, this could be the difference between profit and loss.

 

[737823]

US wont fly PIT to Europe, the PIT hub is dead and gone, US wont fly from PIT because there isnt O&D to make money nor connections.

It will be PHL, JFK and CLT for the International flights.

Why do posted bring up PIT? Get over it all ready.

My son flew CLT-FCO then CDG-CLT and flights were full last month.

And BOS, LAX, MIA, ORD, RDU which all have international flying on AA.

CLTs role in the combined network will be diminished vis a vis international flying. US only flies CLT-GIG/GRU because they don't have anywhere better to operate from. AA of course has MIA which has far greater revenue exposure, makes more sense to add an additional MIA frequency and the CLT fanboys move on.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

sorry, but I do not see any current US gateways suffering cutbacks because of the merger. the most significant changes to US' European network will be driven by the movement out of Star and into oneworld which will mean US will likely reduce flying to FRA and MUC where LH's hubs will be less useful to US.

There is no likely changes to AA's int'l network at ORD or DFW but there are too many people who continue to cling to the notion that AA is doing ok in NYC and LAX and can make those gateways work because those are large int'l gateways. The facts are very clear that AA has fallen to the #3 int'l carrier in NYC behind UA and DL and #3 domestically behind DL and UA. US will provide AA a little bit more size in NYC but it will do nothing for AA internationally. Further, oneworld's limited focus in NYC compared to Skyteam and Star make it much harder for AA to push its way back up to where AA once was. Add in that the DL-VS JV will further erode AA's advantage in the LHR market and AA's ability to effectively compete in the NYC international market is likely much more as a niche carrier.
On the west coast, including LAX, AA has a very decent presence to LHR including via the BA JV but other carriers also have JVs to Europe and/or their own service to those markets plus more. And as has been noted, AA's presence from LAX to Asia is again #3 out of 3 among US carriers and based on very publicly available data, AA's Pacific network loses a whole lot of money in a region where AA's network focus should be to find a niche, exactly how US managed to grow to the size they are in Europe.

Anyone who fails to recognize the significant network challenges AA faces in NYC and in Asia will only be surprised when the major network changes in those areas start to be announced.

It isn't hard to fill a plane to Europe or most anywhere else in the summer; in fact, if you can't fill a plane in the summer and also have fares high enough to make good money, the route probably shouldn't be sustained.

The mileage from PHX to Asia is accurate but the most likely destination would be Japan since that is where AA has a joint venture partner. Most of the other destinations have other alliances more dominant or are too far for the economics to work, particularly given the performance issues. Thank you for noting the differences between PHX and LAS...

A final consideration in all of this "guesstimates" about routes is to realize that new AA's leadership bias is to what US has done. There are far too many people who think that AA's strategy of trying to compete in the biggest markets is what makes them money but the simple reality is that their Latin operations are what generates the cash that subsidizes a lot of other parts of the company. Parker will figure out how to use Latin America to make money and have it drop straight to the bottom line and make the rest of the network pay its way as well.

There are also far too many people who underestimate what US has done to build a viable company, even with its lower salaries. and also try to incorrectly discount the value of its network. CLT is a large, low cost hub that is able to connect huge number of markets that AA's network on the east coast doesn't reach.

 

[robbedagain]

josh us does lgw fra and much mad out of clt as well as cdg i think the european runs will continue after the merger... and s amerca does quite well for us out of clt too i do think that that will increase after the merger as will more intl markets out of both phl n clt.

 

[sand2snow]

What new routes can be added to take advantage of One World to the US side?

PHL-HKG
PHL-NRT or HND
PHX-NRT or HND
PHX-MAD
CLT-HKG
CLT-NRT or HND
PHL-DME

Others that are non-hub like(keeping in mind slot controls in LHR):
BOS-MAD
PIT-MAD (if DL can do PIT-CDG) why can't we make PIT-MAD work

Thanks

Could there not be a few more flights to MAD for European connecting traffic onto One World flights especially since Iberia is owned by British Airways??

 

[Beancounter]

Management has said repeatedly that the combined carrier will be weak on the west coast and in Asia. Those are areas that will be addressed, but first the focus needs to be on completing the merger properly. Yeah, I know, it is fun to guess about new routes and bases.

Bean

 

[700UW]

For the summer its CLT:
DUB, FRA, LHR, MAD, CDG, FCO, those are the ones I can remember of the top of my head.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Management has said repeatedly that the combined carrier will be weak on the west coast and in Asia. Those are areas that will be addressed, but first the focus needs to be on completing the merger properly. Yeah, I know, it is fun to guess about new routes and bases.

Bean

spot on... which means they aren't going to try to be all things to all people all at once and they also will not sustain money losing operations for the sake of strategy... and Parker's track record shows that.

 

[robbedagain]

700 those routes are true i forgot about rome n dub

 

[strangiatotheme]

PHX does have a serious disadvantage with a substantially shorter runway given the similar LAS climate environment. The longest LAS runway is 14,510 feet vs. PHX longest is 11,489 feet... over a 3,000 foot difference!

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KPHX

http://www.airnav.com/airport/KLAS

PHX had issues with RJs in July due to excessive heat and not enough runway, which caused delays in departures. We have weight restricted flights with A320s and A321s on a regular basis during transcons, so I would imagine that flights to Asia would suffer a payload penalty during the worse of summer heat, as well. As I recall, many of the LAS to Asia flights were triangle flights with stops in LAX or YVR under Fifth Freedom Rights, which I do not see as a viable plan for the well-heeled, business traveler connecting into PHX, when LAX (or DFW?) work better. In essence, I don't see much chance of PHX getting any non-stop flights from Asia, especially after the merger.

I think I would also respectfully disagree with your assessment that PHX-LGW vs. PHX-Asia are comparable in distance. For example, using the great circle map, PHX-LGW is 5,294 miles while PHX-HKG = 7,553 miles, PHX-ICN = 6,276 miles, PHX-HND = 5,801 miles, PHX-PEK = 5,800 miles, and PHX-MNL = 7,635 miles, so at a minimum, it is an extra 500 miles or about an extra hour of fuel burn. Conservatively, we can estimate 15,500 pounds of fuel burned per hour on a B777 (it will be substantially higher on the BA B747-400s out of PHX), and that could be the difference as to whether a flight will suffer a weight penalty at departure time, if one figures a passenger weighting 200 pounds, plus 30 pounds per standard bag, or worse case, about 65 passengers with one bag each. Clearly, this could be the difference between profit and loss.

I recall a discussion a few years ago on Airliners where someone actually ran the numbers with their airline's FCOM. The calculations were of course crude, but we came up with something like a full load of pax+bags (no additional freight or mail) could be achieved up to about 40C (~104F) with an average 50kt headwind. So, doable but with very, very slim margins with payload and fuel on the westbound sector.

 

[strangiatotheme]

Sorry, probably should have mentioned that it was for PHX-TYO. Don't thing there was a very appreciable difference between NRT/HND.

 

[MCI transplant]

Question?------ Do you feel the new AA will continue US flights into the Carib.?

 

[737823]

For the summer its CLT:
DUB, FRA, LHR, MAD, CDG, FCO, those are the ones I can remember of the top of my head.

So what.l BOS has all those flights and more, this summer we have 2x DUB (EI), 2x FRA (LH), 6x LHR (BA, DL, VS), 1x MAD (IB), 3x CDG (AA, AF, DL), and FCO (AZ). Also add 2X AMS (DL), 1x MUC (LH) and 1x ZRH (LX), SNN (EI) JAL to NRT, and TK starting IST next year, LY is considering TLV and apparently QR will also be coming. What's your point? Those routes from CLT are mostly connections, US runs their aircraft in a high density and low premium configuration, and their revenue per departure is considerably lower than AA or DL. Besides, how many of those you listed are ion 757 or 762 aircraft? The 332 is good, 333 is okay but the 762 and 757 US flies are the pits.

Josh

 

[zethya]

I know that AA/US are giving up a LHR-PHL slot, but will they increase the number of flights between PHL-LHR? Such as a AM departure EB.

Now look at what you wrote, how are you going to increase a flight when you are giving up the slot/s needed for those said flights?

IF you are correct and AA has agreed to give up the PHL-LHR slot AND future PHL-LHR service, then PHL is likely planned to be de-hubbed. On the other hand, AA (or BA) could divest one of their many other existing (active/dormant) slot pairs and transfer it to PHL-LHR for the new entry. In fact, a new entry would likely not even accept the route with the current PHL-LHR slot, due to its 10AM LHR arrival time. There is no provision in the EU edict that the number of PHL-LHR flights be reduced, just that AA provide a new entry (competitor) with a slot pair to be used for PHL-LHR. Consequently, even if US/AA did give the existing PHL-LHR slot to an accepting competitor, there is no requirement (and there could not be), which prevents AA or BA from adding new PHL-LHR flights, either via internal or BA-AA slot transfers. Even if there was a decision to de-hub PHL, it's very unlikely that AA would not have at least 1 LHR flight on its own metal to supplement the O&D BA flights.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Question?------ Do you feel the new AA will continue US flights into the Carib.?

If they are profitable and remain so, yes.