Rumor of ALL SJC-LAX/LAS/SNA/SAN cut in Dec -- DISASTER !!!

[verhalen2003]

Look, if you take away AA flights between N and S California (and Vegas), you remove the last reason that AA is a viable carrier on the West Coast.
I could see changing these flights over to Eagle if needed, but to provide NO SERVICE.... this is A TOTAL FAILURE of AA mgmt strategy. It is prime evidence that AA mgmt has NO PLAN for dealing with the future and is basically just letting the airline shut itself down.
This is absolutely disgusting news and I hope to he** it is not true.

 

[ITRADE]

What the heck is going on with west coast operations. Republic killed Hughes Air West; USAir killed PSA; AA killed AirCal and NOW Reno...

You would think that folks would have learned by now.

 

[whlinder]

perhaps a more extensive codeshare/alliance with AS is in the works?

after all, AA is the only one left at the dance without a date...

 

[Get Over It Already]

Where did you see that? Are you sure they aren't putting Eagle on the routes?

 

[WingNaPrayer]

Ta Ta Reno Routes!

 

[verhalen2003]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 4:18:09 PM Get Over It Already wrote:

Where did you see that? Are you sure they aren't putting Eagle on the routes?
----------------
[/blockquote]

The source is AA777Flyer, an airliners.net poster who claims to be an AA CSR. He also says the changes will be in Sabre on Monday.

The info was also cross posted onto flyertalk.com, but that is traceable to the original posting on airliners.net.

The changes are specifically described as NOT downgrades from mainline to Eagle, but TERMINATIONS altogether. I would not be nearly as upset if it was just downgrades to Eagle. I'm willing to do my butt time in RJ's. I just want them to be American (Eagle or Connection) RJ's.

 

[verhalen2003]

The only MAJOR to be doing business on the West Coast and surviving is United... (I don't count Alaska as a major because they have no hubs outside the West Coast) Guess who I am switching all my business to if AA verifies this rumor ??

This is a great way to dispose of all the FF base you built up at SJC over the years, AA.

 

[verhalen2003]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 4:12:08 PM whlinder wrote:

perhaps a more extensive codeshare/alliance with AS is in the works?

after all, AA is the only one left at the dance without a date...
----------------
[/blockquote]

Currently, AS's intra-California (and California-LAS) flights are quite limited. For such a codeshare to ameliorate this situation, AS would need to start flying a bunch of these routes (or really increase frequency on the ones they already do). I have to say this would help the situation, though I'm not the biggest fan of AS (no MRTC - yuck.).

And if this is AA's plan, they better start talking about it... don't say you're making devastating cuts to service without saying what you're replacing it with. (Though this is all still rumors from reasonable sources, nothing official yet.)

If they DO make the cuts and DON'T have a solution such as AS taking over the flights, well, it bodes very very badly for AA. Lose your California presence and you become just another East Coast-Midwest based airline. You surrender the West for Southwest to grab up all the passengers that currently feed your precious East Coast/Midwest operations.

 

[ITRADE]

The rumor was on rec.travel.air around 2:00 today.

 

[MrMarky]

Southwest is a major player on all of these routes. AS does not fly any of these routes from SJC. It's only AA and WN to SAN and SNA. UA, AA and WN fly LAX, and HP, AA and WN fly LAS.

So if true, this means AA is throwing in the towel to WN. BTW, WN is definitely considered to be a major, verhalen.

Has AA dumped or planning to dump any routes at STL where they go head to head with WN??

 

[Senor Pelon]

Back in the early 80's, the late TWA started dropping routes left and right. At that time the Chairman of the Board was a man named Ed Smart. I believe it was either Time or Newsweek magazine wrote an article about TWA and it made the cover for that particular issue. The tittle of the article was The Incredible Shrinking Airline. Is this deja vu all over again for all of us? I pray it is not rue.

 

[verhalen2003]

Unfortunately I'm convinced that AA is following TWA's lead -- vainly attempting to shore up profitability by eliminating unprofitable service. Unfortunately, by doing so, you also eliminate big chunks of your FF base and your appeal to business travelers who rate network breadth highly in their choice of airline.

Through all of the recent crises, one big mistake that UAL has NOT made (and that AA is repeatedly making) is to pull out of markets and strand potential customers. UAL has kept its network more or less intact by replacing mainline service with RJ service. Granted, AA can't do this because of the scope agreement, but from this customer's point of view, I don't care *why* AA can't provide me service -- why should I. All I see is that they are cutting services that I relied upon to always be there. I have no choice but to transfer my loyalty to another carrier that can provide me the breadth of service, which in my case would be UA.

I still hold out hope that the rumors are all false. But we'll see come next week -- according to the originator, the changes will be loaded into Sabre on Monday.

 

[verhalen2003]

Update -- A ramp worker at SJC reports that SJC staff have been informed that the southbound routes (LAX, SNA, SAN, LAS, etc.) are going all RJ, not being discontinued. This, if true, is drastically better news than what was originally rumored. I'm more than willing to do lots of butt time in RJ's in order to support AA and show them that SJC is still important to their business.

 

[Busdrvr]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/7/2002 12:08:54 AM will fix for food wrote:

The SCOPE agreement is definately a big factor these days. I have the feeling that unless some agreement is come to between A/A and the APA it might all end up in front of a judge in bankruptcy court. It's just unfortunate that passengers such as yourself might have to make the choice to fly another carrier because American can't make any money flying an F100 or larger aircraft to your city and can't fly a smaller one because of contractual obligations.
----------------
[/blockquote]

But it's ironic that instead of adding 10 seats to the F100 and thereby reducing per seat costs by 11%, AMR (and yes, UAL) feels the high yield pax would rather fly on a jungle jet. Didn't someone say you have 87 seats on them? I'd rather be on a 97 seat Fokker flown by mainline, than a 50 seat jungle jet ANYDAY.

 

[will fix for food]

[blockquote]
----------------
On 9/6/2002 10:03:18 PM verhalen2003 wrote:



Through all of the recent crises, one big mistake that UAL has NOT made (and that AA is repeatedly making) is to pull out of markets and strand potential customers. UAL has kept its network more or less intact by replacing mainline service with RJ service. Granted, AA can't do this because of the scope agreement, but from this customer's point of view, I don't care *why* AA can't provide me service -- why should I. All I see is that they are cutting services that I relied upon to always be there. I have no choice but to transfer my loyalty to another carrier that can provide me the breadth of service, which in my case would be UA.

----------------
[/blockquote]


The SCOPE agreement is definately a big factor these days. I have the feeling that unless some agreement is come to between A/A and the APA it might all end up in front of a judge in bankruptcy court. It's just unfortunate that passengers such as yourself might have to make the choice to fly another carrier because American can't make any money flying an F100 or larger aircraft to your city and can't fly a smaller one because of contractual obligations.