Nor'Easta
Veteran
You would think so. I just don't understand why AA doesn't fly JFK-FCO all year long???
Delta flies: JFK-FCO, JFK-MXP and JFK-VCE year round.
AA is loosing $14,000,000 per year on the SJC-NRT route.
SJC-NRT cxld
- Thread starter AC AA LA FA
- Start date
You would think so. I just don't understand why AA doesn't fly JFK-FCO all year long???
Delta flies: JFK-FCO, JFK-MXP and JFK-VCE year round.
AA is loosing $14,000,000 per year on the SJC-NRT route.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
[quote name='Nor'Easta' post='384646' date='May 30 2006, 01:44 AM']Delta flies: JFK-FCO, JFK-MXP and JFK-VCE year round.
AA is loosing $14,000,000 per year on the SJC-NRT route.[/quote]
And DL just lost a bazillion dollars in the first quarter.
FCO isn't a business route, so AA won't fly it year round, and I doubt it will ever see a 777.
With Aer Lingus announcing their withdrawl from oneworld, perhaps AA will simply make DUB year round, and start flying 777's from BOS to DUB?... I'm sure that would be a lot more profitable than flying to/from Italy year round.
A little history on the HNL-NRT authority...
AA applied for it April 29, 2004, and was awarded the frequencies two weeks later.
Assuming there are still frequencies available in the "general fund" for US-Japan, there's no reason to think that AA wouldn't be able to start up the route. We might not have open skies with Japan, but the bilateral is fairly liberal compared to ten years ago.
AA is loosing $14,000,000 per year on the SJC-NRT route.[/quote]
And DL just lost a bazillion dollars in the first quarter.
FCO isn't a business route, so AA won't fly it year round, and I doubt it will ever see a 777.
With Aer Lingus announcing their withdrawl from oneworld, perhaps AA will simply make DUB year round, and start flying 777's from BOS to DUB?... I'm sure that would be a lot more profitable than flying to/from Italy year round.
A little history on the HNL-NRT authority...
AA applied for it April 29, 2004, and was awarded the frequencies two weeks later.
Assuming there are still frequencies available in the "general fund" for US-Japan, there's no reason to think that AA wouldn't be able to start up the route. We might not have open skies with Japan, but the bilateral is fairly liberal compared to ten years ago.
We applied -with the intention of using 767s. A 777 on HNL doesn't make sense because we would have to use a 777 in order for one to be available in HNL to complete the HNL-NRT-HNL.
I can't imagine using 777 for HNL unless we were doing JFK-HNL or BOS-HNL. Even then, would that be as big a money maker as using that 777 for Hong Kong, India, or Argentina? There's no doubt that HNL-NRT is a very big market. The mainland to and from HNL on a 777 is what I question.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Think outside the box for a moment... Who said the aircraft has to come directly from the mainland?
If it were operated with a 777, then there's nothing preventing an aircraft routing ORD-NRT-HNL-NRT-DFW or something similar. That's exactly how SEA-NRT, SJC-NRT, and RDU-LGW are/were sourced.
The market is largely Japanese honeymooners, so there's simply no demand for a three class aircraft. That's why it was proposed to operate with a 76C, and presumably sourced for both aircraft and crew with one of the existing half-dozen or so 76C's that find their way to HNL each day.
ZMAN777
Advanced
FWIW,
UA operates two 777 (NRT & KIX) to/from HNL daily. These are also folded into our code-sharing arrangement with ANA. The aircraft originate out of SFO I believe and instead of returning to the US or going elsewhere they operate a "tag" sequence to/from HNL. From what I understand they do very well with the O&D traffic out of both stations (NRT/KIX).
Cheers,
Z B)
True, but the UA 777s to/from HNL are domestic two-class, with ordinary F seats at relatively tight pitch (not 3 class F sleeper seats). AA's 777s are all 3 class airplanes with sleeper seats in F and 35 J seats at 60 inch pitch. UA doesn't fly anything like that to/from HNL. That distinction is why some are questioning the viability of an AA 777 HNL-NRT.
ZMAN777
Advanced
FWAAA,
Actually you're wrong. UA's two 777's to/from HNL from NRT and KIX are a 10/45/198 configuration with the Genesis sleeper seat in First. I just checked the loads for a HNL-NRT trip on June 10 and it was booked full in first/35 of 45 in business/ and oversold in coach. Much the same for a hypothetical return trip later in the month.
The UA configuration you may be referring to are the handful of two-class domestic 777's UA uses primarily for mainland-Hawaii flying. They don't use these in trans-PAC operations. So it seems the viability is pretty good.
Cheers,
Z B)
zman777:
My bad - I stand corrected.
If UAL can sell F between Japan and Hawaii, AA ought to be able to do it too.
My bad - I stand corrected.
If UAL can sell F between Japan and Hawaii, AA ought to be able to do it too.
I think the one market AA has strength in, with no airline flying to Japan & 777 already operating from is Boston.
Boston is the one city east of the Rockies with a NEED for Japan. Just think of all the Fish AA could carry to Tokyo for Sushi from New England. I think Boston to Narita would be a winner.
Boston is the one city east of the Rockies with a NEED for Japan. Just think of all the Fish AA could carry to Tokyo for Sushi from New England. I think Boston to Narita would be a winner.
Actually if I remember correctly, AA was initially given route authority from BOS/NRT. The decision was made, when they heard that NW was dropping its JFK/NRT to transfer the authority to JFK. If AA can find the metal and the authority, I agree BOS could be a profitable market for NRT. Although, more money could be made with ORD/HKG.
About the bolded portion: Assuming it's accurate, then ya gotta wonder why that certain profitable HKG-based airline that kicks AA's ass (service-wise) isn't already flying to ORD.
Instead, it recently began a third daiy LAX-HKG (at least on certain days). CX serves LAX, SFO, YVR and JFK. If there was money to be made flying to ORD, wonder why CX isn't doing it?
Based on nothing but gut instinct, I agree. Why add another NRT flight when we don't have "continuation" from there like others do when we could get into a totally new, very profitable, heavily traveled market?
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
A little understanding of UA's situation is in order.
The only reason they don't use a two class 777 to NRT is because ALPO won't allow it. They find the crew rest accommodations on the two class 777 to be unacceptable, but gave a route specific excemption for ORD-OGG/HNL because of the embarassment they were causing UA (i.e. AA was able to fly to Hawaii from UA's hometown, yet UA couldn't).
UA has the same problem with the 763, so unless they want to rip out seats and put in a bunkhouse, UA has no choice on any route over 8 hours but to operate with the three class 777 or 744.
AirLuver, BOS-NRT and JFK-NRT were awarded in the same route award (OST-1998-3419) that allowed AA to serve ORD-NRT. BOS was deferred awaiting slots, and ultimately, the some of the frequencies awarded were transferred to support the second DFW-NRT trip, with the remainder put back into the unallocated pool.
(http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/pdf82/34449_web.pdf)
Also, a side note... Jim, it appears someone was listening to you. SJC-LAS is planned to go away in October as well, being replaced with LAX-LAS (timed to connect to NRT). So, the beyond connections for the NRT-LAX flight just grew a bit. Not exactly as powerful as what ORD-HKG would offer, though.
Actually, I was referring to the "beyond NRT" connections on the other end. I know that we have codeshares, etc. with JAL, but that ain't the same as flying NRT-HKG or NRT-PVG yourself.
