American Airlines is making a half-hearted effort to resume nonstop service between Los Angeles and Auckland.
Continue reading: American Airlines Resumes Los Angeles To Auckland Route
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
BuT dElTa UsEs A 339 sEaT a350 oN tHiS rOuTe & WiLl Be OrDeRiNg A350-1000’s SoOn….
Agree 100% this as a direct response by AA to UA's just announced expansion from west coast to AU/NZ. Not sure there is enough demand from US to support all of the added capacity, but time will tell. Prices will drop which helps anyone in the market for AU/NZ flights this winter.
This change with Auckland is par for the course. Since Brian Znotins became AA's head of network and schedule planning in January 2020, a number of routes have been on-again-off-again . . . let's try this . . . no, let's try that. He seems to lack a consistent strategic vision of what the network should be. He has stated for the record that AA is a better and more profitable domestic airline than an international airline. As such, AA will focus on its domestic network and rely on its international partners. Then, he counters that with suggestions of new direct routes to Europe, east Asian, and the south Pacific. AA's key customers are left asking themselves whether they can reliably plan travel. I no longer can.
Without meaningful growth on the route, I suspect only two of three US carriers will be on it in the fall of 2024. Seems like AA just wants to test if the QF tie-up will make them competitive vs DL/UA and hope that one of them blinks first.
Neither AA or UA will last with less than daily service against DL and Air New Zealand.
For all the comments about DL's ex-Latam A350-900 configuration, that aircraft by far will have the lowest seat costs which means DL is the best positioned to endure the inevitable price war.
This will be disastrous for AA and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them cancel this before launch. Their strategy here could be to essentially use this flight to make DL and UA’s new service have softer bookings, then cancel the flight around September to see how many bookings they can preserve over DFW. “Competitive Response”
completely relevant.
some people, while trying to pretend they dislike what others write, do know the facts of the industry.
That only works if DL can consistently fill their plane. With this much capacity I doubt any of the 3 will run full with much consistency
There is no reason to think that DL will be at a disadvantage to AA, UA or NZ when it comes to the ability to fill planes. NZ's planes carry as much or more people that DL.
Don't talk about alliance benefits either. In overcapacity situations, alliances don't save the day.
And remember that AA and UA COMBINED will be offering the equivalent of daily service that DL and NZ will do regularly. It is much harder to win contracts needed to fill planes when you don't fly a route on a daily basis when other carriers do
Timing works well with connecting Qantas in NZ & AA/AS in USA. Going to be interesting moving forward & will be good for consumers short term.
Both are possible- knowing the facts and finding others to be sycophantic pedants.
arguing about the messenger doesn't change the facts.
DL has a more solid case for staying in the LAX-AKL market than AA or UA.
Let's see how it all plays out.
The sycophantic pedant is not interested in hearing about his sycophantic pedantry.
Oh Tim... The things you say sometimes...
Delta has a subpar product vs all other three carriers with the DL LATAM greyhound bus they put on the route. No Premium economy and no all aisle access in business class.
they have the smallest mileage customer base in LA vs UA and AA.
They have no backup alliances unlike AA (TN, FJ, QF) or UA (NZ) and they have no alternate destinations like DFW or SFO if their plane breaks.
They don't have any partners on either end of the route to feed more connections. UA has NZ in AKL. AA has QF/JQ in AKL but also AS/B6 in LAX.
Delta is practically unknown in NZ and a Skypeso in NZ is somehow worth even less there than it is in the US since it would be nearly impossible to use there.
You say that there's too much capacity in the market but then somehow say that having the most exposure to that capacity is a good thing. As Mark mentioned, seat mile costs only matter when you can fill the seats and if Delta is the airline creating too much capacity in the market relative to their strength in NZ and LAX, then they're the ones that will be selling seats for cheap. If Delta wants to be the low-fare airline in the market, good for them. They will be as it stands now. Trip costs also matter, Tim. Seat mile cost is a pretty worthless metric since it doesn't account for the incremental revenue you get from a premium economy product or a nice business class product, neither of which Delta can offer on this route. AA & UA could put 400 seats on a 789 and say they have a great seat mile cost as well but it would be pretty meaningless just like your Delta A350 seat mile cost commentary.
Good for delta doing the route. I'm sure they'll be ok and if they're not, I'm sure you'll find a way to spin it so it sounds like they are. You don't have to turn every article about AA or UA into some Delta nonsense. You just make yourself a laughing stock.
The things you say sometimes... You have no idea what you're talking about most days and it's just laughable. And the way you contradict yourself...
But sure... keep telling us AA & UA with Joint Ventures that apply specifically to LAX-AKL are the ones that won't last vs DL... lol. The US has three really nice airlines. You don't have to get all wound up when Delta is clearly not going to be the strongest in a certain market.
And yes.... before you start your "Delta is big in LA in the last 5 months" ... a short term market share shift in LAX means pretty little in the context of the mileage programs strengths in SoCal overall and the TVs that apply to this route.
Tim, it's a bit ironic that you don't realize Roberto was making fun of what you normally type in your cut/copy/paste method of commentary.
+1 to Maxpower - DL’s superiority with that awful product was a really dumb argument. UA’s superior product and connectivity would mean DL will quite likely fail in yet another international splash. This might be the only theater we may see even AA beat DL with the JV. If only (to Ben’s point) they went all-in on NZ.
FWIW, DL's LAX-PPT ran an extremely short season this past winter starting in mid-December and ended in March. I assume AA is slowly dipping their feet into the water and if this succeeds, they will extend the season/add frequencies next year.
Oh please. DL is at a huge disadvantage on this route. It's putting its largest plane, and if it will be an ex-LATAM 350, a subpar premium product. It has zero feed on the AKL end, and will rely on bringing passengers to LAX to connect them onto the AKL flight. If anyone is run off the route here, it will be Delta.
Delta should concentrate on being a feeder airline to American and United. They have no business flying any international routes and Sky Team blows as an alliance.
I wish AA would show SFO more love. They have a really nice new terminal (and decent club) there, and a really tepid route network to match it.
If Ben didn't follow-up this story w/ his story about AA's abandonment of SEA international longhaul a mere 6 hours later, I wouldn't even bother to reply.
AA will be the first to cave in the LAX-AKL market; they continue to have a rotating list of seasonal markets that they add and then cancel.
UA is still competing on a less than daily basis w/ DL but clearly has a long term commitment to the S. Pacific.
As much as some people want to think otherwise, an alliance relationship won't do anything for AA and UA as long as there is so much capacity in the market - and DL is the lowest cost competitor based on the aircraft it uses.
New Zealand is a heavily leisure market with a high proportion of couple and family travel. Using an aircraft where only 2/3 of the seats only have direct aisle access instead of 100% is immaterial.
They fly to their hubs and Alaska is a proxy for the rest. What else do you want?
They’re not the lowest cost, tim. They have the plane with the most seats. They still have a trip cost for the a350 and a heavy economy weighting on that a359 and economy is traditionally where you see weak yields on a leisure route with too much capacity. Delta is the most exposed. The 789 trip cost is lower than the a350 trip cost. Delta has to raise more money to cover that with a heavy economy weighted latam a350.
And right… saying alliances don’t matter here or that a JV hub on both ends of a route like UA/NZ have is immaterial is honestly just again showing your enormous bias and desire to spin everything for delta regardless of truth or fact.
Stick to what you know… it isn’t aviation.
argue all you want but airlines report their seat costs to the DOT and DAL's Latam configuration of the A350-900 will be the lowest cost aircraft in the market - and everywhere else it flies. The ex-Latam A350-900 might lack Premium Select and all direct aisle access but it will be the most economical widebody aircraft on a per-seat basis in the US carrier fleet
Please don't argue about the superiority of the 787-9. It is a smaller plane w/ fewer seats in a more premium configuration. In fare wars, big, low cost airplanes win.
Airlines with daily service will do even better than 2 airlines with less than daily service.
AA will not be back by next winter if UA stays in the market.
You need only look at AA's LAX-China and Chicago to Asia service etc.
Very bad argument - I don’t know why it’s so hard to understand that DL won’t max out on revenue because DL will lose out on all premium revenue dollars, the real profit game changer in long haul configuration. While AA’s product is hard to be worst from, DL for once has the most garbage product of the 3 airlines in this case. The price sensitivity and as a result the yield of a China or India market is far different from a leisure driven market like NZ. This is business 101. Not even an argument.
Right… because delta has long played the “dump capacity” with a ton of economy seats to beat other airlines natural JV and historic strengths…. That has never been delta’s strategy and with their high costs, trying to becoming the French Bee of the LAX-AKL route is not going to help them. Don’t know what you’re smoking today, but it must be good.
Learn about revenue per seat if you’re going to wax on about this nonsensical cost per seat on the latam a350.
A350 trip cost is higher than a 789. There’s no question. Each aircraft is laid out differently to pay for that trip cost by aa/dl/ua. Delta is one of the many airlines out there on investor calls talking about premium leisure travelers yet they’re putting a poor premium leisure aircraft on a premium leisure route.
Delta is going to be going after low yield economy. That’s about it, buddy. Don’t know why this offends you.
If this latam configuration is such a great thing, why is delta planning to convert them to delta’s standard a359 configuration in 2 years?
Good luck AA. Just checked award availability to Auckland next March. LA flight not loaded yet, but DFW is way more than my 250,000 (Yikes) mile United award DCA-EWR-SFO-CHC with equipment C550, 78X, & 789.
Then I’ll connect to SYD-DOH in QR First then to AUH for 100,000 AA miles. Then home via DOH on Qatar. AUH-DOH n First so two nice layovers in QR First lounge then Qsuites to IAD for just 75,000 Avios.
AA and AS seem much better than UA on long haul awards.
Doubtful it will be cancelled. Why wouldn’t the other airlines follow suit ? It’s only operating during peak season. Cargo is also a big business. This was well thought out. Not like someone picks a new destination out of a hat.
If Delta was after the lowest trip costs and having premium capacity, they could have used the A330-900 which still has MORE seats than the UA 789.
DL, unlike AA and UA, have TWO new generation powered widebodies - and actual data shows that BOTH are far more cost efficient than AA or UA's ENTIRE international fleet.
As multiple other people have noted in these two AA articles, AA can't figure out what it wants to be and doesn't have the fortitude to stick out anything beyond its core hubs - which means that even routes like SEA-LHR which should be pretty safe - are at risk.
DL and are the two that will compete with each other for international strength. Unlike UA, DL is not driven by ego and has the sales team and commercial support to make its network work. But DL doesn't stick w/ routes that don't work - as we have seen BOTH AA and UA admit about HKG and China.
DL is flying LAX-AKL on a daily basis and I would strongly bet by the end of the northern winter that DL will be left standing, UA will use its plane to fly more transatlantic routes and AA will be out.
DL has 3 dozen new widebody aircraft coming in the next 3 years - twice as much as UA - and multiples more than AA. Those 9 ex-Latam A350s will be converted to the new DL standard international configuration.
AA and UA will be subject to their lack of aircraft deliveries while DL will be the ones in growth mode.
No need to argue with you about it. Just sit tight and watch it.
You were one of those that were arguing about AA's transpacific expansion from SEA - which is now just another scrap heap on AA's cutting board.
You always give a good chuckle with your delta nonsense, Timmy.
Is your new line going to be talking about the a330neo and a350 as some kind of bonus for delta?
Happy Saturday
I hope your passport plum fantasyland didn’t take too many gummies today
I know I have won when you resort to childish name calling.
Delta IS the lowest CASM of the big 3 US airlines and their international fleet is part of the reason.
The A330-900 and A350-900 in two configurations are both very competitive for developing markets. DL chose the ex-Latam A350 which is also the largest aircraft in DL's fleet by seats and also the lowest cost widebody in the US carrier fleet.
You can hurl all of the insults you want but those facts won't change.
DL will convert the ex-Latam A350s in the future but AA and UA will have to compete with DL right now.
btw, the highest cost TRIP cost aircraft in the market is NZ's 77Ws. Maybe they are the one most vulnerable by your definition.
“And frankly American shouldn’t really struggle here, given that it has a transpacific joint venture with Qantas.”
Lucky, this is exactly the reason why American is struggling. Qantas abandoned Australians during Covid, stole money and sacked workers illegally. Australians, especially expats, have not forgotten this which is why UA (and DL) are expanding.
I agree. Yield management and route projections are certainly some kind of crazy voodoo, but airlines have entire teams of people and very sophisticated software to do the job.
As noted above, freight between North America & Oceania is big business. I once heard it said that United operates a very lucrative air freight business to Australia, which also transports passengers.
My hat is off to you. You managed to once again combine your lack of financial knowledge, trip cost, and depreciation vs fuel benefit with your usual ignorance about the 777 vs other aircraft.
It’s amazing you don’t rant about the delta 763 or 757 every day the way you go off on the 777 for your usual ignorant reasons. My god, when delta had the 747, how did you live with yourself!? You must’ve been going insane with that depreciated asset!!!
But you don’t know much about finance or airlines which is why delta fired you and airliners.net banned you, IP address and all.
Facts and history hurt 😉 your history should tell any independent observer how much to believe you.
But… it’s always fun to hear you rant and lie
I can’t imagine how boring your life must be to spend so much time across the internet trying to defend a company that fired you
Night night, Timmy
Facts hurt. Try them
Anyone that wants to guess how this will turn and thinks that Delta will be the loser might want to note that Ishrion Aviation is reporting that Delta has extended the 2023-24 season for its LAX-PPT flight which started this past winter (northern), is extending the 3 extra weekly LAX-SYD flights for a total of 10 weekly into the spring season, and extended LAX-AKL as well.
All of the people that are convinced that Skyteam is weak in the S. Pacific might be surprised to see DL end up in a pretty respectable position in LAX to the S. Pacific.
Remember that it wasn't that long ago that DL was a distant #2 to AA in the LAX market as a whole and DL is now the #1 airline in LAX.
@MaxPower
Not really sure why you're sitting here name-calling and admonishing anyone ELSE for limited industry knowledge, when you aren't exactly displaying a complete comprehension of the latter yourself.
Airlines are going to essentially care about two things relevant to this topic:
cost per seat/mi, revenue per passenger/mi; of which which can vary wildly between different aircraft, and even between identical aircraft with different configurations.
"Trip cost" as a standalone doesn't have anywhere near the direct contributory impact to that cost ratio that you, by your writing here, appear to believe it does.
If it did, then kindly explain why UA would bother using a 254tonne 787-9 on this route, when one of their 228tonne 787-8s would best it on "trip cost" every single time?
And while you're at it, can you further clarify the following (nonsensical) statement:
"Delta is one of the many airlines out there on investor calls talking about premium leisure travelers yet they’re putting a poor premium leisure aircraft on a premium leisure route."
....by telling us exactly what would you suggest for a leisure route (that you for some reason describe as "premium") than a lighter weight aircraft, with similar number of business seats, but a far larger economy cabin meant to spread costs over more passengers-- as is generally seen in leisure-oriented configurations (e.g. BA Gatwick fleet, AF C.O.I. fleet)?
There’s never gonna be a better time for Non Revenue passengers to use their benefits to New Zealand and Australia. Delta won’t last on the LAX Auckland route.
If possible, you should write about DL making LAX-PPT and the seasonal increase on LAX-SYD year-round
https://twitter.com/IshrionA/status/1649874427138519049?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
With some days having 5 nonstop LAX-AKL flights this winter already, expect some solid opportunities. Add in Fiji Airways 1-stop and you have significant capacity on this route. The current price points for the holidays will hopefully drop if you are patient enough to hold off on purchasing.
Hello Concordeboy, Yes. I know how trip cost works. I also know that RASM vs CASM is a more useful metric. But talking about the lowest seat cost on an aircraft (as opposed to a RASM vs CASM conversation which is normal) when the A350 in question is loaded in a economy-heavy configuration that even Delta is dying to convert back to their normal A350 config is a strange topic absent revenue from premium seats. If you want to chat about trip cost. Sure. Let's chat about it. a 787-9 costs less to fly on LAX-AKL than an A350-900. It just does. Then you look at how each airline decides to put revenue to make profit on that trip cost based on their seat configurations.
And, if you read what I've written, you'd realize Tim's own analysis suggests an economy overcapacity yield issue suggesting a trip cost offset more evenly between J & W revenue vs Y is always going to do better in this situation, especially when supplemented by JVs on each side of the itinerary like AA & UA have where they can command higher premium revenues. Tim hates it, but regardless of the last 6 months, AA & UA are MUCH stronger in LAX and the west coast to command higher yields whether from United's overall strength on the West Coast or OneWorld's West Coast presence (AS). Delta's A350 has the worst Business class product on the LAX-AKL route (saying a lot when comparing vs ANZ) and they have no Premium economy product for incremental leisure travel revenue, something Delta itself talks a lot about. Delta is trying to convert these A350s to their normal A350 configuration when they can, but throwing a very economy heavy plane and subpar business class product on to a premium leisure route like LAX-AKL doesn't really scream "Delta will win be the winner on this route".
But thanks for jumping in without reading what I've written on the topic. I'm sure you made Tim's day to finally have a fan.
Acting like Delta is skyrocketing to profitability on this route and the winner by becoming the new French Bee with their heavy Economy product A350 is just a bit silly. Of course Delta will spread out the costs more per seat with an economy-heavy A350, but Delta is the carrier desperate to convert these birds to a more premium-heavy configuration.
Delta's cost structure is not set up to win a price war and their international "other revenue' is also not set up to win a price war in economy as you seem to believe.
If this economy-heavy Latam a350 configuration is so great for Delta, why are they spending a LOT of money to change them to standard Delta A350 configuration? It's because Delta's cost structure is NOT set up to win an economy fare class war. Like most US carriers internationally, they make most their money in premium cabins and try to cover costs in economy.
You don’t seem to understand DLs cabin reconfiguration strategy at all. The 777 is an excellent case study of cabin reconfiguration that continues to pay dividends for Delta. DL has absolutely no plans of increasing its existing J footprint as that would threaten existing CASM.
The A330neo and A350 are unmatched, as the 787, especially the -10, commands the highest CASM of new generation US wide bodies.
Tim’s exactly right that JVs are useless when too much capacity is in the market, and those with the most seats win. Which is why DL 767-300 has bested AF and other competitors in PPT.
the past 6 months LAX market share at Lax for delta in metal only means absolutely nothing in the actual SoCal market place for mileage customers and loyalty. AA and AAdvantage members' ability to redeem in So Cal is IMMENSELY superior to Delta. THere's not even any way to refute this. There's a reason AA let Delta take some share -- AA's partners in AS & B6 make up for any shortcoming immensely.
The largest alliance in SoCal is still oneworld and AA partners by a landslide. But good luck, Tim.
"@Mitt Nud"
Tim,
thanks for trying to come up with a fake username to obscure your bias and act like you have people that believe you. It really is adorable that you think you need friends to back you up...
It's cute but boring and really tragic. enjoy delta.
The timing of Timmy writing within 5 minutes on the same blog is a bit too much irony. Everyone knows how desperate Timmy is for people that believe him.
"If you want to chat about trip cost. Sure. Let's chat about it. a 787-9 costs less to fly on LAX-AKL than an A350-900. It just does. Then you look at how each airline decides to put revenue to make profit on that trip cost based on their seat configurations."
Yeah, but then it just goes right back to the question I asked you:
If that meant much of anything, then why would UA use a 789 on this route instead of a far-lighter and similar capacity 788?
I really would be interested to hear your answer, because quite frankly, ANY explanation you manage to come up with, is also going to apply to a UA 789 vs DL A35L...
...similar percentage of weight delta (no pun) between the two, seat increase in favor of the A35L, allowing it to spread costs more evenly throughout the economy cabin.
You keep calling AKL a "premium" leisure market, for some completely unquantified reason, while offering no explanation as to why it'd be different than any other primarily leisure longhaul market-- nearly all of which are addressed by a variant of longhaul aircraft with a higher proportion of Economy to Premium seat.
Do you believe you know something that BA, Air France, Air Canada, Thai, Singapore, Emirates, and other such full-service carriers, who do so with their mainline fleet (regardless of also possessing leisure-branded fleets), don't?
_________________________
Tim hates it, but regardless of the last 6 months, AA & UA are MUCH stronger in LAX and the west coast to command higher yields whether from United's overall strength on the West Coast or OneWorld's West Coast presence (AS).
How could you factually KNOW that, when (1) airlines don't release route-specific financials, and (2) the limited regional financial reporting that they do release shows that all three are struggling mightily in the Pacific.
_________________________
But thanks for jumping in without reading what I've written on the topic. I'm sure you made Tim's day to finally have a fan.
Ya know, if you'd rather match wits in snark, I'll be happy to do so; it's not as if much of a bar has been set there.
But I'd rather deal in applicable fact-- something you've yet to demonstrate a clear ability to differentiate from your own opinion, despite CONSTANTLY lambasting someone else for the same thing. *sigh*
AA and AS do not have a joint venture. AA GIVES AWAY its passengers to AS for the cost of buying seats.
If oneworld did such a great job for AA, then why is AA the smallest carrier of the big 3 to Australia and no longer flies to HKG?
DO you really think American employees are thrilled to continually see AA give its routes away to partners, joint venture or not?