While American Airlines had already suspended international service out of Seattle, it looks like this isn’t just temporary. Has American had a bad strategy in Seattle, or just bad luck?
In this post:
American’s Seattle international gateway aspirations
Prior to 2020, American spent years growing its long haul service out of Los Angeles (LAX), as the airline was increasingly making that its transpacific gateway. Those plans changed in early 2020, when American announced it would launch long haul flights out of Seattle:
- American announced it would strengthen its relationship with Alaska Airlines, which would also join the oneworld alliance
- American planned to start operating long haul flights out of Seattle, with the first three destinations being Bangalore (BLR), London (LHR), and Shanghai (PVG); other destinations were planned beyond that
The timing for this announcement wasn’t exactly great. American revealed these plans in February 2020, and then a few weeks later the world shut down:
- The London service launched as of March 2021, but was suspended for the winter 2023/2024 season
- The Bangalore service was supposed to launch in October 2020, but has since been scrapped; this was first due to lack of demand due to borders being closed, and now due to the closure of Russian airspace to US airlines, which makes this route even more challenging
- The Shanghai service was supposed to launch in March 2021, but has been postponed indefinitely
As you can tell, American’s international “hub” in Seattle hasn’t actually amounted to a whole lot. It has just consisted of one daily flight to London. But even that isn’t operating this winter.
American cancels Seattle to London route
In April 2023, American updated its schedule to reflect that the Seattle to London flight would be suspended for the winter 2023/2024 season. This was just supposed to be a temporary suspension just for the season, but that’s no longer the case.
As flagged by @IshrionA, this route has now completely been removed from American’s schedule, so American no longer has plans to operate this route. Previously, the plan was for this to resume as of the summer 2024 season.
Practically speaking, the implications of this one route being cut aren’t huge. American and British Airways have a transatlantic joint venture, and British Airways will continue to operate the route. Given the revenue sharing agreement and reciprocal perks between the two airlines, this isn’t that major, aside from avoiding fuel surcharges on award tickets, or being able to waitlist systemwide upgrades.
However, bigger picture, it reflects that American has completely given up on its Seattle long haul flight strategy.
Did American have a bad strategy or bad luck?
Is American fully retreating from its Seattle long haul service a sign of bad strategy or bad luck?
American has definitely had bad luck, given that these plans were announced just a few weeks before the pandemic shut down global travel. The Shanghai service wasn’t practical due to travel restrictions, and the Bangalore service wasn’t practical due to Russian airspace closure.
Meanwhile I think the London service just probably hasn’t proven as lucrative for American as planned for a few reasons:
- American doesn’t have much brand recognition, loyalty, or corporate contracts, in Seattle; broadly speaking, the more long haul flights you operate out of a city, the better you’ll do filling each plane with decent yields
- While leisure travel demand has come back quite strong since the start of the pandemic, pure business demand just hasn’t fully recovered; I get the strong sense that the Seattle hub was based on the assumption that there would be pre-pandemic business demand (given the companies based in Seattle), and that hasn’t materialized
- Seattle has become an increasingly competitive market, and at a minimum, there are aspects of Delta’s hub there that aren’t performing well
So I don’t really judge American for discontinuing the London route, in the sense that I think bad luck is largely to blame.
Has American had a bad strategy, though? Well, I’d say that more accurately, American has had no real strategy when it comes to its international network. American has a robust domestic network that’s all about Charlotte, Dallas, and Phoenix.
Meanwhile American’s long haul network strategy seems to be both conservative and random — the airline tries stuff and sees what sticks. Unfortunately not a whole lot “sticks,” aside from London and summer leisure demand across the Atlantic.
American seemed to first have the strategy of growing out of Seattle in partnership with Alaska. Then the airline seemed to be more focused on growing out of New York in partnership with JetBlue. However, that partnership has ended, due to the DOJ suing to block the Northeast Alliance.
Now American has no “real” long haul hub west of Dallas. Sure, American has Los Angeles, but it’s a market where American has retreated quite a bit, and long haul service is primarily to some joint venture hubs, like London, Sydney, and Tokyo.
Bottom line
American Airlines seems to have permanently cut its planned long haul service out of Seattle. The airline never launched Bangalore and Shanghai flights, and has now axed the London service beyond just a seasonal suspension.
What do you make of American’s Seattle strategy? Do you think the airline has given up on Seattle, or will see eventually see this international hub plan happen?
American has a long history of inconsistency in Seattle, and we Seattle flyers know it. Moreover, flyers in general also know that American service quality has declined since the America West and US Air mergers. Seattle is a major hub for Alaska and Delta and also has the usual European and Asian carriers providing international service. So, no need for a mediocre, inconsistent, barely committed additional carrier.
The bigger issue was that most people out here in Seattle are either Alaska or Delta, and if your an Alaska member, why would you prefer the American flight, that requires you to then change your airline at Heathrow to get anywhere else in Europe, to the BA flight where you can get anywhere in Europe all on BA, and get more Alaska miles for the same distance. Oh and also get to fly BA...
The bigger issue was that most people out here in Seattle are either Alaska or Delta, and if your an Alaska member, why would you prefer the American flight, that requires you to then change your airline at Heathrow to get anywhere else in Europe, to the BA flight where you can get anywhere in Europe all on BA, and get more Alaska miles for the same distance. Oh and also get to fly BA which has been a better experience for me internationally.
Like I have gone from Seattle to Europe multiple times since the pandemic. I've been on that BA flight more then once, the American flight never even came up as viable.
What a joke Dallas Airlines is. So sounds like Dallas will be their transpacific hub now? It’s like they’re not even trying outside Dallas, Charlotte, and Philadelphia. Almost all the new routes they’ve launched are to JV partner hubs. For what it’s worth I don’t see why they can’t build up a LAX transpacific hub like UA did in SFO. Sure there might be more competition than SFO but LA should have the population to...
What a joke Dallas Airlines is. So sounds like Dallas will be their transpacific hub now? It’s like they’re not even trying outside Dallas, Charlotte, and Philadelphia. Almost all the new routes they’ve launched are to JV partner hubs. For what it’s worth I don’t see why they can’t build up a LAX transpacific hub like UA did in SFO. Sure there might be more competition than SFO but LA should have the population to support a few airlines hubbing at once. What a joke. I might even argue they don’t even deserve the American Airlines name at this point.
Business travel and conventions are staying away from SEA due to downtown conditions. Stayed at the Sheraton downtown a few times in the past couple of years and the hotel was like a ghost town. No one in the lobby at 930am nor at 1pm - prime check out and check in times. People can avoid SFO and go to San Jose area, but no 2nd place for SEA (Bellevue - not big enough).
the same is true for Portland
Randy, conditions in downtown Seattle have dramatically improved over the past year. I work in downtown Seattle, and the change is real.
Hotel occupancy is higher than it was pre-pandemic. And there's more hotels in downtown Seattle under construction. Restauranteurs are opening new places in and near the convention center and publishing how successful these new options are.
SEA-LHR on AA was an easy way using 30k AA miles and no surcharges to get to/from Europe. There was even J available for 57.5k miles 3 days before the flight I took in August. None of the flights I took were full. I liked the timing - it meant you actually slept, even in Y.
This flight was the only reason that I wanted to retain any AA miles as it was impossible to use AS miles on it. Sad to see it go. But not surprised.
The problem with the AA LHR flight was two fold:
1) the timing wasn't very good
2) BA started running 787-10s with CS and F. So J pax had as good/better (depending on your viewpoint) on BA as AA and there's an option for F. I think AA might have done better if BA only had their old J CW seats, especially since DL and VS don't have great products to LHR from...
The problem with the AA LHR flight was two fold:
1) the timing wasn't very good
2) BA started running 787-10s with CS and F. So J pax had as good/better (depending on your viewpoint) on BA as AA and there's an option for F. I think AA might have done better if BA only had their old J CW seats, especially since DL and VS don't have great products to LHR from SEA.
For the last several years I've flown to LHR from SEA every 2-3 months and as AA EXP when AA started their service it never once entered my mind as a possibility of taking that over BA. For one BA has F on their flights (sometimes only 1 of the 2 daily), their service is better, and the 7PM flight is much better timed IMO for getting a good sleep and arriving rested in London. The India and China flights I'd say were just really bad luck w/r/t COVID and Russia, while AA surely has been a bit scattershot on strategy with LAX and NYC, in this case neither of those were really foreseeable.
They didn't have a hope anyways. Should be focusing on procuring the A321LR and filling it up on secondary routes, such as those out of SEA. Take a look at DL/UA who have the A321LRs coming in rapidly.
Delta is not acquiring the A321 for longhaul international routes.
You have your airlines mixed up. AA has plenty of A321XLR on order, as does UA.
Delta is the one who hasn't moved on that model.
Also, Airbus doesn't even market the "A321LR" as a specific designation anymore, as any A321 can now be ordered to the 97tonne standard with up to 3 tanks in the belly.
Nobody knows more about the "AIRLINE BUSINESS" than "ME!"
They need to try to make PHX their west coast hub. No competition and between the mayor drooling over more international routes and TMSC building two mega fabs, this could work.
Wah Wah. Unless they are massively subsidized by this drooling mayor: it's not happening. TSMC can do zoom calls and send a few engineers through LA or SF to get to PHX from their base in Taiwan.
So realistically, where else could be actually successful long haul (seasonally or year round) from PHX? Seriously.
There’s HUGE competition in Phoenix. Southwest has hundreds of daily flights there. That drains the fares that AA can charge.
Not nearly enough O & D travel based in Phoenix to support any significant long haul from AA. Meanwhile, LAX serves market #2 and AA has lost unnecessary ground there. It's still very competitive though.
The main reason the SEA-LHR wasn’t as successful as originally thought was that nobody in Seattle even knew the flight existed. I talked to several travel agents last summer and none knew the flight operated. AA’s main failure is the lack of advertising outside of the hub cities (where they don’t need it). There was zero advertising in Seattle, no newspaper, TV ads or billboards.
AA has lost the plot. They seem to plan their route map with a dart board. But that's what happens when the CEO and his cronies only care about on time departures and lining their own pockets. Preaching that they care for people along life's journey doesn't make it true....
Blows my mind they don’t focus more on long haul from PHX. 10th largest metro in the country with one daily AA flight to London
Phoenix doesn't have the money to support more. They are lucky they get London
they at one time had two BA and one AA flights to LHR. the demand is there
10th largest metro in the country with one daily AA flight to London
Population size doesn't automatically equate to international profit-potential demand. There's so many more factors that go into it.
That PHX is sandwiched right between LAX and DFW, doesn't do it any favors for picking up longhaul flow traffic in any direction.
Population doesn't mean much. And everyone ALWAYS forgets when talking about PHX for AA and DEN for UA that they are at higher elevations and differing humidity levels than most traditional long haul hubs. This therefore reduces the takeoff weight amounts by ALOT. And for a business that operates on the margins, 5% less cargo and 10%- more fuel (for example) pretty much takes them out of the running for most leisure long haul routes....
Population doesn't mean much. And everyone ALWAYS forgets when talking about PHX for AA and DEN for UA that they are at higher elevations and differing humidity levels than most traditional long haul hubs. This therefore reduces the takeoff weight amounts by ALOT. And for a business that operates on the margins, 5% less cargo and 10%- more fuel (for example) pretty much takes them out of the running for most leisure long haul routes. Even cargo heavy routes can be served by CARGO airlines and not on more expensive cargo options like the regular passenger flights. I wish people in both Pheonix amd Denver would be realistic. I mean, I live in DFW and "want" a AA flight to anywhere in Switzerland or to Munich for my work. But I am realistic and know that Switzerland (if ever) would probably just be offered in the Summer and Munich is seasonal in Aug-Oct for Octoberfest. Period. So I connect 3-5 a year through PHL or CLT to get where I need to go. Get over it.
PHX is 1000' above sea level. Not exactly high elevation.
PHX is 1000' above sea level. Not exactly high elevation.
Sure. Now add 3-digit temperatures to that, for any given day during the peak summer travel season, and see what your payload-range allowances look like....... won't be pretty.
PHX and ATL are at almost exactly the same heights and ATL has scores of longhaul international flights.
The problem is the heat, not the elevation.
PHX field elevation varies from 1110 to 1135ft. This is nearly identical to ATL and only 500 ft higher than ORD, so the altitude at PHX isn't a major factor for long haul flights there, but it certainly is in DEN.
The real problem at PHX is summer temperatures, usually 110-118 in the afternoons and their longest runway is only 11,489ft, with no room to lengthen it or build a longer one.
In...
PHX field elevation varies from 1110 to 1135ft. This is nearly identical to ATL and only 500 ft higher than ORD, so the altitude at PHX isn't a major factor for long haul flights there, but it certainly is in DEN.
The real problem at PHX is summer temperatures, usually 110-118 in the afternoons and their longest runway is only 11,489ft, with no room to lengthen it or build a longer one.
In DEN, afternoon highs in the mid 90s to mid 100s combined with their altitude cuts performance substantially, which is why they built a 16,000ft runway.
Neither PHX nor DEN are humid places, in fact they are 2 of the driest large cities in the US.
Regardless, humidity is a very minor factor in aircraft performance.
The variables that most influence aircraft performance are: Aircraft weight, temperature, runway length, atmospheric pressure and runway slope.
PHX is not a good long haul hub for a lot of reasons. First off, it's not on the way anywhere overseas, nobody is going to connect to LHR or CDG or NRT via PHX from places like ABQ or SAN or RNO or SLC. No way. Secondly, PHX is not a large enough, nor prosperous enough, market to support a long haul hub. You'd have better luck in DEN, which also is not an...
PHX is not a good long haul hub for a lot of reasons. First off, it's not on the way anywhere overseas, nobody is going to connect to LHR or CDG or NRT via PHX from places like ABQ or SAN or RNO or SLC. No way. Secondly, PHX is not a large enough, nor prosperous enough, market to support a long haul hub. You'd have better luck in DEN, which also is not an international hub.
So, I see these posts about PHX somehow being AA's go to for Asia routes and I have to laugh. At least SEA has some geography on it's side (and it has more corporate travel to Asia too). PHX is basically like somewhere in FL (except MIA) in that it's a domestic destination for the shorts and sandlas crowd.
Super sucks for us in SEA - requires flying to PHL, JFK or ORD. LAX is not a great option unless terminating to LHR.
American doesnt even fly to JFK from Seattle unless you take their companion airline Alaska and transfer at JFK
Why, just fly BA for all intense and purposes AA=BA transatlantic.
There is no evidence that American has completely abandoned its Seattle plans long term. There's also no evidence that American lacks any kind of international strategy. Those are just regurgitated airline geek opinions from people who want to see the airline be liquidated. The author bases his conclusions on a time frame that was anything but normal. No one knows what the "new normal" will be - if there will ever be such a thing....
There is no evidence that American has completely abandoned its Seattle plans long term. There's also no evidence that American lacks any kind of international strategy. Those are just regurgitated airline geek opinions from people who want to see the airline be liquidated. The author bases his conclusions on a time frame that was anything but normal. No one knows what the "new normal" will be - if there will ever be such a thing.
One known factor is that American has fewer widebodies than it considers optimum. I remember Doug Parker, who many airline geeks love to hate, state that 150 frames is the optimum number. It's quite possible that Haneda is a better use for an aircraft than Shanghai at this time. And to that point, it's telling that Delta. the world's only PERFECT airline) didn't apply to win back the Haneda slot it gave up. Only it knows why. Just as American is the only entity that knows why it's doing what it's doing.
Once the new 787-9s are delivered, the airline should be close to the 150 number Parker mentioned. SO...let's see what happens in the next few years before we jump to conclusions about American's long-tem international network.
The evidence is that they literally abandoned all their announced longhaul service out of Seattle.
Nobody leaves markets they actually want to serve long term, it’s disruptive to passengers and goodwill.
Bottom line is AA failed out of SEA, not very surprising given they have next to zero history here aside from hub service.
Eponymous Coward, You use some strong and colorful language, but Your words are false and empty. "Abandoned"? They only started 1 of the 3 flights (hardly anything worth considering using such a strong word for), and a only one started was seasonal! Also, what's "disruptive" about never starting a flight in the first place?Or then giving passengers 9 months notice that a seasonal flight won't restart? LOL! They can't control a pandemic or a war....
Eponymous Coward, You use some strong and colorful language, but Your words are false and empty. "Abandoned"? They only started 1 of the 3 flights (hardly anything worth considering using such a strong word for), and a only one started was seasonal! Also, what's "disruptive" about never starting a flight in the first place?Or then giving passengers 9 months notice that a seasonal flight won't restart? LOL! They can't control a pandemic or a war. So give me, the readers, and AA a HUGE break from Your dramatic ramblings.
Tone policing: the “sorry, I got nothing” for meaningful internet discussion.
Anyway, my point is expanding longhaul out of SEA clearly failed for AA. You can go “but pandemic” all you want but it failed. Stuff like this happens all the time for airlines, time to move on.
It wasn’t seasonal, incidentally, I flew the route in March and November, which are… not high season for either London or Seattle.
all we can judge any company on is what they are actually doing and what they have announced.
Since Delta just loaded a second daily ATL-ICN on its own metal - in addition to a KE flight - it is clear that DL sees better use of the same A350 to fly to a joint venture hub than to fly JFK-HND.
That doesn't make them perfect but it does say that they, like...
all we can judge any company on is what they are actually doing and what they have announced.
Since Delta just loaded a second daily ATL-ICN on its own metal - in addition to a KE flight - it is clear that DL sees better use of the same A350 to fly to a joint venture hub than to fly JFK-HND.
That doesn't make them perfect but it does say that they, like AA, takes a very deliberate and measured use of resources.
And while you might want to cling to the notion that new 787s of any capability will solve AA's problem, they have not only repeatedly tried to solve their network problems w/ fleet spending but that doesn't mean they will be able to win in the marketplace.
Once again, AA hasn't been able to generate higher average fares than DL or UA in any markets they directly compete against other than to GRU or LHR.
UA will also get the same higher capability 787s likely at the same time and DL has and will be receiving A350s that are more capable than the 787-9. If fleet is the hope that AA has to solve its problems, it will fail.
And given that AA's RASM growth trailed DL and UA in every global region in the 3rd quarter, the chances are that their sales strategy changes are hurting them in the international arena, even as they continually try to play catchup to DL and UA.
So maybe AA's real solution is to figure out and address why higher value international revenue flies other carriers.
As for
LOL Timmy, Your ramblings got cut off. Take a nap.
AA has a habit of not fully committing to a strategy, throwing money into it half heartedly, then bailing. This is no different. SEA is geographically advantageous for trans Pacific flights, making it a perfect place for those who don't live in a hub city to connect. With OW partner providing feeder traffic, as well as their own, this should have been an easy win.
Mantis, you leave out a few things.
~ Worldwide pandemic that closed borders
~ War that closed massive airspace
~ Tech slowdown and major cutbacks
~ Seattle business slowdown
~ China/India being heavy in Tech traffic
~ Boeing not delivering planes on time
But other than all of those realities: Yeah AA "should" have had a easy win.
Do you really expect me to include everything already mentioned in Ben's post? But yeah captain obvious, there was a pandemic, thanks for the insightful point. Doubtful Boeing deliveries had much to do with their decision. War doesn't affect SEA to east/SE Asia routes too much, only the mainland China routes. The fact is that transpacific flights have been pretty full, capacity needs to be added, so there was an opportunity despite all your excuses.
...Do you really expect me to include everything already mentioned in Ben's post? But yeah captain obvious, there was a pandemic, thanks for the insightful point. Doubtful Boeing deliveries had much to do with their decision. War doesn't affect SEA to east/SE Asia routes too much, only the mainland China routes. The fact is that transpacific flights have been pretty full, capacity needs to be added, so there was an opportunity despite all your excuses.
Anyway, it's not about what they did the last few years, it's their plan going forward under discussion, which is to abandon the strategy that would have likely worked if they committed to it.
The SEA gateway AA envisioned was conceived in the pre-pandemic world. The post-pandemic landscape has eroded AA's ability to make SEA long haul work. The SEA-PVG route simply won't work in today's climate. Not enough demand and the corporate contracts that underlined US-China service until 2019 are very much changed now. The tech world's shifts and the inability to overfly Russia make SEA-BLR not worth it and operationally impossible. SEA-LHR is also redundant. BA flies...
The SEA gateway AA envisioned was conceived in the pre-pandemic world. The post-pandemic landscape has eroded AA's ability to make SEA long haul work. The SEA-PVG route simply won't work in today's climate. Not enough demand and the corporate contracts that underlined US-China service until 2019 are very much changed now. The tech world's shifts and the inability to overfly Russia make SEA-BLR not worth it and operationally impossible. SEA-LHR is also redundant. BA flies it and has for years and BA/AA are metal neutral. Everyone seems to struggle on SEA-LON but for BA.
Totally 100% Factual and I agree!
take it easy there, BG.
AA is an airline, not your mother.
Never understood the potential buildup in SEA even though Alaska was a strong partner because AA had limited service to the PNW region itself. Once the rebuild of LAX is complete and the AA facilities are up and running I see them resuming many of the routes returning. PHX also has potential considering the size of the region but SEA was a pipedream on a good day and even Delta struggles up there against Alaska.
Also Finnair operates Seattle-Helsinki. It is part of the transatlantic JV with AA and BA.
AA, BA and AS most likely wanted to take away from Delta some of their long haul markets. So it didn't work. And Delta barely makes money in Seattle after trying to go head to head in Seattle with Alaska. Alaska will have to work more with BA, Finnair and other oneworld partners, and leave the losing money to Delta.
Feel free to provide us w/ the data you are using to show that Delta loses money in SEA but even if you believe the recent conclusion of DL's fare weakness than someone with a little bit of incomplete data made, there is no data on cost by hub - and DL's SEA hub has lower costs per seat mile than their system because it uses a higher proportion of new generation aircraft (A321s and...
Feel free to provide us w/ the data you are using to show that Delta loses money in SEA but even if you believe the recent conclusion of DL's fare weakness than someone with a little bit of incomplete data made, there is no data on cost by hub - and DL's SEA hub has lower costs per seat mile than their system because it uses a higher proportion of new generation aircraft (A321s and A220s) and fewer older aircraft (717s and 757s) which are much more concentrated in ATL.
But anyone with even half a mind for analysis has to ask how Delta has managed to start two hubs in lower cost carrier hubs and still end up as the most profitable airline in the world.
And the tired "DL makes all of its profits in its core hubs of ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC" not only doesn't pass the sniff test but begs the question of how Delta has managed to turn even a few of its hubs into financial powerhouses while other airlines cannot.
The only rational conclusion is that DL's coastal hubs - including SEA - are a lot more profitable than alot of people think.
Given that AS and DL are both very rational competitors and both much more profitable on a margin basis than AA and a number of other carriers, anyone can also see that DL operates in the western US from SEA at levels sufficient to win the corporate business - but not have the most frequency - while DL easily wins from SEA to the eastern US in terms of total revenue and average fares and also gets the lion's share of SEA international revenue - which the much-discussed recent analysis of SEA didn't even have access to.
AA, OTOH, is smaller internationally in BOS than it was and has yet to sustain long-term longhaul service from SEA, let alone build it into any kind of hub.
Blah-Blah-Blah Tim. No one is even reading Your comments anymore.
There isn't a single longhaul international route other than to LHR or GRU where AA has managed to generate higher average fares than DL and/or UA where the 2 or 3 have directly competed. To/from Tokyo, (HND or NRT), they have been at parity but not exceeded DL and/or UA.
AA's best chance to make an incursion into another hub was SEA-LHR and they clearly can't make that work likely for operational reasons leaving...
There isn't a single longhaul international route other than to LHR or GRU where AA has managed to generate higher average fares than DL and/or UA where the 2 or 3 have directly competed. To/from Tokyo, (HND or NRT), they have been at parity but not exceeded DL and/or UA.
AA's best chance to make an incursion into another hub was SEA-LHR and they clearly can't make that work likely for operational reasons leaving the route to BA.
The notion that AS was going to bail AA out of its inability to compete in longhaul markets was always nothing more than a pipe dream. DL turned SEA, largely a domestic only hub for AS, into a global hub and is the largest international carrier there now.
AA's international route system will be from PHL plus its southern US hubs. They walked away from most of LAX international and DL and UA have stepped in with DL taking the lion's share.
Brian Znotins became the head of AA's network planning in January 2020 (prior to the COVID shutdown). Since his arrival, there has seemed to be short-lived, let's-try-this/let's-try-that strategies. To the passenger, long-established routes are reliable. But, these on-again/off-again routes are not reliable. And, passengers are reluctant to book those flights. For my wife (EP) and I (CK), AA has gone from our go-to airline to being primary on one route and back-up on another. Nothing...
Brian Znotins became the head of AA's network planning in January 2020 (prior to the COVID shutdown). Since his arrival, there has seemed to be short-lived, let's-try-this/let's-try-that strategies. To the passenger, long-established routes are reliable. But, these on-again/off-again routes are not reliable. And, passengers are reluctant to book those flights. For my wife (EP) and I (CK), AA has gone from our go-to airline to being primary on one route and back-up on another. Nothing more.
Hear hear. I'm a former EP from my days as a frequent work traveler from Japan to the EU and US. As AA has played whack-a-mole with their route planning and I've moved to a very centrally located state in the US part time where the nearest international hub is ORD (with ATL only a bit further), I'm now a free agent and will pay more for a direct flight from ORD/ATL to my final...
Hear hear. I'm a former EP from my days as a frequent work traveler from Japan to the EU and US. As AA has played whack-a-mole with their route planning and I've moved to a very centrally located state in the US part time where the nearest international hub is ORD (with ATL only a bit further), I'm now a free agent and will pay more for a direct flight from ORD/ATL to my final destination - usually BCN, AMS, or London (any of the airports will do) - regardless of carrier. I find myself on UA and DL/AF/KLM flights mostly and a BA flight now and again. If you're buying J fares anyway, the time savings and lack of worrying about missed connections is worth the slightly higher fare and since Advantage Miles are going the way of SkyPesos there's no need for loyalty.
Also, I hate PHX because it's a garbage airport with way too much walking and awful lounge options - another strike against AA.
I agree that there is far too much walking involved when making connections in Terminal 4, and even worse if you're connecting to an airline in Terminal 3. At least it's not as bad as CLT.
Then you wonder why I think you want to see American liquidated. You have zero evidence to back up your conclusion. It's simply, a burning, irrational desire to see bad things happen to any airlines who dare to compete with the world's only PERFECT carrier.
Isn't that Anti-Timitism.
Let Tim Dunn have peace in Ziatlanta.
Delta has warned other airlines they want to occupy Seattle at all cost.
AA is just a casualty of war.
@Smokie - too funny!
To the extent American needs a “long haul hub” west of the Dallas, they could add more international destinations from Phoenix.
AA should really just ramp up LAX and compete with Delta there. The problem is that a lot of these airlines don’t want to compete, even when it makes the most sense
It makes far more sense to fly LAX-DFW-NRT than a direct flight. And, it makes far more sense to fly JFK-DFW-FRA than a direct flight. With a two or three-hour layover in DFW, of course. So, let's not start talking direct flight crazy-talk.
If it were so simple, why wouldn't they ...(wait for it)... do that?
The only thing simple is the answer: because the demand+yield isn't there.
If they even suspected that it was, they'd try it.
IMHO they should concentrate on LAX where they are completely rebuilding terminal 4. The eagle’s nest which is the home to commuter flights, will be replaced by the extension to the midfield concourse and will be a significant improvement. One world carriers operate multiple flights with whom they can codeshare etc.
My guess is that AA avoids LAX as a hub, in part, to avoid 1) California pro rata corporate taxation and 2) California labor laws. My guess is that the tax issue, in part, is also why AA looks to Charlotte and Philly as its European gateways.
Not sure what you’re talking about? AA flies from lax to Tokyo nonstop twice a day. I don’t think American is counting on many people at all to fly from New York to Frankfurt via dfw. They’re not really after that traffic, clearly. Take another airline.
Actually, AA has commented that LAX is tough because it's such a competitive market. Nobody dominates that hub, and for long-haul service, they have to compete against many (better) foreign competitors.
There isn't the space to build up a strong trans-Pacific hub like UA has in SFO or DL has been working on in SEA, and AA has retreated too much from LAX to feed those flights. (Yes, AS can help, but AS is far...
Actually, AA has commented that LAX is tough because it's such a competitive market. Nobody dominates that hub, and for long-haul service, they have to compete against many (better) foreign competitors.
There isn't the space to build up a strong trans-Pacific hub like UA has in SFO or DL has been working on in SEA, and AA has retreated too much from LAX to feed those flights. (Yes, AS can help, but AS is far stronger in SEA than in LAX.)
Meanwhile, AA tends to prefer hubs where they can really dominate - DFW, CLT. Not sure they're willing to rebuild LAX, esp. when they said before they were losing lots of money there in the past.
Finnair also offers thrice-weekly seasonal summer flights from Seattle to Helsinki, JV with AA & BA.
Why don’t they just turn Philly into their version of Newark. It seems pretty obvious. They are already there and everything between the northern DC burbs- central PA, most of NJ could be in play with passengers looking to travel internationally.
Because, quite simply, Philly isn't Newark/NYC. Nowhere remotely near the same demand. And CLT is by far AA's lowest cost hub per enplanement, so if they're to simply ramp up transfer, it's cheaper to send pax through there. As a result, PHL remains what it is, with some adjustments.
Choosing Philly as a primary hub on the US side is as nonsensical as choosing Luxembourg as a primary hub on the European side.
I mean, they are bulking up PHL next summer with flights to 3 new destinations in Europe. So there’s that
That's a pretty big area. Imo the northern DC area is a bit of a drive just to fly out of PHL. Most of NJ unless you're a AA loyalist doesn't make sense to fly out of PHL. EWR is closer for the major population areas of NJ and the fares are cheaper out of EWR.