It looks like American Airlines will be discontinuing international service out of Seattle this coming winter. 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
- The Bangalore service was supposed to launch in October 2020, but has been postponed indefinitely; 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 up to one daily flight to London. Well, now even that is going away.
American suspending Seattle to London route
Per the latest schedule filing, American plans to suspend its Seattle to London flight as of the winter 2023 IATA schedule, which kicks in as of late October 2023. It remains to be seen if the service will launch again in the spring of 2024, because as of now the schedule doesn’t go that far out.
Practically speaking, the implications here 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.
However, symbolically it’s more significant, since American will no longer operate long haul flights out of Seattle.
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 now the Bangalore service isn’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 couple of primary 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
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.
Just as American has relied on Alaska in Seattle for connectivity, the airline is relying on JetBlue in New York for connectivity. It’s odd how much the world’s largest airline seems to feel it needs to rely on other airlines to build up its long haul network.
Bottom line
American Airlines will be discontinuing long haul routes from Seattle as of the winter of 2023. It’s anyone’s guess if this service resumes in the spring of 2024, or if this is the end of American’s attempt at making Seattle work. American has gone from three planned long haul routes from Seattle to zero.
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 Airlines is my Worst Choice, They cancel flights that have been Scheduled for 6 months ! Sorry Flight schedule, Never fly with American Again
In all honesty, American Airlines has gone from being a great airline (20+ years ago?) to an airline I will do everything I can to avoid. They appear to be dominated by their finance people who cannot see past today's bottom line. They have lost all concept of customer service (btw, they aren't the only US airline that has), their CEO seems not to understand what passengers like or want, and they have simply lost...
In all honesty, American Airlines has gone from being a great airline (20+ years ago?) to an airline I will do everything I can to avoid. They appear to be dominated by their finance people who cannot see past today's bottom line. They have lost all concept of customer service (btw, they aren't the only US airline that has), their CEO seems not to understand what passengers like or want, and they have simply lost it. I feel for their flight attendants and ground staff, who continue for the most part to be friendly and helpful. They do not deserve the management they have, sadly.
If American were to disappear, would anyone miss them? I surely would not. It is sad to see the demise of what was a good, if not great, airline. They have lost track of what their most important asset is -- customers. Flying American is not fun; it is a challenge. Hopefully a complete change of management by its board may be the only way to save them.
Seems like AA could not care less about long haul flying. Theyd rather let their partners do it and pass everyone off to connecting through LHR. Compared to DL and UA their international network is pathetic outside the Caribbean. They aren’t a global carrier anymore.
Vasu Raja likes to talk about the network, network, network. That it is their advantage but what network? The network is pathetic. They’d rather fly to BFE, little towns in...
Seems like AA could not care less about long haul flying. Theyd rather let their partners do it and pass everyone off to connecting through LHR. Compared to DL and UA their international network is pathetic outside the Caribbean. They aren’t a global carrier anymore.
Vasu Raja likes to talk about the network, network, network. That it is their advantage but what network? The network is pathetic. They’d rather fly to BFE, little towns in Texas than have a competitive global network. US Airways drove American into the ground and continues to do so.
Their actual product and the network can’t compete. They’ll keep driving that airline into the ground.
AA epitomizes the concept of “One step forward, two steps back.” Not being from the South originally, Delta was never an option growing up: we always flew either AA or UA.
VX had its main hub at SFO and another at LAX. AS had its main hub at SEA, and picked up (and kept) VX’s California hubs in the takeover. AA used to have a solid presence at LAX. There was no reason for...
AA epitomizes the concept of “One step forward, two steps back.” Not being from the South originally, Delta was never an option growing up: we always flew either AA or UA.
VX had its main hub at SFO and another at LAX. AS had its main hub at SEA, and picked up (and kept) VX’s California hubs in the takeover. AA used to have a solid presence at LAX. There was no reason for them to pull out of LAX (serving the major “mega-opolis” of Southern California) in favor of SEA (serving a metropolitan area with a significantly smaller population), unless they thought they could stick it to DL. On top of that, AA then closed their SFO base — FA’s I know were assigned to DFW even though they live in SF Bay Area; they now “deadhead” to DFW in order to start work.
Nothing — OK, a little hyperbole there — very little of what AA does makes any sense to me, nor (I am willing to bet) their Board, their shareholders, not their customers, and yet...
Thanks I agree with no AA Flying in my Future!
Mismanaged airline, flew from Seattle to Buenos Aires return terrible service onboard and in Dallas and South America, will never fly again with them, nothing more to say
I certainly hope that AA regroups during the Winter schedule, and gives Seattle a good chance to succeed in the 2024 Summer schedule. AA's international products very good and there's no reason to retreat with it.
AA has never understood the relationship between soft product and profit. During a recent explanation of why American was discontinuing international first class (and transcon A321T), it was stated that nobody will purchase it anymore. Plenty of people will purchase it on the world's top airlines but not on AA. American doesn't know how to do international F/C. Think about it - if you had the choice of purchasing a F/C ticket on AA or...
AA has never understood the relationship between soft product and profit. During a recent explanation of why American was discontinuing international first class (and transcon A321T), it was stated that nobody will purchase it anymore. Plenty of people will purchase it on the world's top airlines but not on AA. American doesn't know how to do international F/C. Think about it - if you had the choice of purchasing a F/C ticket on AA or Singapore, who would you choose? Part of the reason for building an international hub in Seattle is because AA says it is too hard to make money in LA. No other airline in LA is complaining about this. The idea of building a successful international hub in Seattle has merit and potential. However, it will take more than just allocating a few widebodies there. It will involve investing in building new community relationships for the long haul. And, it can happen with a paradigm shift in soft product onboard. When is the last time anyone raved about inflight service at AA, especially long haul international. The world's largest airline should be showing leadership here. However, there is no appreciation of the relationship between soft product and profit. They could learn from their cross town partner, Alaska!
Amen Ron - i write this as a loyal AA Explat customer but the product is admittedly terrible
Part of AA's overall struggles are a byproduct of their "necessary evil" merger with US Airways. After the DL/NW merger, AA had no choice but to merge with US Airways in order to maintain a competitive share with the newly formed giants at UA & DL.
The problem with the AA/US merger was that there was too much network overlap. Two of the three US Airways hubs (PHX, PHL) overlapped with AA's LAX and...
Part of AA's overall struggles are a byproduct of their "necessary evil" merger with US Airways. After the DL/NW merger, AA had no choice but to merge with US Airways in order to maintain a competitive share with the newly formed giants at UA & DL.
The problem with the AA/US merger was that there was too much network overlap. Two of the three US Airways hubs (PHX, PHL) overlapped with AA's LAX and JFK hubs. To compound this issue, the pre-merger US Airways hubs at PHX & PHL were larger than American's per-merger hubs at LAX & JFK, but AA did not want to retreat from the important LA and NYC markets. Therefore, unlike UA's closure of CLE or DL's closure of MEM which were much more straightforward, AA had a difficult decision to make. Their ultimate decision - to keep all hubs - drives a lot of network inefficiencies across its overall network.
Until they decide how to address this issue, they will continue to have a cost structure above their competition and struggle to remain cost competitive.
remember that, as the last of the big 4 mergers (WN/FL), AA/US had to agree to keep several hubs open while DL/NW was approved without any significant conditions as the first of the big 4 mergers while UA/CO had some but not near as much as AA.
AA could have closed hubs by the time covid rolled around but still did not
What was even worse was when America West got sucked into AA. AW was a good airline until that happened.
America West got sucked into USAirway, which took over AA.
You and @Tim Dunn make all of this sound like it was an unforseen, unfortunate circumstance. American knew what US Air's hubs were, understood the overlap, and chose to merge anyway. Because the CEOs got paid handsomely to do so. Instead of doing what was best for the company, they chose short term thinking that has hobbled them with a bad network and incompetent leadership.
Pre-merger AA had a reasonably balanced network: equal dominance of...
You and @Tim Dunn make all of this sound like it was an unforseen, unfortunate circumstance. American knew what US Air's hubs were, understood the overlap, and chose to merge anyway. Because the CEOs got paid handsomely to do so. Instead of doing what was best for the company, they chose short term thinking that has hobbled them with a bad network and incompetent leadership.
Pre-merger AA had a reasonably balanced network: equal dominance of ORD, a massive fortress LATAM hub in Miami, a strong presence in JFK, and a convenient, mid-continent hub in a rapidly growing city with DFW. The only thing they needed was a west coast hub. But rather than do the hard work of building one, they decided to buy a lousy airline with a bunch of assets they didn't need, and they continue to pay the price for that.
UA is investing the time and energy to rapidly build up DEN. Delta built their NYC presence from scratch. IOW, even these days, building a new hub can be done, even in competitive cities like NYC. It just takes a management team willing to do that work rather than rely on financial engineering to squeeze a massive short-term payout from a poorly thought out merger. And that's one thing AA didn't get out of the merger.
I assume that management concluded that the LHR slot pair could be more profitably used for another city. They aren’t going to let it sit unused.
let's not forget that a big reason why AA developed the partnership with AS was under the guise of giving away domestic flying on the west coast in order to fly longhaul international flights on AA metal. Obviously, with AA pulling longhaul international flying, AS gets the largest benefit of the partnership and AA employees just lost hundreds of flights.
Wait for the same thing to play out at JFK and BOS as it...
let's not forget that a big reason why AA developed the partnership with AS was under the guise of giving away domestic flying on the west coast in order to fly longhaul international flights on AA metal. Obviously, with AA pulling longhaul international flying, AS gets the largest benefit of the partnership and AA employees just lost hundreds of flights.
Wait for the same thing to play out at JFK and BOS as it becomes apparent the international routes from those cities that AA flies also aren't economically viable.
SEA was always a much more difficult market to crack. DL was established in every route that AA could have flown except for SEA-India and that route would have pushed any aircraft even before Russian airspace closures.
AA flew SEA to Narita once but DL now flies SEA to Haneda which gets the majority of the local market Tokyo revenue. AA promised SEA to China but all of the big US 3 aren't even flying anywhere near what they once did to China due to Chinese government restrictions. DL flew SEA-Beijing and Shanghai daily pre-covid but can now only flew 2X/week SEA-PVG. China was never realistically an option any more than Japan was.
While the transatlantic flights from JFK and BOS have different circumstances, the economics of those flights are not likely to be better than other transatlantic flights that AA has dropped.
The outcome will be that AA will have a smaller international network that is more concentrated in its southern hubs and its employees will have lost hundreds of jobs worth of flying from competitive hubs including SEA, LAX, BOS and JFK which other airlines can somehow manage to make work.
I don't think the strategy was that bad. Alaska has a very strong network within and to the West Coast, especially after the Virgin America merger / acquisition. Making Seattle a hub to East and Southeast Asia was a good bet.
There is demand for frequent flights from Seattle to Japan, India, China, and Vietnam. The timing was really off, though. Alaska joining oneworld was actually not ideal, as there would be more connection...
I don't think the strategy was that bad. Alaska has a very strong network within and to the West Coast, especially after the Virgin America merger / acquisition. Making Seattle a hub to East and Southeast Asia was a good bet.
There is demand for frequent flights from Seattle to Japan, India, China, and Vietnam. The timing was really off, though. Alaska joining oneworld was actually not ideal, as there would be more connection options from Alaska customers, reducing American competitive advantage
At least with the BLR flight, I think it got killed when United announced SFO-BLR. While Seattle probably does generate a decent amount of traffic to BLR, it's nothing compared to the Bay Area, and I think AA was depending on Silicon Valley people taking a quick flight to SEA and then to BLR rather than chance it on an international connection in LHR/FRA/DXB/etc. But once United announced a direct flight, that massive market was...
At least with the BLR flight, I think it got killed when United announced SFO-BLR. While Seattle probably does generate a decent amount of traffic to BLR, it's nothing compared to the Bay Area, and I think AA was depending on Silicon Valley people taking a quick flight to SEA and then to BLR rather than chance it on an international connection in LHR/FRA/DXB/etc. But once United announced a direct flight, that massive market was gone.
I just don't see SEA-BLR taking off ever for AA. There's just not enough demand without significant feed, and while Alaska could provide that feed, SEA is not convenient for Asia connections except for LAX/SFO passengers flying north to make the connection. Everyone east of Denver has more convenient connections through other cities. And United will be competing for those west coast 1-stop connections from a much stronger O&D base at SFO. Doesn't seem like a recipe for success...
I flew Pan Am nonstop Seattle to London in 1960. With all the improvement in jet planes, American Air still can't pull it off.
It's amazing what US Airways management has done to American Airlines' network. Vasu Raja has a big hand in that as well. He claims all of the old European routes out of O'Hare weren't profitable. Even though before his time with AA, they somehow worked very well. He slowly diminished the entire AA Hub out of O'Hare since 2006, when he went into network planning. AA flew to Tokyo, Shanghai, and Beijing, and no longer...
It's amazing what US Airways management has done to American Airlines' network. Vasu Raja has a big hand in that as well. He claims all of the old European routes out of O'Hare weren't profitable. Even though before his time with AA, they somehow worked very well. He slowly diminished the entire AA Hub out of O'Hare since 2006, when he went into network planning. AA flew to Tokyo, Shanghai, and Beijing, and no longer has any flights to the Pacific out of O'Hare. American's international gateway to Europe out of O'Hare is but a smidge of what it was in the early 2000s. American flew to Amsterdam, Brussels, London, Milan, Rome, Frankfurt, Venice, Stockholm, Paris, Manchester, Moscow (2008), New Delhi, Zurich etc all through the 1990s and early 2000s. Now they do only London year round. Paris is close to year round, but no other international cities. They only fly to Barcelona, Rome, and Athens for the summer months now out or O'Hare. Then you have LAX, where American had the largest market share, and now they've given everything to Delta and United. Vasu Raja claims that American is better at doing domestic flying more so than international in a recent article. So those of us that are AAdvantage members are out of luck with the lack of international service. We should not have to fly other airlines within Oneworld, when United flies most of the bulk to cities around the world, using their metal. Once you get overseas, then the whole codeshare agreements makes sense. You should not have to go through DFW or CLT either to get somewhere over the pond. American has never been particularly strong in Asia, we all know that. But at LAX, between 2011-2013 they added Aukland, Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo. All of those are now gone except for Tokyo. I understand the pandemic hit hardest in the Asian markets. But that's not stopping Delta and United (especially United) from adding more and more cities internationally than ever before. So United is now the largest airline to Europe and the Pacific Rim by far. All American has is its Miami gateway to South America. DFW and CLT are great hubs, but don't fit into the network for those of us that live in the midwest, west coast, or east coast cities. For American being the largest airline, their international network has deteriorated to the point that many of us will have to leave our status to go to United or Delta, if they don't change their business model soon. My once favorite airline has become a shell of itself. As half of their gates sit empty at O'Hare most of the time, I can see them dehubbing Chicago, which is really sad. American has a cult following out of O'Hare but we can only follow so much, with the lack of domestic and international flights. American has always been a thorn in United's tush since ORD opened. American was always neck and neck with United in Chicago. United has always been the largest carrier, but AA was right behind them. Now there is a large disadvantage on the AA side. I read that Southwest now flies more passengers out of Chicago Midway, than American does out of Chicago O'Hare. So I went to the BTS.gov website and looked at the numbers at AA at O'Hare and SWA out of Midway, and Southwest does carry more passengers from little Chicago Midway Airport than AA out of ORD! Let that sink in as to what American is doing right now. Time for the American Airlines mindset to come back, because the management at US Airways has only made American go from a high end carrier to a Spirit Airlines type of airline. Look at their domestic product. They had brand new seats with new tv monitors and amazing service. Then they gutted all of their domestic airplanes, removing all of the in seat entertainment, and adding way too many seats to an airplane. The 737-800 had 150 seats under AA management. Then it went up to 160 seats when US Airways was merging with American. Then the CEO from US Airways decides to go to 172 seats on a 737-800 and MAX aircraft! With business class, main cabin extra, and economy. Yet, Southwest, which has the 737-800 and MaX 8 as well, has 175 seats in an all economy layout. Southwest has up to 3 inches more room per seat than American. Why am I paying a premium to fly AA? I want to stay loyal, but they're making it very hard to. I can't even use my points or buy a ticket from ORD-HNL because they cut it off once again. American seems to claim they struggle everywhere they go. Well, if they quit losing market share to everyone else, by adding and ditching routes, this wouldn't happen. They're getting as bad as Frontier with announcements and pulling out right after. Get your act together AA. You have great employees and great potential with an amazing network. But you care only about 2 cities when you have JFK, LAX, ORD, and PHL that are really lacking. Also, your hard product domestically is a far cry from what it was in 2017 for sure. I hope things change for the better. Does anybody else see them getting rid of the ORD hub? If you've been though ORD lately, the AA terminal is a ghost town compared to what it was before the pandemic. Yet United's and Southwest at MDW are super crowded. I notice all of this when I'm flying and can't take AA from ORD since they've cut their schedule so much. So I'm having to fly United internationally and Southwest domestically nonstop to get to cities I need to be. Do better AA! You have the resources, use them!
Horrible schedules + a mishmash of “oddball” connections & destinations = American Airlines becoming insignificant
Here’s a novel concept if you want to be successful in the Seattle market…there are 4.1 million people in the Seattle/Everett/Bellevue/Tacoma market. There has been zero/zilch/nada advertising in the area so that people even knew about this flight. Maybe if people knew this alternative to British Airways existed it might be successful. However due to American Airlines deficient marketing department the travelers will suffer from it.
AA-AS could be like DL on transpacific market. AA fly the transpacific routes, and AS fly domestic from SEA or LAX.
AA should have launched SEA-TYO or SEA-ICN rather than LHR, PVG or BLR.
What would they have gained from competing with DL/NH to TYO, and DL/KE to ICN from a smaller market than LAX?
Not shocked by this at all. AA has lacked a corporate strategy and direction for a long time. This was just the latest in a series of head scratching moves.
This was doomed from the start. Stick with what you know: THE HUBS. Feed Seattle and vice versa with Alaskan. You can still do a Bangalore flight from the east. Keep Shanghai in DFW AND put one in LAX. They should have never exited LAX as a asia gateway. AND BRING BACK HONG KONG. Doha is nice as a Asia gateway, but it was a bad when the World Cup was there and everyone needed a visa, even if they were connecting.
Not surprised at all. They can't seem to do much right. Their gates in Phoenix are like waiting in sardine cans at 95 degree temps, flying flights out of gates right next to each other at the same time. I avoid them as much as possible now.
All these airlines need to do is to lower the prices to Asia from Seattle and they will have full flights.
Not too surprised. While the long haul product is not bad, their soft product sucks - terrible food, poor service. If given a choice, I’d rather be fly BA
I am with SS AA is not very good now. Years ago it was great but with cost cutting, even with Mayor Pete giving them billions, they just aren't that good. I have flown them domestically and it was ok but if I was going international I would choose someone else.
Suspending isn't the same thing as abandoning.
The London-Seattle route has mostly been maintained due to one word - Microsoft. MS execs flying to/from Europe were the big customers on this route. Once Zoom and then Teams kicked in and obviated the need for physical travel, the writing was on the wall.
I took advantage of the availability of flights and the relative sparcity of Economy passengers for many years.
BA will be able to take up what MS travel remains. It doesn't need two carriers.
With all due respect to Delta Dunn, the biggest factor going forward with international route planning is crew costs, especially for American. It’s going to be almost impossible to have long haul international flights out of a domestic station that isn’t a hub and a crew base. A small 777 or 787 crew base at SEA would be extremely expensive. Deadheading crews into SEA is both inefficient and extremely costly. Every flight out of SEA...
With all due respect to Delta Dunn, the biggest factor going forward with international route planning is crew costs, especially for American. It’s going to be almost impossible to have long haul international flights out of a domestic station that isn’t a hub and a crew base. A small 777 or 787 crew base at SEA would be extremely expensive. Deadheading crews into SEA is both inefficient and extremely costly. Every flight out of SEA requires at least three pilots and with their new contract the the salary and benefits costs are more than a million a year. American just can’t make that work.
every airline that has been around for more than a few decades has figured out how to get the right crew in the right place including by using W patterns between base and non-base flights and to use the right aircraft in cities where they are needed.
Given that there is a substantial cost difference between AA's 777s and 787s, every city where they don't have 787 bases will be at an economic disadvantage...
every airline that has been around for more than a few decades has figured out how to get the right crew in the right place including by using W patterns between base and non-base flights and to use the right aircraft in cities where they are needed.
Given that there is a substantial cost difference between AA's 777s and 787s, every city where they don't have 787 bases will be at an economic disadvantage and AA's network will be limited to the cities where they have crew bases.
DL and UA are constantly moving aircraft in and out of bases and from what I can tell, Delta does the best job of making crew assignments fit the best aircraft for a route.
for example, there isn't even a pilot crew base in Boston but Delta operates up to a dozen international flights/day. Obviously, they have figured out how to make it work.
Almost like delta doesn’t regard Boston as a long term strategy to make it a pilot base. Weird. AA does have a pilot base in Boston. By your logic, aa cares more, Tim
That is your logic, not mine. Where pilot bases are located doesn’t have anything to do with caring
None of which changes that Delta is the largest airline by revenue and has international flights from cities where it has no pilot base
The real question is why AA can’t think outside of the box?
I don't think Pilot bases matter for hubs. But they do show a strategic direction from the airline. You're the one that brought up pilot bases in Boston absent facts, as usual. Delta is the one without one. JetBlue has one. So Does AA. if you're going to do your delta nonsense, back it up, Timmy... ;) It really isn't tough. You just hate being called out when you try to say nonsense and hope...
I don't think Pilot bases matter for hubs. But they do show a strategic direction from the airline. You're the one that brought up pilot bases in Boston absent facts, as usual. Delta is the one without one. JetBlue has one. So Does AA. if you're going to do your delta nonsense, back it up, Timmy... ;) It really isn't tough. You just hate being called out when you try to say nonsense and hope you don't get called out on it by anyone with knowledge.
it's not hard for delta to fly to places they already fly from boston and crew it that way. It is tough to for them to put a pilot base there. Something they don't seem to want to do. Strategic reasons? Their competitors have one...
the point of pilot hubs is to challenge the notion that AA needed a pilot base to operate longhaul international flights from SEA - which was exactly what someone said.
Delta has operated international flights from cities that aren't pilot bases for years and still does. BOS just happens to be the largest hub that does not have a pilot base.
There is hardly a lack of strategic direction. It just means that...
the point of pilot hubs is to challenge the notion that AA needed a pilot base to operate longhaul international flights from SEA - which was exactly what someone said.
Delta has operated international flights from cities that aren't pilot bases for years and still does. BOS just happens to be the largest hub that does not have a pilot base.
There is hardly a lack of strategic direction. It just means that Delta has apparently done the math and calculated that there is not a significant cost to not having a pilot base in BOS.
Instead of arguing w/ me, how about you now tell Flyer Don why AA really didn't need a pilot base if they were going to make SEA an international gateway?
Tim, do you really think crewing Delta’s international service from Boston compares with the challenges American would face crewing international flights from Seattle? I’m pretty sure even American could successfully operate international flights from Austin without establishing a crew base there. Austin being about the same distance from DFW as Boston is from JFK.
do you realize that BOS-TLV (Tel Aviv) is further than SEA-HND (or NRT) and yet Delta flies to Israel from Boston w/o a pilot base.
Tell me again why DL can make nearly 10 longhaul international destinations work from BOS and AA can't make even one transpacific flight work from SEA?
As much as you want to cling to it, crew bases isn't the reason.
Delta can do that because Delta has a crew base in NYC and they can deadhead a crew from JFK to BOS and that crew could then continue on to LHR or other cities in Europe, as part of the same duty day. I don’t believe Delta flys from BOS to TLV but you could even complete that leg with four crew members if you wanted to pay for the privilege. Delta could also fly...
Delta can do that because Delta has a crew base in NYC and they can deadhead a crew from JFK to BOS and that crew could then continue on to LHR or other cities in Europe, as part of the same duty day. I don’t believe Delta flys from BOS to TLV but you could even complete that leg with four crew members if you wanted to pay for the privilege. Delta could also fly a crew sequence on say a 767 that goes LAX/BOS overnights and then goes BOS/LHR. The goal is to pay your pilots to fly revenue flights not to pay them simply to deadhead into position for a flight. To operate a flight from SEA to Asian markets American would have to deadhead 4 pilots from either LAX or DFW, overnight them in SEA and then start their actual revenue flying the next day. They would have to do the same thing on the return leg. Remember minimum pay guarantees and maximum duty and flight limits begin when the crew checks in at LAX or DFW and continues until they return to their base. With forty percent pay raises starting to kick in neither American or even Delta will be able to operate crew sequences like that.
This really about price. Since the US $ is strong, international carriers can offer the same routes for less money...and they provide better service with better perks!
Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific, Qatar Airlines, United Emerites...these are the companies who connect the US to Asia and the Middle East.
At least they kept a little at JFK instead of surrendering every time Delta wants to expand into their market. Even if connections make you usually get from LGA to JFK on your own. Concentrating on CLT to EU is stupid. They backed down from PHL as an international gateway in favor of CLT. DCA is great as a mini-hub but they try to funnel us to CLT instead of PHL for EU. CLT is awful. A great airline totally gutted and ruined by low-imagination management.
Yea the AA network doesn't make a ton of sense. At JFK they have an international gateway with few domestic ops relatively speaking and PHL has a ton of domestic ops but they gutted their Europe flights at PHL (they will probably attempt to restart these on the XLR narrowbodys which are a nonstarter for most educated travelers). DFW is terrible geographically for any long haul ops. They need to grow at LAX for transpacific...
Yea the AA network doesn't make a ton of sense. At JFK they have an international gateway with few domestic ops relatively speaking and PHL has a ton of domestic ops but they gutted their Europe flights at PHL (they will probably attempt to restart these on the XLR narrowbodys which are a nonstarter for most educated travelers). DFW is terrible geographically for any long haul ops. They need to grow at LAX for transpacific as they have decent domestic ops there and AS also has a hub there for the oneworld cohesion factor (keep in mind TBIT just got massively expanded). The fact that they have a PHX-LHR and SEA-LHR flight but no LAX-HKG or LAX-TPE is wild, although covid attitudes in those regions are probably responsible to some extent.
We have all had terrible experiences with AA. The common denominator is rude staff (in particular FAs). It's been this way since the 90s which to me says it's cultural.
BA has decent rates and availability out of Seattle. Why would someone pay the same price (or more sometimes) to deal with AA staff for that long?
T B H, A A just plain SUCKS all around, top to bottom, inside out.
Another Vasu Raja moment. Lots of AA flyers including past me thought it was Parker's fault. And it's Isom's time but problem persists. Time to ditch him and get someone more potent.
AA has unfortunate bases for international.Not a lot of rednecks in DFW have passports, and that’s like there biggest base if I’m not mistaken.UA is clearly the winner for international.
Real rednecks know it is "their" and not "there" in that context.
I grew up in GA. Believe me when I tell they don’t.
What is happening in Seattle is symptomatic to the big three of USA airlines. Because the product that American is putting out is marginal, it has trouble attracting enough passengers to be profitable. I was an enthusiastic flyer of Northwest. After Delta took over, I flew Delta enough to know it was not just new management so I started flying airlines from other countries across the Pacific and a mix of airlines across the USA...
What is happening in Seattle is symptomatic to the big three of USA airlines. Because the product that American is putting out is marginal, it has trouble attracting enough passengers to be profitable. I was an enthusiastic flyer of Northwest. After Delta took over, I flew Delta enough to know it was not just new management so I started flying airlines from other countries across the Pacific and a mix of airlines across the USA finally settling on JetBlue. I wonder if AA had good cabin service, if that would make enough difference to attract a few more passengers and make the route to Seattle profitable.
Jet Blue has great rates to Shanghai
It’s sad seeing the US Airways and America West management come into an American Airlines that actually looked at least somewhat like a global airline and basically turn it into the former. Seems like literally the only gains were the DFW and Miami hubs. We all know how they’ve lost NY and LA. This management ruined two airlines and they’ve spent years ruining a third. I don’t get how AA and Delta, despite being among...
It’s sad seeing the US Airways and America West management come into an American Airlines that actually looked at least somewhat like a global airline and basically turn it into the former. Seems like literally the only gains were the DFW and Miami hubs. We all know how they’ve lost NY and LA. This management ruined two airlines and they’ve spent years ruining a third. I don’t get how AA and Delta, despite being among the world’s largest airlines, are so content with just being feeder airlines for foreign carriers. Meanwhile, UA seems to be the only one putting in the work to become a real global airline for the US and it has been paying off for them.
First, American and Delta BOTH retired widebody aircraft during the pandemic while United did not. Delta has fully replaced the number of widebody aircraft it retired and has more growth new generation widebody aircraft coming over the next 3 years than AA or UA combined. DL's international fleet is now one of the most fuel efficient in the world and fuel efficiency matters the most on the longest flights.
Second, DL was the largest...
First, American and Delta BOTH retired widebody aircraft during the pandemic while United did not. Delta has fully replaced the number of widebody aircraft it retired and has more growth new generation widebody aircraft coming over the next 3 years than AA or UA combined. DL's international fleet is now one of the most fuel efficient in the world and fuel efficiency matters the most on the longest flights.
Second, DL was the largest airline across the Pacific when it acquired NW's Pacific network but lost money, restructured the operation as it could, and then Japan finally opened Haneda to significant transpacific flights but Delta did not gain the ability to move its Narita hub to Haneda. DL is now the largest foreign airline at Haneda and has a growing and successful JV at Seoul ICN that has enormous growth potential. The expected order for A350-1000s will allow more growth at ICN and could well allow DL to overtake United as the largest airline in NE Asia within a few years.
AA and UA execs both admitted that they lost money on a number of routes to/from HKG and China, something I noted repeatedly to the scorn of a number of people including on here. DL pulled out of HKG and nobody is flying much capacity from the US to China because of Chinese government restrictions which suddenly make the few flights that do operate profitable again.
DL was also the largest airline across the Atlantic before covid and the only reason that United overtook Delta in size was because of the aircraft that United had - but United's fleet is one of the least fuel efficient among large global carriers. UA will spend more than $30 billion MORE than Delta on fleet replacement - domestic and international - over the next 7-10 years - which will have an enormously negative impact on UA's finances.
To Latin America, the Latam partnership has enormous potential to allow DL to displace UA as the #2 US carrier and that partnership is also jsut getting started.
The airline industry is a marathon, not a sprint. Delta has always been much more focused on long term strategies and they have generally done a much better job of positioning themselves to succeed on that basis than AA or UA.
Don't know where you get your info
right out of corporate annual reports and DOT filings.
Feel free to let us know what parts you object to and we can go from there.
The LATAM partnership with Delta is really bad. American is still the best bet to fly to South America, especially from Miami. American flies to all important hubs and destinations in South America, with a better product than LATAM and especially Avianca.
It's easier to find LATAM award space in Alaska than Delta (and for a better price, as the Alaska miles are valuable, unlike Skypesos).
Unless Delta / LATAM up their game, I'll...
The LATAM partnership with Delta is really bad. American is still the best bet to fly to South America, especially from Miami. American flies to all important hubs and destinations in South America, with a better product than LATAM and especially Avianca.
It's easier to find LATAM award space in Alaska than Delta (and for a better price, as the Alaska miles are valuable, unlike Skypesos).
Unless Delta / LATAM up their game, I'll choose AA to go to South America. Better slots, more destinations, better product. Unfortunately, given the Etihad devaluation, it's not as easy to transform credit card miles into American flights, but my cash flights will keep going to AA.
Sheesh. In on breath, you say Delta is going to be the strongest airline because they have a massive order of long haul aircraft coming in future years. OTOH, you say United is going to run into trouble because... they have a massive order of long haul aircraft coming in future years. Which is it?
The fact that United is spending more than DL on new aircraft is usually a good sign: aircraft are the...
Sheesh. In on breath, you say Delta is going to be the strongest airline because they have a massive order of long haul aircraft coming in future years. OTOH, you say United is going to run into trouble because... they have a massive order of long haul aircraft coming in future years. Which is it?
The fact that United is spending more than DL on new aircraft is usually a good sign: aircraft are the lifeblood investment that airlines make to grow their revenue. The only question, which you conveniently fail to answer, is whether United is spending that money *smartly*. If they're spending that extra $30bil on stupid acquisitions ("let's buy a bunch of A380s!!") then sure, it could weaken them financially and haunt them for decades. But if they're spending that $30bil smartly, on good aircraft that will yield a good return on that investment and grow their network at the expense of their competitors, then spending that extra money is *exactly* what they should be doing.
Now, I don't know enough about their fleet acquisition plans to predict how it will pan out. But neither do you. You just keep assuming that every decision Delta makes is automatically awesome, while other airlines, even ones making the same exact decision, are somehow making bad decisions that will only clear the way for your one true airline to dominate. And you wonder why people call you biased?
I couldn't agree with you more. AA is the victim of US Airways very very poor management and weird business model. AA is simply a glorified domestic airline that is making it harder for those of us who travel internationally. They claim they are focused on short haul international flights and the network is dismal. Too much reliance on other airlines and it doesn't even benefit the customers. Take a look at One World partners,...
I couldn't agree with you more. AA is the victim of US Airways very very poor management and weird business model. AA is simply a glorified domestic airline that is making it harder for those of us who travel internationally. They claim they are focused on short haul international flights and the network is dismal. Too much reliance on other airlines and it doesn't even benefit the customers. Take a look at One World partners, the code share is horrendous. Completely lap sided when it comes to Qatar, you can barely find a codeshare flight outbound and inbound to DOHA from other destinations. Most recently, nearly all of the Royal Air Moroc codeshare has disappeared even when you call, agents tell you they don't see any. Then don't even start of this Loyalty Points foolishness where people don't step a foot on your plane but once every blue moon and they are an executive platinum like me who is literally on your metal and partners every single week and these people have the same benefits as us. I have a serious problem with that. There should be some clear distinction for us.
AA treat your real EPs better and fix these one sided codeshare agreements that don't benefit us.
beyond award seat availability, those that tout the value of alliance partnerships somehow can't explain how Delta flies far more flights into Tokyo on its own metal than American, whose presence in Japan is heavily represented by JAL.
And how has Delta managed to actually grow its presence in Australia and have more capacity than AA when DL doesn't have a joint venture while AA does. Qantas, once again, flies the vast majority of...
beyond award seat availability, those that tout the value of alliance partnerships somehow can't explain how Delta flies far more flights into Tokyo on its own metal than American, whose presence in Japan is heavily represented by JAL.
And how has Delta managed to actually grow its presence in Australia and have more capacity than AA when DL doesn't have a joint venture while AA does. Qantas, once again, flies the vast majority of JV capacity while AA has just a token presence.
The Qatar partnership is just another AA attempt to find a partner where AA can have a token presence outside of London where AA and Latin America makes the vast majority of its profits.
AA's decision to retire and not replace widebody aircraft makes sense. Unlike DL and UA, AA can't seem to develop a profitable global route system.
AA’s presence in Tokyo is immensely bigger than delta. Ask any delta person trying to connect or fly to Tokyo.
Joint ventures matter, Tim. It’s why delta tried and failed to buy JAL’s love since JAL didn’t want to be delta’s partner.
Facts hurt.
"And how has Delta managed to actually grow its presence in Australia and have more capacity than AA when DL doesn't have a joint venture while AA does. "
To be clear... Delta has shrunk in Australia relative to their JV with VA which is the proper way to look at it. Frankly, Delta is larger than their own LAX market size would suggest, especially for the Australia market. Don't try to play with facts,...
"And how has Delta managed to actually grow its presence in Australia and have more capacity than AA when DL doesn't have a joint venture while AA does. "
To be clear... Delta has shrunk in Australia relative to their JV with VA which is the proper way to look at it. Frankly, Delta is larger than their own LAX market size would suggest, especially for the Australia market. Don't try to play with facts, Tim. AA is MUCH larger than Delta to australia than Delta. Tim loves Joint ventures when it comes to connecting in Seoul or Amsterdam but seems to hate them when it comes to actual facts.
I just flew the Seattle to London route and back on 4/21. The plane was packed both times. The timing was great as I arrived in London at 4p. Highly suggest American keeps this route especially for frequent Alaska Airlines flyers like myself.
usAAir.
Didn't this already happen once before? Last winter schedule AA cancelled all SEA-LHR, and at the time I believe they mentioned aircraft capacity as the issue. (I had a flight near Thanksgiving that was impacted).
I guess we'll see when more of the schedule comes out, but it's possible this becomes a seasonal route rather than "abandoning SEA".
Dynamic pricing for award seats in a weak market is a bad strategy.
Make it more attractive to west coast travelers, not less
AS should add BA to their website when booking. If you want to fly from Seattle to London, you can only book on an American Airlines flight in their website.
SEA is my home airport, and the last time I flew American was in 2009. And that was some sort of mileage promotion from cutting the tops off of cereal boxes. They’re just not very relevant in Seattle.
For all the complaining about AA shrinking its international flying, the truth is it makes little profit on most of these routes. AA wouldnt cancel a route it makes $$$ on. For Europe bound travel, it is easy to fill a plane in the summer, much harder on a Wednesday in February.
Airlines cancel routes that they make money operationally on, all the time; as opportunity-cost can shift dramatically and suddenly.
They sometimes also continue to operate routes that they individually LOSE money on, as the network feed may be greater in aggregate than the individual loss brought on by a single operation.
American HAS to bring back more International Flights from more places or it will become irrelevant. Even in DFW, no longer are there many European and S. American routes. If there trying to become just a domestic airline that services partners, then say so. I'll stop accumulating AA miles immediately. No use in saving them to redeem to Iowa.
"Even in DFW, no longer are there many European and S. American routes."
Internationally, DFW is the Mexico+CenAm hub, and is second only to IAH in serving that role (in terms of gateways served) among US airports.
So not sure why you picked two regions (Europe and S.America) for which it serves as a secondary gateway (after PHL and MIA respectively) to try to depict some manner of deficiency on AA's part, particularly when it...
"Even in DFW, no longer are there many European and S. American routes."
Internationally, DFW is the Mexico+CenAm hub, and is second only to IAH in serving that role (in terms of gateways served) among US airports.
So not sure why you picked two regions (Europe and S.America) for which it serves as a secondary gateway (after PHL and MIA respectively) to try to depict some manner of deficiency on AA's part, particularly when it still serves all the primary Euro gateways (LHR, CDG, FRA, AMS, FCO, MAD) and most of the primary S.Am gateways (GRU, EZE, BOG, SCL) from there.
American wants to become the next Spirit airline. Major corporations are fleeing AA due to its random international products and routes. And it’s new distribution system is very anti business. After 2,6 million miles and living in Dallas I’m moving to delta AA is over
Delta is 10x’s better than AA!!!
AA should just rebrand itself as Dallas Airlines at this point. Their network really is a joke outside LHR, Central America, and South America. You see UA running circles around you and then you do this? US Airways management has really ruined the airline.
I've recently flown both AA and BA from SEA to LHR and I have to say BA was a better experience. Hard product was pretty close but the service on BA was so much better. I realize this is very much down to who works the route but AA staff gave an attitude of 'I just don't care and I'm going to do the minimum work possible' and the BA staff wanted to give you...
I've recently flown both AA and BA from SEA to LHR and I have to say BA was a better experience. Hard product was pretty close but the service on BA was so much better. I realize this is very much down to who works the route but AA staff gave an attitude of 'I just don't care and I'm going to do the minimum work possible' and the BA staff wanted to give you the best experience.
For the record, until this I've not been that impressed by BA especially in Europe but this was a much better experience.
AA's chances with an alliance interline Seattle HUB are very weak internationally to the Pacific, stuck between AC's YVR hub and UA's SFO hub, not to mention DL, VS and BA taking all the local European traffic
Living in Kelowna our overseas connections were best through SEA on a direct AS short hop (now on Embraer metal). The YQ on BA is astronomical so the AA flight was a valid option (subject to availability). Problems with QR customer service make QR a very unattractive option (if anything goes wrong).
Too bad AA couldn't make a go of it.
AA is restarting LAX-AKL this winter and doesn't currently have the aircraft to continue SEA-LHR. They are probably getting a lot of pressure from Qantas to get back into the US West Coast-New Zealand market as LAX is Qantas' biggest operation in the US and they don't want to DL, NZ and UA taking it all.
Hmm, Delta is the world's largest airline, not American.
Delta's revenues in 2022 were 50.8 billion, to American's 49.0, and the gap is widening.
Please keep up with airlines! :) :) :)
There are plenty of ways that many airlines could make the claim of "largest," but the unofficial industry-wide standard, is RPM/RPKs (Revenue Passenger Miles/Kilometers)...
...for which AA is a clear #1, and DL tenuously rotates back and forth with UA for #2, as DL carries more pax, but UA generally flies farther.
LOL Jake, maybe YOU should keep up. Revenue is hardly the determining factor here.
there are industry specific metrics of which revenue passenger miles is the metric for measuring size for airlines but revenue IS the standard for measuring size for all types of business.
Delta gets more revenue from ancillary sources including Skymiles, Delta Tech Ops and its refinery - all of which generates revenue, often at higher margins that air transportation. Neither AA or UA generate ancillary revenue at anywhere near the levels DL does which partly...
there are industry specific metrics of which revenue passenger miles is the metric for measuring size for airlines but revenue IS the standard for measuring size for all types of business.
Delta gets more revenue from ancillary sources including Skymiles, Delta Tech Ops and its refinery - all of which generates revenue, often at higher margins that air transportation. Neither AA or UA generate ancillary revenue at anywhere near the levels DL does which partly explains why their margins are consistently lower than DL's.
AA mgmt is lost. They lost an opportunity to refresh itself after Parker’s retirement by not bringing in an outsider. Robert Isom is a middling executive who has made his mark by further dumbing down the AA product. UA was smart to poach Scott Kirby from AA, but AA is too trapped by its obsolete corporate hegemony to make such a move. They’re way too conservative, and consequently, woefully ineffective. And that won’t be changing...
AA mgmt is lost. They lost an opportunity to refresh itself after Parker’s retirement by not bringing in an outsider. Robert Isom is a middling executive who has made his mark by further dumbing down the AA product. UA was smart to poach Scott Kirby from AA, but AA is too trapped by its obsolete corporate hegemony to make such a move. They’re way too conservative, and consequently, woefully ineffective. And that won’t be changing anytime soon. Mediocrity rules the day at that airline.
As an American Executive Platinum… what the hell are you doing, American? Does anyone on the Executive Team have an original thought in their head? Can you stop lighting money on fire and manage to succeed at something? Honestly…
The American airlines has becoming the memes around the world, ALL them becomes smal, full of 737s and 320/21s: it's a joke going to ANY American airport (except LAX) to look for a big jets better fly to Sydney, London etc , like in the car industry America's behind again. Sadly
Hard to make international work in a city where the local employer with the largest global footprint has a fly economy travel policy.
DL is well established to Asia going back to the days when they took over Northwest [Orient]. Their expansion @ SEA was a direct challenge to AS domestically and AA internationally. AA is, in many ways, a basket case — they don’t know if they are coming or going, but (as we all know) were certainly a better operation and more in control of their own fate prior to USAir’s takeover. (Truth in Advertising would...
DL is well established to Asia going back to the days when they took over Northwest [Orient]. Their expansion @ SEA was a direct challenge to AS domestically and AA internationally. AA is, in many ways, a basket case — they don’t know if they are coming or going, but (as we all know) were certainly a better operation and more in control of their own fate prior to USAir’s takeover. (Truth in Advertising would have had the AA name disappear and the carrier should have continued to be called USAirways — or, actually, America West!)
Meanwhile, AA seems to have the title of Vladimir Lenin’s 1904 book to heart: "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back — Our Party" — uh, I mean Airline — “in Crisis."
Delta's relevance in Asia is entirely attributable to the merger with NW. Northwest (the "Orient" was dropped in the 1980s) was among the top 2 US carriers to Asia. Delta's presence in Asia prior was limited to some flights from Atlanta and the Portland hub, and little more.
Agreed…thought that’s what I said.
The world's largest airline needs to give up that title. AA's international network is terrible. It continues to not have a transpacific gateway.
I agree with the INT network being awful. But DFW is the Transpacific Hub. So many Asian companies have their North American HQ's in DFW (Toyota/Lexus, NTT Data, Kubota, Samsung, Huawei, NEC, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, 7-Eleven, Brother, Canon, Fujifilm, Kyocera, Fujitsu, Panasonic, Sony, Sumimoto, GlobalWafers, TPG, and that's just SOME of the companies with major ops in DFW alone). I think DFW can handle the Asian network just fine.
I didn't realize all these Japanese firms have headquarters in TX, the JAL daily and AA daily to Tokyo now makes sense.
This theme of issues with AA's route planning strategy failing has come up a number of times as you allude to in the post.
I wonder though, what mix of blame is due to the routes that are picked and prioritized vs. how much is on the commercial side (I.e., sales and partnerships doing an effective job of driving corporate contracts, partnership deals, etc. to sell these routes).
For example, United gets a lot...
This theme of issues with AA's route planning strategy failing has come up a number of times as you allude to in the post.
I wonder though, what mix of blame is due to the routes that are picked and prioritized vs. how much is on the commercial side (I.e., sales and partnerships doing an effective job of driving corporate contracts, partnership deals, etc. to sell these routes).
For example, United gets a lot of praise on this blog for its international route strategy which is cited as "innovative" and "daring" - and in reality a daring route that fails just as quickly turns into random and lacking strategy. But I wonder if United has just been good at pairing strong commercial execution (selling contracts, predicting a robust mix of leisure and corporate demand, etc.) behind their route announcements to build success.
Strong route strategy is still important but there's more to the commercial strategy than just picking a good route. A good route doesn't guarantee success and a seemingly "bad" route doesn't guarantee failure
You are absolutely right but AA and UA execs have BOTH admitted that they both were willing to lose money in order to support their international routes to HKG and China - even as DL pulled out and is still waiting for better conditions to return.
DL has 3 dozen new generation aircraft due for delivery over the next three years - plus conversions of the ex-Latam A350-900s - and that is before an expected...
You are absolutely right but AA and UA execs have BOTH admitted that they both were willing to lose money in order to support their international routes to HKG and China - even as DL pulled out and is still waiting for better conditions to return.
DL has 3 dozen new generation aircraft due for delivery over the next three years - plus conversions of the ex-Latam A350-900s - and that is before an expected order for A350-1000s.
The Pacific requires alot of aircraft; DL is well-positioned to aggressively grow there on top of develop Latin America in partnership with Latam.
Most of the current notions about the US3's international route systems will look very, very different in 3 years.
UA already has almost 80 787s with 100 firm orders for more plus options for an additional 100, most, if not all, of which will be converted to firm orders.
Do you really think DL is in a better position than UA regarding widebodies, especially with UA being the only one that didn’t retire any and has been receiving many deliveries over the last year?
UA said they’re willing to lose money across the Pacific? Then why did they cancel and suspend routes? Just because DL had to cancel routes and close multiple stations, doesn’t mean UA is unprofitable, especially with the strength of their gateway hubs. There are multiple ways to account finances across a system, but UA has said they’re profitable across the Pacific, with the exception of China, and that is exception will likely go away as...
UA said they’re willing to lose money across the Pacific? Then why did they cancel and suspend routes? Just because DL had to cancel routes and close multiple stations, doesn’t mean UA is unprofitable, especially with the strength of their gateway hubs. There are multiple ways to account finances across a system, but UA has said they’re profitable across the Pacific, with the exception of China, and that is exception will likely go away as the country reopens.
UA is the largest, by far, across the Pacific and Atlantic. AA is the largest to South America. DL lags across the world.
Guess we’ll never find out whether or not Seattle would have worked. AA has a zillion flights to LHR already.
So what route is the 772 going on ?
There are too many LHR-SEA flights. the demand is not there! If I was AA, I will still use this magnificent international arrival facilities(IAF). For example, south American destination, the market exist$ there is great number of connecting Brazilian passengers through Seattle.
I am actually on the AA LHR-SEA as I write this. It has gone out ~60% full in J, interestingly Y+ appears quite full but Y couldn’t be more than 60% full according to the seat map before departure. It’s a small sample size but over a few experiences the service and soft product on this route has been horrific compared to BA or VS. Just today, when boarding finished, the FA told PAX “you...
I am actually on the AA LHR-SEA as I write this. It has gone out ~60% full in J, interestingly Y+ appears quite full but Y couldn’t be more than 60% full according to the seat map before departure. It’s a small sample size but over a few experiences the service and soft product on this route has been horrific compared to BA or VS. Just today, when boarding finished, the FA told PAX “you should be closing the overhead bins so we can have an on time departure.” It’s honestly no surprise AA can’t make the route work. With BA, DL, and VS in the mix they are a distant 4th in almost every way.
You do realize AA and BA are partners, right?
Yes they partner, but you do realize the onboard experience couldn’t be more different, right? The BA flights are consistently full, AA not so much.
Yeah, that’s kind of his point. If you’re an AA frequent flyer and you’re paying cash, why would you ever book AA when you can get BA with equal elite / mileage credit via codeshare?
why would you ever book AA when you can get BA with equal elite / mileage credit via codeshare?
Depends.
I'd fly in AA's J over the ancient crap in BA's 788+789s and some remaining 777s any day.
As I was saying, Mr Znotins at AA only creates uncertainty about the network schedule. Customers cannot reliably plan their travel.
Didn’t he come from Spirit or something? I’m starting to wonder if he actually knows how to plan an international route network at a full service national airline…
No. He did not.
Oh, right, he came from WestJet, the Canadian version of Spirit.
Before that he was at United and Continental, and was responsible for Continental’s pretty commendable international networks at Newark and Houston
These flights will NEVER return again. AA used to fly from Seattle to Tokyo however that was very short lived. Just stick with your hubs AA.
On a side note I hope the BA Terraces Lounge planned refurbishment that was shelved post covid is back on the agenda. Sodexo Live which has taken over running the Virgin Atlantic lounges are now starting to take over some BA lounges in the US;
Eight of the carrier's lounges in the US will see an upgrade in food and beverage offerings in the coming months, according to Sodexo Live!:
San Francisco International Airport (SFO),Terminal...
On a side note I hope the BA Terraces Lounge planned refurbishment that was shelved post covid is back on the agenda. Sodexo Live which has taken over running the Virgin Atlantic lounges are now starting to take over some BA lounges in the US;
Eight of the carrier's lounges in the US will see an upgrade in food and beverage offerings in the coming months, according to Sodexo Live!:
San Francisco International Airport (SFO),Terminal A
Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD),Terminal 5
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL),Concourse A West
Washington Dulles International Airport (IAD),Concourse B
Baltimore/Washington International Airport (BWI),Terminal E
Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), S Concourse
Newark Liberty International Airport (EWR),Terminal B
Boston Logan International Airport (BOS),Terminal E
Time for AA to show some love to its PHX hub. With the big TMSC plant coming up in PHX, an AA flight to/from Asia is due.
That would be nice. PHX covers a larger metro area than DEN, but it gets nowhere near the love from AA that UA gives to DEN.
Y'all realize that there are significant operational issues flying from a hot desert and a high plain? Right? Additional fuel, operational disruptions due to wind/heat. I mean, every place has something, Ice/Rain/Etc. But the additional weight alone makes it nearly impossible to do very long haul from the desert. And 1 Taiwanese plant hardly says "let's give Asian flight to PHX. Texas has at least 25 of those in DFW alone to justify Tokyo/HK/China.
But the additional weight alone makes it nearly impossible to do very long haul from the desert.
Not really, just depends on how you plan it, dispatch it, and the fleet you possess to fly it.
Keep in mind that many, if not most, of the world's longest flights, are flown to/from desert countries (DXB, DOH, JED, etc).
Emirates and Qatar have entered the chat
Will never happen as LAX is right next door. PHX does not have the passenger base for daily asia flights.
Yea AA having the transpacific "gateway" established at DFW is a really bad idea considering the vast majority of Asia demand is west of the Mississippi. Move those flights over to PHX/LAX and move the Europe flights to CLT/MIA/JFK and maybe PHL if the 321XLR ever actually gets type authorization. SEA would also work well for potential Asia expansion but as previously mentioned the J demand is just not viable due to the current tech...
Yea AA having the transpacific "gateway" established at DFW is a really bad idea considering the vast majority of Asia demand is west of the Mississippi. Move those flights over to PHX/LAX and move the Europe flights to CLT/MIA/JFK and maybe PHL if the 321XLR ever actually gets type authorization. SEA would also work well for potential Asia expansion but as previously mentioned the J demand is just not viable due to the current tech situation. AA is slotted to receive 30 787-9's starting next year curious to see what missions they end up doing, I'm assuming the airline will keep the 772s for another 8-10 years as well?
American Airlines is in a death spiral, the cannot make money from flying alone, the have a weak haphazard international network where they seem to be content letting one world airlines do the fly the routes. They have a non competitive domestic product that cannot command any type of revenue premium. They have over $70 billion in debt they cannot afford to pay. Get ready for PanAm chapter 2
To no surprise of anyone with any objectivity. AA was never going to succeed in SEA to Asia against DL which has long been established.
The irony is that AA is pulling LHR service; all of the blabber about how valuable alliances are obviously didn't help AA on SEA-LHR. Sure, BA will continue to serve the route but AA will be right back to its role as a domestic airline = more and more of what it is becoming outside of DFW and MIA.
Sorry, Tim. DL struggles on SEA-Asia too. And it did pre-pandemic as well.
Alliances are valuable, Tim… it’s why aa can pull out of sea-lhr, for now, while the tech companies are hurting in Seattle, and their JV partner, BA, can still take all the corporate traffic with as, JL, and ba ceding nothing In the market …
I know you hate it, but Oneworld dominates in every metric in Seattle and London. Aa doesn’t need to fly the route for that to change.
And aa can...
Alliances are valuable, Tim… it’s why aa can pull out of sea-lhr, for now, while the tech companies are hurting in Seattle, and their JV partner, BA, can still take all the corporate traffic with as, JL, and ba ceding nothing In the market …
I know you hate it, but Oneworld dominates in every metric in Seattle and London. Aa doesn’t need to fly the route for that to change.
And aa can come back whenever to restart… they don’t require an omniscient presence to be relevant. Oneworld can provide access for Alaska to Asia and many places in Europe without aa losing money for no reason. AA’s domestic feed in Seattle stays without aa. Alaska can make a lot of money in domestic with lower costs than delta and aa can return at the right time.
American don't have a clue what they are doing. At the end of 2022 they announced that their flights from Miami to Tel Aviv were expanding to daily. Then a few weeks into 2023 they announced they were canceling all flights on that route. I flew twice and the planes were pretty much full so I doubt if it was lack of demand.
I always thought that KUL would have been a good route out of SEA, but seems like AA is fine with leveraging JAL for most of their traffic to Asia, even though connection times aren't great through NRT for example
Maybe Seattleites actually don't want to put up with the horrific attitudes of American Airlines' cabin crew.
Again, people, if you have a choice - make sure it's not American. They're so overpaid, so over-entitled.
Oh, that's it. The whole reason for AA abandoning Seattle is because 'Seattleites' would not put up with the "horrific attitudes" of cabin crew. Yup, that is absolutely the reason. No doubt about it. Absolutely spot on. I stand in awe of your lucid and highly cogent analysis. Awestruck by your laser-sharp analytical mind..
I don't know about "overpaid and i entitled" but AA does have a bad reputation. I took a trip late last year from SEA-CDG and LHR-SEA in business class and did not consider AA, mostly because of their reputation for poor service. We ended up flying DL both ways. Yes, it helped that DL offered nonstops both directions and AA did not but we avoided AA even at a lower price, mostly out of service and "what if" concerns. Reputation matters in purchase decisions.
Agreed what a horrible attitude!! I have flown AA for over 30 years and never once have seen such treatment as this
claim!! Only Pan Am compares to AA and they no longer fly!
There is no such thing as luck. There is only adequate or inadequate preparation to cope with a statistical universe. - Robert Heinlein
I agree with all of your points, Ben. That said, I also wonder if you/we have read it a bit too much here. For full disclosure, I/we always love Seattle, as ex-residents.
It was quite clear that AS wanted AA wide bodies out of SEA - more so than AA. It was a survival play for AS to defend their corporate contracts with Microsoft, Amazon, and the like. AS would finally be able to...
I agree with all of your points, Ben. That said, I also wonder if you/we have read it a bit too much here. For full disclosure, I/we always love Seattle, as ex-residents.
It was quite clear that AS wanted AA wide bodies out of SEA - more so than AA. It was a survival play for AS to defend their corporate contracts with Microsoft, Amazon, and the like. AS would finally be able to sell PVG/BLR/LHR to their longtime corp customers. On the other side, it would also help AA with AS's feed. As you've stated, long haul routes heavily rely on O&D and the price premium of that. With the macro economy trend, and the disruption in tech, O&D traffic and premiums are in question. Let alone the logistic issue of BLR over Russian air space (?).
BA used to vary quite a bit between summer and winter seasons on LHR-SEA too, between 2x 744s and 1x-2x 777/747. With the wide body shortage, it's not hard to prioritise other markets, i.e. Oceania, Asia (aka TYO).
With the suspension, I am curious how AA would use the slots at LHR. 7x daily going to MIA or LAX/CLT?
The SEA-LHR route has been suspended before. In early 2022, AA suspended it due to 787 delivery delays.
Someone has to back down. With Delta, virgin, British and AA there were 5 and 6 flights a day to London from sea. There just isn't that kind of demand!
America is having the same problems as Delta had up there. (And Alaska Air has been abused by both those majors).
With Amazon and Microsoft hitting the wall? The business demand just isn't materialzing.
And, for leisure travel? The Nordic guys seem to like the Seattle routes a lot.
What Nordic guys? SAS hasn't served Seattle in a very long time--they left after years of service as competitors added service. Norwegian went belly up. Finnair has returned after a long absence but only operates a few days per week. To which airline(s) are you referring?
Probably Islandic but OP has no clue what they're talking about.
I don't fly AA much so can't say I'm an expert, but doesn't AA have a robust domestic network out of Chicago, Miami and Philadelphia as well?
I agree that making Philadelphia your primary transatlantic hub doesn't make much sense when you have a relatively new huge terminal at JFK.
Are Lingus run a good service from Seattle to Dublin with good onward connections all over the UK and Europe with a pre U.S immigration clearance in Dublin on the return journey arriving back to Seattle as a domestic passenger.
Before the merger with US Airways, Chicago was always American's largest gateway to Europe. That was until Vasu Raja from AA decided to shrink the ORD hub claiming most European destinations were bleeding money. Funny they weren't in the 1980s and 1990s though. Their whole management team has no focus on building a true world class airline like the old AA was all about.