AA Asia/Pacific call center moves from Australia to India
- Thread starter FWAAA
- Start date
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,944
- 9,372
Yes. And, if I recall, it's the first outsourced call center since QST (an AMR subsidiary operation in SAT) was closed down several years ago.
I guess that also pretty much ends the token presence AA's maintained in Australia since the cancellation of HNL-SYD back in the early 90's.
I guess that also pretty much ends the token presence AA's maintained in Australia since the cancellation of HNL-SYD back in the early 90's.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
Speaking of Australia, besides China(which AA is "working on"),IMHO, the two most "glaring" area's that AA needs to work on is service INTO...SYD/Auckland NZ, ...and..service OUT OF...JFK !!
AA has Never had a problem finding "new" long haul routes!
I detect a bit of TOO MUCH conservatism(non-political) from Arpey, as opposed to(The Great One).."uncle" Bobby CRANDALL !!
NH/BB's
AA has Never had a problem finding "new" long haul routes!
I detect a bit of TOO MUCH conservatism(non-political) from Arpey, as opposed to(The Great One).."uncle" Bobby CRANDALL !!
NH/BB's
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"And", your reply as to JFK, will be ?????????
NH/BB's
JFK-SYD is approx. 9,950 miles according to great circle mapper (http://gc.kls2.com/) vs. 7,484 for ORD-DEL. From everything that seems to float around, the ORD-DEL route is on the edge of AA's 777 range. Lastly, it probably would need 3 aircraft to run...is the market really that large???
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
flyhigh,
A couple of things about JFK/SYD.
NO ONE (including Quantas) has ever flown that route, because there was never any a/c with that non-stop range.
The 777-200LR "Worldliner" could do it(just barely).
AA (most likely) would operate it..DFW/SYD, BUT their present 777's (I don't think) could make it.
Plus, getting approval from the "aussie's" is Nearly Impossible, however, given AA's very good relationship with Quantas/Australia, I "could become a reality.
The BIGGEST problem for AA's Loooong haul (future) expansion, is Arpey. He's TOO conservative. AA is sitting on a Big brand new terminal(in JFK), and Arpey is letting DL "eat our lunch" in Kennedy.(Not that I say AA should match them (new) route for route) .
NH/BB's
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,944
- 9,372
First of all, there's no "u" in Qantas. It stands for Queensland And Northern Territories Air Service.
DFW-SYD might seem like a natural, but I'd expect LAX-SYD first, even though it's a parallel route with QF. It's the same distance as ORD-DEL, so it is definitely within range of the existing 777 fleet.
DFW-SYD is about 950nm longer than LAX, and barely works with 207 minute ETOPS, and doesn't work at all with 180 minute ETOPS.
To your second point about DL... If DL is eating AA's lunch, it's only because they qualify for free/reduced lunch.... They aren't player in the transcon market, and only have a lock on what are largely former Iron Curtain destinations.
Plus, they're doing it out of a terminal that makes the Port Authority Bus Terminal look like the Taj Mahal...
Once the construction woes for JFK are over, I'd expect a lot more new or expanded service to start popping up in the schedle. Until then, being conservative is a good thing.
DFW-SYD might seem like a natural, but I'd expect LAX-SYD first, even though it's a parallel route with QF. It's the same distance as ORD-DEL, so it is definitely within range of the existing 777 fleet.
DFW-SYD is about 950nm longer than LAX, and barely works with 207 minute ETOPS, and doesn't work at all with 180 minute ETOPS.
To your second point about DL... If DL is eating AA's lunch, it's only because they qualify for free/reduced lunch.... They aren't player in the transcon market, and only have a lock on what are largely former Iron Curtain destinations.
Plus, they're doing it out of a terminal that makes the Port Authority Bus Terminal look like the Taj Mahal...
Once the construction woes for JFK are over, I'd expect a lot more new or expanded service to start popping up in the schedle. Until then, being conservative is a good thing.
NewHampshire Black Bears
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 10,154
- 681
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Being CONSERVATIVE is a GOOD THING" :down:
Like in politics, right, Eolesen ?
(Think 2006 congressional elections)
:unsure: :angry: NH/BB's
Bears...I agree with a lot of what you're saying, however, they're not realistic. AA can't justify just going out and picking up some 772LR's right now. Arpey & Horton were just in front of the investment community and talked about the need to replace M80's. If they did this first...it's a sure sign of poor judgement. All fanatic comments aside, it would look bad to Wall Street and could affect bond & credit ratings...not something they can afford too much of. The street needs to see AA replacing older inefficient aircraft first.
As for JFK, I think everyone would love to see growth there, but is it the best option? You have to put your assetts in the best position to make the most (or lose the least) amount of money. In a lot of cases, JFK doesn't do that for AA. While DL has expanded there, we haven't seen many results yet. Additionally, DL had "surplus" 763's running domestic routes. AA doesn't have that. DL also largely had to either fish or cut bait in JFK. The last figure I heard from DL on JFK was that ~$35 of each ticket went to the facility cost. ATL was ~$5 at the time. There are two main drivers to the cost. Utilization and maint./upkeep. JFK for DL was killing them on both ends. While AA doesn't utilize their facility like they do with gates elsewhere, the facility (the old one) was still ok. DL has huge asbestos issues, etc. Given that, they chose to at least address the utilization issue. They couldn't stomach the idea of leaving altogether (it was widely considered a better option).
Back on topic...AA moving Pacific ops to India...well, at least they can fly their own metal for a visit...
As for JFK, I think everyone would love to see growth there, but is it the best option? You have to put your assetts in the best position to make the most (or lose the least) amount of money. In a lot of cases, JFK doesn't do that for AA. While DL has expanded there, we haven't seen many results yet. Additionally, DL had "surplus" 763's running domestic routes. AA doesn't have that. DL also largely had to either fish or cut bait in JFK. The last figure I heard from DL on JFK was that ~$35 of each ticket went to the facility cost. ATL was ~$5 at the time. There are two main drivers to the cost. Utilization and maint./upkeep. JFK for DL was killing them on both ends. While AA doesn't utilize their facility like they do with gates elsewhere, the facility (the old one) was still ok. DL has huge asbestos issues, etc. Given that, they chose to at least address the utilization issue. They couldn't stomach the idea of leaving altogether (it was widely considered a better option).
Back on topic...AA moving Pacific ops to India...well, at least they can fly their own metal for a visit...
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,944
- 9,372
That was a factor in chosing to fly to DUB -- AA's European res office moved there several years before service started, and not only was it was a real pain for people who had to travel to/from HDQ, but you had a couple hundred employees with pass privileges who couldn't use them (sort of like living in TUL, eh?).
But in this case, since it's outsourced, the amount of business travel to/from for oversight is going to be far less than if they were AA employees, and the employees for the vendor won't have any pass privileges (unlike Teleservices Resources, an AMR subsidiary which ran the short-lived SAT res office).
