AA buys LHR slot for $31 million from Cyprus Airways

[MAH4546]

I don't disagree with your post, WT.
 
All I am saying is that there is no viable financial reason why AA should operate its own aircraft in BOS-LHR when BA can do it effectively and free up AA to use its resources to open other routes, many of which will benefit BA.
 
If AA and BA can generate better returns from each other by AA dropping BOS-LHR, they should be commended for moving the airline industry to a profitable, future-focused paradigm.
 
You however, clearly see a major issue with AA not having its own metal on BOS-LHR.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm just pointing out that, for whatever reason, AA doesn't see having its own metal in a major NE market as something that is positive for both AA and BA.

You remember that AF tried to launch LAX-LHR service on its own metal and failed miserably. They have allowed DL to operate all LHR routes under the DL/AF/KL JV ever since. Note that for now, the DL/AF/KL JV is independent of the DL/VS JV.

There is a perception among the public that one carrier or another is the preferred carrier for a route.

AA has a hub at LAX that allows it to offer better connectivity than AA could do just feeding BA. In the top markets, both carriers of a JV SHOULD serve them.

 

[FWAAA]

For many years, the vocal frequent flyer crowd lamented the restriction on redeeming AA miles for BA flights between the USA and London.   IIRC, the restriction didn't apply to Canada-London flights, so the diehard fans of British Airways would make their way to Toronto so they could fly on BA rather than AA.   For me,  AA Flagship Suites are as nice as BA first class, and although Club World has been fully flat for a long time, I don't mind the slanted NGBC, especially on short East Coast to London flights.      
 
Since the AA/BA joint venture was implemented, AA miles can be redeemed for BA flights USA-Anywhere (including London).   
 
I have no evidence or proof, but I suspect that AA exited BOS-LHR, leaving that lifting to BA,  in part because BA has the fully-flat Club World seats, while AA just had the slanted seats.   Similar to BA temporarily flying the formerly-AA morning JFK-LHR flight this year while AA modifies the 763s and 772s to fully-flat business class seats.   
 
BA clearly flies large, high capacity airplanes between most USA cities and London, while AA flies more 763s to London and even some 757s (from BOS).   Now, with the much higher-capacity 77Ws,  AA has placed them on LAX-LHR, JFK-LHR and I believe, later this years, MIA-LHR.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

I suspect that part of the reason for AA's cut from BOS-LHR was because they had to divest slots at LHR as part of the JV settlement.

AA was flying multiple 757s on BOS-LHR before it left the market.

IIRC, there were 2 slots divested from BOS and 1 from MIA; DL took them all and ended up with one BOS-LHR, but DL started the route with lie flat Business Elite. AA was not competitive in business class even with DL as a new entrant.
I'm also not sure if the slots that were divested came from AA alone or some from each. The US LHR flight came from the slot divestiture and I believe DL operates one ATL LHR flight under the divestiture now which originates at DFW.

I'm not sure what has happened to the all of the slots but it is possible that some of this all could be because of the slot divestitures related to the JV.

And, yes, BA flies large aircraft. Perhaps the reconfigured 772s would make sense if AA decided to reenter.


again, though, we have no idea where AA will deploy the slot pair it has acquired.

 

[MAH4546]

AA didn't formally divest any LHR slots. It leases a pair to Delta and it "leases" a pair to US Airways. The Delta slot reverts to American in April 2018; and of course the US Airways pair is back at AA.

 

[FWAAA]

DL began leasing slots from AA and/or BA to start MIA-LHR and BOS-LHR in 2011, but AA did not discontinue the BOS-LHR flights until March, 2013, so leasing slots to DL clearly wasn't the primary factor in turning that route over to BA.   

 

[BuffaloJoe]

Couldn't the slot be swapped with an existing slot, and that existing slot be used for the new flight? Say they have a 7am slot taken that can be used for a early west coast arrival. Then use that 7am for an east coast flight.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL began leasing slots from AA and/or BA to start MIA-LHR and BOS-LHR in 2011, but AA did not discontinue the BOS-LHR flights until March, 2013, so leasing slots to DL clearly wasn't the primary factor in turning that route over to BA.

dang. I was trying to give you an out but you didn't take it.

So it was the superior DL service and lie flat seats that resulted in DL's average fare surpassing AA's on its own metal in the market in the first quarter that DL started BOS-LHR? ( )

 

[eolesen]

Other than giving WT an opportunity to gloat about a route only made possible by a divestiture order, what does BOS-LHR have to do with the topic, which is a pair of slots timed for a West Coast flight?...

 

[WorldTraveler]

but AA didn't leave the route because of the divestiture. Didn't you get that?

I'm still waiting to hear why AA left a route in one of the biggest US - LHR O&Ds along with the percentage of traffic on those BA flights that is plated on AA.

 

[700UW]

Why did DL cancel ORD-LHR before they even flew it?

 

[WorldTraveler]

we've been thru this before but since you can't put two plus two together, DL has loaded a number of routes for sale only to cancel them. The likely reason is to obtain corporate contracts.

You also can't put together that DL chose not to start ORD-LHR which would have been on a seasonal basis but instead is starting LAX-LHR on a year-round basis and see that LAX is a bigger market with a far greater return for DL than ORD would be?

 

[MetalMover]

we've been thru this before but since you can't put two plus two together, DL has loaded a number of routes for sale only to cancel them. The likely reason is to obtain corporate contracts.

You also can't put together that DL chose not to start ORD-LHR which would have been on a seasonal basis but instead is starting LAX-LHR on a year-round basis and see that LAX is a bigger market with a far greater return for DL than ORD would be?

 
EVERYONE! LISTEN UP!   HERE IS THE WHOLE INDUSTRY IN A NUTSHELL!!!!!!!!!
WHEN DL MAKES DECISIONS, THEY ARE  STRATEGICALLY MASTERFUL AND OUTRIGHT GENIUS!!!!
 
WHEN AA AND EVERYOTHER AIRLINE  MAKES DECISIONS, THEY ARE SIMPLY WRONG AND STUPID!
 
:the industry according to wt!

 

[WorldTraveler]

except that I don't harp endlessly on why AA flew a number of ORD and JFK to Europe routes which they don't fly now.

I completely grasp that AA didn't make money and couldn't grow there.

It is also why I DO harp on those who have tried to convince us about how well AA is doing in Asia when the evidence is overwhelming that AA loses a ton of money flying to Asia.

DL's growth from LHR was going to push into an AA stronghold one way or the other - either ORD or LAX. LAX makes far more sense and that is what DL chose.

What AA chooses to do with DL's response remains to be seen but the very few LAX routes they are adding come nowhere close to the growth that DL has added at LAX or LHR.

nor does it say that DL is going to allow AA to grow into key DL markets even if DL has not hesitated to grow into key AA markets.

some dogs have bigger fangs

 

[LDVAviation]

You want people to maintain consistent positions when they drone on and on about their former employer compared to the competition?    

 
Now, here's a reason to commend Delta.  (They got rid of him.)