AA can finally compete in China without buying NW

[FWAAA]

I'm sure AA can resolve the contractual issue, but then again, the number of markets where a 16+ duty day is really required is fairly small, so is it worth solving? I would say no.

Interesting point; I'd assumed that AA would want to resolve that issue eventually to open up the possibility of more DEL and BOM flights, as well as maybe South Africa and maybe HKG. Maybe the pilots wouldn't cave as easily as I expect they would (throw them some kind of bone and get 'em to sign).

Hard to argue with Cosmo, as he's usually right. But in a fit of hypertechnicality, I think that JFK-PVG would require a waiver of the 16hr duty day, since ORD-PVG (in addition to ORD-DEL) also required a waiver.

I still believe that DFW-PEK was such a loser of an application from the get-go that AA was willing to throw it away in its game-playing with the APA rather than satisfy the pilots. DFW-PEK didn't have a realistic shot against the CO or UA applications, so why bother giving in to the pilots for an application that had no chance? Not so with JFK or LAX, IMO.

 

[Cosmo]

But in a fit of hypertechnicality, I think that JFK-PVG would require a waiver of the 16hr duty day, since ORD-PVG (in addition to ORD-DEL) also required a waiver.

I knew that ORD-DEL required the waiver but I hadn't realized that ORD-PVG did as well. I know that duty time is greater than block time, but since ORD-PVG (in that direction) is showing a block time of 13:15 according to the October 2007 OAG, is duty time so much more that it will cause the flight to exceed the 16 hour limit? Can anyone shed some light on how much longer duty time is than block time on a typical long-haul international flight? Would it vary significantly by airline and/or aircraft type? Thanks in advance for any answers to these questions because I'd really like to know.

Of course, if JFK-PVG would indeed require a waiver from the pilots, which I agree is unlikely at this point in the absence of a new overall contract, I will have to re-think my prediction of what AA would apply for in the next China route case. I guess it would come down to a choice for AA between LAX-PVG and some less likely options such as JFK-PEK (assuming that route doesn't require a waiver) or LAX-PEK. While the "conventional wisdom" would suggest that AA will apply for LAX-PVG, I'm not so sure that would be the carrier's choice. AA would be competing against UA's almost certain application (using larger B747s vs. AA's B777s) as well as MU, AA's code-sharing partner that already serves the route. As for JFK-PEK, I still think that AA views JFK as a more competitive and strategic location than LAX. But PEK already has daily East Coast nonstops from JFK (CA), EWR (CO), IAD (UA) and PHL (US in 2009). So I'm going to think WAAAAY "outside the box" and predict (guess?) that AA will apply for LAX-PEK in 2010. Now, before you burst out in uncontrollable laughter, think about it for a minute: (1) it's highly unlikely that any other carrier would apply for the route; (2) it would not compete against one of AA's code-sharing partners; (3) it should be well under the 16-hour duty time limitation for the pilots, thus eliminating the need for a waiver; (4) it would give the DOT an option other than UA for a West Coast-China award (although if the DOT actually moved away from its East Coast-centric China route award philosophy -- after all, almost half of all U.S.-China traffic goes to/from the West Coast -- it might give an award to both AA (LAX-PEK) and UA (LAX-PVG)); (5) without checking the numbers, LAX-PEK is almost certainly the largest PEK route not having U.S. carrier nonstop service; and (6) it would give AA a broader offering of Pacific services from LAX -- AA metal to NRT and PEK plus code-shares on MU (PVG), CX (HKG), BR (TPE) and QF (SYD, MEL, BNE and AKL).

So AA for LAX-PEK is my "dark horse pick of the week", along with CO (IAH-PVG) and UA (LAX-PVG), for the 2010 route awards. Fire away!

 

[eolesen]

The DOT hasn't shown a lot of concern for who current codewhoring or alliance partners are when it comes to dishing out route awards. Why? Partners change over time. Look at BA... they've been hooked up with UA, US, and AA at different times over the past 20 years. SA has been a partner with AA, DL, and now UA. Same thing with SQ... Originally with AA, went on to DL, and then UA.

MU is about to be bought up by SQ, who is an anchor tenant for Star Alliance. If it goes thru, it is entirely possible that MU would end their codesharing agreement with AA.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Cosmo,

Let me be the first person, to......"bet you a cup of(cyber)coffee"

If it's LAX/China....I LOSE.
If It's JFK/China.....U LOSE.

My tired ol' brain (constantly) keep reverting back to how BOLD a move it was to start up JFK/NRT, knowing NW was already flying a "whale" on that route. As you know, ultimately NW "blinked", and AA came very very close to starting up, BOS/NRT. I think, "that" right there has tipped AA hand as it pertains to the far east.(Obviously ORD was AA"s 1st choice)
As to APA's contract/waiver, sure it's not a "sure thing", but It's not hugely Impossible either.

I'm a "creme, NO sugar..Decaf guy,...................And you(Cosmo) like your's how ???

(May the best "Prognosticator"(SP?) win)

 

[Cosmo]

I'm a "creme, NO sugar..Decaf guy,...................And you(Cosmo) like your's how ???

Sorry, I don't drink coffee, but I'll take a Dr. Brown's Black Cherry soda!

(May the best "Prognosticator"(SP?) win)

You're on!

 

[MAH4546]

US-Japan authorities aren't switchable like that unless you're NWA or UAL. AA's frequencies went back into the pool for other carriers to request in markets already approved for service. I don't think US carriers can operate from MIA to Japan, even though Japanese carriers can.

US-Japan route authorities, while restricted, are fairly easy to acquire. NWA and UA's advantage is that they can fly from Japan to a third country, but other US airlines may not.

The problem with US-Japan is slots at Narita, nothing else. AA could easily acquire Miami-Tokyo route authority, but they don't have the slots.

Narita slots are "use it or lose it". You cannot sell the slots, like Heathrow, as they are not assets. They can only be dormant for a maximum of 90 days, and AA's SJC-NRT slot is gone.

Thanks to expansion, a large number of new slots will become available at Narita around 2010-11, and AA has already said they are interested in five of them - one extra daily on each of their four current Japan routes, and MIA-NRT.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...amp;refer=japan