AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not sure that there is really a shortage of slots at NRT. There have been several US carrier routes to NRT dropped including AA's JFK-NRT flight and DL's SFO-NRT flight. I believe the slots go back to the NRT slot coordinator and can be used by US carriers. The US has Open Skies with all Japan to all airports except HND. So far as I know, no US carrier has been denied the right to start a flight to NRT since the US signed Open Skies.

AA has previously operated JFK and SEA to NRT and paid to buy SEA authority; it is highly unlikely they would reenter either market.

I have long said that PHL to Asia is a market which AA should introduce

E is probably in hiding or will pretend that he didn't know that I have noted that his "data" regarding LAX-GDL is nowhere close to being what the DOT says.

 

[nycbusdriver]

I'm sure this next question will be greeted by volumes of unrelated nonsense (which I will be blissfully ignoring thanks to E's introduction of the "Ignore" feature*), but what will happen if (and I say if) AA gets the HND authority?  It's pretty clear that they'll drop the LAX-NRT flight since they're evidently going to give that flight number to HND.  But what happens to the hypothetically now-open slot at NRT?  Can AA use that for JFK?  Or PHL?  Or SEA ( 😉 )?  Or do they have to go through a new route approval process with DOT?
 
*Thanks, E!

 
I hope you get a lucid answer to that question.  Interesting.
 
It does look like the deluge of nonsense you predicted has happened, but the ignore feature (thankfully) reduces it to:
 
This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by WorldTraveler. View it anyway?

 

[WorldTraveler]

of course it is nonsensical to have to be reminded that AA bought authority to fly SEA-NRT but dropped the route anyway and has dropped not one but two routes from JFK to Tokyo - one each to NRT and HND. AA has also dropped SJC-NRT service and AA's existing LAX-NRT service significantly underperforms DL and UA in revenue performance and has done that for years.

there is also a neat little feature that this board offers and it is the message feature.

If you wish to exchange information with a member or ask questions and do not want to have to allow a discussion on the forum which might include actual facts such as AA's history and publicly available financial performance in Japan, then use the private message feature of the board.

 

[eolesen]

But what happens to the hypothetically now-open slot at NRT?  Can AA use that for JFK?  Or PHL?  Or SEA ( 😉 )?  Or do they have to go through a new route approval process with DOT?

US-JP is essentially under an Open Skies agreement (HND is the exception), so AA would be free to reallocate that to any of the markets you mentioned.

No route case necessary since 2009.

 

[Platinum Steve]

So, if AA can essentially do what it wants, what will it do? Surely two flights from DFW, one from ORD, and one from LAX (to HND) isn't a reasonable answer for the world's largest airline whose main priority is to build an Asian portfolio. It's not reasonable now, and the only difference is that the LAX flight still goes to NRT.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Steve,
I'm not sure why AA has to or will do anything regarding its Jspan operations.

It appears that it was hoping to get the HND flight and if it did, the chances are high that AA would dump its LAX-NRT flight since JL operates on that route as well.

But AA has never confirmed that its intentions are to discontinue its LAX-NRT flight, either with or without a HND flight.

The likelihood that AA does nothing in Japan unless it decides to try PHL to Asia.

Since we are past the time for summer flights to be announced, the earliest that a new TPAC could happen is next summer - with an announcement within the next six months likely if AA decides to do that.

lower fuel prices will help AA and might buy them time to come up with another strategy for Japan. Given that AA has operated LAX-NRT for a decade (although not necessarily continuously) and AA still underperforms its competitors, it has hard to believe that AA can remain in the market on a long-term basis.

 

[FWAAA]

IMO, between AA and JAL, the joint venture appears to have plenty of seats into Japan, especially as AA begins more nonstops to Korea and China, which means fewer connecting passengers at NRT for JAL to carry to Korea and China. That results in more seats to sell to O&D passengers on the NRT flights.

Of course, AA wants AA-metal access to Haneda, and that remains to be decided.

A long while back I posted that I could see AA (or JAL) starting IAD-NRT to capitalize on the huge base of US Airways customers in the DC region. IIRC, UA and NH have two or three daily flights into IAD, and with UA's troubles, and the dominant US position at DCA, perhaps JAL could profitably fly IAD-NRT with a 787 and take away some of the Star Alliance revenue on this route. JAL already began BOS-NRT, for which AA had plans before Sept 11, 2001.

Maybe there is a business case for PHL-NRT, but I'm skeptical. Perhaps with all the PHL connections, it could work, but AA and JAL would want to ensure that it didn't cannibalize the two JAL JFK flights.

AA began LAX-NRT in 2004, IIRC. I don't think AA's LAX-NRT has had any service interruptions or suspensions during its tenure, but I may be mistaken.

 

[commavia]

IMO, between AA and JAL, the joint venture appears to have plenty of seats into Japan, especially as AA begins more nonstops to Korea and China, which means fewer connecting passengers at NRT for JAL to carry to Korea and China. That results in more seats to sell to O&D passengers on the NRT flights.

 
Indeed.  The combined AA-JAL network between the U.S. and Japan is already quite a competitive one - with multiple daily nonstops to NRT from the "core" NYC, CHI and LAX markets plus the DFW megahub, among others, plus the just-started LAX-KIX.  That being said, I think there are a few "gaps" to be filled in.  Specifically, it makes sense to move SFO back to NRT and shift the SFO-HND flight down to LAX, possibly in place of one of the existing two daily flights.  Additionally, the largest and most important O&D market the AA/JAL JV is presently absent from is SEA-NRT, which I think could make sense with a 787.  Beyond that, I think PHL and MIA, and possibly IAD, could also make sense with 787s.
 

A long while back I posted that I could see AA (or JAL) starting IAD-NRT to capitalize on the huge base of US Airways customers in the DC region. IIRC, UA and NH have two or three daily flights into IAD, and with UA's troubles, and the dominant US position at DCA, perhaps JAL could profitably fly IAD-NRT with a 787 and take away some of the Star Alliance revenue on this route. JAL already began BOS-NRT, for which AA had plans before Sept 11, 2001.

 
I, too, don't think this is entirely implausible.  I'm not sure how likely it is since the United/ANA does, indeed, already dominate this market, but I agree that with AA's dramatic rise in presence in the WAS metro market, including being by far the largest carrier at the region's preferred high-yielding domestic O&D airport, there is a potential opportunity for AA and oneworld to parlay that into a more meaningful longhaul presence in WAS (presumably at IAD).  Personally, I think the most realistic form this could take would be the resumption of a nonstop flight (perhaps seasonally) to MAD, additional capacity to PAR (in addition to the existing BA OpenSkies flight) and maybe NRT.
 

Maybe there is a business case for PHL-NRT, but I'm skeptical. Perhaps with all the PHL connections, it could work, but AA and JAL would want to ensure that it didn't cannibalize the two JAL JFK flights.

 
Personally, I think PHL-NRT is a question of when, not if.  From my perspective, it makes infinite sense.  A PHL-NRT flight is unlikely to cannibalize JFK-NRT all that much for the same reason that PHL doesn't really cannibalize JFK much writ large - namely, PHL's distance from NYC and the immense strength of the NYC O&D market, in which AA and oneworld compete quite effectively.  What PHL offers - that JFK never can - is true megahub connectivity up and down the eastern seaboard, including throughout the northeast.  The competition an AA and/or JAL PHL-NRT flight would really be going after would be United's EWR-NRT and Delta's DTW-NRT routes.

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA/JL's strategic failure with US-Japan esp. HND is that JL chose to start SFO-HND service when HND slots became available instead of LAX where they could have had a decent presence.

instead, JL ended up with SFO, UA's hub while NH got LAX.

NH like DL has done well with LAX-HND. but JL dropped its SFO-NRT flight to not cannibalize its own HND flight. It will be much harder for JL to go back to NRT but it knows that it needs LAX, not SFO to HND service.

the whole attempt at stealing DL's SEA to HND slot is because JL screwed up in the first place and won't make the tough decision which is to make LAX work regardless of the impact on SFO - so they are looking for another HND frequency instead of just to move the SFO frequency.

PHL would succeed or fail based on the feed that AA/US have on the eastern seaboard plus gaining access to the PHL-Asia market which is split between multiple carriers.

 

[MAH4546]

JL did not "end up with SFO."
 
JAL and ANA each have two Haneda slots and can use them however they hell they want. JAL can start LAXHND tomorrow, it just would need to end HNLHND or SFOHND. 
 
Also, DOT did decide today.
 
Delta keeps SEAHND but has lost the ability to seasonally reduce service. If Delta fails to operate the route daily, year-round or just decides to give up on the route within the next two years, the authority automatically transfers to American without need for a route selection process, and American would have 60 days to launch the route. Delta must submit quarterly "report cards" to DOT on the route. 
 
Great for AA - it is forcing Delta to operate a route that cannot sustain year-round service on a year-round basis for two years. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

As I noted, the DOT would leave the route with DL under more restrictive conditions than the typical 90 day dormancy.

DL still needs to develop the traffic base on SEA-HND but the loser is AA which has to operate LAX-NRT which loses money on a year round basis at $100/bbl crude oil.

lower fuel prices will help BOTH DL's SEA-HND route and AA's LAX-NRT route.

The difference is that DL has operated SEA-HND for a fraction of the time that AA has operated LAX-NRT.

-
and yes, JL made a strategic blunder to try to grab SFO-HND, a route which is clearly more valuable to NH and Star than it is to oneworld.

Either airline could have made LAX-HND work because HND is a divided market; given the HND slot restrictions and UA's far larger strength in SFO relative to AA, JL will always operate SFO-HND at a disadvantage compared to what NH can do with LAX.

and yes DOT data does show that JL offered fewer seats and had the lowest LF of the 3 California-HND flights.

and now with the DOT's decision, AA/JL will be forced to either move SFO-HND to LAX or not have a presence in LAX-HND while DL and UA will.

and since it will be very hard for JL to reenter SFO-NRT, JL/AA is indeed worse off than DL and UA which have NRT and HND flights from each of their major west coast hubs. and while we have yet to see the results of UA's HND flights, the chances are high that they will do fine.

Going for SFO-HND was indeed a strategic blunder for JL and it has implications for AA at LAX.

 

[jcw]

Fair decision by DOT giving DL a second chance

 

[700UW]

DOT is out with its decision regarding Delta SEA-HND service which AA and HA had attempted to strip due large dormancy lag in DL's operation of the route.

Per the DOT decision, the department found that Delta should retain the daily slot pair for the benefit of consumer competition, however will subject the authority to "strengthened conditions and protective measures designed to ensure that Delta maintains a year-round daily service in the market."

Additionally, the DOT also selected AA for backup authority for its proposed LAX-HND service should DL not meet or accept the performance requirements attached to the authority.

The specific conditions added to the route authority are;

Any failure, without a Department-granted waiver, to perform a Seattle-Haneda flight, and any failure, without a Department-granted waiver, to perform a Haneda-Seattle flight, on each and every day of every week (7 days a week, 365 days a year), will constitute a violation of Delta’s Seattle-Haneda authority subject to enforcement.
 
Any failure,without a Department-granted waiver, to perform Seattle-Haneda flights,
and any failure,without a Department-granted waiver, to perform Haneda-Seattle flights,
on two days of any seven-day period (365 days a year) will constitute a default of
Delta’s Seattle-Haneda authority and that authority will automatically expire.
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

and DL can seek a waiver to not operate on select days - which it might do on Christmas Eve, New Years Eve etc as DL and other airlines regularly do.

It validates that AA's decision to pursue the route backfired and AA now has one more competitor on LAX-PVG and still has to operate LAX-NRT or drop its own metal from LAX.

it is indeed fair, jcw

 

[jcw]

Actually it does not prove it backfired - it forces DL to lose money on a route it can't support out of SEA

So it works to the benefit of AA - DL has to spend precious resources that a for profit company should be using for money making flights - using aircraft, crew etc and it reduces competion on some other route that plane etc could be deployed

If DL decides it can't handle the losses and decides to not fly it AA automatically gets it - so no backfire here

Also the DOT could decide to not grant any waivers