AA to lose MIA-CWB, VCP, FRA

[WorldTraveler]

You made a pretty big and flawed jump in logic.

DL wants to serve DAL for the same reason every US carrier including AA serves LHR but has given up on LGW - because there is money to be made at those airports.

Brazil service is being dropped because there ISN'T money to be made in those markets.

Same for MIA-FRA.

AA apparently still believes it can make money flying to FRA from other gateways and I wouldn't expect them to drop flights given that reality.

 

[Kev3188]

Really?  Then why doesn't DL willingly go gently into that (DAL) good night?  If a market is a market, then why not just do 5 more flights from DFW?  As you said, a market IS a market.  It's also the reason why most airlines are constantly trying to get gate space at Gatwick.  It's just as good as Heathrow.

There you go again trying to bring logic to the table...

 

[WorldTraveler]

The logic which no one has addressed is where 3 other routes have been cxld from one hub over a period of a couple weeks.

Routes come and go with a fair degree of frequency.

And I truly hope you two do see the difference between DAL AND DFW vs. DAL OR DFW in contrast to DFW-LGW vs DFW-LHR. There are precious few cities that had LGW service but didn't keep it when LHR became an option - unless there were hub pulldowns involved as well.

There is no replacement being announced at this time for the MIA routes that are being cxld.

 

[jcw]

Try CVG and MEM

 

[WorldTraveler]

MEM did not have LGW service, IIRC.

CVG did but the hub was pulled down - just like PIT and CLE? Did AA once fly LGW-BNA? STL has had London service of a couple flavors.

 

[MAH4546]

The logic which no one has addressed is where 3 other routes have been cxld from one hub over a period of a couple weeks.

Routes come and go with a fair degree of frequency.

And I truly hope you two do see the difference between DAL AND DFW vs. DAL OR DFW in contrast to DFW-LGW vs DFW-LHR. There are precious few cities that had LGW service but didn't keep it when LHR became an option - unless there were hub pulldowns involved as well.

There is no replacement being announced at this time for the MIA routes that are being cxld.

 
You continue to live in a fantasy world where VCP is being cancelled. AA is simply converting to a seasonal service, something you praise Delta for doing on many routes.
 
And you still fail to admit that the CWB cut is simply cutting the Curitiba tag of a Porto Alegre flight. The flight remains. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Can you post the schedules for the return after it is pulled down?

It very well may be the intention to bring it back, but until schedules are posted, it is gone.

CWB wasn't a tag of the POA flight. The routing was MIA-CWB-POA-MIA. It was a round robin flight that was nonstop from the US. And the city is being cut in part because the return CWB-MIA leg takes as long via POA as a connection going north via BSB, GIG, or GRU.

Markets get cut. The difference here is that it involves 3 markets from the same hub that does continue to exist with no replacement or new seasonal service announced.

 

[eolesen]

You continue to live in a fantasy world where VCP is being cancelled. AA is simply converting to a seasonal service, something you praise Delta for doing on many routes.
 
And you still fail to admit that the CWB cut is simply cutting the Curitiba tag of a Porto Alegre flight. The flight remains.

Why do you bother?

Until AA publishes their summer 2016 flying, it's going to be endless drama and hand-wringing from WT, so I wouldn't even engage in the conversation until the schedules are out. New AA seems to be holding those cards closer to the vest than Old AA did. Wouldn't surprise me to see them go to an 8 month advance schedule instead of 11 months.