Can AA's 777s fly ORD-BOM or is that just too far?

[AstroLounge]

Yeah, DL having all those widebodies sure did a lot to keep them out of bankruptcy...

AA's got such a large share of MIA that they were bound to have something like this happen, similar to DL moving into DFW. Given how sucksessful that was, I don't know that AA is too concerned about it. DL can fly the junk, and AA will have more space for premium/higher fare customers. Works for me -- I'm tired of booking four weeks out on a business trip and not being able to get a pre-reserved seat on a $1000 fare.

Hopefully AA will keep Delta out of MIA and defend Its Turf. DL couldn't compete head to head at DFW with AA and to think they can do it in MIA is pure stupidity.

 

[flyhigh]

Well, if the DL FLL-SDQ announcement is the "big" news, I'm not so sure AA is too worried. FLL has been tough for anyone (includingg AA) to get going from a Latin perspective. US tried and failed...and Spirit is likely only making it work through rock bottom fares. MIA is not only the preferred destination, but has the cargo facilaties to manage that aspect of the business.

As for the original topic...AA seems to be doing well on the DEL service out of ORD. Not so sure they wouldn't succeed at JFK service. DL's lie flat seats will still be inferior to AA's suite which on a long flight of that nature becomes worth the extra money for many travelers. JFK has a lot of competition and AA has limited resources. Is it the best place to make the most money...maybe not in this case.

 

[MAH4546]

Well, if the DL FLL-SDQ announcement is the "big" news, I'm not so sure AA is too worried. FLL has been tough for anyone (includingg AA) to get going from a Latin perspective. US tried and failed...and Spirit is likely only making it work through rock bottom fares. MIA is not only the preferred destination, but has the cargo facilaties to manage that aspect of the business.

Notice how the FLL-SDQ plane sits on the ground for ten hours? We'll know more tomorrow if the rumours are true.

 

[FWAAA]

Keep in mind that AA would not only be competing against CO (EWR-BOM), but against DL who is already flying JFK-BOM. Next year, DL will roll out lay flat beds on it's long-haul 777's which should give DL a pretty competitive product. The other problem is that AA doesn't have much feed at JFK, meaning they would be relying very heavily on O+D traffic.

If AA wants to fly to BOM, they should do it from ORD. Of course, I don't know if AA's 777's can make it.

Good point about DL's service at JFK; I'd forgotten about that one.

Although AA may not currently have much feed at JFK, I've been assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that when the new terminal is finally finished, AE will expand at JFK with additional 50 seat ERJs. Prior to the construction, AE flew to ALB, SYR, ROC, BUF, PVD and others (with the acquistion of Business Express). Maybe those cities are dead forever, having been permanently lost to B6. But with an expected uptick in long-haul AA JFK-Europe flying, I would expect AE to do the same thing DL has recently done: expand the number of dots connected with 50 seaters. It's not like DL has owned JFK connections forever.

On top of that, AA has a lot of NYC O&D loyalty already. I don't pretend to understand the USA-India market, but I've heard that NYC is one of the largest concentrations of Indian-Americans. NYC is still one of the largest business centers in the world, and with India's rise toward first world status, I'd expect that AA could fill a few premium seats each day. But perhaps ORD is the better place.

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Getting to Mumbai will not be a problem. The planes will be almost empty. But they will always be full coming here from Mumbai.

 

[upsilon]

Although AA may not currently have much feed at JFK, I've been assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that when the new terminal is finally finished, AE will expand at JFK with additional 50 seat ERJs. Prior to the construction, AE flew to ALB, SYR, ROC, BUF, PVD and others (with the acquistion of Business Express). Maybe those cities are dead forever, having been permanently lost to B6.

I think your last sentence above is quite correct as far as O&D pax are concerned. Living/working in Manhattan, I'm not going all the way out to JFK to fly in a 50-seat RJ when there are AB320 flights with greater frequency. AA would have to offer at least 5K miles to even tempt me; and I doubt that "connection" flights would fit my schedule.

But when US is even close to the B6 price and the schedule fits, I fly it on a RJ from LGA - for the convenience of ground access, the airport club, and avoiding the JFK T6 zoo.

 

[upsilon]

Getting to Mumbai will not be a problem. The planes will be almost empty. But they will always be full coming here from Mumbai.

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the logic of, and the reason for, your statement. Could you elaborate?

 

[Wretched Wrench]

Airplanes can travel farther on full tanks with a lighter load.

 

[eolesen]

I'm scratching my head trying to figure out the logic of, and the reason for, your statement. Could you elaborate?

I'm a little perplexed by the statement as well. If you're alluding to loads being disproportional, I seriously doubt that's the case. People aren't emmigrating from India on AA...

 

[upsilon]

Airplanes can travel farther on full tanks with a lighter load.

Obviously, but why would that equate to empty planes going over and full returning?