Which of American’s Nine Hubs Are on the Chopping Block?

ChockJockey said:
According to the route map, DFW serves nine markets in California, LAX serves seven, but PHX serves fifteen.  I just don't see LAX and DFW being able to as efficiently provide the coverage, frequency, and volume that PHX does to California.  Let LAX focus on perfecting O&D offerings there and let PHX do the heavy connecting in the West.
Excellent post (as is your usual), and I agree with it, but wanted to add a point:

Before the merger, AA long served LAX-SBA and LAX-MRY, and both have been axed since the merger. Both are still served via PHX, but that doesn't connect those two high-dollar destinations with the rest of the world the way LAX does. UA contracts with Skywest to serve both from LAX, and while it looks duplicative for AA to do the same thing, AA simply needs to place 3-4 daily E175s on both routes to compete and/or drive UA out of those markets. UA serves both from its SFO hub, and yet AA serves both only from PHX. The high-dollar NYC passenger isn't going to fly JFK-PHX-SBA/MRY when they can fly UA's ps service, or AA's three-class transcons to LAX (if AA served them from LAX). If AA does not add E175s to LAX-SBA/MRY, I can see Delta beating AA to that punch.

I believe that new AA will continue to fly a big schedule at PHX, as PHX is one of the big destination cities in the USA - a distinction that even CLT lacks. For those who clicked thru to the DOT data linked in the teenager's article, it's clear that PHX average fares have gone up over time (adjusted for inflation), proof that US and WN aren't fighting each other to the death at PHX, while CLT average fares have declined substantially over time (also adjusted for inflation). PHX has substantially more domestic O&D than small-town CLT has and WN isn't the low-fare airline it used to be. The vocal minority of A-Hole East pilots continue to post on their thread various taunts that PHX is going away, but I suspect that since PHX is still a growing metropolis and WN's fares aren't all that anymore, that AA will stay fairly large at PHX for the future.
 
commavia said:
I continue to believe that with AA's combined, substantially larger presence at BOS (now a close #2 at the airport overall), it can support additional - non-hub - flying.  In my mind, the three obvious "low hanging fruit" opportunities for AA to strengthen its presence at BOS in markets where it also now has a very strong presence are RDU (3-4x daily 2-class RJs), YYZ (2-3x daily 2-class RJs) and SFO (2-3x daily mainline).
Completely agree. There are rumours that B6 will introduce its lie-flat Mint service to BOS next year, and I wonder if AA could give lie-flat service another go from BOS? In the old days, BOS-LAX and BOS-SFO were American Flagship 3-class 767 routes, and if B6 thinks it can sell some Mint lie-flats, then can't AA perhaps sell some lie-flats on those routes?  
 
ChockJockey said:
I re-watched it and I think you are right about what he said re: A321's in PHX, but I didn't hear him mention flying 738 MAX's to Hawaii.  My understanding is that a number of former US East 757's were going to be put on the PHX-HI routes to replace the old HP birds that are really starting to show their age.
When AA announced the A321H service to HI, employees posted on this forum that the AA ETOPS 757s would move from LAX-HI to PHX-HI routes. Has that changed?
 
FWAAA said:
There are rumours that B6 will introduce its lie-flat Mint service to BOS next year, and I wonder if AA could give lie-flat service another go from BOS? In the old days, BOS-LAX and BOS-SFO were American Flagship 3-class 767 routes, and if B6 thinks it can sell some Mint lie-flats, then can't AA perhaps sell some lie-flats on those routes?  
 
Depending on how JetBlue's flights do if/when they introduce Mint on BOS-LAX, I wouldn't be surprised to see AA (the leader on the route) respond, albeit I doubt with the A321T - I think more likely is switching 2-3 of the existing daily 738s to 75Ls.
 
commavia said:
Depending on how JetBlue's flights do if/when they introduce Mint on BOS-LAX, I wouldn't be surprised to see AA (the leader on the route) respond, albeit I doubt with the A321T - I think more likely is switching 2-3 of the existing daily 738s to 75Ls.
That's what I was thinking - not the 30 premium seat A321Ts, but perhaps 75Ls or maybe another 2-class A321 variant with 12-16 of the current A321T business class seats. Parker doesn't seem to be averse to numerous configurations the way old management was, so anything is possible.
 
One major problem when talking routes is the gen public, airline employees and even aviation enthusiast tend to make a crucial mistake of looking at a map. Domestically speaking geography is pretty meaningless now days it is all about cost and revenue and maximizing profits. Hub proximity or even flying over hubs is not a rational factor, each flights market standing is the rational factor and how that feeds downline.
 
that is exactly right, upnaway.

and people here don't realize that LAX real estate is too valuable to use for connecting traffic that has no local market.
AA has cut intra-California flights because the assets can be better used and the economics of serving a route that has virtually no local market and 100% connections is poor.

Depending on how JetBlue's flights do if/when they introduce Mint on BOS-LAX, I wouldn't be surprised to see AA (the leader on the route) respond, albeit I doubt with the A321T - I think more likely is switching 2-3 of the existing daily 738s to 75Ls.
regardless of the number of business class and coach seats, the reason why B6 is winning share in the transcon market is because they are using a low cost model with a premium service approach that AA can't match with any of its aircraft. The best aircraft to compete with B6' transcon model is the 763 or larger aircraft with a fairly low number of business class seats but more passenger seats overall than B6 can carry - - plus cargo capabilities.

AA chose not to pursue using widebodies on the transcons. B6 will beat any airline that uses a narrowbody because the economics of B6' narrowbodies in Mint configuration will always be better than a legacy carrier's
 
FWAAA said:
That's what I was thinking - not the 30 premium seat A321Ts, but perhaps 75Ls or maybe another 2-class A321 variant with 12-16 of the current A321T business class seats. Parker doesn't seem to be averse to numerous configurations the way old management was, so anything is possible.
 
I doubt the business case would close for another distinct A321 configuration - on top of the three AA will now be operating anyway (PMAA FCY, PMAA FY and PMUS FY) - just for this or even just a few routes.  I think it would just be easier and cheaper to put a few 75Ls on the route since that configuration already exists and - at least at the moment - that fleet is underutilized relative to its capabilities, anyway.  The 75L seems to make sense for other reasons, as well.  In terms of scheduling, BOS can be used as a bridge to get 75Ls between BOS-LAX flights and the BOS-CDG flight (which itself could act as a bridge to/from JFK), and in terms of capacity, the 75L seems like a perfect solution as it already offers a fairly strong premium product for a 5-hour transcon and has the exact same number of premium seats as the 738 - so AA wouldn't be flooding the market with tons of new capacity.  Ultimately, I could see a schedule something like:
 
BOS 0600-0925 738
BOS 0825-1145 75L
BOS 1225-1540 319 x6
BOS 1600-1920 75L
BOS 1925-2245 75L
 
LAX 0625-1500 738
LAX 0900-1735 75L
LAX 1325-2200 75L
LAX 1700-0130 319 x6
LAX 2225-0655 75L
 
Contrary to what certain uninformed and jealous Delta fanboys like to continually (and incoherently) ramble on about, AA's own management has said publicly that the A321T was "a huge success," both in terms of its performance in the immediate JFK-LAX/SFO markets and also in terms of its overall contribution to the network and corporate business in particular.  I suspect that if faced with the prospect of an upgraded product on the LAX-BOS route (one on which, again, AA is currently the largest carrier), AA may well conclude that it's worth upping its game to remain competitive among premium customers.
 
There is no jealousy, commavia, but it is easier to throw that out instead of facing the pure business facts.

The reason why B6 has succeeded in taking share from AA in market after market is because they have a considerably lower cost base and they can fly ANY route they do at a lower cost than any legacy carrier.

Huge success could mean a lot of things - including cutting costs since AA's 762s were THE HIGHEST CASM AIRCRAFT operated on transcon routes.

The 321T strategy has worked because AA got rid of a significant portion of the coach market which it didn't want to serve and yet surprisingly fares WENT UP FOR ALL CARRIERS when AA cut capacity even though much of the capacity that AA cut has been replaced by B6 and DL.

AA was filling its 762s with a lot of low yield traffic and in ending that practice, the industry as a whole has benefitted.

Competitively, DL has increased its share of the premium market including at JFK because it has so many slots at LGA and JFK that there is no market that B6 or any other carrier can add at JFK that DL can't duplicate at LGA (where carriers can fly that route) and where DL can't also fill flights from JFK.

DL also has figured out how to stay in the market and compete against B6 whether we are talking about SJU, STI, SDQ, or a half dozen west coast markets while AA has repeatedly said they can't compete with B6 and walked away or reduced capacity.

You want to argue that the transcons are the issue while it is clear that DL has used pullbacks by AA AND UA at JFK to grow its share of traffic that those two carriers once had and doesn't have to deeply discount in order to fill traffic that B6 needs to fill its planes. and B6 is not discounting as aggressively as it once did because it got them only reduced profits.

BOS won't work that way. B6 is still the largest airline by a long shot. The BOS transcons are niche, focus markets for the legacies and have a large enough business component that the legacies - at least some of them can continue to stay in the market. The only way that AA and other legacies succeed in the BOS transcon markets is because they can generate revenue premiums. B6 narrows that gap by offering premiums service at lower costs. some of the legacy carrier capacity in BOS transcon markets will fall as B6 continues to grow unless a legacy carrier implements a much larger growth strategy in BOS as a whole. DL's presence in the BOS market is because DL has taken the role of being a full service carrier with TATL service that other carriers don't do in addition to a number of top markets. AA has pulled down its BOS int'l service and now competes with B6 on the same domestic market basis. UA has never paid BOS a whole lot of int'l attention.

so, no, simply putting an AA premium configured aircraft on BOS-LAX is not going to solve the problem that B6 is a lower cost competitor and is offering premium seats that are as good or better than what the legacy carriers can offer.

The way to compete with B6 is to offer a comparable or lower level of service across a range of routes, to maintain and grow premium business, and to fly to markets that matter to corporate customers but which B6 doesn't serve.

The very same strategy is what DL is using successful in RDU and why in just two years, DL has managed to retake the number 1 carrier title despite the AA/US merger and despite the fact that RDU is right in the backyard of AA's CLT hub.
 
I re-watched it and I think you are right about what he said re: A321's in PHX, but I didn't hear him mention flying 738 MAX's to Hawaii.  My understanding is that a number of former US East 757's were going to be put on the PHX-HI routes to replace the old HP birds that are really starting to show their age.]
 

 I re watched the PHX crew news. The comment about 737-8 MAX doing PHX-Hawaii was on the non rev FCFS and 757 question. It is approximately 1:40 into the video. Yes, East 757's are going to be the interim solution until the 737-8 MAX comes to do it later. According to Kirby. The other comment came from the Future of the Airbus in PHX question. Kirby says more 737 less Airbus. A319 to MIA and A321's to places like DFW.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top