Enilria identifies two cities that have the greatest potential for American Airlines to serve (subscription). The first is Duluth, Minnesota, which they dropped during the pandemic. They should be flying a 50 seat regional jet there from Chicago, but have continually retrenched in Chicago ceding the city to United so that seems unlikely.
The second one is more interesting: Bangkok. No airline flies there non-stop from the United States. It’s surprising that United doesn’t. With all of the widebodies they have coming, surely they’ll have to. Already United serves Manila and Singapore. (Thai Airways used to serve LA and New York non-stop but no longer do.)
Street Food In Bangkok
American Airlines Doesn’t Want To Grow Low Haul
When American Airlines placed a new order for Boeing 787s in 2018,
- The 787-8s were described as a replacement for Boeing 767s. The 767s have been retired.
- The 787-9s were described as a replacement for Airbus A330-300s (which have been retired, along with A330-200s) and for older Boeing 777-200s.
However American has actually deferred delivery of 10 Boeing 787-9s into 2028 or later. They don’t want those planes any time soon.
They Limit Long Distance Flying To South America, Summer Europe And Partner Hubs
American Airlines is not a long haul airline, and they are not a Pacific airline.
- They are a domestic hub and spoke carrier, connecting passengers to and from small cities across the Sun Belt as well as to Mexico, Caribbean, and Central America.
- They are an airline to Deep South America, for seasonal Europe, and to joint venture airline partner hubs.
The airline’s strong preference is for narrowbody aircraft. Widebodies are expensive to operate, and long haul flights need revenue premiums to succeed. The best long haul markets are often well saturated, and by airlines that (1) offer a better inflight product, and (2) feel the need to serve the United States even when a flight isn’t earning a good return on capital.
Will American Return To Hong Kong?
When American does take delivery of Boeing 787-9, they’ll be business class-heavy (unless they alter the configuration of these aircraft). With fewer passengers they’ll likely be less weight-restricted and can fly longer distances. But they’ll also need to be premium routes where yield potential is high.
New Business Class, credit: American Airlines
Service to Hong Kong was dropped at the start of the pandemic – initially suspended, the decision to drop Los Angeles – Hong Kong was made permanent first (that flight performed especially badly) and then a retreat from the destination entirely with the elimination of Dallas – Hong Kong.
American Airlines first started serving Hong Kong from Dallas. This flight did well, and reportedly sold even in first class. However, Dallas service involved overnighting the plane in Hong Kong. It was an inefficient use of aircraft. Adding LA only required a single additional aircraft.
Connections beyond Hong Kong are great for reaching Southeast Asia, considering that American’s primary Asian partner Japan Airlines has only a limited network beyond Tokyo with often just single daily flights to many destinations and long layovers. As Cathay Pacific continues to restore service, they could be a good partner, but a joint venture isn’t in the cards due to lack of an Open Skies treaty.
American has pulled down international flying from its Los Angeles hub. They operate only to joint venture partner hubs (JAL/Tokyo, British Airways/London, Qantas/Sydney). Cathay serves LA-Hong Kong already and is incentivized to connect passengers off of its own flights. But Dallas – Hong Kong could make sense again.
Cathay Pacific hasn’t returned to Seattle – Hong Kong, and American has talked about building Seattle as an Asia gateway in conjunction with Alaska Airlines, but hasn’t done so. They’ve pulled down even Seattle – London flying. If they ever decided to launch a West Coast international gateway again this could be a second flight, operated efficiently.
Victoria Harbour, Hong Kong
Will American Airlines Fly To Singapaore?
Singapore benefits from Hong Kong’s decline, and is a good destination. United Airlines serves it already.
Los Angeles – Singapore is served by Singapore Airlines, with both a daily flight and a second flight three times weekly. Singapore also currently flies Seattle – Singapore three times weekly, and partners with Alaska Airlines. Presumably that partnership wouldn’t survive if American started operating Seattle – Singapore.
Hawker Stalls, Singapore
Other Asian Destinations Seem Less Likely
American operates Dallas – Seoul. Los Angeles – Seoul and Seattle – Seoul are too competitive, especially considering that Delta/Korean and Asiana offer connections beyond Seoul while American does not.
Kuala Lumpur, speculated in the past, isn’t as strong a premium destination as Hong Kong or Singapore. And while American has a oneworld (but not otherwise close) partner in Malaysia Airlines, that carrier is relatively weak. Serving West Coast – Kuala Lumpur just to connect passengers into Southeast Asia would be low yielding.
Petronas Towers, Kuala Lumpur
American owns a stake in China Southern, but that partnership has failed to blossom. American has also lost tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, flying to China. As permissible flights to China grow, Dallas – Beijing seems more likely than a West Coast addition (even more than much-discussed Seattle – Shanghai) and Guangzhou where China Southern is based seems unlikely.
They codeshare with Philippine Airlines so I’m sure there’s been consideration of flying to Manila. Philippine Airlines serves Los Angeles – Manila twice daily. Yet it’s mostly low yielding market. United Airlines has entered the Manila market (something they wanted for awhile). Dallas – Manila would almost certainly underperform.
I’m personally rooting for Dallas – Istanbul, though this route is served daily by Turkish Airlines which offers a wide array of beyond Istanbul connections. American would scoop up the limited traffic from small cities in the Midwest to Istanbul that aren’t connecting from United onto Turkish through Houston.
I’d also love to see the fruition of once-planned Casablanca service, connecting with oneworld carrier Royal Air Maroc. They’d planned to serve this route with a (now retired) Boeing 757 from Philadelphia but could use a Boeing 787 from Dallas. That’s a bigger, more expensive commitment than what they’d planned for their first foray into Africa.
If They Don’t Cancel Or Swap 787s On Order, They’ll Eventually Need To Fly Somewhere
American could cancel their Boeing 787-9s, especially as part of a new order for narrowbody aircraft. But assuming they take those planes, and they don’t merely accelerate retirements of Boeing 777s, then the new aircraft will need to go somewhere other than Cancun.
This is a real challenge for an airline that is very strong domestically, but the weakest of the major U.S. airlines internationally.
AC just started flying to BKK nonstop from YVR. 787-900 could do it from JFK . . . but not without overflying Russian airspace.
The HK-USA Bilateral has allowance for 5th Freedoms. AA could probably use the aircraft to do a roundtrip to BKK or KUL from HKG and operate the return with the same aircraft.
The only reason anyone flies AA is for a direct flight from cities other airlines dont fly from. If I were to fly from LA and I had the option of ANY other airline, I would fly ANY other airline rather than AA.
Because the service of USA airlines is not up to that of many Asian airlines along with somewhat higher prices, USA airlines seem to have challenges being able to make money on transpacific flights. I’m sure having higher crew costs doesn’t help.
Until Thailand came get back their FAA cat1 rating, AA ain’t flying there. It would be a low yield tourist route anyway, though maybe being the only carrier flying from the US in a low premium config they could make it work. Still, Thailand isn’t going to invest in a cat1 rating just for one new AA route.
Personally I’m rooting for PHX-TPE.
With the growing Asian population in Phoenix, TSMC, lobbying from the city/airport, and ideally (imo) a Joint Venture agreement with Starlux, the route should be absolutely doable.
@Mantis On your second point I’m less sure about this than you are. Bangkok isn’t Singapore or Hong Kong, but it is the financial and business capital of Thailand – a nation of roughly 75 million people – and the financial capital of it’s area with lots of banks, investment managers, real estate developers, lawyers, etc. I think that there are enough business travelers between say, New York and Bangkok, and many more wealthy people, and government officials who would be captive premium flyers willing to pay a premium to save many hours to make it work. AA makes routes like this work to deep South America, which are among it’s highest yielding routes and keeps planes on the ground all day to make them attractive to local markets. Lots of interesting cargo opportunities too. TG flew this route briefly before the Asian Financial Crisis ended it, but it wasn’t always easy to get a Business Class seat while it existed.
The US lacks a truly world class
Airline ….AA could compete if they wanted, but their fleet is severely lacking and this limits their ability to offer premium services. While the 777 can be their bread and butter, the idea of the 787 competing against airlines with a true jumbo jet option is ridiculous. The airline needs a fleet of larger aircraft, like Lufthansa or BA has for the longer routes or just Continue to cede the market To those who know what they are doing.
Absolutely nothing new here.
HKG is no longer what it was pre-pandemic, or for that matter, since 2018. If AA returns to HKG, it will likely only do so from DFW, and the chances of that are slim. BKK? Absolutely no way. No US airline serves it for a reason. It’s far. It skews leisure and doesn’t generate that much business traffic.
SIN has and continues to displace HKG as a financial hub and eventually, a lighter, more premium heavy 787-9 in the new AA configuration could fly it, but likely only from LAX or SEA.
There is significant and underserved business travel to Manilla. I used to go monthly, flying DFW/LAX-HKG-MNL, and half the first/business cabin on the flight to HKG would be sitting on the flight to Manilla. Same in reverse.
Looking for underserved or unserved markets so AA can enter them is a futile cause.
AA has long tried to buy aircraft to fix their network and product issues.
AA didn’t pull down LAX international because it didn’t have the right airplanes but because it couldn’t compete.
They could easily still be flying markets that DL and UA fly if it were only a matter of fleet – because AA has aircraft that are capable of operating those flights.
Other airlines will add new routes as fast as or before AA.
The A350-900 – which Delta has – can already fly LAX-SIN because Singapore uses that aircraft even in the “medium weight” 280 tonne take off weight version configured with 250 seats to operate the route.
DL is receiving the first of its 283 tonne aircraft this year which will be more than capable of operating any potential route from the west to the Asia/Pacific route as well as numerous other routes across the Atlantic into Asia and Africa.
UA can make SFO-SIN work with 787s that have the same capabilities that AA has. UA also makes EWR-DEL work w/ a 787-9 while AA uses a 777-300ER with a very low density configuration; UA undoubtedly makes more money based on the much lower fuel burn of the 787-9.
Another example of how Misters Dunn and Leff are rooting for American to be liquidated – nothing but emotional , knee-jerk negativity.
BKK or SIN just isn’t well marketed in the US. There’s a huge amount of traffic there from Europe, notably UK & Germany. Sure, mostly leisure, but leisure is willing to pay for J and F these days (I know I am, if I can’t get them on points). Once you’re there, there’s a literal world of opportunities for half the price of US/MX. We’ll be flying BA F to SIN next month, and from there have about 8 flights over 2.5 weeks hopping around Asia. BA wouldn’t be my first choice, but the price was good, and F is decent, and still better than AA. SIN is the perfect ‘hub’ for an Asian escape.
AA flying anywhere into Asia would be competing with Cathay, Singapore, JAL, etc. All of those have markedly better products that AA cannot come close to, especially with the diminishing Flagship First. Living 20 mins from DFW, I wish that wasn’t true, but it is.
Living on the West Coast, it’s a PITA to fly east to go west. DFW? JFK? PHL? No. If I can’t fly out of SFO, LAX, SEA, and in some cases LAS are easier and closer.
What that translates to is that, despite being an AS elite for years, and occasionally flying AA metal domestically to locations that AS doesn’t, I *always* fly foreign carriers outside North America. It’s hard for me to think of AA as an international carrier (slightly jingoistic of me, but Canada and Mexico aren’t “overseas”). I mean, AS flied to locations in Canada and Mexico, and they are a small domestic (US) carrier. AA is the same, only larger…
Zero chance AA adds anything to Asia, maybe DFW-Hong Kong and eventually they will add back DFW-Beijing. Seattle is dead as a Asia gateway now that Alaska is buying Hawaiian, I am sure they will Asia flights on their own metal. With some Tokyo Haneda slots opening up, I had hoped AA would try for one of their hubs without Asia service, Phoenix, Miami or even Philly or Charlotte. Lower fares than more established hubs with Asia service but no competition right? Turns out AA didn’t agree and asked for Haneda-JFK. AA spent decades and millions on Asia flights that didn’t pan out and they finally decided to stop.
Great article, great comments. @Pete White is correct that SIN “just isn’t well marketed in the US” (excepting a blip after the movie “Crazy Rich Asians”). Too bad, now that the CCP has ruined Hong Kong (not to mention all of China), Tokyo and Singapore are probably the two best “Hub Cities” in Asia. Like Pete, I’ll also be in Singapore in February, flying Cathay Pacific.
One of the issues AA has in LAX is their pilot staffing. The pilots are type certified for the 777 in LAX. This was also an issue when they cut flying from LAX, as they didn’t have enough trips for their 777 pilots, so they were having to do wierd things like non-rev them to JFK to operate flights to Europe. That’s an expensive proposition when those pilots are being paid flight hours for the transcontinental flight as a passenger. To add 787s to LAX, they need a big enough pool of 787 type certified pilots to cover vacations, sickness, and the overnight at the destination for crew rest. AA wouldn’t want to operate a single 787 destination from a city, as that overhead is too high. With a small number of international destinations served from LAX, it makes the most sense to be all 777 or all 787.
AA needs a bigger fleet of 787 and to be financially able to retire 777s from LAX, and retrain the LAX pilots for 787 before they can consider adding long international LAX service to more cities. Adding a couple of 787s to fly to a new city makes more sense as an increment to existing 787 service rather than just the initial service. Still, they have to start sometime, as those 777 won’t fly forever. It doesn’t take that long to recertify pilots, but then they have fewer 777 pilots, so it’s a careful fleet and staffing dance which has to be done. Perhaps they are scheduling their deliveries to align with projected pilot retirements and airplane retirements.
John H
you have to wonder if the problem is simply that AA should put 787 pilots in its WEAKEST and largest international bases including JFK and LAX and leave the 777s to DFW and MIA where both bases probably could support both the 787 and 777.
When you continue to have to cancel routes because they don’t make money because you don’t have the right costs – pilot costs AND higher fuel costs on the 777 – someone should be able to figure this out other than on the internet.
AA shoots itself in the foot with more stuff that should be elementary to anyone else.
And, no one is rooting for AA to be liquidated. If we did, we wouldn’t be posting on the internet what they need to do to turn things around.
@ Gary — The UA flight SFO-NRT-BKK used to be filled with sicko disgusting pervs. I am surprised that UA hasn’t re-started this route, as I’m sure this type of demand never dries up.
Everybody is not looking this from a financial perspective. The US dollar is too strong against most Asian currencies. A roundtrip to USA is far cheaper in a foreign currency than it is for USA to Asia. That being said, foreigners would rather spend the same amount of money to get a better value using their regional carriers. Instead of HKG-LAX-JFK on AA, I would spend the same amount of money and fly luxuriously on HKG-DXB-JFK or HKG-SIN-JFK.
AA should fly
JFK SYD
JFK SIN
JFK DEL
JFK HND
JFK HKG
This is serious business
Everything else is scraps
I think that if AA resumes HKG, it will be from LAX because Russian flight rights limit the ability for DFW-HKG to run smoothly.
AA should bring back HKG flights and add SIN as a new destination.
Remember when American had vision, leadership, and ambition? Sure, that was before the AmericaWest ULCC posse arrived but it really was something to behold.
I find it hard to believe that AA – the largest legacy international US airline with the largest domestic network in the largest domestic market in the world (USA) cannot use same to feed a decent international network. They should be better positioned, network-wise, than anyone, which means a potential to make money on more international routes than anyone. Meanwhile, DL and UA are posting record profits in large part because of their large international networks, while AA with a smaller international network has lagging profitability. The solution seems glaringly obvious – grow international. And with a large 787-8 fleet supporting the growing 787-9 fleet, AA has the right equipment to dip their feet into those secondary international markets, if they just have the patience to let those new routes develop properly. Their to-be-delivered new 787-9 which is efficient, relatively large and quite capable has been well-hyped and with well-designed interior. To me it seems they are better positioned than anyone to have a large and profitable international network, with a possible exception being Asia due to AA’s historical struggles there and weakness on the west coast vs DL and UA. Some argue their product is sub-standard, and I agree to a point: their international hard product is good except they make the billions they’ve spent on fleet a complete waste by cheapskating where it matters, IE inflight entertainment and food. Also coach seat bottoms are so uncomfortable, and easy fix. Service is spotty only because you can get a wonderful agent one time, then the next flight, get one that’s downright hostile to passengers paying $10,000 for a business class seat. However, as those bitter ones retire, service is improving, I feel.
I’m shocked (and frankly upset) that AA deferred those dash-9’s. Ridiculous. They need to expand internationally and with wide bodies, and soon.
If ONE more person suggests a flight from Phoenix to Taipai in the comment section of an airline blog: I’m gonna explode. One “big plant” coming soon doesn’t equate to THOUSANDS of seats a week (even at 3x a week). Samsung is building it’s SECOND mega plant in Austin and guess what: They still don’t have flights to Korea. You have to crawl before you can walk (or run). Talk to me when PHX has ANY successful and long term flight internally beyond London and Mexico. END OF DISCUSSION.
They would be better served by competitive pricing on booking codeshare or flights with AA-OW connections in a single PNR. Such flights currently have outrageous pricing except for codeshare with BA. Try booking a connection beyond TYO with an AA-domestic to JL-intl and you’ll feel the pain. If you book separate flights, they don’t even check the luggages through. They can’t compete with such terrible policies.
> SIN has and continues to displace HKG as a financial hub and eventually, a lighter, more premium heavy 787-9 in the new AA configuration could fly it, but likely only from LAX or SEA.
There’s ZERO way that AA can attract any business from LAX given that not even UA was able to complete with SQ (only someone worthy of an asylum would choose to lock itself in an AA flight for almost 18 hours when there’s an SQ one). Similarly with SEA, which SQ serves multiple times per week.
AA needs to fix its core destinations first. They need to shore up solid routes to Europe and South America, better service, better seats, better food. Then try and tackle some Asia traffic. With the exception of the DFW-HKG, most of this is an experiment at best. And as Astrophysicist Charlie Blackwood would say; “That’s a pretty big gamble with a $30(0) million dollar aircraft”.
AA seems to have little interest in being an international airline. They seem content flying to key international cities such as LHR/NRT etc but beyond that I don’t think you will see AA taking any risks internationally. I also would not be at all surprised to see the deferred 787s be converted to more 737-MAX 7s to replace older 319s and 320s. The team from America West that bought AA seem to be happy being more like Spirit than a global airline. I recently flew BA to London and AA home, BA was light years ahead of AA. Watch AA not go premium heavy on new 787s they are taking.
AMERICAN ARLINES mantra is WE CANT NOT COMPETE INTERNATIONAL ,I do not known until when they will say that when they are desperate for money!!