Last week I wrote that American Airlines plans to serve more premium international destinations starting in 2025 and into 2026. That’s once they’ve taken delivery of new Boeing 787-9 aircraft, which they ordered in 2018 and have been delayed.
Senior Vice President of Network Planning told employees recently that these planes change the airline’s calculus:
- more business class seats, appropriate for more premium markets
- and more business seats mean fewer total seats, so the aircraft won’t be as heavy and can reliably fly farther
- plus incremental widebody aircraft will allow them to serve more destinations
In the spring airline executives were teasing possible service to Singapore in employee chats, though I was skeptical that this would happen.
Aviation watchdog shares speculation about American Airlines launching service to Hong Kong and to Singapore in a couple of years, as they take in new Boeing 787-9 aircraft.
one person's thoughts:
'HKG should return as CX regains strength. I expect SIN eventually also. We’re talking at least 2 years away though. Timing issues and reliability/utilization issues killed HKG though- 1-2a LAX departures for HKG am connections. The AM Dallas departure was…
— 🇺🇦 JonNYC 🇺🇦 (@xJonNYC) September 8, 2023
Will American Airlines Return To Hong Kong?
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 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 meant overnighting the plane in Hong Kong. It was an inefficient use of aircraft.
Adding a Los Angeles – Hong Kong flight was operationally efficient since they could take an aircraft in from Dallas and send it to Los Angeles and vice versa, maximizing the amount of time that planes are in the air.
But American’s Los Angeles – Hong Kong flight performed poorly. It left in the middle of the night, great for morning connections beyond Hong Kong. But it tended to delay often, to be low yielding, but good for elites looking for upgrades.
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.
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). They view Asian destinations as overserved, and by carriers willing to lose money serving the U.S. and offering a better product.
The only carrier serving Los Angeles – Hong Kong currently is Cathay Pacific, which is an American Airlines partner. But it’s not a partner that American can form a joint venture with, since the U.S. and Hong Kong lack an Open Skies agreement. Cathay is incentivized to connect passengers off of its own flights between the U.S. and Hong Kong, not American’s, and the Hong Kong-based airline offers three peak daily flights (including in the middle of the night). Who would voluntarily fly American over Cathay unless they were under corporate contract or looking for elite upgrades?
And those corporate contracts are pretty limited for Asia flying. American’s emphasis on corporate deals has declined. And business travel isn’t just not fully returned, it hasn’t fully returned to Hong Kong which has suffered relative decline as an Asian business destination as the Special Administrative Region of China has turned inward towards the mainland – focusing instead on the Greater Bay Area.
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.
Will American Airlines Fly To Singpaore?
Singapore benefits from Hong Kong’s decline. However 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 as I wrote in March, Singapore partners with Alaska Airlines. American has cited competition from Asian carriers as a reason not to fly specific routes.
American would need to supplant Singapore as Alaska’s partner, because it needs Alaska’s domestic connecting traffic to make the service work.
Traditionally the airline has shied away from ultra long haul service. Hong Kong didn’t work well, especially from Los Angeles, even where they had a partner offering connections beyond the destination. American has no partner in Singapore – they’d be serving it almost entirely as a destination on its own.
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 seems a far inferior option to Hong Kong and likely low yielding.
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 perhaps) and Guangzhou where China Southern is based seems unlikely given current geopolitical tensions with China especially.
Three years ago American made moves to get closer to Philippine Airlines so I’m sure there’s been consideration of flying to Manila. Philippine Airlines serves Los Angeles – Manila twice daily. However it’s a fairly low yielding market.
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.
The bottom line is that American Airlines has tremendous strength as a domestic airline. Their hubs are great for local markets and connecting traffic, but the airline isn’t well-poised with obvious wins adding long haul international into Asia or Africa. They’re already serving the Deep South America routes that make the most sense. They could probably grow seasonal Europe from New York but they’re shrinking in New York without JetBlue as a partner.
They have long haul aircraft coming in, and will need to find places other than Cancun to send them, and this represents a challenge – but one that will be fun to watch.
The cold hard fact is that AA & UA don’t come close to the level of Service you get on Asian Carriers.
When you got 1 FF mile flown, in the past, it was a tradeoff worth considering. Now it doesn’t make any sense at all.
Unless, maybe if you’re a Platinum elite.
Hong Kong “has suffered relative decline as an Asian business destination as the Special Administrative Region of China has turned inward towards the mainland – focusing instead on the Greater Bay Area.” This is precisely why Hong Kong has been, and will remain, critical as the gateway to the second largest market in the world.
But instead of flying to Hong Kong which provides no real value added to the vast majority of AA flyers, AA should fly to Taipei. JFK-TPE is both easily operationally feasible but also has massive unmet demand for point to point travelers even without connection opportunities (although CX could provide an easy connection to HKG and China Southern good nonstop connections to Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Guangzhou. In the same way that JFK has enough point to point demand to have made TLV a good route, all the same considerations apply to TPE.
TK has up to two daily flights from ORD-IST, and that means a lot of the Midwest is going to go with UA into ORD for ORD-IST instead of going with AA to get into DFW for a hypothetical AA DFW-IST flight. I don’t see AA having the staying power for more than a summer seasonal DFW-IST route under the current circumstances.
Your commentary is accurate but it is still speculation as to where AA will grow as it starts to receive new aircraft, including the increased takeoff weight 787-9s – and I don’t think those will come in 2024.
The current capability 787-9s cannot make LAX-SIN on a year round basis with 260 passengers because that is what UA has on its 787s which have a 787-9s which have a larger business class. cabin.
HKG is the most likely market to return in part because CX needs more traffic being pumped through HKG and there is at least the potential for codeshares.
LAX is now in DL’s hands and they will add what makes sense, including on the A350 which is a more capable aircraft than the B787. UA will fight to try to prevent DL from setting up a decent sized Pacific operation in LAX but DL will make it clear that they will stay out of SFO as long as UA doesn’t try to monopolize the whole CA market.
And let’s not forget that UA is starting LAX-HKG so AA has to go up against UA while DL will watch that market.
AA simply will not succeed at anything out of SEA. DL will defend its hub and AS cannot deliver the seats necessary to fill AA transpacific flights on top of all of AS’ other codeshares. And AS and AA cannot cooperate in pricing or marketing AA transpacific services from SEA while DL can do it all – just w/ lower frequency and fewer “fringe” destinations from SEA that DL serves from other hubs or which don’t move the needle on TPAC flights.
Since the IATA spring 2024 slot meetings will start soon, most US airlines will announce their plans. Until they do, it is all speculation.
@ Gary — Good luck on SIN. Maybe if AA gives CK with the purchase of one full fare J to SIN. No one in their right mind would choose AA over SQ or JL or CX or KE or OZ or…
Same as what Dave said – it would take a massive price differential (or guaranteed upgrade well in advance) to even consider flying AA ultra-long haul. I’m off to Singapore in a couple of months, it’s the perfect jumping off spot for most of Asia and Australia. Last time we flew SIA in F (from Frankfurt, had to endure LH J to get there) and it was beyond exceptional. This time it’s BA F via LHR due to a really low fare. To fly AA, the fare would have to be even lower, and I’m out of DFW, so I don’t enjoy saying that. If AA keep their F cabins, which is also unlikely, then maybe, but the hard and soft products from the Asian (and middle east, and even some European – AF, Swiss) carriers just do not compare.
I think the idea of major international expansion is AA blowing smoke in all likelihood. Keep in mind AA has 47 777-200’s which are getting long in the tooth. ~40 of these were delivered prior to 2002. It seems quite plausible to me that if there is any kind of downturn AA will take the opportunity to retire the 777-200 1:1 with arriving 787-9.
Time will tell – but if I were a betting man, that’s where I’d place my bet given this management team’s history.
Nice summary, but literally NOTHING new here.
I realize this will likely not happen, but I have long wished for DFW or ORD to JNB or CPT. I travel there 4-5 times a year and would certainly appreciate the opportunity to bypass LHR occasionally.
AA has always been a distant last place in international competitiveness. They had a shot, but they made the poor shortsighted decision to retire the 767/757/330 fleet which severely limited their reach into Europe. They have list market share, which will be difficult to recover. AA has always performed poorly in profitability and anything that competes outside of its fortress hubs domestically. AA is wasting their money on more 787-9s because they will ultimately fail.
Why not JFK or PHL to IST or BRU or anywhere in Germany? Maybe there’s not enough traffic for daily runs on a 787 but a few times per week? Or put the 787 on transcons and the 777 transatlantic?
AA’s international problem is due to 2 factors: 1. it does not get the corporate travel revenue in competitive markets that DL and UA does and 2. it can’t make up its mind strategically what it wants to do, esp. in competitive markets.
No one but esp. business travelers want to do business w/ a company that offers rewards – such as airline loyalty programs – when they may not have a chance to benefit from their own loyalty. AA has been all over the board in NYC, Chicago and LA – home of the largest groups of corporate contracts or where large numbers of travelers under nationwide corporate contracts fly to/from.
Add in that AA’s customer service (or disservice) is far weaker than DL and even UA, and it is no surprise that AA execs only want to fly from where they dominate the market “our schedule is our product”
AA jumped on growing LAX but chose most of the wrong markets – China and HKG which were already in decline long before covid; Chinese carriers were heavily subsidized which forced down fares. GRU and EZE from LAX are too long and too high cost given that multiple hubs further east can do the same job w/ a lot more connecting traffic.
When AA blinked in LAX, DL jumped and is not looking back. Southern CA is larger and economically stronger than the Bay area. DL and both have every reason to make sure AA doesn’t succeed at any expansion at LAX.
If AA can’t succeed at LAX longhaul against DL and UA, it is more laughable to think they will succeed at SEA where DL has an even tighter grip on the market. AS can’t help AA in the local market.
AA needs to and will succeed at building its northern hemisphere longhaul international system out of DFW and CLT and PHL if it wants. and then MIA to Latin America.
as much as this thread and the comments are all speculation, it is far better than the cherrypicked or anecdotal stuff that Gary throws up for page clicks.
AA has about 30% more gate allocation than DL at LAX. It is physically impossible in the long run for Delta to carry more capacity at the airport. AA took COVID to substantially speed up construction of its new merged T4/T5 and continues to have reduced gate access but that changes next year. AA remains the largest carrier at LAX in terms of LA-originating traffic. delta can’t come close.
I don’t see them really ever being able to add much long haul international mainly due to their hubs. Do many people even care enough for a DFW to a Singapore route?
I guess they could add LAX to Singapore but I don’t see that working for them. It probably will be Hong Kong again
Yawn.
So long as singapore air and Emirates are flying,not interested in anything the domestic carriers offer.
May cost more but get better treatment than AA has ever offered.
Flying SA in 2 weeks and have booked the cook for Angus burgers, filet and lobster Thermador. Delta would probably offer double cheezits and bischoff.
Dallas is passed beyond to have a second Sao Paulo or reopen LAX, is just impossible to buy tickets or seats availability for who depends to traffic on a weekly bases for business. GRU DFW is always full. My company is starting to look into Delta/Latam from LaX
There’s a definite need for more USA to South Africa service, and MIA-JNB might be a reasonable addition. But I’m not sure AA is willing to “bet” on South Africa right now. Given the crazy popularity of MIA these days — the airport is serving about 20% more customers than pre-pandemic and AA is planning another 10% increase in winter flights – we might also see a new Europe flight from MIA.
Hope to see AA bring back HKG flights soon. The addition of SIN would be welcomed.
Simon,
you do live in a fantasy world.
Not only does AA no longer carry more origin or destination traffic from LAX THIS YEAR – not five years ago – but DL and AA BOTH have access to TBIT gates and there are strong incentives from the LAWA to add longhaul international flights.
UA is the one that is at a disadvantage at LAX because they do not have access to TBIT gates – or at least is operationally not workable to split their operation between terminals 7/8 and TBIT.
Gates are not the limitation on AA’s ability to operate either domestic or international flights at LAX.
AA started dropping flights from LAX long before covid because they lost money on their longhaul routes and they carried a fraction of the number of passengers to JFK on their A321Ts than DL carries on the B767s and A330s.
for those that argue that US carriers can’t compete against Asian carriers, the simple fact is that US carriers can and do compete quite well against Asian carriers – just as they do in other parts of the world. While UA has had 35 years to develop its Pan Am Pacific route system beyond its own hubs and partner hubs on both sides of the Pacific.
Because of China’s restrictions, the big 3 US carriers all have the same number of flights to China which dramatically cuts UA’s ability to gain an advantage over AA and DL.
Delta inherited its Pacific system from NW and it was almost entirely centered at Tokyo. Delta has spent 10 years fighting to hold onto its Tokyo routes and use them for local traffic while it only started to move connecting traffic to Seoul; DL has waited patiently for KE to figure out its Asiana merger but at some point, DL will dramatically expand Seoul routes.
Securing its Tokyo position is first priority, followed by developing its partnership with Korean WHICH THEN provides a platform for expanding to non-hub cities in Asia.
ANYONE THAT THINKS that Delta is not going to expand beyond Tokyo, Seoul and China will be in for a rude surprise in the next couple years.
AA simply never bothered to acquire a Pacific route network from an incumbent carrier which is DL and UA will always have an advantage. AA, at best, will fly to its partner hubs.
AA will fly from hubs where it has a share advantage which is why nearly all of its Pacific network is and will be from DFW.
AA simply is not going to succeed at flying routes from a city where it is not the dominant global carrier to cities other than its hubs. Heck, AA can’t even fly to Tokyo – where it has a JV – from Chicago
Ummm. You guys are forgetting the other major codeshare partner out of LAX.
Qantas has lost a competitor on LAX-OZ in Virgin Australia since the start of the pandemic. So, fundamentally, there is less capacity across the Pacific. QF is also the dominant domestic carrier in Oz with 66% share – which AA has priority access to.
UA (BNE, MEL, SYD) and DL (only SYD) are SLOWLY increasing capacity across the Pacific.
Yet there is only a seasonal service by UA to New Zealand. QF and NZ offer multiple flights from AKL, and CHC to points in the US daily.
Is it wrong for me to suggest that AA has an opportunity to trump its US rivals?…and use its tie with QF to upscale flights from LAX and DFW into the South-West-Pacific?
If AA could not get a powerhouse route like LAX-HKG to work which is a one-world market, what on earth makes any clown at AA think that SIN would work. Sure, let’s go launch one airplane 19hours into a very thin route dominated by Star Alliance.
That SIN rumor has been around for close to a decade and it’s always been “we’ll see”. “we’re exploring all options”.
If, in the biggest boom in air travel demand in YEARS cannot get AA to work a simple SEA-LHR route, a constant excuse filled delay/cxl of SEA-PVG etc… I have 0 optimism in SIN.
Here’s one route where AA could try, MNL. But, they literally had ONE competitor on it- Philippine air from LAX or SFO. One flight and shorter than SIN and not even a thought about tapping that market.
AA needs to make gambles like when Kirby et al were in house. Everything coming from that glass palace called skyview is a damn joke. Lead by clowns, followed by circus acts, and forced into the front lines like blind mice.
I used to fly the AA HKG-DFW route and there would be a million people on the upgrade list on a 77w (all without there own bottles of water that got “gate checked” on HKG outbound of course) and I fail to see how a 787 can handle the demand on that route if they plan to be serious. Also with fewer business seats that must mean fewer award seats available which will drive down the value of AA miles in the long run.
TDK,
QF – with which AA has a joint venture – is flying less capacity now than it did pre-covid which is why DL and UA have both added more capacity.
And Delta has added more flights to the S. Pacific than any other carrier on a percentage increase basis. and I am pretty sure they are not done yet.
daninmci
it is precisely because AA upgrades anyone that has the least bit of status that they can’t sell high value tickets. If you want people to pay high fares, you don’t even dangle the possibility of endless upgrades. Delta figured that out years ago which is why there is virtually no revenue upgrade list on Delta international flights.
steve,
it is actually telling that AA’s profitability and its longhaul losses have GONE DOWN since Kirby left. It is precisely because he was willing to take moonshots that ended up in fire on the launchpad that AA lost so much money. It is also why UA has long lagged Delta in profitability, even in the international arena where UA has long touted its global size and reach – which overall is larger than DL. Unlike UA, DL is driven by profitability which is why Scott Kirby gave up on his original claims, which he made early on during his time at UA, that he would match DL’s profitability. Scott Kirby is driven by a need to win in comparisons and so the best he can win at against AA and DL so he flings UA planes around the globe and generates far less revenue in doing so than DL – on a consistent basis – and even less than AA as the America West clown show of which Kirby was part are slowly being pushed out the door from Centerpork.
AA needs alot of things but people like Scott Kirby is definitely not one of them.
To be clear, American’s, long-haul international profitability has gone up, and its losses have gone down since Scott Kirby left
How about CLT-DOH? CLT will provide all the connections they want and is growing gate capacity. QR provides all the connections they need from DOH. In fact CLT would have been a better choice for QR instead of ATL but they set up the ATL flight only to thumb their nose at DL.
@Superevangelist:
“I have long wished for DFW or ORD to JNB or CPT”
AA doesn’t have an aircraft with that range.
AA runs away from competition at a full sprint. The only S’pore route AA would legitimately be interested in is from DFW, and they don’t have an aircraft with that range.
Most of the other listed preferences don’t take into account the most important metric: yields.
Airlines don’t make money on holiday destinations or third level business destinations.
AA remains an airline without a strategic plan.
I would just point out that AA tried TPE years ago and it died like a dog. In fact, I think it was some of the worst load factors the airline ever had on an international route at the time. HA made the same mistake thinking the visa waiver program would bring traffic to HNL, and that flopped just as bad.
Mike,
well said
TPE was part of AA’s SJC hub, IIRC.
It failed, just like DL’s PDX hublet did because it was too small and in the shadow of SFO, the US carrier 800 lb gorilla to Asia.
AA has to grow from a large city, within the range of its aircraft, and from a city where it doesn’t have to compete w/ someone else.
None of that is going to happen from the west coast to Asia or to Africa, where DL led the charge and UA has tried to jump in where it could -and is still planning to not use all of the route authority to S. Africa that UA gained – but not enough for anyone else to fight over.
CLT is AA’s 3rd hub attempt in the SE after BNA and RDU but AA bought their way into CLT and it works – for what it does.
CLT is no ATL either in the amount of passengers that DL moves through ATL- which drives the number of longhaul flights from there – or the size of the local market.
AA has been so erratic with its longhaul international strategy but has made it clear to DL and UA that AA does not want to make longterm commitments to markets outside of AA’s partner hubs and AA now has to figure out what they can add around the reality that other carriers do a better job of competing in longhaul markets and in winning over premium revenue
Lots of AA haters here I see. What alot of these keyboard captains fail to mention/realize is that AA’s Hubs are all GROWING. Not just in population, but with businesses and HQ’s. DFW has WAY more “business traffic” than LA or Chicago. NYC is only city greater. DFW, MIA, CLT, PHX (and to a lesser degree PHL/LAX) will continue to out perform the “traditional” markets in the US. Anything AA does from DFW will succeed.
you forgot to mention ORD, JFK/LGA and LAX, all of which are AA hubs but where AA has shrunk and other carriers are dominant.
Yes, AA has great southern US hubs but that doesn’t change that they have a major faultline between their two sets of hubs.
And the SFO base, which AA closed.
AA just doesn’t know what to do with the West Coast.
It’s completely and just udder sadness what I usair has done to AA.. the usair mgmt has no fricken clue what they are doing on any level maybe domestically but just giving DL and UA the west coast is just dumb! AA was biggest at lax til Covid and now massive construction at lax AA seemed to just give up or waiting for gates to finish.. before Covid hit plans in the works for Casablanca Singapore Bangalore Christchurch and Brisbane but who knows now..then there was delays with 787 deliveries rumors of A330 coming out of retirement to deal with delays… who knows what is going to happen at AA letting lax get small and shrinking NY… just dumb as shit over at aa! One thing for damn sure no way in hell aa can compete with Singapore airlines out of lax! Competing with Singapore is like usair merging with AA… dollar store trying to manage Nordstroms!! Aa dollar store now Singapore is Nordstroms….
AA is completely mismanaged no clue what to do any where their whole plan is to run everything through the worst airport in the U.S … CLT!! Usair always has been always will be east coast thinking but even then clueless! They are shrinking ord, NY, lax they closed sfo… Boston barely existent I give it 2-3 yrs fricken CLT, dfw mia, and maybe phl only bases left!!! They’ll run from every place else!! AA desperately needs AA mgmt back and get rid of all this America west shit!! Or they’ll never succeed as much as they should especially internationally!!
Don’t agree with below. Midwest folks will fly to Chicago and take the twice daily ORD-IST flights. “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.”
Or replace some of the older 787s with the new ones and put the old ones on the PHX Hawaii run. The 321s aren’t fully mission capable on that route, so many weight restrictions that cause issues.
JFK-NRT
MIA-NRT
PHL-NRT
PHX-NRT
ORD-NRT
Why haven’t any of these flights been done yet?
@AM: You are presuming there is that much demand to TYO.
HND is the preferred Tokyo airport, but is slot controlled so AA can’t readily increase flights there.
NRT is primarily an airport for connections beyond Tokyo, which AA could do in partnership with JL, but that again presupposes adequate demand and yields.
JFK? Way too much competition in the NY area (6-flights a day). Even DL doesn’t fly it.
MIA? Would require weight restrictions to make the flight W/B. JL is looking at the route, and Miami would like to see it happen, but even JL hasn’t committed to it.
PHL? Must not be enough demand since no one flies it.
ORD? Four flights a day already. AA hates competition.
PHX? AA no doubt believes that any demand will route through DFW or LAX. PHX is a minor hub for AA and no one else flies PHX to TYO.
Am I crazy for thinking PHX-TPE could work due to the TSMC deal in AZ? Honestly just add LAX/DFW-HKG and call it a day. Don’t particularly like AA but generally think having our nations flag carrier(s) serve more parts of the globe is good for our nations image, and gives travelers options. Would be nice to see AA get the JFK-HND slot considering how screwed they got with the NE partnership ruling and DOT effectively handing NYC to DL on a silver platter. Also wouldn’t hurt to try out LAX-MNL seeing as only PAL flies it and Socal has a ton of O&D demand to the Philippines, UA only serves MNL from SFO at the moment.
I have to disagree a bit with Gary’s contention that AA has a tremendous domestic airlines network. In comparison with southwest, yes. But not with their former competitive set.
First of all I would bet you anything that these deferrals resulted in either a cash payment or substantially better terms. So if anything it’s bolstering current cash flow. The industry is crying out for these planes, but not American?
Coincidentally and increasingly, their gambit on transcon narrow bodies three class is looking like an error. 1st class seats simply don’t get sold, and coach on those three class 321s is limited – and really stinks. But American used to dominate that market in part because they had superior aircraft in the old days – the 762.
Now United is throwing more wide bodies across the country and it’s a far more attractive proposition. A couple of them even go to Denver and Chicago from LA.
UA has a ton of wide bodies about to be delivered.
Finally, specifically from LAX, United is a far more attractive proposition because of their location in the terminal corral. Construction at LAX will be going on for at least the next 10 years and T7/8 is accessible via shortcut. T4/5 for American is deep in the LAX mess and will be for the foreseeable future. Literally can mean a difference of a half an hour.
I rarely consider AA anymore, unless there is a rare bookable points flight through BA.
AA needs to take another look at Boston as a TransAtlantic gateway