AA will stop BRU - JFK

[Boeing767copilot]

According Travel Magazine aviation Newsletter:

AA will stop BRU - JFK, no more info right now

[tolipanebas]

No surprise, if confirmed...

[RoMax]

If confirmed...wow, no suprise, but wow... Jet Airways and AA to stop JFK-BRU. That leaves SN and DL as only airlines on the JFK-BRU market and UA and 9W on the EWR market.
Based on the pax numbers SN already made a great start on the JFK route with 9W and AA on JFK, without these two daily flights may it be the moment for SN to think about let's say 10-14 weekly JFK (with 3-7 weekly evening flight, freq. depending on the demand (that's why I say 3-7 weekly))?

[Acid-drop]

And we all loose ....
less offers mean higher prices.

[tolipanebas]

Pseudo-official confirmation of the closure of BRU by AA:
http://www.standaard.be/artikel/detail. ... 120814_137
http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/1536/Economi ... ique.dhtml
Apparently they are planning on pulling out at the end of summer season.

[Inquirer]

BRU-JFK is still bookable, but only in the full fare Y and C. Still remember where have we seen this before?
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=47537#p264999
Probably because any bookings will have to be rerouted at high costs, hence the need for a high fare.

So, it's bye bye American, it seems?
That sure didn't take Brussels Airlines long to throw the 2 weakest airlines off their first transatlantic route: not even 10 weeks of self-operated flights to JFK and already 2 quitters? They must be feeling very satisfied now, probably? How's their flight doing, BTW?

[RoMax]

How's their flight doing, BTW?

Financials are difficult of course unless you're an insider, but when they published their June numbers they also gave some more details about the JFK route during the first full month of operations. I think I mentioned it in the topic with SN's monthly numbers. These numbers showed a very nice loadfactor (should check it for the exact numbers).

[sn26567]

The end of an era! Remember when AA first came to Brussels? They immediately made it a hub where AA travellers could change planes between their JFK-BRU-MUC and ORD-BRU-DUS flights. At that time the competition was PanAm, TWA and Sabena. AA was the last survivor...

This being said, it is strange that the news comes from a trade union guy. Legally the staff council has to be informed first, but at least AA could have spread the news by a press release immediately thereafter! Strange communication strategy...

[convair]

In order to be able to seize new opportunities (more JFK or others), SN needs additional L/H a/c's asap. Anything in the pipe-line?

[cnc]

sad to see them leave

[Flanker]

I did not see this happening.
I was definitely wrong about AA's strength in BRU, but the bankruptcy court probably didn't allow to keep this strategic route.

SN will be happy I guess, as they've basically driven them out of BRU.

This being said, who knows what happens next and whether it will translate into an advantage.
BA is strengthening its its LHR-BRU link, so it looks to me as if OneWorld want to focus back on their hub operations and dump all the thin longhaul flying. In these bad times, with high costs anf free-falling yields, this is obviously the best option.

As far as I know, the JFK performance of SN is stable, but that doesn't mean that they're making money on it or that the route will be stable during the winter. A downgrade to A332 should be obvious, once those are fitted with the new product.

[BrightCedars]

Well, I don't know if SN had bet on how many and how fast they would drive the competition away but this sure gives them the room to make their flight profitable and establish Star Alliance airlines as the only ones serving BRU accross the Pond. I don't think it will take much longer before DL drops out on JFK as well, they've got BRU well covered with KL at AMS and AF at CDG.

Sures fares will edge higher but not that much because the competition is still extensive on the route as far as one stop goes. SN will always get more money for the same ticket price than a flight via another airport with transit taxes, and a real competitive edge over a train + plane combo.

I hope to see them reinforce NYC and expand their transatlantic network, the stronger dollar is also a good currency to pocket.

On a side note, it is sad to see the silver tail leave the BRU lineup.

[LJ]

I don't think it will take much longer before DL drops out on JFK as well, they've got BRU well covered with KL at AMS and AF at CDG.

However, they may have corporate contracts which make they stay. Didn't DL increase capacity on BRU-JFK this Winter (as BRU-ATL was reduced to 5 weekly)? Moreover I doubt thet Skyteam will leave BRU without a link to the US.

[Conti764]

I don't think it will take much longer before DL drops out on JFK as well, they've got BRU well covered with KL at AMS and AF at CDG.

However, they may have corporate contracts which make they stay. Didn't DL increase capacity on BRU-JFK this Winter (as BRU-ATL was reduced to 5 weekly)? Moreover I doubt thet Skyteam will leave BRU without a link to the US.

I too doubt DL would drop BRU... It's a much bigger and stronger company then AA and can more easily fence off atempts of SN (Star Alliance) to drive them out of the market. However, if SN can make the transatlantic work, I'd say keep an eye open for possible future service to ATL on a A332. Not immediately of course, but in time.

[sn26567]

The communication from AA comes after that of FGTB/BBTK: the Oneworld carrier cites reviewed route performance, market forecasts and future outlook as reasons for the cancellation.

This move is in line with similar hub-to-spoke route cancellations by Delta Air Lines and United Airlines, which favour services to their alliance partners' hubs in Europe.

American says that its passengers can still fly to Brussels on its Oneworld partners, British Airways and Iberia, via London's Heathrow airport and Madrid's Barajas airport.

[Outsync]

I think if they want pax to fly BRU (lhr) (mad) JFK they will have to offer rock bottom prices!??

[tolipanebas]

Strange to read how so many people are still surprised by the fact AA is pulling the plug on JFK-BRU, whereas it is nothing but a logic consequence of today's highly competitive transatlantic market.

As AA indicates itself, the transatlantic market is quickly becoming a market where there's only a place for routes which link at least one, and preferably two key hubs; then and only then can the operating carrier be relatively sure of being able to fill its plane sufficiently well throughout the year to make it work, with the ever present dip in winter.

Forget about fanciful plans to 'undercut' competition with smaller 757 planes to make good for the lack of feed or to serve some weird US destination just to be different in the hope of being able to find a niche transatlantic market: both ideas are so outdated and nothing but a very are good way to end up with high unit costs which will quickly blow you away as soon as a competitor with ample volume sets his eyes on you. The speed at which AA was put aside on JFK by a newbie like SN and their A333 demonstrates it very well and should be an eye opener to all those who missed the lessons LH gave at some of its other hubs on the very same topic, interestingly enough with AA as the case too then...

BTW, AA really screwed it up last year, when they decided to give up ORD-BRU as soon as UA/SN launched their competing ORD-BRU. Not only was that route a missing link for STAR which thus had priority over a second NYC-BRU, it was also a test case in a way, something many people seem to have failed to spot.
What AA should have done in reaction to the ORD flight of UA/SN was to cancel their JFK-BRU and relocate all of their onward traffic onto the remaining ORD flight in order to strengthen it.: that way they could have remained present atBRU in the long run. In stead, they decided to pull ORD and 'feed' JFK, by far the lesser hub of the two, and a much more competitive market too, something which clearly didn't go well as they are even operating the route on 757 during the very bussy summer holidays!
When you see all this, it was a given JFK would have to go, and was predicted many times.

FWIW, I'd expect NYC-BRU and in fact USA-BRU routes to become predominantly STAR operated in future, especially if and when 9W joins them as that combo really gives huge potential to BRU.
Lufthansa itselfs thinks BRU has the second biggest long haul market potential of all of their hubs and it isn't difficult to see why really.
I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few transatlantic reshuffles happen between the different partners in future, expecially after 9W joining STAR. Just one example: SN takes over YUL from AC, which takes over YYZ from 9W which in turn uses the plane to add another Indian route to BRU, for instance BLR: all 3 airlines are then operatng the most natural of routes right from their home turf so to say, they all get extra feed from each other and increase overal volume while reducing costs and increasing home market penetration at the sometime...


BRU better starts building...

[convair]

You may well be right. I was surprised to see how quickly 9W gave up JFK, and now AA. I thought prestige was still a factor but obviously it comes second to economics.

I'd love to see SN at YUL again but I don't see why AC would drop BRU as their flight does YYZ and YUL together.

Now, if LH thinks BRU has a transatlantic future and wants SN to play a role, it's time to get them a/c's.

[Jetbob]

Nobody talks about AA's poor service, that is why I stopped flying them !.

[Passenger]

... it is strange that the news comes from a trade union guy...

Indeed. However, it seems to me that AA wanted to do it the right way: 1) advising the decision to the staff, 2) amend/rerout the bookings and advise the passengers, 3) advise the trade.

Why did the union guy informed the press? I have no idea. To see the name of his union appearing in the press, my guess.