American Airlines

[Brum X]

And we were not the only airport to be suspended, they were much bigger airports too.


Cancelled Routes:
Chicago O’Hare – Dusseldorf Seasonal service will not be resumed in summer 2017, previously scheduled daily from 11MAY17 with Boeing 767
New York JFK – Birmingham Service to be cancelled from 06JAN17 (JFK departure), currently served by Boeing 757
Philadelphia – Brussels Seasonal service will not be resumed in summer 2017, previously scheduled daily from 05MAY17 with Boeing 757
Philadelphia – Zurich Seasonal service will not be resumed in summer 2017, previously scheduled daily from 04MAY17 with Boeing 767

 

[Jerry]

Wondering if the aircraft from those routes will be put on the routes the old MD 88s were doing? In the end you can't have an inferior product to a competitor and be over priced. What it might mean is more people using the EWR service a bigger aircraft and more frequency from them.

 

[DaveBham]

Wondering if the aircraft from those routes will be put on the routes the old MD 88s were doing? In the end you can't have an inferior product to a competitor and be over priced. What it might mean is more people using the EWR service a bigger aircraft and more frequency from them.

I agree - although when I used AA-JFK, the fare was very competitive - nobody at LHR or United here at BHX could come close. But the product did still feel inferior to the BA 777 I had previously flown on from LHR. And these days BA are not exactly class leaders in transatlantic cabins.

 

[Jerry]

fare was very competitive

I looked at flying AA out of BHX but mine did include a connection to the West Coast and the price on Skyscanner was £1100 for economy it was £720 with KLM out of CWL hence why I didn't travel up to BHX and why i always seem to fly from CWL can't really find an airport cheap enough to warrant the journey! Which i'm very happy about!
I've never used BA but have used United and found them cramped. KLM's 747's are cramped to but the dreamliner wasn't because I had 3 seats to myself! The most comfortable transatlantic flights i've had were on a Delta 767 and an A330 to Portland and Seattle, service was very good as well! If BHX can get DL then that will be a good service.

 

[User001]

I've had a re-read over this thread and I have to be honest, I don't agree with some of the comments as to why this service failed, and while some people are saying 'It's no surprise' due to those excuses, I can't help feel that the closure of this route may present BHX with some problems.

Let's look at the arguments:

-There weren't enough connections at JFK as opposed to say, Chicago which could have lasted longer if ORD was the served point.....

On looking at the evidence, there are 41 direct and feasible connections onto the AA network from JFK, as well as hundreds of 'self connecting' opportunities (you have to re claim your bags and check in again regardless so self connecting is an option in the USA), so, why are these connections deemed not worthy? Just how many destinations are needed to make a 180 seat aircraft viable exactly?

Also, New York is, aside from Orlando, perhaps the largest UK-USA origin and destination market. 2x180 sea aircraft should be able to work on O&D for a market that large alone, let alone with added connections.

You have to wonder, if the Birmingham market is as large and wealthy as Paul Kehoe constantly states it is, why can the 'smaller poorhouse' of Manchester support not only AA and UA to New York like BHX had, but delta and then the pretty much pure O&D Thomas Cook A330 almost daily? The TCX A330 alone carries nearly as many pax on one flight as BHX had in its 2 daily flights. No connections there, so where is the excuse of 'no connection opportunities' there?


-the on board product was inferior.....

The B757 was used on this flight, so, yes, not as good as some other aircraft, but, why is the B757 good enough for Paris, Dublin, Manchester, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Glasgow, Shannon and others, but not good enough for Birmingham?

Yield has always been an issue at BHX. It's why Easyjet don't serve BHX in a big way, it's why Emirates only managed to serve F class for a few months, and so on.

So, is it a case that the BHX catchment is the wrong type of snobby? They want the premium product but not willing to pay for it? It's already been noted that people went via LHR due to the better product but slightly lower price. Yes, it could be argued it's airline pricing if that's the case, but you have to wonder why AA had to charge the price they did at BHX?

-Poor on time performance......

Yes, this is a bad excuse, but, the poor OTP hasn't stopped pax using AA elsewhere. Sometimes you just have to stick by a product to make it work and hope that a better product comes along at a later date. Speculate to accumulate, as they say.

The thing is, it's funny that all of these excuses came AFTER the route was pulled. Why was the market not more vocal while the route was running and try to change the situation for the better. As said, if the market is as big and affluent as made out by some, why were there no companies willing to put their money where their mouth is, it can work. US started putting an A330 on the MAN-PHL route as a company requested it. The same could have happened at BHX.

The thing is now, it's too late to make that change, and now, this could have an adverse affect on the BHX-USA market.

Airlines do pay attention to others, and a large carrier like AA not able to make JFK work will be noted. The issue for BHX is that the pool of 'knights in shining armour' is getting smaller. Seems a growing rumour that Norwegian have gone cold on the idea of BHX long haul (only 3 routes this winter seems to support that theory), VS have made clear their strategy, TCX unlikely, he'll will freeze before BA offers long haul from the regions, and now DL is part of the VS strategy.

While some are saying they are not bothered by the AA decision, I for one am. This isn't coming from a MAN fan, this is coming from a general viewpoint. This isn't like MAN loosing the PIA JFK flights where it catered to very few pax, this was a valuable business link. I can't see how the retrenchment of AA is anything but bad news.

I'm fully prepared to be flamed for this post, but, I hope people see it for the discussion viewpoints instead of my general posting location.

 

[hammerb32]

User - You can't really compare the cities of Birmingham and Manchester and then relate this to route performance from the airports. MAN clearly serves as a gateway for Northern England, BHX is very much a local airport predominantly serving the local Greater Birmingham area. That's not of course to say that people won't travel from outside of Gtr Brum to use BHX, if the price and product is right.

In terms of price you say people will utilise LHR for a slightly lower price, try half the price and you'd be closer. Getting from Gtr Birmingham to LHR isn't all that hard when you can save £300 per person on a flight. If you're travelling from Bristol and have the choice of both clearly you're going to go with most cost effective option - this will rarely be BHX. You also make the very valid point of local business and their backing of the flight, again they're going to back the service with the right price and right product, AA offer neither, they're charging a premium price for a very poor product. In my experience be it retail, entertainment or travel if you overcharge for a poor product when there's better product at a cheaper price available you're done, especially in a market as crowded as UK - US flights when you're within a 2 hour drive of MAN and LHR.

Yesterday evening I spent with 20 or so Americans over for a family wedding this weekend, they're staying in Coventry but all flew into MAN from JFK on Delta because of the price and product, my own sister has just booked to JFK next year - using TCX, again the price is the driving factor, lastly my boss is going JFK - will only fly Virgin as they're in his view the best product will not consider any other option. These are 3 anecdotal examples that I can quote that underline why AA was never going to crack the BHX market.

 

[TM3]

The B757 was used on this flight, so, yes, not as good as some other aircraft, but, why is the B757 good enough for Paris, Dublin, Manchester, Edinburgh, Amsterdam, Glasgow, Shannon and others, but not good enough for Birmingham?

I would say the difference is none of these are within 2 1/2 hrs by car from LHR where you can access the flagship product on most airlines - and it's not just the cabin it's also the departure and arrivals lounges etc which improve the experience.

You also get >20 flights throughout the day to NYC - so the convenience factor of flying from your local airport is somewhat eroded.

 

[User001]

I would say the difference is none of these are within 2 1/2 hrs by car from LHR where you can access the flagship product on most airlines - and it's not just the cabin it's also the departure and arrivals lounges etc which improve the experience.

But, GLA and EDI are accessible to LHR via very frequent shuttles at a competative price.

Also, what about Dublin and Paris? Very competative markets and European capital cities where AA continue to use the B757?

I continue my stance with the product which also replies to HammerB, yes, there is a better product from LHR, and there always will be. But, is there a situation where it seems the BHX market thinks it's too good for the B757, where other cities welcome it with open arms.

What's better, a B757 serving the market directly, or no service at all. MAN started with the B757 and now has the B767/B787 the exact same product it uses to the mighty LHR, what was to say the BHX flight could not have bedded in and had that same upgrade? Every route has to start somewhere. Emirates didn't start BHX with the A380, did it? Like I say, speculate to accumulate.

Now, which carrier is it that is going to be the knight in shining armour to ride into the BHX-USA market, as the way I see it, it seems it's 'no big deal' that AA pulled out, but, Thomson don't want to seem to expand Orlando, TCX embroiled in MAN, VS/DL concentrating on LHR/MAN and no idea what it is Norwegian are actually doing. BHX hasn't got the myriad of options to start being choosy about who serves the USA market for them. Now it's back to just UA and no doubt higher prices again. Yep, great situation to be in there!

 

[hammerb32]

User - your stance appears to be that as a city we should feel in some way indebted to AA and blindly use them even though they are overcharging for a sub-standard service. The 757 is neither here nor there, the worn seats, poor OTP, lack of PTV etc is closer to the issue, why would I pay extra to use this service when a better service at a lower price is available to me within a 90 minute drive or a 1 hour flight? It's a bit like saying Tesco have opened around the corner, never have any stock, never get the amber team to the checkouts, all the lights are broke on the car park but I should use them because they're local in preference to the Sainsburys that's a slightly extra drive that always has the stock I want, always opens a checkout when there's a queue and has lovely well lit parking facility. I have just described Tesco Willenhall vs Sainsburys Bentley Bridge btw. That said I am booked on the AA flight from BHX next week, can't say I'm looking forward to it, would much rather be on the TCX flight from MAN or going from T5 at LHR or taking the UA flight to Newark but I didn't book it so I'm stuck with it.

 

[TM3]

In respect of DUB, AMS and CDG, these are capital cities with strong business links to New York so I can't really see AA not providing direct links here (from the point of view of it's home customer base and providing a viable network for business contracts).

I don't really see your point for GLA and EDI as there are numerous one stop connections for BHX to NYC through other European airports and both of these have had the benefit of an uninterrupted One World connection over the last 10 years.

Personally I'm not offended by using a 757 but I'd like it to have a 2016 product on board, not one that's been in use since the 90s. I'm sad to see this flight go but I won't really miss it as United provide an almost identical schedule to NYC, on a modernised 757 which I have chosen in preference over the AA one in the past.

Emirates didn't start with an A380 but they did start with a widebody service, a daily A330, and I bet it had their current cabin on board. I don't think it's case of the people of Birmingham thinking they are "too good" for a 757 but I think it's naive to expect regular travelers to switch to this service just because it's flies from their local airport or because it's got a BA code on it and not notice that they are getting an inferior hard product to the one they've been used to using.

 

[Karl C]

Hi all,

Not sure if this is a good example, but here goes. I've done a lot of flying this year. A lot on scheduled and a lot on charter. To Thailand I chose EK A380 J product from BHX. Great product...same from BHX, LHR etc. My last three flights to DLM have been from LHR. I looked at TK from BHX as BHX is always my preference. It was more expensive in J than the TK from LHR. So I used the 77W from LHR with lie flat beds.
If I pay the money, I want the product. TK from LHR also lets me use the SQ Lounge in the Queens Terminal or the LH business class lounge.

I was booked on the AA from BHX last September to Dallas, however at the last minute couldn't go. It was a lot more expensive than LHR flights, but I paid the extra. Would I have been underwhelmed. Seemingly so.

Just my pennies worth boys n girls.

Cheers

Karl

 

[Hassaan]

It's disappointing to hear American Airlines are pulling out of BHX but if the route wasn't being used very much then I suppose there's not much of a leg to stand on. I don't know if Chicago would have been any more popular though.

 

[User001]

User - your stance appears to be that as a city we should feel in some way indebted to AA and blindly use them even though they are overcharging for a sub-standard service.

No it's not that at all.

It's about, as Paul Kehoe put it, 'farming what you have'. The service had every opportunity to expand to the B767 at the very least, the very same B767 they use on the much lauded LHR flights.

There are constant moans on various forums and social media that BHX suffers lack of service, and when a carrier finally comes forward and says, 'OK, we're hear you, have this flight', then people respond with 'nope, sorry, not good enough'.

My stance isn't that you should blindly use a flight, it's up to the customer, but let's not be so naive to bite the hand that feeds you. Whether it was a 'inferior' product or not, a carrier finally stood up for BHX and people scoffed at it.

TM3,

You seem to be missing my point.

You say the CDG and DUB examples are that 'you can't see AA not serving those markets', you seem to be missing the point that AA is in those competative markets and using the very same B757 that people in the BHX market are saying 'is not good enough'. If people have a choice at those major airports but still choose the AA flight, then why is it not good enough for BHX where the direct choice isn't so readily available.

Also, the GLA and EDI examples are perfectly valid.

You say that BHX has a major competitor of LHR down the road, but GLA and EDI in some respects do have that same competition, that LHR is only an hour away on a regular shuttle connecting onto the AA/BA flights at sometimes a lower price than the direct AA flight. That is the equivalent of LHR being down the road for BHX.

I'm not saying that people should be blindly using the AA flight with choice down the road. All I'm saying is that don't moan you have no choice of flights and then seemingly slag off the airline when it finally does off a direct service.

 

[hammerb32]

User - just to be clear I'm not lauding AA flights from LHR, I'm lauding in general better service propositions on a range of flights from LHR and MAN that are easily accessible to the people of Greater Birmingham. The service offered by AA was poor, the local market wasn't interested in it. If AA want to come back with a better service than happy days, the market can re-evaluate. If you're flying to Dhaka and have a choice of a 30 year old Biman DC10 with no PTV, 30 year old seats and poor reliability that is more expensive than flying via Dubai with EK on a brand new aircraft, that takes off on time more often than not with modern facilities and entertainment on board, which option are you going to take?

Customers are savvy and have every right to tell an airline - thanks for hearing us but 'nope not good enough'. Bottom line for me is AA brought a postage stamp service to a market used to email, it's not 1999, they need to catch up.

 

[User001]

so, if I get this situation correctly,

BHX users bemoan the lack of connectivity, so as said, an airline steps up, but the market says 'no thanks'.

When the 'fishing pond' is running low on stock, is BHX in the position to be so picky? In this situation, you are genuinely saying no service at all is better than a supposedly 'poor service' that could expand. Who is this clearly superior operator that's about to swoop into BHX, clearly there must be one because to basically kick an operator out the door, there must be better coming imminently?

TCX used to offer quite a poor long haul product compared to its peers, even TOM, but look at them now. What if MAN had said 'thanks but no thanks' to them back then? Where would those 7 US routes with increasingly popular service be now?

I'm sorry, but I honestly do not see the logic in this arguments at all. What happened to 'a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush'.

After years of moaning that there is a lack of US service, am I really reading this right that people are almost quite happy to see an airline go?

I'm genuinely baffled. Even with 3 other carriers on the route, as an enthusiast I would be quite gutted to see AA completely pull off the route at MAN, I'm just shocked that especially in a culture where US carriers are cutting back service, people can brazenly sit there and say 'meh, didn't like it anyway'.

How is that going to encourage another carrier to come when the BHX market is apparently so picky. What if AA was to think, oh, we have a B757 we could run to PHL from BHX, but, we better not, they don't like our B757's. Would you be so quick to turn down a service to a new destination also?

Baffled, just baffled.

 

[Karl C]

Well at the end of the day BHX can do nothing about it. AA are leaving...nuff said. On a personal level I go with convenience. If that convenience is lacking, I will put my hard earned cash into a better product....like the majority of people would I imagine.
I would've been one of the users of AA had other things not got in the way. They still had my money, even when I didn't use the flight.

We on here don't speak for the majority. BHX will be be what it will be. It's quite a successful airport and will continue to be so. There's nothing us armchair ceo's can do about it. I vote with my feet and use BHX as much as I can. Sometimes I don't. That isn't going to change anytime soon. There'll always be leakage to other airports. At least BHX is clawing some back.....Madrid is a prime example.

Cheers

Karl

 

[TM3]

User 1 - I understand your point I just don't think it's a sound argument.

CDG, AMS and DUB are all much bigger markets that BHX, all with proven regular demand to NYC. AA have to serve these markets because otherwise their customers would have to fly with a non-One World airline to get there on a direct connection.

The fact that they are using 757s, the smallest viable aircraft, suggests that they are actually doing pretty poorly there in terms of market share. There is no way AA would stop serving AMS and CDG even if these planes we less than half full.

Also, the GLA and EDI examples are perfectly valid.

Not really. Getting on a non-stop flight is the selling point of this service. For a connection at LHR for Scottish passengers is no different to a connection in CDG, DUB, FRA, or AMS for BHX pax.

If I want a direct flight I can drive 2 hrs down the motorway. If you live in Glasgow, either you've got to 1 stop or get on the 757.

For the record I'm haven't and I don't think anyone else has been slagging off this flight. I have used it and so have others but as AA have now axed this flight and people are suggesting that there is no demand for BHX-US flights I think it's the appropriate time to discuss the reasons why people didn't use it.

 

[Aviador]

If O'Leary's aspirations to open flights to the US ever come to fruition BHX will be a perfect candidate airport. O'Leary understands the public desire for regional departures and the willingness to use them. The US carriers and airlines such as BA aren't interested in venturing away from London and it will take an airline like Ryanair to offer something different before the others wake up and realise the importance of the UK regions.

 

[User001]

Well, I guess I will just have to leave it there then.

I just can't see how a route being cut is being viewed as 'ah well, it was crap anyway', as a route is better than no route.

For a 7 hour hop to New York, I would have no qualms of using such service if it meant a direct flight.

This isn't just an extra flight to Malaga or Palma that has been cut here, this is a long haul link, to a worldwide known hub, with worldwide known carrier in a market where BHX is trying to prove itself, trying to carve its own market and build for the future.

It's not American that have come out badly in this, to the world, it's just another cut in service, but to BHX, this is a blow that says to a lot of the world market 'we can't sustain 2 carriers to the USA'.

I just honestly don't see how people can be so blase about it, i really can't.

 

[hammerb32]

A bird in the hand also shits on your wrist....

Anyway.

Not saying I'm happy that AA have walked away, just not surprised. This view you have that the local market should use a service that offers such low quality at such high prices in the hope that 1 day it comes good is bizarre to me, in what world does that happen? I'm a fairly regular flyer to the States and an enthusiast, I have UA who offer a better product at a similar price from BHX, down the road I have BA who offer a substantially better product at a substantially lower price, up the road I have VS and DL who likewise offer a substantially better product at a substantially lower price.

Genuine question - why would I choose AA? Give me 1 good reason why I would spend mine or my companies money to pay over the odds for a sub-standard service with AA when I have so many better options. EG: 90 minute drive to LHR, BA direct to Baltimore on a brand new plane with a brand new entertainment system or 30 minute drive to BHX, AA to JFK, no in flight entertainment, 30 year old seat and then have to change at JFK for a 90 minute flight to BWI? It's no contest, there's no reason I can think of as to why I'd choose AA in that scenario. Those JLR execs and Kraft Food Board members aren't going to be swayed any easier than me given I have a passion for BHX that they will be fairly ambivalent about.