Welcome to the August edition of the NZ Aviation Threads.

Link to July viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1485291

Please continue the discussions here

NZ516 wrote:

Batik Air have been given approval for KUL- MEL - AKL 7 flights per week (1260 seats) from Mavcom. No start date as of yet but they have the traffic rights now.

https://www.mavcom.my/en/2023/06/09/air ... -may-2023/

Batik Airs' rapid expansion not just in Australasia, but also in Asia and even Europe (Istanbul service). In my opinion, Batik would totally start a service KUL via PER to CHC and WLG. With PER being a transit hub to DPS also.

EK positive on New Zealand.

Sir Tim Clark told the Business Herald the New Zealand market punched above its weight.

We knew once we got the A380 going it would go really well, and it has done ...

... as demand continues to grow, the airline will “look forward to continuing and growing our services to New Zealand”.

I wonder what growth might be on the cards?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/emi ... IRCZZXFFY/

chcbasedavi wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Batik Air have been given approval for KUL- MEL - AKL 7 flights per week (1260 seats) from Mavcom. No start date as of yet but they have the traffic rights now.

https://www.mavcom.my/en/2023/06/09/air ... -may-2023/

Batik Airs' rapid expansion not just in Australasia, but also in Asia and even Europe (Istanbul service). In my opinion, Batik would totally start a service KUL via PER to CHC and WLG. With PER being a transit hub to DPS also.

We will see. I tend to think it won’t be easy for them in NZ.

planemanofnz wrote:

EK positive on New Zealand.

Sir Tim Clark told the Business Herald the New Zealand market punched above its weight.

We knew once we got the A380 going it would go really well, and it has done ...

... as demand continues to grow, the airline will “look forward to continuing and growing our services to New Zealand”.

I wonder what growth might be on the cards?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/emi ... IRCZZXFFY/

A359 non stop DXB-CHC? Not sure I see one stop to AKL again, will be interesting, they are a big player even with just 1 AKL service.

Any thoughts on which routes may feature?

Air New Zealand is searching for airports where its next-generation trial aircraft can get topped up. Today, it is releasing an expression of interest (EOI) document to airports where the “lower” emission commercial demonstrator aircraft can land.

... the chosen airports could be between 150km and 400km apart. The chosen primary airport would need to be able to store the aircraft, refuel and recharge it and support any planned maintenance.

New Zealand has less than 30 airports suitable for regular commercial air services and in earlier documents the airline says most of these would be “commercially challenged” to provide infrastructure for novel propulsion aircraft. Air New Zealand has said it would look to minimise the initial investment burden where possible.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... TKACXEJH4/

ZK-NBT wrote:

Not sure I see one stop to AKL again.

Why do you think that? IIRC the 380 is payload restricted on AKL-DXB, and the second 77W service helped to address this by meeting cargo demand. And IIRC, the DPS route only stopped due to the pandemic and not beforehand (like NZ to LHR) - was there any indication it wasn't doing that well? I could see a one-stop returning.

https://www.christchurchairport.co.nz/t ... chedules/#
CZ to CAN is a year round service according to CHC airport
https://www.flightconnections.com/fligh ... church-chc
But this website shows that it is a seasonal service from NOV-FEB

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Not sure I see one stop to AKL again.

Why do you think that? IIRC the 380 is payload restricted on AKL-DXB, and the second 77W service helped to address this by meeting cargo demand. And IIRC, the DPS route only stopped due to the pandemic and not beforehand (like NZ to LHR) - was there any indication it wasn't doing that well? I could see a one-stop returning.

DPS reduced in NZ summer. And fairly cheap fares iirc. Freight seems about the only reason to bring a one stop back? They are running some 777F services now, the Air Belgium lease was very short lived. Once the A380s retire which is not for a number of years I would see 2 daily A350 non stop meeting different banks in DXB. Only MEL via SIN returned in OZ that was the very first route they ran in 1996, SYD-BKK was dropped prior to covid but BNE-SIN and MEL-KUL ran up till covid iirc?

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

NZ516 wrote:

Batik Air have been given approval for KUL- MEL - AKL 7 flights per week (1260 seats) from Mavcom. No start date as of yet but they have the traffic rights now.

https://www.mavcom.my/en/2023/06/09/air ... -may-2023/

Batik Airs' rapid expansion not just in Australasia, but also in Asia and even Europe (Istanbul service). In my opinion, Batik would totally start a service KUL via PER to CHC and WLG. With PER being a transit hub to DPS also.

We will see. I tend to think it won’t be easy for them in NZ.

They seem todo ok ex-AUS, especially to/from DPS.

PER allows good connections onto DPS, will be interesting to see if MEL will allow the same connections.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

Batik Airs' rapid expansion not just in Australasia, but also in Asia and even Europe (Istanbul service). In my opinion, Batik would totally start a service KUL via PER to CHC and WLG. With PER being a transit hub to DPS also.

We will see. I tend to think it won’t be easy for them in NZ.

They seem todo ok ex-AUS, especially to/from DPS.

PER allows good connections onto DPS, will be interesting to see if MEL will allow the same connections.

Shorter flight and non stop. They are really competing on price only here on NZ and an unknown brand.

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

We will see. I tend to think it won’t be easy for them in NZ.

They seem todo ok ex-AUS, especially to/from DPS.

PER allows good connections onto DPS, will be interesting to see if MEL will allow the same connections.

Shorter flight and non stop. They are really competing on price only here on NZ and an unknown brand.

They fly to KUL non stop from Australia, but the majority of there flights are via DPS.

I don’t think the unknown brand is that big of a issue, there is a market of travellers that will book the lowest fair via a third party.

There cost base will be low compared to say NZ.

Look at the 2018/2019 peak, there was many unknown airlines from China starting AKL. Yes most of the passengers were ex China, but there was still a market of people departing AKL to Europe for $1500 that took them.

zkncj wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkncj wrote:

They seem todo ok ex-AUS, especially to/from DPS.

PER allows good connections onto DPS, will be interesting to see if MEL will allow the same connections.

Shorter flight and non stop. They are really competing on price only here on NZ and an unknown brand.

They fly to KUL non stop from Australia, but the majority of there flights are via DPS.

I don’t think the unknown brand is that big of a issue, there is a market of travellers that will book the lowest fair via a third party.

There cost base will be low compared to say NZ.

Look at the 2018/2019 peak, there was many unknown airlines from China starting AKL. Yes most of the passengers were ex China, but there was still a market of people departing AKL to Europe for $1500 that took them.

That’s the thing though, the Chinese carriers can rely on the Chinese POS, while having cheap fares to Europe via their hubs, Batik don’t offer a huge amount in comparison while relying on a lot of NZ originating traffic.

ZK-NBT wrote:

SYD-BKK was dropped prior to covid but BNE-SIN and MEL-KUL ran up till covid iirc?

It's a bit apples and oranges to compare this with Australia?

The difference being the fact that the 77W can operate non-stop from everywhere there to DXB, unlike ex-New Zealand. EK runs 77Ws for 1x of 3x daily SYD-DXB flights, and 1x of 2x daily BNE-DXB flights. They don't need one-stops from there to operate something smaller than a 380. At AKL, they do.

But who knows - maybe we'll see 2x daily 380s AKL-DXB!

QF6034 operated by VH-XZA from SYD - WLG just landed, assuming this would be a Women's World Cup charter flight?

Just checked United's CHC-SFO seat map, and wow! Super empty (dates after Xmas) But the prices are around $800 lowest.

chcbasedavi wrote:

Just checked United's CHC-SFO seat map, and wow! Super empty (dates after Xmas) But the prices are around $800 lowest.

What about SFO-CHC?

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

Just checked United's CHC-SFO seat map, and wow! Super empty (dates after Xmas) But the prices are around $800 lowest.

What about SFO-CHC?

SFO-CHC is also empty after Xmas, around 30 or less seats unavailable. But the prices are high.
CHC-SFO is not that empty after Xmas, around 50 or more/less unavailable. Prices are lower.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

SYD-BKK was dropped prior to covid but BNE-SIN and MEL-KUL ran up till covid iirc?

It's a bit apples and oranges to compare this with Australia?

The difference being the fact that the 77W can operate non-stop from everywhere there to DXB, unlike ex-New Zealand. EK runs 77Ws for 1x of 3x daily SYD-DXB flights, and 1x of 2x daily BNE-DXB flights. They don't need one-stops from there to operate something smaller than a 380. At AKL, they do.

But who knows - maybe we'll see 2x daily 380s AKL-DXB!

Not sure. If they want more pax flights do they run a 1 stop 77W or as you say a second non stop A380? EK do have a few flights less than daily, not a lot but a few. I wonder what the current plan for the A359 is, due late next year.

I would see UA canceling the service OR moving to a LAX-CHC service.

chcbasedavi wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

Just checked United's CHC-SFO seat map, and wow! Super empty (dates after Xmas) But the prices are around $800 lowest.

What about SFO-CHC?

SFO-CHC is also empty after Xmas, around 30 or less seats unavailable. But the prices are high.
CHC-SFO is not that empty after Xmas, around 50 or more/less unavailable. Prices are lower.

How does that compare to the AKL services? You would expect lower outbound ex CHC fares at that time of year, the flight is to target the inbound market.

chcbasedavi wrote:

I would see UA canceling the service OR moving to a LAX-CHC service.

I would give it a chance, it is part of the JV with NZ, I would see them trying to make it work for 2-3 years.

Interesting movement. QF do sometimes have a 789 at LAX for a few days.

789 VH-ZNH operated QF3 SYD-AKL 02/08 then cancelled for the AKL-JFK sector, looks to still be in AKL.

VH-ZNF operated QF93 MEL-LAX 01/08 then positioned LAX-JFK as QF6001 to operate QF4 JFK-AKL 02/08.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting movement. QF do sometimes have a 789 at LAX for a few days.

789 VH-ZNH operated QF3 SYD-AKL 02/08 then cancelled for the AKL-JFK sector, looks to still be in AKL.

VH-ZNF operated QF93 MEL-LAX 01/08 then positioned LAX-JFK as QF6001 to operate QF4 JFK-AKL 02/08.

VH-ZNG is currently enroute to AKL from SYD and yesterday's QF3 that didn't go to JFK is showing it is leaving tonight after 10pm local time

https://www.airnewzealand.co.nz/press-r ... n-near-you

NZ article on mission next gen.

mrkerr7474 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting movement. QF do sometimes have a 789 at LAX for a few days.

789 VH-ZNH operated QF3 SYD-AKL 02/08 then cancelled for the AKL-JFK sector, looks to still be in AKL.

VH-ZNF operated QF93 MEL-LAX 01/08 then positioned LAX-JFK as QF6001 to operate QF4 JFK-AKL 02/08.

VH-ZNG is currently enroute to AKL from SYD and yesterday's QF3 that didn't go to JFK is showing it is leaving tonight after 10pm local time

Interesting, guessing ZNG will do QF3 then position JFK-LAX?

ZK-NBT wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting movement. QF do sometimes have a 789 at LAX for a few days.

789 VH-ZNH operated QF3 SYD-AKL 02/08 then cancelled for the AKL-JFK sector, looks to still be in AKL.

VH-ZNF operated QF93 MEL-LAX 01/08 then positioned LAX-JFK as QF6001 to operate QF4 JFK-AKL 02/08.

VH-ZNG is currently enroute to AKL from SYD and yesterday's QF3 that didn't go to JFK is showing it is leaving tonight after 10pm local time

Interesting, guessing ZNG will do QF3 then position JFK-LAX?

Showing currently half 11 departure now, so will see if that happens but yes I would assume of would position JFK-LAX afterward if it goes ahead

mrkerr7474 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

mrkerr7474 wrote:

VH-ZNG is currently enroute to AKL from SYD and yesterday's QF3 that didn't go to JFK is showing it is leaving tonight after 10pm local time

Interesting, guessing ZNG will do QF3 then position JFK-LAX?

Showing currently half 11 departure now, so will see if that happens but yes I would assume of would position JFK-LAX afterward if it goes ahead

Airborne at 2303.

Looks like NZ 10 ZK-NZI is returning to AKL - departed with a delay of 53 min at 2330 according to FR24. Reached an altitude of 34000 ft before descending to 15,000 ft & turning around; now at 10,000 ft and 427 mph and looking to overfly Great Barrier Island on the approach

NZ321 wrote:

Looks like NZ 10 ZK-NZI is returning to AKL - departed with a delay of 53 min at 2330 according to FR24. Reached an altitude of 34000 ft before descending to 15,000 ft & turning around; now at 10,000 ft and 427 mph and looking to overfly Great Barrier Island on the approach

Could be a turbulence incident. ZK-NHB as NZ959 NAN-AKL did a big detour north of Great Barrier about the same time.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-nhb

PA515

NZ516 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

I would see UA canceling the service OR moving to a LAX-CHC service.

I would give it a chance, it is part of the JV with NZ, I would see them trying to make it work for 2-3 years.

If it's really that bad I can't see it returning for the following summer season Dec 24-Feb 25 it simply won't be covering the running costs.

Or they might try something creative like a triangular SFO-WLG-CHC-SFO routing, or as someone else suggested, moving it to LAX, to boost the numbers?

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting movement. QF do sometimes have a 789 at LAX for a few days.

789 VH-ZNH operated QF3 SYD-AKL 02/08 then cancelled for the AKL-JFK sector, looks to still be in AKL.

VH-ZNF operated QF93 MEL-LAX 01/08 then positioned LAX-JFK as QF6001 to operate QF4 JFK-AKL 02/08.

VH-ZNH suffered a lightning strike on the SYD-AKL leg. Hence the cancellation and subsequent extended stay at AKL.

chcbasedavi wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

Just checked United's CHC-SFO seat map, and wow! Super empty (dates after Xmas) But the prices are around $800 lowest.

What about SFO-CHC?

SFO-CHC is also empty after Xmas, around 30 or less seats unavailable. But the prices are high.
CHC-SFO is not that empty after Xmas, around 50 or more/less unavailable. Prices are lower.

Is there really demand for dedicated service to the US from CHC? Surely its more profitable to just route them all through AKL.

Good to see NZ acknowledge issues with its Y long-haul offering ("generic and undifferentiated" ... leaving "crew to do the heavy lifting"), with improvements lined up - particularly interested in the "pimp my kai" service (upgrading Y meals for a fee). Other airlines have done this in the past, like EI, allowing you to upgrade your meal to Y+ or J or the like. Seems like a neat idea. There'll also be a new self-serve snacks bar.

Some other interesting insights from NZ:

- In Y, 55 per cent of passengers are women, 59 per cent are under 49 years old and 90 per cent are travelling for leisure. Just 6 per cent are listed as high-value customers (HVC) — those in the upper tiers of its Airpoints scheme.
- In Y+, 51 per cent of travellers are men, 60 per cent are over 50 and 78 per cent are travelling for leisure. Just 12 per cent are HVC.
- In J, 57 per cent male, 67 per cent are over 50 years of age and just 20 per cent are travelling for business. Of the 22 per cent who are HVC passengers, 14 per cent are elite Airpoints members.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/air ... QFIROY2PM/

anstar wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

What about SFO-CHC?

SFO-CHC is also empty after Xmas, around 30 or less seats unavailable. But the prices are high.
CHC-SFO is not that empty after Xmas, around 50 or more/less unavailable. Prices are lower.

Is there really demand for dedicated service to the US from CHC? Surely its more profitable to just route them all through AKL.

Yes - though demand will be more the other way around - that is, from North America, into CHC.

In addition to the lucrative inbound tourism market, this service could target:

- Time-sensitive air freight, like premium NZ-made produce for US restaurants and consumers.

- CHC-LHR traffic - not an insignificant market. There is currently only one one-stop option, on SQ via SIN.

- CHC-specific diplomatic/military traffic, with CHC being the key gateway to Antarctica for the US. There's currently only two-stop options from IAD.

- CHC business traffic - there is a range of high-end manufacturing companies there servicing the US, from HamiltonJet to Tait Communications and more.

- US-WLG traffic. WLG is closer to CHC than AKL, and is NZ's second biggest and capital city, with a range of traffic from diplomatic to the screen sector and more.

Avtur wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting movement. QF do sometimes have a 789 at LAX for a few days.

789 VH-ZNH operated QF3 SYD-AKL 02/08 then cancelled for the AKL-JFK sector, looks to still be in AKL.

VH-ZNF operated QF93 MEL-LAX 01/08 then positioned LAX-JFK as QF6001 to operate QF4 JFK-AKL 02/08.

VH-ZNH suffered a lightning strike on the SYD-AKL leg. Hence the cancellation and subsequent extended stay at AKL.

I see. Weather was pretty wild on Wednesday. Hopefully fixed quickly.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Avtur wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Interesting movement. QF do sometimes have a 789 at LAX for a few days.

789 VH-ZNH operated QF3 SYD-AKL 02/08 then cancelled for the AKL-JFK sector, looks to still be in AKL.

VH-ZNF operated QF93 MEL-LAX 01/08 then positioned LAX-JFK as QF6001 to operate QF4 JFK-AKL 02/08.

VH-ZNH suffered a lightning strike on the SYD-AKL leg. Hence the cancellation and subsequent extended stay at AKL.

I see. Weather was pretty wild on Wednesday. Hopefully fixed quickly.

VH-ZNH on the way back to SYD now as QF6005

PA515 wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Looks like NZ 10 ZK-NZI is returning to AKL - departed with a delay of 53 min at 2330 according to FR24. Reached an altitude of 34000 ft before descending to 15,000 ft & turning around; now at 10,000 ft and 427 mph and looking to overfly Great Barrier Island on the approach

Could be a turbulence incident. ZK-NHB as NZ959 NAN-AKL did a big detour north of Great Barrier about the same time.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/zk-nhb

PA515

Medical? Same aircraft departed around 0200.

NZ516 wrote:

anstar wrote:

Is there really demand for dedicated service to the US from CHC? Surely its more profitable to just route them all through AKL.

Not a huge amount of demand from CHC but we have had services CHC- LAX in the past way back to DC-10s in the 70s to 747s in the 80s. It won't be just serving the city only it will suit other regions of NZ who will use the flights to get to and from the US. Especially with the convenience of the same terminal transfer domestic to international which is a big plus for Christchurch compared to Auckland.

Those were via NAN-HNL the 742 in the mid 80s was, i presume any DC10 service was also the same routing. They ran a 744 3x weekly non stop CHC-LAX 2004-06, weekly in winter 05. Planned a daily 772, May have even loaded it but found a better use for a 772. A 787 is the right aircraft to have another shot at it.

What about American's canceled service from LAX to CHC? would they resume it or no?

chcbasedavi wrote:

What about American's canceled service from LAX to CHC? would they resume it or no?

I could see it still. UA are much stronger on the pacific however and have the SFO hub. The US carriers have capacity in the NW season.

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

What about American's canceled service from LAX to CHC? would they resume it or no?

I could see it still. UA are much stronger on the pacific however and have the SFO hub. The US carriers have capacity in the NW season.

Of the big 3 US carriers, looking at the November Trans-Pacific Schedule, UA has 82,036 seats (65%) of the total Trans-Pacific seats per week, DL has 30,049 (24%), while AA has just 13,473 (11%). AA is down to just 7 Trans-Pacific routes, 5 from DFW and 2 from LAX.

Given the 77Ws are going in for reconfiguration, and they're short of widebody aircraft anyway, I can't see AA going ahead with LAX-CHC now. In terms of LAX as an international hub for AA, there are just 4 routes to Mexico, plus LAX-LHR, HND, SYD. Not sure how "LAX-CHC" fits into that model; seems their international plans are focused on hubs further east.

NZ321 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

chcbasedavi wrote:

What about American's canceled service from LAX to CHC? would they resume it or no?

I could see it still. UA are much stronger on the pacific however and have the SFO hub. The US carriers have capacity in the NW season.

Of the big 3 US carriers, looking at the November Trans-Pacific Schedule, UA has 82,036 seats (65%) of the total Trans-Pacific seats per week, DL has 30,049 (24%), while AA has just 13,473 (11%). AA is down to just 7 Trans-Pacific routes, 5 from DFW and 2 from LAX.

Given the 77Ws are going in for reconfiguration, and they're short of widebody aircraft anyway, I can't see AA going ahead with LAX-CHC now. In terms of LAX as an international hub for AA, there are just 4 routes to Mexico, plus LAX-LHR, HND, SYD. Not sure how "LAX-CHC" fits into that model; seems their international plans are focused on hubs further east.

65% is huge. AA were meant to add some pacific routes ex SEA while trying to grow LAX, I am surprised we haven’t seen more AA metal in Australia, likely seasonal. They must have a lot of Atlantic and South America to be short of wide body capacity.

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

I could see it still. UA are much stronger on the pacific however and have the SFO hub. The US carriers have capacity in the NW season.

Of the big 3 US carriers, looking at the November Trans-Pacific Schedule, UA has 82,036 seats (65%) of the total Trans-Pacific seats per week, DL has 30,049 (24%), while AA has just 13,473 (11%). AA is down to just 7 Trans-Pacific routes, 5 from DFW and 2 from LAX.

Given the 77Ws are going in for reconfiguration, and they're short of widebody aircraft anyway, I can't see AA going ahead with LAX-CHC now. In terms of LAX as an international hub for AA, there are just 4 routes to Mexico, plus LAX-LHR, HND, SYD. Not sure how "LAX-CHC" fits into that model; seems their international plans are focused on hubs further east.

65% is huge. AA were meant to add some pacific routes ex SEA while trying to grow LAX, I am surprised we haven’t seen more AA metal in Australia, likely seasonal. They must have a lot of Atlantic and South America to be short of wide body capacity.

Trans-Atlantic, AA are in the # 3 spot, in November, with 27% of seats, compared to UA (38%) and DL (36%). AA are about to drop Doha, and who knows how long Delhi will last (they don't seem to hang on long in markets where things are not performing they way they want).

As you rightly suggest, where AA comes into its own is the Americas - Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean, & South America where it is significantly larger than DL or UA - AA has 131,000 seats per week into Central America and the Caribbean, alone. Put another way, AA's Trans Pacific and Trans-Atlantic capacity when taken together is just 27% of their total international capacity; the rest - more than 260,000 seats per week (!!) - is from the Americas. In terms of total international seats, excluding Canada, UA has made up ground and is now about the same size as AA..

NZ321 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

Of the big 3 US carriers, looking at the November Trans-Pacific Schedule, UA has 82,036 seats (65%) of the total Trans-Pacific seats per week, DL has 30,049 (24%), while AA has just 13,473 (11%). AA is down to just 7 Trans-Pacific routes, 5 from DFW and 2 from LAX.

Given the 77Ws are going in for reconfiguration, and they're short of widebody aircraft anyway, I can't see AA going ahead with LAX-CHC now. In terms of LAX as an international hub for AA, there are just 4 routes to Mexico, plus LAX-LHR, HND, SYD. Not sure how "LAX-CHC" fits into that model; seems their international plans are focused on hubs further east.

65% is huge. AA were meant to add some pacific routes ex SEA while trying to grow LAX, I am surprised we haven’t seen more AA metal in Australia, likely seasonal. They must have a lot of Atlantic and South America to be short of wide body capacity.

Trans-Atlantic, AA are in the # 3 spot, in November, with 27% of seats, compared to UA (38%) and DL (36%). AA are about to drop Doha, and who knows how long Delhi will last (they don't seem to hang on long in markets where things are not performing they way they want).

As you rightly suggest, where AA comes into its own is the Americas - Mexico, Central America & the Caribbean, & South America where it is significantly larger than DL or UA - AA has 131,000 seats per week into Central America and the Caribbean, alone. Put another way, AA's Trans Pacific and Trans-Atlantic capacity when taken together is just 27% of their total international capacity; the rest - more than 260,000 seats per week (!!) - is from the Americas. In terms of total international seats, excluding Canada, UA has made up ground and is now about the same size as AA..

It is interesting that AA LAX-AKL is only 10 weeks this coming season, obviously DFW is the whole season but even then LAX is only 3 weekly for the last 3 weeks. Hard to know what their plans are on the Pacific, SYD looks like it may go 77W year round again when DOH is dropped HKG seems unlikely to return, just SYD/TYO year round from LAX.

Believe one of AA's issue at LAX is terminal reconstruction and shortage of gates which limits connectivity. I think once their terminal is completed in a year or so's time they will in fact have the most gates at LAX - maybe then they will start re-building their LAX hub.