American Makes a Bet That Customers Won’t Hate and May Actually Prefer Longer Trips


Yesterday I talked about how American is trying to improve its DFW hub by adding more block time (longer flight durations) and going from a nine to 13-bank hub structure. This is likely to mean longer trip durations for travelers, so… will they go for it? Before we get into that, let’s look at what this really means in practice. It’s time for a deep dive.

I picked a random route with frequent connections at Dallas/Fort Worth: New Orleans to Albuquerque. Both cities had 8x daily flights to DFW last year, and both have 8x daily in the new structure, so it makes for a good comparison. It’s important to remember that 13 banks doesn’t mean a ton of flights are added. They are just spread out more.

I did the math on the shortest possible connection to Albuquerque off each of the eight inbound flights to DFW from New Orleans. The result?

Data via Cirium

Overall, the flights take more time, the layover is longer, and that means the overall duration stretches further. Of course, this varies by specific trip. These are averages after all.

For example, the first flight of the day from New Orleans now goes 25 minutes later at the still insanely early 5:49am. The layover is shorter, so travelers will actually get into Albuquerque only six minutes later. But there are other flights that are impacted more than enough to offset that gain here.

With the stage set, now the question becomes whether this is going to be a problem for travelers or not. Will the airline not sell as many tickets or have to charge less to move seats? American is clearly betting that it will do just fine, and it’s worth it to improve the operation and create more airport capacity at DFW.

The real answer is we don’t know the impact, but there are tea leaves to be read here. Importantly, we can think about how flights are displayed differently on shopping sites than they used to be in the past. Let’s look at that New Orleans to Albuquerque trip on July 13. The first option Google Flights showed me was a United flight with a duration of 5h03m. The second choice is on American with a 4h41m duration, at the same price I should add. Then it’s Delta at 5h45m followed by Southwest at 4h10m. In other words, duration is not the key metric here. You can still sort by duration, but that sort is fifth down the list after whatever “Top Flights” is, price, departure time, and arrival time.

Even Expedia shows that same 5h03m flight first but in fifth place it explicably shows a United flight with 6h44m duration. It has a whole page vaguely explaining how it sorts things, but it’s a whole jumble of departure and arrival times, price, schedule, etc. It’s not as straightforward as it used to be.

None of this presumably takes into account paid placement either, something American could ramp up on at least some sites if it so chose. I was looking at another itinerary on Kayak that showed a truly bizarre two-stop itinerary first on Southwest. This one was double the duration of better flights, but hey, if you pay for it, you get preference. It’s a whole different world out there.

In short, trip display is more complicated now, so maybe American won’t take as great of a hit as it would have in the old world where display rankings were better understood. Or maybe not. American seems willing to take that chance, but it can’t know the answer here.

I’m sure all the other airlines are thrilled at the prospect that American will be the guinea pig for this one by going to this structure with more banks and flights being spread out. Sure, Delta has had its version of flying a million banks a day in Atlanta for a long time, but Delta has so many different banks that it makes connectivity much easier thanks to sheer volume. If this works for American, then others may look at optimizing their hubs as well. I imagine United would like to get more utilization out of those Chicago gates… something we will talk about later in a future post.

I realize this sounds even mildly rosy, but trust me, I’m skeptical as always. I don’t know that this is going to work as planned, and I honestly don’t know that even having this block time buffer will be enough for American to get its operational act together. But I sure like to see airlines trying to change things to see if they can get a better result. This will be a very useful test, and if it works, then airlines might all think about it. If not, American can always revert. But then again, it’s still digging out of the last hole it created when it crushed its sales team’s efforts. This at least seems less risky than that failed plan.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

Brett Avatar

40 responses to “American Makes a Bet That Customers Won’t Hate and May Actually Prefer Longer Trips”

  1. Matt D Avatar
    Matt D

    The answer to that very long analysis will come down to one thing: price.

    The cheaper the fare, there is almost no amount of hassles, delays, and duration that the majority of the public won’t tolerate. That psychology is a big part of how and why the Spirits, Allegiants, and Frontiers were able to ascend to the size they are. Yes, I know, there were other factors as well, but that was a big one.

    But if AA is trying to court TIME, not *price* sensitive (euphemism for: cheap) customers, then no. Probably not. People who value their time as much or more than their money will want to get from A to B as quickly and smoothly as possible.

    In my opinion, and I think history will support this, but any business/company/entity that aspires to be everything to everyone everywhere is going to appeal to: nobody.

    Find a niche and stick with it.

    1. Daniel Paulling Avatar
      Daniel Paulling

      Even though Allegiant is a ULCC, I don’t know how much they compete on price (as counterintuitive as that is to say). They don’t have competition on about 85% of their routes.

      1. AC Avatar
        AC

        The true ULCC business model (which Allegiant definitely operates to) competes on price with simply not flying at all, and doing something else with the money instead.

      2. Matt D Avatar
        Matt D

        That’s certainly true to a certain extent. A big selling point for an Allegiant in addition to price is also convenience. All other things being equal, you can drive ten or twenty minutes to your hometown airport and catch a flight. Or, three or four, or six hours to the next major metro and hop on one of the majors. Incurring substantial additional cost, time, and hassle.

        Stimulating demand-people taking trips they might not otherwise have taken. That’s where price enters the picture. Make it worth it.

        If the fare diffy between the two is only five or ten dollars, many won’t take those trips. But if it’s half, they will.

        Brett has touched on this before.

    2. Jason H Avatar
      Jason H

      Additionally, time sensitive travelers care about the arrival or departure times of their flights much more than they care about the trip length.

      If my travel is time sensitive and I need to be in New Orleans by 7 pm, it’s completely irrelevant if the shortest option is AA arriving at 10 pm. Or if my event in New Orleans is done at noon, I’m looking for the best flight departing around 1-3 pm, not the shortest trip that happens to be at 8 am.

      The only situation when it would come into play is if AA and another airline both have flights arriving at very similar times, both prices are similar, and the overall trip time (not necessarily the connection time) is shorter on AA.

  2. grichard Avatar
    grichard

    Everybody is different and this doesn’t seem predictable. I care about trip duration, but I also look at on-time percentage and unrealistically short connections. But I’m n=1. Be interesting to see what happens.

  3. MaxPower Avatar
    MaxPower

    “Sure, Delta has had its version of flying a million banks a day in Atlanta for a long time, but Delta has so many different banks that it makes connectivity much easier thanks to sheer volume.”

    With the new A&C piers and terminal F coming soon at DFW, this is likely just a trial of a similar ATL schedule before the new gates allows DFW to grow larger in departures and volume vs ATL.

  4. Tim Dunn Avatar
    Tim Dunn

    Using Expedia and sorting by shortest duration shows how WN dominates connections across the mid southern tier across its multiple Texas “hubs.” Their “hubs” are at physically smaller airports so it is realistic to do a 45 minute connection and they still have some that are around an hour.
    AA and UA have connections that show up as being only marginally longer and they have the advantage of offering far more connections to/from far more cities.
    It is notable that DL actually shows up on the first page – not ridiculously out of line in total elapsed time -with connections over ATL and SLC.

    The point is – as CF notes – is that there is competitive risk in adding even a few minutes to total elapsed time.

    WN will be more aggressively competing for business passengers w/ assigned seating and eventually lounges and likely their own first class cabins.
    UA will certainly add spokes – and maybe more banks – as IAH construction is completed.
    And DL’s development of AUS as well as the choice of O&Ds that even now allow DL to be competitive – esp. to/from Florida – put 4 solid players in southern tier flows.

    DL at ATL will hold the lead in large hubs because of its gauge which will only continue to grow

    As noted yesterday, though, AA has no choice but to do this because it makes the DFW operation more reliable and easier to recover from IROPS that hit DFW w/ a pretty high degree of regularity in winter and summer.

    Combined w/ a more friendly approach to rebuilding relationships with corporate passengers, this likely will work for AA and needs to be replicated at CLT.

    AA has long had the assets to be a very strong competitor to DL and UA but have squandered too much. I am an optimist and think AA is making the right moves. 2026 could be as big of a turnaround year for them as it is for WN.

    1. Lucky Ned Pepper Avatar
      Lucky Ned Pepper

      United is adding gates at IAD too.

      1. Tony Avatar
        Tony

        Currently UAL only has 4 domestic banks of flights at Washington Dulles airport, which is a waste of hub infrastructure. UAL need to schedule more flights banks at IAD, instead of spend money on building new gates which under utilized.

        1. Lucky Ned Pepper Avatar
          Lucky Ned Pepper

          IAD and United need to replace the god-awful C and D concourses.

          1. Tony Avatar
            Tony

            Agree. Those 40 years old “temporary” concourses have outlive their design live.

    2. 1990 Avatar
      1990

      While Southwest says they’re ‘considering’ lounges and first class, that’s gonna take real time to implement, if they even get to it. Tell us again how they’ll be flying TATL soon…

  5. Mr Eric Avatar
    Mr Eric

    At this point, why even bother listing an arrival time. Just say we’ll get you there eventually.

    1. 1990 Avatar
      1990

      ‘Just trust us.’

      ‘We’re good for it.’

      ‘Patience is a virtue’

  6. See_Bee Avatar
    See_Bee

    With airline loyalty (i.e.. credit cards) creating stickier customers along with less “split hubs” (AA owns DFW with DL dehubbing), is schedule/duration not as important? Personally, I’m in a captive hub market and I don’t even look at OALs, though I’m less price sensitive

    My point is, the ABQ or MSY pax above may already have made up their mind on who they want to fly based on their credit card, not a 20 minute duration difference

    1. Brad Avatar
      Brad

      Interesting observation!

      I’m out of DEN and can go almost anywhere in the CONUS non-stop these days so my experience running connections, mostly through ORD pre-merger, is quite dated, but I did have one trip in 2025 that required it. UA offered me something like 39 MIN one way and around 50 MIN the other way and this was from the RJs that mostly fly out in E & F to mainline in B & C. I declined that offer when booking and setup connections in the 2.5 hour range just to add likelihood of no issues to the trip. So I may travel differently than many, but it works for me.

      I’m constantly amazed arriving into DEN with all the people (most seem like occasional/infrequent travelers) who have booked a 45 minute connection and are now in “worry mode” about making it. If we come in 5-10 minutes late and they have to go from B54 to A10 it is going to be tight at best.

      Given the sheer size of the big hubs these days, booking anything under 90 minutes doesn’t even register with me.

  7. John Selden Avatar
    John Selden

    We all have different motivations. I’m retired with $$$ in my pocket. I don’t need the cheapest ticket but I also don’t need to spend an inordinate amount of money. I only fly 4-6 times per year now, so usually have the flexibility for a longer more comfortable connection time.

    Bottom line: I study the schedules / fares very closely before committing, and don’t allow a FF program or individual credit card influence me.

  8. George Romey Avatar
    George Romey

    At the end of the day people want and expect to get where they’re going close to when they had planned to go. Missed connections not only wreak havoc with a passenger’s schedule they add costs to the airline. More personnel are needed to cover dealing with irregular operations. More money required for hotel and food vouchers.

    Most large airports like DFW are running at full capacity. Your plane can land on time from El Paso but you arrive 20 minutes late because the tarmac is congested, your gate is occupied with another aircraft, there’s no marshal crew or agent to meet the plane. Having a 45 minute connection sounds great, particularly when flying in a middle seat, but that time quickly goes away with just a modest delay arriving to the gate on time. Not to mention the lowest fare is often with a very short connection. Then it’s a total cluster for all those involved.

    Not sure if something like six minutes will really mean much.

  9. Tastemore224 Avatar
    Tastemore224

    I’m old enough to have worked for AA when we told Wall Street after the US Air merger that peaking DFW and densifying aircraft were the key to unlocking millions in revenue that was being left on the table by the previous management. Now the same management team is reducing seats on aircraft and de-peaking DFW in order to unlock millions in revenue. It’s a living I suppose.

  10. Jimmy Avatar
    Jimmy

    Insanely early departure times are the norm. My small local airport has 8 departures between 5-6am, and then none until noon. It’s a total zoo there at 4am. If airlines wanted to spread out their scheduling, that’d be ok with me.

    1. Brad Avatar
      Brad

      Yeah, those 6AM departures used to be my least favorite and now it is 5AM. If you can get one more leg out of each jet, it is likely very helpful for the bottom line.

      I had a job in Las Vegas last Spring, finished on a Saturday but no Saturday evening flights home late enough so had to book the 5 AM Sunday departure as I needed to get stuff done on Sunday with a Monday flight to the east coast looming.

      I got to the head house at LAS at about 3:45 AM and it was an absolute zoo, the Clear line was forever and Pre-Check was really bad as well. I couldn’t believe that the airport was that busy on Sunday morning until I thought about it a moment and realized, I was one of the very few passengers who had actually gone to bed the night before…

  11. Pilotaaron1 Avatar
    Pilotaaron1

    I’m still a price sensitive flyer to a point but I’m done sprinting through airports, at least with my family. I try to fly nonstop when possible. But for connections, my personal minimum is 1 hour if flying by myself, with my family it’s 90 minutes. I try to save money by being flexible on the days I fly and find deals that fit my connection criteria that way.

  12. MetroCity Avatar
    MetroCity

    The thing I don’t see mentioned in the analysis is flight delays and late arrivals. If 20% of American flights arrive more than 15 minutes late, then the longer layovers can mean a little less panic for connecting travelers. There is value in that, at least for me. If saving eight minutes on a connection time means an increased likelihood of running at breakneck speed between gates or concourses, then nothing is gained.

    I might be in the minority, but if that 90 minute wait time means a gentle walk between gates, with a restroom stop and snack purchase, I’m all for it.

  13. 1990 Avatar
    1990

    It’s not the 1.5 hour layover that’s the issue… it’s the 34 minutes at CLT, where you have to run from one end of the airport to the other, whipping past those silly rocking chairs.

  14. DesertGhost Avatar
    DesertGhost

    I’ll repeat what I wrote yesterday. If these changes better reflect the real world, I’m all for them. I know I don’t worry too much about an extra 20 minutes flight duration, especially when the alternative is a 20 hour drive.

    1. Mr Eric Avatar
      Mr Eric

      Whose real world though ? AA’s because they can’t get their sh*t together or the entire airline industry?

      While the industry is certainly experiencing longer duration flights for a myriad of reasons, it seems AA is always on the extreme end ….and never the good end.

      1. DesertGhost Avatar
        DesertGhost

        “It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.” — Theodore Roosevelt

  15. Usair was a good airline Avatar
    Usair was a good airline

    A couple (unrelated) thoughts on the uniqueness of DFW for trans-continental connections that I think are sneakily relevant…

    DFW is half-way between coasts… As an east-coaster in a mid-sized market (CHS) without many transcontinental non-stops, I look at a lot of flight options with a connection to the west coast – obviously the most common options are ATL, CLT, and DFW… honorable mention to BNA and DEN (probably says something about United’s lack of presence in our market that IAH/IAD/ORD are rarely realistic options). DFW is the one of those that comes closest to splitting the trip in half, which is actually relevant in my purchasing decisions, especially when traveling with kids. I’d rather have two 2.5 hour flights than a 30 minute flight connecting to a 4.5 hour one. So, I think there’s a small but substantial percentage of people who choose DFW connections *because* they want to get a meal, stretch their legs, let the kids burn some energy, etc. A 40 minute scramble between gates actually takes away all those benefits.

    Second, the connection experience at DFW is high-variance. Not sure there’s a major hub airport that has a bigger disparity between terminal(s) operated by the same airline. Terminal D, in my opinion, is one of the nicest connection experiences in the country… but, I’d prefer any terminal at ATL to all the non-D options at DFW. Also, the gate-to-gate time is just so high-variance too if you end up at the far ends of different terminals. So, as much I’m inclined to choose DFW because it breaks up a trans-con trip pretty nicely… and hey, I might get to spend some time in Terminal D, I’m equally disinclined to pick it because there’s a decent chance I spend the entire 50 minute connection scrambling between the ends of 1 or 2 crappy terminals.

    Anyway, a slightly longer connection time is probably a net positive when considering each of these factors.

  16. BRMM Avatar
    BRMM

    I think AA’s move makes a lot of sense.

    But, then again, I have flown for years and remember the “good old days” when DFW was structured without banks, the terminals didn’t go from total zoo to total dead zone, the clubs had an even flow of people instead of being stuffed full and then empty, and I ran into far fewer missed connections or mad sprints to make my connection.

    N=1, but I’ve never bought tickets (domestically) looking at total trip time when I know I have to make a connection. In fact, the opposite–I often, for example, buy the *longer* connection in DFW, knowing that the short connection is high risk. I’d so much rather have a reasonable walk to the gate and a cup of coffee in the club than some madcap connection.

    And if all of it contributes to AA fixing is dismal operation (don’t even get me started on the troubles I ran into in 2024 and 2025–now 1K for a reason), then that’s even better. Though I fear those issues (crews, maintenance, not to mention awful communication) go deeper than these changes to the DFW hub. At least they’re making an effort/recognizing there is a problem to be fixed, which feels like progress.

  17. David SF eastbay Avatar
    David SF eastbay

    If you must connect it is better to have as much time as possible as so much can happen to delay flights. Better to be safe than sorry as the saying goes.

  18. Chris L Avatar
    Chris L

    And then you have Austrian in VIE which has a MCT (Minimum Connection Time) of 25 minutes. I think HEL has the shortest of 20 minutes. With EU 261, I’m willing to chance it because I know I’ll be protected and compensated if something goes wrong.

    1. 1990 Avatar
      1990

      Holy moly… 20 minutes is insane. High likelihood of getting stuck… in HEL.

    2. David M Avatar

      America West used to have a 25 minute MCT in Phoenix, and as far as I know, American still does.

  19. southbay flier Avatar
    southbay flier

    My memories of DFW is that it’s not a great place for quick connections anyway because of the long concourses with the gates only only on one side of the concourse. ATL, DEN, DTW, and SLC are much easier for this IMO since having gates on both sides of the concourse helps reduce the walking distances. I have no fear of a 35 minute connection at SLC or a 45 minute connection at DTW unless I’m coming from a thunderstorm prone airport on an evening flight. ATL and DEN are a bit bigger and would require a longer time for comfort.

  20. Denny P Avatar
    Denny P

    I’d much rather have average trip times rise by 20 minutes and decrease the likelihood of missed connections. Delta was praised for a long time because they intentionally padded their schedules to handle operational reality, less people missed their connections, and a lot of people noticed. I quit flying American as much as possible, despite being Lifetime Gold, because about 80% of the trips I was taking ended up with a missed connection or running through the airport because of a tight one, and Delta wasn’t doing that to me. So yeah maybe the accountants think 9 banks is better than 13, but they consistently fail to take operational reality into account when they’re counting the beans. Maybe AA has finally learned the lesson that the accountants shouldn’t unilaterally dictate operations.

  21. Brad Avatar
    Brad

    I’m also pretty conservative when I have to book a connection.

    UA has “connection saver” and I’ve never benefitted from it (few connections) but I’ve been on flights when the pilot or FA comes on the PA and says that we’re going to wait a few minutes for folks arriving late on connecting flights. I’ve seen a number of folks make connections that were tight due to the airline holding a flight for just a few minutes to give them a chance to make it. None of the flights that I know it has been applied to that I have been on have arrived more than just a couple of minutes late so it has never adversely impacted me while helping some fellow travelers get where they’re going without interruption. Pretty cool!

  22. David C Avatar
    David C

    I prefer 90 min to 2 hour connection layovers in hubs. Even if on time, you have walking time (15 min), boarding time (45 min before flight), deplaning time (5-10 min).

    For me, I base connection time on arriving flight door open……and when first boarding of next flight is called.
    Some flights start boarding 45 min or more before departure. That’s not a true 2 hour connection time.

    I think American needed to adjust their schedule to better reflect reality.

  23. Ian L Avatar
    Ian L

    Stretching connecting times rather than doing a delay-prone boom/bust cycle 9x/day seems reasonable. Still prefer to avoid DFW as the airport is a bit of a mess…I’d rather take ATL or DEN or even IAH.

    Also, given the choice I would rather have an hour and a half connection than a missed connection, and having directional banks rather than omnidirectional still means connecting times won’t be insanely high.

  24. Bravenav Avatar
    Bravenav

    The ideal connection time depends greatly on where you are on the airplane. For travelers in FC, 30 minutes is sufficient at DFW and really most hubs. But if you’re in the back of a 737-900, it may take 15 minutes just to exit the plane–so plan accordingly!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cranky Flier