AA adds second daily LAX-LHR

[LDVAviation]

so, yes, AA managed to push its yield up based on reduced capacity.

 
... Where in that quote does Kirby attribute any part of the increase to reduced capacity?  He assigns the cause to winning more corporate business.  He knows the business; you don't. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

he doesn't have to attribute it to anything because the data clearly shows that AA has reduced capacity.
yo
I'm not saying that AA didn't win more corporate business.

but it is much easier to increase RASM when capacity goes down. all you have to do is maintain revenue on reduced capacity in order to see a RASM increase.

if he made the comment and didn't reduce capacity, then there would be a whole less to dobut.

further, DOT data shows very clearly what each carrier does in each market. all of his statements become subject to the fact checking that is possible in the airline industry.


whether you want to admit it or not, AA continues to shrink in NYC and does not get the same amount of revenue per mile in many markets that DL and UA do.

neither what you quoted Kirby as saying or what I am saying is in conflict with that reality.

 

[jcw]

right just like DL reduced capacity in MEM and SEA (remember DL failed to mention its reduction in capacity in SEA when it touted its increase in revenue in SEA) - I know you can't admit that DL is just barely running HND flight
 
DL continues to struggle in Asia

 

[WorldTraveler]

what? DL has been increasing capacity in SEA for several years now... and apparently is on the verge of adding a 737 pilot base to further increase flights and increase efficiencies.

MEM, yes. the principle of reducing capacity in order to increase RASM is pretty widely known. carrying the same amount of revenue over less capacity does that.

DL is not struggling in Asia. they are making money and have done so more consistently than any other US airline.

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements_Financial.aspx?Data=6

a HND flight doesn't make or break what DL does in Asia.

by your logic, should we assume that AA is struggling in Latin America with the couple week hiatus that AA will have in ASU?

airlines reduce capacity to match demand all the time.

I have never said it was a bad thing and have said it is good that AA is now doing more of what the rest of the industry has done for years - fly when it can be profitable and not fly at other times.

in the case of NYC, AA is adding summer capacity but is still far smaller than DL and UA

 

[737823]

right just like DL reduced capacity in MEM and SEA (remember DL failed to mention its reduction in capacity in SEA when it touted its increase in revenue in SEA) - I know you can't admit that DL is just barely running HND flight
 
DL continues to struggle in Asia

Don't forget DLs failure at HND-both DTW and LAX. In 2010 DL was awarded the route because they applied to use a 744 and quickly downgauged to 777 then 332 and now 763, they were awarded the route over AA simply because they were going to offer more capacity.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

in contrast to AA's failure on JFK-HND where they had the absolute lowest airfares across the Pacific, tried to move the route to LAX twice - and now trying again but will fail, and eventually dumped the route?

no, DL was awarded two HND routes because the DOT believed that dividing the HND frequencies between the big 3 US carriers and their JV partners would be the best for competition.

 

[737823]

If DL is so strong at HND why have both DTW and SEA failed, and they are using a pathetic 763 from LAX?

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

feel free to call a 767 pathetic.

AA/US both have dozens of them in their fleet, as does UA.

and that "pathetic 767" that DL operates from LAX to HND carries more revenue than AA does either on LAX-NRT or ORD-NRT.

 

[robbedagain]

US has roughly 7 or 8 762s in the fleet  all former Piedmont planes and are in the retirement phase over the next yr or so..  AA has the 763s nows

 

[737823]

Robbed at AA about half of the 763s are getting new J cabin lie flat seats and the other half will remain in the current configuration and be used primarily from MIA for short haul flying. Some of the AA 763s are newer 2002-2003 builds but many are from the early mid-90s and will be around a few more years.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes. but the 767 has been heavily used in int'l service by US carriers including AA and US.

it doesn't become pathetic because it doesn't have a 22 foot wide cabin which Josh is what needs to fit his head in.

Airplanes, like all resources, exist to generate revenues and ultimately profits for a company.

DL has managed to use smaller and lighter aircraft than many of its global peers and yet DL still generates as higher or higher revenue than its peers that use larger aircraft.

I can appreciate that some carriers choose to use larger and heavier aircraft but there should be proof that there is value in doing so.

specific to this conversation, if DL can manage to generate higher profits than its peers flying both the Atlantic and Pacific flying 767s from LAX, then it is mighty hard to argue that DL is doing anything wrong.

 

[jcw]

Translation:
 
Smaller lighter aircraft are ancient aircraft that burn considerable amount more of fuel putting DL at a disadvantage  - couple that with a poor on board product - so I will change topics to avoid the actual facts

 

[WorldTraveler]

except DL's 767s beat AA's 777s not only in average fares in market after market but they also burn less fuel in the process.

A 767 does and always will burn less fuel than a 777, not just on a trip basis but in many cases on a per passenger basis.

there is no 777 in AA's fleet that can beat the fuel burn per passenger of DL's 764s.

If DL's product is so bad, how do you explain that DL gets higher average fares on their 767s than AA does with many of their 777s?

either you don't know the industry or ignore details like this because they "mess with" your narrative.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

If DL's product is so bad, how do you explain that DL gets higher average fares on their 767s than AA does with many of their 777s?

I can explain it quite easily.

AA hasn't reconfigured most of their 777s yet.

 

[WorldTraveler]

that is why this business is so fun... data is and will be available to validate whether statements like that are true or not.

I do have to find it quite amazing that DL's 767s can outperform AA even despite the aircraft size.

I hope you don't get real crushed but I will bet you right now that there will be comparable DL 767 flights that will consistently outperform AA 777 flights because, as much as you want to believe otherwise, a great product can't fix a lack of market strength.

the reason why DL outperforms AA to Japan and matches them in market after market to Europe is because DL has greater market strength.

it is the same reason why DL could put a 332 into S. America and it wouldn't and hasn't moved the average fare needle compared to when it is a 767 because market presence and strength is far more significant in determining average fare premiums than the type of product offered.

DL's growing average fare premium over AA in NYC is not because DL's product is so much better - although it has improved - but because DL is gaining a larger share of the market and that consistently leads to getting a higher percentage of premium fare traffic.

that is why WN gets an average fare premium to AA from DAL in the markets where the two have competed despite AA's "better product"

it is also why AA will very likely pull NYC down further in markets such as SFO where they are at such an average fare disadvantage to their competitors.