AA Applies For LAX-GDL, MIA-MTY

[topDawg]

and again, you want to cling to a piece of paper despite what is obviously happening in real life.

Again we understand you don't understand how contracts, scope, unions or the RLA works.
But because you can't get it doesn't mean the rest of us have to be stupid.


and yes, I will take a legal contract every single day over word of mouth trusts mes. You are a complete fool if you don't.

 

you can't argue that DL could close stations and then fail to acknowledge that they have not while AA and UA have.

Again. Good for Delta for not closing ramp stations while AA and UA have**

**Delta did it 15 years ago however.....but that is unimportant to because it doesn't make your point.

Logic is stupid.

Delta always wins simple as that.

 

[commavia]

Perhaps economics is lost on some the same way accounting is.  With risk comes reward.  So since 75%+ of Delta workers lack union protection and thus must shoulder the risk of their employer unilaterally changing the scope/terms of, and/or compensation for, their labor, it should follow logically that they should get paid more than their unionized counterparts at AA and United who have a union contract standing between them and their employer and thus, theoretically, shoulder less of this risk.
 
Exhibit A: Delta didn't need to ask anyone's permission to unilaterally outsource overhauls to third parties (including in Latin America and Asia).  Exhibit B: Delta also needn't have asked for anyone's permission when it unilaterally transitioned hundreds if not thousands of ramp jobs to DGS and/or Ready Reserve.  And when Delta did these things, the affected Delta employees had no recourse and no alternative.  Once again - risk and reward.  Economics 101.
 
As for scope - it's hilarious to hear the entirely-typical hysterics about how AA is adding RJs while Delta is parking them - with equally-typical lack of historical context.  Of course AA is adding RJs - all large, 2-class RJs, while parking single-class 44/50-seaters - in order to ... drum roll please ... catch up to Delta!  As plenty of Delta's own mainline pilots still complain about, Delta absolutely led the day in outsourcing mainline to RJs in the last 20 years, while AA was left with a far, far more restrictive scope clause (for better or worse).  Today, AA - finally freed of said scope clause - is bringing in dozens of brand new 2-class RJs each year, and to great effect in markets like ORD, LAX and MIA.
 
And of course, that is what this is really about - 2-class RJs are making AA more competitive, and therefore they can't be good.  Delta, meanwhile, already flies literally hundreds of 2-class RJs all over the place - including quite prominently up against competitors' mainline in markets like LGA-ORD, LAX-SFO, SEA-SAN, etc. - but we all know there's nothing wrong with that!

 

[topDawg]

Perhaps economics is lost on some the same way accounting is.  With risk comes reward.  So since 75%+ of Delta workers lack union protection and thus must shoulder the risk of their employer unilaterally changing the scope/terms of, and/or compensation for, their labor, it should follow logically that they should get paid more than their unionized counterparts at AA and United who have a union contract standing between them and their employer and thus, theoretically, shoulder less of this risk.

I agree with you to a point. 
 
I think that this and to keep unions out are a big reason why Delta is paying its people so much more.
 
but it also comes down to productivity. Ready reserve and A-days are great example. 
On my side, even if we did HMVs in-house, we would have less people per tail than the unionized carriers. 
Also lately because we have been kicking ass and taking names operationally they have been slowly adding things back to mainline because they simply cant beat our number with vendors. 
 
For example, the new engine shop we are getting. Reliability, TBOs, TATs and spare parts are a key reason why its happening. We are able to run with, I think its is, 75% LESS engines than what the OEMs recommend. The engine shop is turning them so fast that they don't need the spare pool of the engines that they send out.  
 
A330 c-checks are another example. Delta has changed vendors a few times post merger but finally Don and his team were able to get Richard and Ed to buy into the fact TechOps is simply going to do them best and faster. 
 

As for scope - it's hilarious to hear the entirely-typical hysterics about how AA is adding RJs while Delta is parking them - with equally-typical lack of historical context.  Of course AA is adding RJs - all large, 2-class RJs, while parking single-class 44/50-seaters - in order to ... drum roll please ... catch up to Delta!  As plenty of Delta's own mainline pilots still complain about, Delta absolutely led the day in outsourcing mainline to RJs in the last 20 years, while AA was left with a far, far more restrictive scope clause (for better or worse).  Today, AA - finally freed of said scope clause - is bringing in dozens of brand new 2-class RJs each year, and to great effect in markets like ORD, LAX and MIA.
 
And of course, that is what this is really about - 2-class RJs are making AA more competitive, and therefore they can't be good.  Delta, meanwhile, already flies literally hundreds of 2-class RJs all over the place - including quite prominently up against competitors' mainline in markets like LGA-ORD, LAX-SFO, SEA-SAN, etc. - but we all know there's nothing wrong with that!

This is what annoys me. He does the same s**t on the ramp. Delta had 14 stations when they exited BK before the merger with NW (so the same exact place AA is at today) Yet all we hear about is how AA is cutting on the ramp. 
 
I think its exactly what you said. He knows AA is growing stronger because they are simply doing what Delta did 15 years ago. (or even before that with 7.5) 
 
 
 
but that is just me "not being able to let go of history"

 

[Kev3188]

As for scope - it's hilarious to hear the entirely-typical hysterics about how AA is adding RJs while Delta is parking them - with equally-typical lack of historical context.  Of course AA is adding RJs - all large, 2-class RJs, while parking single-class 44/50-seaters - in order to ... drum roll please ... catch up to Delta!  As plenty of Delta's own mainline pilots still complain about, Delta absolutely led the day in outsourcing mainline to RJs in the last 20 years, while AA was left with a far, far more restrictive scope clause (for better or worse).  Today, AA - finally freed of said scope clause - is bringing in dozens of brand new 2-class RJs each year, and to great effect in markets like ORD, LAX and MIA.

Let's also remember that we're (DL) adding even more 2 class RJ's to the fleet as well... We might be paring down the 50 sweaters, but the CRJ 700/900 and EMB 170/75's certainly aren't endangered...
 

 

 



 

 


 

 
 
 

 

[Kev3188]

I agree with you to a point. 
 For example, the new engine shop we are getting. Reliability, TBOs, TATs and spare parts are a key reason why its happening. We are able to run with, I think its is, 75% LESS engines than what the OEMs recommend. The engine shop is turning them so fast that they don't need the spare pool of the engines that they send out
 

What are TBO and TAT acronyms for?

 

[topDawg]

What are TBO and TAT acronyms for?

Time Between Overhauls
Turn Around Time 

 

[WorldTraveler]

and yet on the bottom line, DL has MORE ramp stations than AA or UA - regardless of where those stations came from, DL has closed fewer stations in the last 5 years and UA has closed multiple stations even after BK.

DL has been sending out AIRFRAME overhauls but bringing in engine and component work for other airlines.

only those who want to present a picture of being oppressed would fail to acknowledge that DL has brought in enough work from other airlines to make the NET LEVEL of OUTSOURCING at DL lower than even standalone AA.

as for pay/risk, the theory is right, commavia, but the reality is that DL has derisked the business such that DL employees have gained more than enough profit sharing to offset the gains that AA employees have made - and to grow DL employee compensation levels far faster than at any other airline.

and by the same argument, WN has used profit sharing as a major component of compensation for years but no one seems to think they will all of a sudden stop being profitable. and yet DL employees earned more than 16% of their salary in profit sharing compared to 10% for WN in 2014.


theory is great but when practice proves that theory is turned on its head, then it is clear that the preconceived notions that AA people hold onto don't work in reality. The risk is simply not there for DL employees that many people want to believe there is; when you consider that AA and US employees each have been thru two rounds of cuts since 9/11 and one of those rounds happened at AA outside of BK, the notion that a contract provides security is simply not realistic.

this all seems like an HR discussion instead of about LAX - but maybe some people are finally realizing that DL intends to be right there for any growth at LAX in major markets regardless of what any other carrier does.

 

[MAH4546]

Awwwww look at that. Somebody can no longer talk about Delta's market worst position at LAX, so it's time to ramble about useless facts. So cute!

 

[WorldTraveler]

and someone can't admit that AA's position in the market is ONLY because of the US merger.

DL is the #2 airline in the LAX and also the #2 US airline... and again as much as it pains you to admit it, DL is giving AA no slack in AA's NEED (comm's words) to have a west coast gateway to Asia.

with DL's launch of LAX-PVG, AA will have no longhaul network route advantage over DL or UA and will actually be the only one of the big 3 that doesn't fly to Australia on its own metal.

all that is cute is watching you meltdown in the reality that DL isn't rolling over to let AA build its needed LAX hub.

Looks like AA will have no west coast int'l route advantage while DL and UA will both serve every market that AA does from LAX plus have their own hubs further up the west coast.

 

[commavia]

Haha such delusion.  Delta is the #2 airline (and U.S. airline!) at LAX.  Good for them.  AA is #1 by both counts.  And AA is also growing - a lot - and, unlike Delta, has a clear and firm growth path for the key limiting factor to expansion at the airport, which is gates.
 
AA does indeed have a "longhaul network route advantage" at LAX in the form of not only the only daily nonstop (and only nonstop by a U.S. airline!) to Brazil, soon double-daily 77Ws to LHR, plus nonstops to NRT and PVG, and indeed Australia (where the "own metal" caveat is rather meaningless) where AA already has ATI with by far the dominant carrier in the market, which has more seats than all the other competitors combined.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has grown by the same percentage or more than AA has.

and you have continued to hold out gates as if that will be the make or break factor in who will serve the market.

and yet you fail to acknowledge that the market, not the number of gates, is the determining factor in who succeeds in the market.

given that DL has a higher average fare than AA in LAX, and that was before DL started LHR and before PVG starts, both longhaul markets which generate fares well above the LAX average, DL's average fare will only go up.

no, AA does not have a longhaul network route advantage.

good for AA's route to GRU from LAX. do you realize that AA carries less revenue per seat on LAX-GRU than they do on DFW-GRU despite the longer flight length?
DFW-GRU is likely a profitable route for AA but it is hard to argue that carrying 70% of the revenue and having lower average fares is a recipe for financial success.

and of course we still have the reality that DL carries almost as much revenue just on its LAX-NRT flight than AA does on LAX-NRT AND LAX-PVG.

so you can talk about gates all you want... but AA's NEED to grow LAX is clearly coming by adding capacity that performs worse than its peers on directly competitive routes or to similar routes elsewhere on AA's network.

and more significantly, because of AA's NEED to have AS as a partner, they do not fly some of the most important routes from LAX further giving DL an advantage.

and regarding Australia, do you realize that AA has less than half the share of any carrier that actually operates the route and 1/9 of the passengers that QF carries? and that isn't just to/from LAX but from all of the US to Australia so, yes about 1 in 10 passengers on QF's flights are AA marketed passengers, but the operating carriers all carry far more passengers than AA does. I suppose a JV with QF is better than nothing.

yes, as much as it pains you to admit it, DL has given up nothing relative to AA despite AA's NEED to have a west coast gateway to Asia.

 

[Kev3188]

Time Between Overhauls
Turn Around Time 

Thanks!

 

[MAH4546]

And as if having by far the most gates at LAX wasn't enough, word is AA continues to work out a plan where it will use AS' gates in second position, giving it access to an even more dominant amount of LAX gates.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and you are still hung up on gates while failing to admit that DL hasn't been stopped in its ability to fly the most competitive and significant markets.
All AA has done with its greater number of gates besides the unique hub flights that AA and DL each have is to fly to more smaller cities in the west that are heavily connecting, many of which DL serves from SLC where there is space to build.

You can't accept that a race for gates isn't going to help AA when it doesn't get the same quality of revenue that other carriers do... all AA is doing is adding flights that do not perform as well. Every step into a key market that AA takes, someone else steps in there as well.

As for AS' gates, they don''t have a lot of surpass gate space and unless AA is going to take over the rest of AS' operation, it won't really matter anyway. and if AA convinces AS to let it take over much of the LAX flying, it will only make it less likely that AA will succeed since AA's costs are not only higher than AS' but they are also higher than DL's.

you - and perhaps AA's leaders - are clearly stuck in some juvenile "my tools are bigger than yours" mindset that hasn't yet been shown to result in a real advantage in the marketplace.

but let's face it; AA REALLY does need a west coast gateway and they can't do what they did in NYC where they gave up their #1 position at LGA and JFK. kinda hard to explain strategically how the world's largest airline is not the number one airline in either the NYC market where its home once was or Chicago.... so AA is throwing everything it can at LAX to try to hold onto first place - but in so doing ensure that they will never be as profitable as DL or UA are there.

and as much as you hate to admit it, the DOT says that in the LAX local market, UA is still the largest market based on revenue. that's not hard to do given that UA gets $20 per passenger more than AA does. DL and UA have the exact same type of average fare premium to AA/US in NYC and CHI. and based on what is happening at DFW, AA's average fares from its largest and most profitable hub are falling as well.

 

[FWAAA]

and someone can't admit that AA's position in the market is ONLY because of the US merger.

Huh? UA is only as large as it is due to its merger with CO, and DL is as large as it is due to its merger with NW. AA+US is the largest carrier by market share at LAX.

I'm sure you'll counter with some made-up "statistics" that DL gets $100 more per passenger at LAX than AA, but the reality is that AA (including the soon-to-be folded in US) is already the largest airline at LAX.