AA Applies For LAX-GDL, MIA-MTY

[commavia]

I'm not saying some of these things wont happen
 
but I am also saying that sometimes it gets a little world traveler around here with all the promised growth coming from AA that has been happening for 10 years that hasn't really happened. 

 
No argument, but objectively, these aren't things that "[haven't] really happened" for "10 years."  The press reports I cited - from three different sources - are all from the last twelve months.  But clearly AA is serious about LAX, and again, we've seen multiple press reports citing, and public statements directly from, AA's own senior executives specifically mentioning further longhaul growth at LAX is coming.  So, as I said - I'll be interested to see what comes of all of these statements.

 

[commavia]

AA in 2014 carried 16% more passengers through NYC metro airports than JetBlue, and yet the two are "tied ... for #3 based on passengers?"
 
Fascinating.
 
Like I said - detachment from reality.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, what is fascinating is that once again you prove that you don't know the difference between local market statistics which show how well a carrier does in NYC and not how well it does as a hub.

All of the big 4 carriers in the NYC market have hub operations. How well they do in the local market is not equal.

AA/US is indeed nearly equal to B6 in LOCAL NYC market traffic with a considerable revenue advantage due to AA's longer haul and full service products.

and it is notable since you brought up the PANYNJ statistics that DL is now only about 2 percent smaller than UA in terms of total NYC boardings and DL has already passed UA in terms of LOCAL MARKET boardings although UA still is larger in terms of total revenue.

It is also notable that DL is now the largest CARGO carrier of the passenger carriers and it is also worth noting how much AA has fallen in the cargo market since it gave up the 767 transcon aircraft.

People might be willing to discount the value of that cargo business in the name of throwing their support behind the 321T strategy, but AA gave up a HUGE amount in the NYC cargo market. in one year, AA dropped from #1 to #3 in cargo for the NYC region among passenger carriers. DL moved up to #1 and UA moved up to #2.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/DEC2013_REG.pdf

dropping 30,000 tons of cargo in a year is a pretty impressive drop. the transcons might not be all of it because DL gained 10K tons (and DL did not choose to put 767s in SFO) but AA dropped a huge amount of cargo revenue from NYC. If cargo is indeed the icing on profitability that often is how it is described, then a whole lot of icing moved from AA to DL's cake. UA had an even larger increase in cargo traffic than DL which is explainable by their decision to replace 757s with 763s.

and DL is indeed 50% larger than AA/US in the NYC market. since this topic is about LAX, I am quite sure that you will never see AA gain a 50% or larger size advantage over any other carrier in the LAX market.

and that once again is the nature of a market like LAX which is strategically important enough that no carrier is going to allow anyone else to grow large enough to cut into each other's core markets.

and, like it or not, LAX to Asia is a huge part of DL and UA's Asian operations even if they carry a lot of that traffic over their other hubs.

thus, you can tell me all you want about AA's plans for growth.

when you can tell me that growth translates into a market advantage for AA relative to DL and UA, then AA will have succeeded at doing at LAX similar to what DL and UA have at SFO and SEA.

 

[topDawg]

 
No argument, but objectively, these aren't things that "[haven't] really happened" for "10 years."  The press reports I cited - from three different sources - are all from the last twelve months.  But clearly AA is serious about LAX, and again, we've seen multiple press reports citing, and public statements directly from, AA's own senior executives specifically mentioning further longhaul growth at LAX is coming.  So, as I said - I'll be interested to see what comes of all of these statements.

As am I 
 
Honestly never thought I would see the DFW growth to Asia before the LAX growth. 
 
IMHO I don't believe AA expected United to announce LAX-PVG 15 seconds after AA did. I think they know now anything they add is going to get a reaction from some, DFW was a safer choice IMO.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

and the same thing will be the case not only with any other destination in Asia/Pacific but any other growth that messes with the competitive balance that has existed at LAX between the big 3.

Commavia and others can't get that LAX does not have the space and is too strategically important for all airlines for any airline to turn it into a hub ala DFW or ATL where one legacy carrier dominates it.

UA and DL have both proven that AA's needs to have a west coast gateway will not trump DL or UA's needs to have a balanced and equally sized position at LAX.

AA thinks they can replicate what DL did at JFK. that will not be the case.

AA foolishly walked away from the NYC market such that it is now tied with B6 in local passengers only because of the US merger - and still 50% smaller than DL or UA in total boardings.

given that B6 is adding mint on the few transcons not just at JFK but elsewhere where AA has had a dominance, AA is praying like crazy that LGA transcons will be allowed so it can at least be #2 in the NYC transcon market.

LAX is another story in a new era.

no carrier at LAX is going to allow the other to significant put distance between any of the carriers there.

 

[commavia]

Per usual - arguing ridiculous red herrings that nobody else has ever even suggested - what an efficient way to undermine one's own argument.  Nobody ever said that AA ever could, would or would even want to "turn [LAX] into a hub ala DFW or ATL."  Duh.  Suggesting something so stupid only begs the question, "why would one have to resort to throwing up something so meaningless that nobody else would ever even think to bring up?"
 
But more broadly, and once again - just to inject some reality back into the Delta fantasyland:
 
- There is absolutely nothing stopping AA from turning LAX into a "west coast gateway" at least equal, if not potentially "trumping" Delta's "west coast gateway at SEA," as (1) both operations are gate-constrained, (2) Delta faces just as much, if not arguably more, competition in SEA given that it actually is already a true domestic megahub for a competitor (unlike LAX), and (3) LAX is far more competitive for longhaul but then is also a far, far larger market than SEA
 
- AA never "walked away from the NYC market;" AA's market share, at JFK and overall, has declined, but AA remains a very large and very viable competitive force
 
You can keep repeating this B.S. to make yourself feel better, but it doesn't make it any less B.S., and in any event, everybody else sees right through it.
 
These diatribes continue to get more laughable - so enjoyable to watch.  AA is becoming stronger and more competitive, not just in Asia but lots of places - and thus the fear, fear, fear.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm sorry but your post is as devoid of reality as a drunkard under the pier thinking they will become the mayor of LA.

no one said that LAX would become a hub OF THE SIZE of DFW Or ATL. I did say that AA will not be allowed to DOMINATE LAX as other carriers do in other hubs such as DFW and LAX.

AA simply will not gain a competitive advantage over its peers at LAX, including building a Pacific gateway that even close to rivals what DL and UA have up the coast including the lack of competition from other of the big 3.

the other 2 of the big 3 will be stepping all over AA's every move to expand into key markets.

the fact that you continue to think that you will be right shows how incredibly naïve you really are - and how badly you will be forced to eat crow and other stuff too when AA finally decides they cannot continue to lose money flying routes to Asia from LAX where they continue to end up as #3 out of 3.

AA made one strategic failure after another regarding the Pacific and they will not ever become a meaningful force in the west coast to Asia market relative to DL and UA.

just give it up and move on.

 

[jcw]

just give it up and move on.

can you follow your own advice?

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not the one who keeps posting that AA is going to build an Asian hub at LAX or grow its presence to gain an advantage over other carriers.

I'm simply pointing out the competitive reality that AA is strategically wrong in thinking they can do at LAX what DL did at JFK and LGA.

There will be no significant difference in the size of any of the big 3's size in the LAX LOCAL market, regardless of what any of them are able to do with connections.

and AA simply will not be able to build an Asian gateway - built on connections or not - that comes anywhere close to rivalling what DL and UA have further north up the coast. TO even suggest otherwise is the height of disconnect from reality.

 

[robbedagain]

simple answer jcw..  NO HE CANNOT     He can dish it out  but sadly he cant even take it!!
 
It be very interesting to see LAX-AKL    not to mention any other growth at LAX

 

[commavia]

Such certitude, such wishful thinking.  AA "cannot," "will not," etc.  We'll see
 
Delta's vaunted west coast gateway at SEA amounts to a grand total of five nonstop routes across the Pacific, plus HND flown psuedo-seasonally to keep from losing the authority.  So if we're being generous, it amounts to six daily flights nonstop to six airports (five cities) across the Pacific.
 
AA's west coast gateway at LAX presently amounts to a grand total of two nonstop routes and daily flights to Asia, without even counting JV partners, which would bring the total to three routes and four flights (as of a few weeks from now).  AA's own management has publicly contemplated the prospect of three additional nonstop routes (ICN, PEK and HKG) and press reports indicate at least one other (AKL) is under study.  So even setting aside AKL, AA itself has acknowledged actively studying growth that would bring its own operation presumably to five daily nonstop routes and flights on AA metal alone, again excluding JV partners.
 
So is it impossible that AA could add ICN, PEK and HKG, as AA itself has said it is considering, and perhaps also AKL?  Of course not.  Given gate constraints and market and financial realities, there is absolutely nothing that Delta could do to stop AA.  Delta's super-amazing, awesomely-impenetrable west coast gateway isn't all that big now - certainly nothing compared to, for example, JFK as a gateway across the Atlantic - and indeed the prospect is very real that within a few years AA's west coast gateway may be just as large, if not larger.  And therein, again, lies the fear - and it's growing.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I know what the press reports say about AA service and I also know how little traffic AA's JV partners really carry that were sold by AA.

DL and UA each have as many flights from LAX to Asia as AA does and DL will have the most when LAX-PVG starts unless AA wins the HND slot and also does not cancel NRT.

and DL and UA EACH have their own hubs further up the coast.

DL also has a PDX-NRT flight for a 3rd west coast gateway to Asia, something UA does not even have, and DL also occasionally flies scheduled LAS to Asia service.

AA simply does not and will not gain a presence to Asia from LAX that is even remotely close to what DL or UA at their other hubs - and it is far from clear that AA will succeed at even having more service from LAX to Asia than DL or UA.

I didn't say it is impossible to say that AA would add ICN, PEK, or HKG; only that DL or UA or both would likely add their own flights. DL will be all over ICN; both could do PEK; HKG would likely be UA's to restart.

I have never said that DL would stop AA - that is the part you simply confuse and cannot accept.

You as a fankid of AA are the one that keeps harping on this "we will stop DL's growth" nonsense. I have simply said that DL will KEEP UP with whatever AA tries to do.

If you can't understand the difference between stopping a competitor and keeping up with them, then it is no surprise that this conversation about LAX has dragged on as long as it has.

you can live on the hope that AA's hub at LAX to Asia will surpass DL not only at LAX but also at SEA but that is nothing more than a pipedream that has very little basis in reality.

and DL's SEA to Asia gateway is far from built out.

the only fear is with you and the fact that you will have to admit that you were wrong and I was right all along.

 

[commavia]

Such detachment from reality.  Such fear.  So enjoyable to watch.

 

[WorldTraveler]

so sad to watch someone who acts like they know something about the industry wax on and on about AA's plans for LAX in such a detached state of reality and so willing to throw dirt and anything else they can get their hands on to try to divert from the reality that AA's desire to become a dominant player at LAX- with more than 5% share advantage over another carrier in the LAX local market - is simply not going to happen.

given that the difference is just 2% between AA and UA in the most recent quarter for local passenger share and UA carries more LOCAL revenue than AA does, the notion that DL or UA is going to allow AA to pull ahead is simply fanciful.

given that DL has added/is adding 2 longhaul int'l flights in one year to LAX in markets where AA and UA both operated says the gap between DL and AA and UA will narrow as well.

the only fear is having to admit that AA's LAX strategy is flawed and impossible to execute.

 

[robbedagain]

the only real fear is the fear you have in regards that AA is doing a lot of RIGHT things very similar to DL  and you cannot grasp $h!t    The only other thing here is watching you cry like a baby when you've been shown to be wrong and you change  you deflect and you do anything to prove your always right no matter what   plain and simple   GO SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP BEC YOU TRULY NEED IT