AA Applies For LAX-GDL, MIA-MTY

[WorldTraveler]

you and your little union helper bee apparently are trying to unionize the shrinks in your town with your endless "go get help" drivel.

what you and commavia can't seem to grasp is that AA has yet to demonstrate one iota of gain because of its strategies at LAX. IN fact, AA's share relative to DL and UA in the local market is actually down when you account for the merger.

Despite cries that UA would pull down LAX and AA would get all of that share, it actually appears that UA is gaining share at AA's expense. Further, DL's share gains have taken a chunk of AA's business and AA has had to discount more than other carriers in order to maintain its passenger share... that is precisely why AA's average fare gap GREW in the last quarter. and given that DL is adding 2 longhaul routes while AA is facing yield erosion because of the great N. Texas shootout, the average fare gap is likely to widen.

but all of this stuff is clearly way over your head and even if commavia understands it, he is running around with his fingers in his ears yelling that AA will win regardless of anyone else.

so it is no surprising that you don't understand any of it.

 

[robbedagain]

what a shocking come back.    its you that cannot grasp it  or understand it   you blame  you deflect  you change topics    its a no shocker you distort facts to suit your pro dl narrative bs garbage  all of us sees right thru you  and yet you still come up with the same bs in different formats

 

[WorldTraveler]

I've deflection nothing.

the only defection is from you and commavia who can't seem to be able to provide any proof that AA is anywhere close to gaining any kind of advantage.

all of the evidence in fact seems to say just the opposite.

I don't really care about the person attacks, son.

if you can't provide the evidence to back up your claim, then lurk back into the corner and admit you have been outsmarted.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Further, DL's share gains have taken a chunk of AA's business and AA has had to discount more than other carriers in order to maintain its passenger share... that is precisely why AA's average fare gap GREW in the last quarter.

One way to tell whether World Fraudster theories are true is to just ask these couple basic questions:
 
Tell us how much DL is discounting LAX-LHR? 
What? 
DL doesn't even offer a first class product?
That route doesn't fit your narratives?
 
Oh, OK, so what about on the transcons?
Oh?
DL is blown out of the water there too?
 
Shocker!

 

[commavia]

"I think you'll see us continue to grow to Asia."
-- Scott Kirby, American Airlines Group President, 3 March 2015
 
Hmmm ...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and once again I have never said that AA couldn't or wouldn't grow at LAX...

unlike you, I haven't tried to ever say that every other carrier is limited in on order to accommodate one carrier's growth

I believe in free markets and the ability of the market to pick winners and losers while you display the same mindset that drove AA to build its network and its profits around the most limited access cities and regions of the world and where it could dominate the market the greatest by the exclusion of other carriers.

WN has followed the exact same strategy.

in complete contrast, DL and UA have adopted network strategies of competing around the world in all key markets and throwing no barriers of entry in front of anyone - and still delivering higher revenues than AA or WN do.

AA can indeed grow at LAX.

again the question which you refuse to acknowledge is that other carriers will too and the supposed dominance that you think AA will gain in the local market simply will not exist.

 

[commavia]

I never said AA would "dominate" LAX, but merely that with more gates at a gate-limited airport, all else equal, it likely will have more room to grow than competitors.  Sort of obvious.  Much like how in NYC, AA has fewer slots than competitors at slot-limited airports, and thus, all else equal, it isn't able to grow whether it wants to or not.  I'm sure Delta could find more gate access somewhere at LAX if they wanted to, but unfortunately for Delta it is entirely hemmed in by competitors who aren't going anywhere, so it faces only far-less-than-ideal alternatives.
 
And, because both Delta and United already have west coast gateways and thus fairly meaningful opportunity cost, I fully suspect that both Delta and United will, indeed, pretty much let AA have LAX-Asia.  Delta feeling the need to dump even more capacity into the LAX-PVG market notwithstanding, is Delta literally going to waste millions chasing AA all over the Pacific if AA truly does follow through on LAX-ICN, LAX-PEK, LAX-HKG, LAX-AKL?  I highly, highly doubt it.
 
No airline - even Delta - can win everywhere.  They have to pick their battles.  And frankly, LAX is - in general - a battle that it appears Delta would lose, which is why Delta is much better off focusing on the battles they can win (like, for example, SEA-Asia).

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I never said AA would "dominate" LAX, but merely that with more gates at a gate-limited airport, all else equal, it likely will have more room to grow than competitors.  Sort of obvious.  Much like how in NYC, AA has fewer slots than competitors at slot-limited airports, and thus, all else equal, it isn't able to grow whether it wants to or not.  I'm sure Delta could find more gate access somewhere at LAX if they wanted to, but unfortunately for Delta it is entirely hemmed in by competitors who aren't going anywhere, so it faces only far-less-than-ideal alternatives.
 
And, because both Delta and United already have west coast gateways and thus fairly meaningful opportunity cost, I fully suspect that both Delta and United will, indeed, pretty much let AA have LAX-Asia.  Delta feeling the need to dump even more capacity into the LAX-PVG market notwithstanding, is Delta literally going to waste millions chasing AA all over the Pacific if AA truly does follow through on LAX-ICN, LAX-PEK, LAX-HKG, LAX-AKL?  I highly, highly doubt it.
 
No airline - even Delta - can win everywhere.  They have to pick their battles.  And frankly, LAX is - in general - a battle that it appears Delta would lose, which is why Delta is much better off focusing on the battles they can win (like, for example, SEA-Asia).

 
Presenting facts to World Fraudster is - if I could borrow a phrase that a certain preacher boy wanna be made  - is like throwing pearls to a swine.

 

[WorldTraveler]

bingo... there's your faulty assumption...

And, because both Delta and United already have west coast gateways and thus fairly meaningful opportunity cost, I fully suspect that both Delta and United will, indeed, pretty much let AA have LAX-Asia.  Delta feeling the need to dump even more capacity into the LAX-PVG market notwithstanding, is Delta literally going to waste millions chasing AA all over the Pacific if AA truly does follow through on LAX-ICN, LAX-PEK, LAX-HKG, LAX-AKL?  I highly, highly doubt it.

you are completely wrong that DL or UA will "let AA have LAX-Asia"

where did you EVER come up with that?

UA "let" AA have LAX-PVG for about 5 seconds after AA announced the route before UA started writing their press release.

DL hasn't "let" AA have anything in the LAX-Asia market.

let's deal with your faulty core assumptions and then we can undo all of the rest of your faulty plans which have been built on it.

 

[commavia]

I do believe that, by and large, Delta and United will, indeed, "let AA have LAX-Asia" - Delta's recent gambit of dumping even more capacity into LAX-PVG notwithstanding.  Once again - airlines have to pick their battles.  In my opinion, if (when?) AA fully realizes what it has been publicly speculating about - namely, building an LAX-Asia franchise that pretty much rivals Delta's existing SEA-Asia franchise in scope (i.e., nonstop routes) and scale (i.e., frequency) - Delta and United will not match them flight for flight and will, ultimately, determine that it isn't worth the profit-dilutive battle.
 
The above opinion and conclusion is based on a confluence of three factors:
 
(1) opportunity cost, as both Delta and United already have existing west coast gateways to Asia that serve the exact same purpose as any hypothetical LAX-Asia gateway would, and thus major growth out of LAX would simply be needlessly competing with their own existing operations
 
(2) a disparity in practical operational limitations and market strength at LAX, where, try as some might to wish away reality, the reality nonetheless is that both Delta and United are not only now smaller than AA but also hemmed into capacity-constrained terminal facilities that cannot be expanded for operational, physical and/or legal reasons, while AA already has excess capacity at its existing terminal(s) with more capacity coming online over the next 12-18 months
 
(3) a disparity in focus, resources and "need," since the reality is that AA simply "needs" LAX-Asia more than Delta or United (see (1) above), and thus is quite likely going to be far more willing to subsidize "investments" (losses) in developing this market than either of those competitors; further, given that AA today has an extremely strong balance sheet and far more cash than either Delta or United, it clearly has the financial wherewithal to make such investments if it does, indeed, have the requisite "need," desire and focus
 
All of the above - which is, from my perspective, really beyond argument - is to say that, per usual, you have absolutely no idea who is or isn't "completely wrong."  Once again - such certainty, except when it comes to suggestions of AA's leadership at LAX, in which case nothing is certain!  How hilarious.
 
All of this is opinion.  Only time will tell.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, it is opinion. and I submit it is flawed.

I give you credit for thinking thru your theory and running with it.

what I don't give you credit for and ding you a great deal is that the only way you can challenge someone else's view is by trying to deride and mock them.

whether you understand it or not, young man, you and your childish aspirations of what AA will become in Asia are not and will not define the course of the way the world works. Life is just plain competitive.

There is an ENORMOUS cost to DL and UA to allow AA to become a viable force in the west coast to Asia. AA can do all it wants in DFW to Asia and all DL and UA will add routes and capacity from their more northern hubs which allow for faster connections and thus lower costs to serve the market.

you cannot and have not come anywhere close to calculating the cost to DL and UA if the allow AA to become a major player in the west coast to Asia market by offering anything from LAX to Asia that one or both of DL and UA do not also operate.

the only thing that AA has demonstrated it has at LAX above what DL and UA have is service to more small cities that don't move the dial in local market strength.

someone can refresh the numbers but I believe DL actually serves more cities from LAX than any other airline... not sure so go for it.

your assumption about limited resources is simply wrong. DL and UA just like AA are $40B per year companies. They have the resources to deal with the relatively small growth that LAX represents for ANY carrier. DL added 125 flights/day in a two month period at LGA and has added plenty of longhaul and shorthaul capacity at SEA. DL has already added or will add 2 longhaul flights from LAX in one year; no other carrier is going to exceed that.

your assumptions are flawed going on which is why your belief about the outcome is flawed.

 

[commavia]

Indeed - there is an enormous cost to Delta and United to "allow AA to become a viable force in the west coast to Asia."  And?  Tell us something we didn't already know.
 
Herein, of course, lies the massive flaw in all the endless diatribes.  IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT IT COSTS DELTA - AA CAN DO WHAT IT WANTS.
 
Following this to its logical end, AA grows LAX-Asia, and so it costs Delta in its own west coast to Asia business, Delta does ... what, exactly?  Delta doubles down on it costing them even more by adding their own flights from LAX to ICN, PEK, HKG and AKL to prove a point?  Again - I doubt it highly.  But even if so, to what end?  It seems unlikely that Delta would be able to drive AA out of these markets, so all they'd essentially be doing was further diluting their own profits, and competing with their own existing flights, simply to punish a competitor.  Sounds like a brilliant capital deployment strategy to me!  Far more likely is that Delta acts like the rational and well-run competitor it is, and meets further AA growth between the west coast and Asia by further solidifying and strengthening the west coast gateway where Delta actually does have a leading position, at least longhaul, and that's not LAX.
 
We all have to be endlessly treated to the various ruminations on all the things that Delta can do but that it's competitors certainly, absolutely, "cannot," but the reality is that this is ridiculous - and it's ridiculous in reverse, too.  The truth is that Delta has operational, financial, strategic and network constraints that drive, moderate and inform its moves, and so does every other airline.  So if it costs Delta and United that AA grows to become a "viable force" in the west coast to Asia market, then so be it.  They'll just have to deal with it, because no matter what they do, they don't get a veto - no matter how much the Delta fanboy-in-chief wishes it were so.
 
I realize this flies in the face of the delicately-constructed fantasy world in which some live, where Delta has infinite freedom of motion to do anything while only competitors have to worry about the "enormous costs" of Delta's moves, but not the other way around, and thus while we'll be all soon have to hear about why this is all flawed and wrong, but once again, like it or not, this is reality.
 
End.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and never have I said that DL or UA cannot stop AA from doing what it wants.

your flaw comes in thinking that DL and UA will LET AA grow and the assumptions you use to come to your conclusion are flawed.

You have no evidence that DL and UA will LET AA do anything.

there is abundant evidence that DL and UA have repeatedly matched AA's growth in the LAX with expansion of their own.

the only fantasy land is yours which refuses to admit that, in a free market system, you can't ASSUME that any competitor will LET you do anything.

it is precisely because AA NEEDS a west coast to Asia gateway that DL and UA are going to do everything they can to make sure it doesn't gain a viable one at DL and UA"s expense.

instead of your endless diatribes about what AA will do, get back to us when AA actually gains a market advantage in LAX and on the west coast to Asia that DL or UA do not go after.

 

[eolesen]

How many pages back did this stop being about US-Mexico?...

 

[commavia]

4-5 I think.