AA Applies For LAX-GDL, MIA-MTY

[WorldTraveler]

and where is the evidence that DL is paying to keep an airline out of Paulding County?

the residents of Paulding County don't want an airport in their backyard which makes them very much like most other people around the world.

I suppose it's nice to think that DL is trying to kill any competition when the evidence is overwhelming that DAL was shuttered to long haul commercial flights for years and the evidence is overwhelming that the community can support two airports and two hubs at both airports.

there was no economic reason for the Wright Amendment to exist. It was purely based on AA's fear that WN would ravage AA's DFW hub - and AA convinced DFW and the cities of Dallas and Ft. Worth of that.

DFW isn't going anywhere but AA will take a hit as the N. Texas market finally equalizes to the point of being a two airline hub city, something that already exists at ATL and has for decades.

meanwhile, LAX is divided by 4 strong nationwide carriers, none of whom seem willing to yield anything to any one -and 3 of those carriers have very similar overlap on their int'l and domestic networks from LAX

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

in YOUR world, and only in your world, you see DL short of gates and that means that they will have to stop growing.

Yet you can't accept that DL still has significant room to by upgauging which is exactly what they are doing in key LAX west coast markets.

DL already is on par with UA as having the largest number of frequencies on LAX-SFO. With its upgrade to half of the flights on 717s, DL is ahead of AA in terms of total seats and flights and similar to WN and VX in terms of total seats - but ahead on frequencies. given the certain upgrade of the rest of the LAX-SFO flights to 717s, DL will be the solid #2 airline in the LAX-SFO market behind UA.

 
Yes, DL is certainly not limited by anything, and can pretty much do anything it wants in any market.  It isn't even constrained by the law of physics.  I mean the reason that DL tucked their tail between their legs and ran up the coast to SEA to offer flights to Asia was all a strategic move done on purpose, exactly as DL planned it.  It couldn't be that they could not compete out of LAX with the big boys could it now  ... ... ...
 
It's interesting that depending on what the narrative is, DL has to always win.  In the LAX-SFO case, DL is winning by having a large # of frequencies and a mix of RJs + 717s.  Now if the situation were that a different airline was being discussed and somebody would point out the frequencies etc., a certain DL fankid cheerleader would scream that it doesn't matter that what counts is either:
i)  revenue
ii) quality revenue
iii) market share
iv)  local O&D
 
Ofcourse choosing i or ii or iii or iv would depend on how well it fits into or supports a certain narrative.
 

 

and where is the evidence that DL is paying to keep an airline out of Paulding County?
 

 
On the DL forum, it was written so in one of the articles describing DL shenanigans with certain county officials.

 

[commavia]

Once again, and for the final time, I'll repeat that Delta itself not two months ago publicly contemplated the "completion" of the "build-out" of its "schedule" at LAX.
 
The choice of the word "completion" is notable.

 

[WorldTraveler]

If it really is the last time you talk about AA's dominance at LAX, then we are in store for a great deal of peace and quiet.

what you can't acknowledge is that DL ALREADY serves nearly all of the key markets from LAX so there is very little they must add in order to be competitive with either AA or UA. What they lack CAN BE DONE with their existing gates.

btw, the quote you seem to want to hold onto is a GOAL - not a statement of completion.

The only advantage that AA has is in small and medium sized markets which neither DL or UA see a need to serve because they don't move the needle in LAX - and won't ever.

And when AA actually begins to gain a revenue and share advantage in LAX because of the size of their gate holdings, then it will matter. but that hasn't happened and won't because DL can and will maintain its position in the LAX local market and not cede anything to AA just because you think that AA needs a west coast to Asia gateway more than DL or UA do.

and, DL hasn't tucked its tail to head up the coast to SEA. It is ADDING a SEA gateway and is still larger at LAX than it has ever been. DL is building out SEA because there is and will be space for DL to build a domestic connecting operation large enough to support a PROFITABLE transpacific gateway. Considering that LAX is the top destination for virtually every airline that flies the Pacific, AA has to push over a whole lot of other carriers in order to grow. Considering that AA has the lowest transpac yields of any of the 3 US carriers, DL and UA have made the profit-driven decision to focus their connecting TPAC operations further up the coast and leave LAX to as much of the local market in routes where the 2 do very well financially.

but since AA needs a west coast gateway to Asia, I guess they will keep trying.

 

[MAH4546]

As the largest airline at LAX by revenue share historically and today - even when AA was smaller than United - AA has no "revenue share" to gain.
 
Using warped data points doesn't alter reality - AA has the largest share of revenue at LAX, and it's larger a share in proportion to its traffic. 

 

[FWAAA]

Anyone happen to notice the third quarter fare survey data about JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO?

As expected, AA commands the highest average local fare in both markets.

Delta? Fourth place in avergage fare between JFK and LAX but a surprising third place finish between JFK and SFO.

Average Oneway Fares - LAX-JFK
AA - $522.43
UA - $392.82
VX - $373.10
DL - $346.54
B6 - $319.42

Average Oneway Fares - SFO-JFK
AA - $497.78
UA - $433.34
DL - $336.02
VX - $331.83
B6 - $275.67

Good thing DL has those millions of pounds of cargo capacity to sell between LAX and JFK, given that the average local fare trails AA's average by more than $175.

Fourth place? Third place? I could swear that I've read that if you're in third place (or worse), you ain't winning and likely have little chance to ever win.

Maybe the problem is frequency. Perhaps DL needs to add a few more daily 763s to match AA's unparalleled 13 daily flights. I don't know how many flights UA schedules between JFK and SFO, but my guess is more than DL. Lack of frequency (and corporate contracts) may be hindering DL's success on these transcons.

 

[jimntx]

Yes, but FWAA, have you looked at the quality of the DL revenue vs. AA and UA?  WT keeps pointing out from time to time that DL garners quality revenue compared to us and UA.  Now, I'm not exactly clear on what quality revenue is.  I was always taught that a dollar of revenue is a dollar of revenue, and an old dollar spends the same as a brand new dollar.  But, evidently there is a difference; otherwise, WT, the world expert on all things airline-related,  would not keep mentioning it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, there are several pretty important things that FWAAA didn't bother to tell you and which any ACCURATE analysis of AA's performance in the JFK-LAX market would have to show.

first, in order to grow its average fares, AA cut 10% of its passengers. No other airline that flies the route nonstop saw its passenger numbers drop. In fact, the number of passengers in the market increased and DL, VX, and UA ALL saw similar numbers of increased passengers in the local market.

but the other carriers didn't reduce their yields in order to take those passengers. EVERY SINGLE carrier that flies JFK-LAX saw its yields increase in the local market. AA gave up passengers and other carriers increased their yields by taking passengers that AA didn't want any longer.

and since none of the carriers serving the JFK-LAX market fly exclusively local passengers, the total revenue carried has to be considered. With DL's addition of 767s and AA's removal of them, DL increased its TOTAL PASSENGER revenue (including connections) carried by 15% while AA's TOTAL PASSENGER revenue went down by 4%.

And then of course we have the cargo which you chose to mention. DL now carries 80% of the cargo carried by passenger carriers between JFK and LAX - more than 2.75 MILLION pounds per month. Most of that was AA's and DL carried very little of it because DL used narrowbodies.

DL's CASM went down because, even without the cargo, the 763ERs CASM in the transcon config is lower than the 757s. '

add in TWO AND THREE QUARTERS MILLION pounds of cargo and it is very likely that DL's profitability on JFK-LAX has soared... all thanks to AA's decision to get rid of passengers - which DL, UA, and VX picked up and added to and still managed to improve their own yield and total revenue.

JFK-SFO is much the same story without the cargo component since no carrier operates scheduled widebody passenger service. but you failed to mention that AA is now #4 in PASSENGER REVENUE in the local market with less than half of the local revenue that DL has and right around half of VX's revenue. You also failed to mention that AA's local JFK-SFO market revenue DECREASED by 8% while UA, DL, and VX all saw double digit increases in revenue . Given that B6 outcarries AA in passengers and will benefit from the increased fares there eventually, AA will likely end up as #5 out of 5 carries in the JFK-SFO market.

FWAAA didn't bother to tell you all of those facts. Congratulations to AA for the increased average fares. Given that AA gave up local segment revenue in both markets, only you could call it an accomplishment while some of us called it what it was a long time ago - a strategic disaster that helped AA's competitors far more than it helped AA.

and some of you get so worked up about a refinery.

 

[robbedagain]

someone gonna need a major head examination once that dude sees what FWAA has posted...   but then again  is it possible those facts FWAA posted are just not reliable bec it is not DOT facts  or the altered ones that someone else posts...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I saw what FWAAA posted.

you and he want to ignore the rest of the statistics which show that AA managed to get higher average fares while walking away from revenue.

that is a remarkable accomplishment and I would like to thank FWAAA for reopening this can of worms so we can highlight once again highlight another stupid strategic move by AA.

 

[eolesen]

Perhaps a

Anyone happen to notice the third quarter fare survey data about JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO?

As expected, AA commands the highest average local fare in both markets.

Delta? Fourth place in avergage fare between JFK and LAX but a surprising third place finish between JFK and SFO.

Average Oneway Fares - LAX-JFK
AA - $522.43
UA - $392.82
VX - $373.10
DL - $346.54
B6 - $319.42

Average Oneway Fares - SFO-JFK
AA - $497.78
UA - $433.34
DL - $336.02
VX - $331.83
B6 - $275.67

Good thing DL has those millions of pounds of cargo capacity to sell between LAX and JFK, given that the average local fare trails AA's average by more than $175.

Fourth place? Third place? I could swear that I've read that if you're in third place (or worse), you ain't winning and likely have little chance to ever win.

Maybe the problem is frequency. Perhaps DL needs to add a few more daily 763s to match AA's unparalleled 13 daily flights. I don't know how many flights UA schedules between JFK and SFO, but my guess is more than DL. Lack of frequency (and corporate contracts) may be hindering DL's success on these transcons.

It's not frequency. It's too many seats and not enough customers.

This is a textbook example of capacity restraint paying off for everyone *except* DL.

 

[WorldTraveler]

sorry, but your conclusion is NOT CORRECT.

The overall market ADDED capacity and EVERYONE saw an increase in yield.

DL's costs went up very little and their revenues undoubtedly went up significant more than their costs... they basically replaced 5 daily 757 departures with 763s that can carry about 50 more passengers and 2 1/2 million pounds of cargo more than what DL was carrying before.


AA had a disproportionate amount of capacity in the market and was discounting it deeply.

when that capacity was removed by AA and other carriers picked it up, the market as a whole improved.

AA's transcon capacity was based on AA's historical size in NYC, not based on its current market share.

AA has shrunk and its capacity needed to be resized. AA's actions helped itself but also helped other carriers in the market as well or more given that their total revenue increased MORE THAN AA's.

And the argument that AA's costs went down is still unsubstantiated.


and on a segment basis, AA's reduction in capacity helped DL increase connecting revenue which strengthens DL's JFK TATL operation.

so, no, AA was the one that made the strategic blunder and did more to help DL than AA helped itself.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Maybe the problem is frequency. Perhaps DL needs to add a few more daily 763s to match AA's unparalleled 13 daily flights. I don't know how many flights UA schedules between JFK and SFO, but my guess is more than DL. Lack of frequency (and corporate contracts) may be hindering DL's success on these transcons.

 
What you don't grasp is that DL is not finished growing in the JFK-LAX market.  DL could always change the 763s to 744's resulting in DL having the largest rate of growth in trancon economy and buisness class seats than any carrier.  You do realize that DL is the largest east-coast based carrier to serve JFK-LAX?

 

[WorldTraveler]

and what you can't seem to grasp is that AA did exactly what I said they would... cut capacity to drive up their yield but that the capacity would be replaced by competitors. that is what happens in a highly competitive market like the JFK transcons. How AA thought that they could remove capacity and someone else wouldn't benefit is highly questionable.

And let's be clear that EVERY NONSTOP carrier in the market benefitted from AA's decision to reduce capacity - and in terms of total revenue they benefitted MORE than AA.

given that AA had to increase frequencies in order to replace some of the capacity that was cut, AA very likely did not benefit much at all from reduced costs. Their profitability might have been flat to slightly better relative to their peers.

and the complete irony is that DL did what it did in the market using 757s and 763s which AA also has in its fleet.

or perhaps the bottom line is that DL's size in NYC is now capable of supporting the largest number of seats from JFK to LAX and SFO while AA's presence in NYC has shrunk to the point that they cannot be what they once were, no matter what aircraft AA might have used.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

and what you can't seem to grasp ... ... ...