AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[WorldTraveler]

that's all great, E, but it has been proven OVER AND OVER AND OVER again that some people can't walk away (you included) and more importantly they will do everything to refuse to admit their emotion based arguments don't stand up against market based facts.

and more significantly, I have to ask why people like you who like to debate market issues won't do so any more - and a quick look at forums archives shows it is because you have repeatedly taken one position after another that was not only contrary to my positions but also opposite of what actually played out in real life.

AA isn't going to be able to succeed in competitive markets to Asia because DL and UA individually and thru their predecessors have decades more experience in those regions.

AA has the benefit of cheap fuel right now and a strong revenue environment in the US that is helping them be able to plow capacity into the Pacific where they did so bad for so long that even their current expansion looks good in comparison - almost entirely because of DFW.

No one is stopping AA from expanding in competitive markets including LAX to Asia.

AA does have and will compete with other carriers who can and will deploy resources to protect their markets.

btw, AA's traffic report for Feb which was just released shows how much capacity they have cut from Europe and from Latin America - Europe was down more than 10% for the month of Feb.

many of us said months ago that AA would have to cut a lot of TATL capacity because US' alliance relationships supported a lot of capacity that AA can't support any longer and because other carriers added capacity on top of what AA added in new AA markets.

for some people, people refused to believe it but we are seeing that play out exactly as I and others said it would.

Yet, some people can't see that the same principles apply from LAX to Asia.

some people clearly can't let go of their hopes and dreams long enough to look at the real world.

 

[LDVAviation]

We have been hearing for years that DL would be out of space to expand but they keep doing it - and you even MISQUOTE DL's statement.

they said they are nearing the completion of what they can do with their existing facility. But they have room for some additional expansion and multiple DL employees say that their mgmt. personnel have said that DL expects to confirm one or more strategic moves at LAX that could result in additional gates.

Multiple DL employees?  You mean more fanboys and liars like you?
 
Here are the facts on the ground:
 
The only terminal with some room for expansion is T2.  So far, Delta hasn't expanded there and that could be done almost immediately.  So, what is taking so long?
 
Delta has no leverage to make a play for any other gates.  It has nothing LAWA wants.  It ceded all of its master leases to LAWA and with those any rights to the number of additional gates T5 once had.  (So much for the Delta fanboy visions of a T9 for Delta and an expanded T5 that defies the laws of physics.)
 
TBIT is oversubscribed.  The MSC will be common use and it won't be ready for 4+ years.  Even when it is ready, like T2, it won't be very convenient.  Plus, if an airline does make a deal for preferential gates there it is going to need some leverage.  I repeat Delta has none.  To be sure, it can become a tenant airline.  But how strategic would that be?  (Air Zimbabwe does not fly to LAX and it has as much rights to be a tenant airline at the MSC as Delta.)
 
LAWA is in negotiations with a certain airline to trade a facility lease for more gates and other considerations, but it is not Delta.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

you SIMPLY do not get it.

terminals have NOTHING to do with whether AA can or will succeed in competitive LAX flying


what was AA's excuse why they haven't been able to reach fare parity from JFK or ORD - surely you can't believe they were short of gates there or that a few more gates would have made the difference.

AA has been flying LAX to NRT for over a decade- when is AA going to reach revenue parity with DL or even UA?

how many more flights does it take for AA to obtain revenue parity on the two flights they currently operate?

honestly, I give you credit for having hope but it is nothing but insanity to believe that what hasn't worked before will all of a sudden work now... that is the definition of insanity if there ever was one.

I suppose insanity is the only strategy that you and Parker have to avoid having to admit that AA cannot generate industry average revenues to Asia from any gateway where DL and/or UA also compete.
btw, where is that HND flight that you and others were convinced you would steal from DL?

how is DL managing to add even more flights on JFK-LAX and a new LAX-PVG flight if they are out of gates?

your mindset is the same that AA used for decades in limited access markets like DFW, LHR, and Latin America and that WN is trying to use to DAL - lock out the competition and find markets where they can dominate the market thru barriers. Yet history is proving over and over that type of strategy is at best a short term strategy that will result in market loss down the road - which is exactly why WN is reducing service from ATL as it did in SLC and PHL and why competition is increasing in AA's Latin Americans and to LHR right at the time when the economies are going back in Latin America.

AA will succeed in Asia when it figures out how to compete against anyone that comes along including DL and UA that have decades of experience there themselves and via their predecessors.

AA will not click its heels together and succeed to Asia just because it has now finally woken up and realized it needs to have a presence in a region where it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars for years

 

[Platinum Steve]

AA isn't going to be able to succeed in competitive markets to Asia because DL and UA individually and thru their predecessors have decades more experience in those regions.


If we follow your logic, WT, we get this:

DL isn't going to be able to succeed in competitive markets to Latin America because AA individually and thru its predecessor has decades more experience in that region.

Is that a fair statement?

Or how about this:

DL isn't going to be able to succeed at Heathrow because AA and UA individually and thru their predecessors have decades more experience in that region (destination).

Is that reasonable?

 

[commavia]

If we follow your logic, WT, we get this:

DL isn't going to be able to succeed in competitive markets to Latin America because AA individually and thru its predecessor has decades more experience in that region.

Is that a fair statement?

 
And ... there we have it.  Exactly.
 
Back here in reality, we have no idea how AA will ultimately do in Asia - we're seeing things at the beginning, when AA is still very much in the building, investment and development phase.  AA seems to be moving smartly, building a JV with JAL to access "deep Asia," complimenting alliances with Cathay and QANTAS, along with growing organically into the most important northeast/east Asian business markets beyond Japan (ICN, PEK, PVG and HKG), and - apparently - now also examining building a west coast gateway at LAX that, if fully realized as AA management public statements and press indicate, would essentially equal Delta's SEA gateway in scale and scope.  Again - it's an investment, and clearly AA management (the one that, along with AA's employees, is producing record profits) believes the investment is worthwhile.  But if AA management views this as a longer-term investment that won't fully pay off for several years, it's sort of meaningless to judge it based on the performance right now.  But alas, that's what we're constantly treated to around here because that's what allows the spinning in order to ignore the very real, tangible network gains AA is making up against its benchmark competitor, which is Delta (since United is and always ought to be far ahead of both).
 
But, as you surely have picked up by now, the rules and analyses that apply to Delta - which is to say, that apply to Delta's endless stream of nonstop successes - do not, of course, apply to any other carrier.  Delta can succeed where others cannot, and Delta can make work things that other carriers can only dream of.  That's literally the frame of reference through which all of this biased, sanctimonious B.S. is filtered.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, Steve, it isn't fair or accurate.

DL has entered a number of competitive markets where AA was the dominant carrier including to LHR and has reached revenue parity with AA.

the list of markets to Latin America that has occurred in have been smaller but the gap between DL's performance in those markets is nowhere near as great as what AA has between LAX and Asia compared to DL and UA.

why?

because DL knew its limitations, invested in what it took to get there, and invested in carriers to make it possible for DL to compete... be it NW to compete in Asia (merger), or VS, Gol, or AeroMexico to compete in London or Latin America markets, all of which are dominated by AA.

in complete contrast, AA has sustained and added service on its own, used partners that do not have strength in those countries where AA needs to expand, and then acts surprised when the results turn out as poorly as they have.

so, no, Steve and commavia. AA is getting exactly what it has sowed - which is internal growth against stronger carriers and partnerships.

and as much as you two want to believe it is about DL, it is not. It is about recognizing that in order to succeed, carriers have to invest and DL and UA have done that in Europe and Asia, AA has done it to Latin America and in the domestic marketplace and to London, but not to continental Europe or Asia - and AA's weakness to those regions is obvious and no surprise. DL and UA both serve Latin America only from their hubs and so far not from MIA, the most competitive Latin America market.

Jack Welch said it best... know what you do best and don't try to do more than you can succeed at it.

you and AA would do well to learn that lesson regarding AA's network to Asia. go for DFW but don't be surprised if you never are profitable or competitive with DL or UA from gateways that they also serve.

 

[Kev3188]

Translation: "know your place."

 

[Kev3188]

Nailed it. Congrats, and you're a welcome addition to the forums.Here's a more lasting option -- just dispense with his nonsense altogether:

One add, if I may: if this is something you want to do, make sure you also check all of the applicable boxes shown in step 3. You will need to do that for each user you choose to place on ignore.

 

[WorldTraveler]

just be aware that I DO NOT ignore anyone.....

so if you can't stand that your posts are replied to but you don't get the opportunity to see what is said about you, this is not a good option for you.

in fact, ignoring someone is only a viable option for people who don't have the emotional or mental capabilities to address the topic which someone else is raising.

It shows the weakness of the person that can't engage in the conversation, not the one that has to walk away.

isn't that right, Kevin?

and specific to this discussion, it is no surprise that the ones that want to ignore me are the ones who refuse to acknowledge that AA's performance in EVERY LAX, ORD, or JFK market to Asia has been below industry average.

no one has yet to be able to successfully challenge that fact - but a whole lot of people think that something will be different this time around - after over a half dozen markets.

Insanity IS doing the same thing over and over and over again and believing that results will be different.

not unlike those who say they are ignoring me but can't walk away.

 

[Kev3188]

Choosing not to engage with someone isn't weak at all. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite.

 

[eolesen]

Translation: "know your place."

 

[cltrat]

if AA does have success in Asia can we count on another forum to forum meltdown?

 

[WorldTraveler]

Choosing not to engage with someone isn't weak at all. In fact, I'd say it's just the opposite.

 yes, Kevin, it is complete weakness to ignore someone.

Even in the cold war, the US and Russia had contact thru other parties.

There is nothing mature about ignoring someone because they bring information and perspectives that you don't want to hear.

that is the mindset you and a host of others have demonstrated but you can't prove one iota that you have won anything. You are just backed into a corner like a whimpering child on a stormy night when the power goes out.
 

if AA does have success in Asia can we count on another forum to forum meltdown?

why would their be a meltdown?

If AA succeeds, there will be every reason to celebrate. problem is there isn't a clue on the horizon that AA will become successful relative to its peers.

Its best hope is for oil prices to stay low long enough that they can say their Pacific operation is profitable - but that just makes it that much cheaper for any other carrier to add capacity and doesn't do a thing to solve their revenue problem relative to their peers.

but by all means, be sure and let us know when there is good news and we will all celebrate.

meanwhile, related to LAX, AeroMexico is putting its 787 on its LAX-MEX route. Just as AA decides to enter the market. Did someone mention that DL owns equity in AM and sits on their board?

 

[Kev3188]

Multiple DL employees?  You mean more fanboys and liars like you?
 
Here are the facts on the ground:
 
The only terminal with some room for expansion is T2.  So far, Delta hasn't expanded there and that could be done almost immediately.  So, what is taking so long?
 
Delta has no leverage to make a play for any other gates.  It has nothing LAWA wants.  It ceded all of its master leases to LAWA and with those any rights to the number of additional gates T5 once had.  (So much for the Delta fanboy visions of a T9 for Delta and an expanded T5 that defies the laws of physics.)
 
TBIT is oversubscribed.  The MSC will be common use and it won't be ready for 4+ years.  Even when it is ready, like T2, it won't be very convenient.  Plus, if an airline does make a deal for preferential gates there it is going to need some leverage.  I repeat Delta has none.  To be sure, it can become a tenant airline.  But how strategic would that be?  (Air Zimbabwe does not fly to LAX and it has as much rights to be a tenant airline at the MSC as Delta.)
 
LAWA is in negotiations with a certain airline to trade a facility lease for more gates and other considerations, but it is not Delta.

I must've missed this earlier. Thanks for the "on the ground" perspective.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the only on-the ground perspective is from those who think that real estate matters in determining market strength.

somehow, they can't answer what real estate AA was lacking at JFK that made not one but two Japan flights work - and it is NOT an excuse to say that JL flies it with a JV... the total capacity by AA/JL is DOWN dramatically.

and how many more gates does AA need at ORD to make ORD-Asia produce comparable financial results?

and since AA has operated LAX to Asia for years, how many more gates will it take for AA to succeed - and why didn't those gates do it before?

I can assure you the on the ground perspective won't include those facts.