AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[jcw]

All you have to do is look at DOT reports - DL is #3 in international revenue - unless you are saying DL is not reporting accurately to the DOT
 
You would also see DL losses in LATAM are double the losses of AA's in Asia
 
Tough one

 

[MAH4546]

And the 3rd largest international airline at LAX has decided not to have an FiS in their terminal in favor of the TBIt while DL UA and T2 IIRC have their own FISs plus have access to TBIt
No wonder they are larger international airlines

Oh wow, you still don't understand AA is the only domestic airline with TBIT gates.

That's really pathetic.

It's been explained to you how DL and UA are allowed to use TBIT gates last-in-priority, but are not allowed to rely on them being available. So sad you can't accept the truth.

 

[jcw]

When looking at 10k or 4th quarter published reports from the airlines - DL still comes in 3rd in international revenues - tough one - so the DOT and 4th QTR/Annual earnings statements prove DL is in 3rd place for international revenues
 
Tough one for someone
 
For example - if you just look at the 4th quarter - UA generated 23% more international revenue than DL - tough one!

 

[WorldTraveler]

Oh wow, you still don't understand AA is the only domestic airline with TBIT gates.

That's really pathetic.

It's been explained to you how DL and UA are allowed to use TBIT gates last-in-priority, but are not allowed to rely on them being available. So sad you can't accept the truth.

No, there is nothing pathetic about airlines being able to house their own operation in their own terminals.
Good for AA for having access to TBIT gates. You are the only one that seems to think it is a badge of honor and a huge advantage.
The difference in the gates that AA has vs. DL and UA comes from its domestic size, not its
Let me remind you again that DL and UA for 2014 were considerably larger than AA in int’l passengers at LAX which explains a lot about why they have higher average fares. Instead of using their gates for 50 passenger jets, DL is quickly moving its operation to mainline. And all RJs that are left are large RJs. UA is removing connecting capacity but its local market share has remained basically unchanged. It is the same thing that DL has done at CVG on a different scale.
And, once again, DL is the largest int’l carrier at LAX and is adding capacity faster than AA or UA.
You continue to hold onto the notion that more gates is going to translate into the ability to operate more int’l flights - and that has yet to be proven. Given that AA does not come close to obtaining industry average fares on the flights it does operate across the Pacific or to GRU, there is little reason to believe that AA will continue to keep building LAX int’l unless it intends to subsidize it.
Given that DL gets almost as much revenue on its LAX-NRT flight by itself as AA gets on both of its LAX flights to Asia, the economics for DL adding flights is far better than it is for AA.

All you have to do is look at DOT reports - DL is #3 in international revenue - unless you are saying DL is not reporting accurately to the DOT

You would also see DL losses in LATAM are double the losses of AA's in Asia

Tough one

I am familiar with the int’l revenues for the big 3 and also know that your statement about DL’s losses to Latin America is itself at best a partial representation of the truth that in no way compares to AA’s losses across the Pacific.
First, revenues to Latin America peak in the 1st quarter – for both DL and AA. Revenues across the Pacific peak in the 3rd quarter. You took a quarter where revenue was peak for AA to Asia and compared to a quarter where revenue was weak for DL to Latin America.
Second, you fail to note that DL had a very strong profit in Latin America at the end of 2013 which was large enough to offset DL’s losses in Latin America this year so far that has been posted and go back to 2011. In contrast, AA has posted losses across the Pacific for years with the last quarterly profit in 2010 and AA’s total losses far larger than its profits.
Third, you fail to note that AA’s own profitability to Latin America has dropped considerably in 2014 as well with AA posting a small loss in Q2 and its Q3 loss well below its 2013Q3 profit. When 4th quarter financials for 2014 and for the 1st quarter of 2015 and beyond, you might find that AA’s losses to Latin America far exceed DL’s based on sheer size. AA is cutting routes to S. America; DL is not.
Finally no US legacy carrier has been profitable across their entire system (in every region on a consistent basis) including UA to Asia.
My issue with AA’s losses to Asia is NOT that they have periodic losses or that they are developing their network in a region where they are small or weak.
My criticism of AA is that they have had the mindset for years that they have to fly from the top US markets to Asia against competitors who are undoubtedly very profitable on their routes to those regions and where DL and UA gained their position in those markets through mergers while AA in contrast is trying to fly to Asia from NYC and LAX on markets that it has launched on its own with the weakest partners in the region.
In contrast, DL did not buy its way into Latin America and has built its presence there on its own. DL has so far only tried to fly to Latin America from NYC and LAX to markets where DL has a partner on the other end (MEX and GRU) or in markets where AA has stopped flying or reduced its presence considerably (mostly Caribbean). DL has not started MIA to Latin America and UA pulled back from there.
It’s also worth remembering that DL did start JFK-EZE and AA immediately doubled capacity, fares fell for both carriers, and DL withdrew its service within a few months. No one here talked about why DL needed to stick it out or that it was a developmental route that would eventually make money.
And yet people can’t accept that DL and UA are willing to do the same thing to protect their west coast to Asia markets – which AA did not buy its way into or that it doesn’t make sense for AA to try to compete in markets where it is highly doubtful they will ever generate results comparable to DL or UA.

And finally on the subject of overall revenues, you would do well to remember that AA’s int’l revenue is heavily driven by Latin America – almost half.
AA has also enjoyed huge fare premiums to Latin America which have been the bread and butter of its profitability including to provide subsidies for its Pacific operation.
AA’s Pacific operation is just over 10% of its int’l revenues, the smallest int’l region for the big 3 both on a percentage basis and actual total revenue basis.
It has been easy for AA to use the profitability of its largest region to subsidize its weakest.
But AA’s Latin operation has suffered the largest RASM decline of any US carriers’ region and the outlook for Latin America is not good. Not only is AA fighting weak local currencies but competition is heating up dramatically from both Latin and US airlines. AA is in the very difficult position of having to defend market share while other carriers are encroaching and average fares are already in decline.
By the time 2015 revenues are finalized and maybe before, AA might have slipped to the 3rd largest US carrier in terms of total int’l revenue.


and UA has been a strong int'l airline for years but since CO was right at 50% int'l at its peak, it was THE MOST int'l US airline since Pan Am.

 

[jcw]

Let's go through where you are wrong again I looked at both full year (10k) and YTD number on DOT site:
 
1.  DL losses in LATAM are double AA's losses in Asia - it's a fact - you can't rationalize that away
2.  Can't use 2013's profits to pay for 2014 doesn't work that way - if you want to do that - you need to do it for everyone not to spin the DL is the winner all the time story line - no financial analysis looks at profits in a year to pay for losses in a future year
3.  Profitability is dropping at DL in Asia - where are you discussing that - instead you point to profit drops in AA's network however no mention of DL's reduced profitability in Asia - double standard at play again
4.  Interesting that it's OK for DL to build a network in LATAM (you discuss they didn't buy anything) with your rationalizing the losses in LATAM away - however with AA building a network in Asia you pound on AA - double standard at play again
5.  Let's see AA's largest area is less than 50% however DL's is greater than 50% - therefore AA has a better balanced portfolio
6.  DL does not have the largest revenue to Europe - that goes to UA - so once again you are mistaken
7.  Currency losses will continue to mount for DL in Europe with such a high concentration
 
Interesting how you can type so many words and can be wrong in just about every sentence
 
Tough one isn't it

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, full stop, no.

DL's losses on a sustained basis to Latin America in no way come close to what AA has had in Asia.

you can pick out any snap shot to make your point.

I can guarantee you that AA lost tons of money over the past month - mostly the days that DFW was the only hub that was closed due to weather.

again, you miss the point that I have never said that AA can't build its network to Asia.

The issue is that AA is trying to be a first tier player to Asia from the top markets even though it has not bought its way into those markets and loses huge amounts of money trying to compete with carriers that do.

DL doesn't compete from MIA to Latin America - for now.

no, DL's European network is not significantly larger than AA's... and DL is not posting enormous RASM losses to Europe either.

and you simply do not understand Europe. It is highly seasonal by point of sale... heavily USD in the summer and highly EURO focused in the winter. DL has weathered the worst of the currency balance already.

Further, DL's Europe operation is more USD focused than it is Euro.

AA's South America operation is 2/3 foreign point of sale. the comparison is not even close.

what's tough is that you don't understand so many key business issues but try to act like you do.

AA is posting the performance it is because of low fuel prices and hedge benefits. Come the end of the 2nd quarter when fuel costs will be the same for all carriers, the difference between AA's performance and the rest of the industry will be notable.

and even though AA is a larger airline, DL continues to have the largest market cap among US airlines and in the western hemisphere. Investors are not fooled.

 

[jcw]

unhinged

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm sure that is how you feel finding out that the drop in the Euro is not going to hurt DL or UA (both of whom have Euro zone partners) as much as the strong dollar will hurt AA in Latin America.

and AA is still the 3rd largest int'l carrier from LAX. Their advantage is that they carry a lot of domestic connections over LAX that other carriers connect elsewhere.

The AA/US merger produced a huge domestic airline that left AA number 3 across the Atlantic and Pacific and with a Latin system that is under significant competitive attack against a backdrop of weak currencies.

 

[jcw]

Wait your now saying it's ok to have partners to save DL in Europe - it's amazing your double standard and double talk - it's great for DL to be the 3rd largest international carrier

It's so hard being number 3 carrier in almost every measure


Tough one for you

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, I don't have any problems with being #3, 5, or 7.
 
you are the one that has a sick fascination with size.
 
while you are fixated with size, DL is interested in being the most profitable.
 
that is why investors have given DL the highest market cap in the industry.
 
and even if size is a goal to be sought over, AA is a shrinking airline.  look at the traffic reports.  even the Dallas Morning News picked up that AA is the only airline in Feb that shrunk.  and they did it while posting well below average RASM growth.
 
Factor in the half a dozen days since the first of the year that AA's largest hub has been OTS for half a day or more and the impact on AA's size will be very significant.  You should ask Ma Nature why DFW is getting so much ice this year. 
 
the reality of the merger and the competitive environment that it set off will sink in with you.
 
likely after everyone else gets it but it will sink in. 

 

[jcw]

Great - your conceding DL is 3

Have a great night

Funny that your now switching to weather issues

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh, the weather has a lot to do with cutting the number of flights that AA operated and thus its size in terms of passengers and revenue.
 
most people can figure it out.
 
and it seems that some people tried to start this whole discussion by telling us how strong AA was in LAX - and all we have discovered by the very documents that person provided is that DL is the largest int'l carrier at LAX and schedules data shows that DL is growing its int'l capacity faster than any US carrier. 
 
tough for some people to accept that they didn't read the document they used to make their own argument and actually helped the other side in the process.
 
maybe it was a good night for you but it was a bad several days in your quest to make your point about AA's strength in LAX and across the Pacific. 

 

[jcw]

Most people have figured out Skyteam is #3 at LAX by looking at the facts produced by various agencies too bad you can't deal with it and switch to a weather issue - classic tactic by you

It's great to see DL holding onto the #3 position - congrats to DL

 

[WorldTraveler]

excuse me but you are the one that posted data trying to argue AA's position in LAX.

not me.

when I actually read the data to you, it became apparent that DL is the largest int'l carrier at LAX.

then one of you fellow AA fankids decided to spread it to include alliances because alliance size is still heavily based on domestic size.

as hard as it is for you to accept, the AA/US merger still left AA as the 3rd largest int'l carrier on a system basis and more significantly, AA is #3 in LAX and NYC and #2 in ORD. AA's int'l strength comes from DFW - where all 3 of the ME3 have ramped up service and even AA execs acknowledge the threat - and MIA where LCCs from the US and Latin America are growing.

and since the statistics you cite are based on the combination of AA/US before they started cutting their int'l system for the winter and before cuts in Latin America came, you can hold onto the memory of what AA was because it is likely all just a memory and not current reality.

so, as hard as it is for you to accept, AA's size is driven by lots of domestic presence which is being SHRUNK and by AA's dominance in DFW and MIA and not by market strength in the most competitive markets.

 

[Kev3188]

And as hard as it if for /you/ to accept, people seem to be quite successful in getting you to spend all day chasing them around.

Tough one indeed...