AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[nycbusdriver]

With the issuance on April 8 of a single operating certificate for the merged AA, the government will no longer see the US side as existing separately.  Officially, USAirways ceases to exist on that date.  Personally, I haven't flown an airplane with "USAirways" as the  livery in about 6 months.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I never said that DL didn't grown its presence as a result of the merger.

AA WAS a larger airline than DL for most of LAX' history. DL's own INTERNAL growth since the merger is why DL is a larger airline than AA on a standalone basis.

DL's growth ECLIPSED what AA had even with its own internal growth.

and since the merger, I have included AA and US flights on a combined basis from LAX. The separate certificates just happen to make it possible to note that AA standalone is smaller than DL or UA.

further, all of the routes you note amount to fewer seats than DL has in LAX to SEA and PDX as of this summer. and your list is a lot shorter than what you think because US flew several of those routes itself. Do you honestly think that US didn't fly LAX to PHX?

and as much as you want to believe otherwise, the difference in size at LAX in local revenues - which is what really matters for the beancounters in downtown Chicago, ATL, and Ft. Worth - is far smaller at LAX than it is at ORD or in NYC.

And DL operated several routes to Asia before the merger including NRT but at the time of the merger, the only route that was operated by either DL or NW was NRT by NW. HND was added post merger by DL.

and your argument about DL needing to be competitive in LAX is PRECISELY the point.
in the six and 1/2 years since DL and NW merged and while AA was protecting shareholder interests, DL has dramatically built its west coast presence and they aren't about ready to pull it down or let AA grow into what DL has built without a challenge just because AA NEEDS a west coast gateway to Asia now.

what is sad, it isn't hilarious at all, is that some people don't understand the basic business fundamentals of the airline industry and think it is ok for AA to dump twice as much capacity when DL decided to start JFK-EZE but for DL to add more cities from LAX while AA is trying to expand is a cardinal sin.

 

[commavia]

As already said - by all means keep spouting the meaningless "drivel" about Delta and AA "standalone," while ignoring the fact that AA and USAirways are under common ownership, jointly pricing and managing the combined network and actively cross-scheduling aircraft throughout the U.S., including LAX - and, lest anyone forget, will soon be legally combined on a single operating certificate.  All of this laughable B.S. just further undermines credibility, and provides even greater comic relief.
 
And finally, Delta doesn't get to "let" AA grow into anything - AA will grow however it wants to, and Delta will just have to deal with it.  It's called competition.  And Delta now has far more of it, from far stronger rivals, than it did five years ago.  Sad news for some, I know.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I get the common ownership.

You don't seem to want to admit that even as a merged unit, AA is not #1 in int'l traffic or revenue from NYC, ORD, or LAX and that DL has been the fastest growing int'l airline at LAX.

if you find the whole subject funny while refusing to acknowledge the real strategic issue that AA faces, then perhaps the subject is a little too much for you to handle.

I didn't say that DL doesn't "let AA grow" without qualification.

I have repeatedly said even before the merger that the competitive nature of the industry is that airlines protect what they have built.

AA can grow whatever it wants but that doesn't stop DL or UA from protecting their west coast to Asia position which is exactly what has happened.

and it is precisely because competition and focus on the west coast is stronger than it was five years ago that the industry's focus is on the west coast and primarily LAX since AA isn't going to do anything to change what DL is doing at SEA.

The east coast is pretty well sewed up. DL is the largest airline in NYC by local passenger boardings, a statistic that you like to use for LAX>

I'm all for AA growing... but you and others continue to hope that a bunch of gates are going to change the fact that AA significantly underperforms DL and UA to Asia and the biggest underperformance is to NRT, a route that is operated in the JL JBA which has done little to help AA in its position in Japan.

celebrate what AA has accomplished from DFW to Asia.

just don't expect to see anywhere close to similar results from LAX, just as has been the case for ORD to Asia or worse yet JFK to Asia.

 

[robbedagain]

someone just got schooled big time by commavia   and that someone sure cant handle the truth..

 

[commavia]

Once again - congratulations to Delta for being the largest U.S. carrier by international traffic in precisely one of the three largest U.S. metro areas (while, notably, not being the largest U.S. carrier overall in any of those places, unlike AA).
 
We'll see if they can hold on to the title of largest U.S. carrier by international traffic at LAX in the next few years.  AA's own executives have expressed interest in substantial international growth there, whereas Delta would be stupidly burning cash to match such AA growth.  So if Delta wants to "protect its west coast to Asia position" at SEA by actively undermining that gateway and dumping further money-losing capacity into LAX-Asia - good for them.  As I've said repeatedly - I cannot wait to hear Richard Anderson's explanation to shareholders and analysts as to why that's a smart deployment of shareholders' capital.

 

[WorldTraveler]

given that these statements come from the same executives that GAVE DL 125 pairs of slots at LGA, it is doubtful they will really outfox DL.

and in case you missed it, LAX is a very international city. good for AA to being the largest airline to Oklahoma.

Meanwhile, DL is using its resources to fly to the most locations where the world connects with LAX.

and let me school you on a thing or too. Given that DL's average fares FAR exceed AA's to Asia, it is AA that is actually DUMPING capacity, not DL.

The DOJ might be the one that is asking AA to explain its capacity dumping at LAX. When you fly routes at fares that are below cost and don't fix the problem, that is capacity dumping. You should be very careful about who you charge with that. it might come back to bite your little butt.

The final lesson for 1st period is that this is a public website.

 

[commavia]

Back here in reality, LAX is, indeed, a very international city - thus why AA will soon fly double-daily nonstop from LAX to Europe and Asia, plus offer nonstop access to South America, along with multiple daily flights to three cities in Canada, and to two cities in Mexico.  And all of that's before we include JV partners, let alone any potential future growth.  And that's also on top of AA's robust schedule not to just to Oklahoma, but also to major business markets across the U.S. like DFW, CHI, WAS, NYC, PHL, BOS, MIA, etc.  So contrary to the sarcastic and ridiculous assertions, AA's LAX network is about comprehensiveness, and competitiveness - and AA's LAX network is, indeed, more comprehensive than Delta's, particularly for the core premium/corporate/media traffic base on which AA focuses.  Thus, I'd imagine, precisely why it is that AA is larger at LAX than Delta, and has now secured access to multiple additional gates with which to further expand its already-leading presence in that market.
 
Seriously suggesting that DOJ will ask AA to "explain" its "capacity dumping" at LAX - and I'm the one getting "schooled."  Keep embarrassing yourself - it is truly sad how someone can be so obnoxious, arrogant and sanctimonious to others, particularly when such behavior is completely unjustified.

 

[WorldTraveler]

that's all wonderful.

now let's focus on what the market is willing to pay AA for its services compared to DL and UA.

Even on LAX-GRU, AA gets a fraction of what it gets on even shorter routes.

AA is the one that is throwing capacity into the market which doesn't come close to being filled at industry average fares.

they have done that with LAX to Asia for years so GRU is no different..

and if you want to explain to the DOJ who is dumping capacity, I'm sure the government's ever-roaming computers can be trained to focus on this page.

when a carrier significantly gets less revenue than what other carriers get for flying the same routes and those revenues are below cost, THAT is capacity dumping whether you understand the concept or not.

 

[Kellerguy]

WT Straight question. How many share of DL do you currently own? 

 

[WorldTraveler]

I own shares... how much I own of anything is not anyone's business other than the IRS who taxes me on it - or grants the appropriate exemptions based on law.

but your question simply is an attempt to distract from the real issue which I have been speaking about for years.

AA has a great heritage. I grew up in the central southwest of the US. I am no stranger to AA or its people.

AA spent 10 years in a restructuring that was at first based on the hope that other carriers would fail so AA would not have to cut as much.
then AA spent years protecting shareholder interests while watching AA's competitive position in one market after another erode.

Then because AA had not restructured, AA was not a candidate to participate in the round of mergers that linked DL and NW as well as UA and CO.

AA was left with US which had no joint ventures and the smallest int'l route system of any of the big 6 that survived 9/11 and the first years after.
US' route system and its strategy was built around using low fares and low employee costs to bulk up its network by pulling passengers out of other airlines' key markets - the same strategy that HP used.

The basis that AA and US used to justify the merger - but no one bothered to mention the enormous strategic challenge that AA faced in large part because of US' own strategies and AA's loss of market position that dragged on for nearly 10 years.

but specific to Asia, AA, IIRC bought a SEA-NRT route at one time but the rest of its Pacific network has been "home grown"

DL built its Latin America system internally with no acquisitions from any other US airlines.

the reason why I continue to hammer away at AA and Asia and esp. LAX is because AA can't seem to accept (or more appropriately its fan base on here) that DL and UA both spent billions of dollars acquiring airlines that served the top US to Asia markets.

DL flies ONE major Latin market that is competitive with AA and that is JFK-GRU. IN that market, DL gets average fares that are 92% of what AA gets in the same market according to the most recent DOT data.

In contrast, AA, DL, and UA all fly LAX-NRT where DL is the high fare leader. AA gets 62% of the average fare in that market that DL gets. AA has flown LAX-NRT under its own colors longer than DL has and has a JV partner on the opposite end.

DL also flew LAX to several cities in Asia and got clobbered before realizing that buying its way into the market was the best way to enter highly competitive markets.

DL added LAX-HND since the merger but has focused solely on LAX to Japan - until its decision to add PVG service. DL enters PVG with average fares that rival UA's, in large part because DL has built PVG from its core hubs and has FIRST succeeded in those markets. DL has the strongest alliance presence of the big 3 to China.

We could say the same thing about UA to Latin America where it got slaughtered from MIA and has since retreated to its hubs, including pmCO's which give it a pretty decent footprint to Latin America, as DL has.

DL tried to fly JFK-EZE, AA dumped capacity into the market to flush DL out, DL left, and AA is the only US carrier in the market.

AA has pulled JFK-Asia service on its own metal and underperforms UA on every market the two fly from ORD to Asia.

Neither DL or UA fly from MIA to Latin America but yet AA seems to think (or more appropriately its fans here) it should be able to fly from LAX to Asia without dealing with the reality that AA significantly underperforms DL and UA in every market the two fly from the US to Asia.

it is the complete disconnect that people here seem to have about what AA should be expected to gain in the LAX to Asia market compared to what DL and UA expect to gain in Latin America where AA is the largest carrier that is simply mind-numbing.

My stock ownership has nothing to do with the market realities which I speak about.

Your focus on trivial side issues instead of addressing why AA's expectations are out of line with the market is notable.

 

[commavia]

Keep repeating the same baseless "drivel."  Just further polishes the veneer of credibility off the underlying reality of fear.
 
AA under-performs to Asia up against two rivals with larger, more established networks there.  Big news flash - thanks for all the brilliant and insightful analysis.  As already said here and elsewhere - AA is already steadily closing the gap relative to Delta in terms of network access to Asia, and may well soon be closing the gap in terms of financial performance, too.  So let's see where things stand in five years from now. 
 
And in the meantime, AA's network is this year very likely to once again generate nearly as much, if not somewhat more, profit and cash than Delta's - and in the long-run,  that, the network-level performance, is what matters most.  If AA's management believes that accepting below-network returns in Asia is worth the "investment" in order to capture more lucrative business elsewhere that has a positive halo effect on AA's top and bottom lines, and that strategy is validated as evidenced by AA's very strong overall financial performance relative to peers, then so be it.

 

[700UW]

If one owns stock, they are not unbiased, that is why professional analyists have to release that they hold stock in a company they are writing about.

 

[Kev3188]

 

WT Straight question. How many share of DL do you currently own?

You didn't honestly expect a straight answer did you?

 

[WorldTraveler]

professional analysts do not state the size of their holdings. Only if above 5% does any stockholder have to file public statements about the size of their holdings.

and, commavia, again you dance around the fact that AA has improved its performance to Asia BECAUSE OF ITS DFW to ASIA growth, not because it has done anything to improve its performance relative to its peers from ORD or LAX.

as hard as it is for you to accept, DL and UA bought their ways into Asia and don't intend to do anything but aggressively compete with any upstart that suddenly decides it needs a west coast gateway to Asia

do you realize that 55% of AA's TPAC revenue comes on flights via DFW while average fares via DFW are 14% higher than ORD or LAX?

geography isn't all of it. AA simply has the mass and presence to more selectively carry higher quality revenue.

It doesn't have that from ORD or LAX.