diamondcutter
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 640
- Reaction score
- 618
And nobody cares but you!WorldTraveler said:
AA Down Under and Trans Pac?
- Thread starter Dont call me Shirley
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
well, no.
actually there are people who are exchanging information on the topic and doing it respectfully, even if some of them pretend to be ignoring one side of the conversation but remarkably keep popping up with their comments right after mine and missing a beat in what was said.
beyond the chest thumping, I don't think anything has been presented that shows that AA is anywhere close to overtaking DL as the largest international or TPAC carrier from LAX.
actually there are people who are exchanging information on the topic and doing it respectfully, even if some of them pretend to be ignoring one side of the conversation but remarkably keep popping up with their comments right after mine and missing a beat in what was said.
beyond the chest thumping, I don't think anything has been presented that shows that AA is anywhere close to overtaking DL as the largest international or TPAC carrier from LAX.
diamondcutter
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 640
- Reaction score
- 618
Again nobody cares what you post anymore, you have completely lost it!! Seek helpWorldTraveler said:
Lets get this straight: you can't use per region:
Actual Revenue
Passengers Carried
Available Seat Miles
# of Flights
# of Aircraft
To determine how the carriers stack up - you can only use very specific metrics that only DL can win at
Let's see the spin on this one
Actual Revenue
Passengers Carried
Available Seat Miles
# of Flights
# of Aircraft
To determine how the carriers stack up - you can only use very specific metrics that only DL can win at
Let's see the spin on this one
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
no, I didn't say that at all.
I have simply noted that in ALL businesses, revenue is the determinant of size.
in the airline industry, available seat miles is the measure of capacity and revenue passenger miles is the measure of traffic.
number of passengers boarded is a statistic better suited for subway systems because airline passengers pay different amounts of fare and fly different distances. Subway passengers generally pay the same or pretty similar fares (yes I know that some subways have zone fares) and go roughly the same distance.
number of flights, destinations, and seats are helpful to help provide clarity regarding network size and scope
number of aircraft means nothing. All the aircraft in the world mean nothing if they aren't producing revenue which is measured by the two statistics above. the fewest number of aircraft in the world if they can produce the same amount of revenue and traffic is an accomplishment.
again, what rubs you is that AA's network is heavily concentrated on a smaller number of markets than DL or UA - AA is not a five continent airline, most of its capacity to Europe is to/from the UK, and its Latin system still operates from fewer hubs than DL or UA operate their TATL or TPAC systems even though all 3 are roughly comparable in size.
I have simply noted that in ALL businesses, revenue is the determinant of size.
in the airline industry, available seat miles is the measure of capacity and revenue passenger miles is the measure of traffic.
number of passengers boarded is a statistic better suited for subway systems because airline passengers pay different amounts of fare and fly different distances. Subway passengers generally pay the same or pretty similar fares (yes I know that some subways have zone fares) and go roughly the same distance.
number of flights, destinations, and seats are helpful to help provide clarity regarding network size and scope
number of aircraft means nothing. All the aircraft in the world mean nothing if they aren't producing revenue which is measured by the two statistics above. the fewest number of aircraft in the world if they can produce the same amount of revenue and traffic is an accomplishment.
again, what rubs you is that AA's network is heavily concentrated on a smaller number of markets than DL or UA - AA is not a five continent airline, most of its capacity to Europe is to/from the UK, and its Latin system still operates from fewer hubs than DL or UA operate their TATL or TPAC systems even though all 3 are roughly comparable in size.
If you believe that revenue is a determinant then you should stand behind DOT actual revenue numbers which clear shows DL is not # 1 in any market - you can't say revenue is but only if it's revenue passenger miles
Glad you finally understand the truth and DL is not # 1
Now DL is #1 in market cap however today that was narrowed to .6 B lead and as you stated many times there is risk priced into AA due to merger tasks left once that is priced out it will be a tough one for you
Glad you finally understand the truth and DL is not # 1
Now DL is #1 in market cap however today that was narrowed to .6 B lead and as you stated many times there is risk priced into AA due to merger tasks left once that is priced out it will be a tough one for you
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
and yes Australia or the S. Pacific would give AA five continents and AA would make LAX a 5 continent hub.
Given that E likes to use ASMs, AA's addition of AKL wouldn't equate to the ASMs that DL or UA generate to Australia since SYD is, like, further.
and AA should have both a higher market cap and higher profitability.
and if it does in the first quarter and even the second quarter, it will be because of hedge losses at DL.
Based on AA, DL, and UA's guidance for RASM and actual traffic reports, DL will grow revenue for the 1st quarter while AA will likely shrink it.
you can get by with that as long as fuel prices stay low but at some point a shrinking company is not exactly something to write home about.
and AA stock has jumped because it is in the S&P 500. let's see how the fundamentals of the big 3 shake out in the next couple quarters but you really should be prepared for a dramatic drop in Latin revenues.
I have heard from a number of people who are buying tickets from S. America to the US at fares that rival winter sale fares to Europe.... and lower than what the S. America market has seen in years.
this is the time when being the largest carrier to Latin America might be a huge drag.
Given that E likes to use ASMs, AA's addition of AKL wouldn't equate to the ASMs that DL or UA generate to Australia since SYD is, like, further.
and AA should have both a higher market cap and higher profitability.
and if it does in the first quarter and even the second quarter, it will be because of hedge losses at DL.
Based on AA, DL, and UA's guidance for RASM and actual traffic reports, DL will grow revenue for the 1st quarter while AA will likely shrink it.
you can get by with that as long as fuel prices stay low but at some point a shrinking company is not exactly something to write home about.
and AA stock has jumped because it is in the S&P 500. let's see how the fundamentals of the big 3 shake out in the next couple quarters but you really should be prepared for a dramatic drop in Latin revenues.
I have heard from a number of people who are buying tickets from S. America to the US at fares that rival winter sale fares to Europe.... and lower than what the S. America market has seen in years.
this is the time when being the largest carrier to Latin America might be a huge drag.
jcw said:
Saw that, too. Looks like at yesterday's close, fifteen months out from the merger, AA's market cap is now essentially equal to Delta's - both at around $37-38B. (By comparison, United's market cap still trails both by about $10B.) Investors believe the value of AA's equity - based on forward-looking growth and earnings expectations, net of risks (integration, etc.), and net of other claims on that growth and earnings (debt) - is effectively equal to Delta's. So clearly investors believe AA management knows what they're doing - presumably including not just the investment in new aircraft, upgraded terminals, etc., but also AA's ongoing investment in developing its Asia franchise.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
again, it is great to see AA's stock moving up... but let's keep in mind that AA is getting a big earnings push because of the combination of low fuel prices and no hedges which allow fuel prices to go directly to the bottom line.
It is still likely that for the first quarter and possibly beyond, AA will have revenue shrink.
As much as you want to believe otherwise, it does happen as a result of the merger process as hubs are rationalized.
the reason why UA equity fell is because it screwed up a lot with its merger. AA might not come anywhere close to doing the same - and I doubt if they will - but there are a lot of external factors that could affect AA.
AA might be close to SOC and likely avoid major labor problems because of the pilot and FA contracts but res system integration is likely to yield even bigger changes including potentially starting to move pieces around on the network, smoething that doesn't make sense as long as AA and US are still being operated on their own res and revenue mgmt. systems.
we have only heard brief executive assessments of the impact of WN's growth at DAL but the DOT data will be available publicly in a month or so.
further, the Latin situation continues to deteriorate with analysts expecting a 2 to as long as 10 year recession in Brazil, AA's largest revenue market in Latin America and the one where AA has been more dependent on local travel to the US than either DL or UA. Further, low cost carriers are growing. Latin America will be a bleak spot for AA for the foreseeable future.
and again, the issue is not that AA cannot make the merger work, increase its value to investors, or grow away from Latin America.
the issue here is that AA is growing its TPAC network in markets that other carriers are not interested in yielding to AA.
AKL might be a nice place to go where no US carrier is flying but since UA flew it at one time, it is very possible that an AA addition would result in UA deciding that with a 787 and low fuel prices, the market works for them as well.
and AA's bigger problem developing its TPAC network is that everything AA can add to Asia outside of DFW or PHL is going to be in a market where DL or UA and a whole bunch of other carriers have real interest.
if AA can add service to markets and not see other carriers add capacity on top of AA and at the same time fix the revenue shortfalls AA has in its existing routes to Asia, then AA can absolutely succeed.
but too many people here seem to think that AA will overcome both of those obstacles just because AA needs to grow a west coast to Asia network.
It is still likely that for the first quarter and possibly beyond, AA will have revenue shrink.
As much as you want to believe otherwise, it does happen as a result of the merger process as hubs are rationalized.
the reason why UA equity fell is because it screwed up a lot with its merger. AA might not come anywhere close to doing the same - and I doubt if they will - but there are a lot of external factors that could affect AA.
AA might be close to SOC and likely avoid major labor problems because of the pilot and FA contracts but res system integration is likely to yield even bigger changes including potentially starting to move pieces around on the network, smoething that doesn't make sense as long as AA and US are still being operated on their own res and revenue mgmt. systems.
we have only heard brief executive assessments of the impact of WN's growth at DAL but the DOT data will be available publicly in a month or so.
further, the Latin situation continues to deteriorate with analysts expecting a 2 to as long as 10 year recession in Brazil, AA's largest revenue market in Latin America and the one where AA has been more dependent on local travel to the US than either DL or UA. Further, low cost carriers are growing. Latin America will be a bleak spot for AA for the foreseeable future.
and again, the issue is not that AA cannot make the merger work, increase its value to investors, or grow away from Latin America.
the issue here is that AA is growing its TPAC network in markets that other carriers are not interested in yielding to AA.
AKL might be a nice place to go where no US carrier is flying but since UA flew it at one time, it is very possible that an AA addition would result in UA deciding that with a 787 and low fuel prices, the market works for them as well.
and AA's bigger problem developing its TPAC network is that everything AA can add to Asia outside of DFW or PHL is going to be in a market where DL or UA and a whole bunch of other carriers have real interest.
if AA can add service to markets and not see other carriers add capacity on top of AA and at the same time fix the revenue shortfalls AA has in its existing routes to Asia, then AA can absolutely succeed.
but too many people here seem to think that AA will overcome both of those obstacles just because AA needs to grow a west coast to Asia network.
Kev3188
Veteran
Commavia--
As noted before, I think most people recognize that today's AA is a much more viable competitor than they were even just a few short years ago.
As noted before, I think most people recognize that today's AA is a much more viable competitor than they were even just a few short years ago.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
Kev,
if AA was a more viable competitor on the Pacific, then the evidence would show up on existing AA's ORD and LAX to Asia flights.
AA's improvement to Asia is due almost entirely to replacing JFK-HND with DFW to Asia flights which are doing better because of AA's hub strength at DFW and the lack of any US carrier competitors.
if AA was a more viable competitor on the Pacific, then the evidence would show up on existing AA's ORD and LAX to Asia flights.
AA's improvement to Asia is due almost entirely to replacing JFK-HND with DFW to Asia flights which are doing better because of AA's hub strength at DFW and the lack of any US carrier competitors.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
