AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[jcw]

Please your grasping - you can't cherry pick one thing - to spin a story you do it all the time - DL is a very good airline however it's not perfect as you portray and is not the best at everything - AA is kicking it and has become a very formible competitor to your precious DL - if that were not the case you would not be on here trashing AA every chance you get

Reality is a tough one for you

When you go to sleep at night is this your prayer:

Delta is great, Delta is good;
Let us thank Delta for our flight.
By Deltas wings we are flown,
Give us Delta our daily spin.

 

[robbedagain]

so what YOU ARE TRULY SAYING is that due to the lack of JFK-HND flight and converted it to DFW to ASIA flight is that AA is just not a viable competitor 
 
MAN  you SERIOUSLY need Professional Help and you need it now   
 
Your statement that "If AA was a more viable competitor on the Pacific" proves all of us you are nothing more than a DL cheerleader who clearly thinks DL can do no wrong and yet no other air carrier can do no right   
 
GO GET HELP BEC YOU TRULY NEED IT

 

[WorldTraveler]

gosh, robbed, I was about ready to commend you on other threads for managing to stick to the topic and away from personal attacks... but just like a dog returning to its 8923 you return to your deeply ingrained ways.

AA posted very poor performance on its JFK-HND flight which it held onto to try to maintain some presence in the NYC to Japan market with its own metal obtained average fares that were 40% of what DL got for JFK-NRT and half of the market average which included AA.

AA got far better average fares flying JFK to GRU - 3 hours shorter - than it did flying to Japan.

when you remove a route that did as bad as JFK HND and replace it with anything that does better, the RASM is going to look a lot better.

AA simply is not a viable competitor to Asia outside of DFW. AA's revenue generation from ORD and LAX are fall below DL and UA's and really haven't moved relative to those two regardless of the merger.

if the merger was improving AA's competitiveness, it should begin to show up in how well AA does on the rotues itcurrently operates.

that is not happening.

do you think you can discuss that on the basis of the facts and not your childish "you need help" because you don't like that reality?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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.

This is a very shallow 'analysis' of why AA is profitable. 
I thought somebody with so much mental horsepower could do better.
But then he would have to remove a certain bias, which he has demonstrated to be incapable of.
 

It is still likely that for the first quarter and possibly beyond, AA will have revenue shrink.

 
Didn't DL have a crappy Jan and Feb too?
 

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.

 
External factors such as?
Again, what a shallow statement. 
An intelligent discussion could result if you would actually list these external factors, real ones, not fabricated ones.
 
 

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

 
You keep on harping on the recession in LatAm, specifically Brazil, concluding doom doom doom for AA.
I find it interesting that Japan has been in economic stagnation for as long as 10 years, yet mighty DL managed to survive.
You do realize that Japan is DLs largest revenue market in Asia?
 
At the same time while you're harping on Brazil, you conveniently forget, nay, intentionally don't mention that France, Italy and most countries in the Europe/Eurozone have had terrible economies for at least the last 5 years, if not since 2008 - and yet mighty DL has managed to survive.  (Well at least you've decreased your drivel about Venezuela - for now).
 

Further, low cost carriers are growing. Latin America will be a bleak spot for AA for the foreseeable future.

 
Speaking of low fare carriers, if Ryanair decides to offer long haul flights, you do realize that NY will definitely be on their list of USA destinations, and more importantly, weak European carriers such as AFKL and AZ will be the ones after whose markets FR goes first.
 

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.

 
I think you are contradicting yourself here.
Having the ability to cut unprofitable JFK-Tokyo flight and replace as well as increase their presence in Asia via DFW is a strategic business decision.
You know if DL did something similar, you would be heaping untold amounts of praises on the DL management team.
 
And speaking of viability over the Pacific, how is DL's seasonal SEA-HND flight doing?  The blind optimist like you would say 'great' as they are operating half full B767s on the route.  The reality is that if DL was such a powerhouse over the Pacific, the evidence would show up on their ability to operate DTW-HND and/or SEA-HND with bigger aircraft and higher frequency.  But I digress.
 
 

Please your grasping - you can't cherry pick one thing - to spin a story you do it all the time - DL is a very good airline however it's not perfect as you portray and is not the best at everything - AA is kicking it and has become a very formible competitor to your precious DL - if that were not the case you would not be on here trashing AA every chance you get

But cherry picking, and then deflecting & spinning once the flaw is pointed out is all that he is capable of.
To him, DL is God's carrier of choice. 
The best he could do for any other carrier is to offer a backhanded compliment.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

the concept of 5 continent hubs is that DL and UA each have hubs that serve 5 continents.
 

Wasn't PanAm also an airline that served 5 continents?

 

[robbedagain]

PAN AM and TWA were two of the carriers

 

[WorldTraveler]

not sure that TWA served Australia and I'm not even sure what they did in S. America.

Pan Am was a 6 continent carrier as DL and UA are with service from one hub or more to 5 continents, IIRC.


frugal,
again, the economic situation in Latin America IS NOT comparable to what is going on in Europe.

AA is the dominant international or at least foreign airline in most Latin countries . that is not the case in Europe for US carriers.

further, AA in Latin America is much more dependent on Latin originating traffic which is much more dependent on a strong local currency compared to US carriers to/from Europe. Europe is a strong destination for Americans and the strong dollar will make Europe do well for US carriers this summer. The problem for US carriers will be the winter because US to Europe traffic is heavily dependent on European originating passengers.

further, DL has a stronger US point of sale to Europe than AA.

and Ryanair isn't even talking about entering the TATL market for 4 to 5 years. A whole lot can and will happen in the industry by that point. and low cost carriers have consistently shown they do not do a very good job of competing with traditional legacy carriers on longer flights because they lose a big chunk of their competitiveness.

and DL's new 333s will be the lowest CASM aircraft on the Atlantic. Unless Ryanair uses them and packs in another 50 passengers it is doubtful they will gain a sustainable advantage esp. since higher fare passengers will buy up for premium service on legacy carriers.

further, ethnic Latin America (not the Caribbean) NEVER has a period when US originating passengers are the majority of the passengers. it is precisely because of AA's size and reliance on Latin originating ethnic passengers that makes a strong dollar have a bigger impact on AA than other carriers.

and there is no selective data or bias in noting that when a very poor performing route is replace with anything that does better, there will be an improvement in RASM. that is exactly what happened with JFK-HND which AA replaced with DFW to Asia flying on a capacity basis.


as for SEA-HND, the slot times are poor and there is little to no connectivity. DL is likely making money on LAX-HND but SEA is a smaller gateway even if it is a shorter route.

more significantly DL restarts the flight on a nonstop basis and lower jet fuel costs will likely change the economics of that flight just as it will AA's total profitability to Asia. It still doesn't mean that the revenue is necessarily there for DL to operate on a year round basis profitably on SEA-HND like they do to NRT or PVG or other routes but it might give DL some breathing room. And it clearly appears that the DOT has dropped the case regarding allowing any other carrier to move the route as long as DL operates it.

and finally, DL's LAX-HND route is the only US carrier MAINLAND route that has operated for long enough to develop to average fares comparable to the comparable NRT route from the same city. UA may reach that point from SFO.

 

[eolesen]

I got a PM over the weekend asking how the UA and DL hubs in GUM and NRT stacked up in comparison to the mainland hubs.

Here's the ranking for the Big Three, departing from anywhere to Asia, using July 2015 data, and ignoring < 3 flights per day:
 

UA	SFO	JUL	575752677	310
UA	EWR	JUL	364692897	186
AA	DFW	JUL	336670881	186
DL	DTW	JUL	316286114	146
UA	ORD	JUL	295278472	124
DL	SEA	JUL	248798281	186
DL	HNL	JUL	161644488	144
AA	ORD	JUL	138231821	84
DL	LAX	JUL	127744908	85
UA	GUM	JUL	102466108	355
DL	NRT	JUL	90842697	155
DL	GUM	JUL	36844173	138

Keep in mind this excludes flying to the US.

If you look just at NRT and GUM to anywhere, the equation shifts back to DL's favor:

DL	NRT	JUL	569934936	572
UA	NRT	JUL	483387111	403
AA	NRT	JUL	173951726	115
UA	GUM	JUL	149239942	438
DL	GUM	JUL	36844173	138
UA	GUM	JUL	4909828	154

What that says to me is that while NRT still has huge O&D potential, GUM isn't that far behind, and tends to look more like a hub than NRT does.

 

[700UW]

Eric dont you mean 2014?
 
July of 2015 hasnt happened yet.

 

[WorldTraveler]

thank you for pulling that data, E.

GUM is predominantly a destination, not a hub.

the majority of the passengers originate in Japan. a small minority connect in GUM to anywhere else on UA"s network.

GUM is a large destination to be sure, but it is not really a hub for either DL or UA any more than HNL could really be considered a TPAC hub for either carrier.

if you take your most recent stats and slot them in with your other charts, you still come up with that the only AA TPAC operation that is in the ballpark with other TPAC hubs on either side of the Pacific is DFW, and then it is so high on the list because of the huge ASMs that AA's DFW operation generates, not because it has so many seats or flights.

other carriers simply use other hubs that minimize transit time on longhaul widebody aircraft while maximizing use of smaller, lower cost aircraft.

As has been noted, AA has built a viable hub at DFW in terms of seats and destinations but it comes at much higher costs to serve the market.... still it is better than where AA was a few years ago. AA has a foot in the door. but AA will have to continue to spend more to carry passengers than other carriers will thru other hubs.

and AA doesn't have a viable west coast presence and the only way it will get it is by adding service that other US and foreign carriers will not only likely duplicate directly but also undercut on connections thru other more geographically more favorable hubs.

 

[eolesen]

Eric dont you mean 2014?
 
July of 2015 hasnt happened yet.

This is ASM's for July 2015, not RPM's or load factors.

 

[700UW]

Ok thanks

 

[MAH4546]

DOT has absolutely not dropped the case regarding Haneda slots. A final decision is likely coming within two weeks. 
 
If Delta is permanently stripped of the slot, it will likely have 90 days to wind down operations on the Seattle-Haneda route. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

it is only in your dreams that the DOT will strip DL or any airline of an operating route.

the case is closed.

if the DOT was going to act, they would have done it months ago

and it still doesn't change that for AA's meddling with DL's HND route, DL looked at the LAX market and decided it could support PVG service.

DL will still operate more service from LAX and be the dominant US airline from LAX to Asia unless AA is willing to subsidize its NRT route for another decade since that is what they have been doing for as long as they have operated it.

it was only after it was pointed out that AA was proposing to use the same flight number for LAX-HND that they use for LAX-HND that AA hurriedly changed their application.

AA had no intention of operating both HND and NRT and the DOT knows it and AA's original route petition stupidly failed to even use a different flight number from what AA uses on LAX-NRT.

AA's application is based on reducing the amount of service from the US to Japan.

AA shot themselves in the foot not just with the DOT but strategically in the marketplace with DL.

 

[jcw]

Can someone post the ruling from the DOT where they announced their decision on the HND route