AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I don't know how anybody - except a person that is in so much denial, has such a detachment from reality and exhibits so much bitterness towards other carriers while blindly worship of DL - could claim the DOT decision is a "winner" for DL. 
 
Let's see:  SEA-HND is a a route DL is having problems with, losing money or at lest not making profits so DL decides to operate it seasonally to minimize the financial damage.  Now, DL will be forced to operate it daily, thereby resulting in losing money / wasting resources.   How could this be a "winner". 
 
You could not read such posts if you were living in Bizarro's world.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

At best, the DOT decision is a draw since nothing has changed.
 
AA did not get the HND slot, while AA does force DL to operate the route daily.
DL did not louse the HND slot but has to suffer $ losses.
 
I'd call that a draw.

 

[WorldTraveler]

problem with your theory is that DL is adding 4000 additional seats per day each way from SEA which means that the ability to support the route dramatically increases.

no one is in denial except those that can't accept that AA got outsmarted again by DL. AA tried to go after DL's SEA-HND flight, DL decided that LAX-PVG had great potential, and DL will now further extend its lead in the LAX-Asia market.

No, it is not a draw. DL is starting a route that it did not operate when the route case begun. AA has added nothing.

AA was losing money on its entire Pacific operation before; if low fuel prices help AA, they will also help DL, including on SEA-HND which is the lowest cost mainland TPAC to operate by any US carrier.

DL's dual hub strategy on the west coast is stronger than ever.

 

[eolesen]

Actually it does not prove it backfired - it forces DL to lose money on a route it can't support out of SEA

Bingo.
 

If DL decides it can't handle the losses and decides to not fly it AA automatically gets it - so no backfire here

Also the DOT could decide to not grant any waivers

I'll agree it is a draw.

DOT was obviously too cautious to try and boil the ocean by revoking the authority, but they've now drawn a very large line in the sand that didn't exist before DL flaunted the rules on seasonal dormancy.

DL tried to stick it to DOT by flaunting the letter of the law, and now the DOT is giving it right back at them.

Dumb move, and they've probably just forced a change on dormancy for everyone else going forward.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you can call it a draw if you want but DL still has both NRT and HND flights from two west coast gateways and DL is adding a China flight to LAX to give DL the largest number of flights among US carriers at LAX and making DL the only carrier that has 3 or more Asian flights from two different gateways.

DL was given restrictions to ensure the flight is being operated on a daily basis but it is also adding 4000 seats per day each way from SEA this summer. on top of much lower fuel prices, the economics of the SEA-HND market will work just fine.

and as much as some will deny it, AA got outfoxed by DL get again

given that there are very few major Open Skies markets left, the change if any to other markets is immaterial.

 

[MAH4546]

No, AA outfoxed Delta by forcing it to continue flying a lot of money losing capacity to Haneda on a year-round basis.
 
And now when Delta tries to skirt the rules by reducing LAX-HND to account for the huge amount of excess Haneda capacity it has, don't think for on second AA is not going to go after that route just as quickly.
 
Kudos to AA for keeping Delta on its feet and forcing it to operate what it is probably its biggest money losing operation to the region. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Considering that AA has been losing tens of millions of dollars flying a 777 from LAX to NRT for a decade or more and has to continue to do so or lose a presence from LAX to Japan, it is hilarious to think that DL is worse off getting affirmed to operate more routes for a growing west coast gateway while AA wins.

and DL is starting yet another route from LAX to Asia, leaving AA even further from the leadership position in the LAX to Asia market that it talks like it wants but has never been even close to.

btw, you better get busy on the rest of the web saying that AA won. The business press doesn't seen it that way.
"Delta Gets U.S. Backing to Keep Tokyo Route as American Rebuffed"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-27/delta-gets-u-s-backing-to-keep-tokyo-route-as-american-rebuffed?cmpid=yhoo

 

[MAH4546]

Are you dizzy yet?
 
American Airlines just forced Delta to operate a route that loses major sums of money for two years. 
 
That's awesome (for American). 

 

[jcw]

Exactly - I would also add that this is a national asset that needs to be used - not owned by an airline - the government has responsibility in making sure these assets are fully used

 

[jcw]

Sorry for the second post - I would also add that if new route authorities open up and the DOT has to decide who to award a new route - DL will be at the bottom of the list.  As AA (and previous US) can demonstrate that they are responsible slot holders and remind the DOT that both AA and US have returned routes to the DOT for the greater good vs DL's approach of abusing the rules.  The DOT will remember this and will place DL to the bottom of the pack for future awards for a time being for new authorities

 

[eolesen]

The DOT will remember this and will place DL to the bottom of the pack for future awards for a time being for new authorities

Possibly. The reality is that there are only a handful of places where a route case is necessary -- China, Argentina, Russia, and South Africa are some notable exceptions. Brasil and Mexico are being phased in, and HND is the only place in Japan which requires authority.

But, there are other issues before the DOT that DL's arrogance might not help with, the least of which is Love Field.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Are you dizzy yet?
 
American Airlines just forced Delta to operate a route that loses major sums of money for two years. 
 
That's awesome (for American).

Excuse me but DL operated the route within the DOT's requirements when it awarded it.

Just as I said, the DOT would not take the route away without first ordering DL to operate the route within new, stricter requirements.

DL has kept the route and the requirements for operating it have been tightened.

DL has said it would comply with the new and tighter restrictions.

DL is operating SEA-HND with a 767 and will ALWAYS have less financial risk than AA has using a 777 or even a 787 if AA can ever get enough seats to actually fly those planes on a LAX-NRT route.

DL still has 2 of the HND routes, UA has one, HA has one. AA has none.

AA did get a new competitor on LAX-PVG.

it is hard to see anyone as having lost but AA but you are certainly free to believe otherwise.

It is also a sign of sheer desperation to argue that AA forced DL to operate a route when those same people have been shown to be wrong that the DOT did not strip DL of the route authority.

sheer desperation is all it can be called.

take a drink and move past it... AA will not be operating to HND on its own metal and unless AA/JL want to leave the SFO or HNL market, they won't be operating LAX-HND in any form on the JV.

Come back another day and tell us what next great plans AA has for its Pacific operation after this bruising defeat.

btw, DL is still the largest carrier between the US west coast and Tokyo with 5 flights/day and over 1220 seats/day.

AA/JL on a combined basis? 4 flights/day with just 81% of the seats that DL operates.

even with the JV, AA is still outclassed to Japan not just by DL but also by Star.

I told you that carriers would not roll over when AA wanted to expand

now again, what is AA's next step on the Pacific?

and Brazil and Mexico become Open Skies within a year.

 

[FWAAA]

AA/JL's strategic failure with US-Japan esp. HND is that JL chose to start SFO-HND service when HND slots became available instead of LAX where they could have had a decent presence.

instead, JL ended up with SFO, UA's hub while NH got LAX.

TYO-SFO was JAL's first international route, and JAL has flown it for more than 60 years. It moved the route to NRT when NRT opened, and then when HND reopened to long-haul flights, JAL moved it back to HND.

Yes, in the interim, UA built an impressive hub at SFO, but SFO-Japan is a relatively large O&D market, and I;m guessing that with more than 60 years of experience in San Francisco, JAL has a pretty firm grasp on the finances of its operations there. Probably a better handle on the route's economics than you or I possess. 
 

JL did not "end up with SFO."
 
JAL and ANA each have two Haneda slots and can use them however they hell they want. JAL can start LAXHND tomorrow, it just would need to end HNLHND or SFOHND.

Exactly. JAL has successfully served SFO for more than 60 years. Even longer than WT has been alive. JAL chose to capitalize on its long history in SFO by moving its NRT flight back to HND when it got the chance. That way, both AA and JAL serve SFO via the joint venture, and JAL doesn't need to fill its planes with tons of connections at SFO precisely because of its 60+ year history of serving San Francisco. UA, as a johnny-come-lately, depends more on connections at SFO to fill its flights.  
 

and yes, JL made a strategic blunder to try to grab SFO-HND, a route which is clearly more valuable to NH and Star than it is to oneworld.

Uh-huh. The CEOs of AA and JAL aren't as smart as you, because in your opinion, their decision to serve SFO-HND was a "strategic blunder." Tell us another fair tale. Sorry, but only your wife and kids could possibly think that highly of you. The rest of us know that you don't know all the answers.

and since it will be very hard for JL to reenter SFO-NRT, JL/AA is indeed worse off than DL and UA which have NRT and HND flights from each of their major west coast hubs. and while we have yet to see the results of UA's HND flights, the chances are high that they will do fine.

Going for SFO-HND was indeed a strategic blunder for JL and it has implications for AA at LAX.

Uh-huh. Sure it was.

JAL has no reason to start-up SFO-NRT.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the market really does not care one iota that JL has been serving SFO-TYO for 60 years and UA for only 30.

they really don't.

the brutal reality that you and others will have to digest is that DL has TWO west coast gateways with BOTH NRT and HND flights, UA has one on its own metal and another one (LAX) if you count the same type of JV that you hang so much hope on for AA, and AA/JL has absolutely NONE.

I'm sorry if that hurts but that is the brutal reality.

 

[700UW]