AA Down Under and Trans Pac?

[WorldTraveler]

No, I did answer.

It just wasn't the answer he wanted which is that DL would run out of gates and AA would then be free to expand without being challenged.

DL has added or will add two longhaul flights from LAX in a one year period -LHR and PVG - and they did it while adding both more flights and more seats on the flights they do operate.

it is nothing more than an internet wet dream of a few people that DL will run out of gates so that AA can expand and build the hub they NEED.

If AA can't make the flights they have work right now, a dozen more flights aren't going to change a thing.

AA simply doesn't have deep enough pockets to continue to support extensive money losing operations to Asia, even with current low fuel prices.

and the part that is lost in all of this is that DL and UA BOTH have hubs that are more than capable of sucking the profitability off of AA's int'l ops at LAX - whether it be at SEA, SFO, ORD, or DTW... all of which are viable hubs for some or all of the local or connecting passengers that could use AA's LAX hub.

I'm sorry, Steve.

you want me to say that there is a point at which DL will run out of gates and AA will be free to expand unchecked.

I submit it will never happen.

and your point still fails to recognize that it was UA, not DL that announced their PVG route hours after AA's announcement.

when are YOU going to answer the question about when UA is going to give up caring about the LAX local market - where they are CURRENTLY the largest carrier in the LAX local market, ahead of AA and even after the merger?

your refusal to accept basic economic principles or to recognize that DL and UA BOTH have no interest in seeing AA succeed in LAX to Asia is breathtaking in its obtuseness.

 

[Platinum Steve]

What part of "I don't care about the economics or performance metrics" did you not understand? I'm not sure how to make this any clearer. Please stop. Just answer the question that I asked: Where will the planes go?

I'm getting the feeling that you don't really know the answer to this. That's odd, because it was your assertion that DL would match AA, and you're clearly not an idiot (for the record, I actually think some of your financial data is compelling when it comes to discussing AA's potential for making LAX work) - so I assumed that you had this figured out. Adding an additional 5-6 777s takes up a lot of space and a lot of gate time. In a gate constrained environment, that doesn't just magically happen. Do you have an answer or not? (And, btw, you haven't answered my question with an answer that I just don't want to hear. You haven't answered my question with anything more that non-sequiturs and irrelevant data that has no bearing on what gate the plane pulls into.)

 

[700UW]

How would he know?
 
He left Delta over eight years ago, he took a buyout and got paid to leave.
 
His last job was revenue management, he didnt work at LAX or route and fleet planning nor operations.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, it wasn't 8 years ago. if you keep saying 8 years long enough, it will eventually become true.

and you really don't know what all I did.

and why do you or Steve or anyone else have trouble understanding that DL has managed to add domestic flights on top of the 2 longhaul int'l flights

and why can't anyone answer why the preoccupation with what space DL has since it was UA, not DL, that added their flight LITERALLY right on top of AA.

the whole fantasy that AA can gain enough gates is a dream that will never come true because physical assets are the last thing that is causing AA to underperform DL and UA in every Asia market where they directly compete

 

[Platinum Steve]

Have you ever thought about taking up bull fighting, WT? The way you avoid answering questions surely would translate into dodging bulls. Ole!

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, actually. I have thought about why I didn't become a lawyer - particularly specializing in prosecution.

either way, it is foolishness to think that AA can ever gain enough resources to win a market war in LAX to Asia against both DL AND UA and only after both would have to decide they don't care any more about what size AA grows to.

I simply do not see that happening.

I'll probably be gored by a bull first - and since I don't fight or run with them, that would be an incredible feat to occur

 

[MAH4546]

DL is on the record saying it doesn't have room to grow at LAX compared to its peers, but yeah, let's believe what WT says instead and totally ignore Delta's statement.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and you can't seem to accept that if AA's strategy is to acquire enough gates at LAX, it can add routes while others will not.

let me say this one more time for the hard of comprehension:

United Airlines, not Delta, was the airline that announced that it would fly LAX-PVG within HOURS of AA's announcement.

We have been hearing for years that DL would be out of space to expand but they keep doing it - and you even MISQUOTE DL's statement.

they said they are nearing the completion of what they can do with their existing facility. But they have room for some additional expansion and multiple DL employees say that their mgmt. personnel have said that DL expects to confirm one or more strategic moves at LAX that could result in additional gates.

and as much as you want to believe otherwise, this is not only about DL making sure that their interests on the west coast are not eroded... it involves DL and UA on the US carrier side and a HOST Of carriers from Asia.

anyone here or at Centerpork thinks that AA can do in LAX vs. what they did in DFW will be sorely mistaken.

 

[eolesen]

Thanks for completely ignoring my question in favor of insulting my intelligence, WT.  I asked an honest question looking for an honest answer, but instead I got ... whatever that was.

 
Welcome to the circus, and yes, that's normal for WT. It's probably just best to ignore him.  
 

Seriously.  Where is that awesome "unhinged" graphic when you need it?

 
Here you go:
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

which just means that you couldn't win on the factual basis of what I said so you gave up trying and instead throw stones - and hinges and anything else you can find.

guess what? the fundamental facts of the discussion don't change whether I participate in it or not:

- UA, not DL, launched its LAX-PVG flight right on top of AA.

- AA has been operating LAX-NRT for more than a decade - with a few breaks in service but for more than long enough for it to be called a stable route - and yet AA's revenue generation is more than 40% below DL and UA's.
- AA has been operating LAX-PVG for less time but far more than the "couple years that it takes for routes to become profitable" even by AA execs' statements. AA underperforms UA in revenue generation on LAX-PVG by 1/3. The same trend exists in EVERY SINGLE market that AA has operated to Asia from NYC, ORD, and LAX.
- There is NO evidence that DL's growth has stopped or that UA cannot match whatever AA does with one or both of them adding their own flights.
- DL and/or UA both have stronger alliance presences in nearly every market in Asia that AA could serve but also have stronger overall market positions in those markets.
- the "hope" that DL will run out of space has not been matched by the amount of capacity that DL has added from LAX both domestically and internationally and it also defies multiple DL employees from multiple depts. that say that DL is seriously evaluating options to grow its facilities including potential terminal swaps.
- and finally construction at LAX could absolutely limit growth for ALL carriers.

there is no reasonable or factual conclusion that anyone could come to that AA will win in the LAX-Asia market because some other carrier can't or won't.

If AA is going to expand from LAX to Asia, it MUST be capable of winning in the marketplace against all carriers that choose to compete and NOT by creating barriers to entry that AA has used for years to block other carrier growth.

 

[Platinum Steve]

I'm kind of in shock. It appears that WT actually answered my question. Of course, he was trying to respond to another post at the time, but an indirect answer is still an answer: "they said they are nearing the completion of what they can do with their existing facility." As WT will attest, any good prosecutor would connect the dots to say that the witness has just admitted that DL, in its current set up at LAX, does not have the gate resources to match AA flight-for-flight. It took a while, but we did get there. Thanks, WT, for answering my question.

So now, let's go to the next question: if DL can't match AA flight-for-flight in its current set up, it will, as WT has already noted, require some sort of bold corporate deal to expand its gate access at LAX. I think we can rule out buying Alaska - the current management is unlikely to support selling out to DL, and AA (and maybe even SW) will force DL to pay a premium that would make the gain not worth the cost. They could probably pick up gates in T-2, but AA has proven at least twice (maybe even three times) that operating from two sides of LAX is not a reasonable option long-term. Maybe they can do a deal with LAWA for space at TBIT, but my understanding is that the new terminal is already pretty tight and any new service would have to stand in line behind he existing operators (including AA) (someone with more knowledge of the inner workings of gate space at TBIT can correct that point if I'm wrong). There just aren't a lot of options here, and the ones that appear first aren't that appealing.

So what's left for DL to do? I agree with WT that they are going to need to do something. I think he's right on the money on that one. The current set up at T5 and T6 just isn't enough gates for DL to match AA flight-for-flight. The question is what will it be? WT, you want to take first shot at this?

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL doesn't need to match AA flight for flight. Even if DL added 2 more TPAC flights, they could do it with the space they have. again, you choose to ignore that TPAC flights operate in a different time window than most of the eastern US flights that fill the majority of DL's schedule. HND, LHR, and PVG all will operate outside of those peak windows. Your assumption that DL's availability for gates is constant thruout the day. It is not.

and it is very possible that DL could MOVE, not cancel, existing flights to make space for int'l flights.

but this isn't about DL alone.

All it takes is one other US competitor- DL or UA have both worked fine so far - to ensure that AA doesn't obtain revenues anywhere close to industry average.

you know what the best barometer of how well all these dreams will be... see how well DL does with its new LAX-PVG and if it manages to pull revenue off of AA, which I suspect it will do by virtue of its stronger alliance presence in China.

but I would also bet that AA will announce another new route to Asia next summer. My bet is on ICN or PEK. If it is PEK, I am betting that UA will start their own flight. If it is ICN, DL will add their own flight.

instead of endless scenarios that have repeatedly NOT proven true before based on what other carriers CAN'T do, how about you focus on what AA actually DOES in light of the competition that already exists.

if you have half the logic you say you do, it shouldn't be hard to believe that the chances for AA's success on #3, 4, or 5 will not be real great given their abysmal performance on 1 and 2.

btw, since we're on the topic of LAX, where is this HND flight that AA was supposedly going to steal from DL? seems like everything just stopped.

suppose that I was right that the DOT wouldn't take DL's flight as long as it DL operated it.

SEA-HND restarts as daily service in 3 weeks, IIRC.

and for AA's attempt to steal the route, DL clearly saw the value of operating LAX-PVG.

looks like AA strategically shot itself in the foot with that one... but I guess they'll make up for by starting destinations 3, 4, and 5 since the airline industry has proven that if you can't make money with one flight, then just increase frequency and lose even more. It's a well proven strategy n the airline industry.

AA might have screwed up the HND strategy but they got the money-losing strategy down pat across the Pacific... and of course Parker will take credit for the improved profitability since he is best buds with the Saudis who have flooded the market with cheap oil

 

[Platinum Steve]

Again, you're right, WT - DL doesn't need to match AA flight-for-flight. But here's the problem: you asserted that they would do just that. Hence my question about where those flights will go given the current gate set up for DL.

Now, don't misunderstand me. I think that a discussion of whether or not AA can make LAX work to Asia is a worthy discussion. You've raised some really good points in your argument that they won't succeed. However, that's not the question I'm asking and inserting those points into your answers about DL's gate space problems is really out of place. Any good prosecutor would know that answers like this are considered "unresponsive", and any good judge would agree and instruct the witness to answer the question. But you knew that already, so I'll get back to the point.

You've established pretty convincingly to me that DL can't go flight-for -flight with AA with the current gates that they use. You've reported to us that DL management even believes their operations to be close to maxed out. Sure, things could be moved around and tweaked to allow a new flight or two, but we're really just tinkering on the edges. There's no way that 5-7 new Asia flights can work as it's set up. It's really a compelling case that you've made.

So, something major has to go down for 5-7 new flights to be viable for DL at LAX. My question (again) is: what will be that major something? I realize that there's a level of conjecture here. Maybe even just bald-faced guessing. But you've proven to know DL inside and out, WT, so I'd love to hear your thoughts/guesses/predictions on what DL will have to do to give them the gate space they'll need to match AA flight-for-flight. (And, for the moment, let's pretend that UA doesn't exist in this equation. I know they're there, but let's put them on the shelf for now. We can deal with them later. Let's just agree to stick to DL for now. Thanks, in advance.)

 

[robbedagain]

Steve   great question there  but he going to give u nothing more than his biased pro dl crap   good luck

 

[eolesen]

Don't be fooled, Steve. WT pretends to know DL inside out, but he's been gone for 8 years give or take a few months. He lives vicariously thru what he can see on the DL websites filled with propaganda all the information management sees fit to provide to its separated employees.

DL could probably retime a few things, but the bigger question in my mind isn't the gates at LAX, but the equipment needed to fly the routes. ALPA is already beating up management over the balance of JV flying on the North Atlantic with AF & VS. DL needs to decide on if they're going to build up SEA as their gateway, or try to serve two masters as far as West Coast gateways go.

In trying to keep AA in check, they risk not being able to fly something else that's probably of a higher strategic value to either management or ALPA.

That's the story that DL's CorpComm writers can't put up on the retiree website, but it's one that anyone keeping track of all the chess pieces can see.