AA president Scott Kirby says the carrier seeks to make LAX its "primary Asia-Pacific gateway".
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #17
I'm honored that you think I not only have the power to put articles in the national media that provide the slant I want to see, create DOT data that supports my theories, and now think I can lock threads on this forum whenever I want.
My question still stands.... what did DL do that puts AA in the strategic position that AA is in over the Pacific and what effect does DL really have on AA's choices if AA really is capable of building a major gateway from LAX to Asia as its fans seem to think?
Let's not forget that UA, not DL, competes with AA on more direct routes from the US to Asia and in every route that the two compete, UA has a revenue advantage.
UA hasn't been successful in pushing AA completely out of markets as has happened at JFK and the excuse that AA has the JV doesn't work because AA/JL's combined capacity is less than it was before the JV was announced.
If AA wants to be a competitive force from the US to Asia, it has to be able to successfully compete against DL and UA who bought their way into the market. AA either has to have costs below those two in order to offset the revenue disadvantage or AA has to generate revenue premiums in at least some of the most directly competitive market\s. AA is not going to gain a cost disadvantage to DL - they haven't had one coming out of BK. AA is far from demonstrating even revenue equality = let alone revenue premiums = in directly competitive markets with either DL or UA.
I'm still waiting for the AA fanclub that thinks that AA is going to throw a bunch of new flights into LAX to explain 1. why either DL or UA is just going to roll over and allow AA to build a major gateway at LAX, regardless of what either do further up the cost at SFO or SEA 2. how throwing more capacity into LAX fixes the revenue disadvantage that AA has in the eastern US, esp. ORD and 3. why Parker and co. can justify putting even more money than the hundreds of millions of dollars per year that AA already shells out to subsidize its flying to Asia.
If someone actually write something that provided some insight into those questions, there might be some basis to the notion that AA will finally become a viable force between the US and Asia.
My question still stands.... what did DL do that puts AA in the strategic position that AA is in over the Pacific and what effect does DL really have on AA's choices if AA really is capable of building a major gateway from LAX to Asia as its fans seem to think?
Let's not forget that UA, not DL, competes with AA on more direct routes from the US to Asia and in every route that the two compete, UA has a revenue advantage.
UA hasn't been successful in pushing AA completely out of markets as has happened at JFK and the excuse that AA has the JV doesn't work because AA/JL's combined capacity is less than it was before the JV was announced.
If AA wants to be a competitive force from the US to Asia, it has to be able to successfully compete against DL and UA who bought their way into the market. AA either has to have costs below those two in order to offset the revenue disadvantage or AA has to generate revenue premiums in at least some of the most directly competitive market\s. AA is not going to gain a cost disadvantage to DL - they haven't had one coming out of BK. AA is far from demonstrating even revenue equality = let alone revenue premiums = in directly competitive markets with either DL or UA.
I'm still waiting for the AA fanclub that thinks that AA is going to throw a bunch of new flights into LAX to explain 1. why either DL or UA is just going to roll over and allow AA to build a major gateway at LAX, regardless of what either do further up the cost at SFO or SEA 2. how throwing more capacity into LAX fixes the revenue disadvantage that AA has in the eastern US, esp. ORD and 3. why Parker and co. can justify putting even more money than the hundreds of millions of dollars per year that AA already shells out to subsidize its flying to Asia.
If someone actually write something that provided some insight into those questions, there might be some basis to the notion that AA will finally become a viable force between the US and Asia.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
LAX is, arguably, the best transpacific gateway available. SFO a close second, but UA already has it wrapped up. Is the LAX market fragmented? Yes, but AA is now the largest carrier and in the best position to leverage its top dog status to grow there. Just like New York, you seem to have a problem understanding that ultra large markets like NYC and Los Angeles can support multiple players. United will fight strongly, I'm sure, but Delta is just going to have to get comfortable in a third-tier transpacific gateway like SEA. Lol
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
ad that's good. the pic is awesome too! youre absolutely right that DL will have to get used to Third Tier status at SEA while LAX and NY are the ones to support multiple carriers...
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
I'm still waiting for DL to file the lawsuit over the LGA/DCA slots that you said they would not allow to get away with that.WorldTraveler said:
there is absolutely no way that can be, Delta is the bestest ever. how dare you even say delta is third tier? ill be running off to my attorney stomping my feet. you will be banned from the board and sued for character deformation! oh wait i have no character....AdAstraPerAspera said:
now who could this be?
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
Don't worry, DL will file a lawsuit that it is their constitutional right to be the #1 dominant carrier in every market...dfw gen said:
MetalMover said:
And I'm still waiting to hear why anybody is under the delusion - and that's what it is - that Delta gets a say in "allowing" AA to do anything. AA isn't a fourth grader and Delta isn't a parent - AA doesn't need Delta's permission!
The walls are closing in. Reality is sinking in. Delta isn't the undisputed #1 at everything. Fear, fear, fear.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #24
AdAstraPerAspera said:
LAX may be the largest Asian market but it is far from the one that AA has the best chance of winning in....
the reason why UA does as well as it does at SFO is because it has such a high percentage of the Asian market. DL is in the same position at SEA. And both have revenue premiums to show for it.
AA's total Asian revenue as well as its average fare from LAX to Asia is #3 out of 3 in both categories.
To somehow think that a carrier who is #3 is going to win in a market where they are #3 now is more than far fetched.
from LAX-Asia, DL IS the largest revenue carrier to Asia whether you want to hear it or not.commavia said:
You mock the NRT hub and the supposedly dying Japan market yet it allows DL to generate THREE TIMES the Asian revenue from the LAX local market than AA... and it is heavily because DL gets so much higher average fares for its services.
Unlike UA and AA that are anxious to throw 787s into the LAX market, DL is deploying gas guzzling 744s that can carry as many passengers as 1.5 787s. And that is just to NRT.
It's funny how you think it is ok for AA to continue to put capacity into Latin America to hold onto its share but it's not ok if DL does the same to Asia, esp. Japan.
speaking of which, perhaps you can explain to us what happened with AA's traffic in the month of March.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/american-airlines-group-reports-march-120000718.html
To say it was a disappointment is an understatement. Yes, they blamed the storms but nearly every other carrier saw LF increases because the remaining passengers were carried on fewer flights.
AA, OTOH, saw a massive 9 point load factor drop on the Atlantic and a 5% drop in LF to Latin America.
But wait... AA increased capacity on the Atlantic by --- wait, wait 10% -- and to Latin America by --- hee were go again - 5%!
IOW, AA dumped a bunch of new capacity into the European and Latin America markets and filled virtually none of that extra capacity.
Could it be that it is beginning to be obvious that AA has been throwing capacity into its system in order to keep costs down and keep its tens of thousands of surplus workers doing something but they really don't have the demand to fill those seats?
AA's market share grab in Latin America and Europe cannot be sustained by current pricing. Storms have nothing to do with it... nAAtive AA was doing the same thing during perfect weather months in BK.
AA has to cut capacity in major parts of its network and hasn't developed the stomach to do what is necessary for the merger to deliver the results that they promised to investors.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #26
c'mon.
you don't have a response for the LF drops on the Atlantic and to Latin America?
it's an honest discussion of strategy... whether it be about LAX to Asia or network to Europe and Latin America.
You can't just pretend that these kinds of signs don't mean something or can keep being swept under the rug as just weather events - esp. since AA has shown the same trends even before weather was an issue.
you don't have a response for the LF drops on the Atlantic and to Latin America?
it's an honest discussion of strategy... whether it be about LAX to Asia or network to Europe and Latin America.
You can't just pretend that these kinds of signs don't mean something or can keep being swept under the rug as just weather events - esp. since AA has shown the same trends even before weather was an issue.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #29
and yet you still think that LAX-NGO and KIX will work... just with a 787.
let me say it again... DL gets 3 times more revenue flying twice the number of passengers from the local LAX to Asia market.
BTW, the 767 does do SEA-Asia quite nicely... .and is the "starter" aircraft for routes not unlike how CO used the 757 to open a lot of routes to Europe from EWR.
As the 767 gets replaced by 332s and 333s, it is kind of hard to argue that DL hasn't figured out how to open up new routes at low risks and then build on them - from a hub where they can control a much higher percentage of their feed than AA can from LAX where it will compete with a number of foreign carriers.
And it still is far from off the table that DL and UA won't start routes right on top of whatever AA does from LAX not unlike how UA Shanghai'd AA.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
You're trying to have it both ways. AA is in dire straits for being #3 in NYC, but DL is #3 in LAX... that doesn't mean anything.
- Status
