AA president Scott Kirby says the carrier seeks to make LAX its "primary Asia-Pacific gateway".

[Harold Nads]

So much for WT saying DL will dominate AA in the JFK-LAX market.

 
LOL You know somewhere in a darkened studio basement apartment with model plastic airplanes hanging from the ceiling with empty Dr.Pepper cans and Doritos bags piling up on a surplus metal desktop, WT feverishly Googles to support his fantasy airline tycoon ramblings. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

I do get a kick out of how wound up you folks get about what I write.
 

This is wrong too.  AA has the ability to park RJ's at T4 gates; it just choses not to do so.  
 

LAWA has stipulated to AA in writing that it understands that AA operates at a disadvantage to UA and DL by not being able to use terminal gates for its regional jets.  The solution in the future (as I explained above) is that LAWA will most likely trade gates at the AE Commuter facility for gates at the MSC or TBIT.  Not a bad solution if you are AA, as those gates will come with additional amenities (e.g., additional lounge space, ticketing counters at the CTP, etc.) that will make UA's and DL's facilities at LAX look even more cramped and outdated.

make up your mind. Does AA have the ability to park RJs at its T4 gates or not?

If they do then they don't have any disadvantage.

No cake and spoon too, bud.

Once again, let's keep this whole LAX facility discussion in perspective. The AA fan club consistently trots it out when they want to assert how well AA COULD do from LAX to Asia.

But they have those facilities now.... and yet they come nowhere close to DL or UA in local OR connecting market performance LAX-Asia.

The whole reason why AA needs to leverage its HUGE facilities at LAX - where did I ever say that DL has more facilities? - is to bring in connecting traffic that allows AA to be LESS dependent on the local market in which they perform so poorly right now.

SFO and LAX are considerably different airports. The fact that UA has a much higher percentage of the market and the airport doesn't have the facility constraints that LAX has should be obvious in translating into market power.

And you all still can't accept that DL and UA have both developed transpac west coast hubs in cities where they dominate the market and their average fares show it.

You all feel free to tell us about all of the grand rearrangement that AA will do at LAX that will suddenly give it the advantage it somehow can't seem to figure out how to obtain now.

The proof is in the results, not fantasies of what AA can become..

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I do get a kick out of how wound up you folks get about what I write.
 

make up your mind. Does AA have the ability to park RJs at its T4 gates or not?

If they do then they don't have any disadvantage.

No cake and spoon too, bud.

Once again, let's keep this whole LAX facility discussion in perspective. The AA fan club consistently trots it out when they want to assert how well AA COULD do from LAX to Asia.

But they have those facilities now.... and yet they come nowhere close to DL or UA in local OR connecting market performance LAX-Asia.

The whole reason why AA needs to leverage its HUGE facilities at LAX - where did I ever say that DL has more facilities? - is to bring in connecting traffic that allows AA to be LESS dependent on the local market in which they perform so poorly right now.

SFO and LAX are considerably different airports. The fact that UA has a much higher percentage of the market and the airport doesn't have the facility constraints that LAX has should be obvious in translating into market power.

And you all still can't accept that DL and UA have both developed transpac west coast hubs in cities where they dominate the market and their average fares show it.

You all feel free to tell us about all of the grand rearrangement that AA will do at LAX that will suddenly give it the advantage it somehow can't seem to figure out how to obtain now.

The proof is in the results, not fantasies of what AA can become..

 
Honestly, I think you're the only poster on here that's wound up.
For whatever reason it really irks you that DL is #3 or #4 in a major market like LAX, and may potentially be set back even further once the AA-US integration is complete.  Now that is definitely not winning!
It's just too hilarious to read your diatribes regarding how AA sucks at LAX despite the facts that if offers more flights than DL, carries more passengers than DL, and has more gates than DL.  All of this was before even US at LAX is even considered.  In all your in-depth analysies, have you even considered that prior to becoming a part of AA, most of USAirways customers that needed to fly to Asia connected via * alliance parters UA, AC or NH?  I good chunk of them will now choose AA and 1-world (over UA and * alliance).  Anyways, keep up the good work!

 

[WorldTraveler]

except that I haven't said that AA sucks at LAX.

I've said that they have a disadvantaged position in LAX-Asia.

US did nothing to help AA to Asia.

given that nAAtive AA mgmt. was a lot more willing to hold onto routes that don't work for prestige far more than Parker has ever done, the chances are small that AA will expand at LAX until they turn the rest of their Pacific network around, including their existing LAX-Asia flights.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

except that I haven't said that AA sucks at LAX.

I've said that they have a disadvantaged position in LAX-Asia.

US did nothing to help AA to Asia.

given that nAAtive AA mgmt. was a lot more willing to hold onto routes that don't work for prestige far more than Parker has ever done, the chances are small that AA will expand at LAX until they turn the rest of their Pacific network around, including their existing LAX-Asia flights.

 
While US had 0 presence in Asia, I'll ask you again:  what carrier will the US customers that were accustomed to flying * alliance to Asia chose?  Granted, some will stick with * alliance.  However, the rest will stay with US/AA and 1-world.
 
nAAtive AA is dead.  Give the new AA a time to come together before making broad judgements such as AA sucks from LAX-to Asia and ORD-to Asia.  That may have been somewhat the case for nAAtive AA, give the new AA a few years before making judgements.  Right now your conclusion about AA-Asia is almost as laughable as your prediction on the DL board that Parker will turn JFK into just a spoke for AA.

 

[MAH4546]

American Airlines will have four gates at TBIT starting in 2016; plus the great new TBIT connector will practically make T4 and TBIT on terminal. Those gates will take significant pressure off the T4 operations, as all international ops will move to TBIT, and international ops take a bit longer.
 
Furthermore, with the bus station moving to the connector, there is possibly room to construct an ERJ-175/190 gate at what is now gate 44 (for busses), and, IIRC, there a decommissioned gate in T4 (I forget what number, maybe 49B) removed to make additional room for a widebody gate. With international ops moving to TBIT, it makes sense to bring the gate back.

 

[Harold Nads]

I do get a kick out of how wound up you folks get about what I write.
 
 

 
Of course you do, and that's why you are pitiful.
 
 Everyone that operates a jetbridge, rigs a fuel control, deals with a sick passenger, drives a 777 etc. for American Airlines, has a dog in this race. You do not.  Look at your rating, You have every right to be here, but everyone thinks you are a fool. I know you will continue to post, as you don't have respect for us, but at some point stop being a annoying internet self-appointed airline tycoon troll, and have some respect for yourself. 

 

[dfw gen]

be careful he will be at his attorneys office crying and stomping his feet wanting to sue for hurt feelings.....

 

[Jacobin777]

  
 
 and the head-up-their-ass MH.      But gate limitations won't prevent AA from maintaining its position as the largest airline at LAX.  
 
 
 
 
Are you saying that more connecting passengers at LAX is the secret to AA increasing its very low average local fares between LAX and Asia?   The problem with AA's yields is that AA doesn't have enough low-fare flow traffic at LAX?

 
 
Actually MH are planning on discontiuing LAX.
 
"27 January 2014, Subang: Malaysia Airlines will be suspending its flights into Los Angeles following a route rationalisation exercise to stem losses. The route rationalization exercise takes effect on 30th April  2014."
 
http://www.malaysiaairlines.com/hq/en/corporate-info/press-room/2014/malaysia-airlines-route-rationalisation-suspension-of-kl-los-angeles-route.html

 

[WorldTraveler]

While US had 0 presence in Asia, I'll ask you again:  what carrier will the US customers that were accustomed to flying * alliance to Asia chose?  Granted, some will stick with * alliance.  However, the rest will stay with US/AA and 1-world.
 
nAAtive AA is dead.  Give the new AA a time to come together before making broad judgements such as AA sucks from LAX-to Asia and ORD-to Asia.  That may have been somewhat the case for nAAtive AA, give the new AA a few years before making judgements.  Right now your conclusion about AA-Asia is almost as laughable as your prediction on the DL board that Parker will turn JFK into just a spoke for AA.

except US had no marketing influence to Asia from the southwest to begin with. I've listed a number of cities that are fairly strong for AA/US that AA should pick up but they are in Texas, the Midwest, and on the east coast - all where both carriers are otherwise strong. UA and Star are not going to lose where US had little influence to begin with.

Although some people act like I am calling their mother obscene names in these discussions, the simple rule is that there are no markets where 3 or more airlines get either equal shares or average fares. For AA to grow from LAX to Asia, it is going to have to take down either DL or UA.

I have long said that AA's best chances for its overall turnaround will come from UA. Perhaps AA can stick it out until UA shrinks to the point that AA can get a large enough piece of the market. AA played that hand in the industry overall a year ago and it backfired. Maybe it will work this time.

However, if AA can really dethrone UA from its position at LAX to Asia or even more so on the west coast to Asia, then UA is finished. They have relied on Asia as their cash cow for too long to be able to rebuild their route network without being the top dog.

BTW, the latest data shows that DL's growth at LAX and the west coast is paying off esp. in the domestic and int'l markets that it added last summer. Even if AA can knock off UA, it isn't a given that DL won't decide to focus its efforts on minimizing any gains that AA could gain.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

except US had no marketing influence to Asia from the southwest to begin with. I've listed a number of cities that are fairly strong for AA/US that AA should pick up but they are in Texas, the Midwest, and on the east coast - all where both carriers are otherwise strong. UA and Star are not going to lose where US had little influence to begin with.
............

BTW, the latest data shows that DL's growth at LAX and the west coast is paying off esp. in the domestic and int'l markets that it added last summer. Even if AA can knock off UA, it isn't a given that DL won't decide to focus its efforts on minimizing any gains that AA could gain.

Like I said, US does have a customer base in the southwest, and elsewhere, that was forced to rely on UA and * alliance to get to Asia.  You're telling me that now those customers all will still rely on UA and * alliance to get to Asia instead of using AA?  Sorry, but I reject your premise.
 
Regarding your DL diatribe:  barf! 

 

[WorldTraveler]

except US carried virtually nothing from the southwest to Asia or anywhere else to the US....

if they were part of the immunized alliances, that might have been the case, but there is no way that US could sell much of anything from the US to Asia based solely on codeshares.

free free to reject what you want...

UA will absolutely lose because of the lack of connectivity that US provided in the southeast. US passengers will gain more from the AA merger than they had from UA to Asia. Those are both very clear.

But US contributed virtually nothing to UA's Asian performance.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

But US contributed virtually nothing to UA's Asian performance.

 
I don't know WT, whle US may not have been a part of an immunized JV, it was still a member of * alliance that did provide feed to * alliance carriers flying to Asia from North America.  The customers it provided will most likely not spell the end of UA or make the new AA a powerhouse across the Pacific, but it will certainly contribute to the sucess (or failure) AA will have on LAX-Asia.

 

[WorldTraveler]

there is data to show what US contributed to US Asia traffic. It was next to nothing.

Accept the bigger prize in all of this in that UA will be hurt far more by losing US in the SE and by having TAM (Brazil) switch to oneworld and away from Star.

Both of those are far bigger wins for AA than any piddly Asian traffic US generated.

It just doesn't happen to solve AA's problem from LAX-Asia.

 

[Kev3188]

 
Of course you do, and that's why you are pitiful.
 
 Everyone that operates a jetbridge, rigs a fuel control, deals with a sick passenger, drives a 777 etc. for American Airlines, has a dog in this race. You do not.  Look at your rating, You have every right to be here, but everyone thinks you are a fool. I know you will continue to post, as you don't have respect for us, but at some point stop being a annoying internet self-appointed airline tycoon troll, and have some respect for yourself.