AA should launch LAX-ICN and ORD-ICN immediately

FWAAA, I'm afraid that you are once again attempting to apply logic to the situation.  Now, you have been spoken to before about this failing of yours.  Remember, you are talking about an airline management that, shortly after the announcement of the largest quarterly profit in company history, announced to all the FF'ers that there would be a cutback in F/C meals and amenities.  As they say in the theatah, timing is everything.
 
E,
thanks for your comments.

you are correct that WN didn't really START significant amounts of maintenance outsourcing but compared to US PASSENGER LEGACY carriers, WN had and still has higher amounts of maintenance outsourcing than the US PASSENGER LEGACY carriers (airlines as opposed to Amtrak or Greyhound).

My preference is and always will be that US airlines have the flexibility and will to do as much work as possible inhouse and then use all of their capabilities to BRING WORK TO the US from other carriers. AA, DL, and UA ALL have considerable maintenance capabilities that could be used to add jobs while serving foreign carriers' maintenance needs.

actually, I would say that AA, DL, and UA all live fairly compatibly side by side in Europe and Latin America, with each carrier having its strength markets and niches.

The difference with Asia is that the two dominant carrier status quo is being challenged by AA (not debating necessarily whether that is good or bad) which is why Asia is much more of an issue than other parts of the world.

Finally, don't forget that AA was helped greatly in its recent finances by its emergence from BK and the reduced costs that produced. UA had the same thing a few years ago but blew much of the cost advantage because they screwed up the operation and revenue generation.

For the record, I expect AA will do a whole lot better at integration than UA did.

You are very likely right that foreign carrier workforces might well be contributing to their own outsourcing but I'm not sure how the pay and benefits differ between foreign carriers and foreign MROs either.

As for the comment about Asian carriers focus on their product, the fact remains that US carriers compete quite favorably - where COST is comparable. The reason why SQ focuses so heavily on product is because they sit at the "end" of SE Asia which means they have to rely on 5th freedom rights and outstanding service to win over customers. Ironically, it is high quality carriers like SQ that are threatened by the ME3 who have low costs plus more favorable geography.

CX and KE have better geography than SQ but they both compete heavily on flow traffic - and still have the benefit of low labor costs (it's not hard to keep labor costs down when you hire an FA with the expectation that they won't be around for more than a few years).

If you don't have to pay much in the way of salaries, you can compete on a whole lot of other aspects of the product.

Some of us would rather see a few 60 year old but friendly Americans serving us in the cabin alongside some younger Americans than a whole crew of foreign workers who enjoy nowhere near the level of pay and benefits that Americans make.

And let's not forget that many US pilots fly for Asian carriers and they are actively looking for a whole lot more. The US built global aviation and I would far rather keep US pilots flying US registered aircraft.

FWAAA,
there is no doubt that UA screwed up a whole lot with the merger but if there is one truism of aviation chat forums, it is that participants grab onto a notion and won't let go until well after it is no longer true.
UA does seem to be turning things around, and I dare remind you, that for now, they are running a more reliable and on-time operation than AA. Given that so many passengers fled UA because of operational problems - compounded by customer service issues - no one should think that UA is not only capable of regaining some of the passengers lost but also pulling over others who have ridden the fence between AA and UA over the years.

it's also noteworthy that UA just announced today a bunch of enhancements to its premium meal service. I have no idea how it will ultimately compare to the competition but they seem to realize they cut too deep.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #18
WorldTraveler said:
FWAAA,
there is no doubt that UA screwed up a whole lot with the merger but if there is one truism of aviation chat forums, it is that participants grab onto a notion and won't let go until well after it is no longer true.
UA does seem to be turning things around, and I dare remind you, that for now, they are running a more reliable and on-time operation than AA. Given that so many passengers fled UA because of operational problems - compounded by customer service issues - no one should think that UA is not only capable of regaining some of the passengers lost but also pulling over others who have ridden the fence between AA and UA over the years.

it's also noteworthy that UA just announced today a bunch of enhancements to its premium meal service. I have no idea how it will ultimately compare to the competition but they seem to realize they cut too deep.
Click to expand...
Coincidentally, I was preparing a new thread to discuss today's announcement of UA meal improvements while you prepared this post - I was sidetracked by a long phone call, but the new thread is now posted.
 
I'm certain that UA will recover and UA may inflict harm on new AA like DL and AA inflicted harm on UA.    Given Parker's track record, he's bound to screw things up.   I'm under no delusion that he's the second coming of CR Smith or Crandall or Herb.  
 
My only point was that if UA is eating AA's lunch to Asia (like starting LAX-PVG as soon as AA announced it), then so far this year, it's working out ok for AA.   AA earned as much in the first half of this year (excl special items) as UA earned in 2012 plus 2013 plus the first half of this year (also excluding special items).   Causation?   Probably not, but AA is on track to earn about $4 billion this year (before special items).   
 
I don't think or hope that any of the big 3 plus WN will eat any of each other's lunch. It took (and has taken) some major strategic and operational mess-ups to shift traffic between the big 3 beside what their networks generate normally. Big screw-ups and failures aren't good for anyone.

There may be differences in profitability, service, and markets served but all of the big 4 are poised to be large, healthy airlines in an industry that for now can tolerate a few niche airlines flying around the margins.

The issue with Asia is that the competition is much lower cost than to/from Europe or Latin America and that what AA is doing is trying to significantly build its own network.

Even if you want to compare DL's growth at LHR, DL/NW started w/ slots from AF/KL and expanded the partnership with Virgin so DL's growth at LHR is not home grown.

I believe given strong fundamentals in the US industry as a whole that AA can sustain building an Asian presence but it is doubtful they will be on parity or generate the level of profits that DL does from a more mature system.

OTOH, AA has the same advantage in Latin America where it acquired and has developed a strong presence, UA walked away from its purchase of Pan Am's Latin system but increased its position from CO, while DL has built its Latin system entirely on its own and over a period of a couple decades.

As many would point out, DL sees peaks and valleys in its Latin profitability compared to AA and is not near the size of AA - but DL is profitable in Latin America on a year round basis.

Perhaps that is the model that AA is shooting for in Asia and if they succeed at it, they have nothing to be ashamed of.

ICN still seems like a tough market for AA to support 3 flts/day w/o an alliance partner, though. AA has advantages that should be able to be tapped in other markets such as China.
 
“AA has been performing well in Korea because more and more Korean business travelers choose to fly with us,” Park said in a recent interview with The Korea Times. “As part of cost-cutting efforts, more Korean companies choose us over Korean Air or Asiana Airlines because we offer seats at competitive prices and more convenient connection flights within the United States or to neighboring countries.”

IOW, "we are undercutting Korean and Asiana in order to fill our planes."

 
 
AdAstraPerAspera said:
Here you go, FWAAA...

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_newsidx=163727

LAX? ORD?
Click to expand...
My SWAG is ORD first and LAX later, but not that much later.  We gotta a lot of 777s on the delivery sheet.  The importance to the Koreans regarding connectivity to destinations past the U.S. arrival station seems to put the ball in ORD's court.  By the way, the woman who is commercial manager for us in Korea seems to be a sharp number.  And, just think our friends at United taught her everything; so, she could hit the ground running when she joined us.  :lol:
 
I'd expect LAX first. I'd expect just about anyplace that would be an optimal connection via ORD is already able to connect via DFW.
 
I'd be shocked if it wasn't LAX.
 
Los Angeles to Seoul is the single largest trans-Pacific local market and, IIRC, the only that breaks one million annual local passengers. There is room for an American airline on that route. 
 
of course it will be LAX.

AA's 10 abreast 777s will compete very effectively against KE and OZ's fleet.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #28
WorldTraveler said:
of course it will be LAX.

AA's 10 abreast 777s will compete very effectively against KE and OZ's fleet.
Click to expand...
The money is made in the front cabin anyway, so I couldn't care less how many seats they cram into E- for the penny-pinching budget travelers like summer youth groups visiting from China.  
 
Main Cabin Extra looks to remain nine across (3-3-3), so elites and those who buy-up will continue to get the wider 18.5 inch seats on the 77W and the 77D (2-class 772s),  comparable to today's 772 economy seats that are 2-5-2.    I prefer 2-5-2 over 3-3-3 but they didn't ask me.   
 
The AA manager in Seoul said in that article that DFW-ICN would eventually get a 3-class 77W, and that's the plane pictured in the article.   
 
no. with 250 of the seats on the aircraft in coach, it is completely illogical to say that coach doesn't matter because business is where the money is made.

If business was the real source of revenue you think it was, AA would have left seats in business. But they didn't; they are shrinking their business cabin.

The simple reality is that average fares in the entire aircraft have to be high enough to justify operating the flight.

And, again, KE and OZ's 777s have 9 abreast in the coach cabin, just like DL and UA have on their 777s.

AA has an uncompetitive product.

They are discounting in order to fill the aircraft; their marketing person in SEL said they are undercutting the S. Korean airlines.
 
eolesen said:
I'd expect LAX first. I'd expect just about anyplace that would be an optimal connection via ORD is already able to connect via DFW.
Click to expand...
Oh, no.  Our connections to Ft. Wayne and Cedar Rapids out of DFW are not good at all.  :LOL:  You're probably right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top