AA To Announce Love Field Flts On Friday 11/18?

[FWAAA]

AMR never intended to fill flights on these routes...only put a carrier out of business. They did that (through the flights as well as the same judicial system tactics they used against WN in the beginning to try to get them to run out of cash) and then pulled out of DAL. But according to the company's press at the time, it was a very wise biz decision to fly all FC out of DAL and there was a huge market. AMR was simply taking care of its customers per their press back then. Amazingly, though, those customers were no longer important after Legend was successfully plowed under. Talk about both sides of the mouth...

I'm getting old, too, but my memory of AA's DAL flights is a little more clear than yours; AA didn't cancel DAL service until almost six months after Legend folded, and might not have canceled DAL service if 19 worthless pieces of trash hadn't attacked us on September 11. We'll never know, as AA's DAL service ended that day. Along with about 20% of AA's capacity, some of which has returned.

If customers were clamoring for (and willing to PAY for) 56 seat all-F service from DAL, you can bet your last nickel that AA would be offering it right now. The fact is, DAL service with 56 seats probably isn't as profitable as Legend thought it would be, and that's probably why AA didn't restart DAL service in mid-September, 2001.

It might also explain why no other airline has offered 56 seat DAL service in the past 4+ years as well. If it made any sense at all, wouldn't UA or CO or DL or US or NW or AS or FL or F9 be trying it?

 

[MCI transplant]

east/west????????? When I took 5th grade geography, they told me that traveling Dallas to Kansas City or St. Louis would be more of a north/south thing.

So you are reveling in AA losing more money? It will just hasten the day that the rest of us and all the former TW employees in all departments are out of a job. I hope that makes you feel really good.

Reveling in the misfortune of others,regardless of your reasons, usually causes the law of unintended consequences to kick in.

<_< Jim---My mistake! I've had too much east/ west in my life lately! It is north/south! As you stated!As for "reveling in the misfortune of others",isn't that like the kettle,calling the pot black???? Espeacily in the profession of "Flight Attendant" at aa????

 

[corl737]

[...]
We'll never know, as AA's DAL service ended that day. Along with about 20% of AA's capacity, some of which has returned.
[...]

So true. Trying to project forward based on the theory that an event didn't happen is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps if Continental, Braniff, and Texas Int'l hadn't sued SWA in 1967 to prevent it from starting intra-state operations none of the Wright Amendment issue would have come about. SWA may have signed the 1968 agreement to move to DFW with everyone else and then had it's tiny operation crushed.

See, futility.

 

[mrman]

It might also explain why no other airline has offered 56 seat DAL service in the past 4+ years as well. If it made any sense at all, wouldn't UA or CO or DL or US or NW or AS or FL or F9 be trying it?

Actually both CO and DL offered RJ service outside Wright after AA left on 9-11. In addition AA added service to Austin until they figured out they couldn't compete with WN's service

 

[Wretched Wrench]

American Airlines stands to lose $115 million a year if direct flights from Dallas Love Field to Missouri are approved, according to an analyst who follows the airline industry.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2005-1...an-wright_x.htm

 

[Ch. 12]

I'm getting old, too, but my memory of AA's DAL flights is a little more clear than yours; AA didn't cancel DAL service until almost six months after Legend folded, and might not have canceled DAL service if 19 worthless pieces of trash hadn't attacked us on September 11. We'll never know, as AA's DAL service ended that day. Along with about 20% of AA's capacity, some of which has returned.

If customers were clamoring for (and willing to PAY for) 56 seat all-F service from DAL, you can bet your last nickel that AA would be offering it right now. The fact is, DAL service with 56 seats probably isn't as profitable as Legend thought it would be, and that's probably why AA didn't restart DAL service in mid-September, 2001.

It might also explain why no other airline has offered 56 seat DAL service in the past 4+ years as well. If it made any sense at all, wouldn't UA or CO or DL or US or NW or AS or FL or F9 be trying it?

I made absolutely no incorrect statements. You are correct that AA did not pull out right away but did restructure their service out of DAL after Legend failed (reducing the Fokker routes and adding back AUS...which they removed to enable them to plow under Legend with more capacity). Besides...to pull out the day after Legend crumbled would have been a blatant anticompetitive action. To wait a few months made the gullible or ignorant not question their motives. They did the same to JI out of RDU. AA added tremendous capacity to JI's business routes in PHL, BOS, LGA, BDL, and even CMH and a few others. While they still have LGA and BOS service, they cut out PHL and CMH and have only one BDL. I don't care if they are not as good of routes as LGA/BOS...the point is that AA has, several times, flooded routes that they do not intend to maintain long-term just to eliminate competition.

And fact is that AA DID make statements when adding the Fokker flights on Legend markets that they were excited to serve their important biz pax out of DAL and that they have listened to the needs of their pax. Their stance, however, changed after legend and the reduced and then eliminated service. 9/11 was only a convenient excuse to finalize the pull down. I would love to have access to the press releases from 2000/2001 but have not been able to find them but I can re-assure you that AMR DID make these statements.

And I never said that all carriers expressed that this was a good market...only AA in an attempt to disguise their blatant anti-competitive tactics. Apparently you were one of the ones that was fooled.

 

[IORFA]

AA code shared with Midway out of RDU and I know in BOS we did there flights and if I am not mistaken, the same was in LGA, PHL and BDL. Not sure how we ran them out when we cooperated with them in so many places.

 

[AirwAr]

...
anti-competitive tactics. Apparently you were one of the ones that was fooled.

Anti-competitive tactics? It appears that Legend's failed business plan was based on "Anti-competitive tactics", an assumption that they would have a monopoly on long-haul flights from DAL. Their whole business model relied on the Wright Amendment. They thought they were protected from competition. Surely, SW would not change it's business model to compete and surely AA would stay at DFW. They were wrong.

AA has always publicly stated that they would defend their market base, especially in their hometown so it should be no surprise that AA added flights.

If DAL is opened up, AA's revenue will probably be lower because of having split its operation, but it would probably be even worse not to.

AA code shared with Midway out of RDU and I know in BOS we did there flights and if I am not mistaken, the same was in LGA, PHL and BDL. Not sure how we ran them out when we cooperated with them in so many places.

I believe we code-shared with them up to a point, but then the APA had something in their Scope Clause that forced AA to give it up. I don't remember the exact reason...maybe somebody here will have it..

 

[Ch. 12]

AA code shared with Midway out of RDU and I know in BOS we did there flights and if I am not mistaken, the same was in LGA, PHL and BDL. Not sure how we ran them out when we cooperated with them in so many places.

AirwAr was correct that these codeshares ended over a year before the collapse of Midway. Also...working an airline's flights does not mean that you are helping them...it means they are paying you for a service.

This "cooperation" you mention also included ridiculous sublets of RDU gates from AA to JI. In the last year, AA had increased the costs to JI as well as reduced the availablity of these gates. It is what you can affectionately call "the squeeze". They strangled everything that was left out of JI just as they did to Legend.

And AirwAr...flying from DAL was not Legend's "monopoly". It is the same market as DFW according to the arguments of all you AAers evertime repealling the WA is mentioned but it is a different market when discussing and airline operatng there?? If it is such a different market, why does AA think it will take away from DFW? Back to the point...Legend didn't have a "monopoly" but rather a "unique product". This product was not DAL but rather the all-first class approach to all-biz markets. Flying in markets already served by a carrier that has a 75-100% market share is hardly a monopoly. In fact...the carrier with the already 75-100% market share is what you would call, at the least, an oligopoly and is HIGHLY uncompetitive. Legend produced no MONOPOLY as you incorrectly state but rather provided COMPETITION.

 

[MCI transplant]

Some of them and one of their senators are still bitter over a certain issue that AA management had absolutely no control over. They are so consumed by it that they actually want negative things to happen to AA. Yet when these bad things do happen to AA and AA lays of in MCI and STL, they are the first to cry and complain about how bad and unfair it is.

<_< Oh! Give me a break aa!!! "AA management had absolutely no control over"???? Do you really believe that!!??? If so, you are more nieve than I thought!!! As for Senitor Bond, he's no fool! He's watched thousands of his consituants go out to the street because of how aa and it's Unions handeled the TWA the buyout! His State, Missouri,and the States of Kansas, and Illionis, have been ecconomically damaged by aa's broken promises of "Fair and Equitable"!!!Now he's called this shot! Not anyone here at MCI,or STL! But if there's any negative impact, I'm sure you will fine some way to blame us! Yes, we'll be the first to go! Isn't that the way it's always been? That my friend is part of the whole problem!!!

 

[jimntx]

Why don't you ask the people of Kansas how they like all that low-cost SWA service they get from DAL? Or, the people of Mississippi and Alabama? They've been exempt from the Wright Amendment for several years now?

For that matter, why don't you ask the people of Kansas how they like that low-cost SWA service from ANYWHERE? At least, Mississippi and Alabama get some service from SWA.

 

[MCI transplant]

Why don't you ask the people of Kansas how they like all that low-cost SWA service they get from DAL? Or, the people of Mississippi and Alabama? They've been exempt from the Wright Amendment for several years now?

For that matter, why don't you ask the people of Kansas how they like that low-cost SWA service from ANYWHERE? At least, Mississippi and Alabama get some service from SWA.

<_< Jim---- Again I state! This is Bond's call, not ours!!!!!

 

[FWAAA]

I made absolutely no incorrect statements. You are correct that AA did not pull out right away but did restructure their service out of DAL after Legend failed (reducing the Fokker routes and adding back AUS...which they removed to enable them to plow under Legend with more capacity). Besides...to pull out the day after Legend crumbled would have been a blatant anticompetitive action. To wait a few months made the gullible or ignorant not question their motives. They did the same to JI out of RDU. AA added tremendous capacity to JI's business routes in PHL, BOS, LGA, BDL, and even CMH and a few others. While they still have LGA and BOS service, they cut out PHL and CMH and have only one BDL. I don't care if they are not as good of routes as LGA/BOS...the point is that AA has, several times, flooded routes that they do not intend to maintain long-term just to eliminate competition.

And fact is that AA DID make statements when adding the Fokker flights on Legend markets that they were excited to serve their important biz pax out of DAL and that they have listened to the needs of their pax. Their stance, however, changed after legend and the reduced and then eliminated service. 9/11 was only a convenient excuse to finalize the pull down. I would love to have access to the press releases from 2000/2001 but have not been able to find them but I can re-assure you that AMR DID make these statements.

And I never said that all carriers expressed that this was a good market...only AA in an attempt to disguise their blatant anti-competitive tactics. Apparently you were one of the ones that was fooled.

Hey, there's no foolin' me.

Sorry - of course you said no incorrect statements - nor did I accuse you of same. But you left out the fact that AA continued the DAL flights for about another six months after Legend's shutdown.

I don't see how AA's actions at DAL directed at Legend were "anti-competitive tactics."

Legend's business model depended on siphoning off some of AA's highest yielding DFW pax, and AA responded. The reality is that Legend didn't have to make a profit in order to harm AA. If AA lost enough of those higher yielding pax, then AA's DFW profits could be jeopardized even if Legend couldn't make profits at DAL with those customers.

Who cares what AA's press releases said about DAL service? I concede that AA did say what you claim. but who cares?

Of course AA was going to paint DAL Executive Class service in a favorable light. Would you expect them to say "We think DAL service with 56 F seats on a full-size airplane makes no sense whatsoever but if we don't go crush Legend, our fortress hub profits at DFW may be in jeopardy"??

Of course not.

September 11 was a "convenient excuse"? Huh? AA pulled down about 20% of its capacity when service resumed three days later. A rational company would cut its least profitable (or biggest-losses) service as part of that 20%. That DAL service was included in that drawdown tells me that it wasn't a good idea. To compare, there were plenty of routes where AA didn't cut service at all or cut only one or two daily departures in high density markets.

AA continued its DAL service for those six months to diffuse criticism? My conspiracy theory detector is ringing.

If AA thought that 56 seat DAL service could be a profitable part of its network, it would have started it many, many moons ago. It wouldn't have waited for Legend. In the unlikely event that DAL service proved to be a good idea (like if AA's 56 seat planes were full at high fares and DFW's yields were not harmed), then AA could have continued its Executive Class Service.

But AA didn't continue it. Tells me that it wasn't all that profitable. Anti-competitive? "Flooded routes"? Courts have ruled again and again that there's really no such thing as predatory pricing - even in cases involving AA. If what AA did to Legend amounted to anticompetitive predatory pricing, then wouldn't Legend (or the Department of Justice) sued AA for the conduct? Maybe they read the Vanguard opinions and agreed with me (and the courts): Responding to competitors isn't illegal. It's not predatory. It is not anticompetitive.

 

[Ch. 12]

FWAAA-

I think we are both in agreement that despite AA's public statements, the true intention of their 56 seat service was to reduce their competition. While I fully support a company protecting its viability, the ethical side of me says that it is highly unethical to pretend that the action is consumer-centric and solely based on the company's discovery that there is a large market sector they have not tended to. I think we both can agree that their PR was fluff...and why shouldn't it be? Should they really state "hey...we're trying to knock out competition here"? Of course that wouldn't fly but I think that in the day of focusing on the consumer, it is HIGHLY unethical to pretend that the consumer is the motive of your actions when, in fact, it is the competition.

And Legend was in court with AA for 5 years. If you check the transcripts (on a DOJ website), you will see that AA demanded documents from Legend including their current and future business plans stating that it was necessary to see these documents to fight their case. Sounds pretty aloof to me. Again...NOT ETHICAL. But I am wise and understand that not every company will operate ethically...just look at Arthur Anderson (pretty cool that they are also "AA") and Enron. But I don't subscribe to unethical approaches to business...regardless of whether or not it can be proven in court. And you ask why Legend did not take AA to court for these anti-competitive tactics? My guess...and maybe it is a stretch here...is that since they had no money and were no longer a company (i.e. no employees, etc), what would they have gained? Seems like alot of $$ to throw out when your company has already liquidated.

Just look at the court cases of AMR-Legend and AMR-WN and discover the pattern. Trying to bleed a company to death through custom-tailored legislation and judicial decisions is a cowardly and unethical way to do business. Many companies have proven that you CAN operate profitibally and ethically at the same time so I cannot respect those that choose an unethical approach.

Why don't you ask the people of Kansas how they like all that low-cost SWA service they get from DAL? Or, the people of Mississippi and Alabama? They've been exempt from the Wright Amendment for several years now?

For that matter, why don't you ask the people of Kansas how they like that low-cost SWA service from ANYWHERE? At least, Mississippi and Alabama get some service from SWA.

Jim-

I've answered this over and over but perhaps you are hoping that our memories are short. Tell me...how many LOCAL-ONLY pax do you think would fly from DAL-MCI or DAL-JAN? Answer is not enough to support a high-frequency carrier such as WN...not even enough to support a low-frequency carrier. Remove the through-ticketing restrictions and I would guess WN would consider serving these cities through DAL. Until then it just makes no sense. AA would not profit on MCI, JAN, and BHM flights to DFW if they could only fly pax between those two cities and none could connect on to LAX, SFO, etc, etc. Get it this time? It is tiring to constantly explain this utterly competition-limiting legislation.

 

[jimntx]

Jim-
It is tiring to constantly explain this utterly competition-limiting legislation.

Oh, well, then why don't you go lie down in a darkened room with a cold towel on your little forehead and let the person TO WHOM the question was addressed try to answer it.

The person, who happens to be an AA employee, was rejoicing in the fact that SWA is allegedly going to provide worlds of service to Missouri and run AA out of town. (Notwithstanding the job losses in both MCI and STL if that would happen, the employee seemed to be looking forward to it.)

And, it would be interesting to know what SWA promised to the Congressmen from KS to get them to vote for the last expansion of the WA boundaries. No doubt, SWA came back later and said "if it hadn't been for 9/11, blah, blah, blah.) You remember, that argument when used by AA that is bogus. It is only valid when used by SWA to renege on agreements.

By the way, I noticed none of you have had much to say about the recent revelation that the Love Field OA has been subsidizing SWA by charging minuscule landing fees.

(For those of you who may not be familiar with the issue...
DFW charges something like $8/lb landing weight in fees--comparable to other airports. DAL has been charging SWA less than $1/lb and trying to make up the deficit through other sources. Finally caught up with them to the point that the City Council found out. Oh, and before you all jump on the fact that it must not be true because my figures are not exact, the relative difference is the same.)
I'm afraid the public knowledge of that little piece of information is going to cost SWA big time, because the Mayor and the City Council are already disavowing any knowledge of the fact that DAL has been losing money on its landing fees.