I have no idea, but I wasn't talking about differences in price between different online distribution channels - I was talking about actual data, being the prices that people are actually paying AA, no matter where they buy it, and for a while, we won't know AA's actual revenues.robbedagain said:
AA, UA and DL in China
- Thread starter Crash Pad DCA
- Start date
jimntx
Veteran
FWIW, I checked a few days into the future, and the loads look pretty good. Not nonrevs-in-the-overhead-bins good, but pretty good for a brand-new route.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #123
robbed,
generally, most US airlines won't give lower fares to other resellers at least from a US point of sale because doing so weakens the airline's own website which is the cheapest distribution channel.
I used as many dates into the future - generally within the next 90 days - but with various lengths of stay, departure days of week from DFW, and various combinations of returns from Asia.
AA does come up as competitive in many searches from some of the major east coast O&Ds but they are being undercut sometimes quite significantly in the DFW local market.
It is great that you are looking at fares on sites and it doesn't hurt to do the same in other major markets - esp. as new service is started on new int'l routes.
gives you a good idea of where an airline is trying to pull traffic and where others are doing the same.
there really is a correlation between where you see an airline with the lowest fares on a consistent basis and what airlines actually do carry when DOT data comes out on a market by market basis.
actually, because DFW-ICN has been operating for a year, there is DOT data available on how well it does.
KE does not have to report all of its passenger data because it is not in a JV with a US carrier but what it does report shows that it still gets an average fare advantage relative to AA and is targeting some of the same O&Ds (origins and destinations) that AA uses such as AUS, MSY, HOU/IAH.
even though AA compete on the DFW-ICN market and don't codeshare, int'l connections are often built using industry standard interline agreements which all airlines have to participate in.
in a few extreme cases, airlines cancel interline agreements with other airlines to prevent any kind of selling of tickets. DL did it with Turkish and a few others because DL did not want to use its domestic feed at JFK to help carriers that are undercutting DL.
the converse is that if AA did the same thing to KE at DFW, AA would likely lose the ability to sell KE space beyond ICN on KE which happens even if there is no codeshare.
codeshares and alliances are just an extension of the interline relationships that have existed in the industry for decades.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
Not true. Ever hear of Priceline? Wholesalers? The latter may not matter for domestic travel but they certainly do exist in the international market ex-US...
Direct channels are lower expense, but they also tend to be lower yielding. Most of the premium and/or unrestricted bookings come thru indirect channels, and that's where the bulk of ticket based revenue comes from... Where direct bookings pay off for the airlines is thru ancillaries, and even that advantage may shift as more airlines start selling their seats and service bundles thru the GDS's.
The main reason airlines want you to use their website is control and to a lesser degree, float.
AA.com or Delta.com won't show you the cheaper AA-out-DL-back booking that Kayak, Expedia or Orbitz will show as available. When the agency books the ticket, the airline doesn't get the payment float. The agency and ARC do.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #125
that is why I used the word "generally"
And different airlines have different philosophies regarding wholesalers but most wholesale ticketing in the US market has been at fares below what US airlines can profitably sell which is part of why foreign carriers dominate that segment.
European and Japanese carriers do not use wholesalers like they used to do.
For a US airline, their own website is THE LOWEST COST distribution method.
I would hardly expect an employee of a GDS to admit that but it is the truth and it is borne out by the efforts which US carriers have used to follow WN's path which is to sell as much as possible thru their own website.
airline websites are biased but that should surprise no one.
they exist to promote the interests of their owner.
and whatever distribution doesn't matter if a competitor has their nose under the tent in your prime markets or if they have the ability to siphon off of your best revenue.
And different airlines have different philosophies regarding wholesalers but most wholesale ticketing in the US market has been at fares below what US airlines can profitably sell which is part of why foreign carriers dominate that segment.
European and Japanese carriers do not use wholesalers like they used to do.
For a US airline, their own website is THE LOWEST COST distribution method.
I would hardly expect an employee of a GDS to admit that but it is the truth and it is borne out by the efforts which US carriers have used to follow WN's path which is to sell as much as possible thru their own website.
airline websites are biased but that should surprise no one.
they exist to promote the interests of their owner.
and whatever distribution doesn't matter if a competitor has their nose under the tent in your prime markets or if they have the ability to siphon off of your best revenue.
Kev3188
Veteran
"Only" him?WorldTraveler said:
Hmmm.
Oh, I'd wager most readers of this thread can agree that you've certainly "accomplished" something here...
It's good to have priorities in life.
I'm curious to see how UA does on the SFO-CTU route. Seems like the ideal 787 city pair?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #127
sure... but is 3X/week going to really create a market? isn't that all it is operating?
I listed the largest US carrier gateways to E. Asia in another thread but it is worth noting that UA at SFO is the largest gateway followed by DL at DTW, DL at SEA, UA at ORD, and then AA at DFW.
UA has about 8.5 flights/day (because some flights don't operate on a daily basis) while AA at DFW and DL at DTW are at 5 flights/day and DL at SEA is at 6 flights/day. DL at SEA is largely a 330 station across the Pacific and a 744 station on DTW to Asia.
I listed the largest US carrier gateways to E. Asia in another thread but it is worth noting that UA at SFO is the largest gateway followed by DL at DTW, DL at SEA, UA at ORD, and then AA at DFW.
UA has about 8.5 flights/day (because some flights don't operate on a daily basis) while AA at DFW and DL at DTW are at 5 flights/day and DL at SEA is at 6 flights/day. DL at SEA is largely a 330 station across the Pacific and a 744 station on DTW to Asia.
Kev3188
Veteran
I don't know & I don't know.WorldTraveler said:
What I can say is that we've all heard that this was *exactly* the sort of market that's ideal for a 787.
UA's got the route to themselves, a decent jumping off point w/SFO, and supposedly the right A/C for the market.
Like I said, I'm curious to see how it pans out...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #129
given that SFO-CTU is a 14 hour flight and the 787 is generally perceived to be the smallest aircraft that can be operated on that kind of route, then, yes, the route is made possible because of a 787.
the only "counter" is that DL's new SEA-HKG flight is within minutes of the same schedule time as UA's SFO-CTU is not entirely accurate.
The 332 and 787-8 are very similarly sized.
Also, DL is using 10 year old 332s which are undoubtedly heavier but also lower powered than newer models and that is even before the 330neo starts flying, if it does.
The 767 has flown flights that are less than a hour shorter than UA's SFO-CTU route.
the 787 is a great plane and it will do for the Pacific what the 757 did for the Atlantic but other aircraft can and have done much of the same thing.
The travel market from China is growing and there will be more service added using every type of widebody.
the only "counter" is that DL's new SEA-HKG flight is within minutes of the same schedule time as UA's SFO-CTU is not entirely accurate.
The 332 and 787-8 are very similarly sized.
Also, DL is using 10 year old 332s which are undoubtedly heavier but also lower powered than newer models and that is even before the 330neo starts flying, if it does.
The 767 has flown flights that are less than a hour shorter than UA's SFO-CTU route.
the 787 is a great plane and it will do for the Pacific what the 757 did for the Atlantic but other aircraft can and have done much of the same thing.
The travel market from China is growing and there will be more service added using every type of widebody.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #134
actually, if AA wants to stay flying to Asia and subsidizing it to the tune of a couple hundred million dollars per year, it just makes it that much easier for DL to continue its growth in Latin America since AA has to make its profits and DL can target those places for growth.jcw said:
based on current schedules, DL's int'l system is growing faster than either AA or UA's undoubtedly as DL attempts to ensure that AA cannot surpass DL as the 2nd largest US int'l carrier.
UA's growth rate is the most anemic although their int'l route system is still about 13% larger than DL.
