FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Unhinged again?
American Airlines makes a move to dominate at LAX
- Thread starter Glenn Quagmire
- Start date
-
- Tags
- aa dominance first class lax
Unhinged again?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #242
no, you forgot to answer the question as to what AA's size in any region does for AA employees?
class?
class?
- Banned
- #243
And go look at page 20 on this and you will see DL is cutting back in Asia:
http://ir.delta.com/files/doc_presentations/2014/Investor-Day-Combined-Presentation-with-Non-GAAPs%281%29.pdf
http://ir.delta.com/files/doc_presentations/2014/Investor-Day-Combined-Presentation-with-Non-GAAPs%281%29.pdf
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
700UW said:
pg. 20 was missing on WTs copy of that presentation ... ... ...
Delta, circa this morning (page 31, emphasis mine):
"Refine Los Angeles hub with completion of schedule build-out and facility upgrades"
Hmmm ... perhaps Delta knows something that "certain" other individuals do not?
"Refine Los Angeles hub with completion of schedule build-out and facility upgrades"
Hmmm ... perhaps Delta knows something that "certain" other individuals do not?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #246
as to Asia, DL said this months ago. Where were you?
And DL's capacity cuts are coming largely from beyond NRT capacity.
what you cannot admit is that DL is not losing its position in the US - Japan market or the Japan beach markets and DL is also profitable.
AA should be so lucky.
As for LAX, DL still has the ability add more capacity. and it still doesn't change that even if AA got every gate that they could at LAX, they still won't gain any sort of dominance because the markets such as into ATL in which they will add service are markets where other carriers are far larger and always will be - which means AA will have the same revenue disadvantage - 25% that it had from ATL-LGA.
And DL's capacity cuts are coming largely from beyond NRT capacity.
what you cannot admit is that DL is not losing its position in the US - Japan market or the Japan beach markets and DL is also profitable.
AA should be so lucky.
As for LAX, DL still has the ability add more capacity. and it still doesn't change that even if AA got every gate that they could at LAX, they still won't gain any sort of dominance because the markets such as into ATL in which they will add service are markets where other carriers are far larger and always will be - which means AA will have the same revenue disadvantage - 25% that it had from ATL-LGA.
MAH4546 said:
I'd consider Caribbean part of Latin America - at least by DOT/airline terms. I guess I was confused - so I believe AA is pretty much as big as Delta and United combined to Latin America. So in network airline terms - domination, just like United to Asia. But the larger point is the same - among U.S. carriers, Delta dominates traffic to no international region (except perhaps Africa) and dominates no major U.S. domestic markets except the fortress hubs - and thus, as said, Delta today essentially has no discernible network advantage over AA or United.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #249
yes, Commavia!
and yes, DL plus UA to Latin America is actually slightly larger than AA to Latin America.
among ALL US airlines, AA has only about 1/3 of capacity - and that doesn't even consider foreign carriers.
so, no, AA doesn't dominate Latin America.
and I didn't start a thread with a title that DL dominated traffic to any region.
AA's share of LAX is less than its share of Latin America.
DL and UA's share of Latin America is LARGER than AA's share of the Pacific.
AA in Asia not only is the smallest airline in any of the 3 global regions but AA also has lost more money than any other airline in any other region.
and, you have yet to answer the question of what AA's size has done for its employees - and for that matter its investors.
you do recall that AA had the largest RASM decline in Latin America that any airline has had in any region in a very long time.
so what has that dominance gotten AA? that isn't really dominance.
and why is AA's RASM performance so far below DL and WN's?
DFW, Latin America, Europe, NYC, Asia/Pacific?
and yes, DL plus UA to Latin America is actually slightly larger than AA to Latin America.
among ALL US airlines, AA has only about 1/3 of capacity - and that doesn't even consider foreign carriers.
so, no, AA doesn't dominate Latin America.
and I didn't start a thread with a title that DL dominated traffic to any region.
AA's share of LAX is less than its share of Latin America.
DL and UA's share of Latin America is LARGER than AA's share of the Pacific.
AA in Asia not only is the smallest airline in any of the 3 global regions but AA also has lost more money than any other airline in any other region.
and, you have yet to answer the question of what AA's size has done for its employees - and for that matter its investors.
you do recall that AA had the largest RASM decline in Latin America that any airline has had in any region in a very long time.
so what has that dominance gotten AA? that isn't really dominance.
and why is AA's RASM performance so far below DL and WN's?
DFW, Latin America, Europe, NYC, Asia/Pacific?
Timely ... courtesy of Aviation Week this morning (emphasis mine):
Appears to confirm what many of us have been suggesting for months - Delta is reaching the practical limits of its expansion potential at LAX, which is going to give AA the opportunity, if it so chooses, to begin creating meaningful distance between itself and competitors based on its substantial gate/access advantage.
Appears to confirm what many of us have been suggesting for months - Delta is reaching the practical limits of its expansion potential at LAX, which is going to give AA the opportunity, if it so chooses, to begin creating meaningful distance between itself and competitors based on its substantial gate/access advantage.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #251
and nowhere have I ever said that DL had an unlimited amount of growth. I have long agreed.
what you can't accept is that all the gates in the world won't help AA win anything if the only markets they can start are where other carriers are already strong.
and that is the nature of LAX.
There simply is little that AA can do without stepping on someone's toes.
If AA decides to step on someone else's toes even at LAX, they will see more flights added elsewhere or in the case of foreign airlines just watch their yields be decreased.
to think that AA is going to succeed because they have a bunch of gates at an airport where other carriers still have very strong markets is foolish.
you also conveniently cut out the part where Hauenstein said that LAX is very profitable for DL.
with AA's losses on JFK-LAX, and LAX to Asia, AA simply cannot make that statement.
what you can't accept is that all the gates in the world won't help AA win anything if the only markets they can start are where other carriers are already strong.
and that is the nature of LAX.
There simply is little that AA can do without stepping on someone's toes.
If AA decides to step on someone else's toes even at LAX, they will see more flights added elsewhere or in the case of foreign airlines just watch their yields be decreased.
to think that AA is going to succeed because they have a bunch of gates at an airport where other carriers still have very strong markets is foolish.
you also conveniently cut out the part where Hauenstein said that LAX is very profitable for DL.
with AA's losses on JFK-LAX, and LAX to Asia, AA simply cannot make that statement.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
Where did you find information that AA isn't profitable on JFK-LAX? Lol!
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
AdAstraPerAspera said:
In his (day) dreams?
More likely he made it up hoping that if nobody notices and he repeats it often enough it will be true.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #254
uh... the fact that dumped 40% of the capacity?
despite what you want to believe, AA was losing its shorts and shirts on JFK-LAX with the 762s.
problem is that they decided to throw out the customers in pursuit of a low cost option.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
AA did not dump 40% of the capacity.
You fabricated these numbers before, got caught, yet are repeating it again.
Ofcourse you've never let facts get in the way of a gooDL narrative.
The old AA B767s had 9+30+128 = 167 seats x 9 daily = 1326
The new A321s have 10+20+36+36 = 102 seats x 13 daily = 1503
Not a 40% difference.
BTW: if AA with its higher yields on JFK-LAX is losing money (shorts and shirts), then what is happening to DL with their lower yields? I thought for profit companies aren't supposed to operate money losing routes? Certainly not DL. Stockholder of DL should be outraged!!! With your logic, with the weakening yen DL will not be able to subsidize the losses it incurs on JFK-LAX and might be forced to exit the market and just stick to connecting all fligths via ATL ... ... ..
