American Airlines makes a move to dominate at LAX

[WorldTraveler]

I'm annoyed at nothing.

And I'm also not doubting that AA has gates... I'm asking you to provide proof that the gate advantage they have has actually provided a revenue advantage in the local market. it hasn't.

AA has a lead in flights right now but it translates into very little lead in local boardings.

And yes telling us that MSC gates will be swapped out 1 for 1 for Eagle gates which are RJ gates is exactly the upgauging that you want us to believe will make a difference.


and you still can't explain how AA is going to grow a market where AA already serves most of the top markets, where other carriers have enough reserve capacity to add flights into AA's top markets, and how the sum total for AA is going to be higher than it is now after they give up a very profitable position in Latin America in order to add flights where foreign competitors, not DL and UA, are going to make sure that AA is never profitable flying to ICN, China, HKG, TPE etc.

All the gates in the world can't change that AA is having to grow at LAX into highly competitive markets where other carriers both domestically and int'lly will extract a higher price than if AA was content to just be middle of the pack.

you still can't grasp the concept that AA's hub network is built around the largest markets in the country to begin with. Adding more markets requires AA to push into other carriers' key markets while AA gets far less back compared to what other carriers get by growing into AA markets.

AA's hub network is structurally at a growth disadvantage. It is precisely this reality that has allowed DL to grow into AA's key markets while AA has gotten very little from DL in return.

growing LAX is fundamentally about the same issue - which you have never been able to understand.

it is easier for competitors to pick on AA than the other way around.

 

[MAH4546]

How can I provide you proof of a gate advantage that is effective November 6th 2014? The gate advantage never existed until last week. AA has more mainline gates than Delta has total gates. That's what is allowing AA to do things like enter LAXATL, probably enter LAXSEA and probably bring LAXDEN to mainline. There was a time in early 2014 when PMAA's mainline operation was operating out of as little as ten gates in T4. 
 
I fully understand what AA is doing at LAX and fully grasp it. It is an incredibly competitive market, which is why even while AA will have a strong advantage over DL and UA in every respect, UA and DL will be just fine. Just like how AA is just fine in New York with a smaller footprint than those two.
 
You manipulate numbers, rarely cite sources, fail to mention that most of your publicly sourced data excludes international numbers when you do cite them, and hate the truth. 

 

[robbedagain]

Mah the gates PMUS used were they leased to them from PMAA or LAX

 

[MAH4546]

Mah the gates PMUS used were they leased to them from PMAA or LAX

They weren't leased. They were common use gates. US had preferential use of one gate. The other two US had to use subject to VX and B6 scheduling.

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA only now has 28 gates. It used to have only 21 as recently as SEPTEMBER 2014.

21 is more than DL had so AA had a hefty gate advantage over DL even in the 2nd quarter for the most recent DOT revenue stats.

if AA's gate advantage in 2nd quarter translated into a very modest advantage in the local market, then how will a dozen more gates make a difference now?

and you still can't get that I have repeatedly said I am glad that AA is growing.

the part I do not agree with is your continual statements that AA will grow but other carriers cannot.

if you can just leave it that AA will grow and other carriers will have to figure out how to compete, then we'd be fine.

you have no idea what plans other carriers have and you are completely wrong that AA has access to any gate growth that no other carrier will be able to find.

and you still have yet to answer the question as to whether it will be strategically worth it for AA to push into highly competitive markets from AA - domestically and int'lly - at LAX and in Asia - in order to lose AA's advantage in Latin America.

 

[robbedagain]

thx mah  so with us now at AA terminal  did the gate US had go back to the airport then or is B6 or VX using it

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

and you still can't answer how native AA with twice the gates that DL has actually carried LESS local LAX passengers than DL

 

I would expect them to do no different but I am still waiting for how AA can have twice the gates that DL has but DL can board more LOCAL LAX passengers than native AA.

 

my question from the beginning was why AA doesn't generate more local revenue than they do or than their peers given such a gate advantage and how AA is going to make routes work to Asia when they can't make the ones they do serve work. a 2% advantage over UA is hardly domination.
 

and while you count flights and gates, DL and UA have both managed to generate very similar amounts of revenue in the local market as AA - within a couple percent. No one except you cares if AA uses LAX as a hub if they don't generate proportionately higher revenues in the local market.

other carriers simply use their LAX resources more efficiently in serving the local market; they couldn't have a lot less in assets at LAX but generate comparable revenues and passengers.

And I'm also not doubting that AA has gates... I'm asking you to provide proof that the gate advantage they have has actually provided a revenue advantage in the local market. it hasn't.

 
It's fascinating and hilarious watching WT spin.
 
When one is discussing DL and their alleged winning in NYC, it is politely pointed out to him that in terms of passengers, AA carried about 70% of DL and that naturally UA smokes them both.  He throws a hissy fit and starts writes diatribes and diatribes about how that doesn't matter and that in reality it is the average fare(s) in NYC that should be the main metric to judge who is 'winning'.
 
Now, when I confronted with the fact that AA gets a revenue premium on the JFK-LAX transcons, he all of the sudden changed the storyline to  .... yep, the # of local passengers .... as THE most important metric to take into consideration.
 
I'm actually amazed that anybody still reads his BS (myself included), I'm fairly confident none believe it.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm sure it is COMPLETELY lost on you but DL didn't come out and say that it has or will block any competitor from growing.

I have repeatedly said - and you obviously can't grasp it - that I have no problem with AA growing at LAX.

My problem is with statements that AA can grow but others cannot.

LAWA is NOT in AA's back pocket and they cannot stop other carriers from growing or obtaining resources to do so.

The amount of LOCAL passengers is what matters in any discussion about market strength.

I have never touted ATL's size as the largest airport to prove anything about the local market because it is IRRELEVANT.

the fact that you and others can't understand that all of the flights that a carrier puts into a market means nothing if they don't gain a LOCAL advantage from it shows your lack of understanding of the way the airline industry operates.

DL has the largest average aircraft size of the big 3 at LAX in part because DL doesn't use 50 seat RJs and in part because even on a mainline basis, DL carries in excess of 20 more passengers per MAINLINE flight than AA does. Factor in that difference and the number of mainline seats that DL offers is far closer to AA than MAH would like to admit.

DL has always been a large jet mainline airline. DL doesn't fly hourly L10s to Florida anymore but their route system is more than capable of supporting abundant numbers of 767s (up to 265 seats), 757s (which come in 240 and 200 seat versions), and 739s (180 seats), all of which are frequent visitors to LAX and whose numbers will only grow as DL uses its limited real estate more efficiently. DL also has abundant opportunity to upgrade large RJs to mainline and do it at their same gates.

AA is rapidly retiring 757s and has the 321 as the only viable large domestic aircraft replacement.

AA is getting rid of many of its small RJs and is shifting its LAX network to be more local instead of connecting focused which will only increase their share of the local market with far less growth.

WN is adding gates and deploying 738s which seat close to what legacy carrier 757s or 321s seat.

Other carriers are growing at LAX esp. in the local market.

again, I am happy to see AA growing at LAX.

I am not going to accept that other carriers can't negotiate deals at LAX to gain more space or that they can't grow by using their resources to push more passengers thru their facilities.

 

[commavia]

How funny (pathetic) that some people still can't or won't face reality.
 
LAX isn't dramatically expanding or adding tons of new gates.  The airport is under strict gate caps that limit the ability of any airline to substantially expand their operations.  It's really unfortunate for Delta - or Delta fanboys, more particularly - that AA simply outmaneuvered them by parlaying an already-sizable facility footprint into securing more of the available gate space in the relatively more attractive places.  At this point, until the Midfield Concourse is built, the only terminals that have any meaningful space availability - at least at certain times of the day - are T2, T3 and perhaps TBIT.
 
Now, of course, the incoherent ramblings are true - Delta is obviously free to find new gates in those terminals (likely on a common-use basis), and Delta is also obviously free to continue upgauging to try and stuff more people through the gates it currently has.  Meanwhile, AA has the same ability to continue upgauging, but has additionally locked in far more gate space to also substantially expand frequency instead of just merely capacity.
 
This is no different than NYC, where AA has an intractable growth limitation - slots - that guarantees it cannot grow larger than Delta and United.  In this case, try as they might, Delta simply cannot grow larger than AA without more gates, and, again, there appears to be few if any realistic prospects for Delta getting many (if any) more. 
 
These are harsh realities for those who believe the sun never sets on the Delta empire, I know, but this is the reality nonetheless.

 

[Kev3188]

DL has always been a large jet mainline airline.

That may be, but they sure had a large role in the "RJ revolution" as well...

And while there may not be any 50-seat CRJ flying ex-LAX for DL , there's no shortage of large RJ flying, either...
 

757s (which come in 240 and 200 seat versions...

Point of order: DL doesn't have either a 200 nor 240 seat model 757.

 

[robbedagain]

I swore that the 57s held roughly 185 may be 190 tops    and no WT AA is not getting rid of the 57s as fast you alleged  youre flat out wrong there  as usual

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

757s (which come in 240 and 200 seat versions),
 

Point of order: DL doesn't have either a 200 nor 240 seat model 757.

 

I swore that the 57s held roughly 185 may be 190 tops  

 
Math has never been one of WT's talents.
 
According to delta.com, the 757-200's that DL operates seat 168-182.  Their 757-300's seat 224-234.
 
Depending on how you look at it, in the best case scenario, WT is off by approx. 20% on the capacity of the 757-200, and by approx.2.5% on the capacity of the 757-300.
 
I'll leave the job of spinning the faulty math to WT ............................................................
I'll leave the jokes about failing to grasp the capacity of a 757 to others ..........................

 

[WorldTraveler]

How funny (pathetic) that some people still can't or won't face reality.
 
LAX isn't dramatically expanding or adding tons of new gates.  The airport is under strict gate caps that limit the ability of any airline to substantially expand their operations.  It's really unfortunate for Delta - or Delta fanboys, more particularly - that AA simply outmaneuvered them by parlaying an already-sizable facility footprint into securing more of the available gate space in the relatively more attractive places.  At this point, until the Midfield Concourse is built, the only terminals that have any meaningful space availability - at least at certain times of the day - are T2, T3 and perhaps TBIT.
 
Now, of course, the incoherent ramblings are true - Delta is obviously free to find new gates in those terminals (likely on a common-use basis), and Delta is also obviously free to continue upgauging to try and stuff more people through the gates it currently has.  Meanwhile, AA has the same ability to continue upgauging, but has additionally locked in far more gate space to also substantially expand frequency instead of just merely capacity.
 
This is no different than NYC, where AA has an intractable growth limitation - slots - that guarantees it cannot grow larger than Delta and United.  In this case, try as they might, Delta simply cannot grow larger than AA without more gates, and, again, there appears to be few if any realistic prospects for Delta getting many (if any) more. 
 
These are harsh realities for those who believe the sun never sets on the Delta empire, I know, but this is the reality nonetheless.

and these harsh realities of which you speak are precisely why the notion that AA can add gates but other carriers cannot is a fantasy in your mind.

there is NO domestic gate growth.

AA isn't growing its domestic gates by doing anything that any carrier can't do. It is merely a fantasy of yours that AA can get gates in the TBIT or the fantasy MSC but no other carrier can.

It is also a fantasy for you to think that there can't be transactions between carriers that can open up gates or allow carriers to move around.

it is nothing short of arrogance for you to think that AA has a corner on growth while no other carrier can.

And it is precisely because of that arrogance that will ensure you will be proven time and time again.

There are multiple ways by which other carriers can grow and you will see how.
 

That may be, but they sure had a large role in the "RJ revolution" as well...

And while there may not be any 50-seat CRJ flying ex-LAX for DL , there's no shortage of large RJ flying, either...
 

Point of order: DL doesn't have either a 200 nor 240 seat model 757.

DL does in fact have a 234 seat 757; that is the configuration of the reconfigured 753s. so, yes, I HYPERBOLED to the tune of 6 seats.

DL is reconfiguring domestic 752s that remain in the fleet to 199 or 200 seats. What is terribly sad that people who claim to have so much inside knowledge about the industry don't realize that DL is in the process of refurbishing its 757, 320, and 319 fleets, all of which serve LAX and all of which will see increases in the number of seats.

based on peak day schedules right now, AA/US has 37% RJs at LAX for an average seat count overall of 126 seats/departure.

for DL it is 47% RJ for an average of 134 seats/dept.

for UA it is 46% RJ for an average of 112 seats/dept.

WN despite having no RJs, has an average aircraft size of 144 seats/dept

DL's average aircraft size in the summer was 5 seats higher.

So, despite having a higher percentage of RJs - all large RJs - DL had more seats/dept both considering all flghts and considering mainline only.

the average number of extra seats multiplied by the number of flights for DL is the equivalent of 11 extra flights at the same aircraft size that AA uses.

considering that DL is not only increasing the size of its 739 fleet, shifting the ratio of its large to mainline fleet across the system, and is far later to growing LAX than either AA or UA, it is not just likely but a given that DL will be using larger aircraft than it is now.

and no one has yet to answer the question of what strategic value AA gains if its growth into other carriers' key markets from Asia and LAX solely results in AA losing its dominance of the Latin America market which has been one of the highest margin networks among US carriers over the past decade.

This will absolutely be a topic to be kept on permanent watch.

 

[Kev3188]

Hyperbole is the best thing ever!

...And accuracy is king...

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

Considering the low-density, high-frequency A321T operates largely out of LAX, average seats per flight sounds like a metric that only paints some of the picture. Remember, there's only 102 seats on board those LuxuryLiners.