American Airlines makes a move to dominate at LAX

[WorldTraveler]

even the moderators aren't so blind enough to recognize that it is impossible to call what I do say as classless without calling out others for far worse

He is simply trying to get this thread locked by the moderators since he has become unhinged, yet again, about Delta not winning. Ignore or report him if need be.

I say keep the thread open.

I started this thread with the idea of discussing the new American Airlines and their road through LAX being a huge start to their great future.

and no I could care less if the thread is locked or not.

a few fankids ran with a press release and thought they had the smoking gun to prove that AA would succeed....

what they can't explain is
1. how AA, which has ALWAYS had a gate advantage over DL at LAX - doesn't get a revenue advantage despite the gate advantage.
2. how AA is going to build a gateway to Asia when they have yet to turn LAX to Asia around where they are the last place US carrier. given that AA has made solid progress in building DFW to Asia but has been unable to reproduce it in LAX or at ORD or JFK, it is pure fantasy to think that AA will succeed at doing at some point in the future what it has been able to accomplish after years and years of flying LAX-Asia
3. what AA really gains by starting service into top markets for other carriers who will and are in turn adding service into AA's most lucrative Latin America markets.

and most importantly, how AA's fast deteriorating labor relationships and the deep-seated distrust that AA employees have for mgmt. will ever allow AA to succeed at obtaining the premium revenue necessary to compete in some of the most competitive markets in the world

those are real strategic questions which aren't side issues and which are absolutely relevant to a discussion about how AA intends to "dominate" anything but esp. a market as competitive as LAX.

 

[Kev3188]

Like it or not, you are this board's most prolific poster. I'd like to see you help set the tone. Pointing at everyone else (and taking the bait) won't get us there.

Now, can we get back to talking about AA at LAX?

 

[Kev3188]

Remember that I have still have some very good friends at DL that I love and respect very much that I know personally, PMDL and PMNW... even on this board, Kev is someone I like and respect very much.

Thank you!

 

[WorldTraveler]

Like it or not, you are this board's most prolific poster. I'd like to see you help set the tone. Pointing at everyone else (and taking the bait) won't get us there.

Now, can we get back to talking about AA at LAX?

I would too... but I'm tired of being mocked by people who are clueless about one business issue after another and even if they aren't, they can't engage in the most basic business discussions without resorting to name calling because they don't like the data that is brought to the discussion

in the case of this discussion, I am still waiting for commavia or MAH, the two that have repeatedly used one form of character assassination after another to answer the question as to why AA doesn't have a local market revenue advantage over DL when AA has had a gate advantage at LAX since the dawn of time?

you do realize that AA showed up at LAX about 30 years before DL, don't you?

and yet AA and DL, based on the most recent DOT data, pulled down nearly identical amounts of local revenue and DL boarded more local passengers than AA did.

when people talk about such great plans for the future but not explain something as basic as this but instead choose to mock someone who asks that question, you tell me what kind of tone is set on the board.

 

Thank you!

and I've repeatedly told you I respect you - which I really do but what has it gotten me but your childish cat calls from the bleachers... and yet you somehow think I am supposed to just continue to dish out accolades to you, jimntx, WN, or anyone else when I get this in return?


you are reasonably intelligent - at times - but aren't apparently smart enough to recognize that you get what you serve.

so, yes, I will indeed set the tone.

 

[Kev3188]

Sounds good. I'll look for it to be a positive one. Thanks!

 

[ChockJockey]

Like it or not, you are this board's most prolific poster. I'd like to see you help set the tone. Pointing at everyone else (and taking the bait) won't get us there.

 
I reflexively scroll through his posts without reading them just to get to the well-worded and informative ones actual industry insiders and employees-in-the-know write to rebut and correct the bland and desperate spin; that's the only value I get from his contributions these boards.  That is when I'm not logged in, when I am I can't see his posts at all.
 

Now, can we get back to talking about AA at LAX?

 
Anyone care to speculate as to what new routes we might expect to see out of LAX in the next couple of years?  AA serves only a single destination on its own metal to Mexico, and that's SJD.  What about other destinations in W. Mexico such as HMO, MZT, PVR, ZIH, and GDL?  Mexico City perhaps?  Those markets are currently served out of PHX but not LAX, as are BOI, PDX, SEA, FLG, OMA, DSM, YYC, ANC, and DRO.  I've heard ICN and AUK rumored as possible transpac routes...

 

[WorldTraveler]

I reflexively scroll through his posts without reading them just to get to the well-worded and informative ones actual industry insiders and employees-in-the-know write to rebut and correct the bland and desperate spin; that's the only value I get from his contributions these boards.  That is when I'm not logged in, when I am I can't see his posts at all.
 
 
Anyone care to speculate as to what new routes we might expect to see out of LAX in the next couple of years?  AA serves only a single destination on its own metal to Mexico, and that's SJD.  What about other destinations in W. Mexico such as HMO, MZT, PVR, ZIH, and GDL?  Mexico City perhaps?  Those markets are currently served out of PHX but not LAX, as are BOI, PDX, SEA, FLG, OMA, DSM, YYC, ANC, and DRO.  I've heard ICN and AUK rumored as possible transpac routes...

and yet you aren't able to just leave your negative comments to the side?

you and those like you who say you ignore me but then can't help yourself from throwing a swing are precisely the reason why I do what I do on this board.


since you don't think I have any knowledge of the industry, I'm sure you'll discount what I have to say but half of the list of markets you listed are key markets for AS.

What you and others clearly don't understand is that AS doesn't want or need a partner that adds capacity into its key markets.

AA and AS CANNOT revenue share - no US carriers can on domestic routes. AA has the option to buy seats from AS based on AS' inventory settings the same way DL does or operate the routes on AA metal and deteriorate the performance in AS' markets.

DL and AS are less than best friends because AS decided they would revenue manage their inventory the way they wanted regardless of the impact on DL and their int'l operation. So, DL had no choice but to add their own routes from SEA and in the process depress yields in AS' top markets in order to build a DL network at SEA.

In the last quarter, AS was the ONLY major carrier that had negative RASM growth which meant they are getting less revenue per seat this year - one of the best in the history of the industry in terms of revenue growth - than they did a year ago.

AS managed to offset their revenue losses by adding more capacity at lower costs - primarily by replacing older generation 737s with new ones, esp. the 739ER which has very favorable costs. but that strategy only works as long as they have older generation, more operationally expensive aircraft to be replaced.

thus, the last thing AS wants is another partner who is adding seats in AS' top markets. AA has to accept that being AS' partner means that AA's own network will be smaller than it could be.

As for MEX, it is limited by the bilateral with Mexico to 2 carriers on the US side and UA and AS occupy those frequencies. The US and Mexico are talking about Open Skies which would also allow joint ventures between US and Mexican carriers but Mexican labor unions are opposed to Open Skies primarily because the US carriers already enjoy a major advantage in the market.

as for the leisure Mexico markets, AS also flies most of those so AA's addition of those markets would harm AS.

WN needs open skies in order to add its own service in many of the major US-Mexican markets where WN might be likely to add service so there is a lot of pressure to try to get Open Skies but a treaty goes both ways.

further, a Joint Venture would only benefit DL on the US side because AM is the only Mexican carrier of any size that could offer something reciprocal of value to a US carrier. Given that DL already has an equity position in AM and seats on their board - which gives DL access to inside information on AM's performance - a JV would only increase DL's advantage in the Mexican market. thus, Open Skies might be of mixed benefit for AA and other carriers, including AS who would immediately see DL restart MEX-LAX, a route which DL's former leader baffoons dumped (for anyone that thinks I can never say anything negative about DL)

the rest of the markets that you list are fairly small markets which AA could serve with a large RJ or two but they won't move the needle in the LAX market by much.

of course, since I don't know what I am talking about, you are welcome to find another opinion that sounds more palatable to you but you are also free to check back in a couple years and see how right or wrong I was with my response.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

and yet AA and DL, based on the most recent DOT data, pulled down nearly identical amounts of local revenue and DL boarded more local passengers than AA did.
 

 
Hmmmmm, lets see now: 
 
We have two airlines at LAX, AA and DL. 
Both pull in, according to your own words*** the same amounts of local revenue, but one, AA, does so boarding less local passengers than DL.
 
Clearly AA has a better local revenue/local passenger ratio than DL.
And as you've bloviated, it's local revenue that determines whether an airline is a winner or loser.
 
I don't know about you, but I suspect  if the situation was reversed, you would definitely call that "winning in LAX".
 
Now this thread is on pg. 11, over 120 posts, of which you repeated your question ad nauseum while answering it at the same time.
 
I say if you have nothing NEW to add, then lock this topic.
 
*** I find it very interesting that you're able to make these statements, draw these conclusions without ever posting the numbers.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, DL did enough have about a 2% revenue disadvantage to AA because DL's average fares went down as a result of adding more short-haul flights within the west.

A year ago, DL had higher average fares than AA.

DL's local revenue at LAX, also according to DOT data for the 2nd quarter, grew by 17%, by far the highest among any US carrier. AA's local revenue growth was 9% and US was 5%. the market as a whole was 9%.

you are free to define winning any way you want. giving up 2% in average fares in order to get 17% more revenue seems like a profitable strategy.

and those are hardly the first numbers I have posted in this thread. You seem to have ignored the other ones I have posted, including share data, because it apparently didn't present a story you wanted to hear - such as that AA's local passenger premium to UA is only 2%.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

in the meantime, your coworkers are the ones who acknowledge that DL's labor policies are what they wish they had...

Can you quote one single AA FA on this board, of which there are several, who has said anything close to what you are asserting? Cuz I haven't read one.

Our union isn't perfect, but it's preferable than the alternative, and I believe that is the consensus on these forums. Feel free to correct me

 

[FWAAA]

Anyone care to speculate as to what new routes we might expect to see out of LAX in the next couple of years?  AA serves only a single destination on its own metal to Mexico, and that's SJD.  What about other destinations in W. Mexico such as HMO, MZT, PVR, ZIH, and GDL?  Mexico City perhaps?  Those markets are currently served out of PHX but not LAX, as are BOI, PDX, SEA, FLG, OMA, DSM, YYC, ANC, and DRO.  I've heard ICN and AUK rumored as possible transpac routes...

Don't know much about Mexico, except that AA codeshares AS service LAX-MEX, as Mexico rights are still limited (no open skies).

As to TPAC destinations, I'm guessing that PEK, ICN and maybe TPE are all possible additions, although they may not be likely.

 

[robbedagain]

For domestic from lax may be some fla cities such as mco fll if not already serviced may be orf?

 

[FWAAA]

For domestic from lax may be some fla cities such as mco fll if not already serviced may be orf?

AA has served LAX-MCO for years. FLL has been tried before, but it's a loser. ORF? I doubt there's enough O&D to make that one work. Here is a link to the AA pdf schedule:

http://www.aa.com/i18n/travelInformation/airportAmenities/electronicTimetable.jsp?anchorEvent=false&from=footer

 

[Kev3188]

I reflexively scroll through his posts without reading them just to get to the well-worded and informative ones actual industry insiders and employees-in-the-know write to rebut and correct the bland and desperate spin; that's the only value I get from his contributions these boards.  That is when I'm not logged in, when I am I can't see his posts at all.
 
 
Anyone care to speculate as to what new routes we might expect to see out of LAX in the next couple of years?  AA serves only a single destination on its own metal to Mexico, and that's SJD.  What about other destinations in W. Mexico such as HMO, MZT, PVR, ZIH, and GDL?  Mexico City perhaps?  Those markets are currently served out of PHX but not LAX, as are BOI, PDX, SEA, FLG, OMA, DSM, YYC, ANC, and DRO.  I've heard ICN and AUK rumored as possible transpac routes...

PDX was supposed to have already happened (on AE), but I don't know if it has? My guess is that once the E75's come online, we'll see some interesting point to point routes ex-LAX.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Can you quote one single AA FA on this board, of which there are several, who has said anything close to what you are asserting? Cuz I haven't read one.

Our union isn't perfect, but it's preferable than the alternative, and I believe that is the consensus on these forums. Feel free to correct me

the quote I posted came from APA which represents AA pilots.

AA pilots are YOUR coworkers, are they not?
 
 

PDX was supposed to have already happened (on AE), but I don't know if it has? My guess is that once the E75's come online, we'll see some interesting point to point routes ex-LAX.

and once again, LAX-PDX is one of AS' top system (not just LAX) markets. if AA decides to step in and fly it, they are doing the same thing that DL has done which is to add capacity to a key AS market, driving down yield for AS via increased industry capacity.

AA, by choosing to have AS as a partner, is also choosing to have a much smaller network on its own aircraft.

and, that is precisely part of the calculus that DL has made.