American Airlines’ parent company reports earnings of $292 million — and that’s just in July

[BigMac]

My vote for post of the month. Perhaps for 2013.

A while back, someone posted the news article about AA getting its new A321Ts, and we were treated to multiple dissertations edumacating everyone about how far AA has fallen and how much revenue share Delta and jetBlue and VX were getting.

The topic of that thread, of course, was that AA is finally set to retire its ancient 762s in favor of more fuel-efficient planes.

The topic of this thread is that AA turned in a pretty good month on balance. Its revenue was up a lot compared to July 2012, and its costs were down. It's not proof that AA has permanently fixed everything that ailed it in November, 2011, but it is another small nugget of data that tends to show that AA is turning things around. Lower costs and higher revenues.

If there's any doubt about why many people are frequently annoyed with WT, JFK Fleet Service has accurately summarized the reasons.

+10
Not including the keyboard calluses from full page DL rebuttals and the "D" & "L" keys worn down? Yes, there's that ignore option but why use it as I find it amusing constantly scrolling past over excessive postings.

 

[WorldTraveler]

and my question remains "what is so fearful to you about the truth?"

If it really is nothing, then why does it bother you and why don't you just let it go?

BTW, there really is good technology to make extensive writing quite easy...

 

[AANOTOK]

Too bad you can't share your vast wealth of knowledge regarding AA with us.

My sincere apologies Jacob...but your knowledge is priceless and one would be a fool
to try and stop it...again, carry on!!

 

[AirwAr]

...
because it is easier to think we're "holding the line" in LAX and Asia by sticking with flights that are being subsidized by employee wage cuts, but by golly, we are still there....
...

I'm not sure, but I think I've seen you reference AA subsidizing something-or-other on employee wage cuts in other posts.

I'm curious why you say this. It's as if you're saying that only AA is doing this where the other "successful" carriers didn't. Haven't all carriers that have been through bankruptcy cut employee wages and/or benefits? Can it be said that DL's growth in NYC & LAX were, at least in part, on the backs of their employees?

 

[Bob Owens]

$290 million? In other words had AA gone BK in 2003 they would be earning around $220 million per month now and we wouldn't have had to go 15 years in a steady dive. But I'm sure the banks were happy AA chose the path they did, the path where they kept paying for aircraft they didn't need, terminals they didn't use, inflated fees to banks, etc, etc.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The difference is that DL hasn't remained unprofitable in any region of the world for years on end and neither has any other airline. No other airline has remained unprofitable in a region as long as AA has in Asia/Pacific.

 

[AirwAr]

The difference is that DL hasn't remained unprofitable in any region of the world for years on end and neither has any other airline. No other airline has remained unprofitable in a region as long as AA has in Asia/Pacific.

So you're suggesting AA should stop flying to Asia? Do you feel that every route in DL's system is profitable? Isn't it possible that DL has a route important enough to its business travelers that it flies it at a loss...knowing it's able to make it up through other business.

 

[Bob Owens]

If the purpose is to continue to increase employee salaries and bring jobs back to DL employees, then DL is succeeding. DL does have the best labor relations among any network carriers in an industry where labor unrest has destroyed tens of millions of dollars in revenue. In the meantime, this thread is telling about how toxic labor relations would have been if the AA-US merger had gone through; one press release of financial news has set off a whole litany of “we are capable of doing it on our own” while others proclaim “welcome to the cellar of low pay while your employers make money off of you” ….

And its only going to get worse, much worse. Think about the real cost of "cost savings" when it comes at the price of obliterating morale. When deeply morose mechanics come across what they used to look at as a challenge now becomes an excuse and planes get taken to the hangar out of service instead of fixed and sent on their way. New fleet types only make this worse. Think about that happening several times a day every day and think about the hundreds of millions more they could have made instead of the $20k per mechanic they think they are saving. Contrary to your assertions things at Delta aren't that great, mechanics are quitting Delta as well, I've heard that Delta forces them to work with students from A&P schools and sign for the work because they cant find experienced mechanics either and are trying to "grow their own". Sketchy if you ask me.

 

[700UW]

DL has DGS' Mechanics working at the ATL TC, contractors, not DL employees.

 

[Kev3188]

Contrary to your assertions things at Delta aren't that great...

Truth.

 

[robbedagain]

doesnt dl outsource most of their maintaince... which would make them with far fewer dl employees than say aa

 

[700UW]

Yes they do.

 

[john john]

This is not relevant at all to the merger effort in my opinion . Yes AA and US can probably go at it alone in the near term . I won't argue that . But the point of this merger is for AA to be able to compete in the long term with UA and DL . AA in my opinion simply cannot do that by staying a stand alone Carrier
and def neither can US . This merger is necessary for both carriers . Some may not want to accept it but its what AA needs . The merger will strengthen AA's network and competitive position . Embrace it because it will happen one way or the other .

All AA needs to do is outsource to a bunch of express carriers and increase express flying by 20% and feed their hubs abracadabra you have move from number 3 to 1 or 2 on the cheap

 

[MCI transplant]

More good news? http://news.yahoo.co...-123144928.html

 

[eolesen]

because it is more fun to PRETEND we are doing ok because that is what we all sit around in a circle and tell ourselves we are?

because it is more fun to forget that WT has said for years that AA's strategies meant that it was losing significant share in the key NYC market and now that it is perfectly obvious that is exactly what has happened, we'll just pretend he never said it?

because it is easier to think we're "holding the line" in LAX and Asia by sticking with flights that are being subsidized by employee wage cuts, but by golly, we are still there....

whatever floats your boat.

WT, you still don't get it.

I'm sure Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh, or Chris Matthews could fill in as the evening news anchor on the BBC, but it wouldn't stop me from flipping the channel somewhere else.

NHBB has clearly won the role of Chris Matthews here on AirlineForums (Tree has Rachel Maddow, and Bob Owens would be a good Bill Maher).

I suspect you might still be a good fit for Rush Limbaugh (physically and politically).

The difference is that DL hasn't remained unprofitable in any region of the world for years on end and neither has any other airline. No other airline has remained unprofitable in a region as long as AA has in Asia/Pacific.

So, now you measure an airline's success by the smallest market segment they serve?

Got it.

Quite ironic, with your apparent support for the DOJ's complaint against the US/AA merger, that you're suggesting that it's better for AA to give up and allow an oligopoly to remain to Asia.

The fact remains that AA didn't inherit the spoils of war, ultimately benefiting from an oligopoly that's allowed >90% of the passenger route authorities to China and Japan (the two largest Asian economies) to rest with both PA and Air Mike, which begat present day UA, or NW which begat DL's position today.