And the best transcon airline is...
- Thread starter AdAstraPerAspera
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #18
yes, it did.
AA's coach capacity even with the increased frequencies is down by 1/3.
if it weren't, it would speak very poorly to the fact that AA's share of the market has fallen.
It's not about DL ruling the world. It is about AA's decision to remove capacity which DL turned around and added back and is very likely carrying at lower incremental costs than the revenue it is gaining while AA very likely did not cut costs near as much as many here predicted because they had to increase flights in order to offset some of the loss of coach seats and are increasing the number of premium seats at a time when fares for them are falling.
DL reacted to a decision which AA made all by itself.
AA's coach capacity even with the increased frequencies is down by 1/3.
if it weren't, it would speak very poorly to the fact that AA's share of the market has fallen.
It's not about DL ruling the world. It is about AA's decision to remove capacity which DL turned around and added back and is very likely carrying at lower incremental costs than the revenue it is gaining while AA very likely did not cut costs near as much as many here predicted because they had to increase flights in order to offset some of the loss of coach seats and are increasing the number of premium seats at a time when fares for them are falling.
DL reacted to a decision which AA made all by itself.
OP
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #19
Thanks for that, but this thread is about AA having the best product in the market, not about market share. Thanks for playing. Spin again.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #20
it's not spin.
I specifically have noted that the best product or service in any business cannot last if it is not profitable.
I'm glad you all are winning awards and receiving kudos for the transcon product. I never had any doubt that AA could do it.
The reality, however, is that it won't last if the profitability does not improve - and it was pretty well known that AA's transcon product was losing money, again, largely due to the 762s, not the level of service that was provided.
I specifically have noted that the best product or service in any business cannot last if it is not profitable.
I'm glad you all are winning awards and receiving kudos for the transcon product. I never had any doubt that AA could do it.
The reality, however, is that it won't last if the profitability does not improve - and it was pretty well known that AA's transcon product was losing money, again, largely due to the 762s, not the level of service that was provided.
silverbird007
Senior
True but AA could easily convert a couple of the A321s coming to the A321T if they wanted to. Or even put a 777 in the mix on the JFK LAX. I'm sure that could work out for the EPs etc who prefer a widebody.kirkpatrick said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #23
thank you for confirming what I have said.
the 767s are a way to add incrementally low cost seats to the market while also gaining the cargo account.
the whole concept of being a niche playing has never been shown to work in a market where other carriers have full fledged hubs
the 767s are a way to add incrementally low cost seats to the market while also gaining the cargo account.
the whole concept of being a niche playing has never been shown to work in a market where other carriers have full fledged hubs
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
I don't know why you're fabricating numbers / data. Again.
Especially since you've already been been corrected by FWAA at least a couple times but you keep on repeating stuff like a parrot.
Previously AA had 9 daily 767s on JFK-LAX with 1152 econ seats. The 13X A321s have 936 econ seats.
Reduction of 19%. Not 1/3.
Gee. I gotta wonder if you have a narrative that you're trying to push here?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #25
current schedule for this month shows less than 13 daily flights... 12 and change.
but what's your point anyway?
how does your argument change if AA only cut its coach capacity by 19% instead of 33%?
is it any more acceptable for AA to have walked away from even 10% of the coach market plus the cargo market and for DL to have added capacity to become the largest carrier in the market?
did AA not think that someone else might add capacity to the market to keep the fares from going up as AA might have been hoping and figure out how to add that incremental capacity at costs lower than the passengers that AA didn't want any more and DL could carry?
and does it change that AA is adding more premium capacity to the market at the same time that other carriers such as B6 are adding premium capacity which makes it a whole lot harder for AA to push up premium cabin fares?
and does it change that a 44% increase in operations by AA (using your 13 flights compared to 9 before) undoes a whole lot of the cost reduction?
so, again, tell me what is incorrect about my statements that AA has walked away from 20% or so of the coach market - which equates closely to the fall in AA's revenues, while their average fare so far has gone up less than 10%, and the increased number of flights offsets most if not all of the fuel burn savings from going from the 762s to 321s? and AA still lost several million dollars per month in cargo revenue.
but what's your point anyway?
how does your argument change if AA only cut its coach capacity by 19% instead of 33%?
is it any more acceptable for AA to have walked away from even 10% of the coach market plus the cargo market and for DL to have added capacity to become the largest carrier in the market?
did AA not think that someone else might add capacity to the market to keep the fares from going up as AA might have been hoping and figure out how to add that incremental capacity at costs lower than the passengers that AA didn't want any more and DL could carry?
and does it change that AA is adding more premium capacity to the market at the same time that other carriers such as B6 are adding premium capacity which makes it a whole lot harder for AA to push up premium cabin fares?
and does it change that a 44% increase in operations by AA (using your 13 flights compared to 9 before) undoes a whole lot of the cost reduction?
so, again, tell me what is incorrect about my statements that AA has walked away from 20% or so of the coach market - which equates closely to the fall in AA's revenues, while their average fare so far has gone up less than 10%, and the increased number of flights offsets most if not all of the fuel burn savings from going from the 762s to 321s? and AA still lost several million dollars per month in cargo revenue.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
My point is that you're far too often fast and loose with your numbers as if you have an agenda, a biased agenda to push.
Even when you get caught, you spend hours posting mutli-thousand word diatribes trying to say, hey, I really wasn't wrong because of a sliver of a qualifier you find and cling to. Pathetic!
If your posts were truly objective, then not every thread on this board and all the other airline boards would turn to DL uber alles.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #27
no, you are nitpicking over a small difference in a statistic that doesn't change the overall argument in the least.
I am happy for you to show your calculation and show that it is 19%.
but you CANNOT and HAVE NOT countered the overall claims of why AA's strategy won't work to improve profitability:
- lost cargo revenue
- increased frequencies undo most of the cost advantage that switching to a smaller, more efficient aircraft was supposed to provide
- the reduced coach capacity was offset by a competitor
- AA is adding premium cabin capacity into a market that has falling revenues relative to the rest of the industry and in which low cost competitors will push AA's pricing power down further.
and then tell me how a 19 or 33% reduction in coach capacity changes any of those arguments
I am happy for you to show your calculation and show that it is 19%.
but you CANNOT and HAVE NOT countered the overall claims of why AA's strategy won't work to improve profitability:
- lost cargo revenue
- increased frequencies undo most of the cost advantage that switching to a smaller, more efficient aircraft was supposed to provide
- the reduced coach capacity was offset by a competitor
- AA is adding premium cabin capacity into a market that has falling revenues relative to the rest of the industry and in which low cost competitors will push AA's pricing power down further.
and then tell me how a 19 or 33% reduction in coach capacity changes any of those arguments
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
Oh this is just one example. It is interesting that prior to FWAA correcting you earlier this year, your statement was that AA cut econ seats on JFK-LAX by 40%. But I digress.
Other example(s) of you being fast and loose with numbers or fabricating things that quickly come to mind include:
i) the special relationship between CDC and DL
ii) DL a new entrant carrier
iii) DL share of the LGA-MIA market
iv) MTOW of the A330 vs B777
v) re-defining local market to suit your narrative
vi) range of the A310
vii) claiming DAL airport is comparable to TPA
etc., etc., etc.,
Other example(s) of you being fast and loose with numbers or fabricating things that quickly come to mind include:
i) the special relationship between CDC and DL
ii) DL a new entrant carrier
iii) DL share of the LGA-MIA market
iv) MTOW of the A330 vs B777
v) re-defining local market to suit your narrative
vi) range of the A310
vii) claiming DAL airport is comparable to TPA
etc., etc., etc.,
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #29
feel free to harp on any one of those items of which you have no personal knowledge.
your downright ignorance of subjects such as the number of seats that DAL will have compared to TPA or DL's share of the LGA-MIA local market is downright frightening.
none of which changes the fact that you can't counter that AA's strategy in the transcon markets shows no signs of improving profitability.
again, savor the accolades of a few people who think AA has a bang up transcon product. It won't last unless AA can make it profitable - or AA employers and stockholders will be subsidizing a pretty, but unprofitable operation for years to come.
your downright ignorance of subjects such as the number of seats that DAL will have compared to TPA or DL's share of the LGA-MIA local market is downright frightening.
none of which changes the fact that you can't counter that AA's strategy in the transcon markets shows no signs of improving profitability.
again, savor the accolades of a few people who think AA has a bang up transcon product. It won't last unless AA can make it profitable - or AA employers and stockholders will be subsidizing a pretty, but unprofitable operation for years to come.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Feel free to continue to make a fool of yourself.
Your 'reputation' says volumes about you, your knowledge and penchant for the whole truth.
I and probably many others will continue to point out your errors in math/statistics and logic.
Given that you have 0 credibility and weak credentials, I'll consider the opinions of the author of the article to have more merit than your DL-centric diatribes.
- Status
