FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
I also wonder, if AA is such an underperforming airline, why is it causing you to throw such a hissy fit? It looks like
Atlanta-LaGuardia Resuming in January
- Thread starter MAH4546
- Start date
I also wonder, if AA is such an underperforming airline, why is it causing you to throw such a hissy fit? It looks like
Kev3188
Veteran
Great. Now go post each of those points in the relevant thread(s)...WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
it's not a question of being wrong, robbed.
it's that AA made the decision to add flights into a competitor's key markets and you and others for years hyped that AA would grow their network even while I told you and them that those competitors would indeed have something to say.
yes, they are. earnings call next month
Now, I didn't get a memo but you can't help but wonder if DL's growth at LAX isn't just a tad related to AA's decision to add flights into key DL markets - like ATL-LGA and LAX-TPA.
maybe, maybe not.
whatever the reason, despite all the predictions that DL was out of gate space at LAX, they have managed to find space for at least four more mainline flights and several more large RJ flights.
JFK Fleet Service
Veteran
Wow,Goebbels is beside himself.
Well played.
Well played.
So let's see DL downsizes DCA - that's strategic
US bulks up on in DCA - that's a mistake
DL bulks up in LGA - that's strategic
AA expands to Asia- that's a money loser
DL sets up a Hun in SEA- that's strategic
AA adds flights back to ATL from LGA - that's a money loser
DL adds flights back to DFW from LAX- that's strategic
DL suspends SEA-HND with 10 days notice - money losing route - that's right that's strategic
As all can see only DL makes strategic decisions
US bulks up on in DCA - that's a mistake
DL bulks up in LGA - that's strategic
AA expands to Asia- that's a money loser
DL sets up a Hun in SEA- that's strategic
AA adds flights back to ATL from LGA - that's a money loser
DL adds flights back to DFW from LAX- that's strategic
DL suspends SEA-HND with 10 days notice - money losing route - that's right that's strategic
As all can see only DL makes strategic decisions
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
no, the slot swap which allowed DL and US to increase their own positions at LGA and DCA made a lot of sense.
What didn't make sense is that DL got 3X more slots plus a frequency at GRU when it was known that an Open Skies agreement was coming which would allow DL to replace that frequency AND that US was willing to grow its DCA presence to a size that would put them at the limit the DOJ would hold them to in the event of a merger - which was widely expected to happen.
As for Asia and all the rest of it, the sole measure is whether either carrier can make money; none of us know that below a region level because that is the limit of what the DOT requires airlines to publish.
DL is building SEA to Asia and IS profitable to Asia even while the Japanese market is falling apart; AA is adding one new route after another to Asia to build a network and is losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the process.
As for HND, DL clearly stopped the route on short notice to limit the time in which another carrier to try to argue to gain the slot. If they do, DL could easily schedule a single roundtrip in order to show that the route is not dormant. AA could have done the same thing if JFK-HND made money at any time of the year. Given the much greater distance involved, the larger distance, and the average fares that each carrier has gotten, it is likely that AA didn't make money on JFK-HND while DL can on SEA-HND but only during the peak 6 or 7 months per year.
as for the domestic routes, data shows that AA underperformed DL and WN/FL for the time when all of them operated ATL-LGA. My first question on this post - which no one has been able to answer - is what has changed since AA dropped the route just a few months ago that will allow AA to become profitable; surely they were not profitable or they wouldn't have dropped the route.
AA and DL have added a number of routes into each other's key markets - including a number of routes from LAX such as RDU, CMH, IND, TPA etc. No one is questioning the decision by either carrier to add those routes because in most cases the two are receiving comparable fares to each other; the average fares are going down as capacity is added. An expected part of the process of one carrier growing is for another carrier to add service elsewhere.
As I have repeatedly noted, the ability for AA to grow at LAX requires that they grow into markets which matter to other carriers; every market that AA has added from LAX into a key DL market has resulted in new service from DL in a key AA market. Feel free to draw the conclusions you want but it absolutely appears that DL is not willing to allow AA to grow into key DL markets without DL gaining something in return.
Strategic additions means being able to come out ahead in the process of jockeying for market growth.
There is far more evidence that DL is growing its revenue base to/from LAX into key AA markets than AA is doing elsewhere, including to/from ATL or DL's other hubs to/from NYC.
What didn't make sense is that DL got 3X more slots plus a frequency at GRU when it was known that an Open Skies agreement was coming which would allow DL to replace that frequency AND that US was willing to grow its DCA presence to a size that would put them at the limit the DOJ would hold them to in the event of a merger - which was widely expected to happen.
As for Asia and all the rest of it, the sole measure is whether either carrier can make money; none of us know that below a region level because that is the limit of what the DOT requires airlines to publish.
DL is building SEA to Asia and IS profitable to Asia even while the Japanese market is falling apart; AA is adding one new route after another to Asia to build a network and is losing hundreds of millions of dollars per year in the process.
As for HND, DL clearly stopped the route on short notice to limit the time in which another carrier to try to argue to gain the slot. If they do, DL could easily schedule a single roundtrip in order to show that the route is not dormant. AA could have done the same thing if JFK-HND made money at any time of the year. Given the much greater distance involved, the larger distance, and the average fares that each carrier has gotten, it is likely that AA didn't make money on JFK-HND while DL can on SEA-HND but only during the peak 6 or 7 months per year.
as for the domestic routes, data shows that AA underperformed DL and WN/FL for the time when all of them operated ATL-LGA. My first question on this post - which no one has been able to answer - is what has changed since AA dropped the route just a few months ago that will allow AA to become profitable; surely they were not profitable or they wouldn't have dropped the route.
AA and DL have added a number of routes into each other's key markets - including a number of routes from LAX such as RDU, CMH, IND, TPA etc. No one is questioning the decision by either carrier to add those routes because in most cases the two are receiving comparable fares to each other; the average fares are going down as capacity is added. An expected part of the process of one carrier growing is for another carrier to add service elsewhere.
As I have repeatedly noted, the ability for AA to grow at LAX requires that they grow into markets which matter to other carriers; every market that AA has added from LAX into a key DL market has resulted in new service from DL in a key AA market. Feel free to draw the conclusions you want but it absolutely appears that DL is not willing to allow AA to grow into key DL markets without DL gaining something in return.
Strategic additions means being able to come out ahead in the process of jockeying for market growth.
There is far more evidence that DL is growing its revenue base to/from LAX into key AA markets than AA is doing elsewhere, including to/from ATL or DL's other hubs to/from NYC.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2003
- Messages
- 11,125
- Reaction score
- 2,676
jcw that is essentially what it is and that's what wt has been told repeatedly only he CANNOT GRASP the fact that all airlines make strategic decisions based on their services etc
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
of course they do, robbed.
and that isn't what is being debated.
The issue is that AA, unlike any other airline that I can think of, is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year to push into markets that other carriers have and which AA does not.
Perhaps the calculation was really made that US doesn't give us as much as AA needed so they would have to "invest" in developing key markets but it is more than obvious that AA is adding more capacity to Asia than either DL or UA who bought their way into the Pacific and have developed it and make money serving Asia.
yes, other airlines have developmental routes both domestically and internationally.
remember that it was just a few months ago that AA and US both pulled out of a number of DL competitive markets from DCA and LGA and now some of those same markets are being restarted. Did someone not think things thru before those decisions were made?
what is unprecedented is the extent to which AA is willing to go to develop its network thru its own initiatives on top of a merger that was supposed to allow AA and US - by their own statements - to be competitive with DL and UA's networks.
and that isn't what is being debated.
The issue is that AA, unlike any other airline that I can think of, is willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year to push into markets that other carriers have and which AA does not.
Perhaps the calculation was really made that US doesn't give us as much as AA needed so they would have to "invest" in developing key markets but it is more than obvious that AA is adding more capacity to Asia than either DL or UA who bought their way into the Pacific and have developed it and make money serving Asia.
yes, other airlines have developmental routes both domestically and internationally.
remember that it was just a few months ago that AA and US both pulled out of a number of DL competitive markets from DCA and LGA and now some of those same markets are being restarted. Did someone not think things thru before those decisions were made?
what is unprecedented is the extent to which AA is willing to go to develop its network thru its own initiatives on top of a merger that was supposed to allow AA and US - by their own statements - to be competitive with DL and UA's networks.
jcw said:
Exactly.
In reality, all airlines - including Delta - have been more than willing to subsidize losses on particular routes, segments, markets, etc., and/or particular investments, because of their long-term economic benefit and/or their contribution to the overall enterprise. In the case of Delta, specifically, two examples immediately spring to mind from just the past few years: New York, which Delta has acknowledged was unprofitable following the airline's massive surge in capacity there, and the Trainer refinery, which has accumulated millions in losses that Delta believes will ultimately pay off.
But, of course, I think many of us can see the true source of all this whining and consternation - like with so many other things, the presence now of the larger, leaner, stronger "new AA" has completely changed the game, and the competitive landscape for Delta is now dramatically different (i.e., more challenging than it was a few years ago), and certain individuals just don't like it. Certain self-appointed experts can drone on and on about whether the investment in markets like LGA-ATL is worthwhile - despite the prior insistence that past, similar, investments at Delta were brilliant. But nonetheless, it's clear that AA management - far more qualified and knowledgeable on this subject - thinks these are smart bets, and personally, I'm inclined to believe the judgment of AA management over the Baghdad Bob of Delta.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
what you cannot document is the amount of losses that DL had in NYC nor can you argue that AA was profitable in NYC.
NYC is not reported as a separate entity; Asia is. There is reporting on Asia; there isn't on NYC.
If AA was profitable in NYC, they wouldn't have been cutting it, esp. when AA was losing money as a company. There was no justification for cutting NYC - which AA has done for years - if AA was making money.
We've been over the refinery before. DL has saved more in fuel costs than the operational losses of the refinery.
based on publicly available data, AA has been willing to lose more money developing its network than any other carrier.
NYC is not reported as a separate entity; Asia is. There is reporting on Asia; there isn't on NYC.
If AA was profitable in NYC, they wouldn't have been cutting it, esp. when AA was losing money as a company. There was no justification for cutting NYC - which AA has done for years - if AA was making money.
We've been over the refinery before. DL has saved more in fuel costs than the operational losses of the refinery.
based on publicly available data, AA has been willing to lose more money developing its network than any other carrier.
Still pretending to speak authoritatively about regional financial performance when we all know that numbers reported by DOT are highly susceptible to the individual financial and accounting assumptions and methodologies of individual airlines, and thus not apples-to-apples comparable between carriers.
Nonetheless, this is yet another crystal clear example of how the competitive landscape has been transformed in just a matter of months. AA, now flush with cash and able to leverage a far larger and stronger network, is making a long-term investment in growth and a meaningful network to the one major world region (that being Asia/Pacific) where it does not presently have a competitive presence. Delta has been steadily dismantling its NRT hub in the last few years because of that hub's declining competitiveness - as many of us clearly saw years ago, and as Delta's own management has now acknowledged - and instead shifting emphasis to SEA. And at the same time, AA has not been standing still - to the point that today AA (together with its JV partner JAL) have dramatically closed the gap relative to Delta in the nonstop U.S.-Asia market. While neither carrier will ever be a peer of United across the Pacific, AA has dramatically improved its standing and, subject to regulatory approval, by next summer AA alone will be operating up to 11 nonstop flights per day from three U.S. gateways to all five of the major commercial and cultural capitals of Northeast Asia (Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong), and will enjoy - through its metal-neutral JV with JAL - far more extensive and convenient access to more places beyond Japan in East and Southeast Asia than Delta can presently reach.
Another reminder of how the "new AA" has - in just a matter of months - made life far more complicated for Delta, and thus why Baghdad Bob is not happy about it.
Nonetheless, this is yet another crystal clear example of how the competitive landscape has been transformed in just a matter of months. AA, now flush with cash and able to leverage a far larger and stronger network, is making a long-term investment in growth and a meaningful network to the one major world region (that being Asia/Pacific) where it does not presently have a competitive presence. Delta has been steadily dismantling its NRT hub in the last few years because of that hub's declining competitiveness - as many of us clearly saw years ago, and as Delta's own management has now acknowledged - and instead shifting emphasis to SEA. And at the same time, AA has not been standing still - to the point that today AA (together with its JV partner JAL) have dramatically closed the gap relative to Delta in the nonstop U.S.-Asia market. While neither carrier will ever be a peer of United across the Pacific, AA has dramatically improved its standing and, subject to regulatory approval, by next summer AA alone will be operating up to 11 nonstop flights per day from three U.S. gateways to all five of the major commercial and cultural capitals of Northeast Asia (Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong), and will enjoy - through its metal-neutral JV with JAL - far more extensive and convenient access to more places beyond Japan in East and Southeast Asia than Delta can presently reach.
Another reminder of how the "new AA" has - in just a matter of months - made life far more complicated for Delta, and thus why Baghdad Bob is not happy about it.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
Here you go: http://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2014/05/10/how-delta-airlines-mapped-a-path-to-success-and-followed-it/WorldTraveler said:
Four days ago, on May 7, Bastian declared at an investor conference that Delta’s goal in 2014 “is to be profitable, for the first time in Delta history, in New York.”
Spin away.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
we get all that Com.
the fact is that AA is losing money growing its Pacific operation to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year and continues to add new longhaul flights every year with the fastest linghaul capacity growth of any US carrier
and again, you can't admit that DL is dismantling NRT as a hub, but they are maintaining their local market presence in Japan and growing it elsewhere in Asia - AND DL IS MAKING MONEY during the transition.
I didn't say DL was profitable in NYC; I heard the conference call at the time he made that statement.
what you cannot prove is the size of DL's losses.... that can be proven for AA in Asia.
Further, you still can't answer the question as to why AA continues to cut in NYC if it is making money.
perhaps NYC is truly a highly competitive market that AA has decided they can't serve and DL has decided they will grow until they make money, which they said they would be doing by this time this year.
The AF strike undoubtedly has done wonders to help DL in NYC.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2003
- Messages
- 2,931
- Reaction score
- 3,341
I guess we all must accept that just like with the dismantling of DFW hub, DL is still winning in the N.TX market, and so DL will continue their 'winning' ways in NRT (east Tokyo market????)WorldTraveler said:
No, you wanted proof that DL was losing money in New York.WorldTraveler said:
There you have it.
I and you don't know how much they're losing either. The fact is they're losing money.
Nice spin. Regular qualifiers and disclaimers as usual. So predictable.
I never claimed to know the answer(s) about AAs financial performace in NYC.
However, we'll see if your predistion in post #48 comes true at the next DL earnings call. http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57672-atlanta-laguardia-resuming-in-january/page-4#entry1119322
That's a pretty bold prediction. It'll be interesting to see the results - that is if DL does reveal whether it is profitable, for the first time in company history, in NYC.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 21,709
- Reaction score
- 10,662
I didn't argue about whether DL was losing money in NYC or not. The question is the value and you have no way or proving what DL was losing in NYC.
Further, you STILL have yet to answer the question of why AA continues to reduce its presence there if they were making money.
You simply want to find something to throw dirt back when the simple reality is that it is AA that is willing to OPENLY spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get into Asia because they passed on umpteen opportunities to buy their way into Asia - UA beat them with the Pan Am Pacific transaction - and NW and AA merger discussions went nowhere.
and, again, the issue that raised this whole discussion is that AA has decided to restart a route just months after ending it and I have yet to hear any reason why AA will bring its average fares up even closer to the levels of DL and WN/FL in the market.
We can look at market after market in NYC, but DL's revenue is on par with AA's. AA has clearly decided to walk away from route after route while DL has decided to stick it out.
In completely contrast, AA's average fares to/from Asia are below DL and UA's and AA's answer to that problem is to add more capacity into the market - hardly the way any other airline has used to get fares up.'
I completely get that AA has determined they missed out on the opportunity to buy their way into Asia and have decided they must lose money building market share.
What is completely different from AA and any other airline situation you have noted is that AA has provided no prediction for how or when they will become profitable to Asia.
when you can answer those questions and AA mgmt. admits that they are willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars developing an Asian route system, including going back and forth whether it will be centered out of DFW or LAX, then the criticism will come to an end.
And as long as AA is willing to do what they do in Asia, then their practices in other markets will be under scrutiny.
Further, you STILL have yet to answer the question of why AA continues to reduce its presence there if they were making money.
You simply want to find something to throw dirt back when the simple reality is that it is AA that is willing to OPENLY spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get into Asia because they passed on umpteen opportunities to buy their way into Asia - UA beat them with the Pan Am Pacific transaction - and NW and AA merger discussions went nowhere.
and, again, the issue that raised this whole discussion is that AA has decided to restart a route just months after ending it and I have yet to hear any reason why AA will bring its average fares up even closer to the levels of DL and WN/FL in the market.
We can look at market after market in NYC, but DL's revenue is on par with AA's. AA has clearly decided to walk away from route after route while DL has decided to stick it out.
In completely contrast, AA's average fares to/from Asia are below DL and UA's and AA's answer to that problem is to add more capacity into the market - hardly the way any other airline has used to get fares up.'
I completely get that AA has determined they missed out on the opportunity to buy their way into Asia and have decided they must lose money building market share.
What is completely different from AA and any other airline situation you have noted is that AA has provided no prediction for how or when they will become profitable to Asia.
when you can answer those questions and AA mgmt. admits that they are willing to invest hundreds of millions of dollars developing an Asian route system, including going back and forth whether it will be centered out of DFW or LAX, then the criticism will come to an end.
And as long as AA is willing to do what they do in Asia, then their practices in other markets will be under scrutiny.
