Atlanta-LaGuardia Resuming in January

[commavia]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is all about fear, fear, fear.
 
The world in which Delta handily dominates because one rival is "managing a merger" and the other is perennially loss-making and at a fleet/network disadvantage are O-V-E-R.
 
Today, AA's (to say nothing of United's) network is on par if not better than Delta's pretty much everywhere - except Asia, which is precisely why AA is rapidly closing the gap with Delta across the Pacific.  AA continues to expand its Asia network from its megahub at DFW, and - if Doug Parker and Scott Kirby are to be believed - may well soon be doing the same from LAX (not sure where the idea of "going back and forth" between the two comes from, since I doubt AA management would be sharing their plans with Delta fanboys).  AA is now an immense competitive force, with the network, fleet and competitive wherewithal to make strategic investments in building its presence in Asia - just as Delta has done, and continues to do, in many places.
 
And thus, again, it's clear why the Baghdad Bob of Delta is unhappy.

 

[traderjake]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is all about fear, fear, fear.
 
The world in which Delta handily dominates because one rival is "managing a merger" and the other is perennially loss-making and at a fleet/network disadvantage are O-V-E-R.
 
And thus, again, it's clear why the Baghdad Bob of Delta is unhappy.

 
You nailed it.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

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.

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.


when you can answer those questions ..................

And as long as AA is willing to do what they do in Asia, then their practices in other markets will be under scrutiny.

1. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but just maybe AA/US re-evaluated the route(s) they serve out of LGA and determined that LGA-ATL is one that is critical / essential / valuable to the network? Even if they can't match DLs hourly departures. I'm pretty sure that as AA and US become even more integrated, there will be many other routes that will be re-evaluated. Probably several times over.

You're parroting of how terrible AA's re-start of LGA-ATL is just validates commovia's "fear, fear, fear" statement. What are you worried about if AA can't hold a candle to DL and WN/FL on the LGA-ATL route? Why the stress?

2. If you on one hand state that you grasp that AA has missed their opportunity to buy their way into Asia, why is it so difficult for you to grasp that as a result they have to lose some money trying to establish and maintain a presence in Asia? Obviously they're not content with having the token presence in Asia that DL had prior to their merger with NW. And again, if across the Pacific AA doesn't hold a candle to DL and even UA, why are you so stressed out about AA's Pacific ops? Fear?

3. I don't think I ever claimed that I'm willing to answer any of your questions.

4. Besides perhaps spectator who else is spending hour upon hours on the www posting their scrutiny of AA's operations across the Pacific?

 

[WorldTraveler]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is all about fear, fear, fear.
 
The world in which Delta handily dominates because one rival is "managing a merger" and the other is perennially loss-making and at a fleet/network disadvantage are O-V-E-R.
 
Today, AA's (to say nothing of United's) network is on par if not better than Delta's pretty much everywhere - except Asia, which is precisely why AA is rapidly closing the gap with Delta across the Pacific.  AA continues to expand its Asia network from its megahub at DFW, and - if Doug Parker and Scott Kirby are to be believed - may well soon be doing the same from LAX (not sure where the idea of "going back and forth" between the two comes from, since I doubt AA management would be sharing their plans with Delta fanboys).  AA is now an immense competitive force, with the network, fleet and competitive wherewithal to make strategic investments in building its presence in Asia - just as Delta has done, and continues to do, in many places.
 
And thus, again, it's clear why the Baghdad Bob of Delta is unhappy.

yes you have repeatedly yelled FEAR, FEAR, FEAR but fear of what? 4 pathetic CR7s in a market that has hourly plus mainline service between 2 other carriers isn't going to make any difference. and neither will DL's 4 E175s in DFW-LAX.
If AA was pulling average fares close to DL, then there would be indications they are getting decent business - but they didn't.

at least Frugal has a least rationality to his response...
 

1. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert, but just maybe AA/US re-evaluated the route(s) they serve out of LGA and determined that LGA-ATL is one that is critical / essential / valuable to the network? Even if they can't match DLs hourly departures. I'm pretty sure that as AA and US become even more integrated, there will be many other routes that will be re-evaluated. Probably several times over.

You're parroting of how terrible AA's re-start of LGA-ATL is just validates commovia's "fear, fear, fear" statement. What are you worried about if AA can't hold a candle to DL and WN/FL on the LGA-ATL route? Why the stress?

2. If you on one hand state that you grasp that AA has missed their opportunity to buy their way into Asia, why is it so difficult for you to grasp that as a result they have to lose some money trying to establish and maintain a presence in Asia? Obviously they're not content with having the token presence in Asia that DL had prior to their merger with NW. And again, if across the Pacific AA doesn't hold a candle to DL and even UA, why are you so stressed out about AA's Pacific ops? Fear?

3. I don't think I ever claimed that I'm willing to answer any of your questions.

4. Besides perhaps spectator who else is spending hour upon hours on the www posting their scrutiny of AA's operations across the Pacific?

1. I can accept that AA/US reevaluated the decision, but my question is why wasn't there some indication that the route would have been valuable before. Remember, ATL-LGA was only one of several AA/US routes that were dropped from DCA and LGA. Perhaps, AA got calls from some of their corporate customers who said the route cut meant they would move business but if they didn't know it before, it is baffling.

AA does run a good sales organization.

2. regarding Asia, I can indeed understand that AA might have had no choice but to spend money to build a route system if it couldn't buy it.

what again is unprecedented in the airline industry is the size of the losses that AA has been willing to sustain in order to build its Asian route system.
granted, AA would have had to pay billions of dollars for a merger - and they are nowhere near that level in losses - but those routes are not profitable and AA mgmt. has only barely acknowledged they don't make money.

When DL acknowledged they weren't making money in NYC, they outlined a plan as to how they would get there.

And as much as some people have wanted to mock the former Pan Am terminals, it is precisely the poor facilities which DL had that took years to fix that affected DL's profitability in NYC, including the costs of having dozens of people standing guard at doors because the bulding wasn't even built with the current security situation in mind.

If AA can build a profitable network in Asia, I am all for it. I do have a hard time with trying to continue losing money without being honest with investors about a strategy that is highly significant to AA's stakeholders, including employees.

And FWAAA's comment early on this thread is undoubtedly accurate that AA felt a need to respond based on DL's addition of DFW-LAX (which itself was rooted in DL's intention to fly from DAL to multiple cities).

 

[topDawg]

I've said it before and I'll say it again - this is all about fear, fear, fear.
 
The world in which Delta handily dominates because one rival is "managing a merger" and the other is perennially loss-making and at a fleet/network disadvantage are O-V-E-R.
 
Today, AA's (to say nothing of United's) network is on par if not better than Delta's pretty much everywhere - except Asia, which is precisely why AA is rapidly closing the gap with Delta across the Pacific.  AA continues to expand its Asia network from its megahub at DFW, and - if Doug Parker and Scott Kirby are to be believed - may well soon be doing the same from LAX (not sure where the idea of "going back and forth" between the two comes from, since I doubt AA management would be sharing their plans with Delta fanboys).  AA is now an immense competitive force, with the network, fleet and competitive wherewithal to make strategic investments in building its presence in Asia - just as Delta has done, and continues to do, in many places.
 
And thus, again, it's clear why the Baghdad Bob of Delta is unhappy.

Other than Dallas and Miami I can promise you Delta wouldn't touch any of AAs network with a ten foot pole. 
 
Being fourth in New York (or third is AA bigger than B6?) 2nd in Chicago, burning money pit to Asia and PHX and CLT playing 2nd or third in the region. (ATL > CLT) (SLC/DEN > PHX)
 
And I don't think I would be talking to much, AA and US aren't merged and have one Union contract worked out. They have a very long road to go. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Other than Dallas and Miami I can promise you Delta wouldn't touch any of AAs network with a ten foot pole. 
 
Being fourth in New York (or third is AA bigger than B6?) 2nd in Chicago, burning money pit to Asia and PHX and CLT playing 2nd or third in the region. (ATL > CLT) (SLC/DEN > PHX)
 
And I don't think I would be talking to much, AA and US aren't merged and have one Union contract worked out. They have a very long road to go.

precisely.

and what is truly fascinating is how fast the AA people have been to jump on all of the setbacks that every other airline has had but seem convinced that none of it will ever happen to them.

and it is absolutely true that there is no comparison between DL and UA when it comes to their "need" to build their network in a particular part of the world compared to what AA is doing in Asia while at the same time, AA faces enormous amounts of new competition in N. Texas, DCA, and Latin America.

AA is still very much in the honeymoon period of this merger and is enjoying the early tasty fruits that come from being the last merger after a period of significant industry consolidation and stronger pricing, primarily as a result of the end of US' pricing strategies that most directly targeted AA - and that was by US' executives' own words.