Boston Base

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not looking for a pat on the back from you to establish my credibility or not.

My credibility was established - and you can't admit it - when I said for years that AA needed to defend its core markets or be relegated to a side show in NYC.

They have continued to allow B6 and DL to grow in NYC while AA has shrunk. Even the merger can't fix NYC since US essentially gave away (ok $60M) their LGA slot portfolio (125 slot pairs) since the DCA slots that were given in return have now ended up in DL's hands and the GRU slot has been replaced - and supplemented with another award for DL.

Let's be real clear that the root of your disdain for me started with my commentary about AA in NYC which has absolutely proven to be correct.

Add in AA's peroformance on the Pacific which is absolutely public knowledge and it's no wonder that you and a lot of AA loyalists don't want to hear what I have to say.

specific to this discussion, Parker has yet to demonstrate that he has managed an airline for long-term financial strength and AA's huge order book - which he inherited - and the slot divestiture - which was the price of the merger - plus the Wright Amendment and Latin America open skies that were set in stone long before Parker came along - highlight the challenges that AA uniquely has that no one else in the industry faces.

you can talk about my credibility all you want but falling in line behind Parker and AA without being able to honestly and intelligently talk about real business issues hurts YOUR credibility.

Debt never is better for business vs. gaining the same thing w/o it, open skies creates competition, and AA has a poor track record of holding onto its revenue when key markets open for competitors as LHR has done and Latin America and DFW are doing.

focus on the business issues and we might get somewhere. or you yourself will be on the defensive.

 

[traderjake]

 

[commavia]

 

 
Exactly.  Anyone who displays happiness at AA's seemingly moving in a positive direction for the first time in a decade is a management apologist, and yet the rest of us have to be treated to devotionals over every single Delta success - or failure (which of course is really just Delta's grand strategy disguised as failure to throw the other airlines off).

 

[robbedagain]

commavia  why bother  its quite ovious that dl wins no matter what  n no matter what any other airline does  only DL does it right and wins every dam time     he is not worthy of discussing topics since he knows it all   you ought to look at the iam thread on dl

 

[WorldTraveler]

Exactly.  Anyone who displays happiness at AA's seemingly moving in a positive direction for the first time in a decade is a management apologist, and yet the rest of us have to be treated to devotionals over every single Delta success - or failure (which of course is really just Delta's grand strategy disguised as failure to throw the other airlines off).

which just means that you can't rationally address a topic which you raised.

It's not about DL alone. it is about a difference in the way AA and UA are running their businesses with high debts and a need for newer aircraft compared to ALK, DAL, and LUV which are being far slower in their expenditures and are able to figure out how to get the cost advantage without the huge expenditures and the debt associated with it.

and you can't argue that Parker has demonstrated that he can do what AS, DL, or WN are doing with their balance sheets and you also can't demonstrate that a heavily loaded balance sheet doesn't matter when anyone with the remotest amount of knowledge about business knows that when all other things are equal, a company with higher debt is not as strong as one that doesn't have it


and specific to BOS or other competitive markets, financial strength does matter and will matter when AA has to pay down debt that other carriers don't have.

 

[commavia]

Still stuck in the twilight zone.
 
AA is deriving strong network and revenue synergies from a powerhouse combined network, investing in the enterprise in various ways, and - most importantly - producing record profits and generating mountains of cash from doing it.  That's the only "argument" that matters - the results (as opposed to myopic crackpot theories) speak for themselves, as evidenced by all the "professional analysts" (the ones whose quotes we're selectively treated to day-in-and-day-out as long as they fawn over Delta) that are upping their EPS estimates and stock price targets for AA.
 
Diatribes based on flawed Form 41 filings aside, the rest of us can stick to actual financial results.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, AA is delivering strong RASM because US' pricing strategies are gone.

if AA's merger were the sole reason, then they would be enjoying that strength by themselves.

the fact that everyone is seeing strong revenue - including some of the best performance UA has seen in a long time - says that the industry as a whole is benefitting.

and AA's employees STILL earn about 10% less than DL and UA's employees... when 25% plus of your costs are from employees who make less, it isn't hard to see how AA is doing the exact same thing that happened at US.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

except that AA CANNOT generate cash at the rate DL is generating while taking on debt that DL is not taking on.

......
If DL has a fuel cost advantage that overcomes much of the fuel efficiency advantage that AA has but gets it at far lower capital cost, then DL is as good as if not better off than AA or UA who are spending far more money on new aircraft.

 
1)  But current evidence seems to indicate that AA indeed can generate cash just like DL.
 
2)  You would have more credibility if you posted some data, some number to back up your statements about DLs fuel cost advantage and AAs fuel (in)efficiancy.  Otherwise you're blowing hot air.
 
 

I'm not looking for a pat on the back from you to establish my credibility or not.
...

Add in AA's peroformance on the Pacific which is absolutely public knowledge and it's no wonder that you and a lot of AA loyalists don't want to hear what I have to say.

 
3)  See my comment above with respect to credibility.
 
4) You keep on squawking about AA losing couple hundred of million in the Pacific - and specifically how irresponsible that is for shareholders.  Would you care to comment about how irresponsible DL is blowing hundreds of millions on a refinery?  WholeTruth right?  Oh, that doesn't fit your narrative?  OK, spin away.  DL uber alles!

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

And I almost forgot to ask:  besides locking the thread, is there an antidote to DL cancer?  It's one thing to mention competitors in a topic on AA forum.  When it is done objectively and with data and without prejudice, it can be enjoyable and even educational.  But does it always have to turn into DL is bigger, better, faster, smarter, sleeker, healthier than ________ whatever airline is being discussed?  What's even more annoying is that when there is data to show that DL may not be #1 - the repetitive diatribes and inability to admit error or show any humility is nauseating.
 
I say lock this thread, this DL tumor is inoperable.

 

[WorldTraveler]

then don't talk about any business issue... because what you and others want is to be able to talk about what AA is doing without seeing it in any kind of industry perspective.

there is lots of data available.... but every time I post something and back it up by data which most people don't understand, I get accused of writing 2000 word essays which no one reads.

Google "airline fuel efficiency" and see what you find. do the same thing with "airline cash flow"

further one of the articles I cited specifically talked about AA's cash generation relative to other airlines... and you didn't like it because it showed DL to be in a more favorable light.

feel free to talk about what DL has lost in the refinery = but DL's fuel cost is lower than it was before the refinery was acquired because DL is putting more jet fuel on the market and forcing down prices. Further, DL has specifically said that their strategy was to lower their overall fuel price - not to have a profitable refinery on a standalone basis.
Finally, DL has a plan to make the refinery profitable even on a standalone basis. the fact that DL's fuel cost per gallon in the most recent quarter was the lowest among US carriers and they will likely repeat that strategy shows DL IS benefitting from the refinery.

another perspective which you need to consider is that DL has the lowest percentage of 50 seat RJs in its system of any US legacy carrier - and it is dropping fast.

Fuel efficiency is not just about mainline aircraft but about the entire system. Legacy carriers buy the seats on their regional partners.

Many RJs either serve connecting routes or compete with other carriers who use mainline aircraft - such as WN. if DL can get lower fuel costs by using fewer small RJs, then they have reached fuel efficiency on the bottom end of the fleet.

DL is upgrading to larger RJs and replacing RJs with mainline and that is absolutely about improving fuel efficiency.

so even when you look at mainline fuel efficiency - which is calculated - you also have to consider efficiency for the entire system and on that basis I would strongly bet that DL is in a lot better shape overall than you think.

If AA can show where its $200M plus per year in losing money on the Pacific is worth it to the rest of their business, then they can absolutely shut me and others up.

But they haven't done that... Parker called it "an investment" which means it might make money down the road and might not.

the 787 will reduce costs and cut seats - but what is AA going to do with all of the 777-200ERs that it no longer needs and that aren't competitive?

you and I don't have to agree but I do commend you for engaging in a difficult discussion above without making it personal. People like FWAAA can do it and I respect him for it.

others, not so much.

the board suffers when tough issues can't be discussed because some people respond to any criticism of their favorite business by turning on the messenger.

let's be very clear that I discuss what is happening at AA - I don't make anything happen or not.

if hearing me say what is really happening gets you or others to the point that the topic can't be discussed, then don't engage in the topic and if you do, do it on a forum where no one from the "outside" can come in and show you anything you don't want to hear.

 

[robbedagain]

alright WT ill google airline fuel flow and airline cash flow  and see what I can find.  however  it appears to me and to most of us here that in your opin with that data you make it out to be delta is the greatest  but in reality dl is just another airline  a well run one just like wn aa (counting pmus) and ua despite the difficulties ua is currently having.    if the 772 are as bad as you think then how come dl still uses them just as well

 

[diamondcutter]

then don't talk about any business issue... because what you and others want is to be able to talk about what AA is doing without seeing it in any kind of industry perspective.there is lots of data available.... but every time I post something and back it up by data which most people don't understand, I get accused of writing 2000 word essays which no one reads.Google "airline fuel efficiency" and see what you find. do the same thing with "airline cash flow"further one of the articles I cited specifically talked about AA's cash generation relative to other airlines... and you didn't like it because it showed DL to be in a more favorable light.feel free to talk about what DL has lost in the refinery = but DL's fuel cost is lower than it was before the refinery was acquired because DL is putting more jet fuel on the market and forcing down prices. Further, DL has specifically said that their strategy was to lower their overall fuel price - not to have a profitable refinery on a standalone basis.Finally, DL has a plan to make the refinery profitable even on a standalone basis. the fact that DL's fuel cost per gallon in the most recent quarter was the lowest among US carriers and they will likely repeat that strategy shows DL IS benefitting from the refinery.another perspective which you need to consider is that DL has the lowest percentage of 50 seat RJs in its system of any US legacy carrier - and it is dropping fast.Fuel efficiency is not just about mainline aircraft but about the entire system. Legacy carriers buy the seats on their regional partners.Many RJs either serve connecting routes or compete with other carriers who use mainline aircraft - such as WN. if DL can get lower fuel costs by using fewer small RJs, then they have reached fuel efficiency on the bottom end of the fleet.DL is upgrading to larger RJs and replacing RJs with mainline and that is absolutely about improving fuel efficiency.so even when you look at mainline fuel efficiency - which is calculated - you also have to consider efficiency for the entire system and on that basis I would strongly bet that DL is in a lot better shape overall than you think.If AA can show where its $200M plus per year in losing money on the Pacific is worth it to the rest of their business, then they can absolutely shut me and others up.But they haven't done that... Parker called it "an investment" which means it might make money down the road and might not.the 787 will reduce costs and cut seats - but what is AA going to do with all of the 777-200ERs that it no longer needs and that aren't competitive?you and I don't have to agree but I do commend you for engaging in a difficult discussion above without making it personal. People like FWAAA can do it and I respect him for it.others, not so much.the board suffers when tough issues can't be discussed because some people respond to any criticism of their favorite business by turning on the messenger.let's be very clear that I discuss what is happening at AA - I don't make anything happen or not.if hearing me say what is really happening gets you or others to the point that the topic can't be discussed, then don't engage in the topic and if you do, do it on a forum where no one from the "outside" can come in and show you anything you don't want to hear.

Wt or better yet Reverend ...you sir are coming unglued

 

[diamondcutter]

WT! Don't you get it , members are tired of you hijacking every thread!!! It's the same thing time after time . You have become irrational !

 

[WorldTraveler]

alright WT ill google airline fuel flow and airline cash flow  and see what I can find.  however  it appears to me and to most of us here that in your opin with that data you make it out to be delta is the greatest  but in reality dl is just another airline  a well run one just like wn aa (counting pmus) and ua despite the difficulties ua is currently having.    if the 772 are as bad as you think then how come dl still uses them just as well

so what did you find?

no, actually you will see that AA and DL's fuel efficiency is at the low end of the US airlines - but is quite similar to each other.

UA has better fuel efficiency than AA or DL has.

WN has remarkably poor fuel efficiency but they somehow manage to be very profitable.

So maybe fuel efficiency isn't the whole story?

and the 772s aren't bad airplanes. I never said they were.

I did ask what AA is going to do with them - about half of them are dedicated to AA's Pacific operation - if the 787s are used to replace the 777s on the Pacific which is supposedly where a lot of the improvement in AA's pacific performance is supposed to come from.

They can be used on the Atlantic or Latin America but they are very heavy airplanes for 10 hour flights.

shifting a plane that others can use on the Pacific and make money to somewhere else on AA's network just aggravates the profitability someplace else

what WILL AA do with the 777-200ERs? they aren't exactly in demand as used airplanes.

 

[IORFA]

Just put him on ignore like most of us have and your enjoyment of this site will increase dramatically!