OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #61
I am not attacking AA but simply wanting to cronstructively discuss the issues around AA's financial situation.
.
As I noted, the appearance of terminals is subjective and there is evidence that fancy terminals don't necessarily deliver solid finances nor do "poor" facilities necessarily mean that airlines will suffer.
.
I agree that the new train at DFW has dramatically improved connectivity at the airport and has overcome alot of the barriers that existed to AA running a multi-terminal operation - from a passenger standpoint.
.
But it doesn't change that AA's facilities are spread out over a larger area than probably any for any other airline at any airport in the US and that does come with a certain degree of inefficiency.... bags still have to be transported throughout the airport, maintenance has either long response times to fix problems or duplicate sets of parts hve to be maintained in multiple locations, etc....
What is the cost of all that inefficiency... hard to measure but it certainly exists... and when numbers show AA employees being less efficient than other carriers, the facility certainly bears some responsibility.
By the same token, AA is greatly improving its efficiency at MIA w/ the new teminals... it is not just about nice looking facilities for passengers. At JFK, DL supposedly has calculated that they are spending so much on security personnel who have to watch all of the doors that had to be put up because the airport wasn't built for the current security environment that they can pay a significant part of the cost of a new facility -along w/ other efficiencies.
.
The point is that facility costs which are long term investments can help to offset shorter term operating costs. AA has designed those cost efficiencies into its other terminals as have other carriers at their largest hubs but AA is left w/ some major inefficiencies at DFW.
.
BK can't fix all of that inefficiency but it could potentially allow AA to renegoiate some contracts that might reduce some of the the costs of airport operations - and I'm not talking about pay cuts for its own employees.
.
As I noted, the appearance of terminals is subjective and there is evidence that fancy terminals don't necessarily deliver solid finances nor do "poor" facilities necessarily mean that airlines will suffer.
.
I agree that the new train at DFW has dramatically improved connectivity at the airport and has overcome alot of the barriers that existed to AA running a multi-terminal operation - from a passenger standpoint.
.
But it doesn't change that AA's facilities are spread out over a larger area than probably any for any other airline at any airport in the US and that does come with a certain degree of inefficiency.... bags still have to be transported throughout the airport, maintenance has either long response times to fix problems or duplicate sets of parts hve to be maintained in multiple locations, etc....
What is the cost of all that inefficiency... hard to measure but it certainly exists... and when numbers show AA employees being less efficient than other carriers, the facility certainly bears some responsibility.
By the same token, AA is greatly improving its efficiency at MIA w/ the new teminals... it is not just about nice looking facilities for passengers. At JFK, DL supposedly has calculated that they are spending so much on security personnel who have to watch all of the doors that had to be put up because the airport wasn't built for the current security environment that they can pay a significant part of the cost of a new facility -along w/ other efficiencies.
.
The point is that facility costs which are long term investments can help to offset shorter term operating costs. AA has designed those cost efficiencies into its other terminals as have other carriers at their largest hubs but AA is left w/ some major inefficiencies at DFW.
.
BK can't fix all of that inefficiency but it could potentially allow AA to renegoiate some contracts that might reduce some of the the costs of airport operations - and I'm not talking about pay cuts for its own employees.
