DL CEO hints at PVG hub
- Thread starter WorldTraveler
- Start date
I haven't bothered to read your long-winded fan-fiction pieces, so it's not that I "can't accept" what you write - it's that I've proven repeatedly (over and over and over again) since you resumed posting here after the DL-NW bankruptcies and merger that you don't bother to fact-check even the most basic points.WorldTraveler said:
Call it nit-picking if you will, but in my book, if you can't repeat publicly-available data correctly, that calls into question all of your nonsensical long-winded dissertations that rest upon your factual inaccuracies.
So I scan your posts and when I see that once again you have failed to get the most basic facts correct, I point them out to you. My conclusion is that your long-winded posts (some days, 50-100 of them) are nothing more than Delta fan-fiction bullshit. The same bullshit that got you kicked off teenagers.arguing.about.airliners.net.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #63
again, what is clear is that DL outperformed AA on RASM for the quarter and the revenue difference will be in several percent when you include the capacity difference.
you can nitpick over all of the "i"s and "t"s you want, but the EXACT scenario I said would play out is playing out - AA is having to shrink its network post merger at the very time that competition is increasing in AA's largest region.
further, since this is about PVG which is in Asia, AA's capacity growth has been greatest in Asia - but we have heard endless prophecies about how AA will grow its LAX-Asia network.
IN fact what has happened is that DL is adding its own LAX-PVG flight which along with LAX-HND makes DL the largest US carrier across the Pacific from LAX - adding to its current position at having the largest share and revenue in the LAX local market to Asia.
so, feel free to harp on all of the gnats you want.
I have been dead right about what AA would face in the post-merger world and how have shown how all of the hoopla about what AA would do and become has evaporated into non-performance.
DL is now just 5% smaller than AA and DL and UA are within a percent of each other based on traffic for the year to date.
despite all of the talk about how AA would be the number one carrier, it is still the number 3 carrier across both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Despite AA's efforts to grow its presence to Asia where it is still only 41% of the size of DL, the 2nd largest carrier to Asia based on YTD traffic stats.
In contrast, DL as the 3rd largest carrier to Latin America is 64% of the size of AA.
so for all of the talk about what AA would be post-merger, AA is still the smallest of the big 3 based on YTD traffic and DL and UA are growing their presence in Latin America faster than AA is growing to either Europe or Asia.
AA is also the #3 US int'l carrier in both LAX and NYC
and
AA will also have only 60% of the seats that DL will have from PVG in August and beyond
so, yes, given that AA and DL BOTH did not buy a carrier that was strong in China, it is an accomplishment that they have grown what they have.
But AA is still at the back of the pack looking forward.
and AA is underperforming DL and UA in Asia
you can nitpick over all of the "i"s and "t"s you want, but the EXACT scenario I said would play out is playing out - AA is having to shrink its network post merger at the very time that competition is increasing in AA's largest region.
further, since this is about PVG which is in Asia, AA's capacity growth has been greatest in Asia - but we have heard endless prophecies about how AA will grow its LAX-Asia network.
IN fact what has happened is that DL is adding its own LAX-PVG flight which along with LAX-HND makes DL the largest US carrier across the Pacific from LAX - adding to its current position at having the largest share and revenue in the LAX local market to Asia.
so, feel free to harp on all of the gnats you want.
I have been dead right about what AA would face in the post-merger world and how have shown how all of the hoopla about what AA would do and become has evaporated into non-performance.
DL is now just 5% smaller than AA and DL and UA are within a percent of each other based on traffic for the year to date.
despite all of the talk about how AA would be the number one carrier, it is still the number 3 carrier across both the Atlantic and the Pacific.
Despite AA's efforts to grow its presence to Asia where it is still only 41% of the size of DL, the 2nd largest carrier to Asia based on YTD traffic stats.
In contrast, DL as the 3rd largest carrier to Latin America is 64% of the size of AA.
so for all of the talk about what AA would be post-merger, AA is still the smallest of the big 3 based on YTD traffic and DL and UA are growing their presence in Latin America faster than AA is growing to either Europe or Asia.
AA is also the #3 US int'l carrier in both LAX and NYC
and
AA will also have only 60% of the seats that DL will have from PVG in August and beyond
so, yes, given that AA and DL BOTH did not buy a carrier that was strong in China, it is an accomplishment that they have grown what they have.
But AA is still at the back of the pack looking forward.
and AA is underperforming DL and UA in Asia
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,298
Just because you don't give anything up doesn't mean it isn't hurting you. Of course, to the AA fanboys JVs are all that matter in this world. It is just another step in AA world domination.commavia said:
how does it not benefit AA employees? well if you figure AA had one turn a day to SYD just like DL how many employees does that bring in? that is more employees junior to people. Means better trips, better pay etc. etc.
You really think KE said this and Delta just said "nope" and walked away?FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
The point of negotiations is the bend, KE isn't bending.
of course Delta is the bad guy because its Delta though.
I'm sorry, not all of us have the time to sit around here an post all day.commavia said:
You know, jobs, family, etc does happen.
topDawg said:
Once again - please go back and read my reply #49. It appears we're back to that contention that AA labor was harmed by the QANTAS joint business because of the job growth and opportunity foregone because AA hasn't flown, and doesn't fly, to Australia itself. But, as already said, that logic only holds if you can demonstrate causality that the reason AA hasn't flown to Australia is because of the QANTAS joint business. And I'm still waiting to hear any plausible argument for that.
By contrast, I've offered multiple pieces of evidence to suggest that, even without the QANTAS joint business, AA still would not be flying to Australia. To me, the most persuasive piece of said evidence is that AA had literally decades worth of opportunity to fly to Australia both pre- and post-deregulation, and both pre- and post-QANTAS alliance, and even repeatedly chose to attempt to do so, and in each case ultimately decided it wasn't worth it.
So - yet again - what is the argument/evidence to suggest that AA would have chosen otherwise, in the last few years, if they didn't have a QANTAS joint business? Why would we, as you say, "figure" that AA would have "one turn a day to SYD just like DL?" Why would AA do that? AA already had an alliance - before the joint business - with QANTAS that gave them extensive access to Australia by piggybacking off the market's dominant player.
If these arguments are made about other cases of ATI or joint ventures - between U.S. and European carriers, or the aborted Delta-Aeromexico ATI or a hypothetical future Delta JV in Mexico - that's one thing. But in this case, in the absence of logic to the contrary, I'm sticking with the evidence that points to the conclusion that the QANTAS joint business was indeed not only not bad for AA employees but actually good for them, as it provided more money and more customers flowing onto "their" (AA) planes.
topDawg said:
And yet the individual who seems to have the most time to post the most often on this site, and in particular the AA forum, has yet to find the time to produce a cogent argument in this case.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #67
AA DID fly to Australia. they developed a JV for the same reason that a lot of airlines do... to strengthen their presence.
The difference between AA in Australia and other JVs in other countries is that there are few JVs that are negotiated solely on the basis on one carrier providing all of the int'l feed. QF didn't have any reason to want AA in the market and AA didn't have the right aircraft despite having far more large widebodies than DL.
and further, the notion that there is anything "joint" about the AA-QF JV is a stretch. AA doesn't put even half of an aircraft's worth of passengers on QF.
and, yes, the fact is that AA isn't the number one US int'l airline from LAX or on the other side of the Pacific by any number of measures and the competition shows absolutely no sign of accommodating AA's NEED to have a west coast gateway to the Asia/Pacific region.
The difference between AA in Australia and other JVs in other countries is that there are few JVs that are negotiated solely on the basis on one carrier providing all of the int'l feed. QF didn't have any reason to want AA in the market and AA didn't have the right aircraft despite having far more large widebodies than DL.
and further, the notion that there is anything "joint" about the AA-QF JV is a stretch. AA doesn't put even half of an aircraft's worth of passengers on QF.
and, yes, the fact is that AA isn't the number one US int'l airline from LAX or on the other side of the Pacific by any number of measures and the competition shows absolutely no sign of accommodating AA's NEED to have a west coast gateway to the Asia/Pacific region.
topDawg said:
You said it – not me (and for the record, I've never said anything even remotely like that). Jeez - how ridiculous.
Frankly, I don’t understand what the sensitivity is here. Nobody is attacking precious Delta’s honor. A definitive, categorical statement was made, and I’m simply calling it what it is – baseless. We’ve been told – repeatedly – that the AA-QANTAS joint business “cannot” possibly be positive for AA employees, and apparently, in lieu of providing an example of an actual AA employee who was harmed, we’re to conclude that in reality rather than actual AA employees being directly, immediately harmed, in reality this is a hypothetical about whether current and/or future AA employees could get “harmed” by a missed opportunity to operate flights to Australia.
And, once again, I’ve yet to hear any cogent substantiation for such a claim – at least that I, personally, find persuasive. As already offered multiple times, it seems very difficult to imagine that AA would – absent the QANTAS joint business – being flying to Australia with its own metal. As support for this conclusion, I offered that AA had ample opportunity in the past to operate such flying, and repeatedly determined – first before AA had any marketing affiliation with QANTAS, and then when it did have an alliance, but not a joint business – that it was not a worthwhile economic undertaking. Given that the U.S.-Australia market has become more, not less, competitive, and lower-, not higher-, yielding in recent years, it seems to me to require a willing suspension of disbelief to think that, but for the QANTAS joint business, AA would have concluded differently in the last few years. Instead, AA seems quite content – as it has long been – to leave Australia to the Australia specialist, and the market’s dominant player, and to jointly coordinate schedules and fares with said partner. And, in the process, this relationship funnels more passengers and more revenue onto AA flights – which I doubt anyone would seriously suggest is a negative for AA employees.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #69
and the simple question is why AA was NOT flying to Australia on its own metal if they were so large and so important in LAX as they said they are - or you think they are?
AA DID fly to Australia via HNL - it was a wreck which wasn't a surprise, AA recognized it needed to have a presence in Australia and sought a joint venture.
AA is the only one of the big 3 that doesn't have a presence in Australia on its own metal and yet you have repeatedly told us how important it was for AA to build its presence from LAX.
If AA couldn't bother to build its own metal presence to LAX but "much smaller DL" could, then it seriously begs the question of how all of this planned empire that you envision for AA will actually come to be.
DL is the largest int'l airline at LAX based on number of flights at seats using summer 2015 schedules. DL is also 3 times larger than AA from the entire west coast to all int'l destinations and DL is still 2nd to UA on the entire west coast in terms of seats and flights.
and the same thing is true in Asia as well - with DL way out in front in Japan, UA way out front in HKG and mainland China, and the two of similar size in most of the rest of east Asia on a combined basis.
but DL had very little presence on either its own or NW's metal to HKG or China before the merger relative to UA so the increase has been dramatic, just as it has been for AA.
but given that DL isn't giving up anything in Japan while it grows its presence in the rest of Asia and UA continues to find new growth in China, it is hard to believe that AA will be a serious threat to either DL or UA from either the US or the Asia side of the Pacific.
whether DL is able to pull off a JV or not, its position as a strong #2 to UA in Asia and China seems to be well-established.
AA DID fly to Australia via HNL - it was a wreck which wasn't a surprise, AA recognized it needed to have a presence in Australia and sought a joint venture.
AA is the only one of the big 3 that doesn't have a presence in Australia on its own metal and yet you have repeatedly told us how important it was for AA to build its presence from LAX.
If AA couldn't bother to build its own metal presence to LAX but "much smaller DL" could, then it seriously begs the question of how all of this planned empire that you envision for AA will actually come to be.
DL is the largest int'l airline at LAX based on number of flights at seats using summer 2015 schedules. DL is also 3 times larger than AA from the entire west coast to all int'l destinations and DL is still 2nd to UA on the entire west coast in terms of seats and flights.
and the same thing is true in Asia as well - with DL way out in front in Japan, UA way out front in HKG and mainland China, and the two of similar size in most of the rest of east Asia on a combined basis.
but DL had very little presence on either its own or NW's metal to HKG or China before the merger relative to UA so the increase has been dramatic, just as it has been for AA.
but given that DL isn't giving up anything in Japan while it grows its presence in the rest of Asia and UA continues to find new growth in China, it is hard to believe that AA will be a serious threat to either DL or UA from either the US or the Asia side of the Pacific.
whether DL is able to pull off a JV or not, its position as a strong #2 to UA in Asia and China seems to be well-established.
Nice try, but no. AA ceased flying to Australia in 1992. The joint business with QANTAS was approved in 2011, nearly two decades later. During that time, when AA had no joint business with QANTAS, it still continually elected not to fly to Australia with its own metal.
As for the typical hysterics, it's fine to keep repeating the same B.S. over and over - doesn't make it any less comical. It is important for AA to continue to build its presence at LAX, and indeed it is doing just that - and the lock on more gates than any of its largest competitors have access to should help in that regard. AA is, without question, LAX's largest airline - a fact which it was long ago evident is quite disturbing to some who want to continue the glorification of Delta. Neither the lack of AA metal in the LAX-Australia market (despite having a joint business with the carrier that handily dominates the market), nor Delta management's grand vision for a "joint" hub at PVG years from now, is going to change that - difficult as that may be for some to accept.
Reality.
As for the typical hysterics, it's fine to keep repeating the same B.S. over and over - doesn't make it any less comical. It is important for AA to continue to build its presence at LAX, and indeed it is doing just that - and the lock on more gates than any of its largest competitors have access to should help in that regard. AA is, without question, LAX's largest airline - a fact which it was long ago evident is quite disturbing to some who want to continue the glorification of Delta. Neither the lack of AA metal in the LAX-Australia market (despite having a joint business with the carrier that handily dominates the market), nor Delta management's grand vision for a "joint" hub at PVG years from now, is going to change that - difficult as that may be for some to accept.
Reality.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #71
I didn't say that AA went directly from its one service to SYD via HNL to the QF JV, now did I?
ah, yes, let's return to the gate hysteria since the actual market facts and service levels aren't working for you.
I hear that the FIS in T5 will be open longer than it has been, perhaps so that DL's afternoon Asia arrivals to use T5 - probably a good idea since that is a peak time for the TBIT as well.
so, DL will have its own terminal connections for its Asia flights, is working to get AM in T5, and is still increasing capacity at a faster rate than any other carrier - on top of already being the largest int'l carrier from LAX
so, yes, I am glad AA is growing. they just are dropping further back from the front of the pack.
and given that DL has managed to grow as much as it has without a JV with a hub partner at PVG, I can clearly see why you are hoping it never does happen for DL.
ah, yes, let's return to the gate hysteria since the actual market facts and service levels aren't working for you.
I hear that the FIS in T5 will be open longer than it has been, perhaps so that DL's afternoon Asia arrivals to use T5 - probably a good idea since that is a peak time for the TBIT as well.
so, DL will have its own terminal connections for its Asia flights, is working to get AM in T5, and is still increasing capacity at a faster rate than any other carrier - on top of already being the largest int'l carrier from LAX
so, yes, I am glad AA is growing. they just are dropping further back from the front of the pack.
and given that DL has managed to grow as much as it has without a JV with a hub partner at PVG, I can clearly see why you are hoping it never does happen for DL.
"Actual market facts and service levels" indicate that AA is "dropping further back from the front of the pack." Classic. It literally is an alternate universe that some people inhabit. What do the "actual market facts and service levels" say about market share at LAX? Anyone?
Congratulations for Delta that it may have its "own terminal connections" for arrivals from Asia. That's easier when pretty much your entire operation is in ... one terminal. Meanwhile, AA will just have to manage with its four gates at TBIT tied to the largest and most flexible FIS at the airport - such is the case when one has or soon will have preferential or exclusive access to over 30 gates (and again, no daydream or philosophizing about hypothetical future "joint" hubs at PVG is going to change that).
Congratulations for Delta that it may have its "own terminal connections" for arrivals from Asia. That's easier when pretty much your entire operation is in ... one terminal. Meanwhile, AA will just have to manage with its four gates at TBIT tied to the largest and most flexible FIS at the airport - such is the case when one has or soon will have preferential or exclusive access to over 30 gates (and again, no daydream or philosophizing about hypothetical future "joint" hubs at PVG is going to change that).
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #73
again, no one has ever questioned where AA is in the LAX domestic market or the US domestic market as a whole.
but AA IS the 3rd largest US airline across the Pacific from LAX.
and all of those gates don't matter if competitors can manage to operate the flights that count out of the gates they do operate - and AA, DL, and UA all have operations in more than one terminal at LAX.
but AA IS the 3rd largest US airline across the Pacific from LAX.
and all of those gates don't matter if competitors can manage to operate the flights that count out of the gates they do operate - and AA, DL, and UA all have operations in more than one terminal at LAX.
Part of the problem for AA (before the bankruptcy and after the bankruptcy) is that it's one of the lousiest carriers in its alliance. Fans of Star and Skyteam have long ridiculed much smaller Oneworld for its focus on the quality of the members, not the quantity of members.
It's no secret that BA, CX, JL and QF have long-standing reputations as high-quality carriers, with superior onboard service. That puts AA in kind of a bind. If it competes head to head with one of its alliance partners, the partner is likely to win. BA definitely was the winner and finally, AA and BA got approval to stop competing once the EU-USA open skies treaty was approved. And even then, it was clear that BA was winning, as the sub-standard AA service from BOS was pulled in favor of BA. At JFK, AA has retreated to just three daily flights, all on its most luxurious, advanced plane, the 77W.
Note that AA is pulling first class from all of its planes except the 20 (eventual total) 77Ws. The 47 772s are in the process of re-configuration to 2-class. BA still flies plenty of First Class between London and the USA, so it looks like the alliance may be relegating AA to second-tier status while BA will fly the First Class seats (except where AA flies the 77W to LHR).
Who would win if AA began flying LAX/ORD-HKG? Cathay Pacific, of course, as CX owns the market from N America to HKG. Who would win if AA begins flying LAX-SYD? QF, for the same reasons.
Yes, AA flew to SYD via HNL back when the USA-Australia market was restricted. Following the termination of those flights, AA could have flown nonstop if it had bought capable 744s and if AA had begun the slow approval toward daily flights (IIRC, new carriers could fly 2-3 times a week and after a while, they could ask for more frequencies). The USA-Australia open skies treaty was approved in 2008, and not long after that, DL used its 777LRs to fly nonstop to SYD. Made sense for DL, since DL didn't have any partnership with the dominant carrier, Qantas.
Should AA begin flying LAX-SYD with its 787s or its 77Ws? Perhaps, but the QF A380s are preferred by passengers, and AA would probably not hold its own.
Over the years, I've sat next to numerous Aussies in the front cabin who are connecting from LAX to MIA/JFK/ORD/BOS/DFW, etc. Those kinds of connections have been important given that until not too long ago, QF flew nonstop to just LAX and SFO (and now, DFW). Does AA carry lots of QF premium passengers from LAX to other domestic cities? Don't know the number, but I'd bet its many multiples of the number of QF premium cabin passengers that DL or UA carries from LAX.
It's no secret that BA, CX, JL and QF have long-standing reputations as high-quality carriers, with superior onboard service. That puts AA in kind of a bind. If it competes head to head with one of its alliance partners, the partner is likely to win. BA definitely was the winner and finally, AA and BA got approval to stop competing once the EU-USA open skies treaty was approved. And even then, it was clear that BA was winning, as the sub-standard AA service from BOS was pulled in favor of BA. At JFK, AA has retreated to just three daily flights, all on its most luxurious, advanced plane, the 77W.
Note that AA is pulling first class from all of its planes except the 20 (eventual total) 77Ws. The 47 772s are in the process of re-configuration to 2-class. BA still flies plenty of First Class between London and the USA, so it looks like the alliance may be relegating AA to second-tier status while BA will fly the First Class seats (except where AA flies the 77W to LHR).
Who would win if AA began flying LAX/ORD-HKG? Cathay Pacific, of course, as CX owns the market from N America to HKG. Who would win if AA begins flying LAX-SYD? QF, for the same reasons.
Yes, AA flew to SYD via HNL back when the USA-Australia market was restricted. Following the termination of those flights, AA could have flown nonstop if it had bought capable 744s and if AA had begun the slow approval toward daily flights (IIRC, new carriers could fly 2-3 times a week and after a while, they could ask for more frequencies). The USA-Australia open skies treaty was approved in 2008, and not long after that, DL used its 777LRs to fly nonstop to SYD. Made sense for DL, since DL didn't have any partnership with the dominant carrier, Qantas.
Should AA begin flying LAX-SYD with its 787s or its 77Ws? Perhaps, but the QF A380s are preferred by passengers, and AA would probably not hold its own.
Over the years, I've sat next to numerous Aussies in the front cabin who are connecting from LAX to MIA/JFK/ORD/BOS/DFW, etc. Those kinds of connections have been important given that until not too long ago, QF flew nonstop to just LAX and SFO (and now, DFW). Does AA carry lots of QF premium passengers from LAX to other domestic cities? Don't know the number, but I'd bet its many multiples of the number of QF premium cabin passengers that DL or UA carries from LAX.
OP
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #75
quite a post there, FWAAA - and one I can't disagree with.
yes, the problem is that AA's network has been built around the same hubs and key global markets as its partners so it is hard for AA to find a "niche" in which to compete.
and then in markets like China where AA doesn't have to compete against a partner, DL and UA have managed to use their partners to enhance their position without a great deal of competition against them.
AA's strategic cornerstone is Latin America but it is still built around the largest markets - including MIA and NYC - so everyone and their dog will eventually be in there as soon as the treaty allows it.
as for aircraft, AA could have flown the 772ER to Australia if it wanted to - UA is using less capability 772s than AA has - but of course the issue is still that AA would have to compete against its partners.
as for the 77Ws, I don't think it will take very long for Parker to realize that an aircraft that only has a relatively small number more seats than the 772s with little additional revenue simply can't be sustained. and given that the average fare difference in markets where the 77Ws are deployed outside of DFW is pretty small with what competitors get without a 3 class aircraft, I suspect the rest of the fleet will become 2 class before long as well.
The summary of your post is that AA's strategy of having hubs is not ideal for building its own network because it has to compete against its partners. In contrast, DL has built its int'l network heavily around ATL, DTW, and SEA which are markets where it is the dominant int'l carrier. and then in NYC both DL and UA grew so large relative to other carriers that their partners can't argue because of the expanse of DL and UA's NYC oeprations.
I commend you for your admission - but it validates that the problem I have said AA has is that it doesn't dominate its markets to the extent that DL and UA dominate their int'l markets except for to Latin America where the economy and new competition will put a lot of pressure on AA's network over he next few years.
yes, the problem is that AA's network has been built around the same hubs and key global markets as its partners so it is hard for AA to find a "niche" in which to compete.
and then in markets like China where AA doesn't have to compete against a partner, DL and UA have managed to use their partners to enhance their position without a great deal of competition against them.
AA's strategic cornerstone is Latin America but it is still built around the largest markets - including MIA and NYC - so everyone and their dog will eventually be in there as soon as the treaty allows it.
as for aircraft, AA could have flown the 772ER to Australia if it wanted to - UA is using less capability 772s than AA has - but of course the issue is still that AA would have to compete against its partners.
as for the 77Ws, I don't think it will take very long for Parker to realize that an aircraft that only has a relatively small number more seats than the 772s with little additional revenue simply can't be sustained. and given that the average fare difference in markets where the 77Ws are deployed outside of DFW is pretty small with what competitors get without a 3 class aircraft, I suspect the rest of the fleet will become 2 class before long as well.
The summary of your post is that AA's strategy of having hubs is not ideal for building its own network because it has to compete against its partners. In contrast, DL has built its int'l network heavily around ATL, DTW, and SEA which are markets where it is the dominant int'l carrier. and then in NYC both DL and UA grew so large relative to other carriers that their partners can't argue because of the expanse of DL and UA's NYC oeprations.
I commend you for your admission - but it validates that the problem I have said AA has is that it doesn't dominate its markets to the extent that DL and UA dominate their int'l markets except for to Latin America where the economy and new competition will put a lot of pressure on AA's network over he next few years.
Similar threads
