DOT Revenue Comps

[Kev3188]

Aw, let him have one. After all, he did spend all day chasing you guys around...

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, what is tough is for you to admit that you posted a document trying to tout how great AA is in LAX and in reality the document shows that DL is the largest int'l carrier and AA is actually third.
 
combine that with AA's 3rd place position in both int'l and domestic in NYC and 2nd place at ORD and all of these great aspirations of growth at LAX seem mighty pie in the sky
 
and then throw in that AA is shrinking including on its int'l network and you can certainly find a datapoint that makes AA looks strong a year into the merger but the trendlines are not looking great.
 
enjoy what little good news you can find. 
 
all the merger did was create a highly domestic US with the little int'l presence it did have in Star markets that aren't working with AA's network which is still 3 out of 3 in traffic and revenues  that are declining faster than the rest of the industry.he
 
I don't care if he gives me one or not, Kev.
 
I am here to prove what I said here years ago that the AA/US merger was built on very poor economical fundamentals and the proof of that is increasingly becoming evident. 

 

[FWAAA]

so let's call the other side a loser because they highlight facts that you don't want to admit. 
 
DL gets a higher system yield than AA... 17.22 to 17.04
 
(DL 2014 10K page 25, AAL 2014 10K, page 76)

True. On an absolute basis, DL's systemwide consolidated yield was higher than AA (+US) in 2014.

However, combined new AA demonstrated higher yield growth in 2014 in every DOT region except Latin America, where both AA and DL showed yield erosion.

DL's domestic yield growth was 5% in 2014 while AA showed 6.3% domestic yield growth.

How about Atlantic yields? DL's yield up 3% while AA's Atlantic yield up 5.2%.

What about AA's perennial weak spot, Pacific? DL's TPAC yield was DOWN 3% while AA's TPAC yield was UP 6.4%.

Latin America was sad for both DL and AA, where DL's yield fell 2% (on 18% more capacity) while AA's yield fell 2.9% on 3.7% more capacity.

In 2013, pmAA had a Latin America yield of almost 18 cents, so it's not surprising that in 2014, DL and others would dump significant capacity into Latin America in hopes of capturing some of those huge yields.

The real story here is AA's superior improvement in yields in the domestic, Atlantic and most of all, Pacific regions. In the Pacific, AA added 7.1% more capacity and still drove yields higher by 6.4%.

I realize that WT will post the same tired narrative several dozen times (that AA has no chance of ever catching up to DL in the Pacific, either in traffic or yield or unit revenue), but the facts indicate that he might not be correct. In 2014, AA made large strides toward closing the Pacific performance gap relative to DL, and if the 2014 trends repeat for a couple more years, AA will have succeeded in the Pacific. I know that doesn't worry RA in Atlanta, but I'll bet it bothers the former DL employee in Brasil.

And while shoveling all of that money into the Pacific investment fire, AA still made almost as much in pre-tax net income, excl special items, as did DL (which earned 9% more net income than AA). DL shoveled large sums of cash into its Latin America and Seattle investment fires, while AA did the same in the Pacific region. When an airline earns more than $4 billion in a year, as AA and DL both did, you can afford some money-losing investments like SEA/Latin America or the Pacific.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, AA's absolute yield in Asia was still far behind DL and UA.
 
the reason why AA made such great strides is because it dumped such poor performing routes such as JFK-HND where the average fare was les than half of what DL was getting.
 
 no, I have never said that AA can't make it to Asia.
 
I have repeatedly said that trying to do it in LAX, the most competitive market to Asia against two carriers - not just DL - that have well established positions from both LAX and the west coast that they don't intend to yield to AA - is why AA's efforts to grow in Asia would be far better focused in LAX.
 
and for 2014, AA's labor costs were substantially less than DL's.  DL employees made more than $20K more person on average than AA employees.... that is an enormous cost advantage that AA had.  even with the new CBAs, AA's employees will not make what their pilot and FA peers at DL will make including profit sharing but AA's costs will go up.
 
the only reason AA is holding on right now is because of low fuel prices.
 
and yes the airline industry is in a very good phase right now, but  we have yet to see a settled AA in terms of the merger, hub rationalization, or the competitive impact on AA from DAL, DCA, LGA, and MIA/Latin America expansion by other carriers.  No other US airline has a bigger headwind to fly thru over the next year which is why analysts have expressed concern over AA's revenue situation. 

 

[FWAAA]

no, AA's absolute yield in Asia was still far behind DL and UA.

In which part of my post, exactly, did I indicate otherwise? Strawmen are easy to knock down, so stop showing off by knocking down arguments that I did not post. Makes you look foolish.

 

[WorldTraveler]

your statement that AA has made huge strides in closing the gap with DL and UA is the problem.
 
It should be obvious to anyone that is the least bit looking at any sort of data.
 
It isn't hard for AA to close the gap since it dumped routes like JFK-HND and has added DFW to Asia routes which have done far better.
 
but once again, the issue is that AA underperformed its peers for so long that any improvement is dramatic - and it is.
 
but AA has made very little progress in improving its performance in ORD or LAX markets to Asia which AA has operated for years.
 
and given that reality, it will require long term subsidies for AA to have a prayer of remaining a player in the LAX and ORD markets after bailing out of JFK with its own metal. 
 
and it makes the notion of growing LAX to Asia even more bizarre since AA hasn't been able to make its existing routes produce comparable results to DL and UA.
 
and once again, when will AA produce comparable revenues to DL and UA on LAX to Asia and how many gates will it take to do that?

 

[commavia]

In 2014, AA made large strides toward closing the Pacific performance gap relative to DL, and if the 2014 trends repeat for a couple more years, AA will have succeeded in the Pacific. I know that doesn't worry RA in Atlanta, but I'll bet it bothers the former DL employee in Brasil.

And while shoveling all of that money into the Pacific investment fire, AA still made almost as much in pre-tax net income, excl special items, as did DL (which earned 9% more net income than AA). DL shoveled large sums of cash into its Latin America and Seattle investment fires, while AA did the same in the Pacific region. When an airline earns more than $4 billion in a year, as AA and DL both did, you can afford some money-losing investments like SEA/Latin America or the Pacific.

 
Yep.  On a network basis, AA has already made significant strides in closing the gap - even before taking into account the JVs that AA operates to Australia with market leader QANTAS and to, and beyond, Japan with JAL.  What AA undeniably still lacks is, indeed, a more formidable presence from the west coast of the U.S. to Asia - and, of course, that's clearly where the expansion openly discussed on multiple occasions by AA management (to ICN, PEK and HKG) would come in.
 
AA's performance of late across the Pacific provides early indications that, in fact, AA management - as opposed to the Delta fanboys - may well be quite right in betting on the long-term investment in developing Asia paying off.  And, lest anyone forget, all of this financial improvement to date has taken place before AA has even made a single change to its aircraft deployment in the region (787s and reconfigured 777s), which should have still more of a positive effect.  Perhaps AA's executives know something that internet forum certain legends-in-their-own-mind don't?  Imagine that.

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, I haven't ever said that AA hasn't made improvement to Asia but it has done so because of DFW growth.

Virtually every US carrier has been able to support a presence from their own hubs to every global region regardless of their overall strength in that region.
DL has the 2nd largest hub to Latin America from ATL which was completely organically built which is the same thing CO and its predecessors did at IAH.

AA mgmt. has yet to prove that they can build a viable Pacific operation in the most competitive markets to Asia - and that is the point that you and the AA fan kids have yet to admit.

DFW is the 2nd most powerful hub in the US and it should be able to support Asia flights... but it is 2nd only to ATL in its geographic inferiority to the region - as measured by distance to carry an O&D passenger from most of the US.

AA HAS NOT changed its revenue performance relative to its peers in the most competitive Asia markets - NYC, ORD, or LAX.

as for aircraft, DL and UA are also deploying new aircraft with the same or better costs so the aircraft argument really doesn''t change anything.

and as hard as it is for you to admit, DL has been profitable on a year round basis across both the Atlantic and the Pacific and is still growing its network in both regions despite economic challenges related to the strong dollar.

and let's be clear that I have no problem with AA succeeding to Asia. DFW is a huge part of the reason why AA is finally getting traction to Asia. but let's also be clear that talking about what AA is doing to Asia from DFW is not at all the same thing as from LAX or ORD or going back and making JFK to Asia work.

celebrate what has worked for AA but don't pretend it is more than it is or can be.