I have no idea where you come up with your statistics for SFO traffic but, not surprisingly, your AA numbers are exactly what I see but your DL numbers are a couple hundred thousand passengers short.
Perhaps SFO’s official traffic report will provide a little clarity. You would think they know who boards passengers, wouldn’t you? They say:
Airline Market Share at SFO
46% United Airlines
9% Virgin America
8% (tie) Delta, Southwest/AirTran - See more at:
http://www.flysfo.co...h.PG1zO7Ha.dpuf
Hmmm… maybe AA’s really not larger than DL at SFO.
I find it interesting that you provided SFO's link which gives approximations while I gave exact numbers.
It also stands to reason if my AA numbers are correct (which you've admitted to) then my DL numbers are probably correct as well as I've pulled them from the same sources.
Regardless who's bigger, both are much smaller than UA @SFO and aren't going to make a full "assault" at SFO anytime soon either.
DL's focus is more at LAX and SEA (apropos, is ending its SEA-KIX route permenantly).
Yes, I’ve said before that AA has enough slots to make NYC work but for some reason they continue to lose share to DL and B6. The issue is clearly not a lack of slots but AA’s ability to compete.
This issue is cleary that AA had a poor cost structure and due to contractual issues, couldn't fly the proper planes on a number of routes.
ORD is the best example of where not having the proper plane forced AA to downscale ops. I expect JFK and ORD to improve ops much more the next few years.
B6 has been farely stagnant @JFK since 2008. Ostensibly, it seems to be focused more at other cities such as BOS, etc.
I’m sure you and others will argue that the strategy will work but you need only look at the successful LCCs like WN and AS to realize they buy what they can afford without taking on significant amounts of debt.
WN and AS are completely different models. Why bring them up?
That is the strategy that DL is following. I am as certain as the day is long that there will be a significantly positively difference in DL’s financial health a few years from now compared to AA and UA that can be directly attributable to DL’s decision to not spend money on airplanes as if Boeing and Airbus were shutting their doors tomorrow.
I’ve been hanging around this board for 10 years already… I can wait five more to see if I am right on this or not.
Good, then we'll see what happens in the next few years.
🙂
IIRC, you've already lost a $50 (or was it $100?) bet about UA and CO merging. IIRC, the merger didn't happen the year specified but a year or two later.
You, sir, have shiny jet syndrome – a aviation disease that is characterized by the notion that a machine can solve any problem.
AA lost a whole lot of ground in NYC and it is simply wishful thinking that they will regain it.
LOL. That was a good one. I've never stated anywhere new jets=profitability. I've stated new jets + new cost structure = competitive (and probably profitable) stand alone AA.
Do you realize that over the past 10 years, AA and UA have basically traded places in ORD international with respect to size? Ten years ago, AA outboarded UA in international passenger with 40% of the local int’l market compared to 33% for UA. Now the numbers have reversed but more significantly, UA’s international revenues have grown much faster than AA’s which means the revenue gap between AA and UA is much larger than it was before.
Yes, AA loyalist, AA has lost a lot of ground in NYC and ORD in the international arena and in LAX they are holding their own only by operating two heavily money-losing routes.
Where do you get your numbers from? UA has always dominated ORD. That's almost considered "common knowledge".
Mainline UA/AA
UA:
2002: International:1,230,593
2012: International:1,362,807
AA:
2002: International: 991,588
2012: International: 869,261
Source
😀OT