No, no, no you don't understand. Delta has the mystical, magical ability to place chips on every spot on the table, and win at all of them simultaneously.
Heads Delta wins, tails American (and every other airline) loses. Some things just never change ...
except that DL DOESN'T place its chips everywhere on the table all at the same time.
That is why we heard from so many on here about DL's pulldown at LAX when I said repeatedly that DL's time to buildup LAX wasn't there and DL's previous buildups at LAX accomplished other strategic goals, including to prevent LAWA from taking DL's terminal in BK.
Now, DL is focused on the west coast including at LAX.
DL gets higher average fares from LAX than AA, puts more people per flight on its aircraft, and has successfully pushed into some of the top industry markets such as JFK-LAX where DL for the first time ever is the largest carrier.
DL will build out other regions of its network when it makes sense.
MIA is coming. Its time is just not now.
Could be the airport itself? Anyone who's flown in and out of MIA knows that the airport is a nightmare of epic proportions. Can't even get to other terminals without having to go out security and back in and TSA lines aren't the smoothest in the nation there. Same problems coming in through customs.
Just a little thought.
precisely. Just put some family members on flights via MIA and they commented on the same thing.
Difference is that when DL decides to start MIA to Latin America, it won't be spread out all over creation and will be able to make the process a whole lot easier.
For connecting passengers from Latin America to interior points in the US, other hubs including ATL, are not only much more efficient but cost the airlines a whole lot less.
American will overtake United and Delta and become the largest U.S. airline to Europe within five years. I guarantee it.
Miami and New York are the two most important European gateways in the U.S., and the only ones that can consistently fill a plane to Europe 365 days a year. Combined with a very strong and large Philadelphia trans-Atlantic hub, plus Dallas, Charlotte and Chicago, and you have a very powerful combination of European hubs.
It would take a massive failure of BOTH DL and UA for AA to be able to pass DL and UA. Not once in the history of aviation since deregulation has only one of the legacies been positively positioned while the rest have been on the ropes. Not once.
You simply don't want to admit how much of US' route system was built around low labor - despite the fact you have repeatedly pointed out that US' low labor costs are a big reason why they have been able to serve many of the markets they serve.
Add in that US' network is still heavily centered toward Star Alliance and it will take a long time to redeploy that capacity into other markets.
AA will grow in Europe but repeatedly since the merger was announced, the mindset on here has been that AA will grow unchecked because that is what they now want to do. The evidence is overwhelming that strong carriers will defend their markets and the reason why AA is in the position of needing to grow as much as it needs to do now is because AA spent 10 years restructuring whiel other carriers moved much more aggressively to adapt and succeed but also to gain market share where they could.
other carriers are simply not going to give back to AA what they have gained.
Here's what I fail to grasp:
To Asia, where AA's organic growth was limited by DoT awards (which often went to other legacies and not AA), we're constantly treated to a nonstop drumbeat of "AA is losing billions of dollars attempting to remedy the disparity in size between it and DL/UA and there is no way that AA can ever catch up or take away business from those invincible incumbents."
Yet on the other hand, we also hear that where AA is historically strong, it's a sitting duck and that DL will have no trouble walking in and taking away business from AA.
Apparently, Richard Anderson and Delta are all-powerful and can do whatever they want, but AA is impotent and will forever be relegated to its loser role as an also-ran to Europe and Asia.
To Europe, AA was content to exploit its superior position to London and cancelled some non-LHR European routes once it was able to gain access to LHR. Obviously, the Open Skies of 2008 has lessened AA's advantage to London that it enjoyed for many years.
see above.
It has everything to do with timing and the strength of the competition and not just because AA decides it wants to start growing and to retake the markets it previously couldn't make work.
If AA can make the US-Asia work, more power to them. But it is hardly a testament to their strength in the market that they have to subsidize their operations to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars per year and AA is consistently UNPROFITABLE to Asia.
There isn't a single carrier that does the same thing in another global region and even UA, the least profitable legacy right now, is profitable in every region of the world at least part of the year.
