WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #91
according to the latest OAG filing, there will be a 2nd PHL-TLV flight but no MIA-TLV.
MIA new routes
- Thread starter boston
- Start date
kirkpatrick
Veteran
WT, some of what you say makes sense. But you're off on some of your figures. 9 frequencies JFK-LAX vs 13 on the bus is an 18.75% decrease in coach seats, not 40%. Even if you count the occasional 10th frequency we sometimes had it's slightly under 27%.
I count 42 flight segments on the 321T in my logbook and there has never been an empty seat in BC; not one. I know some are upgrades, but they earned it. I can't say an occasional nonrev hasn't gotten lucky but I know from the paperwork the vast majority are frequent flyers and a large percentage are EPs. I make it a point to ask them if they like the plane and praises are high and complaints low. Being new, the planes are very reliable. Last week our plane arrived 15 minutes late from JFK and it was deplaned, cleaned, catered, boarded and left five minutes early. You'd never turn a 767 in 45 minutes.
Why don't you give it a chance?
MK
I count 42 flight segments on the 321T in my logbook and there has never been an empty seat in BC; not one. I know some are upgrades, but they earned it. I can't say an occasional nonrev hasn't gotten lucky but I know from the paperwork the vast majority are frequent flyers and a large percentage are EPs. I make it a point to ask them if they like the plane and praises are high and complaints low. Being new, the planes are very reliable. Last week our plane arrived 15 minutes late from JFK and it was deplaned, cleaned, catered, boarded and left five minutes early. You'd never turn a 767 in 45 minutes.
Why don't you give it a chance?
MK
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #94
thanks for weighing in. FWAAA has pointed out the increased frequencies resulting in the same numbers you came up with.
my point is that AA is ADDING seats to the FC market at the very time that they become the only carrier offering that service.
If business and first class service is really as valuable as some say it is, then you don't add capacity when you are the only supplier.
I'm waiting for someone to tell me that economic theory doesn't apply any more.
Was the scheduled turn time that short?
And the point about the turn time has relevance because AA is using more gate time to fly its new schedule than they did with their 762 schedule.
for those that argue that DL is at a disadvantage, I noted that DL turns 763s with 220 seats and a lie flat business class cabin in 1 hr 10 minutes meaning that DL uses less gate time per passenger than AA does.
If AA has made the decision that it is worth burning more gate time in order to push fewer people thru the jetway in the market, then don't tell me how much growth AA will do unless you also acknowledge that AA had to acquire more gates just to keep its same revenue profile in just one market.
I have said before that AA has a solid product and AA treats the route as a priority route for service.
That isn't the issue, though.
The issue is the economics of the decision.
I suspect that Parker and co. will be making alterations to the way the transcon flights are operated before we have enough data to know with certainty what works and what doesn't.. but there will be public data available regarding both costs and revenue in a few months.
glad you are helping to make AA better in one of its most historical and significant markets.
my point is that AA is ADDING seats to the FC market at the very time that they become the only carrier offering that service.
If business and first class service is really as valuable as some say it is, then you don't add capacity when you are the only supplier.
I'm waiting for someone to tell me that economic theory doesn't apply any more.
Was the scheduled turn time that short?
And the point about the turn time has relevance because AA is using more gate time to fly its new schedule than they did with their 762 schedule.
for those that argue that DL is at a disadvantage, I noted that DL turns 763s with 220 seats and a lie flat business class cabin in 1 hr 10 minutes meaning that DL uses less gate time per passenger than AA does.
If AA has made the decision that it is worth burning more gate time in order to push fewer people thru the jetway in the market, then don't tell me how much growth AA will do unless you also acknowledge that AA had to acquire more gates just to keep its same revenue profile in just one market.
I have said before that AA has a solid product and AA treats the route as a priority route for service.
That isn't the issue, though.
The issue is the economics of the decision.
I suspect that Parker and co. will be making alterations to the way the transcon flights are operated before we have enough data to know with certainty what works and what doesn't.. but there will be public data available regarding both costs and revenue in a few months.
glad you are helping to make AA better in one of its most historical and significant markets.
Several years ago, when UA was also selling First Class between JFK and both SFO/LAX, AA added a 10th First Class seat to its 762s and said that it was to better meet the demand on high-demand dates.
Yes, AA has added 40 First Class seats to its JFK-LAX schedule while UA has completely withdrawn from that market. Overall, however, the number of First Class seats is down, as UA had several flights a day with 10 First Class seats. I heard that UA withdrew from that market because AA was the clear winner - AA was attracting the "more money than smarts NYC and Hollywood crowd" and UA wasn't getting enough of them. So wouldn't a rational company add a few more seats to that offering since it was the clear favorite among the purchasers? Successful retailers add stores all the time as their less successful competitors shrink; think of the contrast between Wal-Mart and K Mart/Sears/etc. Same with airlines. As AA withdrew from JFK and BOS markets over the past decade, jetBlue was there to add capacity.
I'm certain that Parker will make changes - he's never been one to successfully exploit markets that he didn't completely dominate (think of his giveaway of the LGA slots to DL) . Now that DL is competitive on the JFK-LAX market (for the first time in its history) and now that B6 is adding lie-flat solo suites, Parker won't be able to resist reconfiguring the 32Bs. In part, it's because he won't be able to admit that there were some decisions of former management that made sense - he's as egotistical as they come, where all the decisions from Parker/Kirby/Kerr are superior to the decisions of others who worked for Crandall and weren't forced out of AA due to drunken driving problems.
Yes, AA has added 40 First Class seats to its JFK-LAX schedule while UA has completely withdrawn from that market. Overall, however, the number of First Class seats is down, as UA had several flights a day with 10 First Class seats. I heard that UA withdrew from that market because AA was the clear winner - AA was attracting the "more money than smarts NYC and Hollywood crowd" and UA wasn't getting enough of them. So wouldn't a rational company add a few more seats to that offering since it was the clear favorite among the purchasers? Successful retailers add stores all the time as their less successful competitors shrink; think of the contrast between Wal-Mart and K Mart/Sears/etc. Same with airlines. As AA withdrew from JFK and BOS markets over the past decade, jetBlue was there to add capacity.
I'm certain that Parker will make changes - he's never been one to successfully exploit markets that he didn't completely dominate (think of his giveaway of the LGA slots to DL) . Now that DL is competitive on the JFK-LAX market (for the first time in its history) and now that B6 is adding lie-flat solo suites, Parker won't be able to resist reconfiguring the 32Bs. In part, it's because he won't be able to admit that there were some decisions of former management that made sense - he's as egotistical as they come, where all the decisions from Parker/Kirby/Kerr are superior to the decisions of others who worked for Crandall and weren't forced out of AA due to drunken driving problems.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #96
can you just tell me how Virgin America gets higher average fares when they have a maximum of 12 seats in their reclining business class cabin (as few as 8 seats on some aircraft) - about 10% or less of their total capacity - and yet AA has long had a far higher percentage of business class plus a first class cabin.
DL is within 5% of AA's average fare and also offers about the same 10% of capacity in the premium cabin. and yes, DL is not only competitive but also the largest carrier -both for the first time ever and after decades of trying. The fact that DL already gets a revenue premium to AA in the JFK-SFO market even without having a flat bed product there shows the power of what DL has accomplished in NYC.
UA is adding coach capacity and removing first class - in order to improve their CASM on their aircraft which were similarly configured to what AA is now doing.
Is AA just five years late with a strategy that UA already tried and understands?
there's no egotism about it.
there are either valid, logical defenses for the questions or there aren't.
IN this case, I still continue to counter the notion that the amount of paid premium demand on the transcons is a whole lot less than what a lot of people here want to believe.
Given that every other carrier in the market has far less premium capacity, I find it hard to believe that every other carrier has got it wrong while AA has it right.
If AA indeed has it right, then the numbers should show it.
DL is within 5% of AA's average fare and also offers about the same 10% of capacity in the premium cabin. and yes, DL is not only competitive but also the largest carrier -both for the first time ever and after decades of trying. The fact that DL already gets a revenue premium to AA in the JFK-SFO market even without having a flat bed product there shows the power of what DL has accomplished in NYC.
UA is adding coach capacity and removing first class - in order to improve their CASM on their aircraft which were similarly configured to what AA is now doing.
Is AA just five years late with a strategy that UA already tried and understands?
there's no egotism about it.
there are either valid, logical defenses for the questions or there aren't.
IN this case, I still continue to counter the notion that the amount of paid premium demand on the transcons is a whole lot less than what a lot of people here want to believe.
Given that every other carrier in the market has far less premium capacity, I find it hard to believe that every other carrier has got it wrong while AA has it right.
If AA indeed has it right, then the numbers should show it.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
If there is indeed a lack of demand for premium product(s) on the transcon market, then why is B6 introducing Mint and why is DL flying the route with BusinessElite B767s?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #98
I didn't say there was a lack of premium product demand just that it appears to be a whole lot less than what AA and its supporters seem to think.
DL's 26 Business Elite seats on its 225 seat 767s and 16 on its 170 seat (+/-) seat 757s represent just over 10% of their total seats per aircraft. B6 MINT cabin represents a similar percentage of premium seats as DL's.
VX is less than 10%.
UA is at 20%
AA is at 27% and yet YX and either DL or UA depending on the market receive higher average fares than AA in the most recent DOT quarter even though AA had more premium seats.
since this thread is about MIA, it's more appropriate to just ask the question of why PHL is getting TLV #2 while MIA doesn't get it.
DL's 26 Business Elite seats on its 225 seat 767s and 16 on its 170 seat (+/-) seat 757s represent just over 10% of their total seats per aircraft. B6 MINT cabin represents a similar percentage of premium seats as DL's.
VX is less than 10%.
UA is at 20%
AA is at 27% and yet YX and either DL or UA depending on the market receive higher average fares than AA in the most recent DOT quarter even though AA had more premium seats.
since this thread is about MIA, it's more appropriate to just ask the question of why PHL is getting TLV #2 while MIA doesn't get it.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,959
- 9,374
You want to play with percentages and public data, have at it...
AA's making their decisions based on their own data plus MIDT, and getting a far more granular level of detail for forecasting purposes than anything you'll ever be able to glean from the public DOT data.
AA's making their decisions based on their own data plus MIDT, and getting a far more granular level of detail for forecasting purposes than anything you'll ever be able to glean from the public DOT data.
AdAstraPerAspera
Veteran
I didn't know Midwest Airlines/Republic was in the transcon market.WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #101
I'm sure they do but when you roll it all back up which is what gets released to the public, then it should make sense.
I have yet to hear an explanation of how AA can have the highest percentage of premium seats in both the JFK-LAX and SFO markets and still have a lower average fare than Virgin America (not YX) in both markets as well as DL and UA as well in the SFO market.
And what kind of economic theory is involved in adding FC seats to the market when you are the only one offering that service.
If the service is so valuable and you are the only supplier, then adding capacity is not the most profit maximizing thing to do.
have at it and explain those two great mysteries.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
On what data do you base your conclusion that there is a whole lot less demand for premium class service on JFK-LAX/SFO? 1 quarter of DOT data? 1 quarter of DOT data is enough for you to pick out correct trends/patterns? Amazing!
Like I said before, common sense would tell you that there indeed is demand for premium service since even B6, a LCC, is adding a premium product and a separagte / dedicated airplane type into the market.
Why don't you chillax a bit and wait for a bit to see how the numbers work out for AAs 'new' A321 transcon service.
Don't just keep on parroting the same thing over and over and over hoping that if you say it often enough it is true.
Ya know, there is an avid poster on these boards that on an occasion or two wrote, in response to DL not following established industry trend that "when other airlines zig, Delta zags". It also occurs to me that the same poster also claims to know more about commercial aviation than most people on here and loves the truth, yet at the same time can't admit that maybe the premium-heavy A321 that AA operates on the transcons is their version of zagging while DL, B6, UA are zigging.
Now, getting back to the topic of MIA routes and your question of why PHL is getting TLV#2 instad of MIA: maybe US/AA figures it is easier to pick off NYC originating passengers from UA and DL (gasp!), and perhaps focus on MIA later ... ... ...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #104
thanks, Mark.
interesting mistake.
frugal,
there are YEARS Of average fare data by market that list the data by quarter.
NO ONE is making any generalizations based on one quarter of information.
Virgin America has had as high as or higher average fares than AA for a number of quarters and yet AA has had the highest percentage of premium seats in the transcon market other than when UA had their low configuration 757s.
Virgin America has NEVER had premium cabins anywhere close to the size of what AA or UA had or have and B6' MINT cabin and DL's premium cabins are in line with the size of the premium cabins in other domestic markets by the legacy carriers.
The only difference is that the transcons have a higher quality product - comparable to int'l premium cabins.
Again, tell me how AA's average fare has managed to be as low as it is relative to other carriers when those carriers have much smaller premium cabins?
either AA has been receiving coach average fares that are far below the industry average or the premium fares they are getting aren't near as high as you think they are.
unless you can come up with another explanation, there is no other way to explain how AA's average fares have been so close to other carriers that have much lower percentages of premium seats.
No one said that there is no premium demand; there is premium demand in every domestic market.
on the transcons - and on a separate topic in many int'l markets - there is a notion on here that there is far more paying int'l demand than clearly exists or the strength of those fares would be more apparent.
remember also that AA's average fares on JFK-SFO are #4 out of 4 among carriers that operate in the market with a premium cabin.
there's a whole lot more going on here and the size of the premium cabin and the size of the demand is just not what some people think it is.
btw,
US was able to get by with its low fares in other carriers' hubs but that strategy doesn't work anymore because AA's hubs are in cities with much larger local markets. If new AA continues that same strategy, it will cost them far more than they will get in revenue.
don't you remember the emails that the DOJ found and presented as part of its antitrust suit against AA/US? there were emails that specifically suggested that US' fare strategies of raiding other carrier hubs would likely have to come to an end.
It was precisely those revelations that led to the requirement for AA/US to divest more slots and assets than has been required of any other airline merger - by a very wide margin.
Not surprisingly, part of the reason why RASM thruout the industry is rising is because US' hub raiding fare policy has been dismantled.
