More AA gates coming in LAX

[MAH4546]

AA is the largest local originating carrier at LAX, regardless of how many ways WT tries to desperately twist the truth. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

no one argues that AA doesn't carry the largest amount of traffic and also doesn't serve the most amount of the local market as a result of the merger.

UA and DL do a better job of serving the top markets while AA creates its size by adding smaller markets which are less a part of what the majority of the LAX local market wants.

the real story is that UA has as big of a lead over AA despite the fact that UA is pulling down their LAX market and yet is not losing share to AA. DL is in fact gaining UA's share in the top markets but doing it because of national and systemwide initiatives including in NYC and elsewhere on the west coast.

probably part of the reason why DL is gaining UA's share while AA is not is because AA doesn't have near as much size in NYC and in the rest of the west coast.

the data shows that DL is gaining share at UA's expense not just in LAX but in other markets around the country. considering that UA has long had a fairly large premium revenue market, DL's ability to grow is being fueled by wininng over actual, existing business.

Let's see how the LAX-PVG market shapes up but it is very, very likely that DL's greater strength in the LAX-Asia and China markets relative to AA and UA will absolutely show up in revenue results. PVG isn't one of the top markets but DL's decision to jump into it will have a disproportionately large effect compared to the TUL, OKC, and Wal-Mart int'l airport markets that AA has as an advantage over DL and UA.

 

[N628AU]

no one argues that AA doesn't carry the largest amount of traffic and also doesn't serve the most amount of the local market as a result of the merger.UA and DL do a better job of serving the top markets while AA creates its size by adding smaller markets which are less a part of what the majority of the LAX local market wants.

Yet over on the AA board your defense for DL cutting primary markets in Brazil vs. AA cutting secondary markets is "a market is a market". No matter what you think, your negative ratings are a direct result of your inability to keep your own spin straight from one thread to another.

"Jerry, remember. It's not a lie, if you believe it."
- George Costanza and WT's defense for everything.

 

[WorldTraveler]

if negative ratings were supposed to be successful in altering what I say here, then they have been an abysmal failure.

AA's larger presence in LAX is built on carrying more passengers THRU (not to/from LAX as an origin or destination) and by serving a number of smaller markets which simply don't move the dial in terms of the top markets from LAX.

In terms of the most competitive, largest markets, AA does no better and sometimes worse than competitors in the top markets.

 

[diamondcutter]

if negative ratings were supposed to be successful in altering what I say here, then they have been an abysmal failure.AA's larger presence in LAX is built on carrying more passengers THRU (not to/from LAX as an origin or destination) and by serving a number of smaller markets which simply don't move the dial in terms of the top markets from LAX.In terms of the most competitive, largest markets, AA does no better and sometimes worse than competitors in the top markets.

You have been bitter ever since the merger of the worlds largest airline, and your jealousy has eaten you to your core

 

[WorldTraveler]

oh please.

You have hoped I would be bitter so you could throw that out instead of facing that the merger really hasn't done as much as a lot of people said it would do.

AA's position in NYC relative to DL and UA is essentially unchanged. RDU has now moved form being AA/US the largest.

and in LAX, AA's size is due to having more hubs than because it gets more revenue out of the top markets.

And of course the implications for this reality is that if AA doesn't really command a higher share of the market in top markets from LAX despite being larger overall, then the notion that they are going to add more gates and grow larger is flawed.

Carriers gain hub dominance because they get a share and revenue premium BY MARKET and for the hub as a whole.

AA only is larger at LAX because it serves more markets and not because it gets a premium in the markets it shares with other carriers.

It is a whole lot harder for AA to find markets which it can enter in order to grow in a market where there are few markets which are already served.

those are just basic hub principles that a lot of people here seem to think AA is exempt from and yet are proving to be just as real for AA in LAX as they are in other hubs for other carriers and for AA.

 

[diamondcutter]

700 has NEVER understood the difference between LOCAL O&D passengers and passengers boarded.No one has debated that AA doesn't carry more passengers to/from LAX.What has been consistently shown is that AA carries more connecting passengers and more passengers to smaller destinations.UA carries the most passengers WHO ORIGINATE OR TERMINATE THEIR TRAVEL at LAX to the top 10 destinations from LAX and then DL is next on the list and then AA.what AA does in the LOCAL LAX market is far more relevant to what AA will do in building LAX than how many passengers they board regardless of their origin or destination.

But AA carries more pax with navy blue and black shoes while DL only carries pax originating with grey shoes to a larger markets, therefore delta is the clear winner .

 

[Kev3188]

All well and good, but who was the first mover in the sans-a-belt market?

 

[LDVAviation]

So would you characterize the T4 reconfiguration as essentially, or close to, a "done deal," and if so, any sense on timeline?  I'd imagine they'll have to take other T4 gates out of commission, at least temporarily, as they build up the additional gates' infrastructure, repaint lines, etc.?  Additionally, given how packed T4 already is at peak times, I do wonder how T4 security will handle it, and I also will be curious to see where these additional gates are going to be - I would guess down by 48/49, as to those are widebody-capable now and probably the largest gate/seating areas on the concourse?
 
[...] Not surprising - as has been discussed repeatedly, there are plenty of current and prospective future T2 users who want access there just as much as , if not more than, Delta.

 
The T4 Reconfiguration is a done deal.  Other airline administrators have been informed of the project.  They've been told that the construction will start next year.
 
The cost of emplanement at T2 is lower than that at TBIT.  For some time to come, that would seem to favor the ongoing use of that terminal by the low-cost international airlines (e.g,. WestJet and WN).  LAWA seems to want to keep things that way. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

All well and good, but who was the first mover in the sans-a-belt market?

the only requirement for all US airlines is that you to wear at least shoes of some sort and a shirt. Considering I think Burger King has the same requirement, there isn't a really high bar.
 
 

The T4 Reconfiguration is a done deal.  Other airline administrators have been informed of the project.  They've been told that the construction will start next year.
 
The cost of emplanement at T2 is lower than that at TBIT.  For some time to come, that would seem to favor the ongoing use of that terminal by the low-cost international airlines (e.g,. WestJet and WN).  LAWA seems to want to keep things that way.

all of that is fine and good and invokes no debate but it still says that DL isn't going to move without gaining gates. They simply will not. Further T6 is connected to an FIS so it is entirely possible that T2 airlines could move by keeping similar costs.

and the market reality is that unless AA gains a market share or revenue premium in the markets it does serve competitive with other airlines OR AA can find large enough markets that it can add that other carriers do not (there aren't a lot of those from LAX), then AA's building program at LAX will result in a simplified and more efficient facility but does not justify more flights.

 

[LDVAviation]

The west coast includes cities in the states of California, Oregon, and Washington.

As much as you two and others want to think otherwise, DL is not moving from one side of LAX to another for an equal number of gates or even a few more and it is not going to accept any solution that doesn't include as good as or better gate connectivity and increased international operations than what it has today.

All of the talk about what AA can do in LAX with T5 is meaningless until LAWA does a deal with DL that is acceptable to DL.

Meanwhile based on current schedules, DL continues to be the fastest growing airline at LAX and is doing it even though many people here have said that DL is out of gate space while AA based on the gate counts here, has 2 1/2 times the number of gates that DL has.

UA is the carrier that is pulling back at LAX and DL is picking up most of UA's share based no the most current DOT data. AA and DL clearly will both continue to grow but the plans of both are tied together. To try to believe otherwise is a disconnection from reality.

 
Delta would have been forced to move eventually.  Long term, LAWA wants to tear down T6 and resite T5 between T4 and T7.
 
Delta had two choices:  Move now and get something from LAWA in return.  Or, wait to move and have LAWA execute the move unilaterally.  (LAWA holds the master lease to T5 and could have acted unilaterally the next time Delta's lease was amended.)
 
As it is, Delta almost turned down the offer to move.  (LAWA's initial offer was for the same number of preferential gates at T3/T2 as Delta has now --- 13 at T5 and 2.5 at T6.)  LAWA almost voted to fund Phase II of the T5 improvements.  The item got pulled at the last minute because Delta reconsidered.  LAWA never sweetened its offer.
 
 
On that note, there is no giveaway of gates taking place here.  LAWA only makes deals with airlines that account for their actual flight operations or concrete expansion plans.  That should tell you something about the nature of the discussions AA has had with LAWA.  In short, prepare to be chastened, even humiliated.

 

[WorldTraveler]

as much as you want to think otherwise, AA does not have some preferential relationship with AA. keep telling yourself otherwise if it makes you sleep better at night.

and you would have to be completely asleep at what is going on with DAL if you think that the feds wouldn't come down all over LAWA if they forced DL out of T5 without providing comparable space.

but LAWA isn't going to force DL out because they know what they have to do and DL will move with more space than it has.

It is only your dream that AA is going to end up with a huge complex while no one else gets any opportunity to grow.

And further, you still haven't dealt with the basic fact that DL IS growing at LAX RIGHT NOW and carries a disproportionate share premium given the size of the facilities it has.

LAWA, the DOT, and FAA can all see that. DL will be given the opportunity to grow. Your childish belief that only AA will be given the right to grow will be shown to be the fantasy that it is.

the economics of growth at LAX are good for everyone and multiple carriers including DL will take advantage of it.

 

[commavia]

LAWA only makes deals with airlines that account for their actual flight operations or concrete expansion plans.  That should tell you something about the nature of the discussions AA has had with LAWA.  In short, prepare to be chastened, even humiliated.

 
Would seem to comport with the other discussions occurring elsewhere about Kirby's comments in the latest Crew News regarding LAX, and the ongoing rumors of an impending LAX-AKL announcement ...

 

[WorldTraveler]

Neither Kirby, you, or LDV have any knowledge of any DL move that involves no growth in gate space because there is no deal.

It again is nothing more than a childish desire of you and a few AA internet fans to honestly believe that one of the world's largest airports is in the back pocket of AA to the exclusion of other carriers.

Childish me-ism is the only way to describe it and it is all detached from reality.

if your emotional health is dependent on believing something that can only be described as the fantasy of a five year old, then far be it from me to pop your balloon.

rational people don't believe the nonsense you post on this issue.

NO ONE doubts AA will grow; where you go off the deep end is believing that AA alone will be able to do it and everyone else will be forced to spend huge amounts of money and effort for AA's benefit.

 

[LDVAviation]

Thanks, LDV.  Some of this makes sense.  New questions arise, though:
 
1) You tied the T4 gates and TBIT 151 to the T4 Master Lease and specifically separated the hangar discussion from it. Then you said "The right of first refusal to T5 gates would be part of this deal."  Is "this deal" the T4 deal?  Or the hangar deal?
 
2) T5 would certainly offer great opportunities for organic growth - if they don't have to put the entire Eagle operation in there.  Is the Nest going away and (potentially) moving to T5?  Or will Eagle stay out in the hinterlands and T5 become a place for organic mainline growth?
 
3) If Eagle is going to move to T5, is the expectation that there will be some regating (is that the right term?) to add new gates to allow more, smaller jets than it is currently designed?  Is that why you think my gate-count math is off?
 
4) If the hangar discussions are separate from all of this T4-T5-T6-Nest-TBIT maneuvering, then what is LAWA offering to get that deal done?
 
5) If DL is going to take over T3 and get space on T2, where do the airlines in T3 go?  T5 would be the obvious answer, unless AA is taking over T5.  Then that would mean T6, but can B6 and Virgin fit into the AA and DL gates in T6?  Or will that require moving Alaska out of T6 to have the needed space?  And (I know, a lot of questions), if Alaska moves, don't they have to go into T5 to make any of this make sense?  Then aren't we right back to AA's gate count only being about par to where they are currently?
 
 
This is all interesting stuff going on.  Thanks in advance for your input.

 
(1) The "hangar" deal.  
 
(2) There are a number of options.  I don't think AA has made up its mind.  I keep asking the same questions.  AA wants to draw down the Eagle's nest and so does LAWA.  As you indicated, this is much more of a strategic question for AA.  For LAWA, it's a development opportunity.
 
(3) Yes and no.  T5 could be reconfigured to add two more narrow body gates.  LAWA doesn't want to add RJ-only gates at the CTA.
 
(4) The hangar deal involves replacing a hangar and RON parking, plus the other considerations (e.g., T5 gates) we've been discussing.
 
(5) I don't know as much about the situation at the future T6.  I thought we'd learn more by the end of the year; we still may, but the new Director has slowed down the progress of some projects as she comes up to speed.