More AA gates coming in LAX

[LDVAviation]

Since nothing has happened, neither you or anyone else can specultate about what will happen in total.

Delta has no obligation to move one inch from where it is.

Delta has no obligation to help LAWA figure out how to solve its problem with the commitments it has made to AA and for AA's need to consolidate its operations in facilities that are spread all over the airport.

DL is not moving and will not move if it doesn't gain more space. That is a fact.

How it will all play out remains to be seen but even if DL gets all of one terminal and the better part of another and also has the ability to use any gates on TBIT and have a connector, they are better off than they are now.

You and others want to think that LAWA revolves around what is in AA's interests... that is simply not reality and any belief that you have that AA will gain an advantage over DL will be shattered by the reality that is not goign to engage in any terminal changes that will give AA a benefit without one at least as large for DL.
 

 
When we discussed the move on airliners, the fanboys said the same things.  Wha wha wha.  Delta doesn't have to move.  T5 belongs to Delta.  (Actually, it doesn't).  AA doesn't need more gates.  (Apparently, it does.)  Wha wha wha...
 
In any case, did you read the first post?  AA is telling its employees this information.  AA is already getting 3 more gates (2 more at a reconfigured T4 and one more gate at TBIT) and Delta is getting nothing.  And, while it is true that LAWA does not play favorites, the reality still is that AA has stuff the Board wants and Delta has nothing.
 
As to what the agreement between LAWA and Delta might include, let me parse the situation for you again.  If there were more preferential gates to be had at TBIT for Delta or anyone else, LAWA would not have offered to move Delta in the next 4 to 5 years.  LAWA would simply have given those gates to AA and concluded its negotiations for AA's hangar, the status of which is hindering the completion of the EIR for the MSC South.  Any net gain in preferential gates that Delta makes in this deal will come from T2, where it will also have the opportunity to share gates with JV partners like AM and VS.  There are 10 gates in T2.  In the best case scenario, Delta ends up with half of them.  That's only a net gain of 2 preferential gates over their current position at T6.
 
Oh yeah, it is worth repeating.  Southwest also has plans to expand into T2.  There will be competition for the remaining gates in T2.  From what I see, Southwest has the inside track again.

 

[robbedagain]

guess that SEA hub is looking all the  more pretty for DL while AA builds up LAX more and more  and throw in SWA adding more.........

 

[topDawg]

guess that SEA hub is looking all the  more pretty for DL while AA builds up LAX more and more  and throw in SWA adding more.........

space is just as tight in SEA as LAX. 
 
The only difference is SEA does have some (very limited) space to expand A concourse and doesn't have a gate cap like LAX.
 
But as i said above, some things are being kicked around at both airports, however everything I have heard for LAX outside of moving to T2/3 are, IMO pipe dreams.
 
(and some of the things I have heard for SEA are just as crazy)  
 
 
 
As it is thought the plan has always been for SEA to be larger than LAX. Delta has a few more targets they want to hit from LA (both domestic and international) but even if they had the space AA has they wouldn't get past 220-230 flights and that is high balling. (200 is probably the more realistic number Delta would love to hit)
 
 
As much as the DL fan boys love to think Delta's goal is to dominate in LA it isn't. On the flip side as much as the AA fan boys love to think AA is going to dominate in LA it also isn't going to happen. 
 
 
 
I would also like to note, this DL in T5/6 or T2/3 thing is still the same back and fourth between local management and executive management. Local never wanted DL to leave T2, executive management has and still thinks they will be able to get more space in T6. Watch the 4 UA gates and how that plays out, if AA gets them once the UA lease ends expect Delta to move. (as I expect will happen.) 

 

[LD3]

Would be nice to have a reason given when replies are deleted....

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Would be nice to have a reason given when replies are deleted....

 
WT

 

[LD3]

 
WT

10-4

 

[LDVAviation]

so people on a.net are telling you that DL has no reason to move but you come over here because you didn't like the fact that maybe this grand plan that you and others seem to have about AA and LAX just isn't happening in exclusivity the way you want?

[...] AA simply cannot develop its plan without moving other carriers around OR AA will be spread out across MULTIPLE buildings - which defeats any sort of connectivity that is necessary to operate a hub.

[...] You and others have hung on to the notion that AA will be able to grow while other carriers will not - even while the evidence is overwhelmingly present TODAY that DL is now larger than AA was before the merger and DL hasn't gained a single gate in the process.

[...] AA is a long ways from having a hub on the west coast that is proportionately larger in key markets than other carriers either at the same airport or compared to what DL and UA have further up the coast.

 
On the contrary, things are turning out just as some of us predicted.  (In any case, it is not like I came over here to rant because I got banned from airliners for making a nuisance of myself.  What lunatic would do that?)
 
First of all, AA doesn't need anyone to move to execute on its plan.  Believe me, AA would be quite content with having Delta next door and with no room to grow.  The status quo benefits AA more than it does Delta.
 
The plan is to consolidate ops in either TBIT (South) and T4 or TBIT (South), T4, and T5.  As that happens, the Eagle facility will be closed and the T6 gates will be returned to LAWA.  
 
These 3 gates are considered replacements for the 3 inactive gates in AA's leasehold --- 2 from the original Eagle facility and 1 from the current Eagle facility.  Unlike Delta, AA still has rights to additional gates under its original leasehold.    In other words, this does not settle the matter of AA's hangar and T4 master lease.  More considerations will come from that settlement.
 
Those considerations are not contingent on moving (as you put it) other carriers around.  If Delta doesn't move, LAWA will have to cough up more gates at TBIT.  Delta's intransigence would do more to undermine its own growth at LAX than AA's.
 
(As to the rest, who cares?  For all that growth at LAX, Delta still doesn't fly on its own metal to ORD, DCA/IAD, and LHR.  As for the Super Seattle hub, I care as much for that hub as the O&D passengers in Haneda and Hong Kong.   Given the poor showing of both flights, obviously not very much.)

 

[commavia]

Love how a discussion about AA potentially getting more gates at LAX has now - quite predictably - turned into Delta "always be[ing] one step ahead" (although, apparently, not at LAX!).  It's so hysterical how we had to constantly hear about how Delta was the "largest U.S. international airline" at LAX (until it wasn't), then how it was the largest U.S. carrier between the LAX and Mexico (until it wasn't), incessant blathering about seats versus frequency versus ASMs, LAX vs "the west coast," and on and on - all spun so as to craft and then arrive at (without fail) pretty much the exact same conclusion: Delta über alles.  So comical.
 
Anyway, back here in reality, AA appears to be continuing its focused growth at LAX, building on its extensive domestic and international schedule that, particularly when combined with partners, offers Southern California travelers an extremely comprehensive network offering.  All else being equal, the airline that offers such frequency and breadth from LAX nonstop to some of the largest and most important markets - particularly for premium/business traffic - in the U.S. (NYC, CHI, DFW, PHL, BOS, WAS, HOU, ATL, SFO, MIA, etc.) and the world (LON, TYO, SAO, SYD, YYZ, MEX, etc.) is clearly a strong - some might even say "leading" - competitor.
 
AA appears to be moving from strength to strength at LAX - adding gates, flights, routes - and really doesn't seem all that concerned with the incoherent ramblings of Delta internet forum fanboys.  Reality.

 

[Kev3188]

http://youtu.be/MtDhtadoeUk

 

[LDVAviation]

we could list a dozens cities that AA doesn't serve or isn't the dominant carrier and yet DL is.

It cuts both ways.

[...] AA MUST figure out how to be a major player on the west coast. Problem is that DL and UA figured it out first and will always be one step ahead of AA not just at LAX but on the entire west ooast.

 
As I told you, I could care less about what Delta is doing at Seattle.
 
I do care about what happens at LAX which is why I remember a few things you have told us over the years which are pertinent to this topic:
 
Remember how you told us that Delta had first call on gates at T6 because Delta had helped pay for the improvements.  Apparently not.  
 
Remember how you told us that AA did not have a real gate advantage because 10 of the gates were regional only.  Apparently, that was never the case.  (In fact, 3 have just gone mainline)  
 
Remember how you told us that AA would not be able to get more gates without Delta also getting something.  Apparently, it just did.
 
So what should we remember from this rant?  That DL will remain one step ahead of AA at LAX.  Is it ahead now?  No.  Did Delta get more gates, does it have more gates?  No.  
 
Will Delta add ORD and DCA/IAD anytime soon?  Doesn't matter.  Atlanta and Detroit are just as important. 

 

[MAH4546]

iow, AA is simply shuffling gates that it already has. I said that before.
 

 
No. It is gaining three gates that it currently has the rights to have, but does not physically have.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Feel free to let us know what physical gates or hardstands AA is giving up but AA is indeed simply switching real estate around.

and DL still has preferential use of certain gates which AS is using. Trying to conflate any other gates in T6 with anything else is manipulating what was said.


You may or may not care about what DL is doing in SEA or UA is doing in SFO but that is precisely why AA is trying to build LAX. right now, there is no major advantage of ANY of the big 3 at LAX other than AA's larger network size because of more hubs from the merger and a few smaller cities in the central US that don't and won't move the overall LAX market share.

You can crow about a gate here or there but until there is an overall increase in market share not only in the local LAX market but also on the west coast which is left unmatched by AA's competitors, then switching gates around from pads to terminal gates is simply part of the process of consolidating space that I have repeatedly said that AA has to do.

 

[commavia]

Haha AA's "larger network size" at LAX is driven by the precisely two additional hub routes added by the merger, and not by the 20+ nonstop routes added in the last few years (or soon-to-be-added) by AA/Eagle out of LAX that have absolutely nothing to do with USAirways hubs.  Right ...
 
The comedy continues!

 

[WorldTraveler]

Whether you find it comedy or not, if you take out AA's service to CLT, PHL, and PHX, AA is not the large airline at LAX. The merger is precisely why AA is the largest carrier at LAX. Other carriers have been adding capacity and have had large RJs as well they have been using to increase their share.

In terms of overall network reach, AA's larger size is because of adding US' 3 hubs -all of which have high numbers of seats - and yet other than the difference in the number of hubs that AA, DL, and UA have, the major difference in coversage is that AA has a few smaller cities in the central US that DL and UA do not. WRT int'l service, AA's addition of SYD service brings them to where DL and UA have been for several years. AA's only advantage over DL or UA is GRU which neither of them have but I'm not sure that is really an advantage as much as a lead weight at this point - 787 or not. We still haven't seen what will happen with HND/NRT but at best, AA will have the same coverage as DL but more than UA, and that is only if AA operates both NRT and HND.

Once again, I am glad you are solidly behind AA at LAX but the basic fundamentals of the market are that AA has not gained a significant size advantage that is not related to the merger. Given that AA has not rationalized its network which will have to come as part of the reduction of RJ flying, it isn't certain that the additional hubs will all remain long-term. AA also is not flying to PDX and SEA leaving that flying to AS even though those are major markets from LAX.

Right now, AA's primary accomplishment with facilities is rearranging gates and bringing pre-merger gates from the north side (US) and the pad into T4,6 and TBIT. The additional gates haven't translated into growth in AA's overall local market share at LAX that isn't related to the merger.

 

[commavia]

Bwahahaha it is amazing to watch such detachment from reality.  So much comedic gold in here I honestly don't know where to begin.
 
If we "take out AA's service to CLT, PHL, and PHX" (setting aside that AA flew LAX-PHX prior to the merger), we're left with a smaller airline.  Fascinating insight - thanks.  And yet we're never treated to hypothetical considerations about how large Delta would be at LAX had it not merged with Northwest (goodbye DTW, MSP, MEM, NRT, and more?), or how large United would be at LAX absent the merger with Continetal.  Curiously, it's only AA that gets this meaningless backward logic applied.
 
Similarly, "other carriers" have "[added] capacity" including "large RJs" to "increase their share," but AA - which has added mainline and large RJ flying from LAX to markets in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Central America, South America, Europe and Australia in the last - hasn't?  I suppose ABQ, ASE, ATL, BZE, CMH, GDL, GRU, IAH, IND, JAC, MBJ, MEX, MTJ, MZT, OKC, PIT, PVG, RDU, SAT, SYD, TPA, XNA and YVR are all because of the USAirways merger?  Right.
 
And continuing the baseless theme, AA's "larger size" is all about having more hubs, and not - for example - the fact that AA has double-daily 77Ws LAX-LHR against Delta's zero flights, AA's daily 787 to GRU against Delta's zero flights, AA's 5x daily (summer) LAX-BOS against Delta's 2x daily, high-frequency/3-class JFK shuttle, flights to a competitor hubs (ATL, DEN, IAH), etc.  No question that AA certainly does have hubs in exceptionally large and strong U.S. O&D markets where Delta is a relatively small player (CHI, DFW, PHL, WAS, etc.), but of course that hardly accounts for "all" of AA's advantage at LAX.  Indeed - it's notable, given all the constant harping we have to hear about how Delta can successfully invade other competitors' hubs but competitors struggle to do as much to Delta, that Delta has absolutely zero presence in such large and important competitor hub markets as LAX-CHI/DEN/PHL/HOU/WAS.
 
These are the types of quotes that are thankfully stored on the internet into perpetuity for future use and laughter - a la (slightly paraphrasing) "airlines can create goodwill and add it to a balance sheet," "Delta will dump capacity across the Pacific to bankrupt JAL," etc.