Parker set to make Important Announcement on 9 June 2015
- Thread starter zethya
- Start date
- Status
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
it cant be if its not the widget then its just not good!!! 
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #93
QF was the largest airline in the US-OZ market before AA came along and they will be regardless of what AA does.
AA happened to put its own metal in the market so that it can take a bigger role in the JV>. I guess AA and QF realized what DL and Virgin had with their true JV and wanted it too.
Whether commavia makes a distinction between mainline and RJ gates, that distinction absolutely exists and as much as you want to believe AA has some great real estate advantage, a significant number of AA’s gates are remote RJ gates which significantly limits its ability to compete with other carriers that offer mainline or large RJ service from their primary terminal and without a bus ride.
The whole reason why AA adds a bunch of secondary cities from LAX is because connecting flights to markets that other carriers do not serve is the only kind of market where AA can compete in using its gates.
Every one of DL and UA’s gates are in the terminal and at least all of DL’s are capable of handling two class RJs. And nearly all of those gates are capable of accepting mainline aircraft if not even larger RJs.
Yes, there are absolutely is a difference between the types of gates that each carrier including AA operates. And as much as you want to think that operating a bunch of gates at the TBIT is a great advantage, it is not cost effective and is a PITA for passengers to either check-in or board all over the airport.
And yes DL absolutely can acquire gates on the north side and/or relocate terminals. There still are a lot of int’l flights in Terminals 1-7 and it is absolutely in LAWA’s interest to move as much of that activity to the TBIT which can be expanded and allow the other terminals to be used for domestic flights. As much as you think LAWA will bow down to AA, they will do what is in the airport’s best interest and that involves growing as much as possible.
As for the comment about secondary cities, serving them is absolutely essential to the NATIONAL air transportation system – but not necessarily from every airport. ATL has abundant room to accommodate service to hundreds of cities which is why it is the world’s busiest airport. DFW, CLT, and other large hubs have that space as well. LAX does not have anywhere near the capacity to serve a very large local market and be a hub – and LA is not ideally located to be a hub airport anyway.
SLC and DEN make more far more sense to connect secondary and tertiary cities in the west with the rest of the national transportation system. PHX less so based on geography but is still far better in the use of assets than LAX – which is exactly why AA is cancelling service to some small cities from LAX.
As much as any of you want to believe otherwise, AA does not have a long term advantage at LAX that other carriers cannot match and the advantage that exists in the short term is not near as great as some of you make it out to be.
Add in that other carriers are making strategic decisions to maximize their LAX revenues and share of the local market and spread their western US presence over multiple hubs – more than AA has – and their ability to serve the LA local market as well as the rest of the west is as great if not better than AA.
LAX-SYD is a great addition to LAX for AA; DL’s addition of LAX-PVG in combination with AA’s move simply removed Australia and PVG as unique markets for either carrier. DL still serves HND which is viable on a 767 while AA’s unique market long haul market is GRU, a route that likely loses a lot of money on the 777. Perhaps a 787-8 makes sense to hold onto the route but at a loss of seats given the low fares in the US-Brazil market.
UA has reduced its LAX capacity but has held onto its passenger and revenue share so those who argue that they are losing on a macro basis are simply wrong.
For now, there is no evidence that any one of the big 3 carriers has a significant advantage in the LAX market and all 3 are holding onto their share and growing because of the growing population and the fact that LAX handles a larger percentage of the southern CA market than any other airport in a multi-airport city handles in terms of traffic in those cities.
AA happened to put its own metal in the market so that it can take a bigger role in the JV>. I guess AA and QF realized what DL and Virgin had with their true JV and wanted it too.
Whether commavia makes a distinction between mainline and RJ gates, that distinction absolutely exists and as much as you want to believe AA has some great real estate advantage, a significant number of AA’s gates are remote RJ gates which significantly limits its ability to compete with other carriers that offer mainline or large RJ service from their primary terminal and without a bus ride.
The whole reason why AA adds a bunch of secondary cities from LAX is because connecting flights to markets that other carriers do not serve is the only kind of market where AA can compete in using its gates.
Every one of DL and UA’s gates are in the terminal and at least all of DL’s are capable of handling two class RJs. And nearly all of those gates are capable of accepting mainline aircraft if not even larger RJs.
Yes, there are absolutely is a difference between the types of gates that each carrier including AA operates. And as much as you want to think that operating a bunch of gates at the TBIT is a great advantage, it is not cost effective and is a PITA for passengers to either check-in or board all over the airport.
And yes DL absolutely can acquire gates on the north side and/or relocate terminals. There still are a lot of int’l flights in Terminals 1-7 and it is absolutely in LAWA’s interest to move as much of that activity to the TBIT which can be expanded and allow the other terminals to be used for domestic flights. As much as you think LAWA will bow down to AA, they will do what is in the airport’s best interest and that involves growing as much as possible.
As for the comment about secondary cities, serving them is absolutely essential to the NATIONAL air transportation system – but not necessarily from every airport. ATL has abundant room to accommodate service to hundreds of cities which is why it is the world’s busiest airport. DFW, CLT, and other large hubs have that space as well. LAX does not have anywhere near the capacity to serve a very large local market and be a hub – and LA is not ideally located to be a hub airport anyway.
SLC and DEN make more far more sense to connect secondary and tertiary cities in the west with the rest of the national transportation system. PHX less so based on geography but is still far better in the use of assets than LAX – which is exactly why AA is cancelling service to some small cities from LAX.
As much as any of you want to believe otherwise, AA does not have a long term advantage at LAX that other carriers cannot match and the advantage that exists in the short term is not near as great as some of you make it out to be.
Add in that other carriers are making strategic decisions to maximize their LAX revenues and share of the local market and spread their western US presence over multiple hubs – more than AA has – and their ability to serve the LA local market as well as the rest of the west is as great if not better than AA.
LAX-SYD is a great addition to LAX for AA; DL’s addition of LAX-PVG in combination with AA’s move simply removed Australia and PVG as unique markets for either carrier. DL still serves HND which is viable on a 767 while AA’s unique market long haul market is GRU, a route that likely loses a lot of money on the 777. Perhaps a 787-8 makes sense to hold onto the route but at a loss of seats given the low fares in the US-Brazil market.
UA has reduced its LAX capacity but has held onto its passenger and revenue share so those who argue that they are losing on a macro basis are simply wrong.
For now, there is no evidence that any one of the big 3 carriers has a significant advantage in the LAX market and all 3 are holding onto their share and growing because of the growing population and the fact that LAX handles a larger percentage of the southern CA market than any other airport in a multi-airport city handles in terms of traffic in those cities.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #95
I didn't say that.
The north side is an option given that AA, DL, and UA are all on the south side and there is a lot of int'l traffic in the north terminals which could move to TBIT.
as much as you want to believe that AA has a permanent space advantage that other carriers cannot match, AA is only moderately ahead of other carriers in gate space and a lot of that extra space involves remote gates that are only suitable for RJs and even if AA puts large RJs out there, they are offering an inferior experience to other carriers who have better in-terminal RJ facilities.
and there were reports that DL couldn't move forward with anything because its T5 renovations were in progress.
DL has now finished its T5 renewal project.
DL doesn't sound at all like it is willing to take a back seat to anyone at LAX.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/completion-terminal-5-los-angeles-170000500.html
"We're fast on our way to becoming the airline of choice in Los Angeles by understanding what moves L.A. – its most prominent industries, its most desired destinations, and its discerning customers' required amenities for travel," said Delta President Ed Bastian. "Our investments in T5 now offer Angelenos a more premium airport experience, from check-in to take-off."
The north side is an option given that AA, DL, and UA are all on the south side and there is a lot of int'l traffic in the north terminals which could move to TBIT.
as much as you want to believe that AA has a permanent space advantage that other carriers cannot match, AA is only moderately ahead of other carriers in gate space and a lot of that extra space involves remote gates that are only suitable for RJs and even if AA puts large RJs out there, they are offering an inferior experience to other carriers who have better in-terminal RJ facilities.
and there were reports that DL couldn't move forward with anything because its T5 renovations were in progress.
DL has now finished its T5 renewal project.
DL doesn't sound at all like it is willing to take a back seat to anyone at LAX.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/completion-terminal-5-los-angeles-170000500.html
"We're fast on our way to becoming the airline of choice in Los Angeles by understanding what moves L.A. – its most prominent industries, its most desired destinations, and its discerning customers' required amenities for travel," said Delta President Ed Bastian. "Our investments in T5 now offer Angelenos a more premium airport experience, from check-in to take-off."
AA having exclusive or preferential access to 34 gates, compared to half that for Delta, is "only moderately ahead?" Hmmm. Methinks Delta having double the number of gates or slots as AA at any other airport would be characterized slightly differently than "only moderately ahead."
In any event, the constant disaggregation of mainline vs regional gates is a red herring. AA's regional gates are an advantage rather than a disadvantage, as they come in addition to, and not in place of, mainline gates, and thus AA - unlike Delta and United - don't need to cross-utilize mainline gates for RJs.
Good for Delta for wanting to become "the airline of choice" for L.A. We'll see how they plan to do that with half the gates AA has.
In any event, the constant disaggregation of mainline vs regional gates is a red herring. AA's regional gates are an advantage rather than a disadvantage, as they come in addition to, and not in place of, mainline gates, and thus AA - unlike Delta and United - don't need to cross-utilize mainline gates for RJs.
Good for Delta for wanting to become "the airline of choice" for L.A. We'll see how they plan to do that with half the gates AA has.
There is talk of Delta doing something and AA consolidating into T5. I'm not sure what would happen. Maybe Delta moves to 3 and either TBIT/T2. Then AA and maybe Alaska move to T5. Not sure that leaves enough room for VA and B6 in T6 or that they would even move for that matter. I'm just trying to rationalize how it MAY work. Delta may be desperate to get their own access to TBIT by way of the planned walkway.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #99
thank you for the voice of reason, IORFA.
There is talk about reshaping operations at LAX because AA has a red hot mess on their hands in terms of spread out facilities and it won't get any better even with all of the gates that commavia thinks AA will have access to.
It hasn't made sense for AA, DL, and UA to all be on the south side of LAX for decades and someone will have to move in order to fix the problem and allow both AA and DL to grow without being spread out all over S. California. DL's presence in the middle of AA and AS' facilities on top of the Eagle's nest make no sense on top of a facility that will involve TBIT and the MSC and it will cost AA a huge amount of money to try run a hub across that many facilities.
There is obviously a lot of money involved in consolidating and expanding because AA and DL have spent a lot of money on renovations and UA is now starting to do so.
There are lots of options and it isn't even worth trying to debate them here because it could all go any number of different ways.
The bottom line is that LAWA wants as much growth as the airport can accommodate and that involves using TBIT gates for int'l flights... the terminal is built for widebodies - and leave the original terminals for domestic flights.
LAWA is NOT going to give AA the singular right to grow. The only reason AA is ahead of other carriers with terminals is because their terminal was directly impacted by the TBIT growth.
I will bet that before all is said and done one of the big 3 will move to the north side and both T4 and T3 will be for joint domestic int'l operations that share the TBIT.
What has been done at T4 with TBIT can be duplicated in concept on the north side.
It will take years for all to sort out but it is in LAWA as well as AA and DL's interests together to figure out how to work together so each can grow.
There is talk about reshaping operations at LAX because AA has a red hot mess on their hands in terms of spread out facilities and it won't get any better even with all of the gates that commavia thinks AA will have access to.
It hasn't made sense for AA, DL, and UA to all be on the south side of LAX for decades and someone will have to move in order to fix the problem and allow both AA and DL to grow without being spread out all over S. California. DL's presence in the middle of AA and AS' facilities on top of the Eagle's nest make no sense on top of a facility that will involve TBIT and the MSC and it will cost AA a huge amount of money to try run a hub across that many facilities.
There is obviously a lot of money involved in consolidating and expanding because AA and DL have spent a lot of money on renovations and UA is now starting to do so.
There are lots of options and it isn't even worth trying to debate them here because it could all go any number of different ways.
The bottom line is that LAWA wants as much growth as the airport can accommodate and that involves using TBIT gates for int'l flights... the terminal is built for widebodies - and leave the original terminals for domestic flights.
LAWA is NOT going to give AA the singular right to grow. The only reason AA is ahead of other carriers with terminals is because their terminal was directly impacted by the TBIT growth.
I will bet that before all is said and done one of the big 3 will move to the north side and both T4 and T3 will be for joint domestic int'l operations that share the TBIT.
What has been done at T4 with TBIT can be duplicated in concept on the north side.
It will take years for all to sort out but it is in LAWA as well as AA and DL's interests together to figure out how to work together so each can grow.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #104
There is significant mention of DL by other posters here including by commavia who has repeatedly tried to argue that AA would gain an advantage.
AA has had more gates that DL at LAX for years and yet DL has grown faster.
And yet what he and others can't accept is that LAWA is NOT going to give AA the only access to increased gates.
AA has more gates right now because they have had to give up space to accommodate LAX' growth.
AA will not be the only airline growing at LAX.
AA has had more gates that DL at LAX for years and yet DL has grown faster.
And yet what he and others can't accept is that LAWA is NOT going to give AA the only access to increased gates.
AA has more gates right now because they have had to give up space to accommodate LAX' growth.
AA will not be the only airline growing at LAX.
You mentioned changes and I gave them to you. No I did not blow my refund check but what I did do with it is none of your concern. I'm certainly not going to get investment advice from an ego maniac who's only skills seem to be throwing bags, insulting AMTs, and trying to convince others he has superior intelligence. Your view of aircraft maintenance outsourcing is what has been told to you by the TWU Koolaid drinkers so of course you believe it. I will not waste my time with an explanation since you obviously are an expert on everything and know more about aircraft maintenance then the guys who actually do it. But maybe the TWU will have a free A&P license give away again and even you will be able to get one. I make close to $40 per hour (not really but as you say) for what I know. After close to 40 years working in aviation maintenance I'm betting I forgot more than you'll ever know about it. My license carries a risk to it and I am supposed to be paid for that risk. I'm sorry you have to settle for your close to $30 per hour while others in the industry that do your job make about half of what you do. Let me clue you in. Just because you can start an APU on an airliner and push one back doesn't make you close to a mechanic. Just do your job and don't worry about me and the other AMTs OK Ace?bob@las-AA said:
- Status
Similar threads
