Parker set to make Important Announcement on 9 June 2015

[ChockJockey]

Now I consider that sequence of thought to be fairly logical, rationale and reasonable (key word).  If others disagree, fine.  Reasonable (again, key word) people can disagree over reasonable arguments, but thus far I've really heard no actual contention about any of that logic, but rather the standard, meaningless rantings about how if Delta can't do it, nobody can.  Talk about comical non-logic.

 
It's a very one-sided dialectic but I appreciate your efforts in providing cogent analyses nonetheless, here and in other threads.  I find it educational and, in contrast to our usual foil's poorly-punctuated and un-paragraphed rantings, much worth reading.

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA, quite simply, does not have any more strategic reason to build out LAX to Asia than any other carrier.

IN fact DL and UA have FAR MORE strategic reasons to ensure that AA does not succeed at building LAX to Asia as an exclusive hub.

 

[commavia]

And that - right there - sums up my point exactly.  Since both already have their own respective west coast gateways to Asia, the only perceptible strategic reason they would have to chase AA all over the Pacific laying a flight on top of each and every 787 or 777 AA adds out of LAX is to ensure that AA does not succeed.  That is it.  The problem, though, is that that is simply not an economically sound or rational justification for wasting - and that is what it would be - shareholder resources.  It would be particularly irrational if Delta or United hypothetical were to do that without even having an expectation of succeeding, and yet it's hard to imagine how Richard Anderson could honestly think - let alone convince his board and Wall St - that AA, with far more cash and far more desperate for a west coast gateway to Asia, could blink first.  Again - game theory.  Delta can dump capacity into LAX-Asia to prove a point and punish AA and ... then what?  That only makes sense if it succeeds in dislodging AA from these markets.  But it almost certainly won't.  Not an exact/precise comparison, but it would essentially be like AA saying that since Delta adding flights from ATL to South America competes with AA's operation at MIA, AA is going to just go in and dump capacity into ATL to ensure Delta doesn't succeed.  It's illogical, irrational and just downright stupid.  And thus, yet again, is reinforced my opinion that Delta won't be that stupid - because Delta's management isn't that stupid.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, the reason WHICH YOU CAN'T SEE is that DL and UA don't want AA in the west coast to Asia market and don't want a competing hub.

It's pretty simple for anyone without the blinders to see.

and given that DL and UA both generate more revenue than AA in the routes they presently compete in from LAX, it is a dream and only a dream that AA would somehow become the frontrunner in ANY Asia market

ATL and MIA ARE separate hubs. LAX compared to LAX is not.

AA's mgmt. isn't stupid enough to dump capacity into a market where they can't make money if other carriers add their own service, which is certain to happen.

 

[commavia]

Talk about blinders - the comedy never stops around here.
 
Good for Delta and United if keeping AA out of the west coast to Asia market is what they want.  Unfortunately for them, they can't get that!  They don't get to tell AA what it can and cannot do.
 
If AA wants to add more capacity from LAX to Asia, there's nothing Delta or United can do to stop it beyond dump further capacity to ensure that they lose just as much as AA - and if they want to do that, they can go right ahead, but in the end, AA has more cash than either and far more at stake in making the market work - AA has the need and the means to wait them out.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You have been on this endless dribble that AA can build an LAX to Asia hub but anything that DL or UA does is capacity dumping.

It doesn't fly in real life.

DL and UA will add what they want and if AA decides they have to add, DL and UA will do what they need to do.

Fortunately, people smarter than you who understand these basic competitive concepts are running AA.

Let's keep in mind that AA added flights under a JV that involved reduced capaicyt by its JV partner.

Not exactly a testimony to market boldness

 

[commavia]

Just keep repeating your fanatical Delta fanboy talking points.  Whatever helps you sleep at night.  Again - no credibility left to destroy, so no harm no foul.
 
Back here in reality, it's treated as it should be - just like the hysterics when Delta was going to dump capacity over the Pacific to bankrupt JAL, when Delta was going to punish AA in MIA for growth at LAX, when Delta was going to "win in N. Texas," etc.  And meanwhile, AA is already LAX's largest airline, has or soon will have access to double the gates at LAX that Delta has, and by my math will have essentially tied if not surpassed Delta's international capacity at LAX by the end of the year.  One incoherent, rambling Delta fantasy crumbling after another.
 
And again, we all know why.  The rantings and ravings become more hysterical as the reality sets in: Delta is rapidly become just like all of its competitors, with the same limitations and competitive threats, and is a lot less special than it was five or even two years ago.  And even worse, the reality is that yes, indeed, there are things AA can do that Delta cannot.  Shutter.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The only fantasies are you continuing to think that AA is going to dump a bunch of new flights into LAX just to satisfy your need to see AA have a true west coast to Asia flying that they didn't bother to develop years before.
the competition is NOT going to stop its plans and will find the resources to grow its presence.

GIven that DL and UA both generate more revenue per seat than AA flying to Asia and DL has lower costs, every market that AA can justify flying makes even more economic sense for DL.

Everything in life has limitations. If you are figuring that out for the first time, I pity you.

growth on the west coast will be on the basis of making money and not losing tons of it just because adding a bunch of routes has some vague strategic value.

AA lost a boatload of money flying from ORD and JFK and LAX to Asia and turned things around by adding DFW to Asia flying.

AA has yet to prove it can make money flying from competitive markets to Asia without attracting every other carrier into its Asia routes outside of DFW or its fortress hubs.

DL and UA won't add DFW to Asia. They will add service to LAX.

AA is not going to add LAX to Asia flying unless they can make money flying the route ALONG WITH twice the capacith that AA is adding. given that DL and UA are stronger to Asia and have better alliances, AA will lose money long after other carriers are comfortably profitably on the same route - just as has happened from NYC and ORD.

 

[commavia]

Again - just keep saying it.  We'll all keep laughing.  AA adding a flight automatically means Delta and United will add two more.  Detachment from reality.  Hysterical.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You laugh all you want.

AA is not going to build this fantasy hub to Asia that you and FWAAA think they will unless LAX EXPLODES with new growth from all 3 US carriers.

It ain't happening.

Move on.

 

[Phoenix]

And people wonder why transiting the Atlanta airport is such a pain in the a$$. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

and yet more people do it than any place on the planet.

and they board more mainline aircraft staffed by DL employees.

You do realize that all aircraft that wear a DL logo - mainline or RJ - have DL personnel working the ramp and in passenger service.

AA at CLT, DFW, LAX.... surely can't say that.

and AA is adding regional carrier contract capacity while cutting mainline flying.