WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #106
AA is and will be a better run company than UA.
Rumor: AA LAX-SEA/PDX June 2014
- Thread starter IORFA
- Start date
Regarding gates at LAX, AA has 23, UA has 23 and DL has 15+1 (shared with AS). Under terms of AA moving to the "Eagle's nest," AA gets 4 mainline gates at TBIT and LAWA is obligated to expand the nest by two RJ gates, so now AA is at 29 gates (12 RJ). The Eagle buses currently departing from a gate are moving to a new location on the T4-TBIT connector (which will also include new AA check-in counters and essentially makes T4 and TBIT one linear terminal), which will allow AA to build out at least one more gate in T4 (tight fit though, so maybe just an ERJ gate). With international ops moving to TBIT, there is also talk of building out the baggage claim into the INS facilities.
And it should be noted AA's TBIT gates will not be limited to international ops. AA can use them to it's hearts content, which means wide body domestic flights to MIA and DFW will likely use TBIT. Further, as AA looks to make MIALAX to an all lie-flat operation using the current 763 fleet (AA is keeping half the 763 fleet with the current product to fly medium-haul from Miami where the slanted lie flat is competitive), all MIA flights might just emd up at TBIT. MIALAX is the real premium transcon darling these days.
And further to that, with the T4-T5 tunnel reopening next year, AA, like DL, will have the option to share AS gates if AS wants to share.
All is said and done, AA will have significantly more real estate at the airport than anybody else. Although the ride to the Eagle's nest will always suck (but an Admiral's Club is opening there literally any day now. It's just about ready).
And it should be noted AA's TBIT gates will not be limited to international ops. AA can use them to it's hearts content, which means wide body domestic flights to MIA and DFW will likely use TBIT. Further, as AA looks to make MIALAX to an all lie-flat operation using the current 763 fleet (AA is keeping half the 763 fleet with the current product to fly medium-haul from Miami where the slanted lie flat is competitive), all MIA flights might just emd up at TBIT. MIALAX is the real premium transcon darling these days.
And further to that, with the T4-T5 tunnel reopening next year, AA, like DL, will have the option to share AS gates if AS wants to share.
All is said and done, AA will have significantly more real estate at the airport than anybody else. Although the ride to the Eagle's nest will always suck (but an Admiral's Club is opening there literally any day now. It's just about ready).
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #110
and your gate count includes AA's remote RJ gates which cannot be used for mainline ops. no?
I am quite sure that DL has no such restriction.
You fail to note that US' operation has to fit into AA's facilities.
It is also unchanged that LAX does not have the facilities for any carrier to become the DOMINANT carrier. AA can be the largest airline and I have never argued they couldn't. But given that DL is also growing and WN will have the ability to grow LAX, dominance of the LAX market remains a fleeting goal.
And I have repeatedly said that AA and DL's growth at LAX will put pressure on other carriers including UA and VX.
Somehow I doubt that AS is going to be giving up any gates to AA so AA can start service in AS' most core markets.
Of all of the list of flights you noted, the only one that really matters to DL is ATL. If AA can support RJ service to TUL, be my guest. Other than mass, I'm not sure what that does for the overall competitive situation.
It also doesn't change that there are a number of key AA markets that DL doesn't fly from LAX and their intention to add DAL at the minimum says they are ready to take on AA in their most core markets.
Reopening the T4-5 tunnel also allows DL and its Skyteam partners to add flights in the int'l terminal and have easy connectivity. Since many of the Skyteam carriers operate for T2/3 and AS isn't happy with their current location regardless of their relationship with DL, it is well within the realm of possibility that AS could end up moving back to the north side.
AA's buildup of LAX might put more pressure on UA who might decide to pull out of markets such as PVG and maybe even NRT which would certainly help AA but it is equally possible that DL would just add its own flights to take UA's void. DL is adding capacity in LAX-BOS precisely because UA is pulling down its own capacity. If AA succeeds at pushing UA out of markets only to have DL come in, there is little gain and in fact a whole lot more competition.
Even though you would like to think that DL will run out of gate space, their announcement regarding DAL-LAX and additional BOS flights indicates they are more than capable of growing within their presence facilities.
But beyond LAX, you can't deny that the core industry dynamics have long favored other carriers including DL picking off AA's key routes. And number one among those vulnerable regions is Latin America.
You can try to argue that Spirit is the same as B6 in terms of the competitive threat but that has never been shown to be true in any other market. B6 has been very successful in pushing AA out of key markets in JFK which DL in turn has expanded in.
While AA won't get pushed out of anything out of MIA, B6' expansion will require that AA pay attention to them (become competitive with their fares) or there will be a very real leak of passengers from MIA to FLL which is building more than enough facilities to become a serious threat to MIA's dominance of the S. Florida -Latin America market. DL only has to follow B6 into the S. Florida-Latim America market but DL will use MIA instead of FLL. The same scenario has played out in market after market with AA and UA.
Even if AA gains size at LAX, its overall network will be much more competitive over the next several years than it is now or would have been if the merger did not happen. AA and US are merging in part to be able to compete against DL and UA but in so doing are increasing the likelihood that DL and UA and other carriers including WN will target new AA's core markets to limit the benefits gained from the merger.
I am quite sure that DL has no such restriction.
You fail to note that US' operation has to fit into AA's facilities.
It is also unchanged that LAX does not have the facilities for any carrier to become the DOMINANT carrier. AA can be the largest airline and I have never argued they couldn't. But given that DL is also growing and WN will have the ability to grow LAX, dominance of the LAX market remains a fleeting goal.
And I have repeatedly said that AA and DL's growth at LAX will put pressure on other carriers including UA and VX.
Somehow I doubt that AS is going to be giving up any gates to AA so AA can start service in AS' most core markets.
Of all of the list of flights you noted, the only one that really matters to DL is ATL. If AA can support RJ service to TUL, be my guest. Other than mass, I'm not sure what that does for the overall competitive situation.
It also doesn't change that there are a number of key AA markets that DL doesn't fly from LAX and their intention to add DAL at the minimum says they are ready to take on AA in their most core markets.
Reopening the T4-5 tunnel also allows DL and its Skyteam partners to add flights in the int'l terminal and have easy connectivity. Since many of the Skyteam carriers operate for T2/3 and AS isn't happy with their current location regardless of their relationship with DL, it is well within the realm of possibility that AS could end up moving back to the north side.
AA's buildup of LAX might put more pressure on UA who might decide to pull out of markets such as PVG and maybe even NRT which would certainly help AA but it is equally possible that DL would just add its own flights to take UA's void. DL is adding capacity in LAX-BOS precisely because UA is pulling down its own capacity. If AA succeeds at pushing UA out of markets only to have DL come in, there is little gain and in fact a whole lot more competition.
Even though you would like to think that DL will run out of gate space, their announcement regarding DAL-LAX and additional BOS flights indicates they are more than capable of growing within their presence facilities.
But beyond LAX, you can't deny that the core industry dynamics have long favored other carriers including DL picking off AA's key routes. And number one among those vulnerable regions is Latin America.
You can try to argue that Spirit is the same as B6 in terms of the competitive threat but that has never been shown to be true in any other market. B6 has been very successful in pushing AA out of key markets in JFK which DL in turn has expanded in.
While AA won't get pushed out of anything out of MIA, B6' expansion will require that AA pay attention to them (become competitive with their fares) or there will be a very real leak of passengers from MIA to FLL which is building more than enough facilities to become a serious threat to MIA's dominance of the S. Florida -Latin America market. DL only has to follow B6 into the S. Florida-Latim America market but DL will use MIA instead of FLL. The same scenario has played out in market after market with AA and UA.
Even if AA gains size at LAX, its overall network will be much more competitive over the next several years than it is now or would have been if the merger did not happen. AA and US are merging in part to be able to compete against DL and UA but in so doing are increasing the likelihood that DL and UA and other carriers including WN will target new AA's core markets to limit the benefits gained from the merger.
1) I specifically stated 12 gates are RJ. Not sure what your point is. AA still has more mainline gates than DL.WorldTraveler said:
2) The fact remains AA has significantly more real estate to play with at LAX than UA and, especially, DL. I never said AA will be dominant, but it will become the airport's largest carrier and nobody will be able to catch up.
3) There's no guarantee AS will let AA share gates. There is also no guarantee AS will continue to let DL share gates.
4) AS isn't leaving T6, where it has well invested in the facilities, including a lounge.
5) Oh, so now B6 and AA compete in the same market. How convienent.
6) You have been arguing that DL will expand in LatAm for years. Where is Delta in JFKEZE? JFKGIG? ATLMDE? ATLMVD? ATLCNF? MIA-anything? Oh, I forget, since Delta can only fly JFKGRU once a day, none of those routes make sense yet.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #112
that is all fine but it says nothing about the overall trend that has existed in the industry that involves AA and weakening at the hands of other carriers including the low cost carriers and DL. Before the latest round of mergers, NW and CO also were winners but since they don't exist anymore it is DL vs. the rest of the legacy industry.
You are the one that wanted to say that FLL and MIA are the same market. Are they or are they not? Even if they aren't, B6 is more than capable of pulling traffic from MIA to FLL. that trend has happened with multiple carriers for years.
We could ask the same question about AA's presence in continental Europe and Asia.
And in case you have missed it, DL has spent the last 7 years focused on becoming the largest domestic carrier in NYC and far bypassing AA at LGA and JFK. DL now competes in the top markets for nearly every carrier from NYC. DL has had their hands full but they have a whole lot more bandwidth - and that doesn't bode well for AA's dominance of the MIA-Latin America market.
You are the one that wanted to say that FLL and MIA are the same market. Are they or are they not? Even if they aren't, B6 is more than capable of pulling traffic from MIA to FLL. that trend has happened with multiple carriers for years.
We could ask the same question about AA's presence in continental Europe and Asia.
And in case you have missed it, DL has spent the last 7 years focused on becoming the largest domestic carrier in NYC and far bypassing AA at LGA and JFK. DL now competes in the top markets for nearly every carrier from NYC. DL has had their hands full but they have a whole lot more bandwidth - and that doesn't bode well for AA's dominance of the MIA-Latin America market.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,939
- 9,366
Considering that
1) EWR & JFK are 31 driving miles apart, and considered co-terminals;
2) HOU/IAH are 29 driving miles apart, and considered co-terminals;
3) ORD/MDW are 27 driving miles apart... and considered co-terminals
Why is it so difficult for WT to admit that FLL & MIA, just 26 driving miles apart, are also the same market?
1) EWR & JFK are 31 driving miles apart, and considered co-terminals;
2) HOU/IAH are 29 driving miles apart, and considered co-terminals;
3) ORD/MDW are 27 driving miles apart... and considered co-terminals
Why is it so difficult for WT to admit that FLL & MIA, just 26 driving miles apart, are also the same market?
Kev3188
Veteran
eolesen said:
'Cause it doesn't fit the narrative?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #116
legal co-terminals as a condition of carriage does not translate into being common pricing points. I never said they weren't co-terminals.
Please post the fare structure between LGA and MIA and LGA and FLL if you are convinced they are the same point.
Go ahead, E, and use all of your well greased tools.
But this little co-terminal sideshow (for those who can keep the topic in perspective) only has to do with whether B6 is capable of pulling traffic from MIA to FLL.
If you are convinced that MIA and FLL are the same point, then it should be even easier for B6 to whip up on AA from MIA to Latin America which is absolutely a great thing.
When B6 wears down AA a little bit and drives the prices down, DL will step in at MIA.
That strategy has worked multiple times at JFK. How many flights per day does AA operate JFK-SDQ now? B6? DL?
thank you very much.
Please post the fare structure between LGA and MIA and LGA and FLL if you are convinced they are the same point.
Go ahead, E, and use all of your well greased tools.
But this little co-terminal sideshow (for those who can keep the topic in perspective) only has to do with whether B6 is capable of pulling traffic from MIA to FLL.
If you are convinced that MIA and FLL are the same point, then it should be even easier for B6 to whip up on AA from MIA to Latin America which is absolutely a great thing.
When B6 wears down AA a little bit and drives the prices down, DL will step in at MIA.
That strategy has worked multiple times at JFK. How many flights per day does AA operate JFK-SDQ now? B6? DL?
thank you very much.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
If b6 pulls traffic from mia to fll then may be just may be ua does the same for ewr from jfk and say wn does at mdw or hou instead of ord or iah.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #118
yes, UA pulled alot of traffic from LGA and JFK to EWR primarily when US was flying turboprops 20 times a day to PHL in order to not use the slots. Now that DL is actually using the slots as they were intended, DOT and Port Authority data shows that DL is pulling traffic back to LGA.
As for MDW vs IAH and ORD vs MDW, both WN hubs have existed long enough that those carriers do get more than their fare share of traffic in those cities.
For this reason alone, the fact that WN might have only 160-200 flts/day at DAL is more than enough to get a substantial chunk of the biggest N. Texas business markets.
As for MDW vs IAH and ORD vs MDW, both WN hubs have existed long enough that those carriers do get more than their fare share of traffic in those cities.
For this reason alone, the fact that WN might have only 160-200 flts/day at DAL is more than enough to get a substantial chunk of the biggest N. Texas business markets.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
As for pdx and sea to lax would AS or ua take the most also whats the distance btwn pdx and sea
LDVAviation
Advanced
- Feb 29, 2012
- 104
- 269
WorldTraveler said:
When LAWA allowed United and later Delta to gate regional jets at T8 and T5 respectively, it effectively removed the last formal distinction between regional and mainline gates at LAX. As a result, LAWA had to grant AA a contractual stipulation that its "regional" gates put it at a competitive disadvantage. (This is a competitive disadvantage that LAWA must eventually fix.)
Indeed, for legal purposes (as evidenced by the settlement agreement which capped the total number of gates), there is no real distinction between regional and mainline gates. LAWA counts both equally. Since LAWA has plans to build quite a number of gates at the new MSC (29 total in two phases), it may be the case that in order to keep the gate count under the cap LAWA will end up trading gates at the MSC for AA's gates at the AE facility.
... The reopening of the T4-T5 tunnel has more to do with AA's and LAWA's ambitions than SkyTeam's. LAWA wants to increase circulation between terminals for the sake of concessions. AA wants preferential to exclusive use of a bus port that will be part of the T4-TBIT connector building. AA's reasoning goes something like this: Passengers connecting to Delta and United can get to T5 and beyond through the tunnels; so, give us preferential use of the bus port.
Problem is that Delta and United both know something you don't. The tunnels aren't a very convenient way of moving between T5/T6/T7/T8 and TBIT. I dare say the walk between T5 and TBIT via the T4 connector (now under construction) would be as long as the walk from the head house of JFK T4 to the end of Concourse B. So much for those "easy connections."
As to AS, they aren't going anywhere. They have a 10-year lease that fully underwrote the improvements to T6.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Investor looking for serious changes at Southwest- Latest: Jalsporteam
-