Wall St. takes a swipe at AMR

[eolesen]

AA once had a hub and transpac gateway/hub at SJC but lost it and hasn't replaced it.

Really?... I guess you haven't really considered LAX a transpac gateway/hub?...

AA's in about 40 markets and over 120 departures a day according to the last SSIM I looked thru, which admittedly may be out of date, but AA hasn't been pulling down capacity (which was the whole basis for this thread before WT turned it into another lesson on "How to Emulate Delta"...

If that's not a hub, I don't know what is... it's larger than what I remember SJC being in terms of both destinations and departures, and certainly has more revenue generating potential.

JFK only has around 104 departures to 52 markets (lots of one-a-days). When I worked there in 1991, I think it was only 50-70 flights a day.

Combined with LGA, AA has 219 flights to 60 destinations out of the NY side of NYC. Not exactly shabby, but often maligned as inferior to whatever DL is operating.

BOS is indeed tiny. Only 45 departures to 8 cities. Might as well close shop there.

SJU is actually slightly bigger than BOS, with 47 flights to 21 markets.

Here's the summary for the top 10 departure cities with AA:

City  Flights   Markets
DFW	   758       161
ORD	   420       109
MIA	   294       107
LAX	   121       30
LGA	   112       17
JFK	   107       54
DCA	   51        7
SJU	   47        21
BOS	   45        9
RDU	   35        7

 

[Frank Szabo]

Really?... I guess you haven't really considered LAX a transpac gateway/hub?...

AA's in about 40 markets and over 120 departures a day according to the last SSIM I looked thru, which admittedly may be out of date, but AA hasn't been pulling down capacity (which was the whole basis for this thread before WT turned it into another lesson on "How to Emulate Delta"...

If that's not a hub, I don't know what is... it's larger than what I remember SJC being in terms of both destinations and departures, and certainly has more revenue generating potential.

JFK only has around 104 departures to 52 markets (lots of one-a-days). When I worked there in 1991, I think it was only 50-70 flights a day.

Combined with LGA, AA has 219 flights to 60 destinations out of the NY side of NYC. Not exactly shabby, but often maligned as inferior to whatever DL is operating.

BOS is indeed tiny. Only 45 departures to 8 cities. Might as well close shop there.

SJU is actually slightly bigger than BOS, with 47 flights to 21 markets.

Here's the summary for the top 10 departure cities with AA:

City  Flights   Markets
DFW	   758       161
ORD	   420       109
MIA	   294       107
LAX	   121       30
LGA	   112       17
JFK	   107       54
DCA	   51        7
SJU	   47        21
BOS	   45        9
RDU	   35        7

E:

Your own advice was to not entertain fools - may I offer it back to you?

 

[WorldTraveler]

Really?... I guess you haven't really considered LAX a transpac gateway/hub?...

AA's in about 40 markets and over 120 departures a day according to the last SSIM I looked thru, which admittedly may be out of date, but AA hasn't been pulling down capacity (which was the whole basis for this thread before WT turned it into another lesson on "How to Emulate Delta"...

If that's not a hub, I don't know what is... it's larger than what I remember SJC being in terms of both destinations and departures, and certainly has more revenue generating potential.

JFK only has around 104 departures to 52 markets (lots of one-a-days). When I worked there in 1991, I think it was only 50-70 flights a day.

Combined with LGA, AA has 219 flights to 60 destinations out of the NY side of NYC. Not exactly shabby, but often maligned as inferior to whatever DL is operating.

BOS is indeed tiny. Only 45 departures to 8 cities. Might as well close shop there.

SJU is actually slightly bigger than BOS, with 47 flights to 21 markets.

Here's the summary for the top 10 departure cities with AA:

City  Flights   Markets
DFW	   758       161
ORD	   420       109
MIA	   294       107
LAX	   121       30
LGA	   112       17
JFK	   107       54
DCA	   51        7
SJU	   47        21
BOS	   45        9
RDU	   35        7

I have no problem with AA calling LAX a hub... but is that the term they use?
Further, I did not attempt to provide an exhaustive list of all of AA's hubs.. I simply stated that AA had a transpac hub at SJC and they have not replaced that with another on the west coast.
If AA's new LAX-PVG flight has started, then I suppose you could say they have a hub... but I hardly would call one transpac flight a transpac hub. and as you well know, Hawaii flying is not considered transpac but domestic.

By your definition, RDU is still a hub for AA and PIT is for DL....

or you could just accept that AA now operates 1 daily transpac flight and will add one in a few weeks...

once again, don't take it quite so personal...

 

[Veritas]

This week's Plane Business takes AMR to task as usual, but they also take a few swipes at DL.

well then feel free to post what they said about AA here and then post the DL comments in the DL forum....

P.S. Are you asking E to violate copyright laws by copying here what he read on PlaneBusiness?

There are fair use allowances that can be used for any copyrighted material. Use a reasonable quote, credit it, and then lead the reader to the appropriate place to read the rest.

BTW, publicly available data is not copyrighted.

Eric referred to analysis that is propriety information which was published on a paid subscription only site.

That type of material is not subject to the fair use doctrine:

(c) Copyright 2011, PlaneBusiness, LLC. All rights reserved. This material is for personal use only. Republication and redissemination, including posting to news groups, and dissemination via e-mail is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of PlaneBusiness, LLC.​

If you wish to read it yourself, you are welcome to subscribe to PlaneBusiness.

 

[upsilon]

E:
Your own advice was to not entertain fools - may I offer it back to you?

Frank, I agree and believe the ad nauseum posts (in both length and frequency) with the pompous sig/tag, will cease if there is no response to the sermons extolling his personal one-and-only airline 'god of the sky'.

And if that happens, since his handle is on my Ignore list, I wouldn't see the posts at all. Now, since most posters copy his entire post even when responding to a single point. it forces me to scroll to get past what I long ago felt was a waste of time on this forum and simply designed to elicit a response.

If you don't know how to use "Ignore", simply click on the arrow by your name in the upper left corner of the screen and you will see an option to "Manage Ignored Users". Enter the first letters or word of a name and a list will appear. Click on the correct one. It makes reading the forum a lot more pleasant.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Eric referred to analysis that is propriety information which was published on a paid subscription only site.

That type of material is not subject to the fair use doctrine:

(c) Copyright 2011, PlaneBusiness, LLC. All rights reserved. This material is for personal use only. Republication and redissemination, including posting to news groups, and dissemination via e-mail is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of PlaneBusiness, LLC.​

If you wish to read it yourself, you are welcome to subscribe to PlaneBusiness.

the fair use doctrine DOES apply to copyrighted material. That is the whole point.

since you are in doubt, I will quote the US copyright office's site.. of course using the fair use doctrine.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.


http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

of course the bigger issue is that I am not the only one who finds fault w/ AA mgmt - and even Eric acknowledges as much.

The obvious answer is to figure out to fix the problem instead of attacking those who bring the issue to light.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Frank, I agree and believe the ad nauseum posts (in both length and frequency) with the pompous sig/tag, will cease if there is no response to the sermons extolling his personal one-and-only airline 'god of the sky'.

And if that happens, since his handle is on my Ignore list, I wouldn't see the posts at all. Now, since most posters copy his entire post even when responding to a single point. it forces me to scroll to get past what I long ago felt was a waste of time on this forum and simply designed to elicit a response.

If you don't know how to use "Ignore", simply click on the arrow by your name in the upper left corner of the screen and you will see an option to "Manage Ignored Users". Enter the first letters or word of a name and a list will appear. Click on the correct one. It makes reading the forum a lot more pleasant.

I'm a believer in the "ignore" fuction and have usedit quite a bit - thanks anyway for the directions.

Some time ago, Eric had offered the advice of not responding to the pro-management sorts was the best way to get rid of them - I half jokingly suggested he follow his own advice.

 

[eolesen]

Frank, I do have said poster on ignore, but am suffering from the same problem you are -- people replying to his responses...


Since WT is now an expert on US copyright law, let me point out a few flaws.

First of all, her copyright notice explicitly prohibits posting to internet newsgroups. Why would I ignore that and try to apply "fair use" ???

"quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment;"

Bzzzt! This isn't a review or critique. It's an internet forum.

"quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations;"

Bzzzt! This is neither a scholarly or technical work. It's a discussion forum.

"use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied;"

Bzzzt! The only thing worthy of parody at this point is WT's missives...

"summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report;"

Bzzzt! This isn't a news report. It's a discussion forum.

"reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy;"

Bzzzt! It's a discussion forum.

"reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;"

Bzzzt! I may be a teacher by degree, but nobody here is my student, nor is anyone here my teacher.

"reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Bzzzt! Once again, not even close to the intent of fair use. Certainly not on a discussion forum that will be cached by Google within the next 12 hours....


But the real deal killer:

'When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation.


It's quite practicable for me to request permission. I have Holly's home and cell number, and all three of her email addresses.

Bottom line, there's no way I'm posting stuff from her website just to appease an antagonist.

(Tune in next week, when WT expresses his expertise in the mitigation of radioactive ground water contamination....)

 

[WorldTraveler]

Frank, I do have said poster on ignore, but am suffering from the same problem you are -- people replying to his responses...


But the real deal killer:

'When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation.


It's quite practicable for me to request permission. I have Holly's home and cell number, and all three of her email addresses.

Bottom line, there's no way I'm posting stuff from her website just to appease an antagonist.

(Tune in next week, when WT expresses his expertise in the mitigation of radioactive ground water contamination....)

I'm sure Holly would be HONORED that you would choose to cite her work and would grant permission.... I know her as well.....

I didn't tell you that you had to quote anything... I simply said that if you wanted to post comments about DL from Holly, you could under the fair use doctrine. If you don't want to, that is quite ok with me.

I think the real issue is that what she has to say is more damning about what AA is doing than DL.... the fact that DL is pulling back capacity and moving to a lower risk plan later in the year is exactly what the analysts wanted; AA is not and that is the root of analyst concern - esp. since AA has already given RASM projections that once again will put it on the lower end of the spectrum of network airlines. When you add in that AA has the highest costs, they are in the worst position to keep capacity in the market - and that is why Holly and other analysts are ripping AA.

The real reason why you can't ignore me is because you feel it is your obligation and responsibility to defend the criticsm of AA. You can turn me off but you can't and won't turn off the continued criticism that is coming to AA - and will only increase as AA's situation continues to deteriorate.
no, the real problem is

 

[FlyUs]

Man, are you ignorant. What a bad comprarison. Verdict, schmerdict.

UA, like AA, is not DL and is therefore bad. So it is no surprise UA failed on BOS-LHR.

DL, on the other hand, is AWESOME and PERFECT and CAN DO NO WRONG (didn't you get the memo?), and so will definitely succeed greatly on this yet one more small step towards world domination. It would never fail at anything it tries. Just like with Song. And with its DFW hub / focus city / whatever it was. And the PDX transpacific thingy. (Oh wait, sorry; there I go living in the past again. My bad. Disregard those last couple of points.)

Sheesh, get with the program already.

(Did I get that right, WT?)

LMFAO!! Even after filing for chapter 11, they still drink the kool-aid. I applaud AA for being the only airline not to go that route. The traveling public, for the most part, can't distinguish one air carrier from another.

 

[Kev3188]

Okay, so after multiple pages of personal attacks, a primer on the ignore feature, and a lesson on the rules of Fair Use, what do we have?

AA is still lagging in productivity to it's peers, network issues are unchanged, labor issues loom as large as ever, and morale is in the tank.

Does anybody besides WT have any viable ideas (or even WAG's) on how AA pulls itself back from the brink?

As for the labor piece, how about some thoughts on what kind of carrier the employees would like it to be going forward. Less people doing more work but sharing a larger slice of the pie? Status Quo? Option "C?"

In case anyone cares, here's a related thread on A.Net.

 

[eolesen]

Seriously, the only way AA will ever get out of the box is working together.

It's not just a slogan to hang on a banner or print on t-shirts & hats. Management and labor will always have a symbiotic relationship, regardless of how much both sides may appear to be in denial over that.

Doing so requires mutual respect, trust, and gains. Trust and respect are earned thru actions, while gains are earned thru results. Since labor took a leap of faith in 2003 and believe they were betrayed, that's no longer an action any labor leadership team can take and still survive the next round of union elections...

But there are ways to start rebuilding trust and respect, and they don't require money or a contract. And my feeling is that labor would be smart to start that process separately from negotiations. It might even help move negotiations along.

** Management has been holding the JLTs and engagement meetings. My suggestion... labor needs to participate, and up the ante. More seats at more tables, including board meetings, Arpey's staff meetings, line VP staff meetings... The problem with an open kimono is that you might not like what you see, but at least you will know there's nothing to hide...

** Hundreds of suggestions on waste and inefficiency have been posted here over the past eight years. It's time to resurrect IdeAAs, and ensure that labor also has a seat at the table evaluating these. Don't let some entry level analyst at HDQ dismiss an idea because they don't understand the implications... And ensure that the gains are measured and shared. It doesn't have to be 100%, but it has to be something.

** Management has to drop the current PSP/PUP plans. They're a constant reminder of the 2003 betrayals. If it's necessary to have a plan to retain key people, come up with replacement plans that are based on measures within the company's control, e.g. financial and/or operational targets. If the unions want variable compensation, base it on the same measures.

A cease fire requires both sides putting down their weapons... Burying the hatchet doesn't work unless both are buried.

There are clearly other issues that AA needs to overcome as far as revenue and productivity goes.

I may be a bit idealistic here, but as much as I still believe AMR may still have to take a trip thru bankruptcy, they don't need to use bankruptcy as a chainsaw to achieve what could be done if the unions and management figured out how to engage each other in more proactive ways.

Hawaiian Airlines did just this. When they filed for bankruptcy, they'd already worked with the unions so that it wasn't necessary to go thru S.1113, and there's no reason that the same couldn't be achieved with AMR. But it's going to take opening up the kimono, burying hatchets, and sharing in the upside if/when it happens.

 

[jersey777]

Seriously, the only way AA will ever get out of the box is working together.

It's not just a slogan to hang on a banner or print on t-shirts & hats. Management and labor will always have a symbiotic relationship, regardless of how much both sides may appear to be in denial over that.

Doing so requires mutual respect, trust, and gains. Trust and respect are earned thru actions, while gains are earned thru results. Since labor took a leap of faith in 2003 and believe they were betrayed, that's no longer an action any labor leadership team can take and still survive the next round of union elections...

But there are ways to start rebuilding trust and respect, and they don't require money or a contract. And my feeling is that labor would be smart to start that process separately from negotiations. It might even help move negotiations along.

** Management has been holding the JLTs and engagement meetings. My suggestion... labor needs to participate, and up the ante. More seats at more tables, including board meetings, Arpey's staff meetings, line VP staff meetings... The problem with an open kimono is that you might not like what you see, but at least you will know there's nothing to hide...

** Hundreds of suggestions on waste and inefficiency have been posted here over the past eight years. It's time to resurrect IdeAAs, and ensure that labor also has a seat at the table evaluating these. Don't let some entry level analyst at HDQ dismiss an idea because they don't understand the implications... And ensure that the gains are measured and shared. It doesn't have to be 100%, but it has to be something.

** Management has to drop the current PSP/PUP plans. They're a constant reminder of the 2003 betrayals. If it's necessary to have a plan to retain key people, come up with replacement plans that are based on measures within the company's control, e.g. financial and/or operational targets. If the unions want variable compensation, base it on the same measures.

A cease fire requires both sides putting down their weapons...

There are clearly other issues that AA needs to overcome as far as revenue and productivity goes.

I may be a bit idealistic here, but as much as I still believe AMR may still have to take a trip thru bankruptcy, they don't need to use bankruptcy as a chainsaw to achieve what could be done if the unions and management figured out how to engage each other in more proactive ways.

Hawaiian Airlines did just this. When they filed for bankruptcy, they'd already worked with the unions so that it wasn't necessary to go thru S.1113, and there's no reason that the same couldn't be achieved with AMR. But it's going to take opening up the kimono, burying hatchets, and sharing in the upside if/when it happens.

Great post. I have to agree with you on most everything.

 

[frontline]

Great post Eric. I agree that it doesn't have to be this way. In fact as a union member my biggest frustration with them is that everything has to be combat and drama. I think your way would be better for everyone.

 

[AV1]

Great post Eric. I agree that it doesn't have to be this way. In fact as a union member my biggest frustration with them is that everything has to be combat and drama. I think your way would be better for everyone.

Exactly, I applaud for people that stand up for our profession, say like Bob Owens. But I am tired of the ones that continually make drama and combat everything. it is definately getting old. I am not talking about the ones standing up for our peers and profession but those who, continually, day in and day out create drama for everyone.