Wall St. takes a swipe at AMR

[WorldTraveler]

You want to include the "network carrier" qualifier so that it sounds better and people won't think twice about the specious claim and will assume DL is the biggest operator at BOS.

And oh, so conveniently, you say that DL is the largest "network" airline on the NY side of NY.

Again, spin. Jetblue is also the largest airline at JFK, and CO is larger at EWR. But yes, you also want to include LGA+JFK in your calculation, again to make a better story....


The employees get a reminder of that on every payday, and those of us who actually fly on them get reminded of that on a regular basis, too.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but leave the spin and hubris at home next time. It's no longer welcome here.

And you were put in charge of this forum by who?
Perhaps if you could just accurately quote statistics accurately and leave off some of the defensiveness we could have discussion based on the reailties... I think we were there for about 2 days after our last spitting match but then your deeply engrained reactions kicked in again.

There actually are people who appreciate that I am laying all of the facts on the table... I've received notes from two people in the last 24 hrs thanking me for not being afraid to speak what is true... and above all not cowing down to the partisan "it's got to be either management or labor's fault" -which you and a whole lot of other people propagate. There generally are people who appreciate knowing the true story and are tired of being told they are the sole reason for AA's problems. People like me owe it to them and to the management supporters as well to call the facts as they exist; problem is that most of you mgmt supporters have all the factst to hurl at labor so it is labor itself that doesn't know many of the business aspects of where AA is... and of course you aren't going to tell them the truth (if you know it) so I have a place on this forum....

BTW, B6 IS NOT the largest airline at JFK... the same airline that has pictures of its jets on the home page of the PANYNJ.com's website is.

of course this and other data is NOT secret but can be found on said public agency's website.

http://www.panynj.gov/airports/general-information.html?tabnum=2

It actually is quite valid to separate out CO's EWR operation because CO operates a hub which means it boards a higher percentage and number of connecting passengers at EWR than other carriers in the region. If you look at DOT data for the 3 main NYC airports, DL is already the largest carrier based on NYC local boarding even though CO carries more revenue (due to higher average fares in some key domestic markets such as CHI, BOS and DCA) and CO has a higher percentage of longhaul (Asia) flights than any other carrier. Opening EWR to WN will bring CO's average fares down in some key markets but that will be offset by the merger with UA which moves UA/CO back into the number one spot.
It's also worth noting that according to the PANYNJ, DL plus NW and all of DL's affiliates (Shuttle, Song, connection carriers) were only slightly larger than AA plus AE at LGA. As of 12 months ended Jan 11, DL has a 30% market share while AA (2nd) has 21%. AA and US have both lost market share at LGA over the past 5 years to DL.
At JFK, during the past 5 years, AA went from carrying twice as many international passengers as DL to now being completely the other way around; DL now carries 30% more than AA. If you look just at domestic passengers at JFK, in 2005, AA and DL (including money losing Song) were about the same size domestically at JFK and neither AA or DL boarded even half the number of domestic passenges B6 did. Or put another way, AA plus DL domestically did not equal what B6 was carrying. BUT today AA and B6 boards about the same number of passengers domestically as B6 while DL has increased its domestic passenger boardings by more than two-thirds and now boards about 75% of the domestic passengers that B6 does.
/
Why is that important?
/
Because it shows that some airlines actually do compete and succeed in low fare carrier environments. JFK has been a low fare domestic airport for years and the trend has only grown. Adding EWR to the mix and increasing WN's presence at LGA will have an impact on who gains and who loses in NYC - AMONG NETWORK carriers.
/

Knowing statistics and using them appropriately is a key indicator of knowledge in the industry.

No spin? Really? How did DL, on its own grow int'l? Were the LHR slots not a gift courtesy of the feds for the AA-BA-IB ATI deal?

DL gained no slots for JFK service from AA-BA. DL was the ONLY airline that took advantage fo the requirement by both the US and EU to divest slots at LHR in concentrated markets and DL took advantage of both to grow both BOS and MIA to LHR.
.
If you want to exclude BOS-LHR flights from the equation, that would be fine... we can do that... but DL even without LHR as of this summer will fly 80% of the seats to Europe that AA will - including LHR. Since 2005, AA has dropped SNN and MAN. So, even on that basis, AA is not keeping up with the growth of the market as a whole. But DL is flying to LHR and the only reason DL obtained that access was because AA pursued BA as a partner.
.
Despite BOS becoming a LFC airport in a very short period of time, some NETWORK carriers have managed to be able to maintain their presence... DL offers about 75% of the domestic seats that B6 does and the UA/CO merger will still leave DL as the largest network carrier.
.
It is also worth noting that the primary reason to separate - or at least acknowledge - the size of network and LFCs in a city is because they have different pricing policies... network carriers obtain the majority of corporate contracts which include international travel.
.
You can see the evidence of this in that DL is already the largest revenue carrier at BOS even though B6 carries more passengers and AA has a higher average fare than DL... but because DL carries more passengers than AA and DL and AA have higher average fares than B6 by about 50%, total BOS airport revenue for DL is higher.
.
again, understanding the environment and properly assessing it goes along ways to understanding the challenges each carrier has...

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

Apparently, DL's revenues aren't keeping up with all that market share and growth they embarked on.

But this is the AA forum, so enough about them. I start to get dizzy whenever the widget starts being mentioned.

well then feel free to post what they said about AA here and then post the DL comments in the DL forum....
.
and as for the dizziness, E, a couple recommendations.
1. sit down and put your head between your legs
2. breathe deeply... think happy thoughts
3. when you get up, don't start swinging - AA's future doesn't depend on your defense.
.
.
regardless of what happens, life will go on....

 

[Bear96]

Gee, if DL has been so great for so long, it's funny how they went bankrupt at one point not so long ago . . .

 

[Frank Szabo]

Gee, if DL has been so great for so long, it's funny how they went bankrupt at one point not so long ago . . .

Yep - it's amazing, isn't it? ... and if frogs had wings, they could screw pigeons.

The nearly simultaneous bankruptcy filings were planned strategic moves accomplishing two things:

1). Get the cost structure of both airlines in a position acceptable to the brass in preparation for the planned merger after cost structures were dealt with.

2). Get in under the 31 October 2005 "wire" when the Chapter 11 (corporate restructuring) bankruptcy laws were to be changed, making things less friendly to corporate filers that had been gaming the system for years with impunity.

As an example, consider the number of airlines filing for Chapter 11 "protection" in the 5 years preceding the above-mentioned October date as compared to the number which have filed since and survived.

I believe (which will be negated in short order by the corporate know-it-alls on this site) that AMR was going to file, at first, in 2003 but Centrepork was convinced by the TWU (and byhaps the F/A and Pilot unions) not to file and reorganize which would entail a large personnel loss (ergo, dues) for the union(s) and much effort was taken to persuade the company the union(s) could provide a compliant group of sheep for a workforce, allowing for continued dues flow and more control over the executive compensation issue. That boat sailed long ago.

While there will always be sideways threats from the company and union re: a bankruptcy filing by AMR, not knowing how it would be received by a judge which, by law, much more power to run the business is probably why it hasn't been done yet.

I may be dead wrong (I'm sure I must be as will be apparent by the slack-jawed management cretins who will post shortly telling me so), but the company and union attitude proves to me I'm not too far off base.

You're on the right track yourself - Bravo Zulu.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

It actually is quite valid to separate out CO's EWR operation because CO operates a hub which means it boards a higher percentage and number of connecting passengers at EWR than other carriers in the region.

Doesn't DL consider JFK a hub? Judging by the number of RJs it operates there it sure looks like a hub too. Hence there is probably no valid reason to separate/ignore CO. But then DL doesn't compare so well does it?

DL gained no slots for JFK service from AA-BA. DL was the ONLY airline that took advantage fo the requirement by both the US and EU to divest slots at LHR in concentrated markets and DL took advantage of both to grow both BOS and MIA to LHR.

I wasn't talking about JFK. You were boasting of how DL on its own has grown internationally from BOS. Now you admit that if it wasn't for the concessions forced on AA-BA (LHR slots), there would be no assisted international growth by DL in BOS.

 

[eolesen]

There actually are people who appreciate that I am laying all of the facts on the table... I've received notes from two people in the last 24 hrs thanking me for not being afraid to speak what is true... and above all not cowing down to the partisan "it's got to be either management or labor's fault" -which you and a whole lot of other people propagate. There generally are people who appreciate knowing the true story and are tired of being told they are the sole reason for AA's problems. People like me owe it to them and to the management supporters as well to call the facts as they exist; problem is that most of you mgmt supporters have all the factst to hurl at labor so it is labor itself that doesn't know many of the business aspects of where AA is... and of course you aren't going to tell them the truth (if you know it) so I have a place on this forum....

Oh, please. At least get your insults and hubris correct....

I'm an AA supporter, as in the airline. Not management, not the unions. It's part of my history, and when you insult AA, you insult me.

 

[Eagle]

Just a reminder that all board participants are welcome to post in any forum they choose.

Thank you.

 

[Veritas]

And you were put in charge of this forum by who?
Perhaps if you could just accurately quote statistics accurately and leave off some of the defensiveness we could have discussion based on the reailties... I think we were there for about 2 days after our last spitting match but then your deeply engrained reactions kicked in again.

<snip>

and as for the dizziness, [WT], a couple recommendations.
1. sit down and put your head between your legs
2. breathe deeply... think happy thoughts
3. when you get up, don't start swinging - [DL]'s future doesn't depend on your defense.

Funny, I was just about to post the exact same comments, but pertaining to you.

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

 

[FWAAA]

2). Get in under the 31 October 2005 "wire" when the Chapter 11 (corporate restructuring) bankruptcy laws were to be changed, making things less friendly to corporate filers that had been gaming the system for years with impunity.

As an example, consider the number of airlines filing for Chapter 11 "protection" in the 5 years preceding the above-mentioned October date as compared to the number which have filed since and survived.

Given that nearly every fixable airline (with issues that could be solved by Ch 11) had already filed by October, 2005, the relative absence of filers since then isn't quite as earth-shattering as you make it out to be, every time you've posted this "theory" of yours. Most airlines don't currently need to file Ch 11 - and those that did need to file already filed in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005.

I believe (which will be negated in short order by the corporate know-it-alls on this site) that AMR was going to file, at first, in 2003 but Centrepork was convinced by the TWU (and byhaps the F/A and Pilot unions) not to file and reorganize which would entail a large personnel loss (ergo, dues) for the union(s) and much effort was taken to persuade the company the union(s) could provide a compliant group of sheep for a workforce, allowing for continued dues flow and more control over the executive compensation issue. That boat sailed long ago.

Goose, you may be right. I dunno. What I do know is that this theory is inconsistent with the postings of the President of the NYC local, Bob Owens. He has posted numerous times in this forum over the past eight years that, essentially, AA management lacked the stones to make a Ch 11 bankruptcy filing in early 2003 and that it was all a bluff. Just a bluff to trick the unions. He even recently posted pictures of the federal courthouse steps in NYC to "prove" that anyone claiming that the "lawyers were on the steps" of the courthouse was a liar - since the courthourse has no steps.

While there will always be sideways threats from the company and union re: a bankruptcy filing by AMR, not knowing how it would be received by a judge which, by law, much more power to run the business is probably why it hasn't been done yet.

I may be dead wrong (I'm sure I must be as will be apparent by the slack-jawed management cretins who will post shortly telling me so), but the company and union attitude proves to me I'm not too far off base.

You may be right. Or maybe Arpey naively decided to try a different path by funding the pensions that UA, US, DL and NW cast aside in bankruptcy. If AA was going to file a Ch 11 petition voluntarily (as in, not in response to a work stoppage), why would AA delay? Each year (except for a couple), AA has had to throw hundreds of millions into the pensions. Maybe AA hasn't filed because, so far, it has been able to afford those pension contributions as well as all its other annual bills, NOT because Arpey is afraid of a bankruptcy court judge. Like I said, you may be right - there's no way to ever conclusively determine why AA didn't file in 2003 nor why AA hasn't filed in the eight years since.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The nearly simultaneous bankruptcy filings were planned strategic moves accomplishing two things:

1). Get the cost structure of both airlines in a position acceptable to the brass in preparation for the planned merger after cost structures were dealt with.

2). Get in under the 31 October 2005 "wire" when the Chapter 11 (corporate restructuring) bankruptcy laws were to be changed, making things less friendly to corporate filers that had been gaming the system for years with impunity.

As an example, consider the number of airlines filing for Chapter 11 "protection" in the 5 years preceding the above-mentioned October date as compared to the number which have filed since and survived.

I believe (which will be negated in short order by the corporate know-it-alls on this site) that AMR was going to file, at first, in 2003 but Centrepork was convinced by the TWU (and byhaps the F/A and Pilot unions) not to file and reorganize which would entail a large personnel loss (ergo, dues) for the union(s) and much effort was taken to persuade the company the union(s) could provide a compliant group of sheep for a workforce, allowing for continued dues flow and more control over the executive compensation issue. That boat sailed long ago.

While there will always be sideways threats from the company and union re: a bankruptcy filing by AMR, not knowing how it would be received by a judge which, by law, much more power to run the business is probably why it hasn't been done yet.

I may be dead wrong (I'm sure I must be as will be apparent by the slack-jawed management cretins who will post shortly telling me so), but the company and union attitude proves to me I'm not too far off base.

You're on the right track yourself - Bravo Zulu.

believe it or not but I think you are right on a number of counts, Frank.
First, bankruptcy was and is a legal and valid option companies can use to restructure their business and there is nothing illegal w/ a company using that process as pat of a merger or a divestiture is a perfectly legal process. Yes, the laws did change and there is a risk - but it comes more from creditors who might decide there is more value for the company if it is split up vs. held together. The risk from a court imposing its will on the BK process is highly unlikely... it is more likely that creditors will request something contrary to the desires of the company - that is why the process is done in a court of law where the judge becomes the referee.
Second, I believe there may well be some truth to your statement that AA's union (I don't think it was just the TWU) were afraid enough of the possiibility of losing power that they agreed to concessions... highly plausible. I also have said that the only way that AA will be voluntarily turned around is if the unions are "made whole" in the sense that they will not agree to fix the productivity problems on their own because it will mean a cut in their income. Getting unions to agree to productivity increases on a voluntary basis is very hard to do which is why productivity usually has to come in BK.

Gee, if DL has been so great for so long, it's funny how they went bankrupt at one point not so long ago . . .

Problem is that you and others want to live in history - where AA relative to its peers looked a whole lot better and the competitors didn't look so good.
.
We don't live in the past, though. Other carries fixed their problems even if they used BK which some here want to portray as some moral corruption....
It is now AA's turn to fix its problems. IF they can do it outside of BK, great. IF not, do what they need to to do to turn the company around.

Doesn't DL consider JFK a hub? Judging by the number of RJs it operates there it sure looks like a hub too. Hence there is probably no valid reason to separate/ignore CO. But then DL doesn't compare so well does it?

I wasn't talking about JFK. You were boasting of how DL on its own has grown internationally from BOS. Now you admit that if it wasn't for the concessions forced on AA-BA (LHR slots), there would be no assisted international growth by DL in BOS.

Yes, DL considers JFK a hub and if AA doesn't, it should - or else DL should not because the percentage of connecting traffic for DL and AA at JFK and LGA is very similar. At LGA, AA and DL each connect 5% of their traffic while at JFK DL connects about 38% (which means it is 62% local) while 70% of AA's traffic at JFK is local.
If you combine LGA and JFK traffic for both AA and DL, AA for LGA and JFK is 80% local and for DL it is 74%.
In contrast, 45% of the passengers CO boards at EWR are connecting passengers.
Obviously, CO flies to the "NY side" of NYC and AA and DL fly to EWR - but in these cases, each carrier has nearly 100% local traffic.
CO's operation at EWR is much more connecting focused while AA and DL see LGA and JFK as more local market focused.
If you combine the total number of local passengers carried from the 3 NYC airports, DL carried more local traffic from NYC than CO as of last summer which is the most current data available.
BTW, it is possible to calculate the % of local passengers by knowing the total number of local passengers boarded by each carrier from each airline as well as the total number of passengers boarded; both of these types of data are reported to the DOT.
.
.
I suppose we should carve up the categories for growth and rule out anything that wasn't internally grown with one's own aircraft? Guess that would mean that 50% of AA's transatlantic system would not count since it was acquired from TW - and a similar percentage of its Latin operation?
.
Such categorizations may make sense to you but the market really doesn't care. AA is the largest single US carrier (right now pending the completion of the CO/UAmerger) to LHR and DL is the largest single carrier to Japan etc.... no one really cares how it all came to be. It is each company's job to use all of its assets to its fullest capabilities.
.
.
What all of this shows is that other carriers have taken advantage of their own restructurings to grow their businesses… AA had that opportunity in 2003 when most of the rest of the industry was in the toilet…. But AA didn’t go after its peers and part of the reason why AA’s costs have grown is because it has held onto what it had but hasn’t grown.
In business, sitting still is not a viable option if you live in an environment where cutthroat competition exists.
Other carriers chose to restructure and then grow. AA’s future depends on figuring out how to do the same.
Problem is that it will be much, much more difficult for AA to restructure up against other carriers that pretty well have their financial houses in order. Restructuring is always a painful process and results in a certain amount of lost business and market share as well as employee and customer morale. AA isn’t in a position to lose any of that – and other carriers are ready to take whatever they can get – and they aren’t waiting for the starting gun of AA’s restructuring to begin their offensive attacks.

I'm an AA supporter, as in the airline. Not management, not the unions. It's part of my history, and when you insult AA, you insult me.

That’s the problem…. You view any criticism of AA as a personal insult. There is something such as being able to honestly evaluate yourself as well as those things close to you. It is not an insult to honestly recognize that there are things that need to change…. It’s actually a good practice for life as well.

Just a reminder that all board participants are welcome to post in any forum they choose.

Thank you.

Thank you.
The beauty of this board is that it is not afraid of allowing the marketplace of ideas to work freely… not surprisingly, some of the people who most want to shut off that flow of ideas are the ones who are afraid of what is happening in the marketplace for the airline industry.

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.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

What all of this shows is that other carriers have taken advantage of their own restructurings to grow their businesses… AA had that opportunity in 2003 when most of the rest of the industry was in the toilet…. But AA didn’t go after its peers and part of the reason why AA’s costs have grown is because it has held onto what it had but hasn’t grown.
In business, sitting still is not a viable option if you live in an environment where cutthroat competition exists.
Other carriers chose to restructure and then grow. AA’s future depends on figuring out how to do the same.
Problem is that it will be much, much more difficult for AA to restructure up against other carriers that pretty well have their financial houses in order. Restructuring is always a painful process and results in a certain amount of lost business and market share as well as employee and customer morale. AA isn’t in a position to lose any of that – and other carriers are ready to take whatever they can get – and they aren’t waiting for the starting gun of AA’s restructuring to begin their offensive attacks.

I think you're partly correct, that AA may not have fully taken advantage to restructure in 2003 (or by 2005) via chapter 11. The flip side is that AA could still file chapter 11 and possibly get its costs lower than DL (sadly there are people who will work for less than what AA employees are being paid today). AA could also restructure in chapter 11 to 'correct' its regional operations, void sections in employee contracts hindering code-shares (domestic) and outsourcing and chop/outsource maintanance (and possibly other services). More importantly, it can royally screw creditors and restructure its debt. Could this not make AA more productive than DL, more lower cost than DL, and as a result aggresively push DL out of many markets?

 

[WorldTraveler]

I think you're partly correct, that AA may not have fully taken advantage to restructure in 2003 (or by 2005) via chapter 11. The flip side is that AA could still file chapter 11 and possibly get its costs lower than DL (sadly there are people who will work for less than what AA employees are being paid today). AA could also restructure in chapter 11 to 'correct' its regional operations, void sections in employee contracts hindering code-shares (domestic) and outsourcing and chop/outsource maintanance (and possibly other services). More importantly, it can royally screw creditors and restructure its debt. Could this not make AA more productive than DL, more lower cost than DL, and as a result aggresively push DL out of many markets?

Ys, AA could restructure now but part of my point is that the network carriers all pretty much went through the same process at the same time so none of them were in a position to do anything to each other... except for AA who could have done damage if they had chosen to make inroads into other carriers "turfs".... now AA is the only network carrier -and pretty much the only major carrier in the US w/ signfiicant financial issues unless there is a major implosion of one region or the other such as Japan which would hurt DL more than others or if fuel prices hurt US more because they aren't hedged. Otherwise, AA is in a worse position compared to other airlines. Given that most of the industry is pulling down Japan capacity at least for a couple months, the effects of the Japan crisis will be managed....
.
AA could indeed use C11 to restructure debt... but since most is secured, they would basically be refinancing... something they can do now. The amount of secured debt is not dramatically reduced in BK. AMR has very little unsecured debt so not only do they have little debt they could really get rid of (unsecured debt is almost competely wiped out w/ a C11 filing), then there is not near the benefit in reducing debt that existed before. In contrast, DL had $4B in unsecured debt when it filed, the highest amount in the airline industry and that was a reflection of DL's high credit ratings just a few years before DL filed.
.
AA could restructure its regional contracts and clean that mess up - and it would likely have to involve rejecting hundreds of smaller RJs... but that also will result in a shrinking of the network. They could pick up newer 70 seat and larger RJs but how fast can that all happen?
.

AA likely would reject a lot of M80 leases or at least get them written down to very low levels.... remember that DL is paying lower M80 lease rates than AA even though DL's M80s are newer. Many of DL's M80s will come off lease in a few years so the market will be flooded w/ M80s.... AA can't replace them all but they can get the lease rates down very low. Of course, AA does own some of its M80s also. Same thing for older 757s.
.
Of course, dumping airplanes means the network will shrink - and AA can't afford to do that and maintain its market position... remember that is part of why analysts didn't like that AA is not cutting more capacity later this year.
.
AA could and will restructure all of its labor contracts in BK - but that is exactly the point that I think will be the most painful part of a C11 if it happens. Not sure how the pension plans will be handled - there was a lot of fear that if DL and NW both dumped their pension plans so soon after UA and US's, the PBGC could sink. That fear isn't as great now... but there might not also be the option to just freeze the plans like DL and NW did - I'm not sure legally what AA's options are.
Productivity improvements are a given but that would mean thousands of layoffs. Not a pretty sight.
.
Finally, other carriers are still looking to pick up AA's premium revenue - and there is a certain amount of it that is up for grabs in a BK... AA still carriers a high percentage of business traffic and has some uniquely valuable routes such as its LHR and Latin America routes, esp. from MIA. All of that will come under attack. AA will rebuild afterwards but in the 18 months or more that AA could be in BK, competitors could steal alot of its prime business and move into key markets.
.
The risk for AA in a restructuring is high - but the option of doing nothing is becoming more and more costly as AA's costs relative to its competitors look worse.
.
It is hard to say if AA can get its costs down to DL's levels.... it is not outside of the realm of possibility... the question is what AA has to build on once it has that kind of costs.
My honest assessment is that if AA restructures, it will be in a much better position to compete against UA whose costs are going up much faster than the rest of the industry.
As you well know, AA and UA have been archcompetitors much longer than any other two pairings in the industry. UA has an advantage right now but if AA successfully restructures, that could change.
UA will have a size advantage that AA will be hard pressed to overcome but if AA had similar costs as DL, then it would be UA on the defensive.
I personally see that unless DL really screws up, it will be DL and either AA or UA at the top of the industry. If UA's costs go up and AA restructures, then AA will have the advantage once again.
But the process of transition is not going to be easy - and UA still has alot of mass - including a large presence in Asia that AA will have to overcome.
Remember that AA's high costs make it vulnerable to low cost carrier incursion in domestic markets; even if AA and UA are on parity on costs, or if AA gets it costs down to DL's levels, it has to aggressively compete against LFCs... part of the reason I have brought up DL's ability to fend off LFCs is because DL has been able to do so because of its lower costs. AA MUST regain control of its markets - domestic and int'l. Historically, AA would never have allowed other carriers to gain footholds in its markets like what has happened over the last couple years.

 

[Bear96]

Problem is that you and others want to live in history[.]

I see. So pointing out a fact is necessarily "living in history," and anyone who does so should automatically be discounted.

OK.

 

[FlyUs]

there's no spin... the simple reality is that DL has managed to survive in environments that have forced other carriers to reduce service; the fact that BOS has become a big LFC city has affected other network carriers too. DL was able to grow BOS domestically - largely through the merger - but no LFC has entered the int'l arena... DL grew BOS int'l on its own.

B6 isn't and hasn't been larger than DL in NYC (NY side) as a whole for quite some time... and while CO is larger in NYC if you include all 3 airports, EWR is not the preferred airport for business travel from NY which is why CO relies much more on connections while DL gets a higher percentage of revenue from local traffic.

There is no spin.... at the minimum you can say that DL has largely overtaken AA at both JFK and LGA... and post DL-NWmerger, AA was still larger at LGA than DL. It has only been as DL has continue to grow LGA that DL overtook AA.
It is all about growth... DL defined what it needed to do, what markets mattered to it, and went after it.

Again, you can pick another airline if you want but the simple reality is that NYC like BOS and LAX are not owned by any single airline. DL decided that it needed to obtain larger shares in those markets - and has succeeded in BOS and NYC although they obviously aren't finished.

They are now turning their attention to LAX.

According to the DOT, Delta was the 4th largest carrier in BOS behind B6, AA and US from Jan, 2010- Dec, 2010. Mainline market share only. The verdict is still out on how well Delta will do on BOS-LHR and BOS-CDG. UAL tried LHR from BOS before and Delta discontinued service from LGW.

 

[Bear96]

The verdict is still out on how well Delta will do on BOS-LHR and BOS-CDG. UAL tried LHR from BOS before and Delta discontinued service from LGW.

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?)

 

[WorldTraveler]

I see. So pointing out a fact is necessarily "living in history," and anyone who does so should automatically be discounted.

OK.

the past is great to learn from... not to live in. Holding one accountable for what happened in the past when the present is substantially different is not being honest.

According to the DOT, Delta was the 4th largest carrier in BOS behind B6, AA and US from Jan, 2010- Dec, 2010. Mainline market share only. The verdict is still out on how well Delta will do on BOS-LHR and BOS-CDG. UAL tried LHR from BOS before and Delta discontinued service from LGW.

if you exclude regional carriers, sure. But regional carriers are a part of the network carrier operation... the network carrier buys the capacity (pays the bills), makes the marketing decision, and reaps the profits or losses.
If you like unnatural divisions, then CO and UA are still separate airlines and DL is still the largest airline in NYC based on local passengers boarded.

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?)

no.. you missed the point.
UA once had a decent sized operation at JFK to int'l destinations. They lost it... the only way they were able to recover it was merging w/ CO.
UA also once had the 2nd largest airline position in Latin America. They dropped to #4 but the merger with CO pushed them back to a solid #2 - but without the key S. Florida to Latin America market.
.
DL did have a PNW hub and lost it... but they merged with NW and regained the position and became the largest airline in the midwest and across the N. Pacific in terms of capacity.
.
AA once had a hub and transpac gateway/hub at SJC but lost it and hasn't replaced it.
.
When AA overcomes each of the hurdles it once faced/faces now, then the past on those issues doesn't matter.