Will AA pursue Alaskan?

[robbedagain]

If NRT is so well working. Then why take large chunks of flying out of there? They were to beat JAL remember

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, there is no conflict in saying that NRT still works for DL but the profitability is declining and DL can see that it makes more sense in the long term to carry much of the traffic that is connecting thru NRT today on nonstop from the US.

Again, if NRT isn't working, DL couldn't have been the only US carrier to have shown that its transpacific operation is profitable on a year round basis over the last year given that DL has the most Japan centric Asian network.


Long term, DL needs to restructure its Asian network but that doesn't mean it is losing money now.

with the changes at HND (which could change further), the leases on the 744s coming up for renewal in a couple years, and UA's problems among others, DL has an opportunity to build a new hub at SEA, got AS to commit to helping do it, and will have succeeded at building an operation as large as AA at JFK by the time AS can walk away from the deal without paying large financial penalties.

Succeeding strategically means running your business (and your life) based on problems and opportunities that may arise and staying in front of them instead of having to react to them.

the US airline industry, esp. after 9/11, was totally reactionary.

Success today has to be strategic. FWIW, WN is thinking strategically in its moves into Latin América and the Caribbean. Their domestic only strategy isn't broken but they can see the writing on the wall.

If there is anything that AA and AS can do for each other at that point, then they should deepen their relationship but there is a whole lot more they could do now but aren't.

 

[700UW]

Is this the Delta forum about NRT and its Asian operation?
 
I could have sworn its about AA and AS.

 

[jcw]

no, there is no conflict in saying that NRT still works for DL but the profitability is declining and DL can see that it makes more sense in the long term to carry much of the traffic that is connecting thru NRT today on nonstop from the US.

Again, if NRT isn't working, DL couldn't have been the only US carrier to have shown that its transpacific operation is profitable on a year round basis over the last year given that DL has the most Japan centric Asian network.


Long term, DL needs to restructure its Asian network but that doesn't mean it is losing money now.

with the changes at HND (which could change further), the leases on the 744s coming up for renewal in a couple years, and UA's problems among others, DL has an opportunity to build a new hub at SEA, got AS to commit to helping do it, and will have succeeded at building an operation as large as AA at JFK by the time AS can walk away from the deal without paying large financial penalties.

Succeeding strategically means running your business (and your life) based on problems and opportunities that may arise and staying in front of them instead of having to react to them.

the US airline industry, esp. after 9/11, was totally reactionary.

Success today has to be strategic. FWIW, WN is thinking strategically in its moves into Latin América and the Caribbean. Their domestic only strategy isn't broken but they can see the writing on the wall.

If there is anything that AA and AS can do for each other at that point, then they should deepen their relationship but there is a whole lot more they could do now but aren't.

 
There is nothing AS can do for AA for Asia except provide feed into LAX from loyal AS customers AS can provide better coverage in the Northwest - AS could also provide feed to BA and other carriers flying out of the west coast - for example Palm Springs to San Fran onto SQ, CX, JL, etc
 
Thanks for making my point - NRT has declining appeal from a profitability perspective hence the airline Meca (Atlanta - sarcasim alert - they have a good management team at DL) came up with a strategy to build a west coast hub - once again great idea
 
AA on the other hand in the Dallas Dump (sarcasim alert - they have a good management team at AA as well) came up with a strategy of focusing on their hubs - which they consider LAX one of them knowing they have long term strategic advantage from a gate perspective and a large number of Asian partners out of LAX (CX, QF, JL, etc) - so AA's strategy is to focus on building Asia from it's hubs vs DL's which is start a new hub - rememer corner stone strategy
 
Both are great ideas - DL could have decided to increase LAX and decided against it - which once again is good for them - they have their reasons for focusing some place else just like AA has their reasons for focusing on LAX
 
I agree with the last poster - we should focus on AS not Asia on this thread
 
So I will repeat AS can provide good connectivity to AA and all other OneWorld members on the west coast - both skyteam and oneworld are weaker than Star in Asia

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

And no one has still yet to tell me what AA could do if it had a deeper relationship with AS or why AS would decide that joining oneworld makes sense when they have repeatedly said they want to "play the field" and haven't ever said anyything that indicates they have changed their mind

 
AA doesn't have to bring anything for AS.  If, and that's a big if, AA were to buy or merge with AS, one of the main advantages would be to eliminate an airline so there would be no more of 'playing the field'.  No more feed whatsoever on the west coast for DL or anybody that is not a part of AA/1-world.  How viable would that great SEA hub be for DL then? 
 
 

Is this the Delta forum about NRT and its Asian operation?
 
I could have sworn its about AA and AS.

 
You'd think so, but this forum has been changed into a 'lets post diatribes about how great*** DL is' forum.
***  disclaimer:  claims of greatness are usually exagerated and supported by made up definitions and/or fictional data.

 

[WorldTraveler]

the question as to what AA and AS can do for eacn other are indeed valid.

If they can't be positively answered, then there is little certainly as to how a deal could have value.

There is nothing AS can do for AA for Asia except provide feed into LAX from loyal AS customers AS can provide better coverage in the Northwest - AS could also provide feed to BA and other carriers flying out of the west coast - for example Palm Springs to San Fran onto SQ, CX, JL, etc

except that AS' traffic from LAX is predominantly to the north, PDX, SEA, and YVR as well as to Mexican beach resorts. AA's own routes from LAX are better suited to feed whatever Pacific operation it builds than what AS has. It is more likely that AA can put passnegers on AS flights at LAX but much less so the other way around.

Thanks for making my point - NRT has declining appeal from a profitability perspective hence the airline Meca (Atlanta - sarcasim alert - they have a good management team at DL) came up with a strategy to build a west coast hub - once again great idea
 
AA on the other hand in the Dallas Dump (sarcasim alert - they have a good management team at AA as well) came up with a strategy of focusing on their hubs - which they consider LAX one of them knowing they have long term strategic advantage from a gate perspective and a large number of Asian partners out of LAX (CX, QF, JL, etc) - so AA's strategy is to focus on building Asia from it's hubs vs DL's which is start a new hub - rememer corner stone strategy
 
Both are great ideas - DL could have decided to increase LAX and decided against it - which once again is good for them - they have their reasons for focusing some place else just like AA has their reasons for focusing on LAX
 
I agree with the last poster - we should focus on AS not Asia on this thread
 
So I will repeat AS can provide good connectivity to AA and all other OneWorld members on the west coast - both skyteam and oneworld are weaker than Star in Asia

 
no, profits via NRT likely will decline but so far they are still strong. DL sees the necessity to proactively restructure its Pacific operation to be less Japan focused - the same thing AA is trying to do. The difference is that DL already has a large base of traffic that it can redirect over direct hubs while AA is building from scratch.

remember also that the industry had a period of significant hub building and AA participated in it with several hubs which don't exist at all now.

So to say that AA will focus on its own hubs belies the fact that AA did build several hubs at one time and is now resorting to LAX as its only option on the west coast.

And again, it is still far from clear that AA will succeed at any kind of size of Asian operation either at DFW or LAX, both of which have enough competition to undermine AA's efforts as well as geographical disadvantages.

and the clear connection between AS and AA is on developing what AA needs that AA can help provide - and AA's biggest need is Asia and AS can do very little to help in that regard, unless AA decided to build out PDX. SEA is not big enough for both AA and DL to set up dual hubs while AS does very little for AA at LAX.

 

AA doesn't have to bring anything for AS.  If, and that's a big if, AA were to buy or merge with AS, one of the main advantages would be to eliminate an airline so there would be no more of 'playing the field'.  No more feed whatsoever on the west coast for DL or anybody that is not a part of AA/1-world.  How viable would that great SEA hub be for DL then?

and it is indeed possible that AA would buy a carrier to eliminate competition if the DOJ would allow them - but it is far from a certainty that it would be allowed.

further, eliminating a competing carrier only works if you have another place to deploy the assets.

AS is a lower cost carrier but they also waste alot of their cost advantage by routing passengers from thoughout the US via SEA to other parts of the US because that is the only large hub that AS has.

That would not be the case in a combined AA-AS but you have to figure out what to do with the excess capacity you are eliminating.... and it is also possible that any combinations involving AS - which could also include WN - might involve reducing the amount of gates AS uses at SEA, a city that is not a logical connecting point for lower 48 domestic to domestic connections - but which also opens the door to you know who to grow using SEA as a hub where it does make more sense - as a gateway to Asia.

I still bet we will reopen this thread in five years to find that AS is still an independent airline and AA will have done what it can from LAX to Asia but will be a lot less than either what UA will have at SFO or DL will have at SEA - and less than alot of people here think that AA can do on the west coast overall.

the besst part is that threads of this forum are visible for the long haul and can be replied to years later if someone is so inclined.

 

[robbedagain]

AA can be a big influence for AS folks even those connecting onto ONEWORLD partners  for ex they cld fly SEA-LAX-then onwards to say LHR and elsewhere  

 

[WorldTraveler]

If AA added SEA-LAX, they would be competing directly with AS by adding capacity in other of their key markets

Further BA flies from LAX to LHR so there is nothing added by carrying passengers over SEA.

If any carrier wants a relationship with AS, they could have it now if they don't.

 

[jcw]

the better example is Palm Springs to SEA, LAX or SFO for AS to connect to AA or OW partners
 
Just like DL using AS to get people to their aircraft
 
While AS has a hub in SEA they have many more point to points out of CA airports than others realize making good opportunties for anyone that wants to welcome AS into their aliance

 

[FWAAA]

IMO, Alaska codeshares aren't all that important for AA's planned build-up of LAX as an Asian gateway.   Alaska is more important for those AA passengers who want to earn miles and some elite benefits when flying to/from SEA from the various smaller towns/cities that AS connects via SEA.   For an LAX gateway to Asia?   Not so much.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

Correct me if I am wrong but AS flies to most if not all cities in the western US from SEA that AA flies from LAX.

as to the point to point routes in CA, you are right but it doesn't solve the problem that a number of other carriers besides AA contribute a large amount of revenue to AS that will be lost by focusing their relationship on one carrier or alliance; that is precisely why AS has resisted going with ANY one carrier.

Someone can resurrect the chart showing the percentage of AS revenue that comes from each carrier but it highlights the reason why AS cannot be "monogomous" at this time.

 

[jcw]

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57351-ua-us-aa-dl-in-california/
 
You can see the size of AS in CA in this post

 

[USFlyer]

What I find interesting is AS is effectively in the same boat as US was previously.  Too small to be a large, global carrier yet the business model (hubs, multiple classes of service, etc.) don't fit the typical "low cost carrier" model.  Regardless, AS seems to have carved out a nice niche for itself.  How much longer this model will work remains to be seen, given everything else at play in the industry.

 

[bob@las-AA]

The pen hasn't even meet the paper yet on this merger and all you armchair "Jim Cramer" wannabes are trying to create some sorta buzz about AS. Give it a rest for F#@k sake!!!!

 

[WorldTraveler]

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/57351-ua-us-aa-dl-in-california/
 
You can see the size of AS in CA in this post

 and you will also note that if the AA-US merger hadn't taken place, DL would have surpassed AA.

 

The pen hasn't even meet the paper yet on this merger and all you armchair "Jim Cramer" wannabes are trying to create some sorta buzz about AS. Give it a rest for F#@k sake!!!!

thank you. esp since these dreams of an AA-AS merger are all driven by internet chat forum desires for AA to not end up as 3 out of 3 among network carriers on the west coast, regardless of what happens in LAX.