Article on revenue gains

[MetalMover]

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12130971/1/us-airways-can-find-1b-in-revenue-gains-at-amr-analyst-says.html?puc=yahoo&cm_ven=YAHOO

 

[FWAAA]

As is typical with Bob McAdoo, he rarely lets facts get in the way of his uninformed rantings.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

what facts do you find lacking, FWAAA?

 

[USFlyer]

And, regardless, Parker and his team will waste no time optimizing the network and eliminating unprofitable flying.  He did this after HP and US merged and will do so again after US and AA merge.  He won't keep a route around because it has always been flown or for sentimental reasons.

 

[eolesen]

It's a typical Ted Reed puff piece, and McAdoo seems to be quoted by him quite often. Perhaps that's because most other analysts are too busy to pay attention to Ted Reed, and other reporters don't call McAdoo...

Comparing MSP-LSE (119 miles) to ORD-LSE (215 miles) sounds great, but ignores the scope clause that used to be in place and drove the equipment purchases including the 44 Barbie jets. The economics of operating into a close-in fortress like MSP will usually be different than into a more distant competitive hub.

Whining about LHR service being on a 777? They're choosing to offer up a comparable product to that of their JV partner, and that includes the F cabin, and from what I've seen, they're not going out empty in the premium cabins. I also suspect the operating costs of the more fuel efficient 777 wind up being less than what a 763 would be, not to mention the revenue generating potential of having twice the cargo lift...

Those are just the highlights. I tend to take anything Bob McAdoo says about AMR with a brick of salt. He's been out of work twice because of AA -- first when he was a SVP at PeoplExpress, and again with Vanguard. Sometimes he's right, but he's far from a neutral observer.

 

[MetalMover]

It's a typical Ted Reed puff piece, and McAdoo seems to be quoted by him quite often. Perhaps that's because most other analysts are too busy to pay attention to Ted Reed, and other reporters don't call McAdoo...

Comparing MSP-LSE (119 miles) to ORD-LSE (215 miles) sounds great, but ignores the scope clause that used to be in place and drove the equipment purchases including the 44 Barbie jets. The economics of operating into a close-in fortress like MSP will usually be different than into a more distant competitive hub.

Whining about LHR service being on a 777? They're choosing to offer up a comparable product to that of their JV partner, and that includes the F cabin, and from what I've seen, they're not going out empty in the premium cabins. I also suspect the operating costs of the more fuel efficient 777 wind up being less than what a 763 would be, not to mention the revenue generating potential of having twice the cargo lift...

Those are just the highlights. I tend to take anything Bob McAdoo says about AMR with a brick of salt. He's been out of work twice because of AA -- first when he was a SVP at PeoplExpress, and again with Vanguard. Sometimes he's right, but he's far from a neutral observer.

I tend to agree with you...You know what they say about opinions.

 

[WorldTraveler]

so AA has a hub in a competitive city instead of a fortress hub and is forced to use RJs because they couldn't negotiate a contract that allows them to use larger RJs but someone's got a bias to point out the revenue differences in market that really is comparable?

You do know that it is possible to put FC on a 333 which has about the same amount of floor space as a 772, don't you? The 333 weighs 50K pounds less so lifting 25 extra tons on every flight to LHR and GRU which don't need it adds a whole lot to AA's fuel bill. But of course AA wanted nothing to do with Airbus so the 333 wasn't an option- until the price was supposedly so low that it is now worth it for AA to start parking M80s and 757s and replace them with Airbus? And of course AA will fly the 333 now. so other carriers have managed to safely fly Airbus widebodies but since AA couldn't they have burned hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel in order to fly the 777.

The 767 can also carry a FC cabin too. UA has done it for years.

maybe McAdoo is right but in your rush to defend AA mgmt. and their job and salary killing ways, you can't see that there is real truth to what is said.

Wasn't it McAdoo who commented about how much money AA was losing to DEL only to have AA cut the route shortly thereafter?

And, regardless, Parker and his team will waste no time optimizing the network and eliminating unprofitable flying. He did this after HP and US merged and will do so again after US and AA merge. He won't keep a route around because it has always been flown or for sentimental reasons.

absolute truth.

Parker turned US and HP around because he went after the non-performing capacity. AA-US have now committed to hundreds of millions of dollars of labor cost increases at the very time that they will face the most competitive revenue environment that has ever existed in any merger.

Parker has no choice but to cut everything that doesn't make money and deliver on a strategy that is laser-focused on profitability above all else.

 

[MetalMover]

And of course AA will fly the 333 now. so other carriers have managed to safely fly Airbus widebodies but since AA couldn't they have burned hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel in order to fly the 777.


 

Now you are really speaking out of you rear end. SAFELY FLY AIRBUS WIDEBODIES?
What kind of statement is this? AA flew the A300 quite safely for the term they operated it.
Also, the A300 was older generation compared to the A330, A340, and A320 family. 
As for AA NOW flying the 333 as you call it......That is what US currently operates. So as a merged airline, expect a variety in the fleet.
 
How many different aircraft does your favorite airline operate? Would you want anyone saying they didn't fly the L1011 safely because of what happened in DFW? 
 
You never cease to amaze, WT.

 

[700UW]

So I guess Delta cant fly the MD-88 safely.
 
http://articles.latimes.com/1996-07-07/news/mn-22049_1_jet-engine
 

 

[WorldTraveler]

The L1011 accident at DFW was wind sheer.

If the NYC A300 accident had nothing to do with the aircraft then it makes it all the more damning as to why AA failed to purchase an aircraft that was more profitably matched to the routes that formed the core of its int'l network.

there are plenty of people on here who posted endlessly about AA's disgust for Airbus products because of the NYC A300 crash.

How long has AA operated its US-LHR routes, nearly all of which have been within the range of the 333 even with the performance it had 15 years ago?

AA has been operating an excessively heavy aircraft on its core network of 9-10 hour flights using 772s.

 

[Kev3188]

And of course AA will fly the 333 now. so other carriers have managed to safely fly Airbus widebodies but since AA couldn't they have burned hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel in order to fly the 777.

What an absolutely cruel (and inaccurate) thing to write.

 

[WorldTraveler]

cruel and inaccurate because it is the truth that the 333 and even the 764 are both far lighter and better suited for AA's medium haul international network yet AA never bought them.

 

[700UW]

 

[1AA]

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McAdoo

 

[Kev3188]

Lol.

Too bad they're not one & the same; that might make for some analytics.