Delta exits LAX-LHR
- Thread starter MAH4546
- Start date
- Status
- Thread Starter
- #122
Great. In the extremely unlikely event the LaGuardia permitted is lifted, AA will evaluate its options and see where to go from there, including fitting 3-class in the 757s if it's oh-so-important. And you know, it can just use 767s, because here's some magic for you: retirement schedules aren't set in stone and are constantly being adjusted. Imagine that!WorldTraveler said:
MAH4546, evidently you are not aware that when WT declares that something will happen, it will happen (or not). Now, AA just needs to adjust to the fact that the 767s will disappear from the fleet whether or not they are still needed. Himself has decreed. And, the 757s will have to be reconfigured into 3-class to replace the totally inadequate A321Ts. Himself has decreed. Make it so even unto the 5th generation.
An early retired accountant from DL (and according to other DL employees, early retirement is not offered at DL unless they want to get rid of you) knows much much more than anyone else about anything and everything in the airline business than anyone else on this forum. You have two choices: agree with him or put him on ignore. He will have the last word even if he has to keep changing the last word because others have proved him to be wrong time and time again.
An early retired accountant from DL (and according to other DL employees, early retirement is not offered at DL unless they want to get rid of you) knows much much more than anyone else about anything and everything in the airline business than anyone else on this forum. You have two choices: agree with him or put him on ignore. He will have the last word even if he has to keep changing the last word because others have proved him to be wrong time and time again.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
you could have stopped there.MAH4546 said:
That part is true and validates that not only no JV partner took over the routes but that other routes were started from other hubs, which I said.
as for the LGA perimeter, it may or may not be lifted but the other possibility is that Parker might get his chance to refurb the 321Ts and reduce the number of premium seats. It would be impossible to operate a more premium strategy from JFK than LGA.
it is possibility that AA could rip a bunch of seats out of the 321 and add them to 757s but it is also possible that AA will come to the conclusion that there really is no benefit in having such a high CASM premium configured aircraft as long as the competition keeps adding seats and the pricing environment for premium seats continues to weaken. you do recall that B6 Mint did not exist at the time AA announce its 321T strategy?
and yes AA could also operate 767s but they have to actually decide to keep them and then spend the money to provide a competitie product.... but seeing as they havne't done that for int'l flights and won't, it is hard to believe they will suddenly see the light for an updated 767 cabin - all of them - just for LGA flights.
the reason why DL's strategy on the transcons works with int'l is because it involves the same aircraft - 757 and 767 - that can be moved where the market demands as well as the seasonality that goes with them.
and that is why DL is turning LAX-LHR over to VS and redeploying those aircraft on JFK-SFO flights.
So let's see CLT to BRU and LIS were only one summer and planned when still in StarMAH4546 said:
And DUB was upgraded to an A330
Not sure that CLT had a MAN flight
We also forgot to mention CLT to LHR went from one to twice a day - plus the same occurred in Philly
So I see now how the flying was gutted by AA mgmt in CLT (only one poster could come to that conclusion)
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
you know, it is really just the data.... basic math.
US at CLT cut a higher percentage of long-haul capacity than any other US airline TATL hub and CLT int'l (outside N. America) has 12% fewer seats and 20% fewer ASMs than a year ago. There is a reason why CLT is not proceeding wiht expansion of int'l gates.
AA at ORD does rank up there wiht reductions to HEL and LHR, though.
No one said that AA didn't or wouldn't redeploy capacity elsewhere - in fact that is exactly what some of us said WOULD happen.
AA/US would rationalize its network just like what everyother carrier that has been thru a merger has done.
And DL wiht LAX-LHR is simply moving LHR Int'l capacity to its domestic network for at least the winter; what happens by next summer isn't known at this point.
AA's int'l network is smaller this year than it was a year ago due heavily to pressures in Latin America and AA's inability to add capacity elsewhere. AA is trying to restructure its network as a result of the merger at the same time that turbulence is coming in major markets.
Merger consolidation is a given. It has happened at every other airline and it will happen at AA.
Airlines have long been able to redeploy capacity as market dynamics change. That is all DL is doing. AA has less aability to do that right now because of weakness in Latin America and competitive pressures that have made entering new markets much more difficult.
as much as some want to blow DL's LAX deployments into something beyond what it is or denying thatAA will redeploy and cut capacity, both are expected processes for those who understand the industry.
US at CLT cut a higher percentage of long-haul capacity than any other US airline TATL hub and CLT int'l (outside N. America) has 12% fewer seats and 20% fewer ASMs than a year ago. There is a reason why CLT is not proceeding wiht expansion of int'l gates.
AA at ORD does rank up there wiht reductions to HEL and LHR, though.
No one said that AA didn't or wouldn't redeploy capacity elsewhere - in fact that is exactly what some of us said WOULD happen.
AA/US would rationalize its network just like what everyother carrier that has been thru a merger has done.
And DL wiht LAX-LHR is simply moving LHR Int'l capacity to its domestic network for at least the winter; what happens by next summer isn't known at this point.
AA's int'l network is smaller this year than it was a year ago due heavily to pressures in Latin America and AA's inability to add capacity elsewhere. AA is trying to restructure its network as a result of the merger at the same time that turbulence is coming in major markets.
Merger consolidation is a given. It has happened at every other airline and it will happen at AA.
Airlines have long been able to redeploy capacity as market dynamics change. That is all DL is doing. AA has less aability to do that right now because of weakness in Latin America and competitive pressures that have made entering new markets much more difficult.
as much as some want to blow DL's LAX deployments into something beyond what it is or denying thatAA will redeploy and cut capacity, both are expected processes for those who understand the industry.
robbedagain
Veteran
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
AA will use the 767 at LGA and elsewhere IF they keep them.
since they have said they are retiring them and aren't investing in their interiors, they will have them to use if they delay their retirement - which they could do - and then still have an uncompetitive produce compared wiht both their JFK transcon produce and with other carriers' coach products.
AA built a transcon strategy that is specific to JFK and uses a plane/configuration which doesn't fit elsewhere on their system - whether that be BOS or LGA.
the reason why DL can move planes back and forth from int'l to domestic is becaues they are the same aircraft in the same configuration. btw, UA is doing essentially the same thing with their TATL vs. EWR transcon strategy so it is not a DL only thing.
since they have said they are retiring them and aren't investing in their interiors, they will have them to use if they delay their retirement - which they could do - and then still have an uncompetitive produce compared wiht both their JFK transcon produce and with other carriers' coach products.
AA built a transcon strategy that is specific to JFK and uses a plane/configuration which doesn't fit elsewhere on their system - whether that be BOS or LGA.
the reason why DL can move planes back and forth from int'l to domestic is becaues they are the same aircraft in the same configuration. btw, UA is doing essentially the same thing with their TATL vs. EWR transcon strategy so it is not a DL only thing.
LD3
Veteran
Not me retard, I never posted about AA being the largest.. My read/post ratio is 90/10 so you have me confused with someone else or you just proved how much of a liar you really are..WorldTraveler said:funny... you two are some of the same schleps that have been pushing AA's size in LAX.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
Then forgive me for confusing you wiht others.
I don't honestly care about who is who on here but rather I debate the points. If your post looked like something that someone else writes, then that doesn't make me a liar
and there are absolutely people on this forum, wherever they are you or not, that throw fits every time DL's growth and AA's shrinkage at JFK and NYC as a whole (including the combined AA/US network) is noted but want to repeatedly talk about how much AA has grown at LAX and will grow.
Either both are on the table or none are.
the only double standard is from those who think they can talk about size and growth in LAX - where the gap between the big 3 is far smaller and where there simply is NO WAY that any one of the big 3 can gain a size advantage as big as what exists in NYC - but don't want to admit how large it is in NYC
I don't honestly care about who is who on here but rather I debate the points. If your post looked like something that someone else writes, then that doesn't make me a liar
and there are absolutely people on this forum, wherever they are you or not, that throw fits every time DL's growth and AA's shrinkage at JFK and NYC as a whole (including the combined AA/US network) is noted but want to repeatedly talk about how much AA has grown at LAX and will grow.
Either both are on the table or none are.
the only double standard is from those who think they can talk about size and growth in LAX - where the gap between the big 3 is far smaller and where there simply is NO WAY that any one of the big 3 can gain a size advantage as big as what exists in NYC - but don't want to admit how large it is in NYC
WorldTraveler said:
IIRC, you've been spewing / regurgitating this same message of hAAte for quite some time.
As an example, when AA started ORD-DUS, you proclaimed as gospel, channeling all the capabilities your mental horsepower can provide in trying to convince us how we do not grasp that there is no way AA has the capability to start and maintain new routes.
That was ~2+ years ago?
AA is still operating ORD-DUS.
Please, continue to spin away!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
first, Jim's information is not only patently incorrect but it is part of the same strategy that far too many people, esp. AA aviation internet chat forum participates, have used for years: if you can't debate an argument on the merits of the subject itself, then attack the person, esp. with false information.
DL has offered early retirement packages over a half dozen times between 9/11 and the present and tens of thousands of employees have left VOLUNTARILY, allowing DL to reduce employee headcount and costs and for employees to leave earlier than they otherwise would in order to pursue other things in life. To argue that anyone at DL was forced out or that DL wanted them gone is simply false and nothing but an attempt to deflect from discussing real business issues.
second, AA is still in ORD-DUS but it, to few people's surprise, gets average fares that are lower than UA/LH on the same route. AA has never been able to maintain a strong presence in continental Europe although IB is doing more to help them accommplish that to Spain. US' continental Europe presence was heavily built around Star hubs or low fare traffic and that is precisely why AA has had to restructure its network.
third, the two basic principles that are are work in this discussion and that far too many people can't accept is that A. DL has been more successful at penetrating AA's major int'l markets compared to what AA has been able to do in AA's and B. AA's niche market strategy both in NYC and now in the JFK transcons is not sustainable long-term.
Few people would argue that carriers don't enjoy a revenue premium in their hubs - just as AA does at DFW and US does/did at CLT. It is that same type of dynamic that exists all over the US and world; hub carriers achieve a premium in most markets to/from their hubs while the largest carrier in a hub - UA at ORD compared to AA, UA at DEN compared to WN, DL at ATL compared to WN/FL, AA at DFW compared to WN at DL - obtain a larger premium.
whether some can accept it or not, AA neglected NYC for 10 years while B6 and DL grew. DL specfically surpassed AA at the largest airline at both LGA and JFK and now has the revenue premiums - not just in average fares but in total revenues by market - in many markets where it has competed not just wiht AA but other carriers. The few examples are to other carrier hubs that are larger than DL's NYC hubs - CLT, ORD, DFW. Even where DL has not obtained size parity, it has often achieved average fare parity.
NYC is now home to hubs by 3 carriers - B6, DL, and UA that have larger hub operations than AA at the airports where the two compete.
While the huge size of the NYC local market and the relatively slow pace at which market power shifts in a market of that size have slowed the changed in market share compared to other markets, you cannot believe that NYC is any less bound by the same economic principles that govern other hubs and which AA and its fans seem to want to enjoy there.
Thus, it is hard to accept that AA's NYC strategy is viable long-term, esp. given that DL has pushed into AA's top markes from NYC - LAX, SFO, MIA, and LHR - and has achieved parity or better in each of those markets.
people can disagree with me as to where AA in NYC is headed but the path of where they have come and what DL has achieved both in JFK-LAX/SFO and to LHR - where the redeployment of aircraft in this thread is the issue - but it is mighty hard to argue that NYC will be the sole exception to hub strength when AA/US built the merger in part around the strength that US had built at every one of US' eastern US hubs.
There is no basis for trashing someone or making patently false statements if you don't agree... express your disagreement, keep looking for data to support your position, and let time be the judge.
DL has offered early retirement packages over a half dozen times between 9/11 and the present and tens of thousands of employees have left VOLUNTARILY, allowing DL to reduce employee headcount and costs and for employees to leave earlier than they otherwise would in order to pursue other things in life. To argue that anyone at DL was forced out or that DL wanted them gone is simply false and nothing but an attempt to deflect from discussing real business issues.
second, AA is still in ORD-DUS but it, to few people's surprise, gets average fares that are lower than UA/LH on the same route. AA has never been able to maintain a strong presence in continental Europe although IB is doing more to help them accommplish that to Spain. US' continental Europe presence was heavily built around Star hubs or low fare traffic and that is precisely why AA has had to restructure its network.
third, the two basic principles that are are work in this discussion and that far too many people can't accept is that A. DL has been more successful at penetrating AA's major int'l markets compared to what AA has been able to do in AA's and B. AA's niche market strategy both in NYC and now in the JFK transcons is not sustainable long-term.
Few people would argue that carriers don't enjoy a revenue premium in their hubs - just as AA does at DFW and US does/did at CLT. It is that same type of dynamic that exists all over the US and world; hub carriers achieve a premium in most markets to/from their hubs while the largest carrier in a hub - UA at ORD compared to AA, UA at DEN compared to WN, DL at ATL compared to WN/FL, AA at DFW compared to WN at DL - obtain a larger premium.
whether some can accept it or not, AA neglected NYC for 10 years while B6 and DL grew. DL specfically surpassed AA at the largest airline at both LGA and JFK and now has the revenue premiums - not just in average fares but in total revenues by market - in many markets where it has competed not just wiht AA but other carriers. The few examples are to other carrier hubs that are larger than DL's NYC hubs - CLT, ORD, DFW. Even where DL has not obtained size parity, it has often achieved average fare parity.
NYC is now home to hubs by 3 carriers - B6, DL, and UA that have larger hub operations than AA at the airports where the two compete.
While the huge size of the NYC local market and the relatively slow pace at which market power shifts in a market of that size have slowed the changed in market share compared to other markets, you cannot believe that NYC is any less bound by the same economic principles that govern other hubs and which AA and its fans seem to want to enjoy there.
Thus, it is hard to accept that AA's NYC strategy is viable long-term, esp. given that DL has pushed into AA's top markes from NYC - LAX, SFO, MIA, and LHR - and has achieved parity or better in each of those markets.
people can disagree with me as to where AA in NYC is headed but the path of where they have come and what DL has achieved both in JFK-LAX/SFO and to LHR - where the redeployment of aircraft in this thread is the issue - but it is mighty hard to argue that NYC will be the sole exception to hub strength when AA/US built the merger in part around the strength that US had built at every one of US' eastern US hubs.
There is no basis for trashing someone or making patently false statements if you don't agree... express your disagreement, keep looking for data to support your position, and let time be the judge.
- Status
Similar threads
