DL's profit does not disappoint.

[WorldTraveler]

I've given you the comparisons, dawg. You simply haven't wanted to hear it.

even robbed acknowledges that AA has more aircraft - but yet they don't produce more revenue with those aircraft.

you and he can both tell me how having 200 additional aircraft benefits AA - along with the employees to operate them - if a competitor can produce more revenue with fewer aircraft.

surely even you can grasp the concept that more employees and more airplanes but less revenue is not a point of pride nor does it put AA in a great position when another carrier can squeeze a lot more revenue out of a lot fewer assets.

 

[Kev3188]

I'd like to see a comprehensive AA vs. DL  company-wide maintenance comparison as well.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you could go deep into the weeds of what is contracted and not but I can assure you that you wouldn't come up with an accurate total picture.

All US airlines do report their employment statistics to the DOT and maintenance is a definite category - some of them like rampers and passenger service agents are not.

based on 2013 - which closed less than a month after the AA/US merger, AA had about 11,100 maintenance personnel while US had ~3400 compared to DL's ~8000.

DL outsourced 42% of its maintenance expenses compared to 30% for AA and 54% for US.

On a combined basis, AA/US' average of maintenance outsourcing is within a few percent of DL's yet AA/US have just under 15K employees to DL's 8000.

further, the difference in amount of personnel just in maintenance is about 6500 for maintenance and yet AA/US has 15K more employees than DL and yet DL produced slightly more revenue in the most recent quarter.

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2013%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Productivity/Individual%20Employee%20Data/American%20Airlines%20Employee%20Data%20and%20Analysis.htm

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2013%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Productivity/Individual%20Employee%20Data/US%20Airways%20Employee%20Data%20and%20Analysis.htm

http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2013%2012%20Month%20Documents/Employees%20and%20Productivity/Individual%20Employee%20Data/Delta%20Airlines%20Employee%20Data%20and%20Analysis.htm

AA/US is overstaffed relative to DL.

part of that is because DL has a finished merger which has enabled DL to grow using existing resources while AA/US have just begun the merger process, are still operating two airlines at just about every level, and are not enjoying many revenue or cost related benefits from the merger.

the vast majority of AA's benefits from the merger have come from a much more favorable pricing environment and capacity restraint.

AA will gain real cost and revenue benefits from the merger in time... but for now they are overstaffed and do not have the benefits that DL has with the only full completed megamerger in the US airline industry.

 

[robbedagain]

over the next 2 yrs  I believe youll see older planes retire  new planes on line  and we will still have more planes than DL and thus growth  wether it'd be domestic and or intl    and given that LUS has ML at all of its hubs plus a few out cities  and AA with its folks in its hubs and may be few outlining  I don't think youre gonna see drastic cuts as WT likes to portray   

 

[WorldTraveler]

I haven't said there will be drastic cuts at AA/US... there will be rationalization of hubs.

As much as some people like to throw mud at DL for MEM and CVG, every one of the megamergers including WN/FL produced more hubs/focus cities than are necessary.

UA has really just started the process and AA only started with just the CLT/PHL international repositions.

ATL and DTW for DL particularly are stronger hubs because of downsizing MEM an CVG and I believe AA and UA will do the same exercise.

and AA will still have to justify - if only via costs - how it can have significantly more aircraft than its competitors - and the employees it takes to operate them - but generate comparable amounts of revenue.

granted, some of Latin America's problems influenced AA's financial results but it is very possible that it will be a long time before AA will be able to grow its revenues as quickly as DL, WN, and UA are doing.

btw, I appreciate your participation on this subject, robbed. -)

 

[jcw]

Oh wait are you now saying on the DL forum that if AA rationalizes some flying that is playing from strength and is a good strategy if so don't post every change in AA schedules claiming AA is weak

 

[WorldTraveler]

holy cow... you are either incredibly dense or have such a distorted view of the world that you can't understand what is said for your own biases.

nowhere did I ever say that rationalizing capacity indicates weakness.

quite the opposite....

AA is reducing capacity in markets such as to Brazil and elsewhere in Latin America in response to exactly the signs which I have noted- growing competition, lower fares, and weaker economies.

nowhere did I or will I say that it is weak to reduce capacity in the face of situations like this... regardless of the airline or location.

 

[robbedagain]

CLT will grow  and PHL too just like MIA  DFW JFK  and LAX

 

[FWAAA]

CLT will grow  and PHL too just like MIA  DFW JFK  and LAX

To which destinations will CLT grow? Europe? We've already seen some cuts to Europe. S America? No, that foolish experiment is coming to an end. Asia? The odds of CLT-Asia are very slim. Remote, in fact. Domestic? Perhaps, but US' own management said last June that CLT produced the lowest unit revenue of any East Coast hub. That's not good news for anyone whose future depends on new AA expanding in CLT. CLT ain't going away, but CLT's huge growth trajectory is over. Look for slow reductions in CLT operations, especially as the props and 50-seaters are retired.

 

[700UW]

AA has already added new domestic destinations to the midwest and a second LHR flight.

 

[FWAAA]

AA has already added new domestic destinations to the midwest and a second LHR flight.

Yes, that second daily LHR flight that replaced the second daily seasonal CLT-FRA flight - you know, the one you repeatedly said would fly next summer because it was in the schedule?

And yes, US added two daily CRJ-900s to TUL and OKC, along with three daily CRJ200s to Evensville. And one daily CRJ to Fort Wayne which is being subsidized by local government.

That's a lot of domestic growth for CLT.

 

[WorldTraveler]

according to published schedules, AA/US is not shrinking or growing at CLT above or below its capacity guidance fr the rest of its system.

 

[700UW]

And GRR

 

[topDawg]

I've given you the comparisons, dawg. You simply haven't wanted to hear it.

You have done no such thing. I want a dept. by dept. data sheet that compares who outsources what and at what cost in comparison to the other. If you KNOW they are overstaffed then you must have the data available.

 
All you has said is they have more employees then Delta. That means as much to me as saying Delta has more employees than Comair.........  
 
In other words all you has said is AA is worse than Delta because Delta is Delta. For those of us in the real world it mean jack poop. 
 

even robbed acknowledges that AA has more aircraft - but yet they don't produce more revenue with those aircraft.

Okay....first Rob said they have more airplanes. you added the last part. 
second. AGAIN AA and US are in year 1 of the post BK(AA) and merger world. Delta is done. You have to give time for AA to be able to get the same synergies DL now has.   
 
Example, It highly likely that if AA maintenance started doing the CFM56-5 work in-house they will be able to save money like Delta did when they started doing NWs CFM56-5s in-house. Also getting all the employees groups under one contract (vs 2 or 3) and ones seniority list (again v 2 or 3) is going to help AA lower its cost base and produce higher revenues. (and shouldn't cost them any employees) So right now all your doing is comparing apples to butt holes and trying to get people like me, who has 3 degrees in this stuff to buy in. Sorry doesn't work. 
 

you and he can both tell me how having 200 additional aircraft benefits AA - along with the employees to operate them - if a competitor can produce more revenue with fewer aircraft.

because they aren't really merged yet. Given time I fully expect AA to do just like DL and lower its post merger fleet count. The other issue is AA doesn't have a hub like CLE or MEM that I expect them to dump like DL/UA have. Thus its likely they are still going to have a higher fleet count. However they will still be able to balance the network, which should allow for some of the AA Airbus and Boeings on order to park the older airplanes at US. (like DL they have some of the oldest 320s flying) 
 
But again, we are talking about questions that can't even be answered now. Talk to us in 4-5 years if AA is still facing these "issues". Expecting them to be Delta right after their merger when Delta has years to get everything do is a little bit much.  

surely even you can grasp the concept that more employees and more airplanes but less revenue is not a point of pride nor does it put AA in a great position when another carrier can squeeze a lot more revenue out of a lot fewer assets.

Again, Comparing Delta to AA right now is apples to butt holes. AA gets its few years to merge just like DL did. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

You have done no such thing. I want a dept. by dept. data sheet that compares who outsources what and at what cost in comparison to the other. If you KNOW they are overstaffed then you must have the data available.

 
All you has said is they have more employees then Delta. That means as much to me as saying Delta has more employees than Comair.........  
 
In other words all you has said is AA is worse than Delta because Delta is Delta. For those of us in the real world it mean jack poop. 
 
Okay....first Rob said they have more airplanes. you added the last part. 
second. AGAIN AA and US are in year 1 of the post BK(AA) and merger world. Delta is done. You have to give time for AA to be able to get the same synergies DL now has.   
 
Example, It highly likely that if AA maintenance started doing the CFM56-5 work in-house they will be able to save money like Delta did when they started doing NWs CFM56-5s in-house. Also getting all the employees groups under one contract (vs 2 or 3) and ones seniority list (again v 2 or 3) is going to help AA lower its cost base and produce higher revenues. (and shouldn't cost them any employees) So right now all your doing is comparing apples to butt holes and trying to get people like me, who has 3 degrees in this stuff to buy in. Sorry doesn't work. 
 
because they aren't really merged yet. Given time I fully expect AA to do just like DL and lower its post merger fleet count. The other issue is AA doesn't have a hub like CLE or MEM that I expect them to dump like DL/UA have. Thus its likely they are still going to have a higher fleet count. However they will still be able to balance the network, which should allow for some of the AA Airbus and Boeings on order to park the older airplanes at US. (like DL they have some of the oldest 320s flying) 
 
But again, we are talking about questions that can't even be answered now. Talk to us in 4-5 years if AA is still facing these "issues". Expecting them to be Delta right after their merger when Delta has years to get everything do is a little bit much.  
Again, Comparing Delta to AA right now is apples to butt holes. AA gets its few years to merge just like DL did.

I have consistently given you data but you don't want to accept it.

No company gets a 5 year pass on generating revenues on par with its peers because they are going thru a merger.

but you have finally said what I expected all along - that AA would reduce its fleet count - and whether you admit it or not - their headcount as they gain efficiencies from the merger.

I fully recognize and have acknowledged that AA will get to where DL is.

and whether you think AA has no hubs that they could downsize or rationalize, there is plenty of evidence otherwise.

and whether they do or not, AA is simply not generating the revenue growth on par with its peers. Wall Street doesn't care what AA has to cut in order to generate comparable revenues but they do have to get there if they want to be viewed as a viable best in class airline.

you also fail to accept that DL and UA and WN will all be making their own strategic and network changes that will make the bar higher and higher for AA. DL has been carrying the weight of an increasingly less profitable NRT hub for two years now - but DL has managed to be profitable on the Pacific and to grow its system revenue above the legacy carrier average in the process.

by the time AA has a combined res system and can start implementing their strategic plans related to merger efficiencies, DL will have removed 2/3 of the 744 fleet and removed 25% or more of its capacity from Japan, rerouting that capacity to nonstop Japan overflight routes.

DL's performance in NYC and ATL continues to increase. DL's west coast strategies continue to develop.

UA is fixing many of its problems which have left it at the bottom of the industry including rapidly replacing 50 seat jets with large RJs at a rate that is far faster than AA.

WN continues to reshuffle its network to maximize profits and at the same redeploy assets into key AA competitive markets.

so, yes, AA has time to implement its strategic plans but they are still overstaffed compared to their peers and they will have to face an industry which is itself moving forward while much of the competitive efforts are being focused far more at AA markets than those of any other carrier.