DOT Approves AS/AA LAX-MEX Route Swap

[eolesen]

Has Mexico renounced the bilateral yet?...

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, but DL is filing objections.... you know, just to slow the process of transferring the route to AA down - kinda like what AA did with the HND route, except that DL never lost the right to operate it.

 

[commavia]

Still stuck on "largest" - long after it stopped mattering.  Despite the fact that AA is, indeed, the "largest" airline at LAX, it need not be the "largest" in each individual international region from LAX as long as it remains a competitive and credible option for premium travelers.  And once again, despite all the hysterics and typical denial, AA is certainly that, regardless of how many flights Delta sends to MZT or LIR.  AA offers LAX premium travelers a value proposition that, in several ways, neither of its chief rivals - Delta or United - can match, including not only frequent service to most of the largest U.S. O&D markets, but also nonstops to multiple business and premium leisure markets in Mexico and Canada, plus access to Europe, South America, Central America, Asia and, via, JV, Australia.
 
The fact that we have to be constantly reminded that Delta is the "largest" to Latin America and Asia - for now - simply serves to highlight that Delta is not the "largest" overall, which itself highlights just how strong AA's network at LAX truly is.
 
Reality.

 

[WorldTraveler]

them if size doesn't matter, then don't tell us how large AA is at LAX or how many gates AA will have which MIGHT allow it to grow.

As for the premium market proposition, in the most recent DOT data, DL and UA both had higher average fares from LAX than AA probably because both have large int'l networks.

Each of the big 3 is closer in size to each other than perhaps in any other major market and each clearly has strengths.

Despite your belief that AA is going to run away with the LAX market, it not only hasn't happened but every indication that AA will grow at LAX is accompanied by the REALITY that other carriers are doing the same and continue to do so regardless of your belief (really hope) that they won't have the facilities to do so.

Either AA is only the largest domestic airline from LAX and to Europe because of ONE additional flight OR size doesn't matter because AA is not the largest airline to Latin America and Asia.

make up your mind.

Either size matters and AA has the largest domestic network from LAX but lags DL to Asia and Latin America in total size OR size doesn't matter.

You can't crow about size only where you want size to matter.

 

[commavia]

"Just a big domestic airline at LAX."
 
Bwahahaha.  Yeah - the airline that will soon be operating nonstop from LAX to LHR, GRU, BZE, MEX, SJD, YYZ, YEG, YVR, NRT and PVG is purely domestic.
 
Classic.

 

[WorldTraveler]

What a lovely list of destinations.

The competition just happens to have an equally impressive list.

which makes them larger.

Either size matters or it doesn't.

and if size matters, then AA is the largest domestic airline at LAX. by one flight, AA also is largest among the 3 US airlines to Europe although most of the US carrier TATL presence is part of JVs - which DL and UA happen to have larger positions at LAX.

Across the Pacific and to Latin America, it's DL if size matters.

Big domestic airline IS REALITY.

and all of the big 3 will be in LAX-MEX come Jan.

 

[commavia]

Such delusion, such detachment from reality.  Once again, and for the final time, "largest" only matters if its "largest" by a lot.  In the case of Delta, it's not "largest" from LAX to Latin America or Asia by a lot, and not in ways that are strategically important.  If Delta had 30 daily flights from LAX to 20 cities in Latin America and AA had a CRJ to Cabo, that would be one thing.  But that's not the case.  AA may not be the "largest" airline from LAX to Latin America or Asia, but it has the important markets covered well, which is what matters - thus underscoring why, when coupled with AA's domestic leadership, AA is such a strong competitor (and the "largest" carrier) at LAX overall.

 

[WorldTraveler]

so now largest has increments in order for some people to have to avoid that DL is really the largest int'l airline.

just one question for you, comm.

since the difference in relative size between AA, DL, and UA is far smaller at LAX than in NYC, are you willing to concede that AA will never amount to anything at NYC?

if you are so convinced that DL and UA won't cut it and both are about than 20% smaller than AA at LAX in the local market including domestic, is AA's 33% plus disadvantage a hurdle that AA will never overcome?

and unlike AA at LAX, DL and UA are REALLY that much further ahead of AA in both the int'l and domestic market - not just living in some fantasy of ONE DAY they might amount to something in the int'l market.

 

[commavia]

Still throwing out meaningless red herrings to disprove arguments that nobody every made.  It's almost as if you're intentionally trying to undermine your own arguments.
 
Back here in reality, nobody ever said that Delta nor United "won't cut it" at LAX, and therefore there is no corollary to be made with AA in NYC - other than to serve to illustrate the point that, just like how Delta can remain competitive at LAX despite its smaller size and structural disadvantage(s), AA can similarly remain competitive at NYC despite its smaller size and structural disadvantage.  And the reason?  As already said - market share, and which carrier is "largest," in and of themselves, matter little.  What matters is providing a reasonably credible and competitive network that is relevant to premium passengers.  That goes for AA, which is smaller in NYC than Delta, just as it goes for Delta, which is smaller at LAX than AA.  And nobody every said any differently.
 
But nice try on attempting to distract from the logical shortcomings of these ridiculous anti-AA rantings.
 
Next.

 

[WorldTraveler]

except the structural disadvantage exists only in your head but not, wait, wait, in reality.

and by your own argument, then size really doesn't matter.

So AA gaining LAX-MEX a half dozen months before DL really doesn't change much.

DL is starting its 3rd flight to Asia from LAX, the most of any US carrier - and has also added more capacity to LAX over the past two years than any other airline - all the while you and MAH have tried to say that DL has no room to grow.

Someone in ATL clearly didn't get your memo.

as hard as it is for you to swallow, there is a smaller difference in size between each of the big 3 at LAX than there has perhaps ever been and it is a smaller difference than in other key markets.

All of the gates that AA supposedly has or will have has yet to rearrange the int'l market at LAX which is where the most money is.

and given that the domestic market is far more competitive and lower revenue, it would seem that DL and UA have undertaken the most revenue-maximizing strategies and have managed to secure their position in LAX' largest markets, taking share from AA in markets from Tokyo to New York.

 

[MAH4546]

Delta itself, in it's failure to stop the LAXMEX transfer, said it has no room to grow at LAX. Argue that fact with them.

 

[WorldTraveler]

kind of like AA's argument that they would add new competition to HND but they failed to tell the DOT that they intended to cancel their LAX-NRT flight if they got HND.

Airlines say what they need to say to the DOT. What happens in real life is considerable different.


DL will grow at LAX and they will be flying LAX-MEX, JV with AM or not.

and DL does have a list of options in order to gain more space at LAX. They just happen to be expensive and DL has to see if it is really necessary.

Given that DL is pulling down the same amount of share as pre-merger AA at higher average fares, DL's ability to maintain parity with AA in LAX is only as large as the size of US' pre-merger operations at LAX.

as much as you want to believe otherwise, there is a far stronger correlation between the ability to succeed in the marketplace route by route than there is by the number of gates one can hold onto.

DL's ability to grow at LAX including in longhaul markets such as LHR and PVG which are fairly high risk given the level of competition says that your arguments about how well AA does relative to other carriers doesn't hold true in real life.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

The fact that we have to be constantly reminded that Delta is the "largest" to Latin America and Asia - for now - simply serves to highlight that Delta is not the "largest" overall, which itself highlights just how strong AA's network at LAX truly is.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Whole Truth!

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Airlines say what they need to say to the DOT. What happens in real life is considerable different.

 
We'll have to save this little gem for the next time you bloviate about DL greatness.

 

[LDVAviation]

Delta itself, in it's failure to stop the LAXMEX transfer, said it has no room to grow at LAX. Argue that fact with them.

 
Indeed, Delta is maxed out at peak times, which is why you won't see Delta fly to ORD or DCA/IAD anytime soon.  They can add one or two flights at the margins, they just can't add a roster of flights to a single destination.
 
Approval of their joint venture with AM would have helped as they would have had more mass at T2 to attempt a split operation.  At the moment, Delta has no other options.