77D/2-cabin 772 enters service today

WorldTraveler said:
AA's performance on the TATL system is all the more shocking considering the Air France strike.
 
 
I'm not too sure AA stood to greatly benefit from the AF strike. 
My reasoning is as follows:
i)  during the 2 week period, AF still managed to operate about 40%-50% of its flights
ii)  to cover for AF, in addition to DL, there were also KL and AZ as options to accommodate pax across Europe (and to a smaller extent even OK, UX, maybe even SU).
Naturally DL benefited from the AF strike.  I would think UA and AA would not reap as great of a reward compared to DL.
 
Also for September, wouldn't the fire/arson at the FAA facility in Aurora wreak more havoc on AA and UA operations out of ORD compared to the effect it had on DL?
 
Yes, the expectation was that DL and Skyteam airlines would reap the most but AF is a big airline and there were hundreds of flights that were cancelled. It isn't too much of a stretch to think that other airlines would have received more benefit.

It is possible that the ATC fire did affect AA but UA was also affected by the same situation and they didn't see the same results.

Remember that we saw the same thing with the August traffic report: AA's LF was down on every one of its int'l regions.

We can watch the trend but it surely appears that AA has more capacity than it can fill at current prices without watching load factor fall.

FWAAA noted, I believe correctly, that Parker is walking a thin line with promises to government officials but perhaps more significantly with labor.

An airline the size of AA can pull 5% of its int'l capacity and dramatically reduce costs and improve yields... but they have to decide they have to push for top tier financial performance.

Clearly, the environment is doing well enough that AA can afford to "limp along" with a significant amount of underperforming capacity but eventually they will have to deal with it.

and if they want to be compared with higher performing airline stocks, they will have to deal with it sooner rather than later.
 
During the middle of the AF strike my parents in laws were able to get on AA and get BC to FRA, also at about the same time my spouse and I got on another Trans Atlantic flight from MIA in MCE, so obviously AA was not helping AF out too much. AA doesn't need any charity from Skyteam or Star. Nice try tho!
 
I don't expect AA to find charity from anyone. But AF is a major airline and AA/BA/IB have a very competitive hub system to AF's CDG hub.

If there were passengers who couldn't be accommodated on AF, DL, KL, or AZ, then they should have been expected to be accommodated on oneworld carriers. At the least new bookings would have been expected to increase on AA.

that simply didn't happen.

but the bigger issue is not just Europe, although it is the most glaring example of the fact that demand is not materializing to support AA's aggressive int'l growth.


AA also put more capacity into Asia than could be absorbed - not surprisingly - but AA's LF in Latin America fell despite very little additional capacity.

IN fact, both DL and UA added significant amounts of new capacity.... which could be construed as meaning that neither DL or UA are going to allow AA to grow in Asia w/o those two also eroding AA's largest profit center.

DL is now at about 57% of AA's total size in Latin America; that is a huge increase over just a couple years ago and not exactly a huge hurdle to overcome when it comes to gaining key accounts. The only missing miss in what DL offers to Latin America vs. AA is MIA as a gateway.

AA simply has to consider whether it is worth subsidizing its Asian operations and continuing to push into DL and UA's core markets in Europe at the risk of losing significant market share in Latin America.
 
So, DL pushing into Latin America to compete with AA is a great strategic move for DL.  Yet, AA pushing into Asia to compete with DL is a huge mistake for AA.  I mean, really, can you be any more one-sided in your analyses?
 
USFlyer said:
So, DL pushing into Latin America to compete with AA is a great strategic move for DL.  Yet, AA pushing into Asia to compete with DL is a huge mistake for AA.  I mean, really, can you be any more one-sided in your analyses?
 
He's unaware of his own contradictions.  If it weren't so stupid, it would be sad...
 
So, DL pushing into Latin America to compete with AA is a great strategic move for DL.  Yet, AA pushing into Asia to compete with DL is a huge mistake for AA.  I mean, really, can you be any more one-sided in your analyses?
the difference is that DL isn't dropping several hundred million dollars per year to add flights to Latin America.

for the most recent month, DL carried 13% more RPMs in Latin America and almost 20% for the year to date, all the while keeping load factor flat. For the most recently reported quarterly, DL increased capacity by 23% and kept RASM within 1%. DL is not flooding Latin America with capacity it cannot fill or that will push its yields in the region down.

that is not true about what AA is doing in any of their 3 major global regions.
 
So US is very profitable to Europe /TLV - AA is very profitable to Latam and investing in Asia

Plus as reported BA/AA are very happy with JV

But as always the money DL is losing in SEA is a great investment vs anything AA invests in is a bad strategy

It's amazing the conflicting logic
 
except DL is NOT losing money flying the Pacific; they specifically noted that their SEA RASM increased despite the increased capacity in the most recently reported quarter.

DL quite simply is not spending hundreds of millions of dollars adding capacity to a region to build a system that they couldn't buy in a merger.

And, once again, AA's LF in EVERY one of its 3 global regions - the Atlantic, Pacific, and Latin America - had load factor declines for the most recent month, just as happened in other recent months.

AA is faced with having to bring up fares from the way US priced while also adding capacity in Asia and continental Europe in order to grow their network - and the market is simply not buying the capacity AA is putting out there.

whether you like it or not, DL is adding more capacity to its network than any one of the big 4 airlines and is still posting RASM growth above AA's.

AA can get into a shootout with DL but AA is already working from a weaker position.
 
WorldTraveler said:
the int'l Wifi is coming.

DL had a fleet that had non-revenue producing lead weights.

It is called the M11 and DL has never made the same mistake since.


In related news, AA just reported its traffic for Sept. and AA's TATL load factor fell by a stunning 8 points while its Pacific LF fell by nearly 5 points and even Latin America fell by 2 points. AA's TATL performance is all the more stunning given the AF strike.

US's network was built around lots of low fare capacity which is now married with AA's perceived need to grow in Asia.

AA is flying WAY too much int'l capacity and it will have to come out if AA wants to financially be in the same tier as its best in class peers, specifically DL.

AA's expected RASM growth is expected to come in at least half of DL's.

Reconfiguring 777s is the least of AA's worries.
er.... you lost me. What fleet does AA have that fits the bill here? 
 
I hope your not saying the 777 is a lead weight......
 
FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
 
I'm not too sure AA stood to greatly benefit from the AF strike. 
My reasoning is as follows:
i)  during the 2 week period, AF still managed to operate about 40%-50% of its flights
ii)  to cover for AF, in addition to DL, there were also KL and AZ as options to accommodate pax across Europe (and to a smaller extent even OK, UX, maybe even SU).
Naturally DL benefited from the AF strike.  I would think UA and AA would not reap as great of a reward compared to DL.
 
Also for September, wouldn't the fire/arson at the FAA facility in Aurora wreak more havoc on AA and UA operations out of ORD compared to the effect it had on DL?
 
exactly. WT is over blowing the strike thing. 
 
No, I am not saying the 777 is a lead weight

DL's M11s had a heavy entrance way ornament that impacted its performance. AA has put a walk up bar on its 773ERs... no other US airline has anything comparable. that stuff was removed years ago because it is heavy and takes away revenue producing seats. remember the pianos on the 747s?

And, no, it is not overblown that AA has more capacity in all of its global regions which it cannot fill without discounting.

DL might have benefitted from the AF strike by filling capacity it added; neither AA/US or UA added and filled as much additional capacity as DL added.

UA and WN were affected by the same ATC issues but they did not report the same traffic trends that AA did. Large chunks of DL's Midwest route system - not its hubs - were impacted as well. Further, ORD is fairly small compared to AA's total route system. If the same thing happened at DFW or CLT, the impact would be a lot greater and specifically AA. but htat isn't what happened.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #29
WT the J-cabin 77W walk up bar does NOT occupy space that would have contained seats. It's located at door 2 behind the J-cabin galley and part of the cross aisle on the entry area. Have you ever flown the AA 77W? I have about a dozen times and know some of the people at HDQ involved with its design. It's nothing like the pictures you see of the onboard lounges and bars EK, KE, or QF have on their 388s it's similar to a small wet bar you would have in your home or hotel suite (minus plumbing). The F-cabin bar is even smaller and located adjacent to the F-galley at door
1L and similarly uses dead space. You really need to get out and see for yourself before you make such critiques.

Josh
 
regardless of whether a seat would fit in the actual area, it is still something that takes up ANY amount of space and weight.

I'm not at all saying it is comparable to other carriers esp. from Asia - but those carriers also are viewing their A380s like the 747 was viewed when it was introduced - more floorspace than we know what to do with so fill it full of extra "stuff" that doesn't produce revenue.

At some point, the same reality will hit the A380 operators that came with the 747s which was that extra weight and space hinder - not help revenue generation.
 
Back
Top