AA adds second daily LAX-LHR

[WorldTraveler]

of course we can use real numbers
in the 2nd quarter, DL carried 28% of the local passengers in the JFK-LAX market and had $262K of passenger revenue on average.
AA carried 21% of the market, and because of higher average fares, had 2% more revenue than DL in the local market on average.
VX had 18% of the local market followed by UA at 16% and then B6 at 14%.
IN the JFK-SFO market, DL has 25% of the revenue and $190K in average daily revenue and is no. 2 behind UA which has 30% share of the passengers and $290K in daily revenue. VX has 20% passenger share, B6 has 13%, and AA has 11%. Total revenue is in the same order except that AA and B6 are inverted due to AA’s higher average fares relative to B6.
IN LGA-ORD, the average fare in the market is $188. AA has 43% share but an average fare slightly below average. UA Is next with a 27% share but a $206 average fare. DL has a 20% share but $211 average fare.

No, dawg, Jesus isn’t scared of anything.

There are a lot of people here who either are scared of the truth or who don’t want to hear it.

Since DL’s buildup of NYC, DL has been handedly increasing both its share in NYC as well as the average fare in one market after another. It is no secret that average fare in the airline industry is related to market share.
AA sat on its hands for years and has lost the number one carrier size in NYC. Now AA is number 4 in the NYC domestic market behind DL, UA, and B6 and #3 of 3 behind UA and DL in the NYC market.
AA’s strategy might well be to try to play the role of niche carrier in NYC now but there is no evidence that such a strategy is viable over the long term against other carriers’ stronger hubs.
In markets such as LGA, AA is taking the strategy of continuing to keep capacity in the market at the cost of higher average fares but ending up with higher total revenue. DL is doing the same thing in the JFK transcon markets and did it quite successfully in a number of LHR markets. The difference is that DL has now closed the average fare gap so that it is not only on par with AA in the local market in terms of passenger share but because of the higher average fares has managed to close the revenue gap as well.

Further, on the JFK transcons, DL is using its larger and growing hub at JFK to keep from diluting its average fare on the JFK-LAX SEGMENT while AA’s shrinking JFK operation means it cannot fill its flights with connecting passengers without reducing the average fares they take
But AA still plays in a number of JFK markets including SFO even though it gets average fares that are below every other carrier except B6.

AA clearly realizes it has to fight to maintain its presence at LAX but so far maintains that share in some markets such as TYO by operating below average fares. It is entirely possible that AA will be able to maintain its share and average fare advantage in the LAX-LHR market but will see average fares go down. DL will likely see its average fares go up based on what has happened in other markets but may still be below AA in totals. The question is whether DL can close the gap enough to be profitable – the very same question that has been posed of AA in the LAX-Tokyo market. For years, AA has been unable to close that gap. It is very possible that AA and DL will have similar int’l route systems from LAX with DL having the advantage over the Pacific and AA having the advantage over the Atlantic.

 

[jcw]

So let's see DL can build up NYC but AA can't build up LAX - double standard is unbelievable as always
 
AA is doing just like DL - DL floods with market with capacity

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA can indeed build up LAX.

the only point I made about AA and the 2nd flight on LAX-LHR is that their execs JUST complained about additional competitor capacity pushing down yields.


If AA wants to add capacity into any market, they are obviously free to do so.

but they shouldn't hypocritically complain about someone else adding capacity and then turn around and do the same thing.

and then you can add in that AA has operated at a significant revenue disadvantage to DL and UA in ORD and LAX and that story hasn't changed in years and then it is absolutely valid to note that AA is carrying around underperforming routes that other carriers are not.

if AA can add capacity and make money doing it, then they are free to do the same thing as any other carrier.

and as fun as it is to have these AA-DL catfights, the evidence is fairly strong that AA and DL are both gaining at UA's expense.

 

[jcw]

Sorry buddy you accused AA of flooding the market with capacity - I don't see anyone complaining about others adding capacity it's only you complaining about that - just because mgmt says the industry needs to manage capacity it's not a complaint - it's clear the industry does - I knows it hard for some to remember the industry has a history of not managing capacity - DL is enjoying great profits (although down) from good industry discipline around capacity mgmt.
 
The only complaints on DL in the LAX - LHR market was choice of aircraft - which is a fair point - the product is not as good as the DL 777 product - I know you can't handle this little fact - each airlines products are not 100% the same on each aircraft type - and everyone knows every route DL adds is not a cash cow - so when you always point out that AA is making a mistake by starting a route but you can never bring yourself to say the exact same thing about DL - that's how you get kicked off other boards and have zero creditability
 
It's your approach married with your unbelievable use of random unrelated facts that undermine the majority of posts
 
I think the oil refinery is a good idea - and have said it multiple times - you can't complement AA on anything - it's trash, trash, trash - you actually take it to a new level by going on the other airline boards and trash them to point out how DL is doing better than other airlines
 
And then you accuse people of not being able to handle the truth when someone disagrees with you - it's you who struggles with push back - just look how long your posts are to "smack" down anyone that disagrees with you
 
Hail to DL, Hail to DL,  Hail to DL

 

[commavia]

Blah blah blah.
 
This is simply AA/BA adding the fourth daily back after removing it (it used to be BA-operated) when the A380s were brought in summer 2013. 
 
If there's too much capacity in the market (and nine daily flights in this market isn't too much capacity), AA/BA, which dominates it, isn't going to be the one pulling it down. 
 
Love how when AA/BA adds a ninth daily flight in a 1100 PDEW market, it's "flooding capacity," but when VS/DL adds an eighth frequency in a 750 PDEW market (MIALON, which on Saturdays next winter will see two AA 77Ws, an AA 772, a BA 380, a BA 744, a BA 772, a VS 744 and a VS 333) it's perfectly cool.
 
But sure, let's make pretend it is all because AA is scared by Delta.

 
Precisely.  Not that objectivity or rationality - or, for that matter, reality - were ever to be expected.  But yes, the double standard continues to be hysterical - heads Delta wins, tails AA loses.  Remind me - which U.S. carrier has recently been met with skepticism and cut-short earnings call questions regarding adding too much capacity and threatening the industry's profitability?  Was it AA or Delta?  I can't remember.

 

[commavia]

In other news, it has now been confirmed that AA will - in addition to the second daily LAX-LHR flight - also be adding MIA-FRA (daily 763) and JFK-BHX/EDI (daily 757) next May.
 
Glad to see the JFK adds in particular - despite the skepticism of some (and Delta-induced-rage of others), I don't see AA going anywhere at JFK, and I think these new routes further validate that AA is still a competitive force in the NYC market.  On another note, my personal prediction is that MIA-FRA will come at the expense of the second CLT-FRA flight, as AA doesn't need three daily widebodies between the southeast U.S. and Germany.
 
I think we all know that Delta is going to run AA out of all of these markets within a matter of months.   

 

[MAH4546]

WT is going to freak out about the JFK ads. He was bragging about how AA was on the verge of shutting down its JFK-Europe hub.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Delete. Dupe post.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Precisely.  Not that objectivity or rationality - or, for that matter, reality - were ever to be expected.  But yes, the double standard continues to be hysterical - heads Delta wins, tails AA loses.  Remind me - which U.S. carrier has recently been met with skepticism and cut-short earnings call questions regarding adding too much capacity and threatening the industry's profitability?  Was it AA or Delta?  I can't remember.

what analysts question and what the market actually shows took place are too very different things.

AA's RASM in Latin America went down larger than any other carrier's has gone down in any region in years - if not decades.

perhaps you can tell us when the last RASM decline was of the size AA posted.

DL's RASM to/from LHR is nearly on par with AA's from the entire US and on parity from JFK. Let's remember that DL just entered LHR about 5 years ago and is still far smaller than AA and certainly AA/BA.

You can rejoice in what AA adds from JFK but the proof is obvious that AA has pulled one market after another and the markets that have been added significantly underperform not only their competitors but also other parts of AA's system.

there is a very big reason why AA's cuts this winter have been larger than other carriers. AA can indeed add capacity in the summer and make money on a seasonal basis but they most certainly cannot make money on a year round basis or they wouldn't be cutting more capacity from JFK than any other hub.

 

[robbedagain]

WRONG WRONG WRONG Mr DL Cheerleader  Absolutely Wrong as you usually are!   The winter cuts are no flippin different than any other air carrier winter cuts including your almighty precious DL   

 

[WorldTraveler]

you've clearly missed a few chapters but I have specifically noted that native AA has reduced its schedule less in the winter than any other carrier.

US was at the opposite extreme of the industry with reductions that more than cut in half US' TATL network in the winter compared to the summer.

AA HAS NOT cut its schedule anywhere close to other airlines and the combination of the AA/US networks still leaves AA with a lower percentage of winter reductions than other carriers.

so, in fact, you are WRONG WRONG WRONG Mr. I don't know what I am talking about.

It has nothing to do with DL.

It has to do with choices that AA has made in the past and which Parker is changing.

the cuts that AA is making at JFK in the winter are deeper than they are making from other nAAtive hubs.

as for the JFK additions AA is making, DL doesn't fly there so I can hardly see where it will affect them. UA has far more skin in that game than AA. At least UA actually has airplanes that have some semblance of passenger amenities suitable for a transoceanic crossing.

 

[737823]

WT is going to freak out about the JFK ads. He was bragging about how AA was on the verge of shutting down its JFK-Europe hub.

DL couldn't make EDI work and tried from both ATL and JFK in the 2007-2009 timeframe.

Josh

 

[robbedagain]

josh  Did DL use a 75 during that time period?  was it seasonal?  Ours is seasonal  I do not know how well its doing    but they do use a 75

 

[737823]

Robbed I think it was seasonal and ATL was 763 while JFK was 757.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

whether DL flew EDI in the past or not doesn't change the fact that all of these markets are targeted at UA, not DL which doesn't fly there now. While UA has been very docile about participating in capacity growth in key industry markets, it won't be long before AA decides to start doing the same thing that every other carrier is doing which is add capacity into key AA markets.

DL just happened to start LAX-LHR and perhaps DL's focus is to get a bigger piece of the LAX market at UA's expense but DL doesn't fly to either BHX or EDI and other than connections over AMS doesn't realistically serve the markets.

UA does serve these markets from NYC; once again, the question is whether AA will get enough financial benefit from a few new routes into key competitor markets - including MIA-FRA - vs. the very likely capacity additions by UA into key markets which also happen to matter to AA.

what these market additions do show is that, AA in its post BK and post merger arrogance can condemn other carriers for adding capacity into the market but then turns around and does the same thing to a far greater degree.

the most accurate statement that has been made is that AA has too many planes and not enough places to profitably fly them so they are desperately trying to find new markets at the very time that Latin America, their historic cash cow, is being flushed down the toilet.

AA has way more aircraft in its fleet and on order than it possibly knows what to do with.

apparently they are willing to trash their financial performance and throw away all the benefits they gained in BK in order to try to explain their network which they couldn't buy with a merger.

having the lowest performing RASM growth in the industry will be something that will likely be the norm for the new AA. compound that with costs that either will grow faster than any other airlines or will leave AA with the lowest paid employees and the only incomplete merger, and AA is far from demonstrating that it has a plan for financial success.