AA adds second daily LAX-LHR

[MAH4546]

nowhere did I see where AA is cutting anything in order to fund these routes.

feel free to show me where... and a.net is no more of a source than Wikipedia.
 

 
Have you ever heard of something called www.aa.com? It's sort of like www.delta.com, except you can book flights on American Airlines. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

Have you ever heard of something called www.aa.com? It's sort of like www.delta.com, except you can book flights on American Airlines.

I don't go to every individual website, including delta.com, to look for schedule changes.

there are more than enough sites that show schedule changes for the industry.

again, if what you say regarding what is being cut compared to what is being added is correct, it is not only a good thing - yeah AA - but also does show probably a net loss of seats because of smaller aircraft from JFK and MIA compared to what US operated.


 

Pre-bankruptcy AA didn't fly these routes as its labor costs were far too high compared to the low-wage competition like US (and, to a lesser extent, UA and DL). It was clear 15 years ago when AA unveiled the plans for JFK T-8 that AA would eventually expand at JFK. 2001 saw AA shrink substantially and the construction of T-8 forced AA to shrink at JFK during the construction. When T-8 was finally built, the low-wage competition slowed AA's expansion plans, quickly followed by the Great Recession of 2008. Now that AA has forced more efficient contracts on the employees, it's time to expand JFK international flying. From where will AA get the passengers? By taking them away from other airlines.

I agree that CLT and PHL will give up some international flying while JFK and MIA will see more (and I've posted the same since the US merger began to take shape), and so far, I've been proven right. And I agree that Parker's payments for labor peace will likely cause AA's labor costs to once again become problematic. Tne only saving grace is that US and its bargain-basement CLT and PHL international fare competition will have disappeared.

I don't know if the new JFK and MIA routes will succeed. For all we know, DL will mop the floor with new AA. I'm sure you'll be around every day or so to post just that.

I agree with you - other than that AA at JFK is a highly competitive market with a lot less connections than what were available from PHL or what UA has at EWR.

These routes don't affect DL other than the 2nd LAX-LHR. All of the routes do overlap UA or its JV partners.

I don't doubt that AA can make these routes work on a seasonal basis - at least the UK regional routes - but the question is about what happens the other 6 months of the year when most of Europe is very slow.

I am well aware of the smaller JFK terminal that AA has than what was planned - but keep in mind that DL also waited 10 years to figure out a plan to make a JFK terminal viable while AA had already committed to a plan before 9/11.

because these UK regional routes don't directly overlap with DL, AA might well have a chance. In nearly every market that DL and UA directly overlap at JFK vs. EWR, DL has a larger share of the local market - because JFK is the dominant int'l airport from NYC.

and let's also keep in mind that a couple of regional UK routes don't come close to replacing the number of seats that AA has given up to market to the Caribbean, other continental Europe routes, or on the transcons.

the bigger part of these news is that AA is moving toward building its own pre-merger hubs at the expense of US hubs, which as you and I have consistently agreed were driven by low fares which were possible only because of low labor costs. that chapter is closed at US. and it also appears that the cuts to Star hubs is taking place in favor of a more oneworld driven network, both of which not only were expected but also will likely result in higher yields.

with all of the information on the table - cuts in some locations along with growth in other locations - these announcements make a lot more sense from a strategic and capacity mgmt. point of view.

specific to LAX-LHR and DL and VS' growth at LHR, remember that VS hired as their CEO AA's former exec for London and DL and VS now have access to an enormous amount of competitive information that AA/BA once used to grow their markets. Even if DL maintains solely a 763 on the route, DL's capacity is very small compared to the total market - including what is offered by VS - but DL has its own metal in one of the top global air routes.

 

[jcw]

Translation

DL could not figure out how to compete on its own so it had to hire an AA executive to figure it out

 

[commavia]

It's becoming increasingly obvious that as all the sanctimonious predictions of Delta's global domination collapse like a dying star under the weight of reality, the fear and desperation is increasing by the day - thus the grasping at straws to find ways to continue illustrating AA's alleged impending doom.
 
Too funny.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not sure what you find so funny but the simple fact whether you want to hear it or not is that AA's addition of a couple regional UK flights don't come close to offsetting the loss of share by AA at JFK over the past 7 years.

AA's cuts at JFK are deeper than in other hubs and even the increase of seats next summer doesn't offset the cuts they are making this winter.

I am glad AA is trying a couple new routes but let's be clear that AA is #3 out of 3 at JFK with half the seats that DL has and #3 out of 3 from NYC when UA is included from EWR.

I said for years that AA's continual cuts at JFK were putting it in a position where it would be very difficult if not impossible for them to ever regain parity on either an average fare or total revenue basis with DL or UA.

AA has not only a significant size disadvantage to DL and UA in both the domestic and int'l markets but also a size disadvantage to B6.

instead of turning very obvious facts into yet another opportunity to trash the messenger, how about you accept that for whatever reason, AA gave up its leadership position in NYC and it is doubtful they will ever regain it.

Given that the size difference between AA and both DL and UA is so large and DL and UA both do very well in the markets they serve competitive with AA, the notion is increasingly doubtful that AA can operate as a niche airline in NYC against much larger legacy carriers and lower cost B6.

that is just reality. the sooner you accept it, quit making it personal, and face up to the facts that AA's 10 year long restructuring probably cost it the ability to be a major player in the NYC market, then you might be able to accept that AA can move on to other markets and try to retain their position there - which is what they are trying to do in LAX.

BTW, you failed to note that AA is also cutting JFK-GRU to one flight/day which along with JFK-CCS means that AA absolutely does recognize that they have to get capacity out of Latin America and their net increase in seats to Europe from JFK is offset by cuts to Latin America and the Caribbean.

when all of the facts are on the table, the new flights are really just rearrangements of AA's capacity esp. to Latin America and from other hubs to MIA and JFK.

obviously I have much less doubt that AA can make MIA work although the combined addition of all of these additions in UA competitive markets might not be what AA needs long-term.

and if AA has to cut in Latin America in order to get its RASM up - we now see they recognize they were chasing market share at the expense of RASM which is what I have said - then the size gap between them and other carriers shrinks. Although I expect that DL and UA may make adjustments to reflect the realities in Latin America, I doubt they will cut anywhere close to what AA will have to cut - which shrinks the size advantage AA.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

AA has not only a significant size disadvantage to DL and UA in both the domestic and int'l markets but also a size disadvantage to B6.

instead of turning very obvious facts into yet another opportunity to trash the messenger, how about you accept that for whatever reason, AA gave up its leadership position in NYC and it is doubtful they will ever regain it.
 

 
Reading this post, initially, it sounds like one should just be prepared for AA to announce really soon that all 3 NYC airports will become just a spoke from DFW and MIA.  DL even won ORD-NYC.  All hail DL.
 
Here are the actual numbers (through Aug. 2014, approx. millions of passengers)
              AA/US       DL      UA       B6
JFK          7.8         12.6    1.3      11.8
LGA         7.6         10.6    2.3        1.4
EWR        2.4          1.6     24.1     1.4
TOTAL    17.8         24.8   27.7     14.6
So it looks like AA overall in NYC is almost 2/3 the size of UA, about 70% of DL, and about 120% of B6.
 
Is that doom and gloom?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I don't go to every individual website, including delta.com, to look for schedule changes.
 

But you certainly trash talk like a know-it-all.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Reading this post, initially, it sounds like one should just be prepared for AA to announce really soon that all 3 NYC airports will become just a spoke from DFW and MIA.  DL even won ORD-NYC.  All hail DL.
 
Here are the actual numbers (through Aug. 2014, approx. millions of passengers)
              AA/US       DL      UA       B6
JFK          7.8         12.6    1.3      11.8
LGA         7.6         10.6    2.3        1.4
EWR        2.4          1.6     24.1     1.4
TOTAL    17.8         24.8   27.7     14.6
So it looks like AA overall in NYC is almost 2/3 the size of UA, about 70% of DL, and about 120% of B6.
 
Is that doom and gloom?

that is the size of each carrier's total boardings in NYC; it doesn't reflect their size in the local market and it also doesn't reflect their average fares; and it doesn't show the growth trend over time.

AA is far from finished in NYC but in its largest and most significant markets, AA is a smaller airline relative to the competition and it is generating lower revenues also relative to its competition than it did several years ago.

the theme we have continually heard is that AA intends ot be a niche carrier in NYC focusing on key markets... but that simply is not proven in any other city in the US where one carrier is 70% of the size of a competitor.

further, while you look at AA vs. B6, the only valid comparison is at JFK because we all know that B6 doesn't and likely never will have the slots to compete with any of the legacy carriers at LGA or EWR.

They began their existence based on winning slots at JFK, that is what they have, and they are being eclipsed by larger carriers that have a larger presence in shorthaul (inside the LGA perimeter) markets that are served from both LGA as well as EWR.

relative to DL and UA, simply does not have the scope on its own metal or have enough unique markets that other carriers don't serve which would give AA a size advantage.

again, no one said AA is finished in NYC, but I firmly believe that we will see AA further shrink relative to its peers in NYC.

for whatever reason, AA decided they had a better chance of competing from NYC to regional UK cities despite the much larger domestic feed that PHL has and despite the fact that AA has very little to no competition from PHL to Europe but has ample competition from NYC.

factor in cuts that are being made elsewhere including to the Caribbean/Latin America and on the transcons, it is hard to believe that AA is doing little more than just moving its few remaining pieces left in JFK around without doing little to actually grow to a larger position.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

that is the size of each carrier's total boardings in NYC; it doesn't reflect their size in the local market and it also doesn't reflect their average fares; and it doesn't show the growth trend over time.

 
I'm sorry but I just don't see the data where AA is now reduced to a niche player in New York as you claim.
If you do have the numbers please post them.  Otherwise, your posts might as well read "Once upon a time ....."
 
BTW:  nice spin saying that passenger numbers don't count.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I didn't say AA is reduced to a niche player. that is what other people have said is the role AA will play.

how about you just show me another city where one carrier maintains a 30% size advantage to other carriers and both still receive comparable average fares other than to their own hubs?

it is no spin to note what flows THRU a city rather than what boards in it.

you can talk about the activity at an airport all you want but local traffic is what matters.

UA has a far higher percentage of connecting traffic at EWR than AA or DL do at LGA or JFK.

for the 2nd quarter and based on the local market from all 3 NYC airports, passenger share is 25.8% for DL, 24.6% for UA, 17.7% for B6, 12.9% for AA, and 6.5% for US.

because of the differences in average fares and becaseu UA has many more flights to Asia, UA's revenue share of the combined airports is 30% for UA, 26% for DL, and 19% for AA/US. B6 drops to 12.5%.

so, again, show me an example of where one carrier has maintained its share with even a 20-25% difference in size to non-hub markets which is what AA/US looks like in NYC compared to DL and UA

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

so, again, show me an example of where one carrier has maintained its share with even a 20-25% difference in size to non-hub markets which is what AA/US looks like in NYC compared to DL and UA

 
Doesn't ORD fit your description?
I believe there AA is approximately 75%-80% of UA (in terms of % market share & passengers).

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA and UA are actually pretty similarly sized in the local ORD market.

AA tends to be stronger ORD - east domestic while UA is stronger ORD - west domestic.

UA is stronger overall in international.

overall, passenger share is identical between AA/US and UA for the most recent quarter but UA has a 20% average fare advantage driven by their stronger performance to Asia (UA gets 3X as much revenue from the ORD local market than AA does) plus fares to the west are higher than to the east.

UA also has a revenue and passenger advantage to Europe and Latin America but Latin America is the closest region between the two.

so, no, ORD is not an example of a market where one carrier has a difference as big as what exists in NYC although if int'l was the only factor, it would be.

but it is true that AA is still not on par with UA in terms of revenue on either an domestic or int'l basis but the sheer number of passengers is pretty close. it is hard to know but it also is possible that AA could be profitable at ORD while UA is much more so.

 

[zethya]

.........................
for whatever reason, AA decided they had a better chance of competing from NYC to regional UK cities despite the much larger domestic feed that PHL has and despite the fact that AA has very little to no competition from PHL to Europe but has ample competition from NYC.

factor in cuts that are being made elsewhere including to the Caribbean/Latin America and on the transcons, it is hard to believe that AA is doing little more than just moving its few remaining pieces left in JFK around without doing little to actually grow to a larger position......

Both PHL-EDI and JFK-EDI are as of now bookable on major reservation systems.
JFK-EDI starts May 7 with a 757.
PHL-EDI starts May 22 with a 757.
2 - 757s shouldn't be too much capacity for seasonal sevice to EDI.
 

 

[MAH4546]

Both PHL-EDI and JFK-EDI are as of now bookable on major reservation systems.
JFK-EDI starts May 7 with a 757.
PHL-EDI starts May 22 with a 757.
2 - 757s shouldn't be too much capacity for seasonal sevice to EDI.
 

Key word being "as of now."
 
PHLEDI should be removed shortly. 
 
JFKEDI might be year-round, actually, not seasonal. JFKBHX is year-round. 

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

the theme we have continually heard is that AA intends ot be a niche carrier in NYC focusing on key markets... but that simply is not proven in any other city in the US where one carrier is 70% of the size of a competitor.

 
What you fail to grasp is that, this is *not* "any other city". This is New York City. The largest city in the US. One of the premier cities on the planet. Arguably the capital of the world. Stop trying to equate what happens in other cities to what happens in NYC. There is no parity.