AA seeks new service to Brazil
- Thread starter FA Mikey
- Start date
silverbird007
Senior
I put WT in ignore mode along time ago, I think he/she? is mostly ignored on the Delta thread, theres not much going on over there for some reason?? I see that he posts on AAs thread but I don't actually see his non sense. I mostly just read the forum to catch any latest news concerning AA. If everybody would just put him in ignore mode he would probably go away. I think that Delta going back to #3 is killing him! Sorry about the double post I haven't posted in so long I forgot how to do it I guess
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
The problem is that there are people who won't let someone else control the conversation which is exactly what ignoring someone else does.
You don't have to agree with what I say... in fact, the point IS that you either figure out to engage in discussion with someone or you choose to walk away. An open discussion forum is about putting your opinions up for discussion and attempting to convince others of their validity. This discussion, like so many others, has deteriorated into name calling, breaking forum rules, and laying blame for what went wrong precisely because of a lack of discussion about the topic at hand.
I also learned along time ago that allowing those who attempt to intimidate others into silence is really a recipe for suppressing free speech, something I refuse to do even if others try.
The topic here is about Brazil and my concerns about the viability of the LAX-GRU route. My participation in the AA forums for years has been about highlighting things that I have thought have been wrong about AA's strategy, to the great consternation of some people. As much as you and others haven't liked hearing it, the changes that will take place over the next few months and during the merger transition will demonstrate that what I have had to say are a lot more real than a lot of people here want to believe.
The DL forum existed almost entirely for multiple years based on discussions about labor issues, even if that wasn't the issue that started the discussion. There sadly is little interest by some in continuing the conversation absent those labor discussions. There are a few people that choose to participate in discussions that aren't labor focused... but let's be honest that this board is built around labor related discussions and is almost entirely focused now on discussions about AA and US. There is little discussion about most other airlines except for AA and US. I just happen to be trying to keep the DL forum from looking like the UA, B6, and WN forums. I may give up eventually but there is discussion going on over at DL right now that doesn't involve labor. The fire is not dead yet. Remember also that the owners of this forum aren't interested in seeing the wholesale abandonment of discussion about entire airlines.
robbed,
I suspect the 787 will be focused on longer haul routes initially and for the foreseeable future... the 787's advantage is on longer stage lengths, but the LAX-GRU would qualify as one of those.
I still think the 333 might be a good plane for MIA-S. America, esp. during the winter season when its capacity is not needed across the Atlantic.
My thanks again to the moderators for fostering dialogue within the rules of the forum that we all have agreed to follow by participation in the forum.
You don't have to agree with what I say... in fact, the point IS that you either figure out to engage in discussion with someone or you choose to walk away. An open discussion forum is about putting your opinions up for discussion and attempting to convince others of their validity. This discussion, like so many others, has deteriorated into name calling, breaking forum rules, and laying blame for what went wrong precisely because of a lack of discussion about the topic at hand.
I also learned along time ago that allowing those who attempt to intimidate others into silence is really a recipe for suppressing free speech, something I refuse to do even if others try.
The topic here is about Brazil and my concerns about the viability of the LAX-GRU route. My participation in the AA forums for years has been about highlighting things that I have thought have been wrong about AA's strategy, to the great consternation of some people. As much as you and others haven't liked hearing it, the changes that will take place over the next few months and during the merger transition will demonstrate that what I have had to say are a lot more real than a lot of people here want to believe.
The DL forum existed almost entirely for multiple years based on discussions about labor issues, even if that wasn't the issue that started the discussion. There sadly is little interest by some in continuing the conversation absent those labor discussions. There are a few people that choose to participate in discussions that aren't labor focused... but let's be honest that this board is built around labor related discussions and is almost entirely focused now on discussions about AA and US. There is little discussion about most other airlines except for AA and US. I just happen to be trying to keep the DL forum from looking like the UA, B6, and WN forums. I may give up eventually but there is discussion going on over at DL right now that doesn't involve labor. The fire is not dead yet. Remember also that the owners of this forum aren't interested in seeing the wholesale abandonment of discussion about entire airlines.
robbed,
I suspect the 787 will be focused on longer haul routes initially and for the foreseeable future... the 787's advantage is on longer stage lengths, but the LAX-GRU would qualify as one of those.
I still think the 333 might be a good plane for MIA-S. America, esp. during the winter season when its capacity is not needed across the Atlantic.
My thanks again to the moderators for fostering dialogue within the rules of the forum that we all have agreed to follow by participation in the forum.
Kev3188
Veteran
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
^^^^ This.
WT reminds me of my nephew with Aspergers....
The problem isn't anyone else wanting to control the conversation.
The problem is that WT interjects himself and tries to dominate the conversation.
Not every topic, granted, but on just about any topic not involving labor.
Most people make a point, succinctly, and move on.
One of the traits of Aspergers is to pound and pound on the minutiae, pretty much giving up only after everyone else tunes them out...
WT reminds me of my nephew with Aspergers....
The problem isn't anyone else wanting to control the conversation.
The problem is that WT interjects himself and tries to dominate the conversation.
Not every topic, granted, but on just about any topic not involving labor.
Most people make a point, succinctly, and move on.
One of the traits of Aspergers is to pound and pound on the minutiae, pretty much giving up only after everyone else tunes them out...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
I would just as soon leave the discussion to the topic of AA’s Brazil traffic rights but since there seems to be a continued desire to make WT the focus of the discussion, I will respond.
I appreciate the comments and will consider what has been said. A couple of key points are worth responding to.
First, the amount of posts that I make in response to subjects is a red herring since many of the people with whom I have debated here have accumulated far more posts than I have on this forum and we have all been participating for about 10 years or more.
Second, on the most controversial topics in which I have engaged, I have been one of the few people who has been willing to take the position I have taken. No one else here or on other forums has provided market-specific criticisms of AA strategies; very few other people have also spoken up with a contrasting opinion regarding the representation process at DL, particularly post elections.
You can argue about how incessant I have been in pushing my view but the simple number of posts on each of these subjects argues AGAINST one PERSPECTIVE dominating the conversation over another. I just happened to have been bold enough to take on two subjects that were dear to a lot of other people while I was one of the few proponents of the opposing view.
There are a lot of arenas in democracies where one side talks longer and louder than others in order to make their point. Unless the limits of participation by users are dramatically lowered on this board, there is no reason why one person, who may well be one of the few spokespersons for a particular POV, should be limited in their ability to respond unless others are equally restricted in their ability to continue posting the same thing.
Third, I participate in discussions that have black and white components to them – ie there is some measurability to the accuracy of the statements that are made. It is absolutely measurable to say how well AA does financially on a particular route or how successful the labor movement has been in its attempts to organize at DL. Because there is measurability to the discussion, there is the potential for one person or side’s position to be shown to be incorrect. A discussion about gay marriage or abortion is solely based on morals; profitability or the success of labor representation is not. At some point, someone has to concede that the other side was right in their argument. If AA doesn’t change their Pacific network and shows via the DOT that they are profitable in the Pacific, then I was wrong.
Fourth, use of data sources that are not generally accessible to all IS problematic because it does present an unfair advantage. The comments have been heard and I will significantly limit my use of such data in my arguments, should I make them.
Fifth, data sources or not, there is a genuine cause and effect that will become apparent, data sources or not. I still believe very strongly that AA will restructure its Pacific network and pull back a lot of its recent flying simply because the chances that it can become profitable are minimal based on genuine competitive realities. The outcomes WILL validate or disprove my theories.
Finally, character assassination and attempts at humiliating others do not and never will work to silence a POV that one may not like; if anything, I have only responded more strongly because of manipulations of the post voting system and attempts at personal assassination on this forum. Does anyone really think that publishing my name for even a few hours is going to cause me to walk away and stop saying what I intend to say?
By the same token, the conversation could have taken a very different course if some people were willing to admit that some of my points were in fact correct. We had people on here argue for years that AA’s financial problems were all labor’s fault when even in its BK filing, AA acknowledged that they had a revenue problem as well. How would the conversation have changed if some of the people who were so quick to stand up for AA mgmt had stopped to say, “I don’t know all of the details of route XYZ-ABC but AA has acknowledged they have a revenue problem and in the absence of definite proof otherwise, there is a possibility that the other POV might be accurate.”
Despite the fact that I have been one of the few people who has even discussed the Brazil route case and AA’s participation in it, I will agree with IORFA that there is a good chance that none of this new capacity will actually be wanted by the time it is introduced. Fares between at least parts of the US- esp. Florida – and Brazil are well below the levels they have been in the past. Profitability will go down unless some capacity comes out of the market even if capacity is added to other markets further from where lower fares are being added.
I appreciate the comments and will consider what has been said. A couple of key points are worth responding to.
First, the amount of posts that I make in response to subjects is a red herring since many of the people with whom I have debated here have accumulated far more posts than I have on this forum and we have all been participating for about 10 years or more.
Second, on the most controversial topics in which I have engaged, I have been one of the few people who has been willing to take the position I have taken. No one else here or on other forums has provided market-specific criticisms of AA strategies; very few other people have also spoken up with a contrasting opinion regarding the representation process at DL, particularly post elections.
You can argue about how incessant I have been in pushing my view but the simple number of posts on each of these subjects argues AGAINST one PERSPECTIVE dominating the conversation over another. I just happened to have been bold enough to take on two subjects that were dear to a lot of other people while I was one of the few proponents of the opposing view.
There are a lot of arenas in democracies where one side talks longer and louder than others in order to make their point. Unless the limits of participation by users are dramatically lowered on this board, there is no reason why one person, who may well be one of the few spokespersons for a particular POV, should be limited in their ability to respond unless others are equally restricted in their ability to continue posting the same thing.
Third, I participate in discussions that have black and white components to them – ie there is some measurability to the accuracy of the statements that are made. It is absolutely measurable to say how well AA does financially on a particular route or how successful the labor movement has been in its attempts to organize at DL. Because there is measurability to the discussion, there is the potential for one person or side’s position to be shown to be incorrect. A discussion about gay marriage or abortion is solely based on morals; profitability or the success of labor representation is not. At some point, someone has to concede that the other side was right in their argument. If AA doesn’t change their Pacific network and shows via the DOT that they are profitable in the Pacific, then I was wrong.
Fourth, use of data sources that are not generally accessible to all IS problematic because it does present an unfair advantage. The comments have been heard and I will significantly limit my use of such data in my arguments, should I make them.
Fifth, data sources or not, there is a genuine cause and effect that will become apparent, data sources or not. I still believe very strongly that AA will restructure its Pacific network and pull back a lot of its recent flying simply because the chances that it can become profitable are minimal based on genuine competitive realities. The outcomes WILL validate or disprove my theories.
Finally, character assassination and attempts at humiliating others do not and never will work to silence a POV that one may not like; if anything, I have only responded more strongly because of manipulations of the post voting system and attempts at personal assassination on this forum. Does anyone really think that publishing my name for even a few hours is going to cause me to walk away and stop saying what I intend to say?
By the same token, the conversation could have taken a very different course if some people were willing to admit that some of my points were in fact correct. We had people on here argue for years that AA’s financial problems were all labor’s fault when even in its BK filing, AA acknowledged that they had a revenue problem as well. How would the conversation have changed if some of the people who were so quick to stand up for AA mgmt had stopped to say, “I don’t know all of the details of route XYZ-ABC but AA has acknowledged they have a revenue problem and in the absence of definite proof otherwise, there is a possibility that the other POV might be accurate.”
Despite the fact that I have been one of the few people who has even discussed the Brazil route case and AA’s participation in it, I will agree with IORFA that there is a good chance that none of this new capacity will actually be wanted by the time it is introduced. Fares between at least parts of the US- esp. Florida – and Brazil are well below the levels they have been in the past. Profitability will go down unless some capacity comes out of the market even if capacity is added to other markets further from where lower fares are being added.
robbedagain
Veteran
wt youve said that lax to brazil is not really going to be as productive for aa at leas that how i see it.. but in a link provided it appears dl is going to do same places in brazil with 75s out of lax the quest is which airline would do better? do you think that aa would be better off where they can connect to one world partners?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
I'm not sure what you are referring to but DL does not have and has not asked for any routes from LAX to S. America. They are doing several routes to central America which use narrowbody domestic aircraft on flights similar to what those aircraft could do in the US.
AA, DL, and UA have all done flights from LAX to Central America.
Generally, yes, partner hubs do help improve the performance of a carrier's routes.
AA, DL, and UA have all done flights from LAX to Central America.
Generally, yes, partner hubs do help improve the performance of a carrier's routes.
