Fact is there's really no one good comparator to AMR when you start looking at earnings. If you start blending the results from the larger carriers, you get a better idea of where they stand. CO's a good comparison, but there are some key differentiators that skew things in CO's favor.
I shouldn't have to point out that CAL went thru two bankruptcies, arbrogating all of their labor contracts in 1983, dumping (as some of the TWU repeatedly point out) 50 years worth of workrules in one fell swoop. The 1990 bankruptcy didn't target labor, but they've done a better job at keeping their costs lower since then. AA's done OK, but there's only so far they can go without bumping key structural issues like network, scope, and labor.
From a network perspective, CO's a little better off than AA. AA's just too damn big for its own good.
Four of AA's major hubs/gateways are in fairly expensive markets they can't possibly dominate -- ORD, LAX, NYC, and MIA. CO's at the same disadvantage in NYC, but they benefit from being at EWR vs. duking it out head to head at LGA & JFK.
DFW and IAH are fortress hubs for both carriers, but DFW only accounts for less than a quarter of AA's operation, whereas IAH is probably closer to 40% of CO's.
AA's operation at DFW is also considerably bigger than CO's at IAH, and the dumb-ass 1970's terminal design adds a lot of cost. If I were AA, I'd reduce DFW flying by at least 20% and tell the airport that growth will return once the U shaped terminals are replaced.
CO's also had better luck with alliances. QF and CX work out pretty well for AA, and I suspect that MX and LAN do as well, but I'm not so sure about Europe. AA's hitched their wagon to the BA deal for 10 years too long. Having BA in oneworld is good. With LH buying up all their Star Alliance partners in Europe, there's little opportunity left to find a new partner. Maybe ATI will come and they can start seeing the benefits. And maybe not.
Scope and labor... It's a rats nest aided by the bankruptcies, and something I suspect more likely to see CO shift more towards AA than AA is to shift towards CO. CO's pilots are probably by far the angriest labor group in the industry right now, and rightfully so when you start looking at some of the provisions of their contract (crew rest on the 757 consists of blocking off the last row of coach...).
As mentioned, the flight attendants and mechanics make more than AA. But don't forget that by CO's estimates, 50% of their maintenance is outsourced. The majority of CO's mechanics are line mechanics -- we've beaten this argument to death, but if you separated the line from overhaul, it might be practical to pay AA line mechanics what their peers are making. It flies in the face of unionism, but if you want parity, it has to be on based not just on pay, but also on scope and workrules.
I hope you're not too excited about them using FDX... It's typically a HR requirement to have accountable delivery for that type of stuff, and last I knew, AA only paid around $1.50 for an overnight envelope.
