Boston

[shaka]

Can someone please tell me if American is going to let jet blue and southwest eat their lunch in Boston.

Why aren't they stepping up announcements of new flights out of there.

I do not get it at all...boston has decent yields and tons of business travel.

Thanks for the help in advance.

 

[jimntx]

Well, we gave Kansas City to Southwest, and now we are giving St. Louis to Southwest. I think they decided to let another airline have Boston; so, Southwest has to share Boston with JetBlue.

 

[JFK Fleet Service]

Can someone please tell me if American is going to let jet blue and southwest eat their lunch in Boston.

They already have.

Arpey has surrendered most of the East Coast to Delta and Jet Blue.

I see DL has upgraded LGA-MSY to 3 daily NW A319's, apparently the market responded very well to mainline equipment with a well timed schedule.

What'd we do? Withdrew after Katrina and then half assed it with a smattering of RJ's from STL and DFW while wondering where our passengers went.


/facepalm

 

[goodgirl37]

[/quote]


Thats right, already surrendered, JBLU is pretty much the big player in BOS now, and I am sure SWA will tap into some of the rest.. AA is downgrading BOS international as well. UAL and US service is pathetic there as well, just amazing.

 

[curious1]

Really what can AA do in BOS? AA and the other legacy carriers have been around too long and have high costs. Sheould the legacys keep losing millions of dollars just to protect 2 flights? LCCs come in and get passengers by undercutting the competition. They price the flights at a price where they can make a profit, but the incumbent loses money. AA thinks its worth while to protect DFW, ORD & MIA. They don't dominate BOS and there's no point in duking it out there. AA is doing the right thing, let FL, B6 & WN get into an all out nuclear war and standby and watch. Remember AA did fight Eastern for MIA and won. They kicked DL out of DFW, kicked NK out of DFW and had other victories. No airline can win every battle.
AA can compete in DFW & MIA and they compete very well there. Notice now neither B6 nor WN is in either airport. They won't go up against AA there.
They aren't even in DCA which they've tried to enter for years. The LCCs are desperate. But they know that they can enter BOS and undercut the legacy carriers. AA is doing the right thing. Let the LCCs all kill each other on a handful of routes in BOS while AA sits back and laughs. The LCCs have no where to expand so they have to beat each other up. In another year or 2 I'd guess that half of the LCCs will be gone our on the way out.

 

[jimntx]

Remember AA did fight Eastern for MIA and won.

Actually, didn't AA just go to the fire sale after Eastern went belly up and buy the route authorities that Eastern controlled to South America out of MIA?

Slightly off topic, but I think this is the proper way to "consolidate" the industry. Just wait for someone to go the great airline graveyard in the sky and then buy just what you want--routes, or a/c, or both.

 

[Hopeful]

An airline just can't dominate every station they serve. Who cares if AA dominates BOS....If JetBlue and SWA choose to fight over it, let em. Who cares if Jetblue and DAL dominate JFK....
But if I had to guess as to what AA thinks is profitable, any change in service is due to the lack of equipment. We lost 34 A300s with no replacement. So where do we expand with no extra aircraft to fly without cutting here and there.

I guess low level employees like us do not have all the insight and forsight as to what stations will be served and how heavily.

I'm still trying to figure out the SJU hatchet job.

 

[MERV]

Thats right, already surrendered, JBLU is pretty much the big player in BOS now, and I am sure SWA will tap into some of the rest.. AA is downgrading BOS international as well. UAL and US service is pathetic there as well, just amazing.

Look at JFK airport AA spended closed to 1 billions for a new terminal because jfk supposed to be a HUB but at times its empty with no planes thats sad to see!!!!!
Right now AA dont want to spend money on routes that might (not) make money!!!!!!!
AA hasnt give up on the east coast they just downsizing couple of cities because theyre using their HUBs meaning DFW,ORD and MIA more connection less direct flight. Theyr picking and choosing where to battle. BOS will still be there in a smaller focus cities more conxs and less direct with expection certain cities!!!! Thats wrong AA never had a big presence in the east coast its US not DL look at their route map!!!!! When UA wanted US that was one of the reasons they wanted it. UA doesnt have a big presence in the east coast.

http://www.airlineroutemaps.com/USA/index.shtml

 

[MERV]

An airline just can't dominate every station they serve. Who cares if AA dominates BOS....If JetBlue and SWA choose to fight over it, let em. Who cares if Jetblue and DAL dominate JFK....
But if I had to guess as to what AA thinks is profitable, any change in service is due to the lack of equipment. We lost 34 A300s with no replacement. So where do we expand with no extra aircraft to fly without cutting here and there.

I guess low level employees like us do not have all the insight and forsight as to what stations will be served and how heavily.

I'm still trying to figure out the SJU hatchet job.

No airline dominates the skies/cities right now!!!!! Theirs one airline that is trying that's DL!!!!!
AA is downsizing to number 2. They're not number one anymore!!!!!
The A300s were a big lost of capacity but AA need it to loss that capacity to adjust for the lost customers due to many reasons and also cost to much to maintain!!!!!!
They'll start better utilizing their equipment. Lot of the cities will start see more narrow body A/C connecting to the major Hubs. you'll see less direct flts but to certain cities.
competing for one city is carzy when you have more than one competer fares will drop airline will loss unless they create major critical mass. That why in some areas fares are so high because no competition from others!!!!!

 

[FA Mikey]

What service has AA cut in BOS?

 

[FWAAA]

What service has AA cut in BOS?

I think the SAN nonstop experiment (once daily) has been canceled and the 763s to LAX have been downgraded to 738s. Of course, they were only 763s this year to handle the tremendous demand for $69 one-way fares in AA's summer battle with B6 (including triple bonus miles this past spring). Perhaps the OP is disturbed by jetBlue's recent announcement of a huge expansion in BOS by next summer:

http://investor.jetblue.com/phoenix.zhtml?...&highlight=

My hope is that oil once again spikes, this time to $200 or $250, whatever it takes to drive VX and B6 out of business. We need something that the bankruptcy courts can't do anything about so that the weak finally die off.

 

[commavia]

It's really to be expected.

AA's costs are simply way too high, particularly - prepare to get attacked, I know - its labor costs.

The number of markets where AA can profitably fight the competition, especially the far-lower-cost low-fare airline competition (the Southwests, JetBlues, AirTrans, Frontiers of the world), is getting smaller and smaller. Plus, with the economy so weak, and yields continuing to drop, AA cannot get any semblance of pricing control any other way but to restrain capacity. Sadly, of course, in many cases the low-fare airlines simply come right in behind them and back-fill that capacity, leading to virtually no real net positive impact for the market on the macro level.

I, too, find it unfortunate that AA continues to shrink in many markets that other airlines seem to be expanding in rapidly, but again, when AA's labor and other costs are higher than just about any other airline in America, it's really inevitable.

The only flip-side is that, first off, other legacy airlines (that have used bankruptcy to reduce their labor costs dramatically below AA's) are bound to see their costs - not only labor - rise substantially in the future as their unions begin to claw concessions back. Plus, beyond that, airlines like Delta that are growing left and right in particular markets today are in no way guaranteed to make money on those flights tomorrow - only time will tell for those airlines.

 

[curious1]

Actually, didn't AA just go to the fire sale after Eastern went belly up and buy the route authorities that Eastern controlled to South America out of MIA?

When Eastern went on strike AA moved in to MIA and added flights immediately. Then when the strike ended Eastern wanted AA to move those MIA flights but AA didn't. Eastern couldn't compete and could never recover. Eastern eventually sold their Latin American routes. There wasn't much of a fire sale. DL did take over almost all of their ATL gates after Eastern eventually folded but AA did wind up with Miami.

 

[Bob Owens]

It's really to be expected.

AA's costs are simply way too high, particularly - prepare to get attacked, I know - its labor costs.

The number of markets where AA can profitably fight the competition, especially the far-lower-cost low-fare airline competition (the Southwests, JetBlues, AirTrans, Frontiers of the world), is getting smaller and smaller. Plus, with the economy so weak, and yields continuing to drop, AA cannot get any semblance of pricing control any other way but to restrain capacity. Sadly, of course, in many cases the low-fare airlines simply come right in behind them and back-fill that capacity, leading to virtually no real net positive impact for the market on the macro level.

I, too, find it unfortunate that AA continues to shrink in many markets that other airlines seem to be expanding in rapidly, but again, when AA's labor and other costs are higher than just about any other airline.

You obviously missed the fact that AA pays lower wages and provides less benifits than many of their competitors, Jet Blue, Air Tran and SWA in particular.

The "AA has too high labor costs" line has been debunked several times before but I guess you adhere to the Nazi philosophy of keep telling a lie until it becomes percieved as fact.

Its no secret that AA does most of its OH in house. So AA directly employs a much higher ratio of workers than its competitors, this does not put AA at a competetive disadvantage, if anything it does the opposite.

If you sub out everything you may in fact end up with the lowest labor costs but could easily end up with the highest unit costs. You arent eliminating the labor, you are just shifting the cost to a different category.

So since AA pays their own workers to do stuff that other airlines pay other companies to do it makes AA's labor costs appear high. You arent comparing apples to apples because you are dealing with different business plans. In reality AA pays lower wages than at least three of the four carriers you mentioned but they, according to you have lower labor costs. The fact is if AA subbed out the same proportion of work then AA's labor costs should be among the lowest in the industry, because they provide much lower pay, but they would likely be even less profitable.

So dont pester us anymore with your AA's Labor costs are too high BS.

 

[commavia]

You obviously missed the fact that AA pays lower wages and provides less benifits than many of their competitors, Jet Blue, Air Tran and SWA in particular.

And yet, AMR's labor costs in the second quarter of 2009 were the highest, by far, of any major airline in the United States - 25% higher, for example, than United, or 9% higher than Southwest on a unit base.

So I guess you can argue that other airlines pay higher than American, but it still doesn't change the fact that American spends more money on labor than any other airline in the United States on a unit basis, which either means that AA's employees are better compensated overall than their peers (when you include base pay, stock options, and the pension), or that AA's employees are less productive than their peers, or both.

The "AA has too high labor costs" line has been debunked several times before but I guess you adhere to the Nazi philosophy of keep telling a lie until it becomes percieved as fact.

Great argument - if you disagree or have a different view, you're a Nazi. And people wonder why the power of organized labor in the United States continues to decline with every passing year.

Its no secret that AA does most of its OH in house. So AA directly employs a much higher ratio of workers than its competitors, this does not put AA at a competetive disadvantage, if anything it does the opposite.

If you sub out everything you may in fact end up with the lowest labor costs but could easily end up with the highest unit costs. You arent eliminating the labor, you are just shifting the cost to a different category.

Reasonable theory, although the numbers show that no matter the category, AA's costs are still higher than their competition.

Even if AA has labor costs that are higher due to employing many of the workers that other airlines have laid off and outsources - and I don't necessarily disagree with that, to an extent - AA's maintenance costs are still among the highest in the industry. AA's unit maintenance expense in the second quarter was the second-highest among the legacy airlines, and higher than any of the low-cost carriers, all of whom outsource overhauls.