If Dl "rolls Over"....... ?

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Nice reply.. Reading your dribble is quite frusturating at times. Your support of AMR is obviously understandable, but you seem to think DAL's demise is imminent. I tend to disagree. Jerry said 2005 would be tough at 45 dollar oil. Now it will be even tougher. Will the creditors believe in our plan enough to lift us into 2006 when the cuts really take hold? Who knows, but I am willing to bet "yes". You have no idea what is going on at DAL and most of what you say in flamebaiting. And by the way, I feel sorry for you if your a-s is hairy and I do not want to kiss it.

[post="269542"][/post]​

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Vikedog64,

It was your "SHUT UP" that forced me to "expose" my "H-A" !!!!!!

But tho you may not believe me, I hope DL "make's it".

It's just a small part of me that is worried that they may not.

Good luck !

NH/BB's

 

[eolesen]

Your right about all this Pan Am & Delta stuff but, AA has more interest in such service from Chicago. AA does have the same landing rights from TWA as Delta does but JFK is still the 800 pound Atlantic Gorilla. Some airlines may love their hubs, given the home turf advantage but JFK is still the New York Yankees of Atlantic airports. To anyone on this board JFK needs no explanation.

If we had such little interest in JFK, then why did we built an entirely new terminal? And for the record, I think you need to do some more research on just what landing rights AA has before you assume that TW's route structure as flown in the past two decades is one and the same as what AA has authority to fly.

 

[cws818]

Europe has been open skies for a while. The only restricted destination is LHR. AA could immediately fly the same routes to Europe that Delta flies if they wanted to.

[post="269037"][/post]​

well, except for Spain, UK, Greece, among others....

 

[Bob Owens]

Really? Please explain. Thanks.

[post="269529"][/post]​

Once released to self help the Railway Labor Act allows striking unions to set up picket lines at other companies where workers who are covered under the act work. For instance the EAL strikers were all set up to use this at the LIRR and other commuter rails but they backed down because of an injunction issued by a Judge.

I believe that the NLRA is explicit in banning secondary strikes but the RLA allows it. In the USA if something is not explicitely forbidden, its allowed.

 

[MAH4546]

Europe has been open skies for a while. The only restricted destination is LHR. AA could immediately fly the same routes to Europe that Delta flies if they wanted to.

[post="269037"][/post]​

No, that is not true. The US and Europe are not Open Skies. The EU would like to pursue Open Skies, but there are problems with the UK and Ireland. Most European countries have Open Skies with the US, but not all. The biggest exceptions are the UK, Ireland, and Spain.

 

[aafsc]

No, that is not true. The US and Europe are not Open Skies. The EU would like to pursue Open Skies, but there are problems with the UK and Ireland. Most European countries have Open Skies with the US, but not all. The biggest exceptions are the UK, Ireland, and Spain.

[post="270642"][/post]​

I should have said that "most" of Europe has open skies. I know that LHR is governed by Bermuda II and Ireland has the SNN rule. Wasn't access to the other UK airports liberalized (open skies) not too long ago? It seems the EU wants to take negotiating authority away from it's member states and negotiate on their behalf.

 

[JFK777]

ModerAAtor,

I don't question Jfk being a big AA airport and it great that AA is buildig it grand terminal, it about time. What I question is how important it is to AA to fly to Europe from Jfk vs. Chicago. AA has long been the biggest international airline at O'Hare with most service to Europe.

JFK is a large destinaion in AA route system, as it have been for decades. San Juan, Calofornia and the Caribean ahve long been pillars of the AA portfolio at JFK. The new additions(since 1991) bring even more importance to JFK, the two biggest being LHR( with its 6 777 daily) & Tokyo. Lets not forget Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo too.

I assume AA can fly the TWA routes(from JFK) if it wanted to like Rome, Madrid, TelAviv and Cairo to name a few but does it want to? What value did TWA have if it wasn't those routes to Europe? ST. Louis is nice, but does AA need another mid continent hub? ITS all about international, just look at AA in Miami.

 

[aafsc]

ModerAAtor,

I don't question Jfk being a big AA airport and it great that AA is buildig it grand terminal, it about time. What I question is how important it is to AA to fly to Europe from Jfk vs. Chicago. AA has long been the biggest international airline at O'Hare with most service to Europe.

JFK is a large destinaion in AA route system, as it have been for decades. San Juan, Calofornia and the Caribean ahve long been pillars of the AA portfolio at JFK. The new additions(since 1991) bring even more importance to JFK, the two biggest being LHR( with its 6 777 daily) & Tokyo. Lets not forget Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo too.

I assume AA can fly the TWA routes(from JFK) if it wanted to like Rome, Madrid, TelAviv and Cairo to name a few but does it want to? What value did TWA have if it wasn't those routes to Europe? ST. Louis is nice, but does AA need another mid continent hub? ITS all about international, just look at AA in Miami.

[post="270775"][/post]​

Although most have very little value due to new open skies agreements,yes, AA did get all of TWA's route authorities in the asset purchase agreement. We currently fly to Rome from JFK on a seasonal basis and I would like to see (and I think we might with the completion of the new terminal) AA fly many more transatlantic destinations.
However, I don't think you will see AA flying scheduled flights to the Middle East/Arab/Islamic countries anytime soon for obvious reasons. In addition to being a Middle Eastern country with many Arabs/Muslims I doubt you will see an AA aircraft in TLV because an Israeli court has determined that AA is responsible to pay TWA Inc.'s debts with regard to TWA's TLV employee's pension and severence. Thus if an AA aircraft ever lands there, it would be seized until AA pays off the TWA debts there.

 

[FWAAA]

What value did TWA have if it wasn't those routes to Europe? ST. Louis is nice, but does AA need another mid continent hub? ITS all about international, just look at AA in Miami.

[post="270775"][/post]​

TWA's value consisted of 20,000 loyal employees, a large base of loyal, frequent flying customers and slots at LGA and DCA, as well as some gate space at those airports. Oh, yeah, plus a ton of space at STL, which looked like a nice place to route connecting traffic given that ORD was maxed out in 2000, with all expansion of ORD stuck in a stalemate.

Oh, yeah, there was the fear that UAL-USAir would become too dominant, causing the "keeping up with the joneses" mistake. Recall that as part of the deal, UAL and AA were to be 50-50 partners in the US shuttle, AA would be dumping many (all?) of its F-100s on the new minority-owned DCAir and AA would be receiving USAir's Trent powered 757s.

It all looked like a good deal in early 2001. Today, thanks to everyone's 20/20 hindsight, it hasn't exactly worked out to plan.

But the only routes TWA owned that had any value - LHR - were sold many years ago. CAI-RUH was canceled after September 11, along with plenty of other marginal international routes. I don't expect it to ever return.

 

[eolesen]

Although most have very little value due to new open skies agreements,yes, AA did get all of TWA's route authorities in the asset purchase agreement. We currently fly to Rome from JFK on a seasonal basis and I would like to see (and I think we might with the completion of the new terminal) AA fly many more transatlantic destinations.

[post="270781"][/post]​

AA had authority to Rome dating back to 1990 or 1991 when MXP started. We were originally going to fly it ORD-MXP-FCO but killed off the tag.

Looking at the list of route authorities on the DOT website ( http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html ), there are only one or two destinations showing on Route 147 which didn't already exist in Routes 137 and 602.

There were other routes, i.e. 164 in the Pacific, and 612 to Moscow, but getting authority in those markets isn't really an issue.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Yes, JFK is a very important airport to AA. So important, in fact, that AMR Corp has invested in facilities at JFK just as they have at MIA that will cost nearly a whopping $20 per enplaned passenger at these two airports. Now that the JFK transcons have largely fallen to LCC competition, tell me how AA expects to make money at $150 fares when $20 of it goes to pay airport rent?

And, Vikedog, perhaps the hairy-butted bear has not heard this statement from the ever-wise (except when he's wrong) Jamie Baker of JP Morgan:
"We mistakenly underestimated management's resolve in avoiding a filing last year, and believe that once again Delta will pull out all the stops possible to prevent a fourth quarter 2005/first quarter 2006 court appearance," Baker said.

Looks like AA will have to fight to keep the passengers they do have at JFK and certainly won't have time to steal Delta's routes from THE international airport serving THE biggest O&D in the universe.

 

[JFK777]

Worldtraveler,

The domestic non transcon stuff is Sng's and JetBlue's. UA started their PS service and AA still has the Screen Actors Guild business. Then there is the LHR market, if business class didn't sell well would AA have 6 777 daily? AA might have six flights daily but some would be 767's. Then there is the Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires markets with their rich business markets, no JetBlue here. San Juan is another steady producer, JB has flights including ones at dark hours. AA has more with bigger airplanes to San Juan, with bigger bellies for all the cargo. A320's suck for Cargo, why doesn't JB fly to Santo Domingo anymore? An A320.

 

[lpbrian]

If JFK is so important, why has'nt anyone made any money there? PA never made money in JFK. TWA let it's JFK operation shrink to nothing, so obviously it was not profitable. JFK does'nt seem to be a cash cow for DAL either. AA has started, then discontinued a lot of routes to JFK. JFK is really only important to foreign carriers.

 

[eolesen]

AA has started, then discontinued a lot of routes to JFK. JFK is really only important to foreign carriers.

[post="271213"][/post]​

Totally disagree. Over the past five years, JFK's schedule has been fairly consistent. Look over 18 years, and it's almost three times bigger with twice as many destinations:

1987 = 25 flights to 13 destinations
1989 = 34 flights to 22 destinations
1991 = 36 flights to 20 destinations
1992 = 51 flights to 23 destinations
1993 = 58 flights to 27 destinations (incl. BNA and RDU)
1995 = 60 flights to 25 destinations
1998 = 58 flights to 23 destinations
2000 = 58 flights to 26 destinations
2001 = 62 flights to 27 destinations
2002 = 72 flights to 29 destinations
2001 = 63 flights to 30 destinations
2004 = 71 flights to 31 destinations
2005 = 69 flights to 29 destinations

 

[WorldTraveler]

lp,
JFK is a rich market - and explains why, not to long ago, AA and UA got 25% of their revenues from transcon markets and most of that came from JFK. B6 is almost entirely a JFK airline and they are profitable. Their focus on Florida is because they recognized the value of the NYC-Florida market and the transcon market. Because B6 will probably never gain that big of a presence at LGA (the richer airport for serving Florida although LGA-Florida profitability has been replaced by EWR), they had no choice but to serve JFK. Plenty of people will use JFK and it does have considerable room for flight expansion. There has been and will be money to be made there.
Problem for the domestic carriers has been that New York City has largely been "carved up" by the legacy carriers - DL, US, and TW (and Eastern before) served most of Florida, AA had MIA plus transcons along w/ UA (and TW and PA before). DL esp. is now trying to meet B6 by becoming a well rounded JFK carrier (exc. for LHR which they can't serve). Dominance in NYC for the legacy carriers will come down to who has the largest network and can most effectively compete w/ B6. Based on the amount of money AA spent on their terminal at JFK, they are not a good candidate for competing at LCC fares.

JFK,
problem is that fares in the transcon markets have been trashed by B6. Delta expanded it to LAX and SFO but they have more than enough service to be a serious contender in the transcon markets - and will probably push UA out; it is simply not possible to successfully compete against LCCs w/ a premium priced and premium cost product like UA PS.
As for the Caribbean, DL has service there too and uses 767s or 757s which have the lift to compete w/ AA. AA has nothing at JFK exc. for LHR that other carriers can't come after; UA and NW will always have the advantage for NRT because of their hub on the other end.