robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
ChockJockey, do you think AA will add Intl routes as well as more Domestic routes out of JFK and if so do you think itll be in the next 2 yrs or so when more aircraft come online
New AA is going to grow in NYC.
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #47
you did make me smile, CJ, with your observation which is more accurate than some would like to admit.
The difference is that, so far as I know, Josh doesn't procure personal, non-public information off of this board and connect it with an anonymous user name on this board.
That is stalking and when I have threatened legal action - which I ALWAYS reserve the right to do - it is because the personal/anonymous barrier has been broken, not because anyone gets wound up about what is said on this forum with regard to any airline.
There is a big difference between the two.
As for AA in NYC, it is fine to say they are going to grow but I am still waiting for someone to show me an example of where a hub carrier has succeeded by being a distant #2 or #3 to other hub carriers in the same city, let alone at the same airport.
Again, AA doesn't have the slots or the facilities to be at parity to the larger carriers in NYC. Thus, building NYC up involves trying to do so from a position where the other carrier will always have more resources to use
For those who don't believe the power of a hub to move the revenue equation, it might come as a surprise to some to know that AA and DL are virtually at parity on JFK-LAX from the NYC point of sale. AA is still a larger revenue carrier based on the latest quarter (which was before the 762s had totally left) because of its point of sale strength in LAX. Over the past 5 years, DL has increased its NYC point of sale revenue dramatically - nearly in line with DL's strength in its other hubs such as ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC. The same principle applies in other hub markets such as for AA at DFW and US at CLT or PHL, hubs that are heavily dominated by one carrier.
But because most NYC markets are highly competitive on both ends, DL has to grow revenues from NYC at a higher rate or gain strength at the other end as well.
JFK-LAX is not the only market where that trend can be seen in NYC as DL has built its presence over the past five years. DL is growing its market dominance from NYC which makes it all the much more difficult for AA to regain that share and to gain a dominant position that is what drives revenue premiums given the structural disadvantage that AA will always have relative to DL at LGA and JFK but which UA does not have at EWR.
The difference is that, so far as I know, Josh doesn't procure personal, non-public information off of this board and connect it with an anonymous user name on this board.
That is stalking and when I have threatened legal action - which I ALWAYS reserve the right to do - it is because the personal/anonymous barrier has been broken, not because anyone gets wound up about what is said on this forum with regard to any airline.
There is a big difference between the two.
As for AA in NYC, it is fine to say they are going to grow but I am still waiting for someone to show me an example of where a hub carrier has succeeded by being a distant #2 or #3 to other hub carriers in the same city, let alone at the same airport.
Again, AA doesn't have the slots or the facilities to be at parity to the larger carriers in NYC. Thus, building NYC up involves trying to do so from a position where the other carrier will always have more resources to use
For those who don't believe the power of a hub to move the revenue equation, it might come as a surprise to some to know that AA and DL are virtually at parity on JFK-LAX from the NYC point of sale. AA is still a larger revenue carrier based on the latest quarter (which was before the 762s had totally left) because of its point of sale strength in LAX. Over the past 5 years, DL has increased its NYC point of sale revenue dramatically - nearly in line with DL's strength in its other hubs such as ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC. The same principle applies in other hub markets such as for AA at DFW and US at CLT or PHL, hubs that are heavily dominated by one carrier.
But because most NYC markets are highly competitive on both ends, DL has to grow revenues from NYC at a higher rate or gain strength at the other end as well.
JFK-LAX is not the only market where that trend can be seen in NYC as DL has built its presence over the past five years. DL is growing its market dominance from NYC which makes it all the much more difficult for AA to regain that share and to gain a dominant position that is what drives revenue premiums given the structural disadvantage that AA will always have relative to DL at LGA and JFK but which UA does not have at EWR.
yoyodyne
Veteran
700UW said:
With Parker and Co. in charge, it is only a matter of time till the planes become more and more like AAmerican West AAirlines..
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,907
- 9,359
WT will bluster about taking legal action, but knows deep down that he'd have to officially discard his cloak of anonymity in order to do so.
By filing with the court, he'd not only have to identify himself, but he'd also have to identify the other party. I doubt that the forum owners are going to help without a court order, and the threshold for getting a court order that is hardly met by what goes on here on a daily basis...
The biggest problem WT would have is demonstrating how the alleged stalking constituted an intrusion or a threat to his real-world activities. Having your secret identity mocked doesn't quite meet the standard that the courts have applied. The only ones on the forums who might be able to make a case for stalking and/or defamation are those of us who use our real names.
By filing with the court, he'd not only have to identify himself, but he'd also have to identify the other party. I doubt that the forum owners are going to help without a court order, and the threshold for getting a court order that is hardly met by what goes on here on a daily basis...
The biggest problem WT would have is demonstrating how the alleged stalking constituted an intrusion or a threat to his real-world activities. Having your secret identity mocked doesn't quite meet the standard that the courts have applied. The only ones on the forums who might be able to make a case for stalking and/or defamation are those of us who use our real names.
ChockJockey
Veteran
- Dec 18, 2008
- 1,393
- 1,350
robbedagain said:
No idea bro, I could only blindly speculate. It will be interesting to see what their plans are for New York (concrete jungle where dreams are made of / there's nothing you can't do) as well as the rest of the AA network. Others have said it better than I could but I think AA has the potential for some growth in NYC if only in seats and destinations and that by playing towards its strengths its offerings can be optimized for success in that market. I don't think it will be an easy feat but the situation does call for innovation. I'd just assume be optimistic about it.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Using your logic, then DL is destined for failure @ LAX ... ... ...
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
And yet DL does not make a profit n NYC.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #53
the SOLE reason why I haven't taken legal action against those who connect personal information OFF of this board with what happens ON this board is because it would involve dragging people into the legal proceedings that I don't want to have to involve.
But rather than worry about what might be, I would rather focus on spirited discussions on this board anonymously for those who want to keep it that way and using their real name for the one or two people who want to use their name. With that clear division maintained, and with the support of Airline Forums which clearly supports the desire of most users to maintain their anonymity, there should be no problem.
As for whether AA will grow in NYC or not, it is worth a reminder that even with a dozen of slot slots trading hands just at LGA, the competitive balance there is changing. At the absolute minimum, Virgin is entering the Dallas-LGA market and it is still possible that DL could gain access to DAL and succeed at its attempt to add service in DAL-LGA alongside its current DFW-LGA service where it already has 20% of the market at average fares comparable to AA's.
Even based on DFW-LAX or DAL/DFW-MCI where only one carrier challenged AA's position in the market, AA's share of the market was eroded significantly. Add in that there will be at least 4 airlines flying DAL/DFW-LGA, and AA's share in its #1 revenue domestic market from both LGA and DFW will be impacted.
The same thing will likely be replicated in a few other markets from LGA. Unlike in other markets such as DFW-LAX where AA added capacity in order to limit Virgin's growth, AA cannot do that at LGA other than potentially putting 321s into the market. The number of slots is fixed so whatever AA uses in resources to fight competitors from DAL, the more vulnerable they are in other markets.
AA has access to some of the industry's top revenue markets, other carriers are adding service in them even after AA's BK where AA is in the best cost position it has been at in years, and those carriers will take share from AA that it cannot replace.
AA can upgrade capacity but so can other airlines. DL can upgrade its own markets from large RJs to mainline and B6 has larger aircraft coming online. The likely result would be a shift in traffic back from EWR to LGA and JFK which would hurt UA most but AA is still and always will be structurally at a disadvantage to DL and B6, its primary competitors at the airports where AA has its largest NYC operations.
IIRC, AA also said they lose money in NYC but if they didn't say it the fact that they are pulling out of markets and downgrading others is more than enough proof. AA has shrunk NYC while all of the other major players have grown.
As for LAX, the argument only works if DL is maxed out there. Based on DL's 15% increase in seats this summer, the largest growth rate of any of the US carriers, DL is not yet limited in its ability to grow at LAX. Further, DL could easily upgrade many of its large RJs with 717s or other mainline aircraft, something that likely will happen by next summer.
Also, as I have repeatedly noted, the most vulnerable player at LAX is UA and they sit on a whole lot of real estate. They will either have to use it or in time it will be reassigned to other carriers. AA or DL or other carriers could end up with some of those gates but the chances are high that both AA and DL can find resources at LAX to continue to growing.
Further, LAX is different from NYC in that no carrier has direct service into every other carrier's hubs as UA and DL do from EWR and/or LGA/JFK. IF DL enters the DAL/DFW-LAX market, AA might decide they need to up the ante but DL probably also recognizes the domino effect that will happen and is equally prepared to do the same in other key markets that are also other carrier hubs. So far, most of the carriers at LAX have not decided to become confrontational in the market but that day could easily come.
Finally, DL's increased presence on the overall west coast could easily take away some of the market advantage that AA has had which does not and will not operate many of the same routes that DL has started or will start. DL's focus has been at LAX has been on starting larger markets with smaller equipment and growing into those markets rather than AA's focus which has been to serve lots of smaller markets. DL has a lot of upside in its ability to grow at LAX. So, no, the chances that DL is doomed to lose money at LAX are not based on any reality, esp. since DL already gets higher average fares from LAX than AA does.
But rather than worry about what might be, I would rather focus on spirited discussions on this board anonymously for those who want to keep it that way and using their real name for the one or two people who want to use their name. With that clear division maintained, and with the support of Airline Forums which clearly supports the desire of most users to maintain their anonymity, there should be no problem.
As for whether AA will grow in NYC or not, it is worth a reminder that even with a dozen of slot slots trading hands just at LGA, the competitive balance there is changing. At the absolute minimum, Virgin is entering the Dallas-LGA market and it is still possible that DL could gain access to DAL and succeed at its attempt to add service in DAL-LGA alongside its current DFW-LGA service where it already has 20% of the market at average fares comparable to AA's.
Even based on DFW-LAX or DAL/DFW-MCI where only one carrier challenged AA's position in the market, AA's share of the market was eroded significantly. Add in that there will be at least 4 airlines flying DAL/DFW-LGA, and AA's share in its #1 revenue domestic market from both LGA and DFW will be impacted.
The same thing will likely be replicated in a few other markets from LGA. Unlike in other markets such as DFW-LAX where AA added capacity in order to limit Virgin's growth, AA cannot do that at LGA other than potentially putting 321s into the market. The number of slots is fixed so whatever AA uses in resources to fight competitors from DAL, the more vulnerable they are in other markets.
AA has access to some of the industry's top revenue markets, other carriers are adding service in them even after AA's BK where AA is in the best cost position it has been at in years, and those carriers will take share from AA that it cannot replace.
AA can upgrade capacity but so can other airlines. DL can upgrade its own markets from large RJs to mainline and B6 has larger aircraft coming online. The likely result would be a shift in traffic back from EWR to LGA and JFK which would hurt UA most but AA is still and always will be structurally at a disadvantage to DL and B6, its primary competitors at the airports where AA has its largest NYC operations.
IIRC, AA also said they lose money in NYC but if they didn't say it the fact that they are pulling out of markets and downgrading others is more than enough proof. AA has shrunk NYC while all of the other major players have grown.
As for LAX, the argument only works if DL is maxed out there. Based on DL's 15% increase in seats this summer, the largest growth rate of any of the US carriers, DL is not yet limited in its ability to grow at LAX. Further, DL could easily upgrade many of its large RJs with 717s or other mainline aircraft, something that likely will happen by next summer.
Also, as I have repeatedly noted, the most vulnerable player at LAX is UA and they sit on a whole lot of real estate. They will either have to use it or in time it will be reassigned to other carriers. AA or DL or other carriers could end up with some of those gates but the chances are high that both AA and DL can find resources at LAX to continue to growing.
Further, LAX is different from NYC in that no carrier has direct service into every other carrier's hubs as UA and DL do from EWR and/or LGA/JFK. IF DL enters the DAL/DFW-LAX market, AA might decide they need to up the ante but DL probably also recognizes the domino effect that will happen and is equally prepared to do the same in other key markets that are also other carrier hubs. So far, most of the carriers at LAX have not decided to become confrontational in the market but that day could easily come.
Finally, DL's increased presence on the overall west coast could easily take away some of the market advantage that AA has had which does not and will not operate many of the same routes that DL has started or will start. DL's focus has been at LAX has been on starting larger markets with smaller equipment and growing into those markets rather than AA's focus which has been to serve lots of smaller markets. DL has a lot of upside in its ability to grow at LAX. So, no, the chances that DL is doomed to lose money at LAX are not based on any reality, esp. since DL already gets higher average fares from LAX than AA does.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
youre right CJ bro. I think with the leadership team I do think the new AA will see some new additional flights from NY
MetalMover
Veteran
- Sep 16, 2013
- 3,543
- 2,410
That's what they WANT everyone to believe. It's all part of their plan for world domination.FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
Delta is maxed out at LAX and has started having to park RJs in remote gates past the Eagle terminal and bussing passengers. Delta is likely done expanding LAX after the summer. At least with AA bussing passengers to RJs, it has an RJ terminal with an Admiral's Club opening next month. Delta is literally parking RJs near its maintenance hangers and having busses meet passengers because it has no space at T5.
AA is actually not maxed out at LAX as not only does it have more gate space coming in 2016 that will allow it to increase departures by approximately 40-50 daily mainline flights a day, it also only uses only about 65% of the capacity of the RJ terminals. It will also transition all RJ flying from CRJ-200/700 mix to CRJ-900s next year while it continues an aggressive expansion of RJ service to markets in the West. And while the mid-field terminal is way off, AA gets to trade in all ten of it's RJ gates for 12 mid-field mainline gates when that project gets rolling.
With Qantas out of T4 and AA being able to move all international and domestic widebody flying to TBIT (although the latter is pending building a domestic baggage claim at TBIT, which hasn't been approved but AA wants), AA is going to be able to get significantly better use of its T4 gates. The QF 744, for example, would usually sit at the gate for as long as 90 minutes to two hours - in that amount of time you can board a flight to Nashville, handle an arrival and return flight to Miami, and handle a third arrival from Philadelphia.
AA never said it lost money at NYC - it currently makes money in NYC and expects those profits to continue.
AA is actually not maxed out at LAX as not only does it have more gate space coming in 2016 that will allow it to increase departures by approximately 40-50 daily mainline flights a day, it also only uses only about 65% of the capacity of the RJ terminals. It will also transition all RJ flying from CRJ-200/700 mix to CRJ-900s next year while it continues an aggressive expansion of RJ service to markets in the West. And while the mid-field terminal is way off, AA gets to trade in all ten of it's RJ gates for 12 mid-field mainline gates when that project gets rolling.
With Qantas out of T4 and AA being able to move all international and domestic widebody flying to TBIT (although the latter is pending building a domestic baggage claim at TBIT, which hasn't been approved but AA wants), AA is going to be able to get significantly better use of its T4 gates. The QF 744, for example, would usually sit at the gate for as long as 90 minutes to two hours - in that amount of time you can board a flight to Nashville, handle an arrival and return flight to Miami, and handle a third arrival from Philadelphia.
AA never said it lost money at NYC - it currently makes money in NYC and expects those profits to continue.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #57
Sorry, but you don't cut routes which are making money.
Even if DL has maxed out its gate usage at LAX, it still has the ability to upgauge flights to mainline AT ITS MAIN TERMINAL. AA cannot realistically grow to mainline aircraft using the remote facility. A premium lounge in a remote terminal only matters if you have to use a remote facility. Besides, some people here have argued that remote bussing is common in other parts of the world - and it is. Having a remote terminal accessible by bus is less common but does exist.
I think most people would rather board by a jetway and if that isn't possible, stay in the main terminal as long as they can.
And maxed out only matters if DL is told they cannot remote bus any longer.
DL's growth rate at LAX this year is 15%; AA/US' is a very small single digit number.
Your predictions about growth rates can easily be verified in about a year when growth rates for next year will be known.
What is known is that as of this year, DL is back at the same #2 position on the west coast that it was before AA and US merged. DL's growth at LAX and SEA has been more than enough to neutralize the merger benefits that AA gained.
As with most of the past decade, AA might be larger at LAX but in the west as a whole - and I'm talking only about CA, OR, and WA, DL has been larger and their continued growth at SEA appears to be capable of keeping it that way, esp. when mainline aircraft start replacing large RJs which in turn are used to add new routes.
The topic here is NYC and DL is already the largest carrier in NYC. Because of slot and facility constraints, there is very little likelihood of any reranking of carriers in NYC. AA might upgrade some flights and reallocate some slots but their basic size is pretty well fixed.
Even if DL has maxed out its gate usage at LAX, it still has the ability to upgauge flights to mainline AT ITS MAIN TERMINAL. AA cannot realistically grow to mainline aircraft using the remote facility. A premium lounge in a remote terminal only matters if you have to use a remote facility. Besides, some people here have argued that remote bussing is common in other parts of the world - and it is. Having a remote terminal accessible by bus is less common but does exist.
I think most people would rather board by a jetway and if that isn't possible, stay in the main terminal as long as they can.
And maxed out only matters if DL is told they cannot remote bus any longer.
DL's growth rate at LAX this year is 15%; AA/US' is a very small single digit number.
Your predictions about growth rates can easily be verified in about a year when growth rates for next year will be known.
What is known is that as of this year, DL is back at the same #2 position on the west coast that it was before AA and US merged. DL's growth at LAX and SEA has been more than enough to neutralize the merger benefits that AA gained.
As with most of the past decade, AA might be larger at LAX but in the west as a whole - and I'm talking only about CA, OR, and WA, DL has been larger and their continued growth at SEA appears to be capable of keeping it that way, esp. when mainline aircraft start replacing large RJs which in turn are used to add new routes.
The topic here is NYC and DL is already the largest carrier in NYC. Because of slot and facility constraints, there is very little likelihood of any reranking of carriers in NYC. AA might upgrade some flights and reallocate some slots but their basic size is pretty well fixed.
I'm not really sure what you mean about cutting routes that don't make money. I said nothing of cutting routes. AA is profitable in New York. End of story. Does that fact bother you? The fact that it cut some routes that weren't making money doesn't mean the overall operation isn't profitable.
Also, interesting suddenly you want to go back on topic - AA's leadership position at LAX and Delta's total inability to ever catch up really bothers you. AA is in a position to significantly grow at LAX beginning in approximately 20 months. Delta will not be.
The fact is Delta is maxed out on LAX gates. Sure, it can shuttle passengers to RJs parked remotely, which it now has to do. I love how it is perfectly acceptable for Delta to do this, but when AA does this, to a terminal with a lounge, it's unacceptable.
Yes, Delta has more flexibility to add mainline. Because we all know how flights to San Diego, Phoenix, Oakland, Sacramento and Leon are a great use of mainline equipment.
AA's growth options at NYC are obviously limited.
At EWR it currently wastes seven slots on PHL flights, and make no mistake those will move to something more useful. It will no longer have to use New York City has a major feeder for PHL flights like US Airways is forced to.
At LGA, same deal - 13 slots wasted on Philadelphia flying that can be used for growth elsewhere. Furthermore, AA/US don't use each LGA 100% of the time. A slot only need to be used annually 80% of the time. By transitioning more slot usage to 100%, AA/US will actually be able to add a bit of flying. I don't know the post-merger numbers, but I do know based on AA's slot holdings, AA can add about a dozen daily flights. US I'm going to guess might be good for another 5-8. So right there at LaGuardia you have around 24-30 daily new flights AA can add to new markets. Without acquiring a thing.
At JFK we can make pretend in the myth that JFK slots are coveted are hard to get, but let's not. Outside of peak afternoon times, adding flights to JFK is easy. AA has been sitting on a ton of primetime departure slots using them on domestic flights and RJs - every single slot it acquired from JetBlue is in prime trans-Atlantic departure periods. It has a ton of terminal space and a ton of well timed slots to expand nicely if it would like. In summer 2014 we will likely begin to see how AA decides to start shaping it's PHL/JFK hubs to work together on European flying. AA has the slots to move a significant amount of PHL flying over to JFK, and make no mistake it will move some markets over.
Is AA going to be more than #3? No. But it has a lot of growth opportunity and can take advantage of it's strong position among New York-originating traffic and business travelers in the city to expand it's operation.
Also, interesting suddenly you want to go back on topic - AA's leadership position at LAX and Delta's total inability to ever catch up really bothers you. AA is in a position to significantly grow at LAX beginning in approximately 20 months. Delta will not be.
The fact is Delta is maxed out on LAX gates. Sure, it can shuttle passengers to RJs parked remotely, which it now has to do. I love how it is perfectly acceptable for Delta to do this, but when AA does this, to a terminal with a lounge, it's unacceptable.
Yes, Delta has more flexibility to add mainline. Because we all know how flights to San Diego, Phoenix, Oakland, Sacramento and Leon are a great use of mainline equipment.
AA's growth options at NYC are obviously limited.
At EWR it currently wastes seven slots on PHL flights, and make no mistake those will move to something more useful. It will no longer have to use New York City has a major feeder for PHL flights like US Airways is forced to.
At LGA, same deal - 13 slots wasted on Philadelphia flying that can be used for growth elsewhere. Furthermore, AA/US don't use each LGA 100% of the time. A slot only need to be used annually 80% of the time. By transitioning more slot usage to 100%, AA/US will actually be able to add a bit of flying. I don't know the post-merger numbers, but I do know based on AA's slot holdings, AA can add about a dozen daily flights. US I'm going to guess might be good for another 5-8. So right there at LaGuardia you have around 24-30 daily new flights AA can add to new markets. Without acquiring a thing.
At JFK we can make pretend in the myth that JFK slots are coveted are hard to get, but let's not. Outside of peak afternoon times, adding flights to JFK is easy. AA has been sitting on a ton of primetime departure slots using them on domestic flights and RJs - every single slot it acquired from JetBlue is in prime trans-Atlantic departure periods. It has a ton of terminal space and a ton of well timed slots to expand nicely if it would like. In summer 2014 we will likely begin to see how AA decides to start shaping it's PHL/JFK hubs to work together on European flying. AA has the slots to move a significant amount of PHL flying over to JFK, and make no mistake it will move some markets over.
Is AA going to be more than #3? No. But it has a lot of growth opportunity and can take advantage of it's strong position among New York-originating traffic and business travelers in the city to expand it's operation.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #59
first of all, neither airlines or any other company walk away from a market position that is based on profitability. companies may change their product to match the market - which is what DL is doing by restructuring Tokyo - but its capacity per Asian market is the same if not growing. AA has not done that in NYC. AA is both smaller in terms of total seats and in terms of its percent of the market than it was 10 years ago.
You can't argue that AA was and is profitable while also denying that they gave up enormous amounts of market share to get there.
Further, if you want to argue that profitability is the sole goal to be ever be pursued, then why didn't any of the carriers just hang it up in BK? BK is a restructuring process based on pursuing future profitability. Every airline and every company chooses growth opportunities which require time and investments to mature. DL believed it was possible to have a much larger share of the LGA and JFK market which had long been divided between multiple legacy carriers, just as the market is at BOS and LAX today.
No one is denying that DL didn't recognize it had to invest a lot of money and patience to grow to the position they now have in NYC - but DL has handedly asserted itself as the largest domestic airline in NYC as well as the largest total airline by passengers in NYC. Their revenue position is not at the same proportionate level but they are the solid #2 airline in revenue and revenue is growing at a very healthy rate. And more significantly, they are delivering profits strong enough across the company to support their growth plan in NYC PLUS take on AS and other carriers in the west.
I am slighting AA nothing if they want to grow in NYC - but they simply do not have the assets to be able to be anywhere near the size DL or UA is in NYC. You or anyone else can argue that it is possible to be a niche hub airline in someone else's hub but I have repeatedly asked for evidence that such a strategy can work and I have received no evidence to support it.
NYC is a true hub. LAX is not and never will be. There are too many restraints that will ever prevent any two carriers from being able to duplicate the same thing each other does. From a marketing standpoint that is both a blessing and a curse. No carrier at LAX will be able to offer the same thing as any other airline - or a sum of the offerings of all other carriers in that market. Hub dominance is based on being able to provide everything every other carrier offers and then a whole more.
The same argument about slots can be made for DL as they can for AA. DL has in fact added some of the late night Caribbean flying to match B6 at times when I am sure they have no problem getting quickly to the runway.
AA can reallocate some slots away from EWR/LGA to PHL but again there is ample evidence to show that US' position in NYC was heavily bolstered by pulling low yielding traffic off of other carriers' NYC networks and routing it thru PHL. Other carriers did the same thing because of US' practices. The entire NE functions better if shorthaul hub-raiding flights like that don't exist.
I have never argued that DL is trying to or ever will overtake AA at LAX. You are the one that is coming to that conclusion.
Based on everything that can be seen, DL's strategy is to use the relatively few assets any carrier has at LAX - and let's keep in mind that gate space per airline is not far from what WN has to work with at DAL although widebody aircraft can be accommodated - to serve the highest profile markets. DL's strategy so far has been to focus on large cities and most of its growth has been north-south on the west coast, many of which DL flew at the time of the Western merger as did AA but which were abandoned as the focus shifted to protecting and growing in the east.
AA has essentially the same amount of space to grow in LAX plus or minus a couple gates as they had before the merger, many of which are essentially RJ only gates. DL and UA have no limitations that a part of its operation at LAX will be only on RJs. Nowhere did I say it is not acceptable for AA to have a remote operation but DL can bus passengers. I said the preference for any passenger is to board from a jetway at the remote terminal. But most passengers would prefer to board mainline aircraft - which DL has more capacity to add/upgrade than AA does - thru a jetway at the main terminal. As long as DL can get by with bussing passengers, they will push the limits of their facility. Again, based on this year's schedule, DL is adding 15% more seats year over year, the highest rate of growth at LAX among any US carrier.
AA has a better chance of holding onto its position at LAX than in NYC solely because of facility limitations at both airports. AA is in a more favorable position - but it is nowhere close to controlling as much capacity at any NYC airport as DL or UA does.
And AA has said they are not solidly profitable at LAX which isn't a surprise given that they have a lower average fare than DL or UA. BK will reduce a lot of costs but revenue growth still has to come thru winning market by market at LAX.
And for AA to make LAX work as a true hub to build on transpacific, they are going to have to cut flights which don't make sense on a global basis and shift those flights elsewhere. I believe we saw that with some intra-CA service.
You can't argue that AA was and is profitable while also denying that they gave up enormous amounts of market share to get there.
Further, if you want to argue that profitability is the sole goal to be ever be pursued, then why didn't any of the carriers just hang it up in BK? BK is a restructuring process based on pursuing future profitability. Every airline and every company chooses growth opportunities which require time and investments to mature. DL believed it was possible to have a much larger share of the LGA and JFK market which had long been divided between multiple legacy carriers, just as the market is at BOS and LAX today.
No one is denying that DL didn't recognize it had to invest a lot of money and patience to grow to the position they now have in NYC - but DL has handedly asserted itself as the largest domestic airline in NYC as well as the largest total airline by passengers in NYC. Their revenue position is not at the same proportionate level but they are the solid #2 airline in revenue and revenue is growing at a very healthy rate. And more significantly, they are delivering profits strong enough across the company to support their growth plan in NYC PLUS take on AS and other carriers in the west.
I am slighting AA nothing if they want to grow in NYC - but they simply do not have the assets to be able to be anywhere near the size DL or UA is in NYC. You or anyone else can argue that it is possible to be a niche hub airline in someone else's hub but I have repeatedly asked for evidence that such a strategy can work and I have received no evidence to support it.
NYC is a true hub. LAX is not and never will be. There are too many restraints that will ever prevent any two carriers from being able to duplicate the same thing each other does. From a marketing standpoint that is both a blessing and a curse. No carrier at LAX will be able to offer the same thing as any other airline - or a sum of the offerings of all other carriers in that market. Hub dominance is based on being able to provide everything every other carrier offers and then a whole more.
The same argument about slots can be made for DL as they can for AA. DL has in fact added some of the late night Caribbean flying to match B6 at times when I am sure they have no problem getting quickly to the runway.
AA can reallocate some slots away from EWR/LGA to PHL but again there is ample evidence to show that US' position in NYC was heavily bolstered by pulling low yielding traffic off of other carriers' NYC networks and routing it thru PHL. Other carriers did the same thing because of US' practices. The entire NE functions better if shorthaul hub-raiding flights like that don't exist.
I have never argued that DL is trying to or ever will overtake AA at LAX. You are the one that is coming to that conclusion.
Based on everything that can be seen, DL's strategy is to use the relatively few assets any carrier has at LAX - and let's keep in mind that gate space per airline is not far from what WN has to work with at DAL although widebody aircraft can be accommodated - to serve the highest profile markets. DL's strategy so far has been to focus on large cities and most of its growth has been north-south on the west coast, many of which DL flew at the time of the Western merger as did AA but which were abandoned as the focus shifted to protecting and growing in the east.
AA has essentially the same amount of space to grow in LAX plus or minus a couple gates as they had before the merger, many of which are essentially RJ only gates. DL and UA have no limitations that a part of its operation at LAX will be only on RJs. Nowhere did I say it is not acceptable for AA to have a remote operation but DL can bus passengers. I said the preference for any passenger is to board from a jetway at the remote terminal. But most passengers would prefer to board mainline aircraft - which DL has more capacity to add/upgrade than AA does - thru a jetway at the main terminal. As long as DL can get by with bussing passengers, they will push the limits of their facility. Again, based on this year's schedule, DL is adding 15% more seats year over year, the highest rate of growth at LAX among any US carrier.
AA has a better chance of holding onto its position at LAX than in NYC solely because of facility limitations at both airports. AA is in a more favorable position - but it is nowhere close to controlling as much capacity at any NYC airport as DL or UA does.
And AA has said they are not solidly profitable at LAX which isn't a surprise given that they have a lower average fare than DL or UA. BK will reduce a lot of costs but revenue growth still has to come thru winning market by market at LAX.
And for AA to make LAX work as a true hub to build on transpacific, they are going to have to cut flights which don't make sense on a global basis and shift those flights elsewhere. I believe we saw that with some intra-CA service.
