PHX to LHR non stop

[wings396]

Your projections on AA Jim are nothing more than speculation. AA has lost marketshare in several areas, and they have handed plenty of their flying over to B6 as well. DL & UA have, and will continue to draw traffic off AA due to thier size in comparison, and that would still be the case regardless of AA's costs.

 

[FWAAA]

All of your points are valid, yet with all of AA's strategy they fail to be a profitable airline. This has nothing specific to do with PHX, but more so the way AA utilizes their system and A/C. Out of all the scenarios you mentioned, PHL could most likely support almost any international destinations.

AA's labor costs per ASM are substantially higher than US. As BoeingBoy pointed out, AA's lack of profits may have everything to do with AA's labor costs being the highest per ASM of any legacy network airline and US' labor costs per ASM being the lowest of any legacy network airline.

AA's lack of profits similarly has nothing to do with AA and BA and their choice of London routes. The AA/BA joint venture was launched in late 2010 and was operational in 2011.

Your projections on AA Jim are nothing more than speculation. AA has lost marketshare in several areas, and they have handed plenty of their flying over to B6 as well. DL & UA have, and will continue to draw traffic off AA due to thier size in comparison, and that would still be the case regardless of AA's costs.

So Parker can offer the AA employees more pay than AA is willing to pay, and will be able to raise the pay of the US employees, and still increase profits? If he can do all that, minstrels will sing songs about him and the business schools will celebrate his genius.

 

[BoeingBoy]

Your projections on AA Jim are nothing more than speculation.

No, that would be your fantasies....

As FWAAA posted, all one needs to do is take AA's CASM and apply it to the ASM's US flies or vice versa to see what difference it would make in the bottom line. That is called factual information. Meanwhile you speculate that despite AA's bankruptcy their costs won't change and that if there's a merger where Doug is going to pay AA (and US with the MOU offer) employees more, costs will remain the same if not decrease. That isn't speculation, it's fantasy...

Now to the subject of the thread, it's possible that having feed into PHX could allow AA/BA to operate a 2nd frequency to PHX-LGW, especially if 777's were used instead of the 747.

Jim

 

[zethya]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't US do some FRA flying out of their hubs along with their Star partner LH?..............

The only route where both US and LH fly is PHL-FRA.

........ it's possible that having feed into PHX could allow AA/BA to operate a 2nd frequency to PHX-LGW, especially if 777's were used instead of the 747.
Jim

BA uses the 4 engine 747 on LHR due to the PHX environment, not because there are consistently full passenger loads. The 2 engine BA 777-200 requires load penalties (passengers/cargo) for PHX takeoffs during the warmer months - the London high season. I'd speculate that BA would consider eliminating PHX-LHR if the yields were compromised due to an additional AA/US flight as the AA/BA JV does little good if the flights are unprofitable.

 

[BoeingBoy]

BA uses the 4 engine 747 on LHR due to the PHX environment, not because there are consistently full passenger loads. The 2 engine BA 777-200 requires load penalties (passengers/cargo) for PHX takeoffs during the warmer months - the London high season.

FWIW, a twin-engine should have better performance than a 4-enging plane, all else being equal (passenger/cargo load, distance, environmental factors). AA is getting 777-300's which have better performance than the 777-200's, again all else being equal. Then there's the 787's AA has on order, although I don't recall the delivery timeframe. Besides, I mentioned it as a possibility, not a prediction.

Jim

 

[ChockJockey]

The article OP posted doesn't mention LHR. Could PHX-LGW be a possibility?

 

[wings396]

No, that would be your fantasies....

As FWAAA posted, all one needs to do is take AA's CASM and apply it to the ASM's US flies or vice versa to see what difference it would make in the bottom line. That is called factual information. Meanwhile you speculate that despite AA's bankruptcy their costs won't change and that if there's a merger where Doug is going to pay AA (and US with the MOU offer) employees more, costs will remain the same if not decrease. That isn't speculation, it's fantasy...

Now to the subject of the thread, it's possible that having feed into PHX could allow AA/BA to operate a 2nd frequency to PHX-LGW, especially if 777's were used instead of the 747.

Jim

I figured that you had the AA folder handy at your desk with all the numbers readily available.
I suppose that I could safely say that if US kept Bethune on board that we could have been like CO instead too.

 

[737823]

Jim,
AA 787-9s are due for delivery in 2014, the first 77W should be on the property within the next 90 days. I am a bit surprised US doesn't operate this route given its their homebase and a large connecting complex. I guess they don't have suitable aircraft available and the PHX area can't profitably support more than one flight.

Josh

 

[dash8roa]

AA's labor costs per ASM are substantially higher than US. As BoeingBoy pointed out, AA's lack of profits may have everything to do with AA's labor costs being the highest per ASM of any legacy network airline and US' labor costs per ASM being the lowest of any legacy network airline.

AA's lack of profits similarly has nothing to do with AA and BA and their choice of London routes. The AA/BA joint venture was launched in late 2010 and was operational in 2011.


So Parker can offer the AA employees more pay than AA is willing to pay, and will be able to raise the pay of the US employees, and still increase profits? If he can do all that, minstrels will sing songs about him and the business schools will celebrate his genius.

Parker wants the last available major,AA, so bad he will promise anything.First order of business is raise salaries and become profitable. NOT!

 

[BoeingBoy]

I suppose that I could safely say that if US kept Bethune on board that we could have been like CO instead too.

Probably not since the chances of him becoming President, much less CEO, were slim to none. You do know that he could have remained at US post-merger - working for the guy doing the job Gordo was doing before the merger was announced. So seeing the handwriting on the wall, Gordo moved on to greener pastures. The rest, as they say, is history.

Jim

 

[wings396]

I'm aware of that, but had heard that he was squeezed out by Uncle Ed and his crew. A very foolish move indeed, especially if Ed knew that he was going to bail out soon after the mergers with PS & PI.

 

[BoeingBoy]

That's how they "squeezed" Gordo out. When the merger was announced he was VP of Ops (or maybe just Flt Ops) and rose to CEO as those above him left in the management shuffle. US offered him a job as Ass't VP of Flt Ops (or Director of Flt Ops, I forget which), knowing that he'd likely turn it down.

US management wasn't interested in any new ideas, thinking that they knew all about running an airline. I suppose in a way they did, as long as it was largely a regional airline with a single mega-hub in PIT. It was when US bit off more than it could chew that it's management got in over it's head although it didn't take much knowledge about the industry to see it coming.

Jim

 

[wings396]

I agree with you 100% on that one. I have often referred to that era as the beginning of the end. Uncle Ed was a fool for bailing out so soon after the mergers and leaving Seth in charge. I don't place a lot of the blaim on him, as he was left with a mess to manage, and he wasn't really equipped to do so.

 

[FWAAA]

The article OP posted doesn't mention LHR. Could PHX-LGW be a possibility?

Perhaps, but I doubt it as the connection possibilites are very limited. Out of 61 daily flights on the AA/BA schedule, just three are flown from LGW - MCO and TPA. BA can fill those up with UK families vacationing in Florida so the lack of widespread online connections at LGW doesn't matter. While PHX is a great place, it doesn't have the appeal for vacationing Brits as does Florida.

The article did mention slots and while LGW is controlled, slots there are available if carriers apply, unlike LHR.

 

[USFlyer]

My criticism of Kirby was the unbridled arrogance in telling people in PHX that US could better allocate AA's 19 LHR slots (and widebody aircraft) in moving a flight to PHX, as if AA and BA haven't already determined the best allocation of London capacity among the 61 daily flights the joint venture operates.

I don't think that's really what he's doing. For example, planes currently flying TATL from PHL or CLT could be repurposed elsewhere (JFK, ORD, etc.), freeing up a longer haul 777 to fly PHX-LHR. i.e., Kirby may realize that a combined fleet allows an AA+US to better utilize aircraft across the entire network. DL+NW did this and now pre-merger NW aircraft fly international routes out of ATL, as just one example. It's looking beyond what each airline can did individually and focus on what the combined entity could do. This to me isn't hubris; it's sound business practice.