Rumor: AA LAX-SEA/PDX June 2014

[IORFA]

Was told last night that the local LAX agent advisory board was told that AA was going to announce LAX-SEA/PDX for June 2014. LAX-SEA 4 times a day on mainline and LAX-PDX also 4 times a day, but "Eagle". I asked if that meant it would be 70 seaters or 50 seaters. He didn't know. They were told that PDX was "Eagle" because they didn't have enough mainline gates to operate as mainline. Heres hoping it is true. If it is announced, I wouldn't be surprised if others like the long rumored LAX-AKL is announced at the same time. I feel that once the merger is finalized there might be a lot of announcements like this. AA/US have had a lot of time to discuss the route network. The middle to end of December is still an ok time to announce for next summer.

 

[Kev3188]

Interesting news if it comes to pass! Looks like the I-5 corridor is heating up.
 
As for M/L gates at PDX; does AA still  have 2? Would depend on timing of course, but I would think that given the current AA flight activity, it's workable? 

 

[WorldTraveler]

which would seem to validate that AS' relationship with both AA and DL are at risk or that AA is willing to push the limits of its relationship with AA to ensure that DL doesn't gain a strategic advantage on the west coast.

Also validates that competition is good and is fostered when carriers are free to compete. Wouldn't be surprised to see examples of AA and DL's west coast buildup make it into arguments about why legacy carriers do aggressively compete against each other and low fare carriers and why any artificial attempts to carve out one airline over another is flawed logic.

Further, you have to ask who is the most vulnerable in these west coast market wars... and the answer very well could be none of AA, DL, or AS but rather UA who has higher costs and duplicate west coast hubs which it is struggling to justify as well as VX.

 

[Kev3188]

which would seem to validate that AS' relationship with both AA and DL are at risk or that AA is willing to push the limits of its relationship with AA to ensure that DL doesn't gain a strategic advantage on the west coast.

Or both...

Further, you have to ask who is the most vulnerable in these west coast market wars... and the answer very well could be none of AA, DL, or AS but rather UA who has higher costs and duplicate west coast hubs which it is struggling to justify as well as VX.

My $$$ would be on VX...

 

[Show me the money]

Its about time some other flights are offered to PDX and SEA. Have you ever tried to get to PDX as a non-rev good luck.

 

[nycbusdriver]

Interesting news if it comes to pass! Looks like the I-5 corridor is heating up.
 
As for M/L gates at PDX; does AA still  have 2? Would depend on timing of course, but I would think that given the current AA flight activity, it's workable? 

 
Combined AA/US is #1 on the east coast, #1 in the midwest and #3 on the west coast.  I guess they're looking to improve that #3.  It will be nice to again work for an airline that doesn't turn tail and run anytime another carrier whispers "competition."

 

[WorldTraveler]

Or both...



My $$$ would be on VX...

see we do have plenty on which we can agree.

My 2 centavos is that the desire to put pressure on VX on the west coast helps to alleviate pressures on pricing on the transcons. VX's history and identity is on the transcons. With VX now having the lowest quality premium product on the JFK transcons, they will be working hard to retain their image. AA and DL both benefit not only at JFK but in other markets by having a weaker and smaller VX.

 

[Kev3188]

Its about time some other flights are offered to PDX and SEA. Have you ever tried to get to PDX as a non-rev good luck.

Hahaha. Yep...

 

[WorldTraveler]

Combined AA/US is #1 on the east coast, #1 in the midwest and #3 on the west coast.  I guess they're looking to improve that #3.  It will be nice to again work for an airline that doesn't turn tail and run anytime another carrier whispers "competition."

can we use proper terminology and say that AA/US will be the largest carrier in the central region of the US and not the Midwest? The Midwest is a specific geographic region that does not include Texas, the primary driver behind AA/US size claims in the central US. AA/US is not and will not be the largest carrier in the Midwest.

new AA can't run from DFW but the region will be seeing substantially more competition over the next year than it has seen in a real long time.

Let's also remember that size claims anywhere cannot be accurately made until the divestiture process is completed and combined schedules for AA and competitors are known.

 

[FWAAA]

 
Combined AA/US is #1 on the east coast, #1 in the midwest and #3 on the west coast.  I guess they're looking to improve that #3.  It will be nice to again work for an airline that doesn't turn tail and run anytime another carrier whispers "competition."

I'm not seeing the #1 on the East Coast.    New AA will be #2 in BOS, #4 in NYC, #1 in PHL,  #2 or #3 in WAS (BWI/DCA/IAD), #1 in CLT and perhaps #2 in S Florida (PBI/FLL/MIA).   
 
In the Central part of the country,  new AA will be #2 in CHI and #1 at DFW.   New AA is a nobody in every other city in the middle of the country, including  MSP, STL, DTW, IAH, etc.   I'm not sure how that translates into the talking point that new AA is #1 in the Central region.   

 

[IORFA]

Interesting news if it comes to pass! Looks like the I-5 corridor is heating up.
 
As for M/L gates at PDX; does AA still  have 2? Would depend on timing of course, but I would think that given the current AA flight activity, it's workable?

I took the M/L gate issue to mean in LA. AA has one gate in PDX. They gave back C11 and the port took out the AA branded podium. AA uses it at times. More since ORD came back. No one else uses it. Curiously, Frontier was across the way with one gate and occasionally used the second in OSO situations. They have recently moved to C21. I hope this means that US is going to move to C11 and that the combined might take another gate across the hall if needed. At this point it isn't needed, except for maybe early morning.

 

[FWAAA]

I took the M/L gate issue to mean in LA. AA has one gate in PDX. They gave back C11 and the port took out the AA branded podium. AA uses it at times. More since ORD came back. No one else uses it. Curiously, Frontier was across the way with one gate and occasionally used the second in OSO situations. They have recently moved to C21. I hope this means that US is going to move to C11 and that the combined might take another gate across the hall if needed. At this point it isn't needed, except for maybe early morning.

US uses C17 and occasionally C19 for its six daily flights to PHX and one redeye to CLT.   
 
Looks like three gates would serve the ORD, DFW, CLT, PHX and LAX (if it comes to pass).    The LAX-PDX market looks like a good fit for the CR7 or CR9 or E75.
 
UA flies three times a day LAX-PDX with CRJ200s.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I'm not seeing the #1 on the East Coast.    New AA will be #2 in BOS, #4 in NYC, #1 in PHL,  #2 or #3 in WAS (BWI/DCA/IAD), #1 in CLT and perhaps #2 in S Florida (PBI/FLL/MIA).   
 
In the Central part of the country,  new AA will be #2 in CHI and #1 at DFW.   New AA is a nobody in every other city in the middle of the country, including  MSP, STL, DTW, IAH, etc.   I'm not sure how that translates into the talking point that new AA is #1 in the Central region.

ouch!

new AA's mass is generated just the way US has generated mass... in large hubs that are currently highly protected but which actually makes them vulnerable to increased competition.

The ability to be #1 or 2 in the country is based on not only connecting hubs but also in key local markets. That is precisely why AA is fighting to not lose its presence in LAX like it did in NYC in which it will be #3.

problem is because LAX is gate restricted, no single carrier can really dominate the airport, and since LAX represents the largest revenue base in the region, no carrier can dominate the region either.

Thus, new routes from LAX might be intended to increase market share but other carriers are doing the same thing so the entire market is growing meaning the market share doesn't grow.

The chances are high that most of the new routes will be profitable in time because the market is essentially closed.

LAX, like DAL, is an exception in the US aviation system. AA might try to focus on its ability to grow at LAX just as WN will at DAL but ultimately a claim of "largest" on more than a local basis has to be made in dozens of cities, not just a few here or there.

 

[eolesen]

problem is because LAX is gate restricted, no single carrier can really dominate the airport, and since LAX represents the largest revenue base in the region, no carrier can dominate the region either.

Thus, new routes from LAX might be intended to increase market share but other carriers are doing the same thing so the entire market is growing meaning the market share doesn't grow.

If you'd compared DAL & LGB, you might have had a point, but LAX is more like JFK/LGA. Gate constrained, whatever new gate capacity coming online is targeted for international carriers only, and a market so large that nobody can honestly try and lay claim to dominating the region.

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes you are correct and agrees with what I have said, which means that the domestic market is basically being forced to use LAX airport assets more efficiently (generating more revenue per gate) and to accommodate growth within those gates.

in a limited access situation like that, profitability for all carriers will improve. If that type of situation had existed at LGA and JFK, it would have been much easier for AA to retain its market presence. It is ironic that NE airports are now better positioned to accommodate natural market growth despite their slot restrictions that LAX.