Total gates at LAX ?

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

DL is such a badass, UA and AA better behave / know their place.
 

DL will start its own CDG flight the nanosecond AA or UA even think about starting their own.

 

 
 
 
Oh, and speaking of LAX-CDG and double standards:  I thought that, according to your own (fabricated?) theory, that if airlines want to truly win, then they should fly JV routes on their own metal, not just rely on their partners, because otherwise they're losers.  At least that is what you've preached on here on numerous occasions.  So, how come DL doesn't already fly LAX-CDG on their own metal?  Losers?

 

[WorldTraveler]

Haha - AA can only make LAX an Asia hub if Delta and United can do.  Such a comical logical fallacy.
 
No, still not getting it - what I'm saying is not that dumping capacity into LAX-Asia would be margin-dilutive for Delta and margin-accretive for AA.  What I'm saying is that it would almost certainly be margin-dilutive for both, at least in the near-term, but that margin dilution would be more justifiable and defensible for AA than for Delta.

and just because you think that AA can make money where other carriers cannot is precisely the error.

You have absolutely no justification for your statement and in fact the evidence is overwhelmingly that AA has not reached, let alone, passed DL or UA in ANY Asia market that AA and any of the other two are direct competitors.

So, no, it is actually more likely that DL and UA will outperform AA in ANY Asia market so any long term benefit will rest with them, not AA.

So yes, I think Delta will, indeed, "settle" for being #2 at LAX - in general, internationally, and to Asia specifically - and allow AA to continue to grow LAX-Asia without dumping tons of additional, excess capacity on top of AA. Anderson has to pick his battles and I do not believe he will be able to make a compelling case that LAX-Asia is, writ large, a battle worth picking. It will lose money and put at risk the economics of his growing SEA hub, and for no major purpose other than to ensure AA, too, loses money.

given that DL is already the largest int'l carrier at LAX, they clearly decided it was worth being the largest carrier and it is only in your dreams that they will decide it is no longer worth it.

AA, like DL and UA are and will be driven by profits, not YOUR need to say any carrier as the largest carrier even while losing money doing so.

The economics overwhelmingly say that there are more markets where DL and UA can succeed in adding capacity from LAX than AA can.

 

[700UW]

 

[commavia]

Keep repeating that line - "largest international carrier at LAX" - for as long as you can.  Go on - enjoy it.
 
Pretty soon will be relegated to the ash heap of meaningless airline industry internet forum history, much like "end-to-end networks," "Delta will dump capacity to bankrupt JAL," "largest airline in the world," "most profitable airline in the U.S.," etc.
 
Back here in reality, AA shows no sign of slowing down at LAX (and has no major impediments to such growth, anyway), and is openly talking about more LAX-Asia.  Delta, meanwhile, has little rational, reasonable, economically justifiable basis for dumping even more capacity into LAX-Asia just to prove a point.  Even Richard Anderson has to answer to someone - and that someone isn't a self-appointed internet industry forum "expert."  It's the shareholders.

 

[WorldTraveler]

if it happens, then you can say it.

but you have repeatedly held on to the notion that AA will grow wherever and whenever it wants just because AA has decided it needs a west coast hub and other carriers should let AA achieve what AA wants.

That is not the way the world works.

DL has shown no signs of slowing down its growth at LAX and the only hope you have they will is by saying they will run out of gates.

Parker has to answer for the capacity he adds; we just saw that the market reacted very unfavorably not to DL's capcity and pricing but WN's capacity additions and Parker's statements about pricing.

The gap between AAL and DAL market value has only widened since those comments were made.

 

[700UW]

 

[commavia]

Once again, misstating and misrepresenting others' arguments never serves one's own arguments.
 
No, I've never said that AA "will grow wherever and whenever it wants."  What I've said, explained and justified - repeatedly - is that all airlines must expand in (at least temporarily) margin-dilutive markets in order to achieve broader strategic objectives.  It's what Delta has done and is doing in NYC, and SEA - sacrificing immediate financial performance in pursuit of the longer-term goal.
 
In this case, AA has a very clear and very justifiable strategic objective to rationalize expanding at LAX - namely, the need for a west coast gateway to Asia, which it presently lacks.  Delta, which now has its successful (and growing) west coast gateway to Asia up at SEA, has no such clear and justifiable strategic rationale to tell investors why it would be dumping tons of loss-making capacity into LAX-Asia.  So to be clear - what I'm saying is that if Parker and Anderson have to stand up in front of their investors and Wall St and explain making an investment in LAX-Asia capacity, it is my opinion that Parker will have a far better, and more defensible, story to tell than Anderson.
 
Which is why - once again, and for the final time - I believe that while Delta may try and keep up with AA LAX-Asia, it will ultimately cut its losses and stop fighting AA for LAX-Asia and instead focus on the seemingly-successful franchise they've built in SEA, which is a much better long-term strategic bet for Delta, anyway.

 

[WorldTraveler]

your bolded statement is simply incorrect.

NO company can justify losing 20% while another company is profitable in the same line of business.

AA's Asian revenues from LAX just as they are from ORD and were from JFK until AA bailed out of the Asia market are 20% or more behind DL and UA's in the same market.

AA can't justify throwing capacity and losing money in a market where other carriers can make money and justify it based on some larger strategic objective of having a viable presence in the larger market.

AA tried to use that argument in the LAX-JFK market and had to cut capacity which has now been picked up by DL and other carriers.

TPAC markets are far too large for AA or any carrier to lose money and expect to make it up in strategic objectives.

AA will not commit to flying routes that it cannot make money in as much as you want it to be otherwise.

Given that UA added its LAX-PVG route on top of AA's announcement to do the same and DL has made it clear it is not giving anything up in LAX to AA, it is merely a dream that AA can add flights that other carriers will not and expect to justify it on the basis of larger strategic objectives.

 

[commavia]

With the margins Parker is delivering these days (in excess of Delta's, lest we forget) and AA's clearly obvious need to improve its standing in a region as important and dynamic as Asia, something tells me he won't have much trouble explaining to his board and Wall St why he needs to invest in temporarily-margin-dilutive growth in Asia.  (Indeed, AA has already invested heavily in such growth in Asia, and to apparently wide approval - or at least no real consternation - from anyone that matters.)  On the contrary, Anderson would have to make the case that it's worth spending shareholders' money to dump excess capacity into LAX in a gambit to simply guarantee that AA also loses money, but would almost certainly still remain larger and stronger, merely because ... what?  There is no "what" there - and therein lies the problem.  Delta already has a very large and very strong Asia gateway at SEA, so Anderson doesn't need to waste time and money building one at LAX the way AA does - and his investors know that.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Parker is delivering the margins he is because AA did not hedge while other carriers did.

Plain and simple.

AA's yield is lower than DL's and AA's costs are going up faster than DL or UA's.

AA's recent successes in Asia are because it has cut routes like JFK-HND that were huge money losing routes and added flights from DFW, the 2nd largest hub in the US.

AA isn't going to post high margins by flying from LAX to Asia. no matter how badly you want them to.

and what UA has at SFO didn't stop them from deciding they needed to start a route from LAX-PVG as soon as AA announced it.

AA isn't going to build up this great LAX gateway to Asia unless DL and UA to decide to have one as well.

move on and learn to live within the economic and competitive realities that exist in the industry.

 

[commavia]

Hahahaha ... AA isn't going to build an Asia gateway at LAX unless Delta and United decide to have one as well.
 
Classic!  This type of hysterical myopic detachment reality is what keeps me coming back - oh, the comedy!

 

[WorldTraveler]

It is hysterical myopia only for those who think that ANY carrier in any market an add whatever it wants.

 

[commavia]

Once again - nobody ever said that.  But by all means continue to repeat the misrepresentations of others' words and spinning the Delta fantasies.  It just makes the comedy all the more enjoyable.

 

[WorldTraveler]

you continue to believe that AA can add whatever it can, lose money doing it, and justify it on the basis of strategic value while other carriers will lose money and walk away.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[mistified]

Oh I could not let this one get by.
Goes down as one of WT's greatest  "quotable quotes" .
For those that are interested, the history of WT's quotable quotes has its origins back when AMR declared BK and WT's predictions of what would transpire during that process and how it would end up. A list was compiled and posted here as these quotes came in.
Made this msg board all that  more entertaining.
Going way back just prior to Delta filing for BK, I remember some others good ones.
 
So in the sprit of this lets keep em coming!
 
Lets have a new thread called  "quotable quotes " of WT
 
 
 

"AA isn't going to build up this great LAX gateway to Asia unless DL and UA to decide to have one as well."

.