Will AA pursue Alaskan?
- Thread starter bigjets
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
no, it doesn't irritate me at all.
Your post highlights that AA's presence in California has slipped and DL would be the number two network carrier because DL is growing California as well as on the west coast - and not just as at LAX.
You can hang on to the size of AS in the market all you want - we all know that. but AS and WN don't have int'l networks, can't negotiate int'l customer pricing just because they have partnerships with int'l carriers, and so whatever size AS has means nothing to AA, AS doesn't have a nationwide network, and AA and AS are competitors who cannot cooperate in setting fares or schedules anymore than AA can with DL or DL can with AS.
If California and the west coast matters to AA outside of LAX, then AA needs to grow or maintain it using AA metal or its own regional carriers which AA controls and not by relying on a codeshare partner that is also partners with a number of other carriers.
you can't count AS' size and say it belongs to AA as long as AS has multiple partnerships with other carriers.
and it also doesn't change that if you expand the graph to reflect the west coast and not just California where AA's size at LAX becomes less influential, AA is #3 out of 3 even with US among the network carriers - and of course behind AS and WN overall.
Your post highlights that AA's presence in California has slipped and DL would be the number two network carrier because DL is growing California as well as on the west coast - and not just as at LAX.
You can hang on to the size of AS in the market all you want - we all know that. but AS and WN don't have int'l networks, can't negotiate int'l customer pricing just because they have partnerships with int'l carriers, and so whatever size AS has means nothing to AA, AS doesn't have a nationwide network, and AA and AS are competitors who cannot cooperate in setting fares or schedules anymore than AA can with DL or DL can with AS.
If California and the west coast matters to AA outside of LAX, then AA needs to grow or maintain it using AA metal or its own regional carriers which AA controls and not by relying on a codeshare partner that is also partners with a number of other carriers.
you can't count AS' size and say it belongs to AA as long as AS has multiple partnerships with other carriers.
and it also doesn't change that if you expand the graph to reflect the west coast and not just California where AA's size at LAX becomes less influential, AA is #3 out of 3 even with US among the network carriers - and of course behind AS and WN overall.
WorldTraveler said:
I'm kind of fascinated with your obsession & constant repetition of AA allegedly being #3 on the west coast (kind of ignoring of how large and important LAX is where AA has a sizeable operation - but I digress).WorldTraveler said:
DL, for the longest time was the #3 carrier and managed to survive ... ... ...
Oh, I'm sorry, this doesn't fit your narrative???
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
remember it was AA and its fanclub that repeatedly touted that AA would be the world's largest airline and would gain so much mass.
No one has denied that AA is the largest airline at LAX but that California and the west coast include a whole lot more than LAX.
Good for AA for having a strong market but it doesn't tell the story beyond one city.
And specific to this topic, all of the talk about what AS can do for AA outside of LAX means little specifically because AS codeshares with multiple airlines and AA can't coordinate its efforts with AS any more than DL could with AS - and we see how well that is working out.
the notion that AA can do something for AS that can't be done now or that AS wants more of AA to the exclusion of its other partnerships is unsupported by any reality.
No one has denied that AA is the largest airline at LAX but that California and the west coast include a whole lot more than LAX.
Good for AA for having a strong market but it doesn't tell the story beyond one city.
And specific to this topic, all of the talk about what AS can do for AA outside of LAX means little specifically because AS codeshares with multiple airlines and AA can't coordinate its efforts with AS any more than DL could with AS - and we see how well that is working out.
the notion that AA can do something for AS that can't be done now or that AS wants more of AA to the exclusion of its other partnerships is unsupported by any reality.
1) I don't have the numbers, and somebody may correct me, but on the west coast I believe that LAX dominates in a manner that may be simialar to how LHR dominates Europe? Sure, there are other places - but LAX for the west coast USA and LHR for Europe are by far the dominant markets.WorldTraveler said:
2) Let's see how the happy partership between DL and AS shakes out in a couple years down the road.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
it doesn't matter if it is the dominant market - it is - but it isn't all of the west coast.
AA has a dominant position in the largest market on the west coast but other carriers have a larger presence in a number of other markets that matter more.
Their share of the total market is larger.
I have no expectations that AS and DL are headed for splitsville in time but for now they have a contract which for now gives DL more leverage than AS solely because DL is sitting harder on top of AS who has few other places to turn than what AS can do to DL.
regardless of what DL does to AS doesn't change that for now AA adds nothing that AS can't do already.
by the time AS might come to a position of being able to get out of the DL relationship and possibly change its mind to have an exclusive relationship with AA or oneworld, DL will have built a nice sized hub at SEA.
It is certain that the AS-DL relationship will feature heavily on AS' earnings calls which will take place.
they'll show a tough upper lip but the bottom line is that DL is setting up a hub on top of AS and it takes away one more place where AA could have grown, esp. to Asia, meaning that AA will have to slug it out at LAX in order to build a west coast-Asia network.
AA has a dominant position in the largest market on the west coast but other carriers have a larger presence in a number of other markets that matter more.
Their share of the total market is larger.
I have no expectations that AS and DL are headed for splitsville in time but for now they have a contract which for now gives DL more leverage than AS solely because DL is sitting harder on top of AS who has few other places to turn than what AS can do to DL.
regardless of what DL does to AS doesn't change that for now AA adds nothing that AS can't do already.
by the time AS might come to a position of being able to get out of the DL relationship and possibly change its mind to have an exclusive relationship with AA or oneworld, DL will have built a nice sized hub at SEA.
It is certain that the AS-DL relationship will feature heavily on AS' earnings calls which will take place.
they'll show a tough upper lip but the bottom line is that DL is setting up a hub on top of AS and it takes away one more place where AA could have grown, esp. to Asia, meaning that AA will have to slug it out at LAX in order to build a west coast-Asia network.
There is money to be made elsewhere in CA and strategic reasons to do so. To beef up it's point to point and key market service in SFO and to a point PDX and SEA will benefit the lucrative transcon and international performance. In an earlier era, when the CA was rolling in the dough AA realized that without a strong(er) north/south presence on the west coast the east/west (and now) Intl. service revenue potential cant be fully realized. Enter QQ-
Many if not all the factors are true today..including UA's SFO dominance and a bevy of "start ups" that dilute market share...etc.In fact WN in the 90's with its low costs drove us from SJC and the bay as a whole. Today they operate at a level where there is no longer that cost savings and operational advantage.
AA adheres firmly to their Business Plans and the tenants held within strongly. There is little to no reason in the minds of those authors of those plans to deviate. The Cornerstone Plan and its fall out is still evident out west as it's all about LAX. I have hope that the region and the strategy regarding the reason will change in the days ahead.
Many if not all the factors are true today..including UA's SFO dominance and a bevy of "start ups" that dilute market share...etc.In fact WN in the 90's with its low costs drove us from SJC and the bay as a whole. Today they operate at a level where there is no longer that cost savings and operational advantage.
AA adheres firmly to their Business Plans and the tenants held within strongly. There is little to no reason in the minds of those authors of those plans to deviate. The Cornerstone Plan and its fall out is still evident out west as it's all about LAX. I have hope that the region and the strategy regarding the reason will change in the days ahead.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
AA has very little presence on the west coast outside of LAX because everyone came to the same conclusion about expanding in CA at the same time.
WN did have a cost advantage which they don't have now - or it has been greatly reduced - and many of their markets are large and have decent revenue which invites competition.
Not sure what upstarts you are referring to but VX is the only one that could be considered relatively new to the market but I think they have still been around for about five years.
They are feeling the pressure from the increased growth on the west coast, but again, they are shifting their growth to N. Texas so AA isn't getting a pass.
You are correct that AA has committed a lot of resources to LAX while other carriers have more diversified west coast strategies.
More directly connected to this thread and AS, DL's pilots have been told by mgmt. that a 717 base at SEA is being considered for next summer if the demand remains strong.
(DL is also considering a 330 base at NYC which would indicate that DL is settling into its dominance there. The 333 regularly serves many JFK-Europe routes during the summer but is heavily redeployed to other hub during the winter.)
Again, the notion that even if AA could convince AS to join a deeper partnership, DL's dual west coast hubs will have already been built.
in other news that matters, Brazilians are already burning their flags.
WN did have a cost advantage which they don't have now - or it has been greatly reduced - and many of their markets are large and have decent revenue which invites competition.
Not sure what upstarts you are referring to but VX is the only one that could be considered relatively new to the market but I think they have still been around for about five years.
They are feeling the pressure from the increased growth on the west coast, but again, they are shifting their growth to N. Texas so AA isn't getting a pass.
You are correct that AA has committed a lot of resources to LAX while other carriers have more diversified west coast strategies.
More directly connected to this thread and AS, DL's pilots have been told by mgmt. that a 717 base at SEA is being considered for next summer if the demand remains strong.
(DL is also considering a 330 base at NYC which would indicate that DL is settling into its dominance there. The 333 regularly serves many JFK-Europe routes during the summer but is heavily redeployed to other hub during the winter.)
Again, the notion that even if AA could convince AS to join a deeper partnership, DL's dual west coast hubs will have already been built.
in other news that matters, Brazilians are already burning their flags.
The idea of even shifting perspective and examining a new strategy is absent in the halls of CP. All I have to say is just my observation on the situation-but what I do know is that with mindsets in place, the west will be given up. Once again, all our eggs will be placed in one basket-the AS tie up-, which is a half ass excuse for a true, revenue generating, solid plan for our future.
I hope Doug and Co prove me wrong..
I hope Doug and Co prove me wrong..
Let me jut say this. AA may never have a locked up west coast gateway or a comprehensive west coast network. Odds are they will not because of the way things are. They can however capitalize in cities like SEA and SFO by building on their JB plans-offer their own service to points in Asia and Europe by exploiting these agreements and carry on OUR metal people, high revenue people, to destinations across the globe.In most every case AA vacates routes we share with our JB partners or funnels them through a hub to fly on AA to get stations served by our OW/JB partners. Every focus city with the potential for huge corporate business and high demand for OW/JB or local traffic should be on the table for consideration. We are always fighting with one hand tied behind our back. If it's not reinforcing our already goliath DFW/MIA operation or try to figure out ORD/LAX-they shy away The rest is garbage-back, back burner...missed opportunity to be a bit different and seize the moment. We now have the resources and the numbers to change our approach.
AC AA LA FA said:
I don't know that I totally disagree with you about the need to have a presence 'everywhere', but at the same time to be sucessfull you need to have a large presence in the biggest markets. So the corner stone strategy LAX, JFK, MIA, ORD - and I hate that name - may not have been all that bad.
I don't want to sound like a jack@ss, but saying that its bad to focus on LAX (biggest market on the west coast) and instead focus elsewhere (like a secondary market like SEA) is something that someone who is a fan of an airline (DL) that is a #3 or #4 (depending on what metric you're comparing) in the largest market (LAX) would say ... ... ...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
problem is that cornerstone pulled SEA and SFO and other cities down to flying just to AA hubs and even in hub markets AA doesn't provide the greatest amount of service or is the dominant amount of service.
If AA really was the dominant airline in every market it served from SFO or SEA to the markets it does serve, it would probably be fine if they didn't try to fly everywhere but other airlines have more service and a larger share of the market in markets from those cities that AA serves such as SFO-LAX, SFO-JFK, SFO-ORD etc.
and other carriers have additional service such as to HNL that AA decided wasn't worth its while to fly.
Further, the whole notion that AA is dominant at LAX is a myth. They may have 25% of the revenue share of LAX but there simply aren't enough gates for any carrier to dominate and AA simply can't serve the same cities that other carriers serve and succeed to the degree those carriers do in their strength markets - let's see AA go into LAX-MDW, DEN, ATL with enough capacity to matter and see how well that goes.
Further, other carriers have the ability to grow their presence at LAX and are doing so and will continue to do so.
LAX does not have the facilities to allow a single carrier to dominate the market as exists in other markets and without the ability to dominate the markets that a carrier serves, they cannot get the revenue premiums that are necessary to win in the marketplace.
If AA really was the dominant airline in every market it served from SFO or SEA to the markets it does serve, it would probably be fine if they didn't try to fly everywhere but other airlines have more service and a larger share of the market in markets from those cities that AA serves such as SFO-LAX, SFO-JFK, SFO-ORD etc.
and other carriers have additional service such as to HNL that AA decided wasn't worth its while to fly.
Further, the whole notion that AA is dominant at LAX is a myth. They may have 25% of the revenue share of LAX but there simply aren't enough gates for any carrier to dominate and AA simply can't serve the same cities that other carriers serve and succeed to the degree those carriers do in their strength markets - let's see AA go into LAX-MDW, DEN, ATL with enough capacity to matter and see how well that goes.
Further, other carriers have the ability to grow their presence at LAX and are doing so and will continue to do so.
LAX does not have the facilities to allow a single carrier to dominate the market as exists in other markets and without the ability to dominate the markets that a carrier serves, they cannot get the revenue premiums that are necessary to win in the marketplace.
Similar threads
