UA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1698 posts, RR: 3 Posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Before I begin here's the disclaimer:
YES I did do a thorough search for this topic, and NO I didn't find anything. Okay- that's done.
I was wondering why AA doesn't have a LCC like the other two big legacy carriers? (UA=Ted, DL=Song-do they have abbreviations?). I know that AA did purchase Reno Air in the mid 90s, but they only have their mainline and regional/commuter service. Why haven't they followed the trend?
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2686 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1847 times:
Starting LCCs have done nothing so far for the big U.S. carriers. DL and UA have paid dearly for starting Song and Ted...they are draining their finances down the toilet. DL and UA have already proven that starting an LCC is not the way to generate revenue. AA is wise to spend their money on other things such as new international service, where WN isn't there to threaten them. AA is losing enough passengers to WN as it is....if they started an LCC they would likely suffer the same fate as UA and DL. Starting an airline in these troubled times is not a wise move, especially for a big U.S. carrier like AA, which has a hard enough time against WN.
Moman From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1054 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1841 times:
I always thought they should have overhauled TWA and made it their LCC.
Reasons for TWA being LCC:
-Mainly MD-80 based & 757 (smaller jets) (DUMP 767s on AA)
-Flights to a lot of leisure destinations
-Motivated workforce that wasn't really interested in being integrated into AA the way AA wanted them to be
-Single major hub @ STL
-The big plus is that TWA would still be alive and we would see the transition livery still!!!!
I think it could have been possible had AA renegotiated all the leases and such. The AA workforce was paid less than AA so they could have kept it that way, and integrated the two where it made most sense.
Of course that was my dream, but not to be (for now).
Anyways, Gerald Arpey is on the record for saying he doesn't see any use for an AA LCC, so I wouldn't count on them doing it anytime soon.
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1810 times:
At this point AA is struggling. They really should find some ways to stabilize their own situation before embarking on a LCC venture and going up against B6 and WN who happen to be probably the only carriers making money!
Cactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2430 posts, RR: 32
Reply 7, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1697 times:
Why hasn't AA followed the trend? Simple. It doesn't make sense and hasn't worked for anyone yet.
You come up with a cutesy lil name. For AA i'm thinking "Can". You take some of your planes and repaint them in cutesy colors. Then you take some of your regular passengers, put them on "Can" and charge them less. You still don't make money. Ask MetroJet, Shuttle by United and Continental Lite. You can find them at Mojave or Victorville.
US Airways could be "US". Then it would be an "US" versus everyone else battle.
Aa777flyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 4 months 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
AA has LONG believed an airline within an airline would not work. UA proved this with Shuttle By United. They are proving it again with TED. Additionally the ALPA would NEVER go for it. They have enough of a S*%# fit over Eagle.
Never say never, but with AA's current costs among the LOWEST of the legacy carriers, I doubt AA will start a LCC.
Jafa From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 782 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1439 times:
All the majors have a LCC, its called the coach cabin. At least its not like some european LCC where you have to pay for soda, tea, and coffee. Its dumb to have a seperate LCC division, it just drives up costs of the parent company.