Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LAX-BOS: Over Capacity. AA Adds Additional Flight.  
User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4018 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 8182 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hi All,

I was noticing on AA's website as well as their electronic timetable, they will be increasing their BOS schedule from 3x daily to 4x daily effective 7 April 2009. We all knew they were going to increase this route by one, but my question is regarding the amount of seats AA will have available. With VX and now B6 adding service on this route, it doesn't make sense to me for AA to add larger a/c to this route. Instead of downgauging the four flights to 738s, they have upgauged another flight which includes 763, 762, 757x2. This schedule is consistant all the way up to June.
What's the reasoning behind this? With two new entrants into the LAX-BOS-LAX market, I'd think they would have dropped a flight to bring it back down to 3x a day.
In addition, what will UA's fate be on the LAX-BOS route?. As well know, they seem to be cutting left and right and mainly focusing on hub flying from LAX.

This route has been discussed here and there, and I feel it deserves it's own thread.
Best
LACA773

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineExaauadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 8094 times:



Quoting LACA773 (Thread starter):
Instead of downgauging the four flights to 738s, they have upgauged another flight which includes 763, 762, 757x2.

Well if they want to compete with VX especially, more J class seats is better. The 738 is inferior to VX's A320. With more J class seats, they can match VX's lower J class with 8 seats and then yield managed the remaining J class seats at a higher fare.

Quoting LACA773 (Thread starter):
What's the reasoning behind this? With two new entrants into the LAX-BOS-LAX market, I'd think they would have dropped a flight to bring it back down to 3x a day.

Since when has AA ever reduced its schedule when a new start up airline enters one of its markets?


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 8020 times:

AA is doing exactly what a carrier should do if they are trying to preserve market presence in the face on increased competition.

The transcons are key markets for AA and they can't afford to allow new competitors of any kind set up shop in their markets, esp. if it involves a carrier that is going to dramatically lower the fares.

in light of the new that Virgin America is burning through cash at a record rate, AA's move to add capacity could also make it more clear that VX doesn't have a viable strategy to survive.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8373 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7986 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting LACA773 (Thread starter):
I was noticing on AA's website as well as their electronic timetable, they will be increasing their BOS schedule from 3x daily to 4x daily effective 7 April 2009. We all knew they were going to increase this route by one, but my question is regarding the amount of seats AA will have available. With VX and now B6 adding service on this route, it doesn't make sense to me for AA to add larger a/c to this route. Instead of downgauging the four flights to 738s, they have upgauged another flight which includes 763, 762, 757x2. This schedule is consistant all the way up to June.
What's the reasoning behind this? With two new entrants into the LAX-BOS-LAX market, I'd think they would have dropped a flight to bring it back down to 3x a day.
In addition, what will UA's fate be on the LAX-BOS route?. As well know, they seem to be cutting left and right and mainly focusing on hub flying from LAX.

Classic AA, flood the market to control it when the new airline come in and let it bleed since AA can subsidize the route while Virgin America can't.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11640 posts, RR: 61
Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7935 times:



Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 1):
Since when has AA ever reduced its schedule when a new start up airline enters one of its markets?

Exactly.

What do people expect an airline's response to competition to be?

Should they just let the airline operate without any competitive push-back and accept that they have lost their market share?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
AA is doing exactly what a carrier should do if they are trying to preserve market presence in the face on increased competition.

The transcons are key markets for AA and they can't afford to allow new competitors of any kind set up shop in their markets, esp. if it involves a carrier that is going to dramatically lower the fares.

in light of the new that Virgin America is burning through cash at a record rate, AA's move to add capacity could also make it more clear that VX doesn't have a viable strategy to survive.

I think hell might have officially frozen over. We agree.

AA is simply adding back a flight that has been there on and off for years, and in light of Virgin America's finally-public financial data, I think it is quite reasonable for AA to add a flight, particularly when they have been operating this flight for so long.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):
Classic AA, flood the market to control it when the new airline come in and let it bleed since AA can subsidize the route while Virgin America can't.

I think it is comical that some would characterize this as "flood[ing] the market" when it entails increasing frequency from 3 to 4 flights per day, in a market with 12 daily flights (half of which are on B6 or VX), and when AA has operated this 4th frequency going back a decade or more - long before Virgin America was even a glimmer in somebody's rule-evading, unfair-data-protecting eye.


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3413 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7904 times:

Meanwhile, 1 nonstop a day PVD-LAX to the first one to do it would command a fare premium over BOS and have more than enough demand to fill it.

User currently offlineJetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3297 posts, RR: 35
Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7904 times:



Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):

Classic AA, flood the market to control it when the new airline come in and let it bleed since AA can subsidize the route while Virgin America can't.

And good for them. AA has owned the BOS-LAX market since the dawn of time. They have every right to defend it with every tool in their arsenal.

The cross-subsidization of routes is a benefit of being a carrier with a vast network. VX and B6 have the benefits of lower costs. Each carrier will utilize its strengths in this battle, as they should.


User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4018 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 7788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
AA is doing exactly what a carrier should do if they are trying to preserve market presence in the face on increased competition.

The transcons are key markets for AA and they can't afford to allow new competitors of any kind set up shop in their markets, esp. if it involves a carrier that is going to dramatically lower the fares.

in light of the new that Virgin America is burning through cash at a record rate, AA's move to add capacity could also make it more clear that VX doesn't have a viable strategy to survive.

Makes sense completely. I was thinking about the state of the economy, people losing their jobs, homes and etc.... I was looking at it that AA should play it safe, but understand why they have increased the available seats in this very important market for them.

What are AA's load factors on LAX-BOS-LAX?


User currently offlineChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4117 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7636 times:

If many people agree that Virgin America is blowing through money at an unsustainable rate, why wouldn't AA let them 'Skybus' rather than spending their own money and assets to force it? Why push a falling tree if it's going to fall anyway?

[Edited 2009-02-06 07:58:19]

User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7620 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 2):
AA is doing exactly what a carrier should do if they are trying to preserve market presence in the face on increased competition.

The transcons are key markets for AA and they can't afford to allow new competitors of any kind set up shop in their markets, esp. if it involves a carrier that is going to dramatically lower the fares.

in light of the new that Virgin America is burning through cash at a record rate, AA's move to add capacity could also make it more clear that VX doesn't have a viable strategy to survive.

Absolutely. When Virgin America exposed their financial records, and the other airlines discovered the VX is burning through cash like its going out of style, the others realize VX is extremely vunerable. AA is doing what I think UA and DL will also do at some point and that is they are going in for the kill. I think if AA, UA, and DL turn up the heat on VX, they will be finished.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):
Classic AA, flood the market to control it when the new airline come in and let it bleed since AA can subsidize the route while Virgin America can't.

And thats a bad thing? Id love to see VX go belly up myself to see SRB run back to the UK with his tail between his legs, but I settle to see them bleed money quarter after quarter.

But personal feelings aside, this is exactly what they should be doing. AA fights dirty and they should fight dirty. Im reminded of AA and DL at DFW. I think they could have co-existed the way FL and DL do at ATL, but simply put AA wanted the market to themselves. So they flooded seats to every market DL served and drove fares into the ground realizing that DFW was not one of DL's biggest priorites and that they could retreat. It worked and now they have the market to themselves. They also realized that at DFW they were the hometown airline, their hub was bigger, and they had more resources they were willing to use there. I believe FL's hub at ATL is bigger than what DL had at DFW, so it would be harder for DL to drive FL out.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 7547 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 4):
I think hell might have officially frozen over. We agree.

it's been a very cold week in most of the US.... perhaps you are right.  Smile

fundamentally, I don't think we disagree on the business principles we discuss. it's the execution and interpretation.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9):
AA fights dirty and they should fight dirty.

no, AA is not fighting dirty. They are fighting HARD. Dirty is when you do things behind closed doors - AA is fighting fair. Low fare carriers have some inherent advantages that they can and have used to break into the game but the network carriers do too. If VX can't use all of their tools which include growing the market through lower fares because the market is weak already, then AA is by no means obligated to let VX horn in and get a piece of the pie.

The fact that VX has just been forced to reveal how vulnerable they are means they have to change their business model of moving into fiercely competitive core markets for other airlines, esp. in an economic downturn. Every airline is fighting to hold onto customers in these kinds of times; for a new comer to think they should get a pass from the competitive environment which is well established is not reality. As I have said before, there is a big difference in the competitive juices flowing at UA and US compared to AA, CO, and DL/NW. the latter and larger group have not been known to give up much.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9):
Im reminded of AA and DL at DFW. I think they could have co-existed the way FL and DL do at ATL, but simply put AA wanted the market to themselves.

I think you oversimplify things quite a bit. FL is an LFC and has made a place for itself because of its low fares in ATL; DL and AA are both traditional network carriers so they were competing for the same customer. Further, WN is indeed a competitor to AA at DAL and as the Wright Amendment unwinds, it will become increasingly clear they are no minor inconvenience to AA.
DL also came to the conclusion that DFW was not necessary as RJs became capable of flying nearly from SLC to ATL making another hub between them unnecessary.

AA and DL have scrapped plenty in the int'l arena and at JFK where both recognize they must
each have a presence. We don't need to get into a debate about it but it is very fair to say that DL has been able to push its way into some int'l markets that AA would rather not see them in as well as in key NYC markets. What DL gave up in DFW has been more than replaced by other markets which are of far more strategic value.

ok - hell must be thawing.


User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 7181 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 10):
I think you oversimplify things quite a bit. FL is an LFC and has made a place for itself because of its low fares in ATL; DL and AA are both traditional network carriers so they were competing for the same customer.

And DL and FL dont compete for some of the same customers?

I realize FL is a LC and DL is a legacy, but in principle, its the same thing.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 10):
Further, WN is indeed a competitor to AA at DAL and as the Wright Amendment unwinds, it will become increasingly clear they are no minor inconvenience to AA.

I doubt things are going to change all that much with AA at DFW after the Wright Amendment is gone. Most of the destinations that will be served from DAL by WN after the Wright Amednment is gone already have two carriers flying them from DFW. But on a big scale, comparing WN and AA in the DFW market with FL and DL in the ATL market is very similar. One legacy with a huge hub and one LCC with a hub.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 10):
no, AA is not fighting dirty. They are fighting HARD.

Poor choice of words. Were basically saying the same thing on that front.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineHumberside From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2005, 4920 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5989 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9):
And thats a bad thing? Id love to see VX go belly up myself to see SRB run back to the UK with his tail between his legs

And the staff that would be out of a job ...



Visit the Air Humberside Website and Forum
User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5925 times:

One thing to also note is that UA really scaled back their BOS-LAX flights compared to past years. They are down to 2x 757 a day. AA is just a stronger animal in this market.


"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32789 posts, RR: 72
Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5901 times:



Quoting Tommy767 (Reply 13):
One thing to also note is that UA really scaled back their BOS-LAX flights compared to past years. They are down to 2x 757 a day. AA is just a stronger animal in this market.

They are actually down to 1x a day, but will resume a second frequency within a few days.



a.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25419 posts, RR: 49
Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 5864 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9):
And thats a bad thing? Id love to see VX go belly up myself to see SRB run back to the UK with his tail between his legs, but I settle to see them bleed money quarter after quarter.

 Confused Why.

Besides the job losses, why would you want to deprive the US consumer of what is general accepted to be a fabulous product?
I'm all for more choice, lower prices and anything that stimulates competition and losing a progressive company like VX would be a step backwards in my mind.

Anyhow, having done business with Virgin group in the past and having met SRB several times, I'm quite certain he is in it for the long run, and come push or shove he can manage to pull one rabbit after another out of a hat. The Virgin Group of companies did not become what they are without overcoming a zillion challenges.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5615 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Besides the job losses, why would you want to deprive the US consumer of what is general accepted to be a fabulous product?

Because I want Sir Richard Branson's hands out of the US domestic market. If VX wasnt (for all intents and purposes) run buy SRB, I would have no issue with their prescence in the markets. I would love to see B6 take over VX's place in the markets.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineLH423 From Canada, joined Jul 1999, 6501 posts, RR: 54
Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5585 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 15):
Besides the job losses, why would you want to deprive the US consumer of what is general accepted to be a fabulous product?

Exactly.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 16):

Because I want Sir Richard Branson's hands out of the US domestic market

OK, 25% is hardly a dominating force. And again, if he's able to offer a product Americans can't, more power to him. Again, it's American jobs on the line. If SRB loses a couple a mil, that's chump change to him. It'll be the $25,000/year CSAs that'll be falling on hard times during an economic slump if VX goes under.

Very patriotic!  Yeah sure

LH423



« On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur. L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux » Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2870 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5226 times:



Quoting LACA773 (Thread starter):

With respect to UA, they have certainly been cutting domestic mainline routes left, right, and center; but LAX remains a key hub for the airline. In terms of domestic operations out of LAX, United never really offered very much mainline service aside from hub, transcontinental and Hawaii flights. I could see UA reducing LAX-BOS flights, but it would come as a surprise to see the airline abandon the important (and high yielding?) route altogether.
AA, on the other hand, has a strong presence in both LAX and BOS. Boston passengers may fly onwards to Hawaii and northern California from LAX, LA passengers may fly onwards to Europe from Boston. This link is a key bridge between two major focus cities for the airline. AA cannot afford to cut back without jeopardizing connecting opportunities and alienating local frequent fliers that expect the airline to offer several daily flights on this key transcon route.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineTommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3839 times:



Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 18):
With respect to UA, they have certainly been cutting domestic mainline routes left, right, and center; but LAX remains a key hub for the airline. In terms of domestic operations out of LAX, United never really offered very much mainline service aside from hub, transcontinental and Hawaii flights. I could see UA reducing LAX-BOS flights, but it would come as a surprise to see the airline abandon the important (and high yielding?) route altogether.

They've abandoned LAX-EWR though. That was key route for a long, long time.



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25419 posts, RR: 49
Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3825 times:



Quoting Tommy767 (Reply 19):
They've abandoned LAX-EWR though.

For good reason. EWR yields were only 1/2 of that of JFK as per article in the WSJ about United's successful p.s. service.

Anyhow EWR will soon be covered with their up coming partnership with CO.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAirNZ From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3641 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 9):
And thats a bad thing? Id love to see VX go belly up myself to see SRB run back to the UK with his tail between his legs, but I settle to see them bleed money quarter after quarter.

Yep, well said....classic protectionism in the 'land of the free' (of course, only when it suits), with the real reason being US carriers fear having to compete.


User currently offlineJetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3297 posts, RR: 35
Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3488 times:



Quoting AirNZ (Reply 21):
Yep, well said....classic protectionism in the 'land of the free' (of course, only when it suits), with the real reason being US carriers fear having to compete.

Actually, the U.S. carriers (with costs on a magnitude of 20%+ lower than the major European Flags) are not all that afraid of competing. Its U.S. labor that is protectionist, in general.


User currently offlineModesto2 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2801 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3213 times:



Quoting Tommy767 (Reply 19):
They've abandoned LAX-EWR though. That was key route for a long, long time.

When is AA cutting that route?


User currently offlineCws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 3124 times:



Quoting Modesto2 (Reply 23):

Quoting Tommy767 (Reply 19):
They've abandoned LAX-EWR though. That was key route for a long, long time.

When is AA cutting that route?

They are not cutting that route. I believe that Tommy767 was referring to UA on LAX-EWR. AA has certainly reduced LAX-EWR from what used to be 3 nonstops per day, but they still fly it.



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
25 DLPMMM : What??? He said just the opposite! LAXdude was saying "come on SRB and let the USA market bleed you dry, because you don't know how to compete in a d
26 Tommy767 : Exactly. AA has also trimmed this route, but still flies EWR-LAX with a daily 757. UA has abandoned it completely.
27 Pyrex : Yeah, that would be great, we don't want U.S. airlines having to be competitive. Lord knows they would have nothing to learn from those pesky foreign
28 Luv2cattlecall : Record rate? In what context? VX didn't post a $1.8 billion loss during a single quarter last year, unlike a certain airline that did...thus setting
29 SkyvanMan : I would have expected this. It is amazing how underserved LAX-BOS is. You'd expect there to be at least half the frequency of LAX-JFK but it is nowher
30 MAH4546 : I think you are overestimating the size of the market. Boston-LAX is smaller than both Atlanta-LAX and Miami-LAX. While NYC-LAX is roughly 4x the siz
31 SkyvanMan : Wow, didn't realize that, I last flew that about a year and a half ago when I was visting some friends in Vermont. Sad to see that flight lost. And y
32 Sydscott : The Kangaroo route is actually quite de-regulated. In order to get pax onto a plane in Australia or NZ you must compete with every carrier in Asia an
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA Adds Additional DFW-GRU Flights posted Thu Feb 17 2005 20:19:11 by Aa777flyer
AA Adds Second Daily LAX-YYZ Flight posted Sun Feb 24 2002 16:35:37 by Marco
AA Adds 777 MIA-LAX And Takes It Away! posted Mon Jul 10 2006 01:36:41 by N62NA
AA Adds Mainline Back On LAX-LAS posted Thu Jun 8 2006 09:22:19 by BALAX
AC Adds Additional Capacity To Atlantic Canada posted Thu Mar 23 2006 21:04:54 by DFORCE1
AA Adds 777 Morning Flight JFK - LHR For Tomorrow posted Fri Aug 12 2005 04:17:31 by B777FA
UA Adds Additonal Flight From LAX/SFO-HNL,SFO-Maui posted Thu Mar 17 2005 21:46:30 by Iowaman
AA Adds 3rd Daily BOS-LHR; CX Code-share Soon posted Tue Jan 14 2003 04:54:12 by Bigo747
AA Adds LAX-EGE, SFO-EGE posted Mon Oct 28 2002 17:35:20 by MAH4546
AC Secretly Adds Additional Code-share Flight posted Mon Sep 16 2002 04:52:37 by Bigo747