MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33010 posts, RR: 71
Reply 1, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6053 times:
You are entirely ignoring how big American Airlines is at LAX.
AA is the single largest carrier at LAX. AA/MQ is the second-largest airline at LAX. AA is the leader in revenue at LAX, ahead of UA.
Denver-Los Angeles is a major O&D market, and AA, hence, serves it. It also feeds to Australia and Asia on AA's partners at LAX - QF, JL, CX and MU.
Is it profitable for AA on local traffic? I bet it probably is not. Though sometimes airlines fly routes that are important in the grand scheme of the network. And also consider that AA, with AS, can get passengers from LA to just about every major city very quickly and easily outside of the Rocky Mountain region, so DEN makes even more sense then.
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2240 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 5319 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 1): Though sometimes airlines fly routes that are important in the grand scheme of the network.
It could be (pure speculation on my part) that AA added the route because of a corporate contract in Los Angeles - the contract might be lucrative enough that AA is willing to lose money on 2x day LAX-DEN to keep the contract.
It's well known that NW's mini hub at IND was set up in exchange for NW receiving Eli Lilly's corporate contract, which had previously been with UA. NW was willing to lose money on some short haul RJ flying out of IND, in exchange for very profitable incremental business to Europe and Asia.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25719 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (5 years 1 month 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4801 times:
No I cant see AA doing a DEN-JFK.
Even Delta with its much larger JFK connection opportunities has struggled over the years on the route having restarted DEN only in Jul07 and maintains only a single 738 frequency.
Additionaly JFK is not a AA 737 station so for now it would need to be a MD80 or 757, plus what network opportunities does JFK realy provide AA that cannot be had via existing DEN-DFW, ORD or MIA flights?
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6658 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (5 years 1 month 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3820 times:
Quoting JohnClipper (Reply 10): Why can't they? The 757 can operate from LGA and they already offer service x/LGA to DEN so there should be no scope clause. Is it just a slot issue?
UA also flies DEN-EWR 3x daily on A319/A320/757. For some reason UA feels LGA and EWR work better than JFK from DEN. But I do think UA could at least attempt DEN-JFK with A319...
I flew LAX-DEN back when it was 3x M80 service in 2005. It was nice, nothing special but had two seats to myself on the super 80. I remember in 2004 for a short while AA flew 757s on LAX-DEN/LAS as well...
For the record I'd probably fly UA in the future because of how many 757/767 they have on a two hour flight. Last year I flew LAX-DEN-EWR all 757s and UA's terminal at DEN is super nice and has held up well with good restaurants and beer...
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2066 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 month 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2639 times:
MAH's first reply is spot on.. The route does add value to their LAX operation even though it is probably marginal at best..
A number of years ago (10 years I think) I got a dirt cheap fare on AA for DEN-LAX-BFL and back (Eagle on the 2nd portion). To the best of my knowledge Eagle no longer serves BFL. So I think AA has been in the market along time, despite having a small presence.
I have also known people in DEN that like AA, and fly it when possible. Not everyone at a hub city necessarily prefers the hubbing airline. Like I know people in DEN that like CO also.
Regarding the side topic of JFK routes, UA is satisfied with DEN-EWR/LGA flights, a JFK flight adds nothing. Perfectly analogous to CO's presence on IAH-LGA/EWR