Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50 Posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2046 times:
Why did they start serving LGB from JFK and ORD using only temporary slots when they lose the slots to Jetblue when Jetblue wants to use them? Isnt it a waste or will LGB lift the slot restrictions? I thought they should have stuck with ONT from JFK.
FATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5800 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1982 times:
By starting the flights, AA can determine an amount of lost revenue IF they are forced to end the flights. That would add to their case in any court fight.
I understand that LGB limits are based roughly on the concept of total allowable noise divided by average individual aircraft noise levels to get to the 41 slots. The avg. aircraft noise level is a number from the 80's when aircraft were noisier. So it is possible that more slots will be added once a new aircraft noise number is determined. But many of the locals want to hold at 41 no matter how much quieter the aircraft are today.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 1953 times:
Ok.. Thanks. I see where you are coming from now. If AA does well with these flights, after JB takes their slots away, and AA is unable to use them, when and if they more slots become available, AA will restart the flights. If they dont do well, then, they wont restart them.
Flyingbronco05 From United States of America, joined May 2002, 3840 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 1934 times:
I already have flown ORD-LGB route twice. It's a nice substitute from SAN and SNA. However, those 4 hour flights without IFE is boring. Now my family looks for flights into SAN or SNA with the 737s or 757s. At least those have IFE!
BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1892 times:
If you want to know WHY AA started the flights from JFK-LGB-JFK... There is only one explanation, and no it isn't to see how well they would do The real answer was to... COMPETE WITH jetBlue, and see if they could kick them out, and then pull out after jetBlue was gone... Mmmmhmmm. That is the truth. There are still a few people who don't realize the truth, but a little research will prove it
Lowfareair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
Expect years of legislation on this issue, leaving several near- and long-term options:
Near term(happening on January 6, 2003, the day they get their slots revoked):
1) AA pulls the flights while waiting for legislation(small chance, but it goes against their general MO of court cases).
2) AA Pulls ORD, but switches two DFW slots to JFK(could see this happening).
3) AA stays arguing that they have to see how the court decision and all the appeals courts will rule on this(Very realistic).
4) AA tries to stay, but LGB impounds any additional aircraft that AA flies over their daily limit of 5(fairly unrealistic).
Long-term(several months or years after January 6, 2003):
1) Cap taken off of number of flights, but LGB limits gate space keeping the amount of daily flights between 41 and 50.
2) Change to slot use-it or lose-it rule ruled illegal causing the old rule to be put back into place, and JetBlue settles to give back some of the slots(anywhere from 4, the amount AA wants to use currently, to 24(the amount unused after 6 months)).
3) No changes from what is happening now(Realistic, but not likely given AA's powerful lawyer team).
4) By the time this gets through all the appeals courts, one or both of the airlines will be in bankruptcy court(Very realistic)
All long-term solutions are fairly realistic, so mix and match with the short term.
Sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5504 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (12 years 1 month 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 1844 times:
Of course it is predatory. All business is, to one extent or another.
Whether you agree with it or depends (in large measure) on whose axe you are grinding. If you are an AA employee, an employee of an AA contractor, or one of the class of people for whom less competition for AA (this applies, of course, to any carrier, AA's simply our example here), you think AA's policies in this regard are marvelous.
If you are one of the hapless consumers whose pockets are regularly picked and whose choices are restricted as a result of a fortress carrier running a smaller and less-costly carrier out of a particular market pair, well, you don't much like predatory pricing.
AA's consistent pattern of similar behavior has been discussed to death on these forums, and I'll not presume to rehash it now. AA has successfully defended its practices in court in the past, so (at least as of now) "predatory" is not analogous to "illegal."
But there is a vast universe of things one can do which are not illegal (or at which one might not be caught); but these things are not thus rendered fair or right.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...