SFO-LAX on the new American

 
Old Apr 15, 2015, 6:06 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oakland
Programs: AA Explat, UA former 1K + PremExec, DL
Posts: 1,151
SFO-LAX on the new American

UA and DL have 14-15 daily; VX has nine, same as AA. I fly back and forth to LA a lot, and mostly take WN and DL with the occasional UA just because the 3 convenient times for me are 100-150% more expensive on AA. I'd much rather fly AA but seriously, I just can't justify it for that difference. Should AA try to increase the number of flights to compete? Is it slot constrained?
fanger is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2015, 7:22 pm
  #2  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AA EP, Hilton Diamond, Hertz Platinum
Posts: 636
AA does what makes sense from a financial perspective. If they thought it would make sense to have more flights, they would.
milesandmoremiles is offline  
Old Apr 15, 2015, 7:25 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
AA is already getting some of the highest local (O&D) fares of any of the carriers in this market - and flies a lot of mainline capacity, and yet you'd like to see AA add even more capacity on an already over-crowded route?

Here are the average one-way fares for LAX-SFO (and vv) for the third quarter of 2014 (latest data available):

UA - $138.45
AA - $138.27
VX - $137.86
DL - $128.89
WN - $115.10

I'd say that AA is winning, as best it can hope to win in a very over-crowded, over-served, low-fare market. Compared to intra-Texas one-way fares, these are very low. In Texas, WN is getting much higher average fares between DAL and HOU/SAT/AUS, etc.

What needs to happen is for VX to run out of money, run out of funding sources, and go out of business. That would help some.

There are no slot controls. AA could fly as many flights on this route as it could fit at the gates and for which it had spare planes.
FWAAA is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 12:14 am
  #4  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oakland
Programs: AA Explat, UA former 1K + PremExec, DL
Posts: 1,151
I'm actually a little surprised that the average isn't higher for AA. I, just wondering if they aren't giving up more market share than optimal given that SFO is an outstation and LAX is a big O&D market as well as a mini hub. I'm not convinced airlines make the best or right decision all the time.

You're right it's a competitive market; I wonder if schedule disruptions due to SFO weather aren't more of a factor in affecting frequency.

Originally Posted by FWAAA
AA is already getting some of the highest local (O&D) fares of any of the carriers in this market - and flies a lot of mainline capacity, and yet you'd like to see AA add even more capacity on an already over-crowded route?

Here are the average one-way fares for LAX-SFO (and vv) for the third quarter of 2014 (latest data available):

UA - $138.45
AA - $138.27
VX - $137.86
DL - $128.89
WN - $115.10

I'd say that AA is winning, as best it can hope to win in a very over-crowded, over-served, low-fare market. Compared to intra-Texas one-way fares, these are very low. In Texas, WN is getting much higher average fares between DAL and HOU/SAT/AUS, etc.

What needs to happen is for VX to run out of money, run out of funding sources, and go out of business. That would help some.

There are no slot controls. AA could fly as many flights on this route as it could fit at the gates and for which it had spare planes.
fanger is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 8:25 am
  #5  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: SEA, but up and down the coast a lot
Programs: Oceanic Airlines Gold Elite
Posts: 20,341
Originally Posted by FWAAA
What needs to happen is for VX to run out of money, run out of funding sources, and go out of business. That would help some.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=VA+I...atement&annual
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/cf?s=VA+Cash+Flow&annual

Wouldn't hold my breath on that one. They're cash flow positive now.
eponymous_coward is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 11:22 am
  #6  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Programs: AA, WN, UA, Bonvoy, Hertz
Posts: 2,491
Originally Posted by FWAAA
What needs to happen is for VX to run out of money, run out of funding sources, and go out of business. That would help some.
If VX had a bad product, there might be some agreement, but they have a great product. Aside from the frequency situation, you need VX to keep a decent competitive product on the AA side. I think we all needed UA to make meal improvements recently to even get AA to restore a few more things they took away earlier as well.

Essentially, one has to either bend to AA's schedule or pick another carrier. If AA sees enough holes in its time schedule where demand is elsewhere, it might adjust a flight here or there.

What's funny is there is plenty (more?) competition at LAX for the JFK business and AA still pumps those flights out. So, I don't see that it has to do as much with the competition and maybe more about the market itself and its demand. You need more AA loyal flyers maybe in SFO?

Rasheed
rasheed is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 11:58 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: LHR
Programs: AA EXP, DL DM, Marriott Titanium
Posts: 1,029
Originally Posted by rasheed
If VX had a bad product, there might be some agreement, but they have a great product. Aside from the frequency situation, you need VX to keep a decent competitive product on the AA side. I think we all needed UA to make meal improvements recently to even get AA to restore a few more things they took away earlier as well.

Essentially, one has to either bend to AA's schedule or pick another carrier. If AA sees enough holes in its time schedule where demand is elsewhere, it might adjust a flight here or there.

What's funny is there is plenty (more?) competition at LAX for the JFK business and AA still pumps those flights out. So, I don't see that it has to do as much with the competition and maybe more about the market itself and its demand. You need more AA loyal flyers maybe in SFO?

Rasheed
Bit of a catch-22 unfortunately -- there'd be more loyal AA flyers if AA had more frequencies to all its non-DFW hubs. But for that to work, AA would need more loyal flyers to begin with...
taxicabnumber is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 12:03 pm
  #8  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
If there is one "extra" aircraft and one "extra" crew and one "extra" gate at SFO & LAX, is this the route onto which you would add a frequency?

This is the question AA and every other carrier faces every day times 1,000's.

If neither the fare nor the schedule are competetive, I would recommend flying a carrier which is.
Often1 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 7:50 pm
  #9  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oakland
Programs: AA Explat, UA former 1K + PremExec, DL
Posts: 1,151
Originally Posted by Often1
If there is one "extra" aircraft and one "extra" crew and one "extra" gate at SFO & LAX, is this the route onto which you would add a frequency?

This is the question AA and every other carrier faces every day times 1,000's.

If neither the fare nor the schedule are competetive, I would recommend flying a carrier which is.
I do mostly fly other carriers, for schedule and price, and they all seem full at least at the times i fly. I am really wondering if as schedule harmonization goes on there won't be more frequencies added; it seems a natural thing, even if it's mostly ex-US regionals. For mainline, possibly additional ORD and DFW make more sense.
fanger is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 10:47 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: PHL and LAS
Programs: AA PLT Pro, Marriott Lifetime PLT
Posts: 144
I do SFO-LAX for a few weeks at a time every couple of months and it would be very nice if they upped the frequencies. The new Eagle flights provide some flexibility but honestly landing at the remote terminal is such a time suck, especially for a short route like this. Also, I'm not sure when you're flying but often times in the mornings, especially on weekends, the captive market is tour groups and those making Int'l OW connections at LAX.

Hopefully when Compass starts flying for AA they get their hands on some 175's and go toe to toe with Delta on the shuttle service (which IIRC has seen a decrease in frequencies since it first started). The 175 is a great plane for this kind of route and perhaps the economics of connecting passengers to O&D can make it a bit more friendly...
malexander131 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 10:48 pm
  #11  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: SFO
Programs: AA LTP 2MM, Marriott/SPG Rabid Plat w/Ambassador, HHonors Gold
Posts: 696
Originally Posted by taxicabnumber
Bit of a catch-22 unfortunately -- there'd be more loyal AA flyers if AA had more frequencies to all its non-DFW hubs. But for that to work, AA would need more loyal flyers to begin with...
AA used to have more loyal SFO/OAK/SJC flyers, back before they cut all the routes... AA decided they were not profitable enough in that market, and pulled out to a large degree. Many AA flyers in the area have since switched. You can argue about whether this is a net positive or negative for AA, but without knowing how profitable the routes would had been if they had competed well ( which no one can ever know for certain), it's all speculation.

I do think it's safe to say, though, that it was a net negative for AA SFO/OAK/SJC customers.
r415 is offline  
Old Apr 16, 2015, 10:54 pm
  #12  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: NYC LAX RDU
Programs: US-Plt;Concierge key; American AAirpass; Delta Silver;Starwood - Platinum; Amex Cent
Posts: 709
Originally Posted by fanger
UA and DL have 14-15 daily; VX has nine, same as AA. I fly back and forth to LA a lot, and mostly take WN and DL with the occasional UA just because the 3 convenient times for me are 100-150% more expensive on AA. I'd much rather fly AA but seriously, I just can't justify it for that difference. Should AA try to increase the number of flights to compete? Is it slot constrained?

Just a heads up - my partner is now running a company based in Oakland and we live in LA...he is using surf air - which I haven't tried but swears by it....i think he pays 1,700 a month and has unlimited flights in their network...6 first class seats on each plane and he is able to pull his car right up next to the plane - no different than a charter...no security, etc....and it leaves from that airport on the 105 with the TESLA sign - just a few miles from LAX....he's taking it 4 times a week currently which is much cheaper than any of the airlines as he books an hour or so ahead....and it saves hours each way. Depending on where you're going to in the bay area you should check them out...they fly out of several airports...again - he swears by it.
morrisunc is offline  
Old Apr 17, 2015, 12:20 am
  #13  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Programs: AA EXPLT, Marriott Titanium (LT PLT), HHonors Gold, AMEX PLT, UA Silver, National EXC
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by morrisunc
Just a heads up - my partner is now running a company based in Oakland and we live in LA...he is using surf air - which I haven't tried but swears by it....i think he pays 1,700 a month and has unlimited flights in their network...6 first class seats on each plane and he is able to pull his car right up next to the plane - no different than a charter...no security, etc....and it leaves from that airport on the 105 with the TESLA sign - just a few miles from LAX....he's taking it 4 times a week currently which is much cheaper than any of the airlines as he books an hour or so ahead....and it saves hours each way. Depending on where you're going to in the bay area you should check them out...they fly out of several airports...again - he swears by it.
LA Times just had a story about it. Flies out of Hawthorne Municipal, right next door to Tesla and SpaceX
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...ry.html#page=1
fotoflyer88 is offline  
Old Apr 17, 2015, 8:48 am
  #14  
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Beantown! (BOS)
Programs: AA PtPro (2 MM); Hilton Diamond; Hertz President Cr; DL SkyMiles; UA MileagePlus
Posts: 3,426
I was L. A. area resident for 12 years and intra-California flights on AA used to be topic of interest for me. I wonder if AA ever wanted to be a dominant carrier in intra-California or not. I understand that Southwest has moved into intra-California market and now the dominant player.

AA moved into intra-California market by acquiring AirCal, remember back then? That was first time I saw 737 in AA color, yes there was once AA operated 737-300 acquired from AirCal. Then slowly what once was AirCal disappeared from AA system. Reno Air moved into intra-California market and become a partner with AAdvantage. Remember flying Reno Air to the Bay Area and Vegas. Then AA acquired Reno Air. Currently AA has handful of LAX-SFO and LAX-LAS flights, but is there any other routes left once belonged to AirCal or Reno Air today?

When I first moved to L. A. remember United had hourly 737 service between LAX-SFO and LAX-SJC. Early morning weekdays and late afternoon weekdays United had 737 flying LAX-SFO every 20 minutes. But looked like intra-California market was never on the top of the list for AA. US used to have pretty decent intra-California flights after acquiring PSA but nothing of PSA is left today. Used to fly LAX-OAK and LAX-SJC on AA MD80 but that is past now…

Remember there were larger than expected US Dividend Miles members in Los Angeles area, those were people used to be PSA frequent flyers (my formal boss one of them). Remember they were not happy about US having minimal presence in California. Then merger with America West brought better options to L.A. area US Dividend Miles members. Joining StarAlliance and able to acquire miles on UA was plus of L. A. area member also, remember my formal boss got award seats on LH and vacation at Germany. Now joining AA and becoming OneWorld. Those PSA frequent flyers in L. A. who stuck with the program sure had a lot of changes. Are they happy now? Should ask my formal boss.

I am sure younger FlyerTalker reading this has no idea about AirCal and PSA. After Googling about these airlines then thinking how old is this AlwaysAisle guy…?
AlwaysAisle is offline  
Old Apr 17, 2015, 11:53 am
  #15  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Oakland
Programs: AA Explat, UA former 1K + PremExec, DL
Posts: 1,151
I definitely notice the OW connections- they seem to represent half the plane on a lot of the flights. Of course I can't really know, just guessing based on passports and BPs I can see while they board.

It's an interesting question to me. I understand that airlines have all sorts of constraints that aren't readily apparent to the customer, and that they have more information about profitability, etc. available to them, but at the same time I'm not convinced that they make the best decisions all the time, even by their own standards.

With the consolidation by the legacy carriers, I am thinking that there has to be pressure to compete on network and flight availability in large markets, to differentiate from WN, VX and VLCCs. I am not sure loyalty to AA makes sense at any economic level for Bay Area flyers unless you assign very high values to FF program redemptions. Which may not be crazy, but definitely doesn't much apply to most flyers.

Originally Posted by malexander131
I do SFO-LAX for a few weeks at a time every couple of months and it would be very nice if they upped the frequencies. The new Eagle flights provide some flexibility but honestly landing at the remote terminal is such a time suck, especially for a short route like this. Also, I'm not sure when you're flying but often times in the mornings, especially on weekends, the captive market is tour groups and those making Int'l OW connections at LAX.

Hopefully when Compass starts flying for AA they get their hands on some 175's and go toe to toe with Delta on the shuttle service (which IIRC has seen a decrease in frequencies since it first started). The 175 is a great plane for this kind of route and perhaps the economics of connecting passengers to O&D can make it a bit more friendly...
fanger is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.