How does Parker still have a job?
Jul 12, 2019, 11:19 am
#106
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU/KIAH
Programs: AA EXP | Marriott Bonvoy Titanium| Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 11,207
It isn't the end of humanity, but why would someone paying for J choose a Oasis AA plane on JFK-SEA when they can get a markedly superior experience elsewhere? This results in commanding a lower revenue premium, which leads to lower operating margins, which leads to the financial situation today.
How does AA entice people spending lots of money flying to choose them when their product, on time performance etc. Are lagging?
Jul 12, 2019, 11:23 am
#107
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: AAdvantage PP
Posts: 13,913
The Max was going to do some of the Northern SA flights like MIA/BSB (I think that was one of the routes). And that would be near that time frame.
Jul 12, 2019, 11:44 am
#108
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Austin, Texas
Programs: Airline nobody. Sad!
Posts: 26,062
The only reasons the MAX isn't seeing more cancellations is because Airbus simply can't create many more production slots particularly quickly, and because Willie Walsh surely bent Boeing over his knee for that IAG letter of intent. If Airbus had the space in their production, they could put a major hurt on Boeing right now. The A321XLR might do quite a lot to Boeing on its own over the longer term.
Jul 12, 2019, 1:31 pm
#109
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: SAN
Programs: AA CK, Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 839
I sure wouldn’t want this route in Oasis. And I agree that it’s just not worth a premium cabin price to fly Oasis international long haul anywhere. There are other better choices.
Jul 12, 2019, 3:18 pm
#110
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: MSY
Programs: AA Plat Pro, UA Plat, VS Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,531
I own a company that does business on four continents and even with an MBA I wouldn’t dare attempt to make a prediction on the health of AA based on the scant information we have. That’s not to say Parker couldn’t up his game on the operational front or that he has all the right people leading key divisions of AA. AA has issues right now with the 737 MAX and the mechanics union but they’re still filling up their planes. When those planes start going out half empty then maybe there’s real concern about the health of AA.
The more planes they fly, the more money they lose.
Jul 13, 2019, 8:52 am
#112
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Prisoner of EWR
Programs: Lifetime AA Plat, UA status-less after 15 years
Posts: 149
It will be interesting to watch. Delta's strategy c2008-2012 was to further gut the FFP redemption value, and investing in having leading operations both as to OT/cancellation rates but also more efficient baggage operations and a better network. Delta has been building on that in the last few years by also seeking to have the best hard Y and J product (e.g. not going 10x on the 777, buying A220s, buying A350s not 787s, new Delta suites, screens and power at all seats) while also seeking to have soft product that is a step ahead.
Smisik sought to follow Delta in cutting the FFP, but he also cut the product quality and ran really horrible operations and IRROPS recovery. That is the model that Parker has copied.
When Oscar took over in late 2015 he started a process of both improving product quality AND improving operations. While UA's IRROPS recovery still substantially lags that of DL, and its operations are slightly worse, operationally it is a much better airline than it was when Oscar took over. OTOH, when Scott Kirby took over UA, he went back to cutting product, and also rolled out some ultra uncomfortable product like 10x on the 777. With a fleet of more and more 737s vs. the more comfortable A320s, no in seat IFE on narrow bodies, and a fleet with tight/ultra-tight Y on the 777/787 fleets, UA is rapidly becoming the hard product laggard.
So when looking at results, what I think you are beginning to see, is that what Delta is getting over UA is a "better product, and service, and the resulting better NPS" premium, and what UA is currently getting over AAL is the "much better and more consistent operations" premium. The 9.7% operating margin (Delta) vs. 5.2% (UA) reflects better product/service, and the 5.2% margin (UA) vs 3.5% (AA) reflects better operations.
As AALs operations continue to deteriorate, and UA and DL roll out more PE product (the one area where AAL has lead) I would expect to see AAL fall further behind both carriers, which is IMHO what the street is seeing in the current stock price..
Smisik sought to follow Delta in cutting the FFP, but he also cut the product quality and ran really horrible operations and IRROPS recovery. That is the model that Parker has copied.
When Oscar took over in late 2015 he started a process of both improving product quality AND improving operations. While UA's IRROPS recovery still substantially lags that of DL, and its operations are slightly worse, operationally it is a much better airline than it was when Oscar took over. OTOH, when Scott Kirby took over UA, he went back to cutting product, and also rolled out some ultra uncomfortable product like 10x on the 777. With a fleet of more and more 737s vs. the more comfortable A320s, no in seat IFE on narrow bodies, and a fleet with tight/ultra-tight Y on the 777/787 fleets, UA is rapidly becoming the hard product laggard.
So when looking at results, what I think you are beginning to see, is that what Delta is getting over UA is a "better product, and service, and the resulting better NPS" premium, and what UA is currently getting over AAL is the "much better and more consistent operations" premium. The 9.7% operating margin (Delta) vs. 5.2% (UA) reflects better product/service, and the 5.2% margin (UA) vs 3.5% (AA) reflects better operations.
As AALs operations continue to deteriorate, and UA and DL roll out more PE product (the one area where AAL has lead) I would expect to see AAL fall further behind both carriers, which is IMHO what the street is seeing in the current stock price..
There is a somewhat ridiculous fetish for Delta here on Flyertalk which I don't understand. Of the major legacy carriers (I hate that term and am a ridiculous hypocrite for using it
), Delta is the farthest along in digesting its acquisition of Northwest, which had its own set of problems from its own acquisitions, outdated operations and equipment, and bankruptcy issues. I was a NWA flyer for years, and while the people who worked there were lovely with midwestern sensibilities, it was an incredibly messy airline, shabby most days. Other than a couple of hubs and some Asia routes, the merger looked initially as if it was going into the toilet. Now, 11 years on, they have chipped away at all sorts of problems, and created on the surface at least, the appearance of a single airline. But they have old planes, and eventually, costs will rise substantially as they finance new planes, which will put pressure on margins. Their long term debt is roughly HALF of what AAs is, which no matter how you slice it, means they have an operational cost advantage. So they can simply try more things. But that too will come to an end. All this silly talk about "hard" product and "soft" product is odd. They have old planes, plain and simple. They punted on capital upgrades till it hurts. And it will hurt, but to their credit, they've held it together this long and invested in stuff that people seem to like, but that can't go on forever. Heck, I'm not even sure if they completed the integration of Republic Airlines (put here to see how old everyone is!)AA, for all their warts, and they have plenty, is only a few years into a much larger acquisition/merger (call it what you like). And US air still hadn't completely digested all of AWA, and it was still messy. I used US air extensively for several years post merger for east cost short hops and it was a bizarre experience as a frequent flyer, but I still got where I was going. I was EXPLT on AA during that time as well. But US air was a sloppy concoction of several airlines , and I knew that when they went on to ingest AA, it would only get more borked, before it started to get better.
And making any kind of claim about how UA has "improved" is ludicrous too. Its fantasy at best. UA is the reigning king of decontenting/devaluaing just about everything. Have about a million miles on them too, and am too close to EWR to avoid them (which I did for years), and have all but given up on them in general as a real airline to have loyalty to (I gave up airline loyalty in general, but thats another discussion). My favorite stories always revolve around the times I was going to visit UA (I was a vendor to them, and all the others for that matter for years), and each time I was going to visit, my flights, on UA, were cancelled and I was stranded. Not making this up. And UA is about 6 years into their digestion of their dumb/somewhat less dumb merger/rout of CO, which was a great airline until it wasn't. They've made tons of mistakes and continue to do so. No one is in charge at UA. It is rudderless and going through the motions with little interest in doing anything other than showing up to work and going home at the end of the day.
Short of it is, Delta is farthest along at digestion post merger, as well as has either brilliantly or foolishly, put off capital expenditures it desperately needs. They seem to have had less media worthy cockups lately, but they certainly aren't devoid of lousy service, aircraft, complaints, and crazy people. AA is the least farthest along in its digestion of its merger, and is still working through basic issues I agree. But there has never been as large an airline company as AA, and with that stupid ambition (size), comes operational challenges that even the most ego-maniacal executive simply can't comprehend on a day to day basis. Again, not defending AA nor Parker here, but to his credit at least, he was the architect of this goofy merger, so I suspect he gets some more leeway to make it work. And like him or not, he's a through and through airline dude. And don't get me started on UA. They are lost, and have no personality at the moment, and most of their FFs really don't know what to make of it.... I certainly don't.
FWIW, and you can laugh at me (I laugh at myself for goodness sake), I now simply buy the cheapest tickets I can find. Norwegian Premium for Europe, Ryanair/Wizz/Easyjet/whatever inside Europe. Jetblue for domestic, and if I need, AA or UA for some oddball place I can't get to. We've depleted 4 million miles on AA, and am down to almost nothing there. Still have about a quarter million left on UA and am using that for short domestic hops as international now costs MORE than buying full freight on many airlines, even for J.
That was cathartic
Jul 13, 2019, 10:33 am
#113
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 255
Did he also explain that the 15.31 cents is a non-GAAP measure, inclusive of imputed charges that cannot be tied to the face of the financial statements and that every airline calculates this differently?
Jul 13, 2019, 2:58 pm
#114
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: KHOU/KIAH
Programs: AA EXP | Marriott Bonvoy Titanium| Hyatt Globalist
Posts: 11,207
Very romantic with lots of acronyms and data, but the underlying facts are that all airlines have systemic cost problems, and they are all trying to digest both acquisitions and sprawling operational diversity. I'm not defending AA here, but rather, trying to argue that in the context of these massive companies that never existed before, no one has a golden playbook. And certainly, a company's stock price is a barometer of exactly ZERO in most cases, especially airlines.
There is a somewhat ridiculous fetish for Delta here on Flyertalk which I don't understand. Of the major legacy carriers (I hate that term and am a ridiculous hypocrite for using it ), Delta is the farthest along in digesting its acquisition of Northwest, which had its own set of problems from its own acquisitions, outdated operations and equipment, and bankruptcy issues. I was a NWA flyer for years, and while the people who worked there were lovely with midwestern sensibilities, it was an incredibly messy airline, shabby most days. Other than a couple of hubs and some Asia routes, the merger looked initially as if it was going into the toilet. Now, 11 years on, they have chipped away at all sorts of problems, and created on the surface at least, the appearance of a single airline. But they have old planes, and eventually, costs will rise substantially as they finance new planes, which will put pressure on margins. Their long term debt is roughly HALF of what AAs is, which no matter how you slice it, means they have an operational cost advantage. So they can simply try more things. But that too will come to an end. All this silly talk about "hard" product and "soft" product is odd. They have old planes, plain and simple. They punted on capital upgrades till it hurts. And it will hurt, but to their credit, they've held it together this long and invested in stuff that people seem to like, but that can't go on forever. Heck, I'm not even sure if they completed the integration of Republic Airlines (put here to see how old everyone is!)
AA, for all their warts, and they have plenty, is only a few years into a much larger acquisition/merger (call it what you like). And US air still hadn't completely digested all of AWA, and it was still messy. I used US air extensively for several years post merger for east cost short hops and it was a bizarre experience as a frequent flyer, but I still got where I was going. I was EXPLT on AA during that time as well. But US air was a sloppy concoction of several airlines , and I knew that when they went on to ingest AA, it would only get more borked, before it started to get better.
And making any kind of claim about how UA has "improved" is ludicrous too. Its fantasy at best. UA is the reigning king of decontenting/devaluaing just about everything. Have about a million miles on them too, and am too close to EWR to avoid them (which I did for years), and have all but given up on them in general as a real airline to have loyalty to (I gave up airline loyalty in general, but thats another discussion). My favorite stories always revolve around the times I was going to visit UA (I was a vendor to them, and all the others for that matter for years), and each time I was going to visit, my flights, on UA, were cancelled and I was stranded. Not making this up. And UA is about 6 years into their digestion of their dumb/somewhat less dumb merger/rout of CO, which was a great airline until it wasn't. They've made tons of mistakes and continue to do so. No one is in charge at UA. It is rudderless and going through the motions with little interest in doing anything other than showing up to work and going home at the end of the day.
Short of it is, Delta is farthest along at digestion post merger, as well as has either brilliantly or foolishly, put off capital expenditures it desperately needs. They seem to have had less media worthy cockups lately, but they certainly aren't devoid of lousy service, aircraft, complaints, and crazy people. AA is the least farthest along in its digestion of its merger, and is still working through basic issues I agree. But there has never been as large an airline company as AA, and with that stupid ambition (size), comes operational challenges that even the most ego-maniacal executive simply can't comprehend on a day to day basis. Again, not defending AA nor Parker here, but to his credit at least, he was the architect of this goofy merger, so I suspect he gets some more leeway to make it work. And like him or not, he's a through and through airline dude. And don't get me started on UA. They are lost, and have no personality at the moment, and most of their FFs really don't know what to make of it.... I certainly don't.
FWIW, and you can laugh at me (I laugh at myself for goodness sake), I now simply buy the cheapest tickets I can find. Norwegian Premium for Europe, Ryanair/Wizz/Easyjet/whatever inside Europe. Jetblue for domestic, and if I need, AA or UA for some oddball place I can't get to. We've depleted 4 million miles on AA, and am down to almost nothing there. Still have about a quarter million left on UA and am using that for short domestic hops as international now costs MORE than buying full freight on many airlines, even for J.
That was cathartic
There is a somewhat ridiculous fetish for Delta here on Flyertalk which I don't understand. Of the major legacy carriers (I hate that term and am a ridiculous hypocrite for using it
), Delta is the farthest along in digesting its acquisition of Northwest, which had its own set of problems from its own acquisitions, outdated operations and equipment, and bankruptcy issues. I was a NWA flyer for years, and while the people who worked there were lovely with midwestern sensibilities, it was an incredibly messy airline, shabby most days. Other than a couple of hubs and some Asia routes, the merger looked initially as if it was going into the toilet. Now, 11 years on, they have chipped away at all sorts of problems, and created on the surface at least, the appearance of a single airline. But they have old planes, and eventually, costs will rise substantially as they finance new planes, which will put pressure on margins. Their long term debt is roughly HALF of what AAs is, which no matter how you slice it, means they have an operational cost advantage. So they can simply try more things. But that too will come to an end. All this silly talk about "hard" product and "soft" product is odd. They have old planes, plain and simple. They punted on capital upgrades till it hurts. And it will hurt, but to their credit, they've held it together this long and invested in stuff that people seem to like, but that can't go on forever. Heck, I'm not even sure if they completed the integration of Republic Airlines (put here to see how old everyone is!)AA, for all their warts, and they have plenty, is only a few years into a much larger acquisition/merger (call it what you like). And US air still hadn't completely digested all of AWA, and it was still messy. I used US air extensively for several years post merger for east cost short hops and it was a bizarre experience as a frequent flyer, but I still got where I was going. I was EXPLT on AA during that time as well. But US air was a sloppy concoction of several airlines , and I knew that when they went on to ingest AA, it would only get more borked, before it started to get better.
And making any kind of claim about how UA has "improved" is ludicrous too. Its fantasy at best. UA is the reigning king of decontenting/devaluaing just about everything. Have about a million miles on them too, and am too close to EWR to avoid them (which I did for years), and have all but given up on them in general as a real airline to have loyalty to (I gave up airline loyalty in general, but thats another discussion). My favorite stories always revolve around the times I was going to visit UA (I was a vendor to them, and all the others for that matter for years), and each time I was going to visit, my flights, on UA, were cancelled and I was stranded. Not making this up. And UA is about 6 years into their digestion of their dumb/somewhat less dumb merger/rout of CO, which was a great airline until it wasn't. They've made tons of mistakes and continue to do so. No one is in charge at UA. It is rudderless and going through the motions with little interest in doing anything other than showing up to work and going home at the end of the day.
Short of it is, Delta is farthest along at digestion post merger, as well as has either brilliantly or foolishly, put off capital expenditures it desperately needs. They seem to have had less media worthy cockups lately, but they certainly aren't devoid of lousy service, aircraft, complaints, and crazy people. AA is the least farthest along in its digestion of its merger, and is still working through basic issues I agree. But there has never been as large an airline company as AA, and with that stupid ambition (size), comes operational challenges that even the most ego-maniacal executive simply can't comprehend on a day to day basis. Again, not defending AA nor Parker here, but to his credit at least, he was the architect of this goofy merger, so I suspect he gets some more leeway to make it work. And like him or not, he's a through and through airline dude. And don't get me started on UA. They are lost, and have no personality at the moment, and most of their FFs really don't know what to make of it.... I certainly don't.
FWIW, and you can laugh at me (I laugh at myself for goodness sake), I now simply buy the cheapest tickets I can find. Norwegian Premium for Europe, Ryanair/Wizz/Easyjet/whatever inside Europe. Jetblue for domestic, and if I need, AA or UA for some oddball place I can't get to. We've depleted 4 million miles on AA, and am down to almost nothing there. Still have about a quarter million left on UA and am using that for short domestic hops as international now costs MORE than buying full freight on many airlines, even for J.
That was cathartic
Parker is able to hold it together somewhat, so he isnt Swissair or Etihad, but he hasnt managed to harmonize anything or take it to the next step like DL has done. Given Parker's history, I do not feel that he is capable of truly assimilating the various groups in to a single functioning entity like DL has managed.
tl;dr - I dont have a hatred for Parker or anything like many here do. I simply, based on history at US, the performance of AA, the financials etc. Am not sold on his ability to take American to the next step. AA seems aimlessly floating around with no real strategy. They have the 321T and intl widebody fleet that IMO, are the best in the country (D1 is still that Thompson vantage junk and Polaris is supremely overrated and barely rolled out), but then have these junky Oasis planes too. Now, with the backlash, they seem to have halted or slowed Oasis; did they not do research on this? The strategy seems to be throwing darts at a wall and seeing what sticks. Similarly, moving TATL to PHL - PHL is a cluster .... on the best of days and completely incapable of handling the traffic AA is eyeing for it.
Personally, what is frustrating is that AA reeks of unfulfilled potential. Both as a passenger and from a stockholder standpoint.
Also, yes DL has punted on replacing their fleet and eventually will need to, but that isnt by itself a giant problem. A bigger question is why is AA retiring less than 15 year old 767s?
Jul 14, 2019, 7:54 pm
#115
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Parker has succeeded at many things, including slowly and methodically merging into larger and larger airlines, however he never really finished the job. US Airways was a hodgepodge and now American has their legacy mess added to the AWA/US mess. It reminds me of a more successful Swissair with their hunter strategy - buy a bunch of messes and somehow make it work.
Parker is able to hold it together somewhat, so he isnt Swissair or Etihad, but he hasnt managed to harmonize anything or take it to the next step like DL has done. Given Parker's history, I do not feel that he is capable of truly assimilating the various groups in to a single functioning entity like DL has managed.
tl;dr - I dont have a hatred for Parker or anything like many here do. I simply, based on history at US, the performance of AA, the financials etc. Am not sold on his ability to take American to the next step. AA seems aimlessly floating around with no real strategy. They have the 321T and intl widebody fleet that IMO, are the best in the country (D1 is still that Thompson vantage junk and Polaris is supremely overrated and barely rolled out), but then have these junky Oasis planes too. Now, with the backlash, they seem to have halted or slowed Oasis; did they not do research on this? The strategy seems to be throwing darts at a wall and seeing what sticks. Similarly, moving TATL to PHL - PHL is a cluster .... on the best of days and completely incapable of handling the traffic AA is eyeing for it.
Personally, what is frustrating is that AA reeks of unfulfilled potential. Both as a passenger and from a stockholder standpoint.
Also, yes DL has punted on replacing their fleet and eventually will need to, but that isnt by itself a giant problem. A bigger question is why is AA retiring less than 15 year old 767s?
Parker is able to hold it together somewhat, so he isnt Swissair or Etihad, but he hasnt managed to harmonize anything or take it to the next step like DL has done. Given Parker's history, I do not feel that he is capable of truly assimilating the various groups in to a single functioning entity like DL has managed.
tl;dr - I dont have a hatred for Parker or anything like many here do. I simply, based on history at US, the performance of AA, the financials etc. Am not sold on his ability to take American to the next step. AA seems aimlessly floating around with no real strategy. They have the 321T and intl widebody fleet that IMO, are the best in the country (D1 is still that Thompson vantage junk and Polaris is supremely overrated and barely rolled out), but then have these junky Oasis planes too. Now, with the backlash, they seem to have halted or slowed Oasis; did they not do research on this? The strategy seems to be throwing darts at a wall and seeing what sticks. Similarly, moving TATL to PHL - PHL is a cluster .... on the best of days and completely incapable of handling the traffic AA is eyeing for it.
Personally, what is frustrating is that AA reeks of unfulfilled potential. Both as a passenger and from a stockholder standpoint.
Also, yes DL has punted on replacing their fleet and eventually will need to, but that isnt by itself a giant problem. A bigger question is why is AA retiring less than 15 year old 767s?
And Having moved much of my business from UA to DL starting in 2012 - 4 year post merger - I can attest that the direction of that airline, and the consistency of the product was much different that with either UAL (8 years into the merger) or AAL (6 years into the merger) today. The issue is not that it takes more than six years to merge an airline, it is that it takes competent management that has a vision that employees and customers can buy into. Parker appears to lack both.
And P.S. the idea that Delta has "punted" on fleet replacement, is a little out of date. Delta is getting/has gotten 25 A359s, which are quite nice, as well as 90 A222-100/300s which blow away both the MAX and the Neo in passenger comfort. Delta also has 142 Orders for A321ceo/321neos, and has recently taken delivery of 85 A321ceos, and just started getting delivery of 35 A333neos, which will replace 763s.
Over a period of about 5 years Delta will have taken delivery of nearly 400 new airplanes.
Last edited by spin88; Jul 14, 2019 at 8:03 pm
Jul 14, 2019, 9:27 pm
#116
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: SFO
Programs: AA,UA,AS
Posts: 319
I think that Parker just doesn't necessarily value innovation, which trickles down throughout the corporate HQ. He's very much a believer in people fly based on price and convenience alone, so no need to spend on marketing or outside the box thinking unless it is proven to have a guaranteed return. He knows where he has to spend money to stay competitive, but doesn't necessarily want to spend the money to be industry leading. Most of the great things about American (Flagship lounges, First Dining, new Trans-con product) were put in motion prior to the merger. There hasn't been much of anything exciting or new since the merger and I doubt there won't really be with Doug at the wheel.
Jul 15, 2019, 7:32 pm
#117
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 12
Parker has succeeded at many things, including slowly and methodically merging into larger and larger airlines, however he never really finished the job. US Airways was a hodgepodge and now American has their legacy mess added to the AWA/US mess. It reminds me of a more successful Swissair with their hunter strategy - buy a bunch of messes and somehow make it work.
Parker is able to hold it together somewhat, so he isnt Swissair or Etihad, but he hasnt managed to harmonize anything or take it to the next step like DL has done. Given Parker's history, I do not feel that he is capable of truly assimilating the various groups in to a single functioning entity like DL has managed.
tl;dr - I dont have a hatred for Parker or anything like many here do. I simply, based on history at US, the performance of AA, the financials etc. Am not sold on his ability to take American to the next step. AA seems aimlessly floating around with no real strategy. They have the 321T and intl widebody fleet that IMO, are the best in the country (D1 is still that Thompson vantage junk and Polaris is supremely overrated and barely rolled out), but then have these junky Oasis planes too. Now, with the backlash, they seem to have halted or slowed Oasis; did they not do research on this? The strategy seems to be throwing darts at a wall and seeing what sticks. Similarly, moving TATL to PHL - PHL is a cluster .... on the best of days and completely incapable of handling the traffic AA is eyeing for it.
Personally, what is frustrating is that AA reeks of unfulfilled potential. Both as a passenger and from a stockholder standpoint.
Also, yes DL has punted on replacing their fleet and eventually will need to, but that isnt by itself a giant problem. A bigger question is why is AA retiring less than 15 year old 767s?
Parker is able to hold it together somewhat, so he isnt Swissair or Etihad, but he hasnt managed to harmonize anything or take it to the next step like DL has done. Given Parker's history, I do not feel that he is capable of truly assimilating the various groups in to a single functioning entity like DL has managed.
tl;dr - I dont have a hatred for Parker or anything like many here do. I simply, based on history at US, the performance of AA, the financials etc. Am not sold on his ability to take American to the next step. AA seems aimlessly floating around with no real strategy. They have the 321T and intl widebody fleet that IMO, are the best in the country (D1 is still that Thompson vantage junk and Polaris is supremely overrated and barely rolled out), but then have these junky Oasis planes too. Now, with the backlash, they seem to have halted or slowed Oasis; did they not do research on this? The strategy seems to be throwing darts at a wall and seeing what sticks. Similarly, moving TATL to PHL - PHL is a cluster .... on the best of days and completely incapable of handling the traffic AA is eyeing for it.
Personally, what is frustrating is that AA reeks of unfulfilled potential. Both as a passenger and from a stockholder standpoint.
Also, yes DL has punted on replacing their fleet and eventually will need to, but that isnt by itself a giant problem. A bigger question is why is AA retiring less than 15 year old 767s?
Jul 15, 2019, 11:25 pm
#118
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SFO/SJC/OAK/STS
Programs: Alaska MVPG, Delta PM, AA EXP, Wannabe SkyWest 1K
Posts: 644
Don't wait for shareholders or the BoD to address this, Smisek would still have a job if it weren't for the Port Authority scandal. Maintenance costs are one thing, but Delta is earning 17.4 cents of TRASM compared to just 15.9 cents for AA. I get that some of this is the AMEX cards, but DL's yields went up y/y while AA's dropped.
Jul 15, 2019, 11:37 pm
#119
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: SFO/SJC/OAK/STS
Programs: Alaska MVPG, Delta PM, AA EXP, Wannabe SkyWest 1K
Posts: 644
DL's great, but they still have the oldest fleet and actively buy airplanes at the end of production runs (738/9ERs) or that couldn't sell previously (A220s when Bombardier), or keep them forever, like the current MD-88s and MD-90s. But DL does make an effort to address the customer impact I don't see elsewhere. The ancient A319/A320s look brand new with the refurbs, which were done thoughtfully and make 20 year old planes look like they just rolled off the line.
Jul 15, 2019, 11:56 pm
#120
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
DL's great, but they still have the oldest fleet and actively buy airplanes at the end of production runs (738/9ERs) or that couldn't sell previously (A220s when Bombardier), or keep them forever, like the current MD-88s and MD-90s. But DL does make an effort to address the customer impact I don't see elsewhere. The ancient A319/A320s look brand new with the refurbs, which were done thoughtfully and make 20 year old planes look like they just rolled off the line.
Delta actually had a lot in common with AA, which did not see any real advantage in buying lots of last gen AC, and so kept an older and older fleet until the neo/MAX/787 came out, then bought a lot of AC at one time. Delta was just about 5 years behind AA in its fleet needs, because it was able to aquire the 717s and a lot of md90s with lower cycles on them.
