jagraham wrote:Thanks again for all this great work Enilria. DL is reducing flights to LHR from BOS and DTW, but LHR is the one airport I can't see a slot sitting empty. Are there any DL adds to LHR somewhere that I missed?
With VS they have a lot more ability to cover slots.
MIflyer12 wrote:phxtravelboy wrote:ericm2031 wrote:
Refuses is a very strong word. PHX, DFW, CLT, ORD, PHL is still substantial. AA has very limited resources in LAX and has much higher priorities than MKE. WN is dominant in MKE which limits how much market is left for AA (or other carriers) to add.
Not sure why you make it sound like AA is out of their minds for their decisions on MKE when it is perfectly reasonable.
AA's service from MKE is basically the absolute bare minimum. CLT/PHL are nothing but regional jets whereas other similiar cities such as MCI or IND have mainline service; ORD is only flown 4 times per day on 50 seat CRJs versus UA who has roughly 10 per day and even flies mainline at times. From the AA DCA hub they serve every single top 50 market from DCA nonstop except for MKE and HOU. If GRR, SDF, OMA can all support service to MIA surely MKE, a much larger market, can as well.
I can infer AA's MKE strategy:
Let them drive to ORD. It's not a strategy without merits.
All the airports you list with 'better' AA service aren't proximate to AA hubs. Don't compare MKE to GRR and SDF - compare it to TUS or PBI.
So, on the one hand you have B6 which is a big believer of flying to all the airports near its "hubs" as a way to build mind-share with customers, but AA apparently believes despite being behind UA in ORD that it's not a good strategy to divide and conquer.
Here's the split on CHI by carrier from DB1B YE 1Q18
UA 7.858m pax; $1.771B revenue
AA 7.476m pax; $1.470B revenue
WN 6.494m pax; $0.814B revenue
It's interesting how close the pax are, and how far away the revenue is.