Airline routes ranked by revenue: AA last.
 

This site displays domestic routes with the highest revenue for each airline.

https://weekly.visualapproach.io/p/u...mestic-top-ten

Delta and United have routes comparable to each other, with some reaching nearly half a billion. American is last in that comparison, and its best route is still outperformed by JetBlue. It's remarkable how far behind American is.

The JFK to LAX route is the last interesting to me. Getting smoked by DAL and beat by JBLU on a route that we are supposed to do well on; makes sense why the 321T will be going away for the XLR, it isn’t as profitable as I assumed.

It's earnings week at American!

https://media3.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2...gxcQ/giphy.gif

😂

filler

Need a “Isom and Seymour’s excuses and misdirections” bingo card for the press conference

Revenue?

or Profit?

back to regular programming

Does it matter? AA is last in both.

Interesting analysis. So B6 retains a loyal following for transcons and makes Mint. Why aren't they profitable overall?

It also shows that while connecting hubs (CLT) are profitable the big money O&D traffic is still in those big nasty cities with high taxes that Vasu and the regional airline team don't like. The XLR (assuming they fit though the door or whatever the excuse for the delay is this week) will have more and nicer premium seating than the T models. Maybe we can scrape a few more million from those routes.

It’s time for a management team refresh, they must love being last

Would be nice if leadership cared that their employees hate coming to work. Or I'd settle for just acknowledgement that miserable employees make miserable customers.

Think they realize how much smoother everything would run if people enjoyed the culture?

American will never be competitive until management gets employees onboard with improving things.

Just an observation, but both DAL and UAL are running widebodies from JFK/EWR to LAX. While I agree that AA increasing the number of seats per flight from 102 to 155 is a step in the right direction, it still seems a day late and a dollar short.

Not sure about DAL but at UAL, the plan was to have the Max10 have 20 Polaris seats to milk the premium transcon customer even more. Guess we will see if they are ever certified and delivered.

That's why they have leased the 321s. It's amazing how fast they are showing up.

I suspected but didn't research that Delta and United also use a few wide-bodies on those routes. Clearly that's an effective strategy.

As mentioned every single data point indicates that we either need a strategy shift or to simply admit that we like 3rd place. It's embarrassing.

I've been here over 11 years and not once have I felt management cared about our position relative to Delta and United. There was a time where I was optimistic we'd see the money being made by Delta and try to emulate their strategy, but that hasn't been the case. And finally I figured the Board would get tired of the incompetence and make a change, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

I've got just under 20 years to go, and now I'm resigned to being like Quint in Jaws, just hoping my increasing seniority outpaces management's incompetence:

https://static2.srcdn.com/wordpress/...ills-Quint.jpg

The good news is I enjoy the day to day job and the people I fly with, so at least life doesn't suck while I shake my head at the operation otherwise.

Well that will only happen after all the meaningless awards and tone deaf pats on the back take up 90% of the presentation.

It's amusing how many "experts" have already pre-determined this for us. The focus is always UA vs. DAL, with AA just existing in the background. Numerous aviation experts, analysts, and websites have essentially written off AA as a hybrid of an LCC and an international carrier, not even considering us in the same league as UA and DAL. At this point, it might be more strategic to operate in that manner, rather than emulate UA and DAL's spending habits while providing a product comparable to Alaska/JetBlue/Hawaiian. We've become a lot like US Airways, and I realize it's tough for some to accept that we're not on par with UA and DAL, but that's the reality, and it's unlikely to change. I wouldn't be surprised if the next bankruptcy results in contract/pay cuts, with the justification being, "We don't operate in the same category or business model as UA and DAL."

2 years ago, maybe. However, AA seems to be making direct and targeted efforts lately to begin to compete amongst UA and DL again. Buy on board offerings, new suites, enhanced meals, bringing back the second beverage service on transcons (lol…), and returned focused growth on previously forgotten hubs. I’m not saying they are competing well yet, but it is obvious they want to get out of that grey area you describe.

There is a long way to go but over the past 12 months there has been a noticeable shift in strategy.

The biggest thing I noticed last year after buying a ticket was the plane we flew on 1/2 way across the country didn't even have IFE, which is free on DAL/UAL/JB. That stands out as a loud statement that we are here to compete with LCC's.

It's a step, but insufficient. It's like a 500-pound person cutting cola from 5 to 3 liters. They aren't prioritizing the right hubs. Instead of focusing on JFK, LAX, MIA, and ORD, they seem to be adding flights in lower-yielding hubs like PHX, DFW, CLT, and PHL. Complaining about competition in those former major markets is weak; when your airline is bad, no one will choose it over four other options. Start by addressing inflight and airport customer service. I served by a gate agent with ugly arm tattoos at PHL the other day with an attitude equally as ugly.

We really are the Stellantis of the airlines and slowly moving towards being the Kia.

This has been the case for years and argued to death on this forum so many times. But to your point, the strategy shift at AA has been so apparent that those same blogs began speculating AA would bring back seatback IFE on domestic NBs.

I highly doubt that’s ever going to happen, but if outspoken AA critics like Gary Leff were suggesting it, then there is some truth to the boat turning.

We bankruptcy yet?

All you armchair management guys always giving out management advice! Sure glad the finance and marketing departments don't write our manuals! Geez guys. Just move the metal cash the checks and enjoy the days off. This forum is exhausting.

Exactly.

To be fair, we don't have seatback IFE. I'd prefer we offer both, but some carriers only offer the IFE on the seatback, and I'd much prefer to watch content on my own device. And best yet, have both options.

It sounds like they are back to LGA and ORD (mostly RJs since mainline growth is slow). I think LAX is a lost cause because they think having our Alaska partner there is enough.

DFW and CLT are full until they add gates. PHL you are just going to have to deal with. JFK is Delta's European gateway, EWR is United's and we're stuck with PHL but the more RJs they slam in there the more wide-bodies we can fill up.

PHX is all we got out west so hopefully they do something with it.

Pour yourself another one Jimmy. It's fine if you don't care and you are right we can't do a damn thing about it. But cashing those fat checks until retirement would be easier if we had 10% margins instead of 2 so I hope we make the changes necessary to move upmarket.

Im sure that not only does Mr Isom read this forum he really appreciates your input so keep up the good work. We'll be pulling ahead of Delter soon!

Looks like we’ll incorporate a 777 on some LAX-JFK trips.

https://onemileatatime.com/news/american-777-jfk-lax/

What's truly eye-opening is that even for American, its most profitable routes are concentrated in New York and Los Angeles, two high-value markets the carrier has willingly retreated from in favor of lower-yielding endeavors.

Reestablishing a meaningful presence there will be exceedingly difficult, due to entrenched competition, slot constraints, and the erosion of brand relevance.

not defending management decisions as a whole one iota but…:

high revenue does not equal high profit. We have no idea if JFK-LAX is high profit for any of the carriers. What we do know is the passenger costs out of those 2 airports are extremely high. Especially when compared to CLT and DFW. Like saying a popular pizza place in Times Square MUST be profitable because of the lines and prices, without knowing their rent bill

Wonderful, a 35 year old worn out 777 will compliment the worn out old 321ts nicely.

Nobody’s denying JFK and LAX are expensive. But the idea that high cost kills profitability on high-revenue routes doesn’t hold up. Profit margins aren’t fixed, they scale. Airlines fight for JFK-LAX slots for a reason: because yield is strong, premium demand is high, and unit revenues often offset unit costs.

Delta has major hubs in high-cost markets like JFK and LAX. United centers much of its network around EWR, SFO, and ORD. Clearly, they believe those hubs are profit centers, not liabilities. Would anyone argue that our opposite focus on the Sunbelt has been a more successful strategy over time?

In American’s earnings call, they explicitly cited JFK-LAX and similar coastal hub flying were among their highest-margin operations. Delta and United run widebodies on these routes for a reason, and it’s not charity. (We did too, before scrapping them)

If a pizza joint in Times Square sells $7 slices and has a line out the door all day, odds are it’s doing just fine. High costs don’t erase profit when demand is strong and margins are priced accordingly.

Customers don't know how old the aircraft is just as long as the interior is kept up. However the increase in premium seats is what we really need on that route. I refer you to the first post again and see how we are absolutely killed due to our lack of premium. You can put a thousand more gates in DFW and it won't make up that ground. We need to start doing something other then growing DFW or CLT.

I fly the T models a lot and the premium seat interiors are in horrific condition

I noticed the interior on the t and the older 319 and 320 are an awful shape. I'm guessing that's because the t is supposed to be reconfigured when the XLRs come and so they don't want to invest in new interiors?
Same thing goes for the 19 and 20 supposed to put the fancy interior from the regular 321 with a big overhead bins right? No reason to fix them if they're starting that this fall? Unless I'm mistaken.

Just because a seat goes flat doesn't make it "premium." Not when you're stuck with a crabby flight attendant who only appears twice—once to dump a pre-plated, pre-tray of slop, and again to snatch it away. Add a dirty seat, cabins and lavs so cramped you need to be a contortionist just to pee, and those ancient 360p screens, and suddenly that lie-flat seat means nothing.



The current 777 interiors are over a decade old, and the A321Ts are even older. Notably, both fleets were only upgraded under Tom Horton's tenure; during his time, "DUI Duggie" merely oversaw the replacement of seat covers and carpet on the old Airbuses.

I've deadheaded plenty on our 321T's, both in first and business. I have no idea what you're talking about.

He’s just that type of guy no worries. Anything AA is bad, period.

Of course AA doesn't have any 35 yr old 777's. First deliveries were in either 1998 or 1999. The first 321T is 11.5 years old.

Go check on the ages of the 757's and 767's DL and UA are flying.

Fleet age averages +/- - AA - 12.5, DL - 15, UA - 16.5

I have to agree. As I was reading his comments I was thinking, this guy is full of $h1t. When I've flown on these airplanes - in Premium - I've been comfortable, been well attended to by the FA's, and used my own iPad for entertainment. And the lie-flat seat is a huge bonus over anything that only reclines partially.

So yea, the rantings of someone who clearly hates AA.

You don’t understand, AA is the wooooorst airline in the industry. No matter what we do, this place is sh*t. :rolleyes:

I think this isn’t MinimumEffort’s first handle on this forum. He/she/it seems to come and go in waves.