Generated Title: Scott Kirby's "American is Cooked" Claim: Hubris or Hard Data?
Scott Kirby, United Airlines CEO, has a knack for making headlines. His recent assertion that American Airlines is effectively doomed – that only two "premium" airlines can thrive long-term in the US – is classic Kirby: bold, quotable, and potentially rooted in...something. The question is, is it hubris, or is there hard data backing up his claim?
Kirby's argument hinges on the idea that the airline industry is no longer a commodity business, but one driven by brand loyalty. Airlines, he suggests, now primarily profit from loyalty programs, and only those with strong brands will survive. He specifically calls out American's struggles in Chicago, stating he "wouldn't want to play American's hand" there.
The first, most obvious, data point is financial performance. United has improved its financials in recent years, while American's have seemingly stagnated. But correlation isn't causation. Is United's success directly because of American's weakness? Or are other factors at play, like fleet management, route network optimization (something United has been aggressively pursuing), or even just plain luck (fuel prices, weather events)?
Kirby also argues that only Delta and United have truly cultivated brand loyalty. This is a more subjective claim, and harder to quantify directly. However, we can look at metrics like Net Promoter Score (NPS) and customer satisfaction surveys. While data is often self-reported and biased, it can still offer a general indication. What's interesting is that, across various surveys, American often scores lower than both Delta and United (though the discrepancies are often within a relatively tight range).
The Chicago O'Hare Conundrum
The situation in Chicago O'Hare (ORD) is particularly interesting. Kirby claims American is losing around $800 million per year there (according to United's "publicly referenced data"). That's a staggering number. Of course, we only have Kirby's word, and United's "publicly referenced data" on which to base this. It's difficult to verify independently. (Airlines are notoriously opaque about specific route profitability.)
But let's assume, for a moment, that Kirby's number is in the ballpark. Why is American struggling in Chicago? Is it simply a matter of inferior service, leading to a lack of brand loyalty? Or are there deeper structural issues at play, like gate access, slot restrictions, or competition from other airlines (including, yes, United)? It's likely a combination of factors.
And this is the part of the report that I find genuinely puzzling. If American does have so many inherent advantages – its Latin America network, its joint venture hubs – why isn't it leveraging them more effectively? The current narrative from American executives is that they're "focusing on the customer." But, as the source material rightly points out, "customer experience improvements are just 'table stakes' when you're competing against Delta and United."
American needs a differentiator. Something beyond just "reliable schedules" and slightly better snacks.
One could argue that American's problem isn't necessarily a lack of brand loyalty, but a lack of a clear brand identity. Delta is known for operational excellence. United, under Kirby, is striving for innovation and a premium experience (even if it doesn't always deliver). What is American known for? A vast network? Maybe. But that's not enough to inspire true loyalty.
The risk for Kirby, of course, is overconfidence. Declaring a competitor "cooked" can backfire spectacularly. Remember when Doug Parker claimed American would "never lose money again"? (That didn't age well.) The airline industry is notoriously volatile. A sudden spike in fuel prices, a major recession, or even a well-executed turnaround strategy by American could quickly change the narrative.
Is This Just Posturing?
Ultimately, Kirby's comments could be seen as a strategic play. By publicly questioning American's viability, he's attempting to influence investor perceptions, employee morale, and even consumer behavior. It's a form of psychological warfare, trying to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. As One Mile At A Time reports, Kirby confidently declared American "cooked".
But it only works if American allows it to. Robert Isom, American's CEO, has responded by stating the carrier doesn't make business decisions based on competitors' remarks. That's a reasonable response, but it needs to be backed up with concrete action. American needs to show, not just tell, that it has a plan to compete effectively in the long term.
Cooked or Just Simmering?
Kirby's claim that American is "cooked" is undoubtedly hyperbolic. But it's also a wake-up call. American has the assets and the potential to be a major player in the airline industry. Whether it chooses to capitalize on those assets, or continues to drift aimlessly, remains to be seen. The Q3 2025 losses (which, let's be honest, shouldn't have happened) are a worrying sign, but not necessarily a death knell. American needs a reboot, not just incremental improvements.