Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2898188/

Topic: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Fewsolarge
Posted 2006-07-25 03:07:49 and read 9453 times.

We all know the story of Delta's squandering of the LAX hub inherited from Western. Then there's the complete dismantling of the Transpacific experiment in the 90's, which included nonstops from LAX.

Now some of Delta's reorganization attention is starting to focus on Los Angeles. New routes, albeit mostly on RJs, are starting to a variety of destinations in Mexico. Also, as confirmed by statements by Jim Whitehurst to employees, Delta is considering L.A. as its West Coast staging location for anticipated Transpacific growth (when aircraft permit).

Can Delta accomplish what it failed to do before, in the face of established international incumbents and strong domestic LCCs? They have the gates and a good overall presence in the West. But they lack service in the most important markets, up and down the coast.

How would UA, AA, NW, and CO respond? If there were a melee at LAX over the next few years, who would be the last ones standing?

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: STT757
Posted 2006-07-25 03:11:36 and read 9444 times.

Has DL sorted out it's gate lease problems with the LAX folks?

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Alitalia744
Posted 2006-07-25 03:22:06 and read 9390 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 1):
Has DL sorted out it's gate lease problems with the LAX folks?

they're working on it but i wouldn't expect any gates to be returned at this point.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-25 05:09:44 and read 9228 times.

in a nutshell, yes, DL can do what it couldn't do before. Former management simply failed to execute against some pretty basic aspects of making their transpac operation work - like having LAX-FLA flights connect w/ flights to Japan. Current management isn't taking excuses of why things can't work as evidenced by the success of JFK. If DL is able to do at LAX half of what it has done at JFK, DL should have no problem doing what it wants to do.

As for the competitive response, no other airline has the facilities and airplanes to stop DL. AA would be the most likely candidate but they don't have the airplanes unless they pull planes off of some current routes. Rumors do say they are cancelling several flights so the question is what they will do with them. Other than AA, I don't see any other US carrier as a real obstacle to DL accomplishing what it might want to do.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: SLCUT2777
Posted 2006-07-25 05:21:39 and read 9199 times.

Keep in mind DL still has quite a significant feed into LAX from both hubs at SLC and ATL. The previous management regime knew nothing about how to make LAX work as Grinstien, Whitehurst and Bastian. Keep in mind Grinstien was the last CEO of Western Airlines and the primary architect of the Western merger with Delta back in 1986-87. LAX is clearly the best trans-Pacific point on the west coast of North America, much as NYC-JFK is on the eastern shore for the Atlantic. DL can probably do more with it than people realize, and yes they will have new wide-bodies coming on line sooner than later.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: RwSEA
Posted 2006-07-25 05:41:01 and read 9169 times.

LAX has a few things going for it as a DL gateway. Obviously the huge O&D, which often can command good fares. While LAX is well-served by international carriers, the only non-stops to Asia by US carriers are all to NRT, which in my opinion means that the airport is underserved.

However, LAX is not a good location for a hub or gateway, and it is further from Asia than SEA or SFO. Either of those cities would make better gateways if DL wanted to focus on connecting pax. But if they wanted to focus on the LAX O&D pax, it would be a great place for them to do it.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 4):
LAX is clearly the best trans-Pacific point on the west coast of North America, much as NYC-JFK is on the eastern shore for the Atlantic.

Disagree. SEA-NRT and SEA-HKG are about 700 miles shorter than LAX-NRT and LAX-HKG respectively. NRT-SEA-JFK is 736 miles shorter than NRT-LAX-JFK (I know JFK-NRT would probably choose to go non-stop, but that's moot for the sake of this argument). SFO is about 300 miles closer to Asia than LAX. Most flights from SEA to Japan at least can be operated with only one aircraft; LAX generally requires two. Obviously LAX's passenger base would help compensate for these geographic shortcomings, but I wouldn't call it the best trans-Pacific point. If we're comparing to the Atlantic, LAX would be more comparable to ATL than JFK in terms of location.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Centrair
Posted 2006-07-25 05:57:24 and read 9122 times.

DL could come back big time. But they don't have the planes to do it.

Though LAX is furhter south than SFO or SEA, it has a much larger and diverse population that can contribute to higher O&D. There is also the economic factor. LA has more money to spend as a metro area than the other two (corporation wise). Now SFO has the tech valley and SEA as Tech and industry, LAX has those two and more.

The key for DL will be to have good connections from LAX to other parts of the US and South America. They will also have to have a large variety of destinations out of LAX. It is't about NRT, KIX, NGO, PEK, PVG or HKG. Its about the up-and-coming destinations.

DL will have to do to LAX was CO did to EWR. Thin Hub-point routes to destinations underserved that can produce O&D and C/F passengers. DL served four destinations in Japan before pulling out. They would have to go back and re-open NGO, KIX and FUK. Plus they would have to tap MNL, CTS, TPE, KHH, CAN, CKG, DLC, and a ton of airports in China that will be opening to international service in the next few years. These are places where a 777-2 or SMALLER might be needed but could produce great revenue for DL.

I for one think that this is going to be the next big thing. But DL can't do it. They don't have planes and will not for years. NW will have their 787s up by 2009 and have options for 30 more or something. They can build up MSP, SEA and DTW big time and sooner than DL could even get started at LAX.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: SLCUT2777
Posted 2006-07-25 08:11:04 and read 8985 times.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 5):
Obviously LAX's passenger base would help compensate for these geographic shortcomings, but I wouldn't call it the best trans-Pacific point. If we're comparing to the Atlantic, LAX would be more comparable to ATL than JFK in terms of location.

That is my point, the size of the LA market (roughly 17 million and change!) makes it the ideal west coast gateway to the US. It is 2.5 times the size of the San Francisco Bay Area and much bigger still then Seattle. SEA-TAC might be the closest west coast airport to Asia, but it is inhibited by its proximity to YVR which is better still and is also Canada's Pacific gateway. Much of the Puget Sound people go ahead and drive 3 hours north and deal with the border to get a much larger selection of trans-Pacific flights out of YVR, and similarly people from metro-Vancouver drive down to SEA-TAC to catch a domestic USA flight rather than deal with the premium price charged for a trans-border flight into the US.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: DAL767400ER
Posted 2006-07-25 10:51:34 and read 8903 times.

IMHO, the future of DL at LAX will depend what loads they can achieve on their new flights. Their advantage is that they have started a few routes that were not served from LAX, like CMH, BDL or RDU, and will add a few more, especially in Mexico, as ASA's application for 6 news routes has been granted except for one, which DL delayed themselved due to security issues (don't ask the city names, can't access the DMS site at work).
If these flights prove successful, and DL continues to focus on markets not yet served from LAX, and don't try to enter already saturated markets, like the intra-California market, LAX might have a good shot at finally becoming a VIH (Very Important Hub) for Delta again. Even more so if DL were to finally get EMB-190s, which would allow them to add even more thinner transcons, e.g. to JAX or TPA for example, perhaps even YYZ, and upgrade the Mexico CRJ routes. Don't really see too much activity coming south of the border except for Mexico, and Asia is still quite a few years off.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-25 14:48:40 and read 8821 times.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 5):
However, LAX is not a good location for a hub or gateway, and it is further from Asia than SEA or SFO.

Geographically, it is true that the Bay Area and the Pacific NW are better positioned but it doesn’t make any difference if there is no market there. UA is huge in SFO in addition to all of the Asian carriers. AA tried to capture a piece of the market from SJC and failed. The only way another US airline will be flying a large Asian operation from the Bay area is if they buy it from UA.

SEA doesn’t have the airport infrastructure to handle a large int’l hub operation and if they did the carrier setting up that operation would have to compete with AS to set up the domestic connecting flights.

LAX is a huge market which has largely not been developed by US airlines. I hope DL does move in and aggressively develops LAX. It will work very well as a southern tier gateway to Asia in addition to serving the huge Southern California market.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 6):
DL could come back big time.



…and probably will by only after they get their house in order on the east coast.

We may begin to see some longhaul flying from LAX by next summer but it probably will begin developing LAX-Asia before this decade is out. In order to make LAX work, DL needs to:

- finish the terminal negotiations and not lose control of any gates.
- continue to succeed over the Atlantic and be comfortable that they have taken a leadership role in the markets they deem important on the east coast. It makes no sense to begin developing LAX if they leave NYC open for a competitor to come into markets or regions DL has set up to win in.
- improved product. Asian airlines offer very high quality products. DL is moving in the right direction but they need a consistent high quality product to succeed in Asia. DL has historically had one of the best airlines from a customer service perspective and they will need to be at least that good if not better to succeed in Asia.
- longhaul airplanes. The 767 can fly LAX-Japan but there is a lot more of Asia than Japan. DL could have 4 more 777s by 2008 which would be enough to pick off a couple of key longhaul routes in addition to what the 767s can do but it is doubtful that DL will start building up LAX until it knows it has the financial capability to acquire more longhaul airplanes. The 777 or 787 could work. Asia will require new airplanes to develop while DL has largely been able to grow over the Atlantic through fleet reallocation.
- domestic feeder traffic. There is no reason DL can’t provide it but no one just rolls over and opens their markets. Several carriers are bigger than DL at LAX and DL must increase its overall domestic presence at LAX in order to provide the efficiencies necessary to support an int’l operation.

DL can certainly do all of these things but they will only take on LAX-Asia once they have the financial strength and the international successes over the Atlantic to justify developing a new frontier.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Panamair
Posted 2006-07-25 15:29:14 and read 8766 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
DL can certainly do all of these things but they will only take on LAX-Asia once they have the financial strength and the international successes over the Atlantic to justify developing a new frontier.

Couldn't agree more. While it is certainly possible for DL to develop LAX into an international hub, the effort and money required, not so much for the physical elements (e.g., terminals, aircraft), but for the 'softer' aspects such as marketing or re-orienting (no pun intended) people's views about DL as a significant transpac carrier out of the West Coast, will make the recent transatlantic and JFK expansion look like a walk in the park. At JFK, DL has already had a "Top Three" presence for a while now, including an already-established transatlantic presence; this round of JFK buildup as a real hub is relatively inexpensive compared to what it would take at LAX. DL needs to focus on making JFK a success first before turning to a riskier and more complicated situation such as LAX.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: BigGSFO
Posted 2006-07-25 15:57:09 and read 8709 times.

I always thought the three major Skyteam airlines could establish a world class hub at LAX: DL, CO and NW. Hear me out: they develop T2 and T3 into one big terminal and combine schedules of the three carriers. NW/KL could use their expertise across the Pacific (NW), Atlantic (KL/AF) and Midwest (NW); CO through the West/Latin America; DL the East, Caribbean, Mexico. Although an expensive and complicated undertaking, it's feasible and could operate nicely. Each airline could claim LAX as a hub with a minimal dedication of resources.

I know it's a crazy thought, but it's possible...

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: DAL767400ER
Posted 2006-07-25 16:30:48 and read 8656 times.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 11):
they develop T2 and T3 into one big terminal

If such a close cooperation were to ever happen, it would be from T5 and T6, due to a few reasons:
-DL and CO are already there, with both of them having a larger LAX presence than NW.
-More gates and newer interiors
-Underground tunnel beyond security between the 2 terminals.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-25 17:09:33 and read 8592 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
LAX is a huge market which has largely not been developed by US airlines

Statements like this show you have no credibility. I think UA, AS, WN, and AA would beg to differ on your assumption. Delta would get slaughtered in LA if they tried to set up a hub. They also don't have near enough planes and facilities to handle the fantasy hub.

I hate to burst your little pie in the sky bubble, but LA is tapped out. Airlines are retrenching from LAX to Asia not increasing. Why? Because new aircraft like the 777 are able to overfly West Coast hubs nonstop to most Asian destinations from pretty much anywhere in the US. There is absolutely no rational argument to not justify keeping LAX exactly what it is, a high yield O&D station.

Asia is primarily driven by wholesaler traffic in the back cabin. Lots of negotiated volume discounts. There is already way too much capacity to Japan and the only way NW and UA make it work is by hubbing Narita.

Overall point-to-point traffic is weak between the US and Asia. AA and CO's recent flights to China have not been performing that great. SQ has said both their EWR and LAX flights are not profitable. TG's services to LAX and JFK are also not profitable.

Outside UA and NW, why do no other US carriers fly to Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, and Bangkok when they have planes already capable to flying to those places? Because the markets are just not that great and the NRT hub for UA and NW is the only way that makes it work. There are a few select markets that justify nonstops from interior US but not many.

Lastly cargo is highly directional. They come over full but fly back with junk.

Asia is not as great a market as many people think.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: MalpensaSFO
Posted 2006-07-25 18:20:20 and read 8504 times.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 6):
Plus they would have to tap MNL, CTS, TPE, KHH, CAN, CKG, DLC, and a ton of airports in China that will be opening to international service in the next few years. These are places where a 777-2 or SMALLER might be needed but could produce great revenue for DL.

DLC, CKG to LAX? That would be stretch of the immagination.

KHH would work with CI using a 343

CTS would work on NWA using a 332

MNL is served by PR 2x daily and is low..low.. yielding

TPE is served 39 x Weekly by CI, BR, SQ, MH

CAN is served daily with DL partner CZ with the 777.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Travelin man
Posted 2006-07-25 18:44:25 and read 8462 times.

I think you have to look at LAX from an Alliance perspective, not just an airline perspective. The reason US airlines have not aggressively developed trans-Pacific routes from LAX is because for the most part, their alliance partners have handled it.

For instance, United only has two Asian/Pacific destinations on UA metal (NRT, SYD) from LAX. However, through its Star Alliance partners, UA actually offers the following destinations:
AKL (NZ)
APW (NZ)
BKK (TG)
ICN (OZ)
NRT (SQ, NH)
PPT (NZ)
SIN (SQ)
TPE (SQ)

So basically, LAX is acting as a Star hub.

For AA, LAX is in a similar situation, with JL, CX, and QF providing most of the trans-Pacific operations. So AA provides one Asia/Pac destination on AA metal (NRT), but its alliance partners are currently offering:
AKL (QF)
BNE (QF)
HKG (CX)
KIX (JL)
MEL (QF)
NRT (JL)
SYD (QF)

DL is in a different situation, because Skyteam is pretty weak at LAX. The only trans-Pac Skyteam flights are NRT (KE, NW), ICN (KE) and PPT (AF).

That would mean DL would have to generate a lot of its own traffic (much moreso than UA or AA). Combining efforts with CO and NW may help, but Skyteam's weakness at LAX is a pretty significant barrier to overcome. And DL really doesn't have the planes right now (as noted).

I think DL's strategy of starting secondary North American markets with no current service to LAX could be a good one, however. If that feed could link into future Pacific expansion, it might work. But DL will be facing some pretty entrenched competition. And DL has cut LAX so significantly, that I will have difficulty believing it until I actually see DL putting more effort into the West Coast.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: CXB744
Posted 2006-07-25 19:15:05 and read 8396 times.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 5):
However, LAX is not a good location for a hub or gateway, and it is further from Asia than SEA or SFO. Either of those cities would make better gateways if DL wanted to focus on connecting pax. But if they wanted to focus on the LAX O&D pax, it would be a great place for them to do it.

Also weather. When SFO gets socked in with fog, they go down to one runway operations. Not good for connecting passengers. Until SEA, gets there third runway up and running, which is soon, they are confined to one runway ops during bad weather. And both these cities see a lot of bad weather. LAX doesn't.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 13):
Asia is primarily driven by wholesaler traffic in the back cabin. Lots of negotiated volume discounts. There is already way too much capacity to Japan and the only way NW and UA make it work is by hubbing Narita.

There are only two cities over-served based yours and MalpensaSFO's data: Narita, & Taipei. Everywhere else passengers have to pay a premium to fly other "nonstop" cities because there is no competion on those routes. People "in the back cabin" will go to their destination via the cheapest route and right now that's through Tokyo because of the competition. If DL enter the picture with non stop flights to Asia from one US city, like CO is doing from EWR, then prices will start to moderate and load factor should rise = profit.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: MalpensaSFO
Posted 2006-07-25 19:54:02 and read 8339 times.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 16):
Everywhere else passengers have to pay a premium to fly other "nonstop" cities because there is no competion on those routes.

What?

Seoul is served 35 x per week - No need for additional service
Hong Kong is served 21 x per week - No need for additional service
Bangkok is served 4 x per week - Yields are not grear as per Thai
Singapore is served 14 x weekly 1 stop/7x weekly nonstop - Delta would be better off commiting suicide than going up against old partner SQ.
Shanghai is served 7 x per week - No need for additional service
Beijing is served 7 x per week - No need for additional service

Possible holes in the LAX crown:

SGN - Served with UA from SFO via HKG
NGO - Served with UA from SFO
KIX - JL will discontinue in October? Served with UA from SFO
DPS/CGK - Low Yield, ex GA route

Upcoming additions (rumoured):

PR CEB-ICN-LAX via 343

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 16):
If DL enter the picture with non stop flights to Asia from one US city, like CO is doing from EWR, then prices will start to moderate and load factor should rise = profit.

That theory may have worked a few years ago when Continental started is Newark bombardment of the international market. Todays World is different. While Delta may be able to make Europe sustainable from JFK. LAX will never resemble ATL or JFK for Delta Airlines. Delta gave up a number of years ago on service to Taipei, Seoul, Hong Kong, Bangkok, Singapore, Osaka, Nagoya, and Fukuoka. Since then the 777 and 343/346/345 have entered the market and other airlines have gained as Delta has slept in Atlanta with the Euro saturation. The branding of Delta in the Asian region has faltered over the years, and Continental and American along with old hats United and Northwest have all been more than happy to see Delta Airlines when they left the markets.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: CXB744
Posted 2006-07-25 19:59:17 and read 8328 times.

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 17):
Hong Kong is served 21 x per week - No need for additional service

Appartently CX disagrees with you as they are thinking of adding a 4th daily service to LAX. There is still room for flights between LAX & Asia.

You are right, Delta should study hard before picking routes.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: MalpensaSFO
Posted 2006-07-25 20:20:58 and read 8281 times.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 18):
Appartently CX disagrees with you as they are thinking of adding a 4th daily service to LAX. There is still room for flights between LAX & Asia.

You are right, Delta should study hard before picking routes

There is strong talk of a TPE-SFO via CX or 2nd HKG-SFO by CX, as well..

Delta, has missed the boat as far as LAX to anything East is concerned..

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-25 20:43:54 and read 8228 times.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 16):
There are only two cities over-served based yours and MalpensaSFO's data: Narita, & Taipei. Everywhere else passengers have to pay a premium to fly other "nonstop" cities because there is no competition on those routes. People "in the back cabin" will go to their destination via the cheapest route and right now that's through Tokyo because of the competition. If DL enter the picture with non stop flights to Asia from one US city, like CO is doing from EWR, then prices will start to moderate and load factor should rise = profit.

I could not disagree more. Couple of things you've overlooked, the demand to almost every Asian destination except NRT and MNL is small compared to the beyond connection opportunities. Korean Air and Asiana are carrying local Korean traffic and bucket fares to SGN, India, China and Manila. Same with Cathay Pacific, China Airlines, Eva Air etc. Similar to UA and NW, the hubs on the Asian end are the only justification for flying as much capacity as they do. Plus for years the 747's were the only planes that could actually make it nonstop to the US, that's changing with more Asian carriers flying 777's to the States.

Let me assure you, there is no "premium" on nonstop flights. Most Asian carriers negotiate the bucket fares on the O&D not on the routing. Plus your example about Tokyo is actually the inverse, since NRT actually enjoys a significant yield premium over any beyond city in East Asia.

"If DL enter the picture with non stop flights to Asia from one US city, like CO is doing from EWR, then prices will start to moderate and load factor should rise = profit."

This statement makes absolutely no sense.

I'm shocked but I actually agreed with MalpensaSFO for once. Except when he started blabbing about Delta branding in Asia. For 90% of the econ Asian passengers on transpac flights, they are only flying on that carrier since Good Fortune Travel agent on Kowloon negotiated a good rate that day on that sector. Same is true of KTB, KNT, and JTB in Japan. They're all negotiated volume discounts done twice a year every year for the last 50 years. You don't get FFP miles on these bucket fares so trust me, they could care less who they fly. It's whatever travel agency put their package together.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: CXB744
Posted 2006-07-25 22:08:18 and read 8136 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 20):
Let me assure you, there is no "premium" on nonstop flights. Most Asian carriers negotiate the bucket fares on the O&D not on the routing. Plus your example about Tokyo is actually the inverse, since NRT actually enjoys a significant yield premium over any beyond city in East Asia.

Maybe not from Asia, but from the US, you bet there is premium to fly non-stop to Asia. Look at any major US travel website.

Example: LAX-HKG, its cheaper to go on United via Tokyo, or China Airlines via Taipei than it would to go non-stop on Cathay.

Why? Because Cathay as a monopoly on the non-stop service. Having 3 flights a day discourages any other airline from entering the non-stop market for fear of not making money on the route (over capacity).

If DL will have the balls to take on these routes, especially into China, they can make money on the passengers to Asia, and Cargo on the return journey.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 20):
For 90% of the econ Asian passengers on transpac flights, they are only flying on that carrier since Good Fortune Travel agent on Kowloon negotiated a good rate that day on that sector. Same is true of KTB, KNT, and JTB in Japan. They're all negotiated volume discounts done twice a year every year for the last 50 years. You don't get FFP miles on these bucket fares so trust me, they could care less who they fly. It's whatever travel agency put their package together.

Same for travelers from the US. However, the farther you travel non-stop the more you pay, i.e. traveling from the West Coast of the US to Europe; it's cheaper to connect throught ORD or the East Coast than to go non-stop.

Again, why? No competition on the long distance routes.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Lincoln
Posted 2006-07-25 22:36:46 and read 8086 times.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 12):
such a close cooperation were to ever happen, it would be from T5 and T6, due to a few reasons:

I think what you're saying is makes sense, but I think if (and that's a gigantic if) this were to ever happen, terminal 2 would be involved.

The biggest reason.... Northwest (along with a two or three others, including if I'm not mistaken Hawian, via LAX TWO Corporation) physically own -- not lease, but own -- the Terminal 2 building, where Delta and CO lease their space in Terminals 5 and 6.

Terminal 2 is also easier to get to at LAX, second only to, well, um-- Terminal 1. The underground cross-terminal access issue could be delt with in a number of ways from some sort of overhead bridge to a shuttle service to even digging a tunnel.

I would also hesitate to call CO an expert in the West, I consider them (but by no means am an expert) to be much more of a midwest/east-competent airline... However, all of the airlines (or at least, NW and CO) have a close relationship with Alaska, who if I'm not mistaken is already in T3 at LAX who could fufill the west-coast needs quite well.

Though DL's new podiums in T6 at LAX look quite nice... now if only UA and CO would replace their cardboard crap that's falling appart. (the DL podium at gate 69A, in particular looks way out of place between the UA and CO podiums)

Lincoln

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: MalpensaSFO
Posted 2006-07-25 22:37:09 and read 8086 times.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 21):
Example: LAX-HKG, its cheaper to go on United via Tokyo, or China Airlines via Taipei than it would to go non-stop on Cathay.

False!

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 21):
Maybe not from Asia, but from the US, you bet there is premium to fly non-stop to Asia

That is false if I have ever heard it!

LAX
XSFO UA 1154 Q * 20NOV 1000 QLXAPHK 20NOV20NOV PC
HKG UA 0869 Q * 20NOV 1215 QLXAPHK 20NOV20NOV PC
XSFO UA 0862 Q * 27NOV 1250 QLXAPHK 27NOV27NOV PC
LAX UA 0979 Q * 27NOV 1020 QLXAPHK 27NOV27NOV PC

USD 929.00 20NOV06LAX UA X/SFO UA HKG460.00QLXAPHK UA
X/SFO Q4.25 Q4.25UA LAX460.00QLXAPHK NUC
USD 180.00YQ 928.50END ROE1.000000
USD 5.00YC XT USD 14.50US USD 14.50US USD 5.00XA USD
USD 77.43XT 7.00XY USD 7.50AY USD 15.43HK USD 13.50XF
USD 1191.43 LAX4.50SFO4.50SFO4.50
150.00 USD PENALTY APPLIES
ENDOS VAL UA/NONREF CNL PENALTY CHANGE FEE APPLIES


LAX
HKG CX 0885 H * 20NOV 1125 HLXSPCL 20NOV20NOV PC
LAX CX 0882 H * 27NOV 1625 HLXSPCL 27NOV27NOV PC

USD 897.00 20NOV06LAX CX HKG446.50HLXSPCL CX LAX Q
4.25 446.50HLXSPCL NUC897.25END ROE
USD 115.60YR 1.000000
USD 5.00YC XT USD 14.50US USD 14.50US USD 5.00XA USD
USD 63.43XT 7.00XY USD 2.50AY USD 15.43HK USD 4.50XF
USD 1081.03 LAX4.50
100.00 USD PENALTY APPLIES
ENDOS NONEND
PAYMT NON-REFUNDABLE
25JUL06 PER GAF REQUIREMENTS FARE NOT VALID UNTIL TICKETED

NOVEMBER

CATHAY PACIFIC IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAT UNITED AIRLINES


LAX
HKG CX 0881 H * 20APR 0155 HLWSPCL 20APR20APR PC
LAX CX 0884 H * 27APR 1320 HLWSPCL 27APR27APR PC

USD 969.00 20APR07LAX CX HKG482.50HLWSPCL CX LAX Q
4.25 482.50HLWSPCL NUC969.25END ROE
USD 115.60YR 1.000000
USD 5.00YC XT USD 14.50US USD 14.50US USD 5.00XA USD
USD 63.43XT 7.00XY USD 2.50AY USD 15.43HK USD 4.50XF
USD 1153.03 LAX4.50
100.00 USD PENALTY APPLIES
ENDOS NONEND
PAYMT NON-REFUNDABLE
25JUL06 PER GAF REQUIREMENTS FARE NOT VALID UNTIL TICKETED

LAX
XSFO UA 1154 Q * 20APR 1000 QKWAPHK 20APR20APR PC
HKG UA 0869 Q * 20APR 1303 QKWAPHK 20APR20APR PC
XSFO UA 0862 Q * 27APR 1145 QKWAPHK 27APR27APR PC
LAX UA 0858 Q * 27APR 1055 QKWAPHK 27APR27APR PC

USD 1019.00 20APR07LAX UA X/SFO UA HKG505.00QKWAPHK UA
X/SFO Q4.25 Q4.25UA LAX505.00QKWAPHK NUC
USD 180.00YQ 1018.50END ROE1.000000
USD 5.00YC XT USD 14.50US USD 14.50US USD 5.00XA USD
USD 77.43XT 7.00XY USD 7.50AY USD 15.43HK USD 13.50XF
USD 1281.43 LAX4.50SFO4.50SFO4.50
150.00 USD PENALTY APPLIES
ENDOS VAL UA/NONREF CNL PENALTY CHANGE FEE APPLIES

APRIL

CATHAY PACIFIC IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN UNITED AIRLINES

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-25 22:51:56 and read 8057 times.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 21):
Maybe not from Asia, but from the US, you bet there is premium to fly non-stop to Asia. Look at any major US travel website.

Example: LAX-HKG, its cheaper to go on United via Tokyo, or China Airlines via Taipei than it would to go non-stop on Cathay.

If Asian originating traffic wasn't 75% of the load, this statement may actually have credence. In the case of the Japanese carriers, its closer to 90%.

Looking a published fares on the web to determine fare premium is like asking a fortune teller what you'll have for breakfast in two weeks.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 21):
Why? Because Cathay as a monopoly on the non-stop service. Having 3 flights a day discourages any other airline from entering the non-stop market for fear of not making money on the route (over capacity).

This would only be true if every passenger on CX's flights was from LA. All Asian carriers have interlines with every US inbound carrier to LAX. In the published world, why connect when you can go nonstop from LA. But the majority of pax are from around the US so they are competing with UA, CO, SQ, and AC for one stop flights non stop from the mainland, in addition to the multitude of connections over Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei etc. Even though I keep saying the published fares don't matter, but comparing Tulsa or Miami would be more fair. Secondly you assume all things are equal, we have no idea what the traffic mix and yield dynamic is on the CX flight. You're looking at a snapshot in time, not a very good baseline in my opinion.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 21):
If DL will have the balls to take on these routes, especially into China, they can make money on the passengers to Asia, and Cargo on the return journey.

I'm not picking on Delta, nobody can do this. China is not a great market, the traffic is overly one directional (from Asia), and the cargo yield from the US to Asia is abysmal. LAX is never going to be a good Asia hub for any US carrier.

Give the airlines like AA a little bit of credit. Don't you think AA, with by far the strongest potential in LA, would fly all over Asia if there was potential? Or even UA? Fact of the matter is, outside Tokyo which supports local traffic and connection feed on partners, is the only city that will work from most spots in the US.

Quoting CXB744 (Reply 21):
Same for travelers from the US. However, the farther you travel non-stop the more you pay, i.e. traveling from the West Coast of the US to Europe; it's cheaper to connect throught ORD or the East Coast than to go non-stop.

Again, why? No competition on the long distance routes.

Comparing apples to oranges. Asian and European traffic are completely different beasts. I'd agree that nonstops will GENERALLY demand a higher yield premium. But not always.

Actually the only way to understand airline pricing is to not try and find logic in a nonsensical business. In some cases I've built itineraries that became cheaper the more segments I added.

But here's where the Asian and European examples merge, the European airlines dominate the transatlantic market from the West Coast and JFK. Why? They have a hub on the other end to distribute the network. No US carrier can honestly say they have a capable European hub on the West Coast. That's why UA and AA can't support many flights and only to major business centres like LON. I would argue the same is true of JFK since neither UA or AA have a hub there. UA can support 5 flights a day from ORD to LHR because of the hub, no other reason.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Jamake1
Posted 2006-07-25 23:20:16 and read 8012 times.

If one thing the legacy airlines have learned in a post-9/11 environment, it's that it is extremely difficult to play second fiddle to another carrier's encumbent service at a hub city. That is why United left Miami, Delta left DFW, and AA having nearly surrendered San Jose. It would take considerable (limited) resources to build up a sizable trans-Pacific operation at LAX and my sense is that Delta will not have the means to devote its resources to such an undertaking, freshly out of Chapter 11. The risks, IMHO, would be too great as Delta still lacks a significant market presence on the westcoast.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: CXB744
Posted 2006-07-26 00:37:51 and read 7611 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 24):
I'd agree that nonstops will GENERALLY demand a higher yield premium. But not always.

Actually the only way to understand airline pricing is to not try and find logic in a nonsensical business. In some cases I've built itineraries that became cheaper the more segments I added.

 checkmark 

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 23):
NOVEMBER

CATHAY PACIFIC IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAT UNITED AIRLINES



Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 23):
APRIL

CATHAY PACIFIC IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN UNITED AIRLINES

On United I stand corrected. But, with China Ailines, Delta (Korean Air), Asiana and EVA, I'm right both dates mentioned!

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Kaitak744
Posted 2006-07-26 00:46:02 and read 7568 times.

Well, I think its a great idea for a U.S. carrier to finally get in on the huge LAX-Asia market here. A few aspects run in its way. As it was mentioned earlier, their isn't much skyteam partnership at LAX, hence code-shares would be harder. And, the terminal problem. T5 has only 1 gate for 777 sized aircraft right? That would permit say around 9 daily departures. So, NRT, KIX, TPE, PVG, PEK, SYD?, AKL?, ICN, CAN. Wouldn't they want to do more than that?

And it is very unlikely DL would move out of T5.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: SKGSJULAX
Posted 2006-07-26 01:48:54 and read 7256 times.

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 19):
Delta, has missed the boat as far as LAX to anything East is concerned..

 checkmark   checkmark   checkmark 

...and the boat aint comin back

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-26 02:45:10 and read 6974 times.

The real question is: would DL be smart to use jets on those routes to asia or instead to use jets to expand to other locations, since their long range jets are scarce. It's not just a matter of working in a vacuum, but opportunity cost of not spending your capital elsewhere...

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 9):
AA tried to capture a piece of the market from SJC and failed.

The flight ran for far too many years for you to make this kind of statement. SJC-NRT made sense for years and years until the tech sector in the bay area began to cool as well as become more decentralized.

Further, when AA de-hubbed and then de-focused SJC, it cut out the residual feeder traffic for this route.

Finally, AA added LAX-NRT, and "reversed" the feed on this route. Where 3 years ago from LAX, AA would book you LAX-SJC-NRT, now form the bay area they will book you SJC-LAX-NRT.

Times change, markets change, but considering the flight ran for a good 15 years, it's harsh to call it a failure...

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Murrayusa
Posted 2006-07-26 03:23:41 and read 6822 times.

I would love to see Delta make LAX a hub but honestly I do not see it happening. As stated earlier they do not have enough fleet at this time.

The complex economics that LAX presents is why I assume why Continental walked away from this market as a major hub in the 1990’s and focused on IAH and EWR. I know they still have plenty of flights and an alliance with Alaska on the west coast. When I traveled to the west coast a bunch on 2000 I used to fly the America West code share because they offered so many options and super easy upgrades, however,I boarded an American West air craft it seamed a much lesser product than Continental.

As a side note, when I read Boeings plans for the 787 and 777 ER I think there are so exiting options for airlines that want to expand their Asia operations from many airports that in Southern California will be perfect for these planes.

Sorry if my post is a bit off topic but I am on major pain medications from a sinus surgery today.
 cloudnine 

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-26 03:37:48 and read 6759 times.

Quoting Murrayusa (Reply 30):
When I traveled to the west coast a bunch on 2000 I used to fly the America West code share because they offered so many options and super easy upgrades, however,I boarded an American West air craft it seamed a much lesser product than Continental.

Had the same experience.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: B777ER
Posted 2006-07-26 08:28:06 and read 6600 times.

Quoting Fewsolarge (Thread starter):
Delta is considering L.A. as its West Coast staging location for anticipated Transpacific growth

IMO, too many Intl carriers and US legacy already clog LAX-Asia routes. Wish they would go back to PDX like they did in 80's/90's and stage out of there.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-26 15:02:48 and read 6496 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 13):
think UA, AS, WN, and AA would beg to differ on your assumption.

If you would read what is written in context instead of cutting and pasting a sentence just for the sake of argument, we could actually have a discussion. Every paragraph above my posting and all of the paragraphs since have talked predominantly talked about transpac service. To throw WN and AS in the discussion shows you either want to argue more than discuss or you shoot your own credibility to pieces.

Face it, you have tried to shoot down my credibility regarding DL time and DL again and yet time and time again I have demonstrated that I am in fact right. Within a couple weeks, we’ll see DL’s financial results and they will be in complete contradiction to your assertion that DL was a hopeless basket case that would never survive. In fact, I’m certain you’ll see more international service announced in the next couple weeks.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 15):
I think you have to look at LAX from an Alliance perspective, not just an airline perspective. The reason US airlines have not aggressively developed trans-Pacific routes from LAX is because for the most part, their alliance partners have handled it.

I have said before and will say again that airlines do not make network decisions based on their alliance partners; they make them with their own profitability in mind. Alliance partners can help make a flight work and fill in the map where a carrier cannot fly with its own aircraft but carriers WILL serve a route if it makes sense for them to do it regardless of what their alliance partners think. CO, DL, and NW have not focused on the LAX-Asia market because of network strengths elsewhere. That doesn’t mean they are giving it up to Skyteam partners.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 13):
Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, and Bangkok

I’m sure the airlines of every one of those countries would argue strongly against you. S. Korea is one of the top 10 economies in the world. To say there is no market there is simply ridiculous. Taipei is indeed much smaller while SIN and BKK have been beyond the range of nonstop flights from the US. The A345 changed that although the economics won’t work for that plane but it sure will for the 777-200LR, the 787, and the A350 when it finally flies.

Interestingly, Seoul and Taipei are the home of 2 DL partners. KE is a founding partner of the Skyteam alliance yet no US carrier serves ICN (PRG is the other Skyteam partner not served by a US carrier which also argue for why CO and DL are interested in serving PRG). There is probably a very good likelihood that CO, DL, and NW will all begin ICN service in the next 2-3 years just because KE is a well-run airline now and ICN provides great access to Asia.



Quoting Airzim (Reply 20):
Korean Air and Asiana are carrying local Korean traffic and bucket fares to SGN, India, China and Manila.

All Asian airlines serve the consolidator market but a major benefit of an alliance is the ability to provide enough connections to help fill a plane. That is precisely why KE can operate far more transpac service that their local market would dictate but that is the nature of int’l aviation. ATL alone cannot support the 20 or so transatlantic flight DL offers each day; MIA could not support the dozens of flights AA sends to S. America; EWR could not support the dozens of flights CO flies to Europe by itself. Every one of these cities benefits from the hub that exists in that city and allows the hub carrier to offer more service than the local market would allow. And it is not necessarily low value traffic. To say that KE only carriers trash beyond ICN is completely false. Every hub airline has a mix of lower yielding traffic to their gateway and beyond but KE could certainly not sustain flights to SE Asia without some decent yielding transpac connecting traffic. And you also fail to note that the entire Asian travel market is growing very quickly, meaning that even if DL gets in on the growth now, they will get a piece of the action even if they always remain well behind other established carriers in size.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 24):
Don't you think AA, with by far the strongest potential in LA, would fly all over Asia if there was potential? Or even UA?

UA is clearly set up in SFO so it’s a lot easier to see why they have not tried to develop LAX. The fact that they gave up any growth aircraft for several more years is probably the other, making it impossible for them to defend their Asian franchise.

AA can’t seem to figure out what it wants to do in Asia. First, they say they re dying to buy UA’s Pacific network, then they try to build their own Asian gateway (more later), and now they are picking off a few routes here and there from their hubs. The answer may be because AA doesn’t have that many 777s available for transpac growth and because AA has some of the highest costs in the industry.

In fact, UA and AA are both right back where they were at 9/11 with the highest costs in the industry among their US peers. High costs don’t work at home but they sure don’t work to Asia where the home carriers are very competitive. CO, DL, and NW all will have lower costs than AA and UA and have the resources to grow to Asia in the next couple years. UA will be doing good to defend what it has while AA will have to pick off a few strong routes from their interior hubs, unless they get their costs down and acquire aircraft to grow.

Quoting Jamake1 (Reply 25):
If one thing the legacy airlines have learned in a post-9/11 environment, it's that it is extremely difficult to play second fiddle to another carrier's encumbent service at a hub city.

While true, no legacy carrier truly dominates LAX in the sense that occurs at a true hub. And legacies also duplicate each other’s service on the same routes. Like BOS, LAX is ripe for a legacy carrier to come in and take a leadership position at the airport. And DL has shown at JFK that even with a LFC present, it is very possible to build a strong domestic presence, esp. if the domestic presence is primarily there to support a large international operation. UA and AA’s domestic flying at LAX has little support or connection to its international operation.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 29):
The flight ran for far too many years for you to make this kind of statement.

SJC-NRT is not the only transpac flight AA ran from SJC. You’ll recall that AA pulled its short-lived TPE flight at 9/11. Coincidentally, DL pulled back its west coast transpac flying after 9/11 too. How can you brand DL as a loser when AA did the same thing except that AA continued to operate their SJC-NRT flight even though AA execs say it has lost money for years.

DL simply had the good sense to pull back from west coast-Asia after 9/11 and is now ready to return to the market with a new cost structure, improved service levels, and with the financial strength to buy and retrofit the aircraft necessary to win in the market.

LAX continues to be an undeveloped market from the perspective of US network carriers who manage to compete effectively against foreign flag carriers in every region of the world. Sure, developing an LAX-Asia presence will be tough but nothing in life that is worthwhile is given to you easily. DL can and will win in Asia and they have stated they intend to make LAX their primary gateway to Asia. I don’t think we’ll see new route announcements to Asia from DL in the next couple weeks but we will see them in the future and DL will win, just as it has in all of the markets it has successfully launched this summer against equally long odds.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-26 15:42:22 and read 6459 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
If you would read what is written in context instead of cutting and pasting a sentence just for the sake of argument, we could actually have a discussion. Every paragraph above my posting and all of the paragraphs since have talked predominantly talked about transpac service.

Buddy that is exactly what you said. If you can't write in context that's not my problem. Are we suppose to just guess what you're thinking?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
Face it, you have tried to shoot down my credibility regarding DL time and DL again and yet time and time again I have demonstrated that I am in fact right.

You are so full of yourself. I don't recall anytime where you've proven me wrong against any of your assertions.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
I’m sure the airlines of every one of those countries would argue strongly against you. S. Korea is one of the top 10 economies in the world. To say there is no market there is simply ridiculous.

I'm sorry but that is in fact the case. You go on and on in mundane paragraphs talking in circles and fantasy to try and prove that you can actually construct a logical thought. Trying to refute your ridiculous statement is like talking to a wall. Fact is your just babbling garbage.

I'll say it again, I'm not picking on Delta. No US carrier can build a logical transpac hub in LAX. Never.

I've listed the reasons above, and you've attempted to refute them, except only with conjecture.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
DL simply had the good sense to pull back from west coast-Asia after 9/11 and is now ready to return to the market with a new cost structure, improved service levels, and with the financial strength to buy and retrofit the aircraft necessary to win in the market.

Where do you get this stuff? Seriously are you in third grade? I'm telling you nobody can make LAX work. If Delta moves into LA they will get there ass handed to them just like every other time they've tried to fly to Asia. Oh and by the way, the Asian carriers can destroy any US carrier on CASM Full Stop. Delta's apparent cost cutting isn't going to make any difference to Singapore Airlines or Cathay Pacific.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
Sure, developing an LAX-Asia presence will be tough but nothing in life that is worthwhile is given to you easily.

LOL. You're a joke, what is this high school.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
DL can and will win in Asia and they have stated they intend to make LAX their primary gateway to Asia.

Come on Delta, you just didn't try HARD enough last time. The new uniforms and seats are going to make a huge difference this time around. No, that's not it, it's the new cost structure that's going to beat everyone that's been flying to Asia for 50 years. Geez if you only prayed a little harder last time maybe it would have worked. I mean don't even worry about the market dynamics since they apparently irrelevant to World traveler.

I wouldn't be surprised if Delta starts back up to Asia. It just solidifies that morons continue to run that company. Good luck in the blood bath.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Panamair
Posted 2006-07-26 17:06:04 and read 6389 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
yet no US carrier serves ICN ..... There is probably a very good likelihood that CO, DL, and NW will all begin ICN service in the next 2-3 years just because KE is a well-run airline now and ICN provides great access to Asia.

I assume you mean no US carrier currently serves ICN from LAX...NW does NRT-ICN while UA serves SFO-ICN. For Skyteam's purposes, ICN is still not that developed a hub yet (e.g., some markets only have single daily flights that are mis-timed for certain connections). KE may have to grow some more or consolidate more of its onward connecting intra-Asian flights into specific times in order for ICN to be a truely powerful hub.

[Edited 2006-07-26 17:07:37]

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Travelin man
Posted 2006-07-26 18:12:32 and read 6328 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
I have said before and will say again that airlines do not make network decisions based on their alliance partners; they make them with their own profitability in mind. Alliance partners can help make a flight work and fill in the map where a carrier cannot fly with its own aircraft but carriers WILL serve a route if it makes sense for them to do it regardless of what their alliance partners think. CO, DL, and NW have not focused on the LAX-Asia market because of network strengths elsewhere. That doesn’t mean they are giving it up to Skyteam partners.

I think you totally missed my point about the strength of alliances at LAX. I'm not saying that airlines within an alliance "ask permission" to fly a particular route. I'm saying the flights coming into an airport can make a flight work, whereas if an airline was trying to basically go it alone (a la DL at LAX), it would be MUCH MUCH more difficult.

For instance QF feeds AA domestic at LAX. AA feeds QF trans-Pacific at LAX. Do you think that AA has given a second though to flying to SYD using their own metal? Of course not! They don't need to!

However, given Skyteam's weakness at LAX, the business proposition for DL starting trans-Pacific flights is totally different. They will be mostly relying on their own limited feed for travelers going TO Asia, and relying on their own feed + limited KE and NW travelers FROM Asia.

You said:
"carriers WILL serve a route if it makes sense for them to do it regardless of what their alliance partners think."

Well, yes. But a strong alliance presence definitely helps on the "making sense" part of that statement.

You said:
"I have said before and will say again that airlines do not make network decisions based on their alliance partners; they make them with their own profitability in mind."

Quite frankly, those things are not mutually exclusive. It's not an either/or situation. In general, a strong alliance presence at an airport will determine the profitability. Or else do you really think AF would be flying CDG-CVG?

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-26 18:20:18 and read 6316 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
How can you brand DL as a loser

I didn't. You bitch about being misquoted and then you just make things up about other people. Talk about hurting your own credibility.

The only argument I have against DL at LAX is that they have better opportunities elsewhere and have limited jets to do it with. You have yet to address that...

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Incitatus
Posted 2006-07-26 18:36:41 and read 6298 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 33):
And DL has shown at JFK that even with a LFC present, it is very possible to build a strong domestic presence, esp. if the domestic presence is primarily there to support a large international operation.

Isn't it a **LITTLE** early to claim success?

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-26 19:05:27 and read 6266 times.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 38):
Isn't it a **LITTLE** early to claim success?

No. Not regarding DL's current restructuring and not regarding ts ability to succeed in LAX or any other gateway it wants to develop, even if some people who profess to be from a particular country that starts w/ Z are so hell-bent in denying DL's ability to successfully restructure itself and grow that they wouldn't admit that DL has succeeded if God Himself told you so. And if I was so inclined, I could pull dozens of Mr. Z's postings and show you line by line where he wrote that DL would fail on issue after issue and yet they have succeeded. He and everyone else knows what he wrote and his hatred and inability to recognize DL's ability to turn itself around will belong increasingly obvious, making him look more and more like the mental midget he tries to make others out to be.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: ORD
Posted 2006-07-26 19:10:50 and read 6256 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 34):
While true, no legacy carrier truly dominates LAX in the sense that occurs at a true hub. And legacies also duplicate each other’s service on the same routes. Like BOS, LAX is ripe for a legacy carrier to come in and take a leadership position at the airport.

United already tried taking a dominant position at LAX. Back in 1995 they had 183 daily flights (mainline, not express). This was boosted to 217 flights to 54 cities by 1999, when LAX became an official United hub and United had a 30% share. But United could not compete on many shorthaul routes with the likes of Southwest. Several markets were eventually turned over to United Express.

I just can't see Delta becoming the dominant airline in LAX. United had a far greater presence to start with and could not make it work. And LAX is not ripe for an airline to dominate. The market is too fragmented with United, American and Southwest all having large shares.

For a trip down memory lane, check out part of this 4/27/99 United press release:

"United Airlines today officially designated Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) as a hub for the airline, a status marked by the frequency of flights and number of destinations served by United from LAX and highlighted by the completion of extensive terminal renovations and other passenger amenity improvements. United's $260 million upgrade at LAX is scheduled for completion on May 15, 1999.

'A world class city needs a world class airport,' said Pete McDonald, United Airlines managing director -- Southern California. 'The improvements we've made at LAX provide customers with the facilities and services that they'd expect at a hub. In designating Los Angeles as a hub of the world's largest airline, we are confident that our facilities and services are up to the standards we require for a hub airport.'

Carrying 30 percent of all passengers to and from LAX, United is the airport's largest airline by a significant margin. This includes United's domestic and international mainline service, as well as United Express service to local California markets and United Shuttle short-haul service to major West Region destinations. United's LAX hub offers customers 139 destinations worldwide, including 37 transcontinental flights to nine U.S. East Coast business centers. The airline also offers 48 non-stop flights to other key U.S. cities, the most non-stop flights offered by any carrier at LAX. United also offers 12 non-stop international departures -- more than any other carrier."

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-26 19:13:30 and read 6253 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 39):
No. Not regarding DL's current restructuring and not regarding ts ability to succeed in LAX or any other gateway it wants to develop, even if some people who profess to be from a particular country that starts w/ Z are so hell-bent in denying DL's ability to successfully restructure itself and grow that they wouldn't admit that DL has succeeded if God Himself told you so. And if I was so inclined, I could pull dozens of Mr. Z's postings and show you line by line where he wrote that DL would fail on issue after issue and yet they have succeeded. He and everyone else knows what he wrote and his hatred and inability to recognize DL's ability to turn itself around will belong increasingly obvious, making him look more and more like the mental midget he tries to make others out to be.

Which is funny since you have refuted nothing I've written except with fantasy statements and conjecture.

Time will tell if DL succeeds in their current strategy. It's way too early to call it a success. But any rational analysis looks like they are doomed to failure.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 39):
Not regarding DL's current restructuring and not regarding ts ability to succeed in LAX or any other gateway it wants to develop,

and yet you continue to spew nonsense statements like this. Get over yourself.


ORD, I didn't write what you quoted, but I agree with you 100%

[Edited 2006-07-26 19:18:46]

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Alitalia744
Posted 2006-07-26 19:16:15 and read 6243 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 41):
But any rational analysis looks like they are doomed to failure.

Typical response from your mouth.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-26 19:26:00 and read 6215 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 42):
Quoting Airzim (Reply 41):
But any rational analysis looks like they are doomed to failure.

Typical response from your mouth.

could say the same about you. Others are more diplomatic than me, but what ORD posted is exactly the type of analysis needed. You continue to ignore reality is your problem.

For some earthly reason, Delta lemmings think Delta miracuolusly works in another universe where logic doesn't exisit. Hate to break it to you, they're not.

You want to follow management down the garden path, good luck to you.

I stated no airline can make LAX a viable transpac hub. ORD proved that United couldn't even do it who undoubtedly has/had the best opportunity. Why you chose to believe Delta is any different is beyond me.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-26 19:33:10 and read 6194 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 41):
But any rational analysis looks like they are doomed to failure.

Every analysis has some basic assumptions and presuppositions that shape how the data is analyzed. You found plenty of people who came up with a “rational” expectation that DL would fail. I found equally as many that said DL would successfully restructure. I didn’t call you inability to read or do your own analysis – you’re just wrong. You can try to rationalize the reasons why you are wrong. All I care about is that you were wrong. And your ability to talk intelligently about DL is permanently colored by your errors.

I have plenty of UA timetables w/ their large LAX operation and I’ll been to their sprawling complex at that airport. It says nothing about DL’s ability to make LAX work because UA decided not to. I’m sure one of the reasons DL chose to downgrade DFW and CVG is because they were too close to ATL just like AA chose to downsize STL because of its proximity to ORD. Very few airlines have hubs as close together as LAX and SFO are; even fewer have large international operations at hubs that close.

Of course it’s too early to say with certainty that DL will succeed. However, I have posted over and over again that I exhibit far more understanding of what is going in the industry by being able to post something well before the press releases come out than those of you that jump on the bandwagon once it becomes apparent something is winning. It doesn’t take a whole of intelligence to be a naysayer until the facts come out that ultimately contradict your incorrect “forecasts” at which time you finally become a reluctant supporter.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2006-07-26 19:46:52 and read 6171 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 44):
However, I have posted over and over again that I exhibit far more understanding of what is going in the industry by being able to post something well before the press releases come out than those of you that jump on the bandwagon once it becomes apparent something is winning.

Like that time last spring when you said DL would not file bankruptcy. Yeah, you're a real Nostradamus!!

As for LAX, I wouldn't get your hopes up. While DL may grow LAX some, major transpac expansion is not in the cards. Any transpac growth for DL will come from the East Coast before the West.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Alitalia744
Posted 2006-07-26 20:01:56 and read 6152 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 43):
could say the same about you. Others are more diplomatic than me, but what ORD posted is exactly the type of analysis needed. You continue to ignore reality is your problem.

For some earthly reason, Delta lemmings think Delta miracuolusly works in another universe where logic doesn't exisit. Hate to break it to you, they're not.

You want to follow management down the garden path, good luck to you.

I stated no airline can make LAX a viable transpac hub. ORD proved that United couldn't even do it who undoubtedly has/had the best opportunity. Why you chose to believe Delta is any different is beyond me.

AirZim - find me a quote where I said Delta was smooth sailing and I'll buy you a beer.

Do I want Delta to succeed? yes they're my favorite airline. Do I think they can do so easily? NO! They've made a series of bad business decisions stemming from bad management, lack of direction, no objective and throwing widebodies blindly at competing routes just to maintain market share. Furthermore, a few months of a "operating profit" do not indicate future success.

As for being a lemming who does not see things for what they are and continuing to ignore reality? Sorry bro, I live and breath in reality everyday and if you want to have a discussion on that, let's. Sitting in the hospital and watching friends die from HIV is the everyday reality I live in, so the next time you wanna question that, feel free, but realize what a stupid comment it is.

If you have anything else to say, please do.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Incitatus
Posted 2006-07-26 20:04:05 and read 6149 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 39):
No.

It is. Regardless of whatever writing comes out of other posters - sometimes apparently intent on raining on your parade - you do come across as somebody writing from inside the fish bowl.

For Delta to claim success at JFK, the operation has to be sustained for a good two years. We haven't even seen a Winter yet. Delta keeps tweaking frequencies across the Atlantic, most often down. Even a major route like JFK to Rome will be down to only 5 times a week in the off-peak months.

To claim that Delta can come from a loser position in L.A. and make it into a big operation is another very long optimistic stretch. Anybody can fill up flights to Asia, but it's another story to be able to do it and charge more than $199 each way.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: ORD
Posted 2006-07-26 20:14:56 and read 6123 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 41):
ORD, I didn't write what you quoted, but I agree with you 100%

I apologize, my mistake. The quote should have been attributed to WorldTraveler.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: ORD
Posted 2006-07-26 20:25:55 and read 6097 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 44):
I'm sure one of the reasons DL chose to downgrade DFW and CVG is because they were too close to ATL

I'm a big fan of Delta, but DFW was not downgraded in part because of its proximity to ATL. If anything, DFW was in a prime spot to flow traffic from places like Louisiana, Alabama, etc. (Delta strongholds) to the west coast. The hub was closed because it lost money in something like 13 out of the last 15 years and Delta simply could not compete with American in that particular market.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-26 20:28:54 and read 6095 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 46):
Sitting in the hospital and watching friends die from HIV is the everyday reality I live in, so the next time you wanna question that, feel free, but realize what a stupid comment it is.

What? Does this statement somehow relate to the discussion about Delta and hubbing LAX. I was talking about the reality of the airline business. Good lord you need a beer.

Are you looking for sympathy votes, it's not germaine to the conversation I guess you felt it was OK to throw it in for good measure.



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 44):
I have plenty of UA timetables w/ their large LAX operation and I’ll been to their sprawling complex at that airport. It says nothing about DL’s ability to make LAX work because UA decided not to.

Back to airline economics 101. So United just 'decided' to not make LAX work, but all Delta has to do is try and they'll succeed. Seriously this is getting ridiculous.

Let me try this again. The reasons no US carrier can have an effective West Coast hub for flights to Asia:

1) Traffic is highly directional (Asian)
2) Cargo is highly directional and seasonal (Asian origin)
3) Historically most markets required a 747 because that was the only plane that could fly nonstop.
4) US carriers traditionally feed all Asian bound pax West Coast to feed longhaul, however like Europe, smaller and cheaper planes are fragmenting the market, thus allowing carriers to overfly the West Coast and go nonstop from their respective hubs.
5) NW and UA are able to support multiple departure to Asia by hubbing them through Narita.
6) Asian carriers have the same luxary since they have hub supported on their side
7) The majority of econ passengers are on consolidator fares filling up empty seats with VFR to MNL, China, India, and Vietnam.
8) Yields in Asia are notriously terrible as a result
9) Tokyo is the one market that supports service from multiple US cities.
10) Very few other cities support nonstop service from the US. HKG, TPE, and SEL being the ones. They are already heavily served by their native carriers
11) Recent service to the China from AA and CO has proven to be performing less than stellar

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Alitalia744
Posted 2006-07-26 20:35:43 and read 6083 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 50):
What? Does this statement somehow relate to the discussion about Delta and hubbing LAX. I was talking about the reality of the airline business. Good lord you need a beer.

Are you looking for sympathy votes, it's not germaine to the conversation I guess you felt it was OK to throw it in for good measure.

Dont need sympathy, also don't need you telling me what reality is whether in the airline business or outside.

Like I said, find me a quote and put your money where your mouth is.

As for the beer, I'm drinking one right now at the office.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-26 20:42:45 and read 6065 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 51):
Dont need sympathy, also don't need you telling me what reality is whether in the airline business or outside.

Like I said, find me a quote and put your money where your mouth is.

As for the beer, I'm drinking one right now at the office.

Well addmittedly I did look, and you're right I must have had you confused with someone else. My apologies.

Still don't understand the HIV comment.

Wish I was having a beer now.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Alitalia744
Posted 2006-07-26 20:56:27 and read 6052 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 52):
Well addmittedly I did look, and you're right I must have had you confused with someone else. My apologies.

accepted.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 52):
Still don't understand the HIV comment.

understandably - was just making a point about your comment about ignoring reality, maybe a little off topic. admittedly.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 52):
Wish I was having a beer now.

One of the few pleasures associated with working in Advertising.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-26 23:11:06 and read 5951 times.

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 46):
Sitting in the hospital and watching friends die from HIV is the everyday reality I live in

Wow. So sorry. Perhaps, though, that is not the reality of the rest of the world. But it does point out that there are plenty of people who have risen above some aweful events in their lives.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 47):
the operation has to be sustained for a good two years

I wasn’t aware of a particular timeline for when an investment is considered sustainable. Actually, some industries such as retail measure revenue performance on stores open over one year. In the case of DL’s JFK hub, it has been operating for 15 years. Those routes will be given their usual time to develop (see point 11 below).

Quoting ORD" class=quote target=_blank>ORD (Reply 49):
DFW was in a prime spot to flow traffic from places like Louisiana, Alabama, etc.

And a hub can’t be sustained for a relatively small market from the SE west of ATL. Yes, DFW was losing money but DL simply didn’t need as many hubs as it had. DFW was the most unnecessary given DL’s ATL and SLC hubs; DFW served many of the same east-west traffic flows as go over ATL and SLC.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 50):
1)

1) Traffic is highly directional (Asian).
2) Cargo is highly directional and seasonal (Asian origin)
3) Historically most markets required a 747 because that was the only plane that could fly nonstop.
4) US carriers traditionally feed all Asian bound pax West Coast to feed longhaul, however like Europe, smaller and cheaper planes are fragmenting the market, thus allowing carriers to overfly the West Coast and go nonstop from their respective hubs.
5) NW and UA are able to support multiple departure to Asia by hubbing them through Narita.
6) Asian carriers have the same luxary since they have hub supported on their side
7) The majority of econ passengers are on consolidator fares filling up empty seats with VFR to MNL, China, India, and Vietnam.
8) Yields in Asia are notriously terrible as a result
9) Tokyo is the one market that supports service from multiple US cities.
10) Very few other cities support nonstop service from the US. HKG, TPE, and SEL being the ones. They are already heavily served by their native carriers
11) Recent service to the China from AA and CO has proven to be performing less than stellar

Rebuttals.
1. True for just about every Asian route. It’s just the way the business operates. A skewed Point of Sale doesn’t mean a carrier of the opposite country can’t make it. How do you explain any US carrier’s success in Asia, esp. AA and CO that are relative newcomers?
2. Ditto.
3. Have you heard of the 777? Along with the 787, it’s the game changer over the Pacific like the 767 was over the Atlantic.
4. You are aware that UA has a sizeable Asian operation at both ORD and SFO which carry passengers to their final destination rather than to another connecting hub? Perhaps traditions aren’t what they used to be. See number 3.
5. See number 4. Reference CO’s transpac growth.
6. US carriers still control the US market. While Asian traffic is more concentrated in a few large cities than either Latin or European traffic, there is still significant traffic that originates outside of cities with nonstop service to Asia. Also, we are talking about LAX. Southern California has one of the largest Asian communities (from many countries) in the US.
7. So what? Do you not think DL uses consolidators over the Atlantic and to Latin America? Operating 777s and 787s instead of 747s just means you take proportionately less consolidator traffic.
8. Really. Maybe you aren’t familiar with mileage adjustments. When you carry a passenger 6000+ miles, you shouldn’t expect yields to be the same as US domestic yields or even transatlantic yields. Costs are also lower. You make money if your costs are lower than your revenues.
9….. because most aircraft couldn’t fly much beyond Japan. See number 3. Welcome to the world of ultrahaul twins.
10. Coincidentally, DL has partnerships with airlines in Taiwan and S. Korea. Hong Kong is obviously a large enough market that CO has managed to elbow its way in.
11. The rest of Asia isn’t China. And all of those airlines knew what they were getting themselves into or they wouldn’t have bothered to make the investment to get into the market. Not even DL’s JFKBUD flight was profitable on day 1. All routes require time to develop.

You have yet to tell me any reason why any US airline can’t develop a new route to Asia but specifically why it won’t work for DL. Back to the drawing board for you.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-27 00:04:39 and read 5900 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 54):
) Traffic is highly directional (Asian).
2) Cargo is highly directional and seasonal (Asian origin)
3) Historically most markets required a 747 because that was the only plane that could fly nonstop.
4) US carriers traditionally feed all Asian bound pax West Coast to feed long haul, however like Europe, smaller and cheaper planes are fragmenting the market, thus allowing carriers to overfly the West Coast and go nonstop from their respective hubs.
5) NW and UA are able to support multiple departure to Asia by hubbing them through Narita.
6) Asian carriers have the same luxury since they have hub supported on their side
7) The majority of econ passengers are on consolidator fares filling up empty seats with VFR to MNL, China, India, and Vietnam.
8) Yields in Asia are notoriously terrible as a result
9) Tokyo is the one market that supports service from multiple US cities.
10) Very few other cities support nonstop service from the US. HKG, TPE, and SEL being the ones. They are already heavily served by their native carriers
11) Recent service to the China from AA and CO has proven to be performing less than stellar

Rebuttals.
1. True for just about every Asian route. It’s just the way the business operates. A skewed Point of Sale doesn’t mean a carrier of the opposite country can’t make it. How do you explain any US carrier’s success in Asia, esp. AA and CO that are relative newcomers?
2. Ditto.
3. Have you heard of the 777? Along with the 787, it’s the game changer over the Pacific like the 767 was over the Atlantic.
4. You are aware that UA has a sizeable Asian operation at both ORD and SFO which carry passengers to their final destination rather than to another connecting hub? Perhaps traditions aren’t what they used to be. See number 3.
5. See number 4. Reference Co's transpac growth.
6. US carriers still control the US market. While Asian traffic is more concentrated in a few large cities than either Latin or European traffic, there is still significant traffic that originates outside of cities with nonstop service to Asia. Also, we are talking about LAX. Southern California has one of the largest Asian communities (from many countries) in the US.
7. So what? Do you not think DL uses consolidators over the Atlantic and to Latin America? Operating 777s and 787s instead of 747s just means you take proportionately less consolidator traffic.
8. Really. Maybe you aren’t familiar with mileage adjustments. When you carry a passenger 6000+ miles, you shouldn’t expect yields to be the same as US domestic yields or even transatlantic yields. Costs are also lower. You make money if your costs are lower than your revenues.
9….. because most aircraft couldn’t fly much beyond Japan. See number 3. Welcome to the world of ultrahaul twins.
10. Coincidentally, DL has partnerships with airlines in Taiwan and S. Korea. Hong Kong is obviously a large enough market that CO has managed to elbow its way in.
11. The rest of Asia isn’t China. And all of those airlines knew what they were getting themselves into or they wouldn’t have bothered to make the investment to get into the market. Not even Dl JFKBUD flight was profitable on day 1. All routes require time to develop.

What's amazing with you is you're caught up in your own self importance you're not even reading what I wrote.

To summarize you don't appear to have any experience working in Asia.

1. I said it at least 4 times, the only market that supports multiple destinations from the US is Tokyo, and to a much lesser extent HKG. What 'success' are you exactly referring too. Both AA and Co's new nonstops to Beijing are not doing that well, which I've said at least three times. How many more times does it take for you to get it? United succeeds out of SFO to Asia solely because of the domestic feed into SFO.

2. Cargo. You have a tendency to argue if the traffic isn't there, they'll make up for it in Cargo. Well not in Asia. You also don't seem to understand how the cargo market works either. The freight out of Asia is very lucrative but it works almost exactly like consolidators for passengers. It's highly irregular, difficult to forecast, and the distribution is almost completely given to freight forwarders who just look for the best deals. Cargo to Asia is not a good way to cross subsidize a flight.

3. Didn't you just repeat exactly what I said. Yes the 777 has fragmented the market. Yes the 777 supports flights from inland US cities to select Asian cities that have hubs in place. Yes the 777 allows overflight of traditional US West Coast hubs. What were you trying to convey?

4. Again what are you trying to say? Yes United makes flights to Asia work from ORD and SFO, guess what...they have supporting hubs to make it work. Outside NW and UA which have a Tokyo hub, name another city that supports flights to Asian that's flown by a US carrier? AA's San Jose flight, which just got dropped. AA's LAX flight to NRT, which I don't think will make it but given AA can feed LA it may work. LA can't be a hub by geography.

5. CO flights from IAH and EWR to NRT (connecting to NW hub). EWR to BJS (which I referenced above) and EWR-HKG. HKG is one of the other few markets that will work nonstop, as reference by Ua flight from ORD. That's about it. My point still stands. I don't consider DEL part of this discussion BTW.

6. First while LA basin may have a large Asian population all the markets are already served adequately by Asian carriers. Secondly, I'll say it for the 4th time, the majority of transpac pax are Asian originating. Plus all inbound Asian carriers have fixed prorates with the US carriers to take someone to their final destination. This has happened for years and years and is generally zone based so if you fly from SGN-HKG-IAH you're on CX to LA and interlined to CO. If it's MIA maybe you're on AA.

7. Nice try. It's nearly 100% of the distribution channel in Asia. You obviously don't understand the market.

8. Wow what rocket science! Yes you're right, the fares are low, the mileage is long, the yield is crap. Thanks for supporting my fact.

9. Yes historically Tokyo was the fuel stop. Now it's one of the few markets that support nonstop flights without a hub on the domestic side. United has done that out of SFO, but that's it.

10. You said it yourself, airlines don't make decisions based on alliance partners. They may decide to fly to ICN and TPE, but I doubt it.

11. It is what it is. You obviously don't get it.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 54):
You have yet to tell me any reason why any US airline can’t develop a new route to Asia but specifically why it won’t work for DL. Back to the drawing board for you.

See above.

You continue to not read what I wrote. This discussion was about Delta setting up a LA hub. I said no airlines, not even sainted Delta can succeed in LA simply because LA cannot be a domestic hub.

If DL wanted to fly from ATL to HKG, SEL, KIX we wouldn't be having this discussion. Other than your amazingly defensive posture on Delta, I never said that Delta couldn't make flight to Asia work. I said no airline could make an Asian hub in LA.

Although having said that we've already seen how successful Delta has been in Asia in the past.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-27 03:38:30 and read 5806 times.

I'll give it one more try and then thow in the tail. You really are dense.

Explain how DL has managed to operate a large international out of JFK, the east coast equivalent of LAX? Every transatlantic foreign airline flies out of JFK yet DL has managed to make it work and work well. Explain how UA has managed to build its operation in SFO. All of those superior foreign airlines flew into SFO during the time UA developed SFO as a hub. Remember that UA didn't have nonstop service to all of those destinations at the time it bought it from Pan Am.

I still think you are far too ready to generalize... about the size of the market in any country, the types of distribution, the types of aircraft that can be used to serve a market.

Most importantly, though, this is not about DL. Every argument you have presented is not directed at DL but against the US industry as a whole. Whether you want to admit it or not, you are really saying that no US airline is capable of setting up a large international operation in any city where well-heeled foreign flag airlines operate, esp. those from Asia. If you think US airlines cannot compete against foreign airlines in the most competitive markets, you are seriously mistaken and incapable of intelligently talking about the industry. And I can assure you that no US airline management team is going to take you or your arguments seriously since you have relegated them to their hubs.

As has happened before, you will be proven wrong on this. Fortunately for you, it will take several years for this to play out and I for one am hardly going to keep you on my mind waiting to prove you wrong. You will have been proven wrong on many other issues long before that.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: BigGSFO
Posted 2006-07-27 03:54:57 and read 5794 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 55):
Both AA and Co's new nonstops to Beijing are not doing that well, which I've said at least three times.

Splitting hairs: AA serves ORD-Shanghai, not Beijing. And I have heard the contrary - that these routes are performing quite well for being new.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 55):
United succeeds out of SFO to Asia solely because of the domestic feed into SFO.

I disagree with this statement. The San Francisco Bay Area is truly one of the most diverse in the nation. The largest concentration of Chinese outside China are in SF. SFO can indeed support the schedule of non-stops to Asia without the necessary feed you imply is needed to kepp the birds flying. I would think SFO-SYD needs the feed more than any other transpacific service UA offers at SFO.

The points being made between on this thread are quite compelling - however this is a different world we live in. Can LAX be made into a transpacific hub for a US airline? Absolutely. Can it compete with with UA's at SFO? Unlikely. But who cares. That doesn't mean a transpacific operation at LAX can't be successful. Winning doesn't mean everyone else fails - in the airline business, it means you make money every time that piece of metal is flying - whether it is Monique and her hair dryer in F class or the chop shop family of 12 in the back row or the Apple iPods being shipped in the belly below. If it's profitable and meets the corporate expectations - it stays.

So do I think DL could accompish this type of operation at LAX? Perhaps. The hurdles are great and it would require a serious and dedicated effort to develop this over time. The challenges would be greater than DL's current JFK expansion and they do no thave the international "head-start" and gate space is limited. IMO AA could do it quicker, but that's just me since AA has a lot of premium loyalty in the Southland (with F/J flyers to JFK and Heathrow) and more local regional traffic (SFO, SJC, SAN, LAS, etc). Their market share at LAX is also gaining on incumbant leader UA. But if anyone who has followed airlines in the past can attest to, crazier things have been attemped and succeeded and we have all been surprised before.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2006-07-27 04:05:14 and read 5784 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 56):
Explain how DL has managed to operate a large international out of JFK, the east coast equivalent of LAX? Every transatlantic foreign airline flies out of JFK yet DL has managed to make it work and work well.

DL makes JFK work because DL has a relatively large presence in the NYC market. DL has a large domestic operation at LGA (and has for many years) which creates a large base of customers who may fly DL when it comes time for international travel. DL has nothing similar in the LA area.

Second, DL has kept JFK alive by picking many routes with either no competition or very weak foreign competition. JFK-VCE, JFK-NCE, JFK-BCN (until CO this year), JFK-BUD, JFK-KBP are flown by no one but DL. JFK-SVO and JFK-ATH are flown by weak foreign competitors that are no where near the standards of the Asian carriers. Even routes like JFK-MAD, JFK-FCO and JFK-MXP are flown by European carriers who are not on par with the Asian carriers.

If DL launches transpac service from Asia, they won't have the luxury of finding unflown routes and competing against mediocre competition.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: HPAEAA
Posted 2006-07-27 04:41:19 and read 5752 times.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 8):
they have started a few routes that were not served from LAX, like CMH, BDL or RDU

just wanted to add my .02... I know the CMH LAX route was only added because of a VERY large revenue guarantee from Honda of America and I think that Express Inc and Abercrombie went in on it too... I'm trying to find the article but I'll post it when I find it.. All all 3 companies have large presences in the CMH market and wanted 1 stop Asia access due to the high volume of trips they book...

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Fewsolarge
Posted 2006-07-27 05:00:41 and read 5728 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 58):
If DL launches transpac service from Asia, they won't have the luxury of finding unflown routes and competing against mediocre competition.

You're right about the quality of the competition. But the situation with unflown routes isn't completely different from the Atlantic. Not that they would start with the smaller markets, but given authorities, there's no reason why they couldn't eventually serve destinations like KHH, FUK, CTS, PUS, SZX, HAN, etc. These routes might have similar chances from LAX as KBP had from JFK - significant risk and significant opportunity in a region with robust growth.

Allow for time, economic development and the advent of new generation aircraft ... the Pacific will be radically different in 15 years.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-27 14:30:37 and read 5599 times.

DL also began service from NYC-Ireland and MAN, markets where are very competitive. All indications are that those markets are doing well. So DL is not just growing from JFK in uncompetitive markets. And remember that foreign carriers also fly JFK-KBP and JFK-BUD. And DL will add service in more competitive NYC markets, to likely include NYC-London if for no other reason because they have to do it in order to be a credible player in the NYC market. While those carriers aren’t as strong as Asian carriers, they are real competition. To say that DL or any US airline can’t expand in competitive markets is preposterous.

As few points out, there are many smaller markets that are not served nonstop and which DL could serve. But DL can and will compete from the top business and leisure centers of the US and not just to Asia. Who would have thought 10 years ago that CO could have built a world class gateway at a NYC airport competing against foreign carriers from all over the world and some larger US airlines. DL is more than capable of doing the same thing at LAX. And they will.

Good topic, Fewsolarge. Interesting name, too.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Airzim
Posted 2006-07-28 00:14:32 and read 5452 times.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 56):
Explain how DL has managed to operate a large international out of JFK, the east coast equivalent of LAX?

Because it's not. JFK is not LAX for so many reasons it's not worth listing them all. And I'll say it again for the 5th time, Europe is not Asia. They are completely different operating environments so stop drawing at comparison straws. You only continue to show how foolish you are.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 56):
Explain how UA has managed to build its operation in SFO.

Wow I'll say it again for the 4th time; maybe because it is a UA hub?

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 56):
I still think you are far too ready to generalize... about the size of the market in any country, the types of distribution, the types of aircraft that can be used to serve a market.

You have no idea how Asia works. That is evident. I'm not going to explain it again.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 57):
Can LAX be made into a transpacific hub for a US airline? Absolutely.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 61):
To say that DL or any US airline can’t expand in competitive markets is preposterous.

I suppose this was directed at me. Your problem is you don't read. This is about LAX to Asia I've given you a multitude or reasons why it won't work for any carrier, you've been unable to refute anything I've said. This is not about entering competitive markets, this is about market realities. They're real, you can't ignore them. Since you don't understanding Asia I won't try and explain it again for the 4th time.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 57):
Splitting hairs: AA serves ORD-Shanghai, not Beijing. And I have heard the contrary - that these routes are performing quite well for being new.

You're correct my mistake. However, I can assure you Beijing is a dog route. However the hope is the route will grow in the future. However, if another 777 was available CO would throw it on DEL in a heartbeat.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: OA412
Posted 2006-07-28 00:48:48 and read 5424 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 45):
Like that time last spring when you said DL would not file bankruptcy. Yeah, you're a real Nostradamus!!

Grow up! You have posted this same thing over and over again in thread after thread. We get it, WorldTraveler predicted that DL would not file Bankruptcy and they did. I suppose you have never been wrong about anything in your life? Lest we forget, AA was also on the verge of filing Ch. 11 and was able to avoid it at the 11th hour. While the circumstances surrounding each airline's financial situation may have been different it was not entirely out of the realm of possibility to believe that DL would be able to avoid filing Bankruptcy. Alas, that was not to be but it is not necessary to chastise someone over and over again for a faulty prediction that was made over a year ago.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2006-07-28 01:04:29 and read 5408 times.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 63):
You have posted this same thing over and over again in thread after thread. We get it, WorldTraveler predicted that DL would not file Bankruptcy and they did. I suppose you have never been wrong about anything in your life? Lest we forget, AA was also on the verge of filing Ch. 11 and was able to avoid it at the 11th hour.

I only do this to counter WT's insistence that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong and doesn't know anything about aviation. He says this repeatedly as if he knows all, when clearly he doesn't.

If the moderators would take action (since he has violated the TOS), this wouldn't be a problem.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Xkorpyoh
Posted 2006-07-28 01:25:09 and read 5391 times.

I dont know if i missed this from the posts above, but my DL sales rep said that he has been hearing word about service out of LAX to New Zealand because of a strong "new business" development there.
I asked if that would include Australia too but he said he has heard only of New Zealand.
Then i asked if it was going to be via HNL (an A.net rumor), but he didn't have any more details.

anybody from DL has heard the same ?

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Bnamaxx
Posted 2006-07-28 01:45:02 and read 5378 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 34):
Buddy that is exactly what you said. If you can't write in context that's not my problem. Are we suppose to just guess what you're thinking?



Quoting Airzim (Reply 34):
You are so full of yourself. I don't recall anytime where you've proven me wrong against any of your assertions.



Quoting Airzim (Reply 34):
You go on and on in mundane paragraphs talking in circles and fantasy to try and prove that you can actually construct a logical thought. Trying to refute your ridiculous statement is like talking to a wall. Fact is your just babbling garbage.



Quoting Airzim (Reply 34):



Quoting Airzim (Reply 34):
Where do you get this stuff? Seriously are you in third grade?



Quoting Airzim (Reply 34):
LOL. You're a joke, what is this high school.

OK, now how mature is this? You ask someone about being in high school and you talk like this? You sound like a five year old. You might actually have some valid points, but your demeaning tone and putting people down aren't exactly helping your case. Grow up!

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Fewsolarge
Posted 2006-07-28 01:57:47 and read 5362 times.

Quoting Airzim (Reply 62):
They are completely different operating environments so stop drawing at comparison straws. You only continue to show how foolish you are.

Seriously. I'm really sick of comments like this. Please, enjoy the forum and the intellectual sparring. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and that does not make them fools or anything unworthy of your respect. If you've got a little disdain to throw around, great ... make it fun.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-28 04:01:55 and read 5307 times.

Quoting Fewsolarge (Reply 67):
Not everyone is going to agree with you, and that does not make them fools or anything unworthy of your respect.

Yes, but some people ARE fools, and giving everyone equal weight once some people prove themselves foolish is NOT the basis of a strong, intelligent discourse.

Not saying he is a fool or should be called out in this case, just you can't have a discussion of an issue without calling a spade a spade when it's warranted.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-28 04:12:49 and read 5296 times.

see my recent posting on the DL CVG discussion. If the shoe fits, put it on.

There are far more people on this board who really do know what they are talking about. Those of you who think who know what you are talking about best make sure you do because those of us who do will take you to the cleaners if you don't.

Opinions based on interpreting data is one thing. Being ignorant of facts or refusing to acknowledge them is a far more serious and pitiful condition.

I get along just fine with people who differ on opinions but have correct facts.

I am quite sure DL will pursue opportunities in the S. Pacific in time but I'd be surprised if they do nonstop service now. A 767 nonstop to NZ is a severe stretch and DL just doesn't have 777s available for growth right now.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: Bnamaxx
Posted 2006-07-28 14:37:42 and read 5200 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 68):
Yes, but some people ARE fools, and giving everyone equal weight once some people prove themselves foolish is NOT the basis of a strong, intelligent discourse.

Not saying he is a fool or should be called out in this case, just you can't have a discussion of an issue without calling a spade a spade when it's warranted

Curious, by what qualifications of yours is someone a fool? Because their opinion is different from yours? This isn't an AOL chat room. We should be able to have reasonable and mature discussion without calling people names. I dare say by your comment, there are probably more than a few people who think YOU are the fool.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-28 14:42:17 and read 5193 times.

Thank you, BNA. It's time to pull the rhetoric back.

If there are material facts which you disagree with, provide the evidence to back them up. Otherwise, accept that someone else might come to a different conclusion. And by all means be willing to admit when you are wrong or don't know what you are talking about. Real men admit when they are wrong - fools don't.

Topic: RE: Delta & LAX: Back To The Future
Username: WorldTraveler
Posted 2006-07-28 17:24:00 and read 5135 times.

Perhaps a DL gateway to Asia from LAX doesn’t look quite so ridiculous in light of today’s developments between DL and UA regarding London and DL’s previous success at convincing the DOT to award one of UA’s unused US-Brazil frequencies to DL.

DL is clearly able to compete very effectively against UA and win.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/