Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4750609/

Topic: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2010-03-20 12:17:49 and read 5952 times.

I've been curious about this since they ran the route the first time a couple years ago, since at least pre-merger, I thought that AA and UA were both definitely larger than DL at LAX even if DL might be a little stronger at CMH. My thought was that if DL couldn't even make their old CMH-SLC service work, it would be more natural for AA or UA in the sense that AA especially has its West Coast hub at LAX, whereas it is second to SFO for UA and second to SLC for DL. It seems like AA on CMH-LAX would be similar to UA on PIT-SFO in connecting a mid-sized city East of the Mississippi to the West Coast hub, whereas for DL it's basically tapping the huge O&D in LA but not as large a connecting base (unless their "new" intl service they inherited from NW is that large a draw for CMH-LAX-Asia feed).

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: UALFAson
Posted 2010-03-20 12:34:43 and read 5882 times.

You hit it at the end of your post--UA and AA don't need the feed from CMH to the West Coast. UA can route int'l connections through IAD or ORD and domestic connections through ORD or DEN, while AA can do the same through ORD, DFW, and MIA.

While that may still leave a few CMH pax on those airlines who will have to double-connect to get to certain int'l cities, that's not a large enough number of pax to justify tying up a plane for a long, thin route such as LAX-CHM, especially where I can't imagine there's a huge fare premium to be had, what with WN having large operations at both ends.

DL is using CMH, along with BDL, RDU, etc., to feed their growing int'l flight ops out of LAX. Plus, DL recently has had a strategy of starting "random" routes just to see what will work and quickly cutting those that aren't successful (I don't mean this as a criticism at all--just couldn't think of a shorter way to explain it.)

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: compensateme
Posted 2010-03-20 12:46:14 and read 5847 times.

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 1):
You hit it at the end of your post--UA and AA don't need the feed from CMH to the West Coast.

If DL were concerned about connections to Asia, it'd be inaugurating CMH-SEA, not CMH-LAX (and traffic between CMH & Asia is best served through DTW, anyway); outside Hawaii and SYD, connections for traffic to/from CMH are better served through DL's other hubs.

Maybe DL perceives the local markets to be strong enough to support nonstop service.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: flyinryan99
Posted 2010-03-20 12:47:31 and read 5847 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Thread starter):
I've been curious about this since they ran the route the first time a couple years ago, since at least pre-merger, I thought that AA and UA were both definitely larger than DL at LAX even if DL might be a little stronger at CMH. My thought was that if DL couldn't even make their old CMH-SLC service work, it would be more natural for AA or UA in the sense that AA especially has its West Coast hub at LAX, whereas it is second to SFO for UA and second to SLC for DL. It seems like AA on CMH-LAX would be similar to UA on PIT-SFO in connecting a mid-sized city East of the Mississippi to the West Coast hub, whereas for DL it's basically tapping the huge O&D in LA but not as large a connecting base (unless their "new" intl service they inherited from NW is that large a draw for CMH-LAX-Asia feed).

I personally think CMH-SFO would be viable for UA on an A319 instead of LAX. FlyCMH would be better to respond, but I think the O/D combined with connections out of SFO would be perfect for them. The problem is, getting the aircraft to fly it. IIRC, the Bay Area will be the largest destination from CMH that will not be served nonstop.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: flyCMH
Posted 2010-03-20 13:26:54 and read 5744 times.

Quoting LHCVG (Thread starter):
I thought that AA and UA were both definitely larger than DL at LAX

I believe that is indeed true; both in terms of operations and inlfuence in the market.

Quoting LHCVG (Thread starter):
It seems like AA on CMH-LAX would be similar to UA on PIT-SFO in connecting a mid-sized city East of the Mississippi to the West Coast hub

While a valid comparison, the market forces in each city and the resulting service are somewhat different. United essentially tookover an established former USAirways route, a route which indeed United is more apt to serving given the current air service scenario at PIT, as well as SFO. I would imagine United does benefit from being aligned with USAirways through Star Alliance, both in the local base of loyal USAirways fliers that still exist and a limited amount of connectivity from PIT. All of these benefits are not available from CMH; certainly not to the same extent at least. And while United has initiated more flying from their West Coast hubs to the middle of the country (i.e. LAX-OKC/TUL/PIT and SFO-MCI/MSP/PIT), Columbus likely doesn't sit high on the potential list of cities to be served, especially given the shortage of narrowbody aircraft after the retiring of the 737 and fleet. In addition, the majority of new service has been accomplished via UA's express counterparts which, at least at this point, could not fly a CMH-LAX or CMH-SFO route.

American Airlines, while they do command a decent presence at CMH, never quited seemed to garner the local loyalty in Columbus that other carriers, such as USAirways and Delta, have cultivated over the years. And while American doing a nonstop to LAX from CMH would not have been outside the realm of possibility, the logistics of routing an aircraft through CMH to serve the route is/was likely not a top priority for AA, especially given the relative lack of 738s in the fleet. In addition, American's overall strategy at LAX doesn't seemed aimed at connecting mid-sized markets to their LAX operation. An AA-operated CMH flight would definitely be an oddball in their route network from LAX, right up there with BNA, however there is a long history behind that route's existance.

Quoting LHCVG (Thread starter):
DL it's basically tapping the huge O&D in LA but not as large a connecting base (unless their "new" intl service they inherited from NW is that large a draw for CMH-LAX-Asia feed).

I think you touched on one of the reasons that it is Delta that has resumed CMH-LAX service, in addition to BDL and RDU, to be honest. While the overall Delta operation will not be as large this summer as it was during their first foray into established a hub operation in LAX, the dynamics of the market have certainly changed. Delta has seeminly made no secret in their plans to grow their share of the Asia/Pacific market, both through their new and restored services from DTW as well as LAX. My guess is the resuming of CMH/BDL/RDU-LAX service is part of their overall strategy in becoming a dominant player in the Asia/Pacific market.

Also, Delta has historically had a decent presence in the Columbus market, especially after America West closed it's Columbus hub operation. Delta resumed several former HP routes and commanded a very good presence in the local market up until the recent economic downturn and severe spike in fuel prices, which can be held partially to blame for the loss of the CMH-LAX flight the first time around, in addition to other severed services such as CMH-BDL. The short-lived existance of Skybus couldn't have helped either. However despite that, Delta has maintained a dominant position among the legacy carriers in the Columbus market, one that I do believe Delta recognizes. For those reasons, I do believe Delta is the most fit carrier to serve the route. It's my hope that Delta does see long-term success on it.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: flyCMH
Posted 2010-03-20 13:39:24 and read 5695 times.

Quoting flyinryan99 (Reply 3):
I personally think CMH-SFO would be viable for UA on an A319 instead of LAX. FlyCMH would be better to respond, but I think the O/D combined with connections out of SFO would be perfect for them. The problem is, getting the aircraft to fly it. IIRC, the Bay Area will be the largest destination from CMH that will not be served nonstop.

I also believe that CMH-SFO would make a great route for United, however, as you mentioned, aircraft availability is incredibly tight, and United has many more routes systemwide that could use an Airbus instead of a long, thin, untested route like CMH-SFO. The Bay Area (SFO, OAK, SJC) is the largest market without nonstop service from Columbus, however I don't see that void being filled anytime soon given current market and airline conditions. However, somewhat recent additions to the SFO hub such as PIT, MCI, STL, and MSP give me some hope that United has at least considered the merits of the route.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: compensateme
Posted 2010-03-20 14:57:39 and read 5534 times.

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 4):
I think you touched on one of the reasons that it is Delta that has resumed CMH-LAX service... My guess is the resuming of CMH/BDL/RDU-LAX service is part of their overall strategy in becoming a dominant player in the Asia/Pacific market.

I think you're guessing wrong. As I wrote in my previous response, if DL's true intentions were to build its Asia/Pacific network, it would be inaugurating CMH/BDL/RDU-SEA. Service from the Eastern USA to major Asian markets will be best served through DTW, not LAX; DL's favoring SEA for service to Asian markets DTW cannot support.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: runway23
Posted 2010-03-20 15:05:22 and read 5513 times.

Quoting compensateme (Reply 6):
Quoting flyCMH (Reply 4):
I think you touched on one of the reasons that it is Delta that has resumed CMH-LAX service... My guess is the resuming of CMH/BDL/RDU-LAX service is part of their overall strategy in becoming a dominant player in the Asia/Pacific market.

I think you're guessing wrong. As I wrote in my previous response, if DL's true intentions were to build its Asia/Pacific network, it would be inaugurating CMH/BDL/RDU-SEA. Service from the Eastern USA to major Asian markets will be best served through DTW, not LAX; DL's favoring SEA for service to Asian markets DTW cannot support.

Besides the fact that the new flights are red-eyes and do not connect to DL's international flights at all.

The flights seem more like a way of increasing aircraft utilization for DL than anything else. If they make a profit great, otherwise the new routes will (once again) be axed. In all fairness, I think the red-eye schedule will reduce yield and might just be the difference between a profitable and unprofitable flight...

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: flyCMH
Posted 2010-03-20 16:05:25 and read 5410 times.

My thought was more that Delta would not only like to connect to its own Asia/Pacific flights from LAX, but those of its codeshare partners as well. The CMH-LAX flight is well timed to connect to Delta's SYD flight, Air France's weekly PPT run, China Airlines' TPE flight, and Korean's late ICN trip. In fact, Delta specifically mentions this strategy in their press release (yes, I realize it mentions SFO as the example, but the same thought applies):


"Los Angeles' strategic position in the Delta network continues to gain importance as we expand opportunities for customers to connect to our trans-Pacific services from this growing, thriving gateway," Hauenstein said. "We are pleased not only to continue to expand service for Delta customers via L.A. but also to offer the convenience of L.A. connections to customers flying our alliance partners."

Delta's added flights are expected to improve connections for SkyTeam customers utilizing Los Angeles International Airport as a gateway to California and points across the United States. SkyTeam partner China Southern Airlines, for instance, currently does not operate service to Northern California and plans to use the new flights to offer access to San Francisco, which is the second largest U.S. market for Chinese travelers."


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Delta-...ng-prnews-4037171662.html?x=0&.v=1

So while it might not be a deciding factor, I do think a part of Delta's willingness to restart CMH-LAX, along with BDL and RDU is associated with strengthening their ability to serve the Asia/Pacific region.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: HVNandrew
Posted 2010-03-20 19:47:40 and read 5182 times.

The new (well, returning) DL transcons out of LAX are really not that random when you look at how DL has been playing with their LAX schedules over the last few years. Even after the ExpressJet pulldown, DL was still flying from LAX to cities where they had a dominant presence. Many of these cities stayed around even during the fuel crisis (MSY and TPA come to mind). The fact that DL is coming back into these markets isn't strange at all, as I would imagine they have a pretty serious FF base in all of the cities (in terms of flights/day and pax boardings, I know DL is far and away the leader at BDL; it's one of the only DL cities that has kept pretty extensive P2P Florida flights). As others have pointed out, these flights don't feed any of the international banks. They rely completely on the local market. I'm actually a little bit surprised that DL didn't bring JAX back on board with the new additions.

As for the SAN/SFO/LAS recent/future additions, it's about time. They provide feed for the trans-pac and Hawaii flights, and can even feed into the rest of the DL/AS network out of LAX. If at some point DL adds LAX-FAT/SJC service, I really wonder if there's a continued need for the Eagle codeshare. As a loyal Skyteamer, I know I will definitely appreciate taking a DL flight right up from SAN and actually getting off at one of the DL terminals, before continuing my journey out east. Their LAS service has a lot of potential to tap into the local market as well, if it isn't already doing so.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: LHCVG
Posted 2010-03-20 20:02:51 and read 5120 times.

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 1):
DL is using CMH, along with BDL, RDU, etc., to feed their growing int'l flight ops out of LAX. Plus, DL recently has had a strategy of starting "random" routes just to see what will work and quickly cutting those that aren't successful (I don't mean this as a criticism at all--just couldn't think of a shorter way to explain it.)

I agree- sometimes "random" is the only way you'll stumble on something that others haven't already.

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 4):
the logistics of routing an aircraft through CMH to serve the route is/was likely not a top priority for AA, especially given the relative lack of 738s

I forgot about that part. I guess they can easily route it ATL-CMH-LAX and then the return can be a LAX-CMH-ATL trip at some point, which doesn't impact their existing service ATL-CMH.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: compensateme
Posted 2010-03-20 23:03:13 and read 4977 times.

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 8):
The CMH-LAX flight is well timed to connect to Delta's SYD flight, Air France's weekly PPT run, China Airlines' TPE flight, and Korean's late ICN trip. In fact, Delta specifically mentions this strategy in their press release (yes, I realize it mentions SFO as the example, but the same thought applies):

The timings for connections are alright, but in one direction only; the press release was explicating referencing SFO. A handful of passengers may utilize this flight for connections, but its success will be determined by the local markets it serves.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2010-03-21 11:50:18 and read 4714 times.

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 4):
the logistics of routing an aircraft through CMH to serve the route is/was likely not a top priority for AA, especially given the relative lack of 738s in the fleet.

Aircraft rotation is not a problem. It can operate as a turn from LAX, just like BNA does.

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 8):
I do think a part of Delta's willingness to restart CMH-LAX, along with BDL and RDU is associated with strengthening their ability to serve the Asia/Pacific region.

I think it is. Asian connections aren't going to fill a CMH-west coast flight (that's true for most cities, by the way), so it makes sense to go to LAX, the city with a local market that's nearly twice as large. There, passengers can still connect to NRT and SYD and onward to all those markets served from NRT, many of which have no nonstop service to the United States.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: DeltaRules
Posted 2010-03-21 12:40:17 and read 4655 times.

Quoting flyCMH (Reply 4):
Also, Delta has historically had a decent presence in the Columbus market, especially after America West closed it's Columbus hub operation. Delta resumed several former HP routes and commanded a very good presence in the local market up until the recent economic downturn and severe spike in fuel prices, which can be held partially to blame for the loss of the CMH-LAX flight the first time around, in addition to other severed services such as CMH-BDL.

Delta's CMH "focus city", even though most flights to non-hubs were on RJs, had a fair amount of service, virtually all of which picked up where HP left off as you said. DL had flights from CMH to (going off the top of my head):
-ATL (still operates, of course)
-CVG (still operates)
-BOS (still operates)
-LGA (still operates)
-JFK (still operates)
-LAX (just resumed)
-SLC
-DFW
-DCA
-BDL
-MCO
-TPA
-FLL
-RSW
-PBI (run seasonally one or two years)

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 10):
I forgot about that part. I guess they can easily route it ATL-CMH-LAX and then the return can be a LAX-CMH-ATL trip at some point, which doesn't impact their existing service ATL-CMH.

This is how it was done the last time around. The 738 originated in ATL, got into CMH at around 4pm, operated the CMH-LAX-CMH flights & got back to CMH in time to operate the first or second CMH-ATL flight of the day, leaving for ATL around 7am. I would assume this time that the 738 flight would replace one of the existing afternoon MD-88 ATL-CMH flights and either the morning MD-88 or 757 flight on the way back (hopefully, the MD-88  ), though the timetable doesn't reflect that yet.

[Edited 2010-03-21 13:05:12]

[Edited 2010-03-21 13:06:27]

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: JaxMan19
Posted 2010-03-22 09:49:00 and read 4298 times.

Quoting HVNandrew (Reply 9):
I'm actually a little bit surprised that DL didn't bring jax back on board with the new additions.

Do you think JAX is on the short list for the next additions to LAX on DL then? if not possibly another airline?

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: Tommy767
Posted 2010-03-22 10:08:21 and read 4266 times.

A little trivia for y'all. After DL dropped LAX-CMH they even as of last year LAX-CVG-CMH on a 738. They kept it as a tag on, same plane service.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: travelin man
Posted 2010-03-22 12:27:27 and read 4128 times.

Delta is also reinstating these flights to support some of their key corporate contracts (heard this directly from my DL account manager).

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: DeltaRules
Posted 2010-03-23 14:13:42 and read 3838 times.

Quoting Tommy767 (Reply 15):
A little trivia for y'all. After DL dropped LAX-CMH they even as of last year LAX-CVG-CMH on a 738. They kept it as a tag on, same plane service.

I missed that...maybe that was, among other reasons, why CMH was able to hang on to a CVG-CMH mainline flight despite virtually everything else at CVG going all-RJ (I think it was 1 738, 1 CR7 & a mix of CRJ/ERJ). That mainline flight went away last spring, IIRC.

Topic: RE: Why DL And Not AA Or UA On CMH-LAX?
Username: Tommy767
Posted 2010-03-23 14:51:53 and read 3764 times.

Quoting DeltaRules (Reply 17):
CVG going all-RJ (I think it was 1 738, 1 CR7 & a mix of CRJ/ERJ). That mainline flight went away last spring, IIRC.

Yes mainline was very sparse at CVG even then. I remember CVG-BWI was operated by a 738 in late 08/early 09


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/