Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2 Posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2735 times:
At present, ATL is the busiest airport in the world, yet when compared to similarly busy airports like ORD and LAX, it has very few foreign carriers. Right now, the following foreign airlines serve ATL:
-South African Airways
Of those, only Air Canada, Lufthansa, and British Airways have no association with Delta. Come October or November, KLM will begin service to ATL from AMS, but they are now associated with Delta. South African Airways will likely be leaving ATL for IAD now that they are joining Star Alliance. Other foreign airlines that ATL has lost in the recent past are:
Why does it seem that if an airline has no association with Delta, it is very difficult for it to stay in ATL? Though two of those airlines went bankrupt and are now defunct, they were not yet to that stage when they left ATL. VIE might not have been a destination with much O and D traffic, hence Austrian Airlines depararting, but GRU and NRT are both cities that I would imagine would have lots of O&D traffic, making it not necessary to have Delta's connections in ATL to survive. So, what is the reason for so few international airlines at the busiest airport in the world?
GSPSPOT From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2838 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2676 times:
ATL is SO MUCH a domestic connecting hub, that I think DL and its partners get pretty much all the international traffic there is to be had in ATL. I know the Atlanta area must have sizeable international communities simply by virtue of its size, but there just doesn't seem to be the demand...
Ckfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 4905 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2557 times:
I think there are two dynamics at play here. First, ORD is a hub for UA and AA. Between Star and Oneworld, there are a lot of carriers covered. I think the same would hold true for LAX, since both carriers have significant operations, and JFK, which has significant operations for UA, AA, and DL. Because ATL is so dominated by DL, I think non-alligned carriers have trouble getting significant traffic volume.
The other dynamic is size. Atlanta has about 3 million in the metro area, while Chicago is now around 8 million, and LA and New York are even bigger. Certainly ATL has a lot of O&D traffic, but I would bet that a higher percentage of its traffic is connecting between domestic cities, when compared to LAX, ORD, and JFK.
The Georgia World Congress Center was built after the Olympics had been awarded to Atlanta, so it hadn't been major convention destination. On the other hand, Chicago has been one of the top convention cities in America for more than 30 years. Even conventions in Chicago with only 500 attendees may have nearly one third of the attendees from abroad. That generates a lot of international traffic into ORD.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 17266 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2498 times:
The Georgia World Congress Center was built after the Olympics had been awarded to Atlanta, so it hadn't been major convention destination.
It has been around since the 1970s and has been expanded several times to keep up with other convention cities. Before the Olympics, Atlanta used to host several major conventions, The Super Show, a major sporting goods trade show and Comdex, a computer industry trade show. They left because of the lack of room (mainly the GWCC was dragging their feet on an expansion), and traffic issues downtown.
SABENA used to codeshare with DL on the ATL-BRU route, and when SABENA dropped their own service into ATL (low loads), they started to codeshare on Swissair's flight to ZUR. And I really don't need to go into the rest of the story with those two airlines. Swissair dropped a number of US cities prior to Crossair becoming Swiss Int'l and the final flights of Swissair.
Austrian left because of low loads, and the fact that they had severed their codeshare with Delta.
Varig left because of low loads.
KLM dropped a number of routes after 9/11, based in the prevailing thought that the US-Europe air traffic was going to be severe. KLM had done quite well on the route, and in fact really didn't want to cut the route at the time.
JAL dropped the route due to low loads, a problem that plagues Delta to an extent on the ATL-NRT route.
Panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4710 posts, RR: 25 Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2447 times:
"JAL dropped the route due to low loads, a problem that plagues Delta to an extent on the ATL-NRT route"
Delta does not have a problem with low loads on ATL-NRT. This route, its only transpacific flight has been averaging over 80-90% load factors for the past few months.
The basic problem with ATL is that it does not have sufficient O&D traffic to justify as many international carriers as JFK,LAX,and ORD (the three largest cities in the U.S.). While it is not a small city, most of the international lift can be handled by the capacity offered by Delta and its partners.
Ssides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2423 times:
DFW has a similar problem as ATL. Both Dallas and Atlanta are major US cities, but when it comes to international business (FWIW, this, not international 'communities,' is the key factor for international carriers), they still lag behind the big boys like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles). DFW, for example, only has Lufthansa, Aeromexico, British Airways, Korean Air, Air Canada, and TACA. Still, it has many, many international flights with AA. Simply put, the hub carriers' dominance of these markets, combined with their relatively small international business connections, make international carriers' options limited here. Still, we should be thankful -- only a handful of airports in the US can say they have these airlines.
Wdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 961 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2369 times:
If i recall... KATL is not the busiest airport in the world. If remember correctly it is KORD, KATL had it for a year or two but no longer holds the title. KATL is very similar to Denver... all Domestic Traffic and very little international Overseas traffic compared to other airports their size.
UAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2330 posts, RR: 11 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2335 times:
When you think of it as ATL is the busiest airport in the US (I thought ORD was?) it is a little deceiving. The only reason that it is so bust is because of the way Delta flies ALL of their passengers through ATL. Other airlines like UA or AA have a lot more point to point and do not use there hub like DL does with ATL. The majority of passengers flying into ATL are connecting to somewhere else and not internationally.
Srbmod From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 17266 posts, RR: 51 Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2267 times:
ATL is busiest in terms of passenger volume, while ORD is busiest in terms of a/c movements. The latest numbers from Airports Council International ORD is ahead of ATL on movements by 339 movements, but ATL has well over a million more pax than ORD. http://www.airports.org/traffic/yeartodate.htm
Peteinmiami From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 266 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
My thoughts regarding this topic are that Atlanta is what it is just because Delta is forcing everyone to connect there, plain and simple. One example is if I want to go MIA-JFK flying Delta, the only way is MIA-ATL-JFK, and so on. It is just a hub made by Delta, just think how many passengers actually stay in ATL , few compare to the total volume of traffic
Airplanetire From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1809 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2003 times:
Thanks for all of your responses! Texdravid, I am certainly thankful for what we have (but can't help wanting a little more... he he he). At least ATL is a WHOLE lot better than say Rockford, Illinois! I still wonder why the business and population in ATL can't support more O&D. Obviously that is the problem, but our metropolitan area is now 4.5 million people and there are lots of large, multinational businesses like Coca Cola. Even though there is a lot of connecting traffic in ATL, just longhaul Delta flies to NRT, GRU, SCL, LGW, DUB, SNN, MAD, BCN (seasonal), CDG, BRU, AMS, ZRH, MUC, AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA, STR, FCO, MAN, and MXP. Then you can add ICN for Korean Air and JNB and CPT for SAA. There obviously has to be a certain amount of demand in Atlanta for flights to that many destinations to be successful. Maybe one day we'll see some more foreign carriers...
AV8AJET From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1292 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1852 times:
I wonder how BA does on the LGW-ATL flights? I took them back in the middle 90's (DC-10-30's now 772's) and they were pretty full. With little or no connecting traffic for them and with DL up to (4) 763ER roundtrips a day this summer to LGW how are the loads for them on this route. As others have said DFW is a similar airport for them. I love seeing them there though!!