Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Answer This About The Majors  
User currently offline767Lover From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1961 times:

Okay. We keep hearing the majors (i.e., Delta) bellyaching that a big reason they have worse financial problems than the LCCs is the overhead involved -- flying worldwide operations takes its toll on the bottom line.

So why maintain all those worldwide operations? Why not cut your losses and bring operations down to a more fiscally manageable level? Why not just focus on markets where you are making money?

Heck, there's so much codesharing and alliance-building going on now that a particular airline doesn't even have to put metal in the air to serve a city. I just flew back from the Czech Republic to Atlanta, all ticketed through Delta, without even seeing a Delta plane at all.

3 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineCactusHP From United States of America, joined May 2004, 348 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1931 times:

No, because those routes do make money. For example, EWR-EDI on the 757, that makes money, right. You have to put a plane that the market can handle, so it would not make sence if CO put in a 777.


Sorry, I was on the landline
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1900 times:

You actively have their objective backwards...

...the international/intercontinental market is where the money's to be made. The question and challenge for the Legacy carriers is how do they profitably address that international market without losing their shirts on their domestic operations.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1883 times:

Oh, if it were only that simple....

Part of the problem is that major carriers, or network carriers, have complicated route systems based on hubs, and while each individual route into a certain hub may not be a profit center, only if the hub as adequate mass (ie, lots of flights in and out to lots of destinations) will the hub really work. If DL, for example, would cut a lot of short, not very profitable routes in and out of ATL, then DL could not keep all of those flights to Europe fill and profitable. Of course, very poorly performing routes are discontinued, and many smaller routes are now flown by regional affiliates with smaller aircraft in an attempt to cut costs, but if a hub cannot offer a large amount of destinations and endless connection possibilites, it will not work and become very unprofitable. DL recently decided to close down its hub in DFW altogether since it could no longer offer the connection possibilities, and did not have enough O&D traffic to make DFW work anymore.

Major carriers also offer benefit from offering a variety of services to both major centers and smaller cities and towns - the whole is greater than the parts. If a pax is interested in flying from NYC to FLorida, then there are many many choices and LCCs may be the answer, but if a pax needs to fly to FLorida one week, Paris the next, then to Latin America, and next month to a small city in Texas, an airline like AA has a lot to offer.

One of the biggest arguements against LCCs is that they only pick and chose the routes with the most potential - JetBlue for example now flies lots of routes to FLorida and California from the Northeast where there is a lot of traffic, but passengers also need to get to places like Nashville, DesMoines, Columbus and El Paso.

While major airlines are re-thinking their route systems in an attempt to make more money, the route systems are not the real problems (although an arguement can be make that the USA has too many hubs and too many connection points)......airlines like US Airways is looking to expand into Central America and the Caribbean and CO is building up service to Europe since there is less competition on those routes, no LCCs to deal with, and some money can be made. The real problem is that the legacy carriers have far higher costs that the newer airlines.....their labor costs and obligations and the fixed costs of running their networks are very high, time will tell if the legacy carriers can revise their business plans and if labor will agree to many of the changes required to exist in this enviornemnt, and the other question is if LCCs can keep their costs low as those airlines mature and expand and develop into larger airliners......Southwest seems to have figured out how to do it, lets see if the others also can keep costs under control.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Interesting Notes About The Majors + WN And HP posted Sun Jan 4 2004 03:06:20 by SHUPirate1
How Will This Affect All Of The Majors? posted Fri Sep 14 2001 04:40:20 by DeltaOwnsAll
Majors Losing Big, What About The Smaller Guys? posted Wed Mar 21 2001 18:47:31 by Travatl
Is This True About The Concorde? posted Sat Sep 30 2000 03:34:27 by Derek H
Is This Really The Same 727? posted Thu Dec 21 2006 05:43:05 by Fly-K
Randy's Blog... Lots About The A350XWB And Airbus posted Wed Nov 22 2006 20:50:38 by BoeingBus
In Vientiane - 2 Questions About The Airport posted Tue Nov 21 2006 10:52:48 by Pe@rson
US/DL Merger: Remember This In The Future posted Thu Nov 16 2006 20:35:10 by Wingspan
If DL Left SLC What About The Regionals? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 06:23:42 by IdaBoy
Can You Tell Me More About The F/A Job? posted Sat Nov 4 2006 00:45:47 by KLM672