Seatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 581 posts, RR: 0 Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3011 times:
Today, DL announced service to Africa from Atlanta. Which got me thinking, why hasn't AA aggressively pursued a similar European strategy out of Dallas? Isn't Dallas Ft. Worth a bigger city and business destination? If DL can or thinks they can make money going to Dakar and JNB, could AA make a go of similar routes from DFW (or for that matter any major European city).
Or, is Delta just being irrational about its international growth? Is there really a market for a daily 777 to Dakar?
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2987 times:
Atlanta has the one thing DFW will never have.....
A reasonable connection to any point in the USA for *More* of the nation.
NorEasters would never connect in Dallas to go Europe..
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2956 times:
Quoting Seatback (Thread starter): Which got me thinking, why hasn't AA aggressively pursued a similar European strategy out of Dallas? Isn't Dallas Ft.
I believe a lot of it has to do with the fact that American has hubs in more than just one big city. Sure DL has CVG and SLC, but those are hardly big international markets. The cities are important and good for domestic connections, but there certainly are other cities in the country that have more international demand from both businesses and the population.
ATL is Delta and Delta is ATL. The city is good for connecting people from a large part of the United States to both Europe, Africa and Latin America. It is DL's fortrass hub. They have flights to almost every destination that they serve from ATL.
DFW on the other hand isn't as big of a hub. AA can split a lot of its connections between ORD and DFW. ORD is better positioned for flights, especially from midwestern passengers, to Europe, which takes away some traffic that might otherwise use DFW.
Both AA and DL have some international flights from JFK. Neither is too dominant. I think AA could potentially develop DFW more as an international hub, but it has other airports that with hubs that are better. MIA is better for Latin America operations while ORD is good for connecting traffic to Europe and JFK is better for O/D. DFW is best for domestic connections.
DL has ATL which is obviously the best, which is why it has so many international flights, although most destinations to Europe are served from JFK.
P.S. This is my 2000th post on Airliners.net!
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31113 posts, RR: 74 Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2885 times:
There are two problems:
1) Dallas is not geographically well positioned to be a US<->Europe hub. The feed it can get is mainly from the Western US, and most European traffic comes from the East coast in the first place. The O&D market is also weak internationally, which doesn't help.
2) As mentioned, AA has other hubs and focus cities in major cities which are singificantly larger interntational market. Arguably, Miami, Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago, which are were AA's other main international gateways are, are the four largest markets for international air travel into/out of the US. It doesn't make sense to fly DFW-MAD when you can MIA-MAD; DFW-PVG when ORD-PVG can capture the same feed and better O&D; DFW-FCO when JFK-FCO is a stronger market; DFW-DKR-JNB when MIA-DKR-JNB would generate healthy local traffic and better feed without backtracking, etc., etc.
It is unfortunate, but that is how it is. Geographic position, rather than local market, is probably the bigger detriment.
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3014 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2835 times:
Quoting Seatback (Thread starter): Today, DL announced service to Africa from Atlanta. Which got me thinking, why hasn't AA aggressively pursued a similar European strategy out of Dallas? Isn't Dallas Ft. Worth a bigger city and business destination? If DL can or thinks they can make money going to Dakar and JNB, could AA make a go of similar routes from DFW (or for that matter any major European city).
Well - AA has been pretty schizophrenic (sp?) about their European and Asian expansion. Some cities served from JFK, others from ORD. MIA, BOS, and DFW each have a few destinations as well to Europe but there doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason, or a preferred gateway. Look at their recent new service to Asia - KIX from DFW and PVG from ORD. It seems that AA prefers to spread the flights around to where they see the O&D market, as opposed to focusing on connections.
DL on the other hand prefers ATL for new service, or JFK to a lesser extent for the more "unique" destinations that would rely more on O&D (Kiev and Budapest, for instance). And you think about it - ATL and JFK are the only DL hubs that can really support these flights properly with a good mix of O&D and connecting traffic. ATL is also better suited for transatlantic service, because it can capture Florida, anyone from the West Coast can go through without going too much out of the way, and it's not out of the question for connections from the NE. DFW on the other hand is really only convenient as a gateway to Europe from California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas - it's just too far south. And the problem with that is that CA already has plenty of service to Europe, and if people want to connect, ORD/JFK are just as easy, if not more convenient.
DFW is an ok geographic location for a domestic hub for people travelling e-w in the southern 1/2 of the country, as well as for people flying to Texas. But it really doesn't make sense to go through DFW to Latin America or Europe when MIA/ORD/JFK/PHL/ATL are more convenient.
Quoting Seatback (Thread starter): Or, is Delta just being irrational about its international growth? Is there really a market for a daily 777 to Dakar?
Obviously the Dakar stop is only for re-fueling because the plane can't make it to JNB otherwise. Any passengers headed ATL-DKR or JNB-DKR are just icing on the cake. There certainly is not demand for a daily 777 that terminates in DKR.
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31113 posts, RR: 74 Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2821 times:
Quoting RwSEA (Reply 4): Look at their recent new service to Asia - KIX from DFW and PVG from ORD. It seems that AA prefers to spread the flights around to where they see the O&D market, as opposed to focusing on connections.
In the end there is a reason.
Chicago provides significantly more O&D to China, and is a better connecting point for Asia from the rest of the country in general. PDX-PVG, LAS-PVG, MIA-PVG, JFK-PVG, BOS-PVG, etc. via O'Hare are all still very viable and smooth connections, as opposed to DFW, which is significantly out of the way for the Northern United States.
Dallas has the Osaka flight because of a cargo. Dallas is a pretty decent cargo hub, especially for AA and the Southern US, and AA has a lucrative cargo contract for the route. In addition, Chicago already has Osaka service on United, and there isn't room for two.
I totally get what you are saying though. On the surface, it appears like there is no rhyme or reason to their network (i.e. LAX-SAL, no DFW-SAL; JFK-ZRH, no ORD-ZRH; MIA-MAN, no DFW-MAN), but there is always a logical reason as to why those routes exist. AA just has an international network that is far less concentrated than other majors.
SESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3384 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2739 times:
AA's DFW hub is the closest thing to DL's ATL hub in the US, but AA's DFW lacks many of the aforementioned things. Also, ATL is actually a larger O&D and business market than DFW is. Also, location is the main reason ATL is so big and successful. Connections from almost anywhere in America can be made to Europe and South America. It's also great for East Coast-West Coast flights and has Florida centrally located as a huge catchment area, hence the widebodys from ATL-Florida. ATL's location also makes it the 2nd best located airline hub for connecting flights to South/Latin America after MIA, as well as a superior European gateway, probably third after EWR and IAD in terms of location and facilities for connections to Europe.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2676 times:
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 5): Chicago provides significantly more O&D to China, and is a better connecting point for Asia from the rest of the country in general. PDX-PVG, LAS-PVG, MIA-PVG, JFK-PVG, BOS-PVG, etc. via O'Hare are all still very viable and smooth connections, as opposed to DFW, which is significantly out of the way for the Northern United States.
i would agree with the BOS/MIA/JFK-ORD-PVG route, but PDX/LAS-ORD-PVG is way out of the way.....it is adding at least 10 hours (especially from PDX) to flight time. Most will connect from SFO/LAX
MAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31113 posts, RR: 74 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2614 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 7): but PDX/LAS-ORD-PVG is way out of the way.....it is adding at least 10 hours (especially from PDX) to flight time. Most will connect from SFO/LAX
No, not really. PVG-LAS is not as direct via ORD as it is via LAX, but it only adds about three hours travel time. Delicate for the business traveler, but not others. Remember, ORD-PVG is transpolar, not transpacific, so the difference is not as significant. Also, given the very limited amount of US-China service, especially compared to demand, "creative" routings are often nessecary, especially during peak travel periods. When you have limited choices, airlines can successfully "force" consumers to travel out of their way for the best deal, which is what AA will do with ORD-PVG. They will probably have at least 20-25 passengers a day on that 777 connecting from the West Coast.
Though you are correct. Once you get more west than about Denver, it is quicker to go via LAX/SFO to China, but not everyone can always afford to take the most direct option.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 581 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31113 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3014 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
