Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta & LAX: Back To The Future  
User currently offlineFewsolarge From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 409 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9482 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?

72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16863 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9473 times:

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


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4748 posts, RR: 44
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9419 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.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9257 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.


User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4053 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9228 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.


DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3103 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9198 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.


User currently offlineCentrair From Japan, joined Jan 2005, 3598 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9151 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.



Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4053 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 9014 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.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 8932 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.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 8850 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.


User currently offlinePanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4910 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8795 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.


User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2924 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8738 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...


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8685 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.


User currently offlineAirzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8621 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.


User currently offlineMalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8533 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.


User currently offlineTravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3503 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8491 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.


User currently offlineCXB744 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8425 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.



What is it? It's A 747-400, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineMalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8368 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.


User currently offlineCXB744 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8357 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.



What is it? It's A 747-400, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineMalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8310 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..


User currently offlineAirzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8257 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.


User currently offlineCXB744 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 217 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8165 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.



What is it? It's A 747-400, but that's not important right now.
User currently offlineLincoln From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3887 posts, RR: 8
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8115 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



CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
User currently offlineMalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8115 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


User currently offlineAirzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1205 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8086 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.


25 Jamake1 : 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
26 Post contains images CXB744 : On United I stand corrected. But, with China Ailines, Delta (Korean Air), Asiana and EVA, I'm right both dates mentioned!
27 Kaitak744 : 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 mentione
28 Post contains images SKGSJULAX : ...and the boat aint comin back
29 Ikramerica : 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 rang
30 Post contains images Murrayusa : 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 com
31 Ikramerica : Had the same experience.
32 B777ER : 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 th
33 WorldTraveler : 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 discus
34 Airzim : 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? You are
35 Panamair : 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 tha
36 Travelin man : 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
37 Ikramerica : 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 argu
38 Incitatus : Isn't it a **LITTLE** early to claim success?
39 WorldTraveler : 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 pe
40 ORD : 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 flig
41 Airzim : 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 curr
42 Alitalia744 : Typical response from your mouth.
43 Airzim : 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
44 WorldTraveler : 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 “r
45 FlyPNS1 : 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. Wh
46 Alitalia744 : 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.
47 Incitatus : It is. Regardless of whatever writing comes out of other posters - sometimes apparently intent on raining on your parade - you do come across as some
48 ORD : I apologize, my mistake. The quote should have been attributed to WorldTraveler.
49 ORD : 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
50 Airzim : 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
51 Alitalia744 : 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 y
52 Airzim : 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. W
53 Alitalia744 : accepted. understandably - was just making a point about your comment about ignoring reality, maybe a little off topic. admittedly. One of the few pl
54 WorldTraveler : 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 rise
55 Airzim : 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 a
56 WorldTraveler : 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
57 BigGSFO : Splitting hairs: AA serves ORD-Shanghai, not Beijing. And I have heard the contrary - that these routes are performing quite well for being new. I di
58 FlyPNS1 : 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) whi
59 HPAEAA : 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
60 Fewsolarge : 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
61 WorldTraveler : 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 no
62 Airzim : 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. The
63 OA412 : 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 Bankru
64 FlyPNS1 : 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 repeated
65 Xkorpyoh : 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 beca
66 Bnamaxx : 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 hav
67 Fewsolarge : 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
68 Ikramerica : 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
69 WorldTraveler : 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
70 Bnamaxx : 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
71 WorldTraveler : 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. Otherw
72 WorldTraveler : 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
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...
"Back To The Future" For B6 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 16:01:30 by FLALEFTY
Back To The Future.Flying Cars? posted Thu Jan 6 2005 22:15:23 by Psa53
Back To The 727 Days posted Sun Nov 19 2006 20:26:43 by Magyarorszag
Delta MSY-LAX. Southwest Missed The Boat. posted Sat Sep 23 2006 19:16:13 by MSYtristar
Back To The Futur : From Electra To A380 (vid) posted Sat May 13 2006 20:28:41 by Airboeing
When Did DL Switch Back To The More "angled" Logo? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 17:39:15 by Avi8tir
Transbrasil Back To The Air In 2006 posted Sun Jan 29 2006 20:10:50 by TR763
US Looking To Bring Call Center Back To The U.S. posted Thu Dec 8 2005 05:57:24 by SonOfACaptain
Will CO Ever Go Back To The Noon EWR-HKG? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 04:49:09 by Diesel33
Trinidad & Tobago Back To Cat. I Status posted Fri Aug 5 2005 07:59:28 by MAH4546