CV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1187 posts, RR: 2 Posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2007 times:
What is the urgency in Delta's application for ATL-PVG route authority, when a LAX-PVG authority would appear to be of more value? As there is no US Carrier in the market, a LAX-PVG route would certainly put DL back on the map in the LAX market, and the ATL-China route would be available whenever new authorities are granted. I don't see another carrier ever applying for an ATL:-China authority.
RobertS975 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 967 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1923 times:
ATL vs. LAX is really a dilemma... obviously, ATL would have a much larger feed from connecting flights than LAX would have. But I suspect that much of the market for this flight would originate far enough west of ATL to make the backtracking to ATL impractical. The feed into LAX would be far less, but the demand greater, I suspect.
LawnDart From United States of America, joined May 2005, 1001 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1856 times:
Quoting CV880 (Thread starter): What is the urgency in Delta's application for ATL-PVG route authority, when a LAX-PVG authority would appear to be of more value?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other? ATL provides DL with far greater connecting passenger opportunities (including from Latin America), while LAX probably has stronger O&D, but far less connections on DL. So, ATL it is...
And, no, probably no other airline would apply for ATL-Shanghai (or anywhere in China), but it is not city specific rights that are at stake, but limited US-China rights. DL is probably a shoe-in for the first award (2007) as basically the only non-incumbent to apply for the first award. The next couple of awards will go to incumbents, and should be more interesting from a "my service would be more beneficial than yours" perspective.
LAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 8073 posts, RR: 25
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1800 times:
Quoting LawnDart (Reply 2): Six of one, half a dozen of the other? ATL provides DL with far greater connecting passenger opportunities (including from Latin America), while LAX probably has stronger O&D, but far less connections on DL. So, ATL it is...
I would imagine that the biggest advantage would be filling the planes to Latin America. Its not like Florida, the South, or ATL itself is going to fill the planes. But given ATL is a good gateway to Latin America, this could be what drives it.
The local market in Los Angeles is many many times the size of ATL for China, but you are correct. The connections will win this one.
CV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1187 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
It appears to me a "prime" opportunity to "snare" the LAX market before another carrier has the chance, whereas the ATL market will be there for the taking at anytime in the future. True ATL is THE Hub for the Southeast, but it's not the only gateway for the Southeast to China. UA does have codeshare with US from CLT, which is basically one stop service from CLT to anywhere in Asia where UA flies. On the other hand there are numerous one-stop alternatives from many cities in the southeast via ORD on both UA & AA. DL /ATL is the logical choice for pax in GA/AL/FL/TN/SC, but anywhere north or west of that area involves some "backhaul", and is probably just as easy to connect via ORD or SFO with greater choices of destinations.
All I'm trying to say is that the LAX opportunity may never be there again after this round.