Aviateur From United States, joined Apr 2004, 881 posts, RR: 11 Posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 7068 times:
With its newly inaugurated service to Australia, Delta thus becomes the first U.S. airline in over 20 years to operate scheduled passengers service to all six continents simultaneously (no haggling about Antarctica, please).
For two decades, membership in the vaunted Six Continent Club ( as it was dubbed by yours truly, http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/03/askthepilot172 ) has been the exclusive province of a small handful of Asian, European, and Middle Eastern carriers. Delta becomes the first U.S. member since the legendary Pan Am. And it achieves this status, by the way, independently of any routes from Northwest, with whom it is in the process of merging.
As for why the average American citizen might care, let's go back for a moment to the weeks and months following the terrorist attacks of 2001. As a nation we were becoming increasingly withdrawn and insular, at times xenophobic, and the nation's airlines curtailed many international routes. One of Delta's first moves, for example, was the elimination of Dubai and Cairo from its network. If on one hand this made sense for the bottom line, it struck me as counterintuitive to the long-term sensitivities of geopolitics -- and was furthermore anathema to everything I believe in as an pilot and avid traveler.
Well, that was then. The turnaround has been fairly unprecedented. The effects of the ongoing economic malaise notwithstanding -- and indeed they are serious -- Americans have turned out to be a lot less squeamish than I had feared. And Delta more than anybody has been taking advantage. It is back to Cairo and Dubai, not to mention routes into Jordan, Israel, and several cities in sub-Saharan Africa.
Prior to 2006, the total number of African cities served by * any * major U.S. airline stood at exactly zero, and had been that way for 15 years.
In celebrating this, we need to take pride not only in ourselves, as citizens, but in our airlines as well. That's a very tough task for the average disgruntled traveler, but love them or hate them, airlines are more than mere corporations. They operate, in a sense, as de-factor ambassadors, carrying the flag -- and us -- to the world's far corners. Pan Am did this with an almost mythic dignity and flair, its trademark once as globally recognized as that of Coca-Cola. That will never be matched in quite the same way, but give credit where it's due.
Everybody hold hands now and feel the love...
Okay, maybe I'm too romantic, and possibly delusional, but hopefully you'll see my point. It’s so easy to take flying for granted, but how can a traveler not appreciate the fact that countries and cultures, separated by once-insurmountable distances, are now so eminently connectable? And it’s the airplane -- these beautiful machines -- that make it happen. Flying to all the continents? No matter which ever airline gets your money, it's a rediscovery of adventure -- the thrill of striking out somewhere new. Isn’t that what travel is all about? Isn’t that what airplanes are for?
The other Six Continent Club Members, last I knew...
British Airways
Emirates
Malaysia Airlines (still?)
And.... who am I missing?
Patrick Smith
Patrick Smith is a 767 first officer, air travel columnist and author
Extspotter From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 866 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6185 times:
I thought TUI group, however as a single entity, they no longer serve Oceania after Corsairfly pulled out of New Caledonia, but were in the past. At the moment both Corsairfly and Thomson Airways are in the 5 continent club, which was something I wasn't expecting.
This is going to come down to definitions, but French Polynesia is not on a continent. Australia is a continent, Oceania is a region. If we count Air France because it flies to French Polynesia, we should also count Virgin Atlantic because it flies to Tobago (which I would argue is closer both physically and culturally to South America than French Polynesia is to Australia)...
Obviously this is a bit of a stretch too, but you could argue Qantas flies to all seven continents (assuming you subscribe to the seven continent model) if you count the sightseeing flights to Antarctica. Granted, these are offered by a travel agency (Croydon Travel) and not by Qantas themselves, and the aircraft doesn't land there, but you definitely descend over the continent, and it is about as close as someone can get to Antarctica in a commercial flight...
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
WorldTraveler From United States, joined Aug 2003, 6778 posts, RR: 30 Reply 14, posted (5 months 2 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4734 times:
Considering the US is the largest economy in the world with the most diverse population and the largest air travel market, it seems quite appropriate that a US carrier should be a member of the six continent club.
The fact that it is Delta Air Lines (three words), the least "chosen" of the current big 3 based on the routes received early in its history, it is clearly remarkable indeed. DL has had a long history of being a global airline and has now achieved it. DL has built a global network based on a lot of expansion which still has allowed DL to achieve this position despite pulling back a number of routes because of the current economic downturn. Even before the NW merger and this year's international expansion, DL flew more route miles than any other airline in the world.
Well done, Delta!
Where in the world does Delta fly? Just about anywhere you want. (used in DL ad campaigns after the PA asset acquisition).
BA744PHX From United States, joined Sep 2007, 254 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4512 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 14):
Where in the world does Delta fly? Just about anywhere you want. (used in DL ad campaigns after the PA asset acquisition).
^^^ yawn..... and you would have to go all out of your way to ATL just to get there... not the best deal I would say for more then half of the USA
Flykal From Australia, joined Sep 2003, 435 posts, RR: 5 Reply 16, posted (5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4484 times:
Quoting Aviateur (Thread starter): No matter which ever airline gets your money, it's a rediscovery of adventure -- the thrill of striking out somewhere new. Isn’t that what travel is all about? Isn’t that what airplanes are for?
NIcely said. People may often think that flying in an airplane is like taking a bus (and in certain parts of the world, that may be true), but one should never forget the remarkable development and advancement of the airplane over the past 30 - 40 years and what that now allows us to achieve - whether it be as passengers or freight.
[Edited 2009-07-05 05:49:03]
One doesn't discover new lands without consenting to lose sight of the shore for a very long time
Klkla From United States, joined Jul 2004, 481 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (5 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4421 times:
Quoting BA744PHX (Reply 15): ^^^ yawn..... and you would have to go all out of your way to ATL just to get there... not the best deal I would say for more then half of the USA
Not really true... Most European and African routes are served from JFK which is not out of the way for about 95% of the country... Most South American routes are served from ATL which is not out of the way for about 90% of the country... The new Australian route is served from LAX which is not out of the way for 100% of the country... and the Asian hub is served from SEA, SLC, SFO, LAX, MSP, DTW, ATL and JFK which is also pretty damned convenient, isn't it?
Jfk777 From United States, joined Aug 2006, 3476 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4170 times:
Delta has managed to do what merger mania in teh USA hasn't achieved until now. In 1988 then Pan Am CEO Tom Plaskett tried to merge with NW, to give Pan AM Asian routes again, it didn't happen. The next year NW was buyout in an LBO by a group of investors including KLM, where the famous alliance started. Delta has a from the Northwest merger gotten a presence everywhere, Japan especially. One thing I love about teh NW merger often ignored is the strong presence at LHR; JFK, ATL, MSP and DTW are now served from London's premier airport. Delta has done two great things though, its ATL is second to none for connectoins and turned Atl into a "Miami north" for Latin America.
Delta has always been a world-class carrier, with this merger and integration with NW, Delta truly gets to expand its horizons globally and provide an excellent service.
Quoting BA744PHX (Reply 15): and you would have to go all out of your way to ATL just to get there... not the best deal I would say for more then half of the USA
ATL is a very easy airport to get to, and it is very easy to connect in ATL on Delta or any other carrier.
Atlanta
Welcome To The New Delta- The World's Largest Airline
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3141 posts, RR: 14 Reply 25, posted (5 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4124 times:
Quoting Atlanta (Reply 24): Delta has always been a world-class carrier, with this merger and integration with NW
With all due respect, and in all seriousness, when has Delta ever been a world class carrier? What are you comparing it relative to to arrive at that judgment?
Atlanta From United States, joined Jun 2008, 471 posts, RR: 1 Reply 26, posted (5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4647 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 25): With all due respect, and in all seriousness, when has Delta ever been a world class carrier? What are you comparing it relative to to arrive at that judgment?
A solid Business class, expanding into Africa before any other U.S. carrier had tried again, opening new successful routes in Africa, South America, Australia, Asia and Europe. Delta has always had a good product, better than some/many European airlines by my standards.
Atlanta
Welcome To The New Delta- The World's Largest Airline
Danfearn77 From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2008, 1236 posts, RR: 13 Reply 27, posted (5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4562 times:
Quoting Kdonohue (Reply 12): Hate to be picky, but Oceania is not a continent, it's a geographical region. Unless AF serves Australia then it can't claim the six continents club.
The continent is Australasia. But that is a by-topic, i hate it when it turns into a continent arguement!!
Well done to Delta anyway
If at first you dont succeed, remove all evidence you ever tried.
Coalways From United States, joined Feb 2008, 229 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (5 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4539 times:
Quoting Atlanta (Reply 26): new successful routes in Africa, South America, Australia, Asia and Europe
Ummm successful routes have u seen the list of longhual routes they cute?
PVG, ICN, BOM, CPT, DKR. DL has grown there network to fast and is now slashing away routes by the week. Sure Airlines will start routes and some will be profitable but DL Just start all these routes that make me question there stragery. DL is a good airline but there tryin to be any and everything to everybody and it hasnt worked except fro m the few people on Airliners.net. They need to focus more on makeing money instead of were adding 28 cities in 28 days spill then later CUT them cuz there plans didnt work.
Either way, it is not DL's fault, the economy proved the routes were not right in these times. DL could/should try these when there is more demand in a better economy. At least DL is trying, unlike many other airlines in this economy.
Atlanta
Welcome To The New Delta- The World's Largest Airline
VirginFlyer From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4316 posts, RR: 54 Reply 30, posted (5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4298 times:
Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 21): You can't count the Antarctica flights- AR/LA/QF all fly over it- none land on it
I agree, although I was not referring to regular flights that overfly the Antarctic continent but rather the Antarctic sightseeing charters which operate Sydney/Melbourne-Antarctica-Sydney/Melbourne. See the link I posted in reply 10: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Quoting Danfearn77 (Reply 27): The continent is Australasia. But that is a by-topic, i hate it when it turns into a continent arguement!!
I'm going to disagree with you there - Australasia is a term used to describe Australia and New Zealand (as opposed to Oceania which includes the Pacific Islands as well). Having lived in both countries on a long term basis, I can assure you that in this part of the world New Zealand is not considered to be part of the Australian continent, but is part of Australasia (much to the annoyance of NZ when someone from that country does something special, and Australia quickly claim them as "Australasian") and Oceania. I agree though, the continent argument is all a bit annoying, and subjective to a certain extent.
You'd also have to ask, if I set up an airline that flies to 6 destinations only, one each in North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, does that make the airline any grander than an airline which flies to a hundred international destinations? Personally if I was considering a measure of the global scale of an airline, I think the number of international destinations, or the number of countries, might be more instructive. I don't suppose anyone knows which airlines would satisfy that bill?
V/F
Dream no small dream; it lacks magic. Dream large. Then make the dream real. - Donald Douglas Snr
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (5 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 4281 times:
Ummm Delta is a world class carrier. They have beeen running a hub that EVERY airline envies and tries to copy ala DUBAI. Yes the soft product can always be improved but they have a stellar maintenance record, very very good technology, a motivated work force( iknow it wasnt always that way), and a thurst to try and improve. Just because a carrier has a suite in first or biz doesn't make it a world class carrier. There is alot of other factors often ignored that go into it.
Danfearn77 From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2008, 1236 posts, RR: 13 Reply 34, posted (5 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3885 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 30): I'm going to disagree with you there - Australasia is a term used to describe Australia and New Zealand (as opposed to Oceania which includes the Pacific Islands as well).
Just quoting Mrs Morgan. My trusted georgraphy teacher!
Seriously though, in school over here, certainly up to 16yr old it is referred to as Australasia. Certainly in all instances i have heard etc. Its funny, because i remember the older edition books i used for my exams referred to it as Oceania, whereas the newer books which were reprinted around 2002 ish referred to the continent as Australiasia. Anyway....
If at first you dont succeed, remove all evidence you ever tried.
AusA380 From Australia, joined Jan 2009, 41 posts, RR: 0 Reply 35, posted (5 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3756 times:
Australasia and Oceania are not continents. Australia is a continent (the smallest - of note also known as the largest island). Austalasia is generally considered to refer to Australia, New Zealand and South East Asia. Oceania is generally considered to be the countries in the South Pacific region. Neither of these are continents but geographic descriptions.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 3512 posts, RR: 10 Reply 36, posted (5 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 3641 times:
Quoting VirginFlyer (Reply 30):
Quoting ETA Unknown (Reply 21):
You can't count the Antarctica flights- AR/LA/QF all fly over it- none land on it
I agree, although I was not referring to regular flights that overfly the Antarctic continent but rather the Antarctic sightseeing charters which operate Sydney/Melbourne-Antarctica-Sydney/Melbourne. See the link I posted in reply 10: http://www.antarcticaflights.com.au/
Actually none of those flights to South America fly over it... they do fly quite far South however.
The flights VirginFlyer refers to are special flights over Antarctica and they carry special polar equipment on board (survival gear etc).
MilesDependent From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 716 posts, RR: 0 Reply 37, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3414 times:
Quoting AusA380 (Reply 35): Australasia and Oceania are not continents. Australia is a continent (the smallest - of note also known as the largest island). Austalasia is generally considered to refer to Australia, New Zealand and South East Asia. Oceania is generally considered to be the countries in the South Pacific region. Neither of these are continents but geographic descriptions.
Let me play Devil's Advocate. What about the UK, is that part of Europe? Technically I guess it is not.
So if QF ever ditch FRA, they would no longer be part of the Six Continents Club?
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 3512 posts, RR: 10 Reply 38, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 3213 times:
Quoting MilesDependent (Reply 37):
Let me play Devil's Advocate. What about the UK, is that part of Europe? Technically I guess it is not.
Yes it is considered to be part of the Europe continent. All that has happened is that the English Channel has been worn away by glaciers and then the sea. On the other hand New Zealand is quite different in that it is not part of Australia (continent landmass) it is however part of the Indo-Australian Continental plate. NZL is formed by the Pacific and Indo-Australian plate crushing together forming mountains and volcanoes.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 39, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2904 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 14): Considering the US is the largest economy in the world with the most diverse population and the largest air travel market, it seems quite appropriate that a US carrier should be a member of the six continent club.
Good for Delta if they can make it work and good for Oz to dilute the QF monopoloy. However, I don't think your logic follows: Americans are quite modest international travelers compared to many other nations. Germans alone (population 80 million vs US 300) spend more in ABSOLUTE terms than the US on tourism and travel. Many other nations spend significantly more in relative terms (per capita) than Americans, e.g. the French spend more than twice as much as Americans and Brits and Germans 3 or more times. It might be the largest air travel market, but it's almost all domestic. Hence, US airlines lag behind others in product and network reach. The fact that there has been no 6 continent network for a US carrier for some years, is, accordingly no big surprise.
2008 UN Report on Tourism
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
WorldTraveler From United States, joined Aug 2003, 6778 posts, RR: 30 Reply 40, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Quoting BA744PHX (Reply 15): ^^^ yawn..... and you would have to go all out of your way to ATL just to get there... not the best deal I would say for more then half of the USA
Funny, though, DL's ATL hub is probably the highest revenue hub in the US... its size and international reach more than dwarf other hubs which are more "geographically desirable". Apparently this whole geography thing isn't as big of a deal as some think or DL does a heck of a job convincing people it is worth their while to fly out of their way 'cause the Atlanta metro area is far from the largest economies on the planet.
But as has been pointed out, DL has a very well spread out international network and the NW merger makes it even more so.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 39): It might be the largest air travel market, but it's almost all domestic. Hence, US airlines lag behind others in product and network reach
Travel from most other countries is largely international... there are few countries that have travel markets the size of the US that happen to still fall within 3 and 4 hour flights; a flight from a Euro city comparable in length to a US transcon flight will land you on another continent, even given the EU. With the exception of China, the same is true in Asia.
MogandoCI From United States, joined Jun 2009, 221 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2690 times:
Joining the 6-con club is one thing.... being able to sustain LAX-SYD and not axing it within 4 months "due to economic conditions" is another.
Out of the 4 airlines that fly LAX-SYD, DL has the weakest connectivity. UA semi-hubs in LAX. Virgin can connect to both VirginBlue and VirginAmerica. Qantas owns Australia.
DL has what? a shuttle to ATL, another to SLC, a token service to JFK, plus poor brand recognition in Aussie? hardly a recipe for success.
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 42, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2634 times:
I think Delta will be fine. Yes Virgin can connect to Virgin America but where does it fly? A token jfk service and a shuttle service to Sfo? DL has the benefit of the codeshare with Alaska which can pull in feed not to mention DL can hub and feed it through Atlanta and or hub from its other hubs to feed into the LA flight. It can offer infinitely more seats then Virgin America ever could into LA to feed its flights. You are right about Qantas and United. But if its such a market owned by Qantas then VAustralia wouldn't even be around let alone from the Qantas fortress hub of Sydney. I doubt DL will cut the route, hell Sydney and Australia as a whole, is a different ballgame then say Monrovia, Kuwait, or Abuja. Give it a chance. If anything I could see United leaving the route because it can and does do it from SFO which is definitely a hub for them.
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 43, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2617 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 39): Good for Delta if they can make it work and good for Oz to dilute the QF monopoloy. However, I don't think your logic follows: Americans are quite modest international travelers compared to many other nations. Germans alone (population 80 million vs US 300) spend more in ABSOLUTE terms than the US on tourism and travel. Many other nations spend significantly more in relative terms (per capita) than Americans, e.g. the French spend more than twice as much as Americans and Brits and Germans 3 or more times. It might be the largest air travel market, but it's almost all domestic. Hence, US airlines lag behind others in product and network reach. The fact that there has been no 6 continent network for a US carrier for some years, is, accordingly no big surprise.
American are quite modest international travelers primarily because no nation on Earth can match the diversity of domestic attractions that the U.S. offers. And the ease and affordability of domestic U.S. travel has made it incredibly attractive to Americans.
The reasons that U.S. carriers have lagged behind some international carriers in terms of product and even network reach has far more to do with 30 years of cutthroat deregulation that has led to instability and over US$50 billion in cumulative losses for the industry. Investing in premium class lounges on board aircraft is a questionable decision when you can't even afford to invest in the aircraft in the first place. Investing in risky network moves is much the same story.
The fact is that the U.S. had two carriers that served the "global" role for most of the history of the industry. However, they both failed. The survivors have spent the last couple of decades trying to transition themselves from smaller domestic or even regional carriers into global players. They are doing so in the face of the 30 years of LCC penetration into their core markets.
It is interesting to note that none of the existing U.S. carriers has any history of being a "global" carrier until just the past 20 years or so (at the same time their finances failed, coincidentally). While carriers such as LH, BA, AF, JL, QF, and SQ have had global connectivity as their model for decades. Those non-U.S. carriers also had little competition for that mantle in their home country, while the U.S. carriers were vying with each other for that role.
I'll also note that the geographic location of the U.S. does not lend itself well to capturing the major international (non-U.S. O&D) traffic flows. For example, FRA is well located to connect NYC to BOM, but NYC primarily only connects FRA with domestic U.S. markets. Hence, LH benefits from the opportunity to provide more long-haul connections than U.S. carriers can provide over JFK. As a result, LH competes in more long-haul, premium O&D markets than a U.S. carrier could. And therefore needs a superior product.
I've said this many times in the past. We've just seen the glory years of most of the world's "premier" carriers. Reduced barriers to entry, increased competition from LCC's, and lower cost network rivals (including many U.S. carriers) are among the many factors that will cause the the disappearance and/or radical restructuring of the global network airline industry. What has been happening in the U.S. for years is now starting to take hold in other parts of the world. The reduction of premium travel demand puts the SQ/CX/QF's of the world in a more difficult position. QF knows this full well, hence JetStar. LH and AF know it well too, and are trying desperately to position themselves for the new future.
Already, the IFE and seating industries are expecting major reductions in purchases as carriers deescalate the product "arms race". Carriers like DL and UA are improving their product at the same time that most others are deciding that further investment is not a priority. That will lead to a leveling of the playing field, to some extent.
The U.S. carriers certainly lag behind the premier global carriers in many areas of product. However, the reasons you give are disputable. And they've lagged behind in network reach primarily because there are more major U.S. international carriers competing with each other for the network assets to make that strategy work. (IE...a major NYC presence is very important, but difficult and expensive to develop). That is now changing however, and the first result is the new Delta.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 44, posted (5 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2547 times:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 43):
American are quite modest international travelers primarily because no nation on Earth can match the diversity of domestic attractions that the U.S. offers.
Yawn, A patriotic opinion. Inbound tourist stats don't necessarily support this view.
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 43): The reasons that U.S. carriers have lagged behind some international carriers in terms of product and even network reach has far more to do with 30 years of cutthroat deregulation that has led to instability and over US$50 billion in cumulative losses for the industry.
Again, some good patriotic support of the industry, but most honest insiders have admitted that the US industry has become autistic and needs new blood from foreign airline management who have presided over recent successful operations to bring some radical changes. They can't continue to cry 'victim' for decades.
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 43): It is interesting to note that none of the existing U.S. carriers has any history of being a "global" carrier until just the past 20 years or so (at the same time their finances failed, coincidentally). While carriers such as LH, BA, AF, JL, QF, and SQ have had global connectivity as their model for decades. Those non-U.S. carriers also had little competition for that mantle in their home country, while the U.S. carriers were vying with each other for that role.
BA, QF and JL all have faced stiff competition at home and on international routes from domestic players. US airlines are not victims of an unviable international market, but of a history of mismanagement. Opportunity would seem to exist for more effective players.
As for pressure on premium carriers, that obviously happens in every major economic crisis. We are currently in arguably the biggest of the last 80 years. Nonetheless, many carriers continue to launch new routes and new products. The market and these carriers as whole are not just at a lower level of evolution to becoming American style airlines as it sometimes suggested by the US market with its particular problems.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 45, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2370 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 44): Yawn, A patriotic opinion. Inbound tourist stats don't necessarily support this view.
Then please share these "stats". If Americans don't travel internationally, and don't travel domestically, where do they travel? How does a nation with just 300 million people manage to be the largest air travel market in the world? I'm very curious.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 44):
Again, some good patriotic support of the industry, but most honest insiders have admitted that the US industry has become autistic and needs new blood from foreign airline management who have presided over recent successful operations to bring some radical changes. They can't continue to cry 'victim' for decades.
Who are these "honest insiders? I'm an "insider". I'm "honest".
So you are claiming that only foreign airline management can rescue U.S. airline from their self-destructive ways? What a load of garbage. Which of these successful operations should U.S. carriers emulate? Which of them have faced the environment that U.S. carriers have faced for 30 years?
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 44): BA, QF and JL all have faced stiff competition at home and on international routes from domestic players. US airlines are not victims of an unviable international market, but of a history of mismanagement. Opportunity would seem to exist for more effective players.
Exactly how well has BA done since losing its cozy anti-competitive virtual monopoly at LHR? Here is how well:
QF had to start an entirely new discount airline to to adapt to a rapidly changing environment, despite a home country monopoly on key international routes from Australia.
And JAL needs a US$1 billion government bailout.
Those carriers are now facing storms similar to what U.S. carriers have faced for three decades. The interesting thing is, I'd argue that U.S. carriers are actually extremely well-managed. So would this guy...
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3141 posts, RR: 14 Reply 46, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2298 times:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 43): American are quite modest international travelers primarily because no nation on Earth can match the diversity of domestic attractions that the U.S. offers
I would disagree with that as any sort of major reason......a large percentage of Americans don't travel much, if at all, outside their own state so the 'diversity' aspect would immediately be in doubt. From my own years of experience it has more to do with a protectionism mentality and that, sadly, a large percentage have little knowledge/interest of anything outside the US.
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 45): I'd argue that U.S. carriers are actually extremely well-managed
What then does one argue would possibly be badly managed??
Notdownnlocked From United States, joined Sep 2000, 879 posts, RR: 2 Reply 47, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2252 times:
A large point missing for this topic is the amount of vacation days per average of each country. The US is usually quite low especially compared to others. If I was afforded so much vacation I too could travel worldwide as well as take care of family and home on numerous days away from work. "http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922052.html"
AirGabon From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 547 posts, RR: 4 Reply 48, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2222 times:
And AF former flights to New Caledonia? It's very near Australia. And for a long period after having bought UTA, AF flew to Australia, NZ, New Caledonia and Wallis Island.
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 49, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2182 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 46): I would disagree with that as any sort of major reason......a large percentage of Americans don't travel much, if at all, outside their own state so the 'diversity' aspect would immediately be in doubt. From my own years of experience it has more to do with a protectionism mentality and that, sadly, a large percentage have little knowledge/interest of anything outside the US.
Love your use of facts and data here. Very convincing. A "large percentage" of Chinese people are poor. I guess that means that the Chinese have no money. Come on.
If you think American's don't travel outside of their own state, you really don't know Americans.
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 46):
What then does one argue would possibly be badly managed??
Sometimes survival in the face of tremendous adversity is actually good management. The gross simplification that U.S. airlines are poorly managed and foreign carriers are expertly managed is just silly. There is a reason that U.S. carriers face fundamentally the same circumstance. It is because the are in fundamentally the same competitive arena, under the same set of conditions.
A reasonable observer of the industry knows that carriers tend to perform relatively similarly to the level of their regional competitors. They rise and fall with the tide. European carriers tend to do well at the same time and the tend to do poorly at the same time (now, for instance). Macro-economic factors drive most of the fortunes of this industry. The macro-economics of the U.S. industry has been abysmal for basically 30 years. This is partly due to the relative maturity of the U.S. air travel market. Carriers are fighting over a pie that isn't expanding like it is in other parts of the world.
For example, E.U. carriers have had growth related to the breakdown of traditional barriers to travel between member states as well as Europe's prime location as a transit point between the Americas and the fast-growing economies of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, India and Africa. So European carriers have participated in growth beyond what their home markets could support.
U.S. carriers, however, don't have the same geographic advantage. What transit traffic they did enjoy has been run off by an over-zealous security mentality post-9/11. So the U.S. is now basically and Origin or a Destination, but not a transit point. As a result, U.S. carriers don't get to take part in the rapid growth that has elevated so many world carriers (and shielded them from the coming reality).
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2096 times:
The statement that US citizens dont travel beyond there own state is absolutely ridiculous. If that was the case I-75 I-20 and I-85 or I-95 wouldn't be some of the most transited thoroughfares for travel. Point blank. The fact is that Us citizens as has been stated have a huge dynamic attractions and places to choose from which does not neccsistate the need for international travel. Just here in GA people go to Florida Tennesse N and S Carolina and all over. Plus throw in the carribean which is a 2 -3 hour flight away and the compelling drive to fly to the comoros or places like that diminish. It has nothing to do with patriotism it has to do with facts.
I think the desire to travel internationally is changing in this country but its still cost prohibitive for the average family of 5. Plus i think some are still intimidated by the larger world. But that to will change with education.
Honestly I don't think any foreign carrier could run a US carrier any better. It is a much different ballgame and not to mention there are some very very well trained management people running carriers today. Honestly I think we have to to many carriers of the same scope and size. Consolidation really needs to happen for the US industry to correct itself. 2-3 Major legacy carriers and 3-4 LCC's could do the trick.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 51, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1955 times:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 43): American are quite modest international travelers primarily because no nation on Earth can match the diversity of domestic attractions that the U.S. offers.
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 45): Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 44):
Yawn, A patriotic opinion. Inbound tourist stats don't necessarily support this view.
Then please share these "stats". If Americans don't travel internationally, and don't travel domestically, where do they travel? How does a nation with just 300 million people manage to be the largest air travel market in the world? I'm very curious.
Stats: World Tourism Organization Barometer 2008 (link below)
p13 Tourist spend by country for 2007: take only the top 20 EU countries vs the US. Europeans spend 500% of the total US amount (even if you correct for a slightly larger population, the amount is still around 400% of the US spend). Proves point 1.
p1-5 Tourist International arrivals to Europe 484 million; to the US 56 million
Never said Americans didn't travel domestically, just that the US not the world's most attractive tourist destination as a country as you have stated.(France alone has 81million arrivals).
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 45):
So you are claiming that only foreign airline management can rescue U.S. airline from their self-destructive ways?
Yes I am. This time it's just the fact that both in boom and bust economic circumstances for more than a decade, US airlines just go in and out of Ch 11 and I'm not convinced that that is their only possible fate, yet not US airline exec seems to manage their way out of this hole.
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 45): Exactly how well has BA done since losing its cozy anti-competitive virtual monopoly at LHR?
Insider that you are, you know as well as I that BA make their money on the premium market which just evaporated in the biggest financial crisis in generations. Immediately prior, as you also know, they made large profits, unlike their US counterparts.
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 45): QF had to start an entirely new discount airline to to adapt to a rapidly changing environment, despite a home country monopoly on key international routes from Australia.
As an Australian, I can tell you that we are not patriotic like Americans when it comes to international air travel and EK and SQ are favourites with us. Hence, 'home country monopoly' is moot and no longer true with V Australia on US route.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 52, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1851 times:
Could it be that Emirates and such are not widely know here in the US. Yes there are some who know but there brand recognition is small with the vast majority. This lies with the carriers not being aggressive with marketing. If the marketing is stronger then the people will flow to them. But you cant just target NYC LAX and ORD and think that is sufficient. You have to also target the south and the heartland and all points in between.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 53, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1823 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 40): Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 39):
It might be the largest air travel market, but it's almost all domestic. Hence, US airlines lag behind others in product and network reach
Travel from most other countries is largely international... there are few countries that have travel markets the size of the US that happen to still fall within 3 and 4 hour flights; a flight from a Euro city comparable in length to a US transcon flight will land you on another continent, even given the EU. With the exception of China, the same is true in Asia.
Again, air travel in Australia, Russia, China, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Japan, South Africa and numerous other countries is mainly domestic. As the context is DL's inter-CONITINENTAL flight to Oz, the relevant question is American's lack of propensity to travel internationally; the length of domestic flights, as for those in Oz, is moot (PER-SYD is 4+ hrs too). I know it's large in land mass (roughly same as Oz where I come from; yes, that's right, check it (-minus Alaska)), but domestic travel is not the motive of DL's direct to SYD....
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1773 times:
The motive of Delta's Syd route is Connections from the entire DL network which yes is far more vast then Qantas and so thus the oppurtunity for potential passengers is great 2. to capture Domestic traffic from east of the Mississippi and the west coast via O&D in LAX area and via its own network and from Alaska Airlines codeshare and 3. like it or not to be able to fill a whole for skyteam and in their own network. Nothing is wrong or bad with any of the 3 reasons stated. This whole Delta who do they think they are, or they are awful for trying to fly to 6 continents etc mentality and attitude I for the life of me can not stand. Is it Because its Delta or would it be the same if it was Continental trying it or America which btw should have been doing this years ago or cause its not southwest or Jetblue. Im just really honestly curious.
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 10982 posts, RR: 13 Reply 55, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1769 times:
Quoting Aviateur (Thread starter): They operate, in a sense, as de-factor ambassadors, carrying the flag -- and us -- to the world's far corners. Pan Am did this with an almost mythic dignity and flair
But it doesn't make sense to fly to the world's far corners while losing millions of dollars doing it. Pan Am had very few solidly-profitable years during their entire existence, which is one of many reasons why they no longer exist..
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 56, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1769 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 51):
p13 Tourist spend by country for 2007: take only the top 20 EU countries vs the US. Europeans spend 500% of the total US amount (even if you correct for a slightly larger population, the amount is still around 400% of the US spend). Proves point 1.
p1-5 Tourist International arrivals to Europe 484 million; to the US 56 million
Completely disingenuous argument. Your data is for INTERNATIONAL tourism. Somebody crossing from Luxembourg to France is included in that data. But someone traveling from new York to Hawaii for vacation is not. Apples to Oranges, my friend.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 51):
Never said Americans didn't travel domestically, just that the US not the world's most attractive tourist destination as a country as you have stated.(France alone has 81million arrivals).
I never said the US was the "world's most attractive tourist destination". I said:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 43):
American are quite modest international travelers primarily because no nation on Earth can match the diversity of domestic attractions that the U.S. offers. And the ease and affordability of domestic U.S. travel has made it incredibly attractive to Americans.
This means that most of the 300 million Americans travel domestically for vacation because the options are so great. Whether it is the volcanoes of Hawaii, the attractions of Walt Disney World, the casinos in Las Vegas, the whale watching in Alaska, the sights of the Grand Canyon, the skiing of Colorado or the city bustle of New York...there is simply more destination diversity in the U.S. than any country on Earth. That means that many Americans don't feel the need to cross a national border to go on vacation.
If you are going to continue using INTERNATIONAL statistics, we simply aren't going to agree. A Californian visiting New York has just as much (or more) impact on the New York economy than and Belgian visiting Paris.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 51): Yes I am. This time it's just the fact that both in boom and bust economic circumstances for more than a decade, US airlines just go in and out of Ch 11 and I'm not convinced that that is their only possible fate, yet not US airline exec seems to manage their way out of this hole.
Well you know nothing about the U.S. airline industry my friend. The idea that EVERY U.S. airline has been mismanaged since 1979 is just lazy thinking. U.S. airlines invented most of the tools and business concepts used by airline mangers...frequent flyer programs, revenue management systems, scheduling systems, GDS systems. Hell, the LCC was invented in the U.S. The people running U.S. airlines are as smart and capable as anywhere in the world. There is certainly no place on earth where managers are MORE sophisticated. It's simply a matter of operating under extremely challenging circumstances...many of which are unique to the U.S. market.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 51): Insider that you are, you know as well as I that BA make their money on the premium market which just evaporated in the biggest financial crisis in generations. Immediately prior, as you also know, they made large profits, unlike their US counterparts.
Oh so now you are saying that outside forces can affect performance? My friend, the premium travel market in the U.S. disappeared in 1979. See how long BA holds out if this slump lasts 30 years.
BA's large profits had far more to do with their quasi-monopoly at LHR. Do you think it is a coincidence that their performance tanked when LHR opened up to U.S. carriers?
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 53): As the context is DL's inter-CONITINENTAL flight to Oz, the relevant question is American's lack of propensity to travel internationally; the length of domestic flights, as for those in Oz, is moot (PER-SYD is 4+ hrs too). I know it's large in land mass (roughly same as Oz where I come from; yes, that's right, check it (-minus Alaska)), but domestic travel is not the motive of DL's direct to SYD....
Not even remotely the same scenario. Australia's population is barely half that of California. And the, despite the the size of the country, the population isn't remotely dispersed across the landmass.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 57, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1735 times:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 56): Well you know nothing about the U.S. airline industry my friend. The idea that EVERY U.S. airline has been mismanaged since 1979 is just lazy thinking. U.S. airlines invented most of the tools and business concepts used by airline mangers...frequent flyer programs, revenue management systems, scheduling systems, GDS systems. Hell, the LCC was invented in the U.S. The people running U.S. airlines are as smart and capable as anywhere in the world. There is certainly no place on earth where managers are MORE sophisticated. It's simply a matter of operating under extremely challenging circumstances...many of which are unique to the U.S. market.
Only results speak for themselves. All my life I have heard from Americans how they lead the world in business and how we should listen and learn. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Saying it don't make it so. BA are suffering a caning right now. Most are unlikely to go and ask their advice therefore on how to run an airline. This has been the case in the US for over a decade. Hence my opinion.
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 56): If you are going to continue using INTERNATIONAL statistics, we simply aren't going to agree.
Again, the context is DL's international market (not domestic). The likelihood of Americans to travel internationally is entirely relevent to the subject at hand. The flight is to Oz. I know as well as you that the US domestic travel market cannot be directly compared with that of Europe. We are talking international here and the demand for DL's new flight.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 58, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1718 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 57): Again, the context is DL's international market (not domestic). The likelihood of Americans to travel internationally is entirely relevent to the subject at hand. The flight is to Oz. I know as well as you that the US domestic travel market cannot be directly compared with that of Europe. We are talking international here and the demand for DL's new flight.
Once again Delta has 3 factors to pull from but keeping it international for a sec. They can connect pax from the entirety of the international network to this flight. The option is available plus im sure that in an indirect way the relationship with Air France could help this endeavor. CDG-LAX-SYD or even AMS-LAX-CDG could be options if the fares and times are correct.
The simple fact that you think American business isn't worth anything is craziness and you know it. All business has emulated the American biz style for the last 100 years. Not to mention in terms of productivity the American work force and biz put in more hours and produce more then any country. Yes are we tired and worn out hell yes lol but we work hard. Yes there are talented mangers and workers over seas who could bring new ideas on somethings but they are certainly no better then there US counterparts.
DFWEagle From United States, joined Dec 2006, 382 posts, RR: 0 Reply 59, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1699 times:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 45): Exactly how well has BA done since losing its cozy anti-competitive virtual monopoly at LHR?
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 56): BA's large profits had far more to do with their quasi-monopoly at LHR. Do you think it is a coincidence that their performance tanked when LHR opened up to U.S. carriers?
Come on, are you seriously claiming that BA’s sudden change in fortunes is entirely due to US-EU open skies, and nothing to do with the global economic downturn and banking crisis???
Their CEO himself claimed that banks previously accounted for 40% of their premium traffic, and that traffic has collapsed with the recent recession. Plus, BA is hardly the only airline to be in financial trouble at the moment.
Sure, open skies might have had an impact, but there are other industry-wide problems that have had a bigger effect.
Also, why did BA have a “virtual/quasi-monopoly” at LHR, when there were FOUR carriers authorised to serve Heathrow and BA had less than half the LHR-USA market?
Conti764 From Belgium, joined Dec 2007, 103 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1685 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 14): Considering the US is the largest economy in the world with the most diverse population and the largest air travel market,
Not to be picky on details, but two out of three are wrong. The EU economy is larger than the US economy and the EU has a more diverse population. It's different off course if you're talking about single countries, but overall the EU is seen as one economy.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 62, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1661 times:
Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 59): Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 45):
Exactly how well has BA done since losing its cozy anti-competitive virtual monopoly at LHR?
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 56):
BA's large profits had far more to do with their quasi-monopoly at LHR. Do you think it is a coincidence that their performance tanked when LHR opened up to U.S. carriers?
Come on, are you seriously claiming that BA’s sudden change in fortunes is entirely due to US-EU open skies, and nothing to do with the global economic downturn and banking crisis???
Their CEO himself claimed that banks previously accounted for 40% of their premium traffic, and that traffic has collapsed with the recent recession. Plus, BA is hardly the only airline to be in financial trouble at the moment.
Sure, open skies might have had an impact, but there are other industry-wide problems that have had a bigger effect.
At last some reality is returning to the discussion.
Quoting Atlwest1 (Reply 58): The simple fact that you think American business isn't worth anything is craziness and you know it. All business has emulated the American biz style for the last 100 years. Not to mention in terms of productivity the American work force and biz put in more hours and produce more then any country. Yes are we tired and worn out hell yes lol but we work hard. Yes there are talented mangers and workers over seas who could bring new ideas on somethings but they are certainly no better then there US counterparts.
Never said American business was worthless, but it's revealing that I'm interpreted that way. A perfect example of the the unself-critical insularity that I'm referring to: "regardless of the state of our air industry, it is self evident that we are, have been and will be, intrinsically superior in business and no foreigner can compete or teach us and we don't need to check, we just know: it is thus our birthright.... ". I'm not saying any other country is intrinsically better either. I just call this attitude for what it is (BTW, France has exactly the same productivity per hour worked as the United States: OECD Productivity Database 2009).
But when all is said and done, as I said in my first post, I'm glad to see DL on this route and hope they can contribute toward breaking QF's monopoly and bring down prices whilst maintaining service levels. Well done, in any case, and with very nice new metal.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 2263 posts, RR: 11 Reply 63, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1631 times:
I would just like to add something here regarding the US market.
It hasn't been allowed to reach equalibrium. Two things. Firstly Chap 11 has
allowed a certain amount of carriers that should have been liquidated to remain in
the market place, distorting the competitive playing field by forcing better run companies
to endure financial hardship after competing with companies...(and unions too) who haven't
always acted rationally.
2 - the US government has stood in the way of the natural solution to many of these issues for most of the time... it's prevented most largescale mergers. Consolidation would have achieved an increase in yeilds in many markets with prices kept in check by LCC"s. However that isn't good politics because consumers want everything for next to nothing.
This Ultra competetive environment that is being spoke of is really a symptom of a prelonged market failure. The goverment and the unions are equally to blame as much as the airlines themselves. In other industries what generally happens after such a period is some players are removed from the market. If new ones come they won't put themselves in the same shoes as the old ones that have failed... they know its a death sentence. (and their staff do too so they won't push for things the company can't afford).
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 64, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1619 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 57): Only results speak for themselves. All my life I have heard from Americans how they lead the world in business and how we should listen and learn. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Saying it don't make it so. BA are suffering a caning right now. Most are unlikely to go and ask their advice therefore on how to run an airline. This has been the case in the US for over a decade. Hence my opinion.
So who will you ask advice from this year? Are the people that LH dumber this year than last? AF? And since the U.S. carriers are generally projected to have a stronger year than carriers in most other regions...are U.S. carrier managers smarter in 2009?
I'm not at all disparaging the managers of airlines from other regions. You are the one doing the disparaging. In fact, I generally think the the talent levels at the top of the world's largest airlines are quite comparable. Which is why I suggest that U.S. airlines aren't poorly managed.
Perhaps you should read this article I posted earlier and you'll have a better idea what I am talking about...
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 57): Again, the context is DL's international market (not domestic). The likelihood of Americans to travel internationally is entirely relevent to the subject at hand. The flight is to Oz. I know as well as you that the US domestic travel market cannot be directly compared with that of Europe. We are talking international here and the demand for DL's new flight.
No matter what % of population is likely to travel across borders, the absolute number of U.S. citizens who travel abroad is probably higher than any other nation. With 300+ million people, that is just naturally so. Are you suggesting that France or Britain or Australia sends more people across borders ON HOLIDAY than the U.S.? Are you suggesting that the U.S. is not capable of generating enough additional outbound traffic to support a 250-seat 777? Please.
Quoting DFWEagle (Reply 59):
Come on, are you seriously claiming that BA’s sudden change in fortunes is entirely due to US-EU open skies, and nothing to do with the global economic downturn and banking crisis???
Their CEO himself claimed that banks previously accounted for 40% of their premium traffic, and that traffic has collapsed with the recent recession. Plus, BA is hardly the only airline to be in financial trouble at the moment.
Sure, open skies might have had an impact, but there are other industry-wide problems that have had a bigger effect.
Also, why did BA have a “virtual/quasi-monopoly” at LHR, when there were FOUR carriers authorised to serve Heathrow and BA had less than half the LHR-USA market?
I didn't mean to infer that the quasi-monopoly was the sole reason for BA's recent slide. Of course, the implosion of Premium demand was a major factor. In combination, they are very damaging. My entire point was that there are many factors outside the control of carriers that affect their financial performance. In general, U.S. carriers have been subjected to a harsher competitive climate for the past 30 years than most foreign flag carriers. Right now, the rest of the world is facing some of the issues the U.S. carriers have been dealing with more heavily for a decade. Which is why we are seeing mergers, cost-cutting, carriers-within-carriers, etc...occurring around the world.
Regarding LHR...Having only four home country carriers serving the largest and historically most lucrative international O&D in the world is not a competitive situation. UA was/is weak in the market. VS has virtually no beyond LHR flow and BA/AA are in the same alliance. A market that big was heavily shielded from competition, particularly new entrant competition which is more likely to lower fares. This is obviously true because BA fought against the opening up of LHR so hard. Now, despite the high price of slots, there are more competitors offering more service in the U.S.-LHR market. Just as AirTran's growth at ATL damaged Delta's competitive position there, new entrants at LHR are having the same effect.
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 65, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1603 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 63):
This Ultra competetive environment that is being spoke of is really a symptom of a prelonged market failure. The goverment and the unions are equally to blame as much as the airlines themselves. In other industries what generally happens after such a period is some players are removed from the market. If new ones come they won't put themselves in the same shoes as the old ones that have failed... they know its a death sentence. (and their staff do too so they won't push for things the company can't afford).
True. And this has been going on for 30 years.
We see much the same behavior in the E.U. these days. Alitalia. Olympic. Austrian. Etc..
The primary difference is that the EU was not a deregulated air service environment until very recently. The U.S. has been one since 1979. I stand by my point, this story has yet to be played out around the world as it has been in the U.S.
If the U.S. is in Chapter 11 of this story (get it?), Europe is in Chapter 6, Asia/Pacific is in Chapter 2 and the rest of the world has barely opened the book.
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 66, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1546 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 62): Never said American business was worthless, but it's revealing that I'm interpreted that way. A perfect example of the the unself-critical insularity that I'm referring to: "regardless of the state of our air industry, it is self evident that we are, have been and will be, intrinsically superior in business and no foreigner can compete or teach us and we don't need to check, we just know: it is thus our birthright.... ". I'm not saying any other country is intrinsically better either. I just call this attitude for what it is (BTW, France has exactly the same productivity per hour worked as the United States: OECD Productivity Database 2009).
I don't have an insular view far from it. As I stated yes foreign management might be able to teach a few things and might be able to help improve on some aspects however the flowing theme here has been US management bad foreign management is better.
I think US citizens would be somewhat receptive to foreign ownership if they feel the managers get the American individual and will not destroy there way of life. Now you and I both know that 98% of foreign management would seek to do nothing but to improve and enhance a US company if they were allowed to own them, but Joe main street is fearful and in someways rightfully so. Mindset= How can a company based in Frankfurt understand what is going on and the intricaies of Omaha. Its not right or wrong it just needs education on both parts.
Oh and for the comment about the EU economy being larger then the US it might be barely, however it takes 30 plus nations to equal or slightly be higher then just One nation so its a glass half full or empty scenario hehehe. PS Please dont take offense to anything I have written I am not writting it in a mean tone
And yes the new metal on my beast of plane the 77L will be a welcomed addition to the giants of the sky plying the LAX-SYD route. Go DELTA
AirNZ From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3141 posts, RR: 14 Reply 67, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1522 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 14): DL has had a long history of being a global airline and has now achieved it. DL
Sorry, but could you explain that one for me? How could they have had a long history of being a global airline if they have just now achieved it?
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 14): DL flew more route miles than any other airline in the world.
Yeah, wouldn't doubt it........but it means what exactly other than your strange ultra-fascination that 'big' or 'large' has some extraordinary quality to it? But then again, try measuring such in reality by not having virtually every flight go through ATL. Hey! if I went through the centre of Belfast on every single journey I made I could say my car travelled more "route miles" too! As I ask....it means what?
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 68, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1498 times:
Quoting Atlwest1 (Reply 66): Oh and for the comment about the EU economy being larger then the US it might be barely, however it takes 30 plus nations to equal or slightly be higher then just One nation so its a glass half full or empty scenario hehehe. Smile
Again, careful not checking. For what it's worth, the IMF cites the EU economy (not Eurozone which is roughly = to the US economy) as almost 30% larger than that of the US.
For economic strategic planning, policy making and in many cases regulatory and taxation purposes, the EU is a single economy. Noone said it was one country, just one economy. The taxation system in the US has some similarities, with so much of the share being collected by direct and indirect state taxes.
Quoting Atlwest1 (Reply 66): I think US citizens would be somewhat receptive to foreign ownership if they feel the managers get the American individual and will not destroy there way of life. Now you and I both know that 98% of foreign management would seek to do nothing but to improve and enhance a US company if they were allowed to own them, but Joe main street is fearful and in someways rightfully so. Mindset= How can a company based in Frankfurt understand what is going on and the intricaies of Omaha. Its not right or wrong it just needs education on both parts. Smile
The rest of us haven't had any choice for decades as to whether we should be receptive to US ownership or management. Local businesses have frequently been subjected to American take-over (I know, you'll tell me that's just business). But I can assure you, understanding ('getting') the Australian or French or Czech individual was not usually high on the priority list of US companies. There was 'their way, and the wrong way.' They often learned (or didn't) the hard way, that Milan, Prague, Manchester or Hong Kong, was not Omaha... Now the shoe is starting to be on the other foot. Again, careful of the single frame of reference.
As an Australian working for a French company in France and dealing daily with 60 nationalities, including Japanese, German, Spanish, American, Chinese, Belgian (Flemish and French), Italian, Swiss, Portugese, Czech and Australian, Mexican and Canadian, I know the dangers of ignoring culture and imposing one's frame of reference....
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 69, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1506 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 67): try measuring such in reality by not having virtually every flight go through ATL. Hey! if I went through the centre of Belfast on every single journey I made I could say my car travelled more "route miles" too!
Delta isnt doing Anything that British Airways, Emirates, Ethiad, Singapore, Air France, asnd scores of others arent doing as we speak. And not Virtually every flight more like 50/50. They have a big operation in DTW, MSP MEM CVG SLC JFK LGA LAX and NRT which if you add the total flights from each one together excluding ATL would actually be more flights then ATL. Fact of the matter is in this world of ours biggest largest first most etc are what most people zero in on. There isnt anything wrong with it or right it just is. Also just about every carrier on earth uses a hub and spoke system so to try an point Delta out negatively then you must the others as well. But then again its Delta so its bad and Atl is terrible and, all the other stuff that comes along with it
It's quite a good and interestingly written article on the straight jacket a US airline CEO has to operate in. So? They counsel against bringing in CEO's from outside the sector due to all the industry specifics. They don't counsel against bringing in currently successful internationals as CEO's who only have to adjust to the parameters of the US market, but not the specialist knowledge of the industry. They are all going though major ups and downs, including:
"high fuel prices, the threat of terrorism, epidemics, storms, cyclical passenger gluts and droughts, labor issues, accidents, and government intrusion—to upset operations, disrupt aviation economics, and spark a chorus of critics from consumers to government. "
Again, the US is specific, not intrinsically special. Non-nationals are CEO's of the major successful airlines world wide.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 71, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
Quoting Atlwest1 (Reply 69): Fact of the matter is in this world of ours biggest largest first most etc are what most people zero in on.
Not in my experience. In France for example, I found people find superlatives somewhat adolescent. Talking in superaltives (biggest, most..est) is a little akin to speaking loudly or talking about you salary: just not good form. In this culture, people are more interested in a qualitative account of realities. "
Quoting Atlwest1 (Reply 69): There isnt anything wrong with it or right it just is.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Atlwest1 From United States, joined Jan 2009, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 73, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1441 times:
Mr. OzGlobal sir I am always careful well usually lol ive been known to pontificate rarely though. My comment still in someways stand. Separately the EU nations would not have equaled the US economy, however in the combination of the great and respective nations they are on just about equal footing. Secondly it doesn't matter to me one way or the other if the shoe is on the other foot. If the said acquiring company can make the acquired company better stronger etc then so be it. Im not speaking for myself im speaking more for what the average US citizen MIGHT feel. Many have not been exposed to the world in the ways that many of us on this boarded or who live outside the US have.
By virtue of most European and foreign countries if that country or company was lacking certain talents all u had to do was go across the border and get the talent you need or acquired a company in Poland to give synergy to a French company. Here we don't have to do that by virtue of having immensely talented and driven people all here in one country. Some would ask why go far afield to get very good and skilled people, when you have just as good and qualified and skilled people here.
The problem isn't we need foreign companies per-say its more we need new leadership and new generational leaders in these companies then maybe innovation would flow again.
I like your though processes OzGlobal you have great insight, however I have insight and in someways im playing devil's advocate even though I agree with 90% of what you are saying
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 74, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1415 times:
Quoting AirNZ (Reply 67):
Yeah, wouldn't doubt it........but it means what exactly other than your strange ultra-fascination that 'big' or 'large' has some extraordinary quality to it? But then again, try measuring such in reality by not having virtually every flight go through ATL. Hey! if I went through the centre of Belfast on every single journey I made I could say my car travelled more "route miles" too! As I ask....it means what?
With all due respect, name one major global airline outside of the U.S. with a route network NOT centered on one primary hub. Delta's network is far more diverse than the what applies in your point also applies to LHR, CDG, FRA, DXB, SIN, HKG. You get the point.
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 75, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1385 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 70):
It's quite a good and interestingly written article on the straight jacket a US airline CEO has to operate in. So? They counsel against bringing in CEO's from outside the sector due to all the industry specifics. They don't counsel against bringing in currently successful internationals as CEO's who only have to adjust to the parameters of the US market, but not the specialist knowledge of the industry. They are all going though major ups and downs, including:
"high fuel prices, the threat of terrorism, epidemics, storms, cyclical passenger gluts and droughts, labor issues, accidents, and government intrusion—to upset operations, disrupt aviation economics, and spark a chorus of critics from consumers to government. "
Again, the US is specific, not intrinsically special. Non-nationals are CEO's of the major successful airlines world wide.
So? The point is you speak of the failure of U.S. airline managers as if they are incompetent. As if all it would take is a successful foreign CEO to come in and fix what is wrong. What I am saying is that foreign CEO's would face the same challenges and difficulties as U.S. CEO's.
If they could work the wonders you suggest, wouldn't they be managing the current downturn better at there own carriers? Making profits maybe? Instead, they suffer the whims of the market just as their American counterparts do.
Let me ask you this. What specifically do you think a foreign CEO would do at a U.S. carrier that a U.S. CEO hasn't already done? What intrinsic quality do they possess that their American counterparts don't have? I mean, if it is so easy, you'd think that one of the U.S. carriers might have figured out the magic formula after 30 years of deregulation. Apparently ALL of them are idiots...for three decades now.
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 1553 posts, RR: 5 Reply 76, posted (5 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1284 times:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 75): The point is you speak of the failure of U.S. airline managers as if they are incompetent. As if all it would take is a successful foreign CEO to come in and fix what is wrong. What I am saying is that foreign CEO's would face the same challenges and difficulties as U.S. CEO's.
Agreed. But the industry was deregulated in Australia 20 years ago (a much smaller market, you'll tell me), but your theory is that all markets must and will follow the same fate as the US airlines. In Oz, the national icon Ansett was allowed to fail. So have some start ups since then. As per Luftansa's post, it is a combination also of Ch 11 protection, blocking of mergers and union behaviour in the US preventing market equilibrium. Deregulation in Australia and Europe has led to some failures (and some government protection). But the equilibrium seems to be be setting in, with a multi-tiered market of full service and low cost players, both with their place.
Also, let's not confuse the economic crisis with the ongoing performance of airlines over the past decade in a post de-regulation environment.
Never said everyone was incompetent, just that they seem to be caught up in a vicious cycle and could benefit from fresh blood.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Jetlanta From United States, joined Jul 2001, 1823 posts, RR: 20 Reply 77, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 1133 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 76): Agreed. But the industry was deregulated in Australia 20 years ago (a much smaller market, you'll tell me), but your theory is that all markets must and will follow the same fate as the US airlines. In Oz, the national icon Ansett was allowed to fail. So have some start ups since then. As per Luftansa's post, it is a combination also of Ch 11 protection, blocking of mergers and union behaviour in the US preventing market equilibrium. Deregulation in Australia and Europe has led to some failures (and some government protection). But the equilibrium seems to be be setting in, with a multi-tiered market of full service and low cost players, both with their place.
Also, let's not confuse the economic crisis with the ongoing performance of airlines over the past decade in a post de-regulation environment.
Never said everyone was incompetent, just that they seem to be caught up in a vicious cycle and could benefit from fresh blood.
They certainly are caught up in a vicious cycle. But you'd be surprised how much new blood flows through the industry. The blood of managers who've never known the "good times". The blood of managers who only know how to scratch and claw because that's what they have to do to survive. U.S. airlines management ranks are filled with scrappy competitors who have been through the ringer a few times. If, at some point, they get dealt a decent hand...watch out. There is no "fat and happy" among the ranks of U.S. airline managers, I assure you.
You know that you cannot begin to compare the Australian duopoly with the American industry. Australia has never successfully supported more than two major competitors in a deregulated environment. You mention the failure of Ansett, but plenty of U.S. carriers have been allowed to fail. Shall I name them? I'll agree that more consolidation is needed in the U.S. and that structural problems are at the core of the issue with the American airline industry,. But that is the environment that managers have to work in. A foreign CEO is simply not going to be able to change that. It's not as if no U.S. CEO recognizes the core issue. Its that the industry is so big, with so many different interest groups, that movement is slow. A foreign-born CEO would likely have MORE problems dealing with the intricacies of the U.S. political and labor systems, which is one of the big obstacles to change.
I'd argue that Richard Anderson is exactly the type of CEO you are talking about. The Delta-NWA merger is an attempt to do exactly what you are saying it would take "fresh blood" to do.
I'd also argue that the equilibrium that seems to be setting in in Europe (and other regions) is a an illusion. As premium demand declines, network carriers are forced to compete more aggressively for non-premium traffic or shrink. There are no other options. At the same time, LCC's are growing bigger and stronger. AirAsia anyone? LCC's in other regions are just now gaining access to the limited-entry markets that they have been excluded from previously. Open skies, increased airport capacity, whatever the case may be. LCC's are just now starting to compete head-to-head with network carriers. Not to mention the growth of upstart carriers from the the Middle East, which seemingly operate under a different set of rules.
There is no equilibrium being reached in the rest of the world. Look at the performance of the world's major network carriers this year. You may assume that it a temporary predicament. I suspect it is the beginning of a long period of dramatic change. The only difference between the U.S. legacies and most of the rest of the world is that the U.S. carriers have spent the last decade painfully restructuring (a process that is still not complete). Consider this for a moment, in a recent investor call, Delta claimed that it has about a 20% unit cost advantage vs. the average European-based network carrier on Trans-Atlantic routes. Think about that in context of the current crisis.
Panamair From United States, joined Oct 2001, 3617 posts, RR: 28 Reply 78, posted (5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 971 times:
Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 77): structural problems are at the core of the issue with the American airline industry,. But that is the environment that managers have to work in. A foreign CEO is simply not going to be able to change that
Indeed, witness how virtually no European carrier (except perhaps for Virgin) was screaming for cabotage rights and the ability to compete in the domestic US market as a condition for Open Skies between the EU and the US...
As per GDS INVENTORY display on 14JUL09, DELTA is reducing Atlanta - Los Angeles - Sydney service to 6 weekly, from 13SEP09 to 07DEC09.
ATL/LAX Departure is not operating on Day 7, and SYD departure is cancelled on Day 2.
Atlanta - Los Angeles sector on the days which 777-200LR flight is cancelled, is subbed with Boeing 757-200.
I wonder whether pax already ticketed on the cancelled services ( Sunday ex LAX and Tuesday ex SYD ) will be re-booked onto V Australia services or just reaccommodated one day earlier/later on DL metal
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Apr 2004, 881 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 117 posts, 
From Namibia, joined Feb 2004, 3445 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jan 2009, 788 posts, 
From Australia, joined Sep 2000, 4316 posts, 
From France, joined Jul 2001, 1242 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 341 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 3512 posts, 
From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 1619 posts, 
From Austria, joined Sep 2004, 1693 posts, 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), joined Feb 2005, 3141 posts, 
From Uruguay, joined Nov 2007, 445 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2003, 547 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Dec 2007, 103 posts, 
From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 2263 posts, 
From Mauritius, joined Jun 2005, 5548 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
