Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta And The West Coast  
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9199 times:

We've seen Delta more or less do an outstanding job rising in the NYC market in the last few years, but what is up with Delta and the other ocean? Back in the 1980s they became a big player on the west coast when they aquired Western, but that route network is only a ghost of its original glory (minus the SLC hub). Delta also tried a PDX hub to the Asian world, but that was dismantled. They've been trying to do what they did in JFK at LAX, but that hasn't worked as well.

My question, or more of debate, is what do you think Delta's long term plan for the west coast? Do you think they'll eventually get LAX hubbed or are AA, UA, and WN too strong? And the way the west coast has diminished with Delta in the past makes me hope that the same thing doesn't happen with Northwest's route network.


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6077 posts, RR: 24
Reply 1, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9179 times:

The long term plans is probably to buy Alaska, just my guess!


"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineThegreatRDU From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2310 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9180 times:



Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
Do you think they'll eventually get LAX hubbed

no

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
are AA, UA, and WN too strong?

yes

I think WN is just too strong in the west in places like CA

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
My question, or more of debate, is what do you think Delta's long term plan for the west coast?

I think it will all fall in the hands of SLC.......LAX will contine to see long haul and p2p flights...



Our Returning Champion
User currently offlineDesertAir From Mexico, joined Jan 2006, 1457 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9104 times:



Quoting AS739X (Reply 1):
The long term plans is probably to buy Alaska, just my guess!

I would hate to see Delta buy Alaska. I think the Alaska network would suffer the same fate as with AA´s purchase of AirCal and UA´s purchase of PSA. Alaska, like PSA and AirCal is a unique airline to the West which adds some color to the rather dull West Coast airline scene.


User currently offlineCV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1124 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9095 times:



Quoting AS739X (Reply 1):
The long term plans is probably to buy Alaska, just my guess!

Still doesn't address the lack of intra-California service (where most of the West Coast population resides).

Quoting ThegreatRDU (Reply 2):
I think WN is just too strong in the west in places like CA

Delta failed in this market long before WN was ever a factor, and the constant in and out of the market over the past 30years hasn't helped its image. They seem to do fine in the long haul markets to/fr California, but the regional market has been a failure as opposed to UA.


User currently offlineRidgid727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9054 times:

In the long term, I don't think you will see DL do much of a North South operation along the west coast. They will send most everything towards SLC. AS will always be strong
in the North South North corridor along the West Coast, and will partner that operation with both Delta & American.. B6 is attempting to do something, and VX too will be a player in those markets, along with WN (who is pretty much the PSA of the new millenium along the West Coast)

If airTran remains independent, I do think you wll see them attempt something in the West, as it is almost certain now that they will lose their partnership with F9. At a recent industry convention of sorts, there was talk of airtran attempting the "night flight" scenario using LAS, as HP did in the 80's & 90's. Whether that was just rumor, or actuality remains to be seen.

With the happenings this last week, I'm sure WN is taking a hard look at growth beyond their traditional modus operandi. I wouldn't be surprised to see them start some sort of operation using regional aircraft such as the Q400 in places like BIL, FAT, EUG, YUM, PSC, BZN, IDA, PSP, (and a slew of midwest and eastern cities) Or any city that is currently bringing in premium high fares for those players in the market now that has a reasonable amount of traffic.

Additionally, I think you will see WN make plans to get ready to start serving some Mexico, Carribean & Canadian destinations, as well as equiping themselves for overwater operations---thats not saying they will be looking at Hawaii, but for ops in the Southeast.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9042 times:



Quoting AS739X (Reply 1):
The long term plans is probably to buy Alaska, just my guess!

You're not serious, are you??

Quoting DesertAir (Reply 3):
I think the Alaska network would suffer the same fate as with AA´s purchase of AirCal and UA´s purchase of PSA.

More like the AA/TW screw-up.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9035 times:

Quoting AS739X (Reply 1):



Quoting DesertAir (Reply 3):

DL could make a solid bid for Alaska and likely win if...

If AS was really struggling financially
If AS had little to no cash on hand

But AS is one of the most financially sound US airlines considering the profit margin and their large amount of cash on hand and are arguably one of the best positioned airlines to weather this economic storm. If they were struggling, I'd see a number of US airlines including DL and AA bidding for AS, but that is not exactly the case.

And why would DL want to try and rehub LAX? This last time ended in failure, why not just continue the codeshare with AS who already has not only a sizeable presence in LAX, but also SEA and PDX. DL is lucky to have a western hub in the location of SLC, where you have easy access to many Interior West destinations like BIL, BZN, GTF, IDA, SUN, PIH, TWF, HLN and so on that are not profitably accessible from hubs like AA's DFW, US's PHX, and CO's IAH and EWR.

Purely my opinion, I think the best option for DL is to stay as close as they can with AS without the financial investment of a merger and the sour grapes that can often occur in regards to labor. If DL really wants an Asian hub, I think the combination of SEA and LAX with the feed from AS would do just fine.

Corrections are appreciated...

[Edited 2009-08-14 12:49:49]

User currently onlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5441 posts, RR: 29
Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8979 times:

As has been discussed before, AS has a cost structure that would likely not remain as part of a legacy. Many flights/routes would not be viable in a higher cost environment. I think for now at least that DL is happy to codeshare with AS.

UA at LAX is a question mark, as UA could fall on hard times again. If they do, go the BK route, and/or get acquired by CO, it might be deemed surplus to maintain two large operations in SFO and LAX - with SFO winning out. DL might find some room to grow in Los Angeles at that time, provided AS, WN, VX, B6, and AA don't jump on the gates first.

DL has a great brand, and would probably be able to build a larger presence in Los Angeles if they REALLY wanted to - but they have a LOT on their plate right now. JFK, LGA, ATL, DTW, MSP, MEM, SLC, the CVG dilemma, Europe, Asia, Australia, blah blah blah. Where does LA rank in importance in this mix? I'm not sure, but I think we are probably 2-5 years out from any sort of LAX build up for DL, including any mergers/acquisitions.

But we'll see...

-Dave



Totes my goats!
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8797 times:

Can anyone see any realistic merger in the near future? I've always taken into considering a major carrier going under and the others ripping it apart (like they did PanAm.) But these days the carriers are doing ok (not great) but not bad enough for anyone to go under.


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8709 times:

I personally can see Delta furthering their marketing arrangement with Alaska and building Seattle into a focus city operation over Los Angeles. LAX has intense competition with WN, UA, AA, VX and virtually every major international airline. By aligning with Alaska, they would (for lack of a better word) "own" Seattle. They will always have their share of LAX traffic but my bet would be on a Seattle gateway being a better fit.

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8250 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8620 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

LAX is the most logical place for Delta having a west coast Hub or international gateway. With Australian service we may see more then the once daily SYD flight & LAX now has service to NRT again thanks to the merger with NW. Delta should try nonstop service to HKG again since AA probably won't since it supports Cathay's LAX to HKG service.

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24727 posts, RR: 46
Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8557 times:

Man how often does this topic have to come up?  banghead 

Simply put No -- I dont see Delta becoming a big player on the West Coast, and especially not intra-CA unless if it were to acquire United for instance. Even Alaska would not provide true intra-West Coast.

To achieve organic growth, Delta would need to invest many many millions and years of effort.
Trying to establish a foothold in the large California markets particularly the key SoCal-Bay Area would be a long bloody battle.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDescendVia From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8557 times:



Quoting DesertAir (Reply 3):
UA´s purchase of PSA.

We didn't buy PSA, USAir did.


User currently offlineAirport From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8445 times:



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
Man how often does this topic have to come up?

Simply put No -- I dont see Delta becoming a big player on the West Coast, and especially not intra-CA unless if it were to acquire United for instance. Even Alaska would not provide true intra-West Coast.

To achieve organic growth, Delta would need to invest many many millions and years of effort.
Trying to establish a foothold in the large California markets particularly the key SoCal-Bay Area would be a long bloody battle.

 checkmark 

And another question that springs to mind is, even if they could why would they even want to get involved in true intra-West Coast and intra-California flying? It's not as if the routes are money trees waiting to be picked. The west coast is drenched with competition, and yields most certainly aren't the highest in the country. Another player in the market would just add more competition and yields would likely drop further. And feed for a pacific hub is something they can achieve via codeshares.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8421 times:

I didn't mean specifically LAX. I'm mainly interested in their SEA and NRT ops.


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3057 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8369 times:

DL just snatched the Seattle Seahawks away from HA, not sure what that means but thought it was interesting.


The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11387 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8361 times:



Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
We've seen Delta more or less do an outstanding job rising in the NYC market in the last few years, but what is up with Delta and the other ocean?

The same thing that is - has long been - up with other network carriers in the west. It's just not profitable. Unlike the East, where an enormous amount of high-yielding business traffic dominates markets between big population centers, much of the traffic intra-west coast is decidedly lower-yielding and lower-fare.

This has historically meant that the west has only ever really been able to support on traditional network carrier (today it's United). For years the market has largely been split between United on the higher end (on fares) and Southwest on the lower end (on fares), with Alaska sort of splitting the different somewhere in between with a mix of higher-than-Southwest costs and lower-than-United revenues.

In that environment, there is just no room for another large network carrier to come in and profitably operate in these highly-competitive, relatively short-sector markets like, for example, Portland-LAX or San Francisco-San Diego.

AA has tried and, with a few minor exceptions, failed in all the market's they've tried (twice), as did USAirways when it tried with the PSA acquisition. Delta failed with Western.

It just doesn't work, and there is no need for Delta to try again - they'd be better off focusing on their core areas of strength, and the hubs that they dominate and that work for them.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
My question, or more of debate, is what do you think Delta's long term plan for the west coast?

If they're smart, their plan will be to stay out of the low-yielding catfight that is the north-south intra-west market and instead focus on where they have a much better chance, which is building their Salt Lake City hub and additionally linking the major markets of the west to their other huge U.S. hubs (namely Atlanta, Minneapolis and Detroit, and to a lesser extent JFK) with high frequencies and strong service.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Thread starter):
Do you think they'll eventually get LAX hubbed or are AA, UA, and WN too strong?

No.

Delta's repeated failed attempts to bolster their LAX schedule in any meaningful way have proven that the LAX market simple does not need or want the additional capacity that Delta offers. It is just not needed.

LAX is already one of the largest air markets on earth, extremely well served. As I've put it before, LAX has three 'Tier 1' airlines - AA, Southwest, and United. These three airlines not only offer a robust connecting schedule over LAX that links multiple regions of the U.S. and the world, together with vast schedules by their alliance partners, but also each have a massive presence in the local LAX O&D market. Then there are the 'Tier 2' players - Alaska and Delta - which are still quite large at LAX, by function of the fact that it's the biggest airport in the second biggest population center in America, but have operations that are more focused on high-density connections to hubs and, especially in Alaska's case, a more limited, although still meaningful, connecting complex. Beyond that, there are a bunch of smaller carriers - USAirways, Mexicana, QANTAS - that are huge at LAX, but whose traffic (with the exception perhaps of QF's AA tie-up) is almost entirely O&D and/or hub-driven, with pretty much 0 connections. Virgin America, for the moment, functions at LAX somewhere in between a Tier 1 and Tier 2 airline, meaning that their connection their presence at LAX is large (and growing), they offer an excellent product, and a robust schedule, but it is much more O&D focused and not nearly as concentrated on connections at all.

In this context, again, there is just absolutely no need for Delta to try and build a hub at LAX. None.

Quoting AS739X (Reply 1):
The long term plans is probably to buy Alaska, just my guess!

That would be an incredibly stupid idea.

Alaska's cost are substantially lower than Delta's, and raising the operating costs in the west coast markets Alaska serves to Delta's levels would render virtually the entire Alaska network unprofitable.

If Delta wants access to the Alaska/Horizon network, and wants to get those passengers, then their focus should be on continuing to grow and deepen their alliance with Alaska, without actually buying Alaska outright and killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 8):
UA at LAX is a question mark, as UA could fall on hard times again.

Good times or not, United's presence at LAX has been headed on one decidedly clear trajectory for at least the last decade: down. United has substantially shrunk their presence
at LAX since 9/11, to the point where today, AA mainline is actually larger than UA mainline. UA still has a huge presence in the local LAX market, no doubt, and that likely won't go away, however they are not the same competitor they once were.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 10):
I personally can see Delta furthering their marketing arrangement with Alaska and building Seattle into a focus city operation over Los Angeles.

I've heard the Seattle idea advanced before, but I just don't see quite what, exactly, a Seattle "focus city" would be based on. Beyond nonstop flights from Seattle to the hubs, plus the Tokyo flight, what else would really be added to make Seattle into a focus city? Nonstop links to big west coast markets, for example, like LAX or SFO would be a bloodbath on profitability.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11):
LAX is the most logical place for Delta having a west coast Hub or international gateway.

Most logical in the sense that it's a huge market, but beyond that, it's not really that logical for Delta to build a hub and international gateway there, regardless of the musings of some on A.net.

LAX as a market - both domestically and internationally - is already quite well served, and actually quite competitive, and Delta's historical failure to gain any traction in the market, and their relative lack of marketing presence there, are handicaps that I personally have a hard time seeing them overcome.

At LAX, a substantial portion of the international traffic is O&D-focused, and VFR-heavy, and in these cases, almost universally, foreign airlines handily dominate the market. That is why, by and large, you don't really see a whole lot of international flying from LAX by U.S. carriers, relative to other big U.S. gateways. Look at JFK, Miami, San Francisco, etc. - all big U.S. hubs where U.S. carriers have huge international operations. At LAX? AA has a daily flight to Heathrow and a daily to Tokyo, United has the same plus Sydney, and Delta has Narita and Sydney. That's it.


User currently offlineFlyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1016 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8329 times:

The smartest thing that DL did in the last try at intra-CA routes via LAX was the agreement with ExpressJet whereas ExpressJet wasn't fee for departure, but rather at risk. However, with that said, DL was stupid to go that route, when Express Jet was also trying their own low-fare service P2P within CA with a little mini-hub at ONT. Call it bad timing I guess.

The problem with everyone who brings up a DL & AS merger is that back in the 80's when all the big majors were buying the smaller ones, is that codeshares didn't exist much. The only way that kind of travel was available was interline - which was in alot of cases cost prohibitive. Codeshares offer better marketing, transfers, checkin, ect. and really take alot of financial stress off a carrier. To this end, DL and AS are better off they way they are now with their current system, as opposed to trying to merger two entirely different airline cultures, route networks, etc.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8296 times:



Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):

Thanks for the detailed post. You know your stuff and help a moderately informed a.netter get a good perspective on things, which is why you are on my RU list  Smile



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineFlyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1016 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8258 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):
Alaska's cost are substantially lower than Delta's, and raising the operating costs in the west coast markets Alaska serves to Delta's levels would render virtually the entire Alaska network unprofitable.

I think this reason alone is why airlines like Reno Air did a good job in the CA market. They were small and well suited to adapt to changes, but unfortunately their success made them vulnerable to mergers.

[Edited 2009-08-14 16:06:18]

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11387 posts, RR: 62
Reply 21, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8237 times:



Quoting Flyibaby (Reply 20):
I think this reason alone is why airlines like Reno Air did a good job in the CA market. They were small and well suited to adapt to changes, but unfortunately their success made them vulnerable to mergers.

No question about it.

Reno's cost structure - which was incredibly cheap - was very well-suited to the intra-west market and gave them the ability to compete on price with, say, Southwest in the markets where they went head-to-head.

Now, that being said, a big chunk of their success was also attributable to the general boom that occurred in air travel in the late 1990s, when Reno came to prominence. They benefited enormously from the rising tide of growth and prosperity in America - and California in particular - that raised all boats in the 1996-2000 period. They also benefited hugely from AA's pull-back from San Jose, which allowed them to build a successful hub there.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1535 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8221 times:



Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 8):
DL has a great brand, and would probably be able to build a larger presence in Los Angeles if they REALLY wanted to - but they have a LOT on their plate right now. JFK, LGA, ATL, DTW, MSP, MEM, SLC, the CVG dilemma, Europe, Asia, Australia, blah blah blah. Where does LA rank in importance in this mix? I'm not sure, but I think we are probably 2-5 years out from any sort of LAX build up for DL, including any mergers/acquisitions.

Well put. Sure it might be nice, but you never have totally unlimited resources.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 10):
I personally can see Delta furthering their marketing arrangement with Alaska and building Seattle into a focus city operation over Los Angeles. LAX has intense competition with WN, UA, AA, VX and virtually every major international airline. By aligning with Alaska, they would (for lack of a better word) "own" Seattle. They will always have their share of LAX traffic but my bet would be on a Seattle gateway being a better fit.

This is an interesting idea, at least from my outsiders' perspective. Even though Sea-Tac area is smaller than LA generally, *could* be a nice counterbalance to the huge overcapacity in the southwest coast market (broadly speaking to include LAX, LGB, SNA, ONT, LAS, SAN, BUR, even maybe PHX)--there is just so much capacity down there that it might be smarter to just serve the huge market as it deserves within DLs route structure and then focus on relatively less brimming northwestern US, perhaps drawing a bit from up to Vancouver and down to Bay Area.


User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3121 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8207 times:

Here's my take on it... other than North-South flying along the coast... DL has the west coast pretty much covered. If you are heading east you can fly through SLC, and all of the big markets have service to ATL/MSP/DTW/JFK/MEM, etc, if you are heading west (to Asia) you can fly to NRT or on KE to ICN. most of the big markets are covered. SEA, PDX, SFO, LAX all have NRT service. maybe SAN could fill an NRT flight as well? so except for the west coast itself... which between AS/UA/WN is very well covered and extremely competitive, Delta offers plenty of options, I would say the only airline that is better positioned in the west is UA with hubs at both SFO and LAX with flights across both oceans as well as the west.

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineBigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2910 posts, RR: 6
Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 8101 times:



Quoting LHCVG (Reply 22):
This is an interesting idea, at least from my outsiders' perspective. Even though Sea-Tac area is smaller than LA generally, *could* be a nice counterbalance to the huge overcapacity in the southwest coast market (broadly speaking to include LAX, LGB, SNA, ONT, LAS, SAN, BUR, even maybe PHX)--there is just so much capacity down there that it might be smarter to just serve the huge market as it deserves within DLs route structure and then focus on relatively less brimming northwestern US, perhaps drawing a bit from up to Vancouver and down to Bay Area.

Yeah my thinking would be to let Alaska provide the bulk of the domestic feed. Delta and the other Sky Team partners could supply the trans-oceanic feed: Tokyo, Seoul, Amsterdam and Paris are already there. Assuming a better economy, Delta could move forward with Beijing and perhaps one or two other Asian destinations reachable from Seattle. They would easily have the bulk of the frequent flyer base instead of madly competing with everyone else in Los Angeles. Its not about being the largest - just the most profitable. Just my opinion - but I stand by Seattle really only being Delta's best shot at a west coast focus operation.


25 Airport : I wish every a.net airline cheerleader and armchair CEO could read that sentence. The prevailing thought among them seems to be global conquest and s
26 DeltaMD90 : Yeah but I can dream
27 As739x : I'm not saying it's going to happen. Just a idea that I'm sure Delta has brought up. And honestly I lose faith in AS direction every day. I do agree
28 C767P : I understand that it doesn’t make much sense for Delta to get in the mix going north and south along the coast, but they do need to fix a few things
29 BooDog : It's not just cheerleaders and armchair CEOs. The ACTUAL CEO's are the same way. WN during the Kelleher years was the only airline in America that ra
30 DL767captain : Delta seems to be getting stronger on the west coast. Delta has a ton of flights out of SAN for an airline based in ATL. They have a pretty strong LAX
31 Briguy1974 : I have to agree with previos post that DL most logical move in the west coast is building SEA into a Pacific gateway. Use a codeshare with AS and have
32 CALPSAFltSkeds : Well, DL only flies to DL and former NW hubs out of SAN. I don't see flying to ATL, CVG, DTW, MSP, JFK and SLC as being a ton of flights, especially
33 C767P : DL does do SAN-MEM on NW metal, one daily flight six days a week, that drops to four days a week this fall but it stays year round instead of going s
34 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : LAX and delta dont mix. They have tried it several times and it never seems to work out. DL has pretty decent service out west. To the east coast, mid
35 SANFan : I disagree with you guys. I firmly believe we here in SAN are going to see some exciting things from Delta within maybe a year. (One strong feeling I
36 AirframeAS : Oh really?! Then explain.... SEA-LAX SEA-SFO SEA-SJC SEA-GEG SEA-ANC SEA-FAI SEA-SAN SEA- Mexico routes SEA-PHX SEA-LAS SEA-SNA SEA-OAK PDX-LAX PDX-O
37 C767P : Like I said before, AS is great to/from the Pacific Northwest. South of Portland though, with AS ending SFO-LAX, there are really no logical options
38 LAXintl : Every route you listed is to/from SEA or PDX. I'm sure you dont expect intra-West folks to fly up to the SEA and connect, to only fly back South. AS
39 FlyPNS1 : You keep saying this in every AS/DL post despite the fact that its not true. I agree that DL buying AS probably won't work, but the costs aren't all
40 Dl767captain : For a little airport like SAN I would call that a ton of flights. It may not seem like a lot by LAX or ATL standards but SAN is relatively small and
41 CV880 : Why has this happened? Because US carriers are short-sighted and afraid of competition. It's unbelievable that no US flag carrier serves HKG/PVG/PEK
42 Jetlanta : I've been wondering where he's been getting that idea from as well. Delta's relationship with AS is intended, over the long term, to support the expa
43 Bmacleod : Wondering how YVR YYJ and YXX will fit into DLs west coast plans?[Edited 2009-08-15 11:11:07]
44 RwSEA : Intra-California is saturated with the likes of UA, WN, VX, and B6. Notice in that list there is only one legacy carrier that still bothers to compete
45 ThegreatRDU : EXACTLY and it has never paid off except for some P2P flying....
46 DeltaMD90 : Where exactly would one find this kind of information? I'm lousy when it comes to understanding CASM, ASM, and pretty much everything they release in
47 Post contains links FlyPNS1 : The easiest place is the quarterly earnings reports (see links below). For the 2nd quarter 2009, here's the mainline CASM (excluding fuel/special exp
48 AirframeAS : Yep. Why? AS base is in SEA. I would say that AS has a very, very strong presence in the west coast. I am pretty sure any AS employee on here would b
49 Cschleic : If AS ever were to be acquired, by whomever, it probably wouldn't be long before 1) Service deteriorated, 2) The merger didn't work out (just like PSA
50 DeltaMD90 : No one is contesting that, they are #1 in the pacific northwest and Alaska. I think what they're trying to say is flying within the west (like SAN-SF
51 LAXintl : Yes we all know they are SEA based and run a hub there. You fail and keep missing the point that AS does not do much for the majority of travelers an
52 Surfdog75 : There's more to it than just yields. It's my opinion that DL has the most to offer the corporate account these days. The one big hole being intra-wes
53 CV880 :
54 WorldTraveler : That is historically true but the increased competition on the east coast doesn't make it true any more. In many respects, the west coast is more sta
55 Mir : Just because the routes aren't operated by a US carrier doesn't mean the airport is underserved. LAX has plenty of service to Asia. -Mir
56 CALPSAFltSkeds : Just look at a map and you can see that SFO and SEA are better connection points than LAX for Asia and SFO is about equal with LAX on South Pac. DEN-
57 DeltaMD90 : LAX has a larger O/D base, though it is split up a lot more
58 Commavia : More stable, perhaps, but also more stably lower-yielding. Good for AS. According to all the airline's Q1 Form 41 filings, Delta's domestic Operating
59 LHCVG : I agree 100%, but I would also add that I think many are wed to the "sexy" big cities -- LAX, NYC, etc. wheresa the ones like ATL, SEA, etc. may be b
60 Aaway : If your definition of 'hub' is multiple frequencies, banked schedules and multi directional flying (ala the immediate post-WA merger days), my answer
61 TheCol : It's only a matter of time before we see YXX-SEA and YXX-PDX. Most likely QX or a Delta regional will be offering those routes. DL doesn't do a heck
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...
Old Question - UsAir And The West Coast posted Sat May 20 2000 06:52:35 by Trvlr
Skywest UX, And DLC Monopoly On The West Coast? posted Mon Feb 12 2007 00:47:12 by Flyboy80
Delta's Presence In The West Coast? posted Mon Oct 23 2000 00:19:18 by Dalflyer
How Much Will AA Cut On The West Coast? posted Fri Jun 19 2009 15:48:20 by SANFan
DL SLC And Its West Coast Ambitions posted Thu Mar 5 2009 13:38:33 by 9252fly
Delta And The 747-400 posted Thu Feb 26 2009 20:50:52 by Joperrin89
McCain Wants To Open Up DCA/LGA To The West Coast posted Fri Jan 9 2009 03:38:26 by Juventus
Delta And The 73G posted Sun Oct 26 2008 13:42:09 by FlyASAGuy2005
Delta And The 737-200 posted Thu Jul 31 2008 08:07:45 by BWIA330
WN Flying 735's On The West Coast Again? posted Sun May 25 2008 22:05:58 by Wedgetail737