Dl767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10863 times:
Delta seems to be expanding its LAX operations and continuing to expand their LHR routes as well. Is there any possibility that DL would start an LAX-LHR route? I know there would be a lot of competition but it seems like Skyteam fliers as well as DL customers would appreciate a LAX-LHR route and they did recently start a LAX-SYD flight to compete with others. The main problem I guess would be getting slots for a LAX-LHR flight
goldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1677 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10777 times:
Well, it's already been tried 2 or 3 years ago. AF metal (B772) flew the route which was part of the AF/DL transatlantic JV. It didn't last long (less than a year IIRC). This does not mean that it will not happen again in the future but I think they will be cautious.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11738 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10751 times:
LAX-LHR (4741 nm) seems to have a lot of compitition on that route.
Perhaps DL could do a LAX-CDG (4927 nm), or a LAX-FRA (5045 nm), LAX-FCO (5522 nm). DL could use the B-747-400, B-777-200ER, B-777-200LR, B-767-300ER, or A-330-200 on any of these routes. The B-767-400ER could not do the LAX-FCO route, but could be used on the other two.
DL could also do a LAX-TLV (6581 nm) using a B-744, B-77E, B-77L, or A-330, too.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10655 times:
One hell of a lot of competition on that route and that competition is well established, AA, BA, UA and VS. It was a spectacular failire for AF as expected. I think DL may look at it at some stage but I think other routes would be better served before they open that one up.
runway23 From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2043 posts, RR: 39 Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 10632 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): Perhaps DL could do a LAX-CDG (4927 nm), or a LAX-FRA (5045 nm), LAX-FCO (5522 nm)
DL already does two of those: CDG and FCO with their transatlantic JV partners. No point in going against your partners who are well established and have aircraft more suitably configured to the market.
LAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 10457 times:
Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 3): One hell of a lot of competition on that route and that competition is well established, AA, BA, UA and VS.
Air New Zealand also operates LAX-LHR.
Quoting runway23 (Reply 4): DL already does two of those: CDG and FCO with their transatlantic JV partners. No point in going against your partners
You can't go against your partners in a JV. They are one in the same, if one operates the route they all operate the route. If they decided to operate an additional flight with DL metal, there wouldn't be competition between DL, AF, and AZ; it would be added capacity and would be jointly marketed, but I doubt either of those routes are priorities for more service I am sure they can find better uses for airplanes right now.
azjubilee From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 3563 posts, RR: 29 Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 9537 times:
Perhaps the failure of the AF LAX-LHR flight was capacity? Maybe with a smaller better sized a/c the route could be successful. The DL/AF JV was much smaller back then when compared to todays as it was done prior to the DL/NW merger and Alitalia joining the JV. I'm not saying it would be wildly successful, but it's a different environment today with higher loads and pricing power finally on the side of airlines, not to mention the new dynamics of the JV and gage possibilities.
airlinerfanpgf From France, joined Nov 2008, 20 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 8935 times:
Yes AF used to fly LAX-LHR route. With 777, but effectively did not last long. Too much competition ....
Crew rosters were CDG-LAX then LAX-LHR and then back to CDG via LAX. kinf of strange for AF crews to be in London on a long haul flight break!
laca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3752 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7880 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): LAX-LHR (4741 nm) seems to have a lot of compitition on that route.
Perhaps DL could do a LAX-CDG (4927 nm), or a LAX-FRA (5045 nm), LAX-FCO (5522 nm). DL could use the B-747-400, B-777-200ER, B-777-200LR, B-767-300ER, or A-330-200 on any of these routes. The B-767-400ER could not do the LAX-FCO route, but could be used on the other two.
DL could also do a LAX-TLV (6581 nm) using a B-744, B-77E, B-77L, or A-330, too.
There is a lot of competition on that route. The breakdown is like this:
BA 3X daily =744
VS 2X daily = 346
NZ 1X daily = 744, high season, 744/77E, low season and 77W will be introduced in Spring 2011.
AA 1X daily = 77E
UA 1X daily = 77E. I could see this flight going to a 763ER.
Quoting azjubilee (Reply 6): Perhaps the failure of the AF LAX-LHR flight was capacity? Maybe with a smaller better sized a/c the route could be successful. The DL/AF JV was much smaller back then when compared to todays as it was done prior to the DL/NW merger and Alitalia joining the JV. I'm not saying it would be wildly successful, but it's a different environment today with higher loads and pricing power finally on the side of airlines, not to mention the new dynamics of the JV and gage possibilities.
! Even more, was and continues to be, the horrible state of California's economy not to mention the rest of the U.S. Perhaps if they were to introduce service again when the economy is healing and on the way up, perhaps it could work.
I'd like to see DL open SEA-LHR again but with better times so the route can be a success.
Quoting airlinerfanpgf (Reply 7): AF has 2 flights a day CDG-LAX on peak season plus 1 CDG-LAX-PPT but this mast one is not daily. All flights have a DL number.
During high season AF has up to 3 flights a day depending on the day of the week and 2-3 flights a day during the slower seasons.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7765 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 2): LAX-LHR (4741 nm) seems to have a lot of compitition on that route.
Perhaps DL could do a LAX-CDG (4927 nm), or a LAX-FRA (5045 nm), LAX-FCO (5522 nm). DL could use the B-747-400, B-777-200ER, B-777-200LR, B-767-300ER, or A-330-200 on any of these routes. The B-767-400ER could not do the LAX-FCO route, but could be used on the other two.
LHR, CDG, AMS, FCO yes. FRA be careful, cuz u're really invading Star's hometurf.
Quoting goldorak (Reply 1): AF metal (B772) flew the route which was part of the AF/DL transatlantic JV. It didn't last long (less than a year IIRC).
of COURSE it failed....AF's mediocre hard product (against BA/VS at least) on a SkyTeam nonhub-to-nonhub with no loyal base in either end is a pure recipe for disaster. DL might do better on that route.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16597 posts, RR: 11 Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7419 times:
UA couldnt make their LAX-FRA route work, even with the LH hub in FRA.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7409 posts, RR: 7 Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7164 times:
Quoting laca773 (Reply 10): There is a lot of competition on that route. The breakdown is like this:
BA 3X daily =744
VS 2X daily = 346
NZ 1X daily = 744, high season, 744/77E, low season and 77W will be introduced in Spring 2011.
AA 1X daily = 77E
UA 1X daily = 77E. I could see this flight going to a 763ER.
This is a well served route, Delta adding a 767 wouldn't bring anything to this market. The UK airlines have the lion's share of the market, Virgin and BA dominate.
luvtheflying From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week ago) and read 7022 times:
Quoting laca773 (Reply 10): During high season AF has up to 3 flights a day depending on the day of the week and 2-3 flights a day during the slower seasons.
Correct, during most of the year AF operates 3x daily to CDG, plus 3x weekely to PPT as well. As for DL, I think they could make LAX-LHR work with a 763, but nothing bigger then that.
YULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2115 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 6448 times:
Quoting azjubilee (Reply 6): Perhaps the failure of the AF LAX-LHR flight was capacity?
Yeah, but with a 772, they could hardly go much smaller as the A332 is not that much smaller and the A343 has similar total capacity but with a higher Y/J ratio and no F. Also, the aircraft was doing CDG-LAX-LHR-LAX-CDG, so, introducing an A332 on CDG-LAX would have meant a capacity reduction on an otherwise very lucrative route.
Quoting goldenstate (Reply 15): Sooner or later, Delta will fly LAX-LHR. Mark my words.
That could be true, and will likely fail.
Quoting luvtheflying (Reply 14): As for DL, I think they could make LAX-LHR work with a 763, but nothing bigger then that.
Then you introduce a very outdated product with no PTV etc... unlike all competitors. Not good. The 764ER would be best imo. The best J product in DL fleet and an updated Y product, with relatively small overall capacity.
In general, in JV, only one airline takes one given route. CDG-NYC is AF only, AMS-DTW is DL only, etc... and since CDG-LAX is AF and AF is very well established in LAX, any additional flight would likely be operated by AF.
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 16): Then you introduce a very outdated product with no PTV etc... unlike all competitors. Not good.
All 763s will be refurbished in the not-too-distant future. Additionally, all new LHR flying (MIA, BOS) will be operated by 763s that have already had the lie-flats and PTVs installed, so any hypothetical DL LAX-LHR route would be flown with an updated 763.
deltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8628 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6118 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 16):
Then you introduce a very outdated product with no PTV etc... unlike all competitors.
hell I'll even pull a quote for you.
Installing full flat-bed seats in BusinessElite on 90 trans-oceanic aircraft, including 14 Boeing 767-400ERs, 52 Boeing 767-300ERs, 16 Boeing 747-400s and eight Boeing 777-200ERs. Upon completion, each of these fleets will have full flat bed seats on all aircraft.
Adding in-seat audio and video on demand throughout Economy Class on 16 Boeing 747-400 and 52 Boeing 767-300ER aircraft. With these additions, Delta will offer personal, in-seat entertainment for both BusinessElite and Economy class customers on all wide-body aircraft.
ALSO Delta is adding Y+ to its fleet. So what are you talking about?
luvtheflying From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 33 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6103 times:
Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 16): Then you introduce a very outdated product with no PTV etc... unlike all competitors. Not good. The 764ER would be best imo. The best J product in DL fleet and an updated Y product, with relatively small overall capacity.
Correct me if im wrong, but I'm pretty sure Delta has PTVs on their international 763s economy cabin
deltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 8628 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 6080 times:
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5976 times:
Would Delta Start LAX-LHR-LAX?
Very likely.
If you look at recent DL LHR strategy, LAX-LHR will, in my view, become a SkyTeam product. AF was just a little selfish, ignorant and too hasty the first time around.
It's almost irrelevant whether or not other airlines are flying this route. As alliances are becoming more solidified and a way of consolidating your frequent flyers, certain routes will have to be flown by an alliance with any vision. I think LAX-LHR would be one of them.
A better timed SEA relaunch may be part of this same approach.
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5585 times:
There was absolutely no reason for AF to start LHR-LAX. Open Skies was no reason for jumping on this one. Logistically it was inefficient, doing a CDG-LAX-LHR-LAX-CDG having to use same equipment even though LHR-LAX warranted different equipment.
They should have clearly thought this one out a little better. DL was not in the loop on this one.
The French thought they could stick it to the British flying from their turf. AF should do it more diplomatically and use DL's
"neutralness" at LHR to achieve the same potential results since ATI/JV is in place.
"Ignorant" and "selfish" can, at times, be appropriate terms in connection with AF when dealing with alliance issues..
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
25 SlcDeltaRUmd11: As usual I think some people are still living in Deltas old vision of LAX not modern times plus this a very recently attempted failed route. AF flew
26 laca773: For the most part, you have said the same exact thing as I did in my last posting prior to this one, peanuts!!. . AF was not selfish or ignorant. The
27 deltal1011man: um..... fuel prices? Oh and modern times are around 30% increase of flights..... gah never mind, its not even worth it....
28 ocracoke: If that's the case, then AA should not dare to think of restarting JFK-FRA. After all, AA has already failed 3 times on this route. Why restart a "lo
29 SlcDeltaRUmd11: Get back to me when DL/AF restarts LAX-LHR its not going to happen. U really think BA is randomly restarting a loosing route to SAN for a third time?
30 MAH4546: The incentives that BA has for SAN-LHR are inconsequential - marketing and waived landing fees. Every new trans-Atlantic route gets that!
31 SlcDeltaRUmd11: You really think DL would get the almost MILLION dollar incentive from LAX that BA is getting for SAN. DL/AF would be the fifth carrier on the route!
32 MAH4546: It is a $750,000 in marketing for a two-year period and, IIRC, one year of waived landing fees. Delta would certainly get waived landing fees for LAX
33 SlcDeltaRUmd11: The 750,000 thats money that BA would need to spend on advertising to make it successful. Its savings. BA couldnt relaunch without spending on market
34 MAH4546: Need to spend? No, it's not money BA would need to spend. Airline routes actually don't need that much in marketing support. What they need is good wo
35 SlcDeltaRUmd11: True but even general ads for San Diego will bring in more passengers aka increase revenue since BA is the only non-stop they'll get a good portion o
36 GlobalCabotage: This route failed miserably on AF, no way DL will enter this. Let's see how BOS and MIA to LHR work.
37 757ops: I think it could work as DL LHR - LAX would connect to Hawaii / LAS markets
38 LAXintl: I'm sorry, but I think Delta would be nuts to entertain entering the super crowded Heathrow market from LAX. Depends what you mean by "make it work".
39 laca773: . That's basically what I said too. How does UA's LAX-LHR-LAX flight do?
40 757ops: UA in my knowledge have good loads to LAX I have Non-Rev'd several times and only on one ocassipn o got on first time but O don't know about the reven
41 bobnwa: Please guys, DL has not said a single word about starting LAX-LHR and probably won't. All of the postings to that happening aren't even rumor. It was
42 SlcDeltaRUmd11: I forgot Air New Zealand operates daily 747-400 service between LAX and LHR. That means that delta would be/were with AF the sixth airline on the rout
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, 
From France, joined Sep 2006, 1677 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
From US Minor Outlying Islands, joined Jan 2005, 2043 posts, 
! Even more, was and continues to be, the horrible state of California's economy not to mention the rest of the U.S. Perhaps if they were to introduce service again when the economy is healing and on the way up, perhaps it could work. 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
