Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL To Start LAX-BNA, RDU-TPA  
User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1551 posts, RR: 12
Posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 13988 times:

According to DL's desktop timetable, they will be adding a daily LAX-BNA flight starting April 8th with a 738.

At the same time, they will increase LAX-RDU frequency to daily, though it will still be a redeye.

RDU-TPA starts March 3rd as a once daily CRJ.


Looks like Jetlanta was right, DL views RDU as their market and are willing to fight for it. We shall see if AA has a response.


717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
121 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinexjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2473 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 13623 times:

The red-eye isn't the issue, in fact most people still prefer the red-eye since they can take all day to finish their business. It's the timing of the flight leaving RDU that has always been the biggest gripe.

Also, I'm not sure where you are seeing the RDU-TPA flight start on Mar 3 or even Apr 3. And remember, if this is actually happening, this would be a restart of the route, as recently as last year DL had at least 1x daily to TPA from RDU.

[Edited 2013-01-03 03:27:49]


Look ma' no hands!
User currently offlinesurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2908 posts, RR: 31
Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 13609 times:

Who would have ever thought that AA's addition of LAX-RDU would elicit any kind of response from DL, other than a swift and quiet drop a la LAX-PHL (once VX started that route). If AA started LAX-ATL/DTW/MSP, then it'd be another story.

I don't see how either of these routes will impact AA at all. AA shuttles the entertainment industry folk$$$ between LAX and BNA, given that that will not change anytime soon they have nothing to lose to DL but low-yielding pax. AA doesn't fly RDU-TPA, a route that certainly does not fit into their cornerstone strategy.

It may be worth mentioning that WN does fly both of these routes. They enjoy significant FF loyalty and onward connectivity in all 4 markets, and are probably laughing at DL's attempt to either retaliate against AA, or keep the 738s and CRJs busier, or simply keep building up focus cities at LAX and RDU any way they can. If DL wanted to make a statement to AA, they could have started LAX-DFW/ORD, or even LAX-AUS/STL. If DL wanted to grow at LAX, why not resume LAX-BOS, as they seem to be holding their own at BOS these days, or a niche route like GEG, perhaps also send an RJ to SAT (relatively uncompetitive by LAX standards). Even a resumption of LAX-MKE seems like a better move to me. Out of RDU, they could send the RJ to an uncompetitive niche market - AUS, MCI, MKE, etc. - rather than a route that sees mainline LCC competition.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 13587 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 2):
AA shuttles the entertainment industry folk$$$ between LAX and BNA, given that that will not change anytime soon they have nothing to lose to DL but low-yielding pax.

Who is to say that won't change? Lots of things have been changing over the past few years. But change like this doesn't happen without first adapting the network to serve the needs of the customers in question.


User currently offlinexjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2473 posts, RR: 51
Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 13532 times:

I am curious as if to the OP has a link to this information. I dug a little deeper from both internal and external sources and cannot find one piece of information on this.

Friend of mine hopped on travelnet and it shows no non-stop TPA flight nor any deviation from the RDULAX 3x weekly.



Look ma' no hands!
User currently offlineBNAtraveler From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 412 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13423 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

BNA-LAX, vv. is interesting. I see it in the downloadable app but nowhere else.

DL934 LAX 10:15a BNA 4:10p D 738
DL934 BNA 5:00p LAX 7:35p D 738


User currently offlineERJ170 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 6788 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13274 times:

Dear Delta,

If you want to reinstate a route, might I suggest RDU-MSY since its unserved and overdue? Throw a goJet CR7 on it. Then research MCI and AUS. GoJet CR7 and Compass E70 utilization, please...



Aiming High and going far..
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 13187 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 2):
I don't see how either of these routes will impact AA at all. AA shuttles the entertainment industry folk$$$ between LAX and BNA, given that that will not change anytime soon they have nothing to lose to DL but low-yielding pax.

  

DL will be at a frequency disadvantage to both AA and WN, plus AA and WN have better hubs for connections when the nonstops are full or the times don't work. The relatively newer morning AA flight also connects pretty well to both the AA and JL NRT flights, and the connection coming back isn't too bad either. WN has significant feed on both ends (and carries a lot of RDU/PHL/BWI-LAX thru traffic, depending on the continuation city in the current schedule). I love to see BNA get more service, but I don't see DL's niche on this route. The timing of the eastbound flight is also sub-optimal.

[Edited 2013-01-03 06:04:13]


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinexjramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2473 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13126 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 7):
I love to see BNA get more service, but I don't see DL's niche on this route. The timing of the eastbound flight is also sub-optimal.

I disagree with you on this one. That timing is perfect with the last bank out of LAX. While it misses the HND flight by an hour and change, they can also capture the intra-california, the majority of the Skyteam connections from TBIT, and the SYD flight. Whereas RDU arrives at 2210, which misses most, if not all, connections domestically, misses the DL SYD flight, and the majority of the Skyteam TBIT departures. I think there are two random Asian departures that leave TBIT post midnight that people can connect to, but those are a far cry from other, more optimal departures.



Look ma' no hands!
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13106 times:

Quoting xjramper (Reply 8):
I disagree with you on this one.

You are talking about westbound, and I agree that the timing of the westbound flight is good. The eastbound flight isn't so good, especially for O&D passengers.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7688 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13095 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 2):
I don't see how either of these routes will impact AA at all. AA shuttles the entertainment industry folk$$$ between LAX and BNA, given that that will not change anytime soon they have nothing to lose to DL but low-yielding pax. AA doesn't fly RDU-TPA, a route that certainly does not fit into their cornerstone strategy.
Quoting BNAtraveler (Reply 5):
BNA-LAX, vv. is interesting. I see it in the downloadable app but nowhere else.
DL934 LAX 10:15a BNA 4:10p D 738
DL934 BNA 5:00p LAX 7:35p D 738
Quoting xjramper (Reply 8):
I disagree with you on this one. That timing is perfect with the last bank out of LAX.

I'm shocked to see them go into a two carrier, fairly long-haul market. Also, the point of sale is mostly BNA on this flight and the schedule requries two nights in L.A. to have one day of business there. That will really hurt them against the other airlines. The connectivity on the LAX end is something, but still the local market is how this lives or dies. I agree it is retaliation to AA...fairly clearly.


User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 13028 times:

DL has been chasing high yield stuff as of late....and LAX-BNA is clearly an attempt at that.

I firmly believe we will see lots more LAX stuff in the next 12 months.....including some international once again..and this time it will stick.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7688 posts, RR: 15
Reply 12, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 12739 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 11):
I firmly believe we will see lots more LAX stuff in the next 12 months.....including some international once again

You are probably right.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 11):
and this time it will stick.

History shows you are likely to be wrong on that one.

In April and May 2012 LAX-HND only flew 62 and 67% full.

[Edited 2013-01-03 07:12:42]

User currently offlinedlflynhayn From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 441 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 12492 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 11):
I firmly believe we will see lots more LAX stuff in the next 12 months.....including some international once again..and this time it will stick.

Can't wait to see what happens!! My rumor ive been spreading around the ramp lately is DL going 2x daily LAX-KOA haha i can dream..

Quoting enilria (Reply 12):
History shows you are likely to be wrong on that one.

In April and May 2012 LAX-HND only flew 62 and 67% full

"LATELY" history is showing you were wrong in a lot of markets that DL is still serving from LAX...Not trying to be in ass just saying...


User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12204 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 12):
History shows you are likely to be wrong on that one.

In April and May 2012 LAX-HND only flew 62 and 67% full.

I was thinking it would be more south....mexico and latam. LAN has shown LIM can work....ditto on CM at PTY etc etc. And don't forget DL already serves GUA....a return to SAL would be a no brainer for them....BOG would work too

Yes they tried Central America a few years ago.....but that was the old DL...this time they understand the markets better and have better sales teams in place. Anyone monitoring the latter over the last 24 months will see that moves to better play in the VFR markets have been made successfully.

DL desperately needs a second LatAm hub to compete with AA (MIA-DFW), UA (IAH, EWR, IAD). Dual hubs work better as they are better able to cater to many passenger connecting needs. For example, I know of many tourists that do XXX-DFW-BZE-MIA-XXX.....right now DL loses much of the connecting traffic to latin america to UA and AA because the DFW and IAH connections are far better than ATL.

Having just promoted DL...I am off to fly UA today!



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 15, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 12163 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 14):
LAN has shown LIM can work....ditto on CM at PTY etc etc. And don't forget DL already serves GUA....a return to SAL would be a no brainer for them....BOG would work too

LA and CM mean nothing. They have significant connecting hubs on the other end. DL's aborted attempt at LAX-GRU is more instructive. DL on LAX-Latin America is basically p2p, and the South America flights are longer than other flights from the States to the same points. For instance, LAX-BOG cannot be done on anything smaller than a 752.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 11997 times:

Delta had to at least upgrade to daily or leave the route.

I think its half as#ing it to still keep the return a red eye . They should really commit and fight AA with a daytime return. Delta been on the route longer but i think AA will win the business crowd with the timing......interesting to see how RDU-LAX plays out. My guess is Delta will eventually fail unless they commit to a daytime return, but i will be interested to watch and see delta does have quite a loyal following in the southeast so that could be the wildcard here


User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11931 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 15):
For instance, LAX-BOG cannot be done on anything smaller than a 752.

73G can do it.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4973 posts, RR: 25
Reply 18, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11905 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting xjramper (Reply 1):
. It's the timing of the flight leaving RDU that has always been the biggest gripe.

RDU-LAX is being retimed and will be a morning departure out of RDU instead, starting in April, clearly targeting the RDU-origination market.

DL1097 RDU 0700 LAX 0915 738


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 11893 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 17):
73G can do it.

Please point me toward some other 3000 nm routes successfully operated by the 73G. LAX-BOG is 80 nm longer than MVD-PTY



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11248 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 19):
Please point me toward some other 3000 nm routes successfully operated by the 73G. LAX-BOG is 80 nm longer than MVD-PTY

I didn't say without restrictions....but it could do it with a couple of seats blocked out or limited cargo



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11208 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 20):
I didn't say without restrictions....but it could do it with a couple of seats blocked out or limited cargo

So we're going to take a plane that has poor economics to start with and then start blocking seats?

Besides bleeding money, what is the point of this exercise?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11180 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 21):
So we're going to take a plane that has poor economics to start with and then start blocking seats?

Besides bleeding money, what is the point of this exercise?

I think WN and CM would disagree on the poor economics thing....If you can charge enough for the seats, it more than makes up for the loss of a few blocked seats.

But yes, I agree a 752 would be the ideal aircraft and thoroughly fillable from LAX.

You say CM and LAN have feed at PTY/LIM....DL has feed (via AS) and its slowly growing domestic route structure at LAX (wasn't SEA announced last week?) to more than make it work



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 23, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 11135 times:

It'll be fun to watch. I look forward to the fare wars. Already have an LAXRDU booked for April.

Wouldn't be shocked to see AA add a third daily LAXBNA, and I've already been hearing AA is looking at LAXATL.

DL won't last on LAXBNA.

LAXRDU will be more interesting to watch. Market is not big enough for two airlines, and the end result might be it simply won't be served non-stop at all.

[Edited 2013-01-03 12:37:53]


a.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 24, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11102 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 22):
You say CM and LAN have feed at PTY/LIM....DL has feed (via AS) and its slowly growing domestic route structure at LAX (wasn't SEA announced last week?) to more than make it work

That's not really an apples to apples comparison. CM has a highly banked, extremely efficient hub at PTY and LA/LP fly to many big cities without other access to LA from LIM.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 25, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11224 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 22):
You say CM and LAN have feed at PTY/LIM....DL has feed (via AS) and its slowly growing domestic route structure at LAX (wasn't SEA announced last week?) to more than make it work

Ridiculous comparison.

CM and LA have hubs at PTY/LIM and feed from cities that have strong demand to LA.

DL and AS do not have hubs in LAX, nor do they have feed with cities with strong demand to LatAm, because on the West Coast, it's pretty much just LA, some demand from SF, and LAS-Brazil.



a.
User currently offlinesurfdog75 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 11307 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 23):
It'll be fun to watch. I look forward to the fare wars. Already have an LAXRDU booked for April.

Wouldn't be shocked to see AA add a third daily LAXBNA, and I've already been hearing AA is looking at LAXATL.

DL won't last on LAXBNA.

LAXRDU will be more interesting to watch. Market is not big enough for two airlines, and the end result might be it simply won't be served non-stop at all.[Edited 2013-01-03 12:37:53]

I hope AA does LAX-ATL. It'd be nice to see DL add back LAX-DFW in response. Everything out of DFW on DL is packed to the gills.


User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10465 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 23):
I've already been hearing AA is looking at LAXATL.

Oh man I hope so. Either UA or AA should start LAX-ATL. It's too big of a market for one carrier (yeah yeah FL serves it too I know).


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10291 times:

LAX-ATL is a tough market but i could see one 737-800 like they maintain to EWR if its perfectly timed being possible.

User currently offlinedlflynhayn From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 441 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10274 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 27):
Oh man I hope so. Either UA or AA should start LAX-ATL. It's too big of a market for one carrier (yeah yeah FL serves it too I know).

AA would bleed even more money if they tried this..I believe UA tried it a few years ago and was also cancelled,so if UA wasn't able to make it work i highly doubt AA can.But like someone else said if it was to happen you would see LAX-DFW in a heartbeat which i would love,i really miss those days when we had non-stops to DFW from LAX...


User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10220 times:

Quoting dlflynhayn (Reply 29):
AA would bleed even more money if they tried this

I don't think AA would bleed money with the frequent flyer base it has in the LA area. And UA I believe tried it a very long time ago, but ATL is today much larger than it was 10-15 years ago, with a larger economic base and population.

I don't think AA would bleed money at all, the market is large enough for several carriers to serve it.

And if DL wants to jump in on the AA/UA/VX LAX-DFW fight, go ahead.


User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 946 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10194 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 23):
AA is looking at LAXATL

Can't they at least wait unti they get out of bankruptcy before going back to making stupid business decisions?


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 32, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10182 times:

Quoting BNAtraveler (Reply 5):
Quoting xjramper (Reply 4):

Have to wait till its loaded into the system on Saturday to see it on Delta.com or TravelNet.

Quoting enilria (Reply 12):

History shows you are likely to be wrong on that one.

In April and May 2012 LAX-HND only flew 62 and 67% full.

How about a cit that isn't restricted by crappy slots? (IRC NRT or SYD)

Quoting dlflynhayn (Reply 13):

Can't wait to see what happens!! My rumor ive been spreading around the ramp lately is DL going 2x daily LAX-KOA haha i can dream..

I do think at some point we will see more hawaii capacity from DL. Can see both LIH/KOA going 2x daily.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 23):

LAXRDU will be more interesting to watch. Market is not big enough for two airlines, and the end result might be it simply won't be served non-stop at all.

agreed. Unless AA dumps more capacity into it I think both will stay around.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 23):
DL won't last on LAXBNA.

I disagree. I think DL has the fallowing to keep this one on both sides. IMO DL will likely stay the third carrier on the route, but I think they can keep it around. (and that all depends on how long they want to lose money)

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 26):

I hope AA does LAX-ATL. It'd be nice to see DL add back LAX-DFW in response. Everything out of DFW on DL is packed to the gills.

ORD, BOS, WAS, DEN and DFW are the biggest holes in the Delta LAX network. I would like to see Delta add the big four Texas cities from LA soon rather than later. (but I think DEN or PDX will be the next shorthaul adds.)



yep.
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10177 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 27):

WN is on the route nonstop as well 1x daily and as you mentioned FL is 3x daily. I'm convinced that if AA attempts LAX-ATL DL will respond with LAX-DFW. But on the second thought if we are to believe in the new commitment and expansion of LAX we will see DFW, BOS, DEN to name a few giant holes in DL's offering from LAX.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10090 times:

To respond to the initial post: I'm not surprised. DL is DL, and they don't want to lose all LAX-RDU pax. But it probably won't impact AA much. Neither flight will.

As far as hubs go, DL operates something like 105 daily flights (I think including regional). And LAX is a major destination for many SkyTeam airlines. So it is an important destination.

I'm not surprised, but I don't think AA is going anywhere anytime soon, and I think these routes will hurt DL more than AA or WN.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 35, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10083 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 34):

As far as hubs go, DL operates something like 105 daily flights (I think including regional). And LAX is a major destination for many SkyTeam airlines. So it is an important destination.

Getting close to busting 110 flights a day. IIRC this will put Delta right at ~108 flights from LAX.



yep.
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 36, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 10016 times:

Just a note, its a little OT but I'm to lazy to go and find the thread.

PR for the start for SEA flights. Not sure why they didn't include BNA, because its on the PR on DeltaNet

http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1837



yep.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 37, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9970 times:

Well no one is prone to mistakes, and this may very well be one, but DL does seem to be cutting the crap recently and trying hard to fly only flights that make money. I don't think they're just blindly adding it without a reason. Again, it could flop, but given DL's recent actions, I think there is much more that meets the eye.

But yeah, DL's track record is sketchy in some areas... LAX being one



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6347 posts, RR: 2
Reply 38, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9975 times:

Quoting klkla (Reply 31):
Can't they at least wait unti they get out of bankruptcy before going back to making stupid business decisions?

Funniest post of the year so far. Welcome to my RU list!

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 32):
disagree. I think DL has the fallowing to keep this one on both sides. IMO DL will likely stay the third carrier on the route, but I think they can keep it around. (and that all depends on how long they want to lose money)

I agree too...DL has a decent FF base in BNA.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 39, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9556 times:

Quoting klkla (Reply 31):
Quoting mah4546 (Reply 23):
AA is looking at LAXATL

Can't they at least wait unti they get out of bankruptcy before going back to making stupid business decisions?

Why is it stupid for an airline to fly to ATL from its fourth largest hub, in a market (LAX) where AA is the strongest airline among corporate travellers?

Even if it's not the easiest market to compete in, the fact is AA needs to strengthen its lead in the LA market, and adding more key business markets like Atlanta, and more frequency in its established markets (which it has started doing with YYZ, BNA and OKC, for example).

Then again, everybody thought AA was stupid and would never last entering LAXIAH and LAXSLC.

AA has a huge advantage coming out of LAX after BK: the nicest facilities, more gates coming up in 2014/15, the strongest partner collection, the strongest share of LAX-originating O&D premium travellers (and I believe overall, as well, after WN), the strongest share of LAX corporate travel contracts and the only alliance that will allow every possible connection to be within security. LAX might never be dominated by one airline, but there will always be an airline stronger in the market than the rest, and AA wants to be that airline.



a.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 40, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9457 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 32):
I think DL has the fallowing to keep this one on both sides.

I would be shocked if DL had more of a "fallowing" than AA or WN in either BNA or LAX, but I'd love to have someone convince me otherwise.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9314 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 40):

I don't think anybody was stating that DL had a larger following in either LA or BNA, but that their following was maybe large enough to warrant a once daily flight between LAX and BNA on its own metal. And I'm sure being able to connect onward from LAX to SEA, SAN, OAK, SFO, SMF, and other destinations on AS will help fill up the plane. Not saying any of this will make the route profitable or keep DL on the route long term but it could maybe work. In my opinion I give it a 40/60% chance of success.

[Edited 2013-01-03 18:39:10]

[Edited 2013-01-03 18:40:44]

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 42, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9133 times:

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 41):
I don't think anybody was stating that DL had a larger following in either LA or BNA, but that their following was maybe large enough to warrant a once daily flight between LAX and BNA on its own metal.

Let's say DL can get a 20 percent market share with a nonstop. That's only about 60 PDEW, and with only one nonstop flight, some DL passengers will doubtless connect. I don't see how the airplane goes out full.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePIEAvantiP180 From United States of America, joined Sep 2009, 558 posts, RR: 0
Reply 43, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9025 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 42):

Starting off I don't either, but with the right attention, support, and maybe if they stick to it long enough it just might. That's why I'm giving it a 40% chance of working and that's the optimist in me talking. I think all this depends how well DL sticks to its guns with this round of LAX expansion.


User currently offlinesevenfeet From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8995 times:

BNA-LAX has a simple reason behind it...the entertainment industry. It's mostly the music biz but sometimes the TV and movie biz needs a direct from these two entertainment business locations and for years, AA has been the only game in town (a holdover of the original AA hub in BNA). Southwest has been able to poach some of this business (although a lot of theirs is leisure travel) and DL is seeing if there is enough of a market for them as well. There are already competing non-stops between DL and AA over BNA-LGA (the other entertainment capital) so I'm not completely surprised to see them making a run at it.

I've flown DL to LAX from BNA twice in the last few months...one for business and one on vacation (passing through to Hawaii). It would have been nice to skip ATL on the way there. I imagine upgrades are a lot easier out of Nashville versus fighting for them in ATL. Interesting choice of a 738 for equipment...although it's too much to expect a 752 on this route...there hasn't been 757 hardware in BNA for years now. Can the MD90 make this distance?


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 45, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 8945 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 40):

I would be shocked if DL had more of a "fallowing" than AA or WN in either BNA or LAX, but I'd love to have someone convince me otherwise.

Where did i say that?

Quoting PIEAvantiP180 (Reply 43):

Starting off I don't either, but with the right attention, support, and maybe if they stick to it long enough it just might. That's why I'm giving it a 40% chance of working and that's the optimist in me talking. I think all this depends how well DL sticks to its guns with this round of LAX expansion.

this.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 39):
more gates coming up in 2014/15,

maybe. AFAIK TBIT hasn't hit the magic number to give AA its TBIT gates.

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 39):
the strongest partner collection,

uhh...not sure how you figure

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 39):
the nicest facilities,

uhh Terminal 5 is just as nice as T4....and lets not act like the box is some super nice terminal....

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 39):
the strongest share of LAX corporate travel contracts

proof?



yep.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 46, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8931 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 45):
Where did i say that?

The market isn't big enough for three, so if you believe DL is going to make it work, you have to believe that DL has an advantage somewhere. I'd like to know where that advantage is. It's certainly not in Nashville.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 47, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8918 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 39):
AA has a huge advantage coming out of LAX after BK: the nicest facilities, more gates coming up in 2014/15, the strongest partner collection, the strongest share of LAX-originating O&D premium travellers (and I believe overall, as well, after WN), the strongest share of LAX corporate travel contracts and the only alliance that will allow every possible connection to be within security. LAX might never be dominated by one airline, but there will always be an airline stronger in the market than the rest, and AA wants to be that airline.

AA has no huge advantage at LAX because it doesn't have a huge advantage in any of the categories you mention, with the exception if the mostly irrelevant post-security issue. It has a small advantage in some of them, but it isn't even close to dominating any of them at this point. So, while one could argue that AA is in good shape at LAX, the truth is that only 3pts or so of revenue share separate the three majors. There is limited infrastructure for growth for any carrier, so no one should expect any dramatic changes in the status quo.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 48, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8820 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 46):

The market isn't big enough for three, so if you believe DL is going to make it work, you have to believe that DL has an advantage somewhere. I'd like to know where that advantage is. It's certainly not in Nashville.

I think they have the people in both cities to make it work.....

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 47):
AA has no huge advantage at LAX because it doesn't have a huge advantage in any of the categories you mention, with the exception if the mostly irrelevant post-security issue. It has a small advantage in some of them, but it isn't even close to dominating any of them at this point. So, while one could argue that AA is in good shape at LAX, the truth is that only 3pts or so of revenue share separate the three majors. There is limited infrastructure for growth for any carrier, so no one should expect any dramatic changes in the status quo.

           



yep.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 49, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8818 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 48):
I think they have the people in both cities to make it work.....

You are avoiding the issue. Do you believe the market (~275 PDEW) is large enough for three carriers? If so, why?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8785 times:

DL can probably make it work, especially with all the international/Hawaii and SkyTeam connections at LAX. But I doubt they will be able to hurt WN and AA much on either route.

AA is not the dominant carrier at LAX. Last I checked, for international services, it was this little carrier called United. You might have heard of them. And UA gets a fair amount of premium pax. For that matter, so does DL. Even if they are in good shape there, jetlanta has it right. Sorry to kill your AA dreams.


User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 51, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8801 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 46):
The market isn't big enough for three, so if you believe DL is going to make it work, you have to believe that DL has an advantage somewhere. I'd like to know where that advantage is. It's certainly not in Nashville.

Delta is bigger at BNA than AA is now. Has been for a couple of years now. That is a start. If this is part of a global strategy of moving entertainment industry contracts to Delta, then it could succeed. I assure you that is a goal, what I don't know is if they've already moved some of those contracts. Keep in mind that all of those corporate deals are at risk during Chapter 11. Its possible that AA may have already experienced some attrition in this sector.


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 52, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8805 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 45):
maybe. AFAIK TBIT hasn't hit the magic number to give AA its TBIT gates.

Yes, it has. Magic number is 17. Currently scheduled to have 18, so AMR gets its four preferential use gates.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 45):
uhh...not sure how you figure

Largest Euro carrier at LAX, largest LatAm carrier at LAX and largest trans-Pacific carrier at LAX. And I'm pretty sure largest share of traffic at LAX among the alliances, at least internationally.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 45):
proof?

It's extremely well known that AA has the largest share of LA travel contracts among LA-area companies, hence it's historical revenue leading position (at least pre-UA/CO, but I believe AA is still ahead) at the airport, even when it has not been the largest carrier. DL has been trying to chase this traffic to not much avail, unlike NYC where it has done a better job eating it away. These contracts are up for others to steal with BK. But where I work, we are sticking with AA, and I've yet to hear of any of the major AA contracts deflecting. AA is just so ridiculously ahead of UA/DL in its on-ground services offered for the entertainment industry, which it also offers at MIA and LAX.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 47):
the truth is that only 3pts or so of revenue share separate the three majors.

No, the truth is the DB1B data only you inaccuaretly and constantly babble about includes only domestic itineraries.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 50):
AA is not the dominant carrier at LAX. Last I checked, for international services, it was this little carrier called United.

Nobody is claiming AA is the dominant carrier at LAX. It's not, but UA is not dominant either.

[Edited 2013-01-03 20:20:17]


a.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 53, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8758 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 51):
Delta is bigger at BNA than AA is now.

Given the proximity to ATL, I'm not sure bigger is necessarily better. DL's and AA's networks are so radically different that it's tough to compare them. For instance, DL carries much more traffic to Florida - much of it not particularly high-yielding - than AA ex-BNA.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8726 times:

I would say UA is dominant for international service, out of the US carriers. That was all I was stating. I am not that educated on LAX dynamics and market leaders.

On a.net, when it's 1 vs 5, the 5 are generally correct. Not always, but usually.

Also, AA/UA numbers need to take into account their perspective regional carriers. UX is bigger than Eagle, including at LAX. I'm pretty sure UA/UX offer the most flights and destinations, with WN probably having more domestic pax. That's my guess.


User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 55, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8717 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 52):
No, the truth is the DB1B data only you inaccuaretly and constantly babble about includes only domestic itineraries.

I'd love for you to share ANY data. I won't hold my breathe.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8643 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 55):
I'd love for you to share ANY data.

Well said. Mah: If you're going to attempt to incorrectly dis-count someone, at least do it with correct spelling and a few facts. I don't see how AA is the strongest European carrier from LAX, or Latin American, or Trans Pacific.

AFAIK, AA offers somewhere around two destinations in each of those markets. I know Pax numbers could vary somewhat, but AS serves 7 or so LatinAm markets, so I just don't see how AA is bigger. AA offers MIA and DFW routes to Latin America. Not LAX.

As far as alliances go, OneWorld is the smallest alliance. Everyone flies to LAX, so I don't see how OneWorld is that far ahead. They do have a strong Asian and Pacific presence, but so many carriers from all alliances fly to LAX. And OneWorld is just plain not as big.

What are the current load factors on the RDU-LAX flight? And how about AA/WN on BNA?


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 57, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8665 times:

Quoting jetlanta,reply=55Quoting mah4546 (Reply 52):
No, the truth is the DB1B data only you inaccuaretly and constantly babble about includes only domestic itineraries.

I'd love for you to share ANY data. I won't hold my breathe.
][/quote]


I've shared plenty of traffic data. But I don't take domestic data and conveniently forget to mention its domestic data.


[quote=UA787DEN
(Reply 54):
Also, AA/UA numbers need to take into account their perspective regional carriers. UX is bigger than Eagle, including at LAX. I'm pretty sure UA/UX offer the most flights and destinations, with WN probably having more domestic pax. That's my guess.

Yes, UA+UX is bigger than AA+MQ. Both are bigger than WN.

[Edited 2013-01-03 20:41:01]


a.
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 58, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8654 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 56):
I don't see how AA is the strongest European carrier from LAX, or Latin American, or Trans Pacific.

What are you talking about? I said that British Airways is the largest European airline at LAX (it is); LAN is the largest LatAm carrier at LAX (fact; although when I was typing that I meant South America. Not sure if LAN is larger than AM or TA); and Qantas the largest trans-Pac carrier at LAX (also the truth).

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 56):
As far as alliances go, OneWorld is the smallest alliance. Everyone flies to LAX, so I don't see how OneWorld is that far ahead. They do have a strong Asian and Pacific presence, but so many carriers from all alliances fly to LAX. And OneWorld is just plain not as big.

And? The combined marketshare of OW at LAX, I believe but am not certain, is the largest of the three. It sure helps having LAN, BA and QF.

[Edited 2013-01-03 20:45:27]


a.
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8569 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 52):

It's extremely well known that AA has the largest share of LA travel contracts among LA-area companies, hence it's historical revenue leading position (at least pre-UA/CO, but I believe AA is still ahead) at the airport, even when it has not been the largest carrier. DL has been trying to chase this traffic to not much avail, unlike NYC where it has done a better job eating it away. These contracts are up for others to steal with BK. But where I work, we are sticking with AA, and I've yet to hear of any of the major AA contracts deflecting. AA is just so ridiculously ahead of UA/DL in its on-ground services offered for the entertainment industry, which it also offers at MIA and LAX.

it is known on a.net....no one has ever posted proof that I know of.......

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 52):

Largest Euro carrier at LAX, largest LatAm carrier at LAX and largest trans-Pacific carrier at LAX. And I'm pretty sure largest share of traffic at LAX among the alliances, at least internationally.

so if bigger is better then United owns LA no?

Oneworld is just fine, but having BA/QF/LA doesn't make them "better" at LA. Your bais says so, but not the real world.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 49):
You are avoiding the issue. Do you believe the market (~275 PDEW) is large enough for three carriers? If so, why?

no I'm not. Delta has, IMO, the size on both ends to make it work.


I don't really understand why this thread is, like always, becoming about AA vs the world in LA.  



yep.
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8530 times:

I have found info saying AA has about 160 daily LAX flights. Does this include MQ?

I was talking about when you said AA had the best routes to each of those areas, while trying to support that they had the best connection potential. I read wrong. Though OW certainly isn't the largest to all of those areas.

About LAN: TACA/Lasca and Copa? BA might well be the largest European carrier at LAX, but BA+IB can't really have much of a lead over AF+KL+AZ? And Star might be last to Europe, but LH and LX aren't tiny. ANZ isn't as large as QF, but it isn't small. NH, AC, CA, OZ, SQ and TK all serve Star Alliance too. And US (though this might change soon.) I believe it is close, but I don't see how OW is the largest.


User currently offlineUALFAson From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 741 posts, RR: 4
Reply 61, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8539 times:

As a somewhat-recent transplant and now frequent flyer out of BNA, I'll throw in my 2 cents' worth:

BNA is in need of more non-WN flights heading west. DL has a HUGE FF crowd here and plenty of people take the (mainline) 35-minute hop southeast to ATL to then head west. An LAX nonstop that is then timed to provide intra-California and west coast service will be helpful. I would assume that the flight is geared toward BNA O&D since I would think it's more Nashvillians trying to head west than west coasters trying to get to Nashville.

That said, I do have to wonder about the times. As enilria pointed out, it means Tennesseans will have to spend two nights in a hotel. That when coupled with the fact that AA presumably has the entertainment contracts (I've seen cast members from the show "Nashville" on AA's nonstop flight), make me think that DL will get some butts in the seats, but will get the trash fares. I also bet a lot of itineraries will wind up involving the nonstop in one direction but a connection in ATL still in the other.

Also, BNA rarely sees the 738 on DL (most everything to ATL and the mainline DTW flights are MD-88s with an occassional 757). I suppose they could make the eastbound a redeye and the westbound an early morning dept to keep ground time minimal. Would a single crew be able to work this flight (is that how they'll schedule the crew as it is now?)



"We hope you've enjoyed flying with us as much as we've enjoyed taking you for a ride."
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 62, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8441 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 59):
it is known on a.net....no one has ever posted proof that I know of.......

Here you go:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ods-secret-spots-inside-lax-233594



a.
User currently offlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4433 posts, RR: 6
Reply 63, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8319 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 56):
What are the current load factors on the RDU-LAX flight? And how about AA/WN on BNA?

Somewhat dated and some what unreliable flight aware numbers show RDU-LAX on DL at 94% load-factor. BNA-LAX is WN 86% AA 82%. I'm doubting yields are anything more than average. As MAH4546 mentioned I'm sceptical there is room for two carriers on LAX-RDU.

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 61):
BNA is in need of more non-WN flights heading wes

WN hits most of the markets in the mountain west and coast already, other than the Bay area. Maybe UA will consider SFO-BNA.

Summer 2013 WN out of BNA
DEN 4x
LAS 3x
PHX 3x
LAX 2x
SAN 2x
SEA 1x

Generally speaking, WN schedules one-stop flights whenever possible on popular city pairs. For example, BNA-LAS-OAK. This would indicate the following cities may have a noticeable amount of one-stop/no plane changes and the cities most likely to go non-stop (if any of them ever). These cities to the west have at least one one-stop in each direction:

ABQ
OAK
DAL (likely will be non-stop when Wright is lifted)


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 8301 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 63):

I think UALFA is saying that non-WN is what they need, with so much WN expansion, variety and choice would be nice and maybe lower fares a tiny bit.

I think RDU-LAX can support two daily flights, because of the huge LAX area and all the connections. The RDU-LAX market itself might not be able to support it. But RDU-LAX, West Coast, Asia, Australia, and Hawaii could indeed merit 2 daily.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2000 posts, RR: 21
Reply 65, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8121 times:

Quoting FL787 (Thread starter):
a daily LAX-BNA flight starting April 8th with a 738.

Interesting move, but I doubt they'll be successful up against AA on the route if they do indeed still have the corporate contracts in BNA (which it seems they still do), hard going up against AA's 2x daily in such a midsized market.

Quoting FL787 (Thread starter):
At the same time, they will increase LAX-RDU frequency to daily

Ah, the competition heats up, I guess we'll see just how strong AA loyalty is in RDU after the hub days. I'm thinking that since they still have the RDU-LHR contract AA will get most of the premium travelers in this market, I guess we'll find out soon though.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 32):
I disagree. I think DL has the fallowing to keep this one on both sides.

I'm sorry but 5x daily between three carriers in such a limited market is far from sustainable. Unless DL has nabbed the entertainment corporate contracts from AA, I can't see them succeeding against AA's superior frequency and established presence on the route...I doubt they're adding it because they think they can make money though.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 64):
I think RDU-LAX can support two daily flights, because of the huge LAX area and all the connections.

If DL, who previously had a monopoly on the route, could only find themselves able to hack it less-than-daily, what makes you think it can all of the sudden support 2x daily. Sorry, but even with every connection to kingdom come available through LAX, there isn't enough traffic to support 2x daily, someone will be forced off...

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 56):
Well said. Mah: If you're going to attempt to incorrectly dis-count someone, at least do it with correct spelling

Oh good lord, I suppose you've NEVER made a spelling mistake on this forum  


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 66, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7899 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 59):
no I'm not. Delta has, IMO, the size on both ends to make it work.

All right. Since you don't believe that there is room for 3 carriers, is DL going to drive out AA or WN?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 67, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7881 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 57):
I've shared plenty of traffic data. But I don't take domestic data and conveniently forget to mention its domestic data.

I assume you meant international. I also assume you don't have access to international O&D data. If so, what source are you using?

So lets admit that neither of us is going to post up-to-date domestic & international data on a.net. Don't assume that I don't have access to both, however. Instead, lets focus on LAX ASMs. For a sample month of April 2013, here is how how ASMs fall out at LAX:

UA 13.0%
AA 12.9%
DL 10.9%
WN 4.3%
VX 3.8%
AS 2.2%
US 2.0%
B6 1.4%


If you break it down by partners, including alliance & JV partners, it sorts out differently.

UA (+NZ,CA,US,BR,LH,OZ,NH,SQ,AC,TK,LX,TG,CM,LR,TA) = 31.7%
DL (+KE,VA,CI,AF,VS,CZ,MU,KL,AM,SU) = 25.8%
AA (+QF,CX,BA,LA,JL,MH,AB,IB) = 24.7%

I did not include AS or WS in the DL or AA numbers. Clearly no carrier, or group of carriers, has a huge advantage at LAX. The three major U.S. legacies are essentially equal in the market in terms of capacity and market breadth. As I've indicated several times in the past, real estate plays a big role here. AA controls 13 mainline contact gates at T4, plus will have preferential access to four additional gates at TBIT for a total of 17 mainline gate. Delta has 13 mainline gates at T5 plus two full-time gates at T6 for a total of 15. However Delta also has rights to use AS gates at T6 as well. UA has 20+ gates, though many of them are permanently configured for regional jets. (Please correct me if I'm off on any of these. I think they are all at least in the ballpark) In terms of physical space, there is little difference between the three.

Another point, DL and AA operate virtually the same number of international ASMs from LAX, with Delta holding a light lead. UA far outpaces both.


User currently offlinediverdave From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 350 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7833 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 40):
I would be shocked if DL had more of a "fallowing" than AA or WN in either BNA or LAX, but I'd love to have someone convince me otherwise.
http://www.transtats.bts.gov/data_elements.aspx?data=1

Of course WN is way out front at Nashville.

BNA 2011 Delta mainline pax carried: 344,716
American MAAinline pax carried: 368,129

Delta is trending up if you want to look, while AA is trending down.

Eagle brings 247,493 to the party, while SkyWest carries 71,619.

Connection carriers are a bit more difficult to sort through. SkyWest probably should include ExpressJet and the former ASA flights, but the notes on the web site don't say that.

So Delta doesn't have more of a following in BNA than AA, but the mainline numbers were pretty close in 2011.

For some reason, BNA is one of the few airports that doesn't publish traffic by carrier.

Meanwhile on the west coast, T5 is rather busy despite the folks on a.net that urged Delta to give it up in 2006:

LAX Moves To Evict Delta From T-5 (by Laxintl Apr 24 2006 in Civil Aviation)

David

[Edited 2013-01-04 06:11:15]

User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 69, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7831 times:

Quoting diverdave (Reply 68):
So Delta doesn't have more of a following in BNA than AA, but the mainline numbers were pretty close in 2011.

According to T-100, Delta carried 738K from BNA in the YE Aug12. AA carried 651K. This total includes regional partners.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 70, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 7777 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 69):
According to T-100, Delta carried 738K from BNA in the YE Aug12. AA carried 651K. This total includes regional partners.

But again, bigger doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the "following" and the potential success of BNA-LAX. If DL's passenger mix in BNA is 0 percent BNA point of sale, that's a lot different than if DL's passenger mix in BNA is 100 percent BNA point of sale.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 71, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7720 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 70):
But again, bigger doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the "following" and the potential success of BNA-LAX. If DL's passenger mix in BNA is 0 percent BNA point of sale, that's a lot different than if DL's passenger mix in BNA is 100 percent BNA point of sale.

DB1B YE 2Q12

% of PAX with BNA as Point of Origin:
WN 67.3% (inflated due to likely higher number of one-way tickets)
AA 60.5%
DL 56.6%

POO isn't the same as Point of Sale, but its not a bad metric for this purpose. So Delta has more paxs and is expanding while a slightly higher % of AA's paxs originate in BNA. In the end, its probably pretty much a wash. Delta is going into it understanding the challenge and AA is going to defend its position. WN, on the other hand, doesn't perform well in markets like this. They could actually blink first.


User currently offlineAirMatt From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 72, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7711 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 23):
and I've already been hearing AA is looking at LAXATL.

I do hope this happens. A nonstop option on AA would be great. I don't think AA will have a problem making one daily nonstop flight work. A morning departure from LAX and an afternoon/evening departure from ATL.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 73, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7691 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 71):
WN, on the other hand, doesn't perform well in markets like this. They could actually blink first.

Which ones?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 74, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7677 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 73):
Which ones?

Long-hauls, especially with legacy competition.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 75, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7651 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 74):
Long-hauls, especially with legacy competition.

But AA and WN have coexisted for years on LAX-BNA. That's what puzzles me about your comment. It's different from some other long-ish flights.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 76, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7621 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 75):
But AA and WN have coexisted for years on LAX-BNA. That's what puzzles me about your comment. It's different from some other long-ish flights.

That doesn't mean that WN has done well for years. And with AA and DL each adding capacity, WN's performance has nowhere to go but down.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 77, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 7621 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 76):
That doesn't mean that WN has done well for years.

Why keep it if it doesn't do well? What does it add to the network that MDW/STL/HOU-LAX do not?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 78, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7566 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 77):
Why keep it if it doesn't do well? What does it add to the network that MDW/STL/HOU-LAX do not?

WN has kept a lot that doesn't do well. That should be clear from their P&Ls. However, over the past year or so, we've seen a much more aggressive stance from WN in terms of culling things that don't work. The new Southwest is far more aggressive than the old on in terms of Network Planning.

I'm not saying they are going to blink here. But BNA-LAX has little significant network benefit to WN. If they see a drop in performance, there is little reason not to reduce capacity.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8764 posts, RR: 3
Reply 79, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7564 times:

Pretty silly exercise. Can Delta afford to do a little bit of this? Absolutely, they can afford it. Keeping their nails sharp.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 80, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 7548 times:

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 78):
However, over the past year or so, we've seen a much more aggressive stance from WN in terms of culling things that don't work.

But most of those "things" have been short haul, and most of the cuts have therefore been related to their adoption of certain FL accounting practices related to short haul routes. Which long haul routes that have operated for, say, five years or more have we seen cut over the past year?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 81, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7523 times:

RDU-TPA is a total waste. I bet they are flying this because they have too many CRJ-200s and flying it RDU-TPA is better than parking it.


BNA is a city of over 1.5 million. They can handle 5 flights daily to LAX. Plus AA has morning and afternoon.

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 2):
If DL wanted to make a statement to AA, they could have started LAX-DFW/ORD, or even LAX-AUS/STL.

RDU-LAX isnt worth making a statement over. The airlines industry has been profitable the last 2-3 years despite the poor economy in part because airlines have refrained from statements.

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 26):
I hope AA does LAX-ATL. It'd be nice to see DL add back LAX-DFW in response

This is how airlines lose money. AA should stick to DFW-LAX and DL should stick to ATL-LAX. Let VX be the one who goes under flying into everyone else's hubs


User currently offlineklkla From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 946 posts, RR: 0
Reply 82, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7445 times:

One of my clients, who is in the entertainment industry, told me his company had canceled their contract with AA during the pilot slowdown/meltdown a couple months ago and switched to DL as their primary carrier. He mentioned that he knows of a couple other companies doing this, as well, and speculated that the new Nashville flight is a result of these new contracts FWIW. Makes sense to me.

User currently offlineFlytravel From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7427 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 63):
Maybe UA will consider SFO-BNA.

Given WN's strength on the BNA side, I'd think it should make a go for it, perhaps also pre-empting another carrier. Maybe an IAD-BNA-SFO with IAD-BNA sending some pax down south as well, and BNA-SFO with IAD coupled with the other east feed.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 81):
ATL-LAX. Let VX be the one who goes under flying into everyone else's hubs

I think once FL ceases the route, the route will lend itself opening to more carriers, including maybe NK.


User currently offlinecessna2 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 348 posts, RR: 2
Reply 84, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 7392 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 56):
What are the current load factors on the RDU-LAX flight?

94% is a pretty good LF.

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 65):
If DL, who previously had a monopoly on the route, could only find themselves able to hack it less-than-daily, what makes you think it can all of the sudden support 2x daily. Sorry, but even with every connection to kingdom come available through LAX, there isn't enough traffic to support 2x daily, someone will be forced off...

DL could only find themselves able to less-than-daily hack it because it was just an aircraft utilization. Not a route that they were trying to make work. So most of the business community still connected because the flight times did not fit with the needs of the region. Now with the departure leaving at 7am it caters more towards the business traveler. This route is big enough for two carriers.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 7279 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 75):
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 77):

WN often has quite similar fares to the legacies on Transon/Long Haul, and more people are willing to fork out a few bucks more for better service and seats.

Airlines often keep around a few flights that aren't profitable. If they axe it, they help competition. Also, routes are often kept just for the sake of having the route. I'm betting quite a few people would rather switch to AA rather than connecting in Texas or STL. I realize that load factors don't always equal yield, but load factors are pretty good on the route.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2000 posts, RR: 21
Reply 86, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7247 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 81):
BNA is a city of over 1.5 million. They can handle 5 flights daily to LAX.

Name any other city East of the Mississippi around that size that can handle 5 flights daily to LAX on three different carriers.

Quoting cessna2 (Reply 84):
DL could only find themselves able to less-than-daily hack it because it was just an aircraft utilization.

If it's apparently a large enough route to operate 2x daily between two carriers, why would they have left money on the table then in all that time? Furthermore, why did the route go years and years without ever being served if it could profitably support 2x daily?

Quoting cessna2 (Reply 84):
This route is big enough for two carriers.

Yeah, for about 6 months with both airlines taking losses until one of them blinks first.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 87, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7201 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 86):

JFK. BOS. :p MCO.

Other routes were more important than RDU. If every profitable route was served to saturation, new routes wouldn't be starting. I don't think either airline to RDU is going to be making loads of money, but I don't think they will be losing a ton, definitely not enough to kill the route in 6 months, unless the possible merger kills the route.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2000 posts, RR: 21
Reply 88, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7147 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 87):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 86):

JFK. BOS. :p MCO.

I said cities of around the 1.5 million population he asserted, which markets East of the Mississippi with a population of around 1.5 million can profitably support 5x daily to LAX between three different airlines?

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 87):
but I don't think they will be losing a ton, definitely not enough to kill the route in 6 months, unless the possible merger kills the route.

So they're both going to lose money on the route but operate it indefinitely unless the AA/US merger happens? Sorry, but this isn't the 80's and 90's anymore where airlines operated money-losing routes for sake of competition all the time, someone will be driven off.


User currently offlineUALFAson From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 741 posts, RR: 4
Reply 89, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7150 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 63):
Quoting UALFAson (Reply 61):BNA is in need of more non-WN flights heading wes
WN hits most of the markets in the mountain west and coast already, other than the Bay area. Maybe UA will consider SFO-BNA.

I guess I should have been more clear. I know WN offers a lot of BNA-West Coast flights. My point was for those travelers who don't want to fly WN for whatever reason (elite status on a legacy carrier, looking for connections to smaller Western cities not served by WN) there aren't a lot of options. US does not serve PHX from BNA, UA does not serve SFO or LAX and only serves DEN via RJ, DL only has 1 flight a day to SLC, also on a RJ, and AS does not serve BNA at all.

The issue of BNA being an all UAX station came up recently on the company's Intranet and a representative from corporate essentially said get used to it cause that's how it's going to be, so don't hold your breath for SFO nonstops anytime soon. In fact, UAX only flies ERJs out of BNA, not even CRJ-700s, which I don't understand at all.



"We hope you've enjoyed flying with us as much as we've enjoyed taking you for a ride."
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 90, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 7117 times:

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 89):
My point was for those travelers who don't want to fly WN for whatever reason (elite status on a legacy carrier, looking for connections to smaller Western cities not served by WN) there aren't a lot of options.

That is a good point. I recently booked a trip to YKM. There was no good way to do it flying. I wound up on WN to SEA and driving from there. I would want to do that in the middle of the winter. Do note, however, that DL increase frequency on and off to SLC. And if we are honest, most of the cities on the west coast without WN service are secondary or even tertiary markets, and we do have good access to most WN cities between our service to LAX, SAN, LAS, DEN, PHX and SEA.

Quoting UALFAson (Reply 89):
In fact, UAX only flies ERJs out of BNA, not even CRJ-700s, which I don't understand at all.

It's a puzzle. It's somehow merger related, as PMUA was a good mix of CR7, ER4 and CR2 with a variety of carriers, though it seemed to be mostly AX, OO and YV. OO does overnight m/x in BNA, but only on DL Connection aircraft.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 91, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6958 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 86):

Just because there aren't, doesn't mean there can't. WN probably has 50% of the pax as through from somewhere else. For Delta, its probably little risk that they dilute connecting traffic to LAX as they probably don't carry that much via ATL.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 92, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6724 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 91):
Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 86):

Also I should say that cities under 1.5m arent usually hubs and most airlines prefer to route pax thru hubs


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2000 posts, RR: 21
Reply 93, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 6716 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 91):
Just because there aren't, doesn't mean there can't.

Yet it speaks volumes as to the viability of this level of competition/service.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 92):
Also I should say that cities under 1.5m arent usually hubs and most airlines prefer to route pax thru hubs

...and BNA isn't a hub, what's your point? IND, CMH, PIT, CVG, and RDU are all comparably sized cities, none of whom sustain that level of service...some of which don't even have daily, year-round flights to LAX let alone 5.


User currently offlinecessna2 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 348 posts, RR: 2
Reply 94, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 6377 times:

DL has posted the flight times.

RDU-LAX Dep. 7:00am Arr. 9:24am
LAX-RDU Dep. 10:30pm Arr. 6:10am (next day)

IMO better timed than the AA flight. Seems you could go to LAX do a fulls days work then catch the redeye home for the next day. I think DL will win this fight. Then again we may see both carriers stay and compete.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2000 posts, RR: 21
Reply 95, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6288 times:

Quoting cessna2 (Reply 94):
I think DL will win this fight.

Hard to tell how this one will pan out. Compared to other similarly sized cities in the region, AA has a strong presence in the Raleigh market and I assume an advantage in the corporate contracts area with the RDU-LHR flight. Since the AA hub pull down however, DL has been eating away at AA loyalty there, so it will be an interesting trial as to just how much loyalty AA has left/how much loyalty DL has poached.


User currently offlineFlytravel From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 873 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 6293 times:

Quoting cessna2 (Reply 94):
DL has posted the flight times.

RDU-LAX Dep. 7:00am Arr. 9:24am
LAX-RDU Dep. 10:30pm Arr. 6:10am (next day)

IMO better timed than the AA flight. Seems you could go to LAX do a fulls days work then catch the redeye home for the next day. I think DL will win this fight. Then again we may see both carriers stay and compete.

But one can do a full day of work at RDU, leaving at around 4, then fly out to LAX at 5:15pm on AA.

On the return, one misses a day in an office, but can work on the plane rather than be on a red-eye, which is disliked by some.

I don't know who will win, but I suspect both might strengthen there. DL wants RDU business traffic and might win over WN/FL and later monopolize fares on the high frequency RDU-ATL route.

[Edited 2013-01-05 15:17:11]

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 97, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

Quoting Flytravel (Reply 96):
But one can do a full day of work at RDU, leaving at around 4, then fly out to LAX at 5:15pm on AA.

I do a lot of BNA-LAX and am absolutely convinced that the best westbound schedule for a low frequency LAX flight is the later afternoon/early evening departure (somewhere between 4:30 and 6:30 p.m.). Coming back, it's probably a wash between the redeye and an early morning flight. I don't like redeyes, but many do.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3638 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting cessna2 (Reply 94):
IMO better timed than the AA flight. Seems you could go to LAX do a fulls days work then catch the redeye home for the next day

Sure there is a certain demand for red eyes for business travelers but its small and i think its not the way to go with a single frequency. The vast majority do not want to spend a night in the air and arrive tired when the company is the one paying for a hotel. Most people don't mind making the company pay for the extra night hotel. When i use to book business trips for a company in the NY area almost no would ever consider the red eyes unless they really needed to get back for something. Fly a red eye and try to go to work the next day it is certainly not fun and you will not be productive.

I think the best business timing for a single frequency trans con is AA EWR-LAX route. They have years of experience and i always see it packed with business people even though its a single frequency against united. Leave the east coast late so you can work the whole day then leave the west coast early so you can get closer to east coast time and be back when you would normally get out of work. That is the best frequency and best timing for a single frequency. AA is copying this timing for RDU. AA's schedule certainly uses more important plane time and basically is committing more and i think they will be rewarded for it.

It will be interesting to watch but the more i think about it i think AA has an edge on RDU with the timing.


User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 99, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 5819 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 93):
.and BNA isn't a hub, what's your point? IND, CMH, PIT, CVG, and RDU are all comparably sized cities, none of whom sustain that level of service...some of which don't even have daily, year-round flights to LAX let alone 5.

Youre missing the point. Because they dont, doesnt mean they cant. They way the industry is structured post deregulation is mostly around hub and spokes. Thus airlines maximize their system revenue by flying thru hubs, not P2P. So should an airline devote one plane each to BNA, RDU, PIT, IND, CVG, CHM to flying to LAX, or route it through various hubs? If you were to siphon off all the hub traffic to LAX from those cities, add in service and price stimulation and then add in connections beyond LAX, each of those cities could support multiple daily flights to LAX if airlines so chose. Mostly they dont because it is not the most efficient use of an asset and would result in the breakdown of the hub spoke system and its revenue efficiencies (costs maybe efficient or inefficient depending on the hub size and bank structure). Add in the fact that WN's 2 daily flights are really more like one daily flight for the local market with the other flight being thrus. The capacity isnt that bad relative to the potential market size.

For AA and DL I am almost 100% certain there are better uses for their BNA-LAX aircraft time, but for whatever reason they have chosen to fly that route(LAX halo effect or S-curve most likely). WN maybe different due to their differing network. For AA the opportunity cost of flying BNA-LAX is higher than for DL. DFW is a natural connecting point for BNA-LAX traffic, but ATL isnt really as much. So AA diverts traffic more than DL does when they introduce a nonstop.


User currently offlinesurfdog75 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5684 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 81):

This is how airlines lose money. AA should stick to DFW-LAX and DL should stick to ATL-LAX. Let VX be the one who goes under flying into everyone else's hubs[/quote]

Normally I would agree, but DL has a huge customer base in the DFW area and direct flights to the large West Coast cities, especially LAX, can make sense rather than forcing a connection through SLC. I expect to see many more opportunities from LA pursued now that the NYC plan is implemented.

[Edited 2013-01-06 10:04:49]

User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 101, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

Quoting surfdog75 (Reply 100):

Killing LAX wouldn't work.
Killing a major Hawaiian/Asian gateway with huge alliance connections and destroying ties to the second largest city in the nation sounds like a great way to lose money. If DL transferred all LAX ops to SLC and SEA (which they should apparently get rid of), there just wouldn't be enough O&D. It would lose money faster than Eastern did just before they closed up.

However, I'm not sure BNA and RDU are the best use of aircraft from LAX for either DL or AA. It would make sense to me to see one tron AA, the other by DL. LAX-ATL sounds like a great way to lose money for AA, as does LAX-DFW for DL. Operating a small LAX hub does not sound bad for AA. However, DL needs to make a decision. They are pushing 110 daily flights at LAX. They could call it a Focus City or Mini Hub, whatever they want, but it's more important than SEA, which has a pilot domicile.

IIRC, DL with this expansion now serves from LAX (including seasonal and connection): GUA, HNL, LIH, OGG, KOA, IND, MCI, RDU, BNA, MIA, MSY, MCO, SFO, SYD, TPA, HND, NRT, CMH, CUN, GDL, PVR, LAS, OAK, PHX, SMF, SAN, and SEA, along with the domestic hubs In ATL, SLC, JFK, MSP, DTW, MEM, and CVG. A few of these cities are only served by DL through LAX. (Off the top of my head, OGG, LIH, KOA, SYD.) That is a lot. I get not wanting to open a pilot domicile there, bit they need to accept the fact that LAX is as big as the MEM hub and has more international flights.


User currently offlinesurfdog75 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 338 posts, RR: 0
Reply 102, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5376 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 101):

DL already has good size LAX pilot and flight attendant domiciles. I mentioned future expansion in LA for DL, not killing it.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 103, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5229 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 101):
They could call it a Focus City or Mini Hub, whatever they want, but it's more important than SEA, which has a pilot domicile.

Uh... Delta has a pilot and FA base in both LA and SEA.

LAX is 73N/7ER
SEA is 7ER/330



yep.
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5192 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 103):

OK. Thanks.

The rest of what I said still stands.

I don't think these routes are going to be super high yielding for anyone, but I give it at least a year before anyone leaves any of these routes, and I honestly don't expect it. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see a Frequency/Equipment downgrade in the coming months on any or all carriers.

To all DL people: How did I do on the LAX destinations list?


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 105, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5086 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 99):
but for whatever reason they have chosen to fly that route(LAX halo effect or S-curve most likely).

For whatever reason? I'll give you eight reasons AA flies BNALAX: CAA, WME, APA, Paradigm, Universal, Sony, Warner Music Group and CMT.



a.
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 106, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 105):

And anyone who wants to go to Hawaii, or connect into partners and fly anywhere in Asia.

LAX is an AA hub. If flights to a hub past another hub siphoned off too much traffic, we wouldn't see any Transcon. An example for DL would be SLC-Florida. DL makes LAX/LAS-MCO work fine, and those are completely non-hub markets. UA and AA fly boatloads past ORD and IAH and DFW.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 107, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5063 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 105):

For whatever reason? I'll give you eight reasons AA flies BNALAX: CAA, WME, APA, Paradigm, Universal, Sony, Warner Music Group and CMT.

How about
LAX is a hub for AA. Generally when one has a hub they don't just fly to other hubs. I don't get why this is hard for people to understand.  

LAX-BNA is a hub to spoke route just like DFW to BNA is.



yep.
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 108, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5023 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 107):

Whoa! You mean a multi-hub and spoke system could have flights from two hubs to the same spoke? Tell me more!!

It really isn't hard to understand. The thing is, AA expanded at their hub LAX. Now DL is expanding at their Limbo-Focus city-gateway-spoke LAX to try and either keep their yields up or hurt the AA competitor's yields. Welcome to the airline system all. It isn't that hard to understand.


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 109, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 5025 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 107):
LAX is a hub for AA. Generally when one has a hub they don't just fly to other hubs. I don't get why this is hard for people to understand.

It's not hard to understand.

But LAXBNA pre-dated AA's LAX hub and has been flown to cater to the music industry. Because of the expanding hub, AA doubled capacity earlier this year.



a.
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 110, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4932 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 109):

But LAXBNA pre-dated AA's LAX hub and has been flown to cater to the music industry. Because of the expanding hub, AA doubled capacity earlier this year.

Really? when did AA start LAX-BNA? (and when did LAX become a "hub" as AA, IIRC, has pretty much always had a large number of flights)

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 109):
It's not hard to understand.

Must be, he posted a page on how it was a waste of an aircraft.      



yep.
User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2000 posts, RR: 21
Reply 111, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 99):
add in service and price stimulation and then add in connections beyond LAX, each of those cities could support multiple daily flights to LAX if airlines so chose.

Yes, but again, that doesn't make it profitable or sustainable, hence my argument that 5x daily BNA-LAX on three carriers is not sustainable. The key operating word you used there is "price stimulation", I have no doubt that DL could fill up a BNA-LAX flight, but with what kind of fares since AA apparently still has the lock-down on the lucrative corporate/entertainment biz flyers to LAX? AA and DL will surely be competing and losing money in the process, but that won't continue indefinitely, some one will blink first and my bet is on AA being the prevailing carrier as they're the most established airline on that route.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 99):
For AA and DL I am almost 100% certain there are better uses for their BNA-LAX

For DL I would agree, but AA has been flying BNA-LAX for quite a while, even after the hub pull-down in BNA they continued to fly non-stop to LAX and recently upgraded it from 1x to 2x daily, I'm guessing they wouldn't do that if they were making decent money off the route.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 99):
For AA the opportunity cost of flying BNA-LAX is higher than for DL.

Yet they have continued to fly it for well over 2 decades even after the AA downgrade of BNA and bankruptcy, yes the opportunity cost is high, but the profits must also obviously be correspondingly high for them as they've not only continued to fly the route, but have upgraded the frequencies.

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 108):
It really isn't hard to understand.

No, it's not hard to understand but you're reasoning behind your proposed understanding is convoluted. DL's addition of BNA-LAX is a competitive response to AA plain and simple and not merely DL connecting a spoke to their LAX hub. Just because LAX is hub doesn't mean any market in DL's network can be profitably connected to LAX. If DL was simply adding BNA-LAX just to connect a spoke to LAX, then why isn't IND or CMH being upgraded to daily year-round services when both are larger markets than BNA?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 112, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4755 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 111):
then why isn't IND or CMH being upgraded to daily year-round services when both are larger markets than BNA?

I don't know what numbers you are looking at, but I thought IND/CMH-LAX were both around 175 or 200 PDEW, significantly smaller than BNA-LAX.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6531 posts, RR: 9
Reply 113, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4744 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 105):
For whatever reason? I'll give you eight reasons AA flies BNALAX: CAA, WME, APA, Paradigm, Universal, Sony, Warner Music Group and CMT.


What are the details of those companies agreements with AA on the BNA/LAX market? Is that mqrket contained in a separate contract or is a part of an All markets contract. In other words what are AA's responabilities sony and what are the responsibities of Sony?


User currently offlinesxf24 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1262 posts, RR: 0
Reply 114, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 113):
What are the details of those companies agreements with AA on the BNA/LAX market? Is that mqrket contained in a separate contract or is a part of an All markets contract. In other words what are AA's responabilities sony and what are the responsibities of Sony?

Despite assertions or insinuations to the fact, Sony does not have an exclusive travel contract on any route with AA.


User currently onlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2000 posts, RR: 21
Reply 115, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4677 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 112):
I don't know what numbers you are looking at, but I thought IND/CMH-LAX were both around 175 or 200 PDEW, significantly smaller than BNA-LAX.

I'm simply going off the assertion he presented below:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 99):
If you were to siphon off all the hub traffic to LAX from those cities, add in service and price stimulation and then add in connections beyond LAX, each of those cities could support multiple daily flights to LAX if airlines so chose.

I agree and I'm aware their PDEW numbers to LAX are smaller, but BNA's totals alone don't warrant 5x daily to LAX either, I'm simply saying that 5x daily BNA-LAX on 3 carriers is over-saturation and that someone will be forced out.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 116, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4643 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 115):
I agree and I'm aware their PDEW numbers to LAX are smaller, but BNA's totals alone don't warrant 5x daily to LAX either,

I'm not sure BNA's totals warrant 4, to be honest, but I understand what AA is doing with the second frequency, and that is pretty innocuous.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33278 posts, RR: 71
Reply 117, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 113):
In other words what are AA's responabilities sony and what are the responsibities of Sony?

AA is Sony Entertainment's preferred airline; so AA grabs most of that traffic.

It's rare for an airline to have an exclusive contract, but something like this, which one of my older employers had, is very standard:

1) Intra-California on Southwest and from Burbank.
2) Inter-state must be on American Airlines; unless another carrier offers a non-stop and AA does not (so AA probably grabs Warner traffic, for example, although Warner is with United).
3) International can be on any carrier, prefrence to American Airlines; but LAX-LHR must be flown on Virgin Atlantic.

VS actually has been able to grab a lot of carve outs for London flights.



a.
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 118, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4464 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 111):

DL doesn't call LAX a hub. I do agree that the route in part started because of AA arriving on the RDU route. My bet is that it was on the list of possible LAX destinations, as well as RDU daily. AA starting RDU-LAX caused DL to start these alreadybeing considered routes ASAP. AA to RDU is a major gap in their LAX network, to a historically strong city, on an underserved route.

I agree BNA doesn't warrant 4 flights. I don't think DL would've started BNA-LAX for a while had AA not started RDU.

Many companies have historically used AA to LAX. WN is a bit of a late entrant for that long of a flight, and DL hasn't had a strong presence at LAX for long enough. DL was primarily an East Coast airline, with an SLC hub simply because they couldn't ignore the west. AA has always been a more southwest area carrier. Back in the day, they offered the best service, a darn good route network for the time, and were much more of a foe flag carrier than they are now.

DL just wasn't a big player in the west.

So entertainment went with the darn good airline with an LAX hub. Made sense.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 119, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4322 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 118):
Many companies have historically used AA to LAX. WN is a bit of a late entrant for that long of a flight,

You've lost me. WN has been flying BNA-LAX for a decade or more and has historically had more frequency than AA.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7768 posts, RR: 27
Reply 120, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4281 times:

BNA-LAX has a lot more than just entertainment traffic. There are connections with the automotive industry, logistics/distribution, and all major consulting/professional services firms. Not to mention the leisure/tourism on the route.

Loyalty is not definete. People often speak like there is this huge group of deeply loyal passengers that will always been flying their airline of choice indefinetely. In hub cities, the majority of frequent fliers will consolidate their travel to the hubbing airline (e.g, ATL, DTW, MSP, DFW, IAH).

Markets like BNA, STL, IND, BHM, OKC, MCI are more competitive and balanced markets. There is not necessarily a clear "preffered carrier from a network, loyalty program, or product standpoint"

A HVC / frequent flyer last year, may not be one this year. The frequent flyer / HVC that was deeply loyal to AA in 2000 may no longerr be an HVC / frequent flyer at all now. People switch jobs, move, retire, increase / decrease their travel year over year. There is really only a small sub-set of long-term road warriors who do it for their entire career. More people go through periods of heavy and light travel depending on their job and personal situation.

The biggest example of this is the Consulting / Professional Service firms. The average tenure for road warrior consultants at places like Accenture, IBM, Deloitte, McKinsey is often around 2-3 years, with very few lasting beyond 6-7 years.

Just adding a little perspective on loyalty, as airlines constantly are attracting new business. The 22 year old college senior this year may become a new road warrior next year......


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23301 posts, RR: 20
Reply 121, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4272 times:

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 120):
There is really only a small sub-set of long-term road warriors who do it for their entire career. More people go through periods of heavy and light travel depending on their job and personal situation.

The other issue that is sort of peculiar to a market like BNA or RDU is that even within a period of heavy travel, loyalties may change because destinations change. I'm in BNA, and most years, I'll have status on WN. But WN doesn't fly to many of the cities to which I must travel. Much of my travel is project-based, so I'll go somewhere several times a year (sometimes close to monthly) for a few years and then may never go there on business again.

Right now, I'm entering a period of a significant amount of travel to Canada (mostly YYZ and YXU), and I will likely be looking at Star for a lot of my non-WN travel for that reason. When I need to go somewhere like NRT or CDG where the alliances are pretty similar in terms of offerings, I may well pick Star since I am likely to have or be close to UA status from the Canada travel.

Two years from now, I have no idea what the situation will be. It could be that I'm traveling a ton to IDA or GEG through SLC, which would make me pick Skyteam, or a lot to Latin America on AA, or interior West Virginia on UA. I just don't know.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 120):
Loyalty is not definete.

While I agree with this sentiment, I don't see why I would pick DL on BNA-LAX, even if I was in a period of heavy DL travel. WN has the better schedule, and I will always have WN status.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
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...
DL To Start LAX-SAN posted Fri Jul 13 2007 19:25:16 by HVNandrew
DL To Start LAX-ICT posted Sat May 19 2007 20:37:44 by MAH4546
DL To Start RDU-MSY,ATL-HKY,SIO More RDU-TPA,PIE posted Thu Dec 9 2004 19:33:02 by Iowaman
DL To Start RDU-ALB/PVD posted Fri Jan 7 2011 14:44:40 by cessna2
DL To Start LGA-BDA posted Tue Jul 10 2012 20:54:04 by spiritair97
DL To Start SYR-MSP (Again) posted Tue Apr 24 2012 09:14:52 by panam330
Vision Airlines To Start LAX-SEA-ICN? posted Tue Apr 17 2012 19:30:22 by HOONS90
DL To Start 2x Daily Yyzbos With CRJ posted Tue Sep 6 2011 19:30:08 by flyyul
DL To Start Narrowbody Replacement Study Early 2011 posted Fri Dec 17 2010 09:36:45 by OyKIE
DL To Start JFK-SNA On 7 September 2010 posted Mon Aug 2 2010 02:19:21 by laca773