Now I've seen Delta do this in the past and within a year they completely pulled everything back. I personally feel that this is going to be the case again with the exception of a few markets.
The only announcement I'm not terribly surprised to see is the upgrade to 6x mainline on LAX-LAS. It's heavily saturated and competing with RJs on a route that is already filled to the brink with mainline service is probably not the way to go and in order for Delta to make their voice heard in this market probably warrants the upgrade.
So do you think this is a failure in the making? Or could it work this time?
In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
This question is asked everytime they add to LAX........never know. There will always be people saying this time its for real and this time there serious about LAX. We wont know until time goes by. I don't even know if Delta knows yet it never seems that have a clear plan for LAX
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1837 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 16717 times:
Quoting awacsooner (Reply 2): DL at LAX = NK at just about everywhere: Build up...reap some profits...cut and run.
I doubt DL or NK are profiting much by starting flights then cutting them. They are just testing routes out and discovering if there is enough business or not. It takes a little time for a route to take hold so it is not as if there is pent up demand that is relieved and then they can drop it.
LAX is difficult to break into. It is gate limited by a consent decree so DL would have difficulty adding a significant number of gates. WN is the largest domestic carrier at LAX while UA and AA consider it a hub. Just about every major international carrier flies there, including many superior Asian carriers. The Southern California weather and unobstructed approach allow the four parallel runways to operate at full capacity almost all the time so that a mini hub operation is possible, the limit is the gates.
DL has two big international flights, SYD and HND, to support this time vs. other times when they've ventured into the LAX market. DL also has a large investment in the transcon market to JFK to build upon.
The dynamics of their competition is different this time, too. UA is still choking down its merger with CO, and AA is about to exit BK and leap into their merger with US.
I'd give DL better than a fighting chance this time around.
No, it's due to how scripting works. I can highlight your text again, then click on anyone else's "Select Text Quoted" button, and it will appear as if they were being quoted. It's called « user error ».
Quoting azstar (Reply 7): If I clicked on your post, why did HIS sentence show up??
BigGSFO From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2755 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 16055 times:
Quoting azstar (Reply 7): I don't think UA considers LAX a hub. They moved substantial operations to SFO a few years ago, and they are left with a majority of Skywest regional jets to almost all West Coast markets from LAX.
UA does consider LAX a hub. AA considers it part of their "cornerstone." DL probably considers it a focus city but I haven't seen anything that officially classifies it as such (outside of third party reporting).
However it's all subjective - there is no industry or official definition of a hub so it's up to the airlines to call an operation a "hub."
mpdpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 935 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 15827 times:
Though, like most of you I am skepical of how long this lasts giving DL track record. I feel there are a couple things that show this is going to stick.
First, co-locating with AS. This is quite significant as you don't have to clear security to transfer to and AS flight or vise versa. This will increase the number of AS/DL and DL/AS itineraries significantly I think.
Second, They are increasing the PHX, SMF, and OAK markets. This shows that not only are they working but they are working well. Delta wouldn't add an additional flight to these markets if they were failing, they would have held the 4 daily that they have.
Third, The DL Leadership doesn't seem as short term focused as previous leaders. They have shown with their decisions that they are looking at the long haul. They aren't making quick decisions to make a quick buck. Surely there will be times when routes don't work (i.e. DTW-HKG). But you need to take some risks, and I am sure there will be some routes out of LAX that don't work either, but that doesn't mean they will cut tail and run because they are in it for the long haul.
For what it's worth, I think AA recognizes this too, with a few of their most recent changes in LAX. They added PHX around the same time as DL. I think AA realizes that this isn't the DL build up of old.
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
aaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1443 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15337 times:
AeroWesty has the right idea. Not only have:
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5): The dynamics of their competition is different this time.
DL has, to a degree, parlayed AA's LAX playbook into what appears to be a winning venture. The Skyteam and unaligned international partners have increased DL's traffic. AS has been valuable - particularly for the SYD flight. Just synergistic momentum.
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 4): LAX is difficult to break into. It is gate limited by a consent decree so DL would have difficulty adding a significant number of gates.
LAX is about 10 gates below that threshold due to gate closures/retirements that are grandfathered into that community agreement. Considering DL's current fleet mix at LAX, they could, in theory, add back the 3 gates decommissioned in T-5.
But, with LAWA's gate usage clause, the current 16 gates (13 in T5, 3 in T6) should suffice for now.
To digress a bit, I've always felt that DL miscued at LAX with the NW merger. DL obtained NW's interest in T-2 and quite possibly could've locked up T-3, which was in play at the time.
Quoting mayor (Reply 8): IIRC, there wasn't all that much of Western's to destroy as they had already moved much of it to SLC when they opened that as a hub, before the DL/WA merger.
From the time WA began building up LAX (circa 1983), approximately 25 mainline flights were added. That peaked at, IIRC, 85 weekday, peak season (Summer, 1985) mainline departures. At the time of the merger, WA was still at about 75-80 such departures.
The growth at SLC came at the expense of DEN and MSP.
[Edited 2013-03-06 16:58:06]
With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10193 posts, RR: 62 Reply 17, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15301 times:
I think DL stands a better shot this time around than previous attempts.
I think some of their more "marginal" LAX flying is likely to struggle going forward - just as it did in attempts past - but the "core" local western U.S. markets (e.g., PHX, SEA, SFO, LAS, SAN, etc.) that have a strong local component to/from LAX and/or a strong onward connecting component to transcons/NRT/HND/SYD/CDG/partner flights are likely to survive.
I do question the need for quite as much capacity and frequency as DL is currently putting into some of these markets, and think some will come down as 50-seaters are puled out of the network and 70-90-seaters are backfilled, but I suspect that some level of flying on these routes is likely to remain.
MIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 141 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 15150 times:
Quoting commavia (Reply 17): I do question the need for quite as much capacity and frequency as DL is currently putting into some of these markets, and think some will come down as 50-seaters are puled out of the network and 70-90-seaters are backfilled, but I suspect that some level of flying on these routes is likely to remain.
I don't follow your 50-seater reference in the context of this LAX flying. A Bloomberg piece noted that all DL LAX flying is on 2-cabin aircraft - meaning no 50-seaters.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10193 posts, RR: 62 Reply 21, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14075 times:
Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 18): I don't follow your 50-seater reference in the context of this LAX flying. A Bloomberg piece noted that all DL LAX flying is on 2-cabin aircraft - meaning no 50-seaters.
What I was referring to is the huge number of 50-seaters that DL is planning to pull out of their system over the next few years. I suspect that some of that capacity will be backfilled by precisely some of the 2-cabin CR7s and CR9s now flying in and out of LAX on some of these extremely high-frequency routes DL is now operating with DCI.
Quoting UALAX (Reply 19): After all UA has a much larger operation at SFO and UA could reduce or cancel intra-West flights from LAX in favor of its San Francisco operation.
UA is already a shadow of what it once was at LAX, and has majorly shifted west coast emphasis to SFO in the last decade. It's actually rather amazing when you look at it in certain individual markets - on lots of the big or biggish western U.S. routes UA used to dominate or be strong in from LAX - like LAS, PHX, SLC, SJC, TUS, SMF, ABQ, etc. - AA (and in some cases also DL) are now larger than UA.
To be sure - UA is still a huge force in the LAX market, but the gap between it and its competitors (especially AA) has dramatically closed since 9/11. And post-merger, before any network optimization/rationalization, AA will - for the first time in at least decades - be larger at LAX than UA.
mia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 14004 times:
If DL can do it more power to them. On transcon flts they will be competing with AA
to NY which has a better product in my opinion and to a lesser extent UA. What else
is there left that isn't saturated with competition.
yellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 5172 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13859 times:
I have been saying this for some time.....and this time I give them a better shot. DL now has a decent NYC base and to complement that it needs LAX.
I say more C and S. American stuff is coming for LAX. Certain cities in that region have very good traffic from the West Coast and DL now has that feed in place to make it work.
Also with DL and AM now very tight, they can do more Mexico stuff and get the feed/loyalty they need on the mexican end
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5): I'd give DL better than a fighting chance this time around.
Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 13): Third, The DL Leadership doesn't seem as short term focused as previous leaders.
Agree. They really think outside the box and are at least willing to try things.
In all of this, do not discount the fact that the AV CM marriage is not going well in Star. Sooner or later, one is goign to bolt....presumably to Skyteam. Whichever it is will give DL a much better presence in that region...
When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
LDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 757 posts, RR: 5 Reply 24, posted (2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 13660 times:
Quoting yellowtail (Reply 23): In all of this, do not discount the fact that the AV CM marriage is not going well in Star. Sooner or later, one is goign to bolt....presumably to Skyteam. Whichever it is will give DL a much better presence in that region...
Is this just wild speculation? AV just joined Star, at some considerable expense. And, isn't CM partly owned by United (Continental)?
25 davescj: It would be interesting to see if T5 and T6 could merge and have more gates, or a better/more effective use of gates. I do wonder if LAX will ever fin
26 cosyr: Maybe after Terminal 3 is rebuilt...if they ever start that project. I assumed that AS moving to 6 would start things rolling, but so far nothing.
27 MSPNWA: I'm interested to see what the new AA will be able to do at LAX. To me that could be the carrier that provides the strongest challenge to DL's expansi
28 Prost: DL, I imagine, is also trying to support the VS LHR flight as well as its own NRT, SYD, and HND flights. Although I haven't checked the flight timings
29 Deltal1011man: you do know that Delta busted 100 flights a day nearly two years ago right? This isn't new, Delta has been in the 30% growth number at LAX the last 4
30 RyanairGuru: Are you sure? AS and QF codeshare, and indeed AS is a partner in Qantas Frequent Flyer Precisely. CM aren't going anywhere, United won't let them. It
31 Prost: According to wikipedia (I know, I know) In May 2008, Continental Airlines sold its remaining 4.38 million shares of Copa Airlines for $35.75 a share,
32 questions: 1. Are there any known plans for DL to add additional intl routes ex LAX? 2. How might DL's ownership/partnership with VS help it succeed this go arou
33 flyasaguy2005: If it means anything, I understood what you meant but let's not forget that overall, capacity will be about neutral if not slightly up when it's all
34 Deltal1011man: That doesn't mean AS doesn't also feed the DL flights. SJO are all that is public. (plus the adds to PVR/GDL and CUN) It will be very, very important
35 LAXintl: Largest foreign carriers in enplanements for 2012 were: Qantas - 1,117,785 Air Canada - 939,387 Korean - 666,878 Air NZ - 612,245 AeroMexico - 560,79
36 mia305: AA will be hard to beat on the LAX-NYC route. With the new cabins and 321's replacing the 762's the frequency will be higher. That said DL has potenti
37 PlanesNTrains: Were this 1993, I might agree with you. But DL+WA was a quarter century ago. A lot has transpired between then and now, so I find it hard to accept t
38 yellowtail: I know lots of folks at both airlines. They hate each other. Both thought the other would blink regarding star and both felt like their respective pa
39 Josh32121: From a passenger standpoint, DL will be on par if not superior because there are now (or soon will be) a few 767-300's with brand new interiors and f
40 yellowtail: Delta learnt alot last time around at LAX, and while they saw lots of promise they wern't in a position financially (and perhaps leadership wise) to
41 diverdave: Western was getting killed at LAX. That's why they moved their primary hub to SLC. I wonder if 717s will be taking over the short haul flying out of
42 davescj: What about running an all biz jet NYC - LAX? I'm thinking something like MAXJet did Transatlantic or MartinAir runs IAH AMS (an all biz seat 737). Whi
43 rwy04lga: Actually, it's the "Quote Selected Text" button. (I know it wasn't yours, your Honor) You clearly haven't tried DL's Business Elite service. Direct-a
44 BigGSFO: With DL stepping up in LAX hopefully this will force AA to as well. Selfishly, as an AS MVP Gold, I get to reap the benefits of such a competition (an
45 questions: Unfortunately no one has been able to figure out how to make money with a premium-only configured aircraft for a sustainable period of time. Closest
46 DeltaMD90: Honestly, I think that time has passed. AA is getting back on its feet (through Ch11, not necessarily the merger) and I see AA defending its MIA turf
47 YYZAMS: I wonder when they will announce LAX-AMS or CDG. Maybe they will take one off the SEA/PDX - AMS route and but it through LAX-AMS
48 davescj: LAX-CDG DL 8553, operated by AF (AF 65) LAX-AMS DL 9379, operated by KLM (KLM 602). Since these flights are a JV, in essence DL already has them. Unl
49 DeltaMD90: If DL does successfully expand at LAX, I'm sure the demand would be there and more flights would be added. Wether it would be DL metal or AF/KL metal
50 davescj: I could see it eventually....but..... SFO, SEA, PDX, SLC already have service to one or both airports. Woud LAX get built up before the others? My gu
51 DeltaMD90: If they want to build up LAX I think they would. LAX has lots of O&D, air travel as a whole generally goes up over time, and LAX may be tapping i
52 yellowtail: Exactly...the airline business is the asset allocation business.
53 LDVAviation: And, where would Delta go? HKG, LHR, etc.? In reply 16, aaway explained what is driving this expansion. It is the AA playbook at LAX. Domestic growth
54 DeltaMD90: They can add more flights to existing cities, it doesn't have to be a new city every time. I doubt there would be many flights to Europe minus the us
55 davescj: One of the things to consider in adding routes - particularly long haul - where would the metal come from? It is not like there are lots of extra plan
56 LAXintl: Where they? If so why did LAX keep growing also? Below is average daily departure count at year end for WA @ LAX. (source departflights.com) 1982 - 6
57 AeroWesty: That is correct for history's sake. SLC also shifted the hub a bit westward, eliminating some backtracking for intra-mountain west connections.
58 luckyone: China Eastern, a SkyTeam member, is hubbed in Shanghai.
59 davescj: China Southern already has a non stop to CAN. Would other cities in Asia be a good add on? If DL wants to push LAX, you'd think increased flights to
60 LAXintl: To me, the future for DL across the Pacific must involve a JV with KAL and leverage the ICN hub. As far LAX, this means things are very nicely covered
61 BigGSFO: I've thought about this too. I would imagine a JV with KE is key to DL's holistic international growth plan, especially across the Pacific. If this w
62 AADC10: There cannot be more gates due to the consent decree. T6 is one of the shared airport owned terminals, except for the UA/CO gates, so with AS moving
63 LAXintl: MEL and BNE nonstops are already covered with the alliance with Virgin Australia.
64 mia305: I agree that DL wont make a try on the LAX-MIA. They already have one daily flight. That's as far as I think they will go. AA has to much of an advant
65 diverdave: Apparently that is the true history. Western was bleeding money in the early 80s, and narrowly avoided bankruptcly. http://www.csmonitor.com/1986/091
66 AeroWesty: The last paragraph of this story is interesting. Some 25+ years later, and the major airlines are still grappling with evolving into becoming true na
67 TR1: Would LAX-AKL be a viable route for Delta? Or is this a market which would be profitable for only one carrier (NZ)? Delta's A330-200s are/were being m
68 LDVAviation: How is that? No Chicago and no Texas network? Even from LAX, still no ORD and DFW, and Boston is only seasonal.
69 AeroWesty: I didn't make the case for that LAX was the end of the line in this effort, but it would put DL closest, in my view. There's certainly more work to d
70 mia305: DL starting LAX-ORD will be tough being that UA & AA have that covered pretty well. I think DL should try more Mexico, central and south America r
71 AeroWesty: It's my belief that LAX-ORD, plus a few others, will be important for DL to continue to win corporate contracts in the LA market. They don't have to
72 bobnwa: Please define what you mean a true national airline. As I seee it, there never has been a national airline in the US and don't see it as happening in
73 mia305: While I agree with you that DL has to try LAX-ORD. UA & AA pretty much have those contracts locked up. They have a better chance trying LAX-MIA.
74 Sligo: It seems ORD has always been and always will be a tweener market for DL. They try to find ways to fit in and it sometimes works and sometimes doesnt.
75 AeroWesty: In going back to the CS Monitor article, I misquoted them. The word used was "nationwide" rather than "national". A small point, but I can see how th
76 mia305: Although AA would defend its turf in JFK & MIA. DL could make it work on both routes. Maybe not as big in MIA with maybe 2 possibly 3 daily flight
77 Lono: diverdave WA was doing quite well after we restructured. We did not move the hub to SLC from LAX ,quite the opposit was the case. WA was in a growth m
78 BigGSFO: Don't forget LHR too once the VS deal is finalized. They already fly LAXMIA. I do think DL could be successful adding ORD, IAH, DFW, & Washington
79 mia305: I think DL could possibly make MIA-LAX. On another thread its said that 1,000,000 pax travel the route a year not to mention all the connecting traffi