Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL: LAX-DFW/IAH/ORD  
User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 510 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9949 times:

Will DL ever re-launch LAX-DFW and start LAX-IAH and LAX-ORD? If DL is as serious as they are at LGA/JFK, these are natural markets.

59 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 815 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9723 times:

Yes, but DL has bigger fish to fry right now.

User currently offlineluckyone From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 2192 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9690 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
Will DL ever re-launch LAX-DFW and start LAX-IAH and LAX-ORD?

They will come only if and when Delta becomes large enough at LAX that they cannot afford to NOT fly them--and that's a big if at this point. Delta has been growing LAX in a three steps forward two steps back manner, and who knows if they will ever achieve critical mass. They will lose money on those routes for quite some time.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 6588 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9661 times:

Would DL really want to compete with AA and UA on these routes, with all of those airports being hubs for one (DFW for AA, IAH for UA) or both (LAX and ORD) of those airlines? Probably not.

[Edited 2013-07-26 20:08:16]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7669 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9431 times:

If any of the 3, I suspect LAX-DFW would be the most likely. If anything, DFW-LAX could be operated with E-175s.
DL is in a stronger position in DFW versus IAH.


User currently offlinehawaiian763 From Canada, joined May 2009, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9345 times:

Highly doubt DL would ever start these routes, they would quickly be wiped out by either AA (DFW and ORD) or UA (IAH and ORD).

User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9257 times:

Quoting hawaiian763 (Reply 5):

Highly doubt DL would ever start these routes, they would quickly be wiped out by either AA (DFW and ORD) or UA (IAH and ORD).

I think this would really depend on the corporate contracts that DL has at LAX. If they have enough of them on the LAX end, an E75 can reach IAH/DFW/ORD, if those corporate contracts are important enough. I don't know what they have on the LAX end at this point in time, however, but I would guess less than UA and AA.

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5766 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9193 times:

Quoting luckyone (Reply 2):
Delta has been growing LAX in a three steps forward two steps back manner

  

Quoting luckyone (Reply 2):
They will lose money on those routes for quite some time.

  

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 6):
I think this would really depend on the corporate contracts that DL has at LAX.

  

These routes are fundamentally different to IND or CMH.

For a start they are hub-to-hub routes for the major competitor (or both major competitors to ORD). AA and UA aren't going to roll over to have their tummy tickled, see what UA did at EWR to get an idea of the response that they might throw at DL.

Moreover, all of the markets would need to be launched with multiple daily frequencies (maybe 4?) to make them attractive to the high yield market. That's why they would need to have the corporate contracts that demand these routes already locked in, otherwise they will fly around a lot of fresh air and spill red ink everywhere.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9110 times:

I highly doubt DL would start those routes that are dominated by AA & UA.
As mentioned above AA & UA wouldn't just roll over at that I would believe
that most of the corporate contracts are taken by AA & UA. As it is right now
I'm suprised that DL is surviving on the MIA/LAX route.


User currently onlineMIflyer12 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 1129 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9093 times:

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 7):
For a start they are hub-to-hub routes for the major competitor (or both major competitors to ORD). AA and UA aren't going to roll over to have their tummy tickled, see what UA did at EWR to get an idea of the response that they might throw at DL.

AA and UA don't dominate LAX to the degree of other hubs. As others have noted, it's all about what Delta needs to satisfy corporate contracts and willingness to develop the routes. Who would have guessed five years ago that DL would be running 14x LGA-ORD on weekdays?


User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5766 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9046 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 9):
Delta needs to satisfy corporate contracts and willingness to develop the routes

I agree, which is what I said in my original post, but DL would have to be very certain about the stability of those contracts before jumping in IMHO

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 9):
Who would have guessed five years ago that DL would be running 14x LGA-ORD on weekdays?

True, I guess you never-say-never in this industry  



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinemia305 From United States of America, joined Mar 2013, 320 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9018 times:

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 9):

  

Good point. I completely forgot that DL was running 14x on
weekdays between the city pairs.


User currently onlinealfa164 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8992 times:

If DL intends to continue building its LAX mini-hub, it will surely add DFW-LAX (just as it added DFW-LGA); it needs the feed. It is not a question of "if", but "when".

At the time DFW was de-hubbed, DL had a tremendously loyal following there; I was told that Dallas had the second-largest concentration of Medallion members (second only to ATL) in the world. A surprising number still choose DL - despite the necessary connections - over AA at DFW.

The big question is: what will AA do to retaliate? You know they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep dominating DFW-LAX, but what might they do to strike back with some route in DL's back yard?


User currently onlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1694 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8924 times:

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 12):
The big question is: what will AA do to retaliate? You know they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep dominating DFW-LAX, but what might they do to strike back with some route in DL's back yard?

The obvious answer is ATL-LAX and/or MSP-LAX, both of which are routes neither AA nor UA flies today (there is no legacy competition, just LCC offerings). I assume if DL showed up at AA's HQ, AA would return the favor with ATL.


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11753 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8450 times:

I agree with what some others have already said: it is theoretically plausible that Delta might jump into some of these markets in the future (and I further agree that of them LAX-DFW is the most likely), but if Delta were to do that, it could no doubt expect quite the competitive response from one or both carriers, who in both cases are extremely strong in their respective hub-hub markets at question here. If Delta were to announce LAX-DFW, I agree that a press release from AA with LAX-ATL (and possibly increased frequency/capacity on LGA-ATL) could come within hours. Similarly with United at SFO-ATL, etc.

User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 995 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7557 times:

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 6):
If they have enough of them on the LAX end, an E75 can reach IAH/DFW/ORD, if those corporate contracts are important enough.

You are suggesting a E175 fly between LAX-ORD-LAX am I reading that right?

How comfortable would those E175 be on a 4 hour flight between ORD and LAX that is a bit extreme.

I'm NOT going to say DL would never fly the LAX-ORD-LAX route because as it has been pointed out DL is not on the ORD-LGA-ORD route and if you look at the ORD-LGA route when DL enter this market AA and UA did not respond like they have responded when a competitor enters one of their hub to hub routes. And the reason AA and UA didn't respond is because DL poise no threat to them on this route. Both AA and UA have a very large FF base in Chicago and in NYC, DL does as well although their FF base in Chicago is not as big as AA or UA. And the reason DL enter the ORD-LGA-ORD market was because their FF base that flies this route several times a week were probably tired of having to catch a connecting flight just to get from ORD to LGA. DL needed to fly this route to satisfy their FF in both Chicago and NYC which is why AA and UA barely flinched when DL entered the market. However the ORD-LAX-ORD market is different and I think if DL does decide to enter this market both AA and UA would respond with tremendous force. I do believe that DL is big enough and has more than enough money to weather whatever storm AA and UA conjure up and DL would not be forced off the route. However having said that their will be collateral damage smaller airlines like NK, VX, and others would be put in a terrible position because the fare and extra capacity war that is sure to come if DL enters this market would probably force the smaller airlines off the route because if DL enters ORD-LAX market this fight or war will last for a while with none of legacies backing down because all 3 have the the resources to survive a sustained fight.

If something like this does go down I don't think DL presence will hurt AA or UA I do however think that the smaller airlines that are on the ORD-LAX route will pay a steep price because they just don't have the resources at their disposal that the big legacies have.


User currently onlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1095 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 7231 times:

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 6):
I think this would really depend on the corporate contracts that DL has at LAX. If they have enough of them on the LAX end, an E75 can reach IAH/DFW/ORD, if those corporate contracts are important enough. I don't know what they have on the LAX end at this point in time, however, but I would guess less than UA and AA.

Would corporate contracts be enough?

Traffic connecting on both ends (ORD/LAX and DFW/LAX) makes the large number of frequencies viable for both AA/UA. Over time that connecting traffic is more reliable than traffic generated by corporate contracts, especially since you have to imagine that any corporate contact AA or UA lost to Delta in either market could be regained in the future. It is not like the loss of a couple corporate contracts to Delta is going to chase AA or UA from these hub to hub routes or cause them to cut the number of frequencies.

As to those corporate contracts, what industries have major ops in LA, Chicago, and Dallas? Something tells me that those industries favor UA and AA now because the UA and AA hubs/focus cities more closely match the operational footprints of those industries, and not just between LAX/ORD and LAX/DFW. AA's merger with US will only serve to reinforce that preference.

[Edited 2013-07-27 09:12:08]

User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4288 posts, RR: 6
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 7050 times:

Quoting DTW.SCE" class="quote" target="_blank">PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 4):
If any of the 3, I suspect LAX-DFW would be the most likely. If anything, DFW-LAX could be operated with E-175s.
DL is in a stronger position in DFW versus IAH.

I think that DFW would be the most likely of the three. Believe it or not, UA does not even run mainline on this route anymore, as all the DFW flights are on OO metal now. After looking at some things, I am convinced that DL will eventually surpass UA in LAX, as UA is in a mode where they seem to be stagnant, or shrinking LAX, while DL is expanding LAX, and AA will get bigger there as well after the merger. ORD is possible, though AA and UA are very strong on this route already. As for IAH, I don't see it. Houston is a market that DL seems to not know what to do with, and they seem to be trying stuff to both IAH and HOU and back and forth hoping something sticks.

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 12):

At the time DFW was de-hubbed, DL had a tremendously loyal following there; I was told that Dallas had the second-largest concentration of Medallion members (second only to ATL) in the world. A surprising number still choose DL - despite the necessary connections - over AA at DFW.

The big question is: what will AA do to retaliate? You know they will fight tooth-and-nail to keep dominating DFW-LAX, but what might they do to strike back with some route in DL's back yard?

As its been mentioned, DL still has a huge FF following in DFW so LAX-DFW is something I think they could generate enough traffic for. We know that the historical norm has been for carriers to protect their turf by launching some odd route into the airlines hub that makes no sense from a routing or logistical standpoint. Best example was NW trying DFW-LGA after AA launched MSP-LGA. Given the consolidation that has happened in the industry, and the increased focus on capacity discipline, this doesn't happen much the way it did even ten years ago. B6 for example launched BOS-PHL, and US really didn't respond with any extra routes out of BOS or JFK. Doug Parker is a very disciplined man when it comes to those sorts of things.

LAX-ATL is probably out of the question. Doug Parker knows that launching that route won't even make Delta sweat, and if anything it would have more of an effect on WN, which would actually only make DL stronger. There would be very little demand for DTW or MSP as well. I suppose SLC would be an option, but again, with WN also there you will have some problems. So that leaves only JFK. And with that route already a bloodbath, there isn't much AA can do.

So I don't think AA would be able to retaliate much in a new route that would affect DL. However, AA can offer Double AAdvantage Miles and other incentives to keep pax from jumping ship. Also, where DL would be mostly O and D, AA will still have connecting pax. We will see how this plays out...if it happens.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9577 posts, RR: 14
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6576 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):

Yes, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Washington DC, and Denver will all come. ABQ,OKC,AUS,SAT,MKE and EWR (also year round BOS) will likely happen over the next few years.

As i have said before, hopefully more intra-CA flying also (MRY,FAT,SBA etc)

Quoting luckyone (Reply 2):
Delta has been growing LAX in a three steps forward two steps back manner, and who knows if they will ever achieve critical mass.

How do you figure? Delta is over 115 daily flights(IIRC bigger, by flight, than WN now) and with all the growth has cut 1x BDL, 1x FLL(moved to MIA) and 4x DEN was never started due to LGA build up.

Quoting commavia (Reply 14):
I agree that a press release from AA with LAX-ATL (and possibly increased frequency/capacity on LGA-ATL) could come within hours. Similarly with United at SFO-ATL, etc.

IMO next to no chance of this happening. At best you may see LAX-ATL from AA, but my bet is more capacity on the the respected routes, FF miles and some more marketing money.

DL can add 3x daily to Dallas with a low cost E75, AA would *have* to have mainline and likely wouldn't be able to do more than 2 frequencies. AA adding LAX-ATL just because DL added Chicago or Dallas from LA seem like a quick way to burn money. More frequencies on LGA-ATL? what slots? and I don't think Delta will even notice 1-3 more CR7s.

What did Delta do when AA added SLC? i think one flight went from a 737 to a 757. Not much of anything. AA/DL/UA are all much more worried about NK/WN and VX than each other. Everyone said, Oh Delta will add LAX-DFW or LAX-ORD or add all this capacity XXX or.... IMO the legacy carriers aren't doing to much to fight each other. Would UA have gone psycho on DL adding LAX-EWR like they did VX? IMO no. What say you Com?

Also I don't see UA bringing back SFO-ATL for the same reasons.

*Note, I could however see a shorter flight, ie LAX-MSP, added by AA....but i still think its a long shot.*



yep.
User currently onlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33077 posts, RR: 71
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days ago) and read 6494 times:

AA will add LAXATL. It's not if, but when, as AA will continue to add major U.S. cities from LAX and looks to go past the 200 daily departure mark. ATL, PDX, SEA, MCI, TUL, SAT and COS are likely next; plus smaller regional stations from PHX like BFL and SBP will likely slowly move to LAX, IMO, as PHX hub winds down.

AA adding LAXATL could be what puts DL on LAXDFW.



a.
User currently offlineProst From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1068 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days ago) and read 6495 times:

My sense is that ALL network planners are tweaking their routes for their customers, not to 'tweak' the competition. In a few months time, the US industry is going to be settling in to its historical pattern of AA largest, UA number two, DL number three, but WN the largest domestic carrier.

The current crop of airline executives seem to have learned the lessons about market share and to concentrate on flying where their customers want them to fly.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9577 posts, RR: 14
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days ago) and read 6440 times:

Quoting Prost (Reply 20):

This is true, but NYC and LAX are the two places Delta is focusing on. It will play a greater role when Delta starts adding Asia flights from LA. The markets I said basically have to have a one-stop option Via LAX for the Asian markets, IMO.



yep.
User currently onlinestlgph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 9426 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days ago) and read 6437 times:

Don't be surprised if any or all of these routes happen.
As I've mentioned before, on corporate contracts, Delta has at least 1,600 of them in their back pocket, most companies usually have 2 preferred carriers and Delta is almost in one of those spots with one of the other big U.S. carriers in the other spot.
Delta's brand and visibility is arguably the strongest it's been in years, probably since the "We love to fly and it shows" campaign which everybody and their mom knew that little jingle. Delta continues to see their numbers improve and improve. They don't need to concern themselves with other airlines having a hub operation on either end of a spoke ....if the route can serve purpose for their client base, benefit the rest of their operations, and their partner operations, it'll come when the timing is right.



if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
User currently onlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1095 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 5 days ago) and read 6219 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 18):
DL can add 3x daily to Dallas with a low cost E75, AA would *have* to have mainline and likely wouldn't be able to do more than 2 frequencies. AA adding LAX-ATL just because DL added Chicago or Dallas from LA seem like a quick way to burn money. More frequencies on LGA-ATL? what slots? and I don't think Delta will even notice 1-3 more CR7s.

Does Delta board E175's at T5 or at the hangar?

I wonder how close Delta is to maxing out its gates at T5 and T6. With the exemption it has been granted to run regional flights from its hangar/ramp area being just temporary, there will come a point very soon where Delta's facilities at LAX won't be able to sustain any more growth.

In fact, you could say they are flying on borrowed time as the use of the hangar space for their regional flights might soon become an issue with the NIMBY's who have begun to scrutinize how LAWA is allowing the use of airport space for boarding without officially counting such space as a gate.


User currently onlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33077 posts, RR: 71
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 6059 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 21):
Quoting Prost (Reply 20):

This is true, but NYC and LAX are the two places Delta is focusing on. It will play a greater role when Delta starts adding Asia flights from LA. The markets I said basically have to have a one-stop option Via LAX for the Asian markets, IMO.

Delta's been "adding Asian markets" at LAX since 2006.

It's pretty clear by now that Delta has chosen Seattle as its west coast Asia gateway, not LAX. Anything added at LAX will only hurt SEA. Beaides, SEA is in a vastly superior geographic position for this kind of operation and Delta still doesn't have the local brand presence of AA and UA in SoCal to make Asia ops work.



a.
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2220 posts, RR: 15
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5222 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 21):
It will play a greater role when Delta starts adding Asia flights from LA.

What Asian markets?

From LAX, you can fly to virtually every major Asian market on a host of foreign carriers, and there is no low-hanging fruit available for DL without over-saturating the market with extra capacity. It would be silly for DL to waltz into LAXICN, LAXPVG, LAXPEK, HKG, etc. because it would result in a bloodbath.

Moreover, plenty of SkyTeam carriers already fill the TPAC void for LAX-ASIA.

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 24):
It's pretty clear by now that Delta has chosen Seattle as its west coast Asia gateway, not LAX. Anything added at LAX will only hurt SEA. Beaides, SEA is in a vastly superior geographic position for this kind of operation and Delta still doesn't have the local brand presence of AA and UA in SoCal to make Asia ops work.

  



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9577 posts, RR: 14
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 5184 times:

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 24):

Which is why the vp for the Asain network JUST SAID they are looking to expand from LAX/ATL/JFK to Asia.....namely China. Matter of fact I believe there was even a thread on it.

And you are the LAST person to say anything to anyone about airlines adding routes.
Where are those five routes from JFK for AA? Or basically anything you have said outside of MIA adds?



yep.
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

I do think AA is likely to fly ATL if they can beat virgin america on the route. AA has the ff base for one perfectly timed flight to work i think. Similar timing to ewr would be best.

User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4843 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 15):
You are suggesting a E175 fly between LAX-ORD-LAX am I reading that right?

How comfortable would those E175 be on a 4 hour flight between ORD and LAX that is a bit extreme.

From a passenger perspective, there's not much difference on an E75 over 320/737, especially in Y. As far as the aircraft's ability, they fly longer routes, with AC for example. While I agree this would be a push in regards to what they're used to on other routes in the US, I think the E75 is more likely to DFW/IAH, and maybe 738/319/320 to ORD.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 16):
Would corporate contracts be enough?

I don't know - I really think it would depend on what the contracts are - and I have no inside knowledge of that. If they have a contract for LAX-JFK travel with some corporation who starts bugging them about DFW/IAH/ORD, they'd have to make a decision about potentially flying a money-losing route for a few years as opposed to handing the contract over to UA or AA...

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4581 times:

Contracts are the most over rated thing on a.net......it's your frequent flyer base that matters on domestic routes.

User currently onlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33077 posts, RR: 71
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4522 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 26):
Where are those five routes from JFK for AA?

In the past five years, AA has added from JFK flights to MXP, BCN, MAD, DUB and MAN, as well as failed BUD. And a sixth will be announced in October

Where are those LAX-Asia routes for Delta? Oh, yeah, that's right....

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 29):

Contracts are the most over rated thing on a.net......it's your frequent flyer base that matters on domestic routes.


Yes and no. It's an extremely outdated concept that comapnies are increasingly dropping. But certain industries - none more than media (including print media and advertising) are sucked into it still. The IT industry is far past it, and the banking industry is on the way of ridding itself of it. But airlines are becoming aggressive about keeping contracts. It's really the reason AA still has trans-con F between LA and JFK/MIA. Even SFO-JFK is (temporarily) going to mostly 2-class this November, which says a lot about what the finance and IT industries think of F.

[Edited 2013-07-28 02:57:43]


a.
User currently offlineorganizethesky From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4318 times:

If DL started LAX-DFW today there would be at least four airlines on the route, AA, UA, VX and DL.

Does Spirit fly LAX-DFW?

Thats a lot of competition especially when you have the home town carrier operating some 15 plus flights a day.

Id love to see it but I think its a ways off.


User currently offlineAlsatian From France, joined May 2005, 424 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

Quoting organizethesky (Reply 31):
oes Spirit fly LAX-DFW?

Yes with two daily flights. On weekdays there are :

AA 18x with 738, 757, 763
VX 3x with 32S
UA 3x with CR7
NK 2x with 32s



Ok I am French but I am not on strike
User currently offlineDL747400 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4125 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 29):
Contracts are the most over rated thing on a.net......it's your frequent flyer base that matters on domestic routes.

That statement is so wrong I don't even know where to start. From a RM perspective, corporate contracts are what brings in the FF base to begin with, along with creating new FF members. This is especially important in markets where the FF bases may not be strong in relation to that of the competition.


User currently onlinephllax From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 441 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3796 times:

Quoting Alsatian (Reply 32):
Yes with two daily flights. On weekdays there are : AA 18x with 738, 757, 763 VX 3x with 32S UA 3x with CR7 NK 2x with 32s

Just wait until the Wright Amendment is phased out in 2014 and see how many flights SW adds.


User currently onlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33077 posts, RR: 71
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3763 times:

Quoting phllax (Reply 34):
Quoting Alsatian (Reply 32):Yes with two daily flights. On weekdays there are : AA 18x with 738, 757, 763 VX 3x with 32S UA 3x with CR7 NK 2x with 32sJust wait until the Wright Amendment is phased out in 2014 and see how many flights SW adds.

2014 is going to a bloodbath. Because AA will be right there, flying DAL-LAX/LGA/MIA/ORD, plus others, I'm sure.

Cheap fares to Dallas for everybody.



a.
User currently onlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 6230 posts, RR: 2
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

I would tend to believe this...

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 26):
Which is why the vp for the Asain network JUST SAID they are looking to expand from LAX/ATL/JFK to Asia.....namely China. Matter of fact I believe there was even a thread on it.

over this

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 24):
It's pretty clear by now that Delta has chosen Seattle as its west coast Asia gateway, not LAX. Anything added at LAX will only hurt SEA. Beaides, SEA is in a vastly superior geographic position for this kind of operation
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 26):
And you are the LAST person to say anything to anyone about airlines adding routes.
Where are those five routes from JFK for AA?

ROTFL.....welcome to my RU list.



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6692 posts, RR: 9
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3356 times:

I would say LAX-EWR ahead of any of these cities.


"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently onlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1095 posts, RR: 5
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 36):
I would tend to believe this...
Quoting yellowtail (Reply 36):
over this

Mah4546 has more credibility on these matters than the other person you referenced.

The manner of presentation speaks for itself. (You won't see Mah4546 resort to personal attacks when someone questions his arguments.)


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 3045 times:

Aww, when I read the thread title I thought DL was starting these routes  

Personally, I think it would be tough for DL to do these routes but I think they are inevitable if DL really wants to succeed at LAX. It'll take some time I think but I believe if DL keeps it up at LAX, they may have enough of the market at LAX to get some of these routes going. Strong competition and multiple carriers on a route makes things harder, but that does not make it impossible. It's not like DL will only be getting the passengers left over from what the other carriers didn't pick up, that's not how it works



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBeardown91737 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 563 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2910 times:

Let's see if DL does start some RJ service LAX-DFW like UA does. AA probably won't notice the competition from 2 or 3 more CR7s any more than they will notice when G4 starts flying LAX-HNL. Maybe UA and DL would be best off letting OO fly white planes with a codeshare to both UA and DL on this route.

Likewise UA woudn't notice Skywest on LAX-IAH.

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 35):
2014 is going to a bloodbath. Because AA will be right there, flying DAL-LAX/LGA/MIA/ORD, plus others, I'm sure.

Cheap fares to Dallas for everybody.

WN is going to fly DAL-LAX whether it pleases AA or not. Frequency will likely be along the lines of LAX-MDW which is 7x daily.

The New Management that runs the airline called American will be less about territory and domination and more about profits. DAL will be a spoke to other AA hubs in cases where it makes sense, but not to drive WN off of routes.



135 hrs PIC (mostly PA-28) - not current. Landings at MDW, PIA, JAN.
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2220 posts, RR: 15
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 38):
Mah4546 has more credibility on these matters than the other person you referenced.

Agreed. Sometimes, it is piteous to see the sheer volume of antagonism on these forums expressed by people who harbor resent towards those with factual knowledge.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 39):
Aww, when I read the thread title I thought DL was starting these routes  

Ha, me too!

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 40):
Let's see if DL does start some RJ service LAX-DFW like UA does.

It looks like AA hasn't tried to drive Delta off the DFW-LGA market on the E-Jets.

Quoting Beardown91737 (Reply 40):
DAL will be a spoke to other AA hubs in cases where it makes sense, but not to drive WN off of routes.

Wait, at DAL? I don't think AA plans to return to Love Field anytime soon. This strategy has been tried and failed in the past. Even post-BK, AA should stick with DFW.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently onlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33077 posts, RR: 71
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2587 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 41):
Wait, at DAL? I don't think AA plans to return to Love Field anytime soon. This strategy has been tried and failed in the past. Even post-BK, AA should stick with DFW.
AA will be resuming service to Love Field in October 2014 when the new terminal opens. It already has gate leases (I think on eight gates?) through 2028.

What we'll likely see is AA serving LGA/ORD/MIA/LAX/DCA/CLT/PHL and a handful of O&D-heavy routes (I would guess LAS, SFO and BOS).

[Edited 2013-07-29 10:13:17]


a.
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2220 posts, RR: 15
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2459 times:

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 42):
AA will be resuming service to Love Field in October 2014 when the new terminal opens. It already has gate leases (I think on eight gates?) through 2028.

What we'll likely see is AA serving LGA/ORD/MIA/LAX/DCA/CLT/PHL and a handful of O&D-heavy routes (I would guess LAS, SFO and BOS).

Served on what? E-Jets, MD-80s and 737s? This sounds like such a disaster in the making.

Despite the concentration on O&D-heavy routes, the airport is honestly not very advantageous over DFW. It may be located closer to downtown Dallas, and many of the more affluent residents in the North Dallas area, but DFW is actually VERY easily accessible from all major parts of North Texas, and also services many affluent neighborhoods in the mid-cities and Fort Worth areas.

I cannot for the life of me see the business logic behind such an illogical decision. Keep your operations concentrated in a single base rather than split them, sink money, and try another foolish idea that has already failed twice in the past.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently onlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1095 posts, RR: 5
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2406 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 43):
I cannot for the life of me see the business logic behind such an illogical decision. Keep your operations concentrated in a single base rather than split them, sink money, and try another foolish idea that has already failed twice in the past.

The thinking now is that with the right-sized plane (i.e., no more Fokkers with just 56 seats) the economics should be better.

Remember it was the Wright Amendment which forced AA to take seats out of the Fokkers when Legend Air started long haul service from Love.

That first foray from Love lasted only as long as it took AA to drive Legend out of business. This time there is a better business case for actually starting and maintaining a point to point network from Love.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2220 posts, RR: 15
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days ago) and read 2350 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 44):
That first foray from Love lasted only as long as it took AA to drive Legend out of business. This time there is a better business case for actually starting and maintaining a point to point network from Love.
Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 44):
Remember it was the Wright Amendment which forced AA to take seats out of the Fokkers when Legend Air started long haul service from Love.

Unfortunately, that's not exactly how it happened.

Yes, AA did experiment with DAL-ORD/LAX flights using the re-vamped Fokkers with all F-class seating, but later, AA once again started flights from DAL to MCI, STL, AUS and SAT once the Shelby Amendment allowed WN to fly from DAL to MCI and STL in 2006. These were the first two non-adjacent States/intra-Texas routes that WN added to their DAL network since inception.

AA flew 4x from DAL to STL and 3x from DAL to MCI on S80s, and 4x to AUS and 3x to SAT on E-145s

The experiment was a huge disaster. Not only did AA throw a big song and dance (similar to what UA did at IAH last year in wake of the HOU FIS decision) by chopping DFW-LGB/RST/PVD/LIM/GRB from its schedule, but also couldn't even sustain the four routes when Eagle took over the ops. STL and SAT were dropped within 18 months

Later, MQ attempted to fly DAL-ORD on E-145s, with 8x daily flights, in 2008/2009. Despite the HUGE FF base in Dallas, and the connection to another massive AA hub on the other end in Chicago, this effort failed to produce results.

Similar non-WN attempts at DAL (DL MEM-DAL and UA DEN-DAL) have similarly failed. I wouldn't be surprised if DL ATL-DAL also eventually folds.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently onlineLDVAviation From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 1095 posts, RR: 5
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 months 3 days ago) and read 2314 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 45):
Yes, AA did experiment with DAL-ORD/LAX flights using the re-vamped Fokkers with all F-class seating, but later, AA once again started flights from DAL to MCI, STL, AUS and SAT once the Shelby Amendment allowed WN to fly from DAL to MCI and STL in 2006.

Understood, but I was just trying to be relevant. According to Mah, AA will not be reinstating flights to those destinations.

Furthermore, while it may reinstate flights to ORD, despite MQ's failure at DAL/ORD, we don't know yet what type of plane they will use. It certainly won't be an E-145.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2220 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2283 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 46):
Understood, but I was just trying to be relevant. According to Mah, AA will not be reinstating flights to those destinations.
Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 46):
Furthermore, while it may reinstate flights to ORD, despite MQ's failure at DAL/ORD, we don't know yet what type of plane they will use. It certainly won't be an E-145.

Gotcha. Still, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here (or maybe that's more directed at Mark) but I am still doubtful that AA will be able to sustain ops to LGA/SFO/DCA/LAX etc. even on mainline aircraft, utilizing a mere two gates out of DAL.

The high-yielding premium traffic will want the convenience, flexibility, scheduling and connecting options that are accessible at DFW.

Moreover, despite the destination or aircraft type, that still doesn't satisfy my previously stated point about how DFW airport caters to leisure and business traffic all over North Texas, whereas DAL is only really more convenient for a much smaller segment of the North Texas traveling population.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently onlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33077 posts, RR: 71
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2285 times:

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 46):
According to Mah, AA will not be reinstating flights to those destinations.

Who knows what AA will serve. The only thing certain is that AA will almost definitely be serving the hubs. But AA might decide to venture into strong O&D markets like SFO, STL, etc.

I personally think AA needs to just make Love Field a spoke and nothing more. 3x daily each to LAX, MIA, LGA and DCA; double daily to PHL and CLT; and 5x to Chicago would be a good schedule, IMO.



a.
User currently offlineWA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2248 posts, RR: 8
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2175 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 47):
DAL is only really more convenient for a much smaller segment of the North Texas traveling population.

Yes, but the "small segment" is also a very high yielding segment, because Highland Park and University Park residents are among the Metroplex' wealthiest.



Seaholm Maples are #1!
User currently onlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1368 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 42):
AA will be resuming service to Love Field in October 2014 when the new terminal opens. It already has gate leases (I think on eight gates?) through 2028

I think it is only 2 gates or do they get more with the build out in 2014? Still enough to serve hubs as you suggest.

UA has a couple as does DL correct?



“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7669 posts, RR: 27
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

DL is operating ATL-DAL on CRJs currently, the longest route currently flown by 50-seat RJs in their network, only because of Wright. That route will certainly go a mix of 76 seaters and 717s next year.

User currently offlinerealsim From Spain, joined Apr 2010, 659 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2053 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 50):
I think it is only 2 gates or do they get more with the build out in 2014? Still enough to serve hubs as you suggest.

UA has a couple as does DL correct?


  

16 gates for WN, 2 for AA, 2 for CO IIRC.


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3578 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2012 times:

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 48):
Who knows what AA will serve. The only thing certain is that AA will almost definitely be serving the hubs. But AA might decide to venture into strong O&D markets like SFO, STL, etc.

I wonder if AA would consider just forgetting about love field. DFW is such a powerhouse hub you would hurt it slightly aka frequencies by relocating flights to love. Lets say southwest launches 7x daily to lax. AA certainly cant match and keep its dfw schedule as well. I think AA can best compete by more frequencies, make the drive to dfw worth it and just keep the same. Love will hurt AA no matter what they do i think thats just a reality maybe not worth spending a ton on love flights? I could see virgin america and alot of airlines wanting to move flights. Maybe 2x to SLC makes sense for delta etc airlines will be interested.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2220 posts, RR: 15
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2009 times:

Quoting WA707atMSP (Reply 49):
Yes, but the "small segment" is also a very high yielding segment, because Highland Park and University Park residents are among the Metroplex' wealthiest.

Please.

DAL is only more convenient for less than half of the top 10 wealthier suburbs in the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex: Highland Park, University Park, Northeast Dallas and Lakewood.

Otherwise, Southlake, Flower Mound, West Plano, Bent Tree, Northwood and Preston Hollow are all either closer to, or equidistant from, DFW airport in relation to DAL.

I personally grew up in near LBJ and the Toll-road in Dallas, and pretty much exclusively flew out of DFW airport. When you factor in the mess that is Mockingbird Lane, among other areas around DAL, the time-savings factor probably amounted to less than 10-15 minutes of commuting.



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4050 posts, RR: 2
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't see DL adding service to on LAX-DFW/IAH/ORD. These markets are all well served currently.
I can't see them trying to start service via CR7/CR9/E75s in markets like DFW where you have AA flying it what like 18x a day, VX 3x, and UAEx with CR7s. Same goes for IAH and ORD. I think we'll see DL add additional secondary cities from LAX. Perhaps they will bring back LAX-JAX 3-4x a week depending on the season. They could fly this with a 73W/A319 nicely.


User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1825 times:

AA started LAX-IAH a year or two ago, and as far as I know there wasn't much of a response from UA.

I'm not sure that AA or UA would go "full guns blazing" if DL started these routes, since fortunately it seems cooler heads focused on the bottom line seem to be in charge of the airlines today.


User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5193 posts, RR: 8
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1728 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 56):
AA started LAX-IAH a year or two ago, and as far as I know there wasn't much of a response from UA.

nope...UA didn't lower fares or anything...in fact they bent me over nicely for a $707 per person roundtrip IAH-LAX this week.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3529 posts, RR: 0
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 57):
nope...UA didn't lower fares or anything...in fact they bent me over nicely for a $707 per person roundtrip IAH-LAX this week.

Yeah the fares on LAX-IAH are pretty extortionate, even with AA on the route. I looked up fares on AA this week and they are all $1000-ish!

Even 2 weeks out it's $600-$700...


User currently onlineMah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33077 posts, RR: 71
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1691 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 58):
Yeah the fares on LAX-IAH are pretty extortionate, even with AA on the route. I looked up fares on AA this week and they are all $1000-ish!

Going off topic, but back in May AA loaded $128 round-trip for this route and it was available for a few days. I grabbed one and am off to Houston in a few weeks for a weekend.



a.
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...
Wikipedia Fallacy?: AA HPN To LAX, DFW, ORD posted Thu Jul 24 2008 14:29:25 by Bok269
Westjet Looking At IAH, DFW And ORD posted Fri Jun 15 2007 00:36:38 by Thomasphoto60
DL To Fly LGA-ORD And LGA-DFW With E170 posted Mon Jan 23 2006 18:22:02 by FlyPNS1
US Airways To Start DCA-ATL/CLE/DFW/DTW/IAH/ORD posted Mon Oct 18 2004 03:03:26 by A330323X
DL Announces DFW-ORD posted Thu Jul 18 2002 19:58:50 by FlyPNS1
Rumor: Aeromexico To Launch DFW/IAH-CUN posted Mon Jun 10 2013 08:39:14 by IrishAyes
$229M Renovation Of DL LAX T5 posted Thu Apr 4 2013 08:52:43 by travelin man
No More DL DC-9s At ORD Starting In June? posted Sun Mar 3 2013 00:11:22 by mke717spotter
EK- Mulling LAX, SFO, IAH As Next A380 Upgrades posted Mon Jan 7 2013 03:56:57 by g500
DL 744 At IAH Tonight For NY Giants? posted Sat Oct 9 2010 20:43:07 by Schweigend