LAXdude1023
Topic Author
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:08 am

http://www.buildingabetterairline.com/route_map_international.html

Hello All, I wanted to start a discussion on the International Route structure of the proposed merger specifcally. Namely:

1) Right now ATL is the major gateway to Europe, Latin America, and Asia. Would this still remain if the merger took place? If not would flights be re routed through other citites?

2) Is maintaining so many International Gateways feasible?

3) CLT vs. ATL and PHL vs. JFK, which would prevail?
It is what it is...
 
DL787932ER
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 3:27 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:24 am

Have to laugh at that route map...really looks like DL gets a lot out of that merger. I found ARN...is there a single other international city served by US but not DL? We can see who this merger benefits, and it's not customers, employees, or shareholders.

Anyway, to answer your questions, yes, ATL is DL's crown jewel and would remain the number one hub in such a merger.

Maintaining so many gateways depends on what you mean by a gateway - CLT would lose lots of flights to ATL, especially international. PIT and/or CVG would lose capacity, although right now CVG does well on its European routes.

ATL would be the clear winner and CLT would be a big loser in such a merger. There are better arguments for PHL versus JFK, but for the kind of flying DL is getting into now there's just no beating the massive JFK O&D. PHL would be a regional connecting hub and JFK would get the international flying.

It's all kinda moot because if the merger goes through, the combined company will be back in bankruptcy court during the next business cycle downturn, probably by 2011 or so, and with DL's recent trip to BK and HP/US' combined four bankruptcies, they'll not get any workable recovery financing and the combined carrier will have liquidated by early next decade. But the above is likely how things would look during their final years.
F L Y D E L T A J E T S
 
TWA902fly
Posts: 2869
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 1999 5:47 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:34 am

The best part is the location of BJX on that map (Leon, Mexico). Half way between Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo.

'902
life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
 
ca2ohHP
Posts: 657
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:14 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
Have to laugh at that route map...really looks like DL gets a lot out of that merger. I found ARN...is there a single other international city served by US but not DL? We can see who this merger benefits, and it's not customers, employees, or shareholders.

Good grief, first reply and the thread has already been hijacked!?!?
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:04 am

It is a joke. As I said in the thread about the new US Airways Merger Website, US/DL will have Europe, Bits of Africa, Bits of the Middle East and South America. But ... only two destinations in Asia (NRT and ICN). I keep hearing that Asia is where people want to go. DL will apply for 2008 rights to China. If they get them, that would make a 3rd destination in East Asia. Big Whoop Di Doo. Still not that good. Sure DL has Indian routes but what about HKG, SIN, BKK, SYD, or MEL.

If this merger were to happen, there would nothing good on the long-haul routes. They still will not have the fleet to have extensive international exapansion...that is unless the US order for A350s is held or DL can order more 777s or place an order for 787s. Even then they will have to wait for a few years till they can expand.

US probably spent time thinking about which to buy, DL or NW. I bet if they had approached Doug up in Eagan, MN, he would have welcomed Parker with open arms and said, "Let's get this party started. You have Europe, We have Asia. We have Midwest, You have West. We could get rid of our DC-9s and use your A320s. We all can fly EMBs and CRJs. We can add your A330s to our fleet and expand in Europe and onward from Japan. We have 787s on order which could help with massive expansion. We also have HUBs in Japan and Europe with 5th freedom rights for getting further O&D and going more places. Here is a little document...sign right here."
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
LAXdude1023
Topic Author
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:04 am

Quoting Ca2ohHP (Reply 3):
Good grief, first reply and the thread has already been hijacked!?!?

No worries, just want peoples opinions.

Im particularly interested what people will think of the fates of:

ATL-NRT
ATL-TLV
ATL-TLV
ATL-JNB
ATL-ICN
It is what it is...
 
Evan767
Posts: 2198
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:13 am

Yes it is indeed evident that from that route map it looks like US just wants to steal all of DL's international routes. Just an assumption.

Oh and DL benefits not only from ARN but SKB! Wow two routes! US gets what, 20 new stations?
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
 
EnviroTO
Posts: 723
Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2004 12:11 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:16 am

ATL and PHL would be the safest cities in the merger. I can only see growth in the international flights out of ATL. CLT would be the hub at risk. CVG is a question mark since PIT and CVG share a lot in common and US really slashed PIT, I would guess that it would stay the same as it is now with the nail being put in the PIT coffin. SLC or PHX but not both would be reduced in size with the other being beefed up.
 
Evan767
Posts: 2198
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:37 am

59. I counted. US Air would get 59 brand spankin new international destinations to fly to. No wonder they are so happy! I counted destinations in Canada, Mexico, Carribean, South America, Europe, Africa, and Asia.
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
 
Evan767
Posts: 2198
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 8:38 am

Make that 61. I forgot ICN and NRT.
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
 
CentPIT
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:48 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 9:06 am

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
PIT and/or CVG would lose capacity, although right now CVG does well on its European routes.

PIT for one is a nicer facility. I do however agree that CVG would keep more destinations than PIT. I don't see PIT losing very much though, because with only 157 daily flights to 52 destinations, there isn't to much to cut!


Currently US doesn't even serve PIT-CVG or PIT-ATL.

I see this in US's PIT future with or without DL:

PIT-PHL (12)
PIT-CLT (10)
PIT-LGA (7)
PIT-BOS (5)
PIT-PHX (3)
PIT-LAS (3)
PIT-MCO (3)
PIT-DCA (7)
PIT-LAX (1)
PIT-FLL (3)
PIT-TPA (2)
PIT-MIA (1)
PIT-ORD (4)
PIT-IAD (Express-4)
PIT-DEN (2)
PIT-EWR (Express-4)
PIT-BWI (Express-4)
PIT-RDU (Express-4)
PIT-STL (Express-4)

Yeah that is about all I see in a few years?
Pittsburgh International: US Airways---160 daily departures! (52 destinations)
 
LAXdude1023
Topic Author
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:15 am

I guess my biggest concern is seeing the flights I mentioned in my last reply:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 5):
ATL-NRT
ATL-TLV
ATL-JNB
ATL-ICN

Being moved to other gateways. Quite honestly, I want them to stay in ATL. The ones already in existance do well in ATL I believe firmly that ICN, NRT, JNB, DXB, and TLV should be ATL destinations, not PHL or PHX if this merger goes through.
It is what it is...
 
planetime
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 10:35 am

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):
CLT vs. ATL and PHL vs. JFK, which would prevail

ATL will be the largest hub. PHL will be a hub... at the same time the JFK operations are more O/D which I do not think PHL can be compared to.
 
SANFan
Posts: 3671
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 10:10 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:01 am

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 2):
The best part is the location of BJX on that map (Leon, Mexico). Half way between Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo

I think that same "Continental Shelf Drift" is responsible for PVR (Puerto Vallarta) now being located somewhere between Acapulco and Guatemala City!
(And I'm sure we could go on and on...  Smile )

bb
 
vega
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:56 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:13 am

How many times is this ? going to be posted?
Parker already stated in his original merger proposal and analyst meeting/s that the "new" US would have the following (in order) major hubs, ATL, PHL, CLT and that PHL would be used as the major NE International gateway, versus JFK, because of it's better connectivity. As I have mentioned in earlier threads on this subject, I submit the major point in PHL's favor is that JFK and PHL have identical Domestic O&D numbers and the large inernational O&D advantage at JFK is offset by the fact it's shared among 60+ international carriers. I cannot see US ignoring the 4M International O&D at PHL, with competiton from just 3 international carriers, in favor of JFK. Further, facility wise, the PHL international terminal/s are far superior to JFK, in about every respect and I think this is a generally accepted fact. ATL will likely remain the major international hub, if for nothing else, because of it physical size. PHL, however will likely benefit from the merger's effect of providing capable aircraft for new Asia/Far Eastern routes. So, in summary, I project that ATL and PHL will be the two international hubs, with a few flights from other cities, such as PHX and CVG or PIT (whichever one is selected). CLT will possibly loose both of it's current flights (LGW and FRA), unless they become partially subsidized like the LH MUC flight. SLC would obviously be in direct competiton with US's headquarter's at PHX and therefore it's future seems uncertain - to me anyway. I would think the new US would transfer one or both of the ATL-TLV flights to PHL or start a new service, if for nothing else because of the huge unserved jewish poulation in the Philadelphia area. I suspect, without proof, that the majority of ATL-TLV is connecting. US would already be flying PHL-TLV if it had a capable aircraft. The only other possiblity I see is PHL-ICN in favor of ATL-ICN. PHL-NRT would only be possible if the ATL-NRT authority was transfered and that may not be reasonable if ATL-NRT is doing well. PHL-KIX (a new route) I would think is a possibility, however. A new US would likely need to compeletely rethink it's Asia/Pacific strategy in the event relationships with UA and/or *A are terminated.
We are but a moment in this vast Universe and when gone we will never have existed.
 
LawnDart
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:28 pm

Gosh, where to begin...

Quoting Vega (Reply 14):
As I have mentioned in earlier threads on this subject, I submit the major point in PHL's favor is that JFK and PHL have identical Domestic O&D numbers and the large inernational O&D advantage at JFK is offset by the fact it's shared among 60+ international carriers.

Question...why do you think 60+ international carriers fly to JFK and not to PHL? Hint...pretty much the same reason all major domestic carriers fly to ORD and not to DSM. Airlines service a market because there is a market to serve. Internationally, JFK has it, Philly...eh, not so much.

Quoting Vega (Reply 14):
Further, facility wise, the PHL international terminal/s are far superior to JFK, in about every respect and I think this is a generally accepted fact.

Wasn't USAirways pitching a hissy fit because the couldn't get enough gate space at PHL International to start their new service to BRU and ATH (and one other...forgot where), and so PHL airport had to change their plans to move DL to the international terminal to accommodate US? Just imagine all those "new Delta" widebodies trying to find a place to dock in PHL.

Quoting Vega (Reply 14):
PHL, however will likely benefit from the merger's effect of providing capable aircraft for new Asia/Far Eastern routes.

Question...why doesn't one single airline currently operate service between PHL and Asia/Far East? Hint...PHL makes a lousy connecting hub for flights from Asia (unless you're heading to Bermuda), and the O&D market isn't there...

Quoting Vega (Reply 14):
I would think the new US would transfer one or both of the ATL-TLV flights to PHL or start a new service,

One or both? Also, if there were two ATL-TLV flights from which to transfer one...the logical choice would be JFK.

Quoting Vega (Reply 14):
I suspect, without proof, that the majority of ATL-TLV is connecting.

Well, ATL is a major connecting hub, so that's a safe suspicion. ATL also has one of the largest jewish populations in the U.S. At least you admitted you had no proof.

Quoting Vega (Reply 14):
The only other possiblity I see is PHL-ICN in favor of ATL-ICN.

Korean Air flies to quite a few cities in the United States. PHL isn't one of them. ATL is. Wonder why? See my snotty response to your "PHL benefitting with service to Asia" supposition above...

Quoting Centrair (Reply 4):
I keep hearing that Asia is where people want to go. DL will apply for 2008 rights to China. If they get them, that would make a 3rd destination in East Asia. Big Whoop Di Doo.

Actually, if you look at total international O&D numbers, it seems people want to go to Mexico...

Also, I keep hearing that Delta wants to fly to Asia from Los Angeles, so be patient. Problem is, RJs can't make it, so until DL gets more 777s, more flights to Asia will probably have to wait.
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:49 pm

Quoting Vega (Reply 14):
SLC would obviously be in direct competiton with US's headquarter's at PHX and therefore it's future seems uncertain - to me anyway.

I tend to agree with your point all but this line. SLC is a far superior hub to PHX. It has a better, more user-friendly facility, and it is much more centrally located, making for easy connections for people coming out of Montana, Idaho, Washington, etc. to connect to flights going back east with very little backtracking.
Good goes around!
 
DL777LAX
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:45 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:14 pm

Quoting Floridaflyboy (Reply 16):

I tend to agree with your point all but this line. SLC is a far superior hub to PHX. It has a better, more user-friendly facility, and it is much more centrally located, making for easy connections for people coming out of Montana, Idaho, Washington, etc. to connect to flights going back east with very little backtracking.

In the merger, I would be afraid that US wouldn't keep SLC, even though it happens to be central to the west. They have poured in a lot of money into the hub in PHX, and, have several Arizonian politicians in favor of this merger. I don't really know the difference in the sizes of the two hubs, but, US would keep the PHX one regardless, because that is where the airline is based. Remember too that DL might build LAX to look like there Atlantic gateway at JFK. IF that is the case, then, what are the possibilities of US keeping ALL FOUR hub/focus city operations in the west. PHX and LAX are the two that are on the most sound footing. LAS, it is a major o/d city, second to LAX, if i have my facts correct. SLC, it could theoretically work, but, both PHX and SLC would need to be stream-lined, or one would need to be cut. Now, it wouldn't make the politicians back at home base happy, so, SLC would get the shaft. However, all this theoretical business is contingent on one factor, US taking over DL.

Also, US would be flat out stupid to take all of the JFK trans-atlantic flights and stick them into PHL. why would you put higher-yielding O/D flights into PHL, which would become connecting flights, and thus, lower-yielding?
Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
 
aircanada014
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:24 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:20 pm

I would love to see UA and CO route map combine too, it would be very interesting. I think DL will be waiting for their application for ASIA.. Right now its UA, CO, AA and NW are fighting over the routes  Smile
 
MastaHanky
Posts: 224
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 7:02 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:39 pm

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 17):
In the merger, I would be afraid that US wouldn't keep SLC, even though it happens to be central to the west.

Yep, SLC is a goner if this goes through. Maybe a few focus city flights to a few key markets, but that's it. We could hope that AA or CO would have interest in building up a small western hub, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 17):
Also, US would be flat out stupid to take all of the JFK trans-atlantic flights and stick them into PHL. why would you put higher-yielding O/D flights into PHL, which would become connecting flights, and thus, lower-yielding?

Yeah, it really surprises me that people suggest that. JFK T3 is a hole. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. But JFK can support a bazillion markets with minimal connections, something that PHL will never do. Anybody who thinks PHL could support IST, NCE, TXL, SVO, GRU, etc on just O&D and a handful of connections is sorely mistaken. Not to mention the inability to sustain emerging markets like OTP and BUD.
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:50 pm

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 15):

Also, I keep hearing that Delta wants to fly to Asia from Los Angeles, so be patient. Problem is, RJs can't make it, so until DL gets more 777s, more flights to Asia will probably have to wait.

That is until someone comes up with the LRRJ and then they will fly trans-pac.

All I can think of is...DL shot itself in the foot by shutting down much of its Asia ops. They used to serve SEL, HKG, NGO, and FUK (Don't remember if they served Osaka or TPE).

If the merger were to go through and US keeps its order for A350s, then Asian expansion will happen. If the merger doesn't happen and if the rumor that DL is going to send all their widebodies on long-haul, then they could even do LAX-Japan with a 767-200ER from LAX or SLC. It would be a start until more 777s enter the fleet or DL can order some 787s.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
DL777LAX
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:45 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:54 pm

Quoting Centrair (Reply 20):
If the merger doesn't happen and if the rumor that DL is going to send all their widebodies on long-haul, then they could even do LAX-Japan with a 767-200ER from LAX or SLC. It would be a start until more 777s enter the fleet or DL can order some 787s.

Or, if AA or NW gets the application, and DL decides that an ATL bid would be unattractive to the DOT, they could surprise us and do something unexpected, and send an application of LAX-PEK/PVG.

But, this is would be contingent on the DOT bid. sorry for being off topic.

Hopefully, LAX will survive the merger, if it happens. US might feel LAX would be redundent to PHX and LAS

[Edited 2007-01-06 07:56:20]
Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
 
aircanada014
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:24 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sat Jan 06, 2007 11:30 pm

I wonder if AC will use LAX as mini hub and introduce flights to ASIA along with SFO?...
 
LawnDart
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:15 am

Quoting Centrair (Reply 20):
All I can think of is...DL shot itself in the foot by shutting down much of its Asia ops. They used to serve SEL, HKG, NGO, and FUK (Don't remember if they served Osaka or TPE).

Also, BKK and TPE (remember Ron Allen's famous TPE hub proposal?). Unfortunately, most of the flights were out of PDX, which was not the greatest Pacific hub due to lack of connecting flights and O&D.

DL did fly JFK and LAX to NRT (AA applied for both the day after DL announced they were dropping them...duh), as well as LAX-HKG. Those would be nice routes to have right now.

DL could actually get back in to the JFK-NRT market fairly easily, as AA, NW and UA had service, but UA transferred theirs to IAD and NW has dropped their service completely.
 
COewrAAtysAZ
Posts: 149
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:15 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:31 am

Let's hope that if the merger goes through, it isn't has hard to read as those maps are. It looks like a child took a blue and red crayon and just drew lines all over the maps.
Continental Airlines: Trabajar con empe�?��?�±o, Volar con Pasi�?��?�³n
 
COEWRPVG
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:29 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting AirCanada014 (Reply 18):
I would love to see UA and CO route map combine too, it would be very interesting.

Here is a roughly legible map constructed by Great Circle Mapper of CO's and UA's international routes combined (with the omission of the Caribbean and Central America for the purpose of aesthetics):

Combined UA and CO International Route Map

I understand that this is a little off topic, but it is sure to create some excitement.

COEWRPVG
 
GLAGAZ
Posts: 1844
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2004 5:42 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 2:48 am

You can't see GLA on the map, although there is a red line which appears to stop in the GLA region.

Gaz
Neutrality means that u don't really care cos the struggle goes on even when ur not there, blind and unaware
 
Midway2AirTran
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:34 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 3:22 am

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 7):
CLT would be the hub at risk.

On a revenue perspective, that could be a irrational move. Why vacate a market of dominance and price control like CLT to concentrate resources on markets already wet with competition and LCC's such as ATL. After-all CLT is still one of the most expensive markets to passengers in the US, due to the lack of competition. Geographical location is also a plus for its network.

O&D, is still important, but not so essential as that for Low fare carrier's simply because they are "Network Carriers".

IMO, I'd expect US to trim down DL's domestic w/o much change Internationally out of ATL. CLT would remain the same with a few cuts internationally, most likely on non-productive duplicate routes with ATL. PHL appears that its ops may be expanded with international service.
"Life is short, but your delay in ATL is not."
 
Zone1
Posts: 894
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 4:47 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:38 am

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
Maintaining so many gateways depends on what you mean by a gateway - CLT would lose lots of flights to ATL, especially international.

I would say that CLT would only keep international city pairs that Bank Of America needs. LGW and FRA probably.
/// U N I T E D
 
lostturttle
Posts: 134
Joined: Tue Dec 05, 2006 8:17 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:43 am

For Bermuda any merger would be bad.

Looking at the proposed route map all I see is a further reduction in service, and frequency, which would more than likely cause an increase in fares. Last year will hopefully turn out to be one of our better for air arrivals. US Airways and Delta both increased their service.

Delta use to fly L1011's then 767's to Bermuda. A few years ago they down graded to 757's out of ATL and BOS for the winter season. Then they kept the 757's on the run for the whole year, now it is 737's. (seasonal x2 daily service BDA - ATL which was a good thing)

US Airways has picked up some of Deltas drop in service with a seasonal BOS - BDA run and even though they do not have a "shiny new" Terminal in Boston I prefer their service. Also the fact that they fly A320's A321's also 767's. That also helps with Cargo lift to the island. Delta's changing from wide body to narrow body aircraft hit us very hard. Not to mention just trying to get a seat out of here!
 
LAXdude1023
Topic Author
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:45 am

Quoting Midway2AirTran (Reply 27):
I'd expect US to trim down DL's domestic w/o much change Internationally out of ATL. CLT would remain the same with a few cuts internationally, most likely on non-productive duplicate routes with ATL. PHL appears that its ops may be expanded with international service.

This is what I think too. ATL probably would remain unchanged on a international level, but some domestic service would probably be cut. CLT would be mainly just a stress reliever for ATL with minimal international service. Honestly CLT would be the big loser in deal.
It is what it is...
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 5360
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:02 am

Quoting Evan767 (Reply 6):
Oh and DL benefits not only from ARN but SKB! Wow two routes! US gets what, 20 new stations?

Actually, Delta doesn't get anything, because they are being taken over by US in the deal. From that perspective, it doesn't matter what Delta gets. It only matters what the combined entity gets.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 15):
See my snotty response to your "PHL benefitting with service to Asia" supposition above..

Why the need to be snotty? Do you and Vega have some sort of history on here, or can you not just disagree without being "snotty"?

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 17):
In the merger, I would be afraid that US wouldn't keep SLC, even though it happens to be central to the west. They have poured in a lot of money into the hub in PHX

I've read on here of how PHX is going to be maxed out soon enough, so a hub in SLC will be necessary as a reliever.

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 17):
SLC, it could theoretically work, but, both PHX and SLC would need to be stream-lined, or one would need to be cut.

I'm curious, though, how many people they want to "spill" to other carriers. I'm guessing DL is doing quite well in SLC, with over 100 destinations now, right? Obviously US/HP has done pretty well in PHX, too. Where do those people go if you close one of the hubs? Please don't say "the other one", because obviously you couldn't add that much capacity to the other, and they would no longer be serving all the same markets.

Quoting MastaHanky (Reply 19):
Yep, SLC is a goner if this goes through. Maybe a few focus city flights to a few key markets, but that's it. We could hope that AA or CO would have interest in building up a small western hub, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

I cannot envision US/DL writing off the investment in SLC or PHX. Maybe streamlining, sure, but walking away? Delta walking away from DFW or HP walking away from CMH were really the exception IMVHO. I would think AA at STL or US at PIT would be better examples of what you'd see at the worst - a decent mainline pulldown but with a continued RJ/Prop contingent. I believe you'd still see a sizable schedule to the top 30-40 markets, at a minimum.

Quoting MastaHanky (Reply 19):
Anybody who thinks PHL could support IST, NCE, TXL, SVO, GRU, etc on just O&D and a handful of connections is sorely mistaken.

I'm assuming they are hoping to offer more than a "handful" of connections. What I have no idea of, though, is how much space remains at PHL to accommodate those connections.

-Dave
-Dave
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:06 am

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 1):
PIT and/or CVG would lose capacity, although right now CVG does well on its European routes.



Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 7):
CVG is a question mark since PIT and CVG share a lot in common and US really slashed PIT, I would guess that it would stay the same as it is now with the nail being put in the PIT coffin.

If they want to cut PIT anymore, they might as well pack up their things and just frigging leave. No US at all, and it still seems to me that the county wouldn't give a s*** anyway...  sarcastic 

Quoting CentPIT (Reply 10):
I don't see PIT losing very much though, because with only 157 daily flights to 52 destinations, there isn't to much to cut!

Which reflects the point I made above. I don't want to see PIT get the axe anymore. It is a good city to do business in; this will just make things much harder for anyone. I can't say I blame US or anything, especially after what that one employee told me about Allegheny County. The county is digging itself a hole, which will eventually serve to be a grave for itself...

That is why I am against a USDL merger. The US employee said that it would mean a cut to as little as 50 or 60 flights if the merger goes through, as the bulk of the service would be transfered to CVG. Just what PIT and the region needs, and what someone else posted, the fricking nail in the coffin!
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
Australia1
Posts: 457
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 7:36 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:11 am

Quoting Centrair (Reply 4):
Sure DL has Indian routes but what about HKG, SIN, BKK, SYD, or MEL.

forget SYD & MEL, what about BNE, it's realitively underserviced cf. SYD & MEL ?
 
LAXdude1023
Topic Author
Posts: 4431
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:19 am

Quoting Steeler83 (Reply 32):
That is why I am against a USDL merger. The US employee said that it would mean a cut to as little as 50 or 60 flights if the merger goes through, as the bulk of the service would be transfered to CVG. Just what PIT and the region needs, and what someone else posted, the fricking nail in the coffin!

Its a reason why I'm against it to. PIT, like DL itself has nothing to gain and lots to lose. Its hard enough having PIT compete with PHL and CLT for traffic and connections, now we are going to throw in CVG and ATL to the mix. From an airports perspective on PHL and ATL will come out winning, but from a city perspective, Atlanta will lose a lot. And much like you Steeler83, my concern is more for Atlanta (the city, or in your case Pittsburgh) than for DL or US (since Atlanta will be my future home!!!). I guess the big difference is that ATL will remain king of hubs no matter if the merger goes through or not, but PIT has lost a lot and I fear more to its (less attractive) big brother PHL.
Its a shame, PIT is a nicer airport and a nicer city than Philadelphia.
It is what it is...
 
jfk777
Posts: 5818
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:40 am

PHL and JFK would be large international operations for Delta/US. Why would one be sacrificed ? They are both large enough dupicate service could be sustained from both. Really exotic places like Mumbai may only fly from JFK but anything west of Israel could and should be served from both.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3013
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:58 am

SLC will go the way of DFW on the DL side of the merger (takeover). HP is the real winner in all of this. They probably wanted DL all along but were not leveraged enough to go it alone. They probably needed a stronger position in the market place for this all to happen. A higher revenue stream that US provides it was the springboard to takeover DL. US was the most vulnerable for a takeover er... merger so that is what HP did.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:00 am

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34):
Its a reason why I'm against it to. PIT, like DL itself has nothing to gain and lots to lose. Its hard enough having PIT compete with PHL and CLT for traffic and connections, now we are going to throw in CVG and ATL to the mix. From an airports perspective on PHL and ATL will come out winning, but from a city perspective, Atlanta will lose a lot. And much like you Steeler83, my concern is more for Atlanta (the city, or in your case Pittsburgh) than for DL or US (since Atlanta will be my future home!!!).

Thanks for feeling that way and understanding me man.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34):
I guess the big difference is that ATL will remain king of hubs no matter if the merger goes through or not,

This I think we can all agree with. Atlanta is a growing city, expanding at a very rapid rate.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34):
PIT has lost a lot and I fear more to its (less attractive) big brother PHL.
Its a shame, PIT is a nicer airport and a nicer city than Philadelphia.

I whole heartedly agree with this too! but PHL has the people, the O&D, but PIT does not, and the county doesn't seem to care either. They apparently don't fricking care that people and businesses are leaving. They think that having the highest taxes in the country are fine... HELLO!!! THAT IS WHY PEOPLE ARE LEAVING??!?!?!!! DOOO SOOOMEETHINNG ABOUT THIS!!!!!

Coming back to the landing fees... If they think they're making a lot of money with them being as high as they are, I would love to know what they're smoking. That is why US cut 400 flights. If they're "making money' like they think they are, they must be robbing people (Yet, they're kinda doing that anyway, as in robbing the other airlines, AA, CO, DL, NW, UA... Yet, WN and B6 got good deals. If everyone had to pay the same landing fee, even if it was reduced by 17 percent...

I don't get it. People don't think they'll make as much of anything by doing that. PIT is barely making anything now because of US' massive reduction in service. Yes, they have a 600Mln dollar debt now. (They actually had that money set aside to pay for the damn terminal, but they apparently pissed it away. This courtesy of the US employee I flew with the day after Christmas.) US paid almost $400 million to the airport authority to build the airport. The airport authority, in return, screwed them two times over. One, by losing the $600 million left over, and two by not lowering their fees and costs so that US could keep its massive ops there. And the county is still acting like it doesn't need US anymore, that it could easily find someone else to take its place. Guess what, Allegheny County, nobody has come in yet! I guess they really don't care about the future of the county and surrounding region. They just like lining their own pockets at the business and taxpaying public's expense. That is what I have been told, and that is what it is really looking like. Allegheny is a lot like the Titanic, a concentration of a large amount of people (1.25 million people), sinking fast and bleeding from the inside out. I want very much for it to stop and for the City of Pittsburgh and Allegheny County to prosper like I think it should, and the way I think it can. I hope the next mayor (currently Ravenshawl) can and will pick up where the late Bob O'Connor left off, him and County Chief Executive Onorato as well, considering that Onorato works with the Airport Authority...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
vega
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:56 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:03 am

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 15):
Gosh, where to begin...

Your replies to this and the other post here are arrogant, self-serving and without merit at best and really could be summed up quickly with a single statement - "I love JFK and DL and hate PHL and US". So why is there a need for all this immaturity? If you can't be civil and provide more than irrational, emotional backup for your replies, please don't reply (to me) at all.

An easy example of erroneous assumptions is your statement: "Well, ATL is a major connecting hub, so that's a safe suspicion. ATL also has one of the largest jewish populations in the U.S. At least you admitted you had no proof."
For your information, the largest Jewish pupulation centers in America are (in order): New York City, Miami, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Fransisco, Boston and Balt./Wash.. Atlanta is nowhere to be found.
We are but a moment in this vast Universe and when gone we will never have existed.
 
vega
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:56 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:30 am

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 17):
Also, US would be flat out stupid to take all of the JFK trans-atlantic flights and stick them into PHL. why would you put higher-yielding O/D flights into PHL, which would become connecting flights, and thus, lower-yielding?

I stand by my earlier assumption and what Parker has already stated to the analysts, "PHL has better "connectivity"". If it can shown that current DL international flights carry more than about 40% JFK O&D, rather than a majority of DL connecting domestic traffic, I might change my thinking. Here is a comparison of the # of domestic passengers carried between 10/2005 through 9/2006: DL at JFK = 3.4M; US at PHL = 13M. If my international service revenue depended on connecting passengers, I would think one would choose PHL. That difference in domestic feed, plus the 4M International O&D at PHL, would seem to offset the larger JFK International O&D, which is shared among 60+ carriers to PHL's 3. All this is not saying that if in fact some international flights are proven heavy JFK O&D oriented, they would remain at JFK, if US decided to support both airports.
We are but a moment in this vast Universe and when gone we will never have existed.
 
DL777LAX
Posts: 489
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:45 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:45 am

Quoting Vega (Reply 39):
If my international service revenue depended on connecting passengers, I would think one would choose PHL.

Actually, DL's JFK operation is profitable due to the fact that it is mainly O/D. notice the word MAINLY. Sure, DL provides connectivity to several cities via JFK. But, the connecting traffic that DL carries to Europe is through ATL. There are several cities in the DL network that make just as much sense to fly through ATL then to JFK. Besides, connecting traffic is lower yielding then O/D traffic. The 4M at PHL for O/D is not really enough to support then a few airlines plus the large operation across the pond that US has (well it isn't that big compared to CO or DL in New York, but still is fairly respectable).

I was on a flight between MXP and ATL, and, out of all of the people flying, i only met a few people going to ATL, the rest were all going someplace else.

Don't underestimate DL and JFK. There is a reason why it can support the 60 plus international carriers, plus DL's and AA's large operations. Oh, and CO at EWR. the competition for the JFK market is great, but the market itself is obviously large enough if it can support all of that traffic. EWR, JFK and LGA all, combined carried over 100M people in 2005. How many did PHL carry in the same period? 30M. And, if 13M of PHL's traffic was connecting, that means that PHL only had about 17M O/D travelers. JFK, I don't have the exact numbers, but I would imagine the numbers are a lot larger.

DL's international network is both a mix of O/D and connecting. JFK and LAX both rely on O/D more then connecting. Thus, it would be safe to assume that those stations are more profitable then CVG or SLC (not saying they're not profitable, because they would have been dropped if they were unprofitable), because both rely more on connections.

[Edited 2007-01-06 23:49:15]
Blindly following anything is bad, unless of course your blind and your following a guide dog.
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:46 am

Quoting Vega (Reply 38):
New York City, Miami, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Fransisco, Boston and Balt./Wash.. Atlanta is nowhere to be found.

Pittsburgh also has a large Jewish population with its massive Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Still, probably nowhere near ATL for that matter I guess...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:50 am

Quoting Vega (Reply 38):
New York City, Miami, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Fransisco, Boston and Balt./Wash.. Atlanta is nowhere to be found.

Pittsburgh also has a large Jewish population with its massive Squirrel Hill neighborhood. Still, probably nowhere near ATL for that matter I guess...

In addition to that, I guess it would be safe to say that there is a fair amount of Jewish people in Pittsburgh's south hills district. I guess they only have a Jewish community center there just for the heck of it then if there isn't...

Still, New York is the biggest everything pretty much... Biggest Italian, Irish, Polish, Jewish, etc...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
 
vega
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 8:56 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 8:28 am

Quoting DL777LAX (Reply 40):
DL's international network is both a mix of O/D and connecting. JFK and LAX both rely on O/D more then connecting. Thus, it would be safe to assume that those stations are more profitable then CVG or SLC (not saying they're not profitable, because they would have been dropped if they were unprofitable), because both rely more on connections.

I don't disagree with that assumption. My point however is that no one has been able to show (on A-net) that even 40% of the current DL JFK International traffic is O&D. I personally don't care whether JFK or PHL, or both are retained as major international hubs. It just seems illogical for US to designate ATL, PHL and CLT (in that order) as the top Hubs in the proposed system, but then push the majority of international services through a non-hub - JFK. Even if the Old/New DL could generate 40-50% O&D traffic at JFK, the risk of less revenue/flight seems higher with only 3.4M annual domestic connecting passengers. If we were talking about AA and it's long history at JFK, I'd be much more acceptable of a high international O&D %. Anyway this is really something we just have to wait out. I'd assume (if this meger ever happens) Parker, or whoever, will have all the numbers and be able to make an intelligent decision.
We are but a moment in this vast Universe and when gone we will never have existed.
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 9:09 am

Quoting TWA902fly (Reply 2):
The best part is the location of BJX on that map (Leon, Mexico). Half way between Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo.

Or the fact that there are two "GRU"s.

Really, what point do these messes serve?
It would make much more sense to draw regional maps, or go in a new direction all together, because these things are a headache.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 4):
I keep hearing that Asia is where people want to go.

OK you got my attention......

Quoting Centrair (Reply 4):
but what about HKG, SIN, BKK, SYD, or MEL.

Bingo!
Yes Delta, what about the rest of Asia?

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 7):
SLC or PHX but not both would be reduced in size with the other being beefed up.

It's all a matter of what they want? SLC provides the intra-West connectivity PHX does not, but PHX is a much larger market on which to build O/D.
Do they abdicate SLC to Southwest? That would awful, as they would never serve places like MFR and SBA.

Quoting LawnDart (Reply 15):
I keep hearing that Delta wants to fly to Asia from Los Angeles

Well, its not like they didn't have the chance before...M11s to HKG etc.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 20):
Don't remember if they served Osaka or TPE

Taipei yes.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 31):
I've read on here of how PHX is going to be maxed out soon enough

Yes and no. They are in expansion mode, this time building to the West, where Terminal 2 once was.
They have room, but just not on the scale of say a CVG.

But isn't all this moot anyway....has not this merger been effectively squelched...not going to happen?
And if it did happen it would come with so much bloodshed, ie, driving the acquisition price so high to make the offer attractive, that post merger much of the assets would have to be sold off to relieve the debt; that it negates the purpose of the merger in the first place? (Cliff's Notes version)
Delete this User
 
CentPIT
Posts: 978
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 4:48 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Sun Jan 07, 2007 1:55 pm

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 34):
Its a shame, PIT is a nicer airport and a nicer city than Philadelphia.

While I completely agree, most people do not. I have begun to swallow my pride.
Pittsburgh International: US Airways---160 daily departures! (52 destinations)
 
LawnDart
Posts: 860
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 11:33 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:44 am

Quoting Vega (Reply 38):
Your replies ... really could be summed up quickly with a single statement - "I love JFK and DL and hate PHL and US".

Whereas you seem totally non-biased towards either US or PHL... sarcastic 

okay, I'm sorry, I was snotty (and admit as much). Let's kiss and make up ... kiss 

Quoting Vega (Reply 38):
An easy example of erroneous assumptions is your statement: "Well, ATL is a major connecting hub, so that's a safe suspicion. ATL also has one of the largest jewish populations in the U.S. At least you admitted you had no proof."

For your information, the largest Jewish pupulation centers in America are (in order): New York City, Miami, LA, Philadelphia, Chicago, San Fransisco, Boston and Balt./Wash.. Atlanta is nowhere to be found.

And your source for this was, what...wikipedia (oops...borderline snotty)?

Here's a statistic from the AJC (not the Atlanta Journal Constitution, but the American Jewish Committee):

Cities with the highest jewish population growth (and total):
San Francisco, California, (227,800 in 2006);
Atlanta, Georgia (119,800);
San Diego, California (89,000);
Montgomery and Prince Georges County, Maryland (121,000);
South Palm Beach Florida (107,500)

Alright, I'll admit that it's not a ranking, but details population growth instead. However, ATL comes in within a hair's breadth of places like Montgomery and Prince Georges County (Washington-Baltimore metro area) and more than Palm Beach County.

Listen, I truly apologize for getting snotty...I've popped a Pamprin and feel much better. However, I would suggest that before you post what seems to be a slightly biased thread about the virtues of US at PHL over DL at JFK/ATL you get some facts straight. Those facts include that PHL will never be the international gateway that NYC (JFK and EWR) are today...to places like Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America, and even if they wanted to at present they don' have the facilities, ICN would be much better served through ATL than PHL, and DL only operates one daily flight between ATL and TLV.

Because when you do post something as blatantly biased and factually incorrect as yours was, you can expect a response, even one that comes off as a little snotty...
 
Evan767
Posts: 2198
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:52 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Mon Jan 08, 2007 2:53 am

Quoting Stirling (Reply 44):
Or the fact that there are two "GRU"s.

Not to mention they don't know the code for Bucharest. It's BUH according to this map. Also, since when has DL flown to FLR? US Airways. Yeah sure
The proper term is "on final" not "on finals" bud...
 
sq452
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:49 am

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:52 am

Quoting CentPIT (Reply 10):
PIT for one is a nicer facility. I do however agree that CVG would keep more destinations than PIT. I don't see PIT losing very much though, because with only 157 daily flights to 52 destinations, there isn't to much to cut!

Ummm...no, PIT is certainly not a nicer facility, and we've had this debate many many times!!!  Wink

For starters, CVG does extremely well on the Europe routes where PIT couldnt even make the most popular European destinations work...
SIN > CVG > BOS
 
steeler83
Posts: 7391
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:06 pm

RE: US/DL Proposed International Route Map.

Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:38 pm

Quoting SQ452 (Reply 48):
For starters, CVG does extremely well on the Europe routes where PIT couldnt even make the most popular European destinations work...

Would you cut off your right arm to fly PIT-LGW? 300 bucks was what it cost to fly into PHL for Pete's sake ONE WAY... 400 will actually get you from PHL to some popular european destinations AND BACK (providing that it's a sale of course  ) PIT people will fly to Europe or anywhere; they (we) just won't want to declare bankruptcy to do it...

Quoting SQ452 (Reply 48):
PIT is certainly not a nicer facility


And I am an indian named Habibb  

Um.. ok, PHL has the pax, O&D, etc... but has a crappy terminal layout. Parts of the airport, especially the international gates and the shops in between the two US concourses, those are nice. The actuall concourses (domestic) and the layout, however, suck. If you think PHL looks more like the Taj Mahal than PIT does, YEAH RIGHT! Of course, the pax is what counts and not the design...

You PHL-worshipers keep saying that PHL is far better than PIT in all categories. It's not. They have the O&D and that's about it. Overhaul that horrible layout then get back to those of us who prefer PIT, CLT, LAS or anywhere else where there are less headaches when connecting or navigating...

[Edited 2007-01-08 05:48:23]
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: azz767, Baidu [Spider], cougar15, CrimsonNL, Dalmd88, GCT64, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], iahcsr, Mani87, nmraja, posti, tomofutah, uta999, zkncj and 248 guests