tphuang wrote:

In Delta's earning, Latin America was the only negative performer, so maybe they are trimming some bad routes.

Back around 1996 when we opened Brazil with the RG codeshare ( I was part of initial team in GRU ) we de-briefed ATL after 2 weeks; and strongly suggested the southernmost point for a SOUTH AMERICA OPERATION.... MCO was the HUB Suggested..... we saw thru the late 90's and mid 2000's VASP, Transbrasil, Varig, fly to MCO directly and MAKE MONEY on the routes..... all of a sudden DL "yields to Gol" 737 service thru Fortaleza and or Brasilia? So MCO to GRU or beyond goes from Nonstop, to TWO STOPS ......at best..... NO THANK YOU!

This makes it evident why that PMNW 787 order was so much more important than the A333, a direct replacement for the 767 is needed and is not 739 and certainly NOT the A321LREXPZPDQ....... it is a twin aisle 210-250pax airplane they DO NOT HAVE IN THE INVENTORY...... How about a quick Boeing order for 30 788/789 with 30 options to replace the 764 down the road.....

Wonder is Brasilia will come back? After all those frequencies where moved to MCO.

xdlx wrote:

This makes it evident why that PMNW 787 order was so much more important than the A333, a direct replacement for the 767 is needed and is not 739 and certainly NOT the A321LREXPZPDQ....... it is a twin aisle 210-250pax airplane they DO NOT HAVE IN THE INVENTORY...... How about a quick Boeing order for 30 788/789 with 30 options to replace the 764 down the road.....

This! Despite the complaints that the 787 "didn't (quite) meet performance expectations" as an excuse for cancelling the order, it is still the best-performing aircraft for these and many other of Delta's needs.

Lack of this aircraft has stymied potential in both South America and Asia, and DL risks falling further far behind one or more of its competitors in both of these continents. It is a shame because Delta is outstanding in so many metrics, but a short-sighted decision is holding back important growth areas.

Confirmed, Delta is ending MCO-GRU service due to economic reasons and the entry of GOL to the MCO market. Article in Portuguese.

https://airway.uol.com.br/delta-deixara ... o-de-2019/

jbs2886 wrote:

Will DL give up the slot or move frequencies?

Now BR and US have an openskies agreement

mackdad wrote:

Wonder is Brasilia will come back? After all those frequencies where moved to MCO.

I doubt - G3 will establish two new daily services from BSB soon (MIA and MCO). It seems already too much for the metro area of Brasilia.

alfa164 wrote:

xdlx wrote:

This makes it evident why that PMNW 787 order was so much more important than the A333, a direct replacement for the 767 is needed and is not 739 and certainly NOT the A321LREXPZPDQ....... it is a twin aisle 210-250pax airplane they DO NOT HAVE IN THE INVENTORY...... How about a quick Boeing order for 30 788/789 with 30 options to replace the 764 down the road.....

This! Despite the complaints that the 787 "didn't (quite) meet performance expectations" as an excuse for cancelling the order, it is still the best-performing aircraft for these and many other of Delta's needs.

Lack of this aircraft has stymied potential in both South America and Asia, and DL risks falling further far behind one or more of its competitors in both of these continents. It is a shame because Delta is outstanding in so many metrics, but a short-sighted decision is holding back important growth areas.

Delta must be unique in finding the 787 " didn't meet performance expectations", the 787 has proven quite useful opening up route never imagined before, can you say Perth to London operated by wait wait a 787-9, way to go Qantas. The only similar route at DL is operated by a 777-200LR to Johannesburg, can you say "if its not a Boeing I am not going".

axiom wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

axiom wrote:

At last reference, yes.

Yeah I was agreeing with you, haha

Ah, grand.

Here are some revenue numbers for those "not major" cities next to smaller hubs. Obviously, these will have changed somewhat, but only in a direction which supports my point. I welcome more recent data if folks have a public source.

DL 2015 Top US Markets by O&D Revenue
9. MCO - $406.7M
10. SEA - $401.4M
14. CVG - $265.9M
15. TPA - $245.9M
16. FLL - $245.5M
20. RDU - $233.1M
40. AUS - $132.0M

http://sixelconsulting.com/Data/reports ... Sample.pdf

Those are O&D data. Sure, MCO is an important destination for Delta... theme parks, conventions. Those data don't say Orlando is an important origination market, nor do they break out Brazil-originating passengers, relevant to the flight in question.

jfk777 wrote:

Delta must be unique in finding the 787 " didn't meet performance expectations", the 787 has proven quite useful opening up route never imagined before, can you say Perth to London operated by wait wait a 787-9, way to go Qantas. The only similar route at DL is operated by a 777-200LR to Johannesburg, can you say "if its not a Boeing I am not going".

I don't believe Delta ever said that the 787 didn't meet performance expectations...Delta has always maintained that the 787 and its range is 'too much aircraft' for the bulk of its route network. While the 788 capacity may seem like the exact replacement for the 763ER, it is too much aircraft for most of Delta's 767 routes today. Having the 788 on property would not have saved MCO-GRU (which is what we're talking about in this thread here).

KMCOFlyer wrote:

Looks like it, my friend who works for DL at MCO seems shocked as DL just hired a bunch of Portuguese speaker specifically for the GRU flight.

Well they better get used to the domestic flying instead......or be unemployed.

I personally never thought this route stood a chance long term. I always thought MCO-Europe would be better fits. Local O&D and mismatched connecting traffic wasn't going to hold up. Similar to the fate of MIA-LHR about 6 years ago (anybody remember that one?)

N649DL wrote:

I personally never thought this route stood a chance long term. I always thought MCO-Europe would be better fits. Local O&D and mismatched connecting traffic wasn't going to hold up. Similar to the fate of MIA-LHR about 6 years ago (anybody remember that one?)

I just don`t understand why not give a try with just 1 frame (being a daylight flight in one of the directions).
If the flight is strong seller in Brazil (as main point of sale), a daylight MCO-GRU would be interesting for those passengers that can leave their hotels and residences earlier - that would reduce a lot the route cost.

I had no idea that Delta was doing so poorly in GRU.

TTailedTiger wrote:

Not really. MCO used to be a much larger station for Delta. They pretty much had the entire airside to themselves. They allowed the LCC's to take away their market share.

DL still has Airside 4 all to themselves.

MIflyer12 wrote:

axiom wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Yeah I was agreeing with you, haha

Ah, grand.

Here are some revenue numbers for those "not major" cities next to smaller hubs. Obviously, these will have changed somewhat, but only in a direction which supports my point. I welcome more recent data if folks have a public source.

DL 2015 Top US Markets by O&D Revenue
9. MCO - $406.7M
10. SEA - $401.4M
14. CVG - $265.9M
15. TPA - $245.9M
16. FLL - $245.5M
20. RDU - $233.1M
40. AUS - $132.0M

http://sixelconsulting.com/Data/reports ... Sample.pdf

Those are O&D data. Sure, MCO is an important destination for Delta... theme parks, conventions. Those data don't say Orlando is an important origination market, nor do they break out Brazil-originating passengers, relevant to the flight in question.

I provided that data solely to counter the comment that MCO is not a major station within the DL network. Do you see any claims being made about Brazil demand?

Please feel free to add context about the data, or to provide additional data, but dont misconstrue my argument.

N649DL wrote:

I personally never thought this route stood a chance long term. I always thought MCO-Europe would be better fits. Local O&D and mismatched connecting traffic wasn't going to hold up. Similar to the fate of MIA-LHR about 6 years ago (anybody remember that one?)

The MIA-LHR game was all about accessing those BA/AA JV divestiture slots. Not sure I see a direct parallel.

Since Delta is having so much trouble competing in South America, we just need to move the metal elsewhere where we can compete. We are not in the business of maintaining vanity routes that lose money.

DL has an hourly shuttle to ATL and throw ludicrous amounts of capacity on the route to fill up 17+ daily MCO-ATL flights. The number one destination from ATL is MCO, making it a gigantic station just on the basis of ATL alone, with more flights just to ATL than DL has for all daily flights to some other airports. It is probably the biggest station in the network that isn't officially recognized as one.

alfa164 wrote:

xdlx wrote:

This makes it evident why that PMNW 787 order was so much more important than the A333, a direct replacement for the 767 is needed and is not 739 and certainly NOT the A321LREXPZPDQ....... it is a twin aisle 210-250pax airplane they DO NOT HAVE IN THE INVENTORY...... How about a quick Boeing order for 30 788/789 with 30 options to replace the 764 down the road.....

This! Despite the complaints that the 787 "didn't (quite) meet performance expectations" as an excuse for cancelling the order, it is still the best-performing aircraft for these and many other of Delta's needs.

Lack of this aircraft has stymied potential in both South America and Asia, and DL risks falling further far behind one or more of its competitors in both of these continents. It is a shame because Delta is outstanding in so many metrics, but a short-sighted decision is holding back important growth areas.

If DL cannot make this work with a 763 this cannot be done with even the Dreamliner. Especially with the Real being so under-appreciated at the moment. Makes more sense to route it through ATL or a ONE stop GRU-FOR/BSB-MCO on G3.

FSDan wrote:

By dropping this route, DL gets two 763 frames back to use (...)

I don't know why DL uses 2 frames. It's mostly a tourist flight. Latam uses only one frame, flying during the day GRU-MCO and returning at night.

danvs wrote:

FSDan wrote:

By dropping this route, DL gets two 763 frames back to use (...)

I don't know why DL uses 2 frames. It's mostly a tourist flight. Latam uses only one frame, flying during the day GRU-MCO and returning at night.

From what was said earlier DL does some maintenance while the aircraft is at GRU.

Non-hub to non-hub, generally speaking, makes no sense for DL's network strategy. They probably have a better use for the freed up bird.

peanuts wrote:

Non-hub to non-hub, generally speaking, makes no sense for DL's network strategy. They probably have a better use for the freed up bird.

DL has shown it can make P2P routes work (domestically at least), and is more willing to fly P2P routes than any of the other legacy carriers (NE to FL routes, intra-west routes out of LAS, some remaining DCA routes). Non-hub to non-hub is a limited part of the DL domestic network strategy. International may be another story. Other than the CUN routes, are there any international P2P routes left after this (not counting flights from spokes to CDG, AMS and LHR)?

flymco753 wrote:

xdlx wrote:

As long as the frame moves to open MCOCDG ......

There's a lot of buzz about it, so I second your notion.

Internal memo says they're committed to flying to Brazil from JFK, ATL, and DTW hubs. Has there been a public source that states this? Delta News Hub?

DeltaPrince wrote:

I had no idea that Delta was doing so poorly in GRU.

The cancellation of MCO-GRU should not be seen as a confirmation that the whole Delta operation in GRU (or GIG) is doing poorly. ATL flights do well; not sure about JFK or DTW. The latter seems right-sized frequency-wise, just at 3x w.

MCO-GRU is a non hub to non hub route, something that Delta doesn't do well within its present network. It is a Brazil POS route mostly and definitely a leisure route. With Brazil's economy taking longer than expected to recuperate and with no prospects of the route making money in the foreseeable future, better deploy those 2 763ERs someplace else. Delta's associate, GOL can take of business between Brazil and MCO moving forward.

I know MCO wants a regularly scheduled Paris flight, it wont be on Air France, so I think if they put this 76W on MCO-CDG it would do fine. What I am seeing with MCO-CDG is capturing traffic that's coming over from Africa and the Middle East.

Stinks but delta can reroute the passengers pretty easily. If yields were too low, makes sense to operate on other routes. It was always going to be a vacationers express.

Bummer for MCO but they tried the route , shows they have interest in the market still.

HVNandrew wrote:

peanuts wrote:

Non-hub to non-hub, generally speaking, makes no sense for DL's network strategy. They probably have a better use for the freed up bird.

DL has shown it can make P2P routes work (domestically at least), and is more willing to fly P2P routes than any of the other legacy carriers (NE to FL routes, intra-west routes out of LAS, some remaining DCA routes). Non-hub to non-hub is a limited part of the DL domestic network strategy. International may be another story. Other than the CUN routes, are there any international P2P routes left after this (not counting flights from spokes to CDG, AMS and LHR)?

In the context of this thread that is what was meant. International network strategy.
Domestically DL is highly successful at p2p. Internationally it's just not there currently. Hence the pullback. If any town could pull it off it would be MCO but it's just tough filling the front of a cabin I'd imagine.

Any remaining int'l p2p are perhaps in Asia/HNL/pacific.

I'm assuming you consider AMS/CDG as hubs as they rightfully are, in the JV context.

The reason MCO-GRU was started was to help G3 out with their network. The number one destination Brazilians wanted to go was Orlando. Since at the time DL had those frequencies plus the equipment and G3 didn’t. Now that GOL can fly to MCO with the MAX it was a matter of time.

mackdad wrote:

The reason MCO-GRU was started was to help G3 out with their network. The number one destination Brazilians wanted to go was Orlando. Since at the time DL had those frequencies plus the equipment and G3 didn’t. Now that GOL can fly to MCO with the MAX it was a matter of time.

This was my hunch, too.

flymco753 wrote:

I know MCO wants a regularly scheduled Paris flight, it wont be on Air France, so I think if they put this 76W on MCO-CDG it would do fine. What I am seeing with MCO-CDG is capturing traffic that's coming over from Africa and the Middle East.

How much traffic is coming from Africa/Middle East going to MCO?

peanuts wrote:

Non-hub to non-hub, generally speaking, makes no sense for DL's network strategy. They probably have a better use for the freed up bird.

I'm eager to see where they send it. Is it too late to add TATL for next summer?

mackdad wrote:

The reason MCO-GRU was started was to help G3 out with their network. The number one destination Brazilians wanted to go was Orlando. Since at the time DL had those frequencies plus the equipment and G3 didn’t. Now that GOL can fly to MCO with the MAX it was a matter of time.

To which I just remembered, recall when AA briefly flew MCO-GRU in 2000 for a minute on the 763? I recall they had printed adverts for that at the MCO airport. I don't think that route made it into 2001.

flymco753 wrote:

I know MCO wants a regularly scheduled Paris flight

Does DY's MCO-CDG not count as regularly scheduled? It's not daily, but it's not a charter either.

FSDan wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

I know MCO wants a regularly scheduled Paris flight

Does DY's MCO-CDG not count as regularly scheduled? It's not daily, but it's not a charter either.

They want daily CDG service, or at least 5x weekly. 1x is kind of mediocre.

LipeGIG wrote:

I just don`t understand why not give a try with just 1 frame (being a daylight flight in one of the directions).

They were selling GRU-MCO daylight for S19 season, departing GRU @10am.

My reliable inside DL sources are telling me that MCO-CDG is more than likely going to be added soon to replace MCO-GRU. This has been roumered for a while so I would not be surprised by this at all.