Delta Air Lines and LATAM Airlines Group and its affiliates have signed a trans-American Joint Venture Agreement that, once regulatory approvals where required are granted, will combine the carriers’ highly complementary route networks between North and South America.

https://news.delta.com/delta-and-latam- ... greement-0
https://www.latam.com/en_us/about-us/la ... -alliance/

This builds on previously approved codeshare, and FF partnership

=

I'll post more details when I see their regulatory application

Any idea why AM was not included in this JV? Just curious

On the trans-atl side, you see UA and AC team up. Makes me wonder why DL would not include AM, an airline they have a stake in.

atcanobbio wrote:

Any idea why AM was not included in this JV? Just curious

On the trans-atl side, you see UA and AC team up. Makes me wonder why DL would not include AM, an airline they have a stake in.

As we saw with VS I expect they will add AM when they next apply for renewals or their might be treaty problems between Mexico and any of the countries latam is operating from

It could also be to do with anti-trust concerns? I suspect AM and LA have a near monopoly on flights between MEX and Chile/Brazil.

nickofatlanta wrote:

It could also be to do with anti-trust concerns? I suspect AM and LA have a near monopoly on flights between MEX and Chile/Brazil.

Possibly tough to say, but in general it seems easier to add another player later then try and get your massive JV all done at once

nickofatlanta wrote:

It could also be to do with anti-trust concerns? I suspect AM and LA have a near monopoly on flights between MEX and Chile/Brazil.

That was my thinking too.

LATAM-AM don't even codeshare today, so jumping into a JV be a non starter. Also, I doubt Mexico has open-skies agreements with all the LATAM nations for JV to be possible.

Aeromexico partners with Gol in Brazil.

mercure1 wrote:

Aeromexico partners with Gol in Brazil.

I will wonder out loud just how durable that relationship is going to be now that DL has dumped its Gol stake and acquired 49% of AM.

MIflyer12 wrote:

I will wonder out loud just how durable that relationship is going to be now that DL has dumped its Gol stake and acquired 49% of AM.

It is the same as VS. DL owns 49% of VS, but VS still partners with SQ, NZ, NH and Air China, all from Star Alliance.

DTWLAX wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

I will wonder out loud just how durable that relationship is going to be now that DL has dumped its Gol stake and acquired 49% of AM.

It is the same as VS. DL owns 49% of VS, but VS still partners with SQ, NZ, NH and Air China, all from Star Alliance.

So? Alaska still partners with Korean Air and LATAM. Airlines are free to have relationships with whoever they want. Alliances don't mean anything nowadays.

Lootess wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

I will wonder out loud just how durable that relationship is going to be now that DL has dumped its Gol stake and acquired 49% of AM.

It is the same as VS. DL owns 49% of VS, but VS still partners with SQ, NZ, NH and Air China, all from Star Alliance.

So? Alaska still partners with Korean Air and LATAM. Airlines are free to have relationships with whoever they want. Alliances don't mean anything nowadays.

Yeah but Alaska has those relationships in place before joining one world.

Lootess wrote:

So? Alaska still partners with Korean Air and LATAM. Airlines are free to have relationships with whoever they want. Alliances don't mean anything nowadays.

My post was in response to the person who was wondering how the relationship would be between AM and Gol since DL owns 49% of AM. I just compared it to the VS relationship with other airlines inspite of DL's 49% stake in VS.
I never said airlines cannot have relationships with non-alliance members.

I am glad to learn that loyalty programs will be linked beginning June 2020.

With respect to AM, I think it is safe to assume that AM will probably drop its Gol codeshare and F.F. reciprocal agreements soon and enter into new ones with LATAM. Having said that, AM joining the J.V. looks like an uphill battle because, as someone said earlier, AM and LA are the only carriers serving MEX-SCL and MEX-GRU.

EddieDude wrote:

I am glad to learn that loyalty programs will be linked beginning June 2020.

With respect to AM, I think it is safe to assume that AM will probably drop its Gol codeshare and F.F. reciprocal agreements soon and enter into new ones with LATAM. Having said that, AM joining the J.V. looks like an uphill battle because, as someone said earlier, AM and LA are the only carriers serving MEX-SCL and MEX-GRU.

Brazil may OK it, but Chile's TDC would never approve such a monopoly. Situations like those are the ones that caused the AA-LATAM agreement to go south (AA+LA were left with the MIA-SCL route to themselves pretty much).

They filed for antitrust immunity, with some redacted expansion plans: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0105-0001

Basically plans for 9 new routes, more Delta flying at Miami, and expanded frequencies/seasonal increases.

- As demand recovers from the COVID-19 impact, Delta plans to add over 20 additional domestic flights to Miami International Airport (MIA) from hubs and top corporate travel destinations around the, U.S., including new service from [Redacted]
- Delta will also add more daily frequencies connecting Miami with [Redacted]

Overall, Delta anticipates that full implementation of the JV will ultimately result in a 33% increase in Delta’s seat capacity at Miami (associated with 57% more Delta flights at Miami) compared to pre-COVID-19 operations

- Currently LATAM operates only limited service to three of Delta’s hub cities – Boston, New York City and Los Angeles. The JV will result in more comprehensive service to these cities and offer a platform for future JV services at [Redacted]
- At least nine new nonstop U.S.-South America routes incremental to the pre-COVID-19 baseline, including [Redacted]
- In particular, the JV will increase service and offer an improved schedule in at least four of the largest U.S.-South America routes, including [Redacted]
- Under the JV, however, Delta and LATAM expect to launch new or expanded nonstop service in at least three of the top 10 Miami-South America corporate markets, including [Redacted]

Additional note - new planned Korean Air/Delta JV route:

Although relatively recent, the implementation of the Delta and Korean Airlines JV has also resulted in new and expanded service. Two of the four planned new routes (from Boston and Minneapolis to Seoul) have launched already, with a third planned for [Redacted]

Thanks for sharing, an interesting few lines there, and a welcome ray of sunshine amongst the gloom.

US + Canada to a broad swath of S America: For purposes of this Joint Application, “South American Region” means the region comprised
of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and any other country in South America if and when added to the scope of the JVA on mutual consent of the parties and subject to regulatory approvals.

That's a lot of places where this can get stuck.

Lootess wrote:

Alliances don't mean anything nowadays.

They probably mean more than ever, at least post-Covid. Full schedules/networks aren't coming back full strength anytime in the foreseeable future, so airlines will have to work with their partners for the coverage they used to have.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Lootess wrote:

Alliances don't mean anything nowadays.

They probably mean more than ever, at least post-Covid. Full schedules/networks aren't coming back full strength anytime in the foreseeable future, so airlines will have to work with their partners for the coverage they used to have.

JVs are critical to manage/share costs.

I'm sad at the step back we will see. It will be interesting to see what routes are viable. While passengers will still dislike bridge hubbing (double hubbing), I think that will be far more common during the recovery. A well structured partnership has value.

Lightsaber

DTWLAX wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

I will wonder out loud just how durable that relationship is going to be now that DL has dumped its Gol stake and acquired 49% of AM.

It is the same as VS. DL owns 49% of VS, but VS still partners with SQ, NZ, NH and Air China, all from Star Alliance.

I think the issue with VS is that it does not have any presence in South America so their networks do not connect anywhere. I have connected to South America from Europe via Canada (outbound) and USA (inbound) and it was a killer journey (although quite enjoyable...) and I do not see the average passenger doing this.

Now, VS was due to start non-stop flights between LHR and GRU (or LGW and GRU, I do not remember the top of my head...) in March 2020 but COVID19 canned this. If they revisit and restart it somehow in the future, then maybe they might be added. Otherwise it is a non-starter.

Can't say much about AM on this regards, I am afraid.

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

Yes! Plus I don’t think LA’s entire MIA network is going to come back - EZE gone, secondary Brazil is doubtful. It is going to be interesting to watch DL fight AS at SEA, B6 at BOS and AA at MIA - all when demand is at an all time low.

onwFan wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

Yes! Plus I don’t think LA’s entire MIA network is going to come back - EZE gone, secondary Brazil is doubtful. It is going to be interesting to watch DL fight AS at SEA, B6 at BOS and AA at MIA - all when demand is at an all time low.

Mia and BOS are a bit different from SEA. Those two cities have quite a bit of originating traffic. Especially Miami to the Latin/ South America. Fewer adds are needed to compliment the Miami South American network (like the top 20 business flow markets that they cited). B6 will be struggling to maintain BOS as well. SEA is the one that requires extensive feed.

LawAndOrder wrote:

Mia and BOS are a bit different from SEA. Those two cities have quite a bit of originating traffic. Especially Miami to the Latin/ South America.

Can you point to O&D traffic numbers for SEA, BOS and MIA?

LawAndOrder wrote:

onwFan wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

Yes! Plus I don’t think LA’s entire MIA network is going to come back - EZE gone, secondary Brazil is doubtful. It is going to be interesting to watch DL fight AS at SEA, B6 at BOS and AA at MIA - all when demand is at an all time low.

Mia and BOS are a bit different from SEA. Those two cities have quite a bit of originating traffic. Especially Miami to the Latin/ South America. Fewer adds are needed to compliment the Miami South American network (like the top 20 business flow markets that they cited). B6 will be struggling to maintain BOS as well. SEA is the one that requires extensive feed.

MIA is also different in another way - they will be going against an airline that already has the largest domestic & international network there, which was not the case in SEA/BOS. They can always add flights, but if AA’s response is going to be similar to that in MCO/TPA, they are not going to make any money with that, especially the next few years...

onwFan wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

Yes! Plus I don’t think LA’s entire MIA network is going to come back - EZE gone, secondary Brazil is doubtful. It is going to be interesting to watch DL fight AS at SEA, B6 at BOS and AA at MIA - all when demand is at an all time low.

You recognize that AS revenues were less than 1/5 of DL's in 2019, right? B6 had even less. Fleet simplicity has a benefit to AS & B6 but it also imposes expansion constraints: they are less likely to have the 'right' aircraft for any airport pair.

MIflyer12 wrote:

You recognize that AS revenues were less than 1/5 of DL's in 2019, right? B6 had even less.

And post-covid? Will larger carriers make smaller losses? That's not what we see. I don't see the point in comparing 2019 with 2020.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Fleet simplicity has a benefit to AS & B6 but it also imposes expansion constraints: they are less likely to have the 'right' aircraft for any airport pair.

We have only seen how DL competes at the best of times, when AS was fighting it alone, and even providing feed. How does DL do when AS has teamed up with AA? And also compete for international traffic? Is backed by the OW FF base? Expect AS/DL interline rates to go up. I am happy to be proved wrong, but I just don't see how any expansion by DL at already loss-making hubs (at best of times) like SEA and BOS, post-covid is going to help them make money. They are not anymore the profit-churning machines they used to be.

MIflyer12 wrote:

onwFan wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

Yes! Plus I don’t think LA’s entire MIA network is going to come back - EZE gone, secondary Brazil is doubtful. It is going to be interesting to watch DL fight AS at SEA, B6 at BOS and AA at MIA - all when demand is at an all time low.

You recognize that AS revenues were less than 1/5 of DL's in 2019, right? B6 had even less. Fleet simplicity has a benefit to AS & B6 but it also imposes expansion constraints: they are less likely to have the 'right' aircraft for any airport pair.

Revenue is a terrible metric for that comparison, as AS and B6 are also much smaller than DL ergo their revenue would be expected to be much smaller. Revenue by itself says little about the pros and cons of fleet simplicity and having the “right” aircraft for any airport pair. The moment you mention those you are implicitly bringing costs into the equation.

AS’s margins, for example, have generally been similar than DL’s (B6 has been lower) which suggests they have been generally good at selecting the right aircraft for airport pairs. You also seem to be forgetting that AS has QX (wholly owned) and Skywest operating for them...it’s really only larger (larger than A321/739) where DL has a major fleet advantage over them and that fleet is not really utilized in the domestic market.

At this point, DL will be quite a bit smaller in 2021. Let's wait to actually see what their "MIA expansion" look on paper. DL clearly is 100% commited at SEA at this point. If it continues with MIA expansion, that would just show how pissed of it is at AA/AS. A grudge match between DL and AA/AS benefits every other carrier, since that would mean less resources elsewhere.

onwFan wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

Yes! Plus I don’t think LA’s entire MIA network is going to come back - EZE gone, secondary Brazil is doubtful. It is going to be interesting to watch DL fight AS at SEA, B6 at BOS and AA at MIA - all when demand is at an all time low.

EZE is (was?) one of the top routes ex MIA, both in volume and in yields. With LATAM Argentina gone, LATAM can no longer operate the route. But there is nothing stopping Delta from deploying its own metal from MIA to EZE, other than a cannibalization of its own ATL-EZE.

onwFan wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

Yes! Plus I don’t think LA’s entire MIA network is going to come back - EZE gone, secondary Brazil is doubtful. It is going to be interesting to watch DL fight AS at SEA, B6 at BOS and AA at MIA - all when demand is at an all time low.

I think the secondary Brazil will come back slowly. Currently LAN plans to resume it in January. It’s cheap to operate.

And EZE could just be operated by Delta.

tphuang wrote:

At this point, DL will be quite a bit smaller in 2021. Let's wait to actually see what their "MIA expansion" look on paper. DL clearly is 100% commited at SEA at this point. If it continues with MIA expansion, that would just show how pissed of it is at AA/AS. A grudge match between DL and AA/AS benefits every other carrier, since that would mean less resources elsewhere.

AA already cut a lot of Latin America from MIA, so it won't be mad it'll just market availability due to cut flights.

lightsaber wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Lootess wrote:

Alliances don't mean anything nowadays.

They probably mean more than ever, at least post-Covid. Full schedules/networks aren't coming back full strength anytime in the foreseeable future, so airlines will have to work with their partners for the coverage they used to have.

JVs are critical to manage/share costs.

I'm sad at the step back we will see. It will be interesting to see what routes are viable. While passengers will still dislike bridge hubbing (double hubbing), I think that will be far more common during the recovery. A well structured partnership has value.

Lightsaber

Definitely JVs >> Alliance. As anti-trust immunity allows actual schedule coordination. Granted union contracts generally have a say on the threshold on how much flying can be outsourced, there is also a grace period allowed. Delta was behind the curve with AF-KLM for a little bit of time and it wouldn't be shocking if there are slight deficiencies to help absorb costs and maximize any profit the JV can make.

MAH4546 wrote:

Wow. Fascinating. So Delta is all hands on deck for its Miami expansion even post-COVID.

They appear to be, although the numbers provided in the application (+33% capacity on +57% departures) point to DL being somewhere in the range of 50-65 flights at MIA post expansion, with a good chunk of the added flights being on smaller-than-average aircraft for the station. The already-announced SLC/TPA/MCO/RDU flights may even be included in their expansion numbers - it's hard to tell from the language in the application. I'd expect the redacted destinations to include SEA and LAX, both logical adds for DL, but probably not too many other domestic adds for now.

So while DL appears unfazed by the forthcoming competitive response from AA (in fact, they mention in the application that they expect it, and point to that as a benefit for consumers), their expansion is likely to be fairy measured, and not the full scale hub some posters were predicting when the LATAM realignment was first announced.

tphuang wrote:

If it continues with MIA expansion, that would just show how pissed of it is at AA/AS. A grudge match between DL and AA/AS benefits every other carrier, since that would mean less resources elsewhere.

I don't think the MIA expansion is due to any sort of grudge DL has against AA (in fact, didn't they announce the LATAM partnership before AA and AS announced their partnership?). DL's modest build-out of MIA on the domestic side is a natural product of the DL-LA tie up, and was almost certainly considered, or even planned, by DL during their talks with LATAM before the public had any inclination about what was in the works.

While AA is obviously king at MIA and will remain so, DL has long had some strength of their own in the South Florida market (probably going back at least to when they operated a focus city at FLL, and maybe longer due to the power of the nearby ATL hub for connections from MIA/FLL/PBI). Kind of similar to the market position they had in SEA and BOS before deciding to turn them into gateway hubs, IMO. A difference between SEA/BOS and MIA, as was pointed out upthread, is that there's already an established hub-and-spoke international carrier at MIA. But another difference with MIA is that the international network DL is seeking to establish largely already exists with LA, and only needs to be selectively expanded rather than needing to be built from scratch. In short, I don't think DL expanding MIA is illogical or a knee-jerk reaction to AA+AS.

One thing DL has going for them is the A220s they have in their fleet. DL could duplicate their DFW strategy where they connect MIA to the top X destinations, based on the connection needs of LA passengers, plus whatever O&D MIA passengers they might get. The A220s offer a good passenger experience for them and have the range to fly all the way to SEA if needed (doubt they will). If they just keep those connecting passengers flying on LA to MIA happy, the JV could work well for DL/LA (Assuming both will survive COVID-19 in relatively good shape)

DTWLAX wrote:

Lootess wrote:

So? Alaska still partners with Korean Air and LATAM. Airlines are free to have relationships with whoever they want. Alliances don't mean anything nowadays.

My post was in response to the person who was wondering how the relationship would be between AM and Gol since DL owns 49% of AM. I just compared it to the VS relationship with other airlines inspite of DL's 49% stake in VS.
I never said airlines cannot have relationships with non-alliance members.

AM is in bankruptcy with the stock more than likely will be terminated and DL will lose their ownership stake.

FSDan wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If it continues with MIA expansion, that would just show how pissed of it is at AA/AS. A grudge match between DL and AA/AS benefits every other carrier, since that would mean less resources elsewhere.

I don't think the MIA expansion is due to any sort of grudge DL has against AA (in fact, didn't they announce the LATAM partnership before AA and AS announced their partnership?). DL's modest build-out of MIA on the domestic side is a natural product of the DL-LA tie up, and was almost certainly considered, or even planned, by DL during their talks with LATAM before the public had any inclination about what was in the works.

While AA is obviously king at MIA and will remain so, DL has long had some strength of their own in the South Florida market (probably going back at least to when they operated a focus city at FLL, and maybe longer due to the power of the nearby ATL hub for connections from MIA/FLL/PBI). Kind of similar to the market position they had in SEA and BOS before deciding to turn them into gateway hubs, IMO. A difference between SEA/BOS and MIA, as was pointed out upthread, is that there's already an established hub-and-spoke international carrier at MIA. But another difference with MIA is that the international network DL is seeking to establish largely already exists with LA, and only needs to be selectively expanded rather than needing to be built from scratch. In short, I don't think DL expanding MIA is illogical or a knee-jerk reaction to AA+AS.

All that back and forth network add out of MIA and SEA right before COVID struck is a pretty indication at the bad blood between DL and AA. And you can bet that if DL continues with its plans to expand at MIA, it will face retaliations from AA elsewhere (even with AA in economic difficulties).

Also, it's quite telling that DL is bringing back SEA faster than all their other coastal hubs. It looks to be 100% committed to a long term war at SEA with AS and AA.

That's going to be very expensive. In a post-COVID environment, how much resources does DL have to allocate to other hubs if MIA/SEA continue to be super expensive.

tphuang wrote:

FSDan wrote:

tphuang wrote:

If it continues with MIA expansion, that would just show how pissed of it is at AA/AS. A grudge match between DL and AA/AS benefits every other carrier, since that would mean less resources elsewhere.

I don't think the MIA expansion is due to any sort of grudge DL has against AA (in fact, didn't they announce the LATAM partnership before AA and AS announced their partnership?). DL's modest build-out of MIA on the domestic side is a natural product of the DL-LA tie up, and was almost certainly considered, or even planned, by DL during their talks with LATAM before the public had any inclination about what was in the works.

While AA is obviously king at MIA and will remain so, DL has long had some strength of their own in the South Florida market (probably going back at least to when they operated a focus city at FLL, and maybe longer due to the power of the nearby ATL hub for connections from MIA/FLL/PBI). Kind of similar to the market position they had in SEA and BOS before deciding to turn them into gateway hubs, IMO. A difference between SEA/BOS and MIA, as was pointed out upthread, is that there's already an established hub-and-spoke international carrier at MIA. But another difference with MIA is that the international network DL is seeking to establish largely already exists with LA, and only needs to be selectively expanded rather than needing to be built from scratch. In short, I don't think DL expanding MIA is illogical or a knee-jerk reaction to AA+AS.

All that back and forth network add out of MIA and SEA right before COVID struck is a pretty indication at the bad blood between DL and AA. And you can bet that if DL continues with its plans to expand at MIA, it will face retaliations from AA elsewhere (even with AA in economic difficulties).

Also, it's quite telling that DL is bringing back SEA faster than all their other coastal hubs. It looks to be 100% committed to a long term war at SEA with AS and AA.

I'm not saying DL and AA are on friendly terms. They're not. I'm just saying DL isn't making major network planning decisions (like opening a new focus city/gateway) based primarily on a rivalry. With the Latam partnership they see an opportunity in MIA to build their brand. That's what's driving this.

FSDan wrote:

tphuang wrote:

FSDan wrote:

I don't think the MIA expansion is due to any sort of grudge DL has against AA (in fact, didn't they announce the LATAM partnership before AA and AS announced their partnership?). DL's modest build-out of MIA on the domestic side is a natural product of the DL-LA tie up, and was almost certainly considered, or even planned, by DL during their talks with LATAM before the public had any inclination about what was in the works.

While AA is obviously king at MIA and will remain so, DL has long had some strength of their own in the South Florida market (probably going back at least to when they operated a focus city at FLL, and maybe longer due to the power of the nearby ATL hub for connections from MIA/FLL/PBI). Kind of similar to the market position they had in SEA and BOS before deciding to turn them into gateway hubs, IMO. A difference between SEA/BOS and MIA, as was pointed out upthread, is that there's already an established hub-and-spoke international carrier at MIA. But another difference with MIA is that the international network DL is seeking to establish largely already exists with LA, and only needs to be selectively expanded rather than needing to be built from scratch. In short, I don't think DL expanding MIA is illogical or a knee-jerk reaction to AA+AS.

All that back and forth network add out of MIA and SEA right before COVID struck is a pretty indication at the bad blood between DL and AA. And you can bet that if DL continues with its plans to expand at MIA, it will face retaliations from AA elsewhere (even with AA in economic difficulties).

Also, it's quite telling that DL is bringing back SEA faster than all their other coastal hubs. It looks to be 100% committed to a long term war at SEA with AS and AA.

I'm not saying DL and AA are on friendly terms. They're not. I'm just saying DL isn't making major network planning decisions (like opening a new focus city/gateway) based primarily on a rivalry. With the Latam partnership they see an opportunity in MIA to built their brand. That's what's driving this.

Exactly. The DL/LATAM JV was planned and publicly announced before AA/AS. Partnering with LATAM is good for DL regardless of what AA/AS do, just as AS entering OW is good for AS and AA regardless of what DL does. And obviously boosting MIA some is required to make any DL/LATAM JV work. Point being, the increase in MIA including a potential flight to SEA makes sense on its own, and shouldn’t be deemed as retaliation.

As far as your argument about DL bringing back SEA faster than other coastal hubs, as discussed on other threads, those SEA additions are likely at least partially attributable to the severe lack of gate space at SEA. If DL doesn’t return their SEA flying quicker, they won’t have enough gates going forward to fly what they need when demand does return. That is likely the real reason SEA is growing quicker.

FSDan wrote:

tphuang wrote:

FSDan wrote:

I don't think the MIA expansion is due to any sort of grudge DL has against AA (in fact, didn't they announce the LATAM partnership before AA and AS announced their partnership?). DL's modest build-out of MIA on the domestic side is a natural product of the DL-LA tie up, and was almost certainly considered, or even planned, by DL during their talks with LATAM before the public had any inclination about what was in the works.

While AA is obviously king at MIA and will remain so, DL has long had some strength of their own in the South Florida market (probably going back at least to when they operated a focus city at FLL, and maybe longer due to the power of the nearby ATL hub for connections from MIA/FLL/PBI). Kind of similar to the market position they had in SEA and BOS before deciding to turn them into gateway hubs, IMO. A difference between SEA/BOS and MIA, as was pointed out upthread, is that there's already an established hub-and-spoke international carrier at MIA. But another difference with MIA is that the international network DL is seeking to establish largely already exists with LA, and only needs to be selectively expanded rather than needing to be built from scratch. In short, I don't think DL expanding MIA is illogical or a knee-jerk reaction to AA+AS.

All that back and forth network add out of MIA and SEA right before COVID struck is a pretty indication at the bad blood between DL and AA. And you can bet that if DL continues with its plans to expand at MIA, it will face retaliations from AA elsewhere (even with AA in economic difficulties).

Also, it's quite telling that DL is bringing back SEA faster than all their other coastal hubs. It looks to be 100% committed to a long term war at SEA with AS and AA.

I'm not saying DL and AA are on friendly terms. They're not. I'm just saying DL isn't making major network planning decisions (like opening a new focus city/gateway) based primarily on a rivalry. With the Latam partnership they see an opportunity in MIA to build their brand. That's what's driving this.

I guess what I'm saying is that I believe some of the more recent moves are due to their ongoing feud. They may be giving things higher priorities due to the recent events starting with LA.

viewtopic.php?p=22316741
I do tend to agree with this a little bit. I don't think some of these moves like AA re-inserting itself in BOS/AUS or DL sticking with MIA expansion if there isn't some of grudge match going on. Before this, seemed to me DL saved all its animosity for AS and B6.

Where is DL going to add domestically from MIA?
ORD, RDU, and BOS are my guess.

Where is DL going to add domestically from MIA?
ORD, RDU, and BOS are my guess.

Jo8338 wrote:

Where is DL going to add domestically from MIA?
ORD, RDU, and BOS are my guess.

DL already flies BOS-MIA and announced RDU-MIA in January.

I’m betting on MIA-SEA/DFW/LAX/AUS

I think those are less than daily and LAX has been on and off

Jo8338 wrote:

Where is DL going to add domestically from MIA?
ORD, RDU, and BOS are my guess.

Well, they already announced SLC (daily), TPA (5x daily), MCO (5x daily), and RDU (2x daily, up from weekend-only). I believe they also planned to add some incremental frequencies from hubs like MSP/DTW/LGA/BOS.

I'd say SEA and LAX service would be reasonable expectations. I'm not convinced they'll want to jump into MIA-ORD, although you never know (I didn't expect SEA-ORD, and they added that one). Either way, I don't think ORD would be added before DL moves into Terminal 5 there and gets access to some more gates.

FSDan wrote:

Jo8338 wrote:

Where is DL going to add domestically from MIA?
ORD, RDU, and BOS are my guess.

Well, they already announced SLC (daily), TPA (5x daily), MCO (5x daily), and RDU (2x daily, up from weekend-only). I believe they also planned to add some incremental frequencies from hubs like MSP/DTW/LGA/BOS.

I'd say SEA and LAX service would be reasonable expectations. I'm not convinced they'll want to jump into MIA-ORD, although you never know (I didn't expect SEA-ORD, and they added that one). Either way, I don't think ORD would be added before DL moves into Terminal 5 there and gets access to some more gates.

These all sound like terribly expensive routes to add or launch.

Jo8338 wrote:

I think those are less than daily and LAX has been on and off

BOS is double daily. RDU will launch TBD this fall (currently September 8th) at double daily.