What's Up With DL's Nonstop LAX-ANC?

AA737-823 · Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:10 pm

I recently booked a routing that would have put me on this flight, LAX-ANC, yesterday. About a month piror, they called me to reschedule my flights. It seems that the computer had subsequently rebooked me DFW-SLC-LAX-SLC-ANC, presumably due to the end of LAX-ANC service.

However, when I flew this week, I discovered that LAX-ANC is still listed as a YEAR-ROUND flight in their route map.

CVG and ATL are listed as seasonal, while FAI-SLC is listed as future.

What gives- does DL fly LAX-ANC or not?

I'm working on a trip report, eventually, which should be interesting as I am a loyal CO flier and the comparison might be of value to someone.

MAH4546 · Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:14 pm

They were planning to fly it year-round, but canceled that plan.

deltairlines · Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:16 pm

Looks like the flight has been downgraded to seasonal, as the next time I see it operating in the Delta schedules is on May 16 (ops Fr/Sa/Su) with a 757.

The Delta route maps can be pretty deceptive...I've found them to be pretty inaccurate in the past.

Kohflot · Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:22 pm

Quoting DeltAirlines (Reply 2):
The Delta route maps can be pretty deceptive...I've found them to be pretty inaccurate in the past.

The route map/inflight magazine vendor probably can't keep up with DL's "Now you see it. Now you don't." scheduling strategy at LAX.

LAXintl · Sat Nov 24, 2007 7:29 pm

Quoting Kohflot (Reply 3):
"Now you see it. Now you don't." scheduling strategy at LAX.

So true

EXAAUADL · Sat Nov 24, 2007 8:36 pm

Another DL LAX market bites the dust.....they were overly ambitious about LAX

747fan · Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 5):
Another DL LAX market bites the dust.....they were overly ambitious about LAX

No - its a seasonal flight that simply won't be operating this winter. As DeltAirlines stated, the flight will be back in March with a 757.

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:03 am

Quoting 747fan (Reply 7):
Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 5):
Another DL LAX market bites the dust.....they were overly ambitious about LAX

No - its a seasonal flight that simply won't be operating this winter. As DeltAirlines stated, the flight will be back in March with a 757.

It was set, however, to go year-round and they were accepting bookings for the winter months.

LAXintl · Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:10 am

Quoting 747fan (Reply 7):
No - its a seasonal flight that simply won't be operating this winter. As DeltAirlines stated, the flight will be back in March with a 757.

Hmm... and do you believe them? Will it really be back in May with 3x per week service?

DL said other LAX routes which were initially year round and dropped would return as "seasonal".

For instance BZE, CZM were due back before December but never appeared.

Quite clearly DL in its dart throwing attempts found several routes that simply did not make sense (TIJ, SAN, etc..), while others have seen significant frequency reductions and now operate at anemic levels.

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:16 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Quite clearly DL in its dart throwing attempts found several routes that simply did not make sense (TIJ, SAN, etc..), while others have seen significant frequency reductions and now operate at anemic levels.

Indeed. The fact that RDU-LAX will be operating at 4x weekly in January/February, for example, is a total joke.

Some routes have been successful, though, but I question how long this operation will last. It's not as though Delta is alone here. Remember attempts by America West, Continental Express, and Frontier?

As huge an airport and as large a market as LAX is, it's hard to get past the dominance of AA/AS/WN/UA.

[Edited 2007-11-24 17:17:02]

FlyPNS1 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:35 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 10):
The fact that RDU-LAX will be operating at 4x weekly in January/February, for example, is a total joke.

I'm not sure why you think this. You know that time of year is extremely weak (and even moreso with fuel prices so high) and many airlines trim back frequencies. I can almost guarantee you that RDU-LAX will lose a lot of money on any given Tuesday/Wednesday in January/February...so why not cut it on those days?

DL, like many other airlines, is simply trying to reduce the heavy red ink that all the airlines are going to feel in January.

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 2:56 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 11):

I'm not sure why you think this. You know that time of year is extremely weak (and even moreso with fuel prices so high) and many airlines trim back frequencies. I can almost guarantee you that RDU-LAX will lose a lot of money on any given Tuesday/Wednesday in January/February...so why not cut it on those days?

It's a business market. If they aren't offering daily, they are losing a competitive advantage and high-yielding customers.

For example, an AA loyal flyer (and there are plenty in Raleigh) might chose to take Delta over AA because of the non-stop. Though he notices that one-way he has to make a connection. There's a shot he'll just forgo that and make a connection with AA for the miles, because the advantages of taking Delta are fewer if they have to connect, even if it's just one way.

beefstew25 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:01 am

On a related note, but maybe not worth a new thread:

Anyone know why the MCO-LAS non stop Delta flight is not operating right now?

ERJ170 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:04 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 12):
It's a business market.

Yes it is.. and I think DL should offer CR7 service to ILM from RDU and make the flight LAX-RDU-ILM to capture film traffic.. Smile

But seriously, as long as they keep the flight.. I don't care how they work it..

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 12):
For example, an AA loyal flyer (and there are plenty in Raleigh) might chose to take Delta over AA because of the non-stop. Though he notices that one-way he has to make a connection. There's a shot he'll just forgo that and make a connection with AA for the miles, because the advantages of taking Delta are fewer if they have to connect, even if it's just one way.

Good example.. but RDU has just as many DL and US loyalist (hmm.. US may have decreased with their shotty, shatty, sh!tty service).. so I think it will all be okay..

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:08 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 14):
Good example.. but RDU has just as many DL and US loyalist

I find it hard to believe, especially in the form of corporate travel. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of DL loyalist in Raleigh, there are I'm sure, but I doubt it comes anywhere close to AA's numbers, especially corporate flyers. While only the London flight is actually subsidized, AA runs routes to places like Austin, Columbus, Fayetteville, and Hartford because of the corporate frequent flyer base they have there.

Quoting Beefstew25 (Reply 13):
Anyone know why the MCO-LAS non stop Delta flight is not operating right now?

Operates 4x weekly, which I find odd considering FLL-LAS still operates daily.

[Edited 2007-11-24 19:09:48]

ERJ170 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:16 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):
I find it hard to believe, especially in the form of corporate travel.

Oh.. DL has a huge FF base at RDU.. as does AA.. the exact numbers I'm not sure.. but I know DL's FF base is HUGE! but the airline that's kicking the most rump-roast at RDU is WN.. I got a feeling their business updates are gonna do a little damage to the Legacies.. not a lot, but US (PHL) and DL (TPA) are gonna hurt...

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):
AA runs routes to places like Austin, Columbus, Fayetteville, and Hartford because of the corporate frequent flyer base they have there.

XNA is from the Arkansas end, right?

CMH and BDL are definitely large corporate routes..

AUS is ???

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:27 am

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 16):
but I know DL's FF base is HUGE!

I'm sure. But I don't think it comes close to AA's.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 16):
XNA is from the Arkansas end, right?

While it was started at Wal*Mart's request, most of the traffic will be originating in Boston and Raleigh.

Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 16):
AUS is ???

Tech traffic on both ends.

sxf24 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:39 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):
Quite clearly DL in its dart throwing attempts found several routes that simply did not make sense (TIJ, SAN, etc..), while others have seen significant frequency reductions and now operate at anemic levels.

TIJ and SAN were at risk routes for XE.

jacobin777 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:57 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 9):

Quite clearly DL in its dart throwing attempts found several routes that simply did not make sense (TIJ, SAN, etc..), while others have seen significant frequency reductions and now operate at anemic levels.

....isn't there a particular poster here (no names) who initially stated DL is going to take over LAX like it was with JFK-ie.-LAX-SYD, LAX-NRT, LAX-HKG, LAX-Pluto, etc... stirthepot

and now that LAX isn't going as well as DL originally anticipated, the story changed to DL starting those routes to preserve gate space otherwise LAWA was going to take DL's precious gates away....."mission accomplished"-gates kept....speaking of which, were is our particular fellow A.net member (no names again).... scratchchin

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:01 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
....isn't there a particular poster here (no names) who initially stated DL is going to take over LAX like it was with JFK-ie.-LAX-SYD, LAX-NRT, LAX-HKG, LAX-Pluto, etc... stirthepot and now that LAX isn't going as well as DL originally anticipated, the story changed to DL starting those routes to preserve gate space otherwise LAWA was going to take DL's precious gates away....."mission accomplished"-gates kept....speaking of which, were is our particular fellow A.net member (no names again).... scratchchin

Don't forget LAX-SCL.

Alitalia744 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:09 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
....isn't there a particular poster here (no names) who initially stated DL is going to take over LAX like it was with JFK

I think said poster said DL would expand LAX similar to how it did with JFK. No-one said they were going to take-over.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
LAX-Pluto,

Lower priority than ATL-ATL (rtw flight), ATL-Pluto and ATL-Mars...

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
and now that LAX isn't going as well as DL originally anticipated, the story changed to DL starting those routes to preserve gate space otherwise LAWA was going to take DL's precious gates away....."mission accomplished"-gates kept

The DL expansion experiment was always two-fold 1) try to build up their service in market and increase revenue and 2) keep LAWA off their case. Darts were thrown, some hit (not necessarily bulls-eye), others didnt even strike wood.

There are more darts coming, hopefully with better aim this time.

While some may be overzealous in their predictions, many non-Deltoids have done the same...

Quoting Kohflot (Reply 3):
The route map/inflight magazine vendor probably can't keep up with DL's "Now you see it. Now you don't." scheduling strategy at LAX.

funniest thing i've seen on here all day!

jacobin777 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:33 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 20):
Don't forget LAX-SCL.

..thanks..

...forgot about that one..

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 21):
I think said poster said DL would expand LAX similar to how it did with JFK. No-one said they were going to take-over.

....not too far from it...

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 21):
Lower priority than ATL-ATL (rtw flight), ATL-Pluto and ATL-Mars...

...you sure?

Quoting Alitalia744 (Reply 21):
The DL expansion experiment was always two-fold 1) try to build up their service in market and increase revenue and 2) keep LAWA off their case. Darts were thrown, some hit (not necessarily bulls-eye), others didnt even strike wood.

There are more darts coming, hopefully with better aim this time.

While some may be overzealous in their predictions, many non-Deltoids have done the same...

....have any of the so-called "darts" hit its target?

edit: I do hope to see fellow A.netter friend soon, haven't read any of his posts in a while....

[Edited 2007-11-24 21:03:27]

LAXintl · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:18 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 22):
have any of the so-called "darts" hit its target?

Good question.

I've had on-off access to loads and have tried to make a very unscientific determination especially on the RJ experiment.

I'd say possibly the only RJ 'hit' might be some of the intra-CA flying such as SFO. But then again does 30 people on a ERJ = Profit?
Also I've noticed large swings in loads during the day with evening flights having better loads which leads me to believe the traffic is more connections and not local O&D which would have a more traditional morning/evening peaks. For instance I've seen some 06/07am morning bank flight departures go out with zero passengers on more then one occasion.

Mexico RJ flying I'd say is basically a loss as most routes have seen frequency reductions with some operating with as few as only 2 weekly frequencies.

Other RJ flying such as OKC, ICT I've seen operate with as few as 3 passengers, so can't call them 'hits' by any measure the days I've seen the loads.

If someone has time on their hands suppose they can search thru DOT data as some of the flying has been around for near a year now.

Also since we are speaking of DL LAX routes, in addition to previously mentioned BZE, CZM, SAN & TIJ discontinuations, lets not forget MFE, YVR, JAX, PSP, have also gotten the axe, plus a host of others have gotten frequency trims.

sxf24 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:34 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):

Also since we are speaking of DL LAX routes, in addition to previously mentioned BZE, CZM, SAN & TIJ discontinuations, lets not forget MFE, YVR, JAX, PSP, have also gotten the axe, plus a host of others have gotten frequency trims.

All of the non-mainline routes listed were flown at risk by XE except PSP, which was to used to route EV aircraft to an OO maintenance base.

JAX is the only real daily, mainline casualty.

AA737-823 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:37 am

Quoting Kohflot (Reply 3):
The route map/inflight magazine vendor probably can't keep up with DL's "Now you see it. Now you don't." scheduling strategy at LAX.

And that, folks, is my favorite reply to my entirely hijacked thread.

Haha. Thanks for all your answers.

Except for the ones regarding the loyal American Airlines frequent flier base at Raleigh. Those didn't have much to do with us here in Anchorage.
But rest assured, if I ever need to travel to Raleigh, I will consider that there is a loyal AA fan base there.

Smile

jacobin777 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:47 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 22):
have any of the so-called "darts" hit its target?

Good question.

I've had on-off access to loads and have tried to make a very unscientific determination especially on the RJ experiment.

I'd say possibly the only RJ 'hit' might be some of the intra-CA flying such as SFO. But then again does 30 people on a ERJ = Profit?
Also I've noticed large swings in loads during the day with evening flights having better loads which leads me to believe the traffic is more connections and not local O&D which would have a more traditional morning/evening peaks. For instance I've seen some 06/07am morning bank flight departures go out with zero passengers on more then one occasion.

Mexico RJ flying I'd say is basically a loss as most routes have seen frequency reductions with some operating with as few as only 2 weekly frequencies.

Other RJ flying such as OKC, ICT I've seen operate with as few as 3 passengers, so can't call them 'hits' by any measure the days I've seen the loads.

If someone has time on their hands suppose they can search thru DOT data as some of the flying has been around for near a year now.

Also since we are speaking of DL LAX routes, in addition to previously mentioned BZE, CZM, SAN & TIJ discontinuations, lets not forget MFE, YVR, JAX, PSP, have also gotten the axe, plus a host of others have gotten frequency trims.

...good stuff there.. thumbsup

..thanks for the information.... yes

Lets see what DL does the next year or so at LAX...it will be interesting to say the least.. scratchchin

MAH4546 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 10:56 am

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 24):

All of the non-mainline routes listed were flown at risk by XE except PSP, which was to used to route EV aircraft to an OO maintenance base.

Regardless of the fact if it were at risk or not, it still reflects poorly on Delta's attempts to build up Los Angeles. Even though Delta might not have risked anything, it shows that the Delta brand name was not able to succeed in those markets. The "it was flown at risk by XE" excuse is getting a little old. It's not an excuse at all, it just says that Delta didn't lose money on the route themselves.

That being said, I don't think Delta is done with LAX. Nowhere near it. They are still going to throw some darts, and some might very well work. They are arrogant enough to do it, and I've always admired Delta's courage and willingness to do things that other airlines won't.

[Edited 2007-11-25 02:57:46]

chrisnh · Sun Nov 25, 2007 3:32 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 5):
Another DL LAX market bites the dust.....they were overly ambitious about LAX

Same with Boston. Nice terminal...that they hardly use...and have sub-leased to others.

FlyPNS1 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:24 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 12):
It's a business market. If they aren't offering daily, they are losing a competitive advantage and high-yielding customers.

It is a business market and the flight is flying on the days when business travelers fly the most. Sure they may lose a few business passengers that wanted to fly on Tuesday, but that loss is small compared to the loss DL would suffer if they actually offered the flight on that day.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):
I find it hard to believe, especially in the form of corporate travel. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of DL loyalist in Raleigh, there are I'm sure, but I doubt it comes anywhere close to AA's numbers, especially corporate flyers.

While I agree that AA's corporate base is larger than DL's, I think you'd be surprised how large DL's base is in RDU. Note that RDU is keeping its LAX service and has SLC service, while JAX (a decent sized market that DL is much stronger in than AA) is losing LAX and has never gotten SLC. And of course, DL may not be able to steal customers from AA, but there are plenty of other airlines at RDU they could steal from.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 27):
Regardless of the fact if it were at risk or not, it still reflects poorly on Delta's attempts to build up Los Angeles. Even though Delta might not have risked anything, it shows that the Delta brand name was not able to succeed in those markets.

Maybe, but some of these routes were pretty dumb to start with. XE is so desperate to find a place for their planes they're willing to throw them on routes that made no sense or offer frequencies that were too low to be competitive. Also, without marketing support from DL, some of these routes were bound to fail.

As for the original topic of ANC-LAX, I think DL was definitely over-zealous to think they could support this route year-round.

LAXintl · Sun Nov 25, 2007 4:30 pm

The "at risk" argument is a fallacy in regards to route planning since most routes were chosen and started by Delta using ASA last fall and only switched Expressjet starting in June 2007. Only the most recent adds can be attributed to ExpressJets own decisions.

The XJT-DL agreement runs for a 2 year period. I wonder whom throws in the towel first? -- DL with its dreams of grandeur at LAX or XJT as the red-ink continues to flow?

AA737-823 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:06 pm

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 29):
I think DL was definitely over-zealous to think they could support this route year-round.

Well, I dunno... AS does it year round, and prices are VERY high. It's much cheaper, generally when I look, to book a connection in SEA.
But then, AS likes to do that; sure, we serve ORD and DEN nonstop from Anchortown, but you'll pay out your nose to get on those flights. How about just make the connection? Yeah sure

FlyPNS1 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:36 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30):
The "at risk" argument is a fallacy in regards to route planning since most routes were chosen and started by Delta using ASA last fall and only switched Expressjet starting in June 2007. Only the most recent adds can be attributed to ExpressJets own decisions.

Almost half of XJET's capacity for DL at LAX is "at risk", so it's far more than just the old ASA routes. ASA only started with about 6-8 domestic routes plus the Mexico stuff. XJET's at risk flying more than doubled the number of domestic routes. I don't think DL wanted all of that domestic capacity added so quickly, but since they had nothing to lose they went for it.

The other problem I see with DL's LAX expansion is that the expansion was presupposed on lower fuel costs. Routes that might have been marginal with $60-70/barrel oil are now losers with ~$100/barrel oil. Many of the new routes that DL chose were bound to lose money at the start (as most new routes do), but fuel costs have pushed the losses to unacceptable levels. If energy prices remain so high, this will become a big problem for many of DL's new flights....and not just from LAX.

FlyPNS1 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:39 pm

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 30):
Well, I dunno... AS does it year round, and prices are VERY high. It's much cheaper, generally when I look, to book a connection in SEA.

But I think AS pretty much has the market covered. Just because AS's fares are high doesn't mean there is enough room for DL in the market.

OA412 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 6:27 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 29):
DL with its dreams of grandeur at LAX

What dreams of grandeur are those? I don't think that DL's expansion at LAX was anything more than capturing a piece of the LAX pie. I don't see anywhere where DL specifically mentioned anything that would lead anyone to believe they had "dreams of grandeur" with regards to LAX.

sxf24 · Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:11 pm

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 26):
Regardless of the fact if it were at risk or not, it still reflects poorly on Delta's attempts to build up Los Angeles. Even though Delta might not have risked anything, it shows that the Delta brand name was not able to succeed in those markets. The "it was flown at risk by XE" excuse is getting a little old. It's not an excuse at all, it just says that Delta didn't lose money on the route themselves.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 29):
The "at risk" argument is a fallacy in regards to route planning since most routes were chosen and started by Delta using ASA last fall and only switched Expressjet starting in June 2007. Only the most recent adds can be attributed to ExpressJets own decisions.

I don't think that any of the cancelled routes were selected by DL. While the cancellations may reflect poorly on the DL brand, DL had nothing to do with the decision to start or stop most of the recent the routes. Perhaps DL would have been better off codesharing on XE branded flights out of LAX.

Only a portion of the Mexico, NorCal, LAS, RNO and Pacific Northwest frequencies are not flown at risk - basically everything that was EV before.

LAXintl · Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:37 pm

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 34):
I don't think that any of the cancelled routes were selected by DL. While the cancellations may reflect poorly on the DL brand, DL had nothing to do with the decision to start or stop most of the recent the routes.

However plenty of the DL chosen RJ routes to Mexico in particularly have seen downward schedule adjustments in addition to mainline flying to BZE, CZM, JAX which got the axe, plus other mainline markets which also have seen decreases.

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 34):
Perhaps DL would have been better off codesharing on XE branded flights out of LAX.

There are no XJet branded ops @ LAX.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 33):
I don't see anywhere where DL specifically mentioned anything that would lead anyone to believe they had "dreams of grandeur" with regards to LAX.

Take a look at the press releases around DL's LAX build up, along with executive comments including those of Grinstein referring to a reemergence of a LAX hub. I also clearly remember one very specific comment made by Glen Hauenstein that mentioned LA could be the Pacific equivalent of what JFK has been for DL -- I'd say such comments very much are those of 'Grandeur'

jetdeltamsy · Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:56 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 16):
Quoting ERJ170 (Reply 16):
but I know DL's FF base is HUGE!

I'm sure. But I don't think it comes close to AA's.

While none of us here have the inside scoop on the actual numbers of FQTV's each airline has, I would guess that Delta has a much larger fan base than American. Granted, AA operated a hub there for several years, but Delta has been a presence at RDU for 60 years or so. Delta customers, in my opinion, tend to be very loyal. I would guess that AA's FQTV's abandoned ship when AA pulled back the hub.

MAH4546 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:05 am

Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 36):
I would guess that AA's FQTV's abandoned ship when AA pulled back the hub.

That really doesn't go towards explaining why AA still has a very large presence at RDU - larger than Delta's. If they really "abandoned ship", AA would not care about RDU. Yet they do, and they offer more flights to more destinations than any airline out of RDU.

While we don't know what the numbers are, it is an absolute given, a near certainty, that AA has more frequent fliers in the Triad than Delta. The difference we can only guess, but it is extremely difficult to argue that Delta is more popular in Raleigh than AA, because the obvious facts show otherwise.

ERJ170 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:18 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 37):
While we don't know what the numbers are, it is an absolute given, a near certainty, that AA has more frequent fliers in the Triad than Delta. The difference we can only guess, but it is extremely difficult to argue that Delta is more popular in Raleigh than AA, because the obvious facts show otherwise.

I think you meant "TRIANGLE", not Triad... unless you talking about GSO/PTI..

Here is the breakdown of rank at RDU..

#1 = Show some LUV for Southwest (WN)
#2 = Its AAll good for American (AA)
#3 = Say it Thrice: Delta, Delta, Delta (DL)
#4 = Their service makes you cUSs (US)

The difference between WN and AA is not that great (~5% I think)
The difference between AA and DL isn't that great either (~8% I think)

But both of you are correct.. DL and AA by far have the largest FF base at RDU (and even US to some extend as seen by RDU having both an AAdmirals Club, Crown Room, and Club and they are all moving and none are closing)..

N1120A · Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 14):

I find it hard to believe, especially in the form of corporate travel. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of DL loyalist in Raleigh, there are I'm sure, but I doubt it comes anywhere close to AA's numbers, especially corporate flyers.

And when you combine both ends, Delta has no chance.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):

I'd say possibly the only RJ 'hit' might be some of the intra-CA flying such as SFO.

I don't see how that is a hit either, when you consider all the mainline flying they are up against.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 26):
it still reflects poorly on Delta's attempts to build up Los Angeles.

Delta has essentially been squatting on their gates at LAX. They should have been shoved to T3 quite a while ago.

Quoting Jetdeltamsy (Reply 36):
I would guess that Delta has a much larger fan base than American.

Almost certainly not at this point. Further, AA is stronger on the LAX end.

sxf24 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:43 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 35):
However plenty of the DL chosen RJ routes to Mexico in particularly have seen downward schedule adjustments in addition to mainline flying to BZE, CZM, JAX which got the axe, plus other mainline markets which also have seen decreases.

I don't know why you're hung up on the seasonal decreases in January and February. Travel is slow and yields are down. Operating a thin route 4-5 times per week is a smart way to preserve your market share without throwing money away.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 35):
There are no XJet branded ops @ LAX.

I was suggesting that perhaps DL should have allowed branded XE ops to sub-lease gates for a straight codeshare.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 35):
Take a look at the press releases around DL's LAX build up, along with executive comments including those of Grinstein referring to a reemergence of a LAX hub. I also clearly remember one very specific comment made by Glen Hauenstein that mentioned LA could be the Pacific equivalent of what JFK has been for DL -- I'd say such comments very much are those of 'Grandeur'

With great risk comes great return.

Kohflot · Tue Nov 27, 2007 1:59 am

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 40):
I don't know why you're hung up on the seasonal decreases in January and February. Travel is slow and yields are down.

Hmm.. one could imagine, if anything, that BZE, CZM, ACA, CUN, and ZIH would be more popular in the winter.

If this trend continues, we may see a new DL ad in the LA area.. "Change is: Our terminal at LAX."

MAH4546 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:02 am

Quoting Kohflot (Reply 41):
Hmm.. one could imagine, if anything, that BZE, CZM, ACA, CUN, and ZIH would be more popular in the winter.

Indeed they are, and around Martin Luther King weekend in mid-January is when traffic really starts pumping to those places.

LAXintl · Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 40):
Operating a thin route 4-5 times per week is a smart way to preserve your market share without throwing money away.

Yes and I'm not talking about RDU, CMH, BDL cuts that go 4-5x per week.

I'm talking about the following anemic frequencies.
Mexico ethnic markets which peak between Xmas and Easter: CUL 2x, LMM 4x TRC 5x, ZCL 3x per week
Mexico beach markets which are also busy in winters: ACA 1x, ZIH 2x. LAP 4x, LTO 3x, ZLO 3x, MZT 5x per week
Plus MGA only 1x per week another ethnic market which peaks between Xmas and Easter.

See the thing is many of these destinations can be reach daily on other carriers such as Alaska, Mexicana etc. What is DL even thinking with operating a small number of flights (esp in RJs) in such markets? If you are going to be in them, great but atleast offer a reasonable schedule compared to the competition.

As far as Mexico specific RJ flying from LAX, both America West and even Continental with its very successful IAH-Mexico RJ flights have tried it and failed.
I have no clue what DL was thinking to add such flying when many of the destinations chosen were not even in the DL network prior with atleast some experience or knowledge of the DL brand. Counting on LA, a place where DL does not hold much loyalty any longer nor is known in the ethnic travel market was similarly as doubtful assumption.

I will however give DL credit for the now daily LAX-GUA flight. While yields have been depressed with both DL and Spirit entering the market, loads have picked up, and DL has started selling thru some of the very important ethnic consolidators.

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 40):
branded XE ops to sub-lease gates for a straight codeshare

Xjet really would have their rears handed to them at LAX. If anything the DL flying provides them some cover with DL's name recognition an some network feed.

Quoting Sxf24 (Reply 40):
With great risk comes great return.

True, but we all know this industry is full of great failures.

LAXintl · Tue Nov 27, 2007 2:52 am

A little post scrip.

Delta want a Mexico strategy from LA? Take a look at a Western Airlines timetable circa 1986 just prior to the take over.

While the competitive landscape has changed since, DL can at least see markets that people want to fly to and an idea of what frequencies worked.
I remember WA used to fill daily DC-10s LAX-ACA, today instead DL offers a once weekly 738!

OA412 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:13 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 44):
Delta want a Mexico strategy from LA? Take a look at a Western Airlines timetable circa 1986 just prior to the take over.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 44):
While the competitive landscape has changed since

Therein lies the problem. You are talking about a route network that existed 21 years ago. The industry has changed dramatically since then and just because WA was flying a DC-10 to ACA on a daily basis back then doesn't mean that it is still possible, or even feasible, to do so today.

airplaneboy · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:39 am

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 31):
The other problem I see with DL's LAX expansion is that the expansion was presupposed on lower fuel costs. Routes that might have been marginal with $60-70/barrel oil are now losers with ~$100/barrel oil. Many of the new routes that DL chose were bound to lose money at the start (as most new routes do), but fuel costs have pushed the losses to unacceptable levels. If energy prices remain so high, this will become a big problem for many of DL's new flights....and not just from LAX.

It's surprising that after all of these posts, FlyPNS1 is the only person to mention the effects of oil prices. I'm not an industry expert (just a college kid and flight attendant whose been in the business for almost 4 years). However, I know that fuel prices aren't the only reason many carriers have adjusted or trimmed their flight schedules, but they sure are causing expenses to skyrocket. The success of an airline company, at least in today's terms (2007 and beyond), are not based on a carrier's ability to commit to and succeed on new routes. Rather, the success of an airline company is based on the ability to sustain a positive flow of cash and income amidst rapidly changing market conditions - and while doing so, to have the ability to retain some of the cash flow as profit. The idea of a large route network and large fleet no longer mean anything in this business...the pre-deregulation days have long been gone. Today's U.S. airline industry is about the survival of the fittest- simply put, those who can withstand the skyrocketing costs of oil. I realize that customers are affected by such changes, but as long as they can arrive at their final destination safely, the airline has maintained its commitment. It's also important to consider that in addition to the outrageous prices of fuel, U.S. carriers must continue to grapple with intense competition (particularly with those that have endless amounts of cash to burn to "weed out" new competitors...some of which shall remain unnamed Wink

).

Chugach · Tue Nov 27, 2007 7:53 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 30):
Well, I dunno... AS does it year round, and prices are VERY high. It's much cheaper, generally when I look, to book a connection in SEA.
But then, AS likes to do that; sure, we serve ORD and DEN nonstop from Anchortown, but you'll pay out your nose to get on those flights. How about just make the connection? Yeah sure

That ANC-LAX flight on AS in the winter exists almost entirely because of onward connections, mostly to Mexico. Alaska (the state) doesn't really have the cultural and business ties to California that it has to Washington and Oregon.

Also, ANC-LAX technically operates year-round, but there are some pretty big gaps in between flights in the winter Wink

I think it usually operates around the holidays, then reappears for the duration of winter around early March to capitalize on spring break.

I think that for DL, LAX-ANC could become a nice summer route over time, but in the winter they are going to have a hard time filling up that 752. It's a limited O&D market in the offseason, and one that AS covers nicely between its one nonstop and dozens of connecting opportunities at SEA and PDX. Plus, the DL loyalists can always come up through SLC if they choose.

TedEx · Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:16 am

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 30):
But then, AS likes to do that; sure, we serve ORD and DEN nonstop from Anchortown, but you'll pay out your nose to get on those flights. How about just make the connection?

Right now you have to make the connection to DEN since it's a seasonal market.

laca773 · Tue Nov 27, 2007 12:58 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 43):
I'm talking about the following anemic frequencies.
Mexico ethnic markets which peak between Xmas and Easter: CUL 2x, LMM 4x TRC 5x, ZCL 3x per week
Mexico beach markets which are also busy in winters: ACA 1x, ZIH 2x. LAP 4x, LTO 3x, ZLO 3x, MZT 5x per week
Plus MGA only 1x per week another ethnic market which peaks between Xmas and Easter.

See the thing is many of these destinations can be reach daily on other carriers such as Alaska, Mexicana etc. What is DL even thinking with operating a small number of flights (esp in RJs) in such markets? If you are going to be in them, great but atleast offer a reasonable schedule compared to the competition.

As far as Mexico specific RJ flying from LAX, both America West and even Continental with its very successful IAH-Mexico RJ flights have tried it and failed.
I have no clue what DL was thinking to add such flying when many of the destinations chosen were not even in the DL network prior with atleast some experience or knowledge of the DL brand. Counting on LA, a place where DL does not hold much loyalty any longer nor is known in the ethnic travel market was similarly as doubtful assumption.

Thanks for the analysis, LAXintl. I agree with you completely. The routes they chose to use XJet RJs on just wasn't/isn't going to work. They need to use mainline jets for the ethnic markets to Mexico even for just the cargo alone. I also wondered what they were thinking when they saw how poorly COX did on their Mexico RJ flights as well as HP. I am remaining optomistic they will regroup here and add flights that work instead of all these RJ runs. They just don't make any sense. I asked a question in another thread if DL were to purchase the E190/E195s would some of these routes like LAX-CMH, JAX, BDL would have a better chance of being successful considering AC has done well with their E190s between PHX/SAN-YYZ.

LACA773

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net