Delta Building Up LAX...Again

JBAirwaysFan · Wed Mar 06, 2013 6:20 pm

Looks like Delta is taking yet another crack at building up LAX into some sort of focus city with combo of year round and seasonal service to 14 destinations of which 8 are new markets.

http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1922

Now I've seen Delta do this in the past and within a year they completely pulled everything back. I personally feel that this is going to be the case again with the exception of a few markets.

The only announcement I'm not terribly surprised to see is the upgrade to 6x mainline on LAX-LAS. It's heavily saturated and competing with RJs on a route that is already filled to the brink with mainline service is probably not the way to go and in order for Delta to make their voice heard in this market probably warrants the upgrade.

So do you think this is a failure in the making? Or could it work this time?

QANTAS747-438 · Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:02 pm

Is it that time of the year for "DL to build up LAX" already? Should be interesting to see which cities are cut when DL pulls back again in 9 months.

AWACSooner · Wed Mar 06, 2013 8:12 pm

DL at LAX = NK at just about everywhere: Build up...reap some profits...cut and run.

slcdeltarumd11 · Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:45 pm

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Thread starter):
So do you think this is a failure in the making? Or could it work this time?

This question is asked everytime they add to LAX........never know. There will always be people saying this time its for real and this time there serious about LAX. We wont know until time goes by. I don't even know if Delta knows yet it never seems that have a clear plan for LAX

AADC10 · Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:48 pm

Quoting awacsooner (Reply 2):
DL at LAX = NK at just about everywhere: Build up...reap some profits...cut and run.

I doubt DL or NK are profiting much by starting flights then cutting them. They are just testing routes out and discovering if there is enough business or not. It takes a little time for a route to take hold so it is not as if there is pent up demand that is relieved and then they can drop it.

LAX is difficult to break into. It is gate limited by a consent decree so DL would have difficulty adding a significant number of gates. WN is the largest domestic carrier at LAX while UA and AA consider it a hub. Just about every major international carrier flies there, including many superior Asian carriers. The Southern California weather and unobstructed approach allow the four parallel runways to operate at full capacity almost all the time so that a mini hub operation is possible, the limit is the gates.

AeroWesty · Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:51 pm

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Thread starter):
So do you think this is a failure in the making? Or could it work this time?

DL has two big international flights, SYD and HND, to support this time vs. other times when they've ventured into the LAX market. DL also has a large investment in the transcon market to JFK to build upon.

The dynamics of their competition is different this time, too. UA is still choking down its merger with CO, and AA is about to exit BK and leap into their merger with US.

I'd give DL better than a fighting chance this time around.

mercure1 · Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:54 pm

What is Delta fetish with Los Angeles? For 20-years now they build up, then drop.

I guess LA customers get dizzy with endless Delta PR to only find that "new" (resumed) flights no longer exist after half year.

Seems they should never have destroyed what Western left them in hindsight as its taking lots of money and time to try to recreate things year after year.

azstar · Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:55 pm

I don't think UA considers LAX a hub. They moved substantial operations to SFO a few years ago, and they are left with a majority of Skywest regional jets to almost all West Coast markets from LAX.

mayor · Wed Mar 06, 2013 10:59 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
Seems they should never have destroyed what Western left them in hindsight as its taking lots of money and time to try to recreate things year after year.

IIRC, there wasn't all that much of Western's to destroy as they had already moved much of it to SLC when they opened that as a hub, before the DL/WA merger.

AeroWesty · Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:16 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 8):
IIRC, there wasn't all that much of Western's to destroy as they had already moved much of it to SLC when they opened that as a hub, before the DL/WA merger.

Just for the record, you clicked on my post for quoting when highlighting text posted by Mercure1, but I don't necessarily disagree with his viewpoint.

mayor · Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:34 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 9):
Just for the record, you clicked on my post for quoting when highlighting text posted by Mercure1, but I don't necessarily disagree with his viewpoint.

If I clicked on your post, why did HIS sentence show up?? Another A.net glitch, perhaps?

AeroWesty · Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:39 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 10):
Another A.net glitch, perhaps?

No, it's due to how scripting works. I can highlight your text again, then click on anyone else's "Select Text Quoted" button, and it will appear as if they were being quoted. It's called « user error ».

Example:

Quoting azstar (Reply 7):
If I clicked on your post, why did HIS sentence show up??

BigGSFO · Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:42 pm

Quoting azstar (Reply 7):
I don't think UA considers LAX a hub. They moved substantial operations to SFO a few years ago, and they are left with a majority of Skywest regional jets to almost all West Coast markets from LAX.

UA does consider LAX a hub. AA considers it part of their "cornerstone." DL probably considers it a focus city but I haven't seen anything that officially classifies it as such (outside of third party reporting).

However it's all subjective - there is no industry or official definition of a hub so it's up to the airlines to call an operation a "hub."

mpdpilot · Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:56 pm

Though, like most of you I am skepical of how long this lasts giving DL track record. I feel there are a couple things that show this is going to stick.

First, co-locating with AS. This is quite significant as you don't have to clear security to transfer to and AS flight or vise versa. This will increase the number of AS/DL and DL/AS itineraries significantly I think.

Second, They are increasing the PHX, SMF, and OAK markets. This shows that not only are they working but they are working well. Delta wouldn't add an additional flight to these markets if they were failing, they would have held the 4 daily that they have.

Third, The DL Leadership doesn't seem as short term focused as previous leaders. They have shown with their decisions that they are looking at the long haul. They aren't making quick decisions to make a quick buck. Surely there will be times when routes don't work (i.e. DTW-HKG). But you need to take some risks, and I am sure there will be some routes out of LAX that don't work either, but that doesn't mean they will cut tail and run because they are in it for the long haul.

For what it's worth, I think AA recognizes this too, with a few of their most recent changes in LAX. They added PHX around the same time as DL. I think AA realizes that this isn't the DL build up of old.

mayor · Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:57 pm

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 11):

Ok....got it....never had that happen before.

LAXintl · Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:25 am

Quoting azstar (Reply 7):
I don't think UA considers LAX a hub.

They mention it on their PR.

Also they are the biggest airline at LAX in enplanements.

For activity, even if you want to discount the ~100 UAX flights, they still have nearly 90 mainline flights also. LAX is bigger then IAD for example in such regard.

Quoting mayor (Reply 8):
there wasn't all that much of Western's to destroy as they had already moved much of it to SLC when they opened that as a hub, before the DL/WA merger.

According to departflights.com, at time of DL merger WA had 163 departures from LAX.

One big loss for Delta at LAX, was subsequent Skywest switching from Delta to United. That took with it a dozen+ communities and feed opportunity.

aaway · Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:30 am

AeroWesty has the right idea. Not only have:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
The dynamics of their competition is different this time.

DL has, to a degree, parlayed AA's LAX playbook into what appears to be a winning venture. The Skyteam and unaligned international partners have increased DL's traffic. AS has been valuable - particularly for the SYD flight. Just synergistic momentum.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 4):
LAX is difficult to break into. It is gate limited by a consent decree so DL would have difficulty adding a significant number of gates.

LAX is about 10 gates below that threshold due to gate closures/retirements that are grandfathered into that community agreement. Considering DL's current fleet mix at LAX, they could, in theory, add back the 3 gates decommissioned in T-5.

But, with LAWA's gate usage clause, the current 16 gates (13 in T5, 3 in T6) should suffice for now.

To digress a bit, I've always felt that DL miscued at LAX with the NW merger. DL obtained NW's interest in T-2 and quite possibly could've locked up T-3, which was in play at the time.

Quoting mayor (Reply 8):
IIRC, there wasn't all that much of Western's to destroy as they had already moved much of it to SLC when they opened that as a hub, before the DL/WA merger.

From the time WA began building up LAX (circa 1983), approximately 25 mainline flights were added. That peaked at, IIRC, 85 weekday, peak season (Summer, 1985) mainline departures. At the time of the merger, WA was still at about 75-80 such departures.

The growth at SLC came at the expense of DEN and MSP.

[Edited 2013-03-06 16:58:06]

commavia · Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:33 am

I think DL stands a better shot this time around than previous attempts.

I think some of their more "marginal" LAX flying is likely to struggle going forward - just as it did in attempts past - but the "core" local western U.S. markets (e.g., PHX, SEA, SFO, LAS, SAN, etc.) that have a strong local component to/from LAX and/or a strong onward connecting component to transcons/NRT/HND/SYD/CDG/partner flights are likely to survive.

I do question the need for quite as much capacity and frequency as DL is currently putting into some of these markets, and think some will come down as 50-seaters are puled out of the network and 70-90-seaters are backfilled, but I suspect that some level of flying on these routes is likely to remain.

MIflyer12 · Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:41 am

Quoting commavia (Reply 17):
I do question the need for quite as much capacity and frequency as DL is currently putting into some of these markets, and think some will come down as 50-seaters are puled out of the network and 70-90-seaters are backfilled, but I suspect that some level of flying on these routes is likely to remain.

I don't follow your 50-seater reference in the context of this LAX flying. A Bloomberg piece noted that all DL LAX flying is on 2-cabin aircraft - meaning no 50-seaters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...s-to-compete-against-american.html

UALAX · Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:24 am

I'm curious as to how this will affect UA. After all UA has a much larger operation at SFO and UA could reduce or cancel intra-West flights from LAX in favor of its San Francisco operation.

JBAirwaysFan · Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:42 am

Something I just thought of. Did DL try to build up LAX post NW merger already or is this the first time they did it after?

commavia · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:04 am

Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 18):
I don't follow your 50-seater reference in the context of this LAX flying. A Bloomberg piece noted that all DL LAX flying is on 2-cabin aircraft - meaning no 50-seaters.

What I was referring to is the huge number of 50-seaters that DL is planning to pull out of their system over the next few years. I suspect that some of that capacity will be backfilled by precisely some of the 2-cabin CR7s and CR9s now flying in and out of LAX on some of these extremely high-frequency routes DL is now operating with DCI.

Quoting UALAX (Reply 19):
After all UA has a much larger operation at SFO and UA could reduce or cancel intra-West flights from LAX in favor of its San Francisco operation.

UA is already a shadow of what it once was at LAX, and has majorly shifted west coast emphasis to SFO in the last decade. It's actually rather amazing when you look at it in certain individual markets - on lots of the big or biggish western U.S. routes UA used to dominate or be strong in from LAX - like LAS, PHX, SLC, SJC, TUS, SMF, ABQ, etc. - AA (and in some cases also DL) are now larger than UA.

To be sure - UA is still a huge force in the LAX market, but the gap between it and its competitors (especially AA) has dramatically closed since 9/11. And post-merger, before any network optimization/rationalization, AA will - for the first time in at least decades - be larger at LAX than UA.

mia305 · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:11 am

If DL can do it more power to them. On transcon flts they will be competing with AA
to NY which has a better product in my opinion and to a lesser extent UA. What else
is there left that isn't saturated with competition.

yellowtail · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:21 am

I have been saying this for some time.....and this time I give them a better shot. DL now has a decent NYC base and to complement that it needs LAX.

I say more C and S. American stuff is coming for LAX. Certain cities in that region have very good traffic from the West Coast and DL now has that feed in place to make it work.

Also with DL and AM now very tight, they can do more Mexico stuff and get the feed/loyalty they need on the mexican end

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 5):
I'd give DL better than a fighting chance this time around.

Agree

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 13):
Third, The DL Leadership doesn't seem as short term focused as previous leaders.

Agree. They really think outside the box and are at least willing to try things.

In all of this, do not discount the fact that the AV CM marriage is not going well in Star. Sooner or later, one is goign to bolt....presumably to Skyteam. Whichever it is will give DL a much better presence in that region...

ldvaviation · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:34 am

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 23):
In all of this, do not discount the fact that the AV CM marriage is not going well in Star. Sooner or later, one is goign to bolt....presumably to Skyteam. Whichever it is will give DL a much better presence in that region...

Is this just wild speculation? AV just joined Star, at some considerable expense. And, isn't CM partly owned by United (Continental)?

davescj · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:36 am

It would be interesting to see if T5 and T6 could merge and have more gates, or a better/more effective use of gates.

I do wonder if LAX will ever find a way to get more gates into the system.

Dave

cosyr · Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:01 am

Quoting davescj (Reply 25):
It would be interesting to see if T5 and T6 could merge and have more gates, or a better/more effective use of gates.

Maybe after Terminal 3 is rebuilt...if they ever start that project. I assumed that AS moving to 6 would start things rolling, but so far nothing.

MSPNWA · Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:33 am

I'm interested to see what the new AA will be able to do at LAX. To me that could be the carrier that provides the strongest challenge to DL's expansion.

Prost · Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:50 am

DL, I imagine, is also trying to support the VS LHR flight as well as its own NRT, SYD, and HND flights. Although I haven't checked the flight timings to see how well the connections look.

deltal1011man · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:21 am

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Thread starter):
I personally feel that this is going to be the case again with the exception of a few markets.

you do know that Delta busted 100 flights a day nearly two years ago right? This isn't new, Delta has been in the 30% growth number at LAX the last 4-5 years(pretty much post merger)

And only two markets have been dropped, BDL/FLL (but MIA flight started) and one was announced but pulled before it started. (DEN)

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 24):
And, isn't CM partly owned by United (Continental)?

I don't think UA has any CM shares anymore. IIRC CO sold them off pre-merger....but i could be wrong.

Quoting Prost (Reply 28):
DL, I imagine, is also trying to support the VS LHR flight as well as its own NRT, SYD, and HND flights.

They are, but when looking at the area that DL is lacking the most, its by far the west coast.

New York and LA are two very, very important markets. DL/AA/UA will all have a large presence in both.

RyanairGuru · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:27 am

Quoting aaway (Reply 16):
AS has been valuable - particularly for the SYD flight.

Are you sure? AS and QF codeshare, and indeed AS is a partner in Qantas Frequent Flyer

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 24):
Is this just wild speculation? AV just joined Star, at some considerable expense. And, isn't CM partly owned by United (Continental)?

Precisely. CM aren't going anywhere, United won't let them. It's not for nothing that their livery is just an stylized version of Continental's, and AV know perfectly well that CM existed when they joined Star.

Prost · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:29 am

According to wikipedia (I know, I know)

In May 2008, Continental Airlines sold its remaining 4.38 million shares of Copa Airlines for $35.75 a share, for net proceeds of approximately $149.8 million.[8]

questions · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:31 am

1. Are there any known plans for DL to add additional intl routes ex LAX?

2. How might DL's ownership/partnership with VS help it succeed this go around?

3. Whats the order of alliances, strongest to weakest, to Asia/Pacific ex LAX?

FlyASAGuy2005 · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:47 am

Quoting commavia (Reply 21):

What I was referring to is the huge number of 50-seaters that DL is planning to pull out of their system over the next few years. I suspect that some of that capacity will be backfilled by precisely some of the 2-cabin CR7s and CR9s now flying in and out of LAX on some of these extremely high-frequency routes DL is now operating with DCI.

If it means anything, I understood what you meant but let's not forget that overall, capacity will be about neutral if not slightly up when it's all said and done counting all the 717s and 739s. Let's not forget that they already have a firm order for 40 more CR9s that will be coming online in the quarters to come alongside the 717s from FL and the 739s. With all of this happening, MD90 conversions are ongoing. DL also put it out there that they are/will be on the market for used 738s/320s.

From a scheduling perspective, it doesn't take much to offer say 10-12x daily CR9s on say LAX-LAS which is what they've been doing for a while. Many times they will do it with only 2 or 3 a/c. The same ones flying back and forth all day.

deltal1011man · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:55 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
Are you sure? AS and QF codeshare, and indeed AS is a partner in Qantas Frequent Flyer

That doesn't mean AS doesn't also feed the DL flights.

Quoting questions (Reply 32):
1. Are there any known plans for DL to add additional intl routes ex LAX?

SJO are all that is public. (plus the adds to PVR/GDL and CUN)

Quoting questions (Reply 32):
2. How might DL's ownership/partnership with VS help it succeed this go around?

It will be very, very important to DL have a LAX-LHR flight(even if its JV)

Quoting questions (Reply 32):
3. Whats the order of alliances, strongest to weakest, to Asia/Pacific ex LAX?

I think BA is the largest carrier at LAX, but KE is also very large. As is some star carriers. It is pretty much even, they are all big.

Quoting flyasaguy2005 (Reply 33):

and they can flex up capacity with the 739(not park some older aircraft) and they still have room for 30 76-seaters.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
Precisely. CM aren't going anywhere, United won't let them. It's not for nothing that their livery is just an stylized version of Continental's, and AV know perfectly well that CM existed when they joined Star.

I am 99.9% sure UA doesn't own any part of CM....but unless they own 51%(which I know they don't) it doesn't mean jack s**t what the airplane looks like. If CM would make more money, thus better for the stockholders, then they will go to Sky or One. period.

LAXintl · Thu Mar 07, 2013 5:16 am

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 34):
I think BA is the largest carrier at LAX, but KE is also very large. As is some star carriers. It is pretty much even, they are all big.

Largest foreign carriers in enplanements for 2012 were:

Qantas - 1,117,785
Air Canada - 939,387
Korean - 666,878
Air NZ - 612,245
AeroMexico - 560,792
TACA - 552,788
British - 547,802
Air France - 536,638
Cathay - 530,344

As far as domestic (including their commuter partners)

UA - 12,440,383
AA - 11,022,509
DL - 8,065,122
WN - 7,696,365
AS - 3,245,603
VX - 2,984,721
US - 1,867,845
B6 - 776,493
HA - 575,393
F9 - 520,873
NK - 474,686
G4 - 440,803

mia305 · Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:14 am

AA will be hard to beat on the LAX-NYC route. With the new cabins and 321's
replacing the 762's the frequency will be higher.

That said DL has potential at LAX. They have to be smart this time
around to be successful.

PlanesNTrains · Thu Mar 07, 2013 7:21 am

Quoting Mercure1 (Reply 6):
Seems they should never have destroyed what Western left them in hindsight as its taking lots of money and time to try to recreate things year after year.

Were this 1993, I might agree with you. But DL+WA was a quarter century ago. A lot has transpired between then and now, so I find it hard to accept that they made a mistake by downsizing at LAX. They simply had other more important goals for their airline. Eastern was still around. We had the first Gulf War. The Ron Allen years. The recession. 9/11. Afghanistan/Iraq. Skyrocketing oil. A much larger WN (plus others). The current recession. And on and on....

-Dave

yellowtail · Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:10 pm

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 24):
Is this just wild speculation?

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 30):
Precisely. CM aren't going anywhere, United won't let them. It's not for nothing that their livery is just an stylized version of Continental's, and AV know perfectly well that CM existed when they joined Star.

I know lots of folks at both airlines. They hate each other. Both thought the other would blink regarding star and both felt like their respective partners (UA for CM and LH for AV/TA) would support them in getting the other (AV or CM) out.

It Lat Am machismo is above else.

I would say one will announce its exit star within 2 years. IMHO that will be AV. CM seems to working with the rest of the group much better.

Josh32121 · Thu Mar 07, 2013 12:56 pm

Quoting mia305 (Reply 36):
AA will be hard to beat on the LAX-NYC route. With the new cabins and 321's
replacing the 762's the frequency will be higher.

That said DL has potential at LAX. They have to be smart this time
around to be successful.

From a passenger standpoint, DL will be on par if not superior because there are now (or soon will be) a few 767-300's with brand new interiors and flat-bed direct-aisle access J seats flying that route just as AA will shift to all narrow body A321 service. The remaining DL flights will be on 757's with interiors just a few years old. All flights in both classes will have service and amenities equivalent to DL's long-haul international product. I agree AA may trump slightly on frequency, but DL's product will be extremely competitive. Time will tell, but DL seems to have thought this out better than its previous LAX build-ups, and I'm sure they're taking advantage of the distractions AA (and still UA to a degree) are will experience with merger integration.

yellowtail · Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:29 pm

Quoting Josh32121 (Reply 39):
Time will tell, but DL seems to have thought this out better than its previous LAX build-ups, and I'm sure they're taking advantage of the distractions AA (and still UA to a degree) are will experience with merger integration.

Delta learnt alot last time around at LAX, and while they saw lots of promise they wern't in a position financially (and perhaps leadership wise) to stick it out while the LAX routes matured.

This time round they have time, leadership and money.

I am really going to go out on a limb now as say IF they can get LAX to work reasonably well, they will take a stab at MIA too.

diverdave · Thu Mar 07, 2013 1:34 pm

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 37):
Were this 1993, I might agree with you. But DL+WA was a quarter century ago. A lot has transpired between then and now, so I find it hard to accept that they made a mistake by downsizing at LAX.

Western was getting killed at LAX. That's why they moved their primary hub to SLC.

I wonder if 717s will be taking over the short haul flying out of LAX.

David

davescj · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:28 pm

What about running an all biz jet NYC - LAX? I'm thinking something like MAXJet did Transatlantic or MartinAir runs IAH AMS (an all biz seat 737). While there would be fewer pax, the fact that only premium seats are sold on the flight would help offset the costs.

Also - with less pax luggage - more money could be made on the cargo carried.

While I doubt the route could support all J cabin, what about 1 or 2 flights a day?

Dave

rwy04lga · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:36 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 10):
"Select Text Quoted"

Actually, it's the "Quote Selected Text" button.

(I know it wasn't yours, your Honor)

Quoting mia305 (Reply 22):
On transcon flts they will be competing with AA to NY which has a better product in my opinion

You clearly haven't tried DL's Business Elite service. Direct-aisle access and lie-flat seats are game changers.

BigGSFO · Thu Mar 07, 2013 2:48 pm

With DL stepping up in LAX hopefully this will force AA to as well. Selfishly, as an AS MVP Gold, I get to reap the benefits of such a competition (and don't turn this comment into a DL should buy AS debate). My point being, whether DL sticks to the LAX expansion or not, the extra competition is good for consumers.

questions · Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:42 pm

Quoting davescj (Reply 42):
While I doubt the route could support all J cabin, what about 1 or 2 flights a day?

Unfortunately no one has been able to figure out how to make money with a premium-only configured aircraft for a sustainable period of time. Closest examples are BA's Concorde and SQ's A345... and they're debatable.

The first three questions I would have for an all J 737 on JFK-LAX-JFK 1-2 flights a day would be:
1) could we sell enough seats at a price to earn a decent margin?
2) could we keep the aircraft utilized (aircraft not in the air don't make money)?
3) could the aircraft be more profitably utilized some other way?

DeltaMD90 · Thu Mar 07, 2013 3:44 pm

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 40):
I am really going to go out on a limb now as say IF they can get LAX to work reasonably well, they will take a stab at MIA too.

Honestly, I think that time has passed. AA is getting back on its feet (through Ch11, not necessarily the merger) and I see AA defending its MIA turf to the death

YYZAMS · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:05 pm

I wonder when they will announce LAX-AMS or CDG. Maybe they will take one off the SEA/PDX - AMS route and but it through LAX-AMS

davescj · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:14 pm

Quoting YYZAMS (Reply 47):
I wonder when they will announce LAX-AMS or CDG. Maybe they will take one off the SEA/PDX - AMS route and but it through LAX-AMS

LAX-CDG DL 8553, operated by AF (AF 65)

LAX-AMS DL 9379, operated by KLM (KLM 602).

Since these flights are a JV, in essence DL already has them. Unless there is reason for more capacity, dont' expect to see more flights.

Another key reality - at least on the Paris route- AF offers FCL, KLM and DL only J.

Dave

DeltaMD90 · Thu Mar 07, 2013 4:46 pm

Quoting davescj (Reply 48):
Since these flights are a JV, in essence DL already has them. Unless there is reason for more capacity, dont' expect to see more flights.

If DL does successfully expand at LAX, I'm sure the demand would be there and more flights would be added. Wether it would be DL metal or AF/KL metal is another story

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net