Delta Building Up LAX...Again

mpdpilot · Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:31 pm

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 95):
Reality check. There are markets from LAX that UA and AA locked up long ago.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 95):
Now with the US/AA merger, AA locks up DCA even more, adds mass on the Boston and RDU end respectively of LAX/Boston and the upcoming LAX/RDU, and arguably locks up PHL and Charlotte.

That isn't totally fair, DL will always be at a disadvantage in DFW, ORD, IAD, DCA, PHL, and CLT. AA, UA, and US have hubs in those airports. Look at AA on LAX-IAD, 3 flights with a 738 is hardly locking things up. DCA is slot controlled and limited in the LAX market some might even argue that AS stronger in DCA-LAX as they have been there longer.

Personally, I think it will hurt, but I think in time DL could/will do at least 3 daily flights with a 738 in all 6 of those markets (except of course DCA which unless the perimeter limits go away will be off limits).

On another note, I think DL could do some really great things by taking 25-35 of the 739ERs that are on the way and outfit them for LAX service. I would also base some of the incoming 717s in LAX as well.

BigGSFO · Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:34 pm

DL could make Chicago, Dallas, Houston, DC work with a limited but competitive schedule. They might not be the most lucrative routes but int he long run they will add value across the system, most notably in Southern California, where they can focus on LAX-originating traffic.

mayor · Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:39 pm

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 100):
That isn't totally fair, DL will always be at a disadvantage in DFW, ORD, IAD, DCA, PHL, and CLT. AA, UA, and US have hubs in those airports. Look at AA on LAX-IAD, 3 flights with a 738 is hardly locking things up. DCA is slot controlled and limited in the LAX market some might even argue that AS stronger in DCA-LAX as they have been there longer.

Exactly..........how do UA and AA do LAX-DTW/MSP/ATL/SLC? That would be a similar comparison, but those in the UA/AA camp would say it wasn't a fair comparison.

LAXintl · Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:05 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 101):
where they can focus on LAX-originating traffic.

Actually I don't believe this is the focus at all.

At the opening event of the new LAX SkyClub I got to chat with one of the sales executives. His point was that Delta knew it would be extremely hard to nudge into the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of the local market, but instead saw LA as a must have destination market for its existing customer base. He further described how DL was offering low frequency red-eye services to places like RDU, IND, virtually entirely for the benefit of its customers in those cities.

So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

DeltaMD90 · Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:10 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 103):
So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

With so many entrenched carriers, I think DL needs to expand smartly and slowly before it can start really taking on AA, UA, or WN. Then again, these carriers aren't gonna take kindly, so we'll see.

As much as I prefer DL dominance (due to my obvious bias) isn't it refreshing for a lot of posters to see an operation like LAX with a bunch of carriers with strong operations? Seems kinda like the old days I was too young to remember

BigGSFO · Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:16 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 103):
Actually I don't believe this is the focus at all.

At the opening event of the new LAX SkyClub I got to chat with one of the sales executives. His point was that Delta knew it would be extremely hard to nudge into the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of the local market, but instead saw LA as a must have destination market for its existing customer base. He further described how DL was offering low frequency red-eye services to places like RDU, IND, virtually entirely for the benefit of its customers in those cities.

So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

Fascinating insight. Thanks.

LAXSTEW · Fri Mar 08, 2013 6:45 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 103):
Actually I don't believe this is the focus at all.

At the opening event of the new LAX SkyClub I got to chat with one of the sales executives. His point was that Delta knew it would be extremely hard to nudge into the hearts, minds, and pocketbooks of the local market, but instead saw LA as a must have destination market for its existing customer base. He further described how DL was offering low frequency red-eye services to places like RDU, IND, virtually entirely for the benefit of its customers in those cities.

So certainly, I don't doubt DL would be more than happy to take a few dollars from locals here, but its primary interest with LA appears more to create decent coverage and route links to benefit its (and Skyteam) broader network and customers, not to perse fight it out head to head with AA, UA, WN or VX for locals.

Maybe in the short-term, but I wouldn't think DL would bother sponsoring the likes of Staples Center, Kings, Lakers, Grammy's, etc. if there wasn't an interest in capturing local attention/passengers.

ldvaviation · Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:16 pm

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 100):
Personally, I think it will hurt, but I think in time DL could/will do at least 3 daily flights with a 738 in all 6 of those markets (except of course DCA which unless the perimeter limits go away will be off limits).

If Delta had the corporate contracts or traffic flows from its international codeshare partners, those routes and those frequencies would already exist.

Heck, if Delta had a hub at ORD, DFW, IAD, Denver, etc., those routes would already exist.

These are not just temporary impediments that will be overcome in time, they are structural disadvantages.

yellowtail · Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:23 pm

If Anyone is doubting DLs plan at LAX....

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...TheSky+(Travel+-+Today+In+the+Sky)

ldvaviation · Fri Mar 08, 2013 7:52 pm

Quoting mayor (Reply 102):
Exactly..........how do UA and AA do LAX-DTW/MSP/ATL/SLC? That would be a similar comparison, but those in the UA/AA camp would say it wasn't a fair comparison.

Fair comparison. Last I checked, from LAX, UA and AA do LAT-DTW/MSP/ATL with one-stop through their hubs at ORD/IAH/DFW.

Only SLC is a nonstop for both from LAX and that hardly matters since it is a regional route.

LAXintl · Fri Mar 08, 2013 8:51 pm

But need to remember - place like ORD, DFW are much larger local market then the DL hubs of ATL, DTW or MSP.

In other words its not that critical for AA/UA to serve the DL hubs to in order to serve the LA market well.
But for DL the lack of ORD for example is a bigger missing hole if it desires to serve local needs.

For example daily pax from LAX -

ORD - 3667
DFW - 2730

ATL - 2068
DTW - 1491
MSP - 1360

jetlanta · Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:03 pm

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 104):
With so many entrenched carriers, I think DL needs to expand smartly and slowly before it can start really taking on AA, UA, or WN. Then again, these carriers aren't gonna take kindly, so we'll see.

As much as I prefer DL dominance (due to my obvious bias) isn't it refreshing for a lot of posters to see an operation like LAX with a bunch of carriers with strong operations? Seems kinda like the old days I was too young to remember

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 107):
If Delta had the corporate contracts or traffic flows from its international codeshare partners, those routes and those frequencies would already exist.

Heck, if Delta had a hub at ORD, DFW, IAD, Denver, etc., those routes would already exist.

These are not just temporary impediments that will be overcome in time, they are structural disadvantages.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 110):

But need to remember - place like ORD, DFW are much larger local market then the DL hubs of ATL, DTW or MSP.

In other words its not that critical for AA/UA to serve the DL hubs to in order to serve the LA market well.
But for DL the lack of ORD for example is a bigger missing hole if it desires to serve local needs.

Goodness. I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Not one of these carriers offers a comprehensive product at LAX. This market is huge and the largest carrier offers less than 200 daily flights.

While ORD and DFW are missing holes in Delta's network at LAX "today", let's not assume that every major corporate contract requires ORD and DFW nonstops. While it is clear that some on here would like to discount the importance of the LAX-ATL market, that would be a mistake. In fact, besides being the third largest music production city in the U.S., Atlanta is already the #3 movie/television center as well. The later is growing particularly fast. In fact, NYC/LAX/ATL /BNA are where the entertainment industry action is and only one airline has positioned itself to take advantage of this so far.

Here is some reference material: http://decatur.patch.com/articles/ge...ons-generated-31-billion-last-year

Quote:
Georgia was home to 333 feature films, television movies and series, commercials, and music videos that were shot across the state during fiscal year 2012. Georgia-filmed movies slated to hit theatres in the next few months include “Flight” starring Denzel Washington on November 2, and “Parental Guidance” starring Billy Crystal and Bette Midler on December 25.

A pair of Midtown-filmed releases will come in Spring of 2013. On April 13. Legendary Entertainment will release the Harrison Ford project “42” (with Midtown scenes) and Universal will release, “Identity Thief” starring Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy on May 10.

Other Georgia projects expected to be released next year include two Midtown-filmed projects, “The Internship” starring Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson; and the “Devil’s Knot” starring Colin Firth and Reese Witherspoon. Also , “The Killing Season” starring John Travolta and Robert De Niro and the Savannah-filmed “CBGB,” are Georgia-filmed releases expected next year

In addition, a record number of television shows were shot in Georgia during FY12, including AMC’s “The Walking Dead,” CW’s “The Vampire Diaries,” BET’s “Reed Between the Lines,” “The Game,” and “Let’s Stay Together”; “Family Feud”; VH1’s “Single Ladies”; USA’s “Necessary Roughness” and “Royal Pains”; Lifetime’s “Drop Dead Diva”; and many more.

Feature films in preproduction or currently in production in Georgia include the second feature in the billion dollar ‘Hunger Games’ franchise “Catching Fire”; “Scary Movie 5”; “Getaway”; “Last Vegas” starring Michael Douglas, Kevin Kline, Morgan Freeman and Robert De Niro; and “Ten” starring Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Our competitive incentives, talented crew, diverse locations and accessibility give us an edge when productions are picking a location,” said Lee Thomas, the Director of the Georgia Film, Music & Digital Entertainment Office. “All of these assets build upon an infrastructure that is increasingly positioning Georgia among the go-to locations for entertainment productions.”

Additional Georgia-filmed movies that have been released in recent months include Tyler Perry’s “Madea’s Witness Protection”; “Lawless” starring Shia LaBeouf and Tom Hardy; “The Watch” starring Vince Vaughn and Ben Stiller; and “The Odd Life of Timothy Green” starring Jennifer Garner.

Let's not forget that Turner Broadcasting and Cox Communications are also ATL-based.

The point is that ATL is an important market to key corporations based in L.A. and neither AA or UA serve it. In fact, not a single airline at LAX can offer everything a corporation could want. Corporations will chose based on a variety of criteria.
Just because Delta doesn't have DFW or ORD today doesn't mean it can't compete for its fair share of L.A. originating corporate business.

I'd also remind everyone that it would be very Delta-like for the carrier to enter both ORD and DFW at some point soon. When that happens, i'm sure we'll hear criticism from the same cynics who said that LGA-ORD would never last. Just watch.

Again, at the end of the day, all three of these carriers will offer a comprehensive network from LAX and all three will do just fine. Demand is so big, and capacity is so constrained, that there is room for all three. If people would take their blinders off, they'd see that is what is happening already.

RyanairGuru · Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:31 pm

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 92):
Yes but both are less than daily IIRC. It has been the rumor for the longest time that DL would move a 744 to SYD and add MEL daily with the LR. (and have VA 1) go daily on BNE or 2) add extra MEL frequencies on peak days.)

I've heard a similar rumor from the Australian end. The 77W is, arguably, too big for VA to build critical mass in MEL and BNE, and therefore the smaller 77L could work better. With DL taking one, VA would be in a position to build up the other.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 93):
I believe VA will go 3x daily eventually at LAX. They have been telling that to their handler for staff planning. As I recall they have a 77W on lease to Etihad at the moment.

They won't be unless they either (1) find some more aircraft or (2) end AUH. They don't lease aircraft to EY (except for the once per week AUH-KUL they operate for EY) but they do fly 3 times per week SYD-AUH. Apparently those flights are doing too great and the relationship with EY is rumored to be cooling off a little so maybe they will terminate those flights. We shall see. From my understanding, though, VA were somewhat reluctant to put all their eggs in one basket, as it where. If LAX was their only long haul destination then they would bleed pretty hard if the US economy went southward etc.

ldvaviation · Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:10 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 110):
In other words its not that critical for AA/UA to serve the DL hubs to in order to serve the LA market well.
But for DL the lack of ORD for example is a bigger missing hole if it desires to serve local needs.

Excellent point.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 111):
In fact, NYC/LAX/ATL /BNA are where the entertainment industry action is and only one airline has positioned itself to take advantage of this so far.

Interesting, because AA and UA still have the bulk of the entertainment industry contracts. And, they don't fly to Atlanta nonstop. (AA does fly nonstop to BNA.)

As to the "action" you speak of, if it is largely "below the line stuff," then it is not resulting in much premium travel. The talent (producers/actors/studio execs) is still based in NYC, LA, London, Miami, and Sydney. Except for NYC, those aren't strong nodes in the Delta network.

Just for fun. Take a look at the other industries with prominent roles in LA's economy, for example the Defense Industry and even the much smaller, but still culturally-important Art Industry. Who is better positioned to serve the travel patterns of those industries? For the D Industry, from LAX, the domestic pattern would have points in San Diego, Tuscon, Dallas, Boston, South Florida, and DC.

tommy767 · Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:36 am

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 113):
As to the "action" you speak of, if it is largely "below the line stuff," then it is not resulting in much premium travel. The talent (producers/actors/studio execs) is still based in NYC, LA, London, Miami, and Sydney. Except for NYC, those aren't strong nodes in the Delta network.

A lot of "below the line" is definitely not premium revenue. I worked in a "below the line" job in LA and it was freelance and while I was a silver on DL during that time period, it was all leisure.

mayor · Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:40 am

Whether or not DL can do it in LAX, it's amazing to me that they're even in the mix, considering that UA and AA have been in the LAX-ORD/NYC market for ages and DL is, comparatively a newcomer to these markets. UA and AA have been in the market this long and yet, for DL to even be in the competition is really something.

That is my opinion, at least.

sxf24 · Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:06 am

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 113):
Interesting, because AA and UA still have the bulk of the entertainment industry contracts. And, they don't fly to Atlanta nonstop. (AA does fly nonstop to BNA.)

Utter hogwash.

mpdpilot · Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:57 am

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 107):
If Delta had the corporate contracts or traffic flows from its international codeshare partners, those routes and those frequencies would already exist.

Heck, if Delta had a hub at ORD, DFW, IAD, Denver, etc., those routes would already exist.

These are not just temporary impediments that will be overcome in time, they are structural disadvantages.

Well your first comment is a which comes first, if they had the routes they could get the contracts and if they had the contracts they could get the routes. Whats you point?

have you ever heard of the economic idea that overtime all costs are variable? Overtime everything is a temporary impediment. I don't think anyone is saying that DL has all the cards, but I also don't think anyone can argue that in the long term any one airline is better in LA than any other airline.

I personally think DL is in the leveraging the most in LA except for a not having a JV with KE. DL with a JV with KE, VA, and VS and the routes mentioned above, and they will be in a very good position. Once again not significantly larger than anyone else, but I think better.

FlyASAGuy2005 · Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:21 am

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 100):
On another note, I think DL could do some really great things by taking 25-35 of the 739ERs that are on the way and outfit them for LAX service. I would also base some of the incoming 717s in LAX as well.

Highly doubtful. For one, the 739s will be back filling a lot of the 57' capacity that will be drawn down over the next few years. Two. 25 frames are A LOT. Delta could run 10x daily LAX-LAS with just 2 a/c (barring MTC issues). They will be rotated through-out the system as all a/c are now but I don't see much changing and 717s going out west I really don't see any time soon.

ldvaviation · Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:46 am

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 117):
Well your first comment is a which comes first, if they had the routes they could get the contracts and if they had the contracts they could get the routes. Whats you point?

This is the conundrum Delta faces in the LA market. What company with offices in the LA, DFW, Chicago, and DC area would pick Delta over United and American? And, without those contracts, how do any of those city pairs make sense for Delta?

Even where they have the contracts, such as one they share with AA that involves lots of travel between LAX and BOS/DFW/DC, that has not been enough to allow Delta to establish a foothold in any of the three city-pairs.

toobz · Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:51 am

Quoting LAX
ORD - 3667
DFW - 2730

ATL - 2068
DTW - 1491
MSP - 1360

But how many airlines partake in the % of ORD and DFW compared to ATL, DTW and MSP

sxf24 · Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:34 am

People seem to operate under the impression most companies have exclusive contracts with one airline. They don't. You get a larger share of business with a larger network, but the number of exclusive contracts is quite small.

BCEaglesCO757 · Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:47 am

When it all comes down to it,for an airline that has such a great network,Delta spends a lot of time trying to build up in other peoples hubs or backyard.

For such a comprehensive domestic network in ATL,JFK,DTW,and SLC! Delta does a lot expansion outside its hubs at times.

[Edited 2013-03-08 20:51:34]

[Edited 2013-03-08 20:52:22]

mayor · Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:55 am

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 119):
This is the conundrum Delta faces in the LA market. What company with offices in the LA, DFW, Chicago, and DC area would pick Delta over United and American? And, without those contracts, how do any of those city pairs make sense for Delta?

That's what the marketing department is for, both the local one in LA and marketing at the GO in ATL, to find those customers and try and get those contracts for DL. I'm sure you knew that, but I just wanted to make sure because it sounded like you had no idea what the marketing reps were for.

AeroWesty · Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:55 am

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 122):
for an airline that has such a great network,Delta spends a lot of time trying to build up in other peoples hubs or backyard.

No airline has had a 'backyard' since deregulation was ushered in in 1978. Not every customer wants to connect. All of the remaining legacy airlines are trying to expand their depth and breadth to cover the entire country as best they can. Why shouldn't DL do the same?

mayor · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:00 am

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 122):
When it all comes down to it,for an airline that has such a great network,Delta spends a lot of time trying to build up in other peoples hubs or backyard.

Much like what WN, everyone's PERFECT airline has done at ATL?

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 122):
For such a comprehensive domestic network in ATL,JFK,DTW,and SLC! Delta does a lot expansion outside its hubs at times.

It's called growth. No matter how many hubs you have or where they're at, there are going to be routes outside your hubs and P2P routes that won't involve your hubs, at all. It happens with ALL legacies, not just DL.

BCEaglesCO757 · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:01 am

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 124):

No airline has had a 'backyard' since deregulation was ushered in in 1978. Not every customer wants to connect.

I understand that I'm not saying its not their right to. The whole point is it makes me wonder just how viable or strong is their network that they can't make some of these markets work with existing hubs.

AeroWesty · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:06 am

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 126):
The whole point is it makes me wonder just how viable or strong is their network that they can't make some of these markets work with existing hubs.

If you're in Seattle and want to fly to Sydney, DL either has to put you onto a codeshare with AS, another airline, or via SLC to get you to the LAX gateway. If the total SEA-LAX market is there to be shared, why not take a piece of it, and then place your SEA-SYD pax on your own metal the entire way via the most efficient routing?

The whole idea of routing everything via a hub is very inefficient for city pairs with a market size to support nonstop service.

[Edited 2013-03-08 21:07:06]

BCEaglesCO757 · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:07 am

I don't think I can compare DL to WN when it comes WN in ATL.

Point to Point is what WN does and has done from day one. I don't think anyone will mistake them for a hub and spoke carrier.

Bottom line, DL should just go all out and try to establish a hub in LAX. They're either coming or going over the years there. What is it going to be in other words.

[Edited 2013-03-08 21:10:12]

mayor · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:09 am

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 126):
I understand that I'm not saying its not their right to. The whole point is it makes me wonder just how viable or strong is their network that they can't make some of these markets work with existing hubs.

So, how does DL use their hub network to make traffic out of LAX work? LAX-ORD is probably already connecting thru SLC.....the same with LAX-BOS. The problem is that it puts DL at a disadvantage compared to AA and UA out of LAX with their nonstops and you want DL to do WHAT, keep running them thru their hubs??

Prost · Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:44 am

When its all said and done, DL provided a large percentage of the profits the air lines in the United States had in 2012. Not everything is going to be perfect, but I'm willing to give the executive team the benefit of the doubt.

For those who are strong supporters of American, United, Southwest, or any other carrier, I offer you this: If Delta Air Lines is blowing it with these new routes, isn't it just strengthening your favorite carrier? Shouldn't you be supporting behavior that you consider 'silly' or 'risky'?

mayor · Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:55 am

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 128):
I don't think anyone will mistake them for a hub and spoke carrier.

Unless you're going thru MDW, of course.

Quoting BCEaglesCO757 (Reply 128):
I don't think I can compare DL to WN when it comes WN in ATL.

What I was saying is that WN is trying to establish themselves in DL's "backyard", ATL. What seems okay for them seems to be bad for DL and I wonder why?

jetlanta · Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:18 am

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 119):
This is the conundrum Delta faces in the LA market. What company with offices in the LA, DFW, Chicago, and DC area would pick Delta over United and American? And, without those contracts, how do any of those city pairs make sense for Delta?

Even where they have the contracts, such as one they share with AA that involves lots of travel between LAX and BOS/DFW/DC, that has not been enough to allow Delta to establish a foothold in any of the three city-pairs.

I pretty much completely disagree with everything you say, but lets just assume you are correct and Delta has trouble in these "trophy" markets you mention. Who DOES get the traffic in those markets? AA? UA? WN?

The answer, of course, is ALL OF THE ABOVE. A company with offices in Chicago gets to shop its business around to the lowest bidder. It works out great for the company. Its not always so great for the airline.

In the meantime, Delta gets its share of NYC, along with virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, MSP and a significant share of the midsize markets. This allows Delta to maintain a unit revenue premium, which it has done for a few years now. It also allows Delta to achieve profits that AA and UA can only dream of, despite their supposed advantage at LAX and other "key" markets.

Its all well and good to say that AA and UA have some advantage in LAX, but if you can't prove that they can TAKE advantage of strength, than what kind of argument do you really have?

davescj · Sat Mar 09, 2013 2:03 pm

The goal is to make money, no? Since money can be made on the route, by definition, any carrier who can will try and make money on it.

LAX- as pointed out - is a money making destination.

Between expanding their own metal and code shares, DL can find a mix of routes and times to serve customers.

Speaking of codeshares - how many codeshares is AS bringing into LAX as DL Codeshares?

Dave

questions · Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:00 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 60):
DL with its tiny single daily flight presence at HKG

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 92):
But they have to start somewhere. Its like DTW, It may work.....once DL grows in HKG.

Only one flight a day to HKG? Is that from NRT or mainland US? I thought NW had a larger presence in HKG.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 100):
DL could do some really great things by taking 25-35 of the 739ERs that are on the way and outfit them for LAX service.

What do you mean "outfit them?" Assign the 739ERs to LAX or configure the aircraft in a different way. If configuration, what do you mean specifically?

rwy04lga · Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:16 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 134):

HKG is now served only by a connection from NRT, where NW had a huge hub. DL maintains that hub.

N839MH · Sat Mar 09, 2013 4:24 pm

For what it's worth, I'll jump in here.

For instance here in DFW, there are so many loyal fliers with Delta that won't fly AA to the west coast on their no stops, but insist on flying Delta thru other cities. And I understand that works the same for OAL customers who won't fly Delta out of Delta's hubs. I truly believe that each airline's marketing and revenue departments know exactly or pretty close as to what the competitors are flying and what revenues are. It just depends on where to deploy resources and what the bottom line each is trying to achieve.

Delta will eventually will get back in the DFW-LAX market and one or two other markets on the West coast...time will tell, lots of maneuvering taking place in the "behind the scenes"!

questions · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:02 pm

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 135):
HKG is now served only by a connection from NRT, where NW had a huge hub. DL maintains that hub.

Thanks. But didn't NW have more flights to HKG, e.g., SEA-HKG?

compensateme · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:13 pm

Quoting questions (Reply 137):
Thanks. But didn't NW have more flights to HKG, e.g., SEA-HKG?

No. Their sole HKG flight was from NRT; MSP was tried unsuccessfully in the mid-1990s.

LAXintl · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:24 pm

Yes NW certanly had a SEA-HKG for quite a few years. They also briefly tried MSP-HKG.
Plus at one time had Seoul-HKG tag as well

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ral_aviation/print.main?id=1131403
https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...neral_aviation/print.main?id=12150

More recently DL tried and dropped DTW-HKG.

BigGSFO · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:33 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 139):
Yes NW certanly had a SEA-HKG for quite a few years.

UA operated this for awhile too - before they acquired the Pacific operations from Pan Am. IIRC, their initial TPAC service prior to Pan Am was SEA and PDX-NRT and SEA-HKG with a 747SP.

Apologies for going off topic.

ldvaviation · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:35 pm

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 132):
In the meantime, Delta gets its share of NYC, along with virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, MSP and a significant share of the midsize markets. This allows Delta to maintain a unit revenue premium, which it has done for a few years now. It also allows Delta to achieve profits that AA and UA can only dream of, despite their supposed advantage at LAX and other "key" markets.

Here's the problem with your line of reasoning? If that is all well and good, you know Delta's "virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, and MSP", then why is Delta still trying to break into the LHR and LAX markets? Are they just trying to grow the business or are there real holes in its network that put a lie to this virtual monopoly and profits you speak of.

I am going to venture a guess that Delta has learned much more from the last recession than you have. During the last major downturn in the industry, following the events of 9/11, we learned that connecting traffic declined more than O&D traffic, that certain parts of the country were affected by the downturn more than others (for instance, the Atlanta-area much more than the entire state of Texas), and that certain international markets were more stable than others (LHR, not CDG).

So, while Delta may be enjoying these profits now, it seems to be under no delusion (as you seem to be) that its virtual monopoly at ATL, DTW, and MSP will insulate it from the vagaries of the market should another industry downturn happen, hence the push at LAX and LHR. (Heck, the Atlanta housing market is still tanking at a time when the LA housing market has taken off.)

Now, while I can appreciate Delta's strategic vision on these matters, it seems you cannot appreciate the fact that Delta's virtual monopoly won't mean much during a recession and that those "dream" profits have come at the expense of United and AA, who have been lagging financially and operationally for various reasons (i.e., merger and bankruptcy). Given those impediments, we don't really have a clear picture yet of how sustainable Delta's profits are once AA and UA really start competing. From Delta's own strategic initiatives, we can surmise however that Delta management thinks these two airlines have an advantage over Delta in more important markets (like LAX and LHR) that cannot be tolerated.

compensateme · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:46 pm

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):
Here's the problem with your line of reasoning? If that is all well and good, you know Delta's "virtual monopoly control of ATL, DTW, and MSP", then why is Delta still trying to break into the LHR and LAX markets? Are they just trying to grow the business or are there real holes in its network that put a lie to this virtual monopoly and profits you speak of.

Because revenue growth is an important metric among publicly traded companies? You're more likely to achieve larger revenue growth among a new market than a matured market, right? Kinda like how Walmart continues to break into new markets with its SuperCenter concept, and Target's doing the same with its grocery concept.

Nor do I understand your logic, anyway, Professor. If DL sees low-hanging fruit at LAX, it should avoid it... because UA and AA have the market locked up? Doesn't make much sense? We live in a capitalist society I thought.

[Edited 2013-03-09 09:56:15]

rwy04lga · Sat Mar 09, 2013 5:52 pm

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):
Here's the problem with your line of reasoning?

Is that a question??

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):
why is Delta still trying to break into the LHR and LAX markets?

Because Delta didn't inherit LHR routes/slots and 'was' primarily an east coast airline. LAX and LHR are just 2 pieces left to fill in Delta's wordwide network.

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 141):
Are they just trying to grow the business or are there real holes in its network that put a lie to this virtual monopoly and profits you speak of.

Now, that IS a question. There is no lie to Delta's profits.

Do you know how to use a question mark (?) ?

ldvaviation · Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:04 pm

Quoting compensateme (Reply 142):
Because companies, especially publicly traded ones, are measured in revenue growth? Isn't that like asking why Walmart continues to break into new markets with its SuperCenter concept, or why Target's expanding into the grocery business?

Revenue growth? As if Walmart sold everything in its stores for a profit? As if the rational for every route Delta flew was profit?

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 143):
Do you know how to use a question mark (?) ?

It is an internet message board. Who cares about question marks, punctuation, spelling, or grammar? And, I say that as a Professor of Literature with degrees from Yale. Now, if I were writing a paper/book for publication or you were writing a paper for my class, there would be a point to your remark about question marks. But, honestly, who takes what is being said here seriously enough to care about those things???? ... LOL.

SESGDL · Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:05 pm

Quoting compensateme (Reply 138):
No. Their sole HKG flight was from NRT; MSP was tried unsuccessfully in the mid-1990s.

Funny that you "conveniently" forgot to mention that DTW was recently canceled after being tried unsuccessfully. In addition NW also flew SEA-HKG as has been previously mentioned.

Jeremy

compensateme · Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:17 pm

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 145):
Funny that you "conveniently" forgot to mention that DTW was recently canceled after being tried unsuccessfully. In addition NW also flew SEA-HKG as has been previously mentioned.

No, I did not. He was asking about legacy NW routes; NW never operated DTW-HKG.

Troll.

compensateme · Sat Mar 09, 2013 6:21 pm

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 144):
Revenue growth? As if Walmart sold everything in its stores for a profit? As if the rational for every route Delta flew was profit?

Yes, revenue growth (although I amended my posting / changed my wording before you responded).

Do you have anything to support that LAX is a money-losing station for DL?

AeroWesty · Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 140):
IIRC, their initial TPAC service prior to Pan Am was SEA and PDX-NRT and SEA-HKG with a 747SP.

I remember it as United getting their SPs from PanAm. Backed up by this rather ironic link:

Why Did SEA-HKG-SEA Fail? (by United Airline Sep 1 2004 in Civil Aviation)

rwy04lga · Sat Mar 09, 2013 7:18 pm

Quoting LDVAviation (Reply 144):
But, honestly, who takes what is being said here seriously enough to care about those things???? ...

Obviously not you. Perhaps that's why you're not taken seriously. Including your professed profession as a professor.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net