Hi A. Netters:

At some point in the 2000s, there were 3 American airlines flying to India- American, Delta, and Continental. I believe among them, they were flying into DEL and BOM. Right now there is only one UA (I believe the CO flights) flying to India. I am wondering what factors caused AA and DL to pull out? Any thoughts?

Thanks.

Flyenthu

Delta has JFK-AMS-BOM.

EK ...mostly and a few others

Of course it could be the mantra of the US airline industry ...lack of frequency!!

Be interesting to have some Pax numbers of the US/India O&D

Quoting LOWS (Reply 1): Delta has JFK-AMS-BOM.

I'm pretty sure OP only meant the nonstops like DL ATL-BOM or AA ORD-DEL

Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter): At some point in the 2000s, there were 3 American airlines flying to India- American, Delta, and Continental. I believe among them, they were flying into DEL and BOM. Right now there is only one UA (I believe the CO flights) flying to India. I am wondering what factors caused AA and DL to pull out? Any thoughts?

It's a lot to do with demographics. Neither ATL nor DFW has anywhere near the O&D to sustain a ULH flight to a single Indian city.

NYC-India is already well served with 4 nonstop flights a day, 1x JFK 3x EWR. Plus some token service at ORD. The only other US gateway I see with a chance to go US-India nonstop in the next 5 years is SFO (SFO-DEL is very doable with a low J high Y config on 787-9)

DL *may* re-attempt from JFK one more time, while AA seems very content letting QR and EY do all the heavy lifting.

One word: yields. These are 15+ hour flights from the U.S. and it is difficult to grab decent yields given the 1 stop competition.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4): One word: yields. These are 15+ hour flights from the U.S. and it is difficult to grab decent yields given the 1 stop competition.

But interestingly (and maybe ironically), EWR-DEL/BOM are 2 of the toughest routes within the entire UA network to score saver J seats or have upgrades clear, so I guess someone is definitely paying for the front cabin.

But yes, I agree that outside of the special case of NYC, yields are tough (all thanks to ME3 massively undercutting the competition and "walmarting" the whole market)

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 3): DL *may* re-attempt from JFK one more time

I'd be fairly surprised to see it (I realize you're suggesting it as a long shot). I don't see DL having the appetite to operate both AMS-BOM and a JFK nonstop right now.

I think in addition to DEL and BOM, DL flew to Chennai for a short time via FRA around 2005.

I am kind of surprised a DL's retreat from India, they went from three destinations to one. I suppose they are just using KLM and Air France to feed flights to India.

I could see UA trying Hyderabad and Chennai with a 787 from EWR. Don't forget UA's short lived LHR-DEL-HKG service.

There is only one way for US carriers to recapture US-India market. Hub at AUH (or) DXB and partner with Indian carries.

AA/DL/UA should start 3 US station each, Indian carriers can cover 12 stations on their side. As traffic grows US3 can start more stations. Granted AUH/DXB-India leg(2-3hrs) may not offer excellent product, no worse than our own RJ connections.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 8): There is only one way for US carriers to recapture US-India market. Hub at AUH (or) DXB and partner with Indian carries.

You mean replicate EY/EK's network in direct competition with them ?

[Edited 2014-09-05 08:35:37]

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 9): You can replicate EY/EK's network in direct competition with them ?

On their own home turf?

Quoting vtmaa (Reply 10): On their own home turf?

That's why it would be a very tall order. Speaking specifically about UA, I think their defense strategy against ME3 should be 2-fold :

1. Open US-DEL nonstops to feed Air India

2. Have LH consider letting UA/AC run smaller equipment (say 763 or 788) to fly from FRA to select secondary Indian cities, like re-instating FRA-HYD. Obviously you won't be reaching 12 Indian cities with this method, but at least have the largest markets covered.

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 9): You mean replicate EY/EK's network in direct competition with them ?

Why not? us having open skies Dubai/UAE doesn't mean let EK/EY flood the market while we retreat. Same is true for Indian carriers, they have exact same bilateral rights on their end.

AUH and/or DXB cannot stop carriers from partnering.

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 11): 1. Open US-DEL nonstops to feed Air India

That is never going to work with our hub strategy. UA at best may be able to operate 3 non-stops. UA cannot beat ME3.

All three(DL/UA/AA) together with all Indian carriers (Indigo/SpiceJet/AI/GoAir). 9W may not participate.

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 11): 2. Have LH consider letting UA/AC run smaller equipment (say 763 or 788) to fly from FRA to select secondary Indian cities, like re-instating FRA-HYD. Obviously you won't be reaching 12 Indian cities with this method, but at least have the largest markets covered

KLM couldn't make that route work with paid off MD-11. Why do you think LH will be successful with 763/788.

[Edited 2014-09-05 08:52:11]

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 4): One word: yields. These are 15+ hour flights from the U.S. and it is difficult to grab decent yields given the 1 stop competition

Well, EK don't seem to have much yield problems on their 15+ hr flights between DXB and USA, "stealing" all the USA - India traffic . . . You'll probbaly be need more than just the one word you mentioned.  

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 7): , DL flew to Chennai for a short time via FRA

Delta's service to MAA was via CDG.

Quoting PW100 (Reply 13): Well, EK don't seem to have much yield problems on their 15+ hr flights between DXB and USA

That is because they have a lower cost basis and relative geographic advantage over the US (or EU) carriers on US-India. For US carriers, yields (revenue minus costs) are indeed an issue.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 12): Why not? us having open skies Dubai/UAE doesn't mean let EK/EY flood the market while we retreat. Same is true for Indian carriers, they have exact same bilateral rights on their end.

You can fly really long routes to places with very low O&D for the sake of scissor hub? Did you miss the memo about 9W's experiment at BRU ?

US-based carriers currently have :

0x flights to RUH
0x flights to JED
0x flights to MCT
0x flights to DOH (after UA's cancellation of DXB-DOH tag)
0x flights to AUH
1x flight to KWI-BAH (again, supported by US govt traffic)
2x flights to DXB (ATL+IAD, and one is supported heavily by US govt traffic)

Quoting travelin man (Reply 15):

Quoting travelin man (Reply 15): Quoting PW100 (Reply 13): Well, EK don't seem to have much yield problems on their 15+ hr flights between DXB and USA That is because they have a lower cost basis and relative geographic advantage over the US (or EU) carriers on US-India. For US carriers, yields (revenue minus costs) are indeed an issue.

UA's EWR-BOM/DEL certainly don't have low yields, as noted in reply 5, these are hard flights to get J award inventory and in my experience almost always show BF tickets in excess of $10,000 RT. This despite the fact that AI undercuts UA by almost 50% for the same nonstops.

The reason why UA does so well on their EWR - India service is based on its ability to fill J with paid corporate travel, yet one must consider the type of Biz traveler we are talking about when we talk about India.

When it comes to business travel, most companies will go out on a limb when sending their employees to India. Everyone I know who goes there from the NYC area gets paid J and travels on United. They are all in the Tech or Finance industry and are not even in management positions. Most of my friends who do this claim that most of their colleagues will often find excuses not to go (long trip, undesirable place...(I roll my eyes)), and so the company will really try to "convince" you do to the trip. I have friends at 5 different companies who all tell of similar experiences, they are all young and have been at their respective firms for no more than 5 years (and all under $100k per year, if that means anything to you).

If you consider the amount of companies with ties there, just in the NJ/NYC/Philadelphia area alone, it's not a surprise that the J class fills up. Also (i cannot relate to this whatsoever) many will choose the "safe" choice from home over AI or Jet, and the fastest, most convenient choice, over one of the EU or ME3. Even those connecting beyond BOM or DEL will often do the long UA nonstop in J before transferring to the shorter domestic choice.

When it comes to airline choice, remember that (with exceptions) a large majority US originating business travel consists not always of the highly cultured, "savvy" and seasoned travel connoisseur, but of the (middle to upper-middle class, "new money", family oriented) employee who travels reluctantly, and wants to remain within his or her comfort zone, this means sticking with the familiar carrier from home- in the case of US (esp NYC) to India flights, that choice is UA. Simply put, most people just want to get there and go home with the least amount of emotional or physical investment in the experience, be it logistical or cultural. India is an incredible place with amazing food, peoples and cultures, but for many it can be a very stressful environment, companies know this.

Having said all of that, I am not so sure there is any more room for a DL or AA to make a go of it from JFK. UA benefits from the large corporate FF base in NYC and NJ (again, we are talking people who want a predictable and mentally comfortable travel experience). EWR is positioned closer to the North Jersey - I-95 - Princeton - Philadelphia corporate parks which help support this J class travel. To re-iterate the above, the majority of J class travel on routes like this is NOT from the front office of corporate HQs, but of your mid-level programmer, project lead, department head, ect., which are often based out of the city (although this is beginning to shift). Of course there are top level executives flying J, but there aren't even close to 50 of them on each flight. UA's ability to consistently sell J to the type of specific type of employee going to India is what sets them apart from other contenders, not prestige.

*disclaimer: despite my user name, I am not a UA loyalist or advocate by any means.

Quoting CO 757-300 (Reply 18):

By the same arguments, we can deduce a strong business case for UA launching SFO-DEL or even wild proposals like EWR-BLR and ORD-BOM.

It looks to me like UA will stay the one, with AI joining *A, that's quite a formidable relationship (assuming they start to utilize it). It seems a question now of which one will start SFO, they both have the capable craft.

Perhaps another will join in on that fun if 9W joins one of the other alliances, as some seem to have been anticipating?

It seems like DL was just asking for trouble by starting a flight out of ATL. About that O&D...

Quoting flyenthu (Thread starter): Right now there is only one UA (I believe the CO flights) flying to India.

Delta flies AMS-BOM-AMS. The flight doesn't originate in America, but is operated by an American carrier.

-LPDAL

Quoting LPDAL (Reply 21): Delta flies AMS-BOM-AMS. The flight doesn't originate in America, but is operated by an American carrier.

It technically operates as a direct flight JFK to BOM via AMS and vice versa. It is operated by a 76W as DL 446 eastbound and DL 49 westbound. The westbound trip has a fairly long (~3 hours) stop at AMS, though, in order to maximize morning KLM connectivity from the inbound BOM-AMS without making the AMS-JFK segment earlier than desirable for DL's connections at JFK and inbound intra-Europe connections at AMS.

[Edited 2014-09-05 11:08:01]

I believe this is one of the primary examples that DL is using in their campaign against the Ex-Im Bank re-authorization. Their argument is essentially that the ME3 (and AI, i think) received favorable financing for Boeing ULH aircraft that U.S. carriers don't have access to; these aircraft were then used to directly compete against U.S. carriers on routes like this one, forcing the domestic carriers to pull out with non-stop flying.

Note: I'm not looking to start a flame war with this post, I'm simply replying with Delta's position and how it relates to the topic at hand.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 7): I am kind of surprised a DL's retreat from India, they went from three destinations to one. I suppose they are just using KLM and Air France to feed flights to India.

   And I believe AMS-BOM is part of the JV agreement.

When I moved to India I took DL 604 EWR-AMS-BOM and honestly I didn't see any added value. I still had to deplane at AMS and the whole operation felt just as a connecting flight even though the flight was advertised as EWR-BOM with the same flight number which might make people think it's probably a 1-stop option.

Related question, given the layout and procedures at AMS, is it possible to have a true 1-stop option without having to deplane at AMS? I mean, passengers in transit are not forced to clear passport control at AMS so technically an airline could have a quick turnaround for refueling and cleaning and continue its journey to India.

Just to add the the yield discussion, I bought my flight 2 weeks before departing and I got GDL-ATL-EWR, stayed in NY with my partner for a week, and then EWR-AMS-BOM. All for $474. Not bad if you ask me.

Quoting syncmaster (Reply 24): And I believe AMS-BOM is part of the JV agreement.

Yes, as is KL's AMS-DEL.

The India-Netherlands bilateral provides 21 weekly frequencies to carriers from the Netherlands for use in passenger and/or cargo service, with a maximum of 7 weekly frequencies to any single destination (the same allotment is given to Indian carriers). I don't know if it is still true, but at one point in time all 21 frequencies designated to the Netherlands were in use without having any left over for KL to fly AMS-BOM on its own metal. Having DL (originally NW) fly that segment under the JV provided a workaround to the bilateral since they were not a Dutch carrier. That is the reason that AMS-India is included in the JV whereas CDG-India and the remainder of the CDG/AMS-Asia/ME routes are not.

UA is not going to add any more flights to India. The possible flights are IAD-DEL or ORD-BOM or DEL or SFO-DEL/BLR. All these are long shots with heavy competition. The DL flight to BOM is almost a KL flight from AMS, DL just happens to be the operating carrier, since you have to deplane at AMS. The only consolation is that if the flight is delayed (from/to JFK), you will make the connection since it is the same plane.

There's also a reasonable number I'm sure of LH and BA flights from NYC that connect on to India.
Finally, why do you ignore Air India in the market?

Quoting kd5mdk (Reply 28): There's also a reasonable number I'm sure of LH and BA flights from NYC that connect on to India. Finally, why do you ignore Air India in the market?

LH, BA = agreed, that's the way I usually go (LH) since the non-stop on UA is usually too expensive and it allows you get in a quick visit for European business as well.

AI = no , because it's a long flight and I don't trust AI to honor their Montreal obligations to my survivors.

As a pax, I would certainly rather stop through LHR on BA or DOH on QR than fly nonstop on a VERY long flight to india

Quoting hohd (Reply 27): UA is not going to add any more flights to India. The possible flights are IAD-DEL or ORD-BOM or DEL or SFO-DEL/BLR. All these are long shots with heavy competition

I wouldn't call any of what SFO has currently as competition by any stretch of the imagination. A Europe stopover in EWR is much less disastrous rangewise than a Europe stopover from SFO. The Himalayas eliminate PEK as a mostly direct option as well.
Nonstop SFO-DEL I would say is strongly inevitable because both carriers have craft that can do it, the market for connections is now there on both sides, and is far more efficient time wise than a stop anywhere.

I don't think we'll see BLR from anyone though, too far of a distance for either airline to handle, and overflies DEL or BOM somewhat closely anyways.

Quoting spinzels (Reply 29): AI = no , because it's a long flight and I don't trust AI to honor their Montreal obligations to my survivors.

That's fine, but they're still a market participant. AA would probably still be on ORD-DEL if it was the only carrier flying that route.

In 2002, DL's sole India route was:

DL118 JFK-CDG-BOM, operated on an MD11

Eventually, this service shifted to a 763.

In 2005, DL flew

DL16 JFK-CDG-MAA, operated on an 763
DL18 JFK-CDG-BOM, operated on an 763
DL106 JFK-FRA-BOM, operated on an 763

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 16): You can fly really long routes to places with very low O&D for the sake of scissor hub?

Not a scissor hub. US3 should operate just US-DXB and leave other leg to Indian carriers(sans 9W). ME3 are doing well without much O&D. EK is not a major contributor to DXB's O&D success story. Its all regional LCC's.

By having a hub at DXB US carriers can even partner with carriers from other countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh. AUH will be even better with pre-clearance facility.

Keep in mind EK will just keep B6 partnership and dump every one else. It will use BOS as transit hub with multiple A380s and keep other stations for local demand. Few dollars regionals making now will also be gone.

US3 can compete aggressively or retreat and whine.

[Edited 2014-09-06 07:17:03]

Quoting LPDAL (Reply 21): Delta flies AMS-BOM-AMS. The flight doesn't originate in America, but is operated by an American carrier.

Yes, it does originate in the U.S. If it didn't originate in the U.S. and operate with the same flight number all the way to BOM, it wouldn't be considered a 5th freedom flight and wouldn't be permitted. U.S. carriers don't have 7th freedom rights (except in some cases for all-cargo operations) under the many Open Skies bilaterals. They have unrestricted 5th freedom rights but that means the flight has to be a tag-on sector from a flight originating in the U.S. with or without change-of-gauge.

[Edited 2014-09-06 07:35:24]

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 34):

What you have described is still a scissor hub but with multiple airlines instead of just one. I don't see the justification to fly a ton of zero O&D routes to DXB just to steal 5cpm traffic back from ME3. The European JV hubs already can handle the large cities just fine

QF/BA tried it before with SIN with marginal success, but SIN-Aussie has way higher O&D than say SEA-DXB. DL has one at NRT from the NW days but that's also backed by the huge O&D of the largest metro on earth (which they're actively dismantling in favor of nonstops)

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 33): DL118 JFK-CDG-BOM, operated on an MD11

I flew it JFK-FRA-BOM in 2001; I think you are right about it switching to CDG around 2002 (and all the Indians I know complained, as the French were extremely rude, in their minds, when they traveled through Paris). I don't think it was on an MD-11; I don't even think DL was operating an MD-11 at that time. My 2001 flight was a 767.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 34): US3 can compete aggressively or retreat and whine.

In the days of Pan Am & TWA (great airlines in their heyday) they did, it would appear that the current airlines are now
retreating (don't know about whining), but if its too difficult 'hand it over to our partner airlines' which doesn't say
much for a competitive spirit. Maybe even a lack of knowledge (I guess) of what happens overseas

Think the problem is the lack of a Chinese wall between domestic and LH international operations, which Pan Am
and TWA had cracked in those days.

The mantra of frequency (totally irrelevant on real LH/ ULH) , low service levels on board (or the quasi LCC pay for it
mentality) and US Governmental support for US carriers has bought them to a low which will be hard to recover from.

In battlefield terms the US carriers are retreating to their comfort zone (that which fits the North American market)
almost given up on ULH, next it will be the LH and then where will they be Internationally? Medium haul ?

The foreign (airlines) offerings are better, which historically was never the case.

Travel distances from USA East Coast to India are only about 5% longer if you go through a European hub. That's not too far out of the way.

But travel distances from USA West Coast to India are more than 20% longer if you go through Europe or a ME hub.

So perhaps SFO or LAX make some sense.

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 33): DL118 JFK-CDG-BOM, operated on an MD11

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 37): I flew it JFK-FRA-BOM in 2001; I think you are right about it switching to CDG around 2002

Quoting alfa164 (Reply 37): I don't think it was on an MD-11; I don't even think DL was operating an MD-11 at that time.

From Delta's June 1, 2002 timetable:

DL 118 JFK-CDG-BOM M11
DL 119 BOM-CDG-JFK M11

Quoting CO 757-300 (Reply 18): When it comes to business travel, most companies will go out on a limb when sending their employees to India. Everyone I know who goes there from the NYC area gets paid J and travels on United. They are all in the Tech or Finance industry and are not even in management positions. Most of my friends who do this claim that most of their colleagues will often find excuses not to go (long trip, undesirable place...(I roll my eyes)), and so the company will really try to "convince" you do to the trip. I have friends at 5 different companies who all tell of similar experiences, they are all young and have been at their respective firms for no more than 5 years (and all under $100k per year, if that means anything to you).

Hmmm ... I work for pharma and we have a lot of people traveling to India who are quite happy to go to India (I am referring to non Indian people here) without any special incentives. No one has to be "convinced" or offered an incentive - no more than they need to be if they are going to China or Brazil.

In any case, class of travel is based on length of journey - if its over six hours you fly business regardless of level (or destination).

Quoting GulfstreamFive (Reply 39): ut travel distances from USA West Coast to India are more than 20% longer if you go through Europe or a ME hub. So perhaps SFO or LAX make some sense.

Still plenty of competition via the Pacific. At least 12 Asian carriers operating transpacific routes from the U.S. west coast also serve India -- CA, NH, OZ, CX, CA, MU, CZ, JL, SQ, TG, KE, MH.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 42): Still plenty of competition via the Pacific. At least 12 Asian carriers operating transpacific routes from the U.S. west coast also serve India -- CA, NH, OZ, CX, CA, MU, CZ, JL, SQ, TG, KE, MH.

Sure, I was just thinking about distance / flying time. Even the best Asian connection location (say NRT) is still 14% further than direct SFO-DEL (Simple direct GC route to avoid complex airway analysis)

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=sfo-del,+sfo-nrt-del

Asian and ME carriers give very competitive fares. So for any US carrier to compete will be a big challenge. One problem with many carriers is that they concentrate a lot on DEL and BOM. In fact there is a substantial number of travelers to US from south Indian airports such as MAA, HYD, BLR. US airlines must have a plan like 9W that had a scissors hub in Brussels sometime back that connected flights from Indian airports to US airports. Travelers can connect to their destination airport through the scissors hub if all the flights arrive at a particular time and leave around the same time. Flying nonstop from US airports to south India will be too long that could not be profitable.

Quoting CO 757-300 (Reply 18): When it comes to business travel, most companies will go out on a limb when sending their employees to India. Everyone I know who goes there from the NYC area gets paid J and travels on United. They are all in the Tech or Finance industry and are not even in management positions

Well, I live in NJ, hold a (senior) management position in a tech company and fly to India in Y (when I run out of upgrade vouchers).
UA fills its J seats because there is enough O&D traffic from NYC to DEL and BOM. They have a huge disadvantage to other destinations in India since connecting between international and domestic flights in India is a nightmare (I block a minimum connection time of 3 hours at DEL and 4 hours at BOM for domestic to international).
The ME3 offer convenient connections to "secondary" cites (if you can call the 16 million metro of Kolkata a secondary city). They simply have a geographical advantage that US carriers cannot beat.

An alliance with an Indian carrier for ME3 connections would have been nice, but EY recently took Jet our of contention and since the demise of Kingfisher none of the other Indian carriers offers a competitive product (I would not recommend to any person who needs to meet a schedule to rely on AI, and AI will do the job should they ignore my advise).

Bottom line: US carriers do not fly more routes to India because they have a geographic disadvantage.

Happy Travels
DLP

WSJ report claims India has world's cheapest airfares, $10.36 per 100km. There are claims even EK is not making money on Indian routes. Probably we will see more fly Dubai flights.

So hub at DXB/AUH and partner with LCCs. Best option rather than subscribing to Hunger Games(Airlines) in India.

US3 are sitting on $Billions of cash reserves, best time to try something, even if they gamble few hundred $ Million.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2...he-cheapest-in-the-world/?mod=e2tw

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 8): There is only one way for US carriers to recapture US-India market. Hub at AUH (or) DXB and partner with Indian carries.

  

UA does just fine from EWR.

Quoting hohd (Reply 27): UA is not going to add any more flights to India.

  

UA will add more flights to India and it won't be from IAD, ORD or SFO.

Quoting GulfstreamFive (Reply 43): Sure, I was just thinking about distance / flying time. Even the best Asian connection location (say NRT) is still 14% further than direct SFO-DEL (Simple direct GC route to avoid complex airway analysis)

upwardfacing Pointed me toward some pretty interesting info, about how India is made a bit more difficult due to the Himalayas and the inability to overfly them.

Quoting upwardfacing (Reply 80): SFO-DEL is a longer flight than is commonly believed. The problem is that the most direct great circle style routing includes a 'no fly zone' of very high elevation areas north of India (the Himalayas and the Tibetan Plateau). Try flying PEK/ICN/NRT-DEL and see what flight path your plane actually takes.

From Asia, flights appeared to cut southwest, Then turn straight west near the top bulge of Burma right around BSD, then turn northwest toward DEL in Bangledesh somewhere around DAC, so it doesn't overfly Nepal. That makes Asia particularly long to get to India from, otherwise PEK would have been the easiest. However, despite that PEK is still the most direct stop path wise. As for customs wise, I don't know.

Northbound paths were harder to consider, due to the lack of many direct flights, but based on where I did and didn't see flights moving about, it seems that most flights to India coming from the northwest of DEL fly over KBL and may turn there toward DEL. So, I think that what could make for an SFO-DEL is an almost transpolar flight path that would overfly just west of YVR then turning southeast between KSQ and DYU, turning east to DEL near KBL. That could probably be done within about 8100 miles, definitely within the AI 77W range and I'd think probably in the UA 789 range.

That's still a heck of a lot shorter than any of the other stop options, shorter than a DXB segment alone.
BOM isn't going to happen for range reasons, nor will LAX.

Quoting dtw2hyd (Reply 46):

This refers to flights within India, which I agree. Even since Air Asia India started operations, all the airlines have begun offering extremely low fares and add services on routes where Air Asia is flying. They are hoping Air Asia India will go away and close shop. Now Vistara is also entering the market. India has too many carriers and the market cannot bear more than 4 or 5 carriers.

As far as international, ME3 often have low sale fares from US to India, but only in the offseason. In the peak season (US summer and December), they are often more expensive than US, Indian or European carriers