OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #61
They r already flying with 110 seats total including 12 in first
Will undoubtedly rotate thru system
Will undoubtedly rotate thru system
DL BOS-LGA Shuttle goes mainline
- Thread starter WorldTraveler
- Start date
- Status
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #62
schedules after Nov show that DL is selling connections at LGA to/from BOS via the Shuttle to other destinations served at terminals C/D at LGA.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,353
Trying to allow connections is why.AdAstraPerAspera said:
Rumor has it Delta is working on a deal to get out of the MAT. Supposedly AA has show interest in the terminal for its own shuttle (which would give Delta the space to move it own shuttle over to C) also some talk of a few LCCs looking at it, which would allow US to completely move tot the CTB.
In the original slot swap US was to get the MAT (and move to D) but it changed in the 2nd agreement.
and i'll add my agreement here.Kev3188 said:
12F 15Y+ 83Y.NAPAUS said:
Southwest is sending them to a vendor for a overhaul, completely new cabin and IIRC and is paying for some engine PIPs that will increase on wing.....err on tail time. The BR715s have terrible TBOs. (this is what happens when you put a biz jet engine on a high daily cycle aircraft)
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #64
the problem is that the Shuttles (DL and US) don't carry enough local traffic at high enough yields to operate on a high frequency schedule without carrying some connections.
US started carrying connections years ago and it helped its loads by doing so; they do stronger on the DCA leg where they can carry connections from LGA to their hub at DCA.
DL has not carried connections other than to/from ORD and BOS/DCA because of the separate terminal.
The MAT is super convenient to use but it can only be used for a standalone operation. AA would lose the connecting traffic and would be at a disadvantage, requiring it to use smaller aircraft (which DL has done) or offer fewer flights.
DL does well with its ORD and DCA flights from LGA but I am betting them would love to put those over to the main terminals but cannot do so or they abandon the MAT.
I'm betting that WN is interested partly because it separates them from other airlines which WN likes to do. WN has about the right sized operation to move and could free up gates to give DL all of C and D and AA to have its entire operation in one terminal.
But DL sees the strategic implications of it all and does hold the cards with operations in 3 terminals.
I would strongly bet that there are other parts of this puzzle that are involved and it is not just about cash or LGA.
US started carrying connections years ago and it helped its loads by doing so; they do stronger on the DCA leg where they can carry connections from LGA to their hub at DCA.
DL has not carried connections other than to/from ORD and BOS/DCA because of the separate terminal.
The MAT is super convenient to use but it can only be used for a standalone operation. AA would lose the connecting traffic and would be at a disadvantage, requiring it to use smaller aircraft (which DL has done) or offer fewer flights.
DL does well with its ORD and DCA flights from LGA but I am betting them would love to put those over to the main terminals but cannot do so or they abandon the MAT.
I'm betting that WN is interested partly because it separates them from other airlines which WN likes to do. WN has about the right sized operation to move and could free up gates to give DL all of C and D and AA to have its entire operation in one terminal.
But DL sees the strategic implications of it all and does hold the cards with operations in 3 terminals.
I would strongly bet that there are other parts of this puzzle that are involved and it is not just about cash or LGA.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
DL may have operations in three terminals, but history has shown that the only party whose cards matter is the Port Authority. If stuff like how many gates you lease mattered, it wouldn't have taken decades for DL to address ThirdWorldPort...
I've seen some of the plans for the CTB. There's going to be a need to move some tenants around, and moving the LCC's over to the MAT makes a lot of sense. So does setting up temporary gates as they close down gates at the CTB.
I've seen some of the plans for the CTB. There's going to be a need to move some tenants around, and moving the LCC's over to the MAT makes a lot of sense. So does setting up temporary gates as they close down gates at the CTB.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #66
DL has leases in 3 terminals and it is under no obligation to move anything unless it receives appropriate compensation or agrees to get what it wants elsewhere. Leases are leases and DL like any other airline in NYC has protections and responsibilities to work with the PANYNJ but also receives compensation for its accommodations.
that is the way leases work. if the Port Authority already inserted into the leases the ability to move tenants around and specifically targeted DL, then that is one step that doesn't have to be done but there is nothing that puts DL or any other tenant at a disadvantage to another.
Since the MAT is not involved in the CTB redevelopment, it is doubtful those provisions would have been put into DL's MAT lease.
The same type of thing is happening at LAX and several people have noted that AA has certain preferential rights to gates as a result of losing some gates due to current expansion plans.
And regardless of how you see DL's terminals in NYC, the latest Port Authority traffic reports show that DL is the largest carrier at both JFK and LGA so NYers apparently don't see DL's terminals as a hindrance.
also at JFK and as I predicted, DL cargo is now almost the size of AA's cargo operation as a result of AA's downgrading of the transcon markets and DL's addition of 767s to JFK-LAX.
that is the way leases work. if the Port Authority already inserted into the leases the ability to move tenants around and specifically targeted DL, then that is one step that doesn't have to be done but there is nothing that puts DL or any other tenant at a disadvantage to another.
Since the MAT is not involved in the CTB redevelopment, it is doubtful those provisions would have been put into DL's MAT lease.
The same type of thing is happening at LAX and several people have noted that AA has certain preferential rights to gates as a result of losing some gates due to current expansion plans.
And regardless of how you see DL's terminals in NYC, the latest Port Authority traffic reports show that DL is the largest carrier at both JFK and LGA so NYers apparently don't see DL's terminals as a hindrance.
also at JFK and as I predicted, DL cargo is now almost the size of AA's cargo operation as a result of AA's downgrading of the transcon markets and DL's addition of 767s to JFK-LAX.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #69
E's reference to DL's 3rd world port.
I think he's really jealous that DL now carries 23.8% of the traffic from JFK and is now the largest carrier, even bypassing B6 despite the fact that DL uses regional jets alongside its 330s and 744s. and many of DL's seasonal flights did not even start operating until June.
Specific to LGA, DL is the largest carrier and carried 39.7% of the passengers from LGA.
No. You are the one who apparently lives in a 3rd world if you don't understand that leases do provide rights and responsibilities for BOTH parties and a building owner cannot just kick a tenant out because they want to improve their property - government or not.
DL is not a tenant in the Central Terminal at LGA and it has no responsibility other than what has been agreed to as part to DL's own leases.
If you'd like to provide some evidence that DL will be forced to move or give up gates at LGA, then put it on the table. Otherwise, DL has leases in all of the passenger terminals at LGA except for the CTB and DL will leave when and if it wants to.
For now, DL will retain flights from LGA to ORD at the MAT.
I still expect that DL will consolidate its operations so that the Shuttle is integrated with the rest of the operation, freeing up the MAT but DL isn't and won't be forced to move unless it gets what it wants.
I still believe there are other considerations at play including access to gates at other key airports.
I don't believe that eolesen is jealous of Delta. In order for that to be the case, he'd have to suffer from some severe untreated mental illnesses, and I don't see any evidence of that.WorldTraveler said:
What I do see, however, is the desperation in your posts about which commavia has previously written.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #71
I'm not a doctor and I don't diagnose mental evidence.
I do post what I know to be correct and nothing more.
It's probably also why I get aviation topics right and leave medical diagnoses to those who are trained - and I don't think either you or E have either PsyD or MD behind your name.
Feel free to suck up to E but he has no evidence whatsoever that DL will be required to accommodate any carriers who might want to move to the MAT for any reason including the CTB rebuild.
I'm trying to understand where E gained expertise in airport real estate issues; it's a big step from IT you know. Or maybe the fact that he hasn't put up the evidence to make his point means he isn't the expert after all.
If you have any evidence, then you can put it on the table.
If you and commavia don't care what DL does at JFK, then it shouldn't matter whether I point out that DL has handedly become the #1 carrier at both LGA and JFK in the city that once was AA's headquarters.
AA's inability to defend NYC is just like its former hubs at RDU, BNA, STL, and SJC.
I still think the day won't be too far off before Parker pulls the plug on JFK and LGA as hubs..... hub to hub, including alliance partner hubs and not much more.
DL's moves with the LGA-BOS leg of the Shuttle are likely aimed at shifting the Shuttle share to the same DL advantage as has they have achieved in every other market.
BTW, did you see the latest DOT stats for JFK-LAX that show that DL is now handedly the largest carrier in the JFK-LAX - by more than 40%; AA's boardings are down 25% and DL's are up 20%.
In JFK-SFO, the change is even more dramatic. AA is down 26% while DL is up by 10%.
AA has done more to help DL in NYC than anyone could have ever wished for.
as for cargo, which I said all along, DL now carries 6X more cargo between JFK and LAX than AA does and even UA now carries more cargo than AA does.
I do post what I know to be correct and nothing more.
It's probably also why I get aviation topics right and leave medical diagnoses to those who are trained - and I don't think either you or E have either PsyD or MD behind your name.
Feel free to suck up to E but he has no evidence whatsoever that DL will be required to accommodate any carriers who might want to move to the MAT for any reason including the CTB rebuild.
I'm trying to understand where E gained expertise in airport real estate issues; it's a big step from IT you know. Or maybe the fact that he hasn't put up the evidence to make his point means he isn't the expert after all.
If you have any evidence, then you can put it on the table.
If you and commavia don't care what DL does at JFK, then it shouldn't matter whether I point out that DL has handedly become the #1 carrier at both LGA and JFK in the city that once was AA's headquarters.
AA's inability to defend NYC is just like its former hubs at RDU, BNA, STL, and SJC.
I still think the day won't be too far off before Parker pulls the plug on JFK and LGA as hubs..... hub to hub, including alliance partner hubs and not much more.
DL's moves with the LGA-BOS leg of the Shuttle are likely aimed at shifting the Shuttle share to the same DL advantage as has they have achieved in every other market.
BTW, did you see the latest DOT stats for JFK-LAX that show that DL is now handedly the largest carrier in the JFK-LAX - by more than 40%; AA's boardings are down 25% and DL's are up 20%.
In JFK-SFO, the change is even more dramatic. AA is down 26% while DL is up by 10%.
AA has done more to help DL in NYC than anyone could have ever wished for.
as for cargo, which I said all along, DL now carries 6X more cargo between JFK and LAX than AA does and even UA now carries more cargo than AA does.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #73
If you must ask for it, go for it but the LGA-BOS leg is part of DL's strategy to further strengthen its position in NYC - why would you expect any different?
What DL has done at JFK and elsewhere at LGA will absolutely provide evidence as to what DL can do vs. AA with the Shuttle.
While E can postulate all he wants, AA/US have the problem with split ops and the inability to fit their operations where they can be integrated, not DL.
DL also holds leases on all of the terminals except at the CTB so DL does in fact hold the cards as to how LGA airline locations can be restructured. I don't think they will be doing anything without getting something of value in return.
If you or anyone has evidence that DL will be forced to accommodate other carriers, let me know.
It was AA, not DL, that had to divest gates at multiple airports, including at LGA.
Once again, it has been AA and its merger partner US who have done more to help DL build its presence in NYC than anyone could have imagined.
It is doubtful the Shuttle will be any different.
What DL has done at JFK and elsewhere at LGA will absolutely provide evidence as to what DL can do vs. AA with the Shuttle.
While E can postulate all he wants, AA/US have the problem with split ops and the inability to fit their operations where they can be integrated, not DL.
DL also holds leases on all of the terminals except at the CTB so DL does in fact hold the cards as to how LGA airline locations can be restructured. I don't think they will be doing anything without getting something of value in return.
If you or anyone has evidence that DL will be forced to accommodate other carriers, let me know.
It was AA, not DL, that had to divest gates at multiple airports, including at LGA.
Once again, it has been AA and its merger partner US who have done more to help DL build its presence in NYC than anyone could have imagined.
It is doubtful the Shuttle will be any different.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,988
- 9,428
Ironic, given the amount of energy you expended in arguing how Dallas had to accommodate other carriers at Love Field, and yet, you're arguing that DL has the ability to tell the Port Authority to pound sand when it comes to their leasehold....
If the Port has to close down gates, they're going to look at utilization and tell some airlines that they have to accommodate others. And that includes DL.
If the Port has to close down gates, they're going to look at utilization and tell some airlines that they have to accommodate others. And that includes DL.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #75
No, I didn't say that DL could tell the PA to pound sand. I said they have provide contracts to their tenants and they can't just change the rules without renegotiation and compensation if they take part of the lease. That is just the way leases work.
If DL isn't using its gates then they stand to lose access... but there is no indication that is or will happen.
You are fancifully trying to invent a scenario under which DL has to give up gates to accommodate AA - and none exists.
DAL was about airport access for a carrier that could not be accommodated via a lease.
and, btw, I was right that DL would be at DAL.
And I also wouldn't be surprised if access to DAL and the terminals at LGA are linked... could also involve LAX.
I've never seen you argue that AA should be forced to accommodate DL's growth at LAX; in fact at least some of the AA fanclub has repeatedly tried to argue that DL is boxed in and has no space to grow while AA has virtually unlimited gates... and yet you somehow can't seem to accept that is indeed the position that DL is in at LGA.
If you have evidence that DL will be forced to give up gates, then put it on the table.
Otherwise, DL has and will continue to have the advantage at both LGA and JFK.
The latest move with the Shuttle is part of DL's continued growth in NYC where it has very successfully shifted share from AA and US over the past 5 years.
If DL isn't using its gates then they stand to lose access... but there is no indication that is or will happen.
You are fancifully trying to invent a scenario under which DL has to give up gates to accommodate AA - and none exists.
DAL was about airport access for a carrier that could not be accommodated via a lease.
and, btw, I was right that DL would be at DAL.
And I also wouldn't be surprised if access to DAL and the terminals at LGA are linked... could also involve LAX.
I've never seen you argue that AA should be forced to accommodate DL's growth at LAX; in fact at least some of the AA fanclub has repeatedly tried to argue that DL is boxed in and has no space to grow while AA has virtually unlimited gates... and yet you somehow can't seem to accept that is indeed the position that DL is in at LGA.
If you have evidence that DL will be forced to give up gates, then put it on the table.
Otherwise, DL has and will continue to have the advantage at both LGA and JFK.
The latest move with the Shuttle is part of DL's continued growth in NYC where it has very successfully shifted share from AA and US over the past 5 years.
- Status
Similar threads
