Rumor has it DL PHL-LHR

Discussion in 'Delta Air Lines' started by 700UW, Nov 21, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. eolesen

    eolesen Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    14,553
    Likes Received:
    9,172
    Well aware that Mexico is North America, but so are Costa Rica and Panama if you want to get into tectonics as opposed to geopolitics; both countries sit on the Caribbean plate, even though they're further south than CCS...

    Re: SYD... Aside from the emotional rush some people and employees get from seeing the route map with far flung lines, AA decided long ago they don't need to be on every continent with their own metal.

    In the South Pacific, the QF partnership continues to deliver results (and it has for over 20 years), so why break what isn't broken?

    DL's situation with VA is different... they're 78% owned by other airlines: ~21% stake with Etihad, ~24.5% with ANZ, and ~22% by SQ. That poses considerable risk to DL, so they have to maintain a presence.

    UA's situation is more similar to DL's than it is to AA -- they have a more established partnership with ANZ to flow traffic from Oz via AKL, but balance out some of the risk of that going away by maintaining their own nonstops from MEL and SYD.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. WorldTraveler

    WorldTraveler Corn Field

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    21,710
    Likes Received:
    10,721
    AA would be in Australia if they could make money doing so and could have a JV partner that would work with them.

    DL started service to Australia first and then did the JV. in case you missed it, DL decided it was going to serve Australia one way or the other. Virgin Australia simply decided that it was worth their while to ally with DL - which apparently has a big enough presence in LAX to support not only DL's Australia services but also Virgin's. UA was also in Australia on their own metal first and then developed the alliance relationship and JV.

    as for S. America, business is done on the basis of political lines, not geology.

    we can debate who was where first but the notion that DL is or was a regional airline at any point was a regional airline compared to AA or UA is simply a figment of your or anyone else's imagination and not supported by any objective facts.
     
  3. eolesen

    eolesen Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    14,553
    Likes Received:
    9,172
    Keep believing that if you must, but DL's historical footprint has been argued here time and time again, and all the spiffy semantics you can come up with don't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of DL's route network was situated east of the Mississippi prior to deregulation.

    I'll have to dig out the file, but I have a KML showing the 1978 route maps for all US carriers. It's pretty obvious who had a regional footprint and who had a broader national presence.

    I know you're going to focus on present date, but the reality is that not everyone thinks of DL as being strong on a national scale, and that's going to take a while to change.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  4. WorldTraveler

    WorldTraveler Corn Field

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    21,710
    Likes Received:
    10,721
    where DL's network was located has no bearing on anything.

    the term regional has a meaning and it doesn't apply to DL any more than to AA or UA.

    If you want to argue that DL was predominantly an Eastern US airline until the Western merger, then there would be no argument.

    but you might also remember that so was US until it made a west coast purchase and AA was only marginally more developed in the west until it bought a certain airline which it later dismantled - one of several for which it has nothing to show for after those mergers.

    and you might also remember that AA's DFW hub is relatively new. AA's network was wait, wait, heavily concentrated on the NE and Midwest until the DFW hub was developed.

    and regardless of what focus you want to fixate on for the past, you might also keep in mind that DL is now the largest airline in AA's former hometown which also happens to be the very market that you and your buds want to focus on to say how global AA has been in its scope. Let me know how many other times in the US airline industry a carrier has taken over another carrier's hometown market.
     
  5. eolesen

    eolesen Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    14,553
    Likes Received:
    9,172
    Hometown airline share is overrated, and up there with moonthumbs as a useful measure, but it's happened a few times:

    1) LAX used to be Continental's hometown until Lorenzo merged it with Texas International
    2) DEN was Frontier Airlines v1.0's hometown for its entire history; UA hubbed in 1978, and surpassed FL in PB's long before they were bought by PE and subsequently ceased operations in 1986
    3) Fairly certain TW was carrying OZ at STL before the merger in 1986
    4) There were multiple quarters during the 90's and 2000's where AA carried more local passengers at ORD than UA did
    5) UA has always carried more pax per day at SFO than hometown carrier Virgin America
    6) UA has also always carried more pax per day at DEN than hometown airline Frontier
    7) Just about everyone outcarried Tower Air while FF's headquarters were at JFK
    8) UA clearly outcarried Independence Air and Presidential when they were the hometown airlines at IAD

    I haven't done the math, but it wouldn't surprise me if either DL, UA, CO, or AA had been outcarrying both HA and AQ in their hometown of HNL

    All that said, AA hasn't been headquartered in NYC since 1980. Trying to make any sort of argument that what happened 30 years later is relevant is, well, silly. It's almost as significant as thinking that because DL got their start in MLU that they understand that market better than anyone else...
     
    • Like Like x 5
  6. topDawg

    topDawg Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,914
    Likes Received:
    2,319
    So Delta was a regional airline because you didn't fly them on LA-NYC? 
     
    good lord, okay AA is a regional airline because they don't fly ATL-DCA. 
     
    You guys want to know why WT post the way he does? its crap like this. Again, Delta was LARGER than AA is NOW in LA. Larger to Europe. But they are a regional airline? 
     
    and I know facts don't play into your pissing contest but "Delta could only get you to both places via Atlanta.  In part, that's how in LA (and even NYC) Delta got the perception of being a regional airline."  Delta started flying LAX-EWR in 1990. I believe it started JFK flights in 93-94 or so. 
     
    So yes, you could take a non-stop LAX-NYC flight on Delta in the early 90s. 
     
  7. topDawg

    topDawg Veteran

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2010
    Messages:
    2,914
    Likes Received:
    2,319
    What matters is in the late 1980s and then in 1991 Delta became a large airline out west and then became the largest airline to Europe overnight. 
     
    Up too the 90s Delta was a regional airline, calling them a regional airline after the western/Pan Am mergers is like me calling American regional now. (stupid) LDV clearly is talking about the 90s. 
     
    No airline does everything for everyone. Okay, Delta didn't (doesn't) fly LAX-WAS....well AA doesn't fly LAX-PDX or SEA. Does that make them a regional airline? no. 
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



Search tags for this page

has delta stopped its flight from philadelphia to lhr