International Expansion

[JFK777]

Delta's new international expansion is good, about time & its been there before. Atlanta to Athens was done it the late 1990's. Flights from Jfk to Dublin and Manchester have seen the schedule before too, if they didn't work last time why now? Now some flights are breaking barriers, as the only Us airline to Russia it's a natural Delta fly to Kiev, Ukraine since that was part of the USSR. Tel Aviv from Atlanta is another pioneering service. Atlanta-Edinburgh shows the depth of the UK market. But I ask myself one important question, JFK to London(any airport will do at this point)?

The UK is 40% is the market to Europe, Delta only serves it from Atlanta and CVG, missing most of the country since from Washington to New England produces substantial amounts of Uk bound traffic. New York to London alone is 10%, Delta doesn't compete for any of that. With EOS and MAxjet flying to Stansted Airport from JFK why not Delta? JFK to Stn isn't LHR or LGW but after 15 years of Pan Am's old system to Europe and still no JFk to London, something better then nothing. I think Delta is missing a trememdous opportunity to finally get to Metro London from New York and isn't joining the party. London and the UK are what anchors every other US airlines European system, the history of English Speaking People's.

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

The UK is 40% is the market to Europe, Delta only serves it from Atlanta and CVG, missing most of the country since from Washington to New England produces substantial amounts of Uk bound traffic. New York to London alone is 10%, Delta doesn't compete for any of that. With EOS and MAxjet flying to Stansted Airport from JFK why not Delta? JFK to Stn isn't LHR or LGW but after 15 years of Pan Am's old system to Europe and still no JFk to London, something better then nothing. I think Delta is missing a trememdous opportunity to finally get to Metro London from New York and isn't joining the party. London and the UK are what anchors every other US airlines European system, the history of English Speaking People's.

It can operate a route to LGW if it chose to, it just can't operate LHR.

 

[WorldTraveler]

LHR and LGW are both restricted from NYC, the most likely market DL would serve from NYC. DL did serve BOS-LGW and could again but DL is not focusing on BOS for int'l expansion at this point.

As for the routes that DL has announced, DL has done a very good job of serving secondary cities in western Europe such as Nice, Venice, Barcelona, and Athens among others. While DL isn't the only US carrier serving those routes, it will be the only carrier that can serve them from two gateways - ATL and JFK. While ATL doesn't have the local market JFK does, it has enough connections throughout the western hemisphere to make any flight work.

As for the success of these routes, consider that DL in the second quarter already had the lowest CASM among all US carriers and it will only go down as DL goes through bankruptcy.

Finally, keep in mind that many of these widebodies that will serve Europe have been flying to Florida where fares are very low. Not only can DL come close to doubling the utilization of the aircraft but the average fares are much higher - particularly in the summer.

I suspect part of the reason DL was able to increase its DIP financing is because creditors saw DL's plan and believe it is very sound.

 

[jbguppy]

LHR and LGW are both restricted from NYC, the most likely market DL would serve from NYC. DL did serve BOS-LGW and could again but DL is not focusing on BOS for int'l expansion at this point.

As for the routes that DL has announced, DL has done a very good job of serving secondary cities in western Europe such as Nice, Venice, Barcelona, and Athens among others. While DL isn't the only US carrier serving those routes, it will be the only carrier that can serve them from two gateways - ATL and JFK. While ATL doesn't have the local market JFK does, it has enough connections throughout the western hemisphere to make any flight work.

As for the success of these routes, consider that DL in the second quarter already had the lowest CASM among all US carriers and it will only go down as DL goes through bankruptcy.

Finally, keep in mind that many of these widebodies that will serve Europe have been flying to Florida where fares are very low. Not only can DL come close to doubling the utilization of the aircraft but the average fares are much higher - particularly in the summer.

I suspect part of the reason DL was able to increase its DIP financing is because creditors saw DL's plan and believe it is very sound.

I heard they are going to introduce this thing called "simplifares" too. It is expected to really help their revenue and take away business from LCC's.....

Just saying you are going to do things doesn't mean it will happen or be successful, Delta's continued possession of the aircraft pondered to be used on these routes is in question pending the outcome of the 1110 process.

BK is a long bumpy road, DAL is in denial.

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

LHR and LGW are both restricted from NYC, the most likely market DL would serve from NYC. DL did serve BOS-LGW and could again but DL is not focusing on BOS for int'l expansion at this point.

No. Under the Bermuda II any airline can serve any Bermuda II airport from LGW. JFK is an agreed airport.

 

[Fly]

Please do not tamper with World's koolaid.

BK is only bad when it is happening to United. While it is happening to Delta, it is a good thing and should be celebrated. :unsure:

 

[JFK777]

Delta's history of serving London is a bit Cuban & a bit "big 3". When Pan Am sold its routes to Delta, Miami and Detroit were part of the deal, they were both disasters and later terminated. Miami-Gatwick, when AA & BA were flying to LHR 3 times a day was the last choice. Delta also flew from Miami to its FRA Hub, DL's nonstop service was short lived.

I still walk by the room in Concourse H where the door used to
say" Trans Atlantic First Class Lounge". Detroit - LGW, was, since when was DL a power in DTW? With Delta's historical bases in Bos and with the Pan Am operation at JFK, service to any airport in London should have been and still should be priority one. Serving Budapest & Kiev is nice and a recognition those two cities have finally matured enough economically to be flown nonstop from JFK by a US airline but London is still 40 % of the Trans Atlantic and Delta has done a lousy job of serving it other then from Atlanta.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Delta's history of serving London is a bit Cuban & a bit "big 3". When Pan Am sold its routes to Delta, Miami and Detroit were part of the deal, they were both disasters and later terminated. Miami-Gatwick, when AA & BA were flying to LHR 3 times a day was the last choice. Delta also flew from Miami to its FRA Hub, DL's nonstop service was short lived.

I still walk by the room in Concourse H where the door used to
say" Trans Atlantic First Class Lounge". Detroit - LGW, was, since when was DL a power in DTW? With Delta's historical bases in Bos and with the Pan Am operation at JFK, service to any airport in London should have been and still should be priority one. Serving Budapest & Kiev is nice and a recognition those two cities have finally matured enough economically to be flown nonstop from JFK by a US airline but London is still 40 % of the Trans Atlantic and Delta has done a lousy job of serving it other then from Atlanta.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JFK777,

I agree with you "big time"
This "new" INT. expansion(for the most part) is a repeat of the "same ol' same ol' !!

Take JFK/ATH for example. I hear that that route does well
(a lot of greek nationals HATE olympic), but how many of these folks are flying
into Kennedy from Florida, who will now fly into ATL ?
Bottom line, jfk/Ath suffers.

Time will tell if the new(old) JFK routes make money !!
(anything from Atl will)
If they lose $$ this time from JFK, it WILL be the LAST !!

NH/BB's

 

[WorldTraveler]

whodoyouthinkyouare,
with all due respect, you are completely wrong. LGW is not available for any US airline to serve. The UK essentially has open skies with the US except for to/from LGW and LHR. Bermuda 2 permits two US airlines and two British airlines only to serve LHR. It also restricts service to both LGW and LHR. Airlines are not free to move back and forth between the two and every city that has LGW is not necessarily open to LHR traffic and vv. Further, not all cities that have access to LHR may not have additional service by airlines not among the elite 4 (2 for each side); do you see any other US carriers flying from LAX, ORD, NYC, or WAS to LGW? They surely would if they could (why don't you ask CO because they told the DOT they would fly to LGW from those cities if given a chance). If non-elite carriers could serve LGW from NYC, why do you think the newest round of transatlantic start ups are serving Stansted? Because they can't serve LGW or LHR.

jb,
you can't reject leases on owned aircraft. All of DL's 764s and most of its 763s are owned. I expect the 764s will be moved to transatlantic service and the 777s will be freed up to do other very long haul work.

Fly,
is UA yet taking on any water from the artillery you just received from WN at DEN? Bankruptcy is bad if you can't make it work. DL has done more in its 1st 2 months in bankruptcy than UA did in 2 1/2 years - and that is it came up with and published a plan, one that creditors support, I might add.

 

[Fly]

I wonder if you really believe the stuff you write. UAL will be fine (although that seems to really frost you)

Btw, what has Delta done besides file to terminate the pilot pension and send out lots of press releases for koolaid drinkers like you to cling to? Pull up a chair and chill, this BK thing is not a walk in the park and you never know who won't be able to pull out. Would you like me to mail you a Mileage Plus application?

 

[jbguppy]

whodoyouthinkyouare,
with all due respect, you are completely wrong. LGW is not available for any US airline to serve. The UK essentially has open skies with the US except for to/from LGW and LHR. Bermuda 2 permits two US airlines and two British airlines only to serve LHR. It also restricts service to both LGW and LHR. Airlines are not free to move back and forth between the two and every city that has LGW is not necessarily open to LHR traffic and vv. Further, not all cities that have access to LHR may not have additional service by airlines not among the elite 4 (2 for each side); do you see any other US carriers flying from LAX, ORD, NYC, or WAS to LGW? They surely would if they could (why don't you ask CO because they told the DOT they would fly to LGW from those cities if given a chance). If non-elite carriers could serve LGW from NYC, why do you think the newest round of transatlantic start ups are serving Stansted? Because they can't serve LGW or LHR.

jb,
you can't reject leases on owned aircraft. All of DL's 764s and most of its 763s are owned. I expect the 764s will be moved to transatlantic service and the 777s will be freed up to do other very long haul work.

Fly,
is UA yet taking on any water from the artillery you just received from WN at DEN? Bankruptcy is bad if you can't make it work. DL has done more in its 1st 2 months in bankruptcy than UA did in 2 1/2 years - and that is it came up with and published a plan, one that creditors support, I might add.

World,
DAL hasn't done anything but talk about what they HOPE to accomplish in Bankruptcy.

Your favorite airline has a lot of work to do.

Your such a DAL cheerleader,

JBG

 

[WorldTraveler]

Fly,
I'm already a Mileage Plus member. Almost thought I saw you at IAD a week ago but decided you'd probably cry that I was trying to "out" you if I ask if you were the real Fly.

Of course, bankruptcy is difficult. The difference between DL and UA is that DL had a turnaround plan before they ever went into bankruptcy which DL fought for years. There are fundamental differences between DL and UA's approaches to BK (and NW's for that matter). First, DL had about $4B in unsecured debt on its balance sheet going into BK - more than 4X what UA had. DL's balance sheet is much lighter. Even though DL's employees will be paid comparable to if not higher than UA's employees (remember that DL domestic flight attendants will make more than their UA counterparts), DL's costs are much lower and closer to the true low cost carriers (did you notice that DL's 2nd quarter ex-fuel costs were only 1 cent higher than WN and FL's ex-fuel costs?). And DL is aiming to drive them even lower which means DL is well positioned to compete not only against US LCCs but also international carriers. The Europeans are scared to death at the cost advantage that US airlines are gaining in bankruptcy and are especially scared of Delta because it has lots of domestic capacity that can be easily redeployed to Europe. DL will be a quality operator w/ lower costs than any other major scheduled carrier across the Atlantic. And because they are diversifying their international growth across many countries, it is pretty unlikely that it will all fail at the same time, even if there are external events that pressured all of the industry.

There is no Koolaid, Fly. I simply can recognize the fundamental strenghts that are Delta's and see that they are far better positioned now and in the future than their competitors, including United. DL clearly has made mistakes or they wouldn't be where they are. The first mistake was in not moving fast enough to correct problems and the second was failing to properly use its fleet for its intended purpose. As much as I like flying 763s and 764s to California, that is not their best use. DL has much more room to turn around because they have not used their network and its assets to its full extent in the past. That is a fundamentally different strategy than what NW is facing with having to cut its way out of BK. Although UA has shifted alot of assets to international uses, they aren't doing it on the scale that DL is doing and they also face growing low cost competition at a time when their costs are still pretty high compared to their peers. (since YOU brought up UA)

I don't wish you or UA or any other airline harm but I do believe there are people who need to speak more than the simple platitudes that are spoken about this industry. I do not believe UA has addressed the fundamental problems facing the legacy segment of the industry; I do believe US has, DL is, and AA will.

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

whodoyouthinkyouare,
with all due respect, you are completely wrong. LGW is not available for any US airline to serve. The UK essentially has open skies with the US except for to/from LGW and LHR. Bermuda 2 permits two US airlines and two British airlines only to serve LHR. It also restricts service to both LGW and LHR. Airlines are not free to move back and forth between the two and every city that has LGW is not necessarily open to LHR traffic and vv. Further, not all cities that have access to LHR may not have additional service by airlines not among the elite 4 (2 for each side); do you see any other US carriers flying from LAX, ORD, NYC, or WAS to LGW? They surely would if they could (why don't you ask CO because they told the DOT they would fly to LGW from those cities if given a chance). If non-elite carriers could serve LGW from NYC, why do you think the newest round of transatlantic start ups are serving Stansted? Because they can't serve LGW or LHR.

Ok, so I found the damn Bermuda 2 agreement, meat and bones cos it pisses me off when I can't be 100% sure of my facts.

Anyway, we're both part right and part wrong.

Two airline from each side BA, AA, UA, VS may serve LHR.

Any US airline may serve LGW.

Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, DFW, Detroit, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York JFK/EWR, Orlando, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Tampa, and Washington IAD and BWI, may be served from London.

Certain cities are served from LHR only, Anchorage, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York JFK, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington.

Some cities which can be switched for others include Fort Lauderdale, Honolulu, Kansas City, Las Vegas, New Orleans and Portland.

Although Detroit and Minneapolis are most definitely served from LHR and LGW now. Las Vegas is also served from LGW and San Diego is no longer served, neither is Pittsburgh. Obviously there has been some tweaking of the cities served.

Anyway, you guys have proved that full deregulation is tosh. Look at the state of your airline industry, it's a shambles, no one able to make a profit, service pared back to the bone, unhappy staff. Nah, you can keep it and your lousy second tier airlines.

 

[MAH4546]

whodoyouthinkyouare,
with all due respect, you are completely wrong. LGW is not available for any US airline to serve. The UK essentially has open skies with the US except for to/from LGW and LHR. Bermuda 2 permits two US airlines and two British airlines only to serve LHR. It also restricts service to both LGW and LHR. Airlines are not free to move back and forth between the two and every city that has LGW is not necessarily open to LHR traffic and vv. Further, not all cities that have access to LHR may not have additional service by airlines not among the elite 4 (2 for each side); do you see any other US carriers flying from LAX, ORD, NYC, or WAS to LGW? They surely would if they could (why don't you ask CO because they told the DOT they would fly to LGW from those cities if given a chance). If non-elite carriers could serve LGW from NYC, why do you think the newest round of transatlantic start ups are serving Stansted? Because they can't serve LGW or LHR.

Incorret. Any US airline can serve LGW. The only restriction is from what gateways they can serve LGW. Any US airport that has LGW service is also allowed to have LHR service. The reason you don't see airlines flying LAX/ORD/NYC/WAS/MIA/BOS/SFO-LGW is because the yield sucks. American Airlines used to fly MIA-LGW and BOS-LGW, Virgin Atlantic used to fly LAX-LGW, MIA-LGW, SFO-LGW, EWR-LGW, and IAD-LGW. There are no restrictions on flights between Gatwick and those airports. British Airways had operated a daily New York City/JFK-London/Gatwick flight for years until 9/11. It was a 767-300ER, and the yield was horrendous.

New carriers are serving STN because it is a cheap airport to fly into and getting good landing times at Gatwick is difficult. STN is also not very congested compared to Gatwick and Heathrow. They can fly to Gatwick if they please. Laker Airways II, an American start-up in the mid-1990s, flew MIA-LGW, FLL-LGW, and MCO-LGW, but they got terrible landing slots.

 

[whodoyouthinkyouare]

Incorret. Any US airline can serve LGW. The only restriction is from what gateways they can serve LGW. Any US airport that has LGW service is also allowed to have LHR service. The reason you don't see airlines flying LAX/ORD/NYC/WAS/MIA/BOS/SFO-LGW is because the yield sucks. British Airways used to fly JFK-LGW, American Airlines used to fly MIA-LGW, Virgin Atlantic used to fly LAX-LGW. There are no restrictions on flights between Gatwick and those airports.

New carriers are serving STN because it is a cheap airport to fly into and getting good landing times at Gatwick is difficult. STN is also not very congested compared to Gatwick and Heathrow. They can fly to Gatwick if they please. Laker Airways II, an American start-up in the mid-1990s, flew MIA-LGW, FLL-LGW, and MCO-LGW, but they got terrible landing slots.

Actually with even a little more digging i found Laker Airlines after Bermuda 2 was signed flew the JFK-LGW route.

More route tweaking is evidentt. Perhaps WT would like to recant?