Why no DL on ORD-LAX.
- Thread starter lpbrian
- Start date
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #4
because airlines do have their own hubs and the unique markets which not every other carrier needs to serve in order to have a competitive network.
DL might add ORD service to other markets in the west besides SLC but the same question can be said about AA or UA service from DL hubs.
it has only been recently that some cAArriers have felt a need to add their own service to other carrier hubs only to deliver well below average revenues on the route.
unlike a childish 3rd grade game of putting the most routes to/from another carriers' hubs, the purpose of commercial aviation is to make money.
btw, how come neither AA or UA operates any int'l flights on its own metal from DL hubs if they are not also AA or UA hubs?
DL has multiple int'l flights from EWR and has ORD service but no ATL, DTW, MSP, or SLC on AA or UA?
why, oh why?
DL might add ORD service to other markets in the west besides SLC but the same question can be said about AA or UA service from DL hubs.
it has only been recently that some cAArriers have felt a need to add their own service to other carrier hubs only to deliver well below average revenues on the route.
unlike a childish 3rd grade game of putting the most routes to/from another carriers' hubs, the purpose of commercial aviation is to make money.
btw, how come neither AA or UA operates any int'l flights on its own metal from DL hubs if they are not also AA or UA hubs?
DL has multiple int'l flights from EWR and has ORD service but no ATL, DTW, MSP, or SLC on AA or UA?
why, oh why?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #7
and yet DL flies ORD-CDG on a regular seasonal basis.
an AA or UA int'l aircraft last landed at ATL, CVG, DTW, or SLC on a regular int'l flight ......???
an AA or UA int'l aircraft last landed at ATL, CVG, DTW, or SLC on a regular int'l flight ......???
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
just like buying them A340s
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #9
actually, DL's aircraft of choice in other carrier hubs to Europe is the 767.
and I notice that DL's EWR-AMS flight is now a 767-400ER.
DL's EWR int'l operation with AMS, CDG, and LHR (in a couple months) is a pretty good testament to DL's appeal throughout NYC regardless of the airport or whether it is someone else's hub.
and I notice that DL's EWR-AMS flight is now a 767-400ER.
DL's EWR int'l operation with AMS, CDG, and LHR (in a couple months) is a pretty good testament to DL's appeal throughout NYC regardless of the airport or whether it is someone else's hub.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,298
Other fish to fry with limited space. Give it time.....lpbrian said:
DL is just now adding feed to SEA. SEA-ORD would be a stupid add when they don't even fly markets on the west coast.eolesen said:
With a target of 250 or so daily flights from SEA some SEA-ORD will come i imagine but like LAX, other fish to fry.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #11
SEA is predominantly a west coast Asian gateway. Although DL now has HKG which is only served from SEA and HND which is served from both LAX and SEA, most of DL's Asian network is accessible via a connection at DTW which is not any longer for most of the eastern US than if DL had connections via SEA. DL is maximizing the SEA hub to focus on western US destinations and cities in the Midwest and eastern US do not contribute as much right now.
and ORD-LAX for DL would be almost entirely a local market... DL is not likely to get many connections on the LAX end and would have virtually no connections at ORD.
AA and UA don't serve a number of markets that would be largely point to point from DL hubs.
There is no reason to think that DL is omitting anything that AA and UA haven't also missed.
and as much as some believe that a major market like ORD to the west is a major market that must be served by every carrier, it is precisely the unique markets that each carrier operates that give them some advantage relative to each other.
and I still say that DL is more focused on MIA to Latin America before trying to fight with AA and BOTH from ORD in domestic markets.
and DL is adding back the 2nd MIA-LAX flight.
and meanwhile, DL still has a larger int'l presence in other carrier hubs and strength markets than AA and UA have in DL hubs.
and ORD-LAX for DL would be almost entirely a local market... DL is not likely to get many connections on the LAX end and would have virtually no connections at ORD.
AA and UA don't serve a number of markets that would be largely point to point from DL hubs.
There is no reason to think that DL is omitting anything that AA and UA haven't also missed.
and as much as some believe that a major market like ORD to the west is a major market that must be served by every carrier, it is precisely the unique markets that each carrier operates that give them some advantage relative to each other.
and I still say that DL is more focused on MIA to Latin America before trying to fight with AA and BOTH from ORD in domestic markets.
and DL is adding back the 2nd MIA-LAX flight.
and meanwhile, DL still has a larger int'l presence in other carrier hubs and strength markets than AA and UA have in DL hubs.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #13
so why can't AA take over ATL-LHR for BA? AA gave up BOS-LHR to BA while DL remained on the route as the only US carrier.
do you not think that having its own metal has strategic advantages? of course it does.
and DL has demonstrated in multiple TATL markets that it does a very good job of using its position in the US to gain premium revenue from the US while allowing its European partners to do the same in Europe.
thus, it makes lots of sense to put as much DL metal into markets where DL can help the alliance more so than AF/KL can relative to its European partners.
but that applies to int'l markets.
ORD-LAX is simply a domestic market that has little int'l connectivity and which would require DL to take on both AA and UA.
DEN-LAX to join the existing DFW-LAX is more likely than ORD-LAX
do you not think that having its own metal has strategic advantages? of course it does.
and DL has demonstrated in multiple TATL markets that it does a very good job of using its position in the US to gain premium revenue from the US while allowing its European partners to do the same in Europe.
thus, it makes lots of sense to put as much DL metal into markets where DL can help the alliance more so than AF/KL can relative to its European partners.
but that applies to int'l markets.
ORD-LAX is simply a domestic market that has little int'l connectivity and which would require DL to take on both AA and UA.
DEN-LAX to join the existing DFW-LAX is more likely than ORD-LAX
Similar threads
