Delta exits LAX-LHR

[WorldTraveler]

NRT absolutely matters because AA in decades of service hasn't managed to develop anywhere close to as large of an operation as DL has done at LHR in a couple years.

You and a few other people have your panties in a wad over a couple of JV route swaps involving DL and VS at LHR even though DL has a far larger presence at LHR than AA has at NRT, also a JV city.

the only reason why you don't want to discuss AA at NRT is because it is embarassing and makes a joke of a couple route swaps involving DL and VS at LHR.

that's what NRT and LHR have to do with each other.

 

[eolesen]

LAX-LHR, MIA-LHR, ORD-LHR and EWR-LHR. Good thing DL has the joint venture with VS, so that DL can serve LHR from those major markets.

You should know that when DL shifts flying to a JV partner (particularly to the partner's dominant hub/market), it's strategic.

Whenever AA has done the same with BA/JL, or UA's done it with LH/NH, it's a failure.

Clear yet?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

and the other part of the story which has come to light is that DL is reallocating its 767 capacity from LAX and EWR to LHR to the US transcons

 
Do you want to revisit your block hours argument to see how wrong you were?  Again.
Yeah, I thought so.
 
 

and yet DL provides more seats to LHR on its own metal than AA does from NRT.

Off topic and it is an apples vs. oranges comparison.

 

[WorldTraveler]

it would be a success if AA's strategy actually succeeded. but there would have to be a domestic market where AA shifted int'l capacity while shifting capcity to a JV partner.

give me a market example where AA has done that and succeeded.

yes, and revist the block hour agreement so that we can show that someone can't do basic math and yet has the gall to say that to someone else who actually can.

plz show your math

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

yes, and revist the block hour agreement ..................

plz show your math

 

In the meantime, DL is adding widebody service to JFK-SFO which uses as much if not more block hours as DL used on the two LHR routes which are being replaced by VS under a joint venture.

 
JFKSFO roughly 5 hours
EWRLHR roughly 6 hours
LAXLHR roughly 10 hours
 
So please tell me, how 3x5 (JFKSFO) is as much if not more block hours.
 
Do spin away!

 

[WorldTraveler]

because "roughly" doesn't cut it.

in REAL hours, not rough napkin calculations, 3X JFKSFO RTs is nearly the same number of block hours (within 10 minutes per round trip flight) as 1X LAXLHR and 1X EWRLHR.

that's just for the aircraft time.

DL also added winter BOSCDG service on a 757 which uses the same pilots as the 767.

since JFKSFO does not require augmented pilot crews but BOSCDG in the winter likely does (DL builds augmented schedules for nearly all of its pilot rotations year round), the number of pilots needed for all of the additional flying is nearly identical to the LHR flying that is being cut.

so, the only spin is by using "rough" "ballpark" calculations and not real schedules.

becaues if you used them, you would find out that the statement that was made from the beginning that this is alljust a reallocation of resources (aircraft and crew) from the int'l to domestic system.

I'm waiting for an example of where other carriers have done the same and where that was called a mistake.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

because "roughly" doesn't cut it.

 
Then prove my math as incorrect, using exact hours and minutes.
Do make sure the final number is "as much as if not more".

 

[WorldTraveler]

because it is... if you would actually look at real schedules, you would know your math is wrong because you thru together a bunch of "roughly"

it isn't my job to correct your math or your data.

You are the one that looks like a fool when you fail to do the most basic fact checks.

JFK-SFO on DL today is scheduled for between 6 hrs 21 minutes and 6.49. certainly not ROUGHLY 5 hours.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I used flight aware numbers.
 
Spin away!

 

[WorldTraveler]

flight aware uses scheduled flight times or it at least lists that information even if a flight is completed in less time.

NOT ONE of the JFK-SFO flights is scheduled for "roughly" five hours.

and the other flight times you posted is inaccurate.

If you'd like to do your math based on actual scheduled flight times, then you will find the math absolutely works.

If you choose to use "rough" numbers, it's no wonder they don't.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

NOT ONE of the JFK-SFO flights is scheduled for "roughly" five hours.

 
I should have chosen my words correctly. 
JFK-SFO is indeed over 5 hrs of flying, a quick survey shows times vary from 5:19 to 5:53.
It is also possible that I may have typed SFOFJK where the flights would be closer to the roughly 5hrs I stated (instead of the over 5.5hrs in the westebound direction).
 
Seeing how you wish to nitpick, I could not have helped and notice that you didn't feel free to correct my roughly 10hr flight LAX-LHR, where I could have also said roughly 11 hrs given that on some days DL34 is well over 10.5hr (3 minutes shy of 11hrs on 6/27).
 
What's that?  Oh, it wouldn't fit your narrative, is that the WholeTruth?  Got it.
 
So, I hate to rain on your parade, your "as much as if not more" statement still doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Just use the correct flight times in both directions for all markets and it will be clear that DL is simply reallocating capacity as I said pages ago

 

[FWAAA]

and yet DL provides more seats to LHR on its own metal than AA does from NRT.

That's not very surprising, given that traffic between the USA and LHR is almost double the traffic between USA and NRT. Every USA-based airline that serves both flies more seats to LHR than they do to NRT.

LHR is one of DL's largest int'l cities and a city that DL didn't even serve 10 years ago.

That's simply false. Stop making things up. LHR is not a city, it's merely the preferred airport in London. Delta has served London since 1978, albeit at the less-prestigious Gatwick. DL has served LON longer than AA has.

You should know that when DL shifts flying to a JV partner (particularly to the partner's dominant hub/market), it's strategic.

Whenever AA has done the same with BA/JL, or UA's done it with LH/NH, it's a failure.

One of these days, I'll understand the twisted logic employed to paint DL in such a positive light.

 

[WorldTraveler]

AA has had a larger operation at LHR, which is an airport, and yes, DL has served London longer than AA.

rather than worry about what happened in the early 80s, how about you show us how much larger AA was than DL in London (all airports - AA did serve LGW while also serving LHR) prior to DL's start of service to LHR.

And if LHR is "almost twice as large" then the fact that DL serves more than 2X more sis relevant.

It's not about painting anything in any light except the truth.

DL switched capacity from LHR to JFK domestic flights which is capacity neutral while also adding BOS-CDG on a year round basis.

and if you can show us where AA or other carrier has switched the same amount of capacity using the same aircraft from int'l to domestic service, then plz do so.

This thread should have never been allowed to grow to 15 pages because it was a simple capacity switch under a JV

 

[LDVAviation]

This thread should have never been allowed to grow to 15 pages because it was a simple capacity switch under a JV

 
The stakes were much higher than that.
 
You said that Delta would match every move that AA made at LAX.
 
Still no ORD and DCA/IAD.  Now LHR is gone.
 
What is next?  HND?