Delta to discontinue ATL-Dubai Flights.
- Thread starter topDawg
- Start date
- Status
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #77
when you delete your references to my fabrication of facts and you tell other people to refrain from doing the same thing, then you have a basis for saying that my comments are off topic.
IN the meantime for you to take the argument of a subsidized ME carrier as having evidence of whether DL should be able to make it in the ATL-DXB market or not shows that you have no intention of being objective or accurate.
Only you would argue that a carrier can't make money on a route when they say they can~t.
IN the meantime for you to take the argument of a subsidized ME carrier as having evidence of whether DL should be able to make it in the ATL-DXB market or not shows that you have no intention of being objective or accurate.
Only you would argue that a carrier can't make money on a route when they say they can~t.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
I'm not here to defend 700, but at least he didn't make up the statement that ATL-DXC didn't work because international routes need feed on both ends. LOL
Well, at least you tried to type a lot of words to make yourself look smart, in public school you might get an 'attaboy for effort' but in real life you get an epic fail.
eolesen
Veteran
- Jul 23, 2003
- 15,940
- 9,371
Let me get this right. We're all supposed to believe DL's numbers are factual when it comes to EK, but we're not supposed to believe EK's numbers are factual when it comes to DL?....
He really does repeat just about everything CorpComm says, doesn't he?...
He really does repeat just about everything CorpComm says, doesn't he?...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #80
we would never expect YOU to get it.
DL AND AA and UA used PUBLIC documents to come up with data on EK.
There is nothing public about what DL's P&Ls
and you still miss the point that even if $10M is correct, it is likely far short of the necessary profits DL needs for that route... and also is deteriorating as EK adds more capacity.
here is what DL says... but of course a couple of internet know-it-alls will assert to their death that they are right and DL is wrong.
http://news.delta.com/setting-record-straight-canceling-atl-dubai-route
As the editor of a respected airline trade publication, Walker should know better. Atlanta is Delta’s (and indeed the world’s) busiest hub, and is heavily reliant on connecting traffic to support its international service. Customers traveling from the U.S. to Dubai today have a choice of 16 daily departures from 12 U.S. cities – 14 of which are operated by Emirates. That airline’s extensive interline and code sharing agreements with U.S. carriers means most passengers traveling to Dubai can easily book one-stop service on Emirates through the gateway of their choice. Delta is competing with every one of those flights, all of which are heavily subsidized by the United Arab Emirates.
Unlike Delta, the Gulf carriers don’t have to worry about being profitable or operating under the normal constraints of a free market, making fair competition impossible. Indeed, Delta’s Atlanta-Dubai route lost money for two years before we made the difficult decision to cancel the service.
Emirates, meanwhile, touted an “analysis” claiming that our Atlanta-Dubai service was wildly profitable, and accused us of cancelling it to make a political point. That’s just nonsense. Airlines don’t cancel profitable routes, and Delta is no exception. Our Dubai service lost money for nearly two years, for the reasons stated above – we have been competing with heavily subsidized Gulf carriers that simply don’t have to worry about whether routes are profitable, since they are supported by their governments.
It’s not surprising to see Emirates making this type of argument, given that the airline is fighting to continue to dump subsidized capacity in the U.S. But it is disappointing to see the same deliberately misleading rhetoric in a respected publication like Air Transport World.
---
and I said all of those points days ago... but we have a bunch of low information posters who want to argue rather than admit that I know what I am talking about.
DL AND AA and UA used PUBLIC documents to come up with data on EK.
There is nothing public about what DL's P&Ls
and you still miss the point that even if $10M is correct, it is likely far short of the necessary profits DL needs for that route... and also is deteriorating as EK adds more capacity.
here is what DL says... but of course a couple of internet know-it-alls will assert to their death that they are right and DL is wrong.
http://news.delta.com/setting-record-straight-canceling-atl-dubai-route
As the editor of a respected airline trade publication, Walker should know better. Atlanta is Delta’s (and indeed the world’s) busiest hub, and is heavily reliant on connecting traffic to support its international service. Customers traveling from the U.S. to Dubai today have a choice of 16 daily departures from 12 U.S. cities – 14 of which are operated by Emirates. That airline’s extensive interline and code sharing agreements with U.S. carriers means most passengers traveling to Dubai can easily book one-stop service on Emirates through the gateway of their choice. Delta is competing with every one of those flights, all of which are heavily subsidized by the United Arab Emirates.
Unlike Delta, the Gulf carriers don’t have to worry about being profitable or operating under the normal constraints of a free market, making fair competition impossible. Indeed, Delta’s Atlanta-Dubai route lost money for two years before we made the difficult decision to cancel the service.
Emirates, meanwhile, touted an “analysis” claiming that our Atlanta-Dubai service was wildly profitable, and accused us of cancelling it to make a political point. That’s just nonsense. Airlines don’t cancel profitable routes, and Delta is no exception. Our Dubai service lost money for nearly two years, for the reasons stated above – we have been competing with heavily subsidized Gulf carriers that simply don’t have to worry about whether routes are profitable, since they are supported by their governments.
It’s not surprising to see Emirates making this type of argument, given that the airline is fighting to continue to dump subsidized capacity in the U.S. But it is disappointing to see the same deliberately misleading rhetoric in a respected publication like Air Transport World.
---
and I said all of those points days ago... but we have a bunch of low information posters who want to argue rather than admit that I know what I am talking about.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
what ya all need to understand is is thatonly the mighty ole widget can and does everything to perfection and no other airline can do no right and that includes foreign carriers that one dude sure desperately needs help
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #84
Only the lowest information posters could continue to argue that DL was profitable when DL specifically has said it hasn't been profitable for two years on ATL-DXB.
Given that DL has a legal responsibility before the SEC to tell the truth while EK has no such responsibility.
This case is a flashback to the AA PHL-TLV route where some of the VERY SAME people were convinced that US was wildly profitable on a route that AA mgmt. (which is really former US mgmt.) says was not profitable for years.
Maybe eventually some people here will get the message that they really don't understand the airline industry and don't have the information to make the statements that they do = and they also don't have any ability to discern what is false or not false about what is said by others.
DL on ATL-DXB, like AA on PHL-TLV, was not profitable.
case closed expect for those who want to turn yet another thread into personal attacks because they can't accept that DL like AA in this regard knows how to run its business better than a bunch of internet hacks and there really are people in internet chat land that understand the business issues at stake in discussions like this.
It is not character assassination to note that someone is wrong on an issue.
It is character assassination to say that someone is wrong and call them a liar when in fact they are correct.
Given that DL has a legal responsibility before the SEC to tell the truth while EK has no such responsibility.
This case is a flashback to the AA PHL-TLV route where some of the VERY SAME people were convinced that US was wildly profitable on a route that AA mgmt. (which is really former US mgmt.) says was not profitable for years.
Maybe eventually some people here will get the message that they really don't understand the airline industry and don't have the information to make the statements that they do = and they also don't have any ability to discern what is false or not false about what is said by others.
DL on ATL-DXB, like AA on PHL-TLV, was not profitable.
case closed expect for those who want to turn yet another thread into personal attacks because they can't accept that DL like AA in this regard knows how to run its business better than a bunch of internet hacks and there really are people in internet chat land that understand the business issues at stake in discussions like this.
It is not character assassination to note that someone is wrong on an issue.
It is character assassination to say that someone is wrong and call them a liar when in fact they are correct.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
^^^^^^^
I hope World Traveler sees and reads this post ... ... ...
WorldTraveler said:
Yes, but you claimed that the reason DL could not make DXB work is because of a lack of connections on both ends.
As they say, people should get the message that if they don't understand the airline industry and don't have the information to make the statements that they do ... ... ...
Please see above and take note that you've been corrected.WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #86
^^ this from the same low information poster that thinks they are in a position to determine the success or failure of DL's acquisitions?
which is all the more laughable since DL actually still has a presence in the Middle East even after cutting DXB.
One out of 3 airlines doesn't come within the region by hundreds of miles.
which is all the more laughable since DL actually still has a presence in the Middle East even after cutting DXB.
One out of 3 airlines doesn't come within the region by hundreds of miles.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
If you want to throw dirt: I'm surprised that in addition to DL lacking feed at DXB, that you didn't fabricate a fact such as perhaps a lack of www access in the region for the general population to buy DL tickets off their www site.
You want to go another round?
Or, do you want to stay on topic and have an intelligent discussion about strategic business issues. Do you have the mental horsepower to grasp that?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #88
yes. I want to go another round so you can show the world how little you know about the airline industry and how much you try to throw mud (not just dirt).
DL made the decision to cancel its DXB service because it can't get the traffic because of a dramatically increased amount of seats.
More than twice as many seats to DXB than to ZRH.... but only you can fail to see the problem with that.
Funny that you want to stay on topic after making wildly inaccurate charges about the failure of DL's Pan Am acquisition when it was a major part of why DL became the largest airline in NYC, displacing AA which once had its HDQ there.
A little mental HP would have been used to realize that NYC would come up in a discussion about Pan Am.... but someone didn't do that and made a fool of himself yet again.
yes, let's go for another round.
You are easy to knock off.
DL made the decision to cancel its DXB service because it can't get the traffic because of a dramatically increased amount of seats.
More than twice as many seats to DXB than to ZRH.... but only you can fail to see the problem with that.
Funny that you want to stay on topic after making wildly inaccurate charges about the failure of DL's Pan Am acquisition when it was a major part of why DL became the largest airline in NYC, displacing AA which once had its HDQ there.
A little mental HP would have been used to realize that NYC would come up in a discussion about Pan Am.... but someone didn't do that and made a fool of himself yet again.
yes, let's go for another round.
You are easy to knock off.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Game on son.
Here is what you said:
Psst .... you do realize, World Fraudster, that the Whole Truth is there for all to see.WorldTraveler said:
Stop spinning.
Stop deflecting.
Stop outright lying.
Admit you messed because of your idolatry of DL and move on.
Still want another round or do you want to throw in the towel?
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #90
you must live a pretty pathetic life having to run around and try to prove everyone wrong.
YOU made the statement that DL overpaid for Pan Am and was a failure with Song.
And yet YOU want to return to the DXB issue as soon as I remind you that AA has been in full-scale retreat at JFK even with a TW acquisition.
Two days ago (+/-) you were telling us the refinery was a financial disaster despite the fact that there are multiple articles showing that it is profitable and is saving DL on fuel costs.
DL is pulling out of DXB because it doesn't have enough connections despite operating the route from the world's largest hub.
Yes, I want another round so that you can tell us what
You are hell bent on trying to prove me and DL wrong even while refusing to admit that other carriers have made one major strategic mistake after another.
Given your knack for trying to argue points that are completely inaccurate, yes, by all means, let's go as many rounds as you want.
YOU made the statement that DL overpaid for Pan Am and was a failure with Song.
And yet YOU want to return to the DXB issue as soon as I remind you that AA has been in full-scale retreat at JFK even with a TW acquisition.
Two days ago (+/-) you were telling us the refinery was a financial disaster despite the fact that there are multiple articles showing that it is profitable and is saving DL on fuel costs.
DL is pulling out of DXB because it doesn't have enough connections despite operating the route from the world's largest hub.
Yes, I want another round so that you can tell us what
You are hell bent on trying to prove me and DL wrong even while refusing to admit that other carriers have made one major strategic mistake after another.
Given your knack for trying to argue points that are completely inaccurate, yes, by all means, let's go as many rounds as you want.
- Status
