DL and Aeromexico file ATI/JV application

[WorldTraveler]

and again, DL doesn't have to say a thing about ANY route they will start. They have noted a few plusses that will come from the agreement but there will be far more changes that aren't noted but will occur.

They just happen to note that DL intends to use the AM JV to increase its presence from LAX, the largest US-Mexico market, to Mexico.

and further, what the JV doesn't show but which is certain to happen is increased development of AM's network in Central and S. America which will increase DL's competitiveness from markets such as Texas and the southwest where DL is not strong to Mexico but also to countries in Latin America where DL is not strong and could not grow on its own.

 

[topDawg]

Five lines doesnt make a hub.

Yes it does. (and count again, its 7 lines) The map appears to only have some Mexican markets not all of them, because AM is also missing LAX routes. 
 
and thats not even right because DL/AM have LAX-MEX, GDL, PVR, CUN, BJX, ZIH, LAP, HMO, ZLO, MZT, and CUL* seasonal 
 
You are telling me only Atlanta is a hub for Delta then? SLC, MSP, DTW, NYC etc all aren't hubs? 

 

[topDawg]

and again, DL doesn't have to say a thing about ANY route they will start. They have noted a few plusses that will come from the agreement but there will be far more changes that aren't noted but will occur.

They just happen to note that DL intends to use the AM JV to increase its presence from LAX, the largest US-Mexico market, to Mexico.

and further, what the JV doesn't show but which is certain to happen is increased development of AM's network in Central and S. America which will increase DL's competitiveness from markets such as Texas and the southwest where DL is not strong to Mexico but also to countries in Latin America where DL is not strong and could not grow on its own.

In all honesty I don't really see an new "routes" added from LAX, but growth on the current routes as well as Delta adding its own metal to LAX-MEX. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL specifically says they will create an every two hour shuttle between LAX and MEX using the JV and DL will add 2 flights of its own, so, yes that part is coming.

And DL goes into considerable detail about how LAX is geographically positioned to allow operational and scheduling efficiencies that help to balance out the eastern US parts of DL and AM's networks - so at the minimum more frequency is likely to appear on other routes as well as an increase in the number of western US passengers that AM/DL connect thru LAX including to Asia.

and DL also hints at using large RJs to add flights to Mexico from Texas. It is very likely that DL will focus attention on adding markets which only a JV make work - and which AA or UA cannot duplicate even if they have just a codeshare.

As with other strategies, DL will be able to gain access and increase its presence in other airline key markets better than those other airlines will be able to gain access to key DL markets.

 

[topDawg]

DL specifically says they will create an every two hour shuttle between LAX and MEX using the JV and DL will add 2 flights of its own, so, yes that part is coming.

And DL goes into considerable detail about how LAX is geographically positioned to allow operational and scheduling efficiencies that help to balance out the eastern US parts of DL and AM's networks - so at the minimum more frequency is likely to appear on other routes as well as an increase in the number of western US passengers that AM/DL connect thru LAX including to Asia.

and DL also hints at using large RJs to add flights to Mexico from Texas. It is very likely that DL will focus attention on adding markets which only a JV make work - and which AA or UA cannot duplicate even if they have just a codeshare.

As with other strategies, DL will be able to gain access and increase its presence in other airline key markets better than those other airlines will be able to gain access to key DL markets.

I don't disagree with any of this. 
 
Just saying that most of the major markets from LAX have a flight already (some sat only) and i expect to see frequency and capacity increases but not many destinations added.
 
But the two huge holes in the Delta network, LAX-MEX and JFK-CUN, should be filled which is nice.  

 

[WorldTraveler]

Not just LAX and JFK.

DL also hinted at significant growth from MIA and ORD to Mexico as well as from Texas.

those are all other carrier strength markets.

Let me know when AA or UA succeed in adding flights from ATL, DTW, MSP, or SLC to Mexico.

you also noticed how several SLC to Mexico routes are at the top of the "likely to upgrade" list?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

DL also hinted at significant growth from MIA and ORD to Mexico as well as from Texas.

Let me know when AA or UA succeed in adding flights from ATL, DTW, MSP, or SLC to Mexico.
 

 
It's nice that DL may eventually be getting ready to offer flights to Mexico from places where there is demand (e.g. Texas, MIA, ORD).  I'm sure you'll let us know how successful those flights will be (and it goes without saying that if those flights flop you'll never mention it or just ramble on about re-deploying assets).
 
On the other hand, since AA and UA are for profit companies, I doubt you'll see them adding flights to Mexico from cities that nobody wants to travel to (e.g. MSP, DTW, SLC).

 

[WorldTraveler]

ah, yes, the "DL has crap hubs but AA has hubs in the most prestigious cities of the world"... failing to note that AA gets less revenue from every one its hubs than DL does from its when AA/US hubs are ranked side by side next to DL's.

Enjoy being a little fish in a big pond. DL makes more money being a big fish in a medium sized pond and then in the case of NYC being THE big fish in the biggest pond.


but the AA fan base doesn't count NYC, now do they?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

ah, yes, the "DL has crap hubs but AA has hubs in the most prestigious cities of the world"... failing to note that AA gets less revenue from every one its hubs than DL does from its when AA/US hubs are ranked side by side next to DL's.

Enjoy being a little fish in a big pond. DL makes more money being a big fish in a medium sized pond and then in the case of NYC being THE big fish in the biggest pond.
 

 
The truth hurts, IAH and DFW and LAX are better hubs to Mexico than SLC, MSP, DTW, ATL, no matter how much you try to spin and deflect.
 
And speaking of NY, remind us again how DLs transcon fares out of JFK stack up?
What? 
That doesn't fit your narrative.
OK, cool story bro!
 

 

[FWAAA]

DL said nothing in its ATI/JCA application about WN.

Either you failed to read the application carefully or you're lying again.
 
WN was mentioned twice in the joint venture application, on pages 21 and 26.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, nitpicking about gnats. Yes, I did read it.

While you are correct that "nothing" is not correct, tell us how many times AA and UA are mentioned.

DL's justification for seeking the JCA is about being competitive with AA and UA who have established that they each have more than 20% shares. No LCC including WN comes anywhere close but are expected to grow.

this is what the JCA application says

"Whereas today Delta and Aeromexico trail American and United as distant third and fourth place competitors, under the Proposed Alliance there would be three network carriers of roughly equal size, plus three strong and growing new entrants. "

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

So let me get this straight:  when WT picks out an erroneous statement by another poster it is called an inability to grasp the facts.  when another poster corrects WT, it is apparently nitpicking.
 
Double standard?
 

 

[jimntx]

Actually, it's more of an "I am WT.  How dare you correct anything I have posted!"  issue.

 

[WorldTraveler]

no, there's no double standard.

FWAAA is correct that "NOTHING" is not correct.

but what he didn't mention is that American Airlines is mentioned at least 25 times - and since United is mentioned nearly always in the document alongside American, it should be obvious where DL's focus is in talking about competition.

Southwest is mentioned by name ONE time in the text.

Each carrier in the market is noted in several graphs

 

[eolesen]

Either you failed to read the application carefully or you're lying again.
 
WN was mentioned twice in the joint venture application, on pages 21 and 26.

I finally read thru the application, and find it curious that DL focuses on the need for a third network carrier, and remains largely silent on what the US based LCC's and WN may do. (They do pay some lip service to how the Mexican LCC's are locked out of serving as many markets as they'd like to).

Given how B6, F9, G4 and NK have expanded into other leisure/ethnic markets, I fully expect them launch considerably more Mexico flying than they're able to do today with limited access, and certainly more than the Mexican LCC's can add.

Then there's WN, who covers just about every US city with a significant Mexican presence better than anyone else, including UA and AA:

If you look at how the US/Canada OpenSkies agreement worked out, it was the LCC's who won. Not the network carriers.