International Route Development

[topDawg]

A not-so-subtle reminder to Boeing that they need to stay neutral in the bun-toss over the ME3's subsidies.

DL's SEA hub will not, of course, be harmed in any way, but I can see EK will no doubt be pricing India very aggressively.

Boeing has nothing to worry about or a dog in this fight. This is a cut and dry case and no amount of Boeing lobbying is going to change that. 
 
More importantly the EU is going to follow whatever the US does, so unless EK is about to order something from Russia, the relationship with Boeing/EK doesn't matter. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

I know that AA/US had to give up a slot.. nothing was ever said that the DL PHL-LHR flight was being started with that slot.

given that multiple airlines have given up CCS flights and there will be even further cuts based on deteriorations in Venezuela's economy, no one should be surprised at AZ' decision.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I'm surprised AZ still operated that route.

 

[eolesen]

Boeing has nothing to worry about or a dog in this fight.

Yeah, but they do. EK has ~80 A380s and another ~200 Boeings on order or option.

If restrictions are placed on the ME3, orders will eventually get canceled if they can't expand into the largest free market in the world.

EK also announced service to MCO. It's possible that the additional SEA and new MCO are out of the DL playbook -- announcing or starting up new routes as quickly as possible so that they can cry foul if the DOT tries to restrict their rights later on.

If that's the case, can EK launching service to ATL be far behind? They're already in NYC, LAX, and both IAH and DFW.

 

[topDawg]

Yeah, but they do. EK has ~80 A380s and another ~200 Boeings on order or option.

If restrictions are placed on the ME3, orders will eventually get canceled if they can't expand into the largest free market in the world.

EK also announced service to MCO. It's possible that the additional SEA and new MCO are out of the DL playbook -- announcing or starting up new routes as quickly as possible so that they can cry foul if the DOT tries to restrict their rights later on.

If that's the case, can EK launching service to ATL be far behind? They're already in NYC, LAX, and both IAH and DFW.

I'm confused, when exactly has the bold happened?  

 

[FWAAA]

I'm confused, when exactly has the bold happened?

Earlier today (Tue Mar 24):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/business/emirates-has-plans-to-make-orlando-its-10th-us-destination.html?_r=0

 

[WorldTraveler]

it's actually quite notable that EK is still not in ATL.in

and it isn't out of DL's playbook because DL isn't subsidized and doesn't have hundreds of widebodies to throw at whatever competitor dares cross it.

I suspect that EK knows that the US and EU are both very serious about putting an end to what has taken place.

EK is clearly trying to dump capacity hoping that even if Open Skies is revoked they still have plenty of capacity in the US.

trade cases do involve excess tariffs on existing operations by a competitor that has broken a trade agreement and not just invoking Open Skies in the case of airlines.

We may very well see that the EU and US order EK and the ME3 to pull capacity.

and the whole "if you touch us we won't buy your planes" argument is stupid.

if the ME3 are violating trade agreements, the US will act on the industry that is at fault.

and if the ME3 are really airlines, they will buy Airbus and Boeing airplanes when they need plans - the Russians and Chinese aren't producing anything remotely close to what the ME3 need to fly to the other side of the world.

 

[topDawg]

Earlier today (Tue Mar 24):

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/business/emirates-has-plans-to-make-orlando-its-10th-us-destination.html?_r=0

No I am asking when Delta has done what E said. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

I asked the same question too... but since E pretends that he ignores me, he probably uses that as an excuse not to answer.

DL can't start a route whenever it wants unless it is in a market with Open Skies. and if the market has Open Skies, any carrier can start or stop a route whenever they want and no one can cry foul when a route is started or not.

and if the market requires a route application (is not an Open Skies market), neither DL or any other US airline can start the route whenever it wants.

 

[eolesen]

No I am asking when Delta has done what E said.

Uh, Love Field?...

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh... DL has been flying from DAL for years. AA left the market even before the Wright Amendment.

DL didn't jump into the DAL market... it has had the most continuous service there of any carrier except for WN.

the only carrier that matches the description of what you wrote at DAL is WN.

and we thought you had some int'l market in mind since this thread is entitled "International Route Development"

 

[topDawg]

Uh, Love Field?...

Delta started flying to DAL long before anyone thought about the current s**t show happening. 
 
Matter of fact, Delta, at the time, was more worried about being kicked out by AA than what is happening now. 

 

[eolesen]

Delta started flying to DAL long before anyone thought about the current s**t show happening. 
 
Matter of fact, Delta, at the time, was more worried about being kicked out by AA than what is happening now.

Perhaps there was cause to worry about being kicked out by AA, but DL wasted no time announcing service to new destinations out of DAL hoping it could sway decisions being made by DOT. They also put them out for sale, presumably looking to use those booked passengers as argument fodder on why they should get the gates vs. someone else.

Even now, with the DOT letter issued to the city, it's pretty clear they're hoping that grandfathering will protect them against not having a lease.

That's not at all unlike EK suddenly launching new/increased service in markets that absent a change to Open Skies they might have held back on adding for another season or two.

 

[WorldTraveler]

once again, E's comments are disconnected from the reality that actually took place.

DL announced its expanded DAL schedule when it did because DL was seeking to win the bid for the 2 gates that the DOJ required to be divested as part of the AA/US merger agreement.

DL never launched service to any additional cities beyond ATL and then it is operating ATL-DAL at virtually the same frequency it operated when it used on CRJs because DL has never obtained additional gate space.

DL simply has not expanded its schedule to try to block anyone. DL announced flights to gain additional gate space which has not happened.

and the DOT letter has made it abundantly clear that neither the DOT or DOJ have offered any legal protection from antitrust regulations to WN or DAL to operate from more than 16 gates.

You have tried repeatedly, E, to deny the impact of WN's expansion at DAL on AA and have tried to argue that DL will not gain or maintain access to DAL on a longstanding basis - and you have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in every factually and logically based argument that you have made.

as hard as it is for you and others to accept, the chances are very much there that VX will not survive at DAL, that DL and WN will be the only carriers that are left at DAL, and that DL will successfully argue that WN's domination of DAL exceeds what is allowed under US antitrust regulations and practices, and that the addition of the two former UA gates by WN as well as the VX gates are not protected by any document or law that WN has used to justify its use of the first 16 gates and that DAL is legally required to consider DLs request for access above other users that might then seek to serve DAL.

If that happens, it will not be because DL squatted on any gates or started any routes but because DL knew the legal basis and requirements for airport access in the US and ensured it built a case that achieved what DL needed to do even while other carriers worked to try to block DL or failed in the marketplace.

again, thanks for reopening the DAL case but the thread is about int'l route development.

 

[topDawg]

Perhaps there was cause to worry about being kicked out by AA, but DL wasted no time announcing service to new destinations out of DAL hoping it could sway decisions being made by DOT. They also put them out for sale, presumably looking to use those booked passengers as argument fodder on why they should get the gates vs. someone else.

Even now, with the DOT letter issued to the city, it's pretty clear they're hoping that grandfathering will protect them against not having a lease.

That's not at all unlike EK suddenly launching new/increased service in markets that absent a change to Open Skies they might have held back on adding for another season or two.

I still don't really see the connection. In Dallas you had an airline who was basically told to get out because they are Delta. In a non-LCC should rule the world Obama DOT then Delta gets those DAL gates. This issue there the .gov playing favorites to the LCCs like they have always done. Not only that but again, Delta was in the DAL market place before the WA walls came down. 
 
EK on the other hand is capacity dumping just to capacity dump. 
 
 
As for Delta announcing flights at DAL, of course they did. Its pretty standard for that to happen. Example, AA announced DFW-HKG/PEK/PVG and put them on sale *subject to government approval*. US during slot swap 1 announced every route they would fly from DCA *subject to government approval* etc. etc. etc.