MIA new routes

[AdAstraPerAspera]

You can't have it both ways. If Delta, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to grow somewhere, it would have to move its focus and right now, from your own mouth, it is working on its SEA gateway. Not LAX. Not Latin America.

 

[700UW]

Lets see who closed down a Florida hub?
 
Hmm, that would be Delta in MCO.
 
How many Latin American routes or Caribbean did the all mighty deltoid fly to from MCO?

 

[WorldTraveler]

yes, in typical hypocritical fashion you want to start going thru the litany of "sins" someone has committed in an attempt to boost your own self-righteousness... all the while failing to realize that AA/US combined have closed at least a half dozen hubs since deregulation began.


None of it matters today either.

If DL or UA wants to return to Florida-Latin America or AA decides to relaunch Asia-California will have absolutely no influence from what happened a decade or more ago.

The reasons for success or failure today are based on what exists in the market today. Period.

MIA-Latin America is a sitting duck waiting for more competition. It is coming.

And it is a matter of when, not if.

right now, DL's focus is on the west coast.

UA's is on turning the ship around.

 

[commavia]

You can't have it both ways. If Delta, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to grow somewhere, it would have to move its focus and right now, from your own mouth, it is working on its SEA gateway. Not LAX. Not Latin America.

 

No, no, no you don't understand.  Delta has the mystical, magical ability to place chips on every spot on the table, and win at all of them simultaneously.
 
Heads Delta wins, tails American (and every other airline) loses.  Some things just never change ...

 

[700UW]

yes, in typical hypocritical fashion you want to start going thru the litany of "sins" someone has committed in an attempt to boost your own self-righteousness... all the while failing to realize that AA/US combined have closed at least a half dozen hubs since deregulation began.


None of it matters today either.

If DL or UA wants to return to Florida-Latin America or AA decides to relaunch Asia-California will have absolutely no influence from what happened a decade or more ago.

The reasons for success or failure today are based on what exists in the market today. Period.

MIA-Latin America is a sitting duck waiting for more competition. It is coming.

And it is a matter of when, not if.

right now, DL's focus is on the west coast.

UA's is on turning the ship around.

 

[ChockJockey]

Where are all these competitors tripping over themselves to unseat AA at MIA? It's a sitting duck, it's ripe for the picking, there's literally money growing on the palm trees. Clearly there's a competitive vacuum yearning to be filled (ideally with the throbbing scarlet triangle), so what's stopping everyone? What are they waiting for?

 

[USFlyer]

It's amazing.  EVERY thread turns back into a thread about DL.

 

[WeAAsles]

Where are all these competitors tripping over themselves to unseat AA at MIA? It's a sitting duck, it's ripe for the picking, there's literally money growing on the palm trees. Clearly there's a competitive vacuum yearning to be filled (ideally with the throbbing scarlet triangle), so what's stopping everyone? What are they waiting for?

Could be the airport itself? Anyone who's flown in and out of MIA knows that the airport is a nightmare of epic proportions. Can't even get to other terminals without having to go out security and back in and TSA lines aren't the smoothest in the nation there. Same problems coming in through customs.

Just a little thought.

 

[traderjake]

It's amazing.  EVERY thread turns back into a thread about DL.

 
Sounds like in WT's universe that's all there is. 

 

[MAH4546]

American will overtake United and Delta and become the largest U.S. airline to Europe within five years. I guarantee it. 
 
Miami and New York are the two most important European gateways in the U.S., and the only ones that can consistently fill a plane to Europe 365 days a year. Combined with a very strong and large Philadelphia trans-Atlantic hub, plus Dallas, Charlotte and Chicago, and you have a very powerful combination of European hubs. 

 

[700UW]

Here are the current 2014 LAX Statistics:
 
The combined US/AA carried 4,079,630 passengers for a combined market share of 18.77%.
 
Delta carried 3,426,123 passengers for a market share of 15.77 %
 
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/LAX/statistics/aircarrier-2014.pdf

 

[FWAAA]

Here's what I fail to grasp:
 
To Asia, where AA's organic growth was limited by DoT awards (which often went to other legacies and not AA), we're constantly treated to a nonstop drumbeat of "AA is losing billions of dollars attempting to remedy the disparity in size between it and DL/UA and there is no way that AA can ever catch up or take away business from those invincible incumbents."  

Yet on the other hand, we also hear that where AA is historically strong, it's a sitting duck and that DL will have no trouble walking in and taking away business from AA.   
 
Apparently, Richard Anderson and Delta are all-powerful and can do whatever they want, but AA is impotent and will forever be relegated to its loser role as an also-ran to Europe and Asia.   
 
To Europe, AA was content to exploit its superior position to London and cancelled some non-LHR European routes once it was able to gain access to LHR.   Obviously, the Open Skies of 2008 has lessened AA's advantage to London that it enjoyed for many years.   

 

[WorldTraveler]

No, no, no you don't understand.  Delta has the mystical, magical ability to place chips on every spot on the table, and win at all of them simultaneously.
 
Heads Delta wins, tails American (and every other airline) loses.  Some things just never change ...

except that DL DOESN'T place its chips everywhere on the table all at the same time.

That is why we heard from so many on here about DL's pulldown at LAX when I said repeatedly that DL's time to buildup LAX wasn't there and DL's previous buildups at LAX accomplished other strategic goals, including to prevent LAWA from taking DL's terminal in BK.

Now, DL is focused on the west coast including at LAX.

DL gets higher average fares from LAX than AA, puts more people per flight on its aircraft, and has successfully pushed into some of the top industry markets such as JFK-LAX where DL for the first time ever is the largest carrier.

DL will build out other regions of its network when it makes sense.

MIA is coming. Its time is just not now.
 

Could be the airport itself? Anyone who's flown in and out of MIA knows that the airport is a nightmare of epic proportions. Can't even get to other terminals without having to go out security and back in and TSA lines aren't the smoothest in the nation there. Same problems coming in through customs.

Just a little thought.

 
precisely. Just put some family members on flights via MIA and they commented on the same thing.

Difference is that when DL decides to start MIA to Latin America, it won't be spread out all over creation and will be able to make the process a whole lot easier.

For connecting passengers from Latin America to interior points in the US, other hubs including ATL, are not only much more efficient but cost the airlines a whole lot less.

American will overtake United and Delta and become the largest U.S. airline to Europe within five years. I guarantee it. 
 
Miami and New York are the two most important European gateways in the U.S., and the only ones that can consistently fill a plane to Europe 365 days a year. Combined with a very strong and large Philadelphia trans-Atlantic hub, plus Dallas, Charlotte and Chicago, and you have a very powerful combination of European hubs.

It would take a massive failure of BOTH DL and UA for AA to be able to pass DL and UA. Not once in the history of aviation since deregulation has only one of the legacies been positively positioned while the rest have been on the ropes. Not once.

You simply don't want to admit how much of US' route system was built around low labor - despite the fact you have repeatedly pointed out that US' low labor costs are a big reason why they have been able to serve many of the markets they serve.

Add in that US' network is still heavily centered toward Star Alliance and it will take a long time to redeploy that capacity into other markets.

AA will grow in Europe but repeatedly since the merger was announced, the mindset on here has been that AA will grow unchecked because that is what they now want to do. The evidence is overwhelming that strong carriers will defend their markets and the reason why AA is in the position of needing to grow as much as it needs to do now is because AA spent 10 years restructuring whiel other carriers moved much more aggressively to adapt and succeed but also to gain market share where they could.

other carriers are simply not going to give back to AA what they have gained.


 

Here's what I fail to grasp:
 
To Asia, where AA's organic growth was limited by DoT awards (which often went to other legacies and not AA), we're constantly treated to a nonstop drumbeat of "AA is losing billions of dollars attempting to remedy the disparity in size between it and DL/UA and there is no way that AA can ever catch up or take away business from those invincible incumbents."  

Yet on the other hand, we also hear that where AA is historically strong, it's a sitting duck and that DL will have no trouble walking in and taking away business from AA.   
 
Apparently, Richard Anderson and Delta are all-powerful and can do whatever they want, but AA is impotent and will forever be relegated to its loser role as an also-ran to Europe and Asia.   
 
To Europe, AA was content to exploit its superior position to London and cancelled some non-LHR European routes once it was able to gain access to LHR.   Obviously, the Open Skies of 2008 has lessened AA's advantage to London that it enjoyed for many years.

see above.

It has everything to do with timing and the strength of the competition and not just because AA decides it wants to start growing and to retake the markets it previously couldn't make work.

If AA can make the US-Asia work, more power to them. But it is hardly a testament to their strength in the market that they have to subsidize their operations to the tune of several hundred millions of dollars per year and AA is consistently UNPROFITABLE to Asia.

There isn't a single carrier that does the same thing in another global region and even UA, the least profitable legacy right now, is profitable in every region of the world at least part of the year.

 

[commavia]

To Asia, where AA's organic growth was limited by DoT awards (which often went to other legacies and not AA), we're constantly treated to a nonstop drumbeat of "AA is losing billions of dollars attempting to remedy the disparity in size between it and DL/UA and there is no way that AA can ever catch up or take away business from those invincible incumbents."  
Yet on the other hand, we also hear that where AA is historically strong, it's a sitting duck and that DL will have no trouble walking in and taking away business from AA.   

 
Exactly.  Again - heads Delta wins, tails AA loses.  The carefully-crafted arguments of Delta's invincibility are crumbling in the face of a shifting landscape in which Delta is no longer the undisputed leader in everything, and it's plain for everyone to see.  As has been noted previously, the fear is palpable for those wedded to the misguided notion that Delta is invincible.
 
The reality, for those willing and able to embrace it, is that in fact Delta has no special, magical advantage - or at least not one that appears all that sustainable.  All three major U.S. carriers are now absolutely massive, and all three offer enormous global networks.  Setting aside the capacity of their respective European JV partners, AA, Delta and United are now all relatively close across the Atlantic in terms of sheer capacity, with each focusing heavily on the hubs of their partners and all of them offering broadly adequate access to the continent's major business and leisure markets.  In Asia, United is the runaway leader and will be in the future because it has a structural advantage (SFO) that no competitor can match, but otherwise the gap is closing with AA and Delta are now basically even with respect to nonstops between non-Hawaii U.S. and Asia, particularly as Delta is steadily following United's lead in dismantling its NRT "hub."  With respect to Latin America, AA has an insurmountable lead that Delta (and United) cannot match as long as AA dominates MIA, which is the pivotal hub to that growing region.  The bottom line is that any growth by one airline into any of the three regions at this point is necessarily going to bump into at least one if not both of the other competitors.  That's just reality in a world where there are just three major U.S. intercontinental carriers.
 
But to suggest that somehow Delta is not going to "allow" AA to grow in a certain region with some alleged response, but yet Delta supposedly can grow with impunity wherever they want, is just ridiculous.  If only such laughable arguments had any credibility to begin with, such baseless commentary would surely undermine it.  Unlike 3-4 years ago, Delta today has no meaningful, discernible, structural competitive advantage - network, fleet, financial or otherwise - that is sustainable and cannot be met, replicated and/or exceeded by AA and/or United.  Not one.  Some still haven't gotten the memo yet.

 

[WeAAsles]

DAL will have ZERO control over how they operate in MIA. Trust me I work there.

But people are right. You do seem to really like Delta from what I've been reading. Are you part of there management?