commavia wrote:

Delta seems to be the only airline seriously interested in U.S.-Africa, so they can have it all to themselves.

US airline.

There's still ET, AT, SA, MS, etc flying between Africa and the USA.

LAXLHR wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

No. All of DLs 763s are refurbished. Just because they are "old" doesn't mean they are "crappy." Do some research instead of posting this nonsense.

...and when I say crappy! I'm talking about the age/ reliability of a jet. Airlines know its best to avoid scheduling hanger queens and problem pensioners on their marquee routes. It's not just DL!

You made an ignorant statement: probably best to just acknowledge that and move on, instead of trying to defend it.
1) age doesn't necessarily correlate with perpetual mtx issues, and
2) you have no evidence at all that ANY of the DL 767s are "hangar queens."

I would imagine most people flying to Africa these days are flying me3. Much more options than direct.

Other than price, at least from the US to go to Dubai or Qatar or Abu Dhabi and then back to West AFrica makes no sense.

chrisp390 wrote:

Good to see one US carrier pursuing opportunities in Africa. Any chance DL will give Luanda and the other routes they planned another chance? Africa has seen steady economic growth these past few years and it seems like it could support more service to the U.S. A bit more established Economy but, ATL-Cape Town seems like a route that could do quite well.

DL have served CPT before. Prior to ATL-JNB going non-stop they tried a scissor hub at DKR with ATL-DKR-JNB on B764 and JFK-DKR-CPT on B763. Once JNB went non-stop on the B777-200LR they cut the JFK-DKR-CPT flight.

tphuang wrote:

I would imagine most people flying to Africa these days are flying me3. Much more options than direct.

I'm sure it's not "most people", but I seem to remember reading on these fora a while back that TK is the single airline carrying the most passengers to and from Africa. Not necessarily true from the US, though.

I don't think ATL-LOS flight is doing well even with all the connections, including from IAH, who I suspect most have migrated to ME3 or European carriers. Otherwise why would DL cut ATL service and replace it with JFK service. ATL does not any significant O & D while JFK has a good amount for it to sustain 3 or 4 times a week service.

Guys...trust me on this one. No airline wants to send a problem airplane to a spot where it may be difficult to get it fixed. Hell, even a flat tyre will be an adventure! I bet the planners at DL will send their 'best' aircraft there.

On the other hand, I see a 'beggars can't be choosers' thinking here... basically if you want the fastest them its DL...otherwise factor in a few transit stops and a lot more hours .

Bug

LAX772LR wrote:

commavia wrote:

Delta seems to be the only airline seriously interested in U.S.-Africa, so they can have it all to themselves.

US airline.

There's still ET, AT, SA, MS, etc flying between Africa and the USA.

LAXLHR wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

No. All of DLs 763s are refurbished. Just because they are "old" doesn't mean they are "crappy." Do some research instead of posting this nonsense.

...and when I say crappy! I'm talking about the age/ reliability of a jet. Airlines know its best to avoid scheduling hanger queens and problem pensioners on their marquee routes. It's not just DL!

You made an ignorant statement: probably best to just acknowledge that and move on, instead of trying to defend it.
1) age doesn't necessarily correlate with perpetual mtx issues, and
2) you have no evidence at all that ANY of the DL 767s are "hangar queens."

This is exactly what I find hilarious about this forum.

MalevTU134 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I would imagine most people flying to Africa these days are flying me3. Much more options than direct.

I'm sure it's not "most people", but I seem to remember reading on these fora a while back that TK is the single airline carrying the most passengers to and from Africa. Not necessarily true from the US, though.

You mean for a non-African airline? I would think ET might carry more than TK. That said, I think it would be a toss-up between EK and TK. TK certainly serves more destinations although they do that at low frequency and sometimes even low capacity - they stretch the legs of their 737s to many destinations. EK on the other hand have many high frequency destinations with significant capacity. JNB (3x daily B77W and 1x A380), CPT (3x daily B77W) , NBO (3x daily B77W), MRU (2x daily A380) and SEZ (2x daily B77W) have multiple daily frequencies with significant capacity.

I'm assuming ATL-Dubai and Kuwait City were terminated after 9/11? I feel like ATL/JFK-Dubai would do good now.

hohd wrote:

I don't think ATL-LOS flight is doing well even with all the connections, including from IAH, who I suspect most have migrated to ME3 or European carriers. Otherwise why would DL cut ATL service and replace it with JFK service. ATL does not any significant O & D while JFK has a good amount for it to sustain 3 or 4 times a week service.

Maybe many of the ATL LOS passengers originated from the NY area. Combined with the loss of Arik and the possibility of pulling more people who travel via Europe JFK LOS begins to look good.

The flight to LOS is long enough so I doubt that people are going to head all the way east to come back west again, Traveling via Europe is a hassle enough as is. Traveling all the way to the Gulf region is nonsense. The LOS route isn't a price sensitive route to the degree that people will put up with several hours of additional flying. The M3 will carry those headed to eastern and maybe southern regions in Africa. M3 out of West Africa will be for those headed to the Middle East itself or onto Asia.

69bug wrote:

Guys...trust me on this one. No airline wants to send a problem airplane to a spot where it may be difficult to get it fixed. Hell, even a flat tyre will be an adventure! I bet the planners at DL will send their 'best' aircraft there.

On the other hand, I see a 'beggars can't be choosers' thinking here... basically if you want the fastest them its DL...otherwise factor in a few transit stops and a lot more hours .

Bug

While all of that might be true it does appear as if the complaint isn't just from one passenger and from a few occasions when there was bad luck. There seems to be a pattern in this. Those complaining seem to be seasoned travelers as well who detect a difference in how DL treats LOS compared to others. DL has a monopoly into LOS so it just might be that when a problem develops it is LOS and not a European route, where there is more competition, that is impacted.

aviationjunky wrote:

I'm assuming ATL-Dubai and Kuwait City were terminated after 9/11? I feel like ATL/JFK-Dubai would do good now.

No, both were started well after 9/11. ATL-KWI only lasted a short time (I think less than a year), but ATL-DXB hung around for several years and was only cancelled a few years ago.

guyanam wrote:

While all of that might be true it does appear as if the complaint isn't just from one passenger and from a few occasions when there was bad luck. There seems to be a pattern in this. Those complaining seem to be seasoned travelers as well who detect a difference in how DL treats LOS compared to others. DL has a monopoly into LOS so it just might be that when a problem develops it is LOS and not a European route, where there is more competition, that is impacted.

I would recommend reading some Nigerian newspapers. They tend to be very dramatic in style and this is a pretty normal representation. I take it with a pinch of salt and don't interpret it too literally.

evanb wrote:

DL have served CPT before. Prior to ATL-JNB going non-stop they tried a scissor hub at DKR with ATL-DKR-JNB on B764 and JFK-DKR-CPT on B763. Once JNB went non-stop on the B777-200LR they cut the JFK-DKR-CPT flight.

Further leading to the demise of CPT (which was probably on its way out anyway) was the S.A. government forcing DL to later operate a 764ER on the route, due to suddenly-imposed (and ridiculously arbitrary) restrictions on the 763ERs that launched it.

bfitzflyer wrote:

Other than price, at least from the US to go to Dubai or Qatar or Abu Dhabi and then back to West AFrica makes no sense.

You would be surprised how many people do west Africa US through DXB et al.

evanb wrote:

I would recommend reading some Nigerian newspapers. They tend to be very dramatic in style and this is a pretty normal representation. I take it with a pinch of salt and don't interpret it too literally.

Maybe dramatic in style using your cultural context. Maybe they make a point more loudly that you will want.

That doesn't mean that DL hasn't decided that if a plane breaks down that LOS will be the route that will be selected for cancelation/delay because of the perception that these passengers have little choice, when compared to another route where there is competition.

guyanam wrote:

evanb wrote:

I would recommend reading some Nigerian newspapers. They tend to be very dramatic in style and this is a pretty normal representation. I take it with a pinch of salt and don't interpret it too literally.

Maybe dramatic in style using your cultural context. Maybe they make a point more loudly that you will want.

That doesn't mean that DL hasn't decided that if a plane breaks down that LOS will be the route that will be selected for cancelation/delay because of the perception that these passengers have little choice, when compared to another route where there is competition.

Can you back up your claim without citing to that article?

jbs2886 wrote:

[]

Can you back up your claim without citing to that article?

Do you have proof that the article is wrong? I was aware of DL on the JFK GEO route when they used to fly it and the complaints were similar.

guyanam wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

[]

Can you back up your claim without citing to that article?

Do you have proof that the article is wrong? I was aware of DL on the JFK GEO route when they used to fly it and the complaints were similar.

If you only knew the pain of having an aircraft out of service in a foreign destination like LOS or GEO. It takes days to just get parts and tools released from customs. Then you have to send a team to retrieve the aircraft, which adds to the time and expense. It's so bad, that UA used to send mechanics on every flight to LOS to avoid working with local vendors and making sure the A/C made it back. If DL was sending a hangar queen to LOS it was incredibly foolish and hurt no one but DL.

B737900ER wrote:

guyanam wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

[]

Can you back up your claim without citing to that article?

Do you have proof that the article is wrong? I was aware of DL on the JFK GEO route when they used to fly it and the complaints were similar.

If you only knew the pain of having an aircraft out of service in a foreign destination like LOS or GEO. It takes days to just get parts and tools released from customs. Then you have to send a team to retrieve the aircraft, which adds to the time and expense. It's so bad, that UA used to send mechanics on every flight to LOS to avoid working with local vendors and making sure the A/C made it back. If DL was sending a hangar queen to LOS it was incredibly foolish and hurt no one but DL.

dcajet wrote:

B737900ER wrote:

guyanam wrote:

Do you have proof that the article is wrong? I was aware of DL on the JFK GEO route when they used to fly it and the complaints were similar.

If you only knew the pain of having an aircraft out of service in a foreign destination like LOS or GEO. It takes days to just get parts and tools released from customs. Then you have to send a team to retrieve the aircraft, which adds to the time and expense. It's so bad, that UA used to send mechanics on every flight to LOS to avoid working with local vendors and making sure the A/C made it back. If DL was sending a hangar queen to LOS it was incredibly foolish and hurt no one but DL.

Notwithstanding that GEO had service issued when DL operated and so I will need proof furnished by you that these Nigerians are hallucinating. Until I get that I will believe that there is some truth to this, even if somewhat exaggerated.