TransWorldOne wrote:

klm617 wrote:

pezzy669 wrote:

^ This. ATL is my home airport and the efficiency in which that clock ticks is stunning and yes there are a handful of weather and other events that really wreck things but what airline has not had a meltdown in similar situations? I have done ~70 segments as an O&D Atlanta passenger over the past 6 years mainly on DL, and except for I think now 4 weather related delays I have not had any kind of issues flying in or out. 95% of the time I can be walking in from the curb and be at my gate in 15-20 minutes with Pre Check, my bags are always already joyriding around on the carousel before I even get to baggage claim (10-15 mins) and overall ATL is set up quite well for O&D passengers.

While I agree with you it's probably great for an ATL originating passenger the same is not true for someone having to make a connection. Delta only cares about one thing in ATL getting planes off on time and if you are left stranded there so be it because you missed your flight because it's Delta's fault they really don't care.

If DL held every flight for late arriving passengers, no flight would ever leave on time. It always stuns me how many people expect a plane to be held for them and then lose their **** if it's not.

If it's not my fault and it's a matter of 5 or 10 minutes then yes I expect them to wait it's only basic customer service but in my experience my seat has been given away and the door closed even before the scheduled departure time. It always amazes me how an airline expects you to wait for a seat all day long because you were delayed by one of their inbound flights.

I’ll be curious if there will be any growth in the next few years for JFK, namely any additional long haul flights. It seems that we take one step forward and two back. One example is the loss of ARN/SVO and a few others and then an announcement of GIG only to cancel it after a few short weeks.

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

klm617 wrote:

While I agree with you it's probably great for an ATL originating passenger the same is not true for someone having to make a connection. Delta only cares about one thing in ATL getting planes off on time and if you are left stranded there so be it because you missed your flight because it's Delta's fault they really don't care.

If DL held every flight for late arriving passengers, no flight would ever leave on time. It always stuns me how many people expect a plane to be held for them and then lose their **** if it's not.

If it's not my fault and it's a matter of 5 or 10 minutes then yes I expect them to wait it's only basic customer service but in my experience my seat has been given away and the door closed even before the scheduled departure time. It always amazes me how an airline expects you to wait for a seat all day long because you were delayed by one of their inbound flights.

I had a connection in ATL a while back from DTW-MLB and it was a 15 minute connection. I got into F and left out of B, that trip alone was 30 minutes, I missed the last MLB flight so I ended up going direct to MCO...which what my original plan but to go nonstop.

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

klm617 wrote:

While I agree with you it's probably great for an ATL originating passenger the same is not true for someone having to make a connection. Delta only cares about one thing in ATL getting planes off on time and if you are left stranded there so be it because you missed your flight because it's Delta's fault they really don't care.

If DL held every flight for late arriving passengers, no flight would ever leave on time. It always stuns me how many people expect a plane to be held for them and then lose their **** if it's not.

If it's not my fault and it's a matter of 5 or 10 minutes then yes I expect them to wait it's only basic customer service but in my experience my seat has been given away and the door closed even before the scheduled departure time. It always amazes me how an airline expects you to wait for a seat all day long because you were delayed by one of their inbound flights.

But what if delaying the flight for 5 or 10 minutes to accommodate late-arriving passengers causes a delay downline which then causes other passengers to miss their connecting flight in XXX city? Now that aircraft will likely be delayed for the rest of the day and could inconvenience hundreds of other people. It's a domino effect and even though 10 minutes doesn't seem like much to you, the effects of that delay could snowball into something much more significant. I really do think airlines should eliminate any connection less than one hour. With the amount of people I see frantically running through the airport to make their 30 minute connections, I'm surprised we don't see more people die of heart attacks in airports.

SESGDL wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

MSP-ICN would come before SLC-ICN.
For all but the smallest markets, connecting flows for an SLC-ICN flight are redundant with SEA-ICN and LAX-ICN connections.

The same can be said for MSP in regards to Seattle and Detroit. I don't think MSP will get ICN service first, precisely because: Delta doesn't want to tamper with their Haneda slots, and MSP-ICN/MSP-HND would be too much capacity. I would imagine MSP-ICN being a profitable and sensible route... if they didn't have to hang on to the Haneda slot.

MSP can support service to two Asian destinations, it did for over a decade in the past when the hub was much smaller. HND relies on connections through MSP while ICN would serve MSP-Asia over connections in ICN.

Jeremy

MSP-ICN and MSP-HND are two completely different traffic flows.

MSP-HND = people originating in the US central or eastern time zones (including from MSP) who are going to Tokyo and not connecting onward in Asia.

MSP-ICN = (MSP itself + MSP cachement) going to either South Korea, or secondary East Asian cities.

MSP pax heading to other primary Asian cities besides Tokyo/Seoul (PVG, PEK, etc.) are just as likely to connect in DTW/SEA as connect in ICN depending on schedule.

Either way, MSP-ICN flows are independent of MSP-HND. Whether or not DL/KE launches MSP-ICN direct will not be based on DL’s MSP-HND flight.

kavok wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The same can be said for MSP in regards to Seattle and Detroit. I don't think MSP will get ICN service first, precisely because: Delta doesn't want to tamper with their Haneda slots, and MSP-ICN/MSP-HND would be too much capacity. I would imagine MSP-ICN being a profitable and sensible route... if they didn't have to hang on to the Haneda slot.

MSP can support service to two Asian destinations, it did for over a decade in the past when the hub was much smaller. HND relies on connections through MSP while ICN would serve MSP-Asia over connections in ICN.

Jeremy

MSP-ICN and MSP-HND are two completely different traffic flows.

MSP-HND = people originating in the US central or eastern time zones (including from MSP) who are going to Tokyo and not connecting onward in Asia.

MSP-ICN = (MSP itself + MSP cachement) going to either South Korea, or secondary East Asian cities.

MSP pax heading to other primary Asian cities besides Tokyo/Seoul (PVG, PEK, etc.) are just as likely to connect in DTW/SEA as connect in ICN depending on schedule.

Either way, MSP-ICN flows are independent of MSP-HND. Whether or not DL/KE launches MSP-ICN direct will not be based on DL’s MSP-HND flight.

I would be shocked if DL doesn't launch MSP-ICN once the KE JV is finalised. I'd also be surprised if MSP-HND is still operating five years from now. There is no way that flight is making money.

TransWorldOne wrote:

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

If DL held every flight for late arriving passengers, no flight would ever leave on time. It always stuns me how many people expect a plane to be held for them and then lose their **** if it's not.

If it's not my fault and it's a matter of 5 or 10 minutes then yes I expect them to wait it's only basic customer service but in my experience my seat has been given away and the door closed even before the scheduled departure time. It always amazes me how an airline expects you to wait for a seat all day long because you were delayed by one of their inbound flights.

But what if delaying the flight for 5 or 10 minutes to accommodate late-arriving passengers causes a delay downline which then causes other passengers to miss their connecting flight in XXX city? Now that aircraft will likely be delayed for the rest of the day and could inconvenience hundreds of other people. It's a domino effect and even though 10 minutes doesn't seem like much to you, the effects of that delay could snowball into something much more significant. I really do think airlines should eliminate any connection less than one hour. With the amount of people I see frantically running through the airport to make their 30 minute connections, I'm surprised we don't see more people die of heart attacks in airports.

I agree with you on connecting times ATL itself should be a minimum connection of at least and hour and 30 minutes because of all the people you have to wade through to get to your gate on time. People run because they know the ramifications of missing a connection it's an all fay affair trying to get to your destination with almost all flights running at capacity. As far as planes running late ATL is where connections are made so the aircraft that is being held 90% od the time is at an out station so I really don't think it's going to inconvenience anyone to wait 10 or 15 minutes it can be made up on the turn around at the destination or in the flying time itself.

TransWorldOne wrote:

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

If DL held every flight for late arriving passengers, no flight would ever leave on time. It always stuns me how many people expect a plane to be held for them and then lose their **** if it's not.

If it's not my fault and it's a matter of 5 or 10 minutes then yes I expect them to wait it's only basic customer service but in my experience my seat has been given away and the door closed even before the scheduled departure time. It always amazes me how an airline expects you to wait for a seat all day long because you were delayed by one of their inbound flights.

But what if delaying the flight for 5 or 10 minutes to accommodate late-arriving passengers causes a delay downline which then causes other passengers to miss their connecting flight in XXX city? Now that aircraft will likely be delayed for the rest of the day and could inconvenience hundreds of other people. It's a domino effect and even though 10 minutes doesn't seem like much to you, the effects of that delay could snowball into something much more significant. I really do think airlines should eliminate any connection less than one hour. With the amount of people I see frantically running through the airport to make their 30 minute connections, I'm surprised we don't see more people die of heart attacks in airports.

I agree with you on connecting times ATL itself should be a minimum connection of at least and hour and 30 minutes because of all the people you have to wade through to get to your gate on time. People run because they know the ramifications of missing a connection it's an all fay affair trying to get to your destination with almost all flights running at capacity. As far as planes running late ATL is where connections are made so the aircraft that is being held 90% od the time is at an out station so I really don't think it's going to inconvenience anyone to wait 10 or 15 minutes it can be made up on the turn around at the destination or in the flying time itself.

cokepopper wrote:

I’ll be curious if there will be any growth in the next few years for JFK, namely any additional long haul flights. It seems that we take one step forward and two back. One example is the loss of ARN/SVO and a few others and then an announcement of GIG only to cancel it after a few short weeks.

Well, Delta's announcement was very vague and did not promise anything. High season flying to Brazil is quite common in Brazil, with AA doing the same. One thing that might have altered Delta's plans was the the scandal around the Brazilian president just days after the announcement. Considering how the entire Brazil-US market is reliant on Brazilian POS, it was no wonder that the devaluation of the local currency would deter travel plans.

Now, it seems you missed how Delta has filed a schedule with the Brazilian regulator for daily JFK-GIG flights between December 20th 2018 and the start of daylight saving time in the US in 2019. After that, the flight goes 5x weekly, which indicates that Delta might go year-round.

SESGDL wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

MSP-ICN would come before SLC-ICN.
For all but the smallest markets, connecting flows for an SLC-ICN flight are redundant with SEA-ICN and LAX-ICN connections.

The same can be said for MSP in regards to Seattle and Detroit. I don't think MSP will get ICN service first, precisely because: Delta doesn't want to tamper with their Haneda slots, and MSP-ICN/MSP-HND would be too much capacity. I would imagine MSP-ICN being a profitable and sensible route... if they didn't have to hang on to the Haneda slot.

MSP can support service to two Asian destinations, it did for over a decade in the past when the hub was much smaller. HND relies on connections through MSP while ICN would serve MSP-Asia over connections in ICN.

Jeremy

Please enlighten me when MSP supported 2 Asian destinations for over a decade. Other than NRT MSP was only linked to HKG and that didn't last 10 years.

C010T3 wrote:

cokepopper wrote:

I’ll be curious if there will be any growth in the next few years for JFK, namely any additional long haul flights. It seems that we take one step forward and two back. One example is the loss of ARN/SVO and a few others and then an announcement of GIG only to cancel it after a few short weeks.

Well, Delta's announcement was very vague and did not promise anything. High season flying to Brazil is quite common in Brazil, with AA doing the same. One thing that might have altered Delta's plans was the the scandal around the Brazilian president just days after the announcement. Considering how the entire Brazil-US market is reliant on Brazilian POS, it was no wonder that the devaluation of the local currency would deter travel plans.

Now, it seems you missed how Delta has filed a schedule with the Brazilian regulator for daily JFK-GIG flights between December 20th 2018 and the start of daylight saving time in the US in 2019. After that, the flight goes 5x weekly, which indicates that Delta might go year-round.

Thank you for your response, you are correct, I did miss that filing. Myself and many other F/A’s had no idea the flight was cancelled around March 5, 2018 as it was not in the bid package for the March bid. We only had Delta’s original announcement (about 5 months ago) that we were starting service dec/17.
Thanks again for the update.

klm617 wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The same can be said for MSP in regards to Seattle and Detroit. I don't think MSP will get ICN service first, precisely because: Delta doesn't want to tamper with their Haneda slots, and MSP-ICN/MSP-HND would be too much capacity. I would imagine MSP-ICN being a profitable and sensible route... if they didn't have to hang on to the Haneda slot.

MSP can support service to two Asian destinations, it did for over a decade in the past when the hub was much smaller. HND relies on connections through MSP while ICN would serve MSP-Asia over connections in ICN.

Jeremy

Please enlighten me when MSP supported 2 Asian destinations for over a decade. Other than NRT MSP was only linked to HKG and that didn't last 10 years.

For many years NW operated twice daily MSP-NRT flights with 747s alongside service to Osaka, also on 747s. They also briefly operated MSP-HKG, though it only lasted for a short period of time.

Jeremy

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I agree with you on connecting times ATL itself should be a minimum connection of at least and hour and 30 minutes because of all the people you have to wade through to get to your gate on time. People run because they know the ramifications of missing a connection it's an all fay affair trying to get to your destination with almost all flights running at capacity. As far as planes running late ATL is where connections are made so the aircraft that is being held 90% od the time is at an out station so I really don't think it's going to inconvenience anyone to wait 10 or 15 minutes it can be made up on the turn around at the destination or in the flying time itself.

Having a 90 minute minimum is neither practical, cost effective, or competitive.

1. Having a 90 minute min cnx would significantly reduce the hours each A/C flew daily. This reduces return on assets. Which reduces airline earnings.
2. Having A/C sit at a gate for an unnecessary amount of time also reduces earnings efficiency as the increased time sitting at the gat reduces the number of flights the A/C makes daily. (see #1)
3. A 90 min cnx time would also force EVERYONE to sit at the gate longer between flights, as the average time on the ground would increase for every passenger.

You like to complain about crowded conditions at ATL- and now you want to increase crowding?? Instead of sitting in the boarding area 30 minutes at the gate between flights- you propose more time sitting there?

DL has VERY detailed statistics, as do both UA and AA, about the number of people who misconnect, and the city pairs they misconnect off of. This data is closely monitored, and schedule changes are made as required. Misconnected passengers are upset customers, very costly to brand imaging. Staff meetings are held in the scheduling department to reduce misconnects, and schedulers who repeatedly build poor A/C routing schedules don't last long in their jobs.

When new 737's or 321's cost upwards of $60m, airlines will do all they can to maximize their assets, while minimizing passenger inconvenience via misconnections. It's a balancing act.

Interestingly, I was in ATL this last Friday, 09 FEB connecting via DL. At 1630h. While it was crowded, it wasn't the miserable mob scene you normally describe ATL to be. There wasn't large numbers of running passengers. I didn't hear anyone ranting at gate agents as I walked a long way down the C concourse. There were 5 cancellations on the boards for DL. 8 for WN. A snow storm was hitting CHI, and to a lesser degree DTW at 1630h.

BTW- they gate agent closed the door early, because EVERYONE connected. On a Friday, at 1630h, with snow storms effecting the upper midwest. Go figure eh?

If ATL is such a horrible operation, why does it's on-time arrival rate rank higher than ORD or EWR for instance? And I have spent many hours mis-connecting at ORD, and it's concourse didn't look much less crowded than ATL's. And the UA employees handling my misconnection were certainly not any more pleasant in that situation than DL's

So why do you have such an ax to grind with DL? They aren't perfect- but neither are are WN, UA, or AA. As far as I can tell, any of your DL complaints are pretty much valid at AA & UA too. They must be doing something right- they are normally at the top of operational performance, earning ratios, and RASM among legacy carriers.

SESGDL wrote:

klm617 wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

MSP can support service to two Asian destinations, it did for over a decade in the past when the hub was much smaller. HND relies on connections through MSP while ICN would serve MSP-Asia over connections in ICN.

Jeremy

Please enlighten me when MSP supported 2 Asian destinations for over a decade. Other than NRT MSP was only linked to HKG and that didn't last 10 years.

For many years NW operated twice daily MSP-NRT flights with 747s alongside service to Osaka, also on 747s. They also briefly operated MSP-HKG, though it only lasted for a short period of time.

Jeremy

Northwest never flew MSP-KIX and the double daily was moved from Detroit to MSP for I think 2 years because Detroit didn't have the space so they moved the connection to MSP not because the MSP-NRT 2 nonstop. After DTW had more space and could accommodate the flight it was moved back to Detroit.

beerbus wrote:

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

Having a 90 minute minimum is neither practical, cost effective, or competitive.

1. Having a 90 minute min cnx would significantly reduce the hours each A/C flew daily. This reduces return on assets. Which reduces airline earnings.
2. Having A/C sit at a gate for an unnecessary amount of time also reduces earnings efficiency as the increased time sitting at the gat reduces the number of flights the A/C makes daily. (see #1)
3. A 90 min cnx time would also force EVERYONE to sit at the gate longer between flights, as the average time on the ground would increase for every passenger.

You like to complain about crowded conditions at ATL- and now you want to increase crowding?? Instead of sitting in the boarding area 30 minutes at the gate between flights- you propose more time sitting there?

DL has VERY detailed statistics, as do both UA and AA, about the number of people who misconnect, and the city pairs they misconnect off of. This data is closely monitored, and schedule changes are made as required. Misconnected passengers are upset customers, very costly to brand imaging. Staff meetings are held in the scheduling department to reduce misconnects, and schedulers who repeatedly build poor A/C routing schedules don't last long in their jobs.

When new 737's or 321's cost upwards of $60m, airlines will do all they can to maximize their assets, while minimizing passenger inconvenience via misconnections. It's a balancing act.

Interestingly, I was in ATL this last Friday, 09 FEB connecting via DL. At 1630h. While it was crowded, it wasn't the miserable mob scene you normally describe ATL to be. There wasn't large numbers of running passengers. I didn't hear anyone ranting at gate agents as I walked a long way down the C concourse. There were 5 cancellations on the boards for DL. 8 for WN. A snow storm was hitting CHI, and to a lesser degree DTW at 1630h.

BTW- they gate agent closed the door early, because EVERYONE connected. On a Friday, at 1630h, with snow storms effecting the upper midwest. Go figure eh?

If ATL is such a horrible operation, why does it's on-time arrival rate rank higher than ORD or EWR for instance? And I have spent many hours mis-connecting at ORD, and it's concourse didn't look much less crowded than ATL's. And the UA employees handling my misconnection were certainly not any more pleasant in that situation than DL's

So why do you have such an ax to grind with DL? They aren't perfect- but neither are are WN, UA, or AA. As far as I can tell, any of your DL complaints are pretty much valid at AA & UA too. They must be doing something right- they are normally at the top of operational performance, earning ratios, and RASM among legacy carriers.

Nobody said the planes have to sit at the gate for 90 minutes just customer connections of less than 90 minutes at ATL should be not allowed there are many segment out of ATL that have multiple flights on them within an hours time. If all listed passengers are on board then OK but when you have people in the airport from an inbound that will be there momentarily you don't give their seat away anf close the flight before it scheduled departure time.

beerbus wrote:

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

Having a 90 minute minimum is neither practical, cost effective, or competitive.

1. Having a 90 minute min cnx would significantly reduce the hours each A/C flew daily. This reduces return on assets. Which reduces airline earnings.
2. Having A/C sit at a gate for an unnecessary amount of time also reduces earnings efficiency as the increased time sitting at the gat reduces the number of flights the A/C makes daily. (see #1)
3. A 90 min cnx time would also force EVERYONE to sit at the gate longer between flights, as the average time on the ground would increase for every passenger.

You like to complain about crowded conditions at ATL- and now you want to increase crowding?? Instead of sitting in the boarding area 30 minutes at the gate between flights- you propose more time sitting there?

DL has VERY detailed statistics, as do both UA and AA, about the number of people who misconnect, and the city pairs they misconnect off of. This data is closely monitored, and schedule changes are made as required. Misconnected passengers are upset customers, very costly to brand imaging. Staff meetings are held in the scheduling department to reduce misconnects, and schedulers who repeatedly build poor A/C routing schedules don't last long in their jobs.

When new 737's or 321's cost upwards of $60m, airlines will do all they can to maximize their assets, while minimizing passenger inconvenience via misconnections. It's a balancing act.

Interestingly, I was in ATL this last Friday, 09 FEB connecting via DL. At 1630h. While it was crowded, it wasn't the miserable mob scene you normally describe ATL to be. There wasn't large numbers of running passengers. I didn't hear anyone ranting at gate agents as I walked a long way down the C concourse. There were 5 cancellations on the boards for DL. 8 for WN. A snow storm was hitting CHI, and to a lesser degree DTW at 1630h.

BTW- they gate agent closed the door early, because EVERYONE connected. On a Friday, at 1630h, with snow storms effecting the upper midwest. Go figure eh?

If ATL is such a horrible operation, why does it's on-time arrival rate rank higher than ORD or EWR for instance? And I have spent many hours mis-connecting at ORD, and it's concourse didn't look much less crowded than ATL's. And the UA employees handling my misconnection were certainly not any more pleasant in that situation than DL's

So why do you have such an ax to grind with DL? They aren't perfect- but neither are are WN, UA, or AA. As far as I can tell, any of your DL complaints are pretty much valid at AA & UA too. They must be doing something right- they are normally at the top of operational performance, earning ratios, and RASM among legacy carriers.

Nobody said the planes have to sit at the gate for 90 minutes just customer connections of less than 90 minutes at ATL should be not allowed there are many segment out of ATL that have multiple flights on them within an hours time. If all listed passengers are on board then OK but when you have people in the airport from an inbound that will be there momentarily you don't give their seat away anf close the flight before it scheduled departure time. By the way on time means nothing to me give me a state that shows the number of passenger from each airline that arrive to their destination as scheduled. Tell me the percentage of misplaced travers at each hub and if ATL rates better than the others than I will agree with you that ATL is a great hub.

klm617 wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Please enlighten me when MSP supported 2 Asian destinations for over a decade. Other than NRT MSP was only linked to HKG and that didn't last 10 years.

For many years NW operated twice daily MSP-NRT flights with 747s alongside service to Osaka, also on 747s. They also briefly operated MSP-HKG, though it only lasted for a short period of time.

Jeremy

Northwest never flew MSP-KIX and the double daily was moved from Detroit to MSP for I think 2 years because Detroit didn't have the space so they moved the connection to MSP not because the MSP-NRT 2 nonstop. After DTW had more space and could accommodate the flight it was moved back to Detroit.

You’re wrong. NW flew MSP-OSA and double daily MSP-NRT as well. It had nothing to do with DTW.

Jeremy

What are the chances DL brings back ATL-TLV and resumes flights to India (from anywhere)?

SESGDL wrote:

klm617 wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

For many years NW operated twice daily MSP-NRT flights with 747s alongside service to Osaka, also on 747s. They also briefly operated MSP-HKG, though it only lasted for a short period of time.

Jeremy

Northwest never flew MSP-KIX and the double daily was moved from Detroit to MSP for I think 2 years because Detroit didn't have the space so they moved the connection to MSP not because the MSP-NRT 2 nonstop. After DTW had more space and could accommodate the flight it was moved back to Detroit.

You’re wrong. NW flew MSP-OSA and double daily MSP-NRT as well. It had nothing to do with DTW.

Jeremy

NWA never flew MSP-OSA. They flew a one stop DC10 over SEA I think the flight numbers were 95 and 96 but never nonstop. Yes the 2nd daily was moved from DTW to MSP and back to DTW was flight 85 and 86. Had to do with capacity constraints at the old international terminal. After the new terminal was opened at DTW 85 and 86 were moved back to DTW. On if's own merit MSP-NRT was operated only 8 times a week.

June 1 1997 NWA schedule:

NW 23 MSP KIX

1135 Dept
1405 Arr

non-stop

Daily eff 6/21/97

beerbus wrote:

June 1 1997 NWA schedule:

NW 23 MSP KIX

1135 Dept
1405 Arr

non-stop

Daily eff 6/21/97

That lasted then about as long as HKG from MSP so you really can say that MSP has carried two Asian destinations for a decade . Only NRT was maintained on a consistent basis.

June 2001 NWA Schedule

MSP NRT double daily

NW 19 DEP 1450
NW 83 DEP 1510

DTW NRT

NW 11 DEP 1525. Daily

DTW KIX

NW 69 DEP 1255 Daily

ADrum23 wrote:

What are the chances DL brings back ATL-TLV and resumes flights to India (from anywhere)?

I would imagine that an upcoming venture with Jet Airways is the kind of strategic investment DL can use to capture USA - India traffic for those wanting a lower cost option. I don't think there is much of a market for DL to move into it's own with USA to India traffic, but perhaps a more extensive codeshare or joint venture through Amsterdam as has already been increasing might help them at least start to mature their presence in South Asia?

klm617 wrote:

beerbus wrote:

June 1 1997 NWA schedule:

NW 23 MSP KIX

1135 Dept
1405 Arr

non-stop

Daily eff 6/21/97

That lasted then about as long as HKG from MSP so you really can say that MSP has carried two Asian destinations for a decade . Only NRT was maintained on a consistent basis.

You said they never operated MSP-KIX, which was wrong. You can’t backtrack now and make excuses when you were already proven wrong.

Jeremy

klm617 wrote:

pezzy669 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

^ This. ATL is my home airport and the efficiency in which that clock ticks is stunning and yes there are a handful of weather and other events that really wreck things but what airline has not had a meltdown in similar situations? I have done ~70 segments as an O&D Atlanta passenger over the past 6 years mainly on DL, and except for I think now 4 weather related delays I have not had any kind of issues flying in or out. 95% of the time I can be walking in from the curb and be at my gate in 15-20 minutes with Pre Check, my bags are always already joyriding around on the carousel before I even get to baggage claim (10-15 mins) and overall ATL is set up quite well for O&D passengers.

While I agree with you it's probably great for an ATL originating passenger the same is not true for someone having to make a connection. Delta only cares about one thing in ATL getting planes off on time and if you are left stranded there so be it because you missed your flight because it's Delta's fault they really don't care.

Can you please not ruin this thread with your ATL hate and lack of understanding on how airline operations work? please?

flymco753 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

If DL held every flight for late arriving passengers, no flight would ever leave on time. It always stuns me how many people expect a plane to be held for them and then lose their **** if it's not.

If it's not my fault and it's a matter of 5 or 10 minutes then yes I expect them to wait it's only basic customer service but in my experience my seat has been given away and the door closed even before the scheduled departure time. It always amazes me how an airline expects you to wait for a seat all day long because you were delayed by one of their inbound flights.

I had a connection in ATL a while back from DTW-MLB and it was a 15 minute connection. I got into F and left out of B, that trip alone was 30 minutes, I missed the last MLB flight so I ended up going direct to MCO...which what my original plan but to go nonstop.

So either this isn't true or you did something funky. 15 minutes isn't a legal connection time at any of Delta's hubs, even yalls beloved DTW.

ADrum23 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

We actually discussed this during the ATL power outage back in December (see the Rest of Ohio 2017 thread for more info). Originally, I supported DL dehubbing CVG completely, but in the last few months, I have gone 180 and have been thinking DL made a mistake cutting back CVG as much as they have.

This thinking led me to believe that DL should build back up CVG into a 200-250 or so flight reliever hub for ATL (a bit smaller size wise than SLC). Yes, you have DTW to the north, but cvgComair pointed out that DTW (and MSP) doesn't necessarily serve the same traffic flows as ATL, and CVG would be a better location for a E/W reliever hub for ATL, as it is more centrally located and further inland from the Great Lakes, thus, less chance of weather problems. DL has 28 gates on Concourse B at CVG, which if you had eight flights per gate per day, that would be 224 flights per day. So essentially, if DL wanted a 200 flight reliever hub at CVG, they could do it with minimal investment since the infrastructure is virtually already there.

However, they have shown no signs of being interested in doing this, as they want to grow ATL as big as possible. Someday, that will come back to bite DL as I believe slot restrictions will inevitably be imposed at ATL if we continue to see things such as December's power outage.

Who knows if this recent growth by DL means they are committed to CVG long term or not. It will be interesting to see what happens when the lease expires in 2020 and it is time to design a new terminal.

What about the opposite scenario. If DL wanted to move everything possible that could flow through ATL, through ATL, how big could it get for them? 1200 daily departures? 150,000 daily seats? That would probably require a new runway, a new terminal, and a new inter-concourse transit system, but its another interesting hypothesis.

I really honestly don't think the FAA would allow that. That would be WAY too many flights (there is already too many as it is) and a disruption at ATL would cause even more chaos across the American airport system. At some point, the powers that be have to look at the situation and say "enough is enough".

Plus, how much more can ATL realistically expand? They seem increasingly landlocked.

This isn't soviet russia. That isn't at all how things work.

The only way the FAA could limit anything here is if ATL actually didn't have the runway space.

Telling Delta "you have to move flights to other hubs because of IROPS" will get Delta laughing. Again, ATL is way under anything close to requiring slots.

As for the last part, as far as the FAA is concerned, ATL is going to add a 6th runway and a 7th on the northside of the field is fairly easy to do. In all honestly Clayton county could probably take even more land south of the airport if they really wanted too.

SumChristianus wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

I wonder if, after the problems DL has, and appears to be having today with ATL storms and cancellations, if they starting to reconsider their high-level capacity distribution amongst hubs.

What if they moved say: 100 daily departures from ATL to DTW and around 30 to CVG? Would that help them operationally? It might help, but only on the few days per year when ATL has problems, but would be an interesting development.
The density of DL's network in the Midwest is impressive, and recent increases at CVG point to it becoming newly strategic for them.
Do you think there the growth will stay that way, or are they just trying to push G4 and F9 out in the time before their lease runs out, at which point they would shrink again?

We actually discussed this during the ATL power outage back in December (see the Rest of Ohio 2017 thread for more info). Originally, I supported DL dehubbing CVG completely, but in the last few months, I have gone 180 and have been thinking DL made a mistake cutting back CVG as much as they have.

This thinking led me to believe that DL should build back up CVG into a 200-250 or so flight reliever hub for ATL (a bit smaller size wise than SLC). Yes, you have DTW to the north, but cvgComair pointed out that DTW (and MSP) doesn't necessarily serve the same traffic flows as ATL, and CVG would be a better location for a E/W reliever hub for ATL, as it is more centrally located and further inland from the Great Lakes, thus, less chance of weather problems. DL has 28 gates on Concourse B at CVG, which if you had eight flights per gate per day, that would be 224 flights per day. So essentially, if DL wanted a 200 flight reliever hub at CVG, they could do it with minimal investment since the infrastructure is virtually already there.

However, they have shown no signs of being interested in doing this, as they want to grow ATL as big as possible. Someday, that will come back to bite DL as I believe slot restrictions will inevitably be imposed at ATL if we continue to see things such as December's power outage.

Who knows if this recent growth by DL means they are committed to CVG long term or not. It will be interesting to see what happens when the lease expires in 2020 and it is time to design a new terminal.

What about the opposite scenario. If DLwanted to move everything possible that could flow through ATL, through ATL, how big could it get for them? 1200 daily departures? 150,000 daily seats? That would probably require a new runway, a new terminal, and a new inter-concourse transit system, but its another interesting hypothesis.

ATL's peak was ~1200 daily flights on Delta and ~250 on Airtran....with only 4 runways.

Delta is down to ~1,000 and Southwest is around 75-100. So ATL has plenty of room if Delta wanted to add flights, but they don't. Growth in MSP, DTW and ATL is going to come from more seats not flights.

jubguy3 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

What are the chances DL brings back ATL-TLV and resumes flights to India (from anywhere)?

I would imagine that an upcoming venture with Jet Airways is the kind of strategic investment DL can use to capture USA - India traffic for those wanting a lower cost option. I don't think there is much of a market for DL to move into it's own with USA to India traffic, but perhaps a more extensive codeshare or joint venture through Amsterdam as has already been increasing might help them at least start to mature their presence in South Asia?

Would this venture bring Jet Airways into JFK and ATL?

Also, what about ATL-TLV?

SESGDL wrote:

You said they never operated MSP-KIX, which was wrong. You can’t backtrack now and make excuses when you were already proven wrong.

It was also wrong to say that NW operated two nonstop MSP-Asia destinations for over a decade. NW didn't come close to that. NW's late '90s expansion from MSP to KIX and HKG both were short-term failures (that was an entirely different aviation world then as well). Even 2x daily NRT, which isn't the same thing, didn't last over a decade. And I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the MSP hub might actually have been a bit larger back when NRT was 2x daily. And of course NRT was a significant hub at the time, making it a key hub-to-hub flight. Times have changed. I don't think it's a certainty that MSP-ICN will start when the JV is in place. MSP has lasted this long without a real local connection to Asia (MSP-TYO is a tiny portion of overall MSP-Asia traffc), so it might stay that way. There isn't much difference between running MSP-NRT/HND a couple years ago than MSP-HND/ICN in the future. As we know, the former didn't happen, and it leaves the latter in doubt.

pezzy669 wrote:

^ This. ATL is my home airport and the efficiency in which that clock ticks is stunning and yes there are a handful of weather and other events that really wreck things but what airline has not had a meltdown in similar situations? I have done ~70 segments as an O&D Atlanta passenger over the past 6 years mainly on DL, and except for I think now 4 weather related delays I have not had any kind of issues flying in or out. 95% of the time I can be walking in from the curb and be at my gate in 15-20 minutes with Pre Check, my bags are always already joyriding around on the carousel before I even get to baggage claim (10-15 mins) and overall ATL is set up quite well for O&D passengers.

Flip the question around. Which airline/airport has had multiple operational meltdowns like DL and ATL have had the past couple years? The ATL operation is like a cheap tent. It does the job 99% of the time, and no more, but when it collapses, it gets flattened and can't quickly recover. You take a risk when flying through ATL.

IMO, ATL is not a friendly O&D airport unless you're dropped off and picked up curbside. If you're renting a car for example, I'd place it near the bottom for the airports I've experienced. It's a time-consuming, hectic airport for the majority of travelers.

SESGDL wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

MSP-ICN would come before SLC-ICN.
For all but the smallest markets, connecting flows for an SLC-ICN flight are redundant with SEA-ICN and LAX-ICN connections.

The same can be said for MSP in regards to Seattle and Detroit. I don't think MSP will get ICN service first, precisely because: Delta doesn't want to tamper with their Haneda slots, and MSP-ICN/MSP-HND would be too much capacity. I would imagine MSP-ICN being a profitable and sensible route... if they didn't have to hang on to the Haneda slot.

MSP can support service to two Asian destinations, it did for over a decade in the past when the hub was much smaller. HND relies on connections through MSP while ICN would serve MSP-Asia over connections in ICN.

Jeremy

When did MSP serve a second Asia destination? What was it?

BoeingGuy wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

The same can be said for MSP in regards to Seattle and Detroit. I don't think MSP will get ICN service first, precisely because: Delta doesn't want to tamper with their Haneda slots, and MSP-ICN/MSP-HND would be too much capacity. I would imagine MSP-ICN being a profitable and sensible route... if they didn't have to hang on to the Haneda slot.

MSP can support service to two Asian destinations, it did for over a decade in the past when the hub was much smaller. HND relies on connections through MSP while ICN would serve MSP-Asia over connections in ICN.

Jeremy

When did MSP serve a second Asia destination? What was it?

It briefly served KIX and HKG

cokepopper wrote:

I’ll be curious if there will be any growth in the next few years for JFK, namely any additional long haul flights. It seems that we take one step forward and two back. One example is the loss of ARN/SVO and a few others and then an announcement of GIG only to cancel it after a few short weeks.

I agree with the one step forward and two steps back. Along with ARN and SVO we're losing EWR-AMS, MAN is gone and eventually/soon we will be losing one JFK-LHR to VS and JFK-AGP is going back to 75S among other things. The 3 or 4 weekly JFK-LOS and new PDL service doesn't do much to help all that we've lost. The fact that they've let hundreds of flight attendants transfer out of the NYC base along with the above changes has caused my seniority to take quite a hit!

MSPNWA wrote:

pezzy669 wrote:

^ This. ATL is my home airport and the efficiency in which that clock ticks is stunning and yes there are a handful of weather and other events that really wreck things but what airline has not had a meltdown in similar situations? I have done ~70 segments as an O&D Atlanta passenger over the past 6 years mainly on DL, and except for I think now 4 weather related delays I have not had any kind of issues flying in or out. 95% of the time I can be walking in from the curb and be at my gate in 15-20 minutes with Pre Check, my bags are always already joyriding around on the carousel before I even get to baggage claim (10-15 mins) and overall ATL is set up quite well for O&D passengers.

Flip the question around. Which airline/airport has had multiple operational meltdowns like DL and ATL have had the past couple years? The ATL operation is like a cheap tent. It does the job 99% of the time, and no more, but when it collapses, it gets flattened and can't quickly recover. You take a risk when flying through ATL.

IMO, ATL is not a friendly O&D airport unless you're dropped off and picked up curbside. If you're renting a car for example, I'd place it near the bottom for the airports I've experienced. It's a time-consuming, hectic airport for the majority of travelers.

I have had curbside service, used MARTA, used offsite parking and have rented a car out of ATL and they are all pretty convenient with offsite parking taking the longest and being most inconvenient.

If you think ATL rental car setup is bad (which it is not) I'm guessing you have not had to rent at DFW, DEN or CLE which require quite long bus rides to the rental car centers on crowded buses that sometimes have to leave passengers behind. I have only used the consolidated rental car center at ATL so don't know what it was like before that opened way back in '09, but its a SkyTrain that is right outside baggage claim that takes less than 5 minutes to drop you in the rental car center which is the 2nd stop and the trains are on 2.5 minute max wait at each end which I cannot say about any of the bus setups I have used. I would say it would be comparable to MSP setup.

I'd be very surprised if MSP does not have a flight to ICN within the next few years either on DL or KE. (I think we all here can agree Delta would use their metal for this route.) I'd have to go back and read the ruling on the HND decision to see what restrictions DOT has placed on the route. I think there is a sunset clause where Delta could downgauge, reduce frequency, or change the route authority after a certain period of time. Notice Delta now flies the 242 tonne A330-300 on LAX-HND but not MSP-HND, despite having the range. While technically an upgauge of two seats, I believe DOT was very clear to Delta that operate MSP-HND daily with the 777-200ER or the route goes to AA. Of course, many on this forum believed Delta would not follow through, but they are and I don't believe Delta is hemorrhaging cash. Loads are decent and the flight is probably either breaking even or losing money but not to the point where its hurting Delta's bottom line. The A330-200 would be the better choice due to capacity and better fuel efficiency. This is what I suspect Delta will operate on MSP-ICN. While the market is not terribly large, MSP-ICN PDEW traffic has increased substantially over the past 15 years. Add the JV with KE, its easy to see a daily A330-200 being a profitable route.

My initial post was about SLC... would it be feasible?

DeSpringbokke wrote:

I'd be very surprised if MSP does not have a flight to ICN within the next few years either on DL or KE. (I think we all here can agree Delta would use their metal for this route.) I'd have to go back and read the ruling on the HND decision to see what restrictions DOT has placed on the route. I think there is a sunset clause where Delta could downgauge, reduce frequency, or change the route authority after a certain period of time. Notice Delta now flies the 242 tonne A330-300 on LAX-HND but not MSP-HND, despite having the range. While technically an upgauge of two seats, I believe DOT was very clear to Delta that operate MSP-HND daily with the 777-200ER or the route goes to AA. Of course, many on this forum believed Delta would not follow through, but they are and I don't believe Delta is hemorrhaging cash. Loads are decent and the flight is probably either breaking even or losing money but not to the point where its hurting Delta's bottom line. The A330-200 would be the better choice due to capacity and better fuel efficiency. This is what I suspect Delta will operate on MSP-ICN. While the market is not terribly large, MSP-ICN PDEW traffic has increased substantially over the past 15 years. Add the JV with KE, its easy to see a daily A330-200 being a profitable route.

I doubt ICN-MSP OR ICN-SLC because both those routes would take away from what they are trying to do in SEA so don't expect to see them. Remember Delta likes to not operate routes from other airports that might impact their other hubs where they are trying to get a foot hold. Remember SEA-ICN is almost double daily already and they are going to protect the highly competitive SEA market over a city like SLC or MSP where they don't have to worry about market share.

klm617 wrote:

I doubt ICN-MSP OR ICN-SLC because both those routes would take away from what they are trying to do in SEA so don't expect to see them. Remember Delta likes to not operate routes from other airports that might impact their other hubs where they are trying to get a foot hold. Remember SEA-ICN is almost double daily already and they are going to protect the highly competitive SEA market over a city like SLC or MSP where they don't have to worry about market share.

Um, no. By this logic, Delta should dedicate all TATL JV traffic through ATL/JFK. Hell even SLC has expanded with TATL flying over the past several years. How would adding a MSP-ICN frequency take away from SEA? They're two completely different markets! If SEA was so important, why did they essentially give up on SEA-HND when its load factors were terrible? (Ok, bad flight times, but still, eventually the US and Japan were going to strike a deal for day time HND slots. Delta could have burned through more cash and waited but they didn't.) Even after the IAF expansion is complete, Delta will probably end up only upgauging SEA-NRT/ICN/PEK/PVG and add another route or two, instead of adding another SEA-ICN route. Why would they when real estate is limited? I doubt we'll see SLC-ICN due to equipment issues with SLC's altitude.

klm617 wrote:

I doubt ICN-MSP OR ICN-SLC because both those routes would take away from what they are trying to do in SEA so don't expect to see them. Remember Delta likes to not operate routes from other airports that might impact their other hubs where they are trying to get a foot hold. Remember SEA-ICN is almost double daily already and they are going to protect the highly competitive SEA market over a city like SLC or MSP where they don't have to worry about market share.

Um, no. By this logic, Delta should dedicate all TATL JV traffic through ATL/JFK. Hell even SLC has expanded with TATL flying over the past several years. How would adding a MSP-ICN frequency take away from SEA? They're two completely different markets! If SEA was so important, why did they essentially give up on SEA-HND when its load factors were terrible? (Ok, bad flight times, but still, eventually the US and Japan were going to strike a deal for day time HND slots. Delta could have burned through more cash and waited but they didn't.) Even after the IAF expansion is complete, Delta will probably end up only upgauging SEA-NRT/ICN/PEK/PVG and add another route or two, instead of adding another SEA-ICN route. Why would they when real estate is limited? I doubt we'll see SLC-ICN due to equipment issues with SLC's altitude.

I predict a strategy similar to what we are seeing in their TATL hubs: traffic is either fed through Amsterdam or Paris from a large variety of airports in the US through their joint ventures. Additionally, they have three transatlantic hubs that feed smaller markets within Europe (like Stuttgart) on their own metal. With the upcoming KE venture, traffic is fed to ICN through a wide variety of markets in the US. Additionally, Delta operates additional Asian destinations through it's TATL hubs (LAX, SEA, DTW). With SLC's success in TATL flying and the apparent strategy DL is undertaking for it's transoceanic flights, I think at current market conditions presuming the joint venture is approved by the South Korean Transport Ministry, the flight is completely feasible if they can find the right equipment. It's a shame that DL dropped their 787-8 order (though it made sense) because the 788 operates DEN-NRT at a similar length. Would the A330neo be an ideal aircraft for the route? SLC-NRT was on an A330 and had to block seats; I'm wondering if the A330neo adds additional range that would make it viable.

jubguy3 wrote:

I predict a strategy similar to what we are seeing in their TATL hubs: traffic is either fed through Amsterdam or Paris from a large variety of airports in the US through their joint ventures. Additionally, they have three transatlantic hubs that feed smaller markets within Europe (like Stuttgart) on their own metal. With the upcoming KE venture, traffic is fed to ICN through a wide variety of markets in the US. Additionally, Delta operates additional Asian destinations through it's TATL hubs (LAX, SEA, DTW). With SLC's success in TATL flying and the apparent strategy DL is undertaking for it's transoceanic flights, I think at current market conditions presuming the joint venture is approved by the South Korean Transport Ministry, the flight is completely feasible if they can find the right equipment. It's a shame that DL dropped their 787-8 order (though it made sense) because the 788 operates DEN-NRT at a similar length. Would the A330neo be an ideal aircraft for the route? SLC-NRT was on an A330 and had to block seats; I'm wondering if the A330neo adds additional range that would make it viable.

The best aircraft for SLC-ICN would be the 787-8 but neither KE or DL have the aircraft. KE could use the 787-9, although it might be rather large but it wouldn't have issues like the A330-200. The A330-900 NEO has the same range as the A330-200 so I would assume it would have issues with the takeoff at SLC.

ADrum23 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

What are the chances DL brings back ATL-TLV and resumes flights to India (from anywhere)?

I would imagine that an upcoming venture with Jet Airways is the kind of strategic investment DL can use to capture USA - India traffic for those wanting a lower cost option. I don't think there is much of a market for DL to move into it's own with USA to India traffic, but perhaps a more extensive codeshare or joint venture through Amsterdam as has already been increasing might help them at least start to mature their presence in South Asia?

Would this venture bring Jet Airways into JFK and ATL?

Also, what about ATL-TLV?

I flew KLM connecting to JET in AMS last year and the JET flight was great. Really good food and the bathrooms were always kept clean, which is more than I can say about DL overseas flights sometimes.

Is there enough demand for another TLV flight? I remember DL saying they were going to increase to two JFK-TLV flights, but the increase never happened. I think UA did go 2x/daily along with SFO-TLV also. With AA eliminating TLV flying, there is likely some demand, although UA may have sopped it up already.

Nola wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I would imagine that an upcoming venture with Jet Airways is the kind of strategic investment DL can use to capture USA - India traffic for those wanting a lower cost option. I don't think there is much of a market for DL to move into it's own with USA to India traffic, but perhaps a more extensive codeshare or joint venture through Amsterdam as has already been increasing might help them at least start to mature their presence in South Asia?

Would this venture bring Jet Airways into JFK and ATL?

Also, what about ATL-TLV?

I flew KLM connecting to JET in AMS last year and the JET flight was great. Really good food and the bathrooms were always kept clean, which is more than I can say about DL overseas flights sometimes.

Is there enough demand for another TLV flight? I remember DL saying they were going to increase to two JFK-TLV flights, but the increase never happened. I think UA did go 2x/daily along with SFO-TLV also. With AA eliminating TLV flying, there is likely some demand, although UA may have sopped it up already.

As almost all of the TLV flights in US are based out of NYC, there are a decent number of places that require double connections to JFK, so ATL could be useful. It was useful when I was at college in the plains and took the ATL-TLV flight in J and J was packed.

Nola wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I would imagine that an upcoming venture with Jet Airways is the kind of strategic investment DL can use to capture USA - India traffic for those wanting a lower cost option. I don't think there is much of a market for DL to move into it's own with USA to India traffic, but perhaps a more extensive codeshare or joint venture through Amsterdam as has already been increasing might help them at least start to mature their presence in South Asia?

Would this venture bring Jet Airways into JFK and ATL?

Also, what about ATL-TLV?

I flew KLM connecting to JET in AMS last year and the JET flight was great. Really good food and the bathrooms were always kept clean, which is more than I can say about DL overseas flights sometimes.

Is there enough demand for another TLV flight? I remember DL saying they were going to increase to two JFK-TLV flights, but the increase never happened. I think UA did go 2x/daily along with SFO-TLV also. With AA eliminating TLV flying, there is likely some demand, although UA may have sopped it up already.

DL did fly a second JFK-TLV frequency a summer or two ago (I think 3x weekly), split with an additional JFK-BCN frequency. Both flights were operated by the 772.

malev2012 wrote:

Nola wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Would this venture bring Jet Airways into JFK and ATL?

Also, what about ATL-TLV?

I flew KLM connecting to JET in AMS last year and the JET flight was great. Really good food and the bathrooms were always kept clean, which is more than I can say about DL overseas flights sometimes.

Is there enough demand for another TLV flight? I remember DL saying they were going to increase to two JFK-TLV flights, but the increase never happened. I think UA did go 2x/daily along with SFO-TLV also. With AA eliminating TLV flying, there is likely some demand, although UA may have sopped it up already.

As almost all of the TLV flights in US are based out of NYC, there are a decent number of places that require double connections to JFK, so ATL could be useful. It was useful when I was at college in the plains and took the ATL-TLV flight in J and J was packed.

If ATL can support a JNB flight, I'm sure TLV can be supported as well.

ADrum23 wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

Nola wrote:

I flew KLM connecting to JET in AMS last year and the JET flight was great. Really good food and the bathrooms were always kept clean, which is more than I can say about DL overseas flights sometimes.

Is there enough demand for another TLV flight? I remember DL saying they were going to increase to two JFK-TLV flights, but the increase never happened. I think UA did go 2x/daily along with SFO-TLV also. With AA eliminating TLV flying, there is likely some demand, although UA may have sopped it up already.

As almost all of the TLV flights in US are based out of NYC, there are a decent number of places that require double connections to JFK, so ATL could be useful. It was useful when I was at college in the plains and took the ATL-TLV flight in J and J was packed.

If ATL can support a JNB flight, I'm sure TLV can be supported as well.

Not sure about that. ATL would rely more on connecting traffic than JFK and there is new competition coming into the Southeast with El Al flying Miami with 787. Is there enough traffic to carry ATL-TLV? What is the impact on the JFK flight? What would the impact be on SkyTeam partners who are currently capturing traffic on a one-stop in Europe if there is another one-stop from the US?

Interesting to see Delta's A321 deployment:
ATL-SAN, MSP-FAR, JFK-MCO, etc.
The type is really spreading out in its routes for DL.
MSP-FAR was particularly interesting. Impressive capacity for Fargo, considering it also sees a daily A319 from DL 1-2 hours from the B739/A321 flight.

SumChristianus wrote:

Interesting to see Delta's A321 deployment:
ATL-SAN, MSP-FAR, JFK-MCO, etc.
The type is really spreading out in its routes for DL.
MSP-FAR was particularly interesting. Impressive capacity for Fargo, considering it also sees a daily A319 from DL 1-2 hours from the B739/A321 flight.

DTW-GRR this summer.

DL is going to open a SC in AUS. But there's no way it will become a hub. UA and AA are just to dominate in TX. That doesn't mean AUS can't be another IND, by which I mean a decent focus city. If BA can support a route to LHR, I would have to expect someone is running the numbers to AMS or CDG (esp with a JV). As to SLC - remember when they had enough flights to support 2 clubs? Yes, SLC is a fortress hub, but if I recall correctly, the city is subsidizing some of the routes (NRT and CDG if I'm not mistaken). How are the yields w/o subsidy? And as DL expands - on what metal? There are lots of frame retirements on the schedule. I do think it will be interesting to see what happens next. I"m very happy to see CVG being built up again. Their FAs were the most fun to fly to Europe with.

ADrum23 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

What are the chances DL brings back ATL-TLV and resumes flights to India (from anywhere)?

I would imagine that an upcoming venture with Jet Airways is the kind of strategic investment DL can use to capture USA - India traffic for those wanting a lower cost option. I don't think there is much of a market for DL to move into it's own with USA to India traffic, but perhaps a more extensive codeshare or joint venture through Amsterdam as has already been increasing might help them at least start to mature their presence in South Asia?

Would this venture bring Jet Airways into JFK and ATL?

Also, what about ATL-TLV?

How about Jet Airways or TLV from Detroit.

DL's connections in Q3 2017 for ATL, DTW, and MSP.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EJHjbN7v2xLfaJYzJZCnLCckIL-HB7XY

MCO-CLT is ATL's largest connecting route, 49 PDEW
BOS-MSN appears to be DTW's largest at 32 PDEW

SumChristianus wrote:

DL's connections in Q3 2017 for ATL, DTW, and MSP.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1EJHjbN7v2xLfaJYzJZCnLCckIL-HB7XY

MCO-CLT is ATL's largest connecting route, 49 PDEW
BOS-MSN appears to be DTW's largest at 32 PDEW

I'd love to see DL put a CR7 on this route.

SumChristianus wrote:

I kind of doubt they would fly nonstop to DTW to start, but they could maybe take over an AMS frequency routing BOM-AMS-DTW for example.

DL did fly this route as DTW- AMS-BOM. They dropped it in favor of having KLM fly it as a code share.