DL's current A359 can do 6952nm as per their config (https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... -a350.html), so JFK-BOM is within reach, they may need to block a few seats on BOM-JFK. If they upgrade the MTOW then they should be fine without restrictions on both legs.

I also found their 77E page (https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... r-777.html) and it says the range is 7423nm. Which means they don't need to rotate A359/77L from other stations if they decide on JFK.

trav777 wrote:

If DL is willing to drop payload, then the 359 can do the route. I said "with the payload DL wants." I cannot be much clearer than that.

Except that you have no idea WHAT "payload DL wants," for that or really any other route.... so yes, you could clarify why you're using that statement, in the absence of any actual corroboration.

Keep in mind before answering, that the alleged LAX-SYD deficit is a rumor on top of a rumor. The public doesn't know what cost/benefit/opportunity cost equation DL used to arrive at its decision to keep the 77Ls on that route currently.

LAX772LR wrote:

trav777 wrote:

If DL is willing to drop payload, then the 359 can do the route. I said "with the payload DL wants." I cannot be much clearer than that.

Except that you have no idea WHAT "payload DL wants," for that or really any other route.... so yes, you could clarify why you're using that statement, in the absence of any actual corroboration.

Keep in mind before answering, that the alleged LAX-SYD deficit is a rumor on top of a rumor. The public doesn't know what cost/benefit/opportunity cost equation DL used to arrive at its decision to keep the 77Ls on that route currently.

If there was money to be made in payload DL would have never dropped the route with the 77L to begin with. The fact that they dropped the route tells me that trip cost is more important than payload. The reality is that the yields to India are stupid low for both passengers and cargo. The A359 saves DL ~10,000 gallons of fuel on such a route while carrying more passengers. If really needed DL could block seats and still make a greater profit operating this route with the A359 than with the 77L.

And to answer the previous question: Why is SFO-SIN relevant? It's relevant because it proves that airlines are willing to sacrifice payload when needed on these "edge of the envelope" missions in order to save tons in fuel costs.

Two things I don't get about this thread (other than we still have no new info!) - (1) why do people keep bringing up what happened in 2007/8 - oil was super high and India has grown a lot in 11 years - think about 6-8% GDP growth per year (2) what does competition from ME4 really have to do with DL's core business case which is carrying US executives that will pay $10k per trip. That is what is UA's bread and butter. These NYC based executives would almost never fly ME4 because they are bound by an alliance - UA has some bleed to TK & AI but DL has no leakage when it comes to sky team. Plus AI has proven VFR will pay a premium for a nonstop. I predict premium Econ on DL will be a huge hit for them on the nonstop. I think the big thing for DL will be India based connections. Right now people going to medium/small cities go through hell connecting from flight from the US that land at midnight. AI's afternoon timings are a god send. DL should exploit its relationship with Jet and have the nonstop land to max India side connections.

sabby wrote:

DL's current A359 can do 6952nm as per their config (https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... -a350.html), so JFK-BOM is within reach, they may need to block a few seats on BOM-JFK. If they upgrade the MTOW then they should be fine without restrictions on both legs.

I also found their 77E page (https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US ... r-777.html) and it says the range is 7423nm. Which means they don't need to rotate A359/77L from other stations if they decide on JFK.

But I thought "THE" 359 could fly 8100nm!!!11 I'm just joking; this illustrates the need to place context to any route with regard to an aircraft type.

Not sure which variant that is for DL. If it's the 276t variant then it would be very disappointing range. If the 268, then it's still a few hundred nm beyond what I estimate it will do, given the performance data from other routes. At 300pax, I think 6600 tops. DL has a nice big round number for their 359 (8000), whereas their other long range (763, 764, 77E/L, 332/3) models all have quite precise range numbers (down to the mile/km). I think when they put this page up they threw "8000" on there but it's not flying that far tbh. Maybe they thought they were gonna get 6900 (why they'd have bought this variant) and subsequently found out it was falling a few hundred nm short (thus why we were hearing they were dissatisfied).

This would actually make a lot of sense.

Either way, this shows why message boards where people say "DL has the 359 and it can do ATL-BOM" - you have to ignore these types of categorical statements bc they source from a total lack of knowledge of the aircraft in question and its many variants.

Except that you have no idea WHAT "payload DL wants," for that or really any other route.... so yes, you could clarify why you're using that statement, in the absence of any actual corroboration.

Keep in mind before answering, that the alleged LAX-SYD deficit is a rumor on top of a rumor. The public doesn't know what cost/benefit/opportunity cost equation DL used to arrive at its decision to keep the 77Ls on that route currently.

ok, then every single thing posted here by anyone, including a pilot of an aircraft about a route he just flew it on, is a rumor. Bc that's what you're saying. Every single statement made by anyone is a rumor. I'm not talking about "a friend heard" I was talking about a pilot's forum for DL.

For the case of the 359, i think given my own range estimates (which are fitting the facts quite well as this isn't rocket science), DL's 268t won't make LAX-SYD with a full cabin. I already went thru that math on the DL/350 thread and it's right at the edge of still air city pair range with 300 pax. With 300pax, the 359 at 268t has about the same range, probably *less* actually, than the 78J does with 300.

I mean, if you can show some actual analysis using real numbers, I'll take YOUR word for it. I've done my own math, as have others. One guy being generous had DL's plane at 33t payload on this route, I think 30 is more accurate given that 10pax are a bit off from 1t.

I mean, yet I keep getting told in no uncertain terms that this is just a rumor when I can actually do the estimate calculations myself without much difficulty. Look, to be blunt, you people here need to cut it with the earnest proclamations of performance based upon your own wish list. Stick to the math.

this SAME thing happened on the A350/DL thread where pilot commentary about performance were flatly rejected. People cited DL's 276t (275.4 TOW) FC video from a DTW-PEK flight. We backed the numbers down to 268t and extra distance of LAX-SYD, and ended up with 30t (me) and 33t (another guy). 30t still air range exactly LAX-SYD, based upon REAL NUMBERS straight off a FC of a plane actually doing a real route!

And that's STILL AIR. You introduce winds and you do not have a full cabin at that range! So the actual numbers are saying from DL's own FCs on DL's own 359s that their 268t variant *will not* do the route and yet here on Anet, there's a persistent bloc of people who will not accept it despite being the very people who cited the link to the DTW-PEK video! It's unfathomable.

sonicruiser wrote:

If they do JFK-BOM, they have to contend with ruthless competition that will make ATL look like a walk in the park. Meanwhile, ATL-BOM still has TK and QR to contend with

That's why DL needs to put this route where the most business demand is. AI proved decisively with SFO-DEL that the ME3 can be beaten when there's enough high value traffic that is willing to pay for the convenience of a nonstop. If DL started JFK-BOM with a daily 359 or 77L against AI's 3x weekly nonstop, they could absolutely win the high value traffic on frequency, product, and brand loyalty. Same story with ATL if there are enough travelers in the catchment area willing to pay up for the nonstop...

sonicruiser wrote:

But even JFK-BOM has its own problem in that JFK isn't an A350 base so an aircraft will have to be rotated out whereas a 77L would be easier as JFK already has 777 ops.

I don't think that's really a problem... The 359 fleet is currently based at DTW, but will be operating rotations on SEA-NRT (DTW-NRT-SEA-NRT-DTW), LAX-HND/LAX-PVG (DTW-PVG-LAX-HND-LAX-PVG-DTW), and ATL-ICN (DTW-ICN-ATL-ICN-DTW) this upcoming summer. DL has multiple options to get a 359 to JFK, including something like DTW-AMS-JFK-BOM-JFK-AMS-DTW or even an LAX-JFK-LAX rotation.

Also, I want to point out that JFK does not currently see regularly-scheduled 777 ops, and hasn't for a year or two since the 242-t A330-300s arrived and took over JFK-TLV. Nonetheless, it would be perfectly doable to operate an ATL-JFK-BOM-JFK-ATL rotation.

Bottom line: if DL decides that JFK-BOM is looking more promising than ATL-BOM, getting the right aircraft to JFK should be a relative non-factor.

FSDan wrote:

Bottom line: if DL decides that JFK-BOM is looking more promising than ATL-BOM, getting the right aircraft to JFK should be a relative non-factor.

I wouldn't say it's a non-factor. In fact I'd say it's a pretty significant factor.
For DL to operate JFK-BOM with either a 77L or A359 they would most likely rotate one from AMS or CDG. That means operating a less ideal and costlier aircraft on one of those routes. That extra cost would be added to the already high cost of operating a ULH route like JFK-BOM where yields aren't exactly good. So i would not take lightly the fact that currently DL does not rotate any A350's or 77L's via JFK.

airbazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Bottom line: if DL decides that JFK-BOM is looking more promising than ATL-BOM, getting the right aircraft to JFK should be a relative non-factor.

I wouldn't say it's a non-factor. In fact I'd say it's a pretty significant factor.
For DL to operate JFK-BOM with either a 77L or A359 they would most likely rotate one from AMS or CDG. That means operating a less ideal and costlier aircraft on one of those routes. That extra cost would be added to the already high cost of operating a ULH route like JFK-BOM where yields aren't exactly good. So i would not take lightly the fact that currently DL does not rotate any A350's or 77L's via JFK.

I guess if JFK-BOM and ATL-BOM appear to be dead even based on most other considerations (estimated fares and loads, corporate contracts, etc.) then the aircraft factor could be a tiebreaker. However, DL have been operating the "less ideal and costlier" 359 and 77L on DTW-AMS and ATL-AMS, respectively, and seem to be just fine with that as those operations are scheduled to continue through next summer.

FSDan wrote:

airbazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Bottom line: if DL decides that JFK-BOM is looking more promising than ATL-BOM, getting the right aircraft to JFK should be a relative non-factor.

I wouldn't say it's a non-factor. In fact I'd say it's a pretty significant factor.
For DL to operate JFK-BOM with either a 77L or A359 they would most likely rotate one from AMS or CDG. That means operating a less ideal and costlier aircraft on one of those routes. That extra cost would be added to the already high cost of operating a ULH route like JFK-BOM where yields aren't exactly good. So i would not take lightly the fact that currently DL does not rotate any A350's or 77L's via JFK.

I guess if JFK-BOM and ATL-BOM appear to be dead even based on most other considerations (estimated fares and loads, corporate contracts, etc.) then the aircraft factor could be a tiebreaker. However, DL have been operating the "less ideal and costlier" 359 and 77L on DTW-AMS and ATL-AMS, respectively, and seem to be just fine with that as those operations are scheduled to continue through next summer.

Right but the aircraft are already based at DTW and ATL and those TATL routes are to improve aircraft utilization and generate revenue out of a resource that would other wise be idle. Same reason why we see the occasional intl configured widebody on domestic routes, with various airlines.

FSDan wrote:

airbazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Bottom line: if DL decides that JFK-BOM is looking more promising than ATL-BOM, getting the right aircraft to JFK should be a relative non-factor.

I wouldn't say it's a non-factor. In fact I'd say it's a pretty significant factor.
For DL to operate JFK-BOM with either a 77L or A359 they would most likely rotate one from AMS or CDG. That means operating a less ideal and costlier aircraft on one of those routes. That extra cost would be added to the already high cost of operating a ULH route like JFK-BOM where yields aren't exactly good. So i would not take lightly the fact that currently DL does not rotate any A350's or 77L's via JFK.

I guess if JFK-BOM and ATL-BOM appear to be dead even based on most other considerations (estimated fares and loads, corporate contracts, etc.) then the aircraft factor could be a tiebreaker. However, DL have been operating the "less ideal and costlier" 359 and 77L on DTW-AMS and ATL-AMS, respectively, and seem to be just fine with that as those operations are scheduled to continue through next summer.

I agree with FSDan's overall point. Delta has a very small longhaul fleet, and has proven very willing to fly either revenue one-offs or ferry flights to get airplanes into position when they are right for the market. Go back and look at the Delta widebody thread since it started. They have very regularly either ferried or done revenue one-offs to get the 777 into rotations such as SEA-HKG or CDG-MSP-HND. When you have 8 77Es, 10 77Ls, and 13 359s in the fleet, you can't fund new routes with a totally efficient rotation pattern, because the fleet is too small. My gut tells me that this route is going to be out of JFK, probably on the 777, and to get it there they will just sub it in on ATL-JFK or MSP-JFK.

FSDan wrote:

sonicruiser wrote:

If they do JFK-BOM, they have to contend with ruthless competition that will make ATL look like a walk in the park. Meanwhile, ATL-BOM still has TK and QR to contend with

That's why DL needs to put this route where the most business demand is. AI proved decisively with SFO-DEL that the ME3 can be beaten when there's enough high value traffic that is willing to pay for the convenience of a nonstop. If DL started JFK-BOM with a daily 359 or 77L against AI's 3x weekly nonstop, they could absolutely win the high value traffic on frequency, product, and brand loyalty. Same story with ATL if there are enough travelers in the catchment area willing to pay up for the nonstop...

sonicruiser wrote:

But even JFK-BOM has its own problem in that JFK isn't an A350 base so an aircraft will have to be rotated out whereas a 77L would be easier as JFK already has 777 ops.

I don't think that's really a problem... The 359 fleet is currently based at DTW, but will be operating rotations on SEA-NRT (DTW-NRT-SEA-NRT-DTW), LAX-HND/LAX-PVG (DTW-PVG-LAX-HND-LAX-PVG-DTW), and ATL-ICN (DTW-ICN-ATL-ICN-DTW) this upcoming summer. DL has multiple options to get a 359 to JFK, including something like DTW-AMS-JFK-BOM-JFK-AMS-DTW or even an LAX-JFK-LAX rotation.

Also, I want to point out that JFK does not currently see regularly-scheduled 777 ops, and hasn't for a year or two since the 242-t A330-300s arrived and took over JFK-TLV. Nonetheless, it would be perfectly doable to operate an ATL-JFK-BOM-JFK-ATL rotation.

Bottom line: if DL decides that JFK-BOM is looking more promising than ATL-BOM, getting the right aircraft to JFK should be a relative non-factor.

That might be well and good but where is AI compared to the ME3 on SFO-India and how does that compare what Delta wants as far as return on investment. I am pretty sure Delta can not make money charging what AI does they need to charge a lot more on JFK-BOM than AI does still putting them at an operational disadvantage.

TW870 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I wouldn't say it's a non-factor. In fact I'd say it's a pretty significant factor.
For DL to operate JFK-BOM with either a 77L or A359 they would most likely rotate one from AMS or CDG. That means operating a less ideal and costlier aircraft on one of those routes. That extra cost would be added to the already high cost of operating a ULH route like JFK-BOM where yields aren't exactly good. So i would not take lightly the fact that currently DL does not rotate any A350's or 77L's via JFK.

I guess if JFK-BOM and ATL-BOM appear to be dead even based on most other considerations (estimated fares and loads, corporate contracts, etc.) then the aircraft factor could be a tiebreaker. However, DL have been operating the "less ideal and costlier" 359 and 77L on DTW-AMS and ATL-AMS, respectively, and seem to be just fine with that as those operations are scheduled to continue through next summer.

I agree with FSDan's overall point. Delta has a very small longhaul fleet, and has proven very willing to fly either revenue one-offs or ferry flights to get airplanes into position when they are right for the market. Go back and look at the Delta widebody thread since it started. They have very regularly either ferried or done revenue one-offs to get the 777 into rotations such as SEA-HKG or CDG-MSP-HND. When you have 8 77Es, 10 77Ls, and 13 359s in the fleet, you can't fund new routes with a totally efficient rotation pattern, because the fleet is too small. My gut tells me that this route is going to be out of JFK, probably on the 777, and to get it there they will just sub it in on ATL-JFK or MSP-JFK.

You can if you fly the aircraft out of the airports where they are based.

airbazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

airbazar wrote:

I wouldn't say it's a non-factor. In fact I'd say it's a pretty significant factor.
For DL to operate JFK-BOM with either a 77L or A359 they would most likely rotate one from AMS or CDG. That means operating a less ideal and costlier aircraft on one of those routes. That extra cost would be added to the already high cost of operating a ULH route like JFK-BOM where yields aren't exactly good. So i would not take lightly the fact that currently DL does not rotate any A350's or 77L's via JFK.

I guess if JFK-BOM and ATL-BOM appear to be dead even based on most other considerations (estimated fares and loads, corporate contracts, etc.) then the aircraft factor could be a tiebreaker. However, DL have been operating the "less ideal and costlier" 359 and 77L on DTW-AMS and ATL-AMS, respectively, and seem to be just fine with that as those operations are scheduled to continue through next summer.

Right but the aircraft are already based at DTW and ATL and those TATL routes are to improve aircraft utilization and generate revenue out of a resource that would other wise be idle. Same reason why we see the occasional intl configured widebody on domestic routes, with various airlines.

Exactly and Delta is not going to fly a aircraft that is in limited supply on a needless TATL sector just to get the aircraft in position. How many frames would that take at least 3 extra frames to operate a TATL bridge to JFK or ATL including the BOM segment.

airbazar wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

trav777 wrote:

If DL is willing to drop payload, then the 359 can do the route. I said "with the payload DL wants." I cannot be much clearer than that.

Except that you have no idea WHAT "payload DL wants," for that or really any other route.... so yes, you could clarify why you're using that statement, in the absence of any actual corroboration.

Keep in mind before answering, that the alleged LAX-SYD deficit is a rumor on top of a rumor. The public doesn't know what cost/benefit/opportunity cost equation DL used to arrive at its decision to keep the 77Ls on that route currently.

If there was money to be made in payload DL would have never dropped the route with the 77L to begin with. The fact that they dropped the route tells me that trip cost is more important than payload.

That's quite the anecdotal conclusion, seeing as how many other significant contributory/outstanding factors (highest aggregate fuel prices faced by the industry, second largest economic recession ever in its home market, etc) could've and likely heavily, factored.

LAX772LR wrote:

airbazar wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Except that you have no idea WHAT "payload DL wants," for that or really any other route.... so yes, you could clarify why you're using that statement, in the absence of any actual corroboration.

Keep in mind before answering, that the alleged LAX-SYD deficit is a rumor on top of a rumor. The public doesn't know what cost/benefit/opportunity cost equation DL used to arrive at its decision to keep the 77Ls on that route currently.

If there was money to be made in payload DL would have never dropped the route with the 77L to begin with. The fact that they dropped the route tells me that trip cost is more important than payload.

That's quite the anecdotal conclusion, seeing as how many other significant contributory/outstanding factors (highest aggregate fuel prices faced by the industry, second largest economic recession ever in its home market, etc) could've and likely heavily, factored.

Ok fair enough. But what about this year, or last year, or 3 years ago when fuel was at its lowest and the U.S.-India market was growing like crazy? Was that a bad environment to start non-stop service to India?
All indications point to the 77L being too inefficient (or too expensive) at present to be used against the likes of the A380, A350, 787, and even 77W on routes where yields are low to begin with. Flying non-stop between the U.S. and India, profitably is really really hard. The amount of competition is huge. Throw in a gas-guzzling 77L and it's a non-starter. I can't blame them for not doing it.

airbazar wrote:

Ok fair enough. But what about this year, or last year, or 3 years ago

Indeed, what ABOUT them?
Can you show us what data you used to calculate the Opportunity Cost of fleet allocation for them during any of those three years, relative to each other, or today? ....no? Hmm.

airbazar wrote:

All indications point to the 77L being too inefficient (or too expensive) at present to be used against the likes of the A380, A350, 787

Actually, no, it doesn't. At all.

If that were the case, it'd be the same for a route like LAX-SYD, where DL could stroke a cheque to Airbus and have a 277T (possibly 278T) rating on its extant aircraft tomorrow, if they wanted.

Despite the ridiculous chirping on this site, an A359 at that rating would have no trouble flying a 14hr route with whatever payload DL could realistically expect to garner. And yet they've chosen to fly a 77L against (among other things) A388s and 789s.

airbazar wrote:

I can't blame them for not doing it.

And yet, you have no clue if they're "not doing it," or not... seeing as they haven't announced what they'll fly it with.

Thus why do you keep making such conclusions when you lack anywhere near enough information to substantiate them?

airbazar wrote:

Ok fair enough. But what about this year, or last year, or 3 years ago when fuel was at its lowest and the U.S.-India market was growing like crazy? Was that a bad environment to start non-stop service to India?
All indications point to the 77L being too inefficient (or too expensive) at present to be used against the likes of the A380, A350, 787, and even 77W on routes where yields are low to begin with. Flying non-stop between the U.S. and India, profitably is really really hard. The amount of competition is huge. Throw in a gas-guzzling 77L and it's a non-starter. I can't blame them for not doing it.

klm617 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Anecdotal skyscanner ticket price data outbound 3/12/19 - return 3/26/19

All one-stops
ATL-BOM $590 (QR)
BOS-BOM $698 (QR)
JFK-BOM $716 (LX)
DTW-BOM $966 (VS)

That is why Detroit is far and away the best choice for Delta. Can you imagine with the superior product they offer and the convenience of a nonstop with ZERO competition what Delta could get as far as fares on DTW0-BOM at least $2000 in Y ATL with only 15 more PDEW than Detroit can't even compete with the returns that DTW-BOM could bring.

If DL starts charging $2000 for DTW-BOM nonstop in Y, it will not survive. Because people can still fly through AMS, CDG or LHR for cheaper. The connection may add a couple hours extra to the travel time, but the average Y passenger will not have a problem with that.

LAX772LR wrote:

If that were the case, it'd be the same for a route like LAX-SYD, where DL could stroke a cheque to Airbus and have a 277T (possibly 278T) rating on its extant aircraft tomorrow, if they wanted.

Despite the ridiculous chirping on this site, an A359 at that rating would have no trouble flying a 14hr route with whatever payload DL could realistically expect to garner. And yet they've chosen to fly a 77L against (among other things) A388s and 789s.

The 77L is the widebody version of the 752. It's "paid for" and it's still relatively young to keep flying, until it isn't. DL is putting it where its losses can be mitigated because to dump an 8 yo frame would be ridiculous. Australia is not India. Just do a basic fare comparison and you'll get your answer.
A non-stop J ticket between NYC and BOM goes for as little as $3000. For the same exact dates the cheapest you can get between LAX and SYD is $9,000. If i play with the dates and look for a 3-month advanced purchase I can get it starting at $4,000. That's why the 77L is flying that route (or LHR, or JNB), instead of going to India. In other words, routes with the highest yields. But I know you'll never accept this as evidence.

airbazar wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

If that were the case, it'd be the same for a route like LAX-SYD, where DL could stroke a cheque to Airbus and have a 277T (possibly 278T) rating on its extant aircraft tomorrow, if they wanted.

Despite the ridiculous chirping on this site, an A359 at that rating would have no trouble flying a 14hr route with whatever payload DL could realistically expect to garner. And yet they've chosen to fly a 77L against (among other things) A388s and 789s.

The 77L is the widebody version of the 752. It's "paid for" and it's still relatively young to keep flying, until it isn't. DL is putting it where its losses can be mitigated because to dump an 8 yo frame would be ridiculous. Australia is not India. Just do a basic fare comparison and you'll get your answer.
A non-stop J ticket between NYC and BOM goes for as little as $3000. For the same exact dates the cheapest you can get between LAX and SYD is $9,000. If i play with the dates and look for a 3-month advanced purchase I can get it starting at $4,000. That's why the 77L is flying that route (or LHR, or JNB), instead of going to India. In other words, routes with the highest yields. But I know you'll never accept this as evidence.

Sorry but AI’s fares on their brand new JFK-BOM doesn’t count. Try pricing UA’s EWR-BOM flight (originating in the US) and no Saturday night stay (so like most business trips). I haven’t see one fare below $10k (other than maybe over Christmas Day and certain holiday bands) and they don’t offer saver J awards for the most part either. Try all of Feb and March. AI gets the affluent VFR crowd (especially the ones who came in the 60/70s and made $$$ and are now retired flying back and forth to India visiting relatives/friends and attending weddings, lots of weddings). UA gets US origin business crowd and affluent VFR that are in deep with UA’s FF program. I think Delta should fly the 77L to BOM because, as I understand, the plane will have a large prem Econ cabin and a large comfort plus. I think both of these are key ways to generate more money on this flight given US origin Indian VFR is reasonable affluent, the flight is very long and that crowd cannot afford the $10K J fare but can $2500 prem Econ.

>>>>>>Try pricing UA’s EWR-BOM flight (originating in the US) and no Saturday night stay (so like most business trips)

I understand that UA flies EWR-BOM and EWR-DEL, and is starting SFO-DEL. Shouldn't it also consider SFO-BOM, which may be more profitable than even EWR-BOM?

DTWLAX wrote:

klm617 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Anecdotal skyscanner ticket price data outbound 3/12/19 - return 3/26/19

All one-stops
ATL-BOM $590 (QR)
BOS-BOM $698 (QR)
JFK-BOM $716 (LX)
DTW-BOM $966 (VS)

That is why Detroit is far and away the best choice for Delta. Can you imagine with the superior product they offer and the convenience of a nonstop with ZERO competition what Delta could get as far as fares on DTW0-BOM at least $2000 in Y ATL with only 15 more PDEW than Detroit can't even compete with the returns that DTW-BOM could bring.

If DL starts charging $2000 for DTW-BOM nonstop in Y, it will not survive. Because people can still fly through AMS, CDG or LHR for cheaper. The connection may add a couple hours extra to the travel time, but the average Y passenger will not have a problem with that.

What are you even talking about. I just paid $1440 to fly Delta from DTW-FRA in DECEMBER and the plane was full. People with deep pockets will always pay for convenience and with ZERO competition from the ME3 at DTW unlike ATL and JFK Delta most likely would get a lot of takers on DTW-BOM.

edealinfo wrote:

>>>>>>Try pricing UA’s EWR-BOM flight (originating in the US) and no Saturday night stay (so like most business trips)

I understand that UA flies EWR-BOM and EWR-DEL, and is starting SFO-DEL. Shouldn't it also consider SFO-BOM, which may be more profitable than even EWR-BOM?

My gut says SFO-BOM is probably too small in J. If they start another route, I would say SFO-BLR (Jet might be able to make SFO-BOM work because of their hub there). BOM has great business / financial traffic to NYC (going back decades - like the 60’s). Bom actually doesn’t have a lot of tech HQs. BLR and the DEL region are much better destinations for the tech crowd. Remember UA needs a good Chungking of O&D to charge the 12K premium for the nonstop. That said, I think UA will be able to capture a good check of US origin SFO-BLR/BOM/HYD traffic even with the connection in DEL - Americans typically prefer their own airlines and connecting in EU or Asia just sucks.

How feasible TECHNICALLY is a SFO - BLR flight? Could a 777W, 777LR, 787, or A350 do it in BOTH directions without a weight penalty? Would the route be the longest in the world?

The only US India that would probably be the world's longest is IAH-MAA. That is not going to happen very soon...

Could it be possible that DL is considering LAX-DEL? The route is unserved and should have more O/D (higher yields) to India than ATL. They could use 77L on route and provide needed competition to *A on US west coast. Additionally, 9W can feed traffic at DEL.

NCAD95 wrote:

DTWLAX wrote:

klm617 wrote:

That is why Detroit is far and away the best choice for Delta. Can you imagine with the superior product they offer and the convenience of a nonstop with ZERO competition what Delta could get as far as fares on DTW0-BOM at least $2000 in Y ATL with only 15 more PDEW than Detroit can't even compete with the returns that DTW-BOM could bring.

If DL starts charging $2000 for DTW-BOM nonstop in Y, it will not survive. Because people can still fly through AMS, CDG or LHR for cheaper. The connection may add a couple hours extra to the travel time, but the average Y passenger will not have a problem with that.

What are you even talking about. I just paid $1440 to fly Delta from DTW-FRA in DECEMBER and the plane was full. People with deep pockets will always pay for convenience and with ZERO competition from the ME3 at DTW unlike ATL and JFK Delta most likely would get a lot of takers on DTW-BOM.

You paid $1440, yes, but many did not .

airbazar wrote:

But I know you'll never accept this as evidence.

Evidence? Yes.
Conclusive? No.

The difference between the two is basically the entire concept that I've been trying (and apparently failing) to get you to understand!!!!



Consider the following poster's followup:

CaliguyNYC wrote:

airbazar wrote:

A non-stop J ticket between NYC and BOM goes for as little as $3000.

Sorry but AI’s fares on their brand new JFK-BOM doesn’t count. Try pricing UA’s EWR-BOM flight

The fact that a peer carrier also does NYC-BOM, successfully maintained for over a decade at fares often exceeding the likes of LAX-SYD, and on an aircraft even less capable and less efficient than a 77L; is a perfect example of why the single point of evidence you're presenting is not conclusive: it only addresses one aspect of the market.

NCAD95 wrote:

What are you even talking about. I just paid $1440 to fly Delta from DTW-FRA in DECEMBER and the plane was full. People with deep pockets will always pay for convenience and with ZERO competition from the ME3 at DTW unlike ATL and JFK Delta most likely would get a lot of takers on DTW-BOM.

Just because you paid $1440 does not mean everybody else on the plane paid the same amount. And you traveled in December, holiday time when most people travel, so fares are bound to be high.
Try pricing out DTW-FRA on DL for off-peak season and see what fares you get. Looking at random dates in February/March (2/25 - 3/6) for DTW-FRA on DL, the fares are $686 for basic economy and $796 for economy round-trip. No where close to $1440.
So while DL may be able to get away charging $2000 in Y for DTW-BOM during the peak holiday period, there is no way they can sustain those fares for the entire year.

edealinfo wrote:

How feasible TECHNICALLY is a SFO - BLR flight? Could a 777W, 777LR, 787, or A350 do it in BOTH directions without a weight penalty? Would the route be the longest in the world?

It is right at the edge of 789 capability and near the edge for A359 but with higher payload. 77L should be capable of doing this with ease but at much higher fuel and operations cost. The gc distance between SFO and BLR is 7561nm which is just 60nm less than SIN-LAX and 222nm more than SIN_SFO. Both routes have been served by 789 and A359. However, SFO-BLR is a polar route so shouldn't be affected by the winter winds. It would be the 6th longest route as things stand today. Personally, I think UA have the most chance to introduce this route successfully as they have a very strong hub at SFO and a lot of contracts in addition to the right aircrafts necessary - 789 to start and possibly A359 later if growth demands it.

sabby wrote:

Personally, I think UA have the most chance to introduce this route successfully as they have a very strong hub at SFO and a lot of contracts in addition to the right aircrafts necessary - 789 to start and possibly A359 later if growth demands it.

Makes sense but is UA's A359 order firm? I read in one of the UA threads that they are not getting the A359 till at least 2022 (?) and they have lately favored the 77W with the 4 extra orders from Dec.

sabby wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

How feasible TECHNICALLY is a SFO - BLR flight? Could a 777W, 777LR, 787, or A350 do it in BOTH directions without a weight penalty? Would the route be the longest in the world?

It is right at the edge of 789 capability and near the edge for A359 but with higher payload. 77L should be capable of doing this with ease but at much higher fuel and operations cost. The gc distance between SFO and BLR is 7561nm which is just 60nm less than SIN-LAX and 222nm more than SIN_SFO. Both routes have been served by 789 and A359. However, SFO-BLR is a polar route so shouldn't be affected by the winter winds. It would be the 6th longest route as things stand today. Personally, I think UA have the most chance to introduce this route successfully as they have a very strong hub at SFO and a lot of contracts in addition to the right aircrafts necessary - 789 to start and possibly A359 later if growth demands it.

There is no "the" 350 nor "the" 789. For the billionth time. If you take brochure pax counts, the 280t 359 and 789 have about the SAME range.

In what config? In UAL's config, the 789 could do that route. NZ's could not. QF's very easily.
The 280t 359 could as well, other variants, no, *with brochure pax counts*. In SQ's pax load, 253, probably at 272t give or take, because they fly 7t light of spec. The 278t variant in Air Phil's config does JFK-MNL and the reason they chose 278t is precisely to do that route; by my estimates a lower weight variant would not have cut it. They fly a 295-pax 359.

UAL won't take the 359, there is no point in their fleet for it. It doesn't fly as far except in the heaviest variants than the 77E does, doesn't haul that much payload at long ranges. UAL will stick with 787s and potentially 77x if they need bigger jets.

trav777 wrote:

sabby wrote:

edealinfo wrote:

How feasible TECHNICALLY is a SFO - BLR flight? Could a 777W, 777LR, 787, or A350 do it in BOTH directions without a weight penalty? Would the route be the longest in the world?

It is right at the edge of 789 capability and near the edge for A359 but with higher payload. 77L should be capable of doing this with ease but at much higher fuel and operations cost. The gc distance between SFO and BLR is 7561nm which is just 60nm less than SIN-LAX and 222nm more than SIN_SFO. Both routes have been served by 789 and A359. However, SFO-BLR is a polar route so shouldn't be affected by the winter winds. It would be the 6th longest route as things stand today. Personally, I think UA have the most chance to introduce this route successfully as they have a very strong hub at SFO and a lot of contracts in addition to the right aircrafts necessary - 789 to start and possibly A359 later if growth demands it.

There is no "the" 350 nor "the" 789. For the billionth time. If you take brochure pax counts, the 280t 359 and 789 have about the SAME range.

In what config? In UAL's config, the 789 could do that route. NZ's could not. QF's very easily.
The 280t 359 could as well, other variants, no, *with brochure pax counts*. In SQ's pax load, 253, probably at 272t give or take, because they fly 7t light of spec. The 278t variant in Air Phil's config does JFK-MNL and the reason they chose 278t is precisely to do that route; by my estimates a lower weight variant would not have cut it. They fly a 295-pax 359.

UAL won't take the 359, there is no point in their fleet for it. It doesn't fly as far except in the heaviest variants than the 77E does, doesn't haul that much payload at long ranges. UAL will stick with 787s and potentially 77x if they need bigger jets.

You need to relax, I've been seeing in almost all the threads as soon as A350 comes up, you start posting pretty much the same thing. It is as if you have some vengeance against the aircraft - and this coming from someone who was actually involved in the 787 program ! We live in an era where we have multiple fantastic widebody aircrafts and airlines have an array of products to choose from for their use cases. Anyway, the question was asked which aircrafts are capable to do SFO-BLR (any airlines), so obviously I took the max MTOW versions for all the relevant aircrafts and posted my opinion. For United, they already have a 789 config capable of doing it and so far they haven't cancelled the A359 orders and I think there's 50-50 chance they take them. Seeing that they are operating their 77Es on some of their longest missions, it makes sense they would take (if they take deliveries that is) at least some A359s at 277/280T MTOW.

sabby wrote:

trav777 wrote:

sabby wrote:

It is right at the edge of 789 capability and near the edge for A359 but with higher payload. 77L should be capable of doing this with ease but at much higher fuel and operations cost. The gc distance between SFO and BLR is 7561nm which is just 60nm less than SIN-LAX and 222nm more than SIN_SFO. Both routes have been served by 789 and A359. However, SFO-BLR is a polar route so shouldn't be affected by the winter winds. It would be the 6th longest route as things stand today. Personally, I think UA have the most chance to introduce this route successfully as they have a very strong hub at SFO and a lot of contracts in addition to the right aircrafts necessary - 789 to start and possibly A359 later if growth demands it.

There is no "the" 350 nor "the" 789. For the billionth time. If you take brochure pax counts, the 280t 359 and 789 have about the SAME range.

In what config? In UAL's config, the 789 could do that route. NZ's could not. QF's very easily.
The 280t 359 could as well, other variants, no, *with brochure pax counts*. In SQ's pax load, 253, probably at 272t give or take, because they fly 7t light of spec. The 278t variant in Air Phil's config does JFK-MNL and the reason they chose 278t is precisely to do that route; by my estimates a lower weight variant would not have cut it. They fly a 295-pax 359.

UAL won't take the 359, there is no point in their fleet for it. It doesn't fly as far except in the heaviest variants than the 77E does, doesn't haul that much payload at long ranges. UAL will stick with 787s and potentially 77x if they need bigger jets.

You need to relax, I've been seeing in almost all the threads as soon as A350 comes up, you start posting pretty much the same thing. It is as if you have some vengeance against the aircraft - and this coming from someone who was actually involved in the 787 program ! We live in an era where we have multiple fantastic widebody aircrafts and airlines have an array of products to choose from for their use cases. Anyway, the question was asked which aircrafts are capable to do SFO-BLR (any airlines), so obviously I took the max MTOW versions for all the relevant aircrafts and posted my opinion. For United, they already have a 789 config capable of doing it and so far they haven't cancelled the A359 orders and I think there's 50-50 chance they take them. Seeing that they are operating their 77Es on some of their longest missions, it makes sense they would take (if they take deliveries that is) at least some A359s at 277/280T MTOW.

The reason I have to do that is because this an aviation forum and the question as to whether a particular plane "has the range" is dependent not on a brochure top-line number but the variant and configuration the airline is flying - specific details are important. I don't know why you would select the max MTOW variant offhand, as that's not the model that is most commonly in service, by a long shot in fact. I mean, are there actually *any* 280t 359s in service? Air Phil is flying a 7400nm mission at 278t, 295pax- this config could not do SFO-BLR. So, if there are actually *no* 280t 359s in service, then the answer *should be* "no, the 359 cannot do this route." Are there any 280t 359s serving the routes you mentioned? Far as I know, SQ is using 276s on SFO-SIN at 253pax.

Stating the actual performance capabilities of an aircraft does not constitute vengeance.

trav777 wrote:

sabby wrote:

trav777 wrote:

There is no "the" 350 nor "the" 789. For the billionth time. If you take brochure pax counts, the 280t 359 and 789 have about the SAME range.

In what config? In UAL's config, the 789 could do that route. NZ's could not. QF's very easily.
The 280t 359 could as well, other variants, no, *with brochure pax counts*. In SQ's pax load, 253, probably at 272t give or take, because they fly 7t light of spec. The 278t variant in Air Phil's config does JFK-MNL and the reason they chose 278t is precisely to do that route; by my estimates a lower weight variant would not have cut it. They fly a 295-pax 359.

UAL won't take the 359, there is no point in their fleet for it. It doesn't fly as far except in the heaviest variants than the 77E does, doesn't haul that much payload at long ranges. UAL will stick with 787s and potentially 77x if they need bigger jets.

You need to relax, I've been seeing in almost all the threads as soon as A350 comes up, you start posting pretty much the same thing. It is as if you have some vengeance against the aircraft - and this coming from someone who was actually involved in the 787 program ! We live in an era where we have multiple fantastic widebody aircrafts and airlines have an array of products to choose from for their use cases. Anyway, the question was asked which aircrafts are capable to do SFO-BLR (any airlines), so obviously I took the max MTOW versions for all the relevant aircrafts and posted my opinion. For United, they already have a 789 config capable of doing it and so far they haven't cancelled the A359 orders and I think there's 50-50 chance they take them. Seeing that they are operating their 77Es on some of their longest missions, it makes sense they would take (if they take deliveries that is) at least some A359s at 277/280T MTOW.

The reason I have to do that is because this an aviation forum and the question as to whether a particular plane "has the range" is dependent not on a brochure top-line number but the variant and configuration the airline is flying - specific details are important. I don't know why you would select the max MTOW variant offhand, as that's not the model that is most commonly in service, by a long shot in fact. I mean, are there actually *any* 280t 359s in service? Air Phil is flying a 7400nm mission at 278t, 295pax- this config could not do SFO-BLR. So, if there are actually *no* 280t 359s in service, then the answer *should be* "no, the 359 cannot do this route." Are there any 280t 359s serving the routes you mentioned? Far as I know, SQ is using 276s on SFO-SIN at 253pax.

Stating the actual performance capabilities of an aircraft does not constitute vengeance.

Iberia are operating the 280T A359s. The reason that there's not many 280T birds around is because it is a recent development and was derived after the ULR version to utilize more fuel tank space. If UA indeed take the delivery of the A359s and operate it on the ULH routes, I am sure they won't configure with max 325 pax just like they configured their 789 with 252 pax instead of standard 293 pax config. Of course the A359 burns slightly more fuel and have higher landing fee due to higher MTOW. However, it also has higher payload. UA do not need to configure 325 pax, they need just enough more seats so it overcomes the increased fuel and ops cost. An addition of 10 extra J seats and 15-20 Y seats could make more profit for a ULH route such as SFO-BLR compared to a 252 seats 789. Don't get me wrong, the 787 is a fantastic revolutionary machine but it has different purposes.

sabby wrote:

trav777 wrote:

sabby wrote:

You need to relax, I've been seeing in almost all the threads as soon as A350 comes up, you start posting pretty much the same thing. It is as if you have some vengeance against the aircraft - and this coming from someone who was actually involved in the 787 program ! We live in an era where we have multiple fantastic widebody aircrafts and airlines have an array of products to choose from for their use cases. Anyway, the question was asked which aircrafts are capable to do SFO-BLR (any airlines), so obviously I took the max MTOW versions for all the relevant aircrafts and posted my opinion. For United, they already have a 789 config capable of doing it and so far they haven't cancelled the A359 orders and I think there's 50-50 chance they take them. Seeing that they are operating their 77Es on some of their longest missions, it makes sense they would take (if they take deliveries that is) at least some A359s at 277/280T MTOW.

The reason I have to do that is because this an aviation forum and the question as to whether a particular plane "has the range" is dependent not on a brochure top-line number but the variant and configuration the airline is flying - specific details are important. I don't know why you would select the max MTOW variant offhand, as that's not the model that is most commonly in service, by a long shot in fact. I mean, are there actually *any* 280t 359s in service? Air Phil is flying a 7400nm mission at 278t, 295pax- this config could not do SFO-BLR. So, if there are actually *no* 280t 359s in service, then the answer *should be* "no, the 359 cannot do this route." Are there any 280t 359s serving the routes you mentioned? Far as I know, SQ is using 276s on SFO-SIN at 253pax.

Stating the actual performance capabilities of an aircraft does not constitute vengeance.

Iberia are operating the 280T A359s. The reason that there's not many 280T birds around is because it is a recent development and was derived after the ULR version to utilize more fuel tank space. If UA indeed take the delivery of the A359s and operate it on the ULH routes, I am sure they won't configure with max 325 pax just like they configured their 789 with 252 pax instead of standard 293 pax config. Of course the A359 burns slightly more fuel and have higher landing fee due to higher MTOW. However, it also has higher payload. UA do not need to configure 325 pax, they need just enough more seats so it overcomes the increased fuel and ops cost. An addition of 10 extra J seats and 15-20 Y seats could make more profit for a ULH route such as SFO-BLR compared to a 252 seats 789. Don't get me wrong, the 787 is a fantastic revolutionary machine but it has different purposes.

Ok, so IB's jets could do the route. A new-prod 359 at 280t could do it; I think AB said all new delivery ones would be 280t or something...or at least they could be uprated to that spec. I'm sure it costs extra $. I just don't see the advantage of another fleet type to UAL; IMO they'd be better served economically by maintaining product commonality and going with a different cabin spec on the 789 if they need 300pax at long range (77E). But there's already another thread on this topic so no need to rehash it here. My original comment was about DL's 359s on putative routes to BOM. They don't have the range in their 359 fleet to do ATL-BOM. As for the other route, SFO-BLR, this is a 280t only route and would have little to no cargo. Clearly if you shed pax you increase range; the point is that we should avoid making blanket statements about an airframe unless we know what config and in the case of the 359, what variant it is.

Std spec on the 789 is 259pax from Boeing right off of the PR chart.

LAX772LR wrote:

airbazar wrote:

But I know you'll never accept this as evidence.

Evidence? Yes.
Conclusive? No.

The difference between the two is basically the entire concept that I've been trying (and apparently failing) to get you to understand!!!!



Consider the following poster's followup:

CaliguyNYC wrote:

airbazar wrote:

A non-stop J ticket between NYC and BOM goes for as little as $3000.

Sorry but AI’s fares on their brand new JFK-BOM doesn’t count. Try pricing UA’s EWR-BOM flight

The fact that a peer carrier also does NYC-BOM, successfully maintained for over a decade at fares often exceeding the likes of LAX-SYD, and on an aircraft even less capable and less efficient than a 77L; is a perfect example of why the single point of evidence you're presenting is not conclusive: it only addresses one aspect of the market.

Sorry i didn't see that post.
I did price UA: $3800 in J, EWR-BOM-EWR.
Yes it's a little higher but the reason UA has higher fares is because they control the price point and have corporate contracts who don't pay anywhere near retail. Their corporate clients are probably paying even less than what AI is charging. They could price their J tickets at $12,000 for all I care. No one is paying that.
Ok not conclusive. Nothing will because no one here has that level of access. But it's a pretty significant piece of evidence IMO.

airbazar wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

airbazar wrote:

But I know you'll never accept this as evidence.

Evidence? Yes.
Conclusive? No.

The difference between the two is basically the entire concept that I've been trying (and apparently failing) to get you to understand!!!!



Consider the following poster's followup:

CaliguyNYC wrote:

Sorry but AI’s fares on their brand new JFK-BOM doesn’t count. Try pricing UA’s EWR-BOM flight

The fact that a peer carrier also does NYC-BOM, successfully maintained for over a decade at fares often exceeding the likes of LAX-SYD, and on an aircraft even less capable and less efficient than a 77L; is a perfect example of why the single point of evidence you're presenting is not conclusive: it only addresses one aspect of the market.

Sorry i didn't see that post.
I did price UA: $3800 in J, EWR-BOM-EWR.
Yes it's a little higher but the reason UA has higher fares is because they control the price point and have corporate contracts who don't pay anywhere near retail. Their corporate clients are probably paying even less than what AI is charging. They could price their J tickets at $12,000 for all I care. No one is paying that.
Ok not conclusive. Nothing will because no one here has that level of access. But it's a pretty significant piece of evidence IMO.

To be fair, I would guess there are quite a few people that fly EWR-BOM in J that are paying the publicly avaiable price. Many elderly Indians, be it people that settled down years ago and are going to visit family, or parents of 1st generation immigrants, or the same but coming from India to visit children in NY/NJ, pay to fly J.

One of hte reasons why NYC-BOM/DEL non-stop works for AI and UA is there is local demand that is generally wealthy, and in reality wealthy enough to send older Indian people in paid business class.

Neither UA nor DL can monetize above mentioned premium traffic.

As soon as an elderly saree clad lady walks into F/J section, she will be greeted by FAs with a polite "Let me see you are in the right section". It's all downhill from there.

There is a reason AI still competes with world-class airlines, nothing to do with the hard or soft product.

dtw2hyd wrote:

Neither UA nor DL can monetize above mentioned premium traffic.

As soon as an elderly saree clad lady walks into F/J section, she will be greeted by FAs with a polite "Let me see you are in the right section". It's all downhill from there.

There is a reason AI still competes with world-class airlines, nothing to do with the hard or soft product.

Recently traveled J BOM-EWR in J. It was my 3rd flight on this route/class in the past 3 years and ancedotally I saw a lot more Indian VFR types (including one saree clad elderly lady) as opposed to seeing only corporate business travelers in J.

There were two Indian entree options (veg/non veg) as well as a Hindi/Marathi/gujarati speaking FAs on this particular flight.
They did however assume that no one in Polaris was a visa holder as opposed to USC/GC and didn't hand out customs forms in this cabin!

So based on my experience they are doing well in the "air India J" demographic and expect them to do really well in PE when then comes around.

Sent from my Moto G (5S) Plus using Tapatalk

dtw2hyd wrote:

Neither UA nor DL can monetize above mentioned premium traffic.

As soon as an elderly saree clad lady walks into F/J section, she will be greeted by FAs with a polite "Let me see you are in the right section". It's all downhill from there.

There is a reason AI still competes with world-class airlines, nothing to do with the hard or soft product.

Wow, this post is just so myopic. I am sure you feel the above is true. I have no idea how long you have lived in the US. I can assure your post is not a typical experience for many of our families. There are plenty of indian families who have settled in the US that travel paid J on UA, DL BA etc. They have been doing so for decades. I am old enough to remember flying back every summer to Bombay on Pan Am’s Clipper Class (I think one of the first business classes). And no one every asked us if we were in the right class. An no my mom never traveled in saris (although my grand ma did and no one dare mess with her).

To the poster saying corporate rates are first cheap on EWR-BOM UA - went on my Corp travel site and not there aren’t. UA is expensive - nothing under 8K (again I am racing trips with less than 60 days and NO sat night stay.

One of 2 things need to happen 1 Delta finally announces the flight 2 this thread gets closed also finally!

dtw2hyd wrote:

Neither UA nor DL can monetize above mentioned premium traffic.

As soon as an elderly saree clad lady walks into F/J section, she will be greeted by FAs with a polite "Let me see you are in the right section". It's all downhill from there.

There is a reason AI still competes with world-class airlines, nothing to do with the hard or soft product.

\What in the gods name are you talking about.

I've taken EWR-BOM on UA three times. There's tons of VFR 'elderly saree clad' ladies and Indians of all types.

Don't be dumb.

dmstorm22 wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

Neither UA nor DL can monetize above mentioned premium traffic.

As soon as an elderly saree clad lady walks into F/J section, she will be greeted by FAs with a polite "Let me see you are in the right section". It's all downhill from there.

There is a reason AI still competes with world-class airlines, nothing to do with the hard or soft product.

\What in the gods name are you talking about.

I've taken EWR-BOM on UA three times. There's tons of VFR 'elderly saree clad' ladies and Indians of all types.

Don't be dumb.

Don't be silly dmstorm22... Come join the DTW thread... It will all make sense! (And I'm Indian... Lol)

Can we now get back on topic??

airbazar wrote:

Ok not conclusive.

Well, better late than never.

airbazar wrote:

Nothing will because no one here has that level of access.

Incorrect. Some things are easily and definitively conclusive:
E.g. DL having calculated a lower opportunity cost in aggregate consideration for a given timespan, for whichever aircraft they use to launch this (or really any) such route, versus the alternative of using that specific ship elsewhere within the same time period.

Pretty much the greatest truth in this particular industry, so not difficult to apply.

airbazar wrote:

But it's a pretty significant piece of evidence IMO.

The last three letters being the operative, in this statement.

I can swear I read yesterday on a thread here on a.net that the flight is loaded as ATL-BOM with the 777LR. I will try to find the thread and the post.

EDIT: Here is the thread.Reply#11
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1413719

CaliguyNYC wrote:

Wow, this post is just so myopic. I am sure you feel the above is true. I have no idea how long you have lived in the US. I can assure your post is not a typical experience for many of our families. There are plenty of indian families who have settled in the US that travel paid J on UA, DL BA etc. They have been doing so for decades. I am old enough to remember flying back every summer to Bombay on Pan Am’s Clipper Class (I think one of the first business classes). And no one every asked us if we were in the right class. An no my mom never traveled in saris (although my grand ma did and no one dare mess with her).

Maybe I need to clarify little more on premium cabin revenue target demographics

1) Corporate contracts
2) Indian origin elite
3) Indian elite (some DIYKIAs)

DL would never monetize #3
#2 is small in numbers
DL has to depend on #1 has to make premium cabins work.
Also, discount some part of reward travel.

dtw2hyd wrote:

CaliguyNYC wrote:

Wow, this post is just so myopic. I am sure you feel the above is true. I have no idea how long you have lived in the US. I can assure your post is not a typical experience for many of our families. There are plenty of indian families who have settled in the US that travel paid J on UA, DL BA etc. They have been doing so for decades. I am old enough to remember flying back every summer to Bombay on Pan Am’s Clipper Class (I think one of the first business classes). And no one every asked us if we were in the right class. An no my mom never traveled in saris (although my grand ma did and no one dare mess with her).

Maybe I need to clarify little more on premium cabin revenue target demographics

1) Corporate contracts
2) Indian origin elite
3) Indian elite (some DIYKIAs)

DL would never monetize #3
#2 is small in numbers
DL has to depend on #1 has to make premium cabins work.
Also, discount some part of reward travel.

Cool agreed. And yes it is all about corporate contracts. That is why DL should fly this route. The reason I think JFK has an edge is because I suspect that US origin Corp traffic is probably just below what DL needs. 9W, under the right terms, could give BOM origin Corp traffic that nudges the flight to profitability. I think India origin will pay the premium to JFK not to ATL or Southern US connections. I wonder if JFK-BOm could then connect with 9W BOM-SIN. This would add premium pax and let DL flyers get close to SIN on DL metal

gokmengs wrote:

I can swear I read yesterday on a thread here on a.net that the flight is loaded as ATL-BOM with the 777LR. I will try to find the thread and the post.

EDIT: Here is the thread.Reply#11
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1413719

That reply is gone/moved. And if its the reply that "points" to ATL, that isn't the same as "loaded".

jbs2886 wrote:

gokmengs wrote:

I can swear I read yesterday on a thread here on a.net that the flight is loaded as ATL-BOM with the 777LR. I will try to find the thread and the post.

EDIT: Here is the thread.Reply#11
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1413719

That reply is gone/moved. And if its the reply that "points" to ATL, that isn't the same as "loaded".

Yeah, it's not loaded unless Delta has done something in the past 5 minutes.

sonicruiser wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

gokmengs wrote:

I can swear I read yesterday on a thread here on a.net that the flight is loaded as ATL-BOM with the 777LR. I will try to find the thread and the post.

EDIT: Here is the thread.Reply#11
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1413719

That reply is gone/moved. And if its the reply that "points" to ATL, that isn't the same as "loaded".

Yeah, it's not loaded unless Delta has done something in the past 5 minutes.

Schedule loads only take place on Saturdays.