sonicruiser wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

route announcement in early 19 with a start in late 19 confirmed by Ed today at investment day.

This literally means nothing. I could make an equally vague announcement tomorrow and you would be none the wiser. There is not an ounce of information in that statement about what the plane, route, or start date is.

Don't have to be rude... It says word for word "Start in late 2019".. Thats more info than we had before... Same with the announcement date.

Hmm well at least we have heard from the horses mouth that it's actually going to start and last years announcement of intent to restart service wasn't just political posturing. An ULH route to India really seems to buck the trend for Delta as far as their recent international strategy goes which seems to be tons of lift to JV partner hubs and very little beyond that. I really do hope we see the schedule and a/c type announced in the coming weeks.

No new news today. I had already read about an "early 2019/late 2019" time. I'll keep waiting for the real route announcement instead of the political stunt.

It feels as though DL is taking a page out of QR's book, specifically AAB, and making bold statements - attacks on ME3, attacks on IG, stating intentions to serve India in 2019 yet here we are and still no announcement just to keep their name in the news. It resembles QR's statements about launching LAS, launching SFO, threats of exiting OW. Yet months and months later here we are with nothing changed.

deltal1011man wrote:

route announcement in early 19 with a start in late 19 confirmed by Ed today at investment day.

Route announcement later in 2018 with start date in 2019 confirmed by Delta in a press release in May 2018:
https://news.delta.com/delta-serve-mumb ... op-us-2019

How do we know which confirmed announcements are real and which will be superseded by future confirmed announcements?

IPFreely wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

route announcement in early 19 with a start in late 19 confirmed by Ed today at investment day.

Route announcement later in 2018 with start date in 2019 confirmed by Delta in a press release in May 2018:
https://news.delta.com/delta-serve-mumb ... op-us-2019

How do we know which confirmed announcements are real and which will be superseded by future confirmed announcements?

Honestly, why is this such a big deal? DL’s interest in India likely waned last year as fuel cost swelled; the drop in fuel cost likely rekindled some interest.

If the route happens, good, if it doesn’t, oh well. No need to turn this into Indiagate, like the 350/Sydneygate manufactured by these fourms...

They made such a big deal about it to let it quietly fade. Sorry

clrd4t8koff wrote:

It feels as though DL is taking a page out of QR's book, specifically AAB, and making bold statements - attacks on ME3, attacks on IG, stating intentions to serve India in 2019 yet here we are and still no announcement just to keep their name in the news. It resembles QR's statements about launching LAS, launching SFO, threats of exiting OW. Yet months and months later here we are with nothing changed.

Yeah I tend to agree, QR never officially acknowledged cancelling LAS/SFO and DL probably won't either, but just like with QR, at some point it will become obvious DL's plans to return to India are snakeoil.

If Delta announced an intent to serve Neptune there are some people who would believe it and insist that it will happen until they take their last breath.

jfklganyc wrote:

They made such a big deal about it to let it quietly fade. Sorry

Please explain. A bunch of people, none of which work for DL, arguing about it on a message forum does not constitue DL’s official position.

compensateme wrote:

Please explain. A bunch of people, none of which work for DL, arguing about it on a message forum does not constitue DL’s official position.

jfklganyc is not referring to this message board. jfklganyc is referring to Delta's press releases throughout 2018 that did not, for some reason, constitute DL's official position. Which begs the questions -- Why issue them in the first place? And in the future, which ones should be believed?

LAXintl wrote:

Personally, I also doubt the economics are there, but Delta for years now has cried about ME3 being the reason they cant serve the region.

And I don't understand. KLM has an extensive India network. The ME3 don't offer nonstop service to India from the US, so why does DL need to when they could just send flow through AMS or CDG? There are huge Indian populations scattered all over the USA and every single DL hub has a large Indian population. Most Indians in the USA utilizing this new DL route will need to fly to whichever DL hub will offer the route.

Everyone always says JFK. Of course JFK has a large Indian population. They have a large everything population. It's New York City, for crying out loud. But JFK cannot be the hub of all things DL. From ATL, the route is over 15 hours, but from JFK or DTW, it's only 14 hours. I've GCMapped the route from all the major domestic DL hubs here. At 14 hours, even an A330-200 could make it. Also, with an eastern hub, the return route avoids most of the Himalayas.

IPFreely wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Please explain. A bunch of people, none of which work for DL, arguing about it on a message forum does not constitue DL’s official position.

jfklganyc is not referring to this message board. jfklganyc is referring to Delta's press releases throughout 2018 that did not, for some reason, constitute DL's official position. Which begs the questions -- Why issue them in the first place? And in the future, which ones should be believed?

Jfklganyc could not have been “referring to Delta’s press releases throughout 2018...” since, well, DL issued only a single press release on the matter, and subsequently gave a couple minor one-line updates in response to media questioning.

Like I said, it’s merely drama that’s being manufactured within this community. Reality is, swelling fuel costs likely lead DL to delay/reconsider the decision. It wouldn’t have been the first time an airline walked away from a planned route. But with fuel rescinding, it’ll likely cause DL to reconsider again. No big deal... except among a small group of users.

DocLightning wrote:

And I don't understand. KLM has an extensive India network. The ME3 don't offer nonstop service to India from the US, so why does DL need to when they could just send flow through AMS or CDG? There are huge Indian populations scattered all over the USA and every single DL hub has a large Indian population. Most Indians in the USA utilizing this new DL route will need to fly to whichever DL hub will offer the route.

KLM flies to only BOM and DEL; AF to DEL, BOM (Joon) & BLR and VS only to DEL. So no it's certainly not extensive. Plus ME3 especially EK provides 1-stop in to a host of secondary cities such as AMD, COK, NAG etc., which are 2-stop at the minimum using UA/EU3. So yeah the ME3 advantage is there.

DocLightning wrote:

Everyone always says JFK. Of course JFK has a large Indian population. They have a large everything population. It's New York City, for crying out loud. But JFK cannot be the hub of all things DL. From ATL, the route is over 15 hours, but from JFK or DTW, it's only 14 hours. I've GCMapped the route from all the major domestic DL hubs here. At 14 hours, even an A330-200 could make it. Also, with an eastern hub, the return route avoids most of the Himalayas.

They have tried ATL-BOM before. At absolutely the wrong time: 2008-2010. ATL's Indian population has ballooned since then. DL could give ATL another shot contrary to popular opinion on A.Net (JFK - can't comment on DTW since don't know that market). My best guess is DL are biding time to see how the 9W situation pans out. They need a partner at the India-end. If 9W survives, an ATL-BOM route opens up a significant advantage against QR's one stop to ex-BOM India destinations. Plus the XXX-ATL-BOM routings. TK is severely constrained with the bilaterals to India. NYC is already a bloodbath with AI and UA crowding the field amongst all the ME3/EU3 traffic.

jfklganyc wrote:

They made such a big deal about it

Uh, how exactly?

There were like two official press releases, none offering specifics.

DocLightning wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Personally, I also doubt the economics are there, but Delta for years now has cried about ME3 being the reason they cant serve the region.

And I don't understand. KLM has an extensive India network. The ME3 don't offer nonstop service to India from the US, so why does DL need to when they could just send flow through AMS or CDG? There are huge Indian populations scattered all over the USA and every single DL hub has a large Indian population. Most Indians in the USA utilizing this new DL route will need to fly to whichever DL hub will offer the route.

Everyone always says JFK. Of course JFK has a large Indian population. They have a large everything population. It's New York City, for crying out loud. But JFK cannot be the hub of all things DL. From ATL, the route is over 15 hours, but from JFK or DTW, it's only 14 hours. I've GCMapped the route from all the major domestic DL hubs here. At 14 hours, even an A330-200 could make it. Also, with an eastern hub, the return route avoids most of the Himalayas.

What?

This assumes only Indians fly to India.

Plenty of non-Indian passengers residing in the US fly to India. Network planning targets the routes that have the greatest potential demand from high paying passengers and corporate volume regardless of nationality, race, etc. Your argument seems to assume DL route planning is based on only Indians flying to India and who do not want to make domestic US flight connections to get to India. I’m not a network expert. Is there any data that suggests new routes to destinations outside the US have a higher probability of financial success if the flight originates from a hub city with a large population of the destination country’s citizens?

Let me know if I’m overlooking something.

compensateme wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

They made such a big deal about it to let it quietly fade. Sorry

Please explain. A bunch of people, none of which work for DL, arguing about it on a message forum does not constitue DL’s official position.

We can argue all day but the fact is these types of routes are usually available for booking nearly a year in advance. For a start in the Spring of 2019 this would have had to happen very shortly after they published their intent in May of 2018.
https://news.delta.com/delta-serve-mumb ... op-us-2019
For example, last August Delta announced some of their new long haul routes for Spring of 2019 and I believe all of their new 2019 routes had been announced by October.
https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... expansion/
Bottom line is, it was all a political stunt. They never had any intent in re-starting service to India and most of us knew that.

So why does it matter? It matters because their lobbying actions have a direct consequence on the ticket prices that I pay when I fly. It's my hard earned money that's at stake when they use their leverage for these political games.

VTORD wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

And I don't understand. KLM has an extensive India network. The ME3 don't offer nonstop service to India from the US, so why does DL need to when they could just send flow through AMS or CDG? There are huge Indian populations scattered all over the USA and every single DL hub has a large Indian population. Most Indians in the USA utilizing this new DL route will need to fly to whichever DL hub will offer the route.

KLM flies to only BOM and DEL; AF to DEL, BOM (Joon) & BLR and VS only to DEL. So no it's certainly not extensive. Plus ME3 especially EK provides 1-stop in to a host of secondary cities such as AMD, COK, NAG etc., which are 2-stop at the minimum using UA/EU3. So yeah the ME3 advantage is there.

DocLightning wrote:

Everyone always says JFK. Of course JFK has a large Indian population. They have a large everything population. It's New York City, for crying out loud. But JFK cannot be the hub of all things DL. From ATL, the route is over 15 hours, but from JFK or DTW, it's only 14 hours. I've GCMapped the route from all the major domestic DL hubs here. At 14 hours, even an A330-200 could make it. Also, with an eastern hub, the return route avoids most of the Himalayas.

They have tried ATL-BOM before. At absolutely the wrong time: 2008-2010. ATL's Indian population has ballooned since then. DL could give ATL another shot contrary to popular opinion on A.Net (JFK - can't comment on DTW since don't know that market). My best guess is DL are biding time to see how the 9W situation pans out. They need a partner at the India-end. If 9W survives, an ATL-BOM route opens up a significant advantage against QR's one stop to ex-BOM India destinations. Plus the XXX-ATL-BOM routings. TK is severely constrained with the bilaterals to India. NYC is already a bloodbath with AI and UA crowding the field amongst all the ME3/EU3 traffic.

Actually it doesn't because QR still has pricing power out of ATL. Delta needs it's premiums to make investors happy QR is just the spoiler anything Delta does in the ATL-India QR can do better. I have said it before and been flamed here but DTW-BOM is Delta's best option. Shorter than ATL-BOM and zero ME3 competition giving Delta pricing power something it will not have out of JFK or ATL.

US-India non-stop and DL margins do not add up. Also, both AI and UA pre-empted this move. 9W still in business. Unless DL wants to cross-subsidize these losses across the network, increasing 9W's India-EU feed is the best financially viable solution.

OAG published interesting statistics on US-India traffic market shares for Oct'17 to Sep'18 period. They ranked top 10 but published numbers of only 3 airlines.
#1 EK -19%
#2 AI - 17%
#3 QR
#4 EY
#5 UA - 7%
#6 BA
#7 LH
#8 SQ
#9 CX
#10 AF

My guess is Ed made this statement to see what kind of cooperate contracts he could land based on Delta offering nonstop service in the two markets JFK and ATL and as off yet Delta has not sold enough premium corporate contracts in either city to warrant the nonstop flight that he says Delta will offer. So until he get's enough contracts to make it worth Delta's while we wait to see who wins.

klm617 wrote:

My guess is Ed made this statement to see what kind of cooperate contracts he could land based on Delta offering nonstop service in the two markets JFK and ATL and as off yet Delta has not sold enough premium corporate contracts in either city to warrant the nonstop flight that he says Delta will offer. So until he get's enough contracts to make it worth Delta's while we wait to see who wins.

Interesting theory, and very plausible. Hard to see DL getting any corporate contracts for India in NYC based on several factors: 1. UA is the #1 airline in NYC, 2. UA has two daily nonstops EWR-India currently running vs. one at best with unknown start date on DL, and 3. UA has shown commitment to serving India having been there for a long time vs. DL which, corporate contracts or not, dropped India, SIN, HKG, etc., in the past. Are there corporations with enough ATL-India travel that would generate contracts justifying a daily flight? Based on your theory, DTW (with less competition) might be or maybe should be in the running, assuming DL was serious about serving India in the first place.

This thread I already see too unnecessary, DL are not going to announce their return to BOM especially that they had 10 orders of A350 for 2025, still do not understand the strategy of Delta wide-body aircraft :/.

They need to remove several Boeing 767-300ER but the A330neo are very large, also the next decade have to remove several A330, B764 and B77E. It was a very bad idea to postpone the orders of the A350 for so far

VTORD wrote:

They have tried ATL-BOM before. At absolutely the wrong time: 2008-2010. ATL's Indian population has ballooned since then. DL could give ATL another shot contrary to popular opinion on A.Net (JFK - can't comment on DTW since don't know that market). My best guess is DL are biding time to see how the 9W situation pans out. They need a partner at the India-end. If 9W survives, an ATL-BOM route opens up a significant advantage against QR's one stop to ex-BOM India destinations. Plus the XXX-ATL-BOM routings. TK is severely constrained with the bilaterals to India. NYC is already a bloodbath with AI and UA crowding the field amongst all the ME3/EU3 traffic.

Although QR is the only ME3 airline that serves ATL make no mistake DL will still have to battle it out with EK indirectly and EK's power over the price of tickets from the U.S. to India. It's not just NYC to India that's a bloodbath the bloodbath is the entire U.S market. Look at UA's recent announcement to launch seasonal service SFO-DEL and the SFO-SJC-OAK area probably is a much stronger O&D market than the ATL area but UA isn't jumping in with both feet. Instead UA is going to start with seasonal service if the route fails to meet expectations it will probably only survive one season. I think the US3 want to add more flights to India but reality they now face is while they were lobbing in D.C. the ME3 EK in particular was winning the U.S.-India market with extremely cheap flights and great service. This strategy has been a winner for EK they are not going to change their approach, DL (JFK or ATL) and UA (SFO) are going to have to figure out how to make it work and compete against EK and QR. In UA's case if they can't compete or if the route isn't profitable UA's SFO-DEL will not return after its initial season. UA at the very least has announced a gateway and a start date for their new DEL flight, DL will only say service will start at some point in 2019. That statement speaks volumes to the competitive nature of this market and it shows ATL is not as immune as people might think. I think because the market has changed this one time and one time only DL should follow UA's lead and announce ATL-BOM but on a seasonal 4x or 5x weekly basis. Once the season ends conduct a thorough review of the flight if it met expectations the flight returns the following year might even go daily, if the flight fails to meet their internal expectations it doesn't return at all.

IPFreely wrote:

klm617 wrote:

My guess is Ed made this statement to see what kind of cooperate contracts he could land based on Delta offering nonstop service in the two markets JFK and ATL and as off yet Delta has not sold enough premium corporate contracts in either city to warrant the nonstop flight that he says Delta will offer. So until he get's enough contracts to make it worth Delta's while we wait to see who wins.

Interesting theory, and very plausible. Hard to see DL getting any corporate contracts for India in NYC based on several factors: 1. UA is the #1 airline in NYC, 2. UA has two daily nonstops EWR-India currently running vs. one at best with unknown start date on DL, and 3. UA has shown commitment to serving India having been there for a long time vs. DL which, corporate contracts or not, dropped India, SIN, HKG, etc., in the past. Are there corporations with enough ATL-India travel that would generate contracts justifying a daily flight? Based on your theory, DTW (with less competition) might be or maybe should be in the running, assuming DL was serious about serving India in the first place.

I think you hit the nail on the head, especially in regard to DTW. I know everyone goes crazy over DTW on A.net, but from a business and logistical perspective, it made the most sense. DL is too late to the game in ATL and will have to duke it out with QR and TK while JFK will be a competitive bloodbath. If they never even considered DTW to begin with, they've already made a fatal mistake from the start, and that's assuming that this entire thing wasn't some sort of mirage.

questions wrote:

This assumes only Indians fly to India.

You raise an excellent point. However, people of Indian descent going to India to visit friends and family and Indian nationals coming to visit family will make up a significant fraction of the market.

DL currently has only two models (77L and A350) that can fly the route, so they need to fill seats to make it work, even if the pax filling those seats are low-yield, it’s better than nothing.

airbazar wrote:

Bottom line is, it was all a political stunt. They never had any intent in re-starting service to India and most of us knew that.

I think you're probably wrong (unless, of course, you can prove they never had intent, in which case I'm all ears).

I think at the time of the initial announcement DL was optimistic about serving India again nonstop, and building a strong partnership with 9W to give them access to a massive developing market going forward. However, since they announced their intent to return to BOM, 1) AI has preempted them by restarting nonstop JFK-BOM service (which was probably the best case route for DL to serve before that move), and 2) 9W has been having well-documented financial struggles, and what they will look like in the future is very much uncertain.

If you ask me, DL's intentions were to actually serve India, but they unfortunately tried to pull some political punches in announcing their return the way they did. That led to them getting outmaneuvered in their best potential market, and now they need to re-evaluate their plans as the competitive landscape has shifted beneath them. Best case scenario would have been for DL to wait to announce their intent to return to the nonstop U.S.-India market until they had actually done all their research and figured out which route to serve.

DocLightning wrote:

DL currently has only two models (77L and A350) that can fly the route, so they need to fill seats to make it work, even if the pax filling those seats are low-yield, it’s better than nothing.

not to revisit the A350/DL thread, but DL has one frame that can fly this distance with the payloads they wanna carry- the 77L. ATL would be the first choice and at about 7400nm you're at or beyond the range of the 275t variant with merely full pax. I'm don't think it gets there tbh. Even accepting the overstated brochure range of the 280t model at 8100, you're subtracting 5t of MTOW (fuel) to DL's variant - probably 50 min of fight time. To be blunt, this manufacturer needs to drop 500nm off its brochure ranges as the other major already did to reflect realistic airline configurations, or people here need to realize that their spec does not reflect typical real world configs. After that adjustment DL's uprated birds aren't capable of this mission.

jayunited wrote:

Although QR is the only ME3 airline that serves ATL make no mistake DL will still have to battle it out with EK indirectly and EK's power over the price of tickets from the U.S. to India. It's not just NYC to India that's a bloodbath the bloodbath is the entire U.S market. Look at UA's recent announcement to launch seasonal service SFO-DEL and the SFO-SJC-OAK area probably is a much stronger O&D market than the ATL area but UA isn't jumping in with both feet. Instead UA is going to start with seasonal service if the route fails to meet expectations it will probably only survive one season. I think the US3 want to add more flights to India but reality they now face is while they were lobbing in D.C. the ME3 EK in particular was winning the U.S.-India market with extremely cheap flights and great service. This strategy has been a winner for EK they are not going to change their approach, DL (JFK or ATL) and UA (SFO) are going to have to figure out how to make it work and compete against EK and QR. In UA's case if they can't compete or if the route isn't profitable UA's SFO-DEL will not return after its initial season. UA at the very least has announced a gateway and a start date for their new DEL flight, DL will only say service will start at some point in 2019. That statement speaks volumes to the competitive nature of this market and it shows ATL is not as immune as people might think. I think because the market has changed this one time and one time only DL should follow UA's lead and announce ATL-BOM but on a seasonal 4x or 5x weekly basis. Once the season ends conduct a thorough review of the flight if it met expectations the flight returns the following year might even go daily, if the flight fails to meet their internal expectations it doesn't return at all.

Agreed on the 4 x Weekly. And your logic about how UA is going about it but again, the point I am trying to make is: To truly bypass the ME as a connector, they will need a strong feeder/onward connector relationship in India. I don't see AI and UA doing that even though they are in the same alliance. 9W and DL were starting to get close but 9W is on life support itself. And if the reports of EY (themselves not in the best shape) upping their stake are true, I highly doubt the intention will be to let 9W get in bed with DL. That is the bare minimum they will have to do to provide any sort of "competition" to QR (and TK). That's why I am guessing that IF DL are serious about this, they are biding time. If 9W doesn't make it, we may not see a India non-stop on DL.

trav777 wrote:

To be blunt, this manufacturer needs to drop 500nm off its brochure ranges as the other major already did to reflect realistic airline configurations, or people here need to realize that their spec does not reflect typical real world configs. After that adjustment DL's uprated birds aren't capable of this mission.

DL have flown ATL-BOM before so not sure if they were doing some load restricted flights.

klm617 wrote:

Actually it doesn't because QR still has pricing power out of ATL. Delta needs it's premiums to make investors happy QR is just the spoiler anything Delta does in the ATL-India QR can do better. I have said it before and been flamed here but DTW-BOM is Delta's best option. Shorter than ATL-BOM and zero ME3 competition giving Delta pricing power something it will not have out of JFK or ATL.

You probably know DTW better than I do so..... Heck they might even lure some Canadian pax from the Sarnia-Hamilton area. You might be on to something here.

VTORD wrote:

To truly bypass the ME as a connector, they will need a strong feeder/onward connector relationship in India. I don't see AI and UA doing that even though they are in the same alliance. 9W and DL were starting to get close but 9W is on life support itself. And if the reports of EY (themselves not in the best shape) upping their stake are true, I highly doubt the intention will be to let 9W get in bed with DL. That is the bare minimum they will have to do to provide any sort of "competition" to QR (and TK). That's why I am guessing that IF DL are serious about this, they are biding time. If 9W doesn't make it, we may not see a India non-stop on DL.

airbazar wrote:

compensateme wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

They made such a big deal about it to let it quietly fade. Sorry

Please explain. A bunch of people, none of which work for DL, arguing about it on a message forum does not constitue DL’s official position.

We can argue all day but the fact is these types of routes are usually available for booking nearly a year in advance. For a start in the Spring of 2019 this would have had to happen very shortly after they published their intent in May of 2018.
https://news.delta.com/delta-serve-mumb ... op-us-2019
For example, last August Delta announced some of their new long haul routes for Spring of 2019 and I believe all of their new 2019 routes had been announced by October.
https://www.businesstraveller.com/busin ... expansion/
Bottom line is, it was all a political stunt. They never had any intent in re-starting service to India and most of us knew that.

So why does it matter? It matters because their lobbying actions have a direct consequence on the ticket prices that I pay when I fly. It's my hard earned money that's at stake when they use their leverage for these political games.

DL issued a press release announcing service to India (with a political spin; shortly after, DL planners discussed the benefits of such service. Then the route quietly became an afterthought, with a couple mentions in response to questioning.

Do you have anything to support the notion that DL acted in bad faith? It isn’t a secret that yields to India are poor, and with fuel expense continuing to climb after the announcement — peaking at nearly up 40% — it isn’t shocking that interest in the route was lost. Now that fuel has dropped, it may come to fruitation.

But at the end of the day, it isn’t a big deal. Really. A.net likes to manufacture drama and this is a good example. It’s not the first time an airline announced new service that it dragged its feet with or scrapped. How long has WN been milking Hawaii?

As far as your money going to lobbying... that really isn’t your concern. You pay DL for air transport on, and that’s it. What they do with your money is their business and often it’s best not to know - eg If you are at Subway anytime over a 15yr period, you supported pedophila.

compensateme wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

They made such a big deal about it to let it quietly fade. Sorry

Please explain. A bunch of people, none of which work for DL, arguing about it on a message forum does not constitue DL’s official position.

klm617 wrote:

My guess is Ed made this statement to see what kind of cooperate contracts he could land based on Delta offering nonstop service in the two markets JFK and ATL and as off yet Delta has not sold enough premium corporate contracts in either city to warrant the nonstop flight that he says Delta will offer. So until he get's enough contracts to make it worth Delta's while we wait to see who wins.

The route and it's U.S. origin will be formally announced prior to March 31st of this year. I cannot share my source, but if it doesn't happen I'll leave this board and never come back.

klm617 wrote:

My guess is Ed made this statement to see what kind of cooperate contracts he could land based on Delta offering nonstop service in the two markets JFK and ATL and as off yet Delta has not sold enough premium corporate contracts in either city to warrant the nonstop flight that he says Delta will offer. So until he get's enough contracts to make it worth Delta's while we wait to see who wins.

Companies test out new products and services all the time with top and desired companies without making public statements. This is the role of the sales team and, if needed, select top to tops. The CEO would not makes a public statement about what’s in the pipeline solely to determine demand.

I'm surprised DL hasn't tried DTW-BOM. JFK-BOM is overly saturated, it seems UA really owns the market out of EWR anyways (and I would never be stuck on a UAL flight for that long in Economy.)

FSDan wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Bottom line is, it was all a political stunt. They never had any intent in re-starting service to India and most of us knew that.

I think you're probably wrong (unless, of course, you can prove they never had intent, in which case I'm all ears).

I think at the time of the initial announcement DL was optimistic about serving India again nonstop, ...

My evidence is that I can't book a DL flight to BOM in 2019. What other evidence do you need?
For them to start in May 2019 (why would they start any other time other than peak season?), they would have had to formally announce it and make it available for booking by August of 2018 at the latest. Nothing changed in the 3 months between May and August of 2018 so I'm calling BS on the idea that "they wanted to but the environment changed".
Had they said something like "we plan on making a decision by 2019" that would have been a completely different story but that's not what they said. There's no way they planned on starting flying in 2019. That was nothing but political posturing.
They could still announce it to start flying in December 2019, at which point I'll eat crow I guess.

In the December issue of Sky magazine Ed reiterated Delta's intention to serve Mumbai in 2019.

MSPNWA wrote:

No new news today. I had already read about an "early 2019/late 2019" time. I'll keep waiting for the real route announcement instead of the political stunt.

airbazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Bottom line is, it was all a political stunt. They never had any intent in re-starting service to India and most of us knew that.

I think you're probably wrong (unless, of course, you can prove they never had intent, in which case I'm all ears).

I think at the time of the initial announcement DL was optimistic about serving India again nonstop, ...

My evidence is that I can't book a DL flight to BOM in 2019. What other evidence do you need?
For them to start in May 2019 (why would they start any other time other than peak season?), they would have had to formally announce it and make it available for booking by August of 2018 at the latest. Nothing changed in the 3 months between May and August of 2018 so I'm calling BS on the idea that "they wanted to but the environment changed".
Had they said something like "we plan on making a decision by 2019" that would have been a completely different story but that's not what they said. There's no way they planned on starting flying in 2019. That was nothing but political posturing.
They could still announce it to start flying in December 2019, at which point I'll eat crow I guess.

You both should probably open December's issue of Sky Magazine where it's reiterated that Delta will serve BOM nonstop in 2019... sounds very much not like a political stunt.

airbazar wrote:

FSDan wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Bottom line is, it was all a political stunt. They never had any intent in re-starting service to India and most of us knew that.

I think you're probably wrong (unless, of course, you can prove they never had intent, in which case I'm all ears).

I think at the time of the initial announcement DL was optimistic about serving India again nonstop, ...

My evidence is that I can't book a DL flight to BOM in 2019. What other evidence do you need?
For them to start in May 2019 (why would they start any other time other than peak season?), they would have had to formally announce it and make it available for booking by August of 2018 at the latest. Nothing changed in the 3 months between May and August of 2018 so I'm calling BS on the idea that "they wanted to but the environment changed".
Had they said something like "we plan on making a decision by 2019" that would have been a completely different story but that's not what they said. There's no way they planned on starting flying in 2019. That was nothing but political posturing.
They could still announce it to start flying in December 2019, at which point I'll eat crow I guess.

All true, but depressing for DL fans. I wonder what's going to happen to 9W. That could be a big piece of the reason DL hasn't yet finalized plans for BOM. The other question I have is MSP-PVG on Delta. Now MSP-ICN is already amazing, but MSP-PVG? If so, the Twins hit it out of the ballpark this time! Remember short-lived MSP-HKG?

winginit wrote:

You both should probably open December's issue of Sky Magazine where it's reiterated that Delta will serve BOM nonstop in 2019... sounds very much not like a political stunt.

It was a political stunt the day it was announced. That fact will never change.

The only thing that may change is if DL will turn it into both a political stunt and a legitimate route launch.

MSPNWA wrote:

winginit wrote:

You both should probably open December's issue of Sky Magazine where it's reiterated that Delta will serve BOM nonstop in 2019... sounds very much not like a political stunt.

It was a political stunt the day it was announced. That fact will never change.

The only thing that may change is if DL will turn it into both a political stunt and a legitimate route launch.

I'm not sure what definition of a 'political stunt' you use, but aren't all route announcements political stunts to some extent?

This is a legitimate route launch. That is a fact.

N649DL wrote:

I'm surprised DL hasn't tried DTW-BOM. JFK-BOM is overly saturated, it seems UA really owns the market out of EWR anyways (and I would never be stuck on a UAL flight for that long in Economy.)

DTW doesn't offer anywhere near the amount of connection opportunities that ATL does. If BOM happens at all, it will be from ATL. I wouldn't be surprised if Emirates gives DTW a try though.

winginit wrote:

I'm not sure what definition of a 'political stunt' you use, but aren't all route announcements political stunts to some extent?

This is a legitimate route launch. That is a fact.

The vast majority of route announcements have nothing to do with politics. Google the term. The initial announcement fits the definition perfectly. It was specifically tied to the "deal" with the ME3.

What it isn't at this point is a legitimate route launch. Obviously they have time to make it one, but we're still waiting. They've already missed one timeline of when they'd launch the route.

TTailedTiger wrote:

N649DL wrote:

I'm surprised DL hasn't tried DTW-BOM. JFK-BOM is overly saturated, it seems UA really owns the market out of EWR anyways (and I would never be stuck on a UAL flight for that long in Economy.)

DTW doesn't offer anywhere near the amount of connection opportunities that ATL does. If BOM happens at all, it will be from ATL. I wouldn't be surprised if Emirates gives DTW a try though.

It has more to do with the premium cabin than it has to do with the connections to fill the back. Case and point DTW-NGO while ATL has more connection possibilities Detroit has more premium traffic to NGO. While I don't think it will be Detroit I still feel it has the best chance to make money for Delta over JFK or ATL but I don't run Delta. We have the A350 based here not to mention there is ZERO low fare competition to India plus there is a lot of traffic between Detroit and India and the airport has listed a nonstop to India as being on it's wish list. Hey let's face it if Delta can consider MSP-PVG with 20 PDEW then why not give Detroit a chance with 150 PDEW to India.

SEA would be a good place to launch a nonstop to India. The tech sector there combined with high traffic flows to places like BLR, HYD and DEL would offer amble opportunity. I don't see NYC being the best place for an India nonstop as there is not nearly as much business traffic and AI already offers nonstops from that market.

This thread is so fascinating! Look India is a growing market. People keep saying things like NYC is over saturated or TK and QR already exist in ATL (which is a DL fortress hub). DL is going after J traffic and the higher end VFR (that are also DL FF). In NYC, UA and AI’s flights do nothing for DL FFs. DL already prices J class high to places like EU because their JFK FF base tends to be professionals that will pay a bit more to stay on DL/Skyteam. Plus the shear size of NYC-India vs anywhere else makes up for the competition (look at NYC-China). DL should absolutely serve BOM from one city in the US. You need a presence in a growth market otherwise getting in is very tough. 9W is a strong partner for DL. Don’t underestimate what 9W can bring to the nonstop that DL never had before (also how much the market has grown in 11 years). Finally AI is not, I repeat, not going to stop DL. AI has no chance of taking any DL elite J flier - period. AI hurts the ME4 the most and actually now commands a premium over the ME4 (go figure). I think AI should have started EWR-DEL 3X - EWR is where the VFR live and DEL could have used the extra 3 flights timed for domestic connections in AI’s large DEL hub (UA arrives too late).

TTailedTiger wrote:

N649DL wrote:

I'm surprised DL hasn't tried DTW-BOM. JFK-BOM is overly saturated, it seems UA really owns the market out of EWR anyways (and I would never be stuck on a UAL flight for that long in Economy.)

DTW doesn't offer anywhere near the amount of connection opportunities that ATL does. If BOM happens at all, it will be from ATL. I wouldn't be surprised if Emirates gives DTW a try though.

What DTW could really use (in my opinion, of course) is TK to IST...

Back on the JFK vs ATL topic, ATL does have lots of connections, but not many of them are that useful for supporting a U.S.-India nonstop. Connections from the big Texas markets and Florida, and maybe RDU, are about all that make sense geographically and have a decent sized market to India.

DL may well yet decide that despite the higher level of competition in NYC, they could get more premium/corporate traffic on JFK-BOM than on ATL-BOM. It depends on how many of their current corporate customers in either city need to travel to BOM frequently. New York, with its massive finance and entertainment industries, might result in more high value traffic that DL feels they can capture. JFK is also in a better location than ATL for providing connections to BOM from places like LAX, ORD, and BOS, while still being able to serve connections from the likes of AUS, DFW, MCO, ATL, RDU, DCA, etc. in a similar capacity to what ATL could offer.

klm617 wrote:

Case and point DTW-NGO while ATL has more connection possibilities Detroit has more premium traffic to NGO.

I'm not sure I'm tracking how NGO is comparable to BOM.

N649DL wrote:

I'm surprised DL hasn't tried DTW-BOM. JFK-BOM is overly saturated, it seems UA really owns the market out of EWR anyways (and I would never be stuck on a UAL flight for that long in Economy.)

Well for now you don't even have the option to be stuck in the DL economy cabin to India, so it sounds like India isn't in your travel plans!

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Case and point DTW-NGO while ATL has more connection possibilities Detroit has more premium traffic to NGO.

I'm not sure I'm tracking how NGO is comparable to BOM.

That if Delta based it route additions on the amount of connecting traffic it could get to fill a flight NGO would operate out of ATL instead of Detroit. The reason that NGO is operated out of Detroit is because it is a premium heavy flight and I'd venture to say that the connections traffic that feeds that flight is minimal. So Delta's basis for operating or not operated a flight is based more on the amount it can get from it's premium cabin rather than the amount of connections it can field. Like I said above I think Delta is trying to shore up it's corporate contracts to see what might be the better place to launch a flight to India based on that I think JFK is the winner simply because in ATL like DTW Delta already has pretty much all the corporate contracts tied up where as in New York they can still win some corporate accounts over based and they are using the fact that they want to start JFK-BOM to poach customers from UA or AI. Don't know what's available in ATL that isn't already on board with Delta and the only one I can think of in the Detroit area is Mahindra that just opened and assembly plant here if they aren't already on board with Delta.

winginit wrote:

This is a legitimate route launch. That is a fact.

How is that a fact? There has been no launch. There isn't even a route.

klm617 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

N649DL wrote:

I'm surprised DL hasn't tried DTW-BOM. JFK-BOM is overly saturated, it seems UA really owns the market out of EWR anyways (and I would never be stuck on a UAL flight for that long in Economy.)

DTW doesn't offer anywhere near the amount of connection opportunities that ATL does. If BOM happens at all, it will be from ATL. I wouldn't be surprised if Emirates gives DTW a try though.

It has more to do with the premium cabin than it has to do with the connections to fill the back. Case and point DTW-NGO while ATL has more connection possibilities Detroit has more premium traffic to NGO. While I don't think it will be Detroit I still feel it has the best chance to make money for Delta over JFK or ATL but I don't run Delta. We have the A350 based here not to mention there is ZERO low fare competition to India plus there is a lot of traffic between Detroit and India and the airport has listed a nonstop to India as being on it's wish list. Hey let's face it if Delta can consider MSP-PVG with 20 PDEW then why not give Detroit a chance with 150 PDEW to India.

Comparing NGO to BOM doesn't make sense. DTWNGO is strictly tied to the automotive and supporting industries. Thus the premium traffic. Its not a flight filled with VFR and people wanting to vacay in DTW. Not an apples to apples comparison.