Threy,

The biggest problem I have with you is that you infer, consistently, that if O&D traffic isn't enough to support a route, then the route should not exist.

I just don't believe that.

While there is a definite hit on costs and efficiency when someone has to connect, the fact remains that there cannot be O&D routes between every city-pair on earth and hence, by definition, some people HAVE to connect to get from point A to point B.

Just because they have to connect (i.e., just because they don't represent O&D traffic) does not mean they are not important revenue or are not profitable. My goodness, the world is made up of connecting passengers -- even in Europe.

In a country of 300 Million freakin' people, the chances are that you can cobble up 200-400 a day wanting to go to even a relatively small, and relatively remote, European city. And, if they have a choice to go via EWR or ATL, a decent number of them might pick ATL. And most of them would prefer to connect on this side of the pond rather than in London or Paris or Amsterdam or wherever. And, if you can get decent yields from them, you just might have a profitable route on your hands.

I am not, by any means, guaranteeing that the route will be profitable, but there is a chance it will be --- and if it is not, you can always discontinue it.

I just can't believe that the O&D traffic to NYC is so overwhelming as to make the flight to Newark profitable but the route to Atlanta not. I suspect that most people going to, or coming from, EDI are going to someplace other than NYC. And if that is true, then Delta has a chance in this market to make it competitive.

And you, Threy, never acknowledge this possibility.

Can you at least give Delta a chance of possibly succeeding on this route? Or, for that matter, any route?






[