DL canceling BOM service; AMS-BOM continuing
Aug 27, 2009, 11:08 am
#16
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,559
What I don't understand is how CO is able to operate non-stop to both DEL and BOM. Must speak to some difference in operating philosophies between DL and CO.
Aug 27, 2009, 11:10 am
#17
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
Aug 27, 2009, 11:58 am
#19
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,559
Or to differences in O&D traffic levels in EWR vs. ATL
Aug 27, 2009, 12:04 pm
#20
Join Date: Jul 2004
Programs: DL; AA; UA; CO; LHLX; NZ; QR; EK; BA
Posts: 7,441
As others have already mentioned, yields stink to India and the Middle East airlines are driving them even lower. Pax numbers are not the issue; DL would continue to fill the ATL-BOM or JFK-BOM flight this winter with no problem.
One of the reasons why CO is still in there is because they don't have another hub to move the DEL or BOM flight to; if they drop EWR-BOM or EWR-DEL, they would have to exit the India market entirely.
Pre-merger Delta would probabaly have kept either JFK-BOM or ATL-BOM; however, with the NW merger, DL now has more options on how to route their India flights; under current circumstances, AMS-BOM is probably the least costly way of doing it while still allowing DL to maintain its footprint in BOM. It's the same story with PVG; pre-merger DL would probably not have dropped ATL-PVG, but they now have DTW-PVG and NRT-PVG to play with...
One of the reasons why CO is still in there is because they don't have another hub to move the DEL or BOM flight to; if they drop EWR-BOM or EWR-DEL, they would have to exit the India market entirely.
Pre-merger Delta would probabaly have kept either JFK-BOM or ATL-BOM; however, with the NW merger, DL now has more options on how to route their India flights; under current circumstances, AMS-BOM is probably the least costly way of doing it while still allowing DL to maintain its footprint in BOM. It's the same story with PVG; pre-merger DL would probably not have dropped ATL-PVG, but they now have DTW-PVG and NRT-PVG to play with...
Aug 27, 2009, 12:23 pm
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,384
Again, they essentially stupidly ceded their substantial NYC area o/d base which they had built up over 30-40 years to CO and 9W when they abandoned the flight for ATL, in this economy, with these yealds, they are not getting them back now. They should have fought it out, but made the really stupid mistake of doing it from ATL.
Aug 27, 2009, 1:05 pm
#22
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
CO can do just what DL-NW do to India for many flights to India: code-share thru the hub(s) of partner airline(s). That's how CO would not have to exit the India market entirely.
Aug 27, 2009, 1:17 pm
#23
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: VPS
Programs: DL DM/2MM, Etihad Gold, HHonors Diamond, SPG Gold
Posts: 4,787
But, that would be not be on CO metal. The AMS-BOM flight will still be DL metal and thus, maintain the DL footprint in BOM.
Aug 27, 2009, 1:33 pm
#24
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: KUL/TPA/OTP
Programs: UA1k, DL
Posts: 3,138
Precisely. Which will make re-entry of the Non-Stop that much easier when the economy recovers. Good move on DL's part. Great way to stop the bleeding.
Aug 27, 2009, 1:51 pm
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
No but about it -- there's a meaning to the word code-share.
Who cares about whose metal is involved. Even DL management have shown they don't care that much as code-shares is largely what the recent ATI was about.
Originally Posted by DLfan
The AMS-BOM flight will still be DL metal and thus, maintain the DL footprint in BOM.
Aug 27, 2009, 2:13 pm
#26
Join Date: Jul 2004
Programs: DL; AA; UA; CO; LHLX; NZ; QR; EK; BA
Posts: 7,441
The only way that DL stopped flying its own metal on JFK-CDG and AF will on PHL-CDG come October or AF selling the DL-operated LHR-JFK flights as heavily as they currently do was/is when they concluded a metal-neutral 50-50 JV. At this point, CO does not have any significant metal-neutral JVs in place although they could turn the proposed ATI-JV with UA-LH-AC, etc, into one.
Aug 27, 2009, 2:32 pm
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
It's metal-neutral-style (i.e. cost and revenue-sharing) JV that interested DL management -- it's not like DL management was hell-bent on surrendering the NW-KL-style JV arrangement without a substitute plan that largely expanded that idea under the most recent ATI. Code-shares nonetheless.
Aug 27, 2009, 8:22 pm
#28
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: NY
Programs: AA: ExPlat & 3MM; UA: 1k; KL: Plat 4 Life; Hyatt: Plat; SPG, Marriott, Hilton: Gold
Posts: 2,709
As discussed in the other thread, DL was the incumbant on this route for many decades, through Pan Am, flying through FRA, then CDG, then non-stop. When CO and 9W started up their own nonstops and AI went to nonstop, they thought they'd be clever and rather than fight, which they should have as they had a loyal NYC area o/d market, they abandoned it and tried ATL. It didn't work. Now the economy is bad and NY too competitive and from what I understand consolidator prices even in Biz have plummeted.
Aug 27, 2009, 10:56 pm
#29
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: NW OH
Programs: DL PM/KM, AC *G, AS MVP-100K
Posts: 830
Run-of-the-mill codeshares don't bring much to the marketing airline. Even having ATI without a metal-neutral JV is nowhere near the same as operating your own flight to the destination in terms of revenue/profit generation.
The only way that DL stopped flying its own metal on JFK-CDG and AF will on PHL-CDG come October or AF selling the DL-operated LHR-JFK flights as heavily as they currently do was/is when they concluded a metal-neutral 50-50 JV. At this point, CO does not have any significant metal-neutral JVs in place although they could turn the proposed ATI-JV with UA-LH-AC, etc, into one.
The only way that DL stopped flying its own metal on JFK-CDG and AF will on PHL-CDG come October or AF selling the DL-operated LHR-JFK flights as heavily as they currently do was/is when they concluded a metal-neutral 50-50 JV. At this point, CO does not have any significant metal-neutral JVs in place although they could turn the proposed ATI-JV with UA-LH-AC, etc, into one.
At any rate, AMS-BOM fills a slot in the Skyteam network. There's not much point in CO doing a one-stop via FRA (the obvious routing for soon-to-be-partner feed) because LH already has nonstops on FRA-BOM/DEL.
Aug 27, 2009, 11:06 pm
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 15,384
Correct 9W is via BRU, but then again 9W didn't exist on the route before, in any case it is a littl bit different than all the other 1 stop options as its a scissor hub connection not a major hub connection. Whether AI's loads are horrible or not is not as important as the fact that it has also gone nonstop and Ai has improved their equipment. Regarding the other 1 stop competition, this is a factor when you consider that Emirates, Etihad and Qatar Airlines offer attractive options and prices and were not competition as recently as 3 years ago.