<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Delta Channels Pan Am, Decides to Fly to Every Airport on Earth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:43:24 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: CF</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-80984</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:26:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-80984</guid>
		<description>&lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-80947&quot; title=&quot;Go to comment of this author&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Ron&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt; wrote:
&lt;blockquote&gt;
What I also don’t understand is why Delta is operating its daily JFK-TLV flight with a 767&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Just look ahead and you&#039;ll see that starting next June, the flight will operate with a 747!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b><a href="#comment-80947" title="Go to comment of this author" rel="nofollow">Ron</a></b> wrote:</p>
<blockquote><p>
What I also don’t understand is why Delta is operating its daily JFK-TLV flight with a 767</p></blockquote>
<p>Just look ahead and you&#8217;ll see that starting next June, the flight will operate with a 747!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-80947</link>
		<dc:creator>Ron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 05:47:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-80947</guid>
		<description>Hey Cranky, I called it -- Starting next week, ATL-TLV goes down to 4x weekly, while JFK-TLV retains its daily flight (did the 2nd frequency really happen this past summer? I wasn&#039;t paying attention). The only surprise is that it took Delta so long to realize that the strongest North American market for Tel Aviv is, surprise surprise, New York.

What I also don&#039;t understand is why Delta is operating its daily JFK-TLV flight with a 767 (ATL-TLV was, and still is with reduced frequency, a 777). In addition to Delta, the market sustains 2x daily 777 by Continental (from EWR, obviously), plus 15x weekly by El-Al (7x744 plus 2x777 to JFK and 6x777 to EWR). All with fairly high fares, which suggests that there is room for competition.

I don&#039;t see why Delta isn&#039;t fighting for more of the New York--Tel Aviv market, especially now that it&#039;s the only Sky Team carrier on the route. They should be able to sustain a daily 777, especially if they cut off what&#039;s left of Atlanta and move the connections to JFK. I wonder if it&#039;s operational issues -- starting next week, the only 777 they fly out of JFK is a daily flight to NRT, plus a repositioning flight from ATL (also, no 747s or 330s from JFK).

I also wonder if US Airways&#039; entry into the Tel Aviv market this past summer with a daily 332 from PHL is what&#039;s hurting the Atlanta route. ATL and PHL are probably both more for connections than origin/destination, and perhaps they&#039;re just making each other bleed. Maybe when the dust settles we&#039;ll see once again that the market for flights to Tel Aviv is in New York.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Cranky, I called it &#8212; Starting next week, ATL-TLV goes down to 4x weekly, while JFK-TLV retains its daily flight (did the 2nd frequency really happen this past summer? I wasn&#8217;t paying attention). The only surprise is that it took Delta so long to realize that the strongest North American market for Tel Aviv is, surprise surprise, New York.</p>
<p>What I also don&#8217;t understand is why Delta is operating its daily JFK-TLV flight with a 767 (ATL-TLV was, and still is with reduced frequency, a 777). In addition to Delta, the market sustains 2x daily 777 by Continental (from EWR, obviously), plus 15x weekly by El-Al (7&#215;744 plus 2&#215;777 to JFK and 6&#215;777 to EWR). All with fairly high fares, which suggests that there is room for competition.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t see why Delta isn&#8217;t fighting for more of the New York&#8211;Tel Aviv market, especially now that it&#8217;s the only Sky Team carrier on the route. They should be able to sustain a daily 777, especially if they cut off what&#8217;s left of Atlanta and move the connections to JFK. I wonder if it&#8217;s operational issues &#8212; starting next week, the only 777 they fly out of JFK is a daily flight to NRT, plus a repositioning flight from ATL (also, no 747s or 330s from JFK).</p>
<p>I also wonder if US Airways&#8217; entry into the Tel Aviv market this past summer with a daily 332 from PHL is what&#8217;s hurting the Atlanta route. ATL and PHL are probably both more for connections than origin/destination, and perhaps they&#8217;re just making each other bleed. Maybe when the dust settles we&#8217;ll see once again that the market for flights to Tel Aviv is in New York.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: More Noise, More News &#124; Flight Wisdom</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67634</link>
		<dc:creator>More Noise, More News &#124; Flight Wisdom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 21:38:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67634</guid>
		<description>[...] Delta Air Lines(which now includes Northwest Airlines) will be expanding into multiple markets in the New Year, divided into three regions. We&#8217;re not sure there is demand for some of these locations to have such frequent US service, but we assume Delta has done its homework. The increase in Asian flying marks the start of synergy between Northwest and Delta. The Cranky Flier(yes, we have been citing him a lot today. Kudos to him for being so thorough), comments here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Delta Air Lines(which now includes Northwest Airlines) will be expanding into multiple markets in the New Year, divided into three regions. We&#8217;re not sure there is demand for some of these locations to have such frequent US service, but we assume Delta has done its homework. The increase in Asian flying marks the start of synergy between Northwest and Delta. The Cranky Flier(yes, we have been citing him a lot today. Kudos to him for being so thorough), comments here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67603</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 19:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67603</guid>
		<description>AA bought Air Cal, and USAirways bought PSA with an intention to expand into the west coast, not just for the planes.  Once on an interview, the guy turned out to be a former planning VP for USAir in the late 80&#039;s.  As my dad was a pilot for PSA, I asked him if there was a strategy for the purchase and his simple answer was no, just a land rush in the west for airlines at the time.  The reason both purchases failed can also be summed up in one word, Southwest.  In one of the more amusing conversations I&#039;ve had, Herb Kelleher and I were the first to a hospitality suite after an event at the San Diego Aerospace Museum many years ago.  He was aggravated that glasses had not been delivered yet and simply started drinking Wild Turkey straight from the bottle.  When I mentioned PSA, he had two comments.  PSA taught Southwest everything in the beginning, even sending people to Texas to help.  And the day USAir announced the purchase of PSA, he called Boeing and bought 40 more 737-300&#039;s to expand into California.  USAir had no clue how to compete in the west, as LAX-SFO is a bit more competitive than a monopoly high fare route such as LGA-BUF back in the day.  As there had always been so much fare competition within California, a USAir exec griped that Californians would only be happy if USAir paid them to fly.  San Jose never made a great hub as SFO had way more feed and size.  Basically CVG and MEM are too close to DTW and ATL.  Only a matter of time before they are downsized STL style, and Southwest, Air Tran, or Jet Blue, move in.  Delta will certainly keep DTW and MSP, two large hubs with little low-fare competition, that fly to a lot of places with no low fare competition such as Saginaw and Fargo.  They compliment ATL and SLC very well geographically.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AA bought Air Cal, and USAirways bought PSA with an intention to expand into the west coast, not just for the planes.  Once on an interview, the guy turned out to be a former planning VP for USAir in the late 80&#8217;s.  As my dad was a pilot for PSA, I asked him if there was a strategy for the purchase and his simple answer was no, just a land rush in the west for airlines at the time.  The reason both purchases failed can also be summed up in one word, Southwest.  In one of the more amusing conversations I&#8217;ve had, Herb Kelleher and I were the first to a hospitality suite after an event at the San Diego Aerospace Museum many years ago.  He was aggravated that glasses had not been delivered yet and simply started drinking Wild Turkey straight from the bottle.  When I mentioned PSA, he had two comments.  PSA taught Southwest everything in the beginning, even sending people to Texas to help.  And the day USAir announced the purchase of PSA, he called Boeing and bought 40 more 737-300&#8217;s to expand into California.  USAir had no clue how to compete in the west, as LAX-SFO is a bit more competitive than a monopoly high fare route such as LGA-BUF back in the day.  As there had always been so much fare competition within California, a USAir exec griped that Californians would only be happy if USAir paid them to fly.  San Jose never made a great hub as SFO had way more feed and size.  Basically CVG and MEM are too close to DTW and ATL.  Only a matter of time before they are downsized STL style, and Southwest, Air Tran, or Jet Blue, move in.  Delta will certainly keep DTW and MSP, two large hubs with little low-fare competition, that fly to a lot of places with no low fare competition such as Saginaw and Fargo.  They compliment ATL and SLC very well geographically.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Traveling Optimist</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67568</link>
		<dc:creator>The Traveling Optimist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:39:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67568</guid>
		<description>A - You forgot SFO as an incredible place to watch overseas heavies hauling off to the far corners.  Be anywhere near the San Bruno Road on the north end of the main runways between 11:30 and 5PM for a parade of Asian, European and United Airlines widebodies to go sailing past, low and loud enough to set off car alarms each and every time!

Also DFW has recently opened a new observation area at the NW corner of the field.  A bit monotonous with all the AA metal but they do pipe in tower signals so you can get play by play action on the west side of the airport.

Finally, MIA has some good spots and particularly between 2PM and 6PM when the Europeans take leave, breaking up the AA parade for a little while.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A &#8211; You forgot SFO as an incredible place to watch overseas heavies hauling off to the far corners.  Be anywhere near the San Bruno Road on the north end of the main runways between 11:30 and 5PM for a parade of Asian, European and United Airlines widebodies to go sailing past, low and loud enough to set off car alarms each and every time!</p>
<p>Also DFW has recently opened a new observation area at the NW corner of the field.  A bit monotonous with all the AA metal but they do pipe in tower signals so you can get play by play action on the west side of the airport.</p>
<p>Finally, MIA has some good spots and particularly between 2PM and 6PM when the Europeans take leave, breaking up the AA parade for a little while.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Traveling Optimist</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67566</link>
		<dc:creator>The Traveling Optimist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:34:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67566</guid>
		<description>Albert - You&#039;re correct in your assumption that there are other factors besides distance.  At its most basic, any flight is a factor of total weight, fuel and weather conditions en route.  Stress any one over the other two and you have range limitations or payload restrictions that attempt to recover the range capability of the aircraft in question.

The A345 was purpose built for ultra-long flights like SIN-EWR yet even there the plane has restrictions.  Their cabin mix allows the lightest possible payload on board that will allow the flight to operate nonstop and still generate some kind of profit for the operating carrier.  

Considering SIN and EWR serve two of the largest financial markets in the world JNB simply doesn&#039;t have that kind of clout.  I also do not know if north pole headwinds are as much a factor as  equatorial headwinds, one reason northbound nonstops are extremely difficult to pull off.

SYD-JNB is a walk in the park for Qantas.  That run is shorter than Australia to California.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Albert &#8211; You&#8217;re correct in your assumption that there are other factors besides distance.  At its most basic, any flight is a factor of total weight, fuel and weather conditions en route.  Stress any one over the other two and you have range limitations or payload restrictions that attempt to recover the range capability of the aircraft in question.</p>
<p>The A345 was purpose built for ultra-long flights like SIN-EWR yet even there the plane has restrictions.  Their cabin mix allows the lightest possible payload on board that will allow the flight to operate nonstop and still generate some kind of profit for the operating carrier.  </p>
<p>Considering SIN and EWR serve two of the largest financial markets in the world JNB simply doesn&#8217;t have that kind of clout.  I also do not know if north pole headwinds are as much a factor as  equatorial headwinds, one reason northbound nonstops are extremely difficult to pull off.</p>
<p>SYD-JNB is a walk in the park for Qantas.  That run is shorter than Australia to California.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Albert</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67541</link>
		<dc:creator>Albert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Nov 2008 22:42:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67541</guid>
		<description>Is distance alone the issue? According to Circle Mapper SIN-EWR clocks in at 9535 miles while SYD-JNB is at 6862 miles and JFK-JNB at 7969.

And yet on the SIN-EWR route we&#039;ve got SQ operating an A345 with an all-biz configuration.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is distance alone the issue? According to Circle Mapper SIN-EWR clocks in at 9535 miles while SYD-JNB is at 6862 miles and JFK-JNB at 7969.</p>
<p>And yet on the SIN-EWR route we&#8217;ve got SQ operating an A345 with an all-biz configuration.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67520</link>
		<dc:creator>A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67520</guid>
		<description>To piggyback Sara&#039;s comment, MSP is a great plane watching airport.  One of the only places in the US where you can watch the 400&#039;s take-off and land on a daily basis outside of JFK, LAX, ORD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To piggyback Sara&#8217;s comment, MSP is a great plane watching airport.  One of the only places in the US where you can watch the 400&#8217;s take-off and land on a daily basis outside of JFK, LAX, ORD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sara</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67513</link>
		<dc:creator>Sara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:59:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67513</guid>
		<description>Hey guys - if you&#039;ve ever seen MSP airport as a plane watcher, you&#039;ll see that there are at least two 747-200s (I believe) done up in the old NWA livery that they use for mostly military runs. That, and the two Tokyo flights might end up pared down to just one. Maybe the Amsterdam flights to be pared down as well? MSP already lost its Paris flight... and Detroit the Dusseldorf route...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey guys &#8211; if you&#8217;ve ever seen MSP airport as a plane watcher, you&#8217;ll see that there are at least two 747-200s (I believe) done up in the old NWA livery that they use for mostly military runs. That, and the two Tokyo flights might end up pared down to just one. Maybe the Amsterdam flights to be pared down as well? MSP already lost its Paris flight&#8230; and Detroit the Dusseldorf route&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CF</title>
		<link>http://crankyflier.com/2008/11/13/delta-channels-pan-am-decides-to-fly-to-every-airport-on-earth/comment-page-1/#comment-67505</link>
		<dc:creator>CF</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2008 06:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://crankyflier.com/?p=1565#comment-67505</guid>
		<description>Jason H - Not sure if they&#039;re picking up 757s from guys like Eos, but they did get the old TWA 757s from American.  So they&#039;ve definitely been looking to grow the fleet.  Of course, they did have that 757 flying Hartford - Amsterdam that I guess is being used domestically now?  So they do have some slack, I suppose.

Zach - If there&#039;s a lot of government traffic on these routes, then they&#039;re required to fly American carriers, so that could be a big advantage for them.  But still, I&#039;d much rather fly Delta with a stop than put my hands in some unknown African carrier.  (Now, if a reputable African carrier flies it, that&#039;s a different story.)

Also, about the 747, Delta has said that a 747 will be the first plane to be repainted into the new colors, and it should be relatively soon.  I don&#039;t see why they&#039;d bother if they didn&#039;t think they had a place for them.

Optimist - Yeah, it&#039;s not really a hub since the flights all operate on different days.  But I think the biggest benefit of the Sal operation is crew scheduling.  Just think how long crews would have to sit in Sal if it was just for a Liberia flight.  Now they can layover in Sal and fly out relatively soon afterwards since a flight goes through there most days of the week.

Also, in the long run I think you&#039;re right.  The A330 will go away as 787s and 777s continue to roll in.  But that won&#039;t happen anytime soon, and they clearly have flights they want to be operating.  Delta doesn&#039;t have very many 777s, and the 767 can&#039;t operate a flight like Salt Lake to Tokyo.  So they&#039;ll fill a niche until they start getting the next generation deliveries, I&#039;d bet.

Zack Rules - I can&#039;t see them trying something like Phoenix.  Not only does it require a relatively scarce widebody, but it requires more than one to operate the schedule on such a long haul.  I just don&#039;t see it.  Indy, maybe, but only if they can get a 757 to do it.  And Orlando is tough, because it&#039;s mostly traffic from Europe.  Those people are less likely to fly on a US carrier.

Nicholas - Yes, Northwest has a subfleet of 757s that are based in Tokyo.

Wonko - I think you&#039;re definitely right about those 737-700s.  They&#039;re already pushing into Central America, and are they doing a Manaus flight?

PF - I actually bet that&#039;ll be a big piece of their business.  Mormons travel a LOT.

Albert - The problem with US to Jo&#039;burg is that not many planes can make it.  South African used to fly it with a 747, but it couldn&#039;t make the westbound flight nonstop.  I believe they tried to do it with the A340-600, but I don&#039;t know how often that made it.  It&#039;s just a really long way to go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jason H &#8211; Not sure if they&#8217;re picking up 757s from guys like Eos, but they did get the old TWA 757s from American.  So they&#8217;ve definitely been looking to grow the fleet.  Of course, they did have that 757 flying Hartford &#8211; Amsterdam that I guess is being used domestically now?  So they do have some slack, I suppose.</p>
<p>Zach &#8211; If there&#8217;s a lot of government traffic on these routes, then they&#8217;re required to fly American carriers, so that could be a big advantage for them.  But still, I&#8217;d much rather fly Delta with a stop than put my hands in some unknown African carrier.  (Now, if a reputable African carrier flies it, that&#8217;s a different story.)</p>
<p>Also, about the 747, Delta has said that a 747 will be the first plane to be repainted into the new colors, and it should be relatively soon.  I don&#8217;t see why they&#8217;d bother if they didn&#8217;t think they had a place for them.</p>
<p>Optimist &#8211; Yeah, it&#8217;s not really a hub since the flights all operate on different days.  But I think the biggest benefit of the Sal operation is crew scheduling.  Just think how long crews would have to sit in Sal if it was just for a Liberia flight.  Now they can layover in Sal and fly out relatively soon afterwards since a flight goes through there most days of the week.</p>
<p>Also, in the long run I think you&#8217;re right.  The A330 will go away as 787s and 777s continue to roll in.  But that won&#8217;t happen anytime soon, and they clearly have flights they want to be operating.  Delta doesn&#8217;t have very many 777s, and the 767 can&#8217;t operate a flight like Salt Lake to Tokyo.  So they&#8217;ll fill a niche until they start getting the next generation deliveries, I&#8217;d bet.</p>
<p>Zack Rules &#8211; I can&#8217;t see them trying something like Phoenix.  Not only does it require a relatively scarce widebody, but it requires more than one to operate the schedule on such a long haul.  I just don&#8217;t see it.  Indy, maybe, but only if they can get a 757 to do it.  And Orlando is tough, because it&#8217;s mostly traffic from Europe.  Those people are less likely to fly on a US carrier.</p>
<p>Nicholas &#8211; Yes, Northwest has a subfleet of 757s that are based in Tokyo.</p>
<p>Wonko &#8211; I think you&#8217;re definitely right about those 737-700s.  They&#8217;re already pushing into Central America, and are they doing a Manaus flight?</p>
<p>PF &#8211; I actually bet that&#8217;ll be a big piece of their business.  Mormons travel a LOT.</p>
<p>Albert &#8211; The problem with US to Jo&#8217;burg is that not many planes can make it.  South African used to fly it with a 747, but it couldn&#8217;t make the westbound flight nonstop.  I believe they tried to do it with the A340-600, but I don&#8217;t know how often that made it.  It&#8217;s just a really long way to go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
