Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport [Archive] - Page 7

Plasticman

Oct 29, 2007, 4:41 PM

Not quite the whole story there. In Atlanta, Delta has taken over the majority of ground operations for Delta Connection therefore Delta IS actually controlling the day-to-day operational management of its Connection carriers. Outstations are at times a different story. If a lavatory does not function on an aircraft that only has one, of course the passengers would notice. If, however, there were three or more, I doubt anyone would say much about it. I just flew Delta Connection (ASA) from New Bern, NC to Atlanta (continued on to Minneapolis on NW) yesterday and the service from the flight attendant on the DLC flight was superb. Nice leather seats, interesting reading material, and service that would be the same that one would receive on a Delta mainline flight of similar time and service.

My MANY experiences on AirTran, however, have been just 'okay'. Never have I been blown away by anything...in fact sometimes I am a little appalled at the cabin crew and their actions and demeanour (along with some of the passengers). With this being said, however, the story is the same for most airlines. Some days you get the best of all worlds, other days one just has to settle. Quite honestly, my mindset is that when I am flying economy, I don't expect too much of anything -- how can expect a lot when one is paying low fares. When I am flying business (or the ever so occasional first class) I do expect a lot more. Maybe if more people thought along a similar vein then flying would be more pleasurable for all.

All I ask is that the flight crew show up at a reasonable time and that the maintenance be superb (economy or not). And my boss flies that flight over and over and over month after month for the past five years. And in that time Airtran has never been late for reasons other than weather and certainly not for mechnical reasons or for bathrooms not working.

Delta Connection has been regularly late and very often for reasons related to poor management and to poor maintenance. He had one flight that they had trouble securing the door.....I bet he rested easy on that flight wondering if the door was going to get sucked out at any time. And the lavatories not working has happend more than once so it isn't all that rare.

I can only speak for me and I'll take Airtran any day over Delta Connection.

Plasticman

Oct 29, 2007, 4:45 PM

i flew into and out of JFK this week, man what a dump. made me miss hartsfield jackson :(

I've never flown to JFK but I flew in and out of Ohare and it wasn't a dump but it did appear old and needed a face lift as far as design. The service was a bit slower than Atlanta and it wasn't nearly as modern. I did love the eateries though because they were different. Where else can you get an ostrich burger.

john3eblover

Oct 29, 2007, 5:01 PM

Parts of Ohare are older and not as nice, but their newer terminal is VERY nice. Its a fun airport, but obviously, i prefer atlanta still

sprtsluvr8

Oct 29, 2007, 5:01 PM

Rail Claimore

Oct 30, 2007, 9:26 PM

I've never flown to JFK but I flew in and out of Ohare and it wasn't a dump but it did appear old and needed a face lift as far as design. The service was a bit slower than Atlanta and it wasn't nearly as modern. I did love the eateries though because they were different. Where else can you get an ostrich burger.

O'Hare is a weird airport, in that it was perhaps the major US hub airport that came around before the hub-spoke system solidified its dominance. As a result, its terminal and concourse layout is less than ideal, but could be worse. It also means each terminal and concourse looks a different age. The United terminal and concourses (B and C) look only slightly dated, but they've held up well given that they're almost 20 years old now). Same goes for the international terminal. Terminal 2, which is for most other airlines besides United and American, is a dump. Terminal 3 is reasonable by US airport standards, and concourse G is by far the most "modern" part of the airport.

ThrashATL

Oct 31, 2007, 12:03 AM

O'Hare is a weird airport, in that it was perhaps the major US hub airport that came around before the hub-spoke system solidified its dominance. As a result, its terminal and concourse layout is less than ideal, but could be worse. It also means each terminal and concourse looks a different age. The United terminal and concourses (B and C) look only slightly dated, but they've held up well given that they're almost 20 years old now). Same goes for the international terminal. Terminal 2, which is for most other airlines besides United and American, is a dump. Terminal 3 is reasonable by US airport standards, and concourse G is by far the most "modern" part of the airport.

I never mind going through O'Hare as long as the air traffic is normal/calm, the weather is cooperating and the terminal isn't full of Type A's chugging Starbucks and running like smash & grab thieves with wobbly wheeled carryons in tow.

This is what you want to see when you hit the Big O:
http://www.johnnyjet.com/images/103ORDAirport.jpg

Rail Claimore

Oct 31, 2007, 7:45 AM

I never mind going through O'Hare as long as the air traffic is normal/calm, the weather is cooperating and the terminal isn't full of Type A's chugging Starbucks and running like smash & grab thieves with wobbly wheeled carryons in tow.

My sentiments exactly. Thank poor planning for that. But to its credit, it does a better job given its shortcomings than that other godawful AA hub in North Texas.

ThrashATL

Oct 31, 2007, 12:58 PM

My sentiments exactly. Thank poor planning for that. But to its credit, it does a better job given its shortcomings than that other godawful AA hub in North Texas.

I love O'Hare, as long as I have time to stop for a Reggio's pizza on Concourse C and grab a food court window seat watching the chaotic ballet of United planes scrambling like ants around a popsicle.

STrek777

Oct 31, 2007, 7:17 PM

BusinessWeek
Airlines October 31, 2007, 12:01AM EST

Why Delta Should Buy Northwest

With a new CEO and a clean balance sheet, Delta is pondering expansion. Here's why Northwest is the logical choice

by Justin Bachman

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/oct2007/db20071030_734268.htm

Okay... I get it! The new CEO of Delta just happens to be the former CEO of Northwest and poof magically overnight the two airlines are a merge made in heaven. Rrrrriiiigggghhhhttttt

I have never understood how Continental only ends up as a footnote possibility in each of these articles. Considering how Delta and Continental tried to merge in the past before the DOT struck it down it’s not that far fetched an idea.

Consider Delta and Continental both get lots of love from Boeing for having all Boeing fleets. Both carriers’ mainline fleets consist of the MD-80, 737, 757, 767, and 777. Both carriers are big players in the Trans Atlantic, Caribbean, Central American and South American markets but go about getting their very differently. Both have recently won prestigious awards for service in one area or another. Both have decent to high morale in the workforce. Both have relatively cleaned up balance sheets.

Based on the number of aircraft operated Delta is the third largest carrier in the USA while Continental is the seventh. (AA, UA, DL, WN, NW, US, CO) As each company’s focus is on opposite sides of the USA the percentage of overlapping routes is minimal. Delta’s main focus domestically is the Eastern Seaboard while Continental’s is Mid-Western. The DOT also has acknowledged that it may need to relax its strict merger rules for the airline industry.

Should Delta and Continental merge the hub system would easily be simplified. Continental’s CLE hub would be merged into Delta’s CVG hub, CO’s EWR hub would be merged into DL’s JFK hub, and IAH would stay a hub. The new Delta would have hubs at JFK, ATL, CVG, IAH, SLC, and LAX. That would give the New Delta arguably the most comprehensive hub and spoke network in the USA.

Oh and I almost forgot. While Delta got PVG… Continental has PEK. While Delta has since stopped flying to TPE and HKG they still have the travel certificates to go there they just lack the aircraft. Some urgency may be placed on carriers to merge as politics in the land down under change. The USA and Australia are close to finalizing an open skies agreement.

Delta has been trying for years to get permission to fly to SYD but has been constantly blocked. The open skies agreement is anticipated to be completely ratified by the middle of next year. While Delta is due to receive several more 777-LRs they will not arrive until either late 2008 or early 2009. Also the DOT and China are already working on increasing the number of the next round of awards for USA carriers. Africa is making so much money for Delta it’s embarrassing but we are all out of larger aircraft. While we still have plenty of 767s to send internationally we desperately need an infusion of 777s to add capacity on all the routes that we want additional capacity on.

Delta has very aggressive goals and there is just no way that NW would be able to satisfy Delta’s thirst. Yeah they have a hub in TYO but when you have the 777-LR that can go from HKG to LHR nonstop… why do you need an Asian hub? I could go on with all the reasons Northwest and Delta would be an unholy union but this post is already to long.

Have a great day everyone!

akiatl261

Oct 31, 2007, 10:31 PM

Now see I always thought Delta and Continental would make a far better match than Delta and Northwest. wether some admit it or not, they are very similar and have similar motivated staff. Intresting the part about combining the New York and Ewr ops to one or the other airports. That would free a whole cadre of planes including 767-400er's and 777's which could be redeployed from ATL and Houston to some very intrestring destinations. Plus Delta's 777-200lr could be used from the LAX hub to some far destinations aswell. Service wise especially since Delta is being aggressive with there inflight options and services there isnt that much gap between the two.

I think if Cleveland is downgraded it would be a good thing for Cincinnati in that it would mean more flights and more destinations. Something to think about I guess. Either way I think Delta's best options are Continental and Northwest. United wouldnt fit (though the LAX and SFO ops would be yummy to DL), AA wouldnt make much sense, US well we saw what happenend. The only other 2 possible viable carriers would be Alaska( it gives a MAJOR west coast presense), and Hawaiian which you cant get more pacific hub than Honolulu lol. :)

Sulley

Oct 31, 2007, 10:54 PM

God, who would want Northwest?

For starters, the fleets are totally incompatable...

However, I fully support a merger of DL and CO.

ThrashATL

Nov 1, 2007, 1:43 AM

God, who would want Northwest?

For starters, the fleets are totally incompatable...

However, I fully support a merger of DL and CO.

And Northwest hub cities are the dregs... MSP, Detroit & Memphis? Ugh.

tennreb

Nov 1, 2007, 3:00 AM

And Northwest hub cities are the dregs... MSP, Detroit & Memphis? Ugh.

You are missing Narita, and that's the key.

Rail Claimore

Nov 1, 2007, 8:20 AM

You are missing Narita, and that's the key.

NRT is a hub simply because of NWA's legacy in the Asia-Pacific region. They are the leading US carrier in Asia if you include their inter-Asian operations between Tokyo and about 12 other cities in the region. United is undercutting them with more direct flights from the mainland US to a dozen different destinations in Asia, as they should: NWA is a crappy airline and NRT is a craphole of an airport given it's strategic importance.

CO would be the best merger option for Delta. But if that is to happen, don't expect EWR to be downgraded in favor of JFK. NYC is just that huge a market, and both airports have limited capacity. They serve their niches in the NYC region quite well. Unless you live in Manhattan, only one of the two is reasonably easy to get to.

megalopolis

Nov 1, 2007, 9:10 PM

You know that long escalator that goes from the baggage/ground transportation train stop at Hartsfield up to the main terminal? Why have the walls alongside that escalator been all torn up for what seems like FOREVER! It's not a very good first impression for visitors as they approach that "Welcome to Atlanta" sign. Does the airport not have enough money to fix that?

GTviajero81

Nov 1, 2007, 10:47 PM

All I ask is that the flight crew show up at a reasonable time and that the maintenance be superb (economy or not). And my boss flies that flight over and over and over month after month for the past five years. And in that time Airtran has never been late for reasons other than weather and certainly not for mechnical reasons or for bathrooms not working.

Delta Connection has been regularly late and very often for reasons related to poor management and to poor maintenance. He had one flight that they had trouble securing the door.....I bet he rested easy on that flight wondering if the door was going to get sucked out at any time. And the lavatories not working has happend more than once so it isn't all that rare.

I can only speak for me and I'll take Airtran any day over Delta Connection.

I do not work for either company, but it never surprises me to find out regular passengers thoughts.....naturally this is because you all see a tiny portion of the grand scheme of things:

All I ask is that the flight crew show up at a reasonable time and that the maintenance be superb (economy or not).
Do you think the crews like to be late? Remember, the later the crew the longer their day more likely than not will be. Or they could have worked a flight in that was delayed, pack their stuff up from one airplane and huff it to another gate and aircraft for your flight....we try really hard to make up time, really we do. But we can only do so much. Maintenance can be superb...we'd just have to raise all your ticket prices, yet HEAVEN FORBID prices get raised to levels that would allay all your other concerns. But, just as in our own vehicles, sh!t happens, and you need to make a quick repair thereby delaying your own day...now imagine the inner-workings of an entire aircraft?!

And my boss flies that flight over and over and over month after month for the past five years. And in that time Airtran has never been late for reasons other than weather and certainly not for mechnical reasons or for bathrooms not working.
First of all, no one flies more than WE do...your flight crew! 3-5 flights a month make not a trend darling. Talk to me when you're banging around a max of 8 flights a day....then we have more to talk about. AirTran's fleet, by and large, is newer than a lot of DLC aircraft...but not by much. Does your boss inform you on EACH delay? And how do you know that (s)he actually knew what was wrong?

He had one flight that they had trouble securing the door.....I bet he rested easy on that flight wondering if the door was going to get sucked out at any time.
Common passenger misconception: the door will not come open in flight. Let's go back for a little physics lesson here: The aircraft cruises about 530mph. As that wind blows along the side of the plane as well as the door, that pressure exerted from the wind is holding that door in place. This means that the door is kept closed by the wind pressure. There is also a sort of gasket around the door that expands as aircraft altitude increases. For a person to "get sucked out" of a plane one would literally need an explosive decompression to occur.....a super rare occurrence. So (s)he was fine, might have been just a little noisy during flight or descent.

And the lavatories not working has happend more than once so it isn't all that rare.
Again, fly as much as I do and you'll realise that that really doesn't happen that much. I can tell you this: if it's a really short flight then a lav can be deferred to be fixed at a downline station. If you have to go that bad, you're an adult! Go before you board! I have empathy for those who have physiological issues, but healthy adults? Please, some can be worse than the children on board. Also a lav will not be closed off for a long flight...and we're talking like two hours here.

So there you go, straight talk from a frontline employee -- of a totally different carrier though. I stress this fact to demonstrate a level of objectivity I have in defending a maligned carrier. Cheers!

Andrea

Nov 1, 2007, 10:53 PM

Common passenger misconception: the door will not come open in flight. Let's go back for a little physics lesson here: The aircraft cruises about 530mph. As that wind blows along the side of the plane as well as the door, that pressure exerted from the wind is holding that door in place. This means that the door is kept closed by the wind pressure.

Okay, but what about Bernoulli's principle?

Tombstoner

Nov 2, 2007, 6:57 AM

...NRT is a craphole of an airport given it's strategic importance.

Been to NRT recently??? It's pretty amazing, I think.

GTviajero81

Nov 2, 2007, 7:35 AM

Okay, but what about Bernoulli's principle?

Well, that would apply if the door was not attached to the cabin. Bernoulli's principle explains how pressure is reduced under the wing allowing for lift, but it really has nothing to do on the dynamics inside of an airplane cabin. The shape of a wing is designed to capitalise on this principle...the fuselage, not so much. That's why wings are commensurate in size with respect to the Maximum Take-Off Weight and fuselage size of an aircraft.

Andrea

Nov 2, 2007, 11:48 AM

LoveAtlanta

Nov 2, 2007, 2:47 PM

do u guys thing virgin america will fly to ATL?

STrek777

Nov 2, 2007, 3:22 PM

do u guys thing virgin america will fly to ATL?

That’s a good one. My quick response is no. Virgin America is based out of SFO, if I’m not mistaken, and would need aircraft that can handle trans con first. Being that most LCCs are built around the principle of point to point flight the flight would need to fly nonstop. The fun part kicks in when you start looking at the cities that VA chooses to fly point to point from if they start flying to ATL.

SFO – ATL / DL ** DFW – ATL / DL, AA ** ORD – ATL / DL, UA ** DTW – ATL / DL, NW ** IAH – ATL / DL, CO

If they try fling point to point from any major hub to ATL they will piss off more than one of the Legacy Carriers. They would likely find the same resistance that Jet Blue and Independence Air did when they started flying to ATL. Say what you want about the Legacies but if VA wants to play in the same sandbox as the big boys then they better be prepared for a fight.

Virgin America will be a startup carrier with a select number of destinations. Trying to compete with carriers that have established global networks and repeat business clients right out of the gate is usually not the best strategy. The unique situation in ATL is that this city has a well established Legacy Carrier – DL and a well established LCC – FL.

Will they come to ATL? They may try to, but I wouldn’t count on them lasting very long.

GTviajero81

Nov 2, 2007, 11:32 PM

I thought Bernoulli's principle said that where the air is moving faster the pressure is lower. So it would seem like if the air is going 500 mph on the outside of the plane it would have less pressure than the air on the inside of the plane. But I'm no scientist.
You're partly correct. To make it totally correct you would have to to take out one whole side of the fuselage.....basically, the air in a cabin is a near vacuum. Ever wonder why the cabin temperature isn't the same as outside....about -70F? Because it's an enclosed system that is heated and pressurised for your comfort (come on, haven't you heard the FAs say this in their demo many many times before? ;) ).

Also to clarify Bernoulli's principle, air moving faster on one side of a body promotes lower pressure on the other side of the body on which the force is acted upon and that is how lift occurs on an airplane wing.....damn I love my Georgia Tech education! :)

GTviajero81

Nov 2, 2007, 11:49 PM

That’s a good one. My quick response is no. Virgin America is based out of SFO, if I’m not mistaken, and would need aircraft that can handle trans con first. Being that most LCCs are built around the principle of point to point flight the flight would need to fly nonstop. The fun part kicks in when you start looking at the cities that VA chooses to fly point to point from if they start flying to ATL.

SFO – ATL / DL ** DFW – ATL / DL, AA ** ORD – ATL / DL, UA ** DTW – ATL / DL, NW ** IAH – ATL / DL, CO

If they try fling point to point from any major hub to ATL they will piss off more than one of the Legacy Carriers. They would likely find the same resistance that Jet Blue and Independence Air did when they started flying to ATL. Say what you want about the Legacies but if VA wants to play in the same sandbox as the big boys then they better be prepared for a fight.

Virgin America will be a startup carrier with a select number of destinations. Trying to compete with carriers that have established global networks and repeat business clients right out of the gate is usually not the best strategy. The unique situation in ATL is that this city has a well established Legacy Carrier – DL and a well established LCC – FL.

Will they come to ATL? They may try to, but I wouldn’t count on them lasting very long.

STrek77, I respect your posts and knowledge, but allow me to disagree with you on this point.

You brought up both cases of jetBlue and Independence Air coming to Atlanta. I worked at Independence in a management capacity and have an insiders view to the operations. The Washington D.C.-Atlanta market for us was one of the most profitable. Full flights and high frequencies made it a lovely market....and the bane of my commuting existence! jetBlue, quite frankly, was run out of town by Delta and AirTran teaming up against it.

What's the difference then? Well those were time when the industry was in the most turmoil. Now LCCs have a chance -- and I believe that there are PLENTY of people in Atlanta who would jump at the chance to be able to fly the Virgin brand to a West Coast city such as Los Angeles or San Francisco. Atlanta has a lot of fliers who demand premium services...and who think nothing of paying commensurately for it. I think once Virgin America further builds it brand then there should be no surprise when they announce service to Atlanta. :)

P.S. - I'm working on that pm reply...getting ready for work today...gotta fly from Doha, Qatar to Shannon, Ireland today and then on the Atlanta Sunday...YAY!!! :)

Andrea

Nov 3, 2007, 1:03 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_decompression#Explosive_decompression_accidents_on_aircraft

Neosoul

Nov 4, 2007, 2:53 PM

Cost of international terminal has doubled - $1.5 billion

By JIM THARPE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 11/02/07

A new international terminal for Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport will cost about $1.5 billion — twice the original estimate — by the time passengers begin boarding jets from its 16 gates, probably in the fall of 2011.

Hartsfield-Jackson officials confirmed those numbers this week during a retreat for the Atlanta City Council, which oversees the world's busiest airport. It was the clearest picture to date on the cost of the long-delayed terminal and its completion date.

"This number has a lot of information behind it," Ben DeCosta, Hartsfield-Jackson's general manager, said after his presentation to council members. "There are things that could push it higher, but this is close."

When first proposed as a concept, the Maynard Holbrook Jackson Jr. International Terminal was pegged at about $750 million, but delays, design changes and soaring construction costs have continued to push that figure higher.

DeCosta said earlier this year the terminal could top $1 billion, and an internal briefing obtained by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June indicated the cost could approach $1.5 billion. His briefing to council, however, was the first public confirmation of that price-tag.

The airlines view the new terminal as a vital improvement for Hartsfield-Jackson, which is used by about 86 million passengers a year. The airport is home to Delta Air Lines, which has recently keyed on international routes to boost its bottom line.

But the terminal has run into a litany of problems over the years. First, Delta was forced into bankruptcy, raising questions about whether it was needed. Two years ago, the original design team was fired by DeCosta. Its owners promptly sued the city for $60 million.

A new design team was hired, and Delta emerged from bankruptcy earlier this year, clearing the way for the new facility.

Mike Williams, the airport official overseeing the project, said the terminal itself will cost between $847 million and $910 million. Roadways and other infrastructure will add another $450 million. Design, management and legal fees make up the remainder of the costs.

City Councilwoman Clair Muller, who chairs the Transportation Committee, said delays have contributed to much of facility's increased costs.

"Any time you lose as many years as we've lost since the first designer, costs are going to go up," Muller said. "Time is money in big construction projects."

Muller said it might still be possible to trim some costs from the final project through "value engineering."

"But it needs to be an attractive building," she said. "It's the first thing a lot of people see coming into the city."

Another member of the Transportation Committee, Councilwoman Felicia Moore, has questioned the soaring cost of city and airport construction projects. Moore pushed for a just-completed audit of the new off-site rental car facility being constructed near Hartsfield-Jackson, which found delays have added millions to the original cost of that project.

"There are things internally that need to be done in the future to help mitigate the costs on these large projects," Moore said. "If you put out a number, people are going to expect you to come somewhere close to that."

The new terminal, which will be located near the control tower, will replace the current international facility located on Concourse E. The current terminal was constructed for the 1996 Olympics and will be used for domestic flights once the new terminal is operational.

Designers are now completing schematics for the new facility, which will have its own parking garage, ticketing offices and baggage claim. It will be accessed from I-75 and will have curb-side passenger pickup.

The lack of curb-side pickup means international passengers passing through the current terminal have to recheck their bags once they clear U.S. Customs and then retrieve them in the main terminal.

akiatl261

Nov 4, 2007, 3:08 PM

The cost have doubled due to slow moving and inaction. The whole reason they let the original team go was because the cost for there product was to high, but the cost now are double that. I actually liked the original design. I hope the new one will be either better or along the same lines.

I think we desperately need an international terminal because it sends a bad impression to hav to claim your luggage have it checked by immigration than recheck your bags and go through the entire complex and reclaim them. That adds about 1 hour extra to a trip on a good day. This will allieviate this enitrely. Plus the added gates will be perfect for Delta and other international carriers.
Since its ago basically, does anyone think we can attract any new international carriers? Aeromexico is coming back, I know Mexicana has shown some intrest, Maybe Malaysian (If and when they join skyteam), Or Arik Air which is a fast growing very well run Nigerian carrier which was granted rights by nigeria to fly here to Atlanta(they only need to file intentions with the DOT),or some other new carrier. Any thoughts rumors gossips lol :-)

dirtybird

Nov 4, 2007, 3:32 PM

I think we desperately need an international terminal because it sends a bad impression to hav to claim your luggage have it checked by immigration than recheck your bags and go through the entire complex and reclaim them. That adds about 1 hour extra to a trip on a good day.

I can just imagine all the international travelers coming through here and their first impression of Atlanta is this backward, asinine system. After flying for 8-9 hours from Europe, this is the last thing I want to deal with. Can't imagine what it will be like for passengers from Shanghai who have just flown 14 hours!

mayhem

Nov 4, 2007, 5:56 PM

I can just imagine all the international travelers coming through here and their first impression of Atlanta is this backward, asinine system. After flying for 8-9 hours from Europe, this is the last thing I want to deal with. Can't imagine what it will be like for passengers from Shanghai who have just flown 14 hours!

It's exactly the same in Newark. Not that it's a justification, but on the general every city I've cleared customs in has been the same in the US.

Rail Claimore

Nov 5, 2007, 1:47 AM

The costs have probably gone up as well because this new international terminal with 16 gates should be larger than previous proposals that only called for 10. They might pull a Concourse T sort of deal and have the terminal and concourse take up the entire width of the airfield between the two departure runways, instead of half like originally intended.

atlantaguy

Nov 5, 2007, 12:49 PM

ThrashATL

Nov 5, 2007, 2:00 PM

I usually only fly out of/into E, and I really can't figure out where the footprint of the new terminal is.

I know it's supposed to be due East of E, but with the new control tower, Delta's huge hanger complex and the drop off in elevation all along there I just can't place the location. Anyone have any ideas, site plans, etc?

This is on the airport site, not very explanatory... But east of E, se of tower, sw of Delta:

http://atlanta-airport.com/images/animations/mjhit.gif

atlantaguy

Nov 5, 2007, 4:39 PM

^Thanks! That puts it into perspective nicely.

ThrashATL

Nov 5, 2007, 5:42 PM

The CONRAC is pretty impressive as well, what a monster! There's a 35mb .wmv file here: http://jonseagull.com/images/CONRAC_DD.wmv

http://www.jonseagull.com/images/p_CONRAC_1.jpghttp://www.jonseagull.com/images/p_CONRAC_2.jpg

http://www.jonseagull.com/images/p_CONRAC_3.jpghttp://www.jonseagull.com/images/p_CONRAC_5.jpg

http://www.jonseagull.com/images/p_CONRAC_4.jpg

Renderings from Jon Seagull http://jonseagull.com

GTviajero81

Nov 5, 2007, 5:53 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_decompression#Explosive_decompression_accidents_on_aircraft

I am not quite sure as to what the intention was in posting in the link, but 10 explosive decompression incidents in countless flights since the dawn of aviation seems to be, still, a pretty rare occurrence to me. I, personally, have flown so many times I cannot even count and I have only had one slow decompression in-flight (the worst kind) happen to me.

STrek777

Nov 5, 2007, 6:18 PM

The CONRAC is pretty impressive as well, what a monster! There's a 35mb .wmv file here: http://jonseagull.com/images/CONRAC_DD.wmv

Renderings from Jon Seagull http://jonseagull.com

This thing is a beast! I can't wait to see this thing open up. Any ideas what the North/South Terminal complex will do with all the extra space? Also has there been any word on the proposed South Terminal?

ThrashATL

Nov 5, 2007, 6:48 PM

This thing is a beast! I can't wait to see this thing open up. Any ideas what the North/South Terminal complex will do with all the extra space? Also has there been any word on the proposed South Terminal?

I did post a pic a few months back of an updated master plan. The south terminal has gone from the V wedgie looking design to two seperate island concourses like A, B, etc, only half as long.

The NEW Atlanta Hartsfield Master Plan:
http://www.aviationnow.com/media/images/devatl.jpg (too big to post here)

ThrashATL

Nov 5, 2007, 7:09 PM

^Thanks! That puts it into perspective nicely.

The Master Plan for ATL shows it nicely:
http://www.aviationnow.com/media/images/devatl.jpg

STrek777

Nov 6, 2007, 8:01 PM

Here is a little something that I ran across that I thought you would all enjoy. Turns out there are several cities in China that are already covered by an open skies agreement. I did not know this until just today. Also the current plan is for China and the USA to begin formal open skies discussions in 2010.

http://www.thestreet.com/newsanalysis/transportation/10388294.html

By the way the open sky city I found most interesting is Tibet. Personally I though Tibet was a region in China that used to be its own country but... anywho. ENJOY!!!

Harry Cane

Nov 7, 2007, 1:00 PM

I believe Tibet was an independent nation until the ‘friendly liberation’ by the Chinese Army back in the 50’s. Now it’s a Special Administrative Region (SAR) similar to Hong Kong and Macau.

I was surprised at Tibet being on the list as well. I just got back a couple of months ago from a big trip to China that we’ve been planning for a couple of years now. We spent three days in Lhasa. The Chinese are very sensitive about Tibet. You have to get an additional special permit to visit. As a foreigner, visiting the Potala Palace also required a special appointment and we had to surrender our passports until we left. Across the street from the palace there’s a public square. Towards the back of the square there’s a monument to the ‘liberation’ by the Chinese, guarded by Chinese troops. No one is allowed within a certain number of feet from it. Nor are pictures allowed. We visited the new Tibet Museum and the whole first floor was nothing but Chinese propaganda.

Hardest part of the trip, but the most rewarding.

Fiorenza

Nov 7, 2007, 2:04 PM

http://www.savetibet.org/images/railroadreport/1.jpg

Sorry to get off topic...we now return you to our regular programming.

Harry Cane

Nov 7, 2007, 2:15 PM

THAT'S THE SPOT! Were you there too?

Fiorenza

Nov 7, 2007, 2:16 PM

No, just pulled it off the internet!

Fiorenza

Nov 7, 2007, 2:20 PM

Funny thing about monuments...the commies didn't allow photos of the huge Stalin monument in Prague either, and in 1962 they tore it down. They then passed a law mandating that all the photos absolutely had to be destroyed. Of course, plenty of photos exist anyway.

tennreb

Nov 7, 2007, 11:55 PM

Atlanta owes Delta airlines to a a bug: the boll wevil. Delta and Coca-Cola are the ultimate Southern companies.

Delta air lines born amid fog of weevil dust
The Commercial Appeal

By Jane Roberts

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Delta Air Lines, the $17 billion carrier that made Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta the busiest airport in the world, owes its start to the pest with a big snout.

In the 1920s, when much of the most-progressive work in the war on weevils was going on in the Mississippi Delta, a pair of gamblers experimented with one-seat biplanes to disseminate lead arsenate over the fields around Tallulah, La., just across the Mississippi River from Vicksburg, Miss.

The challenge was to quickly distribute an even flow of chemicals across a whole cotton field.

The results obtained by agriculture researcher E.C. Woolman and a partner were so promising that by 1922, the federal government had donated money and World War I-era planes to the effort.

So, from an airstrip cleared in the cotton fields, the third-largest passenger airline in the world took off in the boll weevil-ridden '20s.

"Pick your adjectives -- huge, enormous, gigantic -- they all describe Delta's effect on the economy of the Southeast," said George Hamlin, managing director of Airline Capital Associates outside Washington.

In 2006, nearly 85 million passengers passed through the Atlanta airport, with Delta and its commuter lines accounting for 72 percent of that traffic.

It's a far cry from the mid-1920s when the original company, Huff-Daland Dusters, had 60,000 acres of cotton under contract across the South. As weevils flourished, so too did the company, doing more pesticide spraying by 1927 than all of its competitors combined.

In 1928, Woolman and a group of investors bought out Huff-Daland. Since the purchase was financed entirely with Southern capital, including Coca-Cola investors, the name was changed to Delta Air Service.

By 1930, Delta had expanded into the passenger airline business -- five customers at a time.

"The crop-dusting division put money into the passenger side to keep it going," said James St. Julien, 83, one of the company's last living crop-duster pilots.

"Anybody could fly an airliner with passengers, but very few pilots could be crop dusters.''

Delta paid its crop dusters 30 percent of what it billed farmers. St. Julien said that resulted in take-home pay of "several thousand dollars a week when a clerk at a grocery story was probably making $100."

Today, Delta Air Lines remains a huge player in U.S. aviation, despite a bloody, 2005 bankruptcy.

"In the South, they say you have to fly through Atlanta to get to heaven," said Patrick Murphy aviation consultant at Gerchick-Murphy Associates in Washington.

"That is how synonymous Atlanta and Delta have become."

- Jane Roberts: 529-2512

Delta Takes Wing

1922: An upstart crop-dusting service -- Huff-Daland Dusters -- showed such promise in deterring weevils that the federal government donated money and WWI-era planes.

1927: The company was crop dusting more acreage in the South than competitors combined.

1928: Investors purchase Huff-Daland and rename it Delta Air Service, reflecting the Southern roots of the buyers.

1930: Delta begins offering passenger service. By March 31, the nascent company had assets of $112,600, including $72,000 in airplanes.

1941: Delta linked 16 Southern cities -- mainly with DC3s. It carried 58,208 passengers that year.

1945: Name changed to Delta Air Lines, a lasting tribute to its humble beginnings.

Rail Claimore

Nov 8, 2007, 9:50 AM

^Truly remarkable. Delta and Coca-Cola ARE simply synonymous with Atlanta.

STrek777

Nov 8, 2007, 4:57 PM

So here are some interesting things hapening in the aviation world around us.

Delta Exec Sees Value in Consolidation
Wednesday November 7, 5:16 pm ET
By Harry R. Weber, AP Business Writer

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071107/delta.html?.v=2

No longer is merger talk limited to reporters jumping the gun for the story. Delta executives are coming right out and stating that we are actively considering our acquisition options. Now here is the sad truth... read below.

UAL could ground planes if fuel gets too pricey
By Laura Mandaro, MarketWatch
Last Update: 8:08 PM ET Nov 7, 2007

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/united-airlines-could-ground-100/story.aspx?guid=%7B7F087F4F%2DFDB1%2D4269%2D9383%2DDA18E142BCFD%7D&siteid=yhoof

The creditors are going ape-sh!t over Delta and are furious that we fought of US Airways. The UA article shows that UA is willing to ground over 100 of their aircraft to remain viable. Giving me the impression that either A) they are all out of international expansion ideas or B) they are preemptively reducing their fleet size to make them more attractive to suitors. Keep in mind that UA is larger than Delta by a very thin margin. Delta already is the second largest carrier in the US by number of passengers carried. Should UA shed 100 aircraft it will make Delta the second largest carrier in the USA by default.

I firmly believe that CO would still be the very best partner for Delta. However, Delta now has a very dark angel sitting on its shoulder. The creditors may heavily push Delta to go with the easiest acquisition rather than the right one. CO may be Mr Right but if UA turns out to be Mr Right-Now it may not be a good day at Delta.

Just some thoughts to keep you through the day.

Rail Claimore

Nov 9, 2007, 1:42 AM

STrek777

Nov 9, 2007, 2:54 AM

UAL and Delta would not work. Forget that their operations in the Western US overlap. How about the a labor-relations nightmare that would result. Aren't they (UAL) trying to acquire Scareways? It's better for Delta not to acquire all the baggage that would come with UAL.

More evidence that Delta and AA are running away from the pack, though AA service sucks.

wow UA hasn't tried getting into bed with US in quite some time. The Federal Antitrust Regulators shut that down.

I never said that it would work I was mearly suggesting that the DL creditors might try to force themselves onto UA. Overlap is a non-issue considering the company can ground as many as they need to push the deal through.

atlantaguy

Nov 10, 2007, 3:33 PM

ThrashATL

Nov 10, 2007, 4:32 PM

Rail is right, United would be a disaster - as would NW. Both come complete with very bitter employees that would never integrate well with the culture at Delta.

I would love for Delta to buy Alaska. It would give them a large hub in the Pacific Northwest, and Seattle is the perfect place for Asian expansion. It makes too much sense, so it will probably never happen......

Alaska while an enticing target would likely be priced far over fair market value. If I owned a majority of it, I'd certainly want more than it was worth on paper.

Tombstoner

Nov 11, 2007, 11:50 AM

Rail is right, United would be a disaster - as would NW. Both come complete with very bitter employees that would never integrate well with the culture at Delta.

I would love for Delta to buy Alaska. It would give them a large hub in the Pacific Northwest, and Seattle is the perfect place for Asian expansion. It makes too much sense, so it will probably never happen......

Any consolidation with any other airline is going to be hugely problematic; I think you're right to think that Alaska would be least problematic in terms of size, assets, compatibility of aircraft, no anti-trust issues, etc.

atlantaguy

Nov 11, 2007, 2:35 PM

Yeah Tombstoner, those were my thoughts exactly. When you think of all the possibilities out there, Alaska seems to make the most sense currently.

In the bast case scenario, Continental would probably be the best legacy partner for Delta, but I don't see that happening either.

It's going to be an interesting Winter, that's for sure.

Tombstoner

Nov 12, 2007, 12:25 PM

This may be WAY out in left field, but I wonder if the recent DL - AF/KLM deal isn't a harbinger of a kind of transnational consolidation. I know Virgin America got put through the wringer because UA played the "American-owned" card, but with Open Skies and the kind of creative cooperation that DL has pulled off, DL might grow internationally to a degree that domestic consolidation is no longer an issue for it. It will be an issue for US, Alaska, SW, AirTran and other carriers that don't have similarly close international partners... Just a thought. :shrug:

whoDean

Nov 12, 2007, 2:48 PM

Delta certainly seems more concerned about expanding international service, it would seem more likely to expand overseas than another dinosaur US airline.

Atlriser

Nov 12, 2007, 4:52 PM

Not possible! The DOT would not allow such a combination without question either under a Democrat or Republican president. You just aren't going to see sucha combination of a large legacy airline and a large foreign airline. US law wouldn't allow even the consideration of such and a change in the laws by Congress would never occur in the current political environment we live.

akiatl261

Nov 12, 2007, 9:54 PM

Alaska would be a great asset for Continental or Delta, However I think Delta needs the assets and strenghts of Northwest or continetal to build a true total international presences. Meaning for instance using NW close Memphis, scale down Detroit and end the Milwaukee project, Divest the oldest aircraft, redeploy assets to Los Angeles and Salt Lake. Particulalrly LA. IE 747-400's A330's 757's etc used in DTW shifted for use in LAX, opens all of Asia and gives the mainline planes needed to truely hub LA. Use SLC as a semi reliever for LAX as CVG to some extent is for Atl and then you ahve a force to recon with.

Same with Continental, Combine ops either at EWR or JFK, move the large amount of freed up assets to LAX , 767-300/400's 777's 737-800's and 757's and still you have a solid carrier with more jets on hand to open new markets etc. Now I know I made it very simplistic but once issues were worked out, some of the above mentioned things could be gleened and implemented. I guess we shall see sooner than later.

STrek777

Nov 12, 2007, 11:27 PM

This is going to be very interesting to watch. Acquiring a domestic airline may help Delta across the USA. However, if there is an acquisition looming on the horizon it will probably be one that helps Delta secure its dominance in NYC. This is going to be very fun to watch!

[B]BIG APPLE BATTLE: To play in the big leagues and score a profitable future, Delta Air Lines is going all out in one of the world's most fiercely competitive markets.[B]

By Jim Tharpe
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 10/21/07
NEW YORK —-

Delta Air Lines has declared what promises to be an expensive and very uncivil war in the Big Apple.

The Atlanta-based carrier, which emerged from bankruptcy last spring, has decided to bet a huge chunk of its future on one of the most hotly contested markets in the world —- a landscape dominated by well-heeled fliers, aging terminals, crowded airspace and fierce rivals who aren't shy about calling you out by name.

"This is a battleground for us," Delta President Ed Bastian said during a recent interview as he made his way through the frenetic lunch crowds in Midtown Manhattan.

Just a few blocks away, Delta competitor Continental Airlines had hoisted huge billboards near the intersection of Seventh Avenue and West 49th Street. One read: "Who flies to the most destinations in France? (Hint: It ain't Delta.)"

Delta has fired back by naming Mike Medeiros vice president of airport customer service at John F. Kennedy International Airport, one of only two such vice presidents at the airline; the other is Greg Kennedy at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.

The airline has spent $50 million to spruce up two 40-year-old terminals at JFK, the nation's international gateway. And it recently announced 14 new international flights from the hub, with more planned.

"JFK was one of the most difficult decisions we made," Bastian said. "We had to decide if we were going to stay and fight and win in this market or walk out and downsize and become a small little niche carrier."

In the end, Delta decided to play in the big leagues, setting in motion an aggressive series of moves the airline hopes will boost highly lucrative international and top-tier business travel. That strategy, Delta officials hope, will ultimately boost the carrier's bottom line.

The stakes are huge as the major airlines go head to head in an industry dominated by razor-thin margins, soaring fuel costs and near certainty that takeovers and mergers will trim the six legacy carriers to four or fewer within the next decade. Dozens of international airlines fly from JFK, but Delta's primary competitors are old-line domestic carriers Continental and American.

"Atlanta is Delta's home, but New York is up for grabs," said Joan Vincenz, Delta's marketing director of global development. "Delta has to be here. If we didn't think we could win, we wouldn't be here."

The airline recently took out full-page ads in The New York Times touting what it calls "T2," the JFK terminal dedicated to its upscale passengers. A refurbished Pan Am facility, T2 —- one of nine terminals at JFK —- is at the center of Delta's New York battle plan. T3 is primarily for Delta's domestic flights.

With its no-wait security lines and business-class lounge with wooden-door showers, the terminal focuses on Delta's plan to pamper its highest-paying customers—-those who sit in the front of the plane and worry more about time and convenience than the cost of a ticket.

Some of those customers could be paying $10,000 per seat next year when Delta introduces its new "lie-flat" seats that collapse into beds for its transoceanic flights.

A recent rainy Wednesday found Business Elite and Medallion passengers at Delta's JFK lounge nibbling on fruit and cheese, sipping free drinks and taking turns lounging in black-leather massage chairs as they awaited their flights.

Delta has contracted with U.S. Helicopter for another premium perk. It flies its top-paying customers to and from JFK aboard an eight-passenger chopper that can reduce the commute time to Midtown or Lower Manhattan from more than an hour by traffic-snarled taxi to about eight minutes in the air.

Delta still needs the passengers who search the Internet for the best possible deals on air travel. Those fliers fill the bulk of its seats. But the airline believes it is the big spenders like those who await boarding calls in the upscale JFK lounge who will drive future profits.

Atlanta is by far Delta's fortress in this fight, with 1,000 daily flights and 118 million "available seat miles," the metric airlines use to gauge performance. Cincinnati comes in second for number of flights, about 400 daily. But the New York market is Delta's No. 2 hub in available seat miles and revenue.

"Cincinnati and Salt Lake City are nice hubs, but they are small," Bastian said. "They can't take on the weight of Atlanta to provide some counterbalance. New York can."

Pam Elledge, Delta's senior vice president for global sales and distribution, estimates that one in four of Delta's premium customers comes through the New York market: JFK, La Guardia or Newark. Most fly from JFK.

She helped host a gathering earlier this month for New York-area corporate travel planners and travel agents at a Delta function in Midtown Manhattan.

After a few welcoming remarks, Elledge pointed to a stunning statistic that shows why the airlines are battling over the city. There was, she said, more than $1 billion worth of revenue wandering around the room that night.

"New York will be one of the most profitable areas we have," Elledge said in an interview. "This is a long-term commitment for us."

That commitment is not without considerable risks. The U.S. Department of Transportation has called on the airlines to meet later this month to discuss how to reduce chronic delays out of the New York area, one of the most crowded airspaces in the world.

And Delta will have to look at spending big bucks if it continues to focus on JFK.

In Atlanta, the airline plans to spend about $100 million to upgrade its antiquated luggage-handling system. Any major attempt to upgrade the JFK facilities—-moving to another terminal or building another one—-could cost much more.

"It could be $1 billion; it could be $2 billion," Bastian said. "You're talking billions, not millions, when you talk about New York."

DALE E. DODSON / Staff
INTERNATIONAL CROSSROADS
JFK International Airport is New York's gateway to the world. Among airlines operating there: Aeroflot (Russia), Aerop Mexico,
Air China, Air France, Austrian Airlines, Japan Airlines, Korean Air, Turkish Airlines, South Arican Airways, Biman Bangladesh,
LOT Polish and British Airways.

Map of JFK International Airport locates the nine terminals, including Delta's terminals (2 and 3).

Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

MAH4546

Nov 13, 2007, 12:45 AM

Fiorenza

Nov 13, 2007, 1:40 AM

Continental is the largest airline in the New York region

Since NY looms large in Delta's future, why wouldn't a Continental-Delta merger be a better option than American?? I don't see a Delta-American merger for several reasons. Neither airline really wants it, and the feds won't allow it.

STrek777

Nov 13, 2007, 3:10 AM

Secure it's dominance? You say it as if they already have it, when they don't. Continental is the largest airline in the New York region, then American Airlines, then jetBlue, and fourth is Delta. And the differences are not small - American Airlines is ahead by Delta in the New York City region in the millions of passengers.

Personally, I think the best option for Delta to merge with is American. Their route maps overlap quite nicely. They could shut-down Cincinnati and Cleveland, they would have a combined significant operation at JFK, LAX, and BOS. They would dominate Latin America and Europe (it was only last year that Delta overtook AA as the largest U.S. carrier to Europe), not to mention Africa and the Middle East. The only weak point would be Asia. And, even more importantly, their fleets overlap.

I beg your pardon but you are greatly mistaken.

http://media.delta.com/images/NYCFactSheet0407.pdf

Delta is by far the largest airline in the New York City area. Consider that the pdf file only displays the flight information for just JFK and LGA and there's still HPN, ISP, and EWR that delta services in addition to JFK and LGA. Delta is certainly a force to be reckoned with in the big apple.

I have stated my feelings regarding mergers or acquisitions very plainly. I firmly believe that CO is the only logical move for Delta. In recent post I have theorized over the possible transactions that could be presented. I have written to the effect of "if" Delta was hijacked by creditors hellbent on making a quick buck rather than securing Delta for long term viability.

I have never suggested American as even a possible merger for Delta nor would I ever. American has a patchwork route system at best. It is not a leading airline over the Pacific or the Atlantic. Its only claim to fame is that it is the largest airline flying to and from the US and Central and South America. It has an extensive route system domestically but competes heavily for dominance in even its own hub cities. Ihate to be the one to burst your bubble but FYI AA is not all that!

Rail Claimore

Nov 13, 2007, 11:23 AM

STrek777

Nov 13, 2007, 4:05 PM

Delta not dominant in NYC I'll agree with, but your second claim about differences is hardly true. AA's presence in NY is geared toward transatlantic operations, similar to their setup in MIA for Latin America. AA's bread and butter are their two hubs at ORD and DFW. ORD is almost as big an international hub for AA as JFK is.

Dear lord where are my airline peeps on this thread to help me shed some light on this issue and dispel the myths surrounding JFK.

Good people Delta IS the airline with the LARGEST presence in NYC. Delta serves JFK, LGA, HPN, ISP, and EWR. Delta offers international service to various destinations from both JFK and LGA. If you want to see for yourself below is a map.

http://delta.innosked.com/

AA is making money due to its sheer size and the volume of passengers that it can transport. But comparing AAs service to that of UA or CO or heck even NW and AA sucks.

I have now given you two different ways to review Delta's flights our of the NYC area. Delta is the largest airline in the entire NYC market and if you still believe otherwise then I ask you to prove me wrong. Please if you can show me how Delta is not the largest carrier in the NYC market then I will relent.

MAH4546

Nov 13, 2007, 8:14 PM

I beg your pardon but you are greatly mistaken.

http://media.delta.com/images/NYCFactSheet0407.pdf

Delta is by far the largest airline in the New York City area. Consider that the pdf file only displays the flight information for just JFK and LGA and there's still HPN, ISP, and EWR that delta services in addition to JFK and LGA. Delta is certainly a force to be reckoned with in the big apple.

I have stated my feelings regarding mergers or acquisitions very plainly. I

I'm not mistaken. Delta is the fourth largest airline in the NYC region when you count all the airports together in terms of number of annual passengers carried.

.
Delta not dominant in NYC I'll agree with, but your second claim about differences is hardly true. AA's presence in NY is geared toward transatlantic operations, similar to their setup in MIA for Latin America. AA's bread and butter are their two hubs at ORD and DFW. ORD is almost as big an international hub for AA as JFK is.

No, it isn't. They are the largest carrier in terms of domestic passengers at LaGuardia. They are the second largest domestic airline at Newark. Their trans-Atlantic operations are behind Delta and Continental. Delta does have a more impressive domestic network out of JFK, though.

Good people Delta IS the airline with the LARGEST presence in NYC. Delta serves JFK, LGA, HPN, ISP, and EWR. Delta offers international service to various destinations from both JFK and LGA. If you want to see for yourself below is a map.

You are wrong. 100% absolutely, entirely wrong. In terms of passengers carried, which is what matters in the end, Delta is fourth. And in terms of destinations, Continental is #1, not Delta.

akiatl261

Nov 13, 2007, 8:56 PM

yaga

Nov 13, 2007, 9:24 PM

From the Houston Chronicle - 11/9/07

Nov. 9, 2007, 11:47PM
New York area is 'critical' to Continental
Revenue from Big Apple flights about to eclipse that of Houston

By BILL HENSEL JR.
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

NEW YORK — Continental Airlines may live in Houston, but its rich uncle is in New York City.

The carrier's international revenue, mostly from flights to or from the New York area, has grown some 20 percent in the past year and now provides about half its passenger revenue, which totaled $13.1 billion last year.

Other airlines have taken notice, a big reason why a Big Apple battle has broken out and promises to get more intense, even as federal regulators move toward limiting flights in the region.

After a decade in which Continental and the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey spent some $2 billion to build up a hub at Newark Liberty International Airport, Continental is the dominant carrier in the financial capital of the United States with 469 daily departures.

The next closest competitor is Delta Air Lines with 333 daily flights, and the list drops off sharply after that.

Atlanta-based Delta in particular has pushed for a larger market share, spending more than $50 million to upgrade facilities at John F. Kennedy Airport. Delta executives say the airline will have spent more than $100 million by next summer.

JetBlue also has expanded of late in its hometown of New York City, where it too flies out of JFK, and has said it wants to expand more.

Just how competitive is the New York market? Consider this sign seen on cabs around New York: "This taxi can't take you to Beijing. Neither can Delta."

That's part of Continental's new ad campaign, which began in September and was designed to emphasize the carrier's international scope compared to other airlines, spokeswoman Julie King said.

Continental isn't really threatened by the growth of the other airlines in the New York area because it has the "very enviable position" of having almost all the flights out of Newark, CreditSights analyst Roger King said.

"That allows them to have almost all domestic flights into Newark, and allows all their international flights to hook up with the domestic feed, which JFK flights don't have," King said. "That hub at Newark is the strongest Atlantic gateway of any airline."

Scheduling reduction
All the recent growth at JFK — some 40 percent more flights over the past 18 months, according to government data — led to considerably more congestion. And that helped prompt the Federal Aviation Administration to call a scheduling reduction meeting.

Scheduling restrictions already were in place until last January, when Congress lifted them. One tool being discussed now to help ease crowding is congestion pricing, which would raise fare prices at the busiest travel times.

Federal officials seeking to avoid a repeat of massive congestion this summer have proposed cutting back flights at JFK next summer, and a decision is expected to be announced within weeks. The agency also is looking at other New York-area airports, meaning next up could be Continental-dominated Newark, which, like JFK, has seen crowding and delays.

New York's close-in airport, LaGuardia, handles primarily domestic flights.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said the government's strong preference is to develop market-based solutions.

"But we will consider scheduling reductions as a last resort in order to prevent a repeat of this summer's nightmare delays," she said in prepared remarks recently.

Her department has suggested an hourly limit of 80 flights at JFK, which amounts to a 30 percent reduction, said Calyon Securities analyst Ray Neidl.

'In a strong position'
It was a decade ago that Houston-based Continental began its push for a major international hub in the New York region and dubbed Newark, 16 miles from midtown Manhattan, its "global gateway." The carrier runs 11 nonstops from Bush Intercontinental Airport to Newark each weekday.

Continental's 10-year buildup in the New York area has been key to its international expansion and overall growth, said Larry Kellner, the carrier's chairman and chief executive.

"Continental is well-positioned for the next several years," Kellner said. "We continue to be in a strong position financially."

One reason for that is the cash engine Continental has built in the New York area, which explains why airlines continue to spend money to gain an edge here, despite the threat of government-imposed flight limits.

Continental President Jeff Smisek said the carrier currently has a quarter of the New York-area market share and offers 43 percent more seats than its nearest competitor.

"We are proud to be the largest carrier in New York/New Jersey," he said.

The carrier's chief financial officer, Jeff Misner, said 138 of its 282 destinations — nearly half — are outside the United States.

But Delta's Glen Hauenstein, executive vice president, argues there's plenty of room for others because JFK — about 12 miles from Manhattan in Queens — is by far the largest international airport in the country.

Hauenstein, a former Continental executive who actually worked on its expansion in Newark, said all the airlines will have to give up something.

"At the end of the day, the government has the authority to do whatever it wants," he said. "The airlines have been very responsive. I was very disappointed the government started out by pointing fingers at the airlines because we could point the finger back at them even more."

The Air Transport Authority and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey have done just that. The ATA represents most airlines, while the Port Authority runs the airports and depends on their revenue.

"Cutting the number of flights at one airport to levels not seen in almost 40 years and declaring victory isn't a solution," said Anthony Shorris, executive director of the Port Authority, referring to possible changes at JFK.

Continental agrees. Smisek also is sharply critical of the federal government, which he says has failed to keep up with the growth of air travel.

The airlines all have strongly urged the government to fix and modernize the nation's air traffic control system.

That system could come under more pressure. An agreement liberalizing routes between the United States and the European Union promises to increase trans-Atlantic traffic.

A weaker dollar also makes this country cheaper for visitors from across the pond, and New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has launched a campaign to draw more international tourists.

Continental has modernized its fleet in recent years and continues to do so. It will take delivery of 25 Boeing 787 Dreamliner aircraft in 2009, and many of them will fly out of the New York area.

Fleet issues
"Over the next three years, we will spend more than a couple of billion dollars on fleet issues," Kellner said.

Just how big a deal is the New York-area hub for Continental?

The amount of revenue Continental gets from New York-area flights is about to surpass revenue from its Houston flights, executives say. That's despite the fact that Continental has more than 700 daily flights out of Houston, far more than New York.

New York "is critical, absolutely critical," to Continental, said aviation consultant Mike Boyd.

Continental serves 155 destinations from Newark, including 74 abroad. In 1977, it served 26 international destinations from Newark.

Such expansion around New York has come at the expense of efficiency, with the three New York-area airports rating consistently among the worst in on-time performance.

The airlines need to work harder to reduce congestion, said the Transportation Department's general counsel, D.J. Gribbin.

"The operational improvements that have been proposed (by the airlines) don't appear to be dramatic enough to meet demand," Gribbin said. "So we have to come up with something as how to best meet demand."

But Kevin Mitchell, chairman of the Business Travel Coalition and a member of the committee meeting with the government on congestion matters, suggested regulators are falling short.

"The FAA has not made a compelling case whatsoever about caps or congestion pricing," Mitchell said. "They have brought in a lot of people designed to bolster the FAA's case for congestion pricing, but it is just not compelling."

RESOURCES
NEW YORK FLIGHTS

Number of daily flights out of the New York area*:
• Continental: 469

• Delta: 333

• American: 249

• US Airways: 226

• JetBlue: 200

• United: 65

• Northwest: 44

*Includes JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports

Source: Continental Airlines

bill.hensel@chron.com

Trae

Nov 13, 2007, 9:43 PM

Since when is Delta going to acquire JetBlue? I doubt that happens...

STrek777

Nov 13, 2007, 10:54 PM

Very well untill I actually have updated information I will relent. However, here is some additional information to think about.

http://news.delta.com/print_doc.cfm?article_id=10861

About Delta
Delta offers more daily departures from New York City’s two preferred airports combined – JFK and LaGuardia – than any other carrier. At LaGuardia, Delta operates the city's leading Shuttle product to Boston and Washington, D.C., in addition to nonstop Delta and Delta Connection carrier service to 25 other destinations. At New York-JFK – Delta’s second-largest international gateway – the airline currently offers 181 peak-day departures to 77 worldwide destinations, including nonstop service to 33 international destinations.
Delta Air Lines operates service to more worldwide destinations than any airline with Delta and Delta Connection flights to 315 destinations in 54 countries. Since 2005, Delta has added more international capacity than all other major U.S. airlines combined and is a leader across the Atlantic with flights to 36 trans-Atlantic markets. To Latin America and the Caribbean, Delta offers nearly 400 weekly flights to 54 destinations. Delta's marketing alliances also allow customers to earn and redeem SkyMiles on nearly 15,000 flights offered by SkyTeam and other partners. Delta is a founding member of SkyTeam, a global airline alliance that provides customers with extensive worldwide destinations, flights and services. Including its SkyTeam and worldwide codeshare partners, Delta offers flights to 477 worldwide destinations in 103 countries. Customers can check in for flights, print boarding passes and check flight status at delta.com.
*Subject to foreign government approval
**Based on June 2008 OAG

STrek777

Nov 13, 2007, 10:59 PM

And one more thing... in responce to the Houston Chronicle... here is the AJC.

Mess at JFK bad for Delta
Airline industry vows to fight federal proposal to limit flights at airport where Atlanta-based carrier handles 30 percent of business.

By Bob Dart
Cox Washington Bureau
Published on: 10/24/07
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/business/stories/2007/10/24/flight1024.html

I'M DONE... I SWEAR!

MAH4546

Nov 13, 2007, 11:04 PM

Well if you look at the combined numbers for all three major airports in the NY metro then Yes Continental is number one, Jetblue is number two, AA is number three and Delta is number 4. However they split the Shuttle ops, the COmair regional ops and the Mainline ops, Combine those operations and you have a better picture. Continetal is like 21 million, Jet blue is roughly 15million American is 14.1 million and Delta(with the combined operations) is at 13,850,517 so there is only a 344,345 passenger difference between AA and DL. Next Year the picture will be different with the new routes and added frequencies. Should Delta aquire anyone be it Jetblue or Northwest, or even continental the rankings will change in Delta's favor and could propel it to a solid number 2

http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/airports/pdfs/traffic/july2007_reg.pdf

Keep in mind this is july/06-july07 when you add the rest of the year in to these totals the numbers will probably change.

And how is it fair to combine Delta's regional carriers but not American's and Continental's?

1) Continental + COEx - 26 066 953
2) American + American Eagle - 16 148 248
3) jetBlue - 15 107 759
4) Delta + Shuttle + Connection - 13 869 884

And the difference becomes grows more when you add White Plains, where jetBlue and American Airlines are two of the three biggest airlines. Delta's growing in NYC, no doubt, but not at a rate where they will soon catch up with AA or CO. This fall, AA has added/will add new routes to Stansted (London, England), Las Vegas, St. Lucia, St. Kitts & Nevis, Memphis, Minneapolis, Flint, Montreal, and Louisville; next summer they are adding more flights to Europe with additional London service, Milan, and Barcelona.

akiatl261

Nov 13, 2007, 11:27 PM

Very true but I once you add in the flying shuttle america/republic and some of the other delta connection carriers do for Delta still then the numbers begin to close. Either way consolidation will happen its not if but a question of when. When it does if you add in anyother carrier the number postion will change.

There have been a few mumblings and rumors that Delta could go for Jetblue definantely nothing id take to serious. Why would they ? Because combine Delta and Jetblues NYC ops and you unseat continental and gain the already made assets to have a true hub plus new terminal facilities But I doubt that will happen. Delta will be the solid number two sooner rather than later. They have nowhere to go but up. Not to mention that they are opening new markets that the Continental is not and being very sucessful. Which will add feed to there flights which increases ppassenger numbers through there New York System.

Oh and wasnt trying to be unfair to Continental or Delta. The difference is that when i said combined I meant assets owned by the mainline carrier. Only Delta and American own there Connection carriers. Expressjet is not owned by continental. So sorry if it appeared I was being unfair. I Happen to like DL and CO.:)

MAH4546

Nov 13, 2007, 11:41 PM

. Delta will be the solid number two sooner rather than later. They have nowhere to go but up. Not to mention that they are opening new markets that the Continental is not and being very sucessful. Which will add feed to there flights which increases ppassenger numbers through there New York System.

I disagree. They are still a good 2.2M passenger behind American Airlines. American Airlines, at JFK especially, has far superior terminal facilities with more room to add flights than Delta, and AA is growing quite a bit in NYC. Delta has a long way until they catch up with AA in terms of passengers, but obviously not in terms of network strength, where Delta is already clearly stronger.

Oh and wasnt trying to be unfair to Continental or Delta. The difference is that when i said combined I meant assets owned by the mainline carrier. Only Delta and American own there Connection carriers. Expressjet is not owned by continental. So sorry if it appeared I was being unfair. I Happen to like DL and CO.:)

It's all good. Though Delta does not own all their Connection carriers. They only own Comair.

Dragonheart8588

Nov 14, 2007, 3:48 AM

I don't know if anyone care but my family and I took a mini vacation to SoCal + Vegas.

Anyway, we flew Frontier from Atl to John Wayne/OC airport with a short layover at Denver. After the flight, I completely fell in love with Frontier. Their service was phenomenal.

Their check-in desk personnels were extremely pleasant and funny. The airplane was spanking new and have SO much leg room with your own personal TV screen with 24 channels + movies from DirectTV(not free while in flight). The flight left early and arrived early from Atl and Denver. The Denver flight have extremely comfortable leather seat. I love Frontier and will fly with them if I ever have to go the west coast again.

Flight from SNA to Las Vegas with US Airways was good. They left on time and their personnels was also extremely pleasant and funny. The only bad part is, and it wasn't that bad b/c the flight attendants made up for it, the A/C was not working while the plane on the ground. So the cabin was quite warm while on the ground, but the flight attendants were very funny and made light of the situation. The flight arrived early to Las Vegas.

The flight back to Atl from Vegas was with Spirit. Their personnels were also pleasant. However, the plane was as cramp as Delta plane. The seat was actually worse than Delta. I think they should stop hyping up its "big Leather" seat. The seat was not big and extremely uncomfortable. You can barely recline the seat. Luggages and snack have to be paid for. I guess I get what I paid for.

When arriving back to ATL, I don't not sure if this is Spirit or Hartsfield's fault, but it took 40 minutes for the luggages to arrive to the carousel.

Also, Hartsfield should really think about widening their terminals because it get extremely cramp and crowded. Also, why can't Hartsfield do FREE wifi like the McCarren Airport? Plus, Las Vegas airport looks a lot nicer/cleaner.

john3eblover

Nov 14, 2007, 4:03 AM

Fiorenza

Nov 14, 2007, 4:16 AM

Just a bit of positive feedback...the discussion over the last few pages concerning the relative strengths and market share of DL, AA, CO, Jetblue, etc. were very informative for me. Thank you everyone for your comments.

akiatl261

Nov 14, 2007, 5:27 AM

I think the baseline is that Delta is expanding to a wider network than the other 3 are doing. They have new and exisitng aircraft to help aid that. New York is a new frontier that they will attack with much force.

So will the New International Terminal have a marta station or will it be connected to marta by some other means? Any news on new carriers eyeing Atlanta? :)

Dragonheart8588

Nov 14, 2007, 5:42 AM

That's a great idea. I'm sure they can just widen all the terminals by like 50 feet, just so everyone is nice and comfy. I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem or cause any delays or be difficult or expensive in any way. And while they are at it, why don't they just make everything free. It would be great if they could just keep most people from flying through ATL as well, so we could have it to ourselves?

Seriously, do you ever fly anywhere?

Wow! somebody got off the wrong side of the bed today. You're attitude and many like yours are the reason why people hate Atlanta.

If Vegas can make their terminal wide, why can't Atlanta? If Vegas can offer free Wifi, why can't Atlanta? You need to take some reasoning class because you are treading on a slippery slope, which makes your argument weak. Take a chill pill, and maybe you do need a trip to Vegas to relax some of that nerves.:koko:

sprtsluvr8

Nov 14, 2007, 7:00 AM

Wow! somebody got off the wrong side of the bed today. You're attitude and many like yours are the reason why people hate Atlanta.

People hate Atlanta? :shrug: I know there are some bitter and envious people on skyscraperpage forum, but it seems like to me that people (in general) love Atlanta...and God knows there are no bad attitudes in any other cities.

STrek777

Nov 14, 2007, 7:38 AM

Wow! somebody got off the wrong side of the bed today. You're attitude and many like yours are the reason why people hate Atlanta.

If Vegas can make their terminal wide, why can't Atlanta? If Vegas can offer free Wifi, why can't Atlanta? You need to take some reasoning class because you are treading on a slippery slope, which makes your argument weak. Take a chill pill, and maybe you do need a trip to Vegas to relax some of that nerves.:koko:

Ok your right lets just uproot a terminal that handles hundreds of flights a day spend two years widening it just so passengers will have a few extra feet on either side of the isle. At this point you need to pause and think about all that goes into a terminal. There are underground tunnels for workers, underground lounges for flight attendants and pilots. When the President, Congressmen, Senators, Celebrities, or Top Corporate Execs fly into the ATL do you really think they worry about how to get to the South Terminal drop off area. There is a private back door to every major airport that you can't block because you want a wider terminal. Then you have the miles of pipes for water, sewage, and gas. There are no power-lines drooped all over the place so now you have to take into account the miles of buried electrical and fiber optic cables.Dont forget the baggage belts that have to run from E, D, C, B, A, & T to the baggage claim area in the main terminal and from the ticket counter all the way to the various terminals. Then you also have to consider that the airport only manages itself and any changes, modifications, or upgrades have to be cleared by the FAA and/or DOT.

I congratulate you on your super duper price saving ticket that had you flying on three different carriers. However, if you were a regular flier you might just start to notice parts of the underground city that occasionally make their way to the surface. Before you start shouting about close mindedness take a moment to stop and think about all that you haven't considered.

BTW
It might be premature to completely count Jet Blue out of the picture. The do have a brand new sterling terminal at JFK that is capable of easily accommodating all of Delta's current domestic and international flights with room to spare. You will not find this in an AJC article or anywhere for that matter just call it... a hunch if you will. Delta just signed a multi billion dollar deal that will enable it to repair Airbus engines. Jet Blue has hit harder times and have themselves recently changed CEOs. Delta has openly discussed acquiring another airline. The word merge has been used mainly by the media. When you hear Delta's CEO and/or CFO use the merger phrase it is in the context of... In the event of a merge we want Delta to be in a position as the acquiring carrier. One major key word that you have yet to see when anyone discusses a true "merger" situation is "synergies". That "synergy" word is used heavily anytime companies "merge". Delta execs have not used that word which leaves me to believe we might just try to buy someone out-right. Jet Blue might be the right airline at just the right price with all the right assets to make everything work out beautifully. I still think CO is Delta's best option but Jet Blue might just give us what we want at a time that we need it.

Delta expands unit to do maintenance for other airlines

By Jim Tharpe
Published on: 11/07/07

Delta Air Lines on Wednesday announced a 10-year, $1 billion contract with Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp. that will broaden the types of aircraft engines Delta can service at its massive Atlanta maintenance center, bringing in new revenue.

Chromalloy is a major supplier of jet-engine parts, and Delta officials characterized the deal as "the largest and most significant parts manufacturing approval agreement in airline history.

The partnership enables Delta to overhaul more types of jet engines, including one widely used on Airbus jets, which Delta itself doesn't fly.

Delta's Atlanta TechOps center currently employs about 4,500 workers, and Wednesday's announcement could mean additional jobs.

"We certainly hope that as we grow our engine work we will add jobs, but I don't have a specific figure at that time" spokesman Kent Landers said.

"This is a significant development for the future of our industry and one that signals the dynamic, out-of-the-box strategy for which Delta TechOps is known," said Tony Charaf, senior vice president of Delta TechOps. "Delta TechOps will be well positioned in the marketplace to better compete and, in turn, offer greater flexibility to our more than 100 customers worldwide."

The agreement was disclosed at an aviation industry conference in Milan, Italy.

Some airlines have outsourced major engine work, while others like Delta have attempted to take on additional maintenance work to generate revenue in a time of frenzied competition and razor-thin profits.

Delta emerged from bankruptcy earlier this year and has announced a number of strategic moves to boost profits, including an expansion of lucrative international routes from its hubs in Atlanta and New York.

As part of Wednesday's agreement, Delta's Atlanta TechOps facility will perform about 250 additional engine overhauls over the term of the deal, said Landers. The unit will do about 220 overhauls for outside customers this year.

Delta's maintenance, repair and overhaul operations in 2006 generated about $310 million of Delta's more than $17 billion in revenue.

Dragonheart8588

Nov 14, 2007, 8:08 AM

Ok your right lets just uproot a terminal that handles hundreds of flights a day spend two years widening it just so passengers will have a few extra feet on either side of the isle. At this point you need to pause and think about all that goes into a terminal. There are underground tunnels for workers, underground lounges for flight attendants and pilots. When the President, Congressmen, Senators, Celebrities, or Top Corporate Execs fly into the ATL do you really think they worry about how to get to the South Terminal drop off area. There is a private back door to every major airport that you can't block because you want a wider terminal. Then you have the miles of pipes for water, sewage, and gas. There are no power-lines drooped all over the place so now you have to take into account the miles of buried electrical and fiber optic cables.Dont forget the baggage belts that have to run from E, D, C, B, A, & T to the baggage claim area in the main terminal and from the ticket counter all the way to the various terminals. Then you also have to consider that the airport only manages itself and any changes, modifications, or upgrades have to be cleared by the FAA and/or DOT.

I congratulate you on your super duper price saving ticket that had you flying on three different carriers. However, if you were a regular flier you might just start to notice parts of the underground city that occasionally make their way to the surface. Before you start shouting about close mindedness take a moment to stop and think about all that you haven't considered.

BTW
It might be premature to completely count Jet Blue out of the picture. The do have a brand new sterling terminal at JFK that is capable of easily accommodating all of Delta's current domestic and international flights with room to spare. You will not find this in an AJC article or anywhere for that matter just call it... a hunch if you will. Delta just signed a multi billion dollar deal that will enable it to repair Airbus engines. Jet Blue has hit harder times and have themselves recently changed CEOs. Delta has openly discussed acquiring another airline. The word merge has been used mainly by the media. When you hear Delta's CEO and/or CFO use the merger phrase it is in the context of... In the event of a merge we want Delta to be in a position as the acquiring carrier. One major key word that you have yet to see when anyone discusses a true "merger" situation is "synergies". That "synergy" word is used heavily anytime companies "merge". Delta execs have not used that word which leaves me to believe we might just try to buy someone out-right. Jet Blue might be the right airline at just the right price with all the right assets to make everything work out beautifully. I still think CO is Delta's best option but Jet Blue might just give us what we want at a time that we need it.

Delta expands unit to do maintenance for other airlines

By Jim Tharpe
Published on: 11/07/07

Delta Air Lines on Wednesday announced a 10-year, $1 billion contract with Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp. that will broaden the types of aircraft engines Delta can service at its massive Atlanta maintenance center, bringing in new revenue.

Chromalloy is a major supplier of jet-engine parts, and Delta officials characterized the deal as "the largest and most significant parts manufacturing approval agreement in airline history.

The partnership enables Delta to overhaul more types of jet engines, including one widely used on Airbus jets, which Delta itself doesn't fly.

Delta's Atlanta TechOps center currently employs about 4,500 workers, and Wednesday's announcement could mean additional jobs.

"We certainly hope that as we grow our engine work we will add jobs, but I don't have a specific figure at that time" spokesman Kent Landers said.

"This is a significant development for the future of our industry and one that signals the dynamic, out-of-the-box strategy for which Delta TechOps is known," said Tony Charaf, senior vice president of Delta TechOps. "Delta TechOps will be well positioned in the marketplace to better compete and, in turn, offer greater flexibility to our more than 100 customers worldwide."

The agreement was disclosed at an aviation industry conference in Milan, Italy.

Some airlines have outsourced major engine work, while others like Delta have attempted to take on additional maintenance work to generate revenue in a time of frenzied competition and razor-thin profits.

Delta emerged from bankruptcy earlier this year and has announced a number of strategic moves to boost profits, including an expansion of lucrative international routes from its hubs in Atlanta and New York.

As part of Wednesday's agreement, Delta's Atlanta TechOps facility will perform about 250 additional engine overhauls over the term of the deal, said Landers. The unit will do about 220 overhauls for outside customers this year.

Delta's maintenance, repair and overhaul operations in 2006 generated about $310 million of Delta's more than $17 billion in revenue.

It was a suggestion and you know it would improve efficiency by allowing a smoother passenger flow ( I could barely move down to the terminal to get to baggage claim b/c it was so crowded). It is call poor planning, that's what going on for most of Atlanta, from the street, the airport, and the city biggest carrier called Delta. This city wanted a busy airport to contribute money to the economy but doesn't want to invest into the airport until the last minute.

I don't see how other cities can actually do things right and not our city. Don't get me wrong, I like Atlanta to a point where I can still point out its many flaws.

Denial only delay the inevitable problems.

I only called out what I see. McCarran is no near busy as Atlanta, but yet they have large terminals b/c they can actually plan for their future growth. And they are generous enough to provide their customers with great reliable/friendly service via free Wifi and other numerous things. Something Hartsfield/Delta have yet to learn.

STrek, I hope Delta put in as much effort, faith, and loyalty to you as you put into them (if you actually work for them) because it would be a sad situation, if they fire you and leave you in the dust.

If anyone want to start an unproductive argument with my post, please don't waste your time and especially my time. That's why I started my post saying "if anyone care" and if you care, I am flatter and I only want to have a productive discussion with people who can use adult reasoning skills.

When I first found this forum, I though "how cool" to have all of these people who have such great knowledge (which there are some, you know who you are) but there are just as many on the opposite side of the intelligence spectrum.

sprtsluvr8

Nov 14, 2007, 8:55 AM

Regarding criticism of Hartsfield for not providing free WiFi:

Most of the airports that currently offer free WiFi are small or mid-size airports...the busiest airports without fees are McCarran and Sky Harbor. LAX, O'Hare, JFK, Logan, etc....not free. :) Eventually I predict that WiFi will be free and available in most public places, but it was only in the past 2 years that any airport provided it...and it seems that the free WiFi connections provided in some airports are often very shakey and unreliable.

From reading your earlier post, one might gather that Hartsfield is the last airport on Earth not offering free WiFi... :) Criticism of anything is fine as long as it is constructive and positive.

The fees will go away in the near future, just like cell phone per-minute fees, internet connection per-minute fees, etc. There are hot spots all over the place already, and some cities offer it free in their Downtown/CBD.

Andrea

Nov 14, 2007, 1:51 PM

Regarding criticism of Hartsfield for not providing free WiFi:

Most of the airports that currently offer free WiFi are small or mid-size airports...the busiest airports without fees are McCarran and Sky Harbor. LAX, O'Hare, JFK, Logan, etc....not free. :) Eventually I predict that WiFi will be free and available in most public places, but it was only in the past 2 years that any airport provided it...and it seems that the free WiFi connections provided in some airports are often very shakey and unreliable.

Nonetheless the fees are really annoying. I was in Vegas a few weeks ago and it was so nice to be able to fire up ye olde laptop without some screen popping up and demanding that I pay $8.95 to check in at Skyscraperpage.com.

john3eblover

Nov 14, 2007, 3:22 PM

dude, my point was, you can't just "widen" the terminals! Do you have any idea how much that would completely ruin operations at the airport? You think its crowded now?? Hartsfield is fine the way it is, there is a reason its the most efficient airport in the world, handling 80+ million people a year. If you don't like it, drive to Birmingham and take southwest wherever you need to go.

john3eblover

Nov 14, 2007, 3:28 PM

echinatl

Nov 14, 2007, 3:31 PM

I can't wait until I can toss my aircard in the trash. If my local coffee shop can give me free access why not a major airport? Also, I was sad to see most airlines abandoning in flight broadband and cell phone use testing. I think Alaska Air is the only one still taking a serious look at the tech.

I think Delta could really make a difference in this area. If they would lead the way in allowing in air use of cell phones and broadband access for laptops, they would get a ton of great exposure, and I’m sure a lot of people would fly Delta just for the new services. By allowing someone else to take the lead, they are allowing a potential rival to take away business from them in the future.

echinatl

Nov 14, 2007, 3:38 PM

There is no way ATL is going to offer free wifi, not with 80+ million people using the airport yearly.

I disagree. Remember Google was planning to blanket all of San Fran with free WIFI. I think the initiative lost steam (I haven't followed up in it lately and don't feel like looking it up now:) ) but my point is if you can provide free wifi to an entire city, you can do it for any size airport. Plus, you can control the location of the access points, for example only outside terminals, or only outside eating areas, or provide specific hotspot areas. Plus you can block access to sites that eat up your bandwidth (youtube, deviantart, ect, ect). It really isn't that hard and they could do it if they wanted to. This is another area that I would love our airport to lead the way in. Take the initiative and provide the best wireless broadband experience of any airport.

Andrea

Nov 14, 2007, 3:53 PM

Also, I was sad to see most airlines abandoning in flight broadband and cell phone use testing.

I'm okay with limiting cell phone use in flight (although I've read it really doesn't pose any hazard), mainly because I don't want to be trapped next to somebody who's jabbering away the whole time. You already get that in elevators, restaurants, stores and just about everywhere else. I was in a cafeteria line yesterday and virtually had to shove the two people in front of me to make them move because they were so busy yakking on their cell phones.

However, I don't see why we couldn't have wi-fi on the plane. That would really make travel far more productive and pleasant.

echinatl

Nov 14, 2007, 4:15 PM

john3eblover

Nov 14, 2007, 4:28 PM

I disagree. Remember Google was planning to blanket all of San Fran with free WIFI. I think the initiative lost steam (I haven't followed up in it lately and don't feel like looking it up now:) ) but my point is if you can provide free wifi to an entire city, you can do it for any size airport. Plus, you can control the location of the access points, for example only outside terminals, or only outside eating areas, or provide specific hotspot areas. Plus you can block access to sites that eat up your bandwidth (youtube, deviantart, ect, ect). It really isn't that hard and they could do it if they wanted to. This is another area that I would love our airport to lead the way in. Take the initiative and provide the best wireless broadband experience of any airport.

my point was, ATL has the potential to make good money off of the millions of people using and paying for internet. It is in their best interest financially to SELL the internet rather than just give it away.

john3eblover

Nov 14, 2007, 4:29 PM

I'm okay with limiting cell phone use in flight (although I've read it really doesn't pose any hazard), mainly because I don't want to be trapped next to somebody who's jabbering away the whole time. You already get that in elevators, restaurants, stores and just about everywhere else. I was in a cafeteria line yesterday and virtually had to shove the two people in front of me to make them move because they were so busy yakking on their cell phones.

However, I don't see why we couldn't have wi-fi on the plane. That would really make travel far more productive and pleasant.

I'm sure eventually they'll allow both things on flights, but for now I'd rather just obey the law and not screw around with things I don't understand. The rule exists for a reason, and i'm not willing to risk messing up something on the flight. But I do think wifi on airlines is going to happen pretty soon. I think its just a matter of making the technology available on the planes of most airlines.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17935297/

echinatl

Nov 14, 2007, 4:37 PM

my point was, ATL has the potential to make good money off of the millions of people using and paying for internet. It is in their best interest financially to SELL the internet rather than just give it away.

I can see where you are coming from but I still disagree. A lot of people won't pay, so the amount you are making is from the limited number of people that will. I believe the amount you that you can potentially make off of ad revenue, and also you gain free marketing because people at other airports will say "ugh I have to pay here, WTF it's free in Atlanta".

My stance is the amount you can make by making the service free, is more than what can be made by charging for the service. Part of the gain is actually money, except now from Ads which if done right can be unintrusive and effective (see Google). The other part of the gain is from great PR, it makes the airport just look good. It's like FedEx using hybrid trucks. Will FedEx ever fully recoup the cost of the truck? It's rumored that they won't, but the great and free exposure they are getting from it far outweighs the costs.

Bottom line is this, as it gets cheaper and cheaper to provide wireless broadband eventually it will be free, so do you want to just follow the crowd and go free when everyone else does? Or do you want to be a leader, and pave the path earlier than the other major airports?

Dragonheart8588

Nov 14, 2007, 4:44 PM

And regarding my "attitude", you have been on this thread complaining about Delta and Atlanta many many times. And no offense, but most of your criticisms are fairly naive, and it sounds like you fly once or twice a year. I fly 1-2 times per month. I am in lots of airports in lots of cities. Your complaints are really not fair to Atlanta and Delta. you can't make one time claims about an airline or airport based on one experience that didn't go exactly like you planned it to go. The airline industry is extremely complex. It's not like just jumping in your car and driving 10 minutes somewhere. Its not a limo service to wherever you want to go. If you fly on delta 10 times in 1 year and they suck every time, fine, don't fly Delta anymore. I've been flying for a long time, and i've never had any problems with Delta that I didn't have on any other airline. And so far the worst airlines have been US Airways and United. But thats just my experience. Do you see me boycotting those airlines? No, becuase I realize that they aren't perfect, and that anytime you fly on a commercial airline flight, you are giving up some of the comforts of home to get to your destination quicker than if you just drove. It's a compromise, but everyone knows that.

You cannot compare Las Vegas to Atlanta. Las Vegas handles a fraction of the traffic that Atlanta does, and is much smaller. They also probably receive a ton of money from gambling, etc, so it makes sense that they might be able to spruce up their airport with free Wifi. I have only been to a handful of airports with free wifi to begin with. They are usually small. There is no way ATL is going to offer free wifi, not with 80+ million people using the airport yearly.

Ok. I think it is very fortunate of you to not have bad experiences with Delta and it is YOUR choice not to boycott US air and United and for putting up with them. For me, I have higher standard expect things to somewhat decent. I understand that the airline industry is complex but isn't everything else in the world? If this industry is so complex for Delta, maybe they shouldn't be in it.

You are not having problems with Delta because you actually have good experiences with them or you just happen to ignore the big elephant in the room, just like most people in Atlanta, whom claim that living in city is more convenience, but yet they have just as bad traffic and high crime rate.

You know it doesn't matter if I fly 1 or 2 times a year or 365 times a year. I didn't pay for sub par (i.e. Delta) services and I don't want to deal with one. This is MY choice.

If you feel that I am naive, I am sorry that you feel like that, however, I am yet to be enlighten by your insights.

Dragonheart8588

Nov 14, 2007, 4:45 PM

Dragonheart8588

Nov 14, 2007, 4:50 PM

I can see where you are coming from but I still disagree. A lot of people won't pay, so the amount you are making is from the limited number of people that will. I believe the amount you that you can potentially make off of ad revenue, and also you gain free marketing because people at other airports will say "ugh I have to pay here, WTF it's free in Atlanta".

My stance is the amount you can make by making the service free, is more than what can be made by charging for the service. Part of the gain is actually money, except now from Ads which if done right can be unintrusive and effective (see Google). The other part of the gain is from great PR, it makes the airport just look good. It's like FedEx using hybrid trucks. Will FedEx ever fully recoup the cost of the truck? It's rumored that they won't, but the great and free exposure they are getting from it far outweighs the costs.

Bottom line is this, as it gets cheaper and cheaper to provide wireless broadband eventually it will be free, so do you want to just follow the crowd and go free when everyone else does? Or do you want to be a leader, and pave the path earlier than the other major airports?

Good Job! Thanks.

Adding to the point:

Also, Google gives away so many free stuffs that it attract people to their website, therefore, higher traffic.

Who would want to pay $8 - $ 11 for wifi when people are only at the airport for no more than a few hours.

ThrashATL

Nov 14, 2007, 5:30 PM

Dragonheart8588

Nov 14, 2007, 5:45 PM

Wi-Fi is of use to people who connect at ATL but living here, I've never spent enough time sitting around to even pull out my laptop. I have a Wi-Fi Palm Treo which is incredibly easy to whip out and use but I never have the urge enough to do that. By the time you park at the airport, get your pass and go through security, they're usually boarding when I get to my concourse a mile away from my car. Free Wi-Fi wouldn't work at Atlanta, too many people, you might as well wait til you get home/hotel. The cost free system there would be astronomical.

They are already have a Wifi system, making it free is not hard. I see bunch of people with their laptop open trying to get some work done at the airport. And like other posts said about restricting website like youtube and other sites that demand high bandwidth. Also, I doubt that we have that high of a percentage of travelers that have laptop with them, therefore, bandwidth shouldn't be an issue.

I agree with you about having a treo, because my roommate have one and he use the internet on his phone to his laptop all the time. I am considering purchasing one, but haven't find that one really good reason yet.

echinatl

Nov 14, 2007, 6:03 PM

Wi-Fi is of use to people who connect at ATL but living here, I've never spent enough time sitting around to even pull out my laptop. I have a Wi-Fi Palm Treo which is incredibly easy to whip out and use but I never have the urge enough to do that. By the time you park at the airport, get your pass and go through security, they're usually boarding when I get to my concourse a mile away from my car. Free Wi-Fi wouldn't work at Atlanta, too many people, you might as well wait til you get home/hotel. The cost free system there would be astronomical.

I work in the IT field so perhaps my internet needs are greater than others, but if I'm ever not doing something, I like to go online. I have a lot of friends that are not in the IT field and they are also the same way. I'm trying to see it from your perspective which is not many people want the service correct? I fly a lot, and I've noticed that more and more people bring their laptops with them, so if the demand is not high now, from my personal observations it seems to be growing.

I also don't like to cut it as close as it seems you do, by the time i'm done checking in and going through all that I still have at least 30 min of bored sitting around time. With ATl traffic I'm always scared I'll miss my flight!

I also feel that you are overestimating not only the implementation costs but also the upkeep and monthly usage costs.

That's just what I think! :)

GTviajero81

Nov 14, 2007, 6:50 PM

... I understand that the airline industry is complex but isn't everything else in the world? If this industry is so complex for Delta, maybe they shouldn't be in it.

You are not having problems with Delta because you actually have good experiences with them or you just happen to ignore the big elephant in the room, just like most people in Atlanta, whom claim that living in city is more convenience, but yet they have just as bad traffic and high crime rate.

You know it doesn't matter if I fly 1 or 2 times a year or 365 times a year. I didn't pay for sub par (i.e. Delta) services and I don't want to deal with one. This is MY choice....

And see my friends, this is what those of us who work in the airline industry deal with day in and day out. A statement such as,

"I understand that the airline industry is complex but isn't everything else in the world? If this industry is so complex for Delta, maybe they shouldn't be in it."
makes no sense. Show me a company, with the scope of an operation like an international airline, in any industry that runs perfectly and then we (fellow airline workers) shall agree with said statement. Otherwise, c'est la vie.

Now this statement:

"
You are not having problems with Delta because you actually have good experiences with them or you just happen to ignore the big elephant in the room, just like most people in Atlanta, whom claim that living in city is more convenience, but yet they have just as bad traffic and high crime rate."

doesn't really hold water. I live in the city. And I laugh at all the poor suckers when one hears the traffic report of, "Right now trip times on 400 from Hwy 20 to the Perimeter is one hour and 20 minutes. Forget about the Inner Loop as trip times from 75 to 78 are well in excess of over an hour......"

Yeah, right! I've gotten so used to quick trips in my car that my drive to work at the airport tires me as it is my longest trip...East Atlanta to the airport. Wow! And the regarding the crime thing...I feel more wary about walking around parts of Norcross and Riverdale than I do in Downtown/Midtown.

And now the statement that really got me:

"You know it doesn't matter if I fly 1 or 2 times a year or 365 times a year. I didn't pay for sub par (i.e. Delta) services and I don't want to deal with one. This is MY choice..."
You didn't pay for sub-par service? Correct me if I am wrong but I do recall a few pages back you ended up flying on so many carriers in order to obtain the cheapest ticket. More power to you, and there is totally nothing wrong in procuring the best deals, but buddy, you and the majority of the flying public need to realise something...YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

Talk to us about sub-par service when you buy a Y-Fare or Business or First. I don't think many people realise what sub-par service truly is. Sub-par is paying for something and not getting your money's worth. If you pay US$99 to fly cross-country do realise that you will get basic service. If you pay US$699 to fly in Business Class to the West Coast, well then you shall be treated quite commensurately. I loathe to think what would happen should carriers like Ryanair or Aer Lingus were to operate in the US on a domestic basis (I know that there is SkyBus, but their presence is hardly felt in the grand scheme of all things in US Aviation). Imagine being sold lottery tickets in-flight under the guise of "giving money to poor Irish orphanages". Or having to pay Euros3.50 for literally a cup of water or tea. A hot panini, if I recall, is about Euros8-10 (It's been about a month since I last flew on them).

In the end all that I am saying is that we in airline business don't purposely set out to make one's flying experience a misery... in fact quite the opposite. Our day is better when your day is better. With that being said, we can only operate within the parameters/tools that we are given -- and when passengers/customers demand lower/barebones fares, well then, we are obliged to meet such demands and consequently have to eliminate some amenities.

STrek777

Nov 14, 2007, 7:04 PM

And see my friends, this is what those of us who work in the airline industry deal with day in and day out. A statement such as,

"I understand that the airline industry is complex but isn't everything else in the world? If this industry is so complex for Delta, maybe they shouldn't be in it."
makes no sense. Show me a company, with the scope of an operation like an international airline, in any industry that runs perfectly and then we (fellow airline workers) shall agree with said statement. Otherwise, c'est la vie.

Now this statement:

"
You are not having problems with Delta because you actually have good experiences with them or you just happen to ignore the big elephant in the room, just like most people in Atlanta, whom claim that living in city is more convenience, but yet they have just as bad traffic and high crime rate."

doesn't really hold water. I live in the city. And I laugh at all the poor suckers when one hears the traffic report of, "Right now trip times on 400 from Hwy 20 to the Perimeter is one hour and 20 minutes. Forget about the Inner Loop as trip times from 75 to 78 are well in excess of over an hour......"

Yeah, right! I've gotten so used to quick trips in my car that my drive to work at the airport tires me as it is my longest trip...East Atlanta to the airport. Wow! And the regarding the crime thing...I feel more wary about walking around parts of Norcross and Riverdale than I do in Downtown/Midtown.

And now the statement that really got me:

"You know it doesn't matter if I fly 1 or 2 times a year or 365 times a year. I didn't pay for sub par (i.e. Delta) services and I don't want to deal with one. This is MY choice..."
You didn't pay for sub-par service? Correct me if I am wrong but I do recall a few pages back you ended up flying on so many carriers in order to obtain the cheapest ticket. More power to you, and there is totally nothing wrong in procuring the best deals, but buddy, you and the majority of the flying public need to realise something...YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR!

Talk to us about sub-par service when you buy a Y-Fare or Business or First. I don't think many people realise what sub-par service truly is. Sub-par is paying for something and not getting your money's worth. If you pay US$99 to fly cross-country do realise that you will get basic service. If you pay US$699 to fly in Business Class to the West Coast, well then you shall be treated quite commensurately. I loathe to think what would happen should carriers like Ryanair or Aer Lingus were to operate in the US on a domestic basis (I know that there is SkyBus, but their presence is hardly felt in the grand scheme of all things in US Aviation). Imagine being sold lottery tickets in-flight under the guise of "giving money to poor Irish orphanages". Or having to pay Euros3.50 for literally a cup of water or tea. A hot panini, if I recall, is about Euros8-10 (It's been about a month since I last flew on them).

In the end all that I am saying is that we in airline business don't purposely set out to make one's flying experience a misery... in fact quite the opposite. Our day is better when your day is better. With that being said, we can only operate within the parameters/tools that we are given -- and when passengers/customers demand lower/barebones fares, well then, we are obliged to meet such demands and consequently have to eliminate some amenities.

That was refreshing! Oh and you totally brought up the Y-fare... that was great. Now what really blows my mind are those that travel internationally on one of those J-fares.

I wanted so much to respond to that post but I am really glad that I waited because yours was briliant. However, trying to explain the industry to an outsider is a lost cause. You really have to be in it to get it unless you are a Million Miler Platinum Medallion. hehehehe