Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport

[Dragonheart8588]

With the price of oil closing today at over 119.00 a barrel I think the authorization for this merger is an open/shut case. Pilots will always saber rattle but in the end they too will realize that it is better to work together than to have no job at all and the same goes for all the work groups.

I am really excited about this!

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/delta/stories/2008/04/24/deltajobs_0424.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Is this what you are excited about?

[john3eblover]

Dude, enough already. I'm sick of the negativity on this board.

[Dragonheart8588]

Dude, enough already. I'm sick of the negativity on this board.

It is not negativity. It's call reality. Too much boosterism is not healthy either. As much as I like to have a headquarter of the largest airline in the nation in Atlanta, I still have to look at it objectively. Delta gonna screws Georgians with their airfares majorly.

[Andrea]

What about our Frequent Flyer miles?

[BabydaddyATL]

It is not negativity. It's call reality. Too much boosterism is not healthy either. As much as I like to have a headquarter of the largest airline in the nation in Atlanta, I still have to look at it objectively. Delta gonna screws Georgians with their airfares majorly.

He has a point! Lack of competition has never helped consumers.

[john3eblover]

Start a separate thread to complain about the problems with a merger then. Some of us are actually looking forward to this. Its going to be a good thing. And I HOPE that the airlines raise fares! A lot! Otherwise they are all going to go out of business because they're losing money fast. There is still PLENTY of competition in the industry. This merger does NOTHING to affect the competition in Atlanta, in fact none of the major hub markets really. This merger shouldn't affect pricing in Atlanta at all. If anything will affect prices, it will be the fact that oil is freaking $119 a barrel. Airline ticket prices are extremely low as it is. They were more expensive 20-30 years ago.

Your frequent flyer miles will be fine.

And Dragonheart, you have been negative about Delta and Atlanta since this particular thread was started, and its really getting old. Don't fly on Delta then if you don't like it. Fly on whatever airline you want.

As for me, BRING ON THE 747s IN DELTA COLORS!

[john3eblover]

In fact I'm unsubscribing from this thread before I get pissed off and say something I'll regret. I wish you all luck flying on whatever airline you choose.

[Dragonheart8588]

In fact I'm unsubscribing from this thread before I get pissed off and say something I'll regret. I wish you all luck flying on whatever airline you choose.

I'm not trying to be negative. I'm sorry that I make you upset and it was not my intention.

[BabydaddyATL]

Start a separate thread to complain about the problems with a merger then. Some of us are actually looking forward to this. Its going to be a good thing. And I HOPE that the airlines raise fares! A lot! Otherwise they are all going to go out of business because they're losing money fast. There is still PLENTY of competition in the industry. This merger does NOTHING to affect the competition in Atlanta, in fact none of the major hub markets really. This merger shouldn't affect pricing in Atlanta at all. If anything will affect prices, it will be the fact that oil is freaking $119 a barrel. Airline ticket prices are extremely low as it is. They were more expensive 20-30 years ago.

Your frequent flyer miles will be fine.

And Dragonheart, you have been negative about Delta and Atlanta since this particular thread was started, and its really getting old. Don't fly on Delta then if you don't like it. Fly on whatever airline you want.

As for me, BRING ON THE 747s IN DELTA COLORS!

Good lord. You can't read something because someone does not agree with you?

I suggest you read some business case studies. Two failing companies almost never make a more profitable, bigger company, but a larger failing company. Read about Mercedes buying Chrysler.

[NativeAtlantan]

Delta is not a failing company - they were, but now we can not say that they are.

[BabydaddyATL]

Delta is not a failing company - they were, but now we can not say that they are.

Delta and NorthWest just lost over $2 Billion last quarter. That is failing in my book.

Some studies show that 50 to 70 percent of mergers fail, in that they don't live up to their financial promise. And for every merger advocate who claims that the resulting "synergy" will lead to lower costs passed on to customers, there's a merger critic who argues that the loss of competition leads inevitably to higher prices and less innovation.

[GTviajero81]

Delta and NorthWest just lost over $2 Billion last quarter. That is failing in my book.

Some studies show that 50 to 70 percent of mergers fail, in that they don't live up to their financial promise. And for every merger advocate who claims that the resulting "synergy" will lead to lower costs passed on to customers, there's a merger critic who argues that the loss of competition leads inevitably to higher prices and less innovation.

Well, sheesh, according to your reckoning then, almost all of the US flag-carriers must be failing. It's about darn time that airfares get back to where they should be. There is NO reason that flying from Atlanta to Los Angeles should EVER be around $99/o.w. (with the exception of marketing factors). Reduction in capacity and an increase in air fares are what are needed to shore up profitability in an industry where rapidly increasing external operating costs are gorging away at revenue.

[jmcgoblue]

I tend to agree, the merger in itself won't do much to hurt competition...other than on ATL-MSP routes. If it were Delta/Airtran, that would be a different story.

I do like the merger, partially from a civic pride standpoint, but more so because I hope it results in more direct flights between ATL & Asia down the road. A direct ATL-SIN would improve my quality of life significantly, but I'm not counting on that happening any time soon...

In any case, as much as I hate paying more for anything, it's inevitable that prices are going up, the alternatives are continuous bankruptcy/bailouts or nationalization of the airline industry.

[BabydaddyATL]

I tend to agree, the merger in itself won't do much to hurt competition...other than on ATL-MSP routes. If it were Delta/Airtran, that would be a different story.

I do like the merger, partially from a civic pride standpoint, but more so because I hope it results in more direct flights between ATL & Asia down the road. A direct ATL-SIN would improve my quality of life significantly, but I'm not counting on that happening any time soon...

In any case, as much as I hate paying more for anything, it's inevitable that prices are going up, the alternatives are continuous bankruptcy/bailouts or nationalization of the airline industry.


The Delta NorthWest merger will force other airlines to merge. This will impact prices in Atlanta, no way around that.

[BabydaddyATL]

Well, sheesh, according to your reckoning then, almost all of the US flag-carriers must be failing. It's about darn time that airfares get back to where they should be. There is NO reason that flying from Atlanta to Los Angeles should EVER be around $99/o.w. (with the exception of marketing factors). Reduction in capacity and an increase in air fares are what are needed to shore up profitability in an industry where rapidly increasing external operating costs are gorging away at revenue.

Yes they are failing...the whole industry. How would you characterize it?

If I was Delta, I would call off the merger. My thesis is two unprofitable companies makes just a bigger unprofitable company. Delta shoud continue to reduce expenses, cut unprofitable routes and raise prices according to increases in their operating cost. There is something to be said for being smaller and more nimble.

[NativeAtlantan]

I think DL/NW makes a stronger company then either DL or NW could be on their own.

It's funny how this whole thing is driven, in large part, to rising fuel prices. I didn't think fuel prices played into any decisions but I guess I was wrong.

;-) (token smiley to keep things on tha chill)

[BabydaddyATL]

I think DL/NW makes a stronger company then either DL or NW could be on their own.

It's funny how this whole thing is driven, in large part, to rising fuel prices. I didn't think fuel prices played into any decisions but I guess I was wrong.

;-) (token smiley to keep things on tha chill)

Name one airline merger that has been successful. Look at the last one, USAir and America West, successful? Nice of you drop the fuel prices into your comments.

So what changes with Delta and NorthWest merging with regards to fuel prices. They said they are not cutting routes so it seem like you just have a bigger airline buying more gas.

:)...Smiley are ya happy?

[sprtsluvr8]

I'm pretty sure this merger has been analyzed to death by experts in the airline industry, and it wouldn't be moving forward if it weren't a good idea. Unless anyone in here is an airline industry expert, I can't quite see declaring the merger unsuccessful or either Delta or Northwest a failure.

[BabydaddyATL]

I'm pretty sure this merger has been analyzed to death by experts in the airline industry, and it wouldn't be moving forward if it weren't a good idea. Unless anyone in here is an airline industry expert, I can't quite see declaring the merger unsuccessful or either Delta or Northwest a failure.

I am pretty sure Diambler Mercedes had a lot of experts advise them when they bought Chrysler. You see what happened there. Google "merger failure rate." By any measure, 50-70% of all mergers are a failure. Loss of jobs, revenue, innovation and shareholder value. That is a fact.

I think it is fair for some of us to question wether we want to gamble one of Atlanta's biggest assets.

[sprtsluvr8]

I am pretty sure Diambler Mercedes had a lot of experts advise them when they bought Chrysler. You see what happened there. Google "merger failure rate." By any measure, 50-70% of all mergers are a failure. Loss of jobs, revenue, innovation and shareholder value. That is a fact.

I think it is fair for some of us to question wether we want to gamble one of Atlanta's biggest assets.

Man, you're an expert in every one of these threads! I didn't know!

[BabydaddyATL]

Man, you're an expert in every one of these threads! I didn't know!

And you are not trying to be either? Mirror please.

[GTviajero81]

Yes they are failing...the whole industry. How would you characterize it?

If I was Delta, I would call off the merger. My thesis is two unprofitable companies makes just a bigger unprofitable company. Delta shoud continue to reduce expenses, cut unprofitable routes and raise prices according to increases in their operating cost. There is something to be said for being smaller and more nimble.

How would I characterise the industry? It is what results from unprecedented legislation and events in macroeconomics. There are SO many other factors in the airline industry that those who do not have a hand in it everyday do not realise. I shall not make an attempt to educate forumers on the 'how-to's' and 'why's' of the business, but suffice it to say, the price of fuel is not the icing of the cake....it's the shape. What does this mean? Well, one can only do so much within the confines of operational expenditure and with the price of fuel being the single largest expenditure to the majority of airlines these days, subsequent action and policy implementation are based on the 'wiggle room' that airlines have.

BabyDaddy, you posted a quick blurb about DL and NW not planning on cutting flights. That is not right. With the strategic location of the future hubs, flight schedules and routes can be 'right-sized'. Does there really need to be 12 flights on most days between Atlanta and Minneapolis? No, and with the consolidation this overlap can be eliminated with equipment right-sized for the route. This ultimately can reduce traffic capacity and indirectly save fuel thereby reducing fuel expenditure. The variables of the reduction in landing fees and gate fees and parking fees and a whole host of other charges that most of Joe Public never realises needs to be taken care of from that lovely $65 ticket purchased on a cheap travel consolidator online. Yet this same Joe Public demands amenities such as personal television at every seat, meal/snack services, free or reduced overweight baggage fees, ALL of which increase the fuel expenditure values....ah, there goes that cake pan again! (See analogy above)

One could go on and on about why the flying public will take a very long time (I hesitate to say never for fear of seeming elitist) to actually 'get' the aviation industry. Truly it's not their responsibility to 'get' it, but on that note it is their responsibility to understand that to purchase a seat to get from Point F to Point Q (I am not using A to B...too trite!) in this day and era is not a 'right' just as it's not my 'right' to expect cheap prices on higher-end vehicles.

[BabydaddyATL]

How would I characterise the industry? It is what results from unprecedented legislation and events in macroeconomics. There are SO many other factors in the airline industry that those who do not have a hand in it everyday do not realise. I shall not make an attempt to educate forumers on the 'how-to's' and 'why's' of the business, but suffice it to say, the price of fuel is not the icing of the cake....it's the shape. What does this mean? Well, one can only do so much within the confines of operational expenditure and with the price of fuel being the single largest expenditure to the majority of airlines these days, subsequent action and policy implementation are based on the 'wiggle room' that airlines have.

BabyDaddy, you posted a quick blurb about DL and NW not planning on cutting flights. That is not right. With the strategic location of the future hubs, flight schedules and routes can be 'right-sized'. Does there really need to be 12 flights on most days between Atlanta and Minneapolis? No, and with the consolidation this overlap can be eliminated with equipment right-sized for the route. This ultimately can reduce traffic capacity and indirectly save fuel thereby reducing fuel expenditure. The variables of the reduction in landing fees and gate fees and parking fees and a whole host of other charges that most of Joe Public never realises needs to be taken care of from that lovely $65 ticket purchased on a cheap travel consolidator online. Yet this same Joe Public demands amenities such as personal television at every seat, meal/snack services, free or reduced overweight baggage fees, ALL of which increase the fuel expenditure values....ah, there goes that cake pan again! (See analogy above)

One could go on and on about why the flying public will take a very long time (I hesitate to say never for fear of seeming elitist) to actually 'get' the aviation industry. Truly it's not their responsibility to 'get' it, but on that note it is their responsibility to understand that to purchase a seat to get from Point F to Point Q (I am not using A to B...too trite!) in this day and era is not a 'right' just as it's not my 'right' to expect cheap prices on higher-end vehicles.

GTviajero81, I appreciate your response and it is not elitist to lecture us. I am personally not close to the industry, but make statements from a business background. I always love to learn from intelligent people.

I have a question for you though, Do you believe it is better for the Airline Industry and Delta that other carriers fail and go out of business or merge to form 2 or 3 major carriers?

[sprtsluvr8]

And you are not trying to be either? Mirror please.


I'm pretty sure this merger has been analyzed to death by experts in the airline industry, and it wouldn't be moving forward if it weren't a good idea. Unless anyone in here is an airline industry expert, I can't quite see declaring the merger unsuccessful or either Delta or Northwest a failure.

Why don't you tell me how my statement above is any attempt to be an expert? On the contrary, I was suggesting that there ARE experts in the industry who can better assess the pros and cons of a merger...better than you or me. I don't see how that is trying to sound like an expert. You, on the other hand, seem to attempt expertise in each thread...and it's not working.

[BabydaddyATL]

Why don't you tell me how my statement above is any attempt to be an expert? On the contrary, I was suggesting that there ARE experts in the industry who can better assess the pros and cons of a merger...better than you or me. I don't see how that is trying to sound like an expert. You, on the other hand, seem to attempt expertise in each thread...and it's not working.

How about you tell me how I am trying to be an expert since you are the one who brought it up. Are forums not meant to debate and agree and disagree? Or blow sunshine up everyones ass as say I agree with you, no I agree with you. BS.

Also, the Financial experts have looked over the plans and hence have driven down the stock price. They see the merger failing.

I think I have made several valid arguments and as of yet nobody has given me an answer:
1. 50-70% of all mergers have failed.
2. Two unprofitable companies merging make just one bigger unprofitable company.
3. Is it better for the Airline Industry and Delta that other carriers fail and go out of business or merge to form 2 or 3 major carriers?

[BabydaddyATL]

Good Article - By A Financial Expert

Why Delta-Northwest won't work
Industry consolidation is supposed to cure the airlines' most intractable ills, right? It won't.

By Barney Gimbel, writer


Video
More video

Northwest and Delta are reportedly close to merger -- deal would create America's largest carrier.
Play video
Video
More video

You better pack light. United Airlines to charge $25 to check a second bag.
Play video
More from Fortune
It's showtime for Microsoft-Yahoo
Murdoch's newspaper bets irk Wall St.
BlackBerry blues
FORTUNE 500
Current Issue
Subscribe to Fortune

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- There was little doubt last summer when former Northwest Airlines executive Richard Anderson took the helm at Delta Air Lines that the carrier would gobble up a competitor. It was just a matter of which one and when.

So Wednesday's board meeting to finalize a merger between Delta (DAL, Fortune 500) and its smaller rival, Northwest Airlines (NWA, Fortune 500), surprised no one. Shareholders clamored for it. Analysts gave their blessing. And the media breathlessly reported its inevitability. Consolidation, the thinking goes, will solve all of the industry's woes.

Not so fast. An analysis of the likely deal terms suggests this merger won't overcome the many problems facing airlines. In the end, we might just have a bigger company plagued by the same problems, including sky-high oil prices and powerful labor unions. Ditto for United (UAUA, Fortune 500) and Continental (CAL, Fortune 500) if they too, as has been widely reported, tie the knot. Let me explain.

What a difference a year makes
It was just over a year ago that Delta's former CEO, Gerald Grinstein, warned a packed room of U.S. senators about the perils of airlines mergers. Grinstein was there to fight off a hostile bid from US Airways (LCC, Fortune 500) and had a phalanx of uniformed Delta pilots standing behind him. He called the transaction "anti-competitive" and said it would "threaten the future stability of our nation's transportation industry."

For a lot of reasons, Grinstein didn't want to sell his airline to US Airways. It was his baby. He had nursed it back from the brink of insolvency and he wasn't about to let what he considered to be an unworthy competitor snap it up and reap any rewards. He may have believed what he told Congress: Once Delta emerged from bankruptcy, it would be worth far more than US Airways' $9.5 billion offer.

Things didn't work out as Grinstein had hoped. Today Delta is worth only $6.7 billion and Grinstein - and his team - are gone. Anderson inherited an angry board of directors and impatient shareholders. The only way to fix the problem was to find a partner - and fast.

What changed was the price of oil. At $100 a barrel, oil is almost double what it was when Grinstein testified in January 2007. It's become all but impossible for airlines to turn a profit. Add to that the inability to hike fares substantially, mounting foreign competition, and signs of a economic downturn, and it's no wonder airlines are scrambling for alternatives.

Combining with a rival would give airlines some much-needed capital. "This is about survival." says former Continental chief executive Gordon Bethune, who recently advised a New York hedge fund that wants Delta to merge with either Northwest Airlines or United Airlines. "These companies just need more revenue than they can generate with that kind of expense level."

Two theories are driving airline merger talks. Cost-cutting by flying the same amount of passengers on fewer airplanes is one. Delta, for instance, has nine daily flights between Nashville and its Atlanta hub. Northwest flies three times a day from Nashville to its Memphis hub. But the passengers often aren't going to either city; they're connecting to Los Angeles or Dallas or Boise. By merging, the combined carrier could, say, cut three flights and still meet demand.

The potential savings is what drove US Airways to bid for Delta last year. US Airways suggested it could save nearly $1 billion by combining the two carriers and lopping off 10 percent of the flight schedule.

But belt-tightening isn't driving the Delta-Northwest talks, according to published reports. The "new" Delta doesn't plan to cut many jobs or reduce much capacity. They don't even plan to drop any hubs. If that remains the plan, then the combined carrier won't be able to generate more revenue through higher fares.

Instead, they plan to boost revenue by leveraging their global network to seize market share. It makes sense in theory: Northwest has an extensive Asian presence while Delta has a large European and Latin American network. The problem is, size alone won't stimulate demand. The new Delta would have to use its larger footprint to steal customers from competitors - a tough proposition if other airlines merge too.

The only way Delta-Northwest plans to save money is through cutbacks in Northwest's Minneapolis base, and by combining their respective airport operations, reservation lines and technology departments. Even so, the costs savings would be negligible - and possibly offset by any deals to secure the approval of the airlines' labor unions. If Delta agrees, say, not to lay off pilots then it can't reduce the number of planes or routes it flies.

None of this bodes well for the airline industry. After a Northwest-Delta deal, expect to see the remaining large carriers - American, Continental, United and US Airways - attempt similar mergers with similar terms. And then what do you have? Bigger companies flying the same routes with the same airplanes - only now with higher labor costs. For some reason, in the airline business, people always forget that bigger doesn't mean better.

[GTviajero81]

From where does the above article come from? It reeks of bias.

[BabydaddyATL]

From where does the above article come from? It reeks of bias.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/news/companies/delta_northwest_analysis.fortune/index.htm

If you don't mind, can you answer my question - Do you believe it is better for the Airline Industry and Delta that other carriers fail and go out of business or merge to form 2 or 3 major carriers?

[Chris Creech]

It will probably be an non-issue in a couple of years anyhow. When the industry becomes reregulated, there will probably be only a couple of mega-airlines left standing.

[Rail Claimore]

I do like the merger, partially from a civic pride standpoint, but more so because I hope it results in more direct flights between ATL & Asia down the road.

That's what I'm extremely excited about. It's great that there's service to NRT, ICN (by both KE and DL), and PVG out of ATL. But I'd love to see PEK, HKG, and a couple others as well.

[GTviajero81]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/news/companies/delta_northwest_analysis.fortune/index.htm

If you don't mind, can you answer my question - Do you believe it is better for the Airline Industry and Delta that other carriers fail and go out of business or merge to form 2 or 3 major carriers?

Hey there, sorry for the very late reply, but it's been an INSANE week. Now that it's Friday I have a chance to breathe (but don't tell anyone!). :)

You query to me is if I could determine whether other carriers fail and go out of business or merge to form 2 or 3 major carriers is better for the Aviation industry on the whole? Sheesh, if I could answer that question that I would be the most sought after airline employee in the world! *hehe* Well in terms of how the general economy is performing and expected trends in the short run, I would say that it is better for the industry for the carriers to merge. Why? Because of the customer. Let me explain:

Airline travellers (our customers) have gotten used to various things within the industry. Post-deregulation, airlines had to truly compete in a plane-eat-plane world, i.e. pack the passengers on and charge them as much as possible but focus on load factors (the % of seats filled on various legs (the short definition, mind you!)). How to accomplish this? Brand marketing is important for one (Raise your hand if Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" makes you think of a particular carrier), but also market presence. What if you wanted for sweet old Aunt Joan who never plans on leaving her lovely mountain home in Western Montana to visit you for the holidays here in lovely Atlanta? "Well, sweetie, thanks for wanting to fly me to see you, but what is an AirTran? Is that like an Air TraIn? (I have heard that company referred to as such)" Airlines do not like that sort of thing. An airline will try to extend its marketing footprint to include a greater catchment area, i.e. have as many potential customers have knowledge of their existence. This was accomplished by the Regional jet revolution and allowed for markets such as Appleton/Outagamie County Airport (bonus points if you know where that one is without research!) to have non-stop JET (ahh, gotta love marketing!) service to Atlanta, among a host of other destination-pairs. Customers liked this and airlines responded by flooding the market with more regional aircraft routes to smaller communities continent-wide linked to the massive hubs.

And this is where the story turns. More seats on light routes meant that airlines, in order to turn profits (the point of being in a business), had to fill up these flights. Well goodness, how does one fill up a 70-seater CL-65 (look it up!) three times a day from Atlanta to ATW? Or how about Kalispell, MT to SLC? Or Eugene/Bend, OR to SFO? The answer was to lower the fares drastically. By drastically lowering the initial fares, airlines were able to not only attract their potential customers due to enlarging catchment areas, but also were able to induce non-fliers to become potential customers. A family of four from Coeur d'Alene, ID always went skiing in the local mountains for holiday. Well, heck, airlines like Frontier and Alaska offered connecting service to Denver and Seattle (respectively) to head on down to Cancun/Mazatlan/Acapulco/San Jose del Cabo/take your pick! And off the family of four, who paid generally about $99o/w that was snagged from cheapasstickets.com or some other outlet. And they LIKED it! And they began to expect that ticket prices remained low. And this then translated to flying from New York to Seattle for $99o/w. And now airplanes were totally full, which led to less actions for recourse should the system suffer hiccups (such as hell-acious blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornado outbreaks, the Apocalypse, what have you!), which led to irate travellers, which led to people demanding certain services for the lower prices paid (N.B. many 'issues' that one hears travellers gripe about rarely occur with high fare classes and business/first class tickets).
I feel as if I have just ended a rendition of "The Farmer in the Dell."

So now that you have received a super-cursory primer in aviation logistics and economics, let us approach the question again. By merging the carriers to form super-carriers, yes, the fares will go up. But the range of service wouldn't. You see, someone has to do something with all that metal flying around. Merging carriers ensures that the majority of the aircraft remains flying and that service cuts in operation are not extreme. If carriers were allowed to fail in a precipitous manner, the market would be setback with MASSIVE supply shocks in a negative manner, and the demand would be in flux. The goal is to always return to the long run aggregate supply curve where supply and demand and prices are in equilibrium. Deregulation had the intention of doing this. I will leave the decision to you all to determine whether or not we are moving in the right direction. So basically:
Merge carriers: Fares would go up but more slowly, operational cuts but not drastic, supply right-sized without the constant threat of a super-multilateral front
Let carriers fail: Fares would skyrocket due to heavy fall in supply, operational cuts way more drastic (less personnel, equipment, etc, requires much less flights), businesses which rely on air travel will be hurt the most as their costs of doing business would shoot up proportionally.

Whew! I thought I left work today...I guess I brought it home with me. :)

Talk amongst yourselves now. Discuss!! :whip:

[NativeAtlantan]

It would be nice if, along with the three letter airport codes, folks would say where those places are....I never know where you're talking about unless it's obvious (e.g. ATL).

I do appreciate the insights into the industry and this particular merger....thanks to the experts for weighing in.

[BabydaddyATL]

Hey there, sorry for the very late reply, but it's been an INSANE week. Now that it's Friday I have a chance to breathe (but don't tell anyone!). :)

You query to me is if I could determine whether other carriers fail and go out of business or merge to form 2 or 3 major carriers is better for the Aviation industry on the whole? Sheesh, if I could answer that question that I would be the most sought after airline employee in the world! *hehe* Well in terms of how the general economy is performing and expected trends in the short run, I would say that it is better for the industry for the carriers to merge. Why? Because of the customer. Let me explain:

Airline travellers (our customers) have gotten used to various things within the industry. Post-deregulation, airlines had to truly compete in a plane-eat-plane world, i.e. pack the passengers on and charge them as much as possible but focus on load factors (the % of seats filled on various legs (the short definition, mind you!)). How to accomplish this? Brand marketing is important for one (Raise your hand if Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" makes you think of a particular carrier), but also market presence. What if you wanted for sweet old Aunt Joan who never plans on leaving her lovely mountain home in Western Montana to visit you for the holidays here in lovely Atlanta? "Well, sweetie, thanks for wanting to fly me to see you, but what is an AirTran? Is that like an Air TraIn? (I have heard that company referred to as such)" Airlines do not like that sort of thing. An airline will try to extend its marketing footprint to include a greater catchment area, i.e. have as many potential customers have knowledge of their existence. This was accomplished by the Regional jet revolution and allowed for markets such as Appleton/Outagamie County Airport (bonus points if you know where that one is without research!) to have non-stop JET (ahh, gotta love marketing!) service to Atlanta, among a host of other destination-pairs. Customers liked this and airlines responded by flooding the market with more regional aircraft routes to smaller communities continent-wide linked to the massive hubs.

And this is where the story turns. More seats on light routes meant that airlines, in order to turn profits (the point of being in a business), had to fill up these flights. Well goodness, how does one fill up a 70-seater CL-65 (look it up!) three times a day from Atlanta to ATW? Or how about Kalispell, MT to SLC? Or Eugene/Bend, OR to SFO? The answer was to lower the fares drastically. By drastically lowering the initial fares, airlines were able to not only attract their potential customers due to enlarging catchment areas, but also were able to induce non-fliers to become potential customers. A family of four from Coeur d'Alene, ID always went skiing in the local mountains for holiday. Well, heck, airlines like Frontier and Alaska offered connecting service to Denver and Seattle (respectively) to head on down to Cancun/Mazatlan/Acapulco/San Jose del Cabo/take your pick! And off the family of four, who paid generally about $99o/w that was snagged from cheapasstickets.com or some other outlet. And they LIKED it! And they began to expect that ticket prices remained low. And this then translated to flying from New York to Seattle for $99o/w. And now airplanes were totally full, which led to less actions for recourse should the system suffer hiccups (such as hell-acious blizzards, hurricanes, earthquakes, tornado outbreaks, the Apocalypse, what have you!), which led to irate travellers, which led to people demanding certain services for the lower prices paid (N.B. many 'issues' that one hears travellers gripe about rarely occur with high fare classes and business/first class tickets).
I feel as if I have just ended a rendition of "The Farmer in the Dell."

So now that you have received a super-cursory primer in aviation logistics and economics, let us approach the question again. By merging the carriers to form super-carriers, yes, the fares will go up. But the range of service wouldn't. You see, someone has to do something with all that metal flying around. Merging carriers ensures that the majority of the aircraft remains flying and that service cuts in operation are not extreme. If carriers were allowed to fail in a precipitous manner, the market would be setback with MASSIVE supply shocks in a negative manner, and the demand would be in flux. The goal is to always return to the long run aggregate supply curve where supply and demand and prices are in equilibrium. Deregulation had the intention of doing this. I will leave the decision to you all to determine whether or not we are moving in the right direction. So basically:
Merge carriers: Fares would go up but more slowly, operational cuts but not drastic, supply right-sized without the constant threat of a super-multilateral front
Let carriers fail: Fares would skyrocket due to heavy fall in supply, operational cuts way more drastic (less personnel, equipment, etc, requires much less flights), businesses which rely on air travel will be hurt the most as their costs of doing business would shoot up proportionally.

Whew! I thought I left work today...I guess I brought it home with me. :)

Talk amongst yourselves now. Discuss!! :whip:

Thanks GTviajero81, I appreciate your insider knowledge of the industry.

Please don't think I am being a smartass when I say this, but when I asked the question (above) I asked you what would be best for the Airline Industry and Delta specifically. Not from the perspective of the customer.

I have read a couple of articles recently and the general theme is the only way the airlines are going to get back to profitability is for some airlines to fail. The former CEO of Delta testified before Congress during the USAir takeover of Delta and said that airlines needed to fail, not merge into super carriers.

From an outsider perspective (mine), it would seem that if some airlines failed, that would allow new low cost carriers to take over their gates and decrease prices so the consumer would not be hurt as much as if the airlines merged and controlled the majority of the airport gates. It seems all of the low cost carriers in the past have failed because they have never been able to get a critical mass at an airport because all of the legacy carriers control the majority of the gates.

I know it may not be popular to say on an Atlanta forum, but the fact that Delta has 80% of the Harstfield Jackson's gates does not seem right. How is that benefiting the customer?

[GTviajero81]

BabydaddyATL, now you've got me a bit confused. First you asked me a question with respect to the aviation industry, which I thought I answered, but apparently not sufficiently so for you. But then you close the previous response with a question on how does Delta having 80% of ATL's gates benefit the customer?

What are you asking me exactly? Understand that in an ideal world revenue would be a given. But since this is not the case and the revenue comes from customers (Passenger and cargo, mind you) we, in the business, HAVE to consider customer attitudes, tastes, expectations, etc in order to conjure up sound business plans. That is why there is no cut-and-dry answer for you. This business is so fluid that those who succeed in it are the ones who can "go with the flow." An airline has got to be on the edge and even slightly prescient on customer preferences.

How further may I help you? :)

[BabydaddyATL]

BabydaddyATL, now you've got me a bit confused. First you asked me a question with respect to the aviation industry, which I thought I answered, but apparently not sufficiently so for you. But then you close the previous response with a question on how does Delta having 80% of ATL's gates benefit the customer?

What are you asking me exactly? Understand that in an ideal world revenue would be a given. But since this is not the case and the revenue comes from customers (Passenger and cargo, mind you) we, in the business, HAVE to consider customer attitudes, tastes, expectations, etc in order to conjure up sound business plans. That is why there is no cut-and-dry answer for you. This business is so fluid that those who succeed in it are the ones who can "go with the flow." An airline has got to be on the edge and even slightly prescient on customer preferences.

How further may I help you? :)

I guess I am wondering why you think the former CEO made that comment? Do you 100% disagree with him?

Also, I look at SouthWest Airlines, the most profitable airline, and I don't see customer choice as what drives/flies their success. I think SouthWest was the first airline to realize that customers would do without the extras for a cheap flight.

Look I want to see Delta to succeed. I believe much of Atlanta's success in attracting Fortune 500 companies is because of our airport and Delta is a big part of the equation. Therefore, I think this discussion is useful.

[Andrea]

Pretty interesting comments from former US Air CEO David Siegel (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08111/874717-28.stm).

[BabydaddyATL]

Pretty interesting comments from former US Air CEO David Siegel (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08111/874717-28.stm).

Nice find Andrea. However, is the better for Delta to be bigger or more profitable? I think they are exclusive and I use SouthWest Airlines to model my opinions.

[Andrea]

Babydaddy, I don't know enough about the airline business to know. Personally, I don’t see how it can survive with rising fuel costs and personnel costs, and competition from foreign airlines that are subsidized by their governments.

It seems to me we'd be better off getting rid of some of these flights and redeveloping our rail networks. Just in the next few weeks I need to be in Nashville, Savannah, Athens, Winston-Salem and Columbia, SC. All those places (except maybe Athens) are almost too far to drive but almost too close to fly. I’d take a train in a heartbeat, if we had them.

[ATLonthebrain]

Interesting to note that two of the airlines that Mr. Siegel mentions as likely candidates to merge are no longer in business. Independence Air bit the dust over 2-years ago, and ATA folded a few weeks ago. What the hell is he talking about? Oh, and how is a merger which has already occurred a candidate for a future tie-up? US Airways and America West, as mentioned, have long since merged, though they are still not one happy family. So why even include them in the list, aside from covering the possible link with either United or American?

Also, after reading the discussion about the existence or failure of some legacy carriers allowing new low-cost carriers to emerge and take control of the newly available gates, that is not the main problem nor solution. Yes, it appears there is excess capacity in the industry, though airlines are trimming the fat as we speak to operate at a more manageable level. And having one of the big carriers go away wouldn't be the worst thing to help cure what's ailing the industry. But fuel is going to effect a low-cost carrier in much the same way it will impact a legacy carrier. So that low-cost carrier isn't escaping anything by surviving in the face of the failure of a legacy. It still has the same challenges. What has to parallel continued sky high oil prices is further elevating fares coupled with less seat capacity. Supply and demand will come closer together, and as the price of a ticket rises, those who are only flying because it's "cheap" will not need to or be able to go as often, so there will be less demand for seats. Grounding of inefficient aircraft is going to continue, whether a relic like the DC9 or the 50 or fewer seat RJ's. And, if oil can drop a few bucks below $100 and stick, most of the airlines will be able to survive and get back to operating in the black, because they've already cut deeper in order to exist in an environment with higher oil prices than that.

The fact that DL has relative control of 60% of ATL's gates (Conc E gates are not DL's exclusively, though it utilizes the majority of them throughout the day) is what allows residents and visitors access to well over 150 nonstop markets worldwide. Without the hub Metro Atlanta would only have half of the flights in place, at best, and to far fewer markets. DL is why ATL is serving almost 90 million passengers annually. The customer benefits through global access nonstop or one stop to virtually any point with a commercial service airport, a tremendous selling point when attracting businesses to locate or grow locally. That fact will continue to serve the area incredibly well, and will continue to be a source of the ongoing population growth occurring there. Air access is a major key to the area's long-term success, as it has been for the last several decades.

[Andrea]

I for one don't want to kill the airlines but I think we could use a more balanced transportation system. If we were an efficient and well connected passenger rail hub that would attract businesses, too.

[Dragonheart8588]

I for one don't want to kill the airlines but I think we could use a more balanced transportation system. If we were an efficient and well connected passenger rail hub that would attract businesses, too.

I don't think we have a rail system that is fast enough meet the new global demand of the "now" and "instant" world. An example, I will be flying to Seattle next week, it cost $200 with Airtran on a 4.5 hours flight compares to Amtrak that takes 2 days and cost nearly $800. Unless jet fuel becomes ridiculous expensive and cost more to fly than train, until then train will be a dying breed. It is supposed to dead by now if it wasn't for gov't subsidies.

[ATLonthebrain]

I agree, Andrea. I wish the State Legislators would stop getting hot and cold about this regional rail system and do something to jumpstart it. It would actually improve accessibility to a handful of those smaller communities which currently see air service (a few flights a day, mainly to ATL) and may reduce the need for the frequency if a good and reliable alternative were available. The way things are going these are the communities which will take a hit if oil prices don't come down to a reasonable level soon. What is the latest on commuter rail down there? I haven't heard much lately. Lines that went down to Macon, over to Columbus, Augusta, Athens, and up to Chattanooga with limited stops in between would seem to work. I know there have been extensive studies done about what lines would be in highest demand to implement first, but time's a wastin' here and seemingly, nothing is happening.

[atlantaguy]

^Hey, Bryant! Hope you're doing well up there. This is my first post in quite a while (busy with a new job).

To answer your question about the status of starting up commuter rail here, the news is not good. The prevailing anti-Metro sentiment of the State Legislature combined with a total lack of leadership on transportation issues from Sonny-Bubba has resulted in no action whatsoever. The Legislature went home without adressing transportation for the 2nd year in a row. There was a bill floated to let certain counties join together regionally to let the voters decide to tax themselves for transportation, but it failed to pass.

We are in the third year of the Republican takeover of the State government, and by ALL accounts, it has been a total train wreck for the Metro area. Transportation (other than more pavement) is being ignored at the State level, and the Metro area business community is getting fed up fast.

There was the annual LINK trip this past week to Denver, and I've copied Maria Saporta's column about the transportation initiatives they have started that blow us out of the water.

Denver’s regional transit plan leaves Atlanta years behind
By Maria Saporta | Friday, May 2, 2008, 04:10 PM

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

MARTA General Manager Beverly Scott is green with envy.

The Denver region is building 120 miles of light rail and commuter rail that should be complete by 2015. Already, Denver operates about 1,000 buses at peak times, compared to MARTA’s meager 550 buses (although our region is nearly double Denver’s metro population).

And Denver also is planning to increase its bus service by 25 percent.

“We are being dwarfed by comparison,” Scott said when she called me from Denver this afternoon. Robert Brown, an architect who serves on the board of the Georgia Department of Transportation, said much the same thing. Both were part of the LINK delegation of about 110 Atlanta leaders who have been in Denver for the past three days.

“They’ve been making progress,” said Brown, who actually has been on every LINK trip including the first one in 1997 that also visited Denver. “Atlanta has continued to plan and study. It’s pretty obvious they have moved ahead of us in providing choices for transportation. That’s obvious when you ride their system.”

Two factors have led to Denver’s progress. Strong regional consensus and a dedicated source of funding.

“They have certainly embraced regional collaboration,” Brown said. “It’s still a work-in-progress for us.”

Denver has learned the hard way. Back in 1997, a proposal to fund a plan was presented to voters, and the measure failed in a 58 percent to 42 percent vote.

But in 2004, after an extensive campaign to reach voters, voters approved a sales tax increase of 4 cents on every $10 to fund an ambitious transportation plan with most of the money going towards rail transit. The measure passed: 58 percent to 42 percent.

One reason it was passed by voters throughout the region is that transit is planned in every direction.

“They were able to develop a plan that had something for everyone,” Brown said. “And even the areas not in the plan understood that it would benefit the region and their community in the long run.”

Scott said that key was developing a plan that offered service that was appropriate to the contributions from each of the counties.

“People from Atlanta are realizing that in the last 12 years, Denver has come from behind and passed us,” said Bill Bolling, executive director of the Atlanta Community Food Bank who also has been on all 12 LINK trips. “Denver is a totally different place than it was 12 years ago. They have really worked out the mechanics to be a regional entity.”

Scott, who was on her first LINK trip, put it another way. “We candidly have about 10 to 15 years ahead of us to catch up with Denver,” she said. “It’s clear that they think and act regionally. They have pulled together and understand that they sink or swim together.”

One speaker, Tom Norton, who is a former director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, shared some advice with the Atlanta delegation, Scott said.

“No plan is perfect,” he told the group. “If you sit around waiting for perfection, the world will pass you by.”

[Andrea]

I don't think we have a rail system that is fast enough meet the new global demand of the "now" and "instant" world. An example, I will be flying to Seattle next week, ....

It's not feasible to take a train to Seattle. I'm talking about places like Nashville. If we had trains that could average even 100 mph, that would be competitive for regional destinations.

[atlantaguy]

Andrea, I could not agree more. Just think how great it would be if we had Acela-type service up and down the corridor from DC to at least Birmingham, Chicago to Miami via Nashville and Atlanta, etc. People would totally flock to these trains on a regional basis - just the way it used to be. If you could jump on Acela to Charlotte, who would possibly choose to fly up there? The train would probably be faster than flying to almost every regional market within 300-350 miles.

I'm still waiting for someone to propose a Eisenhower type plan for high speed rail Nationwide. It would be a boon to the economy, wean us a little from oil, help the environment, employ thousands to construct it and reshape the country in the direction we NEED to be heading.

Oy!

[Andrea]

I'm still waiting for someone to propose a Eisenhower type plan for high speed rail Nationwide. It would be a boon to the economy, wean us a little from oil, help the environment, employ thousands to construct it and reshape the country in the direction we NEED to be heading.

Oy!

Atlantaguy, you are wise, as always. What a fantastic idea!!! Now that would get this company moving, literally and figuratively. We'd reap the benefits for a hundred years at least.

[NativeAtlantan]

I'm on board with all the regional train hype - sign me up.

Now, "All Aboard!!"

[GTviajero81]

This could be big. Intrastate flights within the biggest state east of the Mississippi that are not tied into a major carrier......


By STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/11/08

Wings Air is set to begin flights between Athens and Atlanta on Monday and another carrier, Georgia Skies, plans to begin the same service soon.

Wings will leave Athens-Ben Epps Airport at 7 a.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays for a one-way fare of $49. The return flight will leave Atlanta at 6:30 p.m. on the same days.


Georgia Skies will begin daily flights between Athens and Atlanta after it works out contracts with Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport for access to gates and ticketing areas. The company says that could take a month.

Last October, Wings Air CEO Charlie Mintz said his company was selling out its shuttle flights from Briscoe Field in Gwinnett to Athens for University of Georgia football games at $89 a seat, and he said he expected similar interest in shuttles to Hartsfield-Jackson.



Thoughts? Time to get the KATL thread hopping again! :)

[STrek777]

This could be big. Intrastate flights within the biggest state east of the Mississippi that are not tied into a major carrier......


By STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/11/08

Wings Air is set to begin flights between Athens and Atlanta on Monday and another carrier, Georgia Skies, plans to begin the same service soon.

Wings will leave Athens-Ben Epps Airport at 7 a.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays for a one-way fare of $49. The return flight will leave Atlanta at 6:30 p.m. on the same days.


Georgia Skies will begin daily flights between Athens and Atlanta after it works out contracts with Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport for access to gates and ticketing areas. The company says that could take a month.

Last October, Wings Air CEO Charlie Mintz said his company was selling out its shuttle flights from Briscoe Field in Gwinnett to Athens for University of Georgia football games at $89 a seat, and he said he expected similar interest in shuttles to Hartsfield-Jackson.



Thoughts? Time to get the KATL thread hopping again! :)

Well isn’t that cute. It looks like two guys that are in a pissing match with one another. The same single route for both companies… please.

They don’t have to worry about competition from Delta or Airtran so they might make some money. The downside is that I don’t know how much. I want to bet that they will be using prop planes or the smallest jets they could possible find.

But these are two guys that forgot that you leave the bar fight at the bar. At some point one of them is going to get ambitiously stupid and throw some 50 – 70 seat regional get onto the rout and drown in their own debt.

My biggest question though is where exactly were they thinking of parking them? Using whose gate? Delta has leased out every gate on half of T-concourse all of A and B-concourses half of C and D-concourses and E-concourse has universal gates open to all but is only designed for larger aircraft.

We shall see!

[GTviajero81]

:previous:
Careful darling, don't get so defensive so quickly. ;)

By researching Wings Air website, it seems that they will be utilising the GA (General Aviation, for the uninitiated) parking spots at the airport and having a shuttle that leads directly to the North Terminal for security (for 'onto' passengers). The aircraft seats no more than eight, and in the beginning there is will one flight leaving Athens in the morning and then a return in the evening. I applaud them and I believe that this may actually work. A regional jet flight would only work during the times that either school at UGA is in session or home football game seasons (similar to the United Express service between Washington-Dulles and Charlottesville, VA). With the average price of petrol nowadays and sheer hassle of driving on some of the Metro area's worst freeways, I do not anticipate seeing too many people look askance at a $49+tax each way to mitigate the 'drama' involved with flying commercially.

Good luck and kudos for SOMEONE having the guts to bring about options in travel around North GA that doesn't require the automobile.
:tup:

[Pompuss]

:previous: Wouldn't it make more sense if they flew out of PDK though? Passengers would have cheaper parking, cheaper airport fees, quicker access to your flight, and not to mention the fact that PDK is closer to the higher-income yuppie UGA alum in the northen metro area, the people who would most likely utilize this service. With a plane that seats 8, most likely a turboprop, why deal with flying into Hartsfield? By the time it took people to get on the plane they could have already been looking for a parking space outside Samford stadium. :koko:

[NativeAtlantan]

Pompuss, I agree and was just about to ask the same thing....seems like a mistake to run out of ATL. Does PDK allow commercial flights?

[Buckley]

Athens is losing its US Air connection to Charlotte. As a replacement, this federally subsidized service is primarily aimed at allowing people to fly from Athens to rest of the world or vice versa. The only commercial option currently is a van service to/from Hartsfield. This is not intended to be a service for football fans 6 or 7 times a year. Hence, flying to Hartsfield is the only real option.

[Fiorenza]

Is the same taxpayer-subsidized program being offered to Macon, Columbus, Augusta, and Rome?

[GTviajero81]

Well currently there is commercial airline service in these Georgia cities:
Atlanta
Albany
Athens
Augusta
Brunswick/Golden Isles
Columbus
Macon/Warner Robins
Savannah/Hilton Head
Valdosta

As far as to whether these stations exist still due to the federal programme that provides subsidies for flying into certain small airports, I do not know. The thing is that now that Metro Atlanta can effectively be said to reach from Metro Athens to Calhoun to Rome and the AL border to the northern reaches of Macon, this is will be the only commercial service that has flights within a city's Metro area! Previously there was United Express service for both LAX (Los Angeles Int'l) to ONT (Ontario) and Washington-Dulles to Baltimore-Washington (both, currently scrapped). As pointed out earlier, this service is not intended to cater to football fans and the like...it is to diminish the hassle with a having to get to ATL from Athens for another commercial flight. This is why there is shuttle service to the North Terminal for check-in and for clearing TSA security. Personally, if I lived in Athens and had a flight to, say, Dubai (one of my favourite destinations) and all I had to do was pay $49+tax to get to ATL without having to pay for parking and actually driving there I would be all for it.

[Fiorenza]

OK, I can see subsidization of public mass transit if cost justified, but why do we need to subsidize something that basically caters to only a few, who anyway can afford to pay if they need it? I mean, Albany GA, c'mon.

Is this a program targeted to assist congresspeople and their wealthy contributors get back and forth to their respective districts at taxpayer expense?

[Chris Creech]

It would be nice too with other closer out-of-state airports like Birmingham, Chatt, Tallahassee, Green/Spart, to have the rail option for these trips that are just too short to hassle with for a short flight, but also to open up some other flight options. A lot of people already drive to B'ham for lower fares.

[Buckley]

A lot of people already drive to B'ham for lower fares.

I don't doubt that occasionally someone will find a cheaper flight from BHM-perhaps even so much so that they are compelled to drive to Birmingham. But I have a hard time believing flights from BHM are generally cheaper than flights from ATL or that people routinely drive 2+ hours from Atlanta to fly, especially when that likely will transplate into an extra connection. Perhaps the destination has something to do with it, but I find flying (especially up the east coast or abroad) much cheaper from ATL than BHM.

[smArTaLlone]

Officials of the city-run airport Wednesday got initial approval to expand one of Hartsfield-Jackson's five runways in anticipation of more international flights once the merger is approved.

The runway expansion means Hartsfield-Jackson would be able to handle more 400-passenger Boeing 747s, specifically 747-400s, which is the workhorse of Northwest Airlines' international fleet.

"We expect more large aircraft to be moved here from Detroit [after the merger]," airport deputy general manager Mario Diaz said in an interview after the city Transportation Committee gave its nod to spend $3 million for the design phase of the runway expansion.

"We have not made any specifics commitments or announcement regarding any additional international service out of the Atlanta airport related to the merger," said Delta spokeswoman Susan Elliott. She said the airline wanted runway 9L 27R lengthened to accommodate Delta flights headed to distant locations.

"This request has been in place for some time, and it's specifically related to the 777s," she said, noting that Delta would like the runway project completed by 2009.

The runway, the first of three southern runways from the terminal, is about 11,890 feet. The airport wants to add 500 feet to its eastern end and possibly another 900 feet on the western side. Diaz said he did not have a cost for the runway project.

Big jets can now take off from Hartsfield-Jackson with a full load of fuel, cargo and passengers during most weather conditions, Diaz told the Transportation Committee. But in extremely hot weather, they have to shed fuel or cargo. That means the airline loses revenue on cargo or the aircraft has to stop to refuel on a long trip.


AJC (http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/delta/stories/2008/07/02/airport_runway_expansion.html)

[Muskavon]

Just a question...do small jet flights from Atlanta to Athens (for a ballgame for example) really have less environmental impact than 10 SUV's packed with dumb Dawg fans? ...ok a Gator had to throw the insult in. ;) I have no idea. Just curious.

[Rail Claimore]

Officials of the city-run airport Wednesday got initial approval to expand one of Hartsfield-Jackson's five runways in anticipation of more international flights once the merger is approved.

The runway expansion means Hartsfield-Jackson would be able to handle more 400-passenger Boeing 747s, specifically 747-400s, which is the workhorse of Northwest Airlines' international fleet.

"We expect more large aircraft to be moved here from Detroit [after the merger]," airport deputy general manager Mario Diaz said in an interview after the city Transportation Committee gave its nod to spend $3 million for the design phase of the runway expansion.

"We have not made any specifics commitments or announcement regarding any additional international service out of the Atlanta airport related to the merger," said Delta spokeswoman Susan Elliott. She said the airline wanted runway 9L 27R lengthened to accommodate Delta flights headed to distant locations.

"This request has been in place for some time, and it's specifically related to the 777s," she said, noting that Delta would like the runway project completed by 2009.

The runway, the first of three southern runways from the terminal, is about 11,890 feet. The airport wants to add 500 feet to its eastern end and possibly another 900 feet on the western side. Diaz said he did not have a cost for the runway project.

Big jets can now take off from Hartsfield-Jackson with a full load of fuel, cargo and passengers during most weather conditions, Diaz told the Transportation Committee. But in extremely hot weather, they have to shed fuel or cargo. That means the airline loses revenue on cargo or the aircraft has to stop to refuel on a long trip.


AJC (http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/delta/stories/2008/07/02/airport_runway_expansion.html)

I was wondering if this part of the airport expansion plan fell by the wayside. The plan, IIRC, was to do almost exactly as they mentioned, and lengthen the runway to at least 13,300 ft. NWA's 747s need that kind of a runway to regularly make those transpacific flights, which are a huge market not just for passenger operations, but even moreso from cargo. NWA is the passenger airline with the largest cargo operation as well, and their market in Asia is huge. Lengthening the western end of the runway would require relocation of the remote parking lot there. They oughta just tear that whole thing up and move it across I-85 and lengthen 9R-27L as well, to probably 10,000 ft.

[micropundit]

Thursday, July 3, 2008
Luxury retailers, including Salvatore Ferragamo, Bulgari, Ermenegildo Zegna, Lacoste, Brooks Brothers, and Vera Bradley among others will be opening at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in the coming months. Luxury stores have had great success in European and Asian markets where mall shopping is less frequent and there are fewer malls altogether. This will be a first for the American market. Other U.S. airports such as John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and San Francisco International Airport are also adding luxury stores to their airport retail offerings

[smArTaLlone]

By ALISON YOUNG
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/12/08

A 150-foot boom crane lifted four new people mover cars onto an elevated train track outside Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Saturday morning.

The construction feat is the latest milestone toward the scheduled November 2009 completion of the airport's new remote Consolidated Rental Car Facility.

"When people are riding on the system, they're going to get a great view of the city, the airport and the layout of the airport," said Robert Kennedy, the airport's assistant general manager for security, operations and maintenance, as he watched the first of the cars rise up to the track through the early morning fog.

The cars, manufactured by Mitsubishi, left Osaka, Japan on a cargo ship last month, and recently arrived at the Port of Savannah. They were transported to Atlanta on flat-bed trucks, said airport spokesman Al Snedeker.

The new outdoor people mover system is part of the $266 million new rental agency complex located adjacent to the world's busiest airport off of Camp Creek Parkway. Construction began in October 2005.


By the numbers

37,260 pounds — Weight of each people mover car

$3 million — Cost per car

12 —Total cars that will eventually be installed

1.6 miles — Length of people mover track

5 minutes — Time the ride will take from the airport terminal to a new rental car facility

10,000 — Passengers per hour the system will be able to move

120 — Number of rental car shuttle buses to be eliminated from congested airport traffic when the system is completed

[Dragonheart8588]

By ALISON YOUNG
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/12/08

A 150-foot boom crane lifted four new people mover cars onto an elevated train track outside Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on Saturday morning.

The construction feat is the latest milestone toward the scheduled November 2009 completion of the airport's new remote Consolidated Rental Car Facility.

"When people are riding on the system, they're going to get a great view of the city, the airport and the layout of the airport," said Robert Kennedy, the airport's assistant general manager for security, operations and maintenance, as he watched the first of the cars rise up to the track through the early morning fog.

The cars, manufactured by Mitsubishi, left Osaka, Japan on a cargo ship last month, and recently arrived at the Port of Savannah. They were transported to Atlanta on flat-bed trucks, said airport spokesman Al Snedeker.

The new outdoor people mover system is part of the $266 million new rental agency complex located adjacent to the world's busiest airport off of Camp Creek Parkway. Construction began in October 2005.


By the numbers

37,260 pounds — Weight of each people mover car

$3 million — Cost per car

12 —Total cars that will eventually be installed

1.6 miles — Length of people mover track

5 minutes — Time the ride will take from the airport terminal to a new rental car facility

10,000 — Passengers per hour the system will be able to move

120 — Number of rental car shuttle buses to be eliminated from congested airport traffic when the system is completed

I can't wait for everything to be done. I'm just gonna ride Marta down there to see it for the heck of it when everything is completed.

[Pompuss]

07-04-2008 03:19 PM
micropundit Thursday, July 3, 2008
Luxury retailers, including Salvatore Ferragamo, Bulgari, Ermenegildo Zegna, Lacoste, Brooks Brothers, and Vera Bradley among others will be opening at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport in the coming months. Luxury stores have had great success in European and Asian markets where mall shopping is less frequent and there are fewer malls altogether. This will be a first for the American market. Other U.S. airports such as John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and San Francisco International Airport are also adding luxury stores to their airport retail offerings



Where are all these retailers going? I mean, if there is that much vacant space in the airport than why are they risking starting new stores? Was new space created in the Atrium or on the concourses with the latest renovations?

[ATLonthebrain]

These new concepts will largely be replacements of existing retail locations. There really isn't any new space @ ATL for concessions. I think there may be a bit left in Conc E, but that's about it. With such a large and captive audience, I suspect most, if not all, will do rather well. Those in the Atrium could be in jeopardy of missing sales targets, though, because many travelers just want to get through security, especially if the lines are long (or perceived to be).

[smArTaLlone]

:previous: None of the retail mentioned would go into the atrium. The AJC article indicated that the most high-end stores would go into concourse A (the busiest).

[Andrea]

Do they have those express security lines at HJIA yet? If not when will they get them?

[STrek777]

Do they have those express security lines at HJIA yet? If not when will they get them?

There is a fabulous express lane for Airline and Airport employees that I just love. There is also an express lane if you are flying in First or Business class on any airline flying out of HJAIA. But I don’t think there is one for the general public / Coach class and I don’t know when or if ever they will be added.

[ATLonthebrain]

The Airport recently approved the installation of express security lanes for the Registered Traveler program. There was some early opposition to the plan, but seems they worked through the issues. Here is a link to a recent blurb in USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/travel/flights/2008-05-18-airport-checkin_N.htm?csp=34

[Andrea]

The Airport recently approved the installation of express security lanes for the Registered Traveler program.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was talking about. I'd seen this article and was wondering if it was open for business yet.

[Pompuss]

Guys,
I was checking out Hartsfield on Google maps and the images seem to have been from the previous six months because you can see the new rental facility people mover under construction. But I also noticed that there is major sitework being done on the exact piece of land slated to be the new south terminal. I thought this was five to ten years away from actually happening. Are they getting a head start or something?


The Google veiw from above:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=atlanta+airport+master+plan&ie=UTF8&ll=33.62568,-84.439588&spn=0.012936,0.026951&t=h&z=16

[ThrashATL]

Guys,
I was checking out Hartsfield on Google maps and the images seem to have been from the previous six months because you can see the new rental facility people mover under construction. But I also noticed that there is major sitework being done on the exact piece of land slated to be the new south terminal. I thought this was five to ten years away from actually happening. Are they getting a head start or something?


The Google veiw from above:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=atlanta+airport+master+plan&ie=UTF8&ll=33.62568,-84.439588&spn=0.012936,0.026951&t=h&z=16

Just leveling that area. There's a MULTITUDE of elevations.

[Pompuss]

:previous:
So they are preping the site then?

[ThrashATL]

:previous:
So they are preping the site then?

Not for construction of concourses. I would highly doubt that we'll see those concourses ever get built. Given the current disastrous climate for airlines and the consolidation/liquidation/elimination of those airlines, I would bet Hartsfield is set for space for the next decade or two. Who knows if Delta will even make it? They may survive but I can see a day where half their flights are gone at Hartsfield as part of that survival. You can only bleed billions of dollars for so long unless you're the government before someone knocks on your door with a bill.

[Fiorenza]

ThrashATL,

Thanks for your realistic assessment. We need more of that here. That pre-developed parcel will prove valuable for something in the future, perhaps as a staging area for community limos and 18-packs which will be required as fuel becomes more expensive.

[ThrashATL]

ThrashATL,

Thanks for your realistic assessment. We need more of that here. That pre-developed parcel will prove valuable for something in the future, perhaps as a staging area for community limos and 18-packs which will be required as fuel becomes more expensive.

I must be delirious. Common sense tells you that the more competition among airlines decreases, prices increase. Add to that the cost of fuel which is not looking back at the cheap prices that fueled the casual traveler boom and you have a recipe for disaster if you're an airline. So now you take out the schmucks looking for $99 tickets to Biloxi or the $400 flights to London and what do you have left? You have the business traveler who is also in a merge & squeeze situation where companies are downsizing, selling off and cutting travel budgets. My company cut all business travel below a certain level of management unless a client FULLY compensated your travel. That's big for us, that's probably 500 tickets a year we're not buying.

[Rail Claimore]

If a new South Terminal isn't built (which I consider somewhat doubtful myself), I suspect the area will be home to new cargo facilities. Many of the distribution warehouses that would use such a part of the airport are located south and east of it anyway.

[micropundit]

Atlanta Business Chronicle
HMSHost Corp. has won retail concession deals at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which will get 20 new stores, and has revealed where the stores will be within the airport.

Bethesda, Md.-based HMSHost, in partnership with local Atlanta firms, Shellis Management Services and Trans Air Concessions, said the stores will be throughout four of the airport's concourses. Build-out is set for completion in 2009.

Brands will include the first free-standing Bvlgari, Salvatore Ferragamo, Ermenegildo Zegna and Sean John stores in U.S. airports. Also slated are consumer favorites Kiehl's, Swarovski, Lancome Beauty Lounge and LeSportsac.

"As the busiest airport in the world, Hartsfield-Jackson is a center for international travel, but it is also the 'local' airport for residents of Georgia and beyond," said Ben DeCosta, general manager of aviation at Hartsfield-Jackson, in a press release. "The [Atlanta] city council selected HMSHost because its retail offerings reflect Atlanta's dual role as international gateway and hub of Southern culture and fashion."

The complete list of new stores follows.

Pre-Security Atrium:
Atlanta Magazine's Home

Blockbuster Video

Shellis News

Simply Books

Starbucks Coffee

Z Market

Concourse A:
Brookstone

Bvlgari

Ermenegildo Zegna

CNN News

Salvatore Ferragamo

Simply Books with Café Brioche Dorée

Z Market

Concourse B:
Airport Wireless

CNN News

Sean John

LeSportsac

Z Market

Southern Living News

Lancome Beauty Lounge

Kiehl's

Concourse T:
Atlanta News and Gifts

Bijoux Terner

Harley-Davidson

Lather

Radio Road

Rocawear

Swarovski

Shellis News

Southern Flavors

TechShowcase

Z Market

[ATLonthebrain]

DL was one of the only airlines to report a profit for 2Q08. Most legacy carriers reported losses, though a couple of them were relatively small. The fact is that DL is doing something beyond fuel hedging to come out in the black. The day ATL sees half as much DL service as it does today is the day DL ceases to exist, because ATL is its bread and butter, hands down. If not for ATL, the global airline known as DL would not be global at all. So, while the industry is going through unprecedented challenges at the moment, primarily due to ridiculously high fuel prices, places such as ATL will continue to play a huge role in the survival of hub carriers DL & FL.

The South Terminal Complex may not be built for a while, but that's what a Master Plan is for. The trigger on those projects needed for future growth won't be pulled until a demand milestone is reached. That is probably right around 100 Million passengers. I'm expecting to visit ATL next week and will ask some of my friends at the Airport to find out what the magic number is.

Also, keep in mind that ATL just announced an up to 1,500ft extension of its already longest runway to accommodate fully loaded widebody aircraft 365-days a year. This is big money, though largely federally funded, to throw at increasing capacity, and it is coming with Delta's strong support.

ATL will be just fine, and I think will come out ahead of a lot of other airports partly due to the growing population base of the Metro Area. It is still going up, and that is a good thing ultimately for air travel demand. That is, as long as oil doesn't rise to and settle at $150 or higher, because many won't be able to afford to fly if that occurs.

[Trae]

That's Delta's fault for putting everything into ATL. They live and die by the airport.

[LouisianaCharm]

Atlanta Business Chronicle
HMSHost Corp. has won retail concession deals at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, which will get 20 new stores, and has revealed where the stores will be within the airport.

Bethesda, Md.-based HMSHost, in partnership with local Atlanta firms, Shellis Management Services and Trans Air Concessions, said the stores will be throughout four of the airport's concourses. Build-out is set for completion in 2009.

Brands will include the first free-standing Bvlgari, Salvatore Ferragamo, Ermenegildo Zegna and Sean John stores in U.S. airports. Also slated are consumer favorites Kiehl's, Swarovski, Lancome Beauty Lounge and LeSportsac.

"As the busiest airport in the world, Hartsfield-Jackson is a center for international travel, but it is also the 'local' airport for residents of Georgia and beyond," said Ben DeCosta, general manager of aviation at Hartsfield-Jackson, in a press release. "The [Atlanta] city council selected HMSHost because its retail offerings reflect Atlanta's dual role as international gateway and hub of Southern culture and fashion."

The complete list of new stores follows.

Pre-Security Atrium:
Atlanta Magazine's Home

Blockbuster Video

Shellis News

Simply Books

Starbucks Coffee

Z Market

Concourse A:
Brookstone

Bvlgari

Ermenegildo Zegna

CNN News

Salvatore Ferragamo

Simply Books with Café Brioche Dorée

Z Market

Concourse B:
Airport Wireless

CNN News

Sean John

LeSportsac

Z Market

Southern Living News

Lancome Beauty Lounge

Kiehl's

Concourse T:
Atlanta News and Gifts

Bijoux Terner

Harley-Davidson

Lather

Radio Road

Rocawear

Swarovski

Shellis News

Southern Flavors

TechShowcase

Z Market

why would blockbuster want to open inside an airport. wouldnt that be a clear way for your rented product to leave and never return......

[Fiorenza]

Nothing against ATL specifically, but many of these brands are being degraded through excessive exposure. I wonder if their long-term interest is best served by moving into airports and Vegas hotels.

On the other hand, the culture is changing. Putting the product in front of economically diverse audience maybe is the best way to maximize profits. In the short term that will occur...but are they really protecting long-term profitability?

[Dragonheart8588]

Nothing against ATL specifically, but many of these brands are being degraded through excessive exposure. I wonder if their long-term interest is best served by moving into airports and Vegas hotels.

On the other hand, the culture is changing. Putting the product in front of economically diverse audience maybe is the best way to maximize profits. In the short term that will occur...but are they really protecting long-term profitability?

I agree. Such as Bvlgari and Salvatorre Ferragamo are high-end products, and putting it in an airport completely cheapen the brand for me. Who is gonna spend thousand of dollars just walking through an airport. Or possibly, they could just put the less expensive products for the airport market. I don't know. I have to see the store to make a judgment.

[STrek777]

DL was one of the only airlines to report a profit for 2Q08. Most legacy carriers reported losses, though a couple of them were relatively small. The fact is that DL is doing something beyond fuel hedging to come out in the black. The day ATL sees half as much DL service as it does today is the day DL ceases to exist, because ATL is its bread and butter, hands down. If not for ATL, the global airline known as DL would not be global at all. So, while the industry is going through unprecedented challenges at the moment, primarily due to ridiculously high fuel prices, places such as ATL will continue to play a huge role in the survival of hub carriers DL & FL.

The South Terminal Complex may not be built for a while, but that's what a Master Plan is for. The trigger on those projects needed for future growth won't be pulled until a demand milestone is reached. That is probably right around 100 Million passengers. I'm expecting to visit ATL next week and will ask some of my friends at the Airport to find out what the magic number is.

Also, keep in mind that ATL just announced an up to 1,500ft extension of its already longest runway to accommodate fully loaded widebody aircraft 365-days a year. This is big money, though largely federally funded, to throw at increasing capacity, and it is coming with Delta's strong support.

ATL will be just fine, and I think will come out ahead of a lot of other airports partly due to the growing population base of the Metro Area. It is still going up, and that is a good thing ultimately for air travel demand. That is, as long as oil doesn't rise to and settle at $150 or higher, because many won't be able to afford to fly if that occurs.

Ditto :tup:

[echinatl]

why would blockbuster want to open inside an airport. wouldnt that be a clear way for your rented product to leave and never return......

That's assuming there are no other blockbusters in any other airports, or that you are not able to mail in the return (like netflix). This is actually quite brilliant. I would love to rent a move to watch on my flight on my laptop!

[Andrea]

I agree. Such as Bvlgari and Salvatorre Ferragamo are high-end products, and putting it in an airport completely cheapen the brand for me. Who is gonna spend thousand of dollars just walking through an airport. Or possibly, they could just put the less expensive products for the airport market. I don't know. I have to see the store to make a judgment.

I'm strongly in favor of making expensive products cheaper. I'd be much more inclined to purchase Bvlgari or Ferragamo if they weren't so expensive.

[Tombstoner]

I'm strongly in favor of making expensive products cheaper. I'd be much more inclined to purchase Bvlgari or Ferragamo if they weren't so expensive.

But Andrea-- if they weren't expensive would you really want them? Seriously, the whole cachet of most of these brands is the fact that they are prestige objects that not everyone can afford. I stayed at a hotel that liberally passed out Ferragamo toiletries, I squirreled them all away to bring back to my wife who I thought would be thrilled, but she took a sniff, pronounced them "French whore house" quality (no...don't ask me how she knows what French whore houses smell like) and threw them away. The point is, lots of products are only desirable because they are exclusive.

[Pompuss]

Guys,
Have you seen this website. It's a thorough site on the new East terminal. Fantastic.

http://www.hmmhteam.com/index.asp

[Rail Claimore]

Guys,
Have you seen this website. It's a thorough site on the new East terminal. Fantastic.

http://www.hmmhteam.com/index.asp

I discovered it a couple months ago, actually. Too bad you need an account to get to the gravy.

[Andrea]

But Andrea-- if they weren't expensive would you really want them? Seriously, the whole cachet of most of these brands is the fact that they are prestige objects that not everyone can afford. I stayed at a hotel that liberally passed out Ferragamo toiletries, I squirreled them all away to bring back to my wife who I thought would be thrilled, but she took a sniff, pronounced them "French whore house" quality (no...don't ask me how she knows what French whore houses smell like) and threw them away. The point is, lots of products are only desirable because they are exclusive.

Tombstoner, :haha:

It's the exclusivity principle. I have some friends in another city who were on the board of a distinguished older country club. About 25 years ago, it was fading a little because the membership was getting older. They needed new blood,so they started offering these great deals. They dropped the initiation and dues several times, but were still getting little response. At one point they were down to $2,500. Then somebody had the brilliant idea to quintuple the fees, and and suddenly people were beating down the doors to get in. Within six months they had a waiting list, and today it costs $110K to join, if you're willing to wait three years.

Steve Rubell had the same idea back in the 70s. I remember the lines of people snaking around the block trying to get in Studio 54, when you could walk right into other clubs on the same block. People wanted to get in because they couldn't.

[Dragonheart8588]

But Andrea-- if they weren't expensive would you really want them? Seriously, the whole cachet of most of these brands is the fact that they are prestige objects that not everyone can afford. I stayed at a hotel that liberally passed out Ferragamo toiletries, I squirreled them all away to bring back to my wife who I thought would be thrilled, but she took a sniff, pronounced them "French whore house" quality (no...don't ask me how she knows what French whore houses smell like) and threw them away. The point is, lots of products are only desirable because they are exclusive.

Yes. It wouldn't be Bvlgary if it wasn't expensive. I mean that's what wal-mart jeweleries are for.

[Andrea]

Yes. It wouldn't be Bvlgary if it wasn't expensive. I mean that's what wal-mart jeweleries are for.

Exactly. How else are we supposed to know quality?

[Fiorenza]

It seems that with the overall drop in wealth (we can argue the cause and effect, but it's happening) there is a move away from price differentiated "luxury" goods. McMansions sit empty and unwanted, your local luxury car dealer is about to close shop, Vegas hotels and Miami condos are a drug on the market. Maybe the Bvlgarys and Swarovskis have made a decision to move downmarket while upholding the branding for as long as they can get away with it.

[LouisianaCharm]

That's assuming there are no other blockbusters in any other airports, or that you are not able to mail in the return (like netflix). This is actually quite brilliant. I would love to rent a move to watch on my flight on my laptop!


i guess you are right.....i never thought of it that way.

[spfaust]

[QUOTE=Fiorenza;3693447]It seems that with the overall drop in wealth (we can argue the cause and effect, but it's happening) there is a move away from price differentiated "luxury" goods. McMansions sit empty and unwanted, your local luxury car dealer is about to close shop, Vegas hotels and Miami condos are a drug on the market. Maybe the Bvlgarys and Swarovskis have made a decision to move downmarket while upholding the branding for as long as they can get away with it.[/QUOTE

I do not necessarily disagree with your comment, Fiorenza. Indeed, for many reasons with which we could all disagree, most people have and will continue to have reductions in wealth. But, the statistics continue to indicate increasing concentration of wealth within the top tier, especially the top 1%. Therefore, with airlines beginning to see that, to survive, they will need to move pricing above current levels that are affordable for a large portion of society, the future of air travel will likely become more the domain of the well-heeled.

If this proves true, then---in fact---the upscale customers pursued by high-end vendors will be the target market traveling through most airports. So, I'm not sure that these exclusive brands are moving downscale as much as they are following the changing demographics, making themselves easily accessible to their target market for whom spending $5-8 thousand for a watch is truly an impulse or routine purchase they would make while darting through airports to their various homes, vacations, speaking engagements, business association meetings, shareholders' meetings, Board meetings, etc.

Just a thought about how we are moving to the socio-economic stratification of what we used to perceive of developing nations as a result of our national Darwinian economic policies.:whip:

[Harry Cane]

Delta has applied for daily Atlanta-Manaus and Atlanta-Fortaleza-Recife-Atlanta four times weekly.

http://airlineinfo.com/ostpdf71/92.pdf

Now if only Brazil didn't require expensive visas for Americans...

[GTviajero81]

Delta has applied for daily Atlanta-Manaus and Atlanta-Fortaleza-Recife-Atlanta four times weekly.

http://airlineinfo.com/ostpdf71/92.pdf

Now if only Brazil didn't require expensive visas for Americans...

Hey, if only America didn't require the same of Brazilians. It's called reciprocity visa requirements. Good for Brazil!
:tup:

[Harry Cane]

I'm all for reciprocity if done in a smart way. Chile, for example, has a booth at the Santiago airport. US citizens (and those of other countries that charge Chileans for visas) go there first to pay for the visa, you get a small receipt that makes it valid for the life of the passport, point made and off you go. Brazil,on the other hand, requires plane tickets, passports being mailed to embassy/consulate, application, etc.

I suppose you could argue that Brazil comes closer to reciprocity, since that (and worse) is what the US does to Brazilians wanting to come here. However, it seems to me that ignores the fact that Brazil is not exactly a hotspot for Americans wanting to emigrate illegally. I suppose the way we're going that might not be too far off. Anyway, for a country that's trying to attract foreign capital and develop tourism on its northeast coast, that seems like shooting yourself in the foot.

This may all be moot. I understand several countries in South America, including Brazil, have qualified for the visa waiver program. Of course, that'll still require Brazil to update its passport system.

[GTviajero81]

Very true observations. I am little bit worried that I will just HAVE to return to Chile for the umpteenth time soon to get a new visa as my passport expires in just about two years.

I anticipated, however, the argument regarding undocumented immigration and asylum-seeking status for many foreigners. Trust when I say that honestly, Brazil is not lacking in foreign capital investment....can we say Europe? Geez, we can barely get enough people in America to even learn a foreign language like Spanish--I have little doubt that Portuguese holds an equitable level of interest. More and more countries are participating in the "visa-upon-arrival" process which (other than standing in seemingly interminable queues) to me are a good thing. I have enjoyed obtaining my tourist visa at the airports in Istanbul and Dubai. If only Russia would adopt it then I would be extremely happy. :) :banana: