Hartsfield Jackson Atlanta International Airport

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8

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]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

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]

Originally Posted by GTviajero81

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]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

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]

Originally Posted by sprtsluvr8

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]

Originally Posted by GTviajero81

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

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/news...tune/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]

Originally Posted by jmcgoblue

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]

Originally Posted by BabydaddyATL

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/20/news...tune/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!!

[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]

Originally Posted by GTviajero81

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!!

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

[BabydaddyATL]

Originally Posted by Andrea

Pretty interesting comments from former US Air CEO David Siegel.

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.