Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)
-   Regional (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/)
-   -   New Delta Service to Mexico (from LAX) (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/regional/18432-new-delta-service-mexico-lax.html)

TonyWilliams 11-03-2007 05:10 AM

New Delta Service to Mexico (from LAX)
 
Saw an ad for new service from LAX. Is ExpressJet doing this, or SkyWest ?

La Paz - Dec 15
Acapulco - Dec 16
Loreto - Dec 18
Mazatlan - Dec 22
Culiacan - Jan 6
Manzanillo - Jan 16
Zacatecas - Jan 16
Hermosillo - Feb 1
Torreon - Mar 8

POPA 11-03-2007 05:37 AM

Just a thought: try looking it up on Delta's website.

CL-65DRIVER 11-03-2007 05:59 AM


Originally Posted by TonyWilliams (Post 257106)
Saw an ad for new service from LAX. Is ExpressJet doing this, or SkyWest ?

La Paz - Dec 15
Acapulco - Dec 16
Loreto - Dec 18
Mazatlan - Dec 22
Culiacan - Jan 6
Manzanillo - Jan 16
Zacatecas - Jan 16
Hermosillo - Feb 1
Torreon - Mar 8

Whoever puts in the lowest bid!

HercDriver130 11-03-2007 06:12 AM

Of course you are ASSuming that it wont be mainline flying.....

freezingflyboy 11-03-2007 06:17 AM


Originally Posted by HercDriver130 (Post 257125)
Of course you are ASSuming that it wont be mainline flying.....

Haha! Guess you've never been to Loretto, Culiacan, Manzanillo, Zacatecas, Torreon, Hermosillo. About the only mainline jets you'll see in those place are Mexican.:D

EDITED for grammar thanks to Herc

HercDriver130 11-03-2007 06:19 AM

whats an "online" mainline jet? :)

and I think you could easily see mainline aircraft flying into at least 3 of those 9 airports. The others would be suspect certainly.

freezingflyboy 11-03-2007 06:55 AM


Originally Posted by HercDriver130 (Post 257131)
whats an "online" mainline jet? :)

and I think you could easily see mainline aircraft flying into at least 3 of those 9 airports. The others would be suspect certainly.

Haha...I meant "only". Previous post edited:o Honestly, about the only place I'd expect to see mainline aircraft would be Mazatlan and Acapulco just because the yields on those routes are fairly low.

HercDriver130 11-03-2007 07:28 AM

i would say that was a good estimate.. maybe LaPaz as well at certain times of the year..... just have to wait and see.

Tinpusher007 11-03-2007 07:52 AM

To answer the original question....the routes that will be flown by DCI will be flown by XJT. Because of UA's hub at LAX, SKW cannot fly routes for them and DL out of the same airport, except for LAX-SLC.

ryane946 11-03-2007 08:08 AM


Originally Posted by Tinpusher007 (Post 257172)
To answer the original question....the routes that will be flown by DCI will be flown by XJT. Because of UA's hub at LAX, SKW cannot fly routes for them and DL out of the same airport, except for LAX-SLC.

I am pretty sure United just gave up their exclusivity agreement in LAX for Skywest as a result of the deal to trade 18 EMB-120's for 18 CRJ-700's, and 4 CRJ-200's for CRJ-700's.

Tinpusher007 11-03-2007 08:33 AM


Originally Posted by ryane946 (Post 257175)
I am pretty sure United just gave up their exclusivity agreement in LAX for Skywest as a result of the deal to trade 18 EMB-120's for 18 CRJ-700's, and 4 CRJ-200's for CRJ-700's.

Oh, you may be right about that...I wasn't aware. I do have a friend who is based at LAX doing DL Connex flying. I'll pick his brain about it.

JoeyMeatballs 11-03-2007 08:51 AM


Originally Posted by Tinpusher007 (Post 257172)
To answer the original question....the routes that will be flown by DCI will be flown by XJT. Because of UA's hub at LAX, SKW cannot fly routes for them and DL out of the same airport, except for LAX-SLC.

yeah, thats no longer correct, but Im glad they chose us over SkyWest

Tinpusher007 11-03-2007 09:14 AM


Originally Posted by SAABaroowski (Post 257189)
yeah, thats no longer correct, but Im glad they chose us over SkyWest

Maybe they'll begin mixing it up. Must preserve the proverbial whipsaw!

HercDriver130 11-03-2007 09:55 AM

i suspect tin is right, both may bet a bit of that pie.

dundem 11-03-2007 11:14 AM

I'm not sure if some of these cities had been discontinued and are just now re-opening, but I've personnally done all but 2 of those destinations in Jul-Aug of this year.

soon2bfo 11-03-2007 11:23 AM

Never mind. Somebody else said it.

CRJDriver 11-03-2007 12:00 PM

I just looked through the DL schedule and it looks like all of the flights will be operated by XJT, except the Acapulco flight which shows as a Mainline (B738).

otter 11-03-2007 02:52 PM


Originally Posted by CRJDriver (Post 257248)
I just looked through the DL schedule and it looks like all of the flights will be operated by XJT, except the Acapulco flight which shows as a Mainline (B738).

With fuel being what it is, i'm not sure why Delta would want a crappy 50 seat jet on those flights? CRJ or ERJ 50 seat jets suck.

johnso29 11-03-2007 03:51 PM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257318)
With fuel being what it is, i'm not sure why Delta would want a crappy 50 seat jet on those flights? CRJ or ERJ 50 seat jets suck.

Well Genius, its probably because they wont fill those half the time anyway. There is a lot of competition from Mexican LCC's that provide tickets to LAX for a lot less the DL. Thats why they will use the crappy 50 seat jets.

rickair7777 11-03-2007 04:06 PM


Originally Posted by Tinpusher007 (Post 257172)
To answer the original question....the routes that will be flown by DCI will be flown by XJT. Because of UA's hub at LAX, SKW cannot fly routes for them and DL out of the same airport, except for LAX-SLC.

This limitation has been lifted by a renegotiation of the SKW UAX deal. Presumably they would not have negotiated to get rid of it if they didn't intend to fly for someone (probably DAL) out of LAX.

ChinsFive 11-03-2007 04:11 PM


Originally Posted by rickair7777 (Post 257344)
This limitation has been lifted by a renegotiation of the SKW UAX deal. Presumably they would not have negotiated to get rid of it if they didn't intend to fly for someone (probably DAL) out of LAX.

Haven't seen this anywhere reliable in writing. Just on the forums.

reelbigchair 11-03-2007 09:56 PM


Originally Posted by ChinsFive (Post 257347)
Haven't seen this anywhere reliable in writing. Just on the forums.

It's been on half a dozen press releases, should be easy enough to find at www.skywest.com

JoeyMeatballs 11-04-2007 05:28 AM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257318)
With fuel being what it is, i'm not sure why Delta would want a crappy 50 seat jet on those flights? CRJ or ERJ 50 seat jets suck.

yeah maybe they should use that crappy archaic Brasilia

otter 11-04-2007 12:44 PM


Originally Posted by SAABaroowski (Post 257543)
yeah maybe they should use that crappy archaic Brasilia

I was thinking more on the lines of a 700/900.

johnso29 11-04-2007 12:52 PM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257688)
I was thinking more on the lines of a 700/900.

Oh, because its so much better than a 50 seater. NEWS FLASH!!! A 700/900 is still an RJ. You can put a bow on a terd, but its still a terd.

JetJock16 11-04-2007 01:56 PM


Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 257692)
Oh, because its so much better than a 50 seater. NEWS FLASH!!! A 700/900 is still an RJ. You can put a bow on a terd, but its still a terd.

You sure you're a CA! This comment pretty absurd!

freezingflyboy 11-04-2007 03:00 PM


Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 257692)
Oh, because its so much better than a 50 seater. NEWS FLASH!!! A 700/900 is still an RJ. You can put a bow on a terd, but its still a terd.


Originally Posted by JetJock16 (Post 257706)
You sure you're a CA! This comment pretty absurd!

But pretty darn accurate!:D

I know you guys are in love with the 700/900s and probably feel like you got a couple brass ones swinging between your legs but that doesn't change the fact that THEY ARE STILL RJS!!!

JetJock16 11-04-2007 03:26 PM


Originally Posted by freezingflyboy (Post 257725)
But pretty darn accurate!:D

I know you guys are in love with the 700/900s and probably feel like you got a couple brass ones swinging between your legs but that doesn't change the fact that THEY ARE STILL RJS!!!

We're talking about efficiency, don't show your ignorance. A bit higher cost but much more revenue. C'mon guys! This is common sense! Yes they're RJ's but they're more profitable and that’s ultimately the name of the game. I could care less whether it’s a 70 seat Cessna or a 70 seat RJ!

Just like the CR7/9 is replacing the CR2's; the E-series is replacing the ERJ’s. Just look at RAH. Airlines, regardless of regionals or mainline, have to adapt to the ever changing markets they serve. That's all this is.

We as pilots must fight to get paid what we're worth as the airlines change their fleet and continue to grow while feeding us BS lies in order to increase profitability.

JetJock16 11-04-2007 03:37 PM

......................Double post

JoeyMeatballs 11-04-2007 06:15 PM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257688)
I was thinking more on the lines of a 700/900.

Yeah who doesnt like to put their head down by their knees to look at the window:p

otter 11-04-2007 06:17 PM


Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 257692)
Oh, because its so much better than a 50 seater. NEWS FLASH!!! A 700/900 is still an RJ. You can put a bow on a terd, but its still a terd.

As far as PAX go, it is much better.

JoeyMeatballs 11-04-2007 06:19 PM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257820)
As far as PAX go, it is much better.

no its not, the seats are so uncomfortable, and the windows are down by their knees

otter 11-04-2007 06:22 PM


Originally Posted by freezingflyboy (Post 257725)
But pretty darn accurate!:D

I know you guys are in love with the 700/900s and probably feel like you got a couple brass ones swinging between your legs but that doesn't change the fact that THEY ARE STILL RJS!!!

It has nothing to do "our" love of the 700/900. They just make more sense to fly.

otter 11-04-2007 06:25 PM


Originally Posted by SAABaroowski (Post 257824)
no its not, the seats are so uncomfortable, and the windows are down by their knees

They lowered the floor so it's not as bad. I do agree, on the 50 you have to be adout 8 years old to look out the window. And yes I voted for ALPA

JoeyMeatballs 11-04-2007 06:34 PM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257827)
And yes I voted for ALPA

Good man!!!

johnso29 11-05-2007 09:54 AM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257826)
It has nothing to do "our" love of the 700/900. They just make more sense to fly.

No, they don't because the loads don't call for it. It makes sense to keep those RJ's on routes that have higher loads. Thats why they don't put the 700/900 on the same routes as the 120. Think about it.

johnso29 11-05-2007 09:56 AM


Originally Posted by otter (Post 257820)
As far as PAX go, it is much better.

And I've ridden on a CRJ900, its no better than a CRJ100 or CRJ200. The seats feel the same, and theres really not any more room.

JetJock16 11-05-2007 10:57 AM


Originally Posted by SAABaroowski (Post 257824)
no its not, the seats are so uncomfortable, and the windows are down by their knees

By your comment I can tell you've never been on a CR7 or CR9. The floors been lowered for more head room and better visibility out the windows as well as a dramatic improvement in the A/C systems that provides for a very comfortable environment for the Pax. Add another Lav and the fact they we are ALMOST NEVER WEIGHT RESTRICTED and you have an excellent airplane.

otter 11-05-2007 11:28 AM


Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 258098)
No, they don't because the loads don't call for it. It makes sense to keep those RJ's on routes that have higher loads. Thats why they don't put the 700/900 on the same routes as the 120. Think about it.

I think you've been in FAT city to long. Look at delta net and see where we fly 700/900. Dude, lose the anger towards the RJ. I once flew the 120 and loved it. The RJ is no where nere as fun to fly as the 120, however, 6+ legs a day for the same pay as 2 legs on the jet is what it's all about. Come over to the dark side, I know there's room for you!

JetJock16 11-05-2007 11:37 AM


Originally Posted by johnso29 (Post 258098)
No, they don't because the loads don't call for it. It makes sense to keep those RJ's on routes that have higher loads. Thats why they don't put the 700/900 on the same routes as the 120. Think about it.

No, we fly them where UAL & DAL want us to fly them. I understand that they do the analysis to determine the demand, but when it's time to change they do what's necessary. An example is the fact that we are parking 18 EMB’s and replacing them with CR7's & 9's; we closed our EMB base in DEN and some of those routes are now covered my RJ's. Don’t forget that a lot of our SoCal/NoCal routes on the EMB are also flown by the RJ. LAX-SBA, LAX-FAT; SFO-FAT, SFO-SBA, SFO-RNO, SFO-MFD. There are more but I just wanted to name a few. BTW I was KFAT EMB based for almost a year. I’m very familiar with the bird and I’ve never had more fun flying than when I was flying the EMB out of PDX.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:11 AM.


Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands