|
|
| Re: Another aviation example of New York’s decline (2024965) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Another aviation example of New York’s decline |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Mon Sep 15 09:00:56 2025, in response to Re: Another aviation example of New York’s decline, posted by Peter Rosa on Sun Sep 14 15:09:57 2025. I don't know the passenger count history but there are any number of reasons why Atlanta may be chosen over New York. I'm not saying all of these are definite, but just possible:1) Delta, while it has a very diverse fleet, actually does not currently have a narrow-body option to cross the Atlantic with. It relies heavily on wide-bodies (B767, A330, A350) to get to and from Europe. American and JetBlue are in a position to fill lower-demand routes (and actually I would not be surprised at all if JetBlue tries to fly an A321 into Brussels). Delta requires a higher demand to make a flight worth it. 2) As I've hinted at before, flying from New York relies heavily on New York itself. People must be considering New York as an actual destination. New York is pressured as such because it is not the best place to change planes to continue onward (because JFK and LGA are not the same place). Atlanta does not need to be such a destination, because all it needs to do is be a convenient place to change planes to go on to more western parts of the US. There's no pressure (or not the same pressure) on Atlanta to be an actual place people want to go. 3) Since ATL is a hub, Delta has more planes available there and can more easily select the model it wants to send across to Europe. JFK may also have some variety but not the same. If Delta wants to switch its Brussels flight from a B767 to an A330 or something like that, it can do so much more easily from Atlanta -- that's operational flexibility, nothing to do with New York being a bad place. |
|
|
|