JetSet777
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:38 am

757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:02 am

Southwest is still growing with an all 737 fleet and obviously they went with the perfect sized A/C for their routes and loads. Could the 757 have just been too large of an A/C for a LCC like Song?
Engines Turn Or People Swim
 
RobertS975
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:10 am

First of all, Song was not a failure. The essentials which made Song unique are now being applied across much of mainline Delta... live TV, video on demand etc.

Song was a marketing concept... an "airline" within an airline. It operated under DL's operating certificate, DL's pilots, DL's maintenece and Song flights were called DL 2xxx by ATC.

What did not work with Song was the lack of recognition for medallions, DL's best customers, and the lack of FC cabin. DL essentially used Song to test some concepts and is now well underway towards applying these concepts across much of the mainline carrier.
 
JetSet777
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 5:38 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:12 am

There are plans to integrate Song's 57's into the DL mainline fleet.
Engines Turn Or People Swim
 
dw9115
Posts: 382
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 1:54 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:16 am

I flew Song many times and loved it absolutely loved it and Delta should make all mainline flights like Song. the 737-800 would have been a much better aircraft for song though.
 
OttoPylit
Posts: 2259
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:58 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:18 am

Quoting JetSet777 (Reply 2):
There are plans to integrate Song's 57's into the DL mainline fleet.

Already done and complete.

Quoting Dw9115 (Reply 3):
Delta should make all mainline flights like Song. the 737-800 would have been a much better aircraft for song though.

They already are.



OttoPylit
I don't have a microwave, but I do have a clock that occasionally cooks shit.
 
RobertS975
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:55 am

There are still some 757s with the Song paint job, but all the interiors have been converted to 2 cabin aircraft with a 26 seat FC cabin. There are no longer any all coach 757s in the DL fleet.
 
jfrworld
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 8:21 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:56 am

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 1):
Song was a marketing concept... an "airline" within an airline.

Was Song really a marketing concept? I know Delta called it an experiment once they decided to end the Song concept and re-intergrate it into mainline Delta, but I still have a hard time believing that they would have the intention of launching Song and growing it as big as they did just for an experiment.

I still think song was meant to stand alone under its own business model, but once it was determined that it could not, Delta decided to end it and use it as a lessons learned and incorporate the "Good" leassons into mainline Delta.

I'm not saying that it wasn't good for them to figure out what worked and incorporate it into mainline, but I just don't believe that it was launched and intented to be a marketing experiment.
 
Matt D
Posts: 8907
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 1999 6:00 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 10:57 am

Song was a marketing concept... an "airline" within an airline

Yup. Totally, very unique concept. Just like Metrojet, Shuttle By United, Continental West, New York Air, Continental LITE, Delta Express, and Ted.
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:08 am

There was a Frontline special from 2004 about advertising that had a pretty good profile of Song and what they were trying to do. Delata going into the shitter didn't help things much.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../shows/persuaders/etc/shaping.html
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:20 am

The 757 was the perfect for Song. The reason being that DL's main competitor on Song routes, jetBlue, had a much lower cost base to start with. What DL did is use a larger aircraft (at the time, 37 more seats) to bring Song's CASM down to a level competitive with what B6 offered using the A320 so they could compete on a fare level without losing even more cash than they already were.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
litz
Posts: 1849
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2003 6:01 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:22 pm

Quoting JetSet777 (Reply 2):
There are plans to integrate Song's 57's into the DL mainline fleet.

Plan? Err ... Considering DL's plans for their fleet (IFE, redressed cabin, etc.) those 757s are now the LEAD aircraft in the fleet !

The rest of the fleet (sans the MD80/MD90s) are simply going to join them.

Not bad for a "failed" concept, eh?

 Smile

- litz
 
scalebuilder
Posts: 605
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 10:32 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:27 pm

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 1):
First of all, Song was not a failure. The essentials which made Song unique are now being applied across much of mainline Delta... live TV, video on demand etc.

I thought that the introduction of Song was such a success that there were real "learning lessons" made for Delta mainline. I guess this is what you're stating. Right?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
The 757 was the perfect for Song. The reason being that DL's main competitor on Song routes, jetBlue, had a much lower cost base to start with. What DL did is use a larger aircraft (at the time, 37 more seats) to bring Song's CASM down to a level competitive with what B6 offered using the A320 so they could compete on a fare level without losing even more cash than they already were.

What you say makes a lot of sense. However, I am somewhat confused as to whether the Song concept will be as recognized and appreciated under the regular Delta brand. The economics may exist on paper, but the market recognition of this great stunt may simply be gone with the phasing out of Song. I think the "Song" brand name enjoyed better and more favorable brand recognition than its parent ever has enjoyed lately.
Go the extra mile......and avoid the traffic!!!
 
Boston92
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:27 pm

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 1):

Exactly, an airline within an airline; but Song was useful, unlike TED with United.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:49 pm

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 12):
Exactly, an airline within an airline; but Song was useful, unlike TED with United.

..but Song is gone and TED still exists..maybe TED is working...
"Up the Irons!"
 
Boston92
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:58 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 13):
..but Song is gone and TED still exists..maybe TED is working...

I never said TED is not working but:
TED took over UA routes with UA a/c, re-done cabin, and all econ seats.

SONG opened entirely new routes with entirely new product with DL a/c. Those routes would not have happened if Song had not happened, and to this day I believe all of the Song Routes are still there.

I never said Ted is not working, I just said it is useless, all it is a new livery while Song was different than DL.

BTW, the reason Song is not there anymore was to make DL a better airline, not because Song was not working.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:01 pm

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 14):

I never said Ted is not working, I just said it is useless, all it is a new livery while Song was different than DL.

If its working (i.e.-generating positive ROI), then why would it be considered "useless"?
"Up the Irons!"
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:03 pm

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 14):
and to this day I believe all of the Song Routes are still there.

They sure are! Some of them have been downgraded to a smaller aircraft with capacity reallocation, but they're all still running.
Good goes around!
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 1:37 pm

The problem is this - by moving to all Y aircraft, the legacies lost out on their C traffic and C customers, I think the idea of running the Song/Ted aircraft on routes in parallel to conventional routes, or with a first class cabin. It did help DL hone what pax wanted in Y, and as a result, they are prepared to let out the premier, most luxurious and innovative domestic Y of any major airline in the US.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 6:31 pm

Song was not a "failed concept". DL had to ground Song, and reintrgate the B-757s back into the DL fleet. There are still several B-757s flying with the Song livery, but, as they go through their "C" or "D" checks, the airplanes get striped and repainted in DL livery. You may have noticed, all of the "Song birds" kept the original DL registration tail numbers. But, DL did learn a lot from Song, and is still incorperating these concepts throughout the airline.

For DL, Song was their best pre-bankruptcy idea in years.
 
zenarcade
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 11:08 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 7:36 pm

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 8):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../shows/persuaders/etc/shaping.html

Thanks so much for the link Dougloid!

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 12):
think the "Song" brand name enjoyed better and more favorable brand

DL shot them selves in the foot on this one. Sure you can change layouts, entertainment, etc but you can not easily change that in the consumers mind your still just DL. I think they need focus a little harder on brand image, starting with the livery!  Wink
If a plane falls on the tarmac and no one is there, does it make any sound? - Starlionblue
 
dtwclipper
Posts: 6668
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:17 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:06 pm

Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
Yup. Totally, very unique concept. Just like Metrojet, Shuttle By United, Continental West, New York Air

New York Air was not an airline within an airline like the ones you mention, but rather a subsidiary of Texas Air.

TED, SONG, CO West, etc, all used mainline crews, maintenance, infrastructure, etc, where as NY had it own operation seperate from CO under the umbrella of Texas Air.

NY was a seperate Airline.

True, some of the original DC-9-30's came from Texas Air, most of NY's fleet was owned and operated by NY.

http://www.nya-reunion.org/ProjectAlpha.htm
Compare New York Air, the Airline that works for your Business
 
Dougloid
Posts: 7248
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:44 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:22 pm

Quoting Zenarcade (Reply 19):
Quoting Dougloid (Reply 8):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../shows/persuaders/etc/shaping.html

Thanks so much for the link Dougloid!

It was nothing, m'good fellow-a mere bagatelle.



Funny thing is, it was on a Frontline here this past week....imagine my amazement in this show about marketing they start talking about this waaaaaaaaay out there airline idea....which, it seems, still excites passionate believers.
I am willing to bet it was a fun place to work...plus the CEO was hot.
 Wink  Wink
If you believe in coincidence, you haven't looked close enough-Joe Leaphorn
 
Boston92
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:14 am

Quoting Zenarcade (Reply 19):
think the "Song" brand name enjoyed better and more favorable brand

DL shot them selves in the foot on this one. Sure you can change layouts, entertainment, etc but you can not easily change that in the consumers mind your still just DL. I think they need focus a little harder on brand image, starting with the livery!

What are you quoting me on? I never even wrote that!

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 15):
If its working (i.e.-generating positive ROI), then why would it be considered "useless"?

It is useless because if Ted was not there, United would be making just as much as they are now because no new routes were attained. UA probably lost money by changing the livery and the cabin of the Ted A320's.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
User avatar
chrisnh
Posts: 3329
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 1999 3:59 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:19 am

Quoting Jfrworld (Reply 6):
Was Song really a marketing concept? I know Delta called it an experiment once they decided to end the Song concept and re-intergrate it into mainline Delta, but I still have a hard time believing that they would have the intention of launching Song and growing it as big as they did just for an experiment.

I still think song was meant to stand alone under its own business model, but once it was determined that it could not, Delta decided to end it and use it as a lessons learned and incorporate the "Good" leassons into mainline Delta.

I'm not saying that it wasn't good for them to figure out what worked and incorporate it into mainline, but I just don't believe that it was launched and intented to be a marketing experiment.

I agree completely. I think it's disingenuous to say, after the fact, that Song was nothing more than a 'marketing concept.' Was there clear agreement beforehand that it was a marketing concept rather than a full-fledged airline-within-an-airline? I don't believe there was.

In this day and age of airlines awash in red ink, how many stockholders would have agreed with going THAT far into something that was merely a 'marketing concept?' You can get a 'marketing concept' without doing 90% of what they did to launch Song.

It's nice, with 20-20 hindsight, to say that this is all it was. But I'm not buying it.

Chris in NH
 
MiCorazonAzul
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:04 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:31 am

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 1):
First of all, Song was not a failure.

RRRIIIIGGHHHTT......

If Song wasn't a failure? why is it not around anymore? Of course they chose to integrate the product into mainline because the planes already HAD the TVs etc. The product itself was successful....who doesnt love TV's on the plane etc? However, SONG as a whole was a big failure and that's why those lime green airplanes are slowly disappearing and being painted in Delta colors.

Quoting Jfrworld (Reply 6):
Was Song really a marketing concept? I know Delta called it an experiment once they decided to end the Song concept and re-intergrate it into mainline Delta, but I still have a hard time believing that they would have the intention of launching Song and growing it as big as they did just for an experiment.

Exactly. Song was made to be an airline by itself. F/A's had different uniforms etc etc. It was totally seperate from Delta. For example, Ted by United is CLEARLY connected to mainline. F/A's wear the same uniform and they make it clear that it is part of United.
Live for Today.....tomorrow is NOT guaranteed.
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:38 am

I'm not buying it either. Because it was an airline within an airline and used all Delta mainline equipment, pilots and the like it is also very difficult to calculate profit or loss as it all gets rolled into Delta mainline. So we will probably never know if Song ever turned a profit. If I had to guess I would say it didn't. These types of ventures have a bad track record. Because you can't operate a low cost carrier, when your cost structure is the same as the parent airline. You are still operating under the same contracts and then you cut out the most profitable segement of your business, first class and expect to make money. As long as your upfront costs are the same you are not going to make it work, IE Metrojet, Continetal Lite and countless others.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:39 am

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 22):

It is useless because if Ted was not there, United would be making just as much as they are now because no new routes were attained. UA probably lost money by changing the livery and the cabin of the Ted A320's.

Considering TED is still around would lead one to believe that it is a profitable endeavour.......for now, it seems as if TED is serving its purpose..
"Up the Irons!"
 
richierich
Posts: 3282
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 5:49 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:39 am

Quoting Jfrworld (Reply 6):
Was Song really a marketing concept? I know Delta called it an experiment once they decided to end the Song concept and re-intergrate it into mainline Delta, but I still have a hard time believing that they would have the intention of launching Song and growing it as big as they did just for an experiment.



Quoting Matt D (Reply 7):
Totally, very unique concept. Just like Metrojet, Shuttle By United, Continental West, New York Air, Continental LITE, Delta Express, and Ted.

There have been many threads regarding Song and what it meant for DL. Trust me, we could go on for hours discussing what worked and what didn't work.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 14):
SONG opened entirely new routes with entirely new product with DL a/c. Those routes would not have happened if Song had not happened, and to this day I believe all of the Song Routes are still there.

Yeah, most of the new routes came from JetBlue's website!  Smile (sorry, couldn't resist one little jab!)

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
But, DL did learn a lot from Song, and is still incorperating these concepts throughout the airline.

I agree with this.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
For DL, Song was their best pre-bankruptcy idea in years

But I don't agree with this. It was an expensive lesson/marketing experiment/failure/novelty... take your pick.

Merry Xmas to all that celebrate this holiday.
None shall pass!!!!
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15212
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 1:55 am

Quoting JetSet777 (Thread starter):
Could the 757 have just been too large of an A/C for a LCC like Song?

I remember a lot of analysts saying this and I always thought it was such crap. For starters, for a long time B6 wanted a bigger A320. Also, in price sensitive markets (ie NY to FL), time of day coverage is not as important as fare. People don't care whether you fly 10x daily between LGA and FLL with a 757 or 7x daily with a 767. That said, now that B6 is running out of places to fly that can fill up an A320, it's becoming quickly apparent that even the 190 is too big for certain sectors. The original networks, however, could support a 757 without any problem.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
BostonGuy
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2000 5:49 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:51 am

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 23):
I agree completely. I think it's disingenuous to say, after the fact, that Song was nothing more than a 'marketing concept.' Was there clear agreement beforehand that it was a marketing concept rather than a full-fledged airline-within-an-airline? I don't believe there was.

In this day and age of airlines awash in red ink, how many stockholders would have agreed with going THAT far into something that was merely a 'marketing concept?' You can get a 'marketing concept' without doing 90% of what they did to launch Song.

It's nice, with 20-20 hindsight, to say that this is all it was. But I'm not buying it.

I agree. This "marketing concept" excuse is a huge spinning shovel spreading you know what  Wink
 
Boston92
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 2:54 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 26):
Considering TED is still around would lead one to believe that it is a profitable endeavour.......for now, it seems as if TED is serving its purpose.

The only reason Ted is still around is because there would be no point to converting it back to UA, they would still be making the same amt of money if the a/c said Ted or if it said United.

When I said that Ted was useless, I did not mean that is was not making money, I meant the conversion from UA to Ted, and the simple creation of Ted was very useless.
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:23 am

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 30):
When I said that Ted was useless, I did not mean that is was not making money, I meant the conversion from UA to Ted, and the simple creation of Ted was very useless.

I guess we'll agree to disagree (for now) then... Smile
"Up the Irons!"
 
avconsultant
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:18 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:36 am

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 1):
First of all, Song was not a failure. The essentials which made Song unique are now being applied across much of mainline Delta... live TV, video on demand etc.

Neither a success, you do not need a rebranded product for a testbed.



One of the problems with Song- Delta's nicest and most advanced product was it's lowest ticketed priced product. The realization was - if the passengers want this product they're going to pay for it. A very reasonable request.
 
Dtw757
Posts: 1270
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:05 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 3:45 am

I flew onboard a Song aircraft last week, N609DL from SNA-ATL and I really enjoyed it. The fact that we had the PTV's along with 2 snacks on the flight was really great. Even in bankruptcy, Delta is proving great service!

I even filmed the takeoff and landing if anyone would like to check it out, here are the links.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn2zS3gmSos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1lVg4ijLgU
721,2,732,3,4,5,G,8,9,741,2,3,4,752,3,762,3,4,772,3,788,D93,5,M80,D10,M11,L10,100,AB6,319,20,21,332,3,346,388,146,CR2,7,
 
Boston92
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 6:56 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:45 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 31):
I guess we'll agree to disagree (for now) then...

I concur  Wink
"Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?"
 
deltajet757
Posts: 228
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:26 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:15 am

The only thing I didn't like about Song was the interior colors but the paint job was okay but no great. Other than that it was very nice.
FLY DELTA JETS
 
SRT75
Posts: 204
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:42 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:23 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
best pre-bankruptcy idea in years

Am I the only one that thinks this statement is dripping with irony? How can a concept be "good" or "best" if it leads to (or ultimately contributes to) bankruptcy? :P

Never flew SONG, but I've got plenty experience with TED, and the whole concept just doesn't make sense to me.

There's a reason they are called LCCs, NOT LFCs. Anyone can run a low FARE airline (usually into BK), but only a few have managed to run low COST airlines. If you're using the same planes, the same mx, the same crew, just different color schemes, you haven't done anything to reduce your costs except for eliminating a few meals and free alcohol for F.
 
floridaflyboy
Posts: 1496
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 3:26 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:23 am

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 24):
RRRIIIIGGHHHTT......

If Song wasn't a failure? why is it not around anymore? Of course they chose to integrate the product into mainline because the planes already HAD the TVs etc. The product itself was successful....who doesnt love TV's on the plane etc? However, SONG as a whole was a big failure and that's why those lime green airplanes are slowly disappearing and being painted in Delta colors.

Not at all. I knew before I even looked at your profile that you must work at another east-coast LCC  Smile In fact, song was very successful from a business standpoint. It just didn't offer DL the flexibility they wanted (i.e. matching aircraft types and sizes, or first class cabins). However, it was successful, which is why the routes operated by song are all still around, and the details of the Song product are being integrated into the mainline DL fleet.
Good goes around!
 
bond007
Posts: 4423
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:07 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:08 am

Quoting RobertS975 (Reply 1):
DL essentially used Song to test some concepts and is now well underway towards applying these concepts across much of the mainline carrier.

You don't create an airline for only 2 years, just "to test some concepts ", please. It failed, and they are taking some of the things that worked and putting them into mainline. That doesn't suddenly make it a success.

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 12):
but Song was useful

You can take very useful lessons from every company that fails. One of them, is not to do the same thing again!

Quoting Boston92 (Reply 14):
BTW, the reason Song is not there anymore was to make DL a better airline, not because Song was not working.

LOL - a good attempt. If Song was working, it would be still there "to make DL a better airline".

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 18):
Song was not a "failed concept". DL had to ground Song, and reintrgate the B-757s back into the DL fleet.

Hmmm..which means it failed.

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 24):
The product itself was successful....who doesnt love TV's on the plane etc? However, SONG as a whole was a big failure and that's why those lime green airplanes are slowly disappearing and being painted in Delta colors.

Correct!

Of course we all loved flying on Song!
It obviously wasn't the right move though at the right time - else it would still be going strong. How can anyone argue otherwise?


Jimbo
I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
 
avconsultant
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 1:18 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:25 am

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 38):
Of course we all loved flying on Song!
It obviously wasn't the right move though at the right time - else it would still be going strong. How can anyone argue otherwise?

Very true, a great product offering and the 757 is an expensive platform to operate a LCC.

What amazes me is DL & UA dissolve there "airline in an airline" concept all to make a 2nd attempt. I knew Song was doomed when they hired John Seveglia to run the operation. He was not that successful at Midway.
 
RobertS975
Posts: 756
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2005 2:17 am

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:44 am

Quoting ChrisNH (Reply 23):
agree completely. I think it's disingenuous to say, after the fact, that Song was nothing more than a 'marketing concept.' Was there clear agreement beforehand that it was a marketing concept rather than a full-fledged airline-within-an-airline? I don't believe there was.

Chris, what I meant is that Song was a paint job and marketing... it never had its own operating certificate, pilots, maintenence, dispatch etc. It was a dramatic improvement over DL Express, flying beat-up 737-200s without any signicant in-flight service.

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 24):
If Song wasn't a failure? why is it not around anymore? Of course they chose to integrate the product into mainline because the planes already HAD the TVs etc. The product itself was successful....who doesnt love TV's on the plane etc? However, SONG as a whole was a big failure and that's why those lime green airplanes are slowly disappearing and being painted in Delta colors.



You do not change the interiors of another 150 757 and 737 aircraft because you had 35 757s already with in-seat TVs if you considered the concept unsuccessful.

Quoting MiCorazonAzul (Reply 24):
Exactly. Song was made to be an airline by itself. F/A's had different uniforms etc etc. It was totally seperate from Delta. For example, Ted by United is CLEARLY connected to mainline. F/A's wear the same uniform and they make it clear that it is part of United.

As stated above, Song was never "totally separate" from Delta. It never had a separate operating certificate. Its aircraft were owned by DL, maintained by DL under its PT 121 operating authority, flown by DL pilots and called "Delta" by ATC. Song never had an IATA code. All Song had was a paint job on DL owned and operated 757s.
********************************************************
There were several places where Song missed. The lack of recognition of elite frequent flyers, the lack of mileage credit for NW and CO flyers, the lack of a premium cabin even though they were flying the product to/from its international JFK gateway from LAX etc... these are some of the reasons why the Song experiment was blended back into DL mainline.
 
Garri767
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 2:00 pm

RE: 757 Partial Cause For Song Failure?

Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:47 am

My gosh folks! (sorry, had to show some texan there :P) DL said from the start Song was not here to stay. They said that they plan to integrate Song into Delta after a few years, and that Song would not last forever.




Garri767
Two wrongs may not make a right, but three lefts do!