Since it's been a decade since Song was shut down in 2006, after flying for 3 years, what if Song was relaunched? Could it be successful today, liked by the public, provide competitive prices against other etc. Back in its heyday, Song was mainly a leisure/budget subsidary of Delta based in Florida and New York, shuttling pax, similar to JetBlue, but kind of reversed in the sense that B6's main operation is in New York, Song's main operation was in Florida. It was mainly based out of MCO, FLL, JFK, and BOS. Its fun, colorful, youthy was culture known at the time as similar to what many of us consider to be similar to B6 and VX today. It had Internet and TV, ahead of the curve for its time, and also a funky lime green livery! Would Song be successful if it was relaunched today?

1. Can maintain low budget "luxury" model.
2. Is liked by the traveling public
3. Can compete with JetBlue on many routes



Video: https://youtu.be/nJYPvBnhz8A

Considering how Air Canada Rouge, Scoot, Jetstar are successful in todays market, I don't see why Song could not make it work if it was to be re-launched.

Not if it was like its previous incarnation. The best aspects of Song were moved to DL mainline- there would too little differentiation between the two if Song was brought back other than the fact that Song lacked first class.

I can't even imagine such a scenario as most ex-Song planes have either been retired or completely reconfigured to a new F & Y high-density configuration.

I agree that most of Songs 'best practices' have been absorbed by mainline so the product diff is minimal and you loose revenue from up selling C + and F.
On the cost side the only way to make it work is to extract concessions from ALPA and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

As has been mentioned, some of the best practices of Song were implemented by Delta. The U.S. airline system today is such that the majors don't need a separate LCC division. As much as I hate the fact so many airlines have gone away, things aren't going to change. The big 4 are printing money.

Some time back, Tim Clark made a comment that he felt that "basic amenities on flights such as TV and internet access on flights should be free because it makes flying better for pax, and that it should not be a revenue stream." (He also said EK is in the process of doing this btw). Yes this is EK we're talking about, but I think this approach could work for Song too. Instead of adding a B6 style mint first class or something like that, I think they should make existing things free, to really deliver a punch to B6, WN. Match low cost prices and have free TV, bags, food, internet, etc. and advertise it heavily. I realize this sounds absolutely ludicrous after B6 and WN have stopped offering any of this for free, but that would be the differentiator, and could be the path to success.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Instead of adding a B6 style mint first class or something like that, I think they should make existing things free, to really deliver a punch to B6, WN. Match low cost prices and have free TV, bags, food, internet, etc. and advertise it heavily.

How does a legacy carrier create a subsidiary offering all this at the same cost as a LCC or ULCC? DL matches B6 on DTW-FLL. But the DL fare is Basic Economy, where the B6 fare is not. DL chose not to match the product and fare already. Want more? Buy a regular economy or Comfort+ fare. I would assume their market research has shown the DL customers will give up items for a fare that matches a LCC. They don't expect more.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Some time back, Tim Clark made a comment that he felt that "basic amenities on flights such as TV and internet access on flights should be free because it makes flying better for pax, and that it should not be a revenue stream." (He also said EK is in the process of doing this btw). Yes this is EK we're talking about, but I think this approach could work for Song too. Instead of adding a B6 style mint first class or something like that, I think they should make existing things free, to really deliver a punch to B6, WN. Match low cost prices and have free TV, bags, food, internet, etc. and advertise it heavily. I realize this sounds absolutely ludicrous after B6 and WN have stopped offering any of this for free, but that would be the differentiator, and could be the path to success.

Nobody is talking about the product differentiation between Song and other LCCs- that is not critically important. We are talking about the product differentiation between Song and DL mainline.

Delta is already offering free TV, along with free snacks. They are already re configuring their aircraft to squeeze in as many Y seats as possible (while still having a F and Y+ section) via use of slim lines and Space-flex galleys/lavs. How is this "Song" of yours lower cost and able to compete in price better than just using DL mainline?

IMHO, I have always thought that Song would have been more successful if DL had used 738s instead of 757s-they just seemed too large for some of the routes, like BDL-LAX. Delta Express had served smaller markets as well, such as ALB/ISP/PVD; markets that would likely have been carried over to Song had the brand have smaller aircraft.

USAirALB wrote:

IMHO, I have always thought that Song would have been more successful if DL had used 738s instead of 757s-they just seemed too large for some of the routes, like BDL-LAX. Delta Express had served smaller markets as well, such as ALB/ISP/PVD; markets that would likely have been carried over to Song had the brand have smaller aircraft.

The use of the larger 757 was part of DL's attempt to keep Song cost competitive with B6 by having a lower CASM because of the much greater number of seats (199 seats in the 757 vs I believe 156 seats at the time for B6). Song couldn't (profitably) compete if they had similar seat counts.

People would go "what the hell is that?" like they did the first time.

jpetekyxmd80 wrote:

People would go "what the hell is that?" like they did the first time.

^THIS

...followed by: and why does it have a giant sperm all over it?

Yep, Song and Ted classic cases of the new age marketing and branding geniuses getting way, way too cute.

Forget Song and Ted...I want to see Metrojet return. BRING BACK THE FLYING TOMATO!!!

So any meaningful ideas of what could make Song work? I would appreciate if no one says the "It just can't work" kind of thing. I'm sure someone has good ideas out there.

Song sung blue!:)

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I think they should make existing things free, to really deliver a punch to B6, WN. Match low cost prices and have free TV, bags, food, internet, etc. and advertise it heavily.

Match prices, give away more, and from a higher cost basis! Yeh, that will make lots of money.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Some time back, Tim Clark made a comment that he felt that "basic amenities on flights such as TV and internet access on flights should be free because it makes flying better for pax, and that it should not be a revenue stream."

What is Clark's claim to expertise in the U.S. domestic air passenger market, anyway?

LAX772LR wrote:

^THIS

...followed by: and why does it have a giant sperm all over it?

Now this post made my day! Whats funny is that I'm an LGBT and I usually such things everywhere, but I never saw a sperm in the Song livery. LOL

KTPAFlyer wrote:

So any meaningful ideas of what could make Song work? I would appreciate if no one says the "It just can't work" kind of thing. I'm sure someone has good ideas out there.

Yes, its nice to say "It would not work" and all, but I agree that posting ideas on how to make it work would be better.
I would say that Delta could launch a new LCC with new team/union/agreement/etc. that offers W/Y+(maybe)/Y with internet and IFE via your own device or a rentable tablet, also first luggage free for W passengers and that should make it work.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

So any meaningful ideas of what could make Song work?

Not restarting it.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I would appreciate if no one says the "It just can't work" kind of thing.

But why would you want people to lie to you?

KTPAFlyer wrote:

I'm sure someone has good ideas out there.

Killing this ridiculous idea dead, before it even starts, is the best idea anyone could have.

Please God NOOOOOOOOO !!!!!!!!

What an awful time (shortly after 9/11, but prior to C11 reorg) in U.S. history as well as the history of the aviation industry.

Delta Express and Song need to stay where they are.......... Dead and buried.

What evidence is there that Rouge is "successful"?

jimbo737 wrote:

What evidence is there that Rouge is "successful"?

Oh I don't know, maybe the massive rougefication of Air Canada routes that has been going on for the past 2-3 years? If Air Canada Rouge would not be successful then they would not be keeping it, even less expending it like they are right now.

Song wasn't a subsidiary of DL. Song was Delta with different branding and the same exact operating costs but targeted towards low yield markets and price conscious passengers. That's why it failed (same for Ted). Today's DL probably has lower operating costs than Song had, and DL has adopted the same product or better, that Song offered. So why bother?

What killed Song wasn't operating costs or airplane size. What killed song was that it wasn't separate from Delta. Yes, some key routes you could fly only on Song. but a vast majority of routes you ended up flying half on song and half on Delta mainline. And it wasn't worth the premium (which Song often was, at least out of New England) over JetBlue. They failed to capitalize on the fact that they could carry more people per flight on a 757 and reduce flight frequency to gain a cost advantage, as they could not separate themselves from Delta business thinking.

So how could song work today? Simple - so long as you established a large enough network right away, there's plenty of room for a new carrier with all the hate the big three have generated amongst themselves. But it won't work as a subsidiary of another airline - it has to be it's own airline and focus on itself, not flowing passengers into a larger airline.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

Instead of adding a B6 style mint first class or something like that, I think they should make existing things free, to really deliver a punch to B6, WN. Match low cost prices and have free TV, bags, food, internet, etc. and advertise it heavily. I realize this sounds absolutely ludicrous after B6 and WN have stopped offering any of this for free, but that would be the differentiator, and could be the path to success.

The only punch this would deliver is to DL's bottom line.

One major issue with Song (and the ilk) was that business fliers wanted the standard Delta experience but that was not an options on some routes. Some people DO fly to Orlando for business.

ty97 wrote:

One major issue with Song (and the ilk) was that business fliers wanted the standard Delta experience but that was not an options on some routes. Some people DO fly to Orlando for business.

Wasn't there a brief period of time when DL's JFK transcons were Song only? Or did they still have some mainline flights?

Polot wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

IMHO, I have always thought that Song would have been more successful if DL had used 738s instead of 757s-they just seemed too large for some of the routes, like BDL-LAX. Delta Express had served smaller markets as well, such as ALB/ISP/PVD; markets that would likely have been carried over to Song had the brand have smaller aircraft.

The use of the larger 757 was part of DL's attempt to keep Song cost competitive with B6 by having a lower CASM because of the much greater number of seats (199 seats in the 757 vs I believe 156 seats at the time for B6). Song couldn't (profitably) compete if they had similar seat counts.

That was the idea. Some might recall that Song was actually DL's second attempt at a LCC-division on the Northeast-Florida market. Delta Express was replaced by Song. DL Express had tried to use old 737s (sorta of a ValuJet model rather than jetBlue). It was killed by a huge CASM squeeze. Song came out with larger jets and a superior (or at least just as good) product and still was squeezed.

The main four have figured out that they want to focus on business travel right now and fight for leisure/family travel only in their core markets. And frankly the best way for AA/DL/UA and even WN to do this is with the "basic" coach fare package. It allows the airline to fill 1/3 to 1/2 of the plane with higher yield business and first class traffic and pull in the leisure traffic they need to fill the plane. The days of DL and AA (nêe US) trying to fill planes of families going to the beach or Disney in Florida from ALB/BUF/BDL/CMH, etc are over. Maybe it comes back once they feel that they have tapped the business traffic and need more revenue, but I don't expect that anytime soon.

If Rouge is so "successful", and by successful, I mean profitable, not simply filling excess capacity with low yield junk whilst cannibalizing the mainline network, why do AIr Canada's operating margins remain at the bottom of the heap of all airlines in North America?

Rouge was supposed to fix the wild seasonal profitability swings AC is subjected to as a result of their having built a stadium that is great for the Super Bowl, but has way too much much capacity for most of the rest of the year.

What ever positive results can be extracted from Rouge are a function of densification, which didn't require separate branding, "juniority", (which resulted in more senior, higher paid people at mainline further increasing its costs), and more than anything else, a collapse in fuel prices over Rouge's 3 year history.

The decline in Alberta's oil patch based economy has had negligible impact on Rouge. The vast majority of Rouge's capacity is Toronto-centric, which has remained steadily strong over the period. Comparatively speaking, there's very little Rouge activity west of Toronto.

The concept utterly failed between Vancouver and California as Rouge dragged down one way fares from YVR to LAX to about $59 + taxes at one point .

AC has so little for the 767's to do in the winter, they run them on hub and spoke 3 hour sectors, the cost of which must be astronomical given the cycle costs on gear, engines and a myriad of other components alone. I guess someone figured out that AC's casm on a 280 seat B767-300ER is close to WJ's casm on a 130 seat 737-700 and figured that was the key to the kingdom. Too bad they forgot what that sort of capacity would do to their prasm.

There's a separate thread on WB's in service in US domestic routes. Compare that list to some of the silly things AC does in the name of "utilization" and "marketshare" with their excess WB capacity and the issue becomes pretty glaring.

There are numerous very accurate posts in this thread as to why Song failed and why Delta wouldn't waste it's time resurrecting it. Had Song operated in an era of $40bbl oil, I'm sure their results would have been significantly better than they were.

The same arguments almost universally apply to Air Canada, who have yet to figure this out, but will do so when oil prices revert to levels of a few years ago and the emperor's clothes are removed for all to see.

When, not if, when this occurs, you'll see a lot more red ink, a lot of "restructuring", and most , if not all the old Rouge iron end up parked in the desert along side all the other excess capacity other more enlightened, and dare I say infinitely more profitable airlines have already parked their excess iron long ago.

AC's current labor peace is completely based on "growth, growth, growth", whereby its pilots can quickly move up the food chain and get into the lucrative WB seats where the big money is made.

That peace will turn into a war as the consequences of over expansion underwritten by cheap fuel and cannibalization of Star partner routes comes home to roost.

cloudboy wrote:

What killed Song wasn't operating costs or airplane size. What killed song was that it wasn't separate from Delta.

And because of that its operating costs were the same as DL = too high for what it was.

N717TW wrote:

That was the idea. Some might recall that Song was actually DL's second attempt at a LCC-division on the Northeast-Florida market.

Song was not a LCC or an attempt at it. Song had the same exact operating costs as DL. It used the same planes, same crews, same everything as DL. Hence why it failed. It attracted price conscious passengers while having the same high operating costs that led DL to Ch-11.
Song was an airline within the airline, a mere re-branding of some Delta flights in order to try to attract the same clientele that B6 was attracting.

AWACSooner wrote:

Forget Song and Ted...I want to see Metrojet return. BRING BACK THE FLYING TOMATO!!!

Ask and ye shall receive:

Polot wrote:

ty97 wrote:

One major issue with Song (and the ilk) was that business fliers wanted the standard Delta experience but that was not an options on some routes. Some people DO fly to Orlando for business.

Yes ... at one point all JFK-LAX/SFO was Song ... passengers with a Business Class ticket from LAX/SFO to Europe connecting in JFK had no option but Y on Song on the transcon .... they were not happy

I recall that. Then it became standard domestic F, then BusinessElite in 2009, then Delta One in 2015.

jimbo737 wrote:

If Rouge is so "successful", and by successful, I mean profitable, not simply filling excess capacity with low yield junk whilst cannibalizing the mainline network, why do AIr Canada's operating margins remain at the bottom of the heap of all airlines in North America?

Rouge was supposed to fix the wild seasonal profitability swings AC is subjected to as a result of their having built a stadium that is great for the Super Bowl, but has way too much much capacity for most of the rest of the year.

What ever positive results can be extracted from Rouge are a function of densification, which didn't require separate branding, "juniority", (which resulted in more senior, higher paid people at mainline further increasing its costs), and more than anything else, a collapse in fuel prices over Rouge's 3 year history.

The decline in Alberta's oil patch based economy has had negligible impact on Rouge. The vast majority of Rouge's capacity is Toronto-centric, which has remained steadily strong over the period. Comparatively speaking, there's very little Rouge activity west of Toronto.

The concept utterly failed between Vancouver and California as Rouge dragged down one way fares from YVR to LAX to about $59 + taxes at one point .

AC has so little for the 767's to do in the winter, they run them on hub and spoke 3 hour sectors, the cost of which must be astronomical given the cycle costs on gear, engines and a myriad of other components alone. I guess someone figured out that AC's casm on a 280 seat B767-300ER is close to WJ's casm on a 130 seat 737-700 and figured that was the key to the kingdom. Too bad they forgot what that sort of capacity would do to their prasm.

There's a separate thread on WB's in service in US domestic routes. Compare that list to some of the silly things AC does in the name of "utilization" and "marketshare" with their excess WB capacity and the issue becomes pretty glaring.

There are numerous very accurate posts in this thread as to why Song failed and why Delta wouldn't waste it's time resurrecting it. Had Song operated in an era of $40bbl oil, I'm sure their results would have been significantly better than they were.

The same arguments almost universally apply to Air Canada, who have yet to figure this out, but will do so when oil prices revert to levels of a few years ago and the emperor's clothes are removed for all to see.

When, not if, when this occurs, you'll see a lot more red ink, a lot of "restructuring", and most , if not all the old Rouge iron end up parked in the desert along side all the other excess capacity other more enlightened, and dare I say infinitely more profitable airlines have already parked their excess iron long ago.

AC's current labor peace is completely based on "growth, growth, growth", whereby its pilots can quickly move up the food chain and get into the lucrative WB seats where the big money is made.

That peace will turn into a war as the consequences of over expansion underwritten by cheap fuel and cannibalization of Star partner routes comes home to roost.

Wow, that is one negative outlook for Rouge coming from you...I disagree with your view, I think that in the future we will see all of the low-yielding routes on the AC network move to Rouge and only have high-yielding routes stay on AC mainline.

N776AU wrote:

Ask and ye shall receive:

I'm in love!!!

I never understood the airline within an airline strategy (and I still don't). What would Delta gain by bringing back Song? They can do a much better job by having a uniform strategy/product, while having the flexibility to easily redistribute capacity. The airlines are making a ton of money now... I don't see why they would want to try something that hasn't really worked out in the past.

Part of having a good product is having uniformity through your network. I want a predictable and streamlined experience when I travel, not experience two separate products. I don't understand what Air Canada has accomplished with Rouge, that they couldn't have just done normally.

ty97 wrote:

One major issue with Song (and the ilk) was that business fliers wanted the standard Delta experience but that was not an options on some routes. Some people DO fly to Orlando for business.

This, this and 100 times this.

Song also flew JFK-LAS, my company at the time put me on a Song flight connecting from London, what a miserable experience. I guess compared to Y at the time it was okay, but the lack of domestic F on a near trans con sucked.

rta wrote:

I don't understand what Air Canada has accomplished with Rouge, that they couldn't have just done normally.

Oh I don't know, maybe lower salaries and everything that comes with that?

jetwet1 wrote:

ty97 wrote:

One major issue with Song (and the ilk) was that business fliers wanted the standard Delta experience but that was not an options on some routes. Some people DO fly to Orlando for business.

This, this and 100 times this.

Song also flew JFK-LAS, my company at the time put me on a Song flight connecting from London, what a miserable experience. I guess compared to Y at the time it was okay, but the lack of domestic F on a near trans con sucked.

I used to fly Song all the time, and it was actually the airline that made me love flying, because even 10-15 years ago, DL, UA, AA sucked way more compared to today in retrospect and Song was a "breath of fresh air" in that time like what B6 and VX are today. That said, I am not a business traveler per say, so I never felt miserable on Song, but I don't think you can blame them for not having a J cabin because that is fundamentally incompatible with their business model. However, what you could argue is that Delta messed up by only offering Song exclusively on some routes without having a Delta equivalent. I think Song might still be around today in some form had they adopted this strategy as it would retain both types of travelers under the same umbrella instead of swaying some travelers to book elsewhere, like how Scoot has SIN-SYD low cost, but SQ doesn't lose other customers who want the SQ experience on SIN-SYD.

I did like the whole concept and even the airplane livery. Just wasn't well thought out and the execution failed miserably. It was rush rush response to Jetwho? HA!

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

Just wasn't well thought out and the execution failed miserably.

Huh?? ...DL basically rolled Song's offering into the mainline fleet. That's the opposite of "failed miserably."

LAX772LR wrote:

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

Just wasn't well thought out and the execution failed miserably.

Huh?? ...DL basically rolled Song's offering into the mainline fleet. That's the opposite of "failed miserably."

Perhaps but Song as a separate entity failed miserably. Also some aspects of Song were put into mainline but not Song as a whole being LCCish.

OH NOOOO!!!! I worked on Song when I was at Landor. We had fun coming up with the name, I loved the irreverence of the name and designing the interiors and all the bits and pieces, but the livery broke my heart. I didn't lead the project, my partner CD did as he held the relationship with Delta...but I HATED the SPERM logo from the moment it was tacked to the wall in the first round of sketches from the designers. I did my best to try and kill it then and there, but others felt I was crazy and that it did not look like "sperm", and that it was a fun way to capture whizzing to point-to-point travel...except it didn't have a second dot on the end of the sperm's tail...which IMHO would have made it look less like a sperm. A few designs were presented to DL, and they loved this one...I will never forget the disappointment I felt when the team returned from Atlanta with the news that the "spermazoid" had won. It was such a cool assignment and there were better fun designs IMHO! Also, the decision to add "by Delta" really confused fliers - "TED" was brilliant IMHO, it made much more sense to consumers as a sub-brand of UNITED. And, as TED is a persons name, UA was able to give that short lived sub-brand a "persona", like UNITED's little brother. I flew it and loved it. I also thought the interiors did a great job of blending serious and FUN. I thought TED was done very well by tying it so much more closely to momma.

As for the core of the question: Delta seems to be doing extremely well focusing on it's primary brand...no need to distract or dilute such a powerful brand by bringing back Song. Back then, the Delta mainline brand was NOT the powerful Delta brand it is today.

cloudboy wrote:

What killed Song wasn't operating costs or airplane size. What killed song was that it wasn't separate from Delta. Yes, some key routes you could fly only on Song. but a vast majority of routes you ended up flying half on song and half on Delta mainline. And it wasn't worth the premium (which Song often was, at least out of New England) over JetBlue. They failed to capitalize on the fact that they could carry more people per flight on a 757 and reduce flight frequency to gain a cost advantage, as they could not separate themselves from Delta business thinking.

That's really not true. As others pointed out, a major issue was that DL flew Song exclusively on some routes (JFK-LAX/SFO, NYC/BOS-MCO) where there was a sizable about of business/premium traffic that was effectively shut out by Song and their lack of a premium cabin. Almost every route Song flew was exclusively Song during the period in which it was designated to the brand. The only possible exception I could think of would be its brief use on ATL-FLL. Potentially on that route it was a mix of Song and mainline, but I'm not sure. Other than that, the only time you saw mainline and Song flying together on the same route was once DL pulled the plug on the experiment and began transitioning the routes/planes back to standard DL mainline. Then things got a little bit weird...for example, I remember flying a Song-configured plane (no F cabin) on ATL-LGA at one point, I want to say in the summer of 2006.

DL seems to be doing very well as it is. They don't need to confuse it with branding changes.

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

QueenoftheSkies wrote:

Just wasn't well thought out and the execution failed miserably.

Huh?? ...DL basically rolled Song's offering into the mainline fleet. That's the opposite of "failed miserably."

Perhaps but Song as a separate entity failed miserably.

Except that Song was not, at any point, a separate entity. So again, your point fails to comport to reality.

As we all know, DTW would be the focus to Florida and any Caribbean runway over 6,000 feet!

N776AU wrote:

AWACSooner wrote:

Forget Song and Ted...I want to see Metrojet return. BRING BACK THE FLYING TOMATO!!!

Well done. I never had the displeasure of flying on that horrid experiment, but I did like the name.

globalcabotage wrote:

As we all know, DTW would be the focus to Florida and any Caribbean runway over 6,000 feet!

Hey look another one of your DTW bash comments! It's getting old and you're comments are foolish.