In this article, Delta Air Lines: A Winner Among Legacy Carrier; was posted today in Seeking Alpha. SA is a crowd-sourced content service for financial markets and was founded in 2004.

Article Highlights:

Delta has a strong management team that has increased their focus on profitability. This has allowed the company to post healthy margins while keeping its debt at a reasonable level. While other carriers like American Airlines have gone on an aircraft buying binge, DAL has been much more conservative in its capacity expansion.

Delta is starting to post quality improvements in its PRASM (passenger revenue per available seat mile). DL showed a 3.5% PRASM growth in May, 2.5% in June and 2.7% growth in July compared to the year ago period. DL has also forecasted 2.5%-4.5% growth in PRASM for Q3. On the other hand, United has forecast only -1% to 1% PRASM growth.

Healthy operating margins act as a long term competitive advantage within the airline industry. Superior margins vs. peers help an airline adjust more easily to new competitors and a changing pricing environment. In the past few quarters, Delta and Southwest have consistently outperformed other legacy carriers in this metric.

Not really sure how United starting LAX-SIN is going to help their PRASM growth. Maybe UA only cares about being known for flying the longest flights known to man while AA seems to shrug off what seems to be insurmountable debt tied to new aircraft purchases.

Entirety of the contents of the article can be read here:

https://seekingalpha.com/article/410105 ... y-carriers

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

The DL story is a good one, they are willing to think outside the box and have worked hard to match the right plane with the right route, sometimes on a month-to-month basis matching demand. Their operation is complex given all of the fleet types but they make it work.

It's one reason their stock is doing so well, their return on investment is fantastic.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China.

I dont think DL has the aircraft for the route. I suppose AA could have in theory but with both SQ and UA running routes, I don't think there's a place for AA.

klakzky123 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China.

I dont think DL has the aircraft for the route. I suppose AA could have in theory but with both SQ and UA running routes, I don't think there's a place for AA.

They have 777-200 LR's but I am not sure how they compare economically to a 787-9.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

The DL story is a good one, they are willing to think outside the box and have worked hard to match the right plane with the right route, sometimes on a month-to-month basis matching demand. Their operation is complex given all of the fleet types but they make it work.

It's one reason their stock is doing so well, their return on investment is fantastic.

But their customer experience keeps eroding. There comes a time where poor customer service and ease of using your product far out weight the quality of what it is you are offering at a priced that marginally higher than the competition and other options that are out there and that's where Delta is failing.

As a DL Retiree, I think that DL's west coast strategy is still lacking when it comes to connecting the top business markets, notably Chicago & DFW to the top markets in the West...(SEA & LAX aren't the only ones). DEN to Silicon Valley? Must not be lucrative.. Before, DL had to buy the competition to enter new markets (NE,WA,NW) . Not saying that's bad as they've all been very lucrative combinations, but in some cases there seems to be some sort of management reluctance to hit UA & AA head on in their dominant markets (other than LAX or NYC). As much as some did not like Leo Mullin (back in the early 2000's), He is the one who got DL out of the "dark ages" , particularly in technology and equipment. Prior management in the 90's had totally ignored those areas....too busy reeling from the acquisition of those PA routes that have since evaporated except for JNB & LOS.

jumbojet wrote:

In this article, Delta Air Lines: A Winner Among Legacy Carrier; was posted today in Seeking Alpha. SA is a crowd-sourced content service for financial markets and was founded in 2004.

Article Highlights:

[...] Not really sure how United starting LAX-SIN is going to help their PRASM growth. Maybe UA only cares about being known for flying the longest flights known to man while AA seems to shrug off what seems to be insurmountable debt tied to new aircraft purchases.

That is a highlight.

It is bad writing. Companies are not human beings. They do not "care"; they do not "shrug." Back to Freshman Comp for this writer.

Edited to add: Beginning writers also like to use the phrases "known to man" and "since the beginning of time." Both invite ridicule.

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

With what aircraft? DL doesn't have many available planes, and they're using the 359 for 744 replacement, and neither DL nor AA even have long haul out of SFO, so why would they start off with a route that would cause overcapacity, and would require a large part of the fleet that can do this route? And from LAX DL is the only one that could make it without colossal restrictions and, again, they are already using every aircraft that could fly this route. And FYI UA's LAX-SIN is doomed.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights.

And you know that how?

klakzky123 wrote:

I dont think DL has the aircraft for the route.

They have two aircraft that can, just that neither might suit their specific preferences.

• 77L can make the distance at payload with no problem at all, but the cost might be too great.
• A359 would struggle, especially since these would be limited to 275T, so might have good costs but not the payload.

CV880 wrote:

, Prior management in the 90's had totally ignored those areas....too busy reeling from the acquisition of those PA routes that have since evaporated except for JNB & LOS.

Huh? A whole chunk of PA routes are still around including the Shuttle, and many of the JFK-Europe flights. In fact, PA wasnt even flying to JNB and LOS by the time DL took over. DL's African operations started many years after the Pan Am routes acquisition!

panamair wrote:

CV880 wrote:

, Prior management in the 90's had totally ignored those areas....too busy reeling from the acquisition of those PA routes that have since evaporated except for JNB & LOS.

Huh? A whole chunk of PA routes are still around including the Shuttle, and many of the JFK-Europe flights. In fact, PA wasnt even flying to JNB and LOS by the time DL took over. DL's African operations started many years after the Pan Am routes acquisition!

The acquisition gave DL the rights to fly most anywhere in Europe/MidEast/Africa and DL never exercised the rights to fly many of them. Most of what You are referring to, could have been had for nothing as domestic routes were open skies for US Carriers from about 1980 onward. The PA fiasco didn't happen until the 90's.

CV880 wrote:

As a DL Retiree, I think that DL's west coast strategy is still lacking when it comes to connecting the top business markets, notably Chicago & DFW to the top markets in the West...(SEA & LAX aren't the only ones). DEN to Silicon Valley? Must not be lucrative.. Before, DL had to buy the competition to enter new markets (NE,WA,NW) . Not saying that's bad as they've all been very lucrative combinations, but in some cases there seems to be some sort of management reluctance to hit UA & AA head on in their dominant markets (other than LAX or NYC). As much as some did not like Leo Mullin (back in the early 2000's), He is the one who got DL out of the "dark ages" , particularly in technology and equipment. Prior management in the 90's had totally ignored those areas....too busy reeling from the acquisition of those PA routes that have since evaporated except for JNB & LOS.

Southwest has its home base at Dallas Love Field, and Southwest also has nonstop service from Dallas Love Field to Delta's hubs in SEA, LAX, SLC, DTW, ATL, and LGA. Southwest does serve MSP and CVG, both of which are hubs for Delta Air Lines, even though it does not have nonstop service to MSP or CVG from Dallas Love Field. There is a customer base in the DFW area that is loyal to the Southwest brand and that would prefer to fly Southwest over other airlines, and there are Dallas-area customers who would prefer to fly Southwest to MSP and CVG out of DAL if Southwest added nonstop service to MSP and CVG from DAL.

In addition, Chicago Midway International Airport is the largest Southwest Airlines station and is a major focus city for Southwest Airlines, and Chicago O'Hare International Airport is the home base for United Airlines and a major hub for American Airlines. Chicago also has nonstop service to all 8 of the Delta Air Lines hub airports that Southwest Airlines serves (SEA, LAX, SLC, MSP, DTW, CVG, ATL, and LGA) on Southwest, Delta, American, and United.

klm617 wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

The DL story is a good one, they are willing to think outside the box and have worked hard to match the right plane with the right route, sometimes on a month-to-month basis matching demand. Their operation is complex given all of the fleet types but they make it work.

It's one reason their stock is doing so well, their return on investment is fantastic.

But their customer experience keeps eroding. There comes a time where poor customer service and ease of using your product far out weight the quality of what it is you are offering at a priced that marginally higher than the competition and other options that are out there and that's where Delta is failing.

Do you have a source on this so called "eroding"?

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

Have absolutely no clue why you're surprised, UA has by far the most ambitious route strategy of the US3 and second only to AC in North America. I can guarantee you will NEVER see HGH, XIY, or CTU from either DL or AA. DL will eventually be forced to start SIN at some point, who knows when that will be. DL runs the best operation, but it is a very conservative company and they literally take no risks in terms of routes (at least not until someone else has). UA is the only one operating SFO-SIN so of course they're printing money. Premium demand + No competition = Instant hit. Delta may be the best run airline, but it doesn't matter how well run your airline is if they're on your competitor's plane!

jplatts wrote:

In addition, Chicago Midway International Airport is the largest Southwest Airlines station and is a major focus city for Southwest Airlines, and Chicago O'Hare International Airport is the home base for United Airlines and a major hub for American Airlines. Chicago also has nonstop service to all 8 of the Delta Air Lines hub airports that Southwest Airlines serves (SEA, LAX, SLC, MSP, DTW, CVG, ATL, and LGA) on Southwest, Delta, American, and United.

Correction: Delta doesn't currently have nonstop service from ORD to LAX, but Delta does serve SEA, SLC, MSP, DTW, CVG, ATL, and LGA nonstop from ORD.

Anything published in Seeking Alpha should be taken with a grain of salt...

KTPAFlyer wrote:

UA is the only one operating SFO-SIN so of course they're printing money. Premium demand + No competition = Instant hit. Delta may be the best run airline, but it doesn't matter how well run your airline is if they're on your competitor's plane!

Their frenemy SQ flies SFO-SIN non-stop as well.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

The DL story is a good one, they are willing to think outside the box and have worked hard to match the right plane with the right route, sometimes on a month-to-month basis matching demand. Their operation is complex given all of the fleet types but they make it work.

It's one reason their stock is doing so well, their return on investment is fantastic.

SQ moved to two cabin flights ex-west coast now. The only reason a route like LAX/SFO-SIN does well is because the flight is so long that lots of people will fly C by default, either because of their company travel policy or because the buy-up becomes a lot more attractive with on a 17 hour flight Same for Chinese secondary markets, although that's driven in no small part by travel *to* SFO rather than *from* SFO, unlike SIN where SQ still rules at the end of the day.

DL has a lot of old school UA managers who left during BK, very innovative indeed.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

Have absolutely no clue why you're surprised, UA has by far the most ambitious route strategy of the US3 and second only to AC in North America. I can guarantee you will NEVER see HGH, XIY, or CTU from either DL or AA. DL will eventually be forced to start SIN at some point, who knows when that will be. DL runs the best operation, but it is a very conservative company and they literally take no risks in terms of routes (at least not until someone else has). UA is the only one operating SFO-SIN so of course they're printing money. Premium demand + No competition = Instant hit. Delta may be the best run airline, but it doesn't matter how well run your airline is if they're on your competitor's plane!

Oh yeah? JNB? Lagos? Any part of Africa they have tried? The failure in some of those cities ABJ, CPT is not relevant to your accusation that DL has no imagination compared to other major US carriers that have zero presence on the continent.

Delta's profitability is built on low oil prices.

If they spike again, the CASM on those MD-80's is going through the roof.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

DL runs the best operation, but it is a very conservative company and they literally take no risks in terms of routes (at least not until someone else has).

What on earth are you talking about?

DL has tried its hand at so many unusual/atypical routes, on all 6 inhabited continents, over recent years-- that people on this forum started referring to the map as "Delta's dartboard."

Many routes didn't work out, but some did. Regardless, I certainly don't recall UA trying the likes of:
Chennai, India
Manaus, Brazil
Pisa, Italy
Monrovia, Liberia
Fukuoka, Japan
Abuja, Nigeria
Bucharest, Romania
Ilha do Sal, Cape Verde
Cape Town, South Africa
etc etc etc

Varsity1 wrote:

Delta's profitability is built on low oil prices.
If they spike again, the CASM on those MD-80's is going through the roof.

Except that history doesn't bear that theory out:
DL had operation profits in both 2007 and 2008, despite those being the two worst years for fuel prices. And they had more M88s flying then than they do now, so.......

OA940 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

With what aircraft? DL doesn't have many available planes, and they're using the 359 for 744 replacement, and neither DL nor AA even have long haul out of SFO, so why would they start off with a route that would cause overcapacity, and would require a large part of the fleet that can do this route? And from LAX DL is the only one that could make it without colossal restrictions and, again, they are already using every aircraft that could fly this route. And FYI UA's LAX-SIN is doomed.

How is UA LAX-SIN doomed?

LAX772LR wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

DL runs the best operation, but it is a very conservative company and they literally take no risks in terms of routes (at least not until someone else has).

What on earth are you talking about?

DL has tried its hand at so many unusual/atypical routes, on all 6 inhabited continents, over recent years-- that people on this forum started referring to the map as "Delta's dartboard."

Many routes didn't work out, but some did. Regardless, I certainly don't recall UA trying the likes of:
Chennai, India
Manaus, Brazil
Pisa, Italy
Monrovia, Liberia
Fukuoka, Japan
Abuja, Nigeria
Bucharest, Romania
Ilha do Sal, Cape Verde
Cape Town, South Africa
etc etc etc

Varsity1 wrote:

Delta's profitability is built on low oil prices.
If they spike again, the CASM on those MD-80's is going through the roof.

Except that history doesn't bear that theory out:
DL had operation profits in both 2007 and 2008, despite those being the two worst years for fuel prices. And they had more M88s flying then than they do now, so.......

Holding your head above water doesn't mean anything. We're talking about being the best here. If oil prices go up, AA's investment in a new fleet will bear fruit that Delta can't quickly replicate..

Varsity1 wrote:

Holding your head above water doesn't mean anything.

Since when does making more money than any other airline on the planet, equate to "holding your head above water"...??

Varsity1 wrote:

We're talking about being the best here.

What he heck does that even mean? Define it.

Varsity1 wrote:

If oil prices go up, AA's investment in a new fleet will bear fruit that Delta can't quickly replicate..

Once again, history doesn't always bear that out.

Saving X on fuel costs with a new aircraft, doesn't do you any good if the acquisition cost on that aircraft is X+N.

The other advantage of a paid-off fleet is that you can draw down capacity to decrease fuel and increase RASM when your aircraft are paid off; which is why airlines like DL (and now others, such as BA) have elected to continue flying their older models until their natural cycle limit.

Varsity1 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

KTPAFlyer wrote:

DL runs the best operation, but it is a very conservative company and they literally take no risks in terms of routes (at least not until someone else has).

What on earth are you talking about?

DL has tried its hand at so many unusual/atypical routes, on all 6 inhabited continents, over recent years-- that people on this forum started referring to the map as "Delta's dartboard."

Many routes didn't work out, but some did. Regardless, I certainly don't recall UA trying the likes of:
Chennai, India
Manaus, Brazil
Pisa, Italy
Monrovia, Liberia
Fukuoka, Japan
Abuja, Nigeria
Bucharest, Romania
Ilha do Sal, Cape Verde
Cape Town, South Africa
etc etc etc

Varsity1 wrote:

Delta's profitability is built on low oil prices.
If they spike again, the CASM on those MD-80's is going through the roof.

Except that history doesn't bear that theory out:
DL had operation profits in both 2007 and 2008, despite those being the two worst years for fuel prices. And they had more M88s flying then than they do now, so.......

Holding your head above water doesn't mean anything. We're talking about being the best here. If oil prices go up, AA's investment in a new fleet will bear fruit that Delta can't quickly replicate..

AND if the oil goes up and travel goes down, that's a lot of lease payments on empty birds

CONTACREW wrote:

OA940 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

With what aircraft? DL doesn't have many available planes, and they're using the 359 for 744 replacement, and neither DL nor AA even have long haul out of SFO, so why would they start off with a route that would cause overcapacity, and would require a large part of the fleet that can do this route? And from LAX DL is the only one that could make it without colossal restrictions and, again, they are already using every aircraft that could fly this route. And FYI UA's LAX-SIN is doomed.

How is UA LAX-SIN doomed?

Considering how many seats they will be able to fill to make the route (and they will have many restrictions) it won't be quite as profitable as it could be with SQ's A350-900ULR.

1st if are an investor Seeking Alpha is fantastic. But no duh read it w a grain of salt like anything else. And the comment section allows for lots of grains.



2nd, oil prices are and will be range bound. Maybe Delta got lucky but they hit the nail on the head as far as oil goes.

Funny I've made a lot of money on Delta stock but hardly ever fly them anymore. Every time I ck they are 20-30% higher and AA and UA have stepped up their game.

I think I'll sell 50% of my shares.

OA940 wrote:

Considering how many seats they will be able to fill to make the route (and they will have many restrictions) it won't be quite as profitable as it could be with SQ's A350-900ULR.

So you believe UA's LAX-SIN is doomed and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if you are basing your assumption on the fact that SQ will use a A350-900ULR on the same route. With the launch date approaching this fall how many seats in your opinion will UA need to block in the fall, the winter, next spring and summer?
I clearly know UA will need to block some seats during part of the winter season because UA blocks anywhere from 10-20 seats on the SFO-SIN route westbound and they restrict cargo but that only last about 3-4 weeks during winter. Most other times during the year SFO-SIN can go completely fully if it is booked full. In fact a few weeks ago I had to dispel a myth someone posted stating UA's SFO-SIIN route was restricting 20-30 seats nightly a statement that was completely false.
So I am wondering in your opinion how many seats will UA need to block because all of the predictions people on this site made abut SFO-SIN-SFO have turned out to be false.

I won't go as far as some one else did and say UA is printing money on the route. But I will say what UA executives said and that is UA SFO-SIN-SFO route has exceeded expectations. I have no idea what those expectations are because I'm not a member of revenue management or an executive but I do believe that revenue management has done their homework on the LAX-SIN-LAX route, they fully understand the capabilities of UA's 789's and what it would take for this route to also meet or perhaps even exceed expectation. With that knowledge they probably would disagree with your statement that the flight is doomed. In recent years UA's has waited about 10-12 months after the launch of new a international flight to release information stating either the route has failed to meet, has met or has exceeded expectation so by this time next year we will know whether your prediction of doom is correct. The only recent exception I can think of is SFO-TVL-SFO the route was supposed to be 3x weekly but far exceeded what anyone thought was possible that UA made it daily within months of launching the service. I don't think LAX-SIN-LAX will be a runaway success that SFO-TLV is but I also don't think the route will fail either.

Almost anyone can get published on Seeking Alpha. And despite the authors publishing their stock positions I think it's likely many of the authors have undisclosed conflicts. Nothing to see here. Clearly this thread and title are here to create another DL thread for the poster.

ua900 wrote:

DL has a lot of old school UA managers who left during BK, very innovative indeed.

Not to mention the architect of Delta's post-BK NYC and greater network strategy, Glen Hauenstein, who was a longtime CO executive. The DL ranks have at least a dozen CO/UA high-ranking managers who shook out during the merger.

OA940 wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

OA940 wrote:

With what aircraft? DL doesn't have many available planes, and they're using the 359 for 744 replacement, and neither DL nor AA even have long haul out of SFO, so why would they start off with a route that would cause overcapacity, and would require a large part of the fleet that can do this route? And from LAX DL is the only one that could make it without colossal restrictions and, again, they are already using every aircraft that could fly this route. And FYI UA's LAX-SIN is doomed.

How is UA LAX-SIN doomed?

Considering how many seats they will be able to fill to make the route (and they will have many restrictions) it won't be quite as profitable as it could be with SQ's A350-900ULR.

So we've gone from 'doomed' to 'not quite as profitable'?

UA has a year of experience operating SFO-SIN and several years of multiple ULH routes with the 789, so they can rely on highly relevant, real-world performance data for their projections. Much like SFO, UA is looking for a first-mover advantage. It also has a very strong SIN franchise, which has been the case since the PA acquisition. For that entire time, UA has competed effectively against SQ, including against (what I'd argue) higher-quality versions of SQ than what the company is today, with nonstop service to LAX/EWR against no comparable UA service. There's no reason to believe UA won't continue to compete well.

KTPAFlyer wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

Have absolutely no clue why you're surprised, UA has by far the most ambitious route strategy of the US3 and second only to AC in North America. I can guarantee you will NEVER see HGH, XIY, or CTU from either DL or AA. DL will eventually be forced to start SIN at some point, who knows when that will be. DL runs the best operation, but it is a very conservative company and they literally take no risks in terms of routes (at least not until someone else has). UA is the only one operating SFO-SIN so of course they're printing money. Premium demand + No competition = Instant hit. Delta may be the best run airline, but it doesn't matter how well run your airline is if they're on your competitor's plane!

And yet is UA's 'ambitious route strategy' (I'm not sure I'd argue that subsidy chasing flights to HGH, XIY, and CTU that will be cancelled the second the subsidies run out is ambitious but I digress) translating to revenue or profit margin premiums when compared to DL? No, so does it even matter that their route strategy is 'ambitious' if it isn't paying off in a way that's incremental when compared to the competition?

DL's revenue premiums and operational capabilities frankly make UA and AA look like amateurs at present, and while that's partially the result of carrier maturity brought on by being the first to merge, there's no doubt that Delta is indeed the current winner among the US3.

As for UA's LAXSIN route, which I believe already has it's own thread that negates the need to discuss it here - I'm not sure you'll find a single industry analyst who would tell you that route is going to be a profitable one.

jfern022 wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What on earth are you talking about?

DL has tried its hand at so many unusual/atypical routes, on all 6 inhabited continents, over recent years-- that people on this forum started referring to the map as "Delta's dartboard."

Many routes didn't work out, but some did. Regardless, I certainly don't recall UA trying the likes of:
Chennai, India
Manaus, Brazil
Pisa, Italy
Monrovia, Liberia
Fukuoka, Japan
Abuja, Nigeria
Bucharest, Romania
Ilha do Sal, Cape Verde
Cape Town, South Africa
etc etc etc



Except that history doesn't bear that theory out:
DL had operation profits in both 2007 and 2008, despite those being the two worst years for fuel prices. And they had more M88s flying then than they do now, so.......

Holding your head above water doesn't mean anything. We're talking about being the best here. If oil prices go up, AA's investment in a new fleet will bear fruit that Delta can't quickly replicate..

AND if the oil goes up and travel goes down, that's a lot of lease payments on empty birds

This isn't Europe, US legacies rarely lease aircraft. DL's 717's being an exception.

jayunited wrote:

OA940 wrote:

Considering how many seats they will be able to fill to make the route (and they will have many restrictions) it won't be quite as profitable as it could be with SQ's A350-900ULR.

So you believe UA's LAX-SIN is doomed and correct me if I'm wrong but it seems as if you are basing your assumption on the fact that SQ will use a A350-900ULR on the same route. With the launch date approaching this fall how many seats in your opinion will UA need to block in the fall, the winter, next spring and summer?
I clearly know UA will need to block some seats during part of the winter season because UA blocks anywhere from 10-20 seats on the SFO-SIN route westbound and they restrict cargo but that only last about 3-4 weeks during winter. Most other times during the year SFO-SIN can go completely fully if it is booked full. In fact a few weeks ago I had to dispel a myth someone posted stating UA's SFO-SIIN route was restricting 20-30 seats nightly a statement that was completely false.
So I am wondering in your opinion how many seats will UA need to block because all of the predictions people on this site made abut SFO-SIN-SFO have turned out to be false.

I won't go as far as some one else did and say UA is printing money on the route. But I will say what UA executives said and that is UA SFO-SIN-SFO route has exceeded expectations. I have no idea what those expectations are because I'm not a member of revenue management or an executive but I do believe that revenue management has done their homework on the LAX-SIN-LAX route, they fully understand the capabilities of UA's 789's and what it would take for this route to also meet or perhaps even exceed expectation. With that knowledge they probably would disagree with your statement that the flight is doomed. In recent years UA's has waited about 10-12 months after the launch of new a international flight to release information stating either the route has failed to meet, has met or has exceeded expectation so by this time next year we will know whether your prediction of doom is correct. The only recent exception I can think of is SFO-TVL-SFO the route was supposed to be 3x weekly but far exceeded what anyone thought was possible that UA made it daily within months of launching the service. I don't think LAX-SIN-LAX will be a runaway success that SFO-TLV is but I also don't think the route will fail either.

I'm basing my assumption on the fact that SQ will have a superior product and a plane designed for 18 hour flights, while the 789 wasn't. I'm nowhere near an expert, but I know some stuff, like everyone on the site. AFAIK LAX-SIN is 200-300 miles longer than SFO-SIN, so I think they'll have to block 10-20 seats to make it. Add to that the fact that ULH is hard to get profits on, and it doesn't look too optimistic. Trust me, I wish it can work out, but I don't think it will.

Varsity1 wrote:

US legacies rarely lease aircraft.

You might want to inform them of that, then... because they lease aircraft all the time.

If one recalls correctly, DL bought the PA Shuttle in Germany and shortly after sold off pieces of it because it was a money loser and the competition was fierce. They also inherited PA's Frankfort hub, but also abandoned it as well. The problem being that there were very few if any high yield passengers traveling to that market. PA primarily served the' back pack' crowd and that is what DL got. It wasn't until they paid a kings ransom for LHR routes that the European structure began to pay off, that and marketing alliances.

Varsity1 wrote:

This isn't Europe, US legacies rarely lease aircraft. DL's 717's being an exception.

Erm.. What? I think Allegiant is probably one of the few that actually owns most of their fleet. US legacies lease just like all the others. Carriers here usually lease around 40% of their fleet, sometimes more, sometimes less.

DL certainly has done a great job of optimizing its assets; it manages to utilize arguably the oldest fleet in industry to provide a safe network.

A downside of this, ofcourse, is not a fleet that is capable of starting long range routes. It might do well to pay attention to this as opposed to starting a street brawl with other airlines that offer these routes/services.

vadodara wrote:

DL certainly has done a great job of optimizing its assets; it manages to utilize arguably the oldest fleet in industry to provide a safe network.

A downside of this, ofcourse, is not a fleet that is capable of starting long range routes. It might do well to pay attention to this as opposed to starting a street brawl with other airlines that offer these routes/services.

I actually like that Delta is focusing more on domestic upgrades as international services continue to have more competition. Delta decision to invest in LaGuardia and LAX will prove to be a good one. Especially CS aircraft, and additional 321 on the horizon.

Varsity1 wrote:

Delta's profitability is built on low oil prices.

If they spike again, the CASM on those MD-80's is going through the roof.

Yeah and guess what, Delta owns most of their M88 fleet, along with their entire M90 fleet. They're also flying off into the sunset over the next several years. Most of Delta's older aircraft are owned rather than leased. Hell half of their leased fleet is comprised of the 717 fleet, which Delta will purchase one by one as their leases expire. With ~150 A321/737-900ERs scheduled to be delivered over the next five years, along with 75 CSeries aircraft, that's enough capacity to park the entire M88/90 fleets if oil spikes over $100 a barrel which is extremely unlikely barring a massive conflict erupting in the Middle East. Hell, even when ISIS was growing in strength oil stayed relatively low. It would have to be a challenging environment for oil just to surge above $60 a barrel.

jfern022 wrote:

AND if the oil goes up and travel goes down, that's a lot of lease payments on empty birds

That argument in favor of owning aircraft isn't based on sound economics. It's not an advantage to have to park aircraft because they aren't economical enough to fly in a challenging environment. What really matters with airlines is operating costs. Whether leased or owned, an investment is made in an aircraft, and parking it isn't a positive solution.

Besides, the major U.S. airlines have plenty of owned aircraft to park if they need to. It's not an issue.

Delta, bar none, is the best run network carrier of the big three. United has a long way to go to catch up to Delta's operational excellence; financial performance; and customer service. Delta executes well; United doesn't (and rarely ever has).

October will mark seven years since the CO merger and the fact that the flight attendants won't be integrated until eight years into the merger is just one of many examples of where United executes poorly. Because the workforce remains unintegrated, flights cancel or become delayed while crew schedulers scramble to re-crew the other subsidiary's metal. Subsequently, crews get deadheaded all over the world to replace the other subsidiary's crew or wind up getting trip guaranteed (paid to not work). Operational inefficiencies abound.

You board a Delta flight and there's an AVOD video screen equipped A/C on every mid-con or trans-con segment. You board United and you don't know if you're going to get a Direct TV A/C; an AVOD A/C; or a Private Screening to your personal device A/C...all of which is subject to whether or not the wifi is working that day.

It's a real shame (for United) that a talented pool of legacy United managers were scooped up by Delta...having been replaced by CO managers who were ultimately out of their league (and now gone). One report I heard from one of those scooped up by DL was, "Delta gets things DONE!"

Meanwhile, Delta continues to lead...with the return of complimentary meals on trans-con flights; the introduction of a true international premium economy product; and an international fleet of direct aisle access premium cabins that were re-configured well before the first UA 77W hit the property. The best thing that's happened to United is the poaching of Scott Kirby. He's still got his work cut out for him.

Delta's not ahead of the curve because they merged earlier; they're ahead of the curve because they executed much better. They are managed well. Meanwhile, United is still picking up the pieces of the wreckage that Mr. Smisek left in his wake.

As an industry enthusiast and airline investor; I place my bets on Delta for a more solid return on investment.

That's my two cents...

KTPAFlyer wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

UA is printing money on the SIN flights. It caused Singapore Air to move up their service from 2018.

c.

If UA is printing money on SIN flights, I am shocked that DL, or even AA, have not announced LAX-SIN non stop flights. I don't believe there are any restrictions in SIN like there are in China. Plus this way, DL could kill the NRT-SIN flight and basically leave NRT with next to nothing other than beach market flights and a few U.S. flights.

Have absolutely no clue why you're surprised, UA has by far the most ambitious route strategy of the US3 and second only to AC in North America. I can guarantee you will NEVER see HGH, XIY, or CTU from either DL or AA. DL will eventually be forced to start SIN at some point, who knows when that will be. DL runs the best operation, but it is a very conservative company and they literally take no risks in terms of routes (at least not until someone else has). UA is the only one operating SFO-SIN so of course they're printing money. Premium demand + No competition = Instant hit. Delta may be the best run airline, but it doesn't matter how well run your airline is if they're on your competitor's plane!

How can you say DL is a conservative carrier when you look at the fact they encroached in a market that everyone thought was owned by AS at SEA and have able to build up an impressive operation there. None of the legacies have done the likes of anything that aggresive in years.

UA has always had an impressive trans-pacific network, but their domestic offerings have been pretty mediocre until they finally started investing more in the product, adding a few new routes, and bringing more flying back to mainline. I'd argue that ua up until recently has been the most risk averse of the legacies. Very little point to point flying, withdrew from JFK which they now regret, etc.