Why hasn´t DL expanded since retiring the 747? I mean UA has expanded it´s international network since retiring the 747. Why hasn´t DL done so?

"It is exciting to be able to announce Delta's return to India from the U.S. as part of our vision to expand Delta's reach internationally," said Delta CEO Ed Bastian. "We are thankful to the president for taking real action to enforce our Open Skies trade deals, which made this new service possible. We are looking forward to providing customers in the U.S. and India with Delta's famously reliable, customer-focused service operated by the best employees in the industry."

UA857 wrote:

Why hasn´t DL expanded since retiring the 747? I mean UA has expanded it´s international network since retiring the 747. Why hasn´t DL done so?

I find this a genuinely weird question. What gives you the impression “retire 747 = expanded international flying”? A pretty weird assumption to make, I don’t quite see the correlation...

To answer why UA has expanded international flying more than DL in recent years, I’d say that the cities DL generally has hubs in are larger domestic markets while UA hubs such as EWR, IAD, ORD and SFO are more heavily tilted towards international flying.

UA857 wrote:

Why hasn´t DL expanded

What are you talking about? They've launched several routes since they got rid of those, and added capacity on existing.

Strange question, as Delta have been expanding. There must have been half a dozen new long haul routes launched since the 747 was retired.

DL is making the big bucks so it's difficult to question their decisions.
If it's working, don't fix it.

One area that can be expanded is JFK-LHR and TATL.
They're working on it with VS but I'd like to see more aggressivity from DL.
BA is a sitting duck, time to make a move.
Surely with all that BE feed coming online at MAN, VS will have to upsize both in terms of frequencies and aircraft size.

Perhaps it's time to give the friends in Toulouse a call.
Something about cheap used mammoths becoming available...

UA857 wrote:

Why hasn´t DL expanded since retiring the 747? I mean UA has expanded it´s international network since retiring the 747. Why hasn´t DL done so?

I think I get your question. UA has added new flights like SFO-SIN, SFO-PPT, SFO-DEL, EWR-CPT, etc. so it looks as if UA is expanding and DL is staying still. However, DL is expanding, but DL is focused on connecting with its partners. MSP-ICN to connect with Korean, MSP-PVG (if it comes to fruition) to connect with China Eastern, etc.

Is this what you're getting at?

don't feed the troll

Perception doesn't fit reality. A350 order have allowed expansion, as seen above.

Yes at it's gateway to Asia Detroit capacity has decreased since the retirement of the 747. As far as expansion goes there is room for a resumption of HKG service from Detroit plus additional DTW-ICN frequency. Detroit is actually the only hub that has seen a reduction of capacity since the KE/DL JV was put in place kind of odd don't you thing as Delta calls Detroit it gateway to Asia.

Waterbomber2 wrote:

DL is making the big bucks so it's difficult to question their decisions.
If it's working, don't fix it.

One area that can be expanded is JFK-LHR and TATL.
They're working on it with VS but I'd like to see more aggressivity from DL.
BA is a sitting duck, time to make a move.
Surely with all that BE feed coming online at MAN, VS will have to upsize both in terms of frequencies and aircraft size.

Perhaps it's time to give the friends in Toulouse a call.
Something about cheap used mammoths becoming available...

Yes and they should be adding DTW-MAN.

Ishrion wrote:

The return to India with Mumbai announced yesterday.
Return on SEA-KIX
Application for HND slots.
Launching MSP-ICN
Proposition for MSP-PVG
BOS-LIS
LAX-CDG/AMS

That's some good growth.

Not to Asia they haven't and SEA-KIX is actually a reduction compared to SEA-HKG and I don't expect it to stick. The HND application is not growth it's just a shifting of capacity. BOS-LIS replaces ATL-LIS with a smaller aircraft so no real growth at for every addition there is a subtraction and for the most part with a smaller gauge.

klm617 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

DL is making the big bucks so it's difficult to question their decisions.
If it's working, don't fix it.

One area that can be expanded is JFK-LHR and TATL.
They're working on it with VS but I'd like to see more aggressivity from DL.
BA is a sitting duck, time to make a move.
Surely with all that BE feed coming online at MAN, VS will have to upsize both in terms of frequencies and aircraft size.

Perhaps it's time to give the friends in Toulouse a call.
Something about cheap used mammoths becoming available...

Yes and they should be adding DTW-MAN.

Two chances that will happen, and I think you know what they are.

The days of airlines connecting the dots on the map chasing growth are over. So are the days of flying jets on underutilized missions. The US3 and DL have incredibly optimized fleets and networks. The 747 is tangential to all of it, yesterday's news. The A350/787 is what is enabling new dots to be profitably connected. UA has what no other DL or AA does not with regard to Asia, and that is SFO. That gives them an Asian advantage. DL is running a pretty close to textbook airline operation, so the reason I would suggest they fly the routes they fly is that those are the ones that earn the highest return for them.

USA-Asia expansion isn't an obvious route (pun intended) to profitability. Look at the tertiary routes UA added and then killed. The biggest plane isn't always the best plane, as the dearth of A380 and 747-8 passenger orders ought to make clear.

Northwest and United used to send 747 Classics/747SPs/747-400s from Seattle to Asia. Now Delta's SEA-Asia fleet is 332s/333s, and United doesn't serve SEA-Asia at all. I wonder why.

MIflyer12 wrote:

USA-Asia expansion isn't an obvious route (pun intended) to profitability. Look at the tertiary routes UA added and then killed. The biggest plane isn't always the best plane, as the dearth of A380 and 747-8 passenger orders ought to make clear.

For the most part, the routes UA 'killed' were secondary cities in China which were somewhat subsidized. When those ran out, they were cut. Yes, UA wasn't able to build a foothold, but that was always a possibility.

Their general UA expansion to major cities has been impressive nonetheless.

Delta has been a "match the route to the right aircraft" airline for so long that it feels like I should say "since forever" unlike other airlines that will fill planes to "match capacity of the plane." That said I can't say DL isn't growing internationally in the past two-three years.

There are more routes out of SEA. BOS has grown into an actual gateway. JFK has moved around a little but overall has more seats.
Unlike UA, DL has moved to use partners more and is less likely to use its own aircraft.
Compare a route map. DL has more out-market flights to Europe than UA and AA. its just that most of them are going to AMS and CDG. I feel a similar trend is coming to Asia where we will see more XXX-ICN flights. UA wants to push most of its traffic trough IAD/EWR or SFO. Different philosophy. Similar result.

EvanWSFO wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Waterbomber2 wrote:

DL is making the big bucks so it's difficult to question their decisions.
If it's working, don't fix it.

One area that can be expanded is JFK-LHR and TATL.
They're working on it with VS but I'd like to see more aggressivity from DL.
BA is a sitting duck, time to make a move.
Surely with all that BE feed coming online at MAN, VS will have to upsize both in terms of frequencies and aircraft size.

Perhaps it's time to give the friends in Toulouse a call.
Something about cheap used mammoths becoming available...

Yes and they should be adding DTW-MAN.

Two chances that will happen, and I think you know what they are.

Yes a VS A330 3 weekly or a Delta 757 daily.

klm617 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Yes and they should be adding DTW-MAN.

Two chances that will happen, and I think you know what they are.

Yes a VS A330 3 weekly or a Delta 757 daily.

Yeah, good luck with that.

N717TW wrote:

Delta has been a "match the route to the right aircraft" airline for so long that it feels like I should say "since forever" unlike other airlines that will fill planes to "match capacity of the plane." That said I can't say DL isn't growing internationally in the past two-three years.

There are more routes out of SEA. BOS has grown into an actual gateway. JFK has moved around a little but overall has more seats.
Unlike UA, DL has moved to use partners more and is less likely to use its own aircraft.
Compare a route map. DL has more out-market flights to Europe than UA and AA. its just that most of them are going to AMS and CDG. I feel a similar trend is coming to Asia where we will see more XXX-ICN flights. UA wants to push most of its traffic trough IAD/EWR or SFO. Different philosophy. Similar result.

So does anyone have figures for the growth of international traffic over the years at DL, UA, and AA?

klm617 wrote:

Yes at it's gateway to Asia Detroit capacity has decreased since the retirement of the 747. As far as expansion goes there is room for a resumption of HKG service from Detroit plus additional DTW-ICN frequency. Detroit is actually the only hub that has seen a reduction of capacity since the KE/DL JV was put in place kind of odd don't you thing as Delta calls Detroit it gateway to Asia.

This has been previously explained to you-

The 747 was TOO large for the markets it served- once competition expanded, and twin engined aircraft started overflying NRT. NW and DL were forced to fill those excess 747-400 seats with very low yield ethnic traffic. 50 excess seats per flight.

Please help me understand why getting rid of money losing traffic (via a capacity rationalization) is a bad thing?

Or would you rather see DL lose $50 per passenger like WOW did before they failed?

We saw where that went- Investors getting a large haircut, employees on the street, and stranded passengers.

I loved working and flying on the 747- but it's day passed for most routes in the DL route structure.

leftcoast8 wrote:

Northwest and United used to send 747 Classics/747SPs/747-400s from Seattle to Asia. Now Delta's SEA-Asia fleet is 332s/333s, and United doesn't serve SEA-Asia at all. I wonder why.

Maybe UA doesn’t serve SEA-Asia because their JV partner NH now serves SEA-Asia, along with JL, CX, SQ, MF (possibly soon discontinued), HU all starting SEA-Asia in the past several years, along with DL expanding service to Asia.

BoeingGuy wrote:

Maybe UA doesn’t serve SEA-Asia because their JV partner NH now serves SEA-Asia, along with JL, CX, SQ, MF (possibly soon discontinued), HU all starting SEA-Asia in the past several years, along with DL expanding service to Asia.

I didn't hear that Xiamen may be pulling out of Seattle. I thought they were doing really well, especially considering SZ is a huge tech cluster.

I fail to see how retiring = expansion. If anything, it would be the opposite. Retire aircraft = less routes.

beerbus wrote:

klm617 wrote:

The 747 was TOO large for the markets it served- once competition expanded, and twin engined aircraft started overflying NRT. NW and DL were forced to fill those excess 747-400 seats with very low yield ethnic traffic. 50 excess seats per flight.

What is “ethnic traffic”?

UA857 wrote:

Why hasn´t DL expanded since retiring the 747?

Why don't we start by having you provide examples of routes that do count as expansion, since ATL-PVG, MSP-ICN, SEA-KIX, LAX-CDG, LAX-AMS, BOS-DUB, BOS-EDI, BOS-LIS, IND-CDG, TPA-AMS, MCO-AMS, JFK-PDL, JFK-BOM, etc. all obviously don't count... Never mind the routes that have seen frequency increased - PDX-LHR, DTW-LHR, DTW-NGO, JFK-CDG, JFK-ATH, JFK-TLV, etc.

While DL retired 16 747-400s and 2 767-300ERs over the last few years, over a similar timeframe they added 13 A350-900s and 10 A330-300s to their long haul international fleet. I assure you those aircraft aren't sitting around doing nothing.

It's true that DL has been accepting widebody deliveries (333s, 339s, 359s) at a slower pace than AA (788s, 789s, 77Ws) or UA (788s, 789s, 78Js, 77Ws), and maybe that gets at what your real question is - why is DL expanding slower internationally than UA/AA?

Some opinions on this thread are preposterous as they often are with DL threads. DL's Asia "gateway" is SEA and/or ICN, not DTW. UA didn't replace 744 with 789, but with 77W and lots of capacity shifting around in a Asia market fraught with ruinous competition.

questions wrote:

beerbus wrote:

The 747 was TOO large for the markets it served- once competition expanded, and twin engined aircraft started overflying NRT. NW and DL were forced to fill those excess 747-400 seats with very low yield ethnic traffic. 50 excess seats per flight.

What is “ethnic traffic”?

I always understand that to mean expat or immigrant individuals/families who travel back to their country of origin to visit relatives every year or two (in other words, VFR traffic). Usually these types of trips are more flexible than business travel, and people tend to hunt for bargains.

questions wrote:

What is “ethnic traffic”?

Basically VFR but even more focused on recent immigrants returning home to visit family & friends. At least to East Asia, there was/is a long-standing reliance on consolidators in ethnic neighborhoods (i.e. Chinatown, Koreatown, Vietnamtown, etc.) to fill seats at relatively low yields. And there's often a higher willingness to accept circuitous routings or extremely long layovers on connections (a coworker of mine will do this).

Waterbomber2 wrote:

Surely with all that BE feed coming online at MAN, VS will have to upsize both in terms of frequencies and aircraft size.

Perhaps it's time to give the friends in Toulouse a call.
Something about cheap used mammoths becoming available...

VS doesn't make a profit filling the fleet it has already and you think they should dump more seats on the market? LOL.

Swadian wrote:

Some opinions on this thread are preposterous as they often are with DL threads. DL's Asia "gateway" is SEA and/or ICN, not DTW.

How is that preposterous? DTW is very much a DL gateway to Asia. SEA handles West Coast traffic, and DTW handles Midwest/East Coast traffic to Asia.

FlyRow wrote:

don't feed the troll

I think, given his extensive post history, this particular poster isn't exactly a troll but just very misinformed when it comes to many things aviation and not very skilled when it comes to using Google.

beerbus wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Yes at it's gateway to Asia Detroit capacity has decreased since the retirement of the 747. As far as expansion goes there is room for a resumption of HKG service from Detroit plus additional DTW-ICN frequency. Detroit is actually the only hub that has seen a reduction of capacity since the KE/DL JV was put in place kind of odd don't you thing as Delta calls Detroit it gateway to Asia.

This has been previously explained to you-

The 747 was TOO large for the markets it served- once competition expanded, and twin engined aircraft started overflying NRT. NW and DL were forced to fill those excess 747-400 seats with very low yield ethnic traffic. 50 excess seats per flight.

Please help me understand why getting rid of money losing traffic (via a capacity rationalization) is a bad thing?

Or would you rather see DL lose $50 per passenger like WOW did before they failed?

We saw where that went- Investors getting a large haircut, employees on the street, and stranded passengers.

I loved working and flying on the 747- but it's day passed for most routes in the DL route structure.

First of all you are a Delta employee spreading the Delta mind set and way of doing things. Yes that's why at 23 PDEW MSP-ICN is viable. When you can be objective and see the issue from all sides then I will listen. You are well informed on what will not work but I challenge you to tell me what routes out of Detroit are viable that are not being served an none is not an acceptable answer. You need to use the metric that Delta uses like adding a route with less than 35 PDEW. With the success of DTW-KEF when can we expect that to come on line with Delta because at 80% during the summer that should be a no brainer.

The reasons are two fold:

1. Delta doesn’t have the aircraft for international expansion (not having the 787 hurts in this regard). Tiny widebody fleet, A350 too large for long thin routes, only 18 777s, ton of old 767s and a ton of A330s.

2. Delta strategy is to have most intl flying done by their JV partners. This is why most of the “expansion” has been more routes to AMS/CDG for the AF-KLM JV or to ICN for the KE JV. This is also one of the reasons Delta doesn’t have the proper aircraft for international growth, and why they keep getting 330neos - because they need to fly you to a JV hub and the partner will take you from there, and this is the only aircraft they need.

B737Driver wrote:

The reasons are two fold:

1. Delta doesn’t have the aircraft for international expansion (not having the 787 hurts in this regard).

In other words, DL hasn't expanded (to a.net's liking) because it doesn't have 787. Despite the fact that the 787-9 is comparable to the 359 that DL just deferred. And the 787-8 is a niche aircraft limited in number within AA and UA's fleet -- heck, AA's 787-8 are currently spending as much time on domestic services as international....

Tiny widebody fleet, A350 too large for long thin routes, only 18 777s, ton of old 767s and a ton of A330s.

Per airfleets.com:
DL has 151 active widebodies, including one domestic configured 763.
AA has 155 active widebodies, including 22 B763 which operate almost exclusively within North America.
UA has 188 active widebodies, including 19 domestic-configured B777 which operate almost exclusively domestically.

The size of DL's widebody fleet is compeitive and hardly "tiny."

compensateme wrote:

B737Driver wrote:

The reasons are two fold:

1. Delta doesn’t have the aircraft for international expansion (not having the 787 hurts in this regard).

In other words, DL hasn't expanded (to a.net's liking) because it doesn't have 787. Despite the fact that the 787-9 is comparable to the 359 that DL just deferred. And the 787-8 is a niche aircraft limited in number within AA and UA's fleet -- heck, AA's 787-8 are currently spending as much time on domestic services as international....

Tiny widebody fleet, A350 too large for long thin routes, only 18 777s, ton of old 767s and a ton of A330s.

Per airfleets.com:
DL has 151 active widebodies, including one domestic configured 763.
AA has 155 active widebodies, including 22 B763 which operate almost exclusively within North America.
UA has 188 active widebodies, including 19 domestic-configured B777 which operate almost exclusively domestically.

The size of DL's widebody fleet is compeitive and hardly "tiny."

Not to mention, AA’s 767 fleet will not be around for much longer.

UA857 wrote:

Why hasn´t DL expanded since retiring the 747? I mean UA has expanded it´s international network since retiring the 747. Why hasn´t DL done so?

I wholeheartedly agree with you. For any airline to be considered a serious global contender, the measure of success is 100% based on the size of a Boeing-only widebody fleet.

Since Delta went with an Airbus widebody fleet, A330s and A350s, it's clear they have given up on competing internationally. Airbus widebodies are for airlines that don't want to compete on a global scale. Clearly, DL should have purchased Boeing widebodies, like a fleet of hundreds of 747-8s, if they want to be taken seriously again.

UA, with its Boeing only widebody fleet, will definitely outcompete DL in Asia, South America, Europe, Africa, Australia, and even in Antarctica.

[/sarcasm]

UA857 wrote:

Why hasn´t DL expanded since retiring the 747? I mean UA has expanded it´s international network since retiring the 747. Why hasn´t DL done so?

I think you need to be more specific with your question. DL has expanded capacity, both domestic and international, every single year since 2013.

Swadian wrote:

Some opinions on this thread are preposterous as they often are with DL threads. DL's Asia "gateway" is SEA and/or ICN, not DTW. UA didn't replace 744 with 789, but with 77W and lots of capacity shifting around in a Asia market fraught with ruinous competition.

And in the face of facts, opinions are irrelevant, like your opinion that DL's Asia gateway is SEA. The numbers confirm that it's DTW based on the primary metrics, and it isn't even close:

Capacity (Flights, Seats) between the Continental United States and Asia, Delta, Year Ending May 2019:

DTW: 3,336 Flights || 985K Seats
SEA: 3,202 Flights || 708K Seats
ATL: 2,002 Flights || 593K Seats
LAX: 1,408 Flights || 421K Seats
MSP: 842 Flights || 245K Seats

klm617 wrote:

You are well informed on what will not work but I challenge you to tell me what routes out of Detroit are viable that are not being served an none is not an acceptable answer. You need to use the metric that Delta uses like adding a route with less than 35 PDEW. With the success of DTW-KEF when can we expect that to come on line with Delta because at 80% during the summer that should be a no brainer.

This is not the DTW thread. Do not try and turn it into one. The question is why Delta hasn't expanded since the 747's retirement. Delta has expanded since the 747's retirement.

Ishrion wrote:

The return to India with Mumbai announced yesterday.
Return on SEA-KIX
Application for HND slots.
Launching MSP-ICN
Proposition for MSP-PVG
BOS-LIS
LAX-CDG/AMS

That's some good growth.

Don't forget IND-CDG (mind you PIT was dropped) and TPA-AMS.

B737Driver wrote:

Delta strategy is to have most intl flying done by their JV partners. This is why most of the “expansion” has been more routes to AMS/CDG for the AF-KLM JV or to ICN for the KE JV. This is also one of the reasons Delta doesn’t have the proper aircraft for international growth, and why they keep getting 330neos - because they need to fly you to a JV hub and the partner will take you from there, and this is the only aircraft they need.

I wish people would stop perpetuating that stupid myth...

Delta metal flies to more destinations in Europe than either UA or AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in South America than UA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Asia than AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Africa than either UA or AA metal.

Really the only two regions where DL is beaten by both AA and UA are Mexico (DL doesn't have a DFW or a IAH, so they don't fly their own metal to as many Mexican destinations - note that they do serve Mexico from far more U.S. gateways than either UA or AA), and Oceania.

There are intercontinental flights on Delta metal from 15 U.S. gateways (more U.S. gateways than AF, KL, or KE). The next closest U.S. carrier is AA with 9.

So yeah, Delta does plenty of their own international flying.

Asia - both East and South - has been very, very saturated with low-cost capacity over the timeframe since Delta parked the 747s. Market liberalization in Asia is much newer than it is in the U.S. The NW 744s were king of the fleet before the 1997 Japan bilateral revision, and before the boom in capacity coming out of China. I think the TPAC market will mature and some of the ultra low-fare capacity will go away. But now is just not the time to be launching SEA-SIN or other such routes. And its not just Delta. As others have said, everyone has been pretty conservative with new lift across the Pacific. AA has added some because it was way behind, but it also pulled most of ORD-Asia down, and I bet it is bleeding money on some of its LAX routes.

FSDan wrote:

B737Driver wrote:

Delta strategy is to have most intl flying done by their JV partners. This is why most of the “expansion” has been more routes to AMS/CDG for the AF-KLM JV or to ICN for the KE JV. This is also one of the reasons Delta doesn’t have the proper aircraft for international growth, and why they keep getting 330neos - because they need to fly you to a JV hub and the partner will take you from there, and this is the only aircraft they need.

I wish people would stop perpetuating that stupid myth...

Delta metal flies to more destinations in Europe than either UA or AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in South America than UA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Asia than AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Africa than either UA or AA metal.

Really the only two regions where DL is beaten by both AA and UA are Mexico (DL doesn't have a DFW or a IAH, so they don't fly their own metal to as many Mexican destinations - note that they do serve Mexico from far more U.S. gateways than either UA or AA), and Oceania.

There are intercontinental flights on Delta metal from 15 U.S. gateways (more U.S. gateways than AF, KL, or KE). The next closest U.S. carrier is AA with 9.

So yeah, Delta does plenty of their own international flying.

I wouldn't attempt to defeat a myth with the spin of "destinations". The reason that myth exists is because it's generally true. DL has a high proportion of their Atlantic flights to their JV hubs (over half - still almost half if we exclude the special situation that is London). The same shift to a JV hub and ST partners is occurring in the Pacific (ICN and PVG are controlling the TPAC capacity). Destinations doesn't disprove the myth. Until DL makes a massive change to their international network, the myth will remain because it's rooted in reality.

Let's take a look at the situation TATL. DL has the smallest widebody fleet of the big 3 as mentioned above. It's also skewed towards smaller widebodies. Even in the peak summer schedule, DL flies more than 2 flights a day to just 3 non-JV hubs (FRA and DUB with just 3 and FCO - possibly soon a JV hub - with 4). And if capacity is king, it's skewed even more, as the A330 and 777 has a heavy presence in the JV hubs, with only a handful of A330 flights outside of them. The 757 and 767 dominates the non-JV airports. Mathematically it's not inaccurate to say that DL relies on their JV partners to do their international flying. DL is either flowing traffic over their JV hubs, or they are replacing a partner for the same purpose (don't forget DL has contractually has to fly X amount of capacity, a limit they've breached consistently over the years). Of course UA and AA also use partners heavily, but we don't see the skewing towards one or two JV hubs for the purpose of flowing traffic over them. UA generally has just 1 or 2 flights from their hub to their JV hub. And in those cases, the JV partner usually offers the majority capacity. That's not what we see with DL. And it for sure has to affect DL's aircraft selection--much of it low to medium capacity, short to medium range. There's nothing "wrong" with it, but why is it hard to own what you are? Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative?

klm617 wrote:

First of all you are a Delta employee spreading the Delta mind set and way of doing things. Yes that's why at 23 PDEW MSP-ICN is viable. When you can be objective and see the issue from all sides then I will listen. You are well informed on what will not work but I challenge you to tell me what routes out of Detroit are viable that are not being served an none is not an acceptable answer. You need to use the metric that Delta uses like adding a route with less than 35 PDEW. With the success of DTW-KEF when can we expect that to come on line with Delta because at 80% during the summer that should be a no brainer.

1. I am not a DL employee. I did work for NW for 17 years and was closely involved in the marketing and sales of NW flights, INCLUDING flights originating from DTW. And I am not "spreading" the DL way of doing things. I am suggesting a money making/long-term way of route planning. The way intellegenty managed airlines operate- not the way WW ran itself into the ground.

2. PDEW from an originating hubs like MSP or DTW are not the sole factor to operate a TPAC or TATL flight from a hub. It is the CONNECTING traffic! 23 PDEW MSP-ICN doesn't make the route viable. The connections from MSN MKE RST GRB IND FAR LSE, etc make the route viable.

When route planners examine the potential of any new flight, they look at the PDEW from all connective city pairs serving the hub. They also examine the mix of passenger yields. High yield pax are better. Ethnic consolidator traffic is less so.

That is why the 747 was not an optimal aircraft for either NW in the 2000's or DL post-merger. It had too many seats that were filled by low yield passengers.

I respectfully suggest you focus on international city pairs offering considerable high yield business and relatively higher yielding leisure traffic as possible destinations. That is how any well run airline decides to add a new market. ( use the DTW MUC flight as an example). An 80% LF DTW KEF is meaningless if it doesn't generate a respectable return on capital. And stop quoting the PDEW from a DL hub as a rationale for additional service. It is only one of many deciding metrics.

You asked my opinion of possible new international markets for DL. A market like DUS could possibly work from DTW or MSP with the A321 LR for example. DUS has good J class demand from cities that connect over DTW, and enough seasonal vacation traffic create viability on a daily basis in the summer like the MUC flight. (I am assuming the A321 LR has the range) The 747 is way too big.

MSPNWA wrote:

FSDan wrote:

B737Driver wrote:

Delta strategy is to have most intl flying done by their JV partners. This is why most of the “expansion” has been more routes to AMS/CDG for the AF-KLM JV or to ICN for the KE JV. This is also one of the reasons Delta doesn’t have the proper aircraft for international growth, and why they keep getting 330neos - because they need to fly you to a JV hub and the partner will take you from there, and this is the only aircraft they need.

I wish people would stop perpetuating that stupid myth...

Delta metal flies to more destinations in Europe than either UA or AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in South America than UA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Asia than AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Africa than either UA or AA metal.

Really the only two regions where DL is beaten by both AA and UA are Mexico (DL doesn't have a DFW or a IAH, so they don't fly their own metal to as many Mexican destinations - note that they do serve Mexico from far more U.S. gateways than either UA or AA), and Oceania.

There are intercontinental flights on Delta metal from 15 U.S. gateways (more U.S. gateways than AF, KL, or KE). The next closest U.S. carrier is AA with 9.

So yeah, Delta does plenty of their own international flying.

I wouldn't attempt to defeat a myth with the spin of "destinations". The reason that myth exists is because it's generally true. DL has a high proportion of their Atlantic flights to their JV hubs (over half - still almost half if we exclude the special situation that is London). The same shift to a JV hub and ST partners is occurring in the Pacific (ICN and PVG are controlling the TPAC capacity). Destinations doesn't disprove the myth. Until DL makes a massive change to their international network, the myth will remain because it's rooted in reality.

Let's take a look at the situation TATL. DL has the smallest widebody fleet of the big 3 as mentioned above. It's also skewed towards smaller widebodies. Even in the peak summer schedule, DL flies more than 2 flights a day to just 3 non-JV hubs (FRA and DUB with just 3 and FCO - possibly soon a JV hub - with 4). And if capacity is king, it's skewed even more, as the A330 and 777 has a heavy presence in the JV hubs, with only a handful of A330 flights outside of them. The 757 and 767 dominates the non-JV airports. Mathematically it's not inaccurate to say that DL relies on their JV partners to do their international flying. DL is either flowing traffic over their JV hubs, or they are replacing a partner for the same purpose (don't forget DL has contractually has to fly X amount of capacity, a limit they've breached consistently over the years). Of course UA and AA also use partners heavily, but we don't see the skewing towards one or two JV hubs for the purpose of flowing traffic over them. UA generally has just 1 or 2 flights from their hub to their JV hub. And in those cases, the JV partner usually offers the majority capacity. That's not what we see with DL. And it for sure has to affect DL's aircraft selection--much of it low to medium capacity, short to medium range. There's nothing "wrong" with it, but why is it hard to own what you are? Is it because it doesn't fit the narrative?

Special situation that is London?

MSPNWA wrote:

FSDan wrote:

B737Driver wrote:

Delta strategy is to have most intl flying done by their JV partners. This is why most of the “expansion” has been more routes to AMS/CDG for the AF-KLM JV or to ICN for the KE JV. This is also one of the reasons Delta doesn’t have the proper aircraft for international growth, and why they keep getting 330neos - because they need to fly you to a JV hub and the partner will take you from there, and this is the only aircraft they need.

I wish people would stop perpetuating that stupid myth...

Delta metal flies to more destinations in Europe than either UA or AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in South America than UA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Asia than AA metal.
Delta metal flies to more destinations in Africa than either UA or AA metal.

Really the only two regions where DL is beaten by both AA and UA are Mexico (DL doesn't have a DFW or a IAH, so they don't fly their own metal to as many Mexican destinations - note that they do serve Mexico from far more U.S. gateways than either UA or AA), and Oceania.

There are intercontinental flights on Delta metal from 15 U.S. gateways (more U.S. gateways than AF, KL, or KE). The next closest U.S. carrier is AA with 9.

So yeah, Delta does plenty of their own international flying.

I wouldn't attempt to defeat a myth with the spin of "destinations". The reason that myth exists is because it's generally true. DL has a high proportion of their Atlantic flights to their JV hubs (over half - still almost half if we exclude the special situation that is London). The same shift to a JV hub and ST partners is occurring in the Pacific (ICN and PVG are controlling the TPAC capacity). Destinations doesn't disprove the myth. Until DL makes a massive change to their international network, the myth will remain because it's rooted in reality.

If you read again, you'll notice that the poster I was replying to actually stated that DL lets their partners do most of the international flying for them. That's very far from the truth. Number of destinations served with own metal absolutely is a valid metric to look at - if a given airline relied mostly on partners to do their international flying, they'd invariably end up serving fewer destinations with their own aircraft. Yes, DL sends lots of capacity through their partners' hubs (as do AA and UA), but that's far from the whole picture like some people here want to make it out to be.

MSPNWA wrote:

Let's take a look at the situation TATL. DL has the smallest widebody fleet of the big 3 as mentioned above. It's also skewed towards smaller widebodies. Even in the peak summer schedule, DL flies more than 2 flights a day to just 3 non-JV hubs (FRA and DUB with just 3 and FCO - possibly soon a JV hub - with 4).

On the other hand, DL connects more non-JV European airports to 2+ hubs than either UA or AA.

Regardless of the JV argument, revenue growth (declines) don't support the OP's assertion:


2018 / 2014

UA:
Domestic - 25,552 / 22,230
Atlantic - 7,103 / 7,321
Pacific - 5,188 / 5,767
Latin America - 3,460 / 3,493
Total - 41,303 / 38,901

DL:
Domestic - 28,159 / 23,283
Atlantic - 6,165 / 5,826
Pacific - 2,543 / 3,421
Latin America - 2,888 / 2,424
Total - 39,755 / 34,954

AA:
Domestic - 29,573 / 28,568
Atlantic - 4,376 / 5,652
Pacific - 1,602 / 1,466
Latin America - 5,125 / 6,964
Total - 40,676 / 42,650

Ultimately, I'd argue that DL smartly focused primarily on the domestic system...

I would call it flat, below is wide bodies only, 1.2% increase is seats over 5 years.

Year 744 772 A359 A332 A332 764 763ER Seats
2014 16 18 0 21 11 21 58 37791
2015 14 18 0 25 11 21 58 38211
2016 9 18 0 29 11 21 58 37503
2017 7 18 0 31 11 21 58 37337
2018 0 18 11 31 11 21 56 37635
2019 0 18 13 31 11 21 56 38247