airportugal310 wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

max999 wrote:

I think it's great that DL lowered the price of F and is selling more of those seats. Instead of listening to the Flyertalk crowd who think free upgrades are a god given right.

It cuts both ways. As someone who has spent ~$300K (of my company's money) on DL in the last few years, the devaluation of their FF benefits (i.e. upgrades, diminishing mileage value, etc.) over the last decade has made me less loyal. I still prefer DL, but now I just fly whoever is fastest and cheapest. I've prob moved 20-25% of my flying to other airlines. I've also gotten rid of the DL AMEX in favor of an airline agnostic rewards card.

DL seems to be leading the race to devalue FF benefits in the U.S. From a business perspective, I guess I can't blame them. Dollar for dollar, they likely make more money from all the ancillary revenue that peeps with no status bring (i.e. bag fees, FCM, C+, seat assignments, etc.). Time will tell whether watering down FF programs is a good move or not, but results like this make it look like it's working for them.

Agreed on the DL AMEX...It’s basically a garbage card of mine now that I have the Chase Sapphire Reserve.

It depends how you look at and use the cards. I have an Amex Plat card, but I also have a DL Reserve card. The MQM boosts help me ensure I maintain my DL status. I often have to travel with large equipment cases and the (3) free 70lb bags is a big saver. I always make good use of the buy one get one free first class ticket that you get with the Reserve Card. I put about a $500-1000 value on that.

All of the airlines will continue to devalue benefits as long as they are making money. We will see if things change if the economy tanks. The airlines have never had it this good.

RDUDDJI wrote:

max999 wrote:

dcaproducer wrote:

DL seems to be leading the race to devalue FF benefits in the U.S. From a business perspective, I guess I can't blame them. Dollar for dollar, they likely make more money from all the ancillary revenue that peeps with no status bring (i.e. bag fees, FCM, C+, seat assignments, etc.). Time will tell whether watering down FF programs is a good move or not, but results like this make it look like it's working for them.

It probably depends on what you want out of your FF benefits. For example, I'm an occasional flyer with no status on DL or anyone. Most of my work travel is with AA since I'm DC-based, but I typically fly home to MSP on DL 1-2x's a year to see friends/family. I have the DL Gold Amex - mainly for the free bags and the SkyClub Access (which is going away, Grrr). In short, I don't accumulate a lot of Sky Miles. But I just booked a round-trip flight to Denver for a ski trip this winter. Since I had the Amex card, I was able to pay for over half the trip with miles and sit in comfort first for 2 segments and First for 2. For me, that's a pretty solid value. But as I said, it all depends on who you are and what you want.

In separate questions on the call, an exec (I didn't identify the name) addressed growth in MIA and BOS:

MIA - 'a little bit, 'selective adds', building feed like they do in Chicago (and other major non-hub cities)

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

MIflyer12 wrote:

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

BOS led all hubs in Q3 for revenue growth (up 24%) with margins up 5 points. Coastal hubs had 10% revenue growth while core hubs grew 6%.

MIflyer12 wrote:

In separate questions on the call, an exec (I didn't identify the name) addressed growth in MIA and BOS:

MIA - 'a little bit, 'selective adds', building feed like they do in Chicago (and other major non-hub cities)

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

Delta sure likes interesting ways to measure things.
Now it’s the leading carrier in revenue.

So Boston’s global airline of choice where we don’t have to be the biggest just most love and the revenue leader.

Sometimes I get the vibe that they have a major complex over there and I don’t understand why they are obviously doing well, and are really good at talking themselves up.

Wouldn’t being Boston’s most profitable airline be better?

This seems like hey we won the popular vote....yay good for you but you need to win the electoral college.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/C ... cd9d2c.pdf

Here is the SEC as I didn't see it posted.

Bluewho wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

In separate questions on the call, an exec (I didn't identify the name) addressed growth in MIA and BOS:

MIA - 'a little bit, 'selective adds', building feed like they do in Chicago (and other major non-hub cities)

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

Delta sure likes interesting ways to measure things.
Now it’s the leading carrier in revenue.

So Boston’s global airline of choice where we don’t have to be the biggest just most love and the revenue leader.

Sometimes I get the vibe that they have a major complex over there and I don’t understand why they are obviously doing well, and are really good at talking themselves up.

Wouldn’t being Boston’s most profitable airline be better?

This seems like hey we won the popular vote....yay good for you but you need to win the electoral college.

Huh? Most revenue is not an unusual metric for companies (not just airlines) to measure against the competition. DL is very good at marketing, which every successful company tends to prioritize within its operational goals. It's not DL's fault that they are masterful marketers, maybe the other airlines need to step up.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

Bluewho wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

In separate questions on the call, an exec (I didn't identify the name) addressed growth in MIA and BOS:

MIA - 'a little bit, 'selective adds', building feed like they do in Chicago (and other major non-hub cities)

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

Delta sure likes interesting ways to measure things.
Now it’s the leading carrier in revenue.

So Boston’s global airline of choice where we don’t have to be the biggest just most love and the revenue leader.

Sometimes I get the vibe that they have a major complex over there and I don’t understand why they are obviously doing well, and are really good at talking themselves up.

Wouldn’t being Boston’s most profitable airline be better?

This seems like hey we won the popular vote....yay good for you but you need to win the electoral college.

Huh? Most revenue is not an unusual metric for companies (not just airlines) to measure against the competition. DL is very good at marketing, which every successful company tends to prioritize within its operational goals. It's not DL's fault that they are masterful marketers, maybe the other airlines need to step up.

Jeremy

Right? If you were a Boston passenger, not sure you want your airline bragging about how much money they are making off of you (profit). Revenue is a very standard metric.

Also, DL is basically winning in profitability (overall, DL isn't going to give away its profitability information so its competitors can chip away at it). They are doing well because they know what they are doing.

ScottB wrote:

With the large order for A339s and the expanded order of A350s (including the LATAM aircraft) I'm not sure there's a need for the 787 at DL. That said, having 787s in the fleet would certainly keep Airbus's pencils very, very sharp when negotiating future orders, although Delta's willingness to operate a diverse fleet (supported by TechOps) may get them most of the way there anyway.

There could be an opening for snatching up a bunch of frames that now won't have Russian flags on the tails ...

SESGDL wrote:

Bluewho wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

In separate questions on the call, an exec (I didn't identify the name) addressed growth in MIA and BOS:

MIA - 'a little bit, 'selective adds', building feed like they do in Chicago (and other major non-hub cities)

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

Delta sure likes interesting ways to measure things.
Now it’s the leading carrier in revenue.

So Boston’s global airline of choice where we don’t have to be the biggest just most love and the revenue leader.

Sometimes I get the vibe that they have a major complex over there and I don’t understand why they are obviously doing well, and are really good at talking themselves up.

Wouldn’t being Boston’s most profitable airline be better?

This seems like hey we won the popular vote....yay good for you but you need to win the electoral college.

Huh? Most revenue is not an unusual metric for companies (not just airlines) to measure against the competition. DL is very good at marketing, which every successful company tends to prioritize within its operational goals. It's not DL's fault that they are masterful marketers, maybe the other airlines need to step up.

Jeremy

I never said it was their fault I just find it interesting.
Back to the one quote I think from their president on Boston a few months back where it was we don’t have to be the biggest airline in Boston just the most loved (not an exact quote) Head down to LGA and it’s a different story NYs largest airline.

I totally agree whoever does PR there is great at it. I just think the little caveats are fascinating. What if you are the top revenue leader with the least profit?
What would Wall St think?

Again not an attack on Delta I wish JetBlue would learn from their PR machine.

panamair wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

BOS led all hubs in Q3 for revenue growth (up 24%) with margins up 5 points. Coastal hubs had 10% revenue growth while core hubs grew 6%.

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals. Their domestic market share is at most 2/3 of B6 at this point. And based on the Q2 yields I have seen, their pricing power has improved only marginally vs 2 years ago. Half of the margin improvements is due to lower fuel prices and the other half is just a general improvement in Boston yield environment vs a year ago (because domestic capacity in Boston dropped vs a year ago due to MAX issues).

Neither of which are necessarily sustainable going forward given that their CASM-ex is going up 4 to 5%, fuel prices are not going to be down 15% vs a year ago in Q4 and BOS will be seeing a lot more capacity increase in Q4/Q1.

jbs2886 wrote:

Right? If you were a Boston passenger, not sure you want your airline bragging about how much money they are making off of you (profit). Revenue is a very standard metric.

Also, DL is basically winning in profitability (overall, DL isn't going to give away its profitability information so its competitors can chip away at it). They are doing well because they know what they are doing.

Well, they can't use ASM, which would be the normal metric so they use a metric that would include their JV flying.

This stuff isn't really PR in the purest sense, the comments on the earnings call aren't necessarily intended for customers and the vast majority don't give any concern to the financial performance of the airlines.

The comments and responses are carefully chosen and worded to give enough information to investors and analysts yet also be somewhat vague and opaque in terms of signalling their intentions to the competition.
Airlines never give out too specific of proprietary financial or operational information.

OneX123 wrote:

AEROFAN wrote:

apodino wrote:

Not really. A lot of the Northwest managers were put on the street and are now working for American. The results speak for themselves.

I can totally understand this. I just flew AA and QR in business. AA's business was one of the worse business class that I have ever experienced and that's saying a lot since I have flown TAP's as well. If former Northwest's managers have resulted in a business class offering that was little better than a premium economy, then I can understand why DAL is experiencing such positive numbers.

Care to expand? I also flew AA business GRU-JFK in a 777-300. Very nice product. 1-2-1, fully lie flat, all seats facing forward. Great food, happy staff, on-time arrival and departure.

Maybe you got a poor aircraft and that's too bad. I've sat in the back of enough DL MD88's to know that sometimes there are differences in onboard product.

Perhaps I shoud write a trip report...
Let's just say:
Crappy aircraft:777-200 which has seen better days
Crappy seat: Rear and front facing layout- which is just darn stupid
Horrible, tasteless food
Badly turned out crew
Poor service from most of crew - only one provided a semblance of service
Very good to Excellent IFE
Mediocre to poor lounges

Duplicate post *delete*

tphuang wrote:

panamair wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

BOS - going well, 'We'll be the leading carrier by revenue in BOS in 2020'

BOS led all hubs in Q3 for revenue growth (up 24%) with margins up 5 points. Coastal hubs had 10% revenue growth while core hubs grew 6%.

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals. Their domestic market share is at most 2/3 of B6 at this point. And based on the Q2 yields I have seen, their pricing power has improved only marginally vs 2 years ago. Half of the margin improvements is due to lower fuel prices and the other half is just a general improvement in Boston yield environment vs a year ago (because domestic capacity in Boston dropped vs a year ago due to MAX issues).

Neither of which are necessarily sustainable going forward given that their CASM-ex is going up 4 to 5%, fuel prices are not going to be down 15% vs a year ago in Q4 and BOS will be seeing a lot more capacity increase in Q4/Q1.

jbs2886 wrote:

Right? If you were a Boston passenger, not sure you want your airline bragging about how much money they are making off of you (profit). Revenue is a very standard metric.

Also, DL is basically winning in profitability (overall, DL isn't going to give away its profitability information so its competitors can chip away at it). They are doing well because they know what they are doing.

Well, they can't use ASM, which would be the normal metric so they use a metric that would include their JV flying.

That’s what I am trying to figure out. It must be with the JVs just like all of the Delta departures (include JVs)

Bluewho wrote:

tphuang wrote:

panamair wrote:

BOS led all hubs in Q3 for revenue growth (up 24%) with margins up 5 points. Coastal hubs had 10% revenue growth while core hubs grew 6%.

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals. Their domestic market share is at most 2/3 of B6 at this point. And based on the Q2 yields I have seen, their pricing power has improved only marginally vs 2 years ago. Half of the margin improvements is due to lower fuel prices and the other half is just a general improvement in Boston yield environment vs a year ago (because domestic capacity in Boston dropped vs a year ago due to MAX issues).

Neither of which are necessarily sustainable going forward given that their CASM-ex is going up 4 to 5%, fuel prices are not going to be down 15% vs a year ago in Q4 and BOS will be seeing a lot more capacity increase in Q4/Q1.

jbs2886 wrote:

Right? If you were a Boston passenger, not sure you want your airline bragging about how much money they are making off of you (profit). Revenue is a very standard metric.

Also, DL is basically winning in profitability (overall, DL isn't going to give away its profitability information so its competitors can chip away at it). They are doing well because they know what they are doing.

Well, they can't use ASM, which would be the normal metric so they use a metric that would include their JV flying.

That’s what I am trying to figure out. It must be with the JVs just like all of the Delta departures (include JVs)

DL also declared they were largest in revenue in Seattle a little while back back. BOS and SEA Delta build-ups have been quite similar come to think of it.

Its hard to imagine how much further Delta can climb. Its almost impossible to conceive how well they are doing.

I think the most impressive thing for DL is that they deliver very strong numbers even though they've spent the past few years building up brand new hubs (SEA/BOS) which will normally erode your margins.

Consider that UA and AA will both deliver good numbers too (UA better than AA at this point), but neither has been building hubs from scratch.

tphuang wrote:

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals. Their domestic market share is at most 2/3 of B6 at this point. And based on the Q2 yields I have seen, their pricing power has improved only marginally vs 2 years ago. Half of the margin improvements is due to lower fuel prices and the other half is just a general improvement in Boston yield environment vs a year ago (because domestic capacity in Boston dropped vs a year ago due to MAX issues).

Neither of which are necessarily sustainable going forward given that their CASM-ex is going up 4 to 5%, fuel prices are not going to be down 15% vs a year ago in Q4 and BOS will be seeing a lot more capacity increase in Q4/Q1.

I think DL is making more money in BOS than you might think

jbs2886 wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

Bluewho wrote:

Delta sure likes interesting ways to measure things.
Now it’s the leading carrier in revenue.

So Boston’s global airline of choice where we don’t have to be the biggest just most love and the revenue leader.

Sometimes I get the vibe that they have a major complex over there and I don’t understand why they are obviously doing well, and are really good at talking themselves up.

Wouldn’t being Boston’s most profitable airline be better?

This seems like hey we won the popular vote....yay good for you but you need to win the electoral college.

Huh? Most revenue is not an unusual metric for companies (not just airlines) to measure against the competition. DL is very good at marketing, which every successful company tends to prioritize within its operational goals. It's not DL's fault that they are masterful marketers, maybe the other airlines need to step up.

Jeremy

Right? If you were a Boston passenger, not sure you want your airline bragging about how much money they are making off of you (profit). Revenue is a very standard metric.

Also, DL is basically winning in profitability (overall, DL isn't going to give away its profitability information so its competitors can chip away at it). They are doing well because they know what they are doing.

Yeah, as others have mentioned, revenue is a standard measurement of performance across the industry, there is a whole sector of each airline just focussed on Revenue Management.

Midwestindy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals. Their domestic market share is at most 2/3 of B6 at this point. And based on the Q2 yields I have seen, their pricing power has improved only marginally vs 2 years ago. Half of the margin improvements is due to lower fuel prices and the other half is just a general improvement in Boston yield environment vs a year ago (because domestic capacity in Boston dropped vs a year ago due to MAX issues).

Neither of which are necessarily sustainable going forward given that their CASM-ex is going up 4 to 5%, fuel prices are not going to be down 15% vs a year ago in Q4 and BOS will be seeing a lot more capacity increase in Q4/Q1.

I think DL is making more money in BOS than you might think

Maybe, but the yield data certainly doesn't show it. I mean you can do a side by side comparison of their performance to the same station out of BOS vs JFK/LGA, it will show a pretty clear picture.

I will say this though, their JFK/LGA performances have seen significant improvement in the past 2 years as a result of AA pullback. I will be posting this in B6 thread soon, but you will see their JFK operation have improved to the point that it could be generating above average margins by this point. That alone will allow them to sustain buildups in SEA, BOS, LAX and all the "focus cities".

Midwestindy wrote:

I think DL is making more money in BOS than you might think

When I started in the grocery business a half century ago, the produce manager of the grocery store I worked at used to tell me, "we lose money on every sale but we make it up in volume."

Delta could not possibly be losing money building up all of these new hubs/hublets/focus cities/whatever you want to call them, and show the margins and profit dollars they do.

apodino wrote:

kiowa wrote:

enilria wrote:

To be fair, competitors have like 200 MAXs out of service and the number grows every week. That’s why there is a surprise traffic increase.

Well done for Delta this quarter. They certainly have benefited from not having the 737 max but kudos to the management. They have benefited hugely from the Northwest managers they got in the merger.

Not really. A lot of the Northwest managers were put on the street and are now working for American. The results speak for themselves.

I was going to say. Northwest had horrible customer service imo. The merger has been a benefit for travelers out of MSP. A much better airlines serves the area.

airportugal310 wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

max999 wrote:

I think it's great that DL lowered the price of F and is selling more of those seats. Instead of listening to the Flyertalk crowd who think free upgrades are a god given right.

It cuts both ways. As someone who has spent ~$300K (of my company's money) on DL in the last few years, the devaluation of their FF benefits (i.e. upgrades, diminishing mileage value, etc.) over the last decade has made me less loyal. I still prefer DL, but now I just fly whoever is fastest and cheapest. I've prob moved 20-25% of my flying to other airlines. I've also gotten rid of the DL AMEX in favor of an airline agnostic rewards card.

DL seems to be leading the race to devalue FF benefits in the U.S. From a business perspective, I guess I can't blame them. Dollar for dollar, they likely make more money from all the ancillary revenue that peeps with no status bring (i.e. bag fees, FCM, C+, seat assignments, etc.). Time will tell whether watering down FF programs is a good move or not, but results like this make it look like it's working for them.

Agreed on the DL AMEX...It’s basically a garbage card of mine now that I have the Chase Sapphire Reserve.

I only keep it for the checked luggage. Capital One Venture card I use for purchases.

Wow, another solid quarter on the revenue/profit side. The domestic arena is clearly strong and driving the results.

Couple thoughts:

1) Costs are running high with them missing initial 3Q targets, a big jump in 4Q CASM-ex guidance, and a sour 2020 outlook. Rightfully this spooked investors. Low fuel is what's driving the profit, and there's underlying cost pressures. They also implied that the operation became to lean. However they basically punted any good information on this until investor day.

2) Pacific revenue is still struggling. Will be interesting to compare it against UA. As in previous quarters, they blamed China, macroeconomic factors, and stage length, yet UA's results haven't reflected those alleged macro and micro headwinds.

3) The American Express partnership is huge. There's a lot of money to be made apart from cash customers, and they play the details of that very close to the vest.

jumbojet wrote:

A few more bullets from the linked article,

Operational Reliability

• Delivered 202 days of zero mainline cancellations and 115 days of zero system cancellations through the first nine months of the year, an improvement of 12% and 19% respectively versus 2018 (based on Delta internal reporting for flights scheduled systemwide).

Definitely less than 202 using the methodology that a cancellation is a cancellation (they had about 90 days with mainline cancellations in June-September alone). I really wonder what their "internal reporting" states a cancellation is.

Justapax wrote:

Delta could not possibly be losing money building up all of these new hubs/hublets/focus cities/whatever you want to call them, and show the margins and profit dollars they do.

They absolutely can be. It's math. When 90% of your network is running high margins, the other 10% can lag far behind without a noticeable drop (to investors) in overall profit.

If BOS was profitable, I would expect them to say it. They made a big deal of that when NYC as a whole finally turned positive a few years ago. When they dance around it by mentioning revenue, it suggests it isn't profitable. On that note, I don't recall if they've yet said SEA as a whole is profitable.

MSPNWA wrote:

Wow, another solid quarter on the revenue/profit side. The domestic arena is clearly strong and driving the results.

Couple thoughts:

1) Costs are running high with them missing initial 3Q targets, a big jump in 4Q CASM-ex guidance, and a sour 2020 outlook. Rightfully this spooked investors. Low fuel is what's driving the profit, and there's underlying cost pressures. They also implied that the operation became to lean. However they basically punted any good information on this until investor day.

2) Pacific revenue is still struggling. Will be interesting to compare it against UA. As in previous quarters, they blamed China, macroeconomic factors, and stage length, yet UA's results haven't reflected those alleged macro and micro headwinds.

3) The American Express partnership is huge. There's a lot of money to be made apart from cash customers, and they play the details of that very close to the vest.

jumbojet wrote:

A few more bullets from the linked article,

Operational Reliability

• Delivered 202 days of zero mainline cancellations and 115 days of zero system cancellations through the first nine months of the year, an improvement of 12% and 19% respectively versus 2018 (based on Delta internal reporting for flights scheduled systemwide).

Definitely less than 202 using the methodology that a cancellation is a cancellation (they had about 90 days with mainline cancellations in June-September alone). I really wonder what their "internal reporting" states a cancellation is.

Justapax wrote:

Delta could not possibly be losing money building up all of these new hubs/hublets/focus cities/whatever you want to call them, and show the margins and profit dollars they do.

They absolutely can be. It's math. When 90% of your network is running high margins, the other 10% can lag far behind without a noticeable drop (to investors) in overall profit.

If BOS was profitable, I would expect them to say it. They made a big deal of that when NYC as a whole finally turned positive a few years ago. When they dance around it by mentioning revenue, it suggests it isn't profitable. On that note, I don't recall if they've yet said SEA as a whole is profitable.

Isn't the cancellation/completion reporting methodology defined by DOT rules?

SteelChair wrote:

Isn't the cancellation/completion reporting methodology defined by DOT rules?

You would hope, but notice it's based on their reporting, not DOT stats.

StTim wrote:

According to the delivery trackers - Delta has received the most frames of any airline from both Boeing and Airbus this year.

Delta had 18 B737-900ER delivered over 163 day period in 2019, vs 23 for all of 2018.
China Eastern Airlines is in second place for B737 (including MAX) deliveries with 8 so far for 2019.

So that claim is almost certainly true.

StTim wrote:

Have they changed strategy to newer metal (carbon fibre?)

I don't know about a fundamental change in strategy, but the average age of Delta aircraft is now younger than the average age of United aircraft.

I would call it a change of strategy if they start retiring their ancient A320s one of which is over 29 years old.

MSPNWA wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

Isn't the cancellation/completion reporting methodology defined by DOT rules?

You would hope, but notice it's based on their reporting, not DOT stats.

Ok, thanks. I'm guessing at some level that stuff is DOT reportable according to the DOT rules, and furthermore, that someone on here knows where to look for it....

Its not a change in strategy at all, this strategy of fleet renewal has been in progress for 5+ years.
2019 has just been a big year for new airplane deliveries but they have taken a ton of new planes really since 2014

The used aircraft acquistions were primarily and opportunistic and stop-gap measure immediately post-merger.

DL's strategy has been to have a balanced, and predictable capital expenditures on an annual basis for both fleet renewal and for fleet modifications.
They do not want the peaks-and-valleys, boom-and-bust cycles of decades prior where they would order a glut of new aircraft and have years with huge capital expenditures, and they go years without new deliveries.
This strategy also means keeping aircraft until the end of their economic life-cycle. The economic life-cycle IS NOT purely based on the age of the aircraft.

My hypothesis on the way the count cancel-free days includes some combination of the following:

excludes proactive cancels (e.g., cancelled due to anticipated weather or ATC constraints at some pre-determined time prior to departure)
Counts rescue flights as a completion
includes only controllable cancellations (e.g., mechanical, non-weather related crew issues)

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

My hypothesis on the way the count cancel-free days includes some combination of the following:

excludes proactive cancels (e.g., cancelled due to anticipated weather or ATC constraints at some pre-determined time prior to departure)
Counts rescue flights as a completion
includes only controllable cancellations (e.g., mechanical, non-weather related crew issues)

I am sure #1 is true to a point (>24 hours in advance or something), as is #2. But #3 is definitely not true - WX, ATC, etc all count against their internal stats.

The reality is that Delta is really good at not cancelling flights. I've flown over 750 mainline segments on DL and over the past six years and had zero cancellations. I've flown American around 50 segments and have had 4 cancellations (2 mainline, 2 regional).

There's a lot of things to complain about as a Delta frequent flyer. Their completion rate is not one of them.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Its not a change in strategy at all, this strategy of fleet renewal has been in progress for 5+ years.
2019 has just been a big year for new airplane deliveries but they have taken a ton of new planes really since 2014

I would agree with that statement. Delta has 142 jets that are older than the oldest jet in American Airline's fleet. They come from four models and there are 289 total Delta jets in those four models

142 / 289 Delta Airlines 24.44 years
58 / 60 McDonnell Douglas MD-88 28.60
34 / 62 Airbus A320-200 24.10
33 / 111 Boeing 757-200 22.90
17 / 56 Boeing 767-300 23.40

In contrast United Airlines has only 26 jets that are older than the oldest jet in American Airline's fleet. They are all B757 and B767

26 / 93 United Airlines 23.58
7 / 55 Boeing 757-200 23.50
19 / 38 Boeing 767-300 23.70


It was always Delta's fleet renewal plans to retire the MD-88s, although that retirement rate was sped up a little. But a fundamental change in strategy would involve retiring some ancient A320s early, or purchasing the A321XLR to replace some of the older B757s or B767s.

But the rate of acquisition combined with some retirements means that Delta's average fleet age has dropped in 2019 so that it is now younger than the average fleet age of United Airlines.

tphuang wrote:

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals.

so your assuming?

Even if it did include JV's, isnt that the whole point of establishing JV's in the first place? Job well done in Boston DL.

And they accomplished just that in a very short order of time. How much more will they accomplish in BOS? What other metrics will they be #1 in BOS? Doesnt DL, plus JV partners, currently offer the most international seats out of any other carrier/alliance in BOS?

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

JPM can go tell that to the employees are are actually getting a share of the pie for once.

JP Morgan: the bank that made me lose money in my investment account with them when they unexpectedly lost 2 billion in 2012 and told me to deal with it. Then they eliminated all onsite debit card remakes in favor of ATM cards and also told me to F-Off. Lost a CC in the mail as well and told me "oh well doesn't matter the mail is at fault".

This is a firm that can't be trusted as they're a bunch of lying and insular bankers that will make anything up to save face. They used to be good but are on a crapshoot on so many levels.

Delta on the other hand, not the case. Chase folks are a bunch of smug theives.

jumbojet wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals.

so your assuming?

Even if it did include JV's, isnt that the whole point of establishing JV's in the first place? Job well done in Boston DL.

And they accomplished just that in a very short order of time. How much more will they accomplish in BOS? What other metrics will they be #1 in BOS? Doesnt DL, plus JV partners, currently offer the most international seats out of any other carrier/alliance in BOS?

Typically market share of boarded passengers or ASM are the metrics people use.

Also, they are gate constrained now and unlikely to get more anytime soon, so not much more they can expand. Seems like they got the gates and want to use them as soon as possible. After that, they will go back to expanding at LAX and SEA, since they will have more facilities there. It's hard to say job well done without seeing how this expansion actually turns out. So far, NYC has turned out a roaring success after those initial years, which is actually real credit to DL sticking it through. Again, I'm going to post NYC numbers today in the JetBlue thread, you can see what I mean. LAX/SEA certainly hasn't shown that type of improvements.

tphuang wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I'm assuming they are including all their JV flying also. Certainly not on their own metals.

so your assuming?

Even if it did include JV's, isnt that the whole point of establishing JV's in the first place? Job well done in Boston DL.

And they accomplished just that in a very short order of time. How much more will they accomplish in BOS? What other metrics will they be #1 in BOS? Doesnt DL, plus JV partners, currently offer the most international seats out of any other carrier/alliance in BOS?

Typically market share of boarded passengers or ASM are the metrics people use.

Also, they are gate constrained now and unlikely to get more anytime soon, so not much more they can expand. Seems like they got the gates and want to use them as soon as possible. After that, they will go back to expanding at LAX and SEA, since they will have more facilities there. It's hard to say job well done without seeing how this expansion actually turns out. So far, NYC has turned out a roaring success after those initial years, which is actually real credit to DL sticking it through. Again, I'm going to post NYC numbers today in the JetBlue thread, you can see what I mean. LAX/SEA certainly hasn't shown that type of improvements.

Don't be so sure they are gate constrained in the way you think they are. They've said they will get to 200 flights. There is a plan.

While I agree that passengers are the metric most people use to determine an airline's size in a market, the industry itself uses revenue share as the primary metric. If we ranked airline size by traffic, Southwest is bigger than United. Does anyone really thing Southwest is a bigger airline than United?

jetlanta wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

so your assuming?

Even if it did include JV's, isnt that the whole point of establishing JV's in the first place? Job well done in Boston DL.

And they accomplished just that in a very short order of time. How much more will they accomplish in BOS? What other metrics will they be #1 in BOS? Doesnt DL, plus JV partners, currently offer the most international seats out of any other carrier/alliance in BOS?

Typically market share of boarded passengers or ASM are the metrics people use.

Also, they are gate constrained now and unlikely to get more anytime soon, so not much more they can expand. Seems like they got the gates and want to use them as soon as possible. After that, they will go back to expanding at LAX and SEA, since they will have more facilities there. It's hard to say job well done without seeing how this expansion actually turns out. So far, NYC has turned out a roaring success after those initial years, which is actually real credit to DL sticking it through. Again, I'm going to post NYC numbers today in the JetBlue thread, you can see what I mean. LAX/SEA certainly hasn't shown that type of improvements.

Don't be so sure they are gate constrained in the way you think they are. They've said they will get to 200 flights. There is a plan.

While I agree that passengers are the metric most people use to determine an airline's size in a market, the industry itself uses revenue share as the primary metric. If we ranked airline size by traffic, Southwest is bigger than United. Does anyone really thing Southwest is a bigger airline than United?

They also said they were going to be at 150 flights by summer of 2018 and they got to 130 flights by summer of 2019.

tphuang wrote:

jetlanta wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Typically market share of boarded passengers or ASM are the metrics people use.

Also, they are gate constrained now and unlikely to get more anytime soon, so not much more they can expand. Seems like they got the gates and want to use them as soon as possible. After that, they will go back to expanding at LAX and SEA, since they will have more facilities there. It's hard to say job well done without seeing how this expansion actually turns out. So far, NYC has turned out a roaring success after those initial years, which is actually real credit to DL sticking it through. Again, I'm going to post NYC numbers today in the JetBlue thread, you can see what I mean. LAX/SEA certainly hasn't shown that type of improvements.

Don't be so sure they are gate constrained in the way you think they are. They've said they will get to 200 flights. There is a plan.

While I agree that passengers are the metric most people use to determine an airline's size in a market, the industry itself uses revenue share as the primary metric. If we ranked airline size by traffic, Southwest is bigger than United. Does anyone really thing Southwest is a bigger airline than United?

They also said they were going to be at 150 flights by summer of 2018 and they got to 130 flights by summer of 2019.

Wasn't that at least in part because of WN moving to Terminal B later than planned, pushing back the start date of their latest expansion?

Sightseer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jetlanta wrote:

Don't be so sure they are gate constrained in the way you think they are. They've said they will get to 200 flights. There is a plan.

While I agree that passengers are the metric most people use to determine an airline's size in a market, the industry itself uses revenue share as the primary metric. If we ranked airline size by traffic, Southwest is bigger than United. Does anyone really thing Southwest is a bigger airline than United?

They also said they were going to be at 150 flights by summer of 2018 and they got to 130 flights by summer of 2019.

Wasn't that at least in part because of WN moving to Terminal B later than planned, pushing back the start date of their latest expansion?

unlikely, since those 5 gates got delayed by a few weeks, not 15 months.

tphuang wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Wasn't that at least in part because of WN moving to Terminal B later than planned, pushing back the start date of their latest expansion?

unlikely, since those 5 gates got delayed by a few weeks, not 15 months.

I misread 2018 as 2019. But was there any public indication they would get there by summer 2018? They said back in March that they'd hit 141 this year. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston ... utType=amp

jetlanta wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

so your assuming?

Even if it did include JV's, isnt that the whole point of establishing JV's in the first place? Job well done in Boston DL.

And they accomplished just that in a very short order of time. How much more will they accomplish in BOS? What other metrics will they be #1 in BOS? Doesnt DL, plus JV partners, currently offer the most international seats out of any other carrier/alliance in BOS?

Typically market share of boarded passengers or ASM are the metrics people use.

Also, they are gate constrained now and unlikely to get more anytime soon, so not much more they can expand. Seems like they got the gates and want to use them as soon as possible. After that, they will go back to expanding at LAX and SEA, since they will have more facilities there. It's hard to say job well done without seeing how this expansion actually turns out. So far, NYC has turned out a roaring success after those initial years, which is actually real credit to DL sticking it through. Again, I'm going to post NYC numbers today in the JetBlue thread, you can see what I mean. LAX/SEA certainly hasn't shown that type of improvements.

Don't be so sure they are gate constrained in the way you think they are. They've said they will get to 200 flights. There is a plan.

While I agree that passengers are the metric most people use to determine an airline's size in a market, the industry itself uses revenue share as the primary metric. If we ranked airline size by traffic, Southwest is bigger than United. Does anyone really thing Southwest is a bigger airline than United?

I wonder what the plan is

More recently DL has said 150 departures by March 2020 which certainly isn't a seasonal peak. https://news.delta.com/delta-brings-new ... mer-climes

Given the fairly long operating day at BOS (today's DL flights are scheduled from 05:44 to 21:42), 200 flights from 21 gates is certainly feasible.

Counting passengers ignores stage length. Counting departures ignores gauge. If people don't want to use revenue as the metric of carrier size (it's not publicly available by airport) at least use RPMs. Maybe FSDan, in his hub departures by aircraft type work, will extend his project thusly.

Sightseer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Wasn't that at least in part because of WN moving to Terminal B later than planned, pushing back the start date of their latest expansion?

unlikely, since those 5 gates got delayed by a few weeks, not 15 months.

I misread 2018 as 2019. But was there any public indication they would get there by summer 2018? They said back in March that they'd hit 141 this year. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston ... utType=amp

There was an interview with one of the Boston newspaper where Ed Bastian said that. And 141 would've included all the JV flying this year and who knows what else, because they peaked at 130 departures in July out of the 16 gates and that included a lot of pre-6 am flights which they don't do even out of JFK/SEA/LAX. I honestly don't know exactly what DL includes in their totals. EWR/ORD/DCA flights were delayed by 2 weeks because they were maxed out and waiting for those 5 gates. They've so far announced probably 25 additional flights for those 5 gates, so there is a little room for more. Anyways, sorry for taking everyone off topic here. I'm gone.

tphuang wrote:

After that, they will go back to expanding at LAX and SEA, since they will have more facilities there.

Other than having more existing gates that will be capable of supporting international ops, I'm not sure they're going to have much in the way of additional facilities at SEA. I don't know how heavily they're using the D bus annex if at all, but the only additional gate space that is being added in N seems like it's just going to be able to alleviate the existing gate wait times and hardstand constraints instead of providing DL with any meaningful expansion opportunity.

tphuang wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

unlikely, since those 5 gates got delayed by a few weeks, not 15 months.

I misread 2018 as 2019. But was there any public indication they would get there by summer 2018? They said back in March that they'd hit 141 this year. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.boston ... utType=amp

There was an interview with one of the Boston newspaper where Ed Bastian said that. And 141 would've included all the JV flying this year and who knows what else, because they peaked at 130 departures in July out of the 16 gates and that included a lot of pre-6 am flights which they don't do even out of JFK/SEA/LAX. I honestly don't know exactly what DL includes in their totals. EWR/ORD/DCA flights were delayed by 2 weeks because they were maxed out and waiting for those 5 gates. They've so far announced probably 25 additional flights for those 5 gates, so there is a little room for more. Anyways, sorry for taking everyone off topic here. I'm gone.

I wouldn't underestimate DL at BOS. If the port of Mass sees DL bringing in $$$ to the port, than they will find them gates. If I were B6, I would be sleeping with one eye open. DL has money to spend and will spend with no problem. They are one of the few airlines that truly have deep pockets. That in and of itself should be enough to worry B6 at BOS.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Its not a change in strategy at all, this strategy of fleet renewal has been in progress for 5+ years.
2019 has just been a big year for new airplane deliveries but they have taken a ton of new planes really since 2014

The used aircraft acquistions were primarily and opportunistic and stop-gap measure immediately post-merger.

DL's strategy has been to have a balanced, and predictable capital expenditures on an annual basis for both fleet renewal and for fleet modifications.
They do not want the peaks-and-valleys, boom-and-bust cycles of decades prior where they would order a glut of new aircraft and have years with huge capital expenditures, and they go years without new deliveries.
This strategy also means keeping aircraft until the end of their economic life-cycle. The economic life-cycle IS NOT purely based on the age of the aircraft.

Well stated, as usual! Thank you!