Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 44
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 6:58 am

N649DL wrote:
Regarding UA at CLE, it's ancient history and anyone's guess I suppose. But recall CO dumped DEN in favor of CLE back in the mid-1990s so obviously there was potential even back then. And CO had a great setup at the new DIA in Terminal A but probably couldn't afford it. Perhaps UA and before that CO had issues with CLE's overall costs which made hub not profitable (if I had to guess) but with high fares and a locally very hub captive audience, they should've been able to make CLE work on paper. Also they had a nice terminal there as well and made for a great reliever hub when s*** hit the fan at EWR or ORD. Which as we all know Pre-CoronaVirus, happens almost weekly.

BTW in terms of CO's service into IAH and EWR back in the day, they were very single class ERJ connecting heavy into those hubs and there really wasn't much in terms of fleet upgrades at all (if anything more downgrading to ERJ from 737 as time went on). That, and also their 757 fleet were tied up on TATL routes out of EWR as well.


In the 1990s, having a Midwestern hub was seen as essential given its proximity toward and the ability to serve the population center, given the range of turboprops. In the past 20 years, the population center has shifted, and the advert of long range regional jets has given the legacies greater options. Simply put, IND, CMH, PIT, CLE and CVG vanished as hubs because their geographic reach was no longer essential, and they lacked sufficient local traffic to support a large hub. DTW survived because it had 2.5x - 3x the local traffic, and strong corporate spending. The endless narrative that PIT, CLE and CVG were profitable hubs, and it's unfair that DTW kept its hub is driven by emotion and not fact, and largely driven by the same core users. For the sake of younger users who come here to grow their knowledge capital, I wish it would end. Some people are upset that the hub in their home market or state closed -- I get it. But it shouldn't mean that manufactured realities are passed on.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1825
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:09 am

Listen folks, no one - and I mean no one - is coming back in September like nothing happened. Your local CBD store is open in case you disagree. The figures that DAL throw out vs UAL about future are flexible. But if anyone thinks each US carrier won't have a smaller foot print and a bunch of parked planes whenever this mess subsides, I just don't know what to tell you.
 
n7371f
Posts: 1825
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:54 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:11 am

Airlines won't have have the cash flow with 30% load factors this time. You need sufficient cash flow to survive Ch 11. Read up on it.

WidebodyPTV wrote:
seahawk wrote:
That is a scenario no airline can survive without government help.


jfklganyc wrote:
For people who are saying that the companies don’t deserve a bail out, There’s no way to plan for something like this...For the reaction to something like this

You could have all the smoke detectors and fire extinguishers in the world but when a wall of fire approaches your house, they are worthless

There are a few companies poised to do well because they have what people need at this moment… Everybody else is in very bad shape across all industries


Airlines can sort out their problems through bankruptcy, and the industry will survive. Government bailouts should focus directly on small businesses and individuals, who will never receive the level of relief that big corporations will through the bankruptcy process.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:26 am

n7371f wrote:
Airlines won't have have the cash flow with 30% load factors this time. You need sufficient cash flow to survive Ch 11. Read up on it.


It's called DIP financing. Read up on it.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 2070
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 8:26 am

Perhaps this "reset" needs to take place with how the current US market is structured between the US3; perhaps the days of massive giant legacy carriers, is over- and the winners in the next decade will be larger iterations of "Jetblues" "Alaskas" "Spirits" etc along side a US3 that is 15-20% smaller with noticeably less market saturation, as in back to the days of more regionally centered legacy carriers, or from left to right (geographically) United, American, Delta. I wonder.
 
reltney
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:46 pm

Someone big is about to loose their job at the big D. When the gov asks “what happens to all your cash” and stock buy backs are you answer, heads are rolling. Ask Dickson what happens when you botch the job...
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19998
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:13 pm

Please take non-aviation asoects if Coronavirus discussion to the non-av thread:

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1438989

Please take the B6, NK discussion to another thread where it is on topic.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1751
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:17 pm

n7371f wrote:
Listen folks, no one - and I mean no one - is coming back in September like nothing happened. Your local CBD store is open in case you disagree. The figures that DAL throw out vs UAL about future are flexible. But if anyone thinks each US carrier won't have a smaller foot print and a bunch of parked planes whenever this mess subsides, I just don't know what to tell you.

Stop being so arrogant. NOBODY knows how the future will be shaped, not even you.
Some, like you obviously, want to look at the glass half empty: you're pessimistic.
Some, and I am one of them, want to look at the glass half full: we're trying to be optimistic.

Given how quickly the bottom fell off of the stock markets and the airlines, I think the rebound will be extremely fast and very sharp. Usually, the faster the markets move in one way, the faster they move in the other way.

Again, this is MY opinion; feel free to agree or disagree, but do not be arrogant in trying to force your ideas upon others.
 
ShinyAndChrome
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:40 pm

reltney wrote:
Someone big is about to loose their job at the big D. When the gov asks “what happens to all your cash” and stock buy backs are you answer, heads are rolling. Ask Dickson what happens when you botch the job...


They'd probably start with the billions invested in airport renovations, aircraft purchases, paying down debt, profit sharing, accelerated pension contributions, expanding TechOps, etc. As a proportion of the cash they had, Delta spent a good deal less on buybacks than the rest of the US4 as well as AS so I don't really know what you're getting at.

So unless the big "U", Chester, LUV, and especially the big "A" see heads rolling first (throw in most of the "S" & the "P" while you're at it), I think "D" won't have to worry in that respect at least.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:43 pm

United1 wrote:
52% of UAs wide body fleet is parked or in mods and about 5% of the narrow body fleet is parked....you may be working with outdated data.


The data is from planepotters which now says 41/202=20.3%

act / park model
34 / 4 767-300
14 / 2 767-400
52 / 22 777-200
19 / 3 777-300
6 / 6 787-8
24 / 4 787-9
12 / 0 787-10
161 / 41 20.3%

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines
 
United1
Posts: 4164
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:01 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
United1 wrote:
52% of UAs wide body fleet is parked or in mods and about 5% of the narrow body fleet is parked....you may be working with outdated data.


The data is from planepotters which now says 41/202=20.3%

act / park model
34 / 4 767-300
14 / 2 767-400
52 / 22 777-200
19 / 3 777-300
6 / 6 787-8
24 / 4 787-9
12 / 0 787-10
161 / 41 20.3%

https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines


Your information is out of date...looks like it predates drawing down the transatlantic network...current numbers of aircraft stored/mods. The remaining ships are in service.

763 25/3
764 6/0
788 8/1
789 8/1
78X 1/0
772 8/0
77E 24/6
77W 6/0
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
panamair
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 5:29 pm

reltney wrote:
Someone big is about to loose their job at the big D. When the gov asks “what happens to all your cash” and stock buy backs are you answer, heads are rolling. Ask Dickson what happens when you botch the job...


Delta doesn't really have much to worry about on that front since they really only spent about 20% of free cash flow on stock buybacks...50% went back into the business (aircraft and airport investments, employee profit sharing, service enhancements, technology improvement etc), and 30% went to pay down debt. That's ultimately a pretty fair distribution.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 5:43 pm

People stopped flying before shut downs, the reduction in flights was in a response to the demand side. So I don't think this thing will come back quickly people will be acting cautiously for some time outside of any enforced restrictions. Despite 9/11 being a one day phenomena the reduction in air transportation lasted a long time.
 
N649DL
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:29 pm

panamair wrote:
reltney wrote:
Someone big is about to loose their job at the big D. When the gov asks “what happens to all your cash” and stock buy backs are you answer, heads are rolling. Ask Dickson what happens when you botch the job...


Delta doesn't really have much to worry about on that front since they really only spent about 20% of free cash flow on stock buybacks...50% went back into the business (aircraft and airport investments, employee profit sharing, service enhancements, technology improvement etc), and 30% went to pay down debt. That's ultimately a pretty fair distribution.


Thanks for this. Seems like actually UA might be screwed since they spent 80% on free cash flow stock buybacks?
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19998
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 7:47 pm

I posted this in links thread, but here for comment:

https://aviationweek.com/mro/warning-mr ... ming-weeks

"The most likely scenario, or baseline, will mean travel demand will bottom out from April through June in North America and Western Europe, but a full recovery will take 12-18 months."

Translation, best case recover for summer 2021. Err... We might be at normal levels in 18 months, but that is slow season. Effectively, DL will either recover by summer 2021 or by summer 2022. This means a very reduced return for DL.

DL is very numbers oriented. So well done they can park current aircraft and have a MRO/new buy plan to ensure adequate aircraft by the time demand returns.

Per the link, April through June will be brutal.

Lightsaber
Flu+Covid19 is bad. Consider a flu vaccine, if not for yourself, to protect someone you care about.
 
Nola
Posts: 380
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 1:40 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:17 pm

umichman wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
N649DL wrote:

CVG isn't a connecting DL hub? I was routed through there on EWR-CVG-LAX in late 2018 after the Holiday's. It surprisingly wasn't completely dead either. They literally post destinations at the gates for hours on end but both flights were fully loaded. I even got a glimpse of seeing the A220 while passing through CVG.

I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.



It is an O&D focus city. That does not mean it won't offer connections through the city. It only means the flights they operate are based on O&D traffic and it doesn't operate any flights primarily just to provide connections. You can also book many flights through RDU as it's a legal routing option on many fares. It is also an O&D focus city. There is zero O&D demand on routes like DTW-CLE/LAN/AZO/GRR/MBS. That's the fundamental difference between connecting hubs like ATL, MSP, and DTW and focus cities like CVG and RDU. Unfortunately, some people live in a state of denial and simply can't accept the label focus city.



I've even seen connections through MSY, which is definitely neither a hub nor a focus city. I think the options really just depend on what's available in a particular fare class/price point.
 
evank516
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:23 pm

How will DL's plan affect their use of CRJ2s and larger RJs? Will we see a consolidation of frequencies to larger aircraft (ie: routes with 5x E175 or CR9 will be consolidated maybe to 2-3x A220s or 717s)?
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:49 pm

evank516 wrote:
How will DL's plan affect their use of CRJ2s and larger RJs? Will we see a consolidation of frequencies to larger aircraft (ie: routes with 5x E175 or CR9 will be consolidated maybe to 2-3x A220s or 717s)?


Mainline costs are higher, and business travelers will still require frequency, so I doubt they'd do that. In the short-term, the regional fleet will be less susceptible to cuts, especially given that demand will be down. Many of those 717 and 319 flying from smaller communities in the Midwest/East are full of vacationers headed to Florida and elsewhere, and it's probable may of these communities will lose their mainline service in the interim.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8048
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 11:55 pm

The numbers posted elsewhere indicated they are temporarily parking 70 of the ~125 CR2s. Not sure how that splits between OO and 9E, but about 50 CR2s is enough to cover the EAS, OO at-risk, and small market/short hop flying into markets that don't justify larger 2-class RJs. They are also going to temporarily park at least 100 2-class RJs as well.
 
ekozie
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:43 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:47 am

blacksoviet wrote:
I wonder what will happen to Terminal 2 at JFK. Will it be kept around for a few more years? Most domestic flights depart from there.


In the last several months before the current crisis, T2 was basically down to Florida and 717 flying. Everything else domestic was T4. Obviously, everything can be accomplished at T4B for the foreseeable future.

I have no reason to believe (though that can change quickly in this pandemic) that the T4A expansion and its 16 gates will be substantially delayed, especially because the T2 lease is almost over, and not being renewed by the PANYNJ. The new gates aren't due until 2023, and unless air travel slows down for substantially longer than anyone is anticipating at this moment, T2 will likely need to be used at some point in the interim.

I don't know the maintenance costs, though. It's entire possible that a temporary mothball of T2 would result in an exorbitant re-activation cost, especially given the past-warranty state of that terminal and its mechanical/HVAC/electrical/etc. systems. In that case (and with less competition for JFK slots and thus greater ability for DL to consolidate to peak-time departures instead of shifting them to shoulder periods), DL may choose to keep flight schedules trimmer than planned and optimize flight schedules and gate usage to keep everything in T4B until the expansion opens.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2505
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:57 am

I'm guessing the 763ER will be utilized to its full range potential. No need in using a 777, 350, or 330 on a route that a 767 can fly. They definitely won't need the extra capacity.
 
acavpics
Posts: 384
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:48 am

wedgetail737 wrote:
acavpics wrote:
wedgetail737 wrote:
I think there is a significant risk to the SEA hub. WA being the epicenter of this virus and the cruise traffic being pretty much nil, who would want to come to WA? DL should shut down SEA and concentrate on their larger, more established hubs.


Incorrect. Washington is no longer the epicenter of the outbreak. That standing has been taken by New York. Please update yourself with the latest news.


That may be...but WA is still gaining positive cases and people are still dying up here. WA will be tarnished by this disease for a long time.


I think both of us can agree that their JFK/LGA operations are now going to have the hardest time recovering from this, given that NY alone has over 26,000 cases and counting
 
onwFan
Topic Author
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:04 am

What are the implications of COVID-19 for DL’s HND routes? I think the routes that DL trimmed the most in Mar-May are clearly an indication of which ones were burning the most money: PDX-HND and MSP-HND.

How long will DL hold on to them? If they drop it for a prolonged period of time, will AA/UA try to apply for the allocations to relocate one of their NRT routes to HND?
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8048
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:08 am

thats ridiculous as if there is ever a time where carriers can claim hardships and waivers this is a good case for such
 
onwFan
Topic Author
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:16 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
thats ridiculous as if there is ever a time where carriers can claim hardships and waivers this is a good case for such

If you think so... yeah, the same whay they did with SEA-HND the first round they tried it.
 
evank516
Posts: 2138
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:18 am

WidebodyPTV wrote:
evank516 wrote:
How will DL's plan affect their use of CRJ2s and larger RJs? Will we see a consolidation of frequencies to larger aircraft (ie: routes with 5x E175 or CR9 will be consolidated maybe to 2-3x A220s or 717s)?


Mainline costs are higher, and business travelers will still require frequency, so I doubt they'd do that. In the short-term, the regional fleet will be less susceptible to cuts, especially given that demand will be down. Many of those 717 and 319 flying from smaller communities in the Midwest/East are full of vacationers headed to Florida and elsewhere, and it's probable may of these communities will lose their mainline service in the interim.


I'm confused by that. Business travel is already low, what's the need for the frequency?
 
ekozie
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2020 12:43 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:50 am

evank516 wrote:
I'm confused by that. Business travel is already low, what's the need for the frequency?


Without claiming to be an expert on the intricacies of regional carrier capacity purchase agreement contracts, once the capacity has been purchased the operating regional gets paid whether Delta tells them to fly or not. It's a fixed cost, even more so than a mainline flight. Since the flights are scheduled already, might as well fly the RJs instead of consolidating several regional flights into one mainline flight.
 
blacksoviet
Posts: 1674
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 10:50 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:58 am

ekozie wrote:
blacksoviet wrote:
I wonder what will happen to Terminal 2 at JFK. Will it be kept around for a few more years? Most domestic flights depart from there.


In the last several months before the current crisis, T2 was basically down to Florida and 717 flying. Everything else domestic was T4. Obviously, everything can be accomplished at T4B for the foreseeable future.

I have no reason to believe (though that can change quickly in this pandemic) that the T4A expansion and its 16 gates will be substantially delayed, especially because the T2 lease is almost over, and not being renewed by the PANYNJ. The new gates aren't due until 2023, and unless air travel slows down for substantially longer than anyone is anticipating at this moment, T2 will likely need to be used at some point in the interim.

I don't know the maintenance costs, though. It's entire possible that a temporary mothball of T2 would result in an exorbitant re-activation cost, especially given the past-warranty state of that terminal and its mechanical/HVAC/electrical/etc. systems. In that case (and with less competition for JFK slots and thus greater ability for DL to consolidate to peak-time departures instead of shifting them to shoulder periods), DL may choose to keep flight schedules trimmer than planned and optimize flight schedules and gate usage to keep everything in T4B until the expansion opens.

Why do they prefer to keep the 717s at T2?
 
panamair
Posts: 4326
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:01 am

onwFan wrote:
What are the implications of COVID-19 for DL’s HND routes? I think the routes that DL trimmed the most in Mar-May are clearly an indication of which ones were burning the most money: PDX-HND and MSP-HND.

How long will DL hold on to them? If they drop it for a prolonged period of time, will AA/UA try to apply for the allocations to relocate one of their NRT routes to HND?


Now that Japan has been declared a Level 3 country and both PDX and MSP are not CDC-approved US entry gateways, there will be no flights allowed anyway.
 
onwFan
Topic Author
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:21 am

panamair wrote:
onwFan wrote:
What are the implications of COVID-19 for DL’s HND routes? I think the routes that DL trimmed the most in Mar-May are clearly an indication of which ones were burning the most money: PDX-HND and MSP-HND.

How long will DL hold on to them? If they drop it for a prolonged period of time, will AA/UA try to apply for the allocations to relocate one of their NRT routes to HND?


Now that Japan has been declared a Level 3 country and both PDX and MSP are not CDC-approved US entry gateways, there will be no flights allowed anyway.

Just to clarify, I did not necessarily mean the next 2-3 months (I am only surprised why any carrier is flying any route).. But more kind of the longer short term, like in W20 or S21, etc... when cariers are trying to figure out demand.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3318
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:25 am

onwFan wrote:
What are the implications of COVID-19 for DL’s HND routes? I think the routes that DL trimmed the most in Mar-May are clearly an indication of which ones were burning the most money: PDX-HND and MSP-HND.

How long will DL hold on to them? If they drop it for a prolonged period of time, will AA/UA try to apply for the allocations to relocate one of their NRT routes to HND?


PDX-HND and MSP-HND are definitely the two HND routes most at risk. That said, in the long run DL also needs to consider keeping their TPAC JV in balance with KE (where they're already on very thin ice), and Japan is the market where it geographically makes the most sense for DL to keep doing a lot of heavy lifting. It's a market where they have a long history through the NW merger. It's not as time and resource intensive to fly to as destinations in China and Southeast Asia. The market seems likely to stay at least as strong as U.S.-Europe and U.S.-China in the medium term...

On the U.S. side, PDX remains a strong station for DL. No other outstation has flights to both Europe and Asia on DL metal, which says something. MSP-TYO isn't a huge local market, so is possibly the most at risk, but MSP does have huge connecting power. Medium sized markets like MCI, STL, IND, CMH, CVG, BNA, TPA, MCO, and CLT that don't have nonstops to Tokyo all connect well through MSP.

If COVID-19 causes DL to need to more permanently cut some routes at HND due to lower demand, I don't see why AA or UA would be feeling like adding capacity in the market. The only way I think they would do that is if either of them was suddenly trying to pull out of NRT to cut costs, or if they were rethinking their TPAC strategies and retrenching to flowing connections to China, etc. through Japan instead of flying nonstop.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3318
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:31 am

blacksoviet wrote:
ekozie wrote:
In the last several months before the current crisis, T2 was basically down to Florida and 717 flying. Everything else domestic was T4. Obviously, everything can be accomplished at T4B for the foreseeable future.

Why do they prefer to keep the 717s at T2?


Not to get too far off topic, but the majority of DL's gates at T4 can handle a 767 or larger, so it's kind of a waste to use them for 717 flights. The exception is a few of the 11 gates in the RJ complex at the end of T4B, but to park a mainline aircraft at those it blocks adjacent gates.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
FlyingElvii
Posts: 880
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2017 10:53 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:34 am

iadadd wrote:
Long shot, but I think Seattle will be relatively safe. Asia is likely going to fare much better in a post COVID-19 world than Europe will. Europe's inability to contain this disease is going to have a medium-long term economic impact, and I don't think the continent will return back to where it was before for a while. Therefore, with Seattle serving as a hub to Asia, I believe it'll be able to weather the storm

JFK and LAX will be able to retain their glorified focus city status. ATL will remain the crown jewel

Between DTW, MSP, and SCL a reduction will need to occur ...

MSP will be the big loser, I believe. SLC serves the mountain west. If Delta isn’t there, someone else will be, very shortly. Detroit is self-explanatory. JFK stays for Europe and the northeast. Seattle is likely gone, along with BOS. CVG back to hubs only. The question is, what do they do with LaGuardia?

United was building IAD as a connections hub that could be quickly reduced in tough times. It will be...

AA is probably the best positioned to go forward without big cuts, as far as dropping a hub goes.
 
onwFan
Topic Author
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:02 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:37 am

FSDan wrote:
onwFan wrote:
What are the implications of COVID-19 for DL’s HND routes? I think the routes that DL trimmed the most in Mar-May are clearly an indication of which ones were burning the most money: PDX-HND and MSP-HND.

How long will DL hold on to them? If they drop it for a prolonged period of time, will AA/UA try to apply for the allocations to relocate one of their NRT routes to HND?


PDX-HND and MSP-HND are definitely the two HND routes most at risk. That said, in the long run DL also needs to consider keeping their TPAC JV in balance with KE (where they're already on very thin ice), and Japan is the market where it geographically makes the most sense for DL to keep doing a lot of heavy lifting. It's a market where they have a long history through the NW merger. It's not as time and resource intensive to fly to as destinations in China and Southeast Asia. The market seems likely to stay at least as strong as U.S.-Europe and U.S.-China in the medium term...

On the U.S. side, PDX remains a strong station for DL. No other outstation has flights to both Europe and Asia on DL metal, which says something. MSP-TYO isn't a huge local market, so is possibly the most at risk, but MSP does have huge connecting power. Medium sized markets like MCI, STL, IND, CMH, CVG, BNA, TPA, MCO, and CLT that don't have nonstops to Tokyo all connect well through MSP.

If COVID-19 causes DL to need to more permanently cut some routes at HND due to lower demand, I don't see why AA or UA would be feeling like adding capacity in the market. The only way I think they would do that is if either of them was suddenly trying to pull out of NRT to cut costs, or if they were rethinking their TPAC strategies and retrenching to flowing connections to China, etc. through Japan instead of flying nonstop.

I was thinking exactly along those limes - for e.g. AA just needs just one slot to consolidate at HND. By the way, does the KE/DL JV cover DL routes to Japan as well? I am guessing not, since I recently saw that KE dropped proposed codeshares on DL routes to HND...
 
N649DL
Posts: 965
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:14 am

Nola wrote:
umichman wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.



It is an O&D focus city. That does not mean it won't offer connections through the city. It only means the flights they operate are based on O&D traffic and it doesn't operate any flights primarily just to provide connections. You can also book many flights through RDU as it's a legal routing option on many fares. It is also an O&D focus city. There is zero O&D demand on routes like DTW-CLE/LAN/AZO/GRR/MBS. That's the fundamental difference between connecting hubs like ATL, MSP, and DTW and focus cities like CVG and RDU. Unfortunately, some people live in a state of denial and simply can't accept the label focus city.



I've even seen connections through MSY, which is definitely neither a hub nor a focus city. I think the options really just depend on what's available in a particular fare class/price point.


Back in 2011 I got routed out of NYC on LGA-CMH-LAX and also in 2010 JFK-IND-LAX. Both CMH-LAX and IND-LAX I got upgraded to F-class as a Silver Medallion. CMH-LAX was on a 738, IND-LAX was on a very delayed A320 out of DTW because of bad thunderstorms.

FlyingElvii wrote:
iadadd wrote:
Long shot, but I think Seattle will be relatively safe. Asia is likely going to fare much better in a post COVID-19 world than Europe will. Europe's inability to contain this disease is going to have a medium-long term economic impact, and I don't think the continent will return back to where it was before for a while. Therefore, with Seattle serving as a hub to Asia, I believe it'll be able to weather the storm

JFK and LAX will be able to retain their glorified focus city status. ATL will remain the crown jewel

Between DTW, MSP, and SCL a reduction will need to occur ...

MSP will be the big loser, I believe. SLC serves the mountain west. If Delta isn’t there, someone else will be, very shortly. Detroit is self-explanatory. JFK stays for Europe and the northeast. Seattle is likely gone, along with BOS. CVG back to hubs only. The question is, what do they do with LaGuardia?

United was building IAD as a connections hub that could be quickly reduced in tough times. It will be...

AA is probably the best positioned to go forward without big cuts, as far as dropping a hub goes.



UA or WN out of DEN doesn't compete with DL out of SLC in the Mountain West at all?

SLC and MSP are hub captive for DL so I think they should be fine (especially since both UT and MN have some of the lowest forms of virus contraction so far). I would say that SEA or NYC could be at bigger losses due to the outbreak.

My whole family is near EWR and my Dad says to stay in AUS at all costs as it's getting ridiculous up in the NJ / NYC area with the CoronaVirus at this point. I slept in today because I wasn't feeling well but I think I'm safer down here considering it hit 90 degree mark today in Austin, TX. It will be this way the next few days and then dip down into the high 70s. I'll take it over the 40-50s near EWR at this point. Hopefully this heat wave will kick the Virus to the curb in TX.
 
NateGreat
Posts: 493
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2017 6:02 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:40 am

FlyingElvii wrote:
iadadd wrote:
Long shot, but I think Seattle will be relatively safe. Asia is likely going to fare much better in a post COVID-19 world than Europe will. Europe's inability to contain this disease is going to have a medium-long term economic impact, and I don't think the continent will return back to where it was before for a while. Therefore, with Seattle serving as a hub to Asia, I believe it'll be able to weather the storm

JFK and LAX will be able to retain their glorified focus city status. ATL will remain the crown jewel

Between DTW, MSP, and SCL a reduction will need to occur ...

MSP will be the big loser, I believe. SLC serves the mountain west. If Delta isn’t there, someone else will be, very shortly. Detroit is self-explanatory. JFK stays for Europe and the northeast. Seattle is likely gone, along with BOS. CVG back to hubs only. The question is, what do they do with LaGuardia?

United was building IAD as a connections hub that could be quickly reduced in tough times. It will be...

AA is probably the best positioned to go forward without big cuts, as far as dropping a hub goes.

If non-hub/focus city to Europe are at risk, such as RDU-CDG, TPA-AMS, and IND-CDG, then I wonder if the upcoming BOS-LGW is at risk. Especially since that single 757 will be the only DL flight to LGW and PHL-LHR on the 757 ended up being a fail.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:56 am

evank516 wrote:
I'm confused by that. Business travel is already low, what's the need for the frequency?


I wasn't referring to the near term, but the recovery.
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 2150
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:18 pm

SESGDL wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
Good question. 600+ Aircraft to be parked:

https://news.delta.com/ed-bastian-memo- ... our-future

I personally think SLC and MSP are a bit close for hubs. One or the other will be downsized, but I fully admit, I do not know which.

Complete aircraft deferals tells me DL negotiated well.

I expect many long/thin routes to be cut. The era of yours truly having a selection of TCON direct flights is probably over.

Lightsaber


MSP has historically been DL's 2nd largest O&D airport and 2nd highest revenue generating base. SLC is not in the top 5. That should help to answer which will stay. If anything, DTW and MSP compete more with each other. Considering DL's success has largely been a result of dominating medium-large markets (DTW, MSP, SLC), I don't see them abandoning any of the core hubs: ATL, MSP, DTW, SLC, LGA/JFK. BOS and SEA could certainly be at risk though if DL truly intends to shrink as a result of all this. Very sad times these are...

Jeremy


The only thing at risk with DL in terms of hub operations are the focus cities. Point to point outliers are also at risk. Small market hub feed is going to get hammered. CVG and RDU will be done. The small feeder service to LAS, also done. The rest will come from frequency reductions. For the the remaining pre-merger Delta hubs, it will be frequency reductions. Same for the remaining pre-merger NW hubs. Won’t be much different at UA or AA. AS will be interesting. Think early 1990s route structure before regionals played a major role in operations with the advent of the CRJ that opened up longer stage small market routes. MSP and DTW are difficult to deal with in terms of closing one down. They compliment each other is so many ways that it doesn’t make sense to cutback either of them. It’s why they still remain. A possible scenario is that MSP loses its international operations except Canada. Detroit has a more efficient facility for long haul international service. SLC isn’t going anywhere. It’s better placed than Denver in terms of service for the entire Rocky Mountain region. Not a lot of markets large enough west of Denver until you get past the plains where MSP/DTW make more sense.

Remove CVG, MCO and DFW:

http://www.departedflights.com/DLwinter91dom.html

Remove MEM:

http://www.departedflights.com/NW0795domestic.html
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 956
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:40 pm

ShinyAndChrome wrote:
reltney wrote:
Someone big is about to loose their job at the big D. When the gov asks “what happens to all your cash” and stock buy backs are you answer, heads are rolling. Ask Dickson what happens when you botch the job...


They'd probably start with the billions invested in airport renovations, aircraft purchases, paying down debt, profit sharing, accelerated pension contributions, expanding TechOps, etc. As a proportion of the cash they had, Delta spent a good deal less on buybacks than the rest of the US4 as well as AS so I don't really know what you're getting at.

So unless the big "U", Chester, LUV, and especially the big "A" see heads rolling first (throw in most of the "S" & the "P" while you're at it), I think "D" won't have to worry in that respect at least.


Totally agree. Besides, the stock buyback mania was driven by Wall Street. They are the ones who demanded that companies do it if they wanted larger investors to step up and buy shares. So everyone who is whining about stock buybacks can send their thank you cards to Wall Street, NYC, USA.
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
SESGDL
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:11 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
iadadd wrote:
Long shot, but I think Seattle will be relatively safe. Asia is likely going to fare much better in a post COVID-19 world than Europe will. Europe's inability to contain this disease is going to have a medium-long term economic impact, and I don't think the continent will return back to where it was before for a while. Therefore, with Seattle serving as a hub to Asia, I believe it'll be able to weather the storm

JFK and LAX will be able to retain their glorified focus city status. ATL will remain the crown jewel

Between DTW, MSP, and SCL a reduction will need to occur ...

MSP will be the big loser, I believe. SLC serves the mountain west. If Delta isn’t there, someone else will be, very shortly. Detroit is self-explanatory. JFK stays for Europe and the northeast. Seattle is likely gone, along with BOS. CVG back to hubs only. The question is, what do they do with LaGuardia?

United was building IAD as a connections hub that could be quickly reduced in tough times. It will be...

AA is probably the best positioned to go forward without big cuts, as far as dropping a hub goes.


Can we stop this nonsense about DL closing hubs, especially core ones? ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC are largely (almost solely) the reason that DL has been that most profitable airline in the world for the last few years. None of those hubs are at risk. There’s much lower hanging fruit if there’s a need to cut stuff.

Jeremy
 
Indy
Posts: 4932
Joined: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:37 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:16 pm

Could the Delta comments be a way of trolling for dollars from their non hub stations? When the economy and travel recovers, I don't see them staying a smaller airline. It isn't in Delta's nature. They will want that market share back. They aren't going to sit back and let an LCC come in and start taking over their territory. They are going to do what they've always done. They are going to defend their turf. Airlines all scaled back post 9/11. Look where they were prior to the onset of COVID-19. They were bigger than ever.
Indy = Indianapolis and not Independence Air
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:13 pm

I would opine RE: DL and really all American carriers, short haul domestic will recover initially, followed by North American travel, Caribbean, Transatlantic and finally transpacific recovery at the end of the recovery curve. Businesses travel initially followed by leisure travel. Just my guess.

I expect planes parked to be recalled into service as demand increases.

What I can’t opine is of carriers in generally will work to keep fares higher and more profitable or if there will be a price war to get people back flying and more volume. It could go either way.
 
WayexTDI
Posts: 1751
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 4:38 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:18 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
I would opine RE: DL and really all American carriers, short haul domestic will recover initially, followed by North American travel, Caribbean, Transatlantic and finally transpacific recovery at the end of the recovery curve. Businesses travel initially followed by leisure travel. Just my guess.

I expect planes parked to be recalled into service as demand increases.

What I can’t opine is of carriers in generally will work to keep fares higher and more profitable or if there will be a price war to get people back flying and more volume. It could go either way.

Well, (some) fares didn't go down: I checked a round-trip to Europe for end of June-early July and prices are what they were 2 years ago. So, whatever route is flown is not done at discounted fares.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 3:49 pm

onwFan wrote:
According to its CFO, Delta will emerge as a “smaller” carrier from the covid crisis.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... virus/amp/

Which are the focus cities and routes that can be expected to disappear from DL’s map?

1. Good news for KE. A further shift in focus from TYO to ICN is a given, unless they are not committed to the KE partnership.

2. A lot of routes from non-hubs and secondary/focus cities to CDG, AMS, LHR to disappear? AF/KL will be supported by France and the Netherlands.

3. LHR? Virgin Atlantic - will have to wait and see.

4. PVG and China Eastern - will probably come out in good shape with airline consolidation in China. Expect focus on PVG.

4. MIA hub- Is it now worth it? LATAM will probably the biggest loser, losing AA, IB and an alliance in the middle of the biggest crisis in aviation history.

5. SEA & BOS - I leave it for discussion.

Very interestingly you haven't mentioned ATL. ATL's major share is transfer traffic and DL is a huge part of it

1) DL accounted for 78% of seat capacity at ATL in 2017; i don't think much has changed in 3 years
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ale-381488
Look under - "Delta has over three quarters of all seat capacity"

2) For FY 2016; ATL had roughly 68% connecting traffic and 32% O&D traffic.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... t-Sr.-Revs
" However, Atlanta is the primary hub and corporate headquarters location for Delta. ATL is anchored by a large, local traffic base with 17 million O&D enplaned passengers for fiscal year (FY) 2016."

So, if DL returned a small carrier (75% smaller? 50% smaller? 60% smaller? nobody knows); for sure ATL is left very vulnerable as there will be a massive reduction in passenger flow. I would wager to guess that DL would fly the most important and profitable point to point routes 1st (LAX-JFK; JFK-LHR; SFO-JFK etc. for example). So, in a nutshell, to me ATL seems to very vulnerable in terms of massive scale back in routes AND massive scale back in hub operations leading to empty terminals in the near term. Over the long term what happens is anybody's guess. Will ATL be able to withstand the financial shocks of what is to come over the next 3 years and it's future as a mega hub over the next 5 years remains to be seen.
 
wv399
Posts: 87
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:32 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:35 pm

747megatop wrote:
onwFan wrote:
According to its CFO, Delta will emerge as a “smaller” carrier from the covid crisis.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... virus/amp/

Which are the focus cities and routes that can be expected to disappear from DL’s map?

1. Good news for KE. A further shift in focus from TYO to ICN is a given, unless they are not committed to the KE partnership.

2. A lot of routes from non-hubs and secondary/focus cities to CDG, AMS, LHR to disappear? AF/KL will be supported by France and the Netherlands.

3. LHR? Virgin Atlantic - will have to wait and see.

4. PVG and China Eastern - will probably come out in good shape with airline consolidation in China. Expect focus on PVG.

4. MIA hub- Is it now worth it? LATAM will probably the biggest loser, losing AA, IB and an alliance in the middle of the biggest crisis in aviation history.

5. SEA & BOS - I leave it for discussion.

Very interestingly you haven't mentioned ATL. ATL's major share is transfer traffic and DL is a huge part of it

1) DL accounted for 78% of seat capacity at ATL in 2017; i don't think much has changed in 3 years
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ale-381488
Look under - "Delta has over three quarters of all seat capacity"

2) For FY 2016; ATL had roughly 68% connecting traffic and 32% O&D traffic.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... t-Sr.-Revs
" However, Atlanta is the primary hub and corporate headquarters location for Delta. ATL is anchored by a large, local traffic base with 17 million O&D enplaned passengers for fiscal year (FY) 2016."

So, if DL returned a small carrier (75% smaller? 50% smaller? 60% smaller? nobody knows); for sure ATL is left very vulnerable as there will be a massive reduction in passenger flow. I would wager to guess that DL would fly the most important and profitable point to point routes 1st (LAX-JFK; JFK-LHR; SFO-JFK etc. for example). So, in a nutshell, to me ATL seems to very vulnerable in terms of massive scale back in routes AND massive scale back in hub operations leading to empty terminals in the near term. Over the long term what happens is anybody's guess. Will ATL be able to withstand the financial shocks of what is to come over the next 3 years and it's future as a mega hub over the next 5 years remains to be seen.


ATL hasn't been mentioned because it's not going anywhere. It's blessed by geography, and exceedingly low costs per enplanement. To be fair, it's flights and pax counts will definitely shrink, but it's status as Delta's preeminent hub is unquestioned.
 
SESGDL
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 6:25 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 4:40 pm

747megatop wrote:
onwFan wrote:
According to its CFO, Delta will emerge as a “smaller” carrier from the covid crisis.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... virus/amp/

Which are the focus cities and routes that can be expected to disappear from DL’s map?

1. Good news for KE. A further shift in focus from TYO to ICN is a given, unless they are not committed to the KE partnership.

2. A lot of routes from non-hubs and secondary/focus cities to CDG, AMS, LHR to disappear? AF/KL will be supported by France and the Netherlands.

3. LHR? Virgin Atlantic - will have to wait and see.

4. PVG and China Eastern - will probably come out in good shape with airline consolidation in China. Expect focus on PVG.

4. MIA hub- Is it now worth it? LATAM will probably the biggest loser, losing AA, IB and an alliance in the middle of the biggest crisis in aviation history.

5. SEA & BOS - I leave it for discussion.

Very interestingly you haven't mentioned ATL. ATL's major share is transfer traffic and DL is a huge part of it

1) DL accounted for 78% of seat capacity at ATL in 2017; i don't think much has changed in 3 years
https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ale-381488
Look under - "Delta has over three quarters of all seat capacity"

2) For FY 2016; ATL had roughly 68% connecting traffic and 32% O&D traffic.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ ... t-Sr.-Revs
" However, Atlanta is the primary hub and corporate headquarters location for Delta. ATL is anchored by a large, local traffic base with 17 million O&D enplaned passengers for fiscal year (FY) 2016."

So, if DL returned a small carrier (75% smaller? 50% smaller? 60% smaller? nobody knows); for sure ATL is left very vulnerable as there will be a massive reduction in passenger flow. I would wager to guess that DL would fly the most important and profitable point to point routes 1st (LAX-JFK; JFK-LHR; SFO-JFK etc. for example). So, in a nutshell, to me ATL seems to very vulnerable in terms of massive scale back in routes AND massive scale back in hub operations leading to empty terminals in the near term. Over the long term what happens is anybody's guess. Will ATL be able to withstand the financial shocks of what is to come over the next 3 years and it's future as a mega hub over the next 5 years remains to be seen.


ATL is not unique in that aspect. DFW, IAH, ORD and all the mega hubs have considerably higher connecting traffic percentages for hub carries than O&D. CLT’s numbers are even worse. ATL works so well as a function of its massive connectivity, driven by its large O&D base, geography and proximity to other large O&D centers. Once travel returns, this advantage won’t go away, albeit at a smaller scale. Every hub will be smaller for a while, but ATL is in no way unique.

Jeremy
 
ckfred
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:15 pm

NameOmitted wrote:
ckfred wrote:
But, when people get cooped up, they will make up for lost time, once they can get out and about.

When they can. A lot of my friends are now unemployed. Even assuming this resolves quickly, it'll be awhile before they have built the reserves to start traveling.

We have a Federal Reserve Bank President warning of the possibility of 30% unemployment. That's not just a matter of people being told to stay home anymore. That's a game changer for the industry. For ALL industry.


Ben Bernancke just said today that he sees a deep recession with a very quick recovery. When the markets collapsed in 2008, we were in a bathtub recession. We hit bottom and stayed at the bottom for quite some time, before GDP and employment numbers improved.

After 9/11, businesses were wary of putting people on airplanes. At my wife's office, it was surprising how far people were willing to drive to avoid getting on a plane. People in Chicago were willing to drive to St. Louis and Cincinnati. One of her co-workers was driving to Kansas City.

A friend of mine works in IT. Projects are being delayed, because they need to put people at a client site, if something goes really wrong. So, once senior executives feel comfortable putting people on airplanes, you will see a lot of business travel.

Yes, leisure travel will probably come back slower. But, I know people who have cancelled trips for spring break and have rebooked for between July 4th and the first week of August.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3318
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:42 pm

onwFan wrote:
By the way, does the KE/DL JV cover DL routes to Japan as well? I am guessing not, since I recently saw that KE dropped proposed codeshares on DL routes to HND...


I'm pretty sure it does cover Japan... Hence why I think DL might not scale Japan service back too far in the long term in order to keep the JV balance closer to what it should be. The area the JV definitely doesn't cover is China.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3318
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 5:58 pm

NateGreat wrote:
If non-hub/focus city to Europe are at risk, such as RDU-CDG, TPA-AMS, and IND-CDG, then I wonder if the upcoming BOS-LGW is at risk. Especially since that single 757 will be the only DL flight to LGW and PHL-LHR on the 757 ended up being a fail.


I could see BOS-LGW being low hanging fruit to cut. Unless there's an important BOS corporate account DL was working with that wanted flights to LGW for some reason, I don't see why they need to keep this. They serve BOS-LHR 3x daily in combination with VS, which is decently competitive.

And I think IND-CDG and TPA-AMS are probably the two most vulnerable point-to-point long haul routes, followed by MCO-AMS. I see those going before DL considers cutting CVG-CDG or RDU-CDG. PDX-LHR could be somewhat vulnerable, although BA might be hurt just as much as they haven't even had the chance to launch it and build a customer base yet. Time will tell on that one.

As for hub TATL routes at risk, I think the more recent adds at BOS (EDI, MAN, the 2nd daily CDG, and FCO especially) are likely to be dropped at least for this summer, but could maybe make a return in 2021 if the economy is recovering. MSP-KEF seems like an easy cut if leisure traffic is down, but I wouldn't expect MSP to lose LHR, CDG, or AMS as destinations. I could see SLC losing either CDG or AMS, and maybe LHR temporarily. The thing with PDX and SLC to LHR is that DL need to hang onto their LHR slots for the long term, so would either need to lease them to a partner or move them to somewhere else (e.g. replacing VS on a BOS-LHR frequency or something). Most TATL routes flown from DTW, ATL, and JFK have been around for quite a while at this point, and seem stable. However, I could see some duplicate frequencies dropped (2nd daily DTW-LHR, DTW-CDG, ATL-FCO, JFK-ATH, JFK-TLV, etc.) and perhaps DTW-MUC is at risk, especially with LH planning to jump in.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3318
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Wed Mar 25, 2020 6:18 pm

FlyingElvii wrote:
MSP will be the big loser, I believe. SLC serves the mountain west. If Delta isn’t there, someone else will be, very shortly. Detroit is self-explanatory.

Explain how DTW is self-explanatory while MSP is not... These two hubs have been maintained at similar sizes to each other for years and years, through various ups and downs in the industry. Why will MSP suddenly be less important to DL?

FlyingElvii wrote:
The question is, what do they do with LaGuardia?

Keep it. Unless you think that in a few years New York is suddenly not going to be the most important business destination in the country anymore... DL has a slot portfolio at LGA and JFK that is a key strategic advantage for them as long as slots persist (which is likely to be the foreseeable future, at least at LGA). Giving that up would be shortsighted indeed.

FlyingElvii wrote:
AA is probably the best positioned to go forward without big cuts, as far as dropping a hub goes.

How so? LAX and PHX are closer together than most other legacy hub pairs, much as I hope PHX continues to be strategically important for AA going forward. And AA doesn't have dominant market share in either. ORD is a shared market with UA, who is more dominant there. And if we're talking about DL cutting back in NYC, we definitely need to pull AA into the conversation since that's the direction they've slowly been moving in NYC for years already... As a fan of aviation, I don't want to see any of these operations significantly downsized, but we're trying to have an honest conversation about what DL might need to cut and we're pretending AA is in a stronger position? I just don't see it...
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 44

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos