• 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 7:39 pm

DocLightning wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Wow. I se it as the exact opposite. A short term scare/panic over a virus that isn’t Ebola or the thing that turns people into zombies like the Walking Dead. Air travel demand was strong and growing until a few weeks ago. Now the world is coming to an end? Jesus, people, has humanity become that cynical?


This ain't no Ebola. Ebola couldn't travel far because it made 100% of people who contracted it very ill and ~60-80% dead. It was easy to isolate and quarantine these people.

This virus is milder. Likely over 90% of people who contract it will have minimal to no symptoms. But for about 10% of them, they will get sick and for a significant portion, they will need hospital care. It takes a median five days for symptoms to show and it can spread by droplets or contact. That's why it's so successful and that's why it's so frightening. It seems to have found a perfect sweet spot between "too bad" and "not bad enough" to really cause a crisis.

This will take several months to resolve completely and until there is a vaccine or a rapidly-effective and plentiful antiviral (I had high hopes for hydroxychloroquine but it doesn't seem to be the silver bullet) things will not go back to normal.

As we saw from the -MAX storage issue, airplanes aren't meant to just sit idle. When this is over, the economy will have been deeply wounded and while we get back to business, we will see that this experience profoundly changed the world.


Points well taken. I wish we would have more clarity on the endgame. We were told to delay the curve, checkmark. We did that. But the curve will happen. A fair consensus seems to be building that everyone will be exposed in 2020, only a matter of how to mitigate the big wave.

I have a little conjecture like what you said, 90%+ of cases may be unknown, which we will know exactly when random testing begins out in the wild. Italy is seeing heavy losses perhaps because it may be nearing total population infection. 7000 deaths could mean 7+ million infected. If so, quarantine is useful for the first wave, but after that, we cannot contain it and these containment measures will serve no purpose. We will know the endgame when random testing is performed.

EDIT: What does this have to do with DL, well it might mean in a few months there will be no reason to curtail travel, because everybody will have been exposed to COVID by then. This is an "everybody's exposed / but it's not as dangerous as we thought on average" scenario.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:16 pm

ShinyAndChrome wrote:
N766UA wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Yes. I never could figure out having two hubs (MSP and DTW) so close together. No other airline does that.


What are you talking about? DTW-MSP is 530 miles.

United has LAX and SFO (337mi) and IAD and EWR (212mi). AA has CLT and DCA (330mi)... and PHL (450mi). SWA has LAX and OAK (340 mi), DAL and STL (546mi). B6 has JFK and BOS. Alaska has PDX and SEA, LAX and SFO... the list goes on.

Literally EVERY other airline does that.


With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.
 
Lootess
Posts: 269
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:35 pm

wedgetail737 wrote:
Lootess wrote:
Corporate customers will flock back to Delta in SEA (Amazon, Microsoft) and CVG (P&G) rather quickly once things rebound. Although P&G is important right now since they re-started up another Charmin plant in Georgia. Hot stuff right now I hear.


That's only if DL comes back to SEA as a hub.


It hasn't left, nice try though.
 
adtall
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2010 2:53 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:43 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:
N766UA wrote:

What are you talking about? DTW-MSP is 530 miles.

United has LAX and SFO (337mi) and IAD and EWR (212mi). AA has CLT and DCA (330mi)... and PHL (450mi). SWA has LAX and OAK (340 mi), DAL and STL (546mi). B6 has JFK and BOS. Alaska has PDX and SEA, LAX and SFO... the list goes on.

Literally EVERY other airline does that.


With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.


First, Delta's LAX operation which is (well, was a week ago) near 190 flights last I saw is close to ATL's latitude, so there is that. Second, is United missing the boat not having a southeastern hub? Is American missing the boat not having a good intra-west connecting hub? Every carrier has a geographic weakness, and not all are solvable. Where exactly should DL hub in Texas and Oklahoma (as that's what we're talking about, SLC and LAX cover Arizona and California just fine, also adequate coverage of New Mexico, and Arkansas and Louisiana are covered well from ATL)? Dallas and Houston are out, maybe Austin in 10 years after the industry comes out of cardiac arrest. Where should United hub in the southeast? Same question, same lack of good answers.
 
flyboy80
Posts: 2057
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 10:51 pm

In terms of traffic numbers, wasn't 2008 and 2009 actually worse than 2002 and 2003? I remember airlines entering the 2000s in different places, but not "strong." Seems like after September 11th and the downturn then many airlines went into bankruptcy in the following years. It's too early to tell I know, but figuring that capacity rebounds to say around 70% in the next 6 months, thats still significantly less than what the airlines have built themselves in terms of fleet size & network, so the adjustment gap is still so large I don't see how any of them can scale down to meet that demand either way. And at some point, won't investors look at mergers once again as an answer? I don't see any combinations for the US"4" including WN there, but other carriers and regional airlines perhaps. What about all of Delta's ownership stakes in foreign airlines, does that hurt or help them with a down global economy against UA and AA?
 
User avatar
SCFlyer
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:14 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:12 pm

questions wrote:
No one had mentioned SYD. I would not be surprised if SYD gets nixed and VA goes away.


There are still questions whether VA will even survive the ongoing COVID pandemic due to their finances.

Keep in mind most of VA's shareholders were bankrupt prior to the pandemic, and SQ is looking likely to get a government bailout (considered 'too important'/'essential' service in Singapore) due to their recent financial losses, which is likely to come with some terms (possibly including off-loading their Vistara/VA stakes).
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18940
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:16 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:
N766UA wrote:

What are you talking about? DTW-MSP is 530 miles.

United has LAX and SFO (337mi) and IAD and EWR (212mi). AA has CLT and DCA (330mi)... and PHL (450mi). SWA has LAX and OAK (340 mi), DAL and STL (546mi). B6 has JFK and BOS. Alaska has PDX and SEA, LAX and SFO... the list goes on.

Literally EVERY other airline does that.


With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.

I respectfully disagree on another hub. By having the connect anywhere to everywhere hub at one location, ATL gained revenue.

SLC, DTW, MSP, and CVG will share in the downsizing. There will be no expanding the quantity of hubs. SEA, JFK, and LAX have lost their international connections.

For now it is about cutting expenses. Delta will shrink. There will have to be brutal rationalization of routes.

I expect a further reduction in quantity of hubs. For the low frequency P2P flights of the ULCCs won't end. I personally wonder why DL hasn't adapted to such a strategy.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:20 pm

lightsaber wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:

With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.

I respectfully disagree on another hub. By having the connect anywhere to everywhere hub at one location, ATL gained revenue.

SLC, DTW, MSP, and CVG will share in the downsizing. There will be no expanding the quantity of hubs. SEA, JFK, and LAX have lost their international connections.

For now it is about cutting expenses. Delta will shrink. There will have to be brutal rationalization of routes.

I expect a further reduction in quantity of hubs. For the low frequency P2P flights of the ULCCs won't end. I personally wonder why DL hasn't adapted to such a strategy.

Lightsaber


So which hub will go? It would have to be either MSP or DTW since those overlap a fair amount.
 
N649DL
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:24 pm

I honestly don't really anything new out of this article by TPG. My reaction be like "Yeah no s**t TPG, every airline is going to take a hit after the Corona Virus." DL is probably in the best shape out of the big 3 US airlines to weather the storm over AA and UA. Also DL's communication regarding changes due to the virus has been fantastic as well. I just got another email blast from Ed this afternoon regarding it.

What I think people need to think about is flying relative to where the virus is spreading. If that's the case, NYC, and SEA will likely get hit hard as NY and WA have the most cases, CA right behind it. SLC and MSP have lighter cases and DTW and ATL are moderate.

I just checked the map and I have to think about how screwed is UA right now at say EWR? NJ has like tripled it's virus count over the last few days so EWR is really at risk.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 690
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:28 pm

adtall wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:

With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.


First, Delta's LAX operation which is (well, was a week ago) near 190 flights last I saw is close to ATL's latitude, so there is that. Second, is United missing the boat not having a southeastern hub? Is American missing the boat not having a good intra-west connecting hub? Every carrier has a geographic weakness, and not all are solvable. Where exactly should DL hub in Texas and Oklahoma (as that's what we're talking about, SLC and LAX cover Arizona and California just fine, also adequate coverage of New Mexico, and Arkansas and Louisiana are covered well from ATL)? Dallas and Houston are out, maybe Austin in 10 years after the industry comes out of cardiac arrest. Where should United hub in the southeast? Same question, same lack of good answers.


Pretty much the geographical weaknesses are unsolvable unless UA (the smallest of the US3), gets bought up by either DL or AA. The divesture that would be required to make such a transaction would allow the other to fill their geographical weaknesses.

Of course, I highly doubt that would happen, but these days you never know.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:42 pm

BNAMealer wrote:
So which hub will go? It would have to be either MSP or DTW since those overlap a fair amount.


None of the trunk hubs will disappear. BOS and SEA are the most vulnerable, simply because they haven't matured (re: still in the red). That said, DL's spent into the billions building hubs and will likely protect its investment as long as it can. Per the schedule that's currently published for April -- and it's already changed internally, so this will change -- SEA has barely lost anything. Two flights from DTW to LAS, four from ATL... and seven from SEA!!! Of course ,fares were $14.70 one-way (granted, they were only $26 from ATL). If the bleeding continues, they'll have to pull the plug, but they're still out for blood (AS) right now.

BNAMealer wrote:
Pretty much the geographical weaknesses are unsolvable unless UA (the smallest of the US3), gets bought up by either DL or AA. The divesture that would be required to make such a transaction would allow the other to fill their geographical weaknesses.

Of course, I highly doubt that would happen, but these days you never know.


I think only the a.net community really cares about their preferred carrier having the perfect route network. No business, not even Walmart (although it's pretty darn close), has a perfect national network...
 
Gulfstream500
Posts: 459
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:30 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Sun Mar 22, 2020 11:44 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:
N766UA wrote:

What are you talking about? DTW-MSP is 530 miles.

United has LAX and SFO (337mi) and IAD and EWR (212mi). AA has CLT and DCA (330mi)... and PHL (450mi). SWA has LAX and OAK (340 mi), DAL and STL (546mi). B6 has JFK and BOS. Alaska has PDX and SEA, LAX and SFO... the list goes on.

Literally EVERY other airline does that.


With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.


MSP is necessary for DL, as it is one of the only hubs in the US that is strong in midwest to midwest regional connections (such as DLH to DSM, or GRB to BZN). DTW is not good for those types of connections, as you would have to go an hour in the wrong direction to connect (the same goes for MSP, but for routes like CLE to MKE).
So... when will the Northwest DC-9s be retired?
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4498
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:45 am

Much to a.nets disappointment this not airlines fighting with each other. This will be all of them fighting to stop the bleeding as quickly as possible. They will ditch routes with no question or fights. The airlines will have a long period of real struggle.

Delta had cash but burning $50 million a day and handling more cancellations than bookings this will be felt for a while and can burn thru cash quickly. I really don't think we will see air travel come back till there is a vaccine and even after that will take years to come back to current levels. Video conferencing technology is working companies are not going to force people to travel soon they just aren't.
 
dlflynhayn
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Apr 16, 2008 4:55 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:06 am

SESGDL wrote:
DDR wrote:
It's a given that ATL is safe. Anything else is up in the air. I do hope they retrench from SEA and keep to their other historic hubs.


Totally disagree. ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC and LGA/JFK are all safe. Why would DL abandon "captive" markets? Air travel will eventually rebound. Giving up markets would be lunacy. LAX, BOS and SEA could definitely be at risk, though.

Jeremy

No way DL gives up LAX they have two very well positioned Terminals,they may consolidate into one terminal for the near future but no way they give up on L.A.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:13 am

BNAMealer wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.

I respectfully disagree on another hub. By having the connect anywhere to everywhere hub at one location, ATL gained revenue.

SLC, DTW, MSP, and CVG will share in the downsizing. There will be no expanding the quantity of hubs. SEA, JFK, and LAX have lost their international connections.

For now it is about cutting expenses. Delta will shrink. There will have to be brutal rationalization of routes.

I expect a further reduction in quantity of hubs. For the low frequency P2P flights of the ULCCs won't end. I personally wonder why DL hasn't adapted to such a strategy.

Lightsaber


So which hub will go? It would have to be either MSP or DTW since those overlap a fair amount.



MSP can hold its own without any international connections. It would make sense to keep it over DTW.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:15 am

Gulfstream500 wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:

With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.


MSP is necessary for DL, as it is one of the only hubs in the US that is strong in midwest to midwest regional connections (such as DLH to DSM, or GRB to BZN). DTW is not good for those types of connections, as you would have to go an hour in the wrong direction to connect (the same goes for MSP, but for routes like CLE to MKE).


Agreed. I'm not sure why others don't get it. MSP is also a very affluent and wealthy area.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 896
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:17 am

Pardon me if someone has posted this info already, but Delta has now parked 174 jets including half of its widebodies (78 active, 77 parked)

widebodies 78/77 active/parked
A330-200 2/9
A330-300 17/14
A330-900 4/1 (parked jet delivered less than a year ago on 24 May 2019)
A350-900 8/5
B767 38/39
B777 9/9

Out of 758 narrow-bodies 661/97 active/parked
225/25 Airbus jets
392/43 Boeing jets
44/29 McDonnell Douglas jets

The logic Delta used in deciding the selection of the 97 narrow-bodies to park is not obvious. I would think that there would be very little advantage in parking an A319 or a B717.
9 A319-100
11 A320-200
5 A321-200
24 717-200
4 737-800
13 757-200
2 757-300
14 MD-80
15 MD-90
 
kavok
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:18 am

Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.
 
ShinyAndChrome
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:20 am

What is with this obsession with having to choose between MSP and DTW? Even if in theory they could serve a lot of the same flows, they have their own distinct niches and most importantly of all, both contribute an outsized amount of DL's revenues and profitability thanks to their strong local markets and well-developed, mature networks. When the industry enters a rebuilding period, that fact alone will be the single most important consideration in terms what the network will look like.
 
kavok
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:22 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
I respectfully disagree on another hub. By having the connect anywhere to everywhere hub at one location, ATL gained revenue.

SLC, DTW, MSP, and CVG will share in the downsizing. There will be no expanding the quantity of hubs. SEA, JFK, and LAX have lost their international connections.

For now it is about cutting expenses. Delta will shrink. There will have to be brutal rationalization of routes.

I expect a further reduction in quantity of hubs. For the low frequency P2P flights of the ULCCs won't end. I personally wonder why DL hasn't adapted to such a strategy.

Lightsaber


So which hub will go? It would have to be either MSP or DTW since those overlap a fair amount.



MSP can hold its own without any international connections. It would make sense to keep it over DTW.


I agree it makes sense to keep MSP. What makes less sense than keeping MSP is not keeping both MSP and DTW. Delta is going to need all the money it can get over the next few months. Killing one of your cash cows does the exact opposite of that.
 
N766UA
Posts: 8270
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 1999 3:50 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:23 am

kavok wrote:
Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.


If you can make money at both, you have both. There isn't some "cap out" on the number of hubs you're allowed to have.
 
tphuang
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:31 am

kavok wrote:
Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.

I am sure there is a lot of discussions right now in the delta headquarters about how they emerge after this. Which focus cities and hubs will be downsized more. What made delta tick are their core hubs. Without those hubs, they really couldn't have built up NYC and lax. Everything else really is luxury. Seattle at least as some geographic importance and is a plausible tpac hub in the event Korean air gets nationalized and jv going away. Plus they have the feud with aa and as. Boston is just a complete luxury that doesn't make sense coming out of this virus as tatl traffic is likely down for a few years. Boston at 75 flights a day for them is quite profitable. Boston at 150 flights a day will be heavily in the red.

Looks like delta has already made the decision that their focus cities can be downsized coming out of this. But realistically, it will be far easier for them to build back up focus cities and be profitable vs maintaining a 150 flight operation at Boston. We will see if they reach that conclusion. Comparing Boston and Seattle, they have clearly invested more in the latter so have more sunk cost which they may not be willing to give up.
 
tphuang
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:36 am

N766UA wrote:
kavok wrote:
Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.


If you can make money at both, you have both. There isn't some "cap out" on the number of hubs you're allowed to have.

Boston is going to lose heavy money if they keep 150 flights a day. JFK is also going to be weak for a few years with business market and tatl likely to be weak coming out of this. My guess is JFK will lose its slot constraints coming out of this. Hard for me to not see delta take advantage of that.
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1425
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:43 am

DTW and MSP are not going away. Every airline hub will be trimmed back until things get back to normal. Domestic traveling will be challenging. Flying from the US to international destinations will be a nightmare. But in time everything will stabilize, it’ll just take a while.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:44 am

kavok wrote:
Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.


You need to understand economies of scale. Delta has no choice but to cut flights from two of their biggest hubs. Now they can either run 150 flights from MSP and 150 flights from DTW. Or they can run 300 flights from MSP. Consolidating to MSP would be much more cost efficient. They can still operate flights that can be supported on just O/D from DTW.
 
N649DL
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:12 am

ShinyAndChrome wrote:
What is with this obsession with having to choose between MSP and DTW? Even if in theory they could serve a lot of the same flows, they have their own distinct niches and most importantly of all, both contribute an outsized amount of DL's revenues and profitability thanks to their strong local markets and well-developed, mature networks. When the industry enters a rebuilding period, that fact alone will be the single most important consideration in terms what the network will look like.


Both MSP and DTW are EXTREMELY profitable hubs for DL. Even if DTW isn't *as* mildly profitable, the infrastructure alone at the McNamera Terminal is enough to keep it around. Thanks to NW, it's 18 years old and the terminal still looks brand new.

I'm convinced his TPG article is just another "fear mongering" spin by the media over this virus. So DL is going to downsize and emerge? What then about UA considering 80% of it's stock went into an equity buy back program? Seems like UA compared to DL should be in liquidation mode (AA probably even worse than UA.)

People need to calm the F-down and wise up. Remember N1H1? Neither do I, but it was more deadly and no bars or restaurants shut down back in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

I'll go out on limb here and just say this article is absolute garbage. What does TPG know about running the logistics of a global airline? (Mic Drop.)
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 4689
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:17 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
kavok wrote:
Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.


You need to understand economies of scale. Delta has no choice but to cut flights from two of their biggest hubs. Now they can either run 150 flights from MSP and 150 flights from DTW. Or they can run 300 flights from MSP. Consolidating to MSP would be much more cost efficient. They can still operate flights that can be supported on just O/D from DTW.


Sure they will cut flights from each hub, but suggesting DL could consolidate its DTW & MSP hubs into MSP, is extreme. MSP is not big enough nor strategically placed to absorb DTW's operation.

Not every hub needs to be ATL, DL has shown through this through DTW & MSP being among the highest margin airline hubs in the world.

SEA, BOS, LAX, RDU, & CVG would all be cut back to nothing, before DL would dehub DTW or MSP
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:23 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
kavok wrote:
Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.


You need to understand economies of scale. Delta has no choice but to cut flights from two of their biggest hubs. Now they can either run 150 flights from MSP and 150 flights from DTW. Or they can run 300 flights from MSP. Consolidating to MSP would be much more cost efficient. They can still operate flights that can be supported on just O/D from DTW.


Yeah...no.

Delta dominate those two markets and giving up either would be brain dead. Besides, MSP doesn’t have near the high fare long haul O&D that DTW has.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
jbmitt
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:36 am

I think there will be opportunities for airlines with deeper pockets and resources to eventually re-emerge in competitive positions. AS in SEA and B6 in JFK/BOS could have challenges against the Big 3 even if those cities are where they would retreat to. Similarly, if any of the Big 3 were to get too small in key cities, they could also welcome unwanted competition that could further weaken their positions.

I think it's an opportunity for DL to pull back marginally profitable flying. I believe they will have their hands full with the draw down in international flying, but there may be areas of domestic flying that comes back faster. I'd be careful about writing off focus cities like CVG or RDU. Both cities support industries that have had business demand. If enough demand returns to support non-stop O/D service, it may be preferable to chasing low yield connections.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:36 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
kavok wrote:
Honest question: What purpose does the BOS hub serve that can’t be duplicated at JFK? Obviously BOS O/D, but what else? If the old answer was JFK was too crowded and not enough slots, the downturn created by this crisis may solve that issue and make BOS redundant.


You need to understand economies of scale. Delta has no choice but to cut flights from two of their biggest hubs. Now they can either run 150 flights from MSP and 150 flights from DTW. Or they can run 300 flights from MSP. Consolidating to MSP would be much more cost efficient. They can still operate flights that can be supported on just O/D from DTW.


Yeah...no.

Delta dominate those two markets and giving up either would be brain dead. Besides, MSP doesn’t have near the high fare long haul O&D that DTW has.


Do you have any data to support this? You're the first person I've ever heard say that DTW has a fare premium over MSP.
 
flyinghippo
Posts: 737
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:48 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:50 am

I didn't read all the replies so excuse me if someone already mentioned it...
My guess is that DL will maintain it's core hubs - ATL, DTW, MSP, JFK/LGA, SLC. They will continue LAX and SEA - they're not going to give that up as those are all long term strategy hubs. BOS will see a lot of reduction (Reduction will happen in ALL Hubs). Focus cities such as CVG, AUS, etc will be lucky if they get flights to the DL major hubs. Any routes DL recently announced that's not from one of the hub cities will be cut.

Everyone should realize that ALL airlines in the US will come out smaller than they were 3 weeks ago. DL is best positioned to become the strongest out of the major 3 at the end of this. With AA's debt, I'd be surprised if they don't go to Chapter 11. AS and B6 will suffer as well given their major hubs are the hardest hit by this virus.

The biggest weakness in DL is its relatively heavy reliance on partners. KE/VS/AF/KL/AZ will all come out of this a different airline - will they become a liability for DL?

If DL plays its cards right, they might see this as an opportunity to position itself to capture more of AA's market since AA will probably come out of this smaller than Delta.
 
User avatar
acavpics
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:53 am

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.
 
Brickell305
Posts: 821
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 2:07 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:56 am

N649DL wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:
What is with this obsession with having to choose between MSP and DTW? Even if in theory they could serve a lot of the same flows, they have their own distinct niches and most importantly of all, both contribute an outsized amount of DL's revenues and profitability thanks to their strong local markets and well-developed, mature networks. When the industry enters a rebuilding period, that fact alone will be the single most important consideration in terms what the network will look like.


Both MSP and DTW are EXTREMELY profitable hubs for DL. Even if DTW isn't *as* mildly profitable, the infrastructure alone at the McNamera Terminal is enough to keep it around. Thanks to NW, it's 18 years old and the terminal still looks brand new.

I'm convinced his TPG article is just another "fear mongering" spin by the media over this virus. So DL is going to downsize and emerge? What then about UA considering 80% of it's stock went into an equity buy back program? Seems like UA compared to DL should be in liquidation mode (AA probably even worse than UA.)

People need to calm the F-down and wise up. Remember N1H1? Neither do I, but it was more deadly and no bars or restaurants shut down back in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

I'll go out on limb here and just say this article is absolute garbage. What does TPG know about running the logistics of a global airline? (Mic Drop.)

TPG literally quoted the CFO of Delta. I think he would know about the logistics of running a global airline.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4456
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:22 am

adtall wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:

With MSP and DTW always being cited as too close to each other, I suspect people just consider the Midwest to be interchangeable.

I don't think anybody feels that. I think
delta is missing the boat in NOT having a southern US hub other than ATL whether southwest or Far west doesn't matter, just South****! on the same Latitude as ATL.


First, Delta's LAX operation which is (well, was a week ago) near 190 flights last I saw is close to ATL's latitude, so there is that. Second, is United missing the boat not having a southeastern hub? Is American missing the boat not having a good intra-west connecting hub? Every carrier has a geographic weakness, and not all are solvable. Where exactly should DL hub in Texas and Oklahoma (as that's what we're talking about, SLC and LAX cover Arizona and California just fine, also adequate coverage of New Mexico, and Arkansas and Louisiana are covered well from ATL)? Dallas and Houston are out, maybe Austin in 10 years after the industry comes out of cardiac arrest. Where should United hub in the southeast? Same question, same lack of good answers.


as a matter of fact? United IS missing the boat in not having a southeastern Hub Which I have stated and number of times. Also I was opposed by a JBLU supporter for what I suppose was some sort of survival mode for B6 to preserve their Route structure and Possibly haveUA to interline with B6. Though I cannot tell you why since UA can surely feed their own flights out of the SE. I feel that DL could be adding TO their structure with a Southwest US hub for the lower tier states which would certainly enhance tjheir route system just as a SE-USA hub would for United.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:36 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

You need to understand economies of scale. Delta has no choice but to cut flights from two of their biggest hubs. Now they can either run 150 flights from MSP and 150 flights from DTW. Or they can run 300 flights from MSP. Consolidating to MSP would be much more cost efficient. They can still operate flights that can be supported on just O/D from DTW.


Yeah...no.

Delta dominate those two markets and giving up either would be brain dead. Besides, MSP doesn’t have near the high fare long haul O&D that DTW has.


Do you have any data to support this? You're the first person I've ever heard say that DTW has a fare premium over MSP.


I specifically said long haul premium travel and yes it does. Domestically the fares are higher to MSP. DTW-Asia is MUCH bigger than MSP-Asia in O&D. DTW-Europe is also larger in O&D.

Why do you think DL made DTW its Asia hub despite the fact that MSP has a better geographic location? How does DTW support service to NGO when no other airport in North America does? Why do DL and LH compete on DTW-FRA/MUC when they dont fly to MSP from either?
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 5128
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:48 am

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.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:11 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

Yeah...no.

Delta dominate those two markets and giving up either would be brain dead. Besides, MSP doesn’t have near the high fare long haul O&D that DTW has.


Do you have any data to support this? You're the first person I've ever heard say that DTW has a fare premium over MSP.


I specifically said long haul premium travel and yes it does. Domestically the fares are higher to MSP. DTW-Asia is MUCH bigger than MSP-Asia in O&D. DTW-Europe is also larger in O&D.

Why do you think DL made DTW its Asia hub despite the fact that MSP has a better geographic location? How does DTW support service to NGO when no other airport in North America does? Why do DL and LH compete on DTW-FRA/MUC when they dont fly to MSP from either?


I guess you missed the post where I said MSP was able to hold its own strictly on domestic connections. International travel will be very light for the next 2-5 years. That's not good news for DTW. Passengers will either pay for a premium for the few nonstops from JFK or they will connect in LAX or SFO. DTW and ORD will both suffer. No one is going to pay extra for connection from the Midwest. There will be the high end and low end. No middle ground.
 
groupguy
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:15 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 7:23 am

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
but couldn't an A220 operate a long thin route if not already doing so ?
 
tphuang
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:54 am

flyinghippo wrote:
The biggest weakness in DL is its relatively heavy reliance on partners. KE/VS/AF/KL/AZ will all come out of this a different airline - will they become a liability for DL?

If DL plays its cards right, they might see this as an opportunity to position itself to capture more of AA's market since AA will probably come out of this smaller than Delta.


Yes, DL's JV and equity strategies are going to look pretty terrible in this downturn as all these airlines are probably going to get nationalized and DL ownership will be diluted or bought out. And that's assuming they all get bailed out, because that's not a given.

And yes, if DL play its cards right, it might be able to make a play at AA hubs, but not immediately. The question is who will emerge out of this in a good shape. Legacies are clearly going to emerge out of this in a weaker position than LCC/ULCCs due to likely slower recovery in TATL/TPAC market + corporate spending. DL is going to lose money big time if they try to keep around all of its new "hubs" and "focus cities".
 
hsuthe19
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 3:22 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:48 pm

tphuang wrote:
flyinghippo wrote:
The biggest weakness in DL is its relatively heavy reliance on partners. KE/VS/AF/KL/AZ will all come out of this a different airline - will they become a liability for DL?

If DL plays its cards right, they might see this as an opportunity to position itself to capture more of AA's market since AA will probably come out of this smaller than Delta.


Yes, DL's JV and equity strategies are going to look pretty terrible in this downturn as all these airlines are probably going to get nationalized and DL ownership will be diluted or bought out. And that's assuming they all get bailed out, because that's not a given.

And yes, if DL play its cards right, it might be able to make a play at AA hubs, but not immediately. The question is who will emerge out of this in a good shape. Legacies are clearly going to emerge out of this in a weaker position than LCC/ULCCs due to likely slower recovery in TATL/TPAC market + corporate spending. DL is going to lose money big time if they try to keep around all of its new "hubs" and "focus cities".


If the your first point turns out to be true, looks like the Delta pilots could be getting their wish.

I’ve noticed that people have noticed that the DL aren’t huge. Maybe the cuts are gradual, as in my a certain date flight ops will be 30% of what they were pre-virus?
 
ckfred
Posts: 5178
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 12:58 pm

I know it took some time for airlines to recover after 9/11. Simply put, people were afraid to get on airplanes, thinking terrorists would try to cause more crashes. People were unsure if the government could screen passengers and keep terrorists and explosives off of airplanes. And then there were people who were annoyed at the more stringent screening methods. I know I was getting fed up with getting pulled for additional screening.

But, when people get cooped up, they will make up for lost time, once they can get out and about. I would be far more worried about the cruise ship industry recovering than the airlines. Simply put, no one wants to get on a ship and either be denied entry to a port or put into quarantine at the end of a cruise.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:38 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Do you have any data to support this? You're the first person I've ever heard say that DTW has a fare premium over MSP.


I specifically said long haul premium travel and yes it does. Domestically the fares are higher to MSP. DTW-Asia is MUCH bigger than MSP-Asia in O&D. DTW-Europe is also larger in O&D.

Why do you think DL made DTW its Asia hub despite the fact that MSP has a better geographic location? How does DTW support service to NGO when no other airport in North America does? Why do DL and LH compete on DTW-FRA/MUC when they dont fly to MSP from either?


I guess you missed the post where I said MSP was able to hold its own strictly on domestic connections. International travel will be very light for the next 2-5 years. That's not good news for DTW. Passengers will either pay for a premium for the few nonstops from JFK or they will connect in LAX or SFO. DTW and ORD will both suffer. No one is going to pay extra for connection from the Midwest. There will be the high end and low end. No middle ground.


International travel will not be very light for 2-5 years. It will be much lighter for 1-2 years. If were still dealing with light international travel in 5 years, most airlines might as well just close up shop and let Southwest run everything.

Business still has to get done and youre talking about the worldwide capital of the auto industry which DL has a virtual monopoly on. Theres no way they will let that go at all. DTW, MSP, ATL, SLC, etc. will all get flight reductions but they will NEVER let go of the valuable business they have in DTW or MSP.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
avek00
Posts: 3232
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 1:59 pm

lightsaber wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:
ShinyAndChrome wrote:
For the low frequency P2P flights of the ULCCs won't end. I personally wonder why DL hasn't adapted to such a strategy.

Lightsaber


Similar to yesteryear's NRT hub situation, Delta finds itself in a paradoxical situation -- namely, the legacy carrier with the greatest resources but also the greatest vulnerability.

The current crisis will accelerate the biggest trend in North American flying -- point-to-point nonstop flights between the top 50-75 air markets in the country. Even before COVID-19 added health/safety concerns into the mix, the growth in LCC/ULCC traffic has been fueled by taking people "where they want, when they want" without the hassles of an extra 2+ hours connecting in a delay-prone hub. In fairness, Delta (and, to a lesser degree, AA)* saw the writing on the wall and took steps to bolster their non-hub flying. But Delta is by far the most dependent on connecting traffic flows of the Big 3, and while people will accept a connection to get to West Podunk, the North American marketplace will increasingly disfavor connecting flights in all other circumstances.

*UNITED has a huge built-in structural advantage by having all of its hubs sited in America's stronger O&D markets.
Live life to the fullest.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 193
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:02 pm

ShinyAndChrome wrote:
What is with this obsession with having to choose between MSP and DTW? Even if in theory they could serve a lot of the same flows, they have their own distinct niches and most importantly of all, both contribute an outsized amount of DL's revenues and profitability thanks to their strong local markets and well-developed, mature networks. When the industry enters a rebuilding period, that fact alone will be the single most important consideration in terms what the network will look like.


The common myth is that big cities like NY and LAX are where an airline makes real money. Nothing could be more untrue among the US carriers.

If airlines take a bailout, they can't use the government's money to engage in money-losing "piss wars" in places like SEA, BOS, NYC. To argue their core hubs should be cut in favor of keeping pricing bloodbath markets makes no sense.

avek00 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:


Similar to yesteryear's NRT hub situation, Delta finds itself in a paradoxical situation -- namely, the legacy carrier with the greatest resources but also the greatest vulnerability.

The current crisis will accelerate the biggest trend in North American flying -- point-to-point nonstop flights between the top 50-75 air markets in the country. Even before COVID-19 added health/safety concerns into the mix, the growth in LCC/ULCC traffic has been fueled by taking people "where they want, when they want" without the hassles of an extra 2+ hours connecting in a delay-prone hub. In fairness, Delta (and, to a lesser degree, AA)* saw the writing on the wall and took steps to bolster their non-hub flying. But Delta is by far the most dependent on connecting traffic flows of the Big 3, and while people will accept a connection to get to West Podunk, the North American marketplace will increasingly disfavor connecting flights in all other circumstances.

*UNITED has a huge built-in structural advantage by having all of its hubs sited in America's stronger O&D markets.


Too soon to tell. The minimum-cost way to serve the top 50 markets to a network is having a hub with 100 daily flights. To connect them individually would take around 2500 flights. That 25x increase in cost can only be justified if there is strong market demand. So I would imagine we would see a lower proportion of P2P. But it could go like you say. If legacies are really hobbled, new LCCs would fill in with P2P flights for the time being, at least until a new LCC hub might develop.
 
ShinyAndChrome
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:36 pm

avek00 wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
strfyr51 wrote:


Similar to yesteryear's NRT hub situation, Delta finds itself in a paradoxical situation -- namely, the legacy carrier with the greatest resources but also the greatest vulnerability.

The current crisis will accelerate the biggest trend in North American flying -- point-to-point nonstop flights between the top 50-75 air markets in the country. Even before COVID-19 added health/safety concerns into the mix, the growth in LCC/ULCC traffic has been fueled by taking people "where they want, when they want" without the hassles of an extra 2+ hours connecting in a delay-prone hub. In fairness, Delta (and, to a lesser degree, AA)* saw the writing on the wall and took steps to bolster their non-hub flying. But Delta is by far the most dependent on connecting traffic flows of the Big 3, and while people will accept a connection to get to West Podunk, the North American marketplace will increasingly disfavor connecting flights in all other circumstances.

*UNITED has a huge built-in structural advantage by having all of its hubs sited in America's stronger O&D markets.


On the other hand, those big local markets AA and UA hub in disproportionately overlap with ULCCs. If local market A is twice the size of local market B but half of A's traffic go to LCCs/ULCCs anyway and everyone has to compete with those carriers' prices, then it might actually favor legacy carriers in smaller, less competitive markets.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3677
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:45 pm

People in Washington have taken social distancing very seriously. Buses with normal loads of 30+ will have 3-4 passengers. Restaurants went to take out. About the only crowded places I have seen are grocers (we avoid those hours). All of our medical and dental appointments have been cancelled, usually both by us and the providers. The naval shipyard in Bremerton could be a natural experiment in carrying out essential functions while also protecting workers - It can be done. If what we are doing works, we will start seeing some drop in the rates of infection in about a week. Social pressure to avoid contact is pretty heavy, and rightfully so.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
ShinyAndChrome
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:51 pm

tphuang wrote:
flyinghippo wrote:
The biggest weakness in DL is its relatively heavy reliance on partners. KE/VS/AF/KL/AZ will all come out of this a different airline - will they become a liability for DL?

If DL plays its cards right, they might see this as an opportunity to position itself to capture more of AA's market since AA will probably come out of this smaller than Delta.


Yes, DL's JV and equity strategies are going to look pretty terrible in this downturn as all these airlines are probably going to get nationalized and DL ownership will be diluted or bought out. And that's assuming they all get bailed out, because that's not a given.

And yes, if DL play its cards right, it might be able to make a play at AA hubs, but not immediately. The question is who will emerge out of this in a good shape. Legacies are clearly going to emerge out of this in a weaker position than LCC/ULCCs due to likely slower recovery in TATL/TPAC market + corporate spending. DL is going to lose money big time if they try to keep around all of its new "hubs" and "focus cities".


Any returns on the equity invested or continued board influence could be shaky, but the continuation of the JVs (any of the US3s') shouldn't be affected by any public investment in these airlines. At the end of the day, if various governments are taking emergency measures to rescue these carriers' finances, it wouldn't make sense to throw out something that by all accounts makes these carriers more solvent and sustainable.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6869
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:55 pm

avek00 wrote:
*UNITED has a huge built-in structural advantage by having all of its hubs sited in America's stronger O&D markets.


You keep telling yourself that because it doesn't show up in profits.

CHI is split 3-ways

NYC is split 3 1/2 ways between UA, DL, B6 and AA

SFO gets lots of domestic competition from OAK and SJC

DEN is split 2 1/4 ways with UA, WN and F9.

UA has been crying for years that it has lower profits because it sees more competition in it hubs than other carrier hubs. You can't have it both ways.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6869
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 2:57 pm

LCDFlight wrote:
If airlines take a bailout, they can't use the government's money to engage in money-losing "piss wars" in places like SEA, BOS, NYC.


Have you seen the legislation? What restrictions on operations and financial uses are specified?
 
blockski
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:03 pm

N766UA wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
flyboy80 wrote:
Could MSP, BOS, JFK/LGA, & SLC not theoretically do everything that DTW does today...?


Yes. I never could figure out having two hubs (MSP and DTW) so close together. No other airline does that.


What are you talking about? DTW-MSP is 530 miles.

United has LAX and SFO (337mi) and IAD and EWR (212mi). AA has CLT and DCA (330mi)... and PHL (450mi). SWA has LAX and OAK (340 mi), DAL and STL (546mi). B6 has JFK and BOS. Alaska has PDX and SEA, LAX and SFO... the list goes on.

Literally EVERY other airline does that.


Moreover, even within Delta's own network, JFK and DTW are closer than DTW and MSP (by a hair).
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 12

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