Runway765 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

n9801f wrote:

First, if AUS only has "trash" Southwest yields, then why did Delta announce a focus city there in the first place?

Sure it announced it, but as this board loves to point out, DL hasn't really done anything with it. Actions speak louder than words.

DL made a huge blunder here IMHO, which is not like them. Shouldn’t have said anything unless they were serious. At this point, having a hub in AUS would be more valuable than, say MSP.

Blunder? Not really. This site made way too much out of the comments.

Either way, more valuable than MSP? Sure, AUS has some big names like Dell and the recent moves of Oracle and Tesla, but MSP has a lot of non-sexy corporations (a lot more than AUS) like Target, BestBuy, UnitedHealth, USBank, 3M, General Mills, etc. Furthermore, DL would have to move in and compete with airlines in AUS also wanting a piece of that growth versus its dominant position, its just not realistic to say DL would immediately have a valuable hub. MSPs profit allows DL to strategically expand and capture more of its target premium market.

jbs2886 wrote:

Funny that you bring up WN at ATL considering how substantially WN has shrunk there since its AirTran acquisition - which is completely contrary to your point.

I think this snippet is misleading.

While Southwest did, indeed, shrink the number of flights in ATL following the integration of AirTran, it simultaneously made two other changes that increased Delta's exposure.

First, Southwest replaced AirTran's small 717's (117 seats) with much larger 737's (143-175 seats). So one Southwest departure has 122-150% as many seats as one AirTran 717 departure.

Second, it changed timings to reduce connectivity. (Southwest eliminated AirTran's connecting banks.) So there are fewer connecting passengers and the seats now in Atlanta have to draw more heavily from the local market.

So at the end of the day, Southwest remains a formidable competitor to Delta in Atlanta.

Finally, those who've watched it for decades know that Southwest's schedule sometimes ebbs and flows. In my view Southwest has more growth opportunities in the East than the West or Midwest, so incremental aircraft could well end up in Atlanta. But even if they don't, they'll likely pressure Delta elsewhere.

In my view, denying or playing-down the presence of a vigorous competitor is complacent.

fanoftristars wrote:

One only needs to check fares from DFW to any market that AA also connects with AUS to see that it’s a bloodbath there and ridiculously low yield. For instance DFW-PVR is usually twice as expensive as DFW-AUS-PVR. Or DFW-BNA vs DFW-AUS-BNA. If you don’t care about nonstop flights and you want to fly American Airlines, just connect through Austin to save money.

I hope you do realize that it is customary for most network carriers to charge a premium for non-stops? Moreover, in general, AA is not pricing connecting flights between city pairs any lower than through other hubs. If DL were the one that launched all these routes, I am sure you would justifying it with the same logic; and also that ‘it will naturally take some time to build a focus city’.

n9801f wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Funny that you bring up WN at ATL considering how substantially WN has shrunk there since its AirTran acquisition - which is completely contrary to your point.

I think this snippet is misleading.

While Southwest did, indeed, shrink the number of flights in ATL following the integration of AirTran, it simultaneously made two other changes that increased Delta's exposure.

First, Southwest replaced AirTran's small 717's (117 seats) with much larger 737's (143-175 seats). So one Southwest departure has 122-150% as many seats as one AirTran 717 departure.

Second, it changed timings to reduce connectivity. (Southwest eliminated AirTran's connecting banks.) So there are fewer connecting passengers and the seats now in Atlanta have to draw more heavily from the local market.

So at the end of the day, Southwest remains a formidable competitor to Delta in Atlanta.

Finally, those who've watched it for decades know that Southwest's schedule sometimes ebbs and flows. In my view Southwest has more growth opportunities in the East than the West or Midwest, so incremental aircraft could well end up in Atlanta. But even if they don't, they'll likely pressure Delta elsewhere.

In my view, denying or playing-down the presence of a vigorous competitor is complacent.

You can caveat and defend WN any way you want, but your premise was DL doesn't aggressively compete, which the situation in ATL proves otherwise. DL doesn't deny or play-down the competitor, but that doesn't meant they need to compete for the cheap fares - DL doesn't want that market.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Are you perhaps new to the study of marketing?

DL brings products heavily differentiated from WN: AVOD, reserved seats, Y+ seats, F/J, an intercontinental network... All of the top 25-30 cities (cities, not airports) ought to have alternatives to WN. Most do. AUS did not, as it had grown into that size tier very quickly.

AA may fulfill the full-service roll at AUS and keep DL away, but that doesn't mean DL was preparing to go forward with a poor strategy.

Are you perhaps new to the study of airline networks?

Eastern (EA) thought its product was differentiated from LCC's, too.

So I question the strategy of offering a premium good in what's largely a commodity market.

Seriously - time and again we've seen that US airlines have to be "omnivorous" and draw fully from both business and leisure segments to survive. All-premium airlines like Air One, Air Atlanta, MGM Grand Air, Legend Airlines, Midwest Express, and McClain Airlines all failed. Some super-discounters, like People Express and SkyBus, failed, too.

Long-standing precedent is leisure passengers drive volume that helps support frequency, which helps attract high-value but low-volume customers.

In any case, a large fraction of passengers - both leisure and business - treat airline seats largely like a commodity (undifferentiated).

So I question the strategy of offering a premium good in what's largely a commodity market.

You can point to Delta's revenue premium if you like, but I question whether this is occurs because Delta's main hubs have less LCC competition than the other legacies.

The approach of selectively carrying high-fare passengers may work when LCC's have a small share, but it collapses when the LCC has large share because the legacy becomes a price taker. Besides, in coach, Delta and Southwest just aren't that different.

I'm so lost...what the heck is even being debated here, especially by posters that have an extreme bias against DL.
I'm all for constructive debates, but this is selective narriatives and bias and when someone says that AUS is more valuable to DL than MSP that just throws credibility and validity out the window.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I'm so lost...what the heck is even being debated here, especially by posters that have an extreme bias against DL.
I'm all for constructive debates, but this is selective narriatives and bias and when someone says that AUS is more valuable to DL than MSP that just throws credibility and validity out the window.

I will never understand why so many posters who don't like certain airlines, actively seek out those airlines' threads to just cause issues. Same with manufacturers. A debate on a DL network is great, but not when its by people basically trolling.

fanoftristars wrote:

One only needs to check fares from DFW to any market that AA also connects with AUS to see that it’s a bloodbath there and ridiculously low yield. For instance DFW-PVR is usually twice as expensive as DFW-AUS-PVR. Or DFW-BNA vs DFW-AUS-BNA. If you don’t care about nonstop flights and you want to fly American Airlines, just connect through Austin to save money.

Yep!!!!

And let’s not forget that DL isn’t totally sitting out this fight. KL and VS are entering the market within a month of each other…

Anyone have any new information on the starting routes for the a321neos, itching to see those new First seats.

n9801f wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Funny that you bring up WN at ATL considering how substantially WN has shrunk there since its AirTran acquisition - which is completely contrary to your point.

I think this snippet is misleading.

While Southwest did, indeed, shrink the number of flights in ATL following the integration of AirTran, it simultaneously made two other changes that increased Delta's exposure.

First, Southwest replaced AirTran's small 717's (117 seats) with much larger 737's (143-175 seats). So one Southwest departure has 122-150% as many seats as one AirTran 717 departure.

Second, it changed timings to reduce connectivity. (Southwest eliminated AirTran's connecting banks.) So there are fewer connecting passengers and the seats now in Atlanta have to draw more heavily from the local market.

So at the end of the day, Southwest remains a formidable competitor to Delta in Atlanta.

Finally, those who've watched it for decades know that Southwest's schedule sometimes ebbs and flows. In my view Southwest has more growth opportunities in the East than the West or Midwest, so incremental aircraft could well end up in Atlanta. But even if they don't, they'll likely pressure Delta elsewhere.

In my view, denying or playing-down the presence of a vigorous competitor is complacent.

They can fly all those extra planes into ATL at their hearts desire, but only if they want to unload them at North Cargo.

Don't forget WN gave up 11 gates on D concourse, an at least half went to DL and the rest to NK/F9/AS.

Not happening.

A321NEO initial routes have not yet been loaded but per comments from DL leadership to be out of BOS.

TPG had an extensive photo shoot of the new F seat here
https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air ... seat-tour/

jbs2886 wrote:

I've posted this before, but it is improper to look at this as just a market share play. DL's play is corporate, higher-yielding traffic. These are two tech markets that help to fill out DL's portfolio and offer an overall stronger network. You aren't seeing DL try to knock of AS in SEA. In BOS it is trying to consolidate premium traffic. These simply can't be seen as market share plays.

There is no evidence based on fare data that they have accomplished any of that. However, it is a good sales pitch to Wall Street Analysts to justify their moves.

It's just like their claim that they are capturing the premium leisure type of travelers. Despite the fact that revenue data shows their revenue have suffered a larger drop vs 2019 than pretty much every other carrier. However, it is a very good and convenient story to tell Wall Street Analysts.

As long as they do well in their core hubs, Wall Street Analysts will not question these explanations. So the end question is whether or not they can keep doing this well in their core hubs if they continue to lose domestic market share.

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I've posted this before, but it is improper to look at this as just a market share play. DL's play is corporate, higher-yielding traffic. These are two tech markets that help to fill out DL's portfolio and offer an overall stronger network. You aren't seeing DL try to knock of AS in SEA. In BOS it is trying to consolidate premium traffic. These simply can't be seen as market share plays.

There is no evidence based on fare data that they have accomplished any of that. However, it is a good sales pitch to Wall Street Analysts to justify their moves.

It's just like their claim that they are capturing the premium leisure type of travelers. Despite the fact that revenue data shows their revenue have suffered a larger drop vs 2019 than pretty much every other carrier. However, it is a very good and convenient story to tell Wall Street Analysts.

As long as they do well in their core hubs, Wall Street Analysts will not question these explanations. So the end question is whether or not they can keep doing this well in their core hubs if they continue to lose domestic market share.

Ahh so DL must be lying to its investors and the SEC, thereby breaking numerous laws. I’m far more likely to believe DL, even with a little spin, than someone who takes every opportunity to knock DL.

n9801f wrote:

catiii wrote:

The industry leader being called staid and slow. Laughable.

Recall that, like Delta, USAir and Frontier were once industry leaders in profitability. But the marketplace changed faster than they adapted. Frontier shut down. USAir struggled for decades.

When you're profitable you have reduced incentive to change or innovate. After all, why tinker with a goose that lays golden eggs.

Does Delta show signs of sluggishness?

Some contributors to the thread 'AA large AUS expansion' thought so:

CarlosSi wrote:

Delta: "Austin is one of our focus cities"
American: "Hold my beer."

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1458639

Or what about the Covid response? Delta scaled down but didn't modify its business model. Meanwhile American radically refocused on leisure. And United cut costs aggressively. In that context, I found Delta's response very timid. Additionally, it announced capacity cutbacks more slowly than the others.

And you’re deducing all of this because :::checks notes::: Scott Laurence was about to get fired from Delta?

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I've posted this before, but it is improper to look at this as just a market share play. DL's play is corporate, higher-yielding traffic. These are two tech markets that help to fill out DL's portfolio and offer an overall stronger network. You aren't seeing DL try to knock of AS in SEA. In BOS it is trying to consolidate premium traffic. These simply can't be seen as market share plays.

There is no evidence based on fare data that they have accomplished any of that. However, it is a good sales pitch to Wall Street Analysts to justify their moves.

It's just like their claim that they are capturing the premium leisure type of travelers. Despite the fact that revenue data shows their revenue have suffered a larger drop vs 2019 than pretty much every other carrier. However, it is a very good and convenient story to tell Wall Street Analysts.

As long as they do well in their core hubs, Wall Street Analysts will not question these explanations. So the end question is whether or not they can keep doing this well in their core hubs if they continue to lose domestic market share.

Ahh so DL must be lying to its investors and the SEC, thereby breaking numerous laws. I’m far more likely to believe DL, even with a little spin, than someone who takes every opportunity to knock DL.

These kind of statements are quite subjective. DL can believe that they are capturing premium leisure segment if they see that segment grow as a % of their overall revenue. And that's how it can justify its stock prices to Wall Street Analysts. It can also believe that bring back all its hubs post COVID while cutting back services to large nodes like IND is a better strategy than downsizing 1 or 2 hubs. I'm just saying that their revenue numbers is showing a larger drop vs 2019 than anyone else. If their strategy is working so well, this shouldn't be the case.

I don't think their current strategy will be a problem as long as they continue to have their inherent advantage of paying less for fuel than their competitors and having ultra profitable core hubs.

n9801f wrote:

You can point to Delta's revenue premium if you like, but I question whether this is occurs because Delta's main hubs have less LCC competition than the other legacies.

This is a HOT take. And it’s fundamentally flawed.

Put aside the absurd notion about hub LCC competition because that only effects the hub O&D and not the system network. The metric for success isn't RASM. It’s absolute and relative margin. The reason for that is that EVERY airline can claim a revenue premium when adjusted for stage and gauge, density, etc. with all the caveats. It is meaningless to cite a revenue premium to other airlines because, for example, you can’t accurately account for what UA would produce flying DL’s network (again, for example). Or WN and DL. You could maybe, again maybe, cite a unit revenue premium because of DL’s gauge but even then it’s not a meaningful metric.

tphuang wrote:

I'm just saying that their revenue numbers is showing a larger drop vs 2019 than anyone else. If their strategy is working so well, this shouldn't be the case.

Right, since 2019 is the best time period to prove your point. Nevertheless, using that time period refutes it because the business travel was the largest segment to drop, so it necessarily follows that DL would show a larger drop if that was its stronger market.

n9801f wrote:

You can point to Delta's revenue premium if you like, but I question whether this is occurs because Delta's main hubs have less LCC competition than the other legacies.

That's been the long-standing United fanboi assertion but it really doesn't hold water. DL's primary hubs ATL/DTW/MSP carry an above-average share of connecting traffic, so they're not full of n/s O&D to be plucked but with a broad array of 1-stop traffic, and there's lot of 1-stop competition between any two major & midsize airports in America.

See DOT fare data. ATL, DTW and MSP aren't particularly high-fare hubs, in contrast to DCA, EWR, or IAD.

DL earns its yield premium and its market cap.

Eastern never figured out deregulated markets (let alone international deregulated markets) and was an operational failure that consumed itself. Have a look at operating metrics for 2021 and see if you can't find the true parallels.

onwFan wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

which is why the NEA solves that problem. Now people who don't think LCC is enough will keep their business with AA.

As for SEA, AS appears to be too dominant there right now in terms of domestic local market share. DL had a chance to push things harder during COVID, but they didn't do so. I think they lost their opportunity at SEA. It will never get better than a bottom 5 to 10% station for them as long as they try to keep a hub there.

The flaw here is DL doesn't need dominant market share to be successful. So many people view DL's LAX, SEA, and BOS expansions as market share plays. While that is true to an extent that there will be some market share growth it needs, DL wants corporate customers for its larger network that lifts its network (e.g., DL locks in MSFT and gets that traffic over DL's network, DL can sacrifice some revenue premium in SEA for the full benefit of the MSFT account). DL will continue to grow in SEA in my view, but it will never rival AS nor does it want/intend to.

The only problem is that their trajectory shows the exact opposite. Since their peak in SEA, their attempts to expand have only fizzled out. The latest being HKG, KIX, BZN, RNO, FAT, JAC, FCA; and to top it all off IND and MKE; all the while AS has been increasing frequencies.

FAT was once a week, that's hardly a serious attempt at serving the route when AS has generally offered 3 per day and even some mainline service over the past year. There were other routes in that same boat.

catiii wrote:

n9801f wrote:

You can point to Delta's revenue premium if you like, but I question whether this is occurs because Delta's main hubs have less LCC competition than the other legacies.

This is a HOT take. And it’s fundamentally flawed.

Put aside the absurd notion about hub LCC competition because that only effects the hub O&D and not the system network. The metric for success isn't RASM.

Really?

If it's a hot take, then why does Delta do it this way?

Look at an earnings report - there's a whole page discussing revenue by region, RASM, etc., and it's toward the front. Listen to an analyst call, etc.

There's much less discussion in these about margin, and no geographic detail.

Here's a related excerpt from FY2019ER - a quote from Glen Hauenstein: "We delivered $47 billion in revenue in 2019, a more than $3 billion increase when adjusted over prior year, while sustaining a revenue premium to the industry of more than 110%."

https://news.delta.com/delta-air-lines- ... 019-profit

onwFan wrote:

fanoftristars wrote:

One only needs to check fares from DFW to any market that AA also connects with AUS to see that it’s a bloodbath there and ridiculously low yield. For instance DFW-PVR is usually twice as expensive as DFW-AUS-PVR. Or DFW-BNA vs DFW-AUS-BNA. If you don’t care about nonstop flights and you want to fly American Airlines, just connect through Austin to save money.

I hope you do realize that it is customary for most network carriers to charge a premium for non-stops? Moreover, in general, AA is not pricing connecting flights between city pairs any lower than through other hubs. If DL were the one that launched all these routes, I am sure you would justifying it with the same logic; and also that ‘it will naturally take some time to build a focus city’.

I absolutely do realize it’s customary but AUS is not a hub and even a non-stop from AUS-BNA is far less expensive than DFW-BNA. It was 1/2 the price last week! Some in Dallas are driving to AUS for the money savings for say a flight to PVR or SJD.

Where is the data that shows it’s not pricing these connecting AUS flights any less than their other hubs? I think if Delta was battling these same fares in AUS, I’d say it’s a drag on profitability. Not the same metro size as SEA and less upside. But I will say their new SkyClub in AUS is a much more premium experience than the Admirals Club.

fanoftristars wrote:

onwFan wrote:

fanoftristars wrote:

One only needs to check fares from DFW to any market that AA also connects with AUS to see that it’s a bloodbath there and ridiculously low yield. For instance DFW-PVR is usually twice as expensive as DFW-AUS-PVR. Or DFW-BNA vs DFW-AUS-BNA. If you don’t care about nonstop flights and you want to fly American Airlines, just connect through Austin to save money.

I hope you do realize that it is customary for most network carriers to charge a premium for non-stops? Moreover, in general, AA is not pricing connecting flights between city pairs any lower than through other hubs. If DL were the one that launched all these routes, I am sure you would justifying it with the same logic; and also that ‘it will naturally take some time to build a focus city’.

I absolutely do realize it’s customary but AUS is not a hub and even a non-stop from AUS-BNA is far less expensive than DFW-BNA. It was 1/2 the price last week! Some in Dallas are driving to AUS for the money savings for say a flight to PVR or SJD.

Where is the data that shows it’s not pricing these connecting AUS flights any less than their other hubs? I think if Delta was battling these same fares in AUS, I’d say it’s a drag on profitability. Not the same metro size as SEA and less upside. But I will say their new SkyClub in AUS is a much more premium experience than the Admirals Club.

Well, on the same note, where is the data that AA is pricing these connecting AUS flights less than their other hubs? One example or a couple examples on a few days is not sufficient. I could also find plenty of days where connecting on other hubs is cheaper. Either way, you are going to find more itineraries between same pairs involving DFW & AUS as they are geographically equivalent, and it is a relatively newoperation.

As to the SkyClub, AA has already announced a new Admirals Club. But even without that, the majority of the people are not going to connect on DL just to access the SkyClub - mainly because most of DL’s hubs are geographically located further away from AUS than many of AA’s spoke adds. Which is why these adds would have made even more sense for DL. It is certainly a missed opportunity for DL. Either way, I’m sure we agree to disagree on this aspect, and I think that’s totally fine.

n9801f wrote:

catiii wrote:

n9801f wrote:

You can point to Delta's revenue premium if you like, but I question whether this is occurs because Delta's main hubs have less LCC competition than the other legacies.

This is a HOT take. And it’s fundamentally flawed.

Put aside the absurd notion about hub LCC competition because that only effects the hub O&D and not the system network. The metric for success isn't RASM.

Really?

If it's a hot take, then why does Delta do it this way?

Look at an earnings report - there's a whole page discussing revenue by region, RASM, etc., and it's toward the front. Listen to an analyst call, etc.

There's much less discussion in these about margin, and no geographic detail.

Here's a related excerpt from FY2019ER - a quote from Glen Hauenstein: "We delivered $47 billion in revenue in 2019, a more than $3 billion increase when adjusted over prior year, while sustaining a revenue premium to the industry of more than 110%."

https://news.delta.com/delta-air-lines- ... 019-profit

Reading is your friend. As I said in my post, EVERY airline can claim a revenue premium when adjusted for stage and gauge, density, etc. with all the caveats. It is meaningless to cite a revenue premium to other airlines because it’s all fluff.

And since you’re parroting that they have a “revenue premium” you fell for it.

onwFan wrote:

fanoftristars wrote:

onwFan wrote:

I hope you do realize that it is customary for most network carriers to charge a premium for non-stops? Moreover, in general, AA is not pricing connecting flights between city pairs any lower than through other hubs. If DL were the one that launched all these routes, I am sure you would justifying it with the same logic; and also that ‘it will naturally take some time to build a focus city’.

I absolutely do realize it’s customary but AUS is not a hub and even a non-stop from AUS-BNA is far less expensive than DFW-BNA. It was 1/2 the price last week! Some in Dallas are driving to AUS for the money savings for say a flight to PVR or SJD.

Where is the data that shows it’s not pricing these connecting AUS flights any less than their other hubs? I think if Delta was battling these same fares in AUS, I’d say it’s a drag on profitability. Not the same metro size as SEA and less upside. But I will say their new SkyClub in AUS is a much more premium experience than the Admirals Club.

Well, on the same note, where is the data that AA is pricing these connecting AUS flights less than their other hubs? One example or a couple examples on a few days is not sufficient. I could also find plenty of days where connecting on other hubs is cheaper. Either way, you are going to find more itineraries between same pairs involving DFW & AUS as they are geographically equivalent, and it is a relatively newoperation.

As to the SkyClub, AA has already announced a new Admirals Club. But even without that, the majority of the people are not going to connect on DL just to access the SkyClub - mainly because most of DL’s hubs are geographically located further away from AUS than many of AA’s spoke adds. Which is why these adds would have made even more sense for DL. It is certainly a missed opportunity for DL. Either way, I’m sure we agree to disagree on this aspect, and I think that’s totally fine.

I'll believe a new Admirals club in AUS when I see it. When is construction starting? Some of the garbage clubs like DFW Terminal C, PHL B/C, CLT, PHX, etc are all very much in need of help and no concrete plans to even clean the carpets let alone remodel or build a new club. Yes there are some point to point flights that AA is flying but if travel plans require a connection in DFW/CLT/PHX/ORD or ATL/DTW/MSP/SLC to get where you're going, many would pick the airline with the nicer planes, better operational and on-time performance and better customer service scores.

"Delta warns oil increases mean higher ticket prices"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60781625

Ed Bastian has given a good interview to the BBC, which will be of the World News website from 19th March

fanoftristars wrote:

Yes there are some point to point flights that AA is flying but if travel plans require a connection in DFW/CLT/PHX/ORD or ATL/DTW/MSP/SLC to get where you're going, many would pick the airline with the nicer planes, better operational and on-time performance and better customer service scores.

That point doesn’t even need a discussion. AA was (and has been for a long time) the largest player in the Austin market for the connecting business customers, even before they added the p2p routes. This was the reason why several folks questioned the need for AA to embark this expansion, when DL hasn’t even launched anything.

Please avoid personal attacks and name calling. Thank you!

onwFan wrote:

fanoftristars wrote:

Yes there are some point to point flights that AA is flying but if travel plans require a connection in DFW/CLT/PHX/ORD or ATL/DTW/MSP/SLC to get where you're going, many would pick the airline with the nicer planes, better operational and on-time performance and better customer service scores.

That point doesn’t even need a discussion. AA was (and has been for a long time) the largest player in the Austin market for the connecting business customers, even before they added the p2p routes. This was the reason why several folks questioned the need for AA to embark this expansion, when DL hasn’t even launched anything.

It would be interesting to see the stats as DL has been consistently up-gauging flights from AUS… I’d be curious to see how connecting traffic compared from 2017 to 2019.

Sure it’s an easy 50 min flight to DFW to connect but there’s no question in just about every measurable metric the business traveler will have a better experience on Delta when connecting if total flight times are close.

Small add posted the other day: LGA-DAY, operated 1x/day by 9E with a CR9, starting 06JUN22.

https://www.journal-news.com/local/delt ... WAXX5BVXI/

This is a restart, previously operated by 9E with a CR2. Loads were never great on it, so interesting to see DL try it again, especially over other markets that have yet to see a return to LGA (e.g. YOW, LEX, CHA, MHT, etc).

fanoftristars wrote:

onwFan wrote:

fanoftristars wrote:

One only needs to check fares from DFW to any market that AA also connects with AUS to see that it’s a bloodbath there and ridiculously low yield. For instance DFW-PVR is usually twice as expensive as DFW-AUS-PVR. Or DFW-BNA vs DFW-AUS-BNA. If you don’t care about nonstop flights and you want to fly American Airlines, just connect through Austin to save money.

I hope you do realize that it is customary for most network carriers to charge a premium for non-stops? Moreover, in general, AA is not pricing connecting flights between city pairs any lower than through other hubs. If DL were the one that launched all these routes, I am sure you would justifying it with the same logic; and also that ‘it will naturally take some time to build a focus city’.

I absolutely do realize it’s customary but AUS is not a hub and even a non-stop from AUS-BNA is far less expensive than DFW-BNA. It was 1/2 the price last week! Some in Dallas are driving to AUS for the money savings for say a flight to PVR or SJD.

Where is the data that shows it’s not pricing these connecting AUS flights any less than their other hubs? I think if Delta was battling these same fares in AUS, I’d say it’s a drag on profitability. Not the same metro size as SEA and less upside. But I will say their new SkyClub in AUS is a much more premium experience than the Admirals Club.

Again, that's the same pattern we see at all legacy hubs. Nonstops from a dominate legacy hubs are almost always significantly more than flights from a spoke or focus station to the same city. For example ELP-BNA is also cheaper than DFW-BNA on AA. Remember when DL cut DAY-CVG to avoid Cincinnati residents driving to DAY to save money?

That being said, the low fares out of AUS are a concern for AA. I think you are just comparing them to the wrong thing. Instead of comparing DFW to BNA, try ELP or IAH.

Aliqiout wrote:

Again, that's the same pattern we see at all legacy hubs. Nonstops from a dominate legacy hubs are almost always significantly more than flights from a spoke or focus station to the same city. For example ELP-BNA is also cheaper than DFW-BNA on AA. Remember when DL cut DAY-CVG to avoid Cincinnati residents driving to DAY to save money?

That being said, the low fares out of AUS are a concern for AA. I think you are just comparing them to the wrong thing. Instead of comparing DFW to BNA, try ELP or IAH.

It doesn't speak to AA @ AUS fares directly, but to all domestic fares in markets greater than 20/day at AUS.

The 3Q21 DOT fare report shows AUS with a fare premium of -2%. DFW had a premium of +11%; CLT, 13%; MIA, -9%; DCA, +12%. IAH was +8%; ELP, 0%; BNA, -1%.

Aliqiout wrote:

fanoftristars wrote:

onwFan wrote:

I hope you do realize that it is customary for most network carriers to charge a premium for non-stops? Moreover, in general, AA is not pricing connecting flights between city pairs any lower than through other hubs. If DL were the one that launched all these routes, I am sure you would justifying it with the same logic; and also that ‘it will naturally take some time to build a focus city’.

I absolutely do realize it’s customary but AUS is not a hub and even a non-stop from AUS-BNA is far less expensive than DFW-BNA. It was 1/2 the price last week! Some in Dallas are driving to AUS for the money savings for say a flight to PVR or SJD.

Where is the data that shows it’s not pricing these connecting AUS flights any less than their other hubs? I think if Delta was battling these same fares in AUS, I’d say it’s a drag on profitability. Not the same metro size as SEA and less upside. But I will say their new SkyClub in AUS is a much more premium experience than the Admirals Club.

Again, that's the same pattern we see at all legacy hubs. Nonstops from a dominate legacy hubs are almost always significantly more than flights from a spoke or focus station to the same city. For example ELP-BNA is also cheaper than DFW-BNA on AA. Remember when DL cut DAY-CVG to avoid Cincinnati residents driving to DAY to save money?

That being said, the low fares out of AUS are a concern for AA. I think you are just comparing them to the wrong thing. Instead of comparing DFW to BNA, try ELP or IAH.

I think that may be apples and oranges since there is no non-stop ELP-BNA while there is nonstops AUS-BNA, AUS-SJD, AUS-PVR, etc. There are a lot of ways to get from ELP-BNA one stop.

I am trying not to laugh, but some of the commentary here about DL is comedy. Things are very fluid at the moment, and COVID put the brakes on alot of Delta's plans for the future. I'm sure they will get back in focus sooner than later.

I see some talk about AUS. What is the current status on AUS? Did they slow down growth plans? If so, could any of that have been related to the pandemic?

DL will start flying PVD-MSP 5x weekly beginning June 6th and upgrading to daily on July 7th on an A320. That will be year round, they did add it seasonally last summer but was last served in 2014. Also, looks like CR9 service to LGA started out of PVD earlier this year and DTW is seeing 717s. Interesting adds for PVD, I'd guess it's a part of the growing market share in BOS since for some of metro Boston, PVD would be closer (and certainly cost less) than going to BOS.

https://www.pvdairport.com/corporate/ne ... -laguardia
https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... treal.html

F9Animal wrote:

I see some talk about AUS. What is the current status on AUS? Did they slow down growth plans? If so, could any of that have been related to the pandemic?

Who knows what was planned pre-pandemic in terms of added destinations and/or frequencies, but I'd say not too much has changed from 2019 service levels. An added frequency here or there on existing routes and definitely some upgauging, but AA's expansion at AUS essentially used up any previously available gate space that DL might at one time have been eyeing for expansion.

FSDan wrote:

An added frequency here or there on existing routes and definitely some upgauging, but AA's expansion at AUS essentially used up any previously available gate space that DL might at one time have been eyeing for expansion.

DL could easily utilize their existing AUS gates at a considerably higher rate per day. They’re currently at peak 28 departures per day with effectively 6 gates. If they really wanted to, they could likely restructure their schedule to accommodate twice as many departures per day. And the acquisition of additional gates can’t be ruled out either with the new bus gates soon to come online.

gregn21 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

An added frequency here or there on existing routes and definitely some upgauging, but AA's expansion at AUS essentially used up any previously available gate space that DL might at one time have been eyeing for expansion.

DL could easily utilize their existing AUS gates at a considerably higher rate per day. They’re currently at peak 28 departures per day with effectively 6 gates. If they really wanted to, they could likely restructure their schedule to accommodate twice as many departures per day. And the acquisition of additional gates can’t be ruled out either with the new bus gates soon to come online.

That's only 4.67 daily flights per gate, so your suggestion of doubling daily departures seems to make sense. And indeed on the bus gates: we can probably agree that NK will jump at them (assuming AUS offers lower fees for them vs using jetways), potentially freeing up gates for DL.

Ribbon cutting today for first phase of the LAX T2-3 remodel.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPCZusSVkAM ... name=small

Everyone conveniently ignored the airport mask mandate I can see.

Good catch. Some employees ought to write Bastian's office and ask WTH.

tjerome wrote:

DL will start flying PVD-MSP 5x weekly beginning June 6th and upgrading to daily on July 7th on an A320. That will be year round, they did add it seasonally last summer but was last served in 2014. Also, looks like CR9 service to LGA started out of PVD earlier this year and DTW is seeing 717s. Interesting adds for PVD, I'd guess it's a part of the growing market share in BOS since for some of metro Boston, PVD would be closer (and certainly cost less) than going to BOS.

https://www.pvdairport.com/corporate/ne ... -laguardia
https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... treal.html

I read that as 5x daily initially and almost fainted

Seems odd that they would opt for a sub-daily A320 flight when they could easily but a CRJ-900/A319 on the route and presumably have it be daily.

Some additional images


https://i.ibb.co/Y2n4zkM/DLLAX6.png


https://i.ibb.co/2qL7zv4/DLLAX3.png


https://i.ibb.co/nB9mktB/DLLAX5.png


https://i.ibb.co/S637FZH/DLLAX2.png


https://i.ibb.co/J2R90SC/DLLAX4.png

DL applying some pressure:

MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK will be added
BNA-LGA gets A223 service
Also not new but DL will be adding/or has already added the A220s to competitive BOS routes, BNA/CVG/DFW/iND/MCI/MSY/ORD/RDU-BOS

Midwestindy wrote:

DL applying some pressure:

MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK will be added
BNA-LGA gets A223 service
Also not new but DL will be adding/or has already added the A220s to competitive BOS routes, BNA/CVG/DFW/iND/MCI/MSY/ORD/RDU-BOS

Last I checked, the 220 was absent from IND-BOS and replaced with 175s. Are they readding this for later in summer that you are aware?

flyboy80 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DL applying some pressure:

MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK will be added
BNA-LGA gets A223 service
Also not new but DL will be adding/or has already added the A220s to competitive BOS routes, BNA/CVG/DFW/IND/MCI/MSY/ORD/RDU-BOS

Last I checked, the 220 was absent from IND-BOS and replaced with 175s. Are they readding this for later in summer that you are aware?

September start, same as MCI

Midwestindy wrote:

DL applying some pressure:

MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK will be added
BNA-LGA gets A223 service
Also not new but DL will be adding/or has already added the A220s to competitive BOS routes, BNA/CVG/DFW/iND/MCI/MSY/ORD/RDU-BOS

I suppose 'applying some pressure' is one way to interpret this. Another way is just DL executing on:

1. Rebuilding destinations and frequencies as business travel is expected to rebound;

and

2. Continuing its long-announced strategy of upgauging.

So much a.net network discussion is just presented as punch/counterpunch.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DL applying some pressure:

MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK will be added
BNA-LGA gets A223 service
Also not new but DL will be adding/or has already added the A220s to competitive BOS routes, BNA/CVG/DFW/iND/MCI/MSY/ORD/RDU-BOS

I suppose 'applying some pressure' is one way to interpret this. Another way is just DL executing on:

1. Rebuilding destinations and frequencies as business travel is expected to rebound;

and

2. Continuing its long-announced strategy of upgauging.

So much a.net network discussion is just presented as punch/counterpunch.

Normally I would agree that this isn't punch/counterpunch, but:

a) LFs are terrible on many of these routes, but they are increasing capacity over 2019 levels?

b) They are adding MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK right after B6 launches them.....

Midwestindy wrote:

flyboy80 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DL applying some pressure:

MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK will be added
BNA-LGA gets A223 service
Also not new but DL will be adding/or has already added the A220s to competitive BOS routes, BNA/CVG/DFW/IND/MCI/MSY/ORD/RDU-BOS

Last I checked, the 220 was absent from IND-BOS and replaced with 175s. Are they readding this for later in summer that you are aware?

September start, same as MCI

I didn’t look that far (obviously) and will be seriously surprised if that sticks given the recent downgrading to 175s and only a short while before the 3 daily 221s were to begin.

flyboy80 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

flyboy80 wrote:

Last I checked, the 220 was absent from IND-BOS and replaced with 175s. Are they readding this for later in summer that you are aware?

September start, same as MCI

I didn’t look that far (obviously) and will be seriously surprised if that sticks given the recent downgrading to 175s and only a short while before the 3 daily 221s were to begin.

Oh I don't disagree, they'll probably keep pushing it back, if it ever even operates. Nevertheless, it is on the schedule.

Midwestindy wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

DL applying some pressure:

MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK will be added
BNA-LGA gets A223 service
Also not new but DL will be adding/or has already added the A220s to competitive BOS routes, BNA/CVG/DFW/iND/MCI/MSY/ORD/RDU-BOS

I suppose 'applying some pressure' is one way to interpret this. Another way is just DL executing on:

1. Rebuilding destinations and frequencies as business travel is expected to rebound;

and

2. Continuing its long-announced strategy of upgauging.

So much a.net network discussion is just presented as punch/counterpunch.

Normally I would agree that this isn't punch/counterpunch, but:

a) LFs are terrible on many of these routes, but they are increasing capacity over 2019 levels?

b) They are adding MCI/MKE/SAT-JFK right after B6 launches them.....

IMO, DL didn't need to add MCI/MKE-JFK since they're already competing well from LGA on both of these. I think SAT needs to be out of JFK due to the perimeter rules.

But DL already operates 4-5 daily flights to MCI from LGA and 3 to MKE. They didn't really NEED to add these routes from JFK if they want to compete. If they wanted to take a jab at B6 the better strategy would have been to upgauge their MCI and MKE flights from LGA to larger aircraft. LGA-MCI/MKE have been around for years and are well established. I know more about the MCI flights than MKE, but DL has been on that route longer than any other competitor in the NYC-MCI market right now with the least amount of interruption during the worst times of the pandemic. At many times, they were the sole operator.

They don't NEED to add JFK-MCI/MKE, they can just offer a similar product with more than one daily flight from LGA and they'll do just fine.

During the months of April & May, Delta has reduced frequency and downgauged equipment on DL101/110 ATL-EZE-ATL. It will be operated 5x week instead of daily, with 763ER instead of the 764. It looks like daily service will be resumed in June.