About 24 months ago DL upgraded its JFK-LAX/SFO transcontinental service to US BE. Since then UA has announced plans to change its PS service to two-cabin with lie-flat J and Economy Plus/Economy. AA has announced plans to change its 767 service to three-cabin narrow bodyA321 with 1x1 lie flat F, 2x2 lie flat J, and Economy Extra/Economy.

How will DL respond since it will have an outdated premium cabin and will be chasing after the same high value customers?

Maybe DL will put the BE seats from its 764 on its transcon fleet?

Other than a Red eye, who cares if a seat is lie flat on a transcon?

DL's product is fine for the market.

They also don't have a dedicated transcon/PS fleet to begin with - they are simply routing int'l 757s with BE on those flights. As delimit notes, that's just fine for the market, unless they wanted to blow tons of cash chasing a market largely locked up by AA and UA where there isn't much pricing power given the heavy competition. There probably isn't room to become a viable competitor for those super premium flyers (those who demand int'l F seats and/or lie flat J) without lowering J yields, and the Y yields are pretty competitive as-is, so you wouldn't want to bring that down even further.

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 3):

Techinically they are routing Int'l 757s on thee routes, but there are only a handful of actual Int'l 757 routes that they are used on. The product is fine for transcon and was probably designed with transcon in mind, given that the transcon routes FAR outnumber the int'l routes.

Quoting spiritair97 (Reply 4): Techinically they are routing Int'l 757s on thee routes, but there are only a handful of actual Int'l 757 routes that they are used on. The product is fine for transcon and was probably designed with transcon in mind, given that the transcon routes FAR outnumber the int'l routes.

No doubt transcon use figured into their config decision; I was merely making the point that unlike AA or UA, DL lacks a dedicated subfleet so it's less likely to see a custom product that differs from the standard int'l config 757 they use.

Delta gets a lower ticket price than AA or UA that at least use to be true on these routes so i can see delta not needing to have the best. Those two fight it out for the highest fares so they need to compete with flat bed products.

The only thing i can say as a coutner argument to why delta might consider it is that i really do see a very high percentage who try to get some sleep on these flights. Its often a very busy set who appreciate a few hours of rest. The flat bed might really help to get real sleep as opposed to resting eyes for alot of people. The flat bed will be a factor for people its just a question of how many. Delta has a pretty small Business cabin anyway so im not sure they need it or that fares would increase enough to be worth the cost.

I hate to say it, but the entire emphasis on the flat bed is a little overblown for the Transcon market. Yes, some people sleep better in them, but there are other considerations, like in-flight service, catering, entertainment and overall travel experience to consider. Delta may not have first class, but it is trying hard to please in terms of service and catering in BE on Transcon flights. Does anyone know what catering is like in the PS flights or AA First Class?

Quoting delimit (Reply 2): Other than a Red eye, who cares if a seat is lie flat on a transcon?

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 6): ...it is that i really do see a very high percentage who try to get some sleep on these flights.

Yep, I think you could argue that Delta may have a higher number of connecting passengers from International flights. So there may be some demand for lie flat sleeps given JFK-LAX is one segment of a very long journey.

I am sorry,There is already American,United and JetBlue. Three is a crowd. Delta has a slim chance on JFK-LAX/SFO.

Quoting delimit (Reply 2): Other than a Red eye, who cares if a seat is lie flat on a transcon?

A few years ago, my wife and I transfered to Qantas Business from JFK-LAX on Delta, 738 with Dom First, and United PS J back to JFK (the exit row with 5' leg room!) When flying to LAX, the 738 first was ok, but 6 hours was a little wearing with nothing to prop your feet on. On the return, the PS international recliner seats were so welcome after a 15 hour flight from Australia. Neither of us slept, but still really appreciated the extra comfort for 5.5 hours.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 7): Delta may not have first class, but it is trying hard to please in terms of service and catering in BE on Transcon flights. Does anyone know what catering is like in the PS flights or AA First Class?

This was a few years ago, but I will say even when it was just typical Delta Dom F catering, it was much better than PS. DL gave us a nice 4 course meal with multiple choices and raspberry cheesecake for dessert. UA gave us a single plate of a big cold cut sandwhich, no dessert, except for a piece of chocolate, and no choices. Maybe that's changed, but UA's dom J from ORD-DEN last month still had only one meal option, and was only a small step above an international Y class, mostly just presentation!

Quoting questions (Thread starter):

I personally don't think DL has enough versions of 752 configurations. Maybe they should introduce another.  

Quoting doulasc (Reply 9): I am sorry,There is already American,United and JetBlue. Three is a crowd. Delta has a slim chance on JFK-LAX/SFO.

Ummm..."has"? DL is up to 8x daily on JFK-LAX and 6x daily on JFK-SFO. The question is whether they will update their front cabin to keep up with AA and UA...

Considering DL's very Y heavy config compared to both AA and UA, the revenue premium is a bit skewed IMHO considering they offer less premium seats than both. All things considered, they're doing quite well...

Quoting doulasc (Reply 9): I am sorry,There is already American,United and JetBlue. Three is a crowd. Delta has a slim chance on JFK-LAX/SFO.

DL has been operating flights on JFK-LAX/SFO for years, prior to JetBlue and Virgin entering the market. They don't seem to have any trouble existing in the market but its worth noting that there are two different fights going on. UA and AA seem to duke it out for the premium/corporate passenger while VX and B6 go after the leisure passenger...DL seems to exist somewhere in the middle of those two frays providing a limited amount of high end seats in the upper market but at the same time going after the leisure market as well.

Quoting usdcaguy (Reply 7): Does anyone know what catering is like in the PS flights or AA First Class?

Everyone has their favorite on who is better but all three offer roughly the same level of service. F/J is basically the same as what you would find on an international first/business class flight. Y is BoB on all 3 airlines....

I don't think that DL really needs to do much updating on their product at this point...they seem to have their nitch in the market and even if they were to offer an expanded J class cabin with lie flats I don't think that they would be all that successful in pulling passengers away from UA or AA.

Quoting doulasc (Reply 9):

nice call....even though Delta was flying the routes before jetBlue.....good call.

Quoting United1 (Reply 12): DL seems to exist somewhere in the middle of those two frays providing a limited amount of high end seats in the upper market but at the same time going after the leisure market as well.

           

Quoting United1 (Reply 12): I don't think that DL really needs to do much updating on their product at this point...they seem to have their nitch in the market and even if they were to offer an expanded J class cabin with lie flats I don't think that they would be all that successful in pulling passengers away from UA or AA.

Which they wouldn't. If they do anything they will add ~the same amount of lie-flat J seats. DL wont be doing a large J or a large F/J config anytime soon.

and its worth saying, they just did a HMV and cabin config on a new(to the fleet) 757. If they were going to dump the config they have they likely would have done it with that aircraft.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 6):

UA/AA do have a higher fare but they should. Both have F and J and both have much more seats on there aircraft(f/J seats that is)

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 13):

I nearly spit out my tea when I read this!!! I'm with you United1 and Deltal1011man!!!!

How can anyone forget JetBlue had Burbank and Long Beach WAAAAY before Los Angeles. And the fact Delta Air Lines has been around decades before JetBlue.

I needed a laugh!   

This may be a bit off topic, but is there any reason that UA (and presumably AA) put so much emphasis on the product in their JFK / IAD-LAX/SFO transcons but not other transcon routes? For example, I recently did IAD - SEA / SEA - EWR on UA and was somewhat surprised by the lack of service and state of the planes.

IAD - SEA was a PMUA 752, with a pretty worn interior and limited food-for-purchase options. SEA - EWR was an old PMUA 320 that was equally worn. I was in J on this flight and was only offered a sandwhich or a salad as the meal choice. Why would UA not put the PS product on these routes, as well as, say, EWR - PDX and IAD - PDX?

Perhaps this would be an opening for DL to compete with UA and AA in the transcon market - offering a superior product on non-LAX / SFO transcon routes. Thoughts?

Quoting 777law (Reply 15):

Because NYC-LAX/SFO have the premium market for it.

I don't believe AA or UA has the same hard product on WAS-LAX/DCA.

Quoting AirAfreak (Reply 14): I needed a laugh!

welcome.   

Quoting 777law (Reply 15): Perhaps this would be an opening for DL to compete with UA and AA in the transcon market - offering a superior product on non-LAX / SFO transcon routes. Thoughts?

It would burn money. Sadly, in the world we live in where most PAX want the cheapest fare the days of a good hard product (front or back) are over till the airlines can get some pricing power in the market place.
NYC to LAX and SFO are about the only markets that can handle the premium product because of the business ties between them.

so anyways, people don't want to pay for the upgraded product so airlines don't use them.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 13): Quoting United1 (Reply 12): DL seems to exist somewhere in the middle of those two frays providing a limited amount of high end seats in the upper market but at the same time going after the leisure market as well.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 16): It would burn money. Sadly, in the world we live in where most PAX want the cheapest fare the days of a good hard product (front or back) are over till the airlines can get some pricing power in the market place. NYC to LAX and SFO are about the only markets that can handle the premium product because of the business ties between them.

While there is a lot of alure and focus on capturing these HVCs / premium / first class passengers on routes like LAX/SFO-NYC, the majority of business travelers are not flying up-front.

There is a very large market for business travel and many corporate travel policies will not allow for anything but coach tickets on domestic routes and/or under 8 hours. Some firms use 6 hours as the benchmark but it varies. The majority of mid-level managers, consultants, and employees traveling on trans-cons are in Y. Yes, some of the higher paid industries, executives, and entertainment industry are flying up front. However your average project manager consultant at places like PWC flying form JFK-LAX every week is flying it in Y.

If anything, DL would expand Economy Comfort to gain some revenue from the back.

Quoting 777law (Reply 15): Perhaps this would be an opening for DL to compete with UA and AA in the transcon market - offering a superior product on non-LAX / SFO transcon routes. Thoughts?

There won't be enough higher yield traffic on these routes to warrant the kind of product thats invested in the NYC-LAX routes. Even on American's MIA-LAX service (which has an AA hub and focus city on each end)you don't see a constant equipment roster the way we do on JFK-LAX (sometimes you get the 777/762/763, other times the 738/757) routes.

If Delta really was interested in competing for more premium traffic in the transcon market, they'd go for the juggler from the growing complex of flights they have from New York. No doubt they've done the math and decided an additional sub-fleet and/or more cabin upgrades isn't worth their while.

Delta transcon Biz is superior to AA/UA in almost every aspect. The seats are better. Catering is vastly superior. Ratio of FA/seat is higher. UA/AA/first class might be better but the majority of those pax are bumped up via overselling the other cabins.

In the latest OAG update, AA is dropping to 4 daily on JFK-LAX.

What does DL have to compete with? An inferior schedule?

Just my the virtue that they have 6 daily to SFO gives DL a huge leg up.

I do have to give credit to DL. While all these airlines are reinventing themselves, I was at LGA and saw 4 departure boards worth of departures from there new hub. Same at JFK. DL set a goal a few years ago to "Win NYC" and they did.

They'll continue to do fine on the trancons as they are the only Legacy carrier that will actually have a normal density aircraft and carrier large amounts of traffic.

Delta historically has struggled on these routes compared to peers. DOT numbers bore this out. (see below)

Also remember DL even turned these markets into all Song flights back in 2004-2006 which further eroded DL's market presence.

RASM yield cents

JFK-LAX
UA - 12.16
AA - 11.61
VX - 11.37
DL - 9.76
B6 - 8.77

JFK-SFO
UA - 12.69
VX - 11.33
AA - 10.32
DL - 9.44
B6 - 8.42

Reposted from last months
AA: 3-class A321s On JFK-LAX/SFO, PTVs (by commavia Jul 23 2012 in Civil Aviation)

=

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): AA is dropping to 4 daily on JFK-LAX.

First off, JFK-SFO.

Second, let's not get overly dramatic. AA has been at 4x daily on JFK-SFO at other off-peak times in recent years - this is hardly unprecedented. It's a smart way to manage capacity and boost yields during a slower travel season.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): What does DL have to compete with? An inferior schedule?

AA still has flights timed throughout the day, at all the peak times. AA will continue to do just fine, as will Delta.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): Just my the virtue that they have 6 daily to SFO gives DL a huge leg up.

Doubtful.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): I do have to give credit to DL. While all these airlines are reinventing themselves, I was at LGA and saw 4 departure boards worth of departures from there new hub. Same at JFK. DL set a goal a few years ago to "Win NYC" and they did.

Their growth in market share has been impressive.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 21): They'll continue to do fine on the trancons as they are the only Legacy carrier that will actually have a normal density aircraft and carrier large amounts of traffic.

Well, again, define "do fine." United seems to have "done fine" by near entirely exiting the junk yield JetBlue/Virgin/Delta market on JFK-LAX/SFO and going near entirely for the more price-discriminatory, premium-heavy segment of the market. AA was to a certain extent already there, and is now moving in the same direction. That doesn't represent some grand strategic triumph on the part of Delta - more just a recognition by all involved of where their niche lies.

Quoting doulasc (Reply 9): I am sorry,There is already American,United and JetBlue. Three is a crowd. Delta has a slim chance on JFK-LAX/SFO.

hahahahahaha...

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22): Delta historically has struggled on these routes compared to peers. DOT numbers bore this out. (see below) Also remember DL even turned these markets into all Song flights back in 2004-2006 which further eroded DL's market presence. RASM yield cents JFK-LAX UA - 12.16 AA - 11.61 VX - 11.37 DL - 9.76 B6 - 8.77 JFK-SFO UA - 12.69 VX - 11.33 AA - 10.32 DL - 9.44 B6 - 8.42

And there it is more good news from LAXintl...DL will be fine on JFK-SFO/LAX IMHO.....My sister is a UA employee and recently flew with me to JFK on DL and said wow the service on DL is way better than UA right now in her words.But she also said UA flat seats in first-class would be nice on DL though...

I don't think Delta seems to do very well. Even Virgin America earn more money per pax on routes then DL. Only one Delta exceed is single class JetBlue.

Delta seems to be happy to dump low fare capacity and provide much flights, but at low revenue. Usually not a good sign.

Impressive numbers United has - almost 30% better margin then Delta.
I think both UA p.s. and AA are good and will become even better with cabin refurbs and new planes in case of AA.

Quoting 777law (Reply 15): is there any reason that UA (and presumably AA) put so much emphasis on the product in their JFK / IAD-LAX/SFO transcons but not other transcon routes?

Mainly because JFK-LAX/SFO are the only two routes that have enough uber-premium traffic to justify the service. Certain other transons like EWR/IAD-LAX/SFO on UA, MIA-LAX on AA, and ATL-LAX on DL see nice equipment because they have lots of demand but also because they are key points that the carriers need to flow their int'l planes through for utilization, mx, positioning, etc., so we get a nice bonus there if we fly those and can time them appropriately. However, beyond those, flights like IAD-SEA on UA or BOS-SFO/LAX on everybody just can't support use of an expensive and scarce int'l plane and/or dedicated premium service, so you don't see them.

Quoting commavia (Reply 23): AA has been at 4x daily on JFK-SFO at other off-peak times in recent years - this is hardly unprecedented. It's a smart way to manage capacity and boost yields during a slower travel season.

For an airline that's absolutely frequency-obsessed, 4x daily on *this* route is hardly competitive. Hopefully the A321s could boost that up to at least 6x daily if they want a chance against UA (IIRC, controls ~40-45% of NYC-SFO)

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 27): For an airline that's absolutely frequency-obsessed

  

Ah yes - one of the oft-repeated A.net memes. AA is no more "frequency-obsessed" than any of the other large U.S. carriers.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 27): 4x daily on *this* route is hardly competitive

At the slowest time of the year, I doubt it will have much if any impact - I suspect it will be just fine for AA. It's hysterical how people have (ridiculously) criticized AA for allegedly wasting so much money on loss-making routes with supposedly "excessive" frequency, and now AA does precisely what some suggest - reducing capacity at slow times to maintain and/or boost yields - and it's allegedly a calamity. Ah, one just has to laugh.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 27): Hopefully the A321s could boost that up to at least 6x daily if they want a chance against UA (IIRC, controls ~40-45% of NYC-SFO)

Well, statistically, United is at a greater "frequency disadvantage" on JFK-LAX versus AA than AA is versus Delta on JFK-SFO. Is United hurting in the market? Don't think so. Delta has their strategy in the JFK-LAX/SFO markets, which is to try as best as possible to optimize some niche slice of the high-end premium market (against AA/United) while maintaining market share in the lower-yield Y market against Virgin/JetBlue. AA has a different strategy. One isn't better than the other - they're just different.

[Edited 2012-08-24 07:48:35]

Commavia,

I meant to put JFK-SFO not LAX, thanks for the correction  

Quoting commavia (Reply 28): Well, statistically, United is at a greater "frequency disadvantage" on JFK-LAX versus AA than AA is versus Delta on JFK-SFO. Is United hurting in the market? Don't think so.

UA has higher total frequency NYC-LAX, and even their JFK service is ~7x versus 10x of AA. And it's actually more challenging for UA since AA's route is hub-to-hub while UA is mostly O&D (plus a few Aussie pax)

Quoting commavia (Reply 28): AA has a different strategy. One isn't better than the other - they're just different.

Yup, apparently SFO and LAX are so drastically different in market behavior that they need to employ a 4x versus 10x discrepancy in strategy. So for something AA is good at (LAX) it's about market share and something AA is way behind (SFO) it's about yields ?

Put that into perspective : AA is 4x NYC-SFO while UA is like 15-17x. *THAT'S* a "frequency disadvantage".

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 30): Yup, apparently SFO and LAX are so drastically different in market behavior that they need to employ a 4x versus 10x discrepancy in strategy. So for something AA is good at (LAX) it's about market share and something AA is way behind (SFO) it's about yields ?

This isn't a hard concept (or it shouldn't be). They're two different markets. On LAX, where AA is bigger and stronger, they don't need to reduce frequency/capacity as much to preserve yields. On SFO, where they aren't relatively as strong, they do. The numbers provided early bear that out - AA does better to LAX than SFO in general.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 30): Put that into perspective : AA is 4x NYC-SFO while UA is like 15-17x. *THAT'S* a "frequency disadvantage".

Who ever said anything about EWR/NYC? I was discussing specifically JFK-LAX/SFO. Obviously if you include both JFK and EWR in order to suit (i.e., preserve) your argument, United - the only airline with a true megahub in NYC, at EWR, will look far larger. Nothing really earth shattering there. But, while we're on the subject, if AA is allegedly "frequency-obsessed" with 10 JFK-LAX, is United "frequency-obsessed" with "15-17x" NYC-SFO?

[Edited 2012-08-24 08:36:17]

Quoting commavia (Reply 31): But, while we're on the subject, if AA is allegedly "frequency-obsessed" with 10 JFK-LAX, is United "frequency-obsessed" with "15-17x" NYC-SFO?

Have I said anywhere that UA (or DL) is not ?

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 32): Have I said anywhere that UA (or DL) is not ?

Nope. Thus why I asked.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22): JFK-LAX UA - 12.16 AA - 11.61 VX - 11.37 DL - 9.76 B6 - 8.77 JFK-SFO UA - 12.69 VX - 11.33 AA - 10.32 DL - 9.44 B6 - 8.42

And like I had said in the other thread. The real winner here is VX. Out of that yield, how much is being eater up (on AA's side) by the very thirsty 762. As I also pointed out, UA is flying a much less dense 757 than DL; because of the more premium seats being offered. I'd HOPE that their yields are higher! VX is right up there with UA and AA flying a much smaller front cabin and using an a/c that has lower per hour operating costs than all the legacies are using.

Quoting commavia (Reply 31): Who ever said anything about EWR/NYC? I was discussing specifically JFK-LAX/SFO. Obviously if you include both JFK and EWR in order to suit (i.e., preserve) your argument, United - the only airline with a true megahub in NYC, at EWR, will look far larger.

Because you imply that somehow JFK and EWR to LAX/SFO are entirely distinct independent markets with minimal overlap, and therefore, could be excluded from discussion.

But going back to your narrow vision of business travelers only preferring JFK/LGA (because that's where AA hubs at), UA and AA has nearly identical total frequencies (not seat count) to SFO+LAX

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 35): Because you imply that somehow JFK and EWR to LAX/SFO are entirely distinct independent markets with minimal overlap, and therefore, could be excluded from discussion. But going back to your narrow vision of business travelers only preferring JFK/LGA (because that's where AA hubs at), UA and AA has nearly identical total frequencies (not seat count) to SFO+LAX

I sometimes really am left wondering where you pull this stuff out of (because it sure isn't my posts).

I never discussed whether or not JFK/EWR were distinct markets, overlapped, didn't overlap, etc. and certainly never said or implied that business travelers "only [prefer] JFK/LGA." This discussion was specifically about various airlines' performance on JFK-LAX/SFO (perhaps you should re-read the title of the thread), and thus I confined my comments as such.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22): Delta historically has struggled on these routes compared to peers. DOT numbers bore this out. (see below) Also remember DL even turned these markets into all Song flights back in 2004-2006 which further eroded DL's market presence. RASM yield cents JFK-LAX UA - 12.16 AA - 11.61 VX - 11.37 DL - 9.76 B6 - 8.77 JFK-SFO UA - 12.69 VX - 11.33 AA - 10.32 DL - 9.44 B6 - 8.42

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 34): And like I had said in the other thread. The real winner here is VX. Out of that yield, how much is being eater up (on AA's side) by the very thirsty 762. As I also pointed out, UA is flying a much less dense 757 than DL; because of the more premium seats being offered. I'd HOPE that their yields are higher! VX is right up there with UA and AA flying a much smaller front cabin and using an a/c that has lower per hour operating costs than all the legacies are using

Exactly.

RASM only tells one side of the story, you would want to know CASM too. UA and AA are flying more Premium-heavy aircraft with fewer seats in total but a higher proportion of premium seasts. The CASM is going to be accordingly higher.

DL is flying a more traditional ratio of coach seats. Hence they CASM will be less as it is spread across more seats.

Quoting commavia (Reply 28): At the slowest time of the year, I doubt it will have much if any impact - I suspect it will be just fine for AA. It's hysterical how people have (ridiculously) criticized AA for allegedly wasting so much money on loss-making routes with supposedly "excessive" frequency, and now AA does precisely what some suggest - reducing capacity at slow times to maintain and/or boost yields - and it's allegedly a calamity. Ah, one just has to laugh.

Yeah, a.net makes no sense sometimes.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 37): DL is flying a more traditional ratio of coach seats. Hence they CASM will be less as it is spread across more seats.

Who collects the most total revenue per flight? A 100% full UA p.s 757 or a 100% full DL 757, between JFK-LAX/SFO?
Just curious.



Currently, DL has no business (or need) to do what UA and AA are doing on these routes. DL is making plenty of revenue on these flights to help the bottom line. They are in the middle of their "NYC Strategy". If anything, we may see hard product enhancements as the market develops to DL's ultimate NYC goal. DL, with the LGA/JFK combo, is after the premium traveler right? This is going to take some time as both LGA/JFK are in the middle of these DL transitions.

If DL is right and they win NYC (however they have defined "winning" for themselves), I bet we will see DL with some better seats up front in a few years. Service wise DL is already there.

It is shocking that only two people have noticed that VX could quite possibly doing the best per flight. Their RASM is high, CASM is low and they don't even have much of a premium cabin (8 seats!) So much for the airline hunting after "junk" fares. And so much for the idea that people won't pay more for a nicer product.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 38): If DL is right and they win NYC (however they have defined "winning" for themselves)

Interesting point. Does anyone know how DL has defined "Win New York"? Has it been discussed in any analyst meetings? If so, would it provide insight into premium traffic, a strategy to obtain more HVCs, and perhaps, through extrapolation, premium cabin investment on JFK-LAX/SFO flights?

Not sure about the hard product, but there are several things going on behind the scenes to build up the
Soft product on transcon flights. Customers should see it soon. Make no mistake the transcon market
Is important to Delta, however, they aren't "betting the farm" lol.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22): RASM yield cents

You also have to factor in CASM when you look at RASM to better compare competitors.

Quoting DesertFlyer (Reply 39): CASM is low and they don't even have much of a premium cabin (8 seats!)

If that was the case why is the airline doing so poorly overall, not just focusins on this route, but I don't think I have heard that their CASM is low.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22): RASM yield cents

With those numbers, I wonder if any carrier, outside of maybe VX, is making money on those routes. Honestly those figures are terrible considering the length and demand of the routes and the premium configurations used by the top runners. If you ask me, JFK-LAX/SFO is still an instance where airlines will bleed money to keep their presence.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 38): Who collects the most total revenue per flight? A 100% full UA p.s 757 or a 100% full DL 757, between JFK-LAX/SFO? Just curious.

That would be hard to tell and something we'll never know. We can post BTS data all we want but the true meat is highly proprietary. I won't say either way. For all I know, a full DL 757 and a full UA 757 are both money losers.

Quoting DesertFlyer (Reply 39): It is shocking that only two people have noticed that VX could quite possibly doing the best per flight. Their RASM is high, CASM is low and they don't even have much of a premium cabin (8 seats!) So much for the airline hunting after "junk" fares. And so much for the idea that people won't pay more for a nicer product.

     

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 43): With those numbers, I wonder if any carrier, outside of maybe VX, is making money on those routes. Honestly those figures are terrible considering the length and demand of the routes and the premium configurations used by the top runners. If you ask me, JFK-LAX/SFO is still an instance where airlines will bleed money to keep their presence.

We don't agree a lot but wholeheartedly with you here.

I don't see how DL is in any way uncompetitive on the JFK-LAX and JFK-SFO routes. New York is a major hub market for DL, and they absolutely must offer high frequency service to LAX and SFO in order to be considered the airline of choice by the all-important business and other key FF New Yorkers. These prolific routes could very well be loss leaders for the airline, operated not for profit in and of themselves but to encourage loyalty that can then make other New York routes (think JFK-DEN/PHX/SJU or LGA-YUL/CLT/OMA) more profitable. Here in Los Angeles, DL is also trying hard to boost its presence and in turn FF appeal, and a high frequency option to New York is certainly a major selling point. San Francisco is merely a spoke in the DL network, a mere afterthought for most local travelers given the attractive hub options that UA, VX, and/or WN provide.

As we all know, there are 4 competitors. Each has seemingly found a niche, with inherent pros and cons.

AA enjoys a revenue premium thanks to its heavy focus on premium F and J pax. In fact, they will soon be the ONLY option for those that want to fly F. They consider JFK-LAX to be a hub-hub flight, and JFK-SFO is a key route from their burgeoning JFK hub. They have considerable loyalty in New York, L.A., and the Bay Area, and good connectivity beyond JFK and LAX as well. The terminal facilities at JFK and SFO are world class; LAX is getting a much needed makeover. I suppose you could consider the 767s to be a selling point as widebodies are inherently more comfortable than the narrowbodies everybody else uses, but I would guess 99% of people won't be making their purchase decision based upon aircraft type. The 767s offer by far the most dated product in all cabins relative to the competition, but AA has those key entertainment industry contracts to support the flights. I would imagine the aging 762 fleet is very costly to operate; the CASM on such a low density stubby widebody is probably atrocious. The A321s are on the way though, and will be decked out excellent IFE and a premium 3-class configuration that could very well trump all competitors in the future. However, even with the A321 there will still be the issue of maintaining a unique low density sub fleet for a pair of routes that could very well function as loss leaders in the first place.

B6 was a latecomer to this party, and doesn't even offer a premium option, though the IFE and service is definitely very good for Y. They are still a small fish in the big ponds of SFO and LAX, though at JFK they do have excellent hub facilities and FF loyalty. I doubt the all-Y carrier is fighting over the prime biz and FFers; they are probably targeting leisure and VFR travelers for the most part along with interline and hub feed. Although they lag in terms of revenue, they do have relatively low costs and are still doing well with the revenue advantage of the primary metropolitan airports SFO and LAX as oppose to the lower-yielding alternates like OAK, SJC, BUR, ONT, and LGB.

UA enjoys a revenue premium thanks to its heavy focus on premium F and J pax. They enjoy considerable loyalty and excellent hub feed/connectivity at both California airports. However, the IFE is dated in all cabins, and the Y experience would be just another cattle car if it wasn't for the spacious all Y+ layout. There is also competition/cannibalization with the airline's own high frequency EWR-SFO/LAX hub-hub flights, sub-par JFK terminal facilities, and very limited connectivity beyond JFK. Not to mention the opportunity cost of maintaining a sub-fleet of low-density 757s - could these birds be making more money on intercontinental routes, or popular shorter hauls in a higher density configuration? Finally, I think it is very telling that F will disappear when the P.S. fleet is reconfigured. UA obviously feels that a 2-class option, like that offered by DL today, will be more profitable than an ultra-premium 3 class configuration.

VX arguably offers the best product, but their network reach remains limited, so they still aren't an attractive option for most road warriors and FFers. At least they have excellent terminal facilities at SFO and offer some connectivity beyond LAX and particularly SFO. I would also imagine most folks prefer the option to upgrade on other airlines rather than always shell out the dough for F. While their JFK-LAX/SFO services may be doing well in relative terms, the airline still struggles to make a profit and probably won't be taken seriously until it proves to be financially viable.

So where does that leave DL? Well, they don't drive up their costs like UA and AA by dedicating specific low density aircraft to this pair of routes. The 757s used for these routes can be used elsewhere in the system, giving DL greater flexibility than its legacy peers. They offer decent F and Y is competitive in terms of IFE to the LCCs. There is excellent connectivity beyond JFK and options beyond LAX are pretty much better than ever before. The JFK terminal is a dump, but will soon be extremely nice. LAX T5 is nice by LAX standards. While they aren't winning any accolades on these routes anytime soon, they seem to be doing just fine by offering a cost-effective, respectable product.

Guys, if you are adding EWR into the mix, please adjust the RASM to include that.

I suspect, that when you add in UAs EWR higher density, higher frequency hub to hub flights, their RASM advantage drops...a significant amount

Thanks for your input SurfandSnow!

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): As we all know, there are 4 competitors.

Clarification for all: there are a total of five competitors; DL has four competitors.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): However, even with the A321 there will still be the issue of maintaining a unique low density sub fleet

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 45): Well, they don't drive up their costs like UA and AA by dedicating specific low density aircraft to this pair of routes. The 757s used for these routes can be used elsewhere in the system

Is the A321 on order by AA incapable of runs to Europe. In other words, could AA use the new three cabin A321 on thin routes to Europe and US transcons similar to how DL uses their BE configured 757s?

It seems AA has the advantage with super premium passengers on the JFK-LAX/SFO routes -- corporate contracts (financial services, law firms, entertainment industry where execs can still fly First) and wealthy individuals. Does anyone know if DL has plans to go after this market segment as part of their "Win New York" strategy?

Quoting cokepopper (Reply 41): Not sure about the hard product, but there are several things going on behind the scenes to build up the Soft product on transcon flights. Customers should see it soon. Make no mistake the transcon market Is important to Delta, however, they aren't "betting the farm" lol.

It appears most are happy with the US domestic BE soft product offered on these routes. Perhaps DL is replacing the curved faux wood meal trays with plates that spin around and the cheap beverage glasses that pax complain about.

Or... are you referring to Y class improvements?

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 43): Honestly those figures are terrible considering the length and demand of the routes and the premium configurations used by the top runners.

You realize we are talking about routes that are 2,500 miles long right ??

12 cent+ yield UA pulls on p.s. quite good for the distance.

In comparison transcons to places like IAD, BOS often don't break the $0.10 barrier.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 34): The real winner here is VX

Yes Virgin America is doing quite good considering they only have mere 8 F class seats per aircraft to market. Obviously they are not selling bottom of barrel Y class fill up seats either, to generate the healthy RASM yield.

But back to the thread topic, its performance like VX if anything goes to show the relative poor revenue performance DL manages in these transcon markets compared to peers.