Delta plan rejected by creditors of Japan’s No. 3 airline
- Thread starter 700UW
- Start date
- Status
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Hmmm, doesn't this say that DL knew investing in Skymark was a loser proposition?WorldTraveler said:
Again, I challenge you to back up what you said about the brilliance of DL's execs brilliant master plans to pursue the loser investment in Skymark and at the same time the winner investment in China Eastern. But probably you can't because you're over-spinning things and making stuff up along the way.
Advice that you should well heed.WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #18
And yet you can't find the words "loser investment" anywhere but in your interpretation.
With a fleet of over 100 widebodies, DL can find the right aircraft
It's only impossible for those who don't understand fleet planning
With a fleet of over 100 widebodies, DL can find the right aircraft
It's only impossible for those who don't understand fleet planning
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
So, Mr. Fleet Planning Expert (self-appointed),why hasn't DL done so already?
(That is why hasn't DL dropped a route as NRT-TPE for example, and fly SEA-TPE if, according to your expert opinion, they have no problems in having the aircraft to fly the route. )
Spin your way out of that!
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #20
airlines don't start routes just because they have airplanes around that could do those routes. If that was the case, DL could fly virtually any route it wanted since it is the only US airline that has the world's longest range airliner, the 777LR. Routes like MSP-AKL and LAX-TBS should have happened years ago when the 777LRs first entered service. Most of the LRs are flying routes that could be covered by other aircraft.
The reason for starting routes is based on the underlying economics... and it is entirely possible that DL has not seen the economic justification for starting nonstop service to TPE. GIven that TPE is a key leg of the NRT hub, DL can't just pull a leg off of the NRT hub without rebalancing the hub elsewhere.
As to the notion that DL's fleet is stretched to the limits, we heard the same thing this year and yet DL managed to increase its int'l ASMs by 2.6% in July including over 5% on the TATL system, nearly all of which is flown with widebody aircraft.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-reports-financial-operating-performance-130200528.html
given that DL removed 744s from the fleet from July 2014 to July 2015, DL's increase in ASMs was done with a disproportionately larger number of frequencies since the average aircraft size went down. A 2% increase in ASMs on a fleet of 100 aircraft is rougly the equivalent of getting two more aircraft worth of flying out of the fleet. LAX-PVG didn't start until 1/3 of the way into the month so the ASM growth doesn't fully reflect the addition of that flight which is very ASM intense.
DL is using its existing fleet more efficiently AROUND THE WORLD and in so doing is managing to add capacity even while retiring older aircraft.
so, yes, DL will continue to restructure its Pacific operations just as it has been doing and it will add new routes as the market dictates.
DL didn't earn the position of having the highest RASM - ability to generate revenue per unit of production, or efficiency as it is called in this articlehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2015/08/05/the-most-efficient-airlines-delta-beats-american-airlines-united/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix by throwing capacity just because a new route seems sexy.
IN fact, DL's ability to generate superior revenue to the industry is a key part of why DL has the highest market cap of any US airline or in the western world for that matter.
DL has mastered the science of maximizing revenue and manages to push it higher each year, including by using its industry leading performance as a tool for gaining more and more corporate revenue.
DL will add flights on the Pacific when the market is ready for it.
The reason for starting routes is based on the underlying economics... and it is entirely possible that DL has not seen the economic justification for starting nonstop service to TPE. GIven that TPE is a key leg of the NRT hub, DL can't just pull a leg off of the NRT hub without rebalancing the hub elsewhere.
As to the notion that DL's fleet is stretched to the limits, we heard the same thing this year and yet DL managed to increase its int'l ASMs by 2.6% in July including over 5% on the TATL system, nearly all of which is flown with widebody aircraft.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-reports-financial-operating-performance-130200528.html
given that DL removed 744s from the fleet from July 2014 to July 2015, DL's increase in ASMs was done with a disproportionately larger number of frequencies since the average aircraft size went down. A 2% increase in ASMs on a fleet of 100 aircraft is rougly the equivalent of getting two more aircraft worth of flying out of the fleet. LAX-PVG didn't start until 1/3 of the way into the month so the ASM growth doesn't fully reflect the addition of that flight which is very ASM intense.
DL is using its existing fleet more efficiently AROUND THE WORLD and in so doing is managing to add capacity even while retiring older aircraft.
so, yes, DL will continue to restructure its Pacific operations just as it has been doing and it will add new routes as the market dictates.
no, it doesn't work that way. Look at NRT schedules and you'll see why.topDawg said:
DL didn't earn the position of having the highest RASM - ability to generate revenue per unit of production, or efficiency as it is called in this articlehttp://www.forbes.com/sites/liyanchen/2015/08/05/the-most-efficient-airlines-delta-beats-american-airlines-united/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix by throwing capacity just because a new route seems sexy.
IN fact, DL's ability to generate superior revenue to the industry is a key part of why DL has the highest market cap of any US airline or in the western world for that matter.
DL has mastered the science of maximizing revenue and manages to push it higher each year, including by using its industry leading performance as a tool for gaining more and more corporate revenue.
DL will add flights on the Pacific when the market is ready for it.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
First of all, don't patronize me with a sermon about the silliness of airlines starting random routes because they have the aircraft capable of flying from any point A to any point B.
Try to follow the discussion, if you have the mental horse power to grasp the issue at hand and also try to stay on topic.
Fact is, you brought up that NRT-TPE might be a route that is dropped as DL shifts its network strategy of bypassing its NRT hub.
Fact is, that dawg brought up a legit point that DL may not currently have the aircraft to do so.
Fact is, that the reason I specifically mentioned SEA-TPE is that SEA is one of the Pacific gateways for DL.
So please don't reply to me in your typical an A-hole style (save that for somebody else) because I did not bring up the question of why doesn't DL fly from random place USA to random place Asia. I believe those kinds of discussions are reserved for A-net. Psst ... you do recall A-net, the site you are banned from, don't you?
So to sum up in a sentence the diatribe you wrote above: You have no idea what you are talking about and cannot refute dawg's point that DL does not have the available aircraft to bypass NRT at the present time.
Your ramblings just show that you certainly are not a route planning expert.
Spin away!
Try to follow the discussion, if you have the mental horse power to grasp the issue at hand and also try to stay on topic.
Fact is, you brought up that NRT-TPE might be a route that is dropped as DL shifts its network strategy of bypassing its NRT hub.
Fact is, that dawg brought up a legit point that DL may not currently have the aircraft to do so.
Fact is, that the reason I specifically mentioned SEA-TPE is that SEA is one of the Pacific gateways for DL.
So please don't reply to me in your typical an A-hole style (save that for somebody else) because I did not bring up the question of why doesn't DL fly from random place USA to random place Asia. I believe those kinds of discussions are reserved for A-net. Psst ... you do recall A-net, the site you are banned from, don't you?
So to sum up in a sentence the diatribe you wrote above: You have no idea what you are talking about and cannot refute dawg's point that DL does not have the available aircraft to bypass NRT at the present time.
Your ramblings just show that you certainly are not a route planning expert.
Spin away!
Kev3188
Veteran
Interesting that almost 80% of those voting preferred NH's plan.
Also, since both tangents have been brought up, any flight in/out of PDX is "sexy."
Except ones to SEA; those just make you feel weird inside...
Also, since both tangents have been brought up, any flight in/out of PDX is "sexy."
Except ones to SEA; those just make you feel weird inside...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #23
if you want to be treated with respect, then don't start your posts with **** like "self-appointed Fleet Planning Expert"
and regardless of who brought up NRT-TPE, you are the one that asked why DL hadn't dropped it already. Are you not capable of understanding what is involved in starting and stopping routes?
your responses don't give a clue that you know what you are talking about... so the response was framed in that manner. If you find my response offensive, then don't ask questions about why a route hasn't been started or stopped already.
what you can't deny is that DL has the highest RASM in the US industry and does a far better job of managing its network than any other airline.
and it is a SUGGESTION by dawg that DL doesn't have enough planes. He is not a part of the planning process and doesn't know how much slack DL really has in its fleet. Neither do I for that matter. I do know that even though there were plenty of people who said how tight DL's fleet was this year, DL still managed to start LAX-PVG which required just one of the 30 or so 747s or 777s that can operate the route and also managed to increase int'l capacity by 2.5%.
DL retired 744s between last year and this summer and still managed to increase capacity so the fleet was clearly not pushed to the limit and the new 333s just entered service and not all of them for this year have been delivered.
so, the evidence actually contradicts dawg's suggestion... it is fine that he or you make any comment you want but don't be surprised if someone points out facts that definitely point out the truth.
DL hasn't started SEA-TPE and dropped NRT-TPE because the economic case is not there - perhaps both for the individual route but also for the NRT hub - and DL clearly has had enough ability to add intll flights this summer in a fleet situation that looks similar to what will exist next summer.
and Kev the size of the support is not a surprise considering that NH decided to start flying the A380 so Airbus supported their plan leaving just DL and Entrepid as the two main parties. NH obviously has more clout in financial circles in Japan.
the real question is how NH is going to successfully deploy A380s in a market that is shrinking due to a weak currency and where the US seems committed to not agreeing to any commercially viable slots at HND for TPAC service.
btw, frugal, how about you note how Kev can participate in a discussion without rancor and the responses he receive reflect that. Don't be surprised if you are treated poorly when you do just that to.others
and regardless of who brought up NRT-TPE, you are the one that asked why DL hadn't dropped it already. Are you not capable of understanding what is involved in starting and stopping routes?
your responses don't give a clue that you know what you are talking about... so the response was framed in that manner. If you find my response offensive, then don't ask questions about why a route hasn't been started or stopped already.
what you can't deny is that DL has the highest RASM in the US industry and does a far better job of managing its network than any other airline.
and it is a SUGGESTION by dawg that DL doesn't have enough planes. He is not a part of the planning process and doesn't know how much slack DL really has in its fleet. Neither do I for that matter. I do know that even though there were plenty of people who said how tight DL's fleet was this year, DL still managed to start LAX-PVG which required just one of the 30 or so 747s or 777s that can operate the route and also managed to increase int'l capacity by 2.5%.
DL retired 744s between last year and this summer and still managed to increase capacity so the fleet was clearly not pushed to the limit and the new 333s just entered service and not all of them for this year have been delivered.
so, the evidence actually contradicts dawg's suggestion... it is fine that he or you make any comment you want but don't be surprised if someone points out facts that definitely point out the truth.
DL hasn't started SEA-TPE and dropped NRT-TPE because the economic case is not there - perhaps both for the individual route but also for the NRT hub - and DL clearly has had enough ability to add intll flights this summer in a fleet situation that looks similar to what will exist next summer.
and Kev the size of the support is not a surprise considering that NH decided to start flying the A380 so Airbus supported their plan leaving just DL and Entrepid as the two main parties. NH obviously has more clout in financial circles in Japan.
the real question is how NH is going to successfully deploy A380s in a market that is shrinking due to a weak currency and where the US seems committed to not agreeing to any commercially viable slots at HND for TPAC service.
btw, frugal, how about you note how Kev can participate in a discussion without rancor and the responses he receive reflect that. Don't be surprised if you are treated poorly when you do just that to.others
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,298
It has been explained by Delta 100 times over the ONLY way they were able to get that route out of the 777 fleet is because they are opening a line station in PVG, which will remove the requirement for the plane to sit at LAX for checks.WorldTraveler said:
And don't tell me i can't figure out how much fleet slack Delta has when you can't even convert kgs into pounds bro. I can look at the MX schedule and the flying schedule and have a pretty good idea of utilization.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #25
and yet the simple fact is that DL managed to grow its int'l network by 2.5% in a year that saw no more slack in the longhaul fleet than DL will see next year.
DL moves airplanes and types around its network all the time. SEA-HND is gone so there is an airplane there. Add up other pieces and it is very possible that DL could create the aircraft time necessary to grow the network.
now that DL has 4 flights/day at PVG, a line station makes sense. It will certainly ensure that LAX-PVG operates reliably but it is still a turn. Even if NRT-PVG or other PVG flights are 777s, the times don't work to rotate it with LAX-PVG so LAX-PVG is a turn. the line maintenance operations does more to flights with longer ground time at PVG than it will LAX-PVG.
DL moves airplanes and types around its network all the time. SEA-HND is gone so there is an airplane there. Add up other pieces and it is very possible that DL could create the aircraft time necessary to grow the network.
now that DL has 4 flights/day at PVG, a line station makes sense. It will certainly ensure that LAX-PVG operates reliably but it is still a turn. Even if NRT-PVG or other PVG flights are 777s, the times don't work to rotate it with LAX-PVG so LAX-PVG is a turn. the line maintenance operations does more to flights with longer ground time at PVG than it will LAX-PVG.
- Status
