DL expands JFK-LAX/SFO with more flights and 767s

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

In the meantime, DL is adding widebody service to JFK-SFO which uses as much if not more block hours as DL used on the two LHR routes which are being replaced by VS under a joint venture.

Dumping unwarranted excess capacity into the market.
 

and yet you can't get right or won't accurately discuss the facts regarding the subject on this thread on this board

 
Here is one fact:

The best part is everyone but one person on this thread can read and post on a.net - one person can only read

 
 

..............................will cascade down to DL's ability to regauge other aircraft, including putting widebody service on JFK-SFO.

Dumping unwarranted excess capacity into the market.
At least on the bright side, plenty of cheap seats will be available for frugal customers.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

In the meantime, DL is adding widebody service to JFK-SFO which uses as much if not more block hours as DL used on the two LHR routes which are being replaced by VS under a joint venture.

 
JFK-SFO is just over 5 hours
EWR-LHR is just over 6 hours
LAX-LHR is almost 10 hours
 
But according to some people's math skills, 5 is greater than 6 or even 10.

 

[WorldTraveler]

The only one that is getting burned is those who think that the capacity that UA is removing plus what DL is adding along wiht other carriers is excessive.

There will be less capacity in the market than there is now based on currently announced plans.

DL will just be flying a whole lot higher percentage of the capacity. Since DL will now have 1/3 of the seats in the JFK-LAX market more than 20% more than each of AA and B6 who have about the same number of seats and DL will ahve 37% of the JFK-SFO seats, DL will clearly extend its leadership in two of the US' largest markets.

No, DL is just extending is lead while other competitors retract in the amrket.

And some people still can't grasp that DL is adding THREE JFK-SFO RTs while cutting ONE EACH EWR-LHR and LAX-LHR. The block time for the 3 JFKSFO RT flights is almost identical to the 2 LHR flights. and based on the schedules that DL has published the 3 JFK-SFO RTs will require 3 aircraft while the 2 LHR flights can be done on 2 aircraft.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

So for this narrative JFK-SFO and Newark-SFO are separate markets, while in your other diatribes they are 1 market. 
Can you say double standard?
 

 
Given that you can't do the simple math for block hours, do you want to give a shot to how cheap the DL fares will be as a result of the excess capacity they're adding?

 

[WorldTraveler]

actually I can do not only simple math but also advanced math.

you apparently not only can't read but you can't process basic logic.

I never once mentioned EWR and also looked at actual schedules. How about you do the same and you would find that your dirt throwing is irrational and unsupported by the facts.

 

[robbedagain]

well Id sure hate to be one of the many math students in your class  all probably passed but in your head  all failed

 

[WorldTraveler]

Huh. Capacity is virtually flat. Just moved from international to domestic

 

[700UW]

Really?

You cant be that obtuse.
 
He is talking about JFK-LAX capacity, you know where AA is #1 in fares.

 

[WorldTraveler]

We don't talk that way to other people on this forum.

robbed said nothing about fares in his post.

and I thought we just had a lecture about size..... so highest and best is ok but largest is not?

but if we are going to talk about highest, AA has simply moved to a niche role in the transcon markets. Niche companies typically have higher yields but they have less revenue - and that is exactly what has happened in this market.

DL has taken the role of adding capacity when other carriers cut it.... DL did it when AA went to its 321T strategy and is doing it again as UA pulls its flights from JFK.

In every other hub market, including AA's DFW hub, the hub carrier takes the position of maintaining the most capacity so they have greater pricing power.

Given that the JFK transcon markets are highly fragmented, DL has taken the approach of maintaining a CASM including thru their aircraft choices such that they can be competitive with any carrier in the market while AA has taken an approach of cutting its revenues in the market while increasing their average fares - and unit costs - or CASM.

I submit to you and you can argue until the final day - that AA's niche market strategy is not sustainable. AA in the JFK transcon markets is the only carrier that is doing it. Midwest Express failed as a niche carrier; UA has pulled out with the same strategy. AA is staking its survival in two of its core markets on a niche strategy that has resulted in less passenger revenue and the elminiation of cargo revenues.

Meanwhile, DL is going the opposite direction.

time will tell who was right... but given that DL's size in the NYC market overall as well as the transcon markets has grown, it is hard to believe that DL will screw up now.

The latest additions are just one more step in DL's strategy.