DL expands SEA further with SEA-SFO flights

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

As for MTOW, I truly hope that you recognize that the lowest weight aircraft that can do the job is the most cost-effective way to serve the market.

 
Are you saying that LH, BA, AF/KL, UA, AA, AC are morons for not using only/mainly B767s and A330s across the Atlantic?

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Just so that you don't try to weasel your way out - I specifically said that in some instances you use love to tout local boardings - not passenger boardings - as your statistic of choice to paint DL as the superior carrier, whereas eslsewhere you use other statistics. 
 
I think we all grasp that the right statistics for the right use is what matters.
 
What you don't grasp is that many posters here see right through your use of selective statistics. 
 
We, or at least I myself, don't have a vengence against DL and an agenda for AA or WN or whatever carrier.  DL is currently a good carrier, but not immortal or without faults.  Your discriminating pro DL data and innumerable diatribes aren't effective.
 
 

 
It's fascinating the statistics that WT uses to attempt to make the point that DL is superior over all.  In one thread, it is local boardings.  In another it is the growth rates.  In yeat another thread it is % passenger share from said market to DL hubs or the average fare between point A - point B in some other thread. Even the MTOW of aircraft was used to attempt to show DL brilliance.  If one dares to use any statistics/numbers where DL is not #1, then WT becomes unhinged

 

 

show me where I ever said that passenger boardings is a relevant measure of anything other than airport charges.
 
the RIGHT statistics for the right use is what matters.
 
Do you routinely commute to work in an 18 wheeler when a Corolla will do the trick?
 

 
I'd love to drive an 18 wheeler to work

 

[WorldTraveler]

Frugal,
I specifically said LOCAL Origin and Destination passengers... 700 and others REPEATEDLY have quoted airport specific boardings... airports do not provide O&D information because it comes from separate DOT data.
 
Airports have no interest in whether it is just one passenger flying SAT-DFW-SEA or if there are two passengers, one flying SAT-DFW and a 2nd DFW-SEA.
 
Strength of the local DFW market is only reflective of the passengers who fly SAT-DFW and DFW-SEA.  The SAT-DFW-SEA passenger could easily have chosen a routing on a number of carriers via IAH, DFW, PHX, SLC, etc etc.
 
Each of the same SAT-SEA passengers are considered with other SAT-SEA passengers regardless of the connect point.  All of the DFW originating or terminating passengers are considered with other DFW originating or terminating passengers, even if another carrier served the route via another intermediate hub.  ie AA could carry a passenger from DFW-SEA nonstop while another carrier could serve the same DFW-SEA market with a connection via IAH, PHX, SLC etc. 
 
The difference in local vs total boardings is where the passenger actually ORIGINATES and TERMINATES his/her travel, not what airports he/she passes thru to get there. 
 

WT the 744/330 seat is different than the 777 and 767 seats. All told DL has three different lie flat products-soon four. I know DL changed the configurations this fall reducing BE seats which must mean they aren't selling enough to make that configuration viable.

As for the 744 upper deck that's very unfortunate my best DL flight was on the 744 upper deck in BE-simply fantastic.

BOS-LHR goes back to 764, and every time I take the flight it's wide open in both cabins.

Josh

 
 
DOT statistics show that DL's BOS-LHR LF is in line with other carriers on the route so you apparently manage to pick flights that have open seats. 
 
Remember that a 50% LF in one direction combined with 100% in the opposite direction is still 75%.
 

 
Are you saying that LH, BA, AF/KL, UA, AA, AC are morons for not using only/mainly B767s and A330s across the Atlantic?

 
Morons, no.  Using the most effective aircraft to do the job, no.
 
Not every airline sees things the way DL does.  But DL also has recorded the highest profit in the history of commercial aviation in 2013.  They are clearly doing a lot of things very right.
 
Not hauling around more than they need to fly a route is one of those fundamental principles.  Not putting more premium seats on an aircraft unless they generate sufficient revenues is another.  Considering that a business class seat can take up the space of 4 or more coach seats, business class seats have to generate a lot of revenue - and not just be filled with complementary upgrades in order for the economics to work. 

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

I fee like I have to repeat myself:
 

What you don't grasp is that many posters here see right through your use of selective statistics. 
 
We, or at least I myself, don't have a vengence against DL and an agenda for AA or WN or whatever carrier.  DL is currently a good carrier, but not immortal or without faults.  Your discriminating pro DL data and innumerable diatribes aren't effective.

 
What you write below regarding local / O&D passengers is all well and good.
 
However, there are instances where, for example, you're pontificating DLs amazing rate of growth in LAX stating that since it is above and beyond what AA, UA and WN growth rates in LAX, DL is becoming #1 and will be blowing all competitors out of the water on the west coast.  Elsewhere, you're expounding all the numbers of O&D passengers DL carries and thereby concluding it is #1 and destroying the competition. 
You can't, IMHO,  be making the same conclusion (DL rules!!) using different metrics just so that DL comes out on top.  You would have a lot more credibility and tolerance and more + votes on here if you were to pick and stick with either one metric (i.e. average fare) or a set of metrics (i.e. O&D and average fare) and try to connect / relate them together.  You won't do that because the conclusion you might reach is that DL isn't #1 in every region/market (definitely not the west coast for example) - which is fine, it still is a good carrier, but behind UA and even AA in some instances.
 

Frugal,
I specifically said LOCAL Origin and Destination passengers... 700 and others REPEATEDLY have quoted airport specific boardings... airports do not provide O&D information because it comes from separate DOT data.
 
<snip>
 
Morons, no.  Using the most effective aircraft to do the job, no.
 
Not every airline sees things the way DL does.  But DL also has recorded the highest profit in the history of commercial aviation in 2013.  They are clearly doing a lot of things very right.
 
Not hauling around more than they need to fly a route is one of those fundamental principles.  Not putting more premium seats on an aircraft unless they generate sufficient revenues is another.  Considering that a business class seat can take up the space of 4 or more coach seats, business class seats have to generate a lot of revenue - and not just be filled with complementary upgrades in order for the economics to work. 

 
Nice of you to admit that not every airline sees things the way DL does.  DL's also should be commended on making a great 2013 profit.  And I don't mean to be a pr!ck, but other USA-based airlines were raking in some of the highest profits in commercial aviation not too long ago when DL was primarly an ATL-based & ATL-centric carrier ... ... ...

 

[Kev3188]

It's fascinating the statistics that WT uses to attempt to make the point that DL is superior over all.  In one thread, it is local boardings.  In another it is the growth rates.  In yeat another thread it is % passenger share from said market to DL hubs or the average fare between point A - point B in some other thread. Even the MTOW of aircraft was used to attempt to show DL brilliance.  If one dares to use any statistics/numbers where DL is not #1, then WT becomes unhinged

Whatever one can force fit into the narrative...

 

[WorldTraveler]

uh,,, DL was the highest margin US carrier in the late 1990s when the US airline was last on top of the world.  AA and UA also generated very strong profits and UA had a higher total profit than DL by a slight amount but precisely because DL was a smaller carrier, their margin was higher.
 
It is not surprising that we are seeing the same trend all over again.  AA and UA both bested DL-NW in size in their merger and yet DL is one again the highest margin carrier but also has the highest overall profits in the industry -  worldwide - and DL's network is still very much competitive with others.  When DL can get a revenue premium to AA and UA, there simply isn't any argument that DL's network is inferior to AA or UA's because of being smaller.
 
As for statistics, feel free to highlight whatever issue you want to question and we can discuss why each statistic is being used.
 
Regarding LAX, I have simply noted that DL's 14% growth rate in seats at LAX this year is far higher than AA/US, UA, or WN, and is also high enough that if DL continued that growth rate, it would become the #1 carrier at LAX.
 
Since the measure of size in a market is indeed local revenue, it will take well into 2015 before DOT stats for the summer of 2014 are released and we can see how much DL closes the gap in revenue.  But with the total number of seats offered by DL comparable to what PMAA offers and DL has long had an average fare premium to AA at LAX - in part driven by DL's much stronger revenues across the Pacific from LAX - DL could very well close the gap.  If DL has the capacity to grow LAX another year by another double digit amount and AA or UA cannot, then it is very, very plausible that the historic thinking that AA and UA are the dominant carriers at LAX COULD be overturned. 

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

Hmmmm, to me, highest profit means an absolute number - for example ~$3 billion.  Highest margin to me means a percentage of your gross revenue that is profit.
Like I said, nice way to twist / spin / manipulate words and meanings just to fit your narrative  (DL is the greatest ever).
Seriously, DL is a good company, nicley profitable, but it's not like they're pioneers in generating record industry profits.  Others have done it before them.
 
But thanks for making my point.
 
 

Not every airline sees things the way DL does.  But DL also has recorded the highest profit in the history of commercial aviation in 2013.  They are clearly doing a lot of things very right.
 

 
 

uh,,, DL was the highest margin US carrier in the late 1990s when the US airline was last on top of the world.  AA and UA also generated very strong profits and UA had a higher total profit than DL by a slight amount but precisely because DL was a smaller carrier, their margin was higher.
 
Regarding LAX, I have simply noted that DL's 14% growth rate in seats at LAX this year is far higher than AA/US, UA, or WN, and is also high enough that if DL continued that growth rate, it would become the #1 carrier at LAX.
 
Since the measure of size in a market is indeed local revenue, it will take well into 2015 before DOT stats for the summer of 2014 are released and we can see how much DL closes the gap in revenue.  But with the total number of seats offered by DL comparable to what PMAA offers and DL has long had an average fare premium to AA at LAX - in part driven by DL's much stronger revenues across the Pacific from LAX - DL could very well close the gap.  If DL has the capacity to grow LAX another year by another double digit amount and AA or UA cannot, then it is very, very plausible that the historic thinking that AA and UA are the dominant carriers at LAX COULD be overturned. 

 
I'm going to respectfully disagree that DL will ever be #1 carrier at LAX solely on just having the highest growth rate (for one year).  First of all, they're constrained by space/lack of gates (as are all other carriers at LAX).  Second, even with the growth they're not near/within a few percentage points of either AA or UA - many numbers show this (# departures, % market share, # passengers).  Third, you're assuming that UA, AA and WN and others will either not react to DL at LAX or simply retreat.  Unless DL merges with another carrier or acquires gates/space form another carrier at LAX, DL could be a decent #3 at LAX - and this by no means is derogatory statement.

 

[WorldTraveler]

sorry, but DL's profit in 2013 was indeed an industry high... that is not my opinion....
 

Delta Air Lines’ $2.7 billion profit for 2013 was not just a record for the company, but also a record for all airlines, according to a key industry publication.
The Atlanta-based carrier’s results announced Tuesday were the highest net profit in airline history, according to Airline Weekly, which confirmed the fact in its financial archives. The publication’s records cover the world’s publicly-traded airlines and other carriers that publish audited financial statements.
According to Airline Weekly, the previous record was German carrier Lufthansa’s 2007 profit of $2.6 billion, or $1.8 billion excluding special items. By either measure, Delta’s annual profit of $2.7 billion excluding special items beat the previous industry record — reinforcing Delta’s recovery since it emerged from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection nearly seven years ago.

 
http://www.ajc.com/news/business/deltas-2013-profit-an-industry-record/ncx8X/
 
Regarding LAX, again, let's read carefully what I wrote, not what you or others want to think I said.... the tense of verbs matters.
 
Based on DL's current growth rate at LAX alongside that of other airlines if continued for even one more year, DL would overtake AA and UA in size at LAX based on seats offered.
 
Obviously, actual results will not be known for close to another year for the schedules that will be flown this summer AND it is not certain that the rate of growth for DL or other airlines will be the same.
 
We have heard the "DL can't grow at LAX and SEA because of facility constraints" for months, if not years and yet DL with a smaller facility is indeed within single digits in size of its largest competitors.  At SEA, DL has indeed added enough flights to be about 1/3 of the size of AS even though AS has a much larger facility to work with.

The point is that DL is indeed capable of reaching its strategic goals within the constraints DL has.  DL made clear that one of its primary goals in 2014 was to increase its presence on the west coast.  Even though many people want to talk about DL's buildups and pulldowns on the west coast in the past, my contention has long been and DL is validating that its focus for the past 20 years has been on strengthening and growing its presence in key east coast markets.  Now, DL is comfortable enough with where it is on the east coast that it can slow its overall growth rate in the east and shift its larger growth focus to the west coast. 
Based on what DL has accomplished in NYC and in defending its own hubs from other competitors (DL has the highest percentage of local market share in each of its large hubs compared to AA and UA), DL is very well-positioned for becoming a much more west coast focused airline while still preserving its position in the eastern US.
 
DL's remaining strategic growth areas are the southwest/south central US where the 717s are clearly being set up to grow in that region including to the west coast and from MIA-Latin America.  You can fully expect that as DL succeeds on the west coast (and there will be new int'l flights coming to support/be supported by DL's domestic growth), the focus will shift to the remaining major strategic growth area which is MIA-Latin America. 

 

[eolesen]

More good news in the Battle for Seattle.... DL reduces benefits for AS Elites, and apparently AS is retaliating in kind.

http://crankyflier.com/2014/03/27/as-seattle-turns-delta-slashes-elite-benefits-for-alaska-fliers/

This pretty much evens out the differences in reciprocal benefits that MVP's get on DL and AA, or maybe even now in AA's favor (since they still get the priority lanes/boarding/bags/seats, and the ability to actually get one of the free upgrade on DL is far from easy).

 

[WorldTraveler]

Cranky is just catching up with news that has been discussed here.
 
AA does nothing for AS.  AS isn't any more willing to give AA an exclusive agreement than they were for DL... and since AA is not growing on the west coast and has a smaller int'l presence, there is less strategic reason for AS and AA to cooperate.  Remember that AA just decided to ditch B6?
 
DL doesn't give out upgrades to its own elites easily and yet they have a revenue premium to AA and UA.  You don't have to give away near as much of your product when people are willing to pay for it.

 

[737823]

DL doesn't give out upgrades to its own elites easily and yet they have a revenue premium to AA and UA.  You don't have to give away near as much of your product when people are willing to pay for it.

Actually as a seven year Medallion (Gold and Platinum) I have to disagree with you. In terms of upgrades DL does come through (along with great reservations and rebooking experience), its the mileage redemption that is a joke at DL. 25k domestic award is virtually impossible, let alone international premium cabins. Far greater and more transparent award availability on AA, UA, and even AS & US who both have similar three tiered structures. As a Platinum last year I only missed one segment MIA-DTW on a Sunday night last Saturday. Even routes like BOS-SLC I have cleared and DL sells many "A" fares-discounted BOS-west coast F fares via SLC that often fill-up the cabin on the evening flight especially.

AS has said publicly they are exploring further collaboration/partnership with AA. The loss of B6 is unfortunate, I'll still fly them to BWI/RDU/etc but it was nice to earn AA miles.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

based on the length of the upgrade lists on many DL flights, there are a lot of people who don't get upgrades.  As a platinum, you are obviously in the top tier.
 
I get that AS is looking to AA but it still doesn't change that strategically AA offers nothing that AS couldn't have done with DL - and in fact, DL's larger west coast int'l presence makes an AS-DL partnership more valuable.
 
If AS wasn't willing to have an exclusive partner in DL, why would they now walk away from their remaining partners - many of whom they have tried to pull even closer to AS as the AS-DL relationship unravels?
 
There is no logical or strategic reason why AA makes sense now but DL didn't before. 

 

[robbedagain]

on the other hand  AA/AS makes sense too   fact is  we do not know what really is going on behind closed doors   but recently AS did make a comment about possibly expanding codeshare with AA  but theyre gonna let the merger get thru

 

[700UW]

And AS is offering double miles when an AS passenger flies SEA-LHR on BA.
 
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/double-down-to-london-alaska-airlines-celebrates-british-airways-partnership-with-double-miles-between-seattle-and-london-251904621.html

 

[WorldTraveler]

again, also noted and happened before DL made its changes to the Skymiles benefits for AS elite members.
 
Also highlights why DL continues to escalate its addition of seats at SEA.  All of the frequent flyer program additions add fuel to the fire but the fundamental issue here is the addition of domestic service in markets where AS has had the only service or is the dominant carrier. 
 
AS can negotiate static seat prices with foreign carriers but unless it has antitrust immunity, it cannot coordinate schedules, alter fares, or change inventory strategies to the benefit of one carrier over another. 
 
Since two US domestic carriers cannot have antitrust immunity, it also says  there is no real gain in an AA-AS relationship that they couldn't get now or that they could have with DL. 
 
Increased service between the two carriers into each other's common hubs would provide the potential for more cooperation but AA isn't growing at LAX or SEA or PDX. 
 
By this August, DL will have about 1/3 of the total seats from SEA just to N. America that AS has and will have grown the number of seats it has offered by over 40%; by December, DL's N. America seats from SEA will have grown by nearly 60%.
 
Frequent flyer program tie ins are great and might move some business but DL has an integrated domestic/international integrated hub that serves 7 out  of 10 of AS' top markets plus DL's hubs (which are not top AS markets) plus service to 8 int'l airports. 
 
AS' finances will undoubtedly be pressured by the increase in seats in AS' top markets and in the fact that DL will be able to operate a truly integrated hub, something that AS and any other carrier cannot do.