DL expands SEA further with SEA-SFO flights

[WorldTraveler]

newest addition is SEA to SAN and PDX on CR9s starting next spring and summer.

http://airlineroute.net/2013/11/04/dl-sanpdx-s14/

 

[Kev3188]

SEA-PDX on a CR9? Not bad (and a gut punch to AS).
 
SEA-SAN on a CR9? Yuck.
 
If I had my way- and I know I don't- the E70/75 would be a better fit for the latter...

 

[WorldTraveler]

A CR9 is probably one of the most spacious aircraft available per passenger because of the intentional reduction in seats to meet the requirements of mainline pilot contracts. Having flown CR9s on 3+ hour flights, I don't see the difference as being significant other than because of the small size of the overhead bins.

DL's real motivation with the SAN and PDX flights is to ensure that it provides its own feed to its own int'l flights from the largest markets in the west. The CR9 happens to be the lowest CASM and lowest overall cost per flight aircraft to do that.

It is also possible that the CR9s smaller size might allow DL working with the Port of Seattle to fit more flights into the same amount of terminal space by reworking some jetways.

Given that AS and DL have both said the agreement between them is long-term and does have minimum performance guarantees for each party, the result is that DL will be providing its own feed from the largest AS markets but also will be relying on AS for other markets. AS undoubtedly can grow its network into DL hubs although it appears that there is not equality between the number of DL flights that can bear the AS code and the number of AS flights that bear the DL code.

DL is also increasing SEA-ANC to double daily service next summer.

Another question that must be raised is if DL is setting up to end PDX-NRT by connecting PDX with its SEA operation which will serve the top markets in Asia and Europe.

 

[737823]

SEA-PDX on a CR9? Not bad (and a gut punch to AS).
 
SEA-SAN on a CR9? Yuck.
 
If I had my way- and I know I don't- the E70/75 would be a better fit for the latter...

Surprised they didn't dump spare 50 seat capacity in the SEA-PDX market, CR9 seems like a lot. But I agree CR9 to SAN...no thanks. Although to DLs credit they are trying to align the passenger experience as much as possible with wifi, meals, glassware, etc and the DL RJ experience is far superior to AA, UA, and US by miles.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

Even on a short segment like PDX-SEA, they cannot use a YC only RJ and expect to get business class passengers on their long-haul flights.
LAX is already a two-class only market for DL - there are no 50 seaters. DL has enough two class RJs and SEA is an important enough market that there is no reason to throw any 50 seaters in the market.

Remember that UA flights 50 seat RJs in SEA-LAX against mainline and large RJs by other carriers.

DL will only be the second nonstop carrier in SEA-SAN market.

After int'l connections, DL have to fill as few as 100 seats per day in the local SEA-SAN markets and others with a 4X/day pattern... and maybe a whole lot less than that.

DL might also find that it is able to interline passengers to other carriers that are using AS only for connections to/from SEA.

 

[metopower]

Cr 9 is NOT the aircraft for San .That a/c is classified as a commuter aircraft and unless DL can get a special agreement they will have to park at the commuter terminal. The E170 could park at the main terminal. These terminals are a mile apart! Advantage AS.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I have flown SAN-LAX which uses the commuter terminal. Didn't know the aircraft distinction meant the difference of where the flight would operate but DL has the same split arrangement with SAN-LAX.

It would be great if they can get both flights at the main terminal. Can't help but think that is what they want but there is a lot of ground time tied up in SAN-LAX service.

Ideally, a lot of this west coast flying will be done with 717s down the road...
35 more seats above an Ejet and you have a mainline aircraft.

 

[737823]

Cr 9 is NOT the aircraft for San .That a/c is classified as a commuter aircraft and unless DL can get a special agreement they will have to park at the commuter terminal. The E170 could park at the main terminal. These terminals are a mile apart! Advantage AS.

True but if it the passengers are originating/terminating in SAN it isn't so bad. I too have used the commuter terminal and its a spruced up bus station at best, but it is a convenient and functional facility.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

it just makes it inconvenient to know which terminal you are leaving from (some don't even realize there are split terminals) and the facilities at the main terminal are clearly superior.

given that AA and UA do the same thing at SAN, DL isn't at a disadvantage to them. As meto notes, the advantage is to AS... but again DL will fill less than half of the seats it is placing in the market with local market passengers. For int'l passengers, the connections on DL via SEA aren't much different than they are with other network carriers via west coast gateways.

 

[Kev3188]

Another question that must be raised is if DL is setting up to end PDX-NRT by connecting PDX with its SEA operation which will serve the top markets in Asia and Europe.

Doubtful, but anything's possible with this outfit...

 

[WorldTraveler]

PDX-NRT is the only other transpac route that operates with the "small BE cabin" 767s.... if DL can route passengers thru SEA which is a lower cost airport than NRT and is also to remove an intra-Asian flight or two in the process, then the economics will win.

I hope DL doesn't reduce its west coast int'l presence to just LAX and SEA but let's keep in mind that AA only has one west coast transpac gateway and UA is fighting to stay in the game at SEA.

 

[topDawg]

I don't believe I ever said that DL would or could turn SEA into a full-fledged hub on the scale of JFK. But DL clearly has had plenty of success in adding new flights, both domestically and internationally including in markets like LAX-SEA where DL operated multiple mainline domestic flights even where those flights didn't connect with DL international flights - and the flights were full. Now, we all know that full flights don't equate to profitable flights but given that pricing is strong in the US and SEA has good pricing thanks to AS' hub, it is likely not hard for DL grow. The 717 is physically not that larger than an E170/175 which DL is using in SEA but the 717 carries more people. DL also has the ability to upgrade existing mainline flights such as on the 738 to the new 739s. DL does have options to grow SEA.

I didn't both that DL is trying to fully replicate everything AS does but they do intend to have a presence in the top markets and perhaps add more flights beyond there. I don't know all of the ins and outs of the physical operation at SEA, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that DL is working with SEA to create more capacity, possibly including a remote RJ operation; those types of things exist at other airports. If DL has determined it needs to grow SEA and the port wants DL's growth, there will be solutions found to make that happen. Even if DL is nearing its capacity short-term, SEA will find ways to accommodate DL longer term.

Keep in mind that even though AS has multiples more flights than DL, DL still is the solid #2 at SEA and carries 70% of AS' revenue because of the value of the int'l flights. DL is not the also ran in SEA that some would like to think.

I have no idea what is behind the falling out between AS and DL but DL clearly wants an exclusive relationship with AS and AS is also running high enough load factors on its own flights that DL cannot get the seats on AS that DL needs to feed its int'l flights and it shouldn't be a surprise that DL is turning to another plan to ensure its int'l flights are properly fed.

DL's latest move seems to say that intend to vigorously compete in the largest SEA domestic markets. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/delta-offers-double-miles-seattle-150000949.html

As for the impact that AS' ending of ground handling with DL would have, AS' service in most cities east of the Rockies is 2 flights per day. DL is adding that much capacity or more in most of those cities because industry capacity is rising again because AA and US are doing so in order to increase their own network footprint. Some of the cities that AS serves such as ATL and MSP probably wouldn't work for AS without DL feed at DL's hubs.

DL has made it clear that SEA will be a major city in DL's network going forward. The 767 and 330 are not traditional transpac aircraft but DL is successfully using them to open markets in the same way that CO used the 757 to quickly build a transatlantic network at EWR at costs that allow DL to very effectively compete with other carriers. DL also has strong partners in China and Korea (DL still codeshares beyond ICN on KE) as well as its own operation in Japan which isn't going away.

The other part of this puzzle is that DL and AS share gates at LAX yet DL has preferential use agreements over AS for some of those gates because DL helped pay for part of the remodeling of T6 at LAX. DL has the ability to significantly hurt AS at LAX if the two of them can't resolve the issues or if DL decides it needs to grow LAX on its own.

DL people are benefitting from DL's growth at SEA and there will be more.

On LAX, Delta has first rights for two of the three gates they share in LA and has basically been using those rights for a while. So no, Delta can't really hurt AS in LA. Delta hurt itself by trying to outsource flying to AS and gave up a gate that they now need. 
I do love it coming back to bite the company but it just hurts employees in the long run. 
two, LAX-SEA has 1 mainline flight. one. single. the only. 
and im sure it'll end up a E-jet with all the capacity in the market. 

 

[topDawg]

PDX-NRT is the only other transpac route that operates with the "small BE cabin" 767s.... if DL can route passengers thru SEA which is a lower cost airport than NRT and is also to remove an intra-Asian flight or two in the process, then the economics will win.

I hope DL doesn't reduce its west coast int'l presence to just LAX and SEA but let's keep in mind that AA only has one west coast transpac gateway and UA is fighting to stay in the game at SEA.

why is that your always go to?
I try to compare what work is or isn't done by UA and AA and you tell me they aren't comparable because of this or that.....but Delta makes a network change the firs thing you go running to is AA or UA does this. You wouldn't be our current president would you?
AA outsources its Japan flying. 
United is doing the same
 
DL can't, but tried to. 
 
also, PDX-NRT is in part a small C cabin aircraft because they have to get the 76Z to NRT for beach flying. they are also having to fly LAX-HNL with a 76Z, and with SFO-NRT gone I'd bet SLC-HNL has to go back to the 76Z. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL doesn't make fleeting decisions based on aircraft rotations. They create aircraft rotations AFTER network tells schedules the size of aircraft they need in a market. It is precisely the kind of thinking that "we have to fly type X on route Y in order to get an airplane to city Z" that has created years of losses for the airline industry. DL doesn't do that any more.


It certainly doesn't make sense to suboptimize a continental US - Asia route in order to get the right aircraft for a flight 2/3 the length. DL flew the 76Z "beyond NRT" which includes Hawaii because the plane already was there from a transpac flight.

SLC-HNL is going to have to go to a 76Z or DL has to drop the route because the domestic 767s are going away.

AA and UA don't have 4 west coast gateways to Asia. DL has since the NW merger. They are coming to the realization that it not only isn't necessary but the devaluation of the yen is making it impossible to support flights from some gateways. SFO was announced but no one should be surprised if PDX is next as much as DL wants to ensure that the PDX transpac customers stay on DL.

That's not a pro-DL slant. That is just simple facts. If DL, which has a lower CASM than either AA or UA or the big Japanese carriers can't make PDX-NRT work (and we don't know that to be the fact or not), then no one will fly PDX-NRT.

FWIW, according to DOT data, DL's revenue on PDX-NRT is better than it was on either SFO-NRT or SEA-KIX both of which have been cxld. Notably, DL's revenue per flight hour is higher than AA's on LAX-NRT or UA on SEA-NRT and both use bigger aircraft than the 767; this should show you why DL was able to say that NRT despite the yen devaluation was DL's highest margin hub and DL is taking the steps necessary to maintain its leadership position in Japan which NW very carefully developed.

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL is adding double medallion qualifying and double overall Skymiles for its west coast - SEA flights.

They are playing for keeps and to get SEA high value travelers flying on DL for their domestic flights.

Given that the chances of upgrade on DL's new flights operated by CR9s are twice as high as they are on an AS mainline aircraft, there will be plenty of customers who will find DL's appeal worth it. Add in that DL is shifting corporate travel onto DL just as they did in NYC and it shouldn't be hard to see that DL will get what it wants before too long.

DL is not going to hurt AS who is a strong and well-run airline. But AS and DL's actions will hurt other carriers who compete with AS and now DL on the west coast.
DL's actions will give SEA travelers another viable option. Let's keep in mind that UA was a very large player in SEA for years but walked away from much of the market. SEA is capable of supporting more than one large player - and DL has decided it will be the dominant network carrier in SEA.

BTW, DL is flying mainline flights between LAX and SEA and flew even more last summer. DL's mainline flights did very well according to DOT data so the likelihood is very high that DL will add as many flights as its facilities can handle - and they will do all they can to obtain more gates as soon as they can.

DL also continues to add more flights at LAX even with the gate limitations that exist there.