Delta records another very strong quarter
- Thread starter WorldTraveler
- Start date
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #77
and you as an outsider are in no more of a position to be condemning DL unless you want me to do the same to you.
and if the "screwing" was because of financial aspects, then EVERY legacy employee has been affected.
and if the "screwing" was because of financial aspects, then EVERY legacy employee has been affected.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #80
Specific to the topic, there is now public evidence to support DL executive statements that their NYC operations are contributing to growing amounts of the company's profitability.
Information from the Port Authority of NY/NJ shows that DL is now the largest carrier at both LGA and JFK while DL executives have repeatedly noted that DL's corporate growth rate as well as share in NYC is growing faster than the industry.
The slot deal at LGA is clearly paying off as DL's share there continues to grow and is now just under 40% of all airport boardings while DL's share at JFK is now the largest, topping B6.
In addition, DL's cargo performance has increased while AA's has decreased as a result of AA's decision to pull 767s off of the transcons; in contrast, DL is operating just 5 767s on JFK-LAX but is now within a couple percent of overtaking AA as the largest cargo carrier at JFK.
NYC is and will continue to be a key part of DL's strategy and clearly is a major part of its growing profitability as well.
Information from the Port Authority of NY/NJ shows that DL is now the largest carrier at both LGA and JFK while DL executives have repeatedly noted that DL's corporate growth rate as well as share in NYC is growing faster than the industry.
The slot deal at LGA is clearly paying off as DL's share there continues to grow and is now just under 40% of all airport boardings while DL's share at JFK is now the largest, topping B6.
In addition, DL's cargo performance has increased while AA's has decreased as a result of AA's decision to pull 767s off of the transcons; in contrast, DL is operating just 5 767s on JFK-LAX but is now within a couple percent of overtaking AA as the largest cargo carrier at JFK.
NYC is and will continue to be a key part of DL's strategy and clearly is a major part of its growing profitability as well.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,353
You may want to stop tossing this out there so much.WorldTraveler said:
Have heard some talk of 75Ss replacing the bulk of the 767 flying on Tcons. I think the 767 is gone from JFK-SEA, SFO has been all 757 and ATL is rotating the 767s needed to LAX now.
Rumor has it they want to add a extra few flights and go mostly 757. (maybe 1/2 767 flights)
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #82
The 767 isn't and hasn't been on JFK-SFO or SEA for more than short-term basis.
The 767 does operate 4-5 flights/day on JFK-LAX which is enough for DL to pick up a large portion of the cargo and passenger business that AA walked away.
If DL can replace a frequency or two and convert it to 757s, they may do so and pull about 50 seats/flight. But because the 757s can't carry the cargo which is a major part of the revenue in the market, DL is unlikely to walk away.
The fact that DL is using up to 5 767s compared to twice that number that AA used on JFK-LAX (and perhaps trucks to other CA locations) says that DL doesn't need to offer anywhere near the number of 767 flights that AA did - thanks to the 763s larger cargo holds and better economics.
The JFK transcon strategy is just one more example of where DL has moved into markets which competitors have said they can't or don't want to serve and succeeded.
The 767 does operate 4-5 flights/day on JFK-LAX which is enough for DL to pick up a large portion of the cargo and passenger business that AA walked away.
If DL can replace a frequency or two and convert it to 757s, they may do so and pull about 50 seats/flight. But because the 757s can't carry the cargo which is a major part of the revenue in the market, DL is unlikely to walk away.
The fact that DL is using up to 5 767s compared to twice that number that AA used on JFK-LAX (and perhaps trucks to other CA locations) says that DL doesn't need to offer anywhere near the number of 767 flights that AA did - thanks to the 763s larger cargo holds and better economics.
The JFK transcon strategy is just one more example of where DL has moved into markets which competitors have said they can't or don't want to serve and succeeded.
The 75S reconfigurations will be ramping back up this fall, where are they going if not transcon?
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #84
DL has used Business Elite 757s even during the winter on various parts of its network including some Latin America and TATL flights. The economics of the aircraft aren't changing because the number of business class seats is unchanged so there is no reason to think they won't continue to use them where they have been used before. Also, JFK-SEA is not a BE only route but sees a combination of normal domestic as well as BE 757s.
The 757 may well be used exclusively on transcons but I have yet to see anything that says that DL will be pulling the 767s from JFK-LAX.
Further, simply DL doesn't have enough 757s to operate all of JFK-LAX, JFK-SFO, plus some of JFK-SEA on BE 757s plus whatever they do in Latin America and Europe.
DL right now operates 15 flights/day JFK-LAX and SFO alone.
SFO right now is not a 'new' BE flight anyway... at least on a scheduled basis. DL needs a half dozen converted aircraft just to upgrade that flight.
They have clearly been able to fill the 767s on JFK-LAX, added more of them this summer, and also are carrying huge amounts of cargo.
They may decide to go with the 757s but the same principle applies to the transcons as it does to the 757 on TATL in that the small business cabin 767 has usually one to two additional FAs, burns about 1/3 more fuel, but carries 50 more passengers plus cargo.
Further, DL has a limited number of gates at LAX which means they have to maximize the number of passengers per gate and the 767 allows them to do that; DL already has a higher percentage of domestic widebodies at LAX than other carriers.
I doubt that DL will walk completely away from using the 767s on JFK-LAX but they may replace a frequency here and there with a 757, esp. during the winter months.
If you have anything firm which says otherwise, plz feel free to share it.
The 757 may well be used exclusively on transcons but I have yet to see anything that says that DL will be pulling the 767s from JFK-LAX.
Further, simply DL doesn't have enough 757s to operate all of JFK-LAX, JFK-SFO, plus some of JFK-SEA on BE 757s plus whatever they do in Latin America and Europe.
DL right now operates 15 flights/day JFK-LAX and SFO alone.
SFO right now is not a 'new' BE flight anyway... at least on a scheduled basis. DL needs a half dozen converted aircraft just to upgrade that flight.
They have clearly been able to fill the 767s on JFK-LAX, added more of them this summer, and also are carrying huge amounts of cargo.
They may decide to go with the 757s but the same principle applies to the transcons as it does to the 757 on TATL in that the small business cabin 767 has usually one to two additional FAs, burns about 1/3 more fuel, but carries 50 more passengers plus cargo.
Further, DL has a limited number of gates at LAX which means they have to maximize the number of passengers per gate and the 767 allows them to do that; DL already has a higher percentage of domestic widebodies at LAX than other carriers.
I doubt that DL will walk completely away from using the 767s on JFK-LAX but they may replace a frequency here and there with a 757, esp. during the winter months.
If you have anything firm which says otherwise, plz feel free to share it.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,353
They are going to JFK-LAX/SFO flying. Also looks like JFK-SEA is going away from being bizE. Its already 2x 75E 2x 75X, going 1x 75E 2x 738 1x 75X in a few months.BABABOOY said:
From what I have heard, a few of the oldest ERs are going to go back to domestic config to replace a few of the 76Qs being pulled. (with the majority being replaced with 321/739s) The ERs will get mostly pulled from Transcons to fill the void. Also the "growth" 333s aren't going to really be growth airplanes.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #86
still, DL is operating 15 flts/day just on JFK-LAX and SFO; the fleet would be highly stretched to make it the only aircraft on those two routes.
Given that JFK-SEA is a key feeder flight for flights to Asia, the chances that it will not have any BE seating is slim.
Even if you are looking at schedules today, they can change as little as 45 days before departure and since the 757 and 763 all share the same types, DL can make equipment swaps as close as the day of departure with little impact to the operation.
Again, there is no evidence that DL is removing widebodies from the JFK-LAX route where it currently operates 5/day. DL could reduce that number but DL is filling the aircraft to the same levels it has done in the past, has managed to increase yield even with the current number of 767s, and is carrying tens of thousands of pounds of cargo and mail which they weren't before.
And, yes, the plan all along has been for several of the 767-300ERs to replace the retiring 76Qs, not only for Hawaii flying but because DL cannot get rid of its 767s at LAX without having more gates to be able to maintain the number of seats via more frequencies. The 767s are the only aircraft that can carry 250 passengers and still operate cost efficiently without taking aircraft that could otherwise be used for int'l ops.
Given that JFK-SEA is a key feeder flight for flights to Asia, the chances that it will not have any BE seating is slim.
Even if you are looking at schedules today, they can change as little as 45 days before departure and since the 757 and 763 all share the same types, DL can make equipment swaps as close as the day of departure with little impact to the operation.
Again, there is no evidence that DL is removing widebodies from the JFK-LAX route where it currently operates 5/day. DL could reduce that number but DL is filling the aircraft to the same levels it has done in the past, has managed to increase yield even with the current number of 767s, and is carrying tens of thousands of pounds of cargo and mail which they weren't before.
And, yes, the plan all along has been for several of the 767-300ERs to replace the retiring 76Qs, not only for Hawaii flying but because DL cannot get rid of its 767s at LAX without having more gates to be able to maintain the number of seats via more frequencies. The 767s are the only aircraft that can carry 250 passengers and still operate cost efficiently without taking aircraft that could otherwise be used for int'l ops.
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #87
who knows what in my post some find offensive but perhaps the actual success of DL's JFK transcon strategy including the increased cargo boardings that I predicted would shift as part of AA's choice to drop widebody service while DL added it might be bothersome to some people.
Just a few more details:
DL's load factor in May on JFK-LAX increased according to DOT data along with the market except for AA. DL added no flights year over year but did increase capacity thru the larger 767s.
JFK is one of the airports connected to the Trainer refinery so not only does DL have the advantage of increased efficiency as a result of the T4 facilities and the 767s but also has a fuel cost advantage from NYC where Trainer's impact is most apparent. Remember that Trainer was profitable in the 2nd quarter of 2014 and that DL had a 10 cent plus per gallon fuel cost advantage to the industry.
DL carried 2.4 million pounds of cargo, or 75% of what was carried by US passenger airlines between JFK and LAX in May. Quick math says that is worth about 75K pounds of cargo per day.
IN the year before, AA carried 2.8 million pounds but that amounted to about 65% of the total market.
Someone with knowledge of transcn cargo yields can let me know what that cargo is worth on top of the increased passenger business but there is every evidence that DL is using the 767s wisely to increase its presence in the market and increase revenues at the same time, all part of DL's strategy to increase its presence in NYC, which itself is a key part of DL's strategy to increase system profitability.
Wall Street has consistently praised DL's ability to increase revenues while carefully managing costs, a key part of DL's financial success over the past few years.
I'll be very interested to see any evidence that DL is going to pull 767s off of JFK-LAX as some expect (or hope) but everything public seems to say the 767s play a key role in increasing DL's passenger and cargo revenues.
On a side note, given that the results of the RFP have not been announced and it isn't clear if there are any used or ready to fly aircraft that will be part of the widebody refleeting process, it isn't clear yet whether the new 333s will be growth aircraft or not.
Just a few more details:
DL's load factor in May on JFK-LAX increased according to DOT data along with the market except for AA. DL added no flights year over year but did increase capacity thru the larger 767s.
JFK is one of the airports connected to the Trainer refinery so not only does DL have the advantage of increased efficiency as a result of the T4 facilities and the 767s but also has a fuel cost advantage from NYC where Trainer's impact is most apparent. Remember that Trainer was profitable in the 2nd quarter of 2014 and that DL had a 10 cent plus per gallon fuel cost advantage to the industry.
DL carried 2.4 million pounds of cargo, or 75% of what was carried by US passenger airlines between JFK and LAX in May. Quick math says that is worth about 75K pounds of cargo per day.
IN the year before, AA carried 2.8 million pounds but that amounted to about 65% of the total market.
Someone with knowledge of transcn cargo yields can let me know what that cargo is worth on top of the increased passenger business but there is every evidence that DL is using the 767s wisely to increase its presence in the market and increase revenues at the same time, all part of DL's strategy to increase its presence in NYC, which itself is a key part of DL's strategy to increase system profitability.
Wall Street has consistently praised DL's ability to increase revenues while carefully managing costs, a key part of DL's financial success over the past few years.
I'll be very interested to see any evidence that DL is going to pull 767s off of JFK-LAX as some expect (or hope) but everything public seems to say the 767s play a key role in increasing DL's passenger and cargo revenues.
On a side note, given that the results of the RFP have not been announced and it isn't clear if there are any used or ready to fly aircraft that will be part of the widebody refleeting process, it isn't clear yet whether the new 333s will be growth aircraft or not.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,353
Okay dude. DeltaMatic says two of the flights were 75X today (DL0442 and DL0445)WorldTraveler said:
So you can call me wrong all you want, but two of the four flights are being operated by non BE 757s and the route is going to drop another 75E/75S in a few months.
and no it hasn't always been the plan for the 763ERs to go back to domestic flying. (and the 76Q isn't used to hawaii. That would be the 76P that have the Prats and ETOPS. The 76Q is non-ETOPS and has CF6s)
OP
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,721
- Thread Starter
- #89
no, dawg, I'm not interested in calling you wrong but rather in noting that DL has long used an int'l BE product on major flights to its key gateways. JFK-SEA is absolutely one of DL's key hub to hub markets as well as a major feeder flight to Asia.
The point is that DL needs BE equipped aircraft on at least some routes beyond the transcons and the demand is not there to justify larger aircraft on all of those routes.
And it still doesn't change my belief that DL doesn't have enough BE 757s to fly all of the transcons with any kind of spare in the schedule plus anything else.
And the point is that DL can use 767s on at least some JFK-LAX flights, keep passenger loads and yields up, and also carry cargo.
Remember that in the winter the 767s have slack in them so there is lack need to pull 767s off of transcons if there is a way to profitably use them in the winter.
as for the various domestic 767 configurations, I never got into the internal DL aircraft codes but can see that the 4 PW domestic 767 non quite ERs aren't enough to handle all of DL's domestic 767 flying. Some of the real ERs are supposed to be converted to a domestic configuration to have a fleet of 7 or 8 domestic 767s. DL does have an will have a small subfleet of domestic 767s that are ETOPS capable because of Hawaii flying plus to allow 767s to be used from ATL, DTW, and MSP to the west coast esp. LAX as they are justified by the market. There are a number of domestic non-ETOPS flights that would lose a lot of passengers if they were downgraded to the 753 and there isn't enough gates and the schedules don't work to just add more flights to compensate.
The point is that DL needs BE equipped aircraft on at least some routes beyond the transcons and the demand is not there to justify larger aircraft on all of those routes.
And it still doesn't change my belief that DL doesn't have enough BE 757s to fly all of the transcons with any kind of spare in the schedule plus anything else.
And the point is that DL can use 767s on at least some JFK-LAX flights, keep passenger loads and yields up, and also carry cargo.
Remember that in the winter the 767s have slack in them so there is lack need to pull 767s off of transcons if there is a way to profitably use them in the winter.
as for the various domestic 767 configurations, I never got into the internal DL aircraft codes but can see that the 4 PW domestic 767 non quite ERs aren't enough to handle all of DL's domestic 767 flying. Some of the real ERs are supposed to be converted to a domestic configuration to have a fleet of 7 or 8 domestic 767s. DL does have an will have a small subfleet of domestic 767s that are ETOPS capable because of Hawaii flying plus to allow 767s to be used from ATL, DTW, and MSP to the west coast esp. LAX as they are justified by the market. There are a number of domestic non-ETOPS flights that would lose a lot of passengers if they were downgraded to the 753 and there isn't enough gates and the schedules don't work to just add more flights to compensate.
topDawg
Veteran
- Nov 23, 2010
- 2,957
- 2,353
Delta has 18 75E/75S aircraft. 5x daily to SFO and 3x LAX. You really don't think that Delta doesn't have enough aircraft to cover that flying?WorldTraveler said:
At one point Delta has run 8x LAX, 4x SEA, 5x SFO plus the TATL flying (JFK-KEF, BOS-CDG, PIT/PHL-CDG and a few other routes IIRC along with ATL-BSB) with 17 aircraft. So no, sorry WT aircraft availability isn't the problem.
What is the problem is JFK-SEA doesn't have the traffic for a true J class aircraft. That is why it is going back to regular domestic F minus 1x daily flight.
