DL's profit does not disappoint.

[Kev3188]

Always comes with a kick in the pants. 
 
16 744s, replaced with 10 333s.

Not awesome- and that's coming from a fan of the A330.

Gonna be a really sad day when the last one hits the exit...

 

[WorldTraveler]

and the 333 seats 75% of what a 744 seats. considering that pretty closely equates to the amount of flow traffic that goes thru NRT right now on several key routes, the 333 is just about the right sized aircraft.

the 333 has the advantage that it is THE LOWEST CASM widebody aircraft in service - and the CASM advantage it has cannot be touched by the 787 or 350.

and that means that DL will be more than capable of maintaining its competitive advantage in whatever markets the 333 flies.

 

[topDawg]

Not awesome- and that's coming from a fan of the A330.

Gonna be a really sad day when the last one hits the exit...

Yep. Glad I got to work on the 744 a few times before they leave. Now I know how my granddad felt when he saw the 741s go in and out. 
 

except if you read the transcript available at Seeking Alpha or listened to the call, DL specifically noted continued reductions of intra-Asia flying with the result that NRT will be less of a hub and more and more as a destination.

The 744 is simply too large to be a hub to destination (hub and spoke) aircraft as long as DL wants to offer 2-3 flights to every major destination in Asia that can be reached from the US.

when you take out the intra-Asia flying, DL's TPAC capacity will probably be flat. and aircraft utilization could very well improve when you pull out a lot of short-haul flying within Asia.

Do you realize that a roundtrip from NRT to most of NE Asia including as far south as TPE doesn't even take 8 hours on aircraft that are best suited to fly 12 hour plus sectors?

it isn't hard to see how fewer aircraft are needed if they are used more efficiently.

no, DL is not turning its network over to its JV partners either in Asia (where DL doesn't have one) or Europe where it has 3.

It is shifting resources to where they can produce the highest margins.

that's what profit motivated companies do. And for an airline it applies equal to employees and aircraft.

I listened to the call and looked over the transcript, and I do get your point, and don't really disagree with it. However, the very limited intra-Asia flying the 744 does is going to be maybe a few frames worth of flying. 
 
 
This worries me as an employee and a shareholder. Delta is now down to 35 aircraft that can fly 12+ hour flights.(18 on order) United has 91.(61 on order) American has 77 (69 on order) . Getting smaller and smaller on the wide body end, while the other two grow is not fun to watch. 
 
It worries me that we are seeing both airlines grow internationally while Delta really isn't. Again, 16 airplanes are leaving. 10 are coming in. losing 6 airplanes hurts. Especially when these were going to be growth airplanes. 
 
 
 
I love what is happening in the domestic side. (I am going to miss the 757) but the more I look at Delta the more I see it shift to the Northwest still of an airline. Asia hasn't taken a hit but when the JV comes with KE I have a feeling we will see the network cut back to flow over ICN just like we have seen across the Atlantic. I am also happy with the news TechOps got last week. I'm bummed about the 747 thing though. I want to see Delta grow...and I mean more airplanes. 
 
 
 
 
*note I am holding out hope that Delta is able to get some early 787s, A350s, A330NEO, 777, M11s, L10s, DC3s something out of the RFP to replace the back end of these aircraft. If its 10 333s and 6 787s then I'll be happy. I get why they are parking the 747, I just want to see 1 for 1 replacements. 

 

[topDawg]

Sorry guys, didn't mean to piss on the great day. Just want to see growth mode. I miss the days when Gerry was here and we could expect 5 new routes every Nov. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

I want to see growth mode as well. and no apologies.

AA uses at least half of its 777 fleet to fly flights to Europe and S. America that could easily be done on 767s.

considering that the 764 carries as many passengers as AA's old config 777s and weights tons less, it isn't hard to see that DL has matched airplane capability to mission better than other airlines.

and let's not forget that the RFP will replace the 747s and 767s with MORE capable aircraft than what DL is losing.

and since we still haven't seen the results of the RFP, you are removing the 744s from the list without seeing the other side of the equation.

I am honestly hoping that we see a healthy infusion of 787s or 350s that allow DL to add a few more routes to Asia from MSP (which should have far more Asia flying than it has), JFK (where DL is capable of more than just one Asia flight), and LAX (same thing). maybe it will make another route or two from ATL or SEA viable.


let's also remember that AA particularly is growing its Asian network using existing planes and losing boatloads of money in the process. perhaps time and new aircraft will improve that situation for AA, but DL simply does not run its business the way AA does. And UA has not expanded its network significantly since the merger... and yet DL is still the largest airline across the Atlantic, larger than UA to Latin America, and 80% or better the size of UA to Asia.

it may not be near as sexy but 2 DL flights to Europe on 767s or 3 to Latin America on 738s might well generate more profits than a single 14 hour plus flight to Asia.

and let's remember that the domestic market is indeed the strongest right now.

let's see how well other carriers do in surpassing DL's financial results.

 

[Kev3188]

I love what is happening in the domestic side. (I am going to miss the 757) but the more I look at Delta the more I see it shift to the Northwest still of an airline.

Same here- in my case, I particularly like the shift away (and up) from CRJ's to E75's or even B717's.
 
 
When you say "Northwest style of airline," what do you mean?

 

[metopower]

Dawg ...I was wondering what you meant by that also.

 

[FWAAA]

the 333 has the advantage that it is THE LOWEST CASM widebody aircraft in service - and the CASM advantage it has cannot be touched by the 787 or 350.

You latch onto something, even when it's false, and you never let go. Boeing disagrees that the A333 is the lowest CASM widebody in service, and when configured similarly, the 772 has a 3.1% operating cost advantage:

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2011/03/the_games_people_play.html

You keep trying to sell your bullshit narratives to people and they're going to reveal your falsehoods. BTW, not the first time I've refuted this nonsense. And like many of your made-up BS, you post it repeatedly even after someone has refuted it.

Neither the 787 nor the A350 "can touch" the A333's CASM advantage? Uhh, whatever you say. More made-up BS without any citations or links to anything to support such nonsense.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

You latch onto something, even when it's false, and you never let go. Boeing disagrees that the A333 is the lowest CASM widebody in service, and when configured similarly, the 772 has a 3.1% operating cost advantage:

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2011/03/the_games_people_play.html

You keep trying to sell your bullshit narratives to people and they're going to reveal your falsehoods. BTW, not the first time I've refuted this nonsense. And like many of your made-up BS, you post it repeatedly even after someone has refuted it.

Neither the 787 nor the A350 "can touch" the A333's CASM advantage? Uhh, whatever you say. More made-up BS without any citations or links to anything to support such nonsense.

 
I have a feeling that he'll come back with a disclaimer or a qualifier saying DL A330s can't be touched by the 787 or A350  (or something similar like the instance when he argued about the MTOW numbers obtained from the plane manufacturer's www site).  I mean, in another thread he already said that with respect to cargo, DL B767's defy the laws of physics anyways.

 

[WorldTraveler]

You latch onto something, even when it's false, and you never let go. Boeing disagrees that the A333 is the lowest CASM widebody in service, and when configured similarly, the 772 has a 3.1% operating cost advantage:

http://www.boeingblogs.com/randy/archives/2011/03/the_games_people_play.html

You keep trying to sell your bullshit narratives to people and they're going to reveal your falsehoods. BTW, not the first time I've refuted this nonsense. And like many of your made-up BS, you post it repeatedly even after someone has refuted it.

Neither the 787 nor the A350 "can touch" the A333's CASM advantage? Uhh, whatever you say. More made-up BS without any citations or links to anything to support such nonsense.

do you honestly read this stuff that Boeing puts out:

◾9-abreast seating on 777-200ER (375 seats due to larger cross-section)
◾8-abreast seating on A330-300 (344 seats due to narrower cabin)

would you like to tell me what airlines put 375 passengers on a 772ER or 344 on a 333?

DL sure doesn't.

so who is playing seat games but Boeing by quoting numbers that are wildly beyond reality.

Based on DOT data which reflects real life configurations for US carriers, the A333 absolutely has a lower CASM on routes for which the 333 actually flies.

The extra 2000 miles the 777 can fly doesn't matter if it is a route that is under consideration for 333 service.
And I'm sure Boeing is anything but happy that Airbus has pushed the range of the 333 out to 6000 miles, capable of easily flying 13 hour flights across the Pacific - solidly Boeing 772 territory a decade ago.

Guess what DL bought to fly 13 hour flights? The 333.  
 

I have a feeling that he'll come back with a disclaimer or a qualifier saying DL A330s can't be touched by the 787 or A350  (or something similar like the instance when he argued about the MTOW numbers obtained from the plane manufacturer's www site).  I mean, in another thread he already said that with respect to cargo, DL B767's defy the laws of physics anyways.

there hasn't been direct route comparisons in real service between the 333 and the 787 but I can tell you that Richard Anderson specifically said on its conference call that it was far more focused in the capital side of fleet acquisition decisions rather than a specific operating cost advantage.

IOW, DL is convinced that the traditional model of evaluating aircraft acquisitions is broken.

guess which airline has reduced its net debt by $10 BILLION since its NW merger?

 

[eolesen]

guess which airline has reduced its net debt by $10 BILLION since its NW merger?

Squirrel!

 

[topDawg]

Same here- in my case, I particularly like the shift away (and up) from CRJ's to E75's or even B717's.
 
 
When you say "Northwest style of airline," what do you mean?

What I mean is flying less and less to Europe outside of AMS and CDG. On other words, trying to outsource as much as the TATL network as they possibly can. 
 
the network to Europe before the JVs was much larger. 
 
and FWIW I don't mean it as an insult to you guys, but ever since Anderson has shown up they have constantly be hacking away at the Trans-Atlantic market. 
 

AA uses at least half of its 777 fleet to fly flights to Europe and S. America that could easily be done on 767s.

while that is true, and the same can be said for UAL, they still have more capability than Delta does. 
 

considering that the 764 carries as many passengers as AA's old config 777s and weights tons less, it isn't hard to see that DL has matched airplane capability to mission better than other airlines.

I don't disagree with this 
 

and let's not forget that the RFP will replace the 747s and 767s with MORE capable aircraft than what DL is losing.

well now we will see
 
I have a feeling 10 airplanes are going to replace 16. That is not good for employees. 
 
and i question if this is the best move for stockholders. 
 

and since we still haven't seen the results of the RFP, you are removing the 744s from the list without seeing the other side of the equation.

well no not really. For sure Delta is now down 10 12+hour aircraft. The last 6 747s, unless Delta finds some quick 787 or 777 slots look to be being parked without a replacement. 
 

 

I am honestly hoping that we see a healthy infusion of 787s or 350s that allow DL to add a few more routes to Asia from MSP (which should have far more Asia flying than it has), JFK (where DL is capable of more than just one Asia flight), and LAX (same thing). maybe it will make another route or two from ATL or SEA viable.

agreed. 
 

let's also remember that AA particularly is growing its Asian network using existing planes and losing boatloads of money in the process. perhaps time and new aircraft will improve that situation for AA, but DL simply does not run its business the way AA does. And UA has not expanded its network significantly since the merger... and yet DL is still the largest airline across the Atlantic, larger than UA to Latin America, and 80% or better the size of UA to Asia.

Now is the time to do what AA is doing though. 
 
Burn money now to get a foothold (when the domestic market is supporting those losses). Next time the economy takes a down turn AA might have those suckers on solid footing. What does that mean? 
 
Well if Delta has a JV across the pacific I worry that it means Delta running away like they are doing across the Atlantic while outsourcing more to KE and telling us how great it is because margins are at 20%
Good for the company, not so much for employees. 
 
 
oh and AA isn't using existing planes. They are shifting things around yes, but AA is also taking 777s that is allowing this growth. Growing and doing mod work on airplanes......hell Delta has been telling me that isn't possible the last 4 years. 

 

[WorldTraveler]

dawg,
the reason why NW funneled traffic thru AMS and NRT is because they did not have the US network footprint necessary to serve multiple points in Europe from the majority of the US.

DL is capable of doing that from both JFK and ATL but many destinations don't financially work on a year round basis so DL ends up having to maintain resources (airplanes but also more importantly personnel) that can be used for 6-8 months of the year at most but then sit idle for 4 months of the year.

that type of inefficiency, esp. for employees is costly if there is no other place to use that aircraft.

DL and UA both have very strong hubs with their JV partners in Europe which can handle many of the smaller markets during the winter, allowing DL and UA to fly a lot more hub to JV partner hub routes on a year round basis while adding a smaller amount of truly seasonal flying.

note that UA is doing the same thing from EWR compared to what CO did because UA also has the ability to push traffic thru LH's hubs.

DL and UA aren't smaller to Europe relative to what they were but they are more concentrated on their JV partner hubs in total compared to what they were before.

and DL really would still like to have a JV with KE for the purpose of distributing traffic thru out Asia for DL and within the US for KE but KE apparently hasn't quite reached the point where it realizes that its share of the transpac pie will shrink if it doesn't cooperate with DL on terms that DL also finds acceptable.

AA's growth to Asia including at ICN is actually good for DL's push to get a JV with KE. and the more industry capacity that is added to China directly from the US makes it all the more necessary for KE to have help in pushing traffic thru ICN if KE wants to compete.

so, yes, DL needs to and will develop its own US to China network and to the rest of Asia but it also needs a partnership with KE - and vice versa - in order to maintain and grow DL's overall position across the Pacific. Remember that UA has a JV that incorporates both Japan and the rest of Asia and they are still the largest US carrier across the Pacific while DL has multiple JVs across the Atlantic and is the largest US carrier across the Atlantic. Having JVs does not necessarily mean that a carrier can't have JVs and still be the largest.

as for the number of widebody aircraft in DL's fleet, the NRT hub is very inefficient because every TPAC flight that arrives at NRT because they cannot return to the US based on the way the hub is designed; every aircraft that arrives from the US has to flown thru NRT to the rest of Asia.

At some point, DL will "flatten" the NRT hub and make it at most a one bank schedule so aircraft can return to the US or flow thru to Asia for the few destinations that must be served via NRT or some other point in Asia.
a lot of aircraft time can be freed up if widebody aircraft that must overnight in Asia are immediately returned to the US which is what AA does with its Japan flying. when back in the US, aircraft can fly to other parts of DL's network including Europe and Latin America - or return to other points in Asia, something that doesn't work the way the NRT hub is structured. the result is a more efficiently used fleet but fewer aircraft doing the same if not more total flying. thus, don't focus as much on the number of aircraft but the amount of block hours and seats that are produced.

so far, DL is saying that the total amount of transpacific flying will remain fairly constant while reductions will take place in intra-Asia flying

 

[WeAAsles]

The discussion of Delta capacity expansion began with questions by JPMorgan analyst Jamie Baker. Delta has grown in Seattle, where it is building a trans-Pacific hub and where it reported 6% third-quarter growth in passenger revenue per available seat mile on a 25% capacity increase, and in Los Angeles, where it will begin Delta Connection service to Dallas and Austin next month and to San Antonio next spring.
 
"I am curious about how you model for new routes and whether that has evolved at all over time, and in particular whether you consider earnings multiple destruction," Baker said.
 
"When you add capacity, particularly into (other airline) hubs, it diminishes shareholder confidence, it suggests a lack of discipline, and in my opinion, it jeopardizes the likelihood of earning a multiple closer to that of high-quality industrial transport," he said. "So I know it may be difficult to quantify, but do you ever stop before you announce a route and just ask, or maybe run it past others: What if this destroys tens of millions of dollars of shareholder value by robbing me of a better earnings multiple?"

Following the call, Wolfe Research Hunter Keay, who downgraded Delta to peer perform from outperform on Sept. 26, called Delta's 2% capacity guidance "unnerving," saying it implies 4% domestic growth since international growth is likely to be flat. He also called Baker's question "one of the most on-point questions we've heard (yet) it was dismissed by management as being inappropriate."

http://www.thestreet.com/story/12918525/2/delta-to-wall-street-dont-tell-us-how-to-run-our-airline.html

 

[WeAAsles]

When I hear these two names discussing issues in the airline industry my ears perk up.