Delta Announces Summer 2011 International Expansion

[WorldTraveler]

Asia
Tokyo-Narita – Guangzhou, China*
April 6, 2011
Boeing 767-300ER
New daily service


Tokyo-Narita – Manila, Philippines
April 5-July 15, 2011
Boeing 757-200
Second daily flight during peak season


Atlanta – Shanghai
June 5, 2011
Boeing 777-200ER/LR
New twice weekly service


Detroit – Beijing*
July 1, 2011
Boeing 777-200ER
New five times weekly service

Europe
Boston – London-Heathrow
March 26, 2011
Boeing 767-300ER
New twice daily service


Miami – London-Heathrow
March 26, 2011
Boeing 767-300ER
New daily service


Boston – Paris-Charles de Gaulle
March 26, 2011
Boeing 757-200
Third daily flight during peak season**


New York-JFK-Paris Charles de Gaulle
June 1, 2011
Boeing 767-300ER
Sixth daily flight during peak season**


Seattle-Amsterdam
June 1, 2011
Boeing 767-300ER
Second daily flight during peak season


Pittsburgh-Paris Charles de Gaulle
June 1, 2011
Boeing 757-200
Expanded from five-times weekly to daily for peak season


New York-JFK – Reykjavík, Iceland*
June 2, 2011
Boeing 757-200
New five times weekly service



Delta's summer international expansion plans for 2011 have been released.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Delta-Boosts-International-prnews-4216948837.html?x=0&.v=1

Several observations:

1. DL is largely focusing its growth in its strength markets alongside those of its alliance partners along with strategically important additions to China and London.
2. Despite many predictions to the contrary , DL's Japan operations continue to grow. While all carrier plans have not been released, Delta is very close to becoming the largest international carrier from Japan (if their announcement doesn't push them past that mark( as measured by available seat miles as DL grows its Japan operations with two new 747 flights to the US mainland from HND, new NGO-HNL service (this winter), new ROR service, a return to CAN (using a widebody which should capture cargo revenues), and increased service to MNL - where NW has traditionally been strong.
3. Iceland and Angola are the lone DL new countries for 2011 so far across the Atlantic.
4. Most of DL's new TATL capacity is going to AMS and CDG as part of the DL/AF/KL joint venture, which also is taking the risk on the 3 new LHR flights to BOS and MIA.
5. DL is returning to the intra-Florida market with new service to MCO/TPA/JAX from MIA that - according to them supports the new MIA-LHR service as well as that of its alliance partners but the frequencies are clearly sufficient to support a larger Skyteam role from MIA to Latin America.

Overall, a significant amount of growth with a focus on strengthening its Tokyo operations and its presence in the Skyteam alliance.

other insights are welcome.

 

[WorldTraveler]

A little schedule analysis shows that DL's schedule at DTW for next summer, including the new PEK flight, makes DTW the 2nd largest single carrier hub to East Asia in the US surpassing destinations and and seats at both UA/ORD and CO/EWR. Further, the new HND and PEK service makes DTW larger than UA/SFO in terms of available seat miles but smaller in terms of seats. Since there are still a few more destinations DL could add from DTW to East Asia, it isn't out of the realm of possibility that DTW will grow further. Some of the existing routes also might be candidates for upgrades to 747s in the future as well.

Congrats to those of you in DTW for helping build the eastern US' largest gateway to Asia. We can only imagine what would have happened if NW had the 787s available but there are certain routes like DTW-HKG which are only realistically possible because of the 777.

In the midst of the economic crises of the country which are 10X worse in Michigan, it is good to see a shot in the arm for the midwest - which was the backbone of NW's network and which DL continues to nurture and build.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Delta has loaded what probably will be close to its final schedule for summer 2011.

DL's transpacific capacity is up 26% meaning that despite the UA/CO merger, DL and UA are within a percentage point of being the same size between East Asia and the US.

DL has also moved more 764s and 330s to JFK so that DL is now the largest carrier between the US and Europe from JFK and more than 2X larger than AA. DL represents about 26% of all US-Europe capacity from JFK and 20% of JFK's total transoceanic capacity. DL's JFK international operation in terms of ASMs is 75% of the size of CO's at EWR.

Now that the DTW-PEK flight has been loaded and DL has upgraded DTW-PVG to a 744, DL's DTW-Asia operation is larger in terms of ASMs than UA at SFO (the previously largest US airline gateway to Asia) and has almost the same number of seats.

 

[s80dude]

Delta is now shifting equipment on the new HND service. Both DTW and LAX will switch to 777 aircraft in June. Interesting to note that the slots were awarded to Delta because they were using a 747 v 777's from AA and UA.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2010-0018-0073

We tentatively find that Delta’s significant capacity advantage is particularly compelling at Los Angeles, clearly the largest Tokyo traffic generator of the proposed west coast gateways to Haneda. Although American utilizes Los Angeles as a “focus” airport, and would have the additional connecting traffic of Alaska and Horizon, Delta’s Los Angeles proposal would inject 63% more capacity into the U.S.-Tokyo market than American’s Los Angeles proposal with its B777 aircraft, and 50% more than United’s San Francisco proposal with its B777 aircraft. Thus, Delta’s proposed Los Angeles-Haneda service would provide passengers the largest capacity in this large market to offer a practical alternative service option to the existing Narita services available from Los Angeles.

 

[WorldTraveler]

What is your source for this information?


While I don't doubt that DL is making the change and I also agree that DL made a case for winning the HND slots based on using large equipment (its SEA-HND proposal used 333s which seat more passengers than either UA or AA's 777s), the DOT also noted that awarding 2 of the routes to DL helped to balance the HND presence of US carriers between DL and UA and AA, the latter two of which now have immunized partners operating 2 flights each under joint ventures.

Given that those joint ventures are seeing equally unimpressive bookings to HND and AA and UA will participate in the losses of their partbers on their partners' HND flights, I don't think there will be any rush for them to try to take DL's route authority.

I'm also not sure the grounds the DOT has used to file for a downgrade, but they certainly can argue that the runup in fuel prices changes the economics of the industry significantly.

While the DOT must play fair, it also does not expect airlines to lose money on routes, even if they were competitively bid. Only if another carrier were to come in and propose service on larger aircraft would the DOT likely put the awards up for a rebid.

And if it has to, DL will put 744s back on the route as long as it has to squelch competitor cries.

As I have noted in the past, the HND awards were strategically important for DL to win both to limit the ability of other carriers to set up HND as a competitor to DL's NRT hub and to maintain DL's position in the Tokyo transpacific market. DL has succeeded in that regard and has actually increased the effectiveness of its NRT hub relative to its peers since JAL has reduced a significant amount of NRT capacity.
I believe DL will fight to maintain the competitive position it gained with the DTW and LAX-HND rewards.

Unless something else is getting upgraded from a 777 to a 744, it says that DL still has some capacity available in its widebody fleet for future expansion..... it also is worth noting that the 777s right now have a better business class product than the 744s.

 

[s80dude]

read it on airlineroute.net

it also appears to be getting some buzz on other BB's.

I remember United argued it would use a 747 on it's new IAD-PEK service when it stated, but I think they too eventually right sized the market. Wonder if any of the slot losers will argue for a reversal of DL's rights to fly to HND.

What is your source for this information?


While I don't doubt that DL is making the change and I also agree that DL made a case for winning the HND slots based on using large equipment (its SEA-HND proposal used 333s which seat more passengers than either UA or AA's 777s), the DOT also noted that awarding 2 of the routes to DL helped to balance the HND presence of US carriers between DL and UA and AA, the latter two of which now have immunized partners operating 2 flights each under joint ventures.

Given that those joint ventures are seeing equally unimpressive bookings to HND and AA and UA will participate in the losses of their partbers on their partners' HND flights, I don't think there will be any rush for them to try to take DL's route authority.

I'm also not sure the grounds the DOT has used to file for a downgrade, but they certainly can argue that the runup in fuel prices changes the economics of the industry significantly.

While the DOT must play fair, it also does not expect airlines to lose money on routes, even if they were competitively bid. Only if another carrier were to come in and propose service on larger aircraft would the DOT likely put the awards up for a rebid.

And if it has to, DL will put 744s back on the route as long as it has to squelch competitor cries.

As I have noted in the past, the HND awards were strategically important for DL to win both to limit the ability of other carriers to set up HND as a competitor to DL's NRT hub and to maintain DL's position in the Tokyo transpacific market. DL has succeeded in that regard and has actually increased the effectiveness of its NRT hub relative to its peers since JAL has reduced a significant amount of NRT capacity.
I believe DL will fight to maintain the competitive position it gained with the DTW and LAX-HND rewards.

Unless something else is getting upgraded from a 777 to a 744, it says that DL still has some capacity available in its widebody fleet for future expansion..... it also is worth noting that the 777s right now have a better business class product than the 744s.

 

[FWAAA]

While I don't doubt that DL is making the change and I also agree that DL made a case for winning the HND slots based on using large equipment (its SEA-HND proposal used 333s which seat more passengers than either UA or AA's 777s), the DOT also noted that awarding 2 of the routes to DL helped to balance the HND presence of US carriers between DL and UA and AA, the latter two of which now have immunized partners operating 2 flights each under joint ventures.

The bolded portion is inaccurate. In the Order to Show Cause, the DOT did not mention that DL's awards helped to balance the HND presence of the US carriers." Delta argued it, but the DOT ruled that DL's 744 offered the most public benefit without talking about immunized alliance presence at HND.

We tentatively find that Delta’s proposal at Los Angeles would maximize public benefits by providing service in the largest west coast and mainland U.S.-Tokyo market, one that is significantly larger than both the San Francisco-Tokyo and Seattle-Tokyo markets. We further tentatively find that Delta’s proposed service would best fulfill the public interest by accommodating the very large local Los Angeles-Tokyo traffic base while also providing a number of connecting opportunities to Tokyo traffic from the western United States.31

<snip>

Through utilization of B747 aircraft, Delta would inject more capacity into the U.S.-Tokyo market than the other west coast services proposed by the applicants. We tentatively find that Delta’s significant capacity advantage is particularly compelling at Los Angeles, clearly the largest Tokyo traffic generator of the proposed west coast gateways to Haneda. Although American utilizes Los Angeles as a “focus” airport, and would have the additional connecting traffic of Alaska and Horizon, Delta’s Los Angeles proposal would inject 63% more capacity into the U.S.-Tokyo market than American’s Los Angeles proposal with its B777 aircraft, and 50% more than United’s San Francisco proposal with its B777 aircraft. Thus, Delta’s proposed Los Angeles-Haneda service would provide passengers the largest capacity in this large market to offer a practical alternative service option to the existing Narita services available from Los Angeles.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2010-0018-0073

Nothing in the Order to Show Cause about the DL awards balancing the alliance presence. All about 744 capacity. Nothing in the Final Order from the DOT about the immunized alliances as a basis for awarding DL its two frequencies.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2010-0018-0262

Given that those joint ventures are seeing equally unimpressive bookings to HND and AA and UA will participate in the losses of their partbers on their partners' HND flights, I don't think there will be any rush for them to try to take DL's route authority.

I'm also not sure the grounds the DOT has used to file for a downgrade, but they certainly can argue that the runup in fuel prices changes the economics of the industry significantly.

While the DOT must play fair, it also does not expect airlines to lose money on routes, even if they were competitively bid. Only if another carrier were to come in and propose service on larger aircraft would the DOT likely put the awards up for a rebid.

And if it has to, DL will put 744s back on the route as long as it has to squelch competitor cries.

If I were in charge at AA, I'd request that the DOT reconsider the LAX award. Perhaps DL would still be the clear winner of the LAX flight without the capacity of the 744, but there's nothing in the DOT award that makes that clear. Perhaps the DOT would award DL the LAX flight all over again.

Last year, I posted here and elsewhere that AA would be smart to acquire a couple used 744s so that it could match UA and DL in these route cases. AA could be upfront about it and say that although it intended to use the 744s, it could offer no guarantees that fuel prices or recessions would not cause it to downguage the flight to a 777, just like history has shown with UA and DL. And then, lo and behold, if awarded the route, downgrade the flight to a 777.

 

[eolesen]

There won't be a rush to try and take away any of DL's route authorities, but it will certainly add to the pile of examples on PMDL's and current day DL's failure to perform as advertised...

 

[WorldTraveler]

aw, yes, a...routes which relishes being able to add commentary on DL's schedule changes despite the fact that they rarely do the same on other carriers.

Let's get to the heart of the issue...
first, DL isn't "shredding" capacity (using said website's language) since the 772 is the next smallest aircraft in the DL fleet that can make either route in both directions year round. Doesn't matter that there is no aircraft in the DL (or any other US airline fleet at this time) between 275 and 400 seats.

second, while it is true that the DOT did not specifically address the transpac alliances in their US carrier route awards, it was fully known at the time of the route awards that AA intended to operate JL's HND service as a joint venture as did UA and CO on NH.

third, the brain trusts at JL decided they would prefer to operate their HND routes from HNL and SFO, effectively blocking NH and Star from being able to operate a SFO-HND route since it was a given that NH would not duplicate JL's route

fourth, the Japanese carriers did not announce their HND intentions until the US DOT made its HND route awards so it was clear that the only oneworld mainline route that JL would add would be SFO in addition to AA's JFK route. At least NH went for LAX service on the basis of it being the largest gateway but none of the Japanese carrier awards did much to help their US alliance partners. While Hawaii may represent some of the best opportunities for financial returns to HND, the fact that JL and NH both chose to operate a HNL flight in addition to HA's service doesn't give a whole lot of evidence that those Japanese carriers had a great desire to develop the US mainland or had much confidence in their US partners' abilities to help make the flight work, esp. given that both 3 of the 8 awards between the US and HND on both US and Japanese carriers are operated on 767s/332s.

fifth, the notion that AA would have done a lot better than DL on LAX-HND even with the same equipment is just plain not supported by reality... primarily because AA's 777 configuration has a couple dozen fewer seats and secondarily because of the 3 US carriers in each of LAX-NRT and EWR/JFK-NRT, AA is last in both markets in both average fares and shares in the local market. There is a non-public part of each route application and there is no doubt that DL was quick to point out that AA comes in last in revenue and local revenue so the notion that AA was going to provide the best use of the limited slots is illusory at best.

and finally, while every response here on the subject has been from the perspective that DL has had a shotty record of implementing limited access routes in other markets and should be stripped of its route awards to give to someone else, specifically AA.
Let's look at that notion.....
The "evidence" that DL has squandered precious route authorities is usually US-Brazil routes, and many are quick to point out DL's failures at REC, FOR, and most recently MAO. But in the short-sighted and singlularly focused efforts to show that DL has not used its limited access frequencies to Brazil as intended, it should be noted that DL will be operating as of this summer 6 flights per week to Brasilia, which is the exact number of flights it operated at FOR and REC. DL also traded - with DOT approval - some of its previous restricted non-GIG slots for GIG slots in order to increase frequencies on DTW-GRU which was started with its LAX-GRU slots - which were awarded to DL after years of sitting dormant by UA. DL's MAO service never operated for more than a few days per week and DL has returned some of its US-Brazil frquencies to the DOT. Futher, several of DL's route cases for increased Brasil service were contested only by AA, who was awarded slots to support the service it proposed, including DL relinquishing some of its own routes.
It is also worth noting that AA still has received a disproportionately larger percentage of US-Brazil route awards over the past 5 years and that AA is operating some of its new route awards at lower average fares and much higher costs than the services which DL chose to drop.
JFK-BOG is also mentioned as a route that DL temporarily suspended after a route case- but DL is now operating the route on a daily basis.
What also gets lost is the fact that AA is the only US carrier that has frequencies stripped from it by the DOT (Colombia) for failing to use them as prescribed by the DOT.


It is also worth noting that despite the US government's longstanding requirement that it only allows joint ventures and ATI agreements with countries that have Open Skies, the Japanese gov't convinced the US to allow JL and NH to enter into JVs and ATI w/ AA and UA even though neither HND or NRT are anywhere close to Open Skies. The Japanese gov't threw a few more slots out there for NRT - although there is no indication that any US carrier is interested in them at this point.

THe HND slots were a sham plain and simple; the Japanese gov't gave the smallest amount of slots at the worst possible hours that it could give in order to obtain the ATI/JV approvals that it needed. AA and UA both were more interested in getting ATI/JVs than they were in getting a bilateral that gave them the opportunity to fairly serve the Japan market and effectively compete with DL which alone has 1/3 of all capacity between the US and Japan and maintains that same ratio between the US mainland and Japan even after the downgauge to the 777.

Despite the attempts alot of people have at trying to paint DL as dishonest and manipulating the route selection process, the simple fact is that the DOT has never said that carries have to operate routes that can't make money; their only requirement has been that if another carrier has a desire to use a slot that one carrier chooses not to use, then a route case could be opened.

Given that AA and UA ARE/WILL BE operating HND flights with their joint venture partners that are likely losing money just like DL's, there is little likelihood that AA or UA are going to rush to ask for these awards. Further, there is no assurance that they would even stand a chance given that DL is now operating the routes with the same 777 equipment that AA and UA originally proposed. Only if AA and/or UA could show that its 777s woiuld deliver higher revenue than DL's would the DOT even consider taking an operating route from one carrier and awarding it to another.

What is apparent on this thread and on other forums is that people can't get over the fact that DL is the largest airline between the US and Japan and has the most capacity between the US and East Asia.

I can't answer whether DL was being deceitful in its route case regarding HND but it is clear that none of the US mainland routes are doing well so it isn't really a stretch to see why DL chose to downgrade its HND routes from the 744 to its next smallest aircraft, the 777.

What can be said is that despite continued assertions that DL is manipulating route awards and not using what has been awarded to it, the DOT apparently doesn't agree since they continue to award new routes to DL across the award with no regard to the charges that some including those above want to bring.

Finally, the China route awards of 3-4 years ago serve as a good example of what will likely happen w/ these route awards.
AA also was awarded China authority several years ago (ORD-PEK) but didn't even try to use it for a year past when it was awarded - yet some of the same people want to argue that DL was being abusive of the system for starting ATL service and then temporarily suspending it. It should be noted that even though the DOT said that any of the China frequencies which any carrier did not operate would be open to any other carrier. Not a single one of the China frequencies was stripped from one carrier and reawarded to another.

 

[FWAAA]

second, while it is true that the DOT did not specifically address the transpac alliances in their US carrier route awards, it was fully known at the time of the route awards that AA intended to operate JL's HND service as a joint venture as did UA and CO on NH.

WT, that's a most interesting way of admitting a fabrication, without actually admitting it.

Yes, we're all just green with envy that DL is the largest carrier across the Pacific.

In your very wordy, somewhat defensive post, you apparently forgot one reliable tidbit - the part about DL carrying more JFK-MIA O&D traffic than does AA. That's one of my favorites, and I can't believe it didn't make the final cut of the post above.

It could very well be that DL would have been awarded LAX-HND on the merits even if DOT had been made aware that the 747 would be downsized to a 777 if fuel rose in price or if DL was having trouble selling the seats. But we'll never know. All we know is that DL trumpeted the huge additional capacity of the DL 747 over UA's 777 SFO and AA's 777 LAX proposals. In retrospect, very foolish of UA to not propose a 747 on their SFO proposal. You'd think they would have learned from their successful IAD-PEK route case winner where the 747 was the primary reason cited by the DOT in UA's win.

I have no idea whether AA would be more successful than DL has been, but that's not the issue raised last year by me or by airlineroute.net. We both posted our skepticism that DL would actually fly the 747, as rising fuel prices and the slot times were known in February when the route case was opened. But of course, you are certain (backed by reams of data, no doubt) that AA would fail to the same extent as DL. Maybe you're right.

Not that it's relevant to the LAX-HND "it's a 747 for sure, well, now it's a 777" issue, but I think that some of DL's competitors in prior route cases have alleged that DL (PMDL) has not shown much long-lasting, steady commitment to Asia. Had not PMDL shrunk its Asia operations to merely ATL-NRT? Yes, PMNW had a much better track record to Asia, and the merged DL/NW has also initiated some new Asia routes, but PMDL's record was sorta dismal.

WT, you often make good points, but you'll be a better writer (and more persuasive) if you lay off the exaggeration and outright fabrication.

 

[WorldTraveler]

We could sit here and argue about this but I don’t see that it will accomplish any more than most of the other “discussions” that go on here ad nauseum.
But let’s address a couple of things you raise just to make sure they are ACCURATELY addressed.
The hypocrisy in all of this assertion that DL is somehow deceptively changing its plans after winning the award belies the fact that AA – as have every other network carrier – changed plans. Although you seem to think there is some sort of honor involved in flying your schedule – whether given by route award or “homegrown” through thick or thin, the DOT doesn’t see it that way and neither does Wall Street. Perhaps if AA was a bit more focused on doing what made financial sense and if you would hold them to that standard, this board wouldn’t be as full of irate employees who see AA as nothing but a sinking ship that continues to take from its employees.
The most important factor though is that in an attempt to argue that DL is breaking the rules, folks like you and others are making up rules which the DOT apparently doesn’t care about. Despite your assertions that DL has repeatedly manipulated the system and reneged on its route commitments, DL continues to be awarded new route cases and hasn’t had any of them taken away by the DOT.
Perhaps you should also care a bit more about where AA and DL and others are on the Pacific. Apparently you missed that the Pacific was the fastest growing revenue region for both DL and UA. Despite the fact that DL grew its Pacific capacity faster than any other airline, it also generated RASM growth faster than any US airline. The Pacific was a key driver behind DL’s very strong financial performance and went along ways to helping provide the over $300M in profit sharing that DL employees received.
Can you tell me how much AA employees received in profit sharing?
I don’t begin to support the idea of DL or anyone else deceiving their way to route growth –but the simple reality is that you and others were quick to jump to the conclusion that DL was being deceptive in obtaining its HND route authority using the 744 and then downgrading it.
When the DOT comes to the same conclusion and DL is at risk of losing the route let me know.
In the meantime, may I suggest that you focus your attention on figuring out how to mimic the revenue growth that DL has figured out how to tap into at HND, in new domestic routes such as LGA-ORD and MIA-JFK, and in markets throughout DL’s network including new routes to LHR which will give DL a piece of markets which other competitors have long dominated.
Perhaps it is the fact that DL is doing so many things right, including generating new revenue, that DL was rate as the most respected global airline by airline industry peers – just weeks after AA and UA both made the list of the most hated companies in America based on input from investors, employees, and customers. There is no way you can spin that reality as exaggeration.

As much as you try to deflect, there are a whole lot of people who seem to be able to recognize that DL is doing what well-run companies should do including obtaining access to new markets like HND