Delta to unveil LGA expansion Friday noon

[jimntx]

OK, if you say so. We outfitted some (or all...I don't remember) of our American Eagle RJ's with F/C seats. I think it was 6 also. That was a year ago. There has been no management self-back-patting announcements about the wild success of F/C on RJs. Or, the mad rush to book flights on same. I'm not judgin'. I'm just sayin'.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I believe UA started the trend among the big 3 with FC and E+ on larger RJs but it is the norm in the industry including at AA. Since every carrier has a limit on the number of large RJs, it makes sense to use them on longer and more competitive routes where FC does matter to business passengers who could otherwise upgrade if on mainline flights.
.
While no one wants to fly for multiple hours on an hour, there is a big difference in terms of comfort between the small C and E jets and the E170 family. Remember that B6 uses the E190 for a number of routes and they aren't branded as flying a bunch of RJs... and they don't offer FC. Even the FC experience on the CR9 (which is really a 76 seat aircraft) is not a huge stepdown from a mainline FC product and coach is substantially better on the E170 than on the CRJ-200 and E145 familiy of jets. Also, the FA ratio on the large RJs is about 2X higher than it is on the M80 for mainline carriers.
.
Let's also not forget that AA has had and still has RJ service from LGA in many business markets including to other carrier hubs...and used it as an advantage in negotiating contracts. What AA lacked along w/ US was the abiity to serve nearly all major markets from LGA which provides the ability to be a one-stop shop for the market, something CO was able to do from EWR -and they received revenue premiums for it. What makes DL's market unique is that they will duplicate service at LGA and JFK to many eastern US destinations and still have the long haul domestic service from JFK, which is the dominant airport for NYC-west coast service in virtually all markets. If you look at average fares from DOT data, AA does have lower average fares into other airline hubs using AE RJs, even CR7s with FC - but AA didn't have a level of service that could compete with the larger hubs. Note also, that DL obtained almost identical average fares to WN on LGA-MDW and then has done the same thing on LGA-ORD so the real issue is maintaining a level of frequency that is somewhat acceptable to corporate accounts. With 6 flights/day in LGA-DTW, DL is basically offering the capacity of 3 mainline aircraft spread over 6 flights... IAH and DEN are proportionately thinner and I wouldn't be surprised if DL decides they need to increase service in order to effectively compete... but again, remember that it is AA who has historically had the highest number of corporate accounts in NYC, not CO.
.
And yes, Bababoy, this is really the first cut for the schedule... some markets will be upgraded, some will be dropped, new aircraft will allow other routes... and DL might also try some beyond perimeter flying that is permissible on Saturdays... but DL still has an enormous amount of slots to work with in a market that has virtually zero growth potential.
.
Given that B6 has yet to announce their schedules (as well as US from DCA) and B6 could start their first flights now, B6 now has to figure out how to use their slots in a very different competitive environment - and some other carriers may choose to make some changes of their own; F9 has already said they are increasing the level of their DEN ops from LGA.

 

[jimntx]

Well, of course, DL is the model for how all airlines should be operated and should have been operated since the beginning of air travel.

However, I don't know how you do your math, but where you get that large rj staffing is "twice the M80 rate" is a mystery. Are you saying that the great god DL puts 6 flight attendants on an RJ? Excuse me if I choose not to believe that. I'm guessing that DL uses the same formula on most domestic flights that AA and every other airline uses--FAA minimums--one f/a for every 50 seats. A 100 seat airplane with more than 2 f/as quickly loses CASM advantage.

 

[AdAstraPerAspera]

There was no corresponding reduction in service announced but DL previously said they would fly DCA only to the hub markets. Since they have had 2 years to prepare for this slot deal, there was probably alot of capacity elsewhere in the system waiting to be used, including the MEM RJ pulldown this past fall which took place after it became known that the slot deal would be approved.

Is the Delta shuttle being discontinued, then?

I honestly dont know how successful this LGA minihub is going to be at LGA since it isnt feeding their intl ops at JFK. I guess we will see

 

[WorldTraveler]

Well, of course, DL is the model for how all airlines should be operated and should have been operated since the beginning of air travel.

However, I don't know how you do your math, but where you get that large rj staffing is "twice the M80 rate" is a mystery. Are you saying that the great god DL puts 6 flight attendants on an RJ? Excuse me if I choose not to believe that. I'm guessing that DL uses the same formula on most domestic flights that AA and every other airline uses--FAA minimums--one f/a for every 50 seats. A 100 seat airplane with more than 2 f/as quickly loses CASM advantage.

RATIO, Jim, RATIO.
2 FAs for 76 seats vs 3 for 150 produces an FA/passenger RATIO of about 2X higher for the large RJ.
.
Winning is about creativity, flexibility, and execution and that is why DL has succeeded to the degree it has... you can find any thread on other airlines' forums where employees believe mgmt doesn't have the strategic outlook necessary to stay ahead of the game.... again, AA and US both had PARTS of a LGA hub... but neither covered as many markets as are allowable under the perimeter restrictions as DL will with their LGA hub. They let what once were assets and advantages be surpassed by someone who recognized the value of those assets and make them work.
.
AdAstra....
DL's LGA and JFK hubs are separate hubs... they serve separate purposes. The strength comes from essentially having two hubs in the same city since neither LGA and JFK can do the same thing... and each hub has strengths related to the airports - LGA is a close in, high yield airport preferred by Manhattan businesses but can't serve the long haul and int'l markets that JFK can serve....
The Delta Shuttle will remain but will be a standalone operation on the other side of the airport - no different than it has been today and has been since DL acquired it from Pan Am 20 years ago.

 

[NYCDelta]

I can't imagine many business travelers choosing an RJ on a long flight like LGA-IAH or LGA-DFW if a real airplane is available from the same or (for New York) nearby airport--particularly, if the price is the same or almost the same. With the train service to EWR, one can get from midtown to EWR about as quickly as to LGA at certain times of the day.

And, god forbid, if the trip should involve a change of planes in Atlanta. I would almost rather change plane in MIA than ATL. I guess we'll see if I'm in the minority or the majority.

With all due respect, a 50 seat RJ is not comparable to an E-170/175/190. I commuted ORD-JFK on B6 a lot and their E-190 (even without F class) was great! I doubt if a business flyer living in NYC/IAH/DFW will care if the flight is on an MD-80/B737 or E jet with F class. I even flew AE ORD-ATL on a CRJ700 and it was fine, and will be doing it again on 12/31/11. As I said myself, it depends on how bad you need to get where you're going. When I see my partner in EVV, I can take a 50 seat RJ ORD-EVV for a 45 minute flight, or I can take Amtrak to Centralia (4 hours) and then drive to EVV (2 hours). As much as we all like to *itch about RJ's, they do have their place-and I doubt people will mind flying LGA-upstate New York on one. They've been on turboprops, or RJ's out of EWR for years.

Is the Delta shuttle being discontinued, then?

I honestly dont know how successful this LGA minihub is going to be at LGA since it isnt feeding their intl ops at JFK. I guess we will see

Again, it's not meant to feed their JFK international hub (see my post above).

 

[jimntx]

RATIO, Jim, RATIO.
2 FAs for 76 seats vs 3 for 150 produces an FA/passenger RATIO of about 2X higher for the large RJ.

76/2 = 38 seats per f/a. We have 140 seats on an MD80. 140/3=46.67 seats per f/a. 38 vs. 47? Hardly 2x higher, or maybe you're using a new math I've never heard of. Even if an MD80 has 150 seats, 38 vs. 50 is not even close to 2x higer.

 

[WorldTraveler]

ok....so 2X is on the high side but the CR7 in DL config with FC is actually a 65 seat a/c which gives a pax/FA ratio of 33:1 and even the 170 is only 69 seats... and it could shrink depending on how DL does economy comfort - not sure how it will play out on RJs.
And DL's M80s are supposed to be converted to 150 seat config again not sure how economy comfort changes that....
.
but it is still true that FA staffing as a ratio to passengers is better on the large RJs by about 1 1/2X than on mainline... and I have found that many regional carrier FAs offer as good as if not better service on short flights than their mainline counterparts.
.
But the FA ratio really only matters to the YC passengers because the FC passengers will get premium service regardless.
.
Bottom line is that the regional carrier product has improved enough that most passengers accept it as reasonably decent if not comparable to mainline service and the extra size of the large RJs CR7-9 and E170/76 do move the quality of the produce up to levels reasonably comparable to mainline service.
.
When you consider that somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of domestic flights are operated by regional jets and the large RJs do exist in sufficient numbers particularly as deployed by DL and UA, regular passengers do know the difference between large RJs and the first generation.

 

[jimntx]

When you consider that somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of domestic flights are operated by regional jets and the large RJs do exist in sufficient numbers particularly as deployed by DL and UA, regular passengers do know the difference between large RJs and the first generation.

Do you have survey results or scientific investigation to prove your statement about passenger insight regarding RJs? If you are offering an opinion that derives from a supposition, such as "1/4 to 1/3 of all domestic flights are RJs; therefore, most passengers must know the difference between large rjs and first generation," then allow me an opinion. "Most passengers fly RJS only because they have no other choice to get to their chosen destination. If there were a way to track booking patterns, I think you would find that RJ flights on mixed routes--even short flights like DFW-SAT--fill up only after there are no seats available on full-size jets or the airline puts RJs on all the desirable travel times (going back to they have no other choice).

 

[WorldTraveler]

Do you have survey results or scientific investigation to prove your statement about passenger insight regarding RJs? If you are offering an opinion that derives from a supposition, such as "1/4 to 1/3 of all domestic flights are RJs; therefore, most passengers must know the difference between large rjs and first generation," then allow me an opinion. "Most passengers fly RJS only because they have no other choice to get to their chosen destination. If there were a way to track booking patterns, I think you would find that RJ flights on mixed routes--even short flights like DFW-SAT--fill up only after there are no seats available on full-size jets or the airline puts RJs on all the desirable travel times (going back to they have no other choice).

Jim,
while every mainline carrier employee would like to believe that RJs can't compete with mainline aircraft and RJs only carrier "leftover" revenue, there is no evidence to support that idea in literally hundreds of markets around the US operating by every carrier. There are dozens of examples where RJs of one company compete against mainline aircraft of another company and the evidence is simply not there to show that the RJs receive inferior revenue. AA has successfully used RJs on the west coast in markets competitive with UA, US, and WN mainline service for years... DL has used RJs on DCA-BOS against US and more recently B6 nonstops and DL gets revenue comparable to US. DL is receiving revenue comparable to AA and UA on LGA-ORD and did the same against WN in LGA-MDW and dozens of other markets for years. And there are plenty of markets where DL has used RJs against WN and received com parable revenue. AA uses RJs competitive with UA mainline service in many ORD markets; UA uses RJs against WN and F9 to/from DEN etc etc etc.

If RJs were the last choice, then the mainline carrier should have a revenue advantage - and there is no evidence of that.
.
If RJs, which are a higher CASM aircraft than mainline, could not not effectively compete with mainline carriers then the entire regional carrier trend would have ended a long time ago.
.
As fuel continues to increase and costs such as the latest crew rest guidelines have the potential to push costs up for regional carriers up faster than for mainline carriers, then the cost side of the equation for regional aircraft might finally push them slowly into obsolesence ... but from a revenue perspective there is no evidence that RJs of any size cannot compete effectively against mainline aircraft.
.
And once again let's not forget that B6 operates the E190 - the same fuselage width aircraft that DL will use on LGA-DFW/IAH - as a core part of its network... the E jet attained comfort levels comparable to mainline aircraft and that can be shown by the dimensions of the seat, passenger space etc.... that was not true with earlier generations of RJs, yet mainline carriers were still able to effectively generate revenue using them... there are even fewer reasons to think the E jets and the Cseries (if it comes to fruition) to doubt that customers will choose the larger RJs.

 

[Silver Meteor]

Jim,
while every mainline carrier employee would like to believe that RJs can't compete with mainline aircraft and RJs only carrier "leftover" revenue, there is no evidence to support that idea in literally hundreds of markets around the US operating by every carrier. There are dozens of examples where RJs of one company compete against mainline aircraft of another company and the evidence is simply not there to show that the RJs receive inferior revenue. AA has successfully used RJs on the west coast in markets competitive with UA, US, and WN mainline service for years... DL has used RJs on DCA-BOS against US and more recently B6 nonstops and DL gets revenue comparable to US. DL is receiving revenue comparable to AA and UA on LGA-ORD and did the same against WN in LGA-MDW and dozens of other markets for years. And there are plenty of markets where DL has used RJs against WN and received com parable revenue. AA uses RJs competitive with UA mainline service in many ORD markets; UA uses RJs against WN and F9 to/from DEN etc etc etc.

If RJs were the last choice, then the mainline carrier should have a revenue advantage - and there is no evidence of that.
.
If RJs, which are a higher CASM aircraft than mainline, could not not effectively compete with mainline carriers then the entire regional carrier trend would have ended a long time ago.
.
As fuel continues to increase and costs such as the latest crew rest guidelines have the potential to push costs up for regional carriers up faster than for mainline carriers, then the cost side of the equation for regional aircraft might finally push them slowly into obsolesence ... but from a revenue perspective there is no evidence that RJs of any size cannot compete effectively against mainline aircraft.
.
And once again let's not forget that B6 operates the E190 - the same fuselage width aircraft that DL will use on LGA-DFW/IAH - as a core part of its network... the E jet attained comfort levels comparable to mainline aircraft and that can be shown by the dimensions of the seat, passenger space etc.... that was not true with earlier generations of RJs, yet mainline carriers were still able to effectively generate revenue using them... there are even fewer reasons to think the E jets and the Cseries (if it comes to fruition) to doubt that customers will choose the larger RJs.

The E-series aircraft is my absolute favorite. I go out of my way to fly them when I can.

 

[NYCDelta]

The E-series aircraft is my absolute favorite. I go out of my way to fly them when I can.

I like them too. It's unfortunate that the term "RJ" applies to everything from a 44 seater to an E-190, which with F class, is more comfortable than many mainline jets. I think it feels roomier in Y class than an MD-80 or B737.

 

[NYCDelta]

A number of Southwest employees have expressed their gratitude to me for us giving them several of those markets. )

I can't imagine many business travelers choosing an RJ on a long flight like LGA-IAH or LGA-DFW if a real airplane is available from the same or (for New York) nearby airport--particularly, if the price is the same or almost the same. With the train service to EWR, one can get from midtown to EWR about as quickly as to LGA at certain times of the day.

And, god forbid, if the trip should involve a change of planes in Atlanta. I would almost rather change plane in MIA than ATL. I guess we'll see if I'm in the minority or the majority.

I agree with you that 99% of pax would rather fly on a B737 than a small RJ, but they do fill a need. There is a reason you don't see WN or their 737's in places like FNT/AZO/EVV/BMI/MBS/LAN/SZP/SBA/TYR/TVC. They can't make money there.

Business travelers like frequency, and while you point out that they won't fly an "RJ" from LGA-IAH or LGA-DFW, I'm assuming you mean a 44-50 seat jet. If by "RJ" you're referring to an E-170/175/190 with F class, that is not correct. These planes are extremely comfortable and I would even suggest feel roomier than a Super 80 or B737. I can't tell you how many times during boarding of an MD-88 pax would comment on how "small" the aircraft was (I guess they expected a 747 on their LGA-PBI flight)-and by your own definition, this was a "real" plane.

And, I think you are in the minority because many,many pax connect in ATL (on both DL and FL) each and every day.

 

[tom barry]

I don't seem to remember NW's valuable Twin-Cities passengers being forced into an RJ or E jet from MSP to LGA, so I'm curious as to why DL would think this is prudent.
LGA/IAH-DFW, even on an E-jet ? NO WAY !

 

[Kev3188]

There has been a definite shift of capacity out of the upper midwest. Some is due to optimizing the combined fleet to better match demand, and some is due to DC9 (and SF3) retirements. I get it. What's concerning to me is when large corporate accounts complain, and nothing is done.