Here’s What Delta’s CEO Has To Say About Trump’s Victory

It’s always interesting to hear what airline executives are thinking, as it gives us a good idea of what we can expect going forward. Delta’s CEO, Ed Bastian, was on CNBC yesterday, and had some interesting things to say following the Donald Trump victory in the U.S., as it pertains to the Gulf carriers, airfare forecasts, etc.

A lot of what he says simply reflects what has happened to the markets over the past several weeks, but there’s also some airline specific stuff in there. I’d highly recommend checking out this four minute clip if you have the time:

The highlights (I realize much of this obvious, but…)?

  • There’s an increase in consumer confidence following the election, and optimism that they’ll start to get things done in Washington
  • Fares are starting to stabilize, and Delta is expecting that first quarter unit revenue will be flat to up to 2%, after declining fares the past couple of years
  • The U.S. carriers have of course been battling the Gulf carriers, and Bastian is optimistic this will be addressed under Trump — “our president-elect ran on a platform of protecting U.S. jobs and enforcing U.S. trade treaties, and we don’t think there has been a more important industry that has been violated with respect to trade treaties and the potential loss of jobs than the airline industry, so we look forward to having the opportunity to make our case”
  • Consumer confidence is much stronger than they were seeing through the summer, and Bastian thinks improvements in yields are industry-wide, and not Delta specific

Many may remember that Delta’s former CEO, Richard Anderson, wrote an op-ed endorsing Hillary Clinton, which made many points about what her presidency would mean for the airline industry.

Clearly a large part of the increased confidence is simply the election being over, and the fact that companies now have a better idea of what they can expect.

Anyway, I’m not trying to be terribly political here. Perhaps the biggest takeaway is that we’ve seen airfare on the decline for the past two years, and Delta’s CEO is expecting that trend to reverse in the first quarter, though not drastically. Between increased fuel and labor costs, they’ll certainly need fares to increase in order to deliver decent results.

Conversations (38)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Comment as a member

Membership is free and takes no more information than commenting as a guest. Earn status points for good contributions, and see fewer ads as your status grows.

Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Loading comments…
Recent Comments
The latest from the OMAAT community.

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Rob Member

@Fran. I get what you mean, but it's important you understand it is not a debate of equally meritorius viewpoints. Government subsidies and the dumping that results from subsidization are universally codified as against the rules. I was not aware RyanAir was subsidized, but if they are then I'm not sure why you would be against subsidies for Ryan Air but defending subsidies for the Gulf carriers. When government intervenes with subsidies, competition breaks down. Read a bit more on background about the "crowding out" effect of government spending and you will better appreciate why subsidies eventually destroy free market operation.

0
‼ 0
Brian L. Gold

Fran - Since when does government action automatically equal violence? The US3 asking the government to regulate the ME3 does not equal violence, and your use of that word is simply ridiculous.

0
‼ 0
Fran Guest

@Rob, I understand we don't see eye to eye on this one. To me it is pretty simple: I don't want the government to favor one player over other: that's a choice for consumers in my view. It's hard for me to understand what is "fair" trade. Different companies work in different environments with different local regulations, different labor laws, and so on. How do you make something "fair" in your view? Do you prevent every single foreign company to fly to the US unless they pay their employees the same as US carriers do, for example? Do all of them have to have the same interior cleaning schedules, or spend the same in food, etc? Just within the US, isn't it unfair competition if a lot of your employees live in Georgia versus NY or CA for example? I mean, the list could go on, and on. The only thing that supposedly the ME3 are doing is receiving help from their local governments, but if anyone should have a problem with that would be the people from that part of the world who are subsidizing the travel of other people. I guess they feel is an investment plan to diversify their economy, and well, they have to see whether that pays off or not. We don't have to be concerned if someone wants to pay for a part, or all, of a our travel arrangements. They won't be able to do it forever, and the money we save, we can use it to finance something else. No: I didn't want to help you make your point. Ryanair is subsidized by local governments all over Europe, and that, in my view is wrong ... for the taxpayers who willingly or not subsidize them. It may be good for the consumers who purchase their product but the local governments take capital from the taxpayers to hand it over to a private company. Yes, I understand that they may be trying to bring in more tourism and so on, but, I feel that that should not be their call, let alone the fact that they don't know if that investment will pay off, and even if it does how fair is that to other sectors of the economy. My overall feeling is that, as consumers, we benefit from more players offering more products. Of course I understand certain regulations when it comes to security for example, but that's not what is at issue here. I can't help but feeling that the problem with the ME3 is the part of the world they are from (Delta previous CEO clearly said that), because subsidies seem to be a very common thing when it comes to airlines. Most if not all of the European airlines were at some point government funded, and they still receive help as "national" carriers whether their shareholders are "national" or from the Middle East :) And Rob, no: I am don't trust the benevolent monopolists: I'm pretty aware that the only thing that will prevent them from abuse is competition, which is exactly what the US3 don't seem to want, particularly Delta, the one airline that I absolutely do not trust at all. Their disdain for customers combined with their dishonesty, hypocrisy, and shameless behavior speaks for itself. The US3 had an amazing thing in their frequent flyer programs, and they decided that they didn't need that. Fair enough. Now, they don't want consumers to pay exactly for the product they want either. Not fair. And Rob, they are subsidized too, very much so. See you at Gary's blog? :)

0
‼ 0
Fran Guest

@Brian L. I never said that the violence was directed towards me. What I am saying is that the US3, Delta particularly, seem to want the government to act on their behalf against the ME3.

0
‼ 0
Rob Member

@Aaron - what bailouts are you referring to? The $5 billion Bush gave them to compensate them for the fact that the US Government cost them $5 billion by grounding all flights for days?

0
‼ 0

Save posts to read later

Saving posts is a member feature. Become an OMAAT member to build a reading list you can come back to from any device.

Become a member
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,883,136 Miles Traveled

43,914,800 Words Written

47,187 Posts Published