Have you ever wondered on which routes airlines generate the most revenue? Okay, maybe you haven’t. 😉 But if you have, JonNYC flags an analysis that covers exactly this, and some of the routes may surprise you…
In this post:
Highest revenue domestic US routes by airline
Courtney Miller from Visual Approach Analytics recently published an analysis with the top 10 domestic US markets by airline, based on publicly available data.
This analysis is specifically of ticket revenue for the 12-month period from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025, and it doesn’t cover ancillaries, loyalty program revenue, etc. Furthermore, the revenue calculations are based on O&D (origin & destination) demand, so it’s a function of revenue of people traveling between two airports, regardless of whether they fly nonstop or connect.
To state the obvious, let me emphasize that revenue and profit are not the same, so this doesn’t tell us how profitable routes are, but rather, just how much revenue they generate.
I’d recommend checking out the full story, as it’s cool to see the top revenue markets for airlines ranging from Alaska, to American, to Avelo, and beyond.
Just to look at the “top five” markets of the big three carriers, let’s start with American:
- JFK-LAX had $220 million in revenue
- LAX-MIA had $176 million in revenue
- LAX-PHL had $150 million in revenue
- DFW-LGA had $148 million in revenue
- DFW-LAX had $144 million in revenue
Next, let’s look at Delta:
- JFK-LAX had $449 million in revenue
- JFK-SFO had $252 million in revenue
- ATL-LAX had $192 million in revenue
- ATL-LGA had $178 million in revenue
- ATL-LAS had $158 million in revenue
Lastly, let’s look at United:
- EWR-SFO had $493 million in reveune
- EWR-LAX had $384 million in revenue
- ORD-SFO had $218 million in revenue
- IAD-SFO had $194 million in revenue
- EWR-LAS had $192 million in revenue
What stands out about high revenue domestic routes
Some of the highest revenue routes are exactly what people would expect. In particular, some version of a premium transcon route typically generates the most revenue, and on top of that, airlines are very strong out of their fortress hubs.
Looking at the “big three” US carriers, a few things stand out:
- It’s amazing how much ground American has lost in premium transcon markets, and the carrier’s JFK-LAX revenue is less than half of that at Delta, and JFK-SFO doesn’t even make the top 10
- United beats Delta on its premium transcon routes, though perhaps that’s not surprising, given that United has such a big hub at SFO
- It’s interesting how some of the top 10 routes are actually quite short; for Delta, it includes ATL-LGA and ATL-BOS, and for United it includes EWR-ORD and LGA-ORD
- Some of the top 10 routes for each airline catch me off guard; for example, DTW-MCO is number nine for Delta, and PHL-MCO is number 10 for American
- It’s impressive how many very high revenue routes United has; United’s number 10 route ranks above Delta’s number six route for revenue
The data is equally noteworthy for some of the smaller US carriers:
- Alaska’s number one route is SEA-PHX, and number two route is SEA-SAN
- JetBlue actually beats American in terms of revenue in the JFK-LAX market
- Perhaps it’s not too surprising, but Southwest’s top three routes are BWI-MCO, DEN-PHX, and SAN-SMF; that short intra-California route is what I wouldn’t have guessed
Bottom line
There’s some cool data on the highest revenue domestic routes within the United States. Some are exactly what you’d expect, while others aren’t. I find this to be really interesting both in absolute and relative terms. While this doesn’t give us a sense of profitability, it does tell us quite a bit about why airlines are so focused on certain markets, and just how much revenue they contribute.
What do you make of the highest revenue domestic US routes? Do any surprise you?
AA is hauling 100-200 less Y seats than UA and DL when factoring in an AA 105 approx seater AA A321 vs UA 781, and DL 767, A330 etc. That is a lot less seats and revenue. To say less premium revenue at AA is not accurate at all.
Hodor- if you don’t enjoy this blog please take your business somewhere else…
Would be good to include the cost per mile. Flying the A321T with its premium seating, the cost is high along with the revenue.
If the 321T strategy was successful, AA wouldn't be discontinuing it.
The 321T strategy became a failure the moment that B6 announced its Mint strategy which came on the heels of AA's 321T strategy announcement.
B6 destroyed yields on transcon premium cabin fares which caused the 321T strategy to fail.
and AA withdrew its 767s from JFK transcon markets while DL added an all 767 schedule to LAX and enough times/day to capture millions...
If the 321T strategy was successful, AA wouldn't be discontinuing it.
The 321T strategy became a failure the moment that B6 announced its Mint strategy which came on the heels of AA's 321T strategy announcement.
B6 destroyed yields on transcon premium cabin fares which caused the 321T strategy to fail.
and AA withdrew its 767s from JFK transcon markets while DL added an all 767 schedule to LAX and enough times/day to capture millions of pounds per month in cargo revenue.
This seems really skewed by seasonality, I'd be curious to see a full-year dataset. At least in the case of AS, I'd expect #1 to be ANC-SEA (they fly like 20+ daily in summer)
"the 12-month period from Q2 2024 to Q1 2025" how exactly is this seasonality, or did I miss something?
Trump season vs Biden season?
Love the interesting data. It confirms the value for UA of having hubs in the highest GDP cities and EWR is a jewel being a NYC connecting hub even if it is an operational mess at times. It will be interesting to see what they do with the JFK slots in 2027. UA's hub to hub performance is impressive.
Visual Approach Analytics had other outstanding data showing UA's gains internationally.
https://media.beehiiv.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=scale-down,format=auto,onerror=redirect,quality=80/uploads/asset/file/35ddfe9f-ec70-457c-b420-a5035d9c7874/long-haul-asks-by-region.jpg?t=1747875575
https://media.beehiiv.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=scale-down,format=auto,onerror=redirect,quality=80/uploads/asset/file/8fdef22a-8023-4dd6-9e37-4b49dd61fe69/long-haul-share-us-airline.jpg?t=1747875395
Love the interesting data. It confirms the value for UA of having hubs in the highest GDP cities and EWR is a jewel being a NYC connecting hub even if it is an operational mess at times. It will be interesting to see what they do with the JFK slots in 2027. UA's hub to hub performance is impressive.
Visual Approach Analytics had other outstanding data showing UA's gains internationally.
https://media.beehiiv.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=scale-down,format=auto,onerror=redirect,quality=80/uploads/asset/file/35ddfe9f-ec70-457c-b420-a5035d9c7874/long-haul-asks-by-region.jpg?t=1747875575
https://media.beehiiv.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=scale-down,format=auto,onerror=redirect,quality=80/uploads/asset/file/8fdef22a-8023-4dd6-9e37-4b49dd61fe69/long-haul-share-us-airline.jpg?t=1747875395
there is no doubt that UA was right that there would be a recovery in int'l traffic after covid and they would be well-positioned to gain share if they did not get rid of aircraft as, not only AA and DL did, but also many foreign airlines.
The issues with these two data snapshots are that:
1. UA is considerably smaller than AA and DL in the domestic market and DL really does hold...
there is no doubt that UA was right that there would be a recovery in int'l traffic after covid and they would be well-positioned to gain share if they did not get rid of aircraft as, not only AA and DL did, but also many foreign airlines.
The issues with these two data snapshots are that:
1. UA is considerably smaller than AA and DL in the domestic market and DL really does hold its own in major COMPETITIVE markets; it is interesting how much UA fans love to talk about UA's revenue from EWR while failing to acknowledge that DL manages to carry as much revenue from LGA and JFK as AA and B6 COMBINED. UA inherited much of its market share in NYC from the CO merger while DL has built its largely organically. And for the domestic system as a whole, DL added more absolute domestic capacity than UA did; while UA added a larger percentage, DL's smaller percentage was on a larger base.
2. Looking at the snapshot for international now belies the fact that DL is entering into a phase of aggressive international expansion based on the routes that have already been announced that are coming. DL's average int'l aircraft size is larger and they have longer range; DL's international network will grow at a faster rate than UA's.
As I have said and a whole lot of people continue to fight against accepting, DL is not giving up anything to any carrier in the domestic system = and in fact have built hubs that are fully competitive with AS and B6 - while also growing at a faster rate in international markets than UA.
and UA in NYC WILL BE SMALLER. and they didn't want it to be smaller. they just were tired of the repeated operational meltdowns that were caused by UA's own overscheduling which UA could have fixed years ago. They blasted the feds who came down and cut capacity far more than UA ever planned to do. and in the process, DL is handedly the largest airline in terms of passengers and by the time revenue including international revenue is included, DL might have overtaken UA even in revenue and ASMs.
UA's domestic route structure is known to be underdeveloped with plenty of room to grow as they have internationally. UA guidance includes EWR taking a small hit in Q3 and more than recovering in Q4.
As for international, the latest Q2 data says otherwise according to OMAAT. United increased capacity to Asia by 6%, and saw a 3% increase in yields, and overall 9% increase in unit revenue. Delta increased capacity to Asia by 11%,...
UA's domestic route structure is known to be underdeveloped with plenty of room to grow as they have internationally. UA guidance includes EWR taking a small hit in Q3 and more than recovering in Q4.
As for international, the latest Q2 data says otherwise according to OMAAT. United increased capacity to Asia by 6%, and saw a 3% increase in yields, and overall 9% increase in unit revenue. Delta increased capacity to Asia by 11%, and saw a 6% reduction in yields, and overall 1% reduction in unit revenue
how do you look yourself in the eye when you manipulate data so you don't have to admit the reality of which I speak?
In all of those numbers, the one that matters is that Delta grew Pacific revenue by 11% in the 2nd quarter while it was 8;7% for United.
You can't cherrypick your way out of data that you don't want.
OMAAT reproduced the graph. It isn't their fault.
Delta added 4%...
how do you look yourself in the eye when you manipulate data so you don't have to admit the reality of which I speak?
In all of those numbers, the one that matters is that Delta grew Pacific revenue by 11% in the 2nd quarter while it was 8;7% for United.
You can't cherrypick your way out of data that you don't want.
OMAAT reproduced the graph. It isn't their fault.
Delta added 4% of system capacity and got flat passenger revenue. United added 6% of capacity and increased revenue by 1%.
DL's cargo revenues grew at a faster rate than UA's.
DL is adding revenue in UA's strength markets and businesses more successfully than UA is doing so in DL's strength markets and businesses.
and DL simply managed its costs better which is why its margins were better including not having to take special charges for labor expenses that should have been paid years ago.
You can spin and bob and weave to avoid admitting the truth but there will ALWAYS be people that will call you on the carpet for your data manipulation
Why so emotional about very simple data provided by OMAAT? Interesting.
Here is some more data for you. Domestic US market share:
2024
DAL: 17.9%
LUV: 17.3%
AAL: 16.9%
UAL: 16.1%
2019
LUV: 19.5%
DAL: 16.8%
AAL: 15.5%
UAL: 10.8%
once again, you have no idea what you are posting and continue to post things that are just plain wrong.
The data you presented is MAINLINE only market share by RPMs.
DL flies the most RPMs on its own metal and has grown in that metric over the past 5 years, overtaking WN.
UA has replaced a ton of RJs which is why its mainline market share has gone up so much.
And yet REVENUE...
once again, you have no idea what you are posting and continue to post things that are just plain wrong.
The data you presented is MAINLINE only market share by RPMs.
DL flies the most RPMs on its own metal and has grown in that metric over the past 5 years, overtaking WN.
UA has replaced a ton of RJs which is why its mainline market share has gone up so much.
And yet REVENUE is what pays the bills - and it is pretty easy to compare each airline's domestic revenue to others'.
WN typically carries half of the domestic REVENUE of the big 3.
AA and DL typically carry similar amounts of domestic REVENUE.
in the most recent quarter, DL carried $1.3Billion (18%) more domestic revenue than UA.
AA and WN report their financials for the 2nd quarter on Thursday.
We can fill in their data and compare the next time we have one of these data dumps.
I harbour no ill will towards Mr. Dunn as he provides a lot of analysis. Individuals can look at his analysis as they would any other source of information and fact check or disregard as they see fit. Until recently your country had a free speech clause in one of the amendments to the constitution.
To the point with the revenue numbers, are any of the routes profitable?
thank you. Anyone can and should double check and debate data. It is precisely when people conflate and manipulate either what was said by individuals or the data that comes with it that things go off the rails.
and all of this data, as you note, is about revenue -not profits. Airlines report profits by global region including their domestic systems but they do not report costs or profits at any lower level including...
thank you. Anyone can and should double check and debate data. It is precisely when people conflate and manipulate either what was said by individuals or the data that comes with it that things go off the rails.
and all of this data, as you note, is about revenue -not profits. Airlines report profits by global region including their domestic systems but they do not report costs or profits at any lower level including hubs or routes no matter how much some people try to argue they know what other airlines make in profits below the global region.
Facts checked and disregarded.
Too much fluff.
Others would agree.
Free speech under the constitution protects you from the government not private entities.
So much for talking big about fact checks when you don't even get this right.
I'm really surprised by Alaska's PHX route. I understand they're mutual snowbird cities but I woulda guess that SEA-LAX was Alaska's bread 'n butter market given business travelers and basic PNW-Cali ties.
Does the fact that this is from 10% of tickets skew anything?
Haha remember all that hype about the transcontinental 3 class A321 flights? lol
Fresh chum for the Tim Dunn Show, eh?
He's already wound up six ways he knows we're all wrong, and the day's just getting started.
all you or anyone else has to do is discuss the data with data and data-based conclusions.
But you don't even discuss relevant data Tim.
You're still full of fluff.
EWR-SFO is obscenely expensive, with fares often hitting $5k round trip. And you need to be GS on a high fare to stand a shot at an upgrade.
I still remember the time that, despite being a 1K on an O fare, was 10th on the upgrade list for a 77W. No one cleared.
first, this data is about the top 10 O&D domestic markets for each carrier. what it doesn't include is the total domestic revenue. AA reports this week and they typically carry similar amounts of domestic revenue as DL but, for the second quarter, DL carried $1.4 billion more in domestic revenue - or 18% more than UA. UA's international system ALMOST offset their lesser amount of domestic revenue.
and that is why what I...
first, this data is about the top 10 O&D domestic markets for each carrier. what it doesn't include is the total domestic revenue. AA reports this week and they typically carry similar amounts of domestic revenue as DL but, for the second quarter, DL carried $1.4 billion more in domestic revenue - or 18% more than UA. UA's international system ALMOST offset their lesser amount of domestic revenue.
and that is why what I have said for years comes into play. DL is growing its international system faster than UA's domestic system. DL and UA both lost 1% of their domestic revenue between 2Q2024 and 2025 but UA added more domestic capacity in the process. For the same amount of added capacity - DL generated revenue metrics as good as UA because UA flies 8-10% more ASMs than DL to generate comparable amounts of revenue.
DL has announced a number of new international routes that will increase DL's share of the int'l market more than UA will do domestically
second, this was for data before the EWR operational meltdown in which UA lost share and certainly lost revenue in their top NYC markets to AA and DL at LGA and JFK. EWR is permanently smaller than it was and while UA can redeploy that capacity elsewhere on its system, their share of the NYC market is not going to return to what it was before and it is certain that AA and DL have managed to secure some business that used to fly on UA from EWR.
and third, a whole lot of people love to argue that DL does as well as it does because of its "monopoly" hubs and yet DL does very well in its coastal hubs and this data shows it. DL, like AA, has a huge presence in thousands of domestic markets that cumulatively add up to more total domestic revenue than UA gets. and it will be harder for UA to grow into the domestic market because there are many more players and the domestic market right now is weaker.
DL simply has a more well-rounded network - with very strong performance in the domestic market - DL carries more traffic on its own mainline system than any other airline - and continues to grow its international network. UA has the international piece but is much weaker than AA and DL in domestic. AA does very well in connecting small markets but does poorly in the largest markets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_4bp8bBNVw
what a phenomenal way to start the week/day - thanks lucky. very excited for what's coming
What a relief it would be if Avianca Express (EX) flew to LAX...
"It’s amazing how much ground American has lost in premium transcon markets, and the carrier’s JFK-LAX revenue is less than half of that at Delta, and JFK-SFO doesn’t even make the top 10"
It really shouldn't be too surprising about JFK-LAX? AA flies a 102 seat A321 with little economy seating relative to Delta. Delta flies almost all widebodies (all?) with more than double the seating capacity on every flight and, I believe, Delta also...
"It’s amazing how much ground American has lost in premium transcon markets, and the carrier’s JFK-LAX revenue is less than half of that at Delta, and JFK-SFO doesn’t even make the top 10"
It really shouldn't be too surprising about JFK-LAX? AA flies a 102 seat A321 with little economy seating relative to Delta. Delta flies almost all widebodies (all?) with more than double the seating capacity on every flight and, I believe, Delta also has more frequencies per day.
I'm not suggesting AA is some powerhouse but we're just looking at total revenue and just the aircraft type alone would easily suggest more than double the total revenue.
Given the superior UA hubs, no surprise that it’s UA>>>DL. Though DL does probably have ATL-MCO fully locked up.
I wonder how much of the AA transcon story is 1) it's smaller number of seats thanks to the 321Ts and 2) the neglect of the 321Ts where it simply isn't competitive from a "seat monitors/tray tables/seat recline/etc don't function in many of the seats".
Also - the avelo chart is pretty funny given the context of them leaving the west coast. 9 of their top 10 flights are out New Haven - no wonder they are doubling down on east coast
These charts show why one of the main rationales for stuff like the Northeastern Alliance - that someone needs to team up to be a “strong competitor for Delta in NYC” doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny…
- Based on these charts, Delta doesn’t have a huge revenue premium relative to anyone in the NYC market. There are already strong competitors there
- It is clear that JetBlue, along with AA, limit the...
These charts show why one of the main rationales for stuff like the Northeastern Alliance - that someone needs to team up to be a “strong competitor for Delta in NYC” doesn’t seem to stand up to scrutiny…
- Based on these charts, Delta doesn’t have a huge revenue premium relative to anyone in the NYC market. There are already strong competitors there
- It is clear that JetBlue, along with AA, limit the ability for Delta to extract even more revenue from its JFK routes
- Any conceivable combination of the non-Delta players would result either in capacity coordination or capacity reductions, which would probably lead to higher prices everywhere (including on Delta)
Also interesting to see which of the US3 hubs are not in the top 10.
UA doesn’t have flights to/from DEN or IAH, though with the number 10 route making so much (at $144 million, if would land at number 6 on the DL an AA lists), numbers 11-20 would almost definitely include IAH and DEN and still make more than flights on the DL/AA top ten lists.
DL doesn’t have SEA, SLC,...
Also interesting to see which of the US3 hubs are not in the top 10.
UA doesn’t have flights to/from DEN or IAH, though with the number 10 route making so much (at $144 million, if would land at number 6 on the DL an AA lists), numbers 11-20 would almost definitely include IAH and DEN and still make more than flights on the DL/AA top ten lists.
DL doesn’t have SEA, SLC, or MSP. SLC not surprising but SEA should be up there, given all the focus on the hub. Similarly, MSP is a big big for them.
AA doesn’t have PHX/DCA/CLT, with CLT being the most interesting omission.
what is notable is that DL competes in all of AS and B6' top markets. for all of the talk about the dominance that AS has of SEA, DL has done a better job of building two hubs in the top markets of other airlines and serving the markets that matter.
and, again, this is the top 10 markets for EACH carrier. THat doesn't mean that AA, DL and UA don't have some major...
what is notable is that DL competes in all of AS and B6' top markets. for all of the talk about the dominance that AS has of SEA, DL has done a better job of building two hubs in the top markets of other airlines and serving the markets that matter.
and, again, this is the top 10 markets for EACH carrier. THat doesn't mean that AA, DL and UA don't have some major markets in some of their "smaller" hub which actually generate as much revenue as some carriers' largest markets.
A complete list of top 100 INDUSTRY markets by O&D revenue would be far more meaningful
Awaiting the Tim Dunn massacre
He’s fluffing himself before posting (again) his usual 10 talking points spread among 5,000 words. One trick pony.
My heart sinks when I see these titles and know I'll have to wade through paragraphs of his opinions and fights in the comments.
“United beats Delta on its premium transcon routes, though perhaps that’s not surprising, given that United has such a big hub at SFO”
The near monopoly for UA on EWR-SFO (Alaska has a tiny share) leads to much higher pricing than SFO-JFK for everyone else.
Big Rich Cities to Big Rich Cities.
Unsurprisingly.
The fact that the richest (and many of the biggest) cities are the farthest apart, helps too!
Not surprising at all. Concentration of wealth in these cities speaks volumes. Plus, OnlyFans gotta get from city to city :)
Nothing too surprising here... HUB to HUB generates the most revenue.
What the airlines care about - revenue per seat mile. My guess is when you did that analysis, this changes dramatically. Having the highest revenue on a route like JFK-LAX is nothing if your competition is crushing you on revenue per seat mile.
As you say this is revenue, but the collapse of AA is shocking.
I can also see why Delta is scared if United gets a hub in JFK. The power UA will have going from two airports in NY would really hurt Delta, clearly also AA but it's doing everything to hurt itself.
Looking at it through the lens of the DL-UA rivalry in NYC, interesting to see DL with four NYC routes in the top ten (only three from JFK), while UA has six NYC routes in the top ten (including five from EWR).
Even number 10 on UA’s list, a LGA market, makes $144 million, more than DL’s number six flight, a JFK route.
Really impressive to see how much revenue UA brings in...
Looking at it through the lens of the DL-UA rivalry in NYC, interesting to see DL with four NYC routes in the top ten (only three from JFK), while UA has six NYC routes in the top ten (including five from EWR).
Even number 10 on UA’s list, a LGA market, makes $144 million, more than DL’s number six flight, a JFK route.
Really impressive to see how much revenue UA brings in the EWR flights, compared to DL and AA in JFK. Looks like UA makes over $500 million more than DL in revenue in the NYC flights in each carrier’s list.
With that kind of head start, I can see what DL and AA wouldn’t wasn’t B6 and UA joining forces.
Plus Kirby and UA got what they have been asking for for years. UA has the capacity limits that JFK and LGA have enjoyed for years. They’ll maintain (and likely grow NYC leads though upgrauging) revenue while maintaining on time performance over JFK and LGA.
All on top of carrying 50% more than number 2 carrier DL in NYC.
My comments on revenue are above but you are simply delusional if you think that UA wanted EWR capacity to be cut as deeply as it ended up being cut.
Yes, UA wanted limits on the number of flights but they wanted slot controls which enshrines market dominance, something the FAA will not give UA since it was 10 years ago that the FAA had to take away slot controls from EWR because UA...
My comments on revenue are above but you are simply delusional if you think that UA wanted EWR capacity to be cut as deeply as it ended up being cut.
Yes, UA wanted limits on the number of flights but they wanted slot controls which enshrines market dominance, something the FAA will not give UA since it was 10 years ago that the FAA had to take away slot controls from EWR because UA failed to follow federal slot use requirements. UA still flies 65% of EWR's flights but the number of flights is much smaller.
And the on-time performance of EWR might be better than LGA and JFK right now but neither are anywhere near close to the national average.
UA lost a huge amount of NYC market share and could have returned EWR to reliable levels of operations on its own. UA slammed the FAA and DOT about EWR's on-time performance when the EWR runway construction delays were most attributable to UA's failure to sufficiently cancel down to what the airport could handle.
The FAA and DOT have no intentions of returning EWR to levels of capacity that EWR and UA operated before March which means that UA has permanently handed the largest airline in NYC title to DL by multiple share points.
Trying to spin what has happened any other way is simply delusional.
So if capacity limits are bad, why has Kirby been asking for them since he joined UA almost a decade ago?
Why isn’t DL asking to have the slots at JFK and LGA lifted?
Regarding the revenue, it’s amazing to see how much more revenue UA makes in NYC, relative to DL.
UA’s 10th highest revenue market is to LGA and still ranks higher than DL’s third highest revenue JFK flight. In addition...
So if capacity limits are bad, why has Kirby been asking for them since he joined UA almost a decade ago?
Why isn’t DL asking to have the slots at JFK and LGA lifted?
Regarding the revenue, it’s amazing to see how much more revenue UA makes in NYC, relative to DL.
UA’s 10th highest revenue market is to LGA and still ranks higher than DL’s third highest revenue JFK flight. In addition to UA making hundreds of millions more, just on the top 10 list, UA has 5 EWR flights compared to only 3 JFK flights for DL.
DL might carry more passenger in NYC but they’re lower revenue, much more likely to be on an RJ, and are restricted on where they can go due to the LGA perimeter rule.
Mark,
as usual, you conflate, distort and manipulate because you can't accept reality as it actually exists.
1. this data is about revenue, not profits. Nobody "made money" based on this data - and they didn't lose it either. They generated revenue based on this data.
2. It comes as a surprise to precisely no one that UA gets a higher percentage of its domestic revenue from fewer routes than does DL or...
Mark,
as usual, you conflate, distort and manipulate because you can't accept reality as it actually exists.
1. this data is about revenue, not profits. Nobody "made money" based on this data - and they didn't lose it either. They generated revenue based on this data.
2. It comes as a surprise to precisely no one that UA gets a higher percentage of its domestic revenue from fewer routes than does DL or AA. UA trails DL and AA in domestic revenue so the larger amounts it gets from its top routes does not offset what AA and DL get from many more smaller routes. The whole thesis United Next from a network strategy is to fix that reality so UA execs are absolutely aware of it.
3. You are simply living under a rock if you think UA wanted for the amount of ITS capacity to be cut at EWR as was cut. UA could have reduced its own schedules years ago and avoided the overscheduling no matter what it said about the competitive situation; UA and CO before have consistently operated 65-70% of the flights at EWR - a far higher percentage of traffic than any of the congested NE airports.
UA wanted SLOT CONTROLS and got DEEP SCHEDULE COORDINATION that shifted the largest NYC title handedly to DL.
And it will take time for revenue data including int'l to become available but DL is carrying as many passengers as AA and B6 combined and 25% more passengers than UA from NYC; the revenue advantage that UA had has dramatically fallen if not been eliminated.
cling to the notion that UA asked for this if it helps you sleep better at night. UA execs haven't said they are happy w/ the share loss or their smaller size and are simply trying to suck up to the feds that they mocked and ridiculed, resulting in these deep capacity cuts.
Mark said, "So if capacity limits are bad, why has Kirby been asking for them since he joined UA almost a decade ago? Why isn’t DL asking to have the slots at JFK and LGA lifted?"
Exactly!
you two simply can't accept that capacity limits are not the issue.
Capacity CUTS are.
AA, B6 and DL ALL benefit from slot controls limiting the ability for competitors to grow.
In reality, there has been no growth in competitor capacity at EWR EVEN THOUGH it was not slot controlled.
the FAA and DOT CUT capacity at EWR well below levels that UA was operating.
It is not a surprise that some people continue...
you two simply can't accept that capacity limits are not the issue.
Capacity CUTS are.
AA, B6 and DL ALL benefit from slot controls limiting the ability for competitors to grow.
In reality, there has been no growth in competitor capacity at EWR EVEN THOUGH it was not slot controlled.
the FAA and DOT CUT capacity at EWR well below levels that UA was operating.
It is not a surprise that some people continue to conflate what happened at EWR with what exists at LGA and JFK but the equivalent IF IT EVER OCCURS is if the FAA or DOT decide to cut slots at JFK or LGA - but that is not something they have proposed to do.
The sooner you and others learn to accept reality and debate based on facts and logic that exists rather than what you want to exist, the more you will begin to win the debates.
The reason why people don't like me is because I outsmart people like you because I use facts, data and logic that is appropriate to the discussion.
UA guided in a SEC filing a small hit at EWR in Q3 and more than recovered in Q4.
So capacity limits are fine, capacity cuts are not, but capacity cuts due to capacity limits are…?
You still didn’t answer why Kirby and UA have been asking for this for so many years.
It’s to get EWR back on a level playing field with JFK and LGA. And Kirby got exactly what he wanted.
You say Kirby wanted some cuts but not as many that happened. Huh?
Please cite your figures on...
So capacity limits are fine, capacity cuts are not, but capacity cuts due to capacity limits are…?
You still didn’t answer why Kirby and UA have been asking for this for so many years.
It’s to get EWR back on a level playing field with JFK and LGA. And Kirby got exactly what he wanted.
You say Kirby wanted some cuts but not as many that happened. Huh?
Please cite your figures on what Kirby wanted but what he considers too much.
UA in EWR will have close to 400 daily departures around the world, mostly mainline, with close to 50 on widebodies. All without worrying about a rogue competitor coming in and over scheduling the station.
Of course the revenue strength UA has in EWR, relative to DL in JFK is completely obvious and cannot be denied. Yet you deny it.
This is why you don’t like people who stand up to you. You throw out so many claims without any data or facts to support them.
Then others with differing viewpoints include data and you completely deny and ignore the facts.
So hypocritical and completely lacking in even one ounce of self-awareness.
Where. Are. Your. Facts?
Not sure my post appeared as a reply to yours! Sorrry about that!