Delta's summer 2027 transatlantic expansion adds three routes but zero new destinations, leaving it far behind American and United's growth plans.
Delta has the most premium route network, and the most premium thing Delta can do is stay the most premium by doing nothing more premium, because more premium isn’t the same as the most premium…. and we all know, Delta is the most premium
I think their marketing is more premium than the actual product is these days. I know I'm not alone.
Delta's been trying premium 'sponsored content' recently, too:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tYJU9hCBdDs
I book through DL in J to Europe each year, usually connecting at CDG. I have once had an opportunity to book them on a modern configuration, the 339 or 359, and they swapped in a 333 for the 339 I reserved. But, I can get the same price and fly on AF metal in a 339 or 789. Wonder why I book a codeshare, DL?
I’m not sure I fully agree - those of us with a passion for the industry will assess new destinations / routes between carriers, but the vast majority of people (ie Delta’s lifestyle target market) could care less whether the flight was on delta metal or Air France just as long as they can use their Amex cc skymiles sign up bonus to get there.
It's because Delta has lost the Premium title to United. United is crushing it. Delta is about the same as Southwest, but with first class.
It’ll be interesting to see the net adds/reductions to smaller European destinations from delta the next few years as they retire the 763.
They don’t have anything equivalent to the 788 or xlr that AA and United do incoming. I’d expect to see delta start to funnel more traffic over European hubs to smaller destinations
Cities like MLA, OLB, and SNN are cool but it’s tough to imagine flying there when your smallest gauge is an a332. I guess we’ll see.
They’ll certainly have more routes with incoming planes but I doubt it’ll be a net add in European dots.
I am sure Delta is being much conservative due to the Iran war/price of fuel. Now is not the time to take risks. This announcement makes perfect sense in this context.
@ Peter -- While I see where you're coming from, this simply comes down to having a lack of new aircraft to fly. Airlines add new routes to Europe because they have new planes to play around with, and Delta doesn't have any. Even if jet fuel was cheap, with what planes would Delta add new service?
I didn't realize that Congress had enacted a law mandating that US based carriers add new destinations each year. When did it become a crime to be different from one's competitors? Trying to be facetious, not sarcastic LOL
Yeah, no new cities, but I guess an extra flight to Athens, Paris, and Venice is fine. I mean, what were you really hoping for, Ljubljana (LJU)?
Maybe they're happy with where they currently fly? Most new cities aren't profitable at this point since the highest demand routes are already well covered. New and flashy doesn't pay the bills.
@ Powerball Winner -- I hear you, though I'll challenge you on two points.
First, most routes aren't actually directly profitable. Just look at a comparison of cost per air seat mile and revenue per air seat mile. In many ways, route networks operate as part of an overall portfolio to bolster the loyalty program.
Regarding "new and flashy doesn't pay the bills," I'm also not sure that's true. Look at how incredibly creative United has gotten in recent times, and margins in most long haul markets have improved, and not gotten worse. So if that's the case, and much of this growth comes from new and flashy stuff, how does one reconcile that?
My response is, so what? It's no secret DL has a very different international strategy than UA. DL relies on its joint ventures for a lot of flying, while UA wants to fly everywhere on its metal. Each strategy has its risks and rewards.
In other words, the "sky is falling" tone of this article (as well as past articles) is getting old. At the end of the day, it's not about operating every route, it's about operating routes profitably.
@ Evan -- Who is saying the sky is falling? I'm just saying the lack of any interesting new routes is... uninteresting! And I'm not sure DL actually wants to have a different international strategy than UA has. Just look at DL's recent expansion and increasing service to Asia, as the airline overflies its JV hubs. DL says it wants to have a better network to Asia than UA does, so doesn't that suggest DL actually does want to be like UA?
"It's no secret DL has a very different international strategy than UA. DL relies on its joint ventures for a lot of flying, while UA wants to fly everywhere on its metal."
Evan, It seems you've missed previous years Delta announcements with the usual "premium" and accompanied hubris where Delta would be quite proud to take you to Malta, Catania, or Sardinia. If delta was trying to sell their strategy the way you mention it, they sure forgot to tell their marketing teams.
The bigger reality is that Delta has made aircraft order choices that don't enable "cool" new routes and force them back to funneling in AMS, CDG, and likely CPH soon enough.
With oil prices soaring again and no indication they may be going down not surprisingly DL (and other airlines) would be take a conservative approach towards net network planning, particularly with new International destinations. Flying a bunch of A350s and A330s and losing money on each of those flights becomes expensive real quick.
@ George Romey -- But this comes down to a lack of available aircraft for growth. What do you think Delta is doing with A330s and A350s otherwise? Parking them? They have to be flown somewhere, so it's just a function of what's being prioritized.
Not if oil hits $150. Parking an empty aircraft is cheaper than flying an empty aircraft.
I'm a little surprised they're not adding SEA-ATH given their stated intention of adding every Alaska long-haul route
Maybe they're the only airline to take the Iran situation seriously and assume no one can afford oil
Delta and their pilots are having a dispute. Delta is trying to minimize long-haul international flight growth on Delta metal in favor of partners.
So crazy they think the ATL-Riyadh flight is a better use of an A350 than anywhere else in the world they could have deployed it.
If they aren’t flying to Riyadh because they are filling the plane with paying passengers, then they are flying to Riyadh for other reasons.
To be fair, DL also didn't order the A321XLR because they can't really use them in the two hubs that are within the flight profile of the plane (BOS/JFK). Those airports are effectively full during the typical operating hours of the European banks and ATL it too far south. Maybe they could have tried from DTW, but that's a riskier bet for much of the destinations.
Advantage to UA/AA because of EWR/PHL/IAD. UA is also significantly constrained at EWR, but for some of these leisure European flights, they can leave much later in the evening or late afternoon thus avoiding the rush hour.
Here's a list of the new services:
Luxembourg: daily from April 2, departs 7:25pm, A321XLR
Ljubljana: 4x weekly from May 12, departs 4:20pm, 767-400ER
Olbia: 3x weekly from May 27, departs 9:25pm, 767-300ER
Catania: 4x weekly from May 28, departs 8:25pm, 767-300ER
Ibiza: 4x weekly from May 31, departs 11:15pm, A321XLR
Valencia: 3x weekly from June 2, departs 11:15pm, A321XLR
Marseille: daily from June 4, departs 6:20pm, A321XLR
Terceira: 3x weekly from June 9, departs 10:25pm, 737 MAX 8
"To be fair, DL also didn't order the A321XLR because they can't really use them in the two hubs that are within the flight profile of the plane (BOS/JFK). Those airports are effectively full during the typical operating hours of the European banks and ATL it too far south. "
This really is just a delta fanboy excuse from a.net. One brought up to excuse a crappy pilot contract delta negotiated themselves.
It isn't true. United is flying the XLR from EWR with no issues, they'll likely fly it from ORD too -- both airports have FAA caps on flights.
AA is also using the XLR from JFK despite even fewer slots than Delta.
Delta is cancelling routes from JFK already.
They fly about 203 flights per day from JFK on average. Only 125 are on Mainline. aka. Delta has a lot of slack to up gauge and eliminate more regional aircraft per day if they wanted to use an XLR. JFK isn't DCA. There isn't a slot tied to regional vs mainline.
That doesn't even get into what could easily be called slot-squatting by Delta on routes like JFK-YYZ or JFK-IAD (among others...)
BOS? 85 flights per day on Mainline out of a total of about 153 flights per day on average. There's a lot of regional room to adjust frequency for gauge if you want to buy an XLR and fly it out of BOS.
The reason Delta doesn't order the XLR or that it "doesn't Work" for them or whatever Bastian said about it is because Delta's Pilot scope doesn't count any narrowbodies toward their JV flying requirements with their pilots. Sure, Delta can still do it, but it's flying that is part of their JV but doesn't count for anything in settling their pilot scope which require wide bodies when counting flights in their intercontinental JVs. That's about the only reason it doesn't work for Delta.
It's a cute talking point on a.net that the whole Delta scrum goes nuts over when challenged but it simply isn't the case that Delta just couldn't fly the XLR because of constraints at JFK or BOS. Are they getting more slots at JFK or gates in BOS? probably not, but AA and UA would have similar issues at JFK and EWR.
Delta has plenty of slots and gates that could be swapped around to enable XLR flying but it doesn't help Delta with their own negotiated pilot scope so they come up with other excuses.
It's pretty obvious from the routes we're seeing with European XLR/LR and AA/UA XLR operators that the plane has a good place in a network out of NYC.
@Max, fair points, however despite DL having opportunities at BOS and JFK by swapping regional flying for long haul, it's also not practical because DL needs the feed from regional and other flying to fill the capacity going to Europe. Without those flights, the hub will collapse. There is just not enough local demand to secondary markets in Europe without the feeders. They can't even operate to GVA/MUC/FRA from JFK, and those are large markets. They are stuck in a very odd position, especially at JFK. They have a large operation of the 1500 perimeter routes to New York, they are just at another airport. Any no sane person is going to self connect between LGA and JFK.
United at Newark has lost more wiggle room, plus they have an unencumbered hub at IAD, something that DL doesn't.
While the pilot contract is certainly a challenge for narrow body flying, DL's historic strategy has tended to be 'fly to JV hubs and let partners handle the last mile." So basically if you fly Delta from any non hub city in the US, you are double connecting in AMS/CDG/ICN, therefore narrow body TATL flying doesn't really add anything positive to the network if you're shoving everyone onto KL/AF.
"The reason Delta doesn't order the XLR or that it "doesn't Work" for them or whatever Bastian said about it is because Delta's Pilot scope doesn't count any narrowbodies toward their JV flying requirements with their pilots. Sure, Delta can still do it, but it's flying that is part of their JV but doesn't count for anything in settling their pilot scope which require wide bodies when counting flights in their intercontinental JVs. That's about the only reason it doesn't work for Delta."
Bingo, but with ONE (funny!) little correction:
Delta's contract doesn't count SUBSONIC narrowbodies for the j.v., they actually do have a provision for any upcoming (albeit unspecified) supersonic narrowbody that manages to make it to market, lol.
But yeah, they screwed up. There is a light at the end of the tunnel for them though, in that SAS's potential inclusion into the transatlantic j.v. will likely prompt a re-examination (not just with Delta, but also Air France and KLM) regarding revenue sharing for subsonic narrowbody longhaul.
I am not interested in flying long haul on a narrow body aircraft.
I get that you don't have to make a connection, but I am not spending significant time in secondary European cities during my vacation anyway. I'll just fly into MAD, CDG, LON, etc. and take the train.
Eh, Kaleb, of course, widebody aircraft are wonderful, but, as long as the narrowbody has the amenities you're looking for, say, lie-flat for the premium cabin, then it's actually quite nice to skip the layovers, fly direct, nonstop to where you actually want to be. For a route like EWR-OPO, I much prefer TAP's a321LR with the 'throne' 2-2, 1-1, 2-2, etc., in-front, to a 330 via LIS, then a 3-3 middle-blocked a320 LIS-OP). You do you, though.
Well - those flights arent aiming for you
Theyre aiming for the increasingly large number of Americans who do want to spend significant time in a secondary city.
We will see how many last or are ultimately successful, but there is a market there to serve.
Wow, lots of Delta defenders on here. You struck a nerve. They must not fly them very often.
I donno, Bjorn. This feels pretty light... kinda like a bunch of hors d'oeuvres. We need the entre. We want the meat. (Tim!!!)
Wow. Tim really is gone.
What happened to Tim? I don’t regularly go through the comments on posts here. Seems I missed something?
Friends, he's just spending his time elsewhere; if he really wants to return, he will. Honestly, I wish he would, especially for discussions like this. (Tim, we miss you, sir! Come back! Spending all your time at Cranky, VFTW, LALF, etc. isn't enough! Feed us here, too!)
yeah, seriously 1990. Wtf? Do you have a crush on Tim? You're all over the internet demeaning yourself by begging him to come back and saying you miss him
And I don't see anything for SLC. is it a bad hub? Don't attack me. I'm just disappointed since in Oct the airport ends and Delta will control 66 Gates. And they only launched Lima two months in the year...
I’m forced to fly Delta and I rather like SLC and Minneapolis as my preferred hubs to connect through if I have to connect. But those are mostly domestic flying from the east coast to western cities. If I was connecting to an Asia flight I’d rather go to Seattle. South America through Atlanta and Europe from Boston.
I don't really understand the love MSP gets online sometimes. It just seems so poorly designed. A train that basically serves maybe ~30% of the terminal then everything else is a half mile walk all with very little seating areas near the gates.
And the views from the terminal... of the parking lot. I don't get it
I grew up flying out of MSP. Blue and Red Concourses; never really designed as a hub. Yup, any connection risks a long fast walk. But, I still like all the food/shopping options while waiting for my flight after missing my connection.