A couple of days ago, Delta Air Lines announced plans to launch flights to a second airport in Australia. I wanted to provide an update, as this flight is now on sale, meaning that we have a sense of what the schedule will look like (as that wasn’t revealed when the route was announced).
In this post:
Delta adds seasonal route to Brisbane as of December 2024
Between December 4, 2024, and March 28, 2025, Delta will offer a new seasonal flight between Los Angeles (LAX) and Brisbane (BNE). The 7,161-mile journey will operate three time weekly, with the following schedule:
DL93 Los Angeles to Brisbane departing 11:10PM arriving 7:45AM (+2 days)
DL92 Brisbane to Los Angeles departing 10:45AM arriving 6:15AM
The westbound flight is blocked at 14hr35min and will operate on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, while the eastbound flight is blocked at 13hr30min and will operate on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays.
The flight will be operated by an Airbus A350-900 (not the ex-LATAM version), featuring 306 seats, comprised of:
- 32 business class seats, in a 1-2-1 configuration
- 48 premium economy seats, in a 2-4-2 configuration
- 36 extra legroom economy seats, in a 3-3-3 configuration
- 190 economy seats, in a 3-3-3 configuration
As far as Delta’s long haul destinations out of Los Angeles go, this service complements flights to Auckland, London, Paris, Sydney, Tahiti, and Tokyo. Delta’s only other Australia service is to Sydney, where the airline offers daily year-round flights, and this upcoming peak season, the airline plans to offer up to twice daily flights.
How this fits into the competitive landscape
Delta really is a follower rather than a leader across the South Pacific, and Delta is the last of the “big three” US carriers to fly to Brisbane:
- United flies to Brisbane year-round from San Francisco, and seasonally from Los Angeles; this service was launched in late 2022 and late 2023
- American will be adding a seasonal flight to Brisbane from Dallas; this new flight will operate as of October 2024
Now Delta is following the lead of both United and American, though Delta is at a significant competitive disadvantage when it comes to connectivity in Australia:
- United has a partnership with Virgin Australia, offering substantial connectivity beyond Brisbane
- American has a joint venture with Qantas, so has tons of connectivity throughout Australia
After being dumped by Virgin Australia, Delta launched a casual interline agreement with Rex, offering some connectivity within Australia. Though I think we can all agree that it’s not as significant of a partnership as what United and American have in the region.
Furthermore, Delta will only fly to Brisbane 3x per week, so the carrier’s schedule can’t compete with the daily flights that other airlines are offering.
So, why are US airlines suddenly flocking to Brisbane? As it turns out, the Queensland government is offering each airline tens of millions of dollars in incentives to operate this service, in a big tourism push. These incentives last for a period of three years, so what will be telling is if these routes last once the incentives run out.
US carriers went from operating no flights to Brisbane a couple of years ago, to now in some cases having up to four daily flights. I just can’t imagine this is sustainable. Admittedly US carriers need somewhere to fly wide body aircraft counter seasonally, but I have a hard time imagining this will be some long term goldmine.
It also seems clear that Delta’s route to Brisbane is being launched due to these incentives, given that the airline chose to launch flights to Brisbane before even flying to Melbourne, which is a much bigger market.
Bottom line
As of December 2024, Delta will launch a new seasonal three times weekly flight between Los Angeles and Brisbane with an Airbus A350. Delta is the last of the “big three” US carriers to fly to Brisbane, and the airline will also have the most limited schedule, as well as the least connectivity in Australia. However, that doesn’t seem to matter much, as this route is all about subsidies from the Queensland government.
What do you make of Delta adding flights to Brisbane?
don't underestimate the messaging that Delta is sending to United about LAX and Asia-Pacific as a whole.
There has been oodles of internet ink spilled touting UA's supremacy and DL's supposed weakness but UA faltered on its LAX-BNE route, DL is in rebuilding mode across the Pacific for a number of very good reasons, and DL would love to hold up a route where it jumped in and grew its LAX portfolio at UA's...
don't underestimate the messaging that Delta is sending to United about LAX and Asia-Pacific as a whole.
There has been oodles of internet ink spilled touting UA's supremacy and DL's supposed weakness but UA faltered on its LAX-BNE route, DL is in rebuilding mode across the Pacific for a number of very good reasons, and DL would love to hold up a route where it jumped in and grew its LAX portfolio at UA's expense.
There will be more of these incursions between the two even though DL and UA have largely done its thing and stayed out of each other's way while DL has butted heads with AA
It's true that Delta has clashed a lot with AA lately. DL has been very successful in BOS/JFK against AA. DL is very successful TATL thanks to its JV at three of the most popular European airports. And that's really helping drive profits.
But DL really still lacks the TPAC power that United does with SFO, it's just a fact. Even Air Canada has YVR. LAX is a three way power struggle with a lack...
It's true that Delta has clashed a lot with AA lately. DL has been very successful in BOS/JFK against AA. DL is very successful TATL thanks to its JV at three of the most popular European airports. And that's really helping drive profits.
But DL really still lacks the TPAC power that United does with SFO, it's just a fact. Even Air Canada has YVR. LAX is a three way power struggle with a lack of a clear victor. Delta just really hasn't done anything exciting in terms of TPAC, the SEA-TPE could potentially be interesting if they wanted to cooperate with CI however.
Has DL really been that successful in BOS/NYC? I've heard that the cash cow that ATL is props a lot of unprofitable flying including LAX and SEA. Airlines that are hedging their growth on international particularly UA and DL should be concerned about world events that are evolving and developing daily; an overreliance on international and new widebody commitments may come back to haunt them.
DL is the largest airline at LGA, JFK and BOS and is also the most profitable airline in the world.
It is kind of hard to believe internet scuttle when it says that DL doesn't make money flying from NYC, BOS, SEA or LAX.
If DL makes so much money at its ATL hub, never mind DTW, SLC and MSP, that it can support 4 money-losing hubs, why in the world has no...
DL is the largest airline at LGA, JFK and BOS and is also the most profitable airline in the world.
It is kind of hard to believe internet scuttle when it says that DL doesn't make money flying from NYC, BOS, SEA or LAX.
If DL makes so much money at its ATL hub, never mind DTW, SLC and MSP, that it can support 4 money-losing hubs, why in the world has no other airline figured out how to turn even ONE of their hubs into the cash cow that ATL supposedly is?
In reality, DL has said their largest profits come from their core 4 hubs - ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC - but that doesn't mean they lose money at LGA, JFK, BOS, LAX and SEA.
Considering that DL's growth focus is on BOS, SEA and LAX, it is hard to believe that they can lose money and also be growing their system profits.
But, on the internet, you can read anything and a whole lot of people believe what they want.
and UA's CEO Kirby specifically noted that the international arena has changed as a result of low cost carrier bankruptcies in Europe which removed much of the pre-covid TATL capacity while the Asian carriers were much more badly hurt because of the slow reopening of Asia - which is still not recovered.
Latin America is more promising as local carriers have restructured and/or merged.
DL just happens to have not just the strongest and most profitable position to Europe but also the strongest and largest foreign carriers in both E. Asia and S. America. DL's international growth potential is very strong.
Australia and the S. Pacific is an * for DL but one where they = like UA - benefit from the reduction in capacity by Australian carriers and the strong USD.
DL is successful in BOS/NYC. May not be their highest margins, but they're clearly dominating the market share. Those are very important TATL gateways. Even to this day United regrets retreating from JFK and has not been able to make EWR that powerhouse that they want it to.
In regards to your second point, all airlines need to be at LAX, every single relevant international carrier flies to LAX where possible. SEA clearly is not...
DL is successful in BOS/NYC. May not be their highest margins, but they're clearly dominating the market share. Those are very important TATL gateways. Even to this day United regrets retreating from JFK and has not been able to make EWR that powerhouse that they want it to.
In regards to your second point, all airlines need to be at LAX, every single relevant international carrier flies to LAX where possible. SEA clearly is not living up to the hype, AS is still quite the powerhouse for domestic traffic, and SEA is nowhere near the TPAC hub it's supposed to be. And that's exactly what I said in my comment.
I think alot of people created unreasonable expectations for DL at SEA and that is why they think it hasn't worked.
AS is a very well run airline and SEA airport is not near large enough as a facility to accommodate 2 large hubs.
DL never intended to take over as the #1 airline but rather to fly to the top domestic markets to be relevant in the domestic market and to feed...
I think alot of people created unreasonable expectations for DL at SEA and that is why they think it hasn't worked.
AS is a very well run airline and SEA airport is not near large enough as a facility to accommodate 2 large hubs.
DL never intended to take over as the #1 airline but rather to fly to the top domestic markets to be relevant in the domestic market and to feed international. They are adding DFW this year which might leave IAH as the last of the top 20 cities they don't serve from SEA. Let's also keep in mind that DL flew to 4 Asian cities pre-covid and will replace Beijing with TPE (because of Chinese capacity restrictions, the chances of getting enough frequencies to fly its pre-covid China schedule are very slim).
There are about 3 - if I count correctly - cities in the US that have 4 or more destinations on the same airline to E. Asia right now - SFO, DFW and SEA.
As far as DL in Asia overall, keep in mind that UA's TPAC strength is heavily concentrated at SFO; they do not fly to any more than Tokyo from Chicago, Houston, Denver, Newark or IAD. In contrast, DL at DTW serves 3 destinations and DL at ATL serves 2 destinations which will soon be 3 flights while MSP is 2 flights/2 destinations.
DL will build both SEA and LAX as it re-adds cities throughout the Pacific rim. LAX might see more of those adds and JFK will get in the action too. It might be much harder for ATL to add another E. Asia destination.
DL seems to clearly be the leader both in share and in profits at JFK/LGA and BOS. I leave out EWR because UA seems to make a lot of money there.
BOS and NYC are competitive markets. So are LAX. But these are all must fly markets given the high interest in traveling to and from the cities/ So I always think it is strange that airline industry hobbyists (which we all are) talk...
DL seems to clearly be the leader both in share and in profits at JFK/LGA and BOS. I leave out EWR because UA seems to make a lot of money there.
BOS and NYC are competitive markets. So are LAX. But these are all must fly markets given the high interest in traveling to and from the cities/ So I always think it is strange that airline industry hobbyists (which we all are) talk down the "profitability" of LAX, BOS and NYC. Major US airlines must to to and from these markets with significant presence. Delta has fought aggressively in all three markets, and arguably has won in all three markets, with what we all agree is the weakest frequent flyer program of the three majors. It shows that if you lead with product and service, you can win.
first, DL has also overtaken AA at LAX which is part of why they are now in a position to expand to the S. Pacific.
second, DL generates about half of the revenues that UA generates and twice what AA does across the Pacific. DL's E. Asia route system is just 3 cities but DL is the largest US carrier in each of them - HND, ICN, and PVG (when DL launches all of...
first, DL has also overtaken AA at LAX which is part of why they are now in a position to expand to the S. Pacific.
second, DL generates about half of the revenues that UA generates and twice what AA does across the Pacific. DL's E. Asia route system is just 3 cities but DL is the largest US carrier in each of them - HND, ICN, and PVG (when DL launches all of its authorized flies there)
third, DL tried to develop a Pacific network first around PDX, pulled that down (just as AA did at SJC), then merged w/ NW after considering acquiring UA when they were in bankruptcy but reportedly did not want to risk having a unionized workforce but went w/ smaller NW.
DL plus NW became the largest carrier across the Pacific but the NRT-centered network lost money, DL spent years lopping off underperforming routes only to see Japan open HND for US-Japan flights but not DL's beyond NRT flights which left DL w/ the choice of either moving its US flights to HND or keeping its NRT hub but they couldn't do both.
covid happened, DL retired the 777s, Airbus has enhanced the A350 so that it has the range the 777-200LR once had, and DL has dozens of A350s on order - both the -900 and now the -1000 which is the most capable and cost efficient widebody on the market.
The internet has long equated DL's slowness to rebuild Asia as a lack of interest but the next few years will prove that DL is serious about Asia. If United can make money, DL can too - and will keep growing.
Hey Tim, I generally don't disagree much with what you said. But we have to balance reality with future analysis.
United is truly the strongest TPAC carrier in the US. The power of the SFO hub is undeniable. Right now I think it's fair to say that DL is doing ok, not great, TPAC-wise, largely thanks to the KE JV propping it up a lot.
As it stands, DL may have a good opportunity with...
Hey Tim, I generally don't disagree much with what you said. But we have to balance reality with future analysis.
United is truly the strongest TPAC carrier in the US. The power of the SFO hub is undeniable. Right now I think it's fair to say that DL is doing ok, not great, TPAC-wise, largely thanks to the KE JV propping it up a lot.
As it stands, DL may have a good opportunity with the A350s coming in, however, they still have formidable uphill battles to overcome at SEA and LAX to truly achieve TPAC success. I think that's an honest, unbiased assessment on the current situation.
first, UA is twice the size of DL over the Pacific. Even according to someone else, DL and UA achieve the same margins. DL was profitable across the Pacific from 2017 to 2019 while AA and UA lost money; UA's losses were clearly heavily tied to China which AA finally admitted to and walked away from China except for DFW.
We can debate success but size is only part of the equation. I don't...
first, UA is twice the size of DL over the Pacific. Even according to someone else, DL and UA achieve the same margins. DL was profitable across the Pacific from 2017 to 2019 while AA and UA lost money; UA's losses were clearly heavily tied to China which AA finally admitted to and walked away from China except for DFW.
We can debate success but size is only part of the equation. I don't expect DL will match UA's size but there are only so many routes that UA can add that will make money. DL has a laundry list of cities it once served in Asia which can make money from one of its 6 hubs that have had TPAC service - LAX, SEA, MSP, DTW, JFK or ATL. Most of that growth will come from LAX because of the much larger market size; SEA will be for smaller routes which the 339 can fly. The A350-1000 will provide industry best economics and range and will work best for LAX.
And don't underestimate how much DL will grow at ICN as soon as a decision is made on the Korean/Asiana merger. DL has been very careful to not upset regulators but just added ATL-ICN #2 on its own metal (3 for the JV) because ICN is doing so well.
In contrast, Tokyo is a no-growth market for AA and UA. The best Tokyo traffic has moved to HND, making NRT economics poor and they will only get worse. HND is limited by treaty and airport capacity. DL will add LAX, SLC and JFK to ICN within 2 years of a decision one way or another on KE/OZ - and that decision could come within months. The A35K will heavily operate to/from ICN, at least on JFK, ATL, and LAX and maybe also DTW. Add in new flights to other markets in Asia and UA's lead across the Pacific will be cut significantly.
Finally, remember that DL will be growing to Asia with larger aircraft than UA and the rate of change will be even faster in DL's favor.
Funny to see Tim post about delta leading or sending messages when they’re getting killed in the Southeast by aa
Market share at nearly every Southeast airport outside of atl is negative to delta
Positive to aa.
holy cow. You truly are off the deep end, son.
If you think AA is winning any market share war in the SE, you are smoking some serious dope.
The truism is fact - when you die, you change planes in Atlanta, not Charlotte. And all of those flights on mainline aircraft go to Atlanta.
AA operates on average just over 300 mainline flights/day at CLT. Delta operates over 575 mainline/day at ATL.
holy cow. You truly are off the deep end, son.
If you think AA is winning any market share war in the SE, you are smoking some serious dope.
The truism is fact - when you die, you change planes in Atlanta, not Charlotte. And all of those flights on mainline aircraft go to Atlanta.
AA operates on average just over 300 mainline flights/day at CLT. Delta operates over 575 mainline/day at ATL.
Delta operates 17% more flights on mainline and regional at ATL than AA in CLT.
DL is the largest in passengers boarded in most SE cities.
You and only you, Max, can't accept reality so invent your own reality and call anyone names that points out the "real" reality.
You’re correct and incorrect, Tim. AA has a targeted number of departures from combined DFW & CLT to bracket DL in ATL. The targeted departures for DFW is quite high, which is why we’ll continue to see new international long-haul routes to feed the hub. Problem remains that DL operates larger gauge aircraft from ATL than AA at CLT, plus DL’s TATL network from ATL is far stronger. UA isn’t really in the picture for the region, of course…
Only 1,250,000 delta miles for a one-way business class seat.
Yeah!
Pricing including for awards for new flights is not accurate for several days for most carriers
125 replies? Lol
and Ben followed it with a story that highlights - even if he doesn't say it - that Delta will actually get the largest subsidy and the last to expire.
apparently "following" might be a pretty good strategy
I doubt we will see 125 replies to that article.
Yuh, It's time 4 delta to take over 100% of trafic too austral-Aisa! Mwahahahhaha!!!!!!!!!!!
Gary over VFTW has a story on the subsidies that US carriers are receiving for their BNE service. The press release from the Queensland government fund notes that DL is getting the largest available subsidy likely because the A350-900 is larger than the B787-9 that AA and UA use and also has the capacity to carry 20 tonnes of cargo, a number that higher take off weight A350-900s can do but some of DL's earlier...
Gary over VFTW has a story on the subsidies that US carriers are receiving for their BNE service. The press release from the Queensland government fund notes that DL is getting the largest available subsidy likely because the A350-900 is larger than the B787-9 that AA and UA use and also has the capacity to carry 20 tonnes of cargo, a number that higher take off weight A350-900s can do but some of DL's earlier A350-900s would struggle to do with a full load. It is a given that there will be many days where DL won't fill all of the seats so will have more available cargo capacity and the northbound flight is well within the range of any A350.
The primary point is that DL jumped on the subsidy bandwagon - which amounts to up to AUD 750/passenger for the latest AA and DL flights.
The press release also says that DL is "forecast" to increase the route to daily in 2025 and beyond.
As I have noted, including the ex-Latam A350s that are being reconfigured later this year, DL will have up to 16 A350s in its standard international configuration available by the winter of 2025 on top of 12 additional A330-900s which gives DL by far the most widebody growth capacity of the big 3.
And QF is likely the loser as the US carriers use larger airplanes with more premium cabins and more cargo capacity.
My other question got lost in the other comment threads, but how will LAX competitive dynamics change when AA gets their gates back?
I read AA is temporarily gate constrained but they could get close to ten additional gates when work on terminals four and five is completed.
Further down the road, but UA will also grow significantly when terminal 9 is built.
Nobody will ever “win” LAX due to the competition,...
My other question got lost in the other comment threads, but how will LAX competitive dynamics change when AA gets their gates back?
I read AA is temporarily gate constrained but they could get close to ten additional gates when work on terminals four and five is completed.
Further down the road, but UA will also grow significantly when terminal 9 is built.
Nobody will ever “win” LAX due to the competition, but I’m guessing the market share percentages will soon be even closer to each other.
Mark,
AA has access to gates in the TBIT - perhaps not all they had - but gates aren't the only reason AA pulled back.
They couldn't compete with other carriers and turned over significant parts of their coastal networks esp. in the NE and LAX to AS and B6.
AA also flew a number of international routes that it cannot re-enter or won't succeed if it did. AA flew to Beijing...
Mark,
AA has access to gates in the TBIT - perhaps not all they had - but gates aren't the only reason AA pulled back.
They couldn't compete with other carriers and turned over significant parts of their coastal networks esp. in the NE and LAX to AS and B6.
AA also flew a number of international routes that it cannot re-enter or won't succeed if it did. AA flew to Beijing and Shanghai and gave back that authority to the DOT. They also flew to HKG but AA isn't flying there at all even though CX is a oneworld partner. They flew to S. America but Latam entered those markets and operates them as part of its JV w/ DL.
In order for AA to grow, it has to re-gain market share that it lost and that is not unlikely but has never succeeded by a US carrier.
and regarding terminal 9 for UA, it might happen but it still comes down winning markets.
There is a reason why DL is moving decisively to grow at LAX. LAWA incentivizes international growth - just as many airports do - and DL's terminal 2/3 lease has specific incentives for DL to grow international. They have been adding 1 and often 2 longhaul international destinations per year over the past year. And they have access...
and regarding terminal 9 for UA, it might happen but it still comes down winning markets.
There is a reason why DL is moving decisively to grow at LAX. LAWA incentivizes international growth - just as many airports do - and DL's terminal 2/3 lease has specific incentives for DL to grow international. They have been adding 1 and often 2 longhaul international destinations per year over the past year. And they have access to TBIT gates which is part of why they spent money to connect their terminals to TBIT and to a allow TBIT airlines to have check-in facilities in terminal 3.
LAX is a larger market than SFO and the narrative has long been that there are too many foreign airlines for a US carrier to succeed.
DL is clearly determined that it can compete w/ the best airlines in the world at the largest airport in the US for O&D traffic.
and DL won't be cannibalizing any of its hubs in order to grow LAX while UA will always cannibalize SFO in order to grow LAX.
UA's LAX-BNE route will likely be the first casualty of this round of subsidies and, if that happens, DL will have scored a victory in defending LAX as its California gateway.
I don’t think tim will give any real knowledge
The next few years will
Delta is the smallest carrier in Southern California. The smallest loyalty recognition. The worst partners. That’s not a debate. Delta is the smallest in what matters today in every metric and that won’t change.
Not even tim can spin that away
Aa is focused on reducing its non op income cost as they’ve said
Alaska and...
I don’t think tim will give any real knowledge
The next few years will
Delta is the smallest carrier in Southern California. The smallest loyalty recognition. The worst partners. That’s not a debate. Delta is the smallest in what matters today in every metric and that won’t change.
Not even tim can spin that away
Aa is focused on reducing its non op income cost as they’ve said
Alaska and aa together are fine
Delta hasn’t done anything in SoCal except put signs around LAX and pretend there’s one airport in SoCal. They’ve grown to ppt, syd, bne, and even akl… places where they’re far behind aa and united. But tim wants people to believe delta’s last place desperation is leading
It isn’t. Delta is catching up, tragically with no partners because they left delta.
Even a sad ex delta employee, tim, can’t defeat facts.
now you just go stupid because you can't stand reality.
The only lack of debate about your statements is in your mind that is surrounded by a concrete wall that is impervious to reality or truth.
Delta is the largest airline at LAX by a fairly significant margin and WN is the only airline that makes up for it at other airports.
But WN generates far less per seat sold.
United...
now you just go stupid because you can't stand reality.
The only lack of debate about your statements is in your mind that is surrounded by a concrete wall that is impervious to reality or truth.
Delta is the largest airline at LAX by a fairly significant margin and WN is the only airline that makes up for it at other airports.
But WN generates far less per seat sold.
United has long been the largest airline by revenue to/from/within the west coast but Delta has been #2 for years.
the partner argument is beyond bizarre. AA itself dumped dozens of flights and BUYS capacity from AS.
Keep pounding the keyboard, MAX. YOUR desperation in being unable to admit that Delta is doing to the west coast what it did to NYC and BOS is pathological.
The prozac is still in the top drawer. You would do well to take it out and use it.
Seems a route the public is not demanding, burning a lot of fuel and pilot hours (costs), and using an incredibly expensive A350. Surprised route planning pushed this
the market will decide which is what the US and Australia decided to do with air service.
And it is entirely possible that QF's much less fuel efficient A330-200 will be the casualty even if their response is to put a better aircraft on the route.
Perhaps part of the reason UA was able to get into the market is because they offered planes that have much better products. for whatever reason, they...
the market will decide which is what the US and Australia decided to do with air service.
And it is entirely possible that QF's much less fuel efficient A330-200 will be the casualty even if their response is to put a better aircraft on the route.
Perhaps part of the reason UA was able to get into the market is because they offered planes that have much better products. for whatever reason, they couldn't sustain the flight to their original expectations and DL is giving it a try.
btw, regarding the cost of new aircraft, DL is spending on average $3.75 billion/year on new aircraft over the next 4 years which is quite modest for an airline that is making $6 billion plus per year. In contrast, United is spending more than twice that amount and making less than Delta. If you are concerned about deployment of costly aircraft, United should be the focus.
And Qantas has some pretty massive spending coming up as well.
That A350 could be better used on ATL-LAX flights.
BNE is to Australia what ICN is to Asia, easiest connecting market due to its geographic position, and combine with the fact that BNE offers the largest portion of regional QLD/AU connecting markets/flights compared to SYD or MEL. In addition, flights especially from Far North QLD (like CNS or TSV) simply don't connect well on the ex-AU flights to North America via SYD (and impossible from MEL). Most fundamentally, BNE has AU$25B in the development...
BNE is to Australia what ICN is to Asia, easiest connecting market due to its geographic position, and combine with the fact that BNE offers the largest portion of regional QLD/AU connecting markets/flights compared to SYD or MEL. In addition, flights especially from Far North QLD (like CNS or TSV) simply don't connect well on the ex-AU flights to North America via SYD (and impossible from MEL). Most fundamentally, BNE has AU$25B in the development pipeline, indicative of its fast-growing popularity (it's been outpacing the other cities in % growth of visitation since approx 2017), as well as to support the 2032 Summer Olympics, and is an ideal base to experience both the beautiful Gold Coast and Sunshine Coast which straddle BNE in very close proximity to the south and north respectively.
So, yeah, I see why the increase in airline services....
there were reports, IIRC, that UA got subsidy assistance for LAX-BNE from the Australia side and then the route didn't pan out and UA dropped it early.
Do we know that DL is not getting assistance and swooped in to grab it when UA faltered? and is it not possible that DL knows the revenue that UA thought it did not get but hoped to and DL is getting that revenue?
Of course...
there were reports, IIRC, that UA got subsidy assistance for LAX-BNE from the Australia side and then the route didn't pan out and UA dropped it early.
Do we know that DL is not getting assistance and swooped in to grab it when UA faltered? and is it not possible that DL knows the revenue that UA thought it did not get but hoped to and DL is getting that revenue?
Of course it is all possible.
It is also possible that UA was pulling traffic off of its SFO flight and it threw in the towel. DL doesn't care - and might be quite happy - to siphon traffic off of UA.
Let's save the prophecies of doom until we either have all of the facts or there is evidence that DL pulls back on the route in UA's footsteps - leaving the possibility that DL just might have figured out how to make it work.
Hey Tim,
Australia has what's called AAIF for new services. I've dealt with it so much I kinda forget what the acronym stands for.
In short, aviation attraction funds, primarily managed by the Aussie State/Territory governments with airport assistance (waived landing fees, and the like), sometimes supported by the Feds. It's not my place to share the $$$, but they're modest in the big picture of operating a flight. Calculations include capacity and frequency,...
Hey Tim,
Australia has what's called AAIF for new services. I've dealt with it so much I kinda forget what the acronym stands for.
In short, aviation attraction funds, primarily managed by the Aussie State/Territory governments with airport assistance (waived landing fees, and the like), sometimes supported by the Feds. It's not my place to share the $$$, but they're modest in the big picture of operating a flight. Calculations include capacity and frequency, and such things as PR value. Of course there's a lot more to the process, but that's a starter.
Ask Ben to share my email if you want to chat further about the details of aviation attraction.
See ya!
thanks for your kind reply.
Yes, long haul incentives are not generally large and help a route but can't make a poor performing route viable.
and, most importantly, cities know that pushing incentives just to get routes that won't be sustained accomplish little.
DL has used long haul incentives - such as for PIT-CDG -and gotten burned when PIT decided to woo BA for LHR service which damaged the economics of a...
thanks for your kind reply.
Yes, long haul incentives are not generally large and help a route but can't make a poor performing route viable.
and, most importantly, cities know that pushing incentives just to get routes that won't be sustained accomplish little.
DL has used long haul incentives - such as for PIT-CDG -and gotten burned when PIT decided to woo BA for LHR service which damaged the economics of a route from a city that wasn't large enough to support multiple airlines.
You know but many here clearly do not that corporate customers make their airline partners win their business over and over. Savvy airlines like DL are constantly looking for how to win over that business.
AA is notorious for being hard to work w/ which explains why DL has grown so much in former AA strength markets.
DL has figured out what markets are strategically necessary - and Australia clearly makes the cut - and DL is willing to invest in developing its presence there.
QF has certainly created room for other carriers to operate TPAC flights from BNE by downgrading to its two-class configured A330s from the three-class B787s operating pre-pandemic. I'm port-of-arrival agnostic travelling to North America, so if I were departing from BNE I'd consider all four choices from there (LAX, SFO, YVR or DFW). Needing, as I do a connecting flight to my Australian port of departure, I'm open to any of MEL, SYD or BNE....
QF has certainly created room for other carriers to operate TPAC flights from BNE by downgrading to its two-class configured A330s from the three-class B787s operating pre-pandemic. I'm port-of-arrival agnostic travelling to North America, so if I were departing from BNE I'd consider all four choices from there (LAX, SFO, YVR or DFW). Needing, as I do a connecting flight to my Australian port of departure, I'm open to any of MEL, SYD or BNE. QF15's 2200 departure time makes same day connections via Brisbane easier.
I still find it stupid that Delta let themselves get dumped by Virgin Australia and United took their place when Delta has a close JV with the other Virgin airline, Virgin Atlantic. It’s almost as stupid as the whole LATAM and AA thing. The world actually made sense back then.
you do realize that Virgin Australia's reorganization plan included dropping longhaul international flights to the US and thus there was no basis for continuing a joint venture?
And UA does not have a joint venture with Virgin Australia.
All UA has with Virgin Australia that Delta doesn't have with Rex now is a marketing agreement beyond simple codeshares which is the basis of the UA agreement.
AA did not have a JV w/ Latam...
you do realize that Virgin Australia's reorganization plan included dropping longhaul international flights to the US and thus there was no basis for continuing a joint venture?
And UA does not have a joint venture with Virgin Australia.
All UA has with Virgin Australia that Delta doesn't have with Rex now is a marketing agreement beyond simple codeshares which is the basis of the UA agreement.
AA did not have a JV w/ Latam and could not get one because the Chilean Supreme court blocked it.
Delta swooped in, invested, took 9 A350s on property plus 10 on order off of their hands and formed a JV.
Dropping the international routes made it imperative for VA to link with UA over DL, given UA's greater connectivity to NAm. You really framed that argument erroneously.
Further, "all" that's different from VA and RX partnerships is the marketing agreement? Have you noticed the networks of the two Aussie airlines, and how that is a clear delineator of which combined partnership is stronger?
You're much brighter than these arguments...sincerely!!
3x weekly seasonal service isn't...
Dropping the international routes made it imperative for VA to link with UA over DL, given UA's greater connectivity to NAm. You really framed that argument erroneously.
Further, "all" that's different from VA and RX partnerships is the marketing agreement? Have you noticed the networks of the two Aussie airlines, and how that is a clear delineator of which combined partnership is stronger?
You're much brighter than these arguments...sincerely!!
3x weekly seasonal service isn't competitive for all segments, but will be fine for the intended leisure market and frequent flyer base. It's not like DL has any chance to compete against QF or VA (alongside their US partners) for corporate traffic, so any frequency and seasonality questions are mostly irrelevant - a very rare case that I would evaluate a route that way, and yes I know the planning analysis. DL is likely using MIDT/ARC or other data to see where the connecting traffic over their existing SYD service is going, as icing on the cake.
first, Delta carries far more corporate traffic across its network than AA or UA do. It is naive to think that DL can't figure out how to find that traffic to Australia and win that business.
second, when you talk about JVs, let's not forget that AA, while it still had a JV w/ QF, said it could not make money to Australia. Only recently- as the market has become quite strong - has...
first, Delta carries far more corporate traffic across its network than AA or UA do. It is naive to think that DL can't figure out how to find that traffic to Australia and win that business.
second, when you talk about JVs, let's not forget that AA, while it still had a JV w/ QF, said it could not make money to Australia. Only recently- as the market has become quite strong - has AA gotten serious about Australia. and despite having a JV w/ JAL, AA is half the size of DL to Tokyo which has no JV. The notion that a JV saves a carrier is an internet myth.
third, DL has won over a large chunk of Hollywood travel revenue - that is why they launched AKL and have expanded it. DL knows where the corporate revenue is and caters to that market - which is part of why they generate so much more revenue than AA or UA. AKL started as 3x/week seasonal service and grew. DL has used that tactic in multiple places.
Virgin Australia might have gone w/ UA because of its larger size to Australia but that doesn't mean that UA has any more advantage over DL's relationship with Rex. They are both simple codeshare relationships. AA/QF is the only joint venture.
Have you EVER managed a sales (and multi other department operations) team for a GLOBAL airline??
And one you know...guess which one...
Obviously not. Wow.
Impressed with your advocacy and aspiration...no problem. But there is a prism that is missing...slow down...truly embrace other thoughts, ideas and individuality. If you only embrace your ideas, and so very defensively, you become irrelevant.
feel free to debate the points I made. There is no silver lining or fluff there. Those are facts.
PS - Ben asks why BNE over MEL for the new service due to population size (and I also adore MEL!!). It's not just about "largest population", planning also critically factors "under-served" markets to determine where the best new opportunity is...and various data is used to target those markets...voila, Brisbane!
@Brianair, your comment reflects two false assumptions:
1, That Delta 'let' themselves be dumped from their partnership with VA. I'm not aware they had any say in it, or even knew about it before VA announced its new arrangement with UA.
2. That VA is 'the other Virgin airline. VA and VS are not related entities whose commercial relationships with other airlines are independent of each other.
Smallest loyalty at lax. The worst loyalty in Australia… delta has too many wide bodies if they just want to lose money like this. Their shareholders should be asking why management wants to burn money for nothing in some lame hope of luring QF after delta lost VA
we knew you had to show up with your nonsense.
Even some of the adults on the kiddie site recognize that DL has a 5 share point lead over AA and UA at LAX... but in your mind, DL doesn't have loyalty.
AA was the largest airline at LAX for decades but couldn't hold onto it. AA was founded in NYC but couldn't hold onto it and DL is now the largest carrier there.
I can't wait til DL lets lose on MIA.
Regarding size at LAX, isn’t AA temporarily gate constrained due to construction there? Once the work on terminals 4 and 5 is complete, I thought AA will gain close to 10 more gates. That will see them increase significantly.
Further down the road, but terminal 9 will also allow UA to grow significantly and give them another hub to place some of their 500 new planes.
You’re such an idiot, tim. Truly a world class idiot. lol
you came through as expected.
When everyone else except for you knows that DL is much larger than AA or UA at LAX but you resort to personal attacks for me pointing it out, you simply confirm once again what a small person you are
Tim, it’s because you don’t know how airlines or mileage programs work, much less networks. LAX is a masterclass in why networks and mileage programs matter.
You made a fool of yourself with Ben down below. Try to save some face and just walk away for once.
And Timmy
Of course delta has loyalty in LA. But they are the smallest mileage program and the smallest network with the worst JV partners there too. Their own metal size doesn’t matter much when Alaska alone makes as far more relevant to say nothing of QF, BA, IB, EI, QR, and JL
You seriously need mental help, tim
Miami? lol. You don’t seem to know much about gates in Miami but keep living your fantasy, you idiot
you are indeed the perfect example of pathological behavior - one day accusing DL of not having loyalty and then today admitting they do even as you list a bunch of airlines that either have no share of the domestic market or with which AA simply has no JV. and even JVs do not give all of the share or revenue to one airline.
For someone that is so quick to throw around accusations, you live out the dirty accusations of which you accuse other people.
You don’t seem to be able to read, Tim
False statement combined with completely subjective statement, doesn't serve much of a purpose.
@MaxPower- as much as Tim Dunn is overzealous about DL, it’s apparent you are equally misinformed about the industry
Flights clearly targeted at Americans coming here. Aussies can’t afford to go to the US right now. Currency is very weak and the government has destroyed the economy (downhill since Covid lockdowns and border closures).
LOL you’re a mentally defective clown, BZ. Plenty of Australians are doing just fine with that lying, incompetent Hillsong cultist ScMo and his merry little band of corrupt cretins. The Liberal party gutted itself so keep crying, shut for brains.
Do you have a clue of what you’re talking about. That was rhetorical, as the answer is obvious.
Delta has the largest market share out of LAX of the “Big Three” and here’s another news flash; the airline is the most profitable in the world. Not the U.S. but
the world.
So, where is it that they are continuing to lose money?
Bob Katter and his big hat invite Lucky to review this flight connecting into the rec regional hopper to Mt. Isa
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgShX5pLV7HB4QVk4Yr8C6CHfMo8jLADjjIQ&usqp=CAU
This week did LAX-SYD and MEL-SYD-LAX on DL with a leg on Rex. The DL flights were about 1/2 full on the way down with premium cabins at about 90% and econ at about 30%, and on the way back the flight was even less full. Nice and easy long haul though, no complaints. With x2 daily RT's to SYD a few hours apart it's hard to understand the need for x2 DL flights year...
This week did LAX-SYD and MEL-SYD-LAX on DL with a leg on Rex. The DL flights were about 1/2 full on the way down with premium cabins at about 90% and econ at about 30%, and on the way back the flight was even less full. Nice and easy long haul though, no complaints. With x2 daily RT's to SYD a few hours apart it's hard to understand the need for x2 DL flights year round, and even harder to understand this new flight. First time on Rex was fine, good experience and friendly crew.
now tell us the load factor on competitor flights on those same dates and directions and then roll them all up to the month and we might have a basis for comparison.
And Australia-US is a big cargo market. There could be tens of thousands of dollars in revenue below the cabin floor.
The chances are pretty high that LAX-SYD will be one of DL's early A350-1000 routes. The timing fits nicely with one...
now tell us the load factor on competitor flights on those same dates and directions and then roll them all up to the month and we might have a basis for comparison.
And Australia-US is a big cargo market. There could be tens of thousands of dollars in revenue below the cabin floor.
The chances are pretty high that LAX-SYD will be one of DL's early A350-1000 routes. The timing fits nicely with one of several time windows for LAX-ICN, a route DL is certain to start, perhaps before the end of the year.
Given the joint venture, they do not need long lead times to start ICN flights.
what is the point of your post? Why so defensive? Why go on about some route DL hasnt announced? Get a life
@Tim don't have exact numbers but I can tell you the AA flight leaving at the same time SYD-LAX on Tuesday this week on the way back was very full and gate checking bags, whereas on my Delta flight everyone in econ had literally their own row.
one day draws a conclusion.
See the data below regarding TPAC profits for each of the 3 carriers.
Clearly AA still is losing a whole lot of money somewhere. If Australia is their goldmine, then they still have a lot of lead to throw overboard.
Tell us delta load factor, tim
Please.
@Tim Dunn I'll bite.
Here's the loadfactor & pax flow for LAX-SYD in 11-2023:
AA: 72% 6.565k
DL: 67% 8.800k
QF: 70% 9.738k
UA: 65% 4.542k
Here's the cargo carried:
AA: 4M lbs
DL: 4M lbs
QF: 2M lbs
UA: 2M lbs
AA carried the same amount of cargo as DL with 70% as much frequencies. QF carried more passengers with 30 frequencies than DL could with 43. It seems to me DL clearly does NOT have the revenue premium here.
you do realize that NONE of that is revenue?
DL did indeed carry the most among US carriers and more cargo than QF.
you clearly have the data.
Delta is not an also-ran to Australia despite the internet folk lore.
Considering that UA was in the market decades before DL and AA has a JV w/ QF, DL does quite well. Your data once again confirms it.
Tim, please enlighten me regarding the following statement:
"DL did indeed carry the most among US carriers and - more cargo than QF."
Exactly how many dedicated CARGO flights does DL have to Australia?
You must be aware that apart from hauling cargo in passenger A380-800's, B787-9's and A330's to LAX, Qantas also runs *multiple* weekly DEDICATED B747-8F's to the USA under an exclusive fleet lease agreement / and QF flight number. I find...
Tim, please enlighten me regarding the following statement:
"DL did indeed carry the most among US carriers and - more cargo than QF."
Exactly how many dedicated CARGO flights does DL have to Australia?
You must be aware that apart from hauling cargo in passenger A380-800's, B787-9's and A330's to LAX, Qantas also runs *multiple* weekly DEDICATED B747-8F's to the USA under an exclusive fleet lease agreement / and QF flight number. I find your above statement a little strange, to say the least. If I am missing something, I would be interested to know.
my English is clear.
Among the big 3 on SYD-LAX, DL carries the most traffic right now w/ its double daily schedule.
I am not making a comparison to QF outside of LAX-SYD.
I am using the data providing by someone above. If you think their data is incorrect, please provide updated info.
DL's schedule on LAX-SYD is not 'double daily'. IINM, the current schedule is 10 flights per week. 1 daily and 3 additional weekly flights during the Australian summer.
Secondly, my question above relates to your statement re: cargo (not passenger movements) and as you can see, my English was also perfectly clear - demonstrating that QF is using a permanent, long-term charter of a dedicated B747-8 on an almost daily basis.
Just so this doesn’t get lost. Ben absolutely put @Tim Dunn in a body bag….
“ I don't believe you answered my question? Over what period is DL carrying more passengers than UA between LAX and Australia? Specifically between December and March of this upcoming year? Because we'd agree that on an annual basis, UA carries more passengers than DL between LAX and Australia, right? And we'd agree that this past December through March, UA...
Just so this doesn’t get lost. Ben absolutely put @Tim Dunn in a body bag….
“ I don't believe you answered my question? Over what period is DL carrying more passengers than UA between LAX and Australia? Specifically between December and March of this upcoming year? Because we'd agree that on an annual basis, UA carries more passengers than DL between LAX and Australia, right? And we'd agree that this past December through March, UA carried more passengers, right?
Also, you're not actually saying that DL carries more passengers, but rather that it offers more capacity, right? Because surely we agree that's not the same thing?
Also, QF carries a lot more passengers than DL between LAX and Australia. It's funny how you keep changing the metric based on what suits your narrative, and when you talk about QF, you change the specific details to one market in Australia, rather than the whole country.
Also, you know full well the reason that DL slightly edges out UA in this upcoming peak season from LAX to Australia. It's because UA has a massive hub just a few hundred miles away, with up to four daily flights to Australia. Meanwhile DL has no flights to Australia from any other hubs.
Tim, I get you love DL, and the airline does great with profitability. But you really don't have to pretend that DL is best at absolutely everything, no matter what.”
Ben just got schooled. see below.
You are either illiterate or argumentative. I would plead guilty to the latter if I were you.
Tim doesn’t know how to respond to actual data. It showed today though it does often. He’s the only person on earth that would try to position falsely delta above UA and AA/QF to make an idiotic point
But… it is tim… he’s an idiot. And would say idiotic nonsense to to say anything about delta
@Max Agreed. AA/UA could serve 20 peanuts per packet and he would say Delta serves 21. There’s some mental issues there.
except the data DOES say that Delta does carry more passengers using the qualifiers I used.
You have proven that you can't accept facts so resort to personal attacks.
I'm waiting for you to tell us all that I was fired from Delta - so now make a career of talking positive about them.
You have lose screws and a massive ignorance of the world blinded by your bias.
and when you get...
except the data DOES say that Delta does carry more passengers using the qualifiers I used.
You have proven that you can't accept facts so resort to personal attacks.
I'm waiting for you to tell us all that I was fired from Delta - so now make a career of talking positive about them.
You have lose screws and a massive ignorance of the world blinded by your bias.
and when you get through digesting that reality, why don't you let us know what part QF gets after you and others want to count QF's revenue as AA's.
You have no clue how a JV works. and every time you open your mouth to talk about them, you show your ignorance.
I recall you berating a poster below about a spelling issue ('hanger' vs hangar') Tim. Would you like to apologize for the following?
"You have lose screws and a..."
In my interpretation, that should be 'loose' screws, not 'lose'.
is there a paid feature to block Tim Dunn just wondering
Sure is.
Look to the upper right corner of whatever browser you're using; you'll likely see a symbol that looks like this: "X"
Click that.
*Poof* Issue dealt with, and you won't even have to pay a thing!
@Tim nog trying to troll you, this is a genuine question. What is your relationship to Delta? When visiting this blog frequently you’d nearly forget how incredibly weird it is that nearly every single time you comment (which is frequently) it always comes down to Delta some way or another and how they are better. I don’t even care if you’re right or not, its just so very very weird to do so often and...
@Tim nog trying to troll you, this is a genuine question. What is your relationship to Delta? When visiting this blog frequently you’d nearly forget how incredibly weird it is that nearly every single time you comment (which is frequently) it always comes down to Delta some way or another and how they are better. I don’t even care if you’re right or not, its just so very very weird to do so often and so consistently focused on Delta.
Do you have shares with them? Do you work there? Are you unbelievably obsessed with their succes?
Again, not trying to troll, I’m genuinely wondering.
yes. I do own shares in various airlines and, at the moment, I do own stock in DAL.
Do you realize that it is weird that there are people who truly think that the purpose of airlines is to fly routes and put dots on maps.
The purpose of EVERY US airline is to make money. They do that by providing air service.
The fact that some people continue to tout the size...
yes. I do own shares in various airlines and, at the moment, I do own stock in DAL.
Do you realize that it is weird that there are people who truly think that the purpose of airlines is to fly routes and put dots on maps.
The purpose of EVERY US airline is to make money. They do that by providing air service.
The fact that some people continue to tout the size of a company and are beyond ignorant of the financial aspects of the airline industry while acting surprised if not downright ticked off when someone brings finances into the discussion is what is not just weird but downright frightening.
Good for DL to add flights but if they can't make money doing it, they shouldn't be doing it.
And it is clear that UA management has long prioritized size and network expanse over profit maximization and it is clear that is true by the lack of profits they generate in the same regions as DL. There are people that will argue to they are blue in their face that data can't be trusted and yet not even UAL management tries to deny that reality. Scott Kirby came to UA and in his first couple quarters said he would get UA to the same profits that DL generates - and yet 7 years later, not only has he not succeeded in matching DL's level of profitability but DL has pretty well made it clear that they are not going to cede anything to UA's growth plan if there are profits to make.
If AA or UA want to fly routes and lose money doing so, DL is not going to stop them. If there is money to be made, and it is clear there is money to be made to Australia and a whole lot of other places in the world, DL is going to be there and has a much more sustainable plan to grow using aircraft that are just as efficient if not more so than AA or UA's.
The internet world has been intoxicated for years that UA has a corner on growth and convinced that no one else could or would grow. 2023 alone proved that was not the case.
DL based its plans for a return of international travel on an assumption of a return to growth in 2024. DL has a dozen plus widebodies due for delivery in each of the next 2 years with their delivery schedule for the A350-1000 not yet clear but UA hasn't released its delivery schedule for 2026 or beyond either.
UA fankids drone on endlessly about the strength of SFO but can't accept that someone just might be able to make a combo of LAX and SEA into an equally powerful hub system across the Pacific. And, Delta has more flights to Asia right now from the eastern US to Asia than United does. This invincibility that some have their mind about UA and the Pacific just doesn't exist in reality.
Again, you come off as condescending and rude in all your responses. I think most people know that these are not for fun -they are businesses that are trying to make money. You just come off as extremely condescending and rude. That's great that Delta overall makes money and they can try new things. Fantastic. Not sure why in pointing this out you have to actively antagonize and condescend to everybody else.
I don’t think Tim comes off as condensing or rude at all. Fanboyism aside, most of the his comments are quite insightful and he clearly puts thought into his posts.
Moreover, from an “outsider” perspecitive (someone who follows this blog closely but rarely posts comments), I can tell you that the amount of anti-Delta posts and comments are bizarre. Yes, delta miles redemptions for long haul business class are pretty terrible, but there are...
I don’t think Tim comes off as condensing or rude at all. Fanboyism aside, most of the his comments are quite insightful and he clearly puts thought into his posts.
Moreover, from an “outsider” perspecitive (someone who follows this blog closely but rarely posts comments), I can tell you that the amount of anti-Delta posts and comments are bizarre. Yes, delta miles redemptions for long haul business class are pretty terrible, but there are some great uses of Delta miles and the program still has some merit.
(Before anyone asks, I’m SEA-based and mostly fly Alaska, but I can still appreciate Delta for what they do well, including having by far the best customer service of any US airline).
the only thing that is condescending is people that spout opinions and bias as fact and, worse yet, spout facts with numbers and words that are not even accurate or logical.
All of these forums would be a whole lot more enjoyable if a few people would get their facts accurate and separate their bias and opinions from what they would like to call fact.
Do you really think DL can fill LAX-BNE?
There are only two routes to BNE right now, UA's SFO-BNE and QF's LAX-BNE.
On SFO-BNE, UA has a 47% load factor.
On LAX-BNE, QF has a 72% load factor, even though it has MUCH more feed than Delta.
btw, I have owned UAL stock in the last year and also currently own LUV stock.
Let’s not forget delta fired tim. They think he’s an idiot too. Ironically, it speaks volumes to delta that they fired this idiot. Though he hates to admit it.
Delta is a great company with a lot of free cash flow as a result of first mover advantage and monopoly hubs they state plainly.
Tim…? He doesn’t care a bit about what delta itself says, only manipulating data
and, once again, you resort to lies and personal attacks when you are proven wrong by your own statements that you present as fact.
YOU are the one that argued that Delta has no loyalty and then a day later and confirmed by multiple other people, admitted Delta has loyalty given that it has a 5 share point advantage over AA, UA and every other carrier.
At least you are consistent and predictable...
and, once again, you resort to lies and personal attacks when you are proven wrong by your own statements that you present as fact.
YOU are the one that argued that Delta has no loyalty and then a day later and confirmed by multiple other people, admitted Delta has loyalty given that it has a 5 share point advantage over AA, UA and every other carrier.
At least you are consistent and predictable - which means we know that when you enter the conversation, we will see false statements which lead to personal attacks when you are proven wrong.
And you have the nerve to call anyone else "pathological"
Fess up... who else read that as "shots fired!" ;)
Me!! I thought the same thing hahahha.... and Tim responded
If Ben were ever going to do a podcast, you all know who the first episode or season finale might feature "Set the record straight".
Not gonna lie, I'd listen to the "Ben & Tim Show"... at least the pilot episode.
Boxing gloves will be provided to all participants. :)
I participate in industry discussions because I bring facts and logic to the table.
Ben does a good job but let his bias come through in this discussion.
I'm not sure we still have all of the facts but his original article left out a lot of facts as well as contradictory opinions - so at least having a discussion served a useful purpose.
Delta really should go back to flying crop dusters and leave the passenger flying to American and United
Combined with everything else, it's unfortunately hard not to see this as flailing.
What "everything else?" Capacity between US and Australia hasn't changed much in recent years, just routings have redistributed, and a few more frequencies on smaller aircraft.
You seem to be forgetting that we lost an entire airline that flew nothing but multiple 77Ws. No more 747s. Very few A380s anymore. And AA/UA are primarily 787 instead of 777.
Ben, Delta has an enormous market and mind share in LA. There are plenty of customers they can take from United and Qantas just by offering the schedule.
Delta has 21.8% of the market, a very small plurality. It leads AA and United by 4 and 5% in total traffic. Hardly what I would call enormous. Especially if you consider UA's larger TPAC footprint.
LAX will never have a majority dominated airline.
funny people that tout that forget that UA's hometown airport of ORD does not have an airline with a majority of share. Same for DEN.
The proportional difference in ORD is very different than in LAX. It's a joint hub between UA and AA the two of which combine for almost 63%. DL/UA/AS combined at LAX are only 55.8%.
Surely you can understand how the situations are different.
DL continues to follow UA and AA. But once you get downunder on DL, they have no partners anymore. Funny how a lot of airline people don't want to deal with DL.
And yet Delta carries more passengers from LAX to Austin its own metal than American or United. Funny that some people don’t know or can’t accept basic facts
Australia
@ Tim Dunn -- Okay, forgetting for a moment the very random way you're framing this (success=flying more passengers from LAX to Australia?), can you help me make sense of those numbers? You're talking about number of passengers actually carried, rather than capacity? Over what period?
Because at a minimum, United is doing year-round daily LAX-SYD/MEL flights, so United certainly has more year-round capacity. I'm not saying you're wrong, but am just curious...
Ben,
do you realize that DL's A350-900s right now each seat 40 more passengers than UA's 789s? Even in DL's more premium A359 configuration, DL's 359s will still seat more passengers.
2 A350-900 DL flights offer more seats and DL is carrying more passengers, not just compared to UA but even compared to QF on LAX-SYD which offers a single A380.
DL and UA are carrying similar LFs out of LAX to...
Ben,
do you realize that DL's A350-900s right now each seat 40 more passengers than UA's 789s? Even in DL's more premium A359 configuration, DL's 359s will still seat more passengers.
2 A350-900 DL flights offer more seats and DL is carrying more passengers, not just compared to UA but even compared to QF on LAX-SYD which offers a single A380.
DL and UA are carrying similar LFs out of LAX to Australia.
Knowing and citing basic facts is not random, Ben. Trying to argue about a disadvantage when you don't understand who actually is in the lead is honestly scary
Having more seats does not mean carrying more passengers. You are trying to use one to justify your hypothesis on the other which is misinformation. The flown passenger numbers are what we are looking for here which very well could show that Delta’s recent add of 2x SYD brought them ahead of both AA and UA.
@ Tim Dunn -- I don't believe you answered my question? Over what period is DL carrying more passengers than UA between LAX and Australia? Specifically between December and March of this upcoming year? Because we'd agree that on an annual basis, UA carries more passengers than DL between LAX and Australia, right? And we'd agree that this past December through March, UA carried more passengers, right?
Also, you're not actually saying that DL carries...
@ Tim Dunn -- I don't believe you answered my question? Over what period is DL carrying more passengers than UA between LAX and Australia? Specifically between December and March of this upcoming year? Because we'd agree that on an annual basis, UA carries more passengers than DL between LAX and Australia, right? And we'd agree that this past December through March, UA carried more passengers, right?
Also, you're not actually saying that DL carries more passengers, but rather that it offers more capacity, right? Because surely we agree that's not the same thing?
Also, QF carries a lot more passengers than DL between LAX and Australia. It's funny how you keep changing the metric based on what suits your narrative, and when you talk about QF, you change the specific details to one market in Australia, rather than the whole country.
Also, you know full well the reason that DL slightly edges out UA in this upcoming peak season from LAX to Australia. It's because UA has a massive hub just a few hundred miles away, with up to four daily flights to Australia. Meanwhile DL has no flights to Australia from any other hubs.
Tim, I get you love DL, and the airline does great with profitability. But you really don't have to pretend that DL is best at absolutely everything, no matter what.
I've seen the load factors this winter, they're not pretty. Just because Delta might have more seats on two flights during a 3 month period of the year does not in any way mean they fly more passengers on a year round basis. This guy is crazy.
Hahahahaha, Ben just put Tim Dunn in a body bag!
Ben
you are arguing and you look like a childish fool in the process.
Do you understand verb tenses? Carries is present term. It has nothing to do with the past year.
Do you understand that the same load factor on an aircraft that holds more people will yield more paying passengers? And do you not agree that DL's A359s hold more passengers than UA's 789s? Whether you do or not is immaterial.
DL...
Ben
you are arguing and you look like a childish fool in the process.
Do you understand verb tenses? Carries is present term. It has nothing to do with the past year.
Do you understand that the same load factor on an aircraft that holds more people will yield more paying passengers? And do you not agree that DL's A359s hold more passengers than UA's 789s? Whether you do or not is immaterial.
DL CURRENTLY is carrying more passengers between LAX and SYD than any other airline. No one said anything about LAX and Australia compared to any other airline.
DL is CURRENTLY carrying more passengers than UA between LAX and Australia.
Both are facts. Manipulating the wording doesn't make them any less so whether you or any of your readers do it.
You started this article with YOUR bias blazing telling us that DL would have an advantage and then have repeatedly argued when your "facts" have been shown to be opinions.
How about you act more like a professional than the children at the kids table, aka a.net?
Perhaps when Delta starts longhaul international service from MIA to S. America - and they will - you and your readers will get the message that profitability matters - A WHOLE LOT.
And DL is using all of its profits to push into markets where it sees long-term profits.
The question for you and everyone else is how AA and UA have managed to waste the past 45 years of deregulation and not be able to generate the profits that DL generates. and the corollary is just how far DL is going to go with cleaning not just AA and UA's clock but whatever other airlines have something that Delta wants.
correct... you told us that DL would have a DISADVANTAGE...
@ Tim Dunn -- OMG, what are you even going on about? You just changed your narrative again.
I was responding to the comment where you claimed that DL carries more people between LAX and Australia. When I made my point, you responded by claiming you were talking about the LAX to SYD market. That's not what I was responding to! Don't you see you just backtracked there?
Can you just give me a simple...
@ Tim Dunn -- OMG, what are you even going on about? You just changed your narrative again.
I was responding to the comment where you claimed that DL carries more people between LAX and Australia. When I made my point, you responded by claiming you were talking about the LAX to SYD market. That's not what I was responding to! Don't you see you just backtracked there?
Can you just give me a simple answer, rather than ignoring my question and posting 15 paragraphs about an unrelated topic? Please?
Your ENTIRE post is a backtrack, Ben.
You could have simply reported the story but you had to throw in your commentary.
We get that you read A.net. Your comments read like the 3rd graders that post on there.
Delta DOES carry the most passengers using the qualifiers I stated. I answered that question 3 replies ago. Trying to accuse me of backtracking because you can't accept that reality is childish and an...
Your ENTIRE post is a backtrack, Ben.
You could have simply reported the story but you had to throw in your commentary.
We get that you read A.net. Your comments read like the 3rd graders that post on there.
Delta DOES carry the most passengers using the qualifiers I stated. I answered that question 3 replies ago. Trying to accuse me of backtracking because you can't accept that reality is childish and an inability to admit you decided to stir something up which you can't win.
Even the comment below regarding Austin highlights the fact that you can't accept which is that a company that makes substantially more in profits than its peers has the ability to push into markets. DL has done that over and over and over and over again.
We get that you run around the world in premium cabins but the rest of us live with our feet planted a little closer to earth and know facts that matter.
Delta simply has run the best business over the past decade in the airline industry and is widening the positive gap between itself and its competitors.
If Delta wants to become the largest airline to Australia and BNE is part of the path it sees to get there, United better figure out what money-losing routes it needs to cut to defend its Australia markets. And American better figure out how to make money flying the Pacific.
@ Tim Dunn -- You're hilarious!
I'm glad you are enjoying my posts.
If a fact-based discussion rather than page clicks is what you are after you could
1. admit that I am factually right whether you want to admit it or not.
2. take it offline; you have my email
3. continue to argue
and then
4. post the facts of stories and leave the opinions for the kiddie table.
And, I have been...
I'm glad you are enjoying my posts.
If a fact-based discussion rather than page clicks is what you are after you could
1. admit that I am factually right whether you want to admit it or not.
2. take it offline; you have my email
3. continue to argue
and then
4. post the facts of stories and leave the opinions for the kiddie table.
And, I have been watching the airline industry for 50 years - long before you were a sparkle in your parents' eyes. I know of which I speak.
Delta is playing for keeps. as in take no prisoners while they whisper sweet nothings in their competitors' ears.
You and your readers better come to grips with what it means to have one airline making more than half of the US airline industry's profits.
and, as much as the UA fan club gets all worked up, DL's greatest success in directly stealing share has been from AA - which should strike particularly close to your heart.
DL simply outsmarts UA and the two, so far, have managed to dance around each other while beating up on everyone else.
The difference is that UA THINKS it is in the same league as DL when in reality it makes about 60% of what DL makes and is worth about 60% of DAL.
While UA talks about knocking out ultra low cost carriers, DL just makes profits and grows and doesn't care who is in its way.
Tim, you sound insane.
Please actually post those numbers if you have them. It has to be more than just some silly "hunch" you have based on looking at the capacity ot theplanes Delta uses.
You should go for a walk and let off some steam rather than ranting like a lunatic online, Timmy Boy.
What does LAX-AUS have to do with LAX-BNE?
Also, Delta doesn't even the most marketshare on LAX-AUS.
AA: 11.079k pax
DL: 12.807k pax
WN: 14.732k pax
NK: 4.645k pax
UA: 2.949k pax
you do realize I wrote Australia immediately under AUS?
And it is beyond damning to AA but even more so to UA that DL is second ONLY to WN in LAX-AUS.
And if I were a guessing man, I would strongly bet that DL is actually the largest carrier in LAX-AUS by REVENUE or pretty close to it given that DL consistently carries the most revenue per passenger among US airlines and also...
you do realize I wrote Australia immediately under AUS?
And it is beyond damning to AA but even more so to UA that DL is second ONLY to WN in LAX-AUS.
And if I were a guessing man, I would strongly bet that DL is actually the largest carrier in LAX-AUS by REVENUE or pretty close to it given that DL consistently carries the most revenue per passenger among US airlines and also much more than WN.
but your little tidbit highlights exactly the point I have been taken. How long have we heard from the peanut gallery that DL wasn't doing anything in AUS?
And now, based on data that I didn't even bring to the discussion, DL is the 2nd largest by passengers - for whatever time period you cite - and perhaps the largest by revenue - or pretty close to it.
Would you like to repeat this exercise for AUS to NYC since LAX and NYC are usually the largest 2 markets from many US cities?
DL moves slowly but decisively. But they didn't become the largest airline by revenue and profits in the world by not inserting itself into some pretty competitive markets - and then some people woke up and found out that Delta was the largest in that market and then another and then another.
In what world is a 16% higher passenger volume "beyond damning?"
I'm glad you are not a "guessing man" because DL absolutely does NOT command a revenue premium on this route as it consistently charges lower fares in all cabin class on LAX-AUS than AA.
Your last paragraph is an absolute over exaggeration. What are all these markets you mention?
considering that AA is the largest carrier at AUS, built a hub there and has lost out to not just WN but also DL in one of the largest markets from AUS, yes, the results are indeed damning for AA.
And your anecdotal fare survey doesn't matter. The total amount of revenue divided by the number of passengers does matter.
Delta is the largest revenue carrier in the LAX-AUS market.
Let me go over...
considering that AA is the largest carrier at AUS, built a hub there and has lost out to not just WN but also DL in one of the largest markets from AUS, yes, the results are indeed damning for AA.
And your anecdotal fare survey doesn't matter. The total amount of revenue divided by the number of passengers does matter.
Delta is the largest revenue carrier in the LAX-AUS market.
Let me go over it one more time. AA didn't crack $1 billion in profits in the first 3 quarters of 2023 and its TATL and TPAC route systems lost money. Its domestic system made just over half of what DL made.
As hard as it is for you to accept, DL succeeds in as many markets as it does and keeps growing because of its ability to attract the best revenue in the market and do it at lower costs than its competitors.
The same will play out in one international market after another - just as has played out in NYC, LAX and dozens of competitive markets.
Regarding Brisbane being a tourist hotspot, I definitely have gone there in the past year. It was awesome. Gold Coast is reasonable train ride away. And REX has flights from BNE to Cairns, and BNE is closer CNS than SYD, and most will find the connection process at BNE easier (than switching terminals at SYD).
Brisbane has the fastest growth rate of any capital city in Australia. And while the Olympics there are a ways off, a lot is going up.
And just to add to the Cairns part, since REX is Delta's partner in Australia, it is important to note that REX flies BNE-CNS, but not SYD-CNS.
Gold Coast sunrise is amazing. Getting in and out of bne is a lot easier than syd.
It's not unfathomable. Air Canada services BNE over MEL from YVR. Seems like that's the go to these days.
Entertainment industry traffic
Brisbane and surrounding areas has more inbound tourism appeal than Melbourne, and despite being a smaller city, demand to the US is pretty similar from both cities.
Not including those mentioned in the article, Melbourne currently has 18 or 19 weekly flights to the US while Brisbane has 10. I can't see how that could equate to 'pretty similar' demand unless there a lot of low passenger loadings on the Melbourne flights & none on those from Brisbane
Delta has a $2 billion per year advantage over United in profits and almost $4 billion over American on top of the dozens of A350s on order as well as the ex-Latam A350s that will begin conversion to Delta standard cabins. And United does not have a joint venture in Australia. The size of their partner doesn’t make it any more of an advantage.
The bigger question is if Delta is getting incentives. United...
Delta has a $2 billion per year advantage over United in profits and almost $4 billion over American on top of the dozens of A350s on order as well as the ex-Latam A350s that will begin conversion to Delta standard cabins. And United does not have a joint venture in Australia. The size of their partner doesn’t make it any more of an advantage.
The bigger question is if Delta is getting incentives. United tried LAX to BNE and cut the season short.
The notion that Delta wasn’t interested in international growth was flawed and wrong and there will be more long haul announcements from Delta including from LAX
@ Tim Dunn -- I'm confused, what does Delta's $2 billion advantage over United have to do with anything related to this subject? :-)
You really don’t understand that all of the airlines that fly between the YS and Australia are for profit companies and higher profits in any industry translate into a competitive advantage? Every airline does a certain amount of developmental flying. United just has a pretty long list of markets that don’t generate profits on the level Delta gets. That is why Delta makes 1.8 times the amount per ASM flying the Pacific that United gets....
You really don’t understand that all of the airlines that fly between the YS and Australia are for profit companies and higher profits in any industry translate into a competitive advantage? Every airline does a certain amount of developmental flying. United just has a pretty long list of markets that don’t generate profits on the level Delta gets. That is why Delta makes 1.8 times the amount per ASM flying the Pacific that United gets. And American is still not profitable over the Pacific
US
Which is why Delta’s stock has returned exactly the same as United’s since COVID. Since we aren’t talking about the feasibility of routes anymore, I figured we could talk about other random crap. In all seriousness, this is about Delta trying to take over LAX as a dominant carrier. TBD if this works, but that is their clear goal.
Delta made $2nillion more in profits in 2023 and the company is worth 1.6 x what UAL is worth. The notion that United would grow massively without a competitive response was delusional. Delta is doing exactly what I said they would do. United grew capacity 17% in 2023 and Delta did the same.
Sure Delta is able to run up that much higher amount per ASM while serving far fewer destinations than United (no India, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.).
The full-list of their direct-Asian destinations:
- Shanghai
- Tokyo (Haneda) (for which they just willingly gave up slots)
- Seoul
Shanghai is performing well due to route caps at the moment that will start to ease (applies to all the airlines) - once capacity continues to...
Sure Delta is able to run up that much higher amount per ASM while serving far fewer destinations than United (no India, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc.).
The full-list of their direct-Asian destinations:
- Shanghai
- Tokyo (Haneda) (for which they just willingly gave up slots)
- Seoul
Shanghai is performing well due to route caps at the moment that will start to ease (applies to all the airlines) - once capacity continues to normalize we saw previously none of the American carriers could make that route work. Then they will add the already well-served LAX-Seoul route and the very unlikely to succeed Seattle-Taipei route...
United in comparison flies today to:
- Beijing
- Hong Kong
- Manila
- Osaka
- Tokyo (Haneda)
- Seoul
- Shanghai
- Singapore
- Taipei
- New Delhi
- Dubai
It's just not even a close comparison - Delta is closer to American than United in their Asia reach and their numbers look good b/c they're so limited w/ unclear growth opps.
You do realize that United can’t turn that size into a profit advantage don’t you? Size has zero to do with the reason that United exists as a company
In the Pacific, Delta is half the size in revenue and profits than United. Compared to 2019, Delta is down in profits and flat in margin. United increased its margin by double digits and the increase in profits alone is greater than Delta’s total profits in the Pacific.
Funny that some people don’t know or can’t accept basic facts.
wrong, Marketing Premium.
DL generates half the REVENUES but 80% of the profits of UA.
DL generates a higher margin across the Pacific than UA.
UA lost money flying the Pacific from 2017 to 2019 so of course they have increased their profits. Going from a negative to a positive is not doubling. It is mathematically false to say going from a negative to a positive is any multiple of increase.
DL...
wrong, Marketing Premium.
DL generates half the REVENUES but 80% of the profits of UA.
DL generates a higher margin across the Pacific than UA.
UA lost money flying the Pacific from 2017 to 2019 so of course they have increased their profits. Going from a negative to a positive is not doubling. It is mathematically false to say going from a negative to a positive is any multiple of increase.
DL became the largest airline across the Pacific the day that it merged with NW but NW's Pacific operation was never consistently profitable. DL spent years trying to reshape the NRT hub, the Japanese government decided to open HND to transpacific traffic and DL was forced to choose a hub at NRT or move to HND and become the largest US and foreign carrier there.
DL built a SEA hub, has invested in LAX and become the largest carrier there. Nowhere over the past 15 years of TPAC restructuring did DL ever say it was content not to grow or that it wouldn't return to a position of strength that rivals anyone in the market.
the DL/KE JV is the largest across the Pacific and DL is just getting started. There will be significant growth as soon as a decision on the KE/OZ merger is made - one way or another. The A350-1000s will primarily be used at ICN and to Australia and India.
It is sad, not funny, that some people lecture others on facts they don't even understand.
As for the comment about profitability and range, Delta is taking delivery in a couple months of the latest A350-900s that will fly for hours beyond what a 787 can do with a viable load of passengers. SQ already flies a "lesser" A350-900 on LAX-SIN than the versions DL will receive while UA had to abandon that route because the 787 can't make it. Same is true for BOM. SQ's NYC-SIN flights fly right over India and keep going for a couple more hours on aircraft that are less capable than what DL will receive.
AA is having to fly its new 787s with 30 less seats on its 789s than DL will have on its new A350-900s in order to be able to consistently fly 17 plus hour flights
You're a master at adding useless information and deflecting statements in a whataaround way. Yes Delta operates high profit routes BUT there are to only 3 destinations:
Tokyo (Haneda): where they have a monopoly on routes due to slot restrictions and the lack of a joint-venture so their profitability is overstated compared to United and AA that revenue-share w/ ANA and JAL
Shanghai: where they have a monopoly on most routes again due to the...
You're a master at adding useless information and deflecting statements in a whataaround way. Yes Delta operates high profit routes BUT there are to only 3 destinations:
Tokyo (Haneda): where they have a monopoly on routes due to slot restrictions and the lack of a joint-venture so their profitability is overstated compared to United and AA that revenue-share w/ ANA and JAL
Shanghai: where they have a monopoly on most routes again due to the limited flights between US-China
Seoul: where they have a JV with the largest carrier in the country
So sure Delta charges a revenue premium due to monopolies on routes in 2 of their 3 destinations of which 1 will go away and another due to its JV - that has nothing to do with Delta itself. And, the reason why Delta operates such few routes is b/c it knows these are the only routes it can generate this premium.
Where is Delta going to expand next? HK? Singapore? Secondary Japan? India? Middle East? Delta knows it has neither the market power, partnerships, or capacity to successfully operate in any of those markets hence it's pulled out and waited on each of them. United is able to pursue those lower margin secondary Asia routes b/c of its much stronger alliances. Choosing not to compete and bragging about better profitability ratios is dumb - it would be like someone arguing AA is killing it in Europe vs Delta b/c of the "revenue premium" it gets from NYC-London routes.
Delta doesn't have a monopoly to China - UA simply chose to split its capacity between Beijing and Shanghai.
DL doesn't have a monopoly to Haneda; they have less than half of the flights that AA and UA combined have - just on their own metal.
And S. Korea was one of the earliest Asian Open Skies partners with the US.
And, as discussed elsewhere here, flying larger margin routes just because of...
Delta doesn't have a monopoly to China - UA simply chose to split its capacity between Beijing and Shanghai.
DL doesn't have a monopoly to Haneda; they have less than half of the flights that AA and UA combined have - just on their own metal.
And S. Korea was one of the earliest Asian Open Skies partners with the US.
And, as discussed elsewhere here, flying larger margin routes just because of an alliance still means they trail in margin - or at best, don't have any advantage.
And, also as discussed, DL will grow where it sees a strategic value in serving a foreign city. When you have a $2 billion profit advantage over your closest competitor - which has a huge amount of underperforming capacity tied up across the Atlantic - you simply have more ability to grow where it makes sense. Every company spends money on developing markets. DL just simply makes more on its core markets so has more money to use for growth - which is what has happened in dozens of domestic markets and is now shifting to int'l markets.
Wal-Mart and Amazon used the same principle to take out smaller competitors. AA, DL and UA are all roughly the same size. DL just simply runs a better business.
If you could turn down the chronic Delta and Scott Kirby Tourette’s for once, we’d all very much appreciate it. I don’t get paid by the word, but it’s clear you do. You truly are the Queen of all Hangers, Jack of None.
Pacific
Q1-Q3 2023
UA 387K
DL 196K
If it looks Delta has half the profits, it sounds like Delta has half the profits, and it walks like Delta has half the profits, it’s probably because that Delta has half the profits.
UA 387M*
DL 196M*
first, let me absolutely COMMEND you for acknowledging and using DOT profitability data which many here is something straight from the devil.
And second, if DL gets half the profits of UA across the Pacific and is half the size, then, at worst, DL is ON PAR w/ UA in terms of Pacfic margins, is it not?
and third, for all 3 global regions, AA reported just a $178 million profit. Its Latin system was...
first, let me absolutely COMMEND you for acknowledging and using DOT profitability data which many here is something straight from the devil.
And second, if DL gets half the profits of UA across the Pacific and is half the size, then, at worst, DL is ON PAR w/ UA in terms of Pacfic margins, is it not?
and third, for all 3 global regions, AA reported just a $178 million profit. Its Latin system was the only profit unit. It's TATL system lost over $500 million and its small Pacific system lost $100 million even after cutting huge parts of its network.
DL's TATL system was its shining star and the star of the industry. All of DL's global regions made $1.3 billion in profits with $900 million of that across the Atlantic. It had the smallest profit to Latin America but also had the smallest revenue of the big 3 - which is why its Latam JV is such a big deal. In the 4th quarter when DL started aggressively growing to Latin America - and then late in the 4th quarter - DL's profit was about 85% of UA's. As noted, DL's Pacific network made $200 million to UA's $400.
And UA's Achilles heel is TATL which is also its largest. DL made 2.4X UA's $380 million TATL profit for the first 3 quarters.
UA execs themselves have said they aren't growing TATL in 2024 but rather just reshuffling capacity - esp. from Northern Europe where UA is traditionally strong to Southern Europe - and yet DL is growing in N. Europe and will continue to do so via the SAS JV that is coming.
So, UA really doesn't have an advantage due to its larger size. Even across the Pacific, they do just as good but no better than DL. Same for Latin America. And their TATL system is nowhere near UA needs it to be.
To not recognize the implications of these numbers as DL grows its Pacific network and continues to grow to Europe while stepping up its game dramatically to Latin America is to live with your head between your knees
So called “50 years” in the industry and you can’t even use the right numbers? Those 50 years are EBITDA years, it’s more likely negative if you actually base them on anything worth merit.
UA had 580M in TATL for Q1-Q3 2023, not 380M if you’re going to make an argument with numbers know how actually read them. For someone who always preaches regional profitability reported to the DOT as Gospel, you should be able...
So called “50 years” in the industry and you can’t even use the right numbers? Those 50 years are EBITDA years, it’s more likely negative if you actually base them on anything worth merit.
UA had 580M in TATL for Q1-Q3 2023, not 380M if you’re going to make an argument with numbers know how actually read them. For someone who always preaches regional profitability reported to the DOT as Gospel, you should be able to understand them but that’s par for Tim Dunn, the Hanger Queen.
And no, we don’t need to use AA’s unmatched Latin system to say that UA has twice the profits and revenue in the Pacific over DL. AA’s Latin is also higher margin than TATL, TPAC, and Latin for DL. US-Mexico is the third largest international passenger transportation market in the world, second for the US (after US-Canada), and first for Mexico. So DL losing its JV with AM is a massive disadvantage for its Latin system especially with the lack of a TX hub to compete.
You can stick to your meaningless conjecture, since dealing to numbers and facts aren’t your strong suit.
Age certainly hasn’t been kind to you. If only you had as much knowledge as you have arrogance.
you were doing so well and then fell off the cliff.
1. airlines don't make up their finances to make fans feel good. Their finances are what they are.
2. UA lost money for years flying the Pacific and is seeing such a large improvement because of Chinese capacity restrictions. Even using your own numbers, DL and UA have comparable margins. UA just happens to be twice as large.
3. Across the...
you were doing so well and then fell off the cliff.
1. airlines don't make up their finances to make fans feel good. Their finances are what they are.
2. UA lost money for years flying the Pacific and is seeing such a large improvement because of Chinese capacity restrictions. Even using your own numbers, DL and UA have comparable margins. UA just happens to be twice as large.
3. Across the Atlantic, UA makes a fraction of DL - and UA's own execs confirmed that they are not generating margins that meet their expectations. When the smoke indicates there is a fire, there is a fire. UA threw tons of capacity into the Atlantic post-covid because it had the planes and didn't generate the profits doing so. and UA is structurally much weaker to the UK than AA or DL because of the JVs those two have. Add in the movement of SAS to SkyTeam and the implications are much more negative for Star and UA than losing ITA which wasn't a part of the AF-DL-KL-VS JV.
4. AA's Latin profits come from S. America, not Mexico and Central America. And AM and DL could not codeshare so could not get the benefits of the JV for 2 years. They will both be fine. and the Mexican government could well finally get the message to fix the slot allocation process. DL isn't the only US airline that has been harmed. and AA's Latin profits are what supports their international system which is why they aren't trying to keep up w/ DL or UA across the Atlantic or Pacific. And they haven't turned the Pacific around despite dropping a number of routes.
5. You still can't grasp or admit that DL manages to generate 60% more profits than UA on a system basis. Feel free to let us know where that takes place but it is real. Unlike what its fan kids think, you can't just move profits from one region to another w/o taking them from somewhere else. UA's identity is tied to its international network and yet it doesn't deliver profits on par w/ DL's - on top of the fact that UA's domestic revenue is considerably smaller than AA or DL's and yet UA thinks they will magically add a bunch of capacity that will be unchecked by competition and generate margins as high as AA or DL's.
I get the fan element that all of us bring to the table but you, as smart as you are, clearly don't want to deal w/ the bottom line facts and all of the sub-items that support them.
DL is simply running the best business and that has major implications of where DL can and will grow compared to its peers.
Australia for now is a focus of big 3 growth and DL is just as capable if not more so of making that growth sustainably work
btw, you might - or might not be credible with your use of data - but your spelling is more than a tad off.
Check the correct spelling of the name of the covered structure where planes can park. It is not "hanger"
You used the word incorrectly twice. I generally don't nitpick when someone does something wrong once but you did it twice.
Save the lecturing and pick up a dictionary esp. for words that are clearly aviation-related.
Delta won't have a jet that can profitably serve those locations til the -1000s come.
The reason they chose BNE over Melbourne likely comes down to range.
Based on what? lol
What is the "that route" in reference? If you're talking about LAX-PVG, then that's not true, as all three carriers served it until the pandemic shutdown.
Help me out here - why, in your humble opinion, is the Seattle - Taipei route "very unlikely to succeed"? Do you have any empirical data? Or is it just wishful hoping for Delta to fail?
I think it'll be bad. There's way too much capacity there now, and this will make it even worse. Good luck!
What on Earth are you talking about?
Have you SEEN the fares/redemption rates commanded right now?? --that's not something that happens nor sustains in an over-saturated market. Which is one of the reasons so many are jumping in.
Not that it should be surprising. Virgin pulled out completely, Qantas has pulled most of its A380s and all of its former 747s off the routes, and UA has pulled its largest aircraft as well... all in favor of mostly 787s plus Delta's A350s.
I have SEEN the load factors for every airline on every route. I have also TALKED to people at a few airlines who i've worked with in the past who still monitor/manage these markets. Literally everybody tells me that this is the time to go if you want to use upgrades. That's indicative of an overserved/ saturated market. In addition, colleagues of mine are going to Australia in March, and just the other day they...
I have SEEN the load factors for every airline on every route. I have also TALKED to people at a few airlines who i've worked with in the past who still monitor/manage these markets. Literally everybody tells me that this is the time to go if you want to use upgrades. That's indicative of an overserved/ saturated market. In addition, colleagues of mine are going to Australia in March, and just the other day they were able to get roundtrip tickets from Washington DC to Sydney in March for $1000 roundtrip. That's how much I paid 22 years ago when I went. The market is a bloodbath.
Here ya go. This'll help:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdotal
Anecdotal? The U.S. Government posts the load factors in their T100 filings. These arent anecdotes, they're facts. For performance, I trust the actual people who manage the markets' performance at the airlines more than you.
but you don't think that Delta knows what it is doing in choosing to enter the market, am I right?
Delta will never fly a route if they cannot make money there.
What are YOU talking about?
Have you seen the load factors on US-Australia?
VA were never a big player in comparison to QF. UA dumped too much capacity into Oceania. It was likely a result of China not opening up, that UA needed to find places to send those 77Ws and 789s to. QF and NZ have restored most of capacity to the US. UA and DL added additional to the market. I was hearing about the bad LFs and spot checked a few weeks of the seat...
VA were never a big player in comparison to QF. UA dumped too much capacity into Oceania. It was likely a result of China not opening up, that UA needed to find places to send those 77Ws and 789s to. QF and NZ have restored most of capacity to the US. UA and DL added additional to the market. I was hearing about the bad LFs and spot checked a few weeks of the seat map on day of departure - not pretty. Redemption cost and/or fares may or may not be a good indictor of LF and profitability.
Not sure that up-to 3x daily 777-300ERs, at some points, could ever be called "never a big player" in any context.
How about in the context of QF operating A380/747/330 from SYD/MEL/BNE to LAX/SFO/DFW which are more than double in frequency alone? The capacity DL and UA have added in '23 far outweighed the 3 daily 77W. Hence, the point of overcapacity in the market now.
This is an interesting add. It's surprising to see Delta add Brisbane before Melbourne, it seems like a missed opportunity.
May be it has to do with distance. They chose Brisbane over Melbourne because their current A350s which have 306 seats can easily fly to Brisbane without payload restrictions. Melbourne may launch with the arrival of their 275 seats A350s which will have 40 Delta One suites instead of the current 32 D1 suites.
Their current 280tonne A359 wouldn't have any difficulty whatsoever with the likes of LAX-MEL.
Far more likely a matter of wanting more business seats. The three extra tonnes of available takeoff weight (and 1 less tonne of empty weight) in the upcoming 275seaters, won't hurt though.