Roughly a decade ago, Delta Air Lines created a hub in Seattle, going head-to-head against Alaska Airlines. This caused quite a bit of drama, since historically the two airlines had a partnership.
With the partnership, Delta started operating long haul flights out of Seattle, and partnered with Alaska to provide domestic feed for those flights. Delta had an ulterior motive, because eventually Delta dumped Alaska, and decided to greatly expand its domestic feed there as well, going from being Alaska’s best friend to being Alaska’s worst enemy.
Fortunately Alaska got the last laugh here. Not only is Seattle the poorest performing hub for Delta, but it’s the poorest performing hub for any major US airline. Ouch.
In this post:
Delta’s yields out of Seattle are not good
Enilria consistently has fascinating, data-backed airline insights, and most recently writes about the least profitable hubs for major US airlines. This is done by comparing the revenue per available seat mile, adjusted for distance flown, compared against a carrier’s other routes.
That’s a good metric, because after all, an airplane is a valuable asset, and you want to deploy it in the markets where you can get the most revenue per available seat.
When you crunch the numbers with that methodology, the single least profitable hub of any major US airline is Delta’s hub in Seattle. Only 5% of the carrier’s routes out of the airport aren’t in the bottom 40% of the carrier’s network in terms of revenue per available seat mile.
Apparently the hub has been performing very poorly for years now, but it seems the situation is getting even worse. A year ago, 7% of routes weren’t in the bottom 40% of Delta’s routes, while now that number is down to just 5%.
Enilria does add the following caveat about this math, which is important to note:
Now, to be fair, this report only uses publicly available DOT data which means it does not include international revenue, but we also don’t include the international routes AND we assume the missing international connect passengers on domestic flights are contributing the same amount of prorated dollars per ticket as the domestic connect passengers on the planes (we use industry standard root of the miles proration). So it’s pretty accurate.
However, the same methodology is used for all hubs. Furthermore, the fact that Delta has done very little to grow its international network out of Seattle in recent years suggests that the international network isn’t exactly a roaring success either.
Why is Delta struggling so much in Seattle?
This raises a couple of questions — why is Seattle such a weak point in Delta’s network, and why does Delta continue to maintain its presence there?
Why is the carrier struggling in Seattle? The way I see it:
- Delta is most successful in markets where it has little competition, like Atlanta, Detroit, and Minneapolis, where the airline has fortress hubs, and can keep fares high; in Seattle, the airline has to compete fiercely against Alaska, and other carriers
- Delta has high costs, but isn’t necessarily able to command a revenue premium in a market as competitive as this
- People in Seattle largely continue to be fiercely loyal to Alaska, and it’s tough to take on an incumbent airline
- Seattle just isn’t a good connecting domestic hub, given its geography, and often the most profitable hubs are those that are heavily focused on connecting domestic traffic (like Delta’s Detroit hub, American’s Charlotte hub, etc.)
- Seattle has seen a huge increase in air service in the past decade, both domestically and internationally, and I imagine Delta wasn’t expecting that when it first set up shop there
- Maybe the carrier was hoping for long term growth across the Pacific, and admittedly there have been some major setbacks for that since the start of the pandemic
If the carrier is performing poorly in Seattle, why doesn’t it greatly pull back its network there?
- Delta is a proud airline, and the airline seems happy maintaining a strategy, even if it’s not succeeding; for better or worse, American just constantly jump out of markets if they’re not succeeding (like what American is doing in Austin), and it’s why the airline seems to lack a strategy at times
- Strategically, Delta probably thinks it needs a strong hub on the West Coast, and a transpacific gateway; Los Angeles is a tricky airport because all of the “big three” US carriers have a sizable presence there, and no airline seems able to take a dominant position
- If Delta retreats from Seattle, the airline won’t be able to get substantial gate space in the future, so I imagine the airline wants to maintain its presence to prevent other airlines from growing there (but to what end?)
The big question now is how this progresses over time. Will Delta maintain its presence in Seattle? Will the airline grow? Will it shrink?
Bottom line
Seattle is Delta’s least profitable domestic hub based on revenue per available seat mile, with only 5% of routes not being in the carrier’s bottom 40% of routes in terms of performance. This isn’t just Delta’s weakest hub, but it’s the weakest hub of any major US airline compared to the carrier’s overall network.
It’s interesting to see how Delta has basically maintained its presence in Seattle for years now, with limited adjustments. The airline isn’t pulling back significantly, but also isn’t growing significantly. I’m curious if Delta eventually has a strategy shift in Seattle, or just maintains the status quo.
What do you make of Delta’s Seattle struggles?
"Delta hasn't grown international out of SEA the last few years". Um. There was a pandemic.
Asia is still not where it was in 2019. I highly doubt DL will close up shop in SEA. Where would they go? They tried PDX. Didn't work. They can't do SFO (UA) or LAX (too many fighting for traffic), so what option is there? DL has corporate contracts in SEA and continues to invest money there. I'm...
"Delta hasn't grown international out of SEA the last few years". Um. There was a pandemic.
Asia is still not where it was in 2019. I highly doubt DL will close up shop in SEA. Where would they go? They tried PDX. Didn't work. They can't do SFO (UA) or LAX (too many fighting for traffic), so what option is there? DL has corporate contracts in SEA and continues to invest money there. I'm MVP Gold on AS and still use DL regularly, especially for long-haul first class (AS either doesn't fly there or if they do-without TV screens). No thanks.
Actually, when Delta started at strategic partnership with Alaska and did not have ulterior motives. It wanted to grow that partnership. The CEO at the time, Richard Anderson, asked Alaska to discontinue their coexisting partnership with American Airlines. Alaska promised Anderson that they would, but when it came time to sign the next contract with American, Alaska went ahead and did it. Anderson then decided Delta would make Seattle a Hub and go ahead to...
Actually, when Delta started at strategic partnership with Alaska and did not have ulterior motives. It wanted to grow that partnership. The CEO at the time, Richard Anderson, asked Alaska to discontinue their coexisting partnership with American Airlines. Alaska promised Anderson that they would, but when it came time to sign the next contract with American, Alaska went ahead and did it. Anderson then decided Delta would make Seattle a Hub and go ahead to head with Alaska.
SeaTac is one if the worst major airports in the country.
I’m a delta loyalist but I pick Alaska often because they either offer a nonstop flight like Sea to Dal or better flight time choices For example I just bought a sea to Koa ticket. All delta return flights are red eyes. So I went with Alaska.
The author also says that DL hasn't done well in SEA in the last few years.
That would be during Covid, so no kidding,
Moreover DL has been contrainted by a substantial construction project at the Seattle airport, substantially expanding its customs facilities and is now in the process of adding gates.
I wouldn't read too much into DL's performance over the last few years as an indicator of the fundamental health of the hub.
The history of Delta in Seattle here is wrong.
Delta added ATL-SEA as one of its first routes in the first days of deregulation. Later it bought Western Airlines and became a player up and down the West Coast. It cut back that service quickly with the purchase of WA and concentrated on boosting the newly acquired SLC hub, leaving an opening for AS to expand against UA.
DL was a small, but important...
The history of Delta in Seattle here is wrong.
Delta added ATL-SEA as one of its first routes in the first days of deregulation. Later it bought Western Airlines and became a player up and down the West Coast. It cut back that service quickly with the purchase of WA and concentrated on boosting the newly acquired SLC hub, leaving an opening for AS to expand against UA.
DL was a small, but important player in SEA, flying L-1011's and 757's to ATL at a time when AS's 727's didn't have the range and dominating travel from the Northwest to the Southeast.
Then, DL bought NW and overnight became a major player in SEA. It dismantled its struggle transpacific hub in PDX and began its expansion in SEA in earnest.
It's not like DL just appeared one morning to challenge AS head-to-head in its current form. DL may be less profitable in SEA than AS, when comparing O&D traffic, but that doesn't mean it's not profitable and not absolutely essential to DL as a whole.
There is a missing piece here. The way the numbers are calculated in this study only considers Seattle origin and destination traffic. In that regard, AS is no doubt ahead.
But SEA is DL's main transpacific gateway. Without SEA, DL would be a bit player across the Pacifc. DL can do relatively poorly compared to AS in the SEA O&D market and the city still be valuable.
Being #2 in a hub city is always a struggle.
"Fortunately Alaska got the last laugh here" -- interesting take. This site has tilted towards full-on Delta trolling lately.
As a Seattle-based flyer, I'm glad Delta is here and giving AS some competition. They have less frequency on most routes, but the onboard experience is a little better, in my opinion. Prices are similar. A big advantage for DL in Seattle are the international departures.
I like AS just fine, and I'm glad we have...
"Fortunately Alaska got the last laugh here" -- interesting take. This site has tilted towards full-on Delta trolling lately.
As a Seattle-based flyer, I'm glad Delta is here and giving AS some competition. They have less frequency on most routes, but the onboard experience is a little better, in my opinion. Prices are similar. A big advantage for DL in Seattle are the international departures.
I like AS just fine, and I'm glad we have a hometown airline, but I've been on the wrong end of too many cancelled flights and various AS shenanigans to feel any strong loyalty towards them.
I’m confused. The way this article is written, it implies that Alaska isn’t doing any better as having SEA as its main HUB. Can you please elaborate?
With the demise of the big 6 into the monstrous 3, competition at many U.S. airports came to an end. America used to have one of the best commercial aviation markets with real competition. It seems like collusion carved up the U.S. market. AA owns DFW/MIA, United owns DEN/HOU/EWR Delta owns SLC/DTW e.g. Many towns now have either one carrier or none. Eventually the U.S. will get down to one air carrier: the nu Interflug.
There is more competion within the top 100 origin and destination city pairs than anyone could have dreamed of before deregulation and prices are below what they were 40 years ago in real dollars.
That is a success story by any measure.
Delta is a great airline, but I'd rather fly every international carrier that Alaska code shares with before DAL. That's their problem. Why fly on Delta when I can get on JAL, Cathay, Qantas or British for less? Delta will continue to lose against the alliance.
It is incredibly challenging to grow a major hub without significantly large numbers of new passengers. Seattle has seen a lot of newcomers, so time will tell how that plays out for Delta’s hub. That said, DL flies mainly smaller aircraft from SEA with the exception of flights to its main hubs, ANC and Hawaii. That will necessarily increase CASM and compromise RASM. It’s also unattractive to many passengers. Who wants to fly an A220...
It is incredibly challenging to grow a major hub without significantly large numbers of new passengers. Seattle has seen a lot of newcomers, so time will tell how that plays out for Delta’s hub. That said, DL flies mainly smaller aircraft from SEA with the exception of flights to its main hubs, ANC and Hawaii. That will necessarily increase CASM and compromise RASM. It’s also unattractive to many passengers. Who wants to fly an A220 from SEA to IAD? DL is definitely in a tight spot in SEA, and this all brings back memories of the Northwest hub in MEM.
"Who wants to fly an A220 from SEA to IAD?"
I do, I will pick an A220 or E175 over a 737/A320 100% of the time. Fewer middle seats and better chances of upgrades. 3X3 narrowbodies are the worst layout for comfort.
I think the author doesn't have enough historical insight. Delta was cool with Alaska as a partner as it was a natural growth from the Horizon days and Northwest being partners for over 20 years. When they couldn't provide enough code share seats to feed the network, what else do you want Delta to do? Sit back? They were in aggressive growth mode. Alaska got cranky and started routes from SLC, which they ultimately retreated from. Guess we won't mention that either.
To expand on this. NWA had a good relationship with alaska. When delta bought new the pulled routes out.
Delta having something is important due to Asian partners that fly in to seattle
United tried to do a presence and pulled out. Delta general gained pax from non alaska airlines.
Southwest has pulled back on routes other than the west coast routes. Flying east from seattle you generally have limited coverage connecting in mdw...
To expand on this. NWA had a good relationship with alaska. When delta bought new the pulled routes out.
Delta having something is important due to Asian partners that fly in to seattle
United tried to do a presence and pulled out. Delta general gained pax from non alaska airlines.
Southwest has pulled back on routes other than the west coast routes. Flying east from seattle you generally have limited coverage connecting in mdw or den. Flying on a certain day you might have only 1-2 options to book.
UA didn't "try to do a presence". UA was the dominant carrier in SEA for decades. UA dedcided to dismantle SEA as a "hub", such as it was, and redeploy the assets where they were more efficient.
I think Delta needs desperately to BRING BACK THE ORIENT, DUH?
IN ADDITION TO SEA-HND, SEA-ICN, SEA-PVG
ADD
SEA-BKK,SEA-SIN,SEA-MNL, SEA-HKG, SEA-TPE, SEA-OSA
BRING BACK THE ORIENT
BRING BACK THE ORIENT NOT JUST FROM SEA
It’s important to note that any flying past PVG or TPE is largely unprofitable for American carriers. RASM is low, CASM is high as the markets require extra aircraft with long-haul capabilities, and there is less demand for business class to those places. SQ does well because of its centrally located hub and PR because of its lower costs. The US carriers do not have those advantages.
northwest made a killing on these routes by keeping costs low with the use of Asia based flight attendants to complement the US based crew. while I am no expert on this, I am in awe at the great Delta pullback from the Orient.
Delta did NOT have ulterior motives when they ended the Alaska partnership. Alaska was not providing the number of expected connecting passengers to Delta’s Pacific flights. Delta tested providing its own connecting passengers and found that they were able to dramatically increase the number of passengers over what Alaska had.
UA SFO cities: (TPAC) SYD MEL BNE CHC AKL PPT SIN MNL TPE HKG PVG PEK ICN KIX NRT HND
(TATL) LHR FRA MUC CDG FCO ZRH TLV (and DEL if not for airspace issues)
DL SEA: (ALL) PVG HND ICN LGR CDG AMS
What the heck is DL even doing? Talk about no vision!
It might have to do with, on a lot of routes their schedule is not competitive. For example SEA-ORD, only two flights a day, one at 6:00 AM and one at 6:00 PM, approximately.
Alaska has way more options. Recently my wife flew to ORD and back, we’d have preferred to fly Delta but she wanted a noon flight, so it had to be Alaska.
Last week I flew to ONT on business....
It might have to do with, on a lot of routes their schedule is not competitive. For example SEA-ORD, only two flights a day, one at 6:00 AM and one at 6:00 PM, approximately.
Alaska has way more options. Recently my wife flew to ORD and back, we’d have preferred to fly Delta but she wanted a noon flight, so it had to be Alaska.
Last week I flew to ONT on business. Before it was a great schedule for a one day trip, early morning to ONT, early evening to SEA. Those flights are no more. For the first time in over 10 years I flew Alaska.
Bottom line, Delta schedules from SEA are inconvenient and non competitive. I’m a Delta 4 million miler and I’d way rather fly them, but business needs dictate who I fly.
I worked for WesternAirline..merged with Delta 1987
Delta is 14billion revenue vs Alaska 1billion
Time for Delta to pull a Western?
Buy Alaska!!
That proposal would never get government approval
Absolutely not.
And Hawaiian Air
The US Gov is currently fighting the proposed JetBlue - Spirit merger in Court.
I doubt Uncle Sam would allow an Alaska - Delta merger.
Might allow a Hawaiian - Alaska merger just to challenge the BIG THREE!!!
That would never be allowed.
DL and WA had virtually no overlap in their routes.
There have been a few times we shopped Delta vs Alaska and typically Delta would have two inconvenient flights /day to where we were going and Alaska would have 4 or 5.
They should move the SEA international flying to SLC
Are you referring to transpacifically? SLC would have to use 2 aircraft to cover the same ground round trip… out of Seattle to Asia, you can use the same aircraft because the distance is less.
Why in the world would they do that? SLC already has equivalent European destinations, doesn't have a fraction of the demand for Asia, would always require multiple aircraft for a daily turnaround, and has a high altitude factor affecting takeoffs.
Moving flights there would be about the worst solution they could possibly find.
Northwest Orient had a pretty big presence in Seattle, why it falters now May be of Delta’s own doing for whatever reason like maybe they stayed too focused on Salt Lake or growing Boston as the largest carrier now there. But to walk away from it in my opinion would be a huge mistake. It’s sad to hear their relationship with Alaska has also faltered. They too are a great Airline.
^^^ All of this ^^^
"Delta [or insert most any company name] is most successful in markets where it has little competition"
A flashback to my Business 101 class many, many years ago :)
Somehow Delta has managed to become not just the largest airline at LGA, JFK, BOS and LAX - and still be the most profitable airline in the world - but, of course, they can't make it in competitive markets.
Your slip is showing, madam
Largest in those cities doesn’t necessarily mean most profitable, and it certainly doesn’t mean they make big profits in those ultra-competitive cities.
And now that you’ve admitted that the theory of DL’s fortress hubs are what you learned in business school, can we agree that their revenue is due to those hubs and not due to people paying extra to fly such a “premium” airline?
Timmy - You must eat at McDonalds every meal, every day. Most profitable = Most premium
again, you would like us to believe that Delta makes SO MUCH money in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC that they can support four unprofitable hubs in LGA, JFK, BOS, SEA and LAX.
...that notion is patently ridiculous if for no other reason than it completely explains why AA and UA are completely incapable of delivering the level of profitability DL has in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC in AA and UA's own hubs.
again, you would like us to believe that Delta makes SO MUCH money in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC that they can support four unprofitable hubs in LGA, JFK, BOS, SEA and LAX.
that notion is patently ridiculous if for no other reason than it completely explains why AA and UA are completely incapable of delivering the level of profitability DL has in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC in AA and UA's own hubs.
Give up the stupidity and realize that Delta really does make money in highly competitive markets.
Tim,
You've offered no **proof** that Delta is "the most profitable airline in the world". If Delta has consistently been THE most profitable airline in the world, then why did it have to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy while Southwest was consistently profitable?
@Tim Dunn :
Makes it THAT much more tragic doesn’t it -
delta being Largest at JFK *and* LGA AND still utterly fail to dethrone UA as NYC-wide #1 in either pax volume or available seats (probably also in ASM and RASM)
sucks to be you
All this article proves is:
1. the power of social media to amplify noise and to guise a whole lot of bias for fact in the hope that the masses are moved to change their mind.
2. the "data" that was the basis of this is incomplete. Period. To even draw conclusions is simply wrong and it is true about EVERY US airline that operates a flight to a destination outside of the...
All this article proves is:
1. the power of social media to amplify noise and to guise a whole lot of bias for fact in the hope that the masses are moved to change their mind.
2. the "data" that was the basis of this is incomplete. Period. To even draw conclusions is simply wrong and it is true about EVERY US airline that operates a flight to a destination outside of the US. The analysis isn't even based on current data. So we have conclusions being drawn from old AND incomplete data.
3. If you we are to believe airline social media including all kinds of comments here, Delta subsidizes 4 poor performing coastal hubs with 4 highly profitable core hubs. And yet, the real question is how Delta in 45 years of deregulation managed to build 4 hubs that are capable of supporting 4 "dead hubs" and yet Delta is the most profitable airline on the planet. The whole thesis is wholly sophomoric and flimsy. and it is based solely in an inability to accept that Delta, and only Delta among the big 3, has been able to build 2 hubs in other airline hubs - SEA in AS' hometown, and BOS in B6' second biggest hub.
Pre-covid, DL generated 75% of the local market revenue in SEA that AS generated w/ half the flights; that number has not recovered because Asia has not recovered but DL's flight count at SEA is stable, something they haven't even done in some of their core hubs. In BOS, DL has surpassed B6 in the number of flights and local market revenue.
Let's not forget that OMAAT and other sites have comments because they get ad revenue based on how many clicks their sites generate. Clearly the core credit card and mileage advise doesn't pay the bills so Ben talks about all kinds of travel related topics but they all have the same bottom line -it is social media which means lots of bias, is devoid of true analysis, and a whole lot of people have an opinion that will do absolutely nothing to change anything.
So much of your usual nonsense and lies but per #3, that’s per delta’s investor day. I know you hate it but DELTA tells people their profits come from their interior fortress hubs. They say nothing about their profits from coastal hubs. They call them strategic lol
Get a life, troll
Pardon me. They reaffirm it in investor days recently but delta has wisely not been nearly as explicit as they were on their capital markets day where they made it clear their core hubs are the reason they’re profitable then they call their coastal hubs “enablers” of growth and also make no claim about low costs there like they do with core hubs.
Slide 27 for everyone else. I’m sure Tim will have some way...
Pardon me. They reaffirm it in investor days recently but delta has wisely not been nearly as explicit as they were on their capital markets day where they made it clear their core hubs are the reason they’re profitable then they call their coastal hubs “enablers” of growth and also make no claim about low costs there like they do with core hubs.
Slide 27 for everyone else. I’m sure Tim will have some way to weasel out of this. Despite delta saying it.
https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/doc_presentations/2021/12/CMD-Presentation-FINAL-12.15.21-For-Website-vF.pdf
Delta did NOT say that its coastal hubs are unprofitable. They HAVE said that the majority of their profits DO come from their interior US hubs.
I know you aren't the sharpest tack in the desk drawer, Max, but surely you understand the difference between saying that SOME hubs deliver higher profits and others saying that SOME hubs aren't even profitable.
And you still can't explain why AA and UA don't have even higher profitability...
Delta did NOT say that its coastal hubs are unprofitable. They HAVE said that the majority of their profits DO come from their interior US hubs.
I know you aren't the sharpest tack in the desk drawer, Max, but surely you understand the difference between saying that SOME hubs deliver higher profits and others saying that SOME hubs aren't even profitable.
And you still can't explain why AA and UA don't have even higher profitability than DL since they don't have 4 hubs that are dragging down their profits. Deregulation happened at the same time for DL as for everyone else so how has DL been able to build 4 massively profitable interior US hubs but AA and UA could not.
We'll wait... and wait.... and wait.
Your ignorance never ceases to amuse, tim
Here’s what delta’s own presentation tells us.
Delta charges more to captive (interior) hubs where they have no competition (and they grab gates to ensure that stays the same) at places with lower costs than coastal hubs. You must hate that I showed where delta posted this with slide reference as well ;)
And yep. Delta charges more than anyone else via monopolistic pricing. That’s your...
Your ignorance never ceases to amuse, tim
Here’s what delta’s own presentation tells us.
Delta charges more to captive (interior) hubs where they have no competition (and they grab gates to ensure that stays the same) at places with lower costs than coastal hubs. You must hate that I showed where delta posted this with slide reference as well ;)
And yep. Delta charges more than anyone else via monopolistic pricing. That’s your reason. There’s no true delta revenue premium. Anyone with a brain that worked in RM knows premium pricing comes from frequency not a screen. And delta has that frequency premium in most markets you love to mention. But they are consistently losing it in SE markets where aa is beating them on frequency
We could talk about how delta screws their own workforce in ways they don’t know but it would be over your head since you don’t know anything about cost considerations and the cost reason delta pays millions to prevent unionization via SVPs from wal mart paid to prevent unionization
But again. You don’t know anything about cost because you never worked in it and betray your own incompetence on the issue at every step. Among many reasons you don’t work for delta anymore despite your undying love
Go back to your usual nonsense. Debating facts never suits you; you only excel at lying and twisting data that doesn’t even relate to your point
Tim, You consistently use incomplete and partial data. But I guess it's okay when you do it, huh?
I had a business flight from SEA to SFO, delayed for 3+ hours and the Delta's reason was they could not find a pilot!
Delta is committed to Seattle, and is even investing more to prove it. I know they are building a new Sky Club and have plans to get to over 200 flights by next summer. The key here is "least profitable hub." If it was not profitable, then I could see Delta consider pulling the plug. However, they seem to be running a solid airline out of Seattle.
I do like Alaska, and as a...
Delta is committed to Seattle, and is even investing more to prove it. I know they are building a new Sky Club and have plans to get to over 200 flights by next summer. The key here is "least profitable hub." If it was not profitable, then I could see Delta consider pulling the plug. However, they seem to be running a solid airline out of Seattle.
I do like Alaska, and as a Seattle resident, I prefer them. But!!! I won't hesitate in the least to buy a Delta ticket if the price is right, and they serve an airport Alaska doesn't serve. I would like to revisit this topic in 5 years. We all know things can rapidly change in this industry.
I remember when all this first happened, Alaska/Delta got along just fine. I was in sea at the time, but for a powerhouse the size of delta, they also need a strong feed. Alaska I don’t believe could provide that enough. They have as you said, their own strong loyalty base of customers. Delta moved on to a strong feed of their own. Not a negative, but supply, demand, and connections.
Delta isn’t able to grow in Seattle due to space constraints. I don’t see Delta pulling back operations in SEA. The Port of Seattle just allocated DL an additional gate
Delta seriously missed out on connecting their Oceanic flights through Seattle. SYD-SEA and AKL-SEA would be a much better route to operate with much better connections than Los Angeles while also competing in markets that aren't flooded with competition.
Would also allow for better connections to Europe as well.
Don't see it. Seattle is a longer flight from both SYD and AKL (nearly 500 miles further in the case of AKL). And it's more isolated from US population centers than LA when it comes to connecting traffic. Also, Seattle (and the US in general) really don't make sense to connect onward to Europe, especially from Australia, where it's 2,000 miles shorter to go via Singapore or elsewhere in Asia (not to mention the hassle of US immigration).
Why do DL posts get so much augida from everyone?
They’re successful on many metrics …so be it. Other airlines have their own success stories, though usually by different metrics
Agreed. I think Timmy is literally 33% of the comments on this post, and another 20% telling him to "Go to sleep" or "Your going to be late for Your cult meeting".
@Darnell, this is the second comment on this thread where you’ve used the phrase “undescended testicles” as an insult, which is just really really weird. I have to assume you’re intentionally trying to be a parody, because a normal person would never say that…
because so many know that Delta really heads and shoulders above the rest of the industry and, in an industry where brand loyalty, including from employees is as intense as it is, a whole lot of people want to see Delta fall off their pinnacle.
Trying to justify that other carriers succeed in other metrics is a copout when those metrics for other airlines simply are bragging points that hide things that do matter such...
because so many know that Delta really heads and shoulders above the rest of the industry and, in an industry where brand loyalty, including from employees is as intense as it is, a whole lot of people want to see Delta fall off their pinnacle.
Trying to justify that other carriers succeed in other metrics is a copout when those metrics for other airlines simply are bragging points that hide things that do matter such as the amount of carbon emissions spewed into the atmosphere.
As a former airline executive, I’d kick you out of the conference room in minutes. Myopic.
I always warned my teams about analysis paralysis.
I learned my lessons immediately after 9/11, and we made big profits even after those dark days…also factoring cargo in the mix.
I'm not sure who you worked for but you would do THEM a favor by not posting it here. They are undoubtedly glad you aren't there any more based on what you have told us in this set of replies.
The literal point of everything I have posted is that someone with PARTIAL access to a little bit of data drew all kinds of conclusions. That is the complete opposite of analysis paralysis where...
I'm not sure who you worked for but you would do THEM a favor by not posting it here. They are undoubtedly glad you aren't there any more based on what you have told us in this set of replies.
The literal point of everything I have posted is that someone with PARTIAL access to a little bit of data drew all kinds of conclusions. That is the complete opposite of analysis paralysis where rich data is overexamined with an inability to come to a decision.
This entire article - as most of social media - is nothing but a lot of bias veiled under a few "facts" hoping that a whole lot of people will change their minds about anything.
And this is why you would be a poor hire.
I never mentioned the airline, as I have discretion. So WTF?
Looking after many departments I was once confused about a hiring decision. My wise boss asked me a simple question: "Who do you you like, who do you want to work with?" Simple question. I hired the humble guy.
You'd never make the cut.
(it's an airline that you' probably know, as it's DL aligned)
Leigh get its. DL especially and more so than its peers, hires for attitude. Talent can be taught, attitude not so much.
The irony of Tim telling an industry executive who weathered 9/11 that they’re out of their element is quite telling.
Tim himself was 86ed during Leadership 7.5 because among his many deficiencies had the performance record of a sandbag; filled with too much arrogance and devoid of any talent.
Even the ballasts in...
Leigh get its. DL especially and more so than its peers, hires for attitude. Talent can be taught, attitude not so much.
The irony of Tim telling an industry executive who weathered 9/11 that they’re out of their element is quite telling.
Tim himself was 86ed during Leadership 7.5 because among his many deficiencies had the performance record of a sandbag; filled with too much arrogance and devoid of any talent.
Even the ballasts in the cargo hold, couldn’t weigh the airline down as much as Tim did during his tenure at DL. Tim contributes nothing of value to DL but does a wonderful job of rallying detractors against the airline.
All hail the Hanger Queen Tim Dunn!
Lucky made an excellent point. Delta has not really made any significant growth across the Pacific. It used to fly to Hong Kong until it was cut in 2018. Yet, UA and AA can still make it work. It really does not seem that DL can compete in Asia. It eliminated its point to point intra-Asia flights. Customers would prefer to fly with Asian carriers anyway given a choice of the airlines.
AA does not fly to HKG>
And in response to Ben's question, I said what I believe DL's Pacific strategy is. And my assessment is based on what they have said and done, not by what they did.
DL flew to most of its cities in Asia beyond Tokyo via the NRT hub - which is dead and cannot be resurrected.
1. DL is focused on preserving its LOCAL market presence in...
AA does not fly to HKG>
And in response to Ben's question, I said what I believe DL's Pacific strategy is. And my assessment is based on what they have said and done, not by what they did.
DL flew to most of its cities in Asia beyond Tokyo via the NRT hub - which is dead and cannot be resurrected.
1. DL is focused on preserving its LOCAL market presence in Tokyo - where it still has as many flights to Haneda, the preferred Tokyo airport, as any other US airline.
2. DL is building Seoul as its connecting hub for destinations beyond NE Asia
3. DL will continue to serve as much of China as it is permitted on its own metal. UA was the largest US carrier to China pre-covid but DL and UA are now the same size.
4. DL will develop flights beyond Tokyo, Seoul and China but they simply are not trying to be United; DL does in fact make more money per seat mile across the Pacific than any other US airline.
Tim, UA is bigger than DL in China when you include HKG. Even without HKG, UA carries more pax to China since they use 777-300s on their flights to PVG and PEK.
except China and HKG are governed by separate air service treaties.
United and Delta have the same number of flights to mainland China.
Considering how much larger United was to China alone pre-covid, the Chinese government and the US DOT's interpretation and application of the restrictions has been an enormous blow to UA in Asia. There simply is no sugar coating that reality
Not even your constant talk of how it’s a marathon, not a sprint? As China continues to reopen, UA has plenty of gateways that can support many flights to China.
DL’s “primary” gateway only has three flights. DL will hit the limit of what works to China well before UA does.
As China continues to reopen, UA has plenty of gateways that can support many flights to China.
Even before the Pandemic, UA had a grand total of 1 more continental US gateway to mainland China than DL.
Concorde
Pre covid, that’s a stupid point and you know it
Sfo had many more Chinese nonstops than anything delta could’ve fathomed from any gateway they have
Stop being a troll for no reason
Before you know it
You’ll be telling us the Concorde died due to the pdf, not 9/11, or something equally dumb ;)
Okay. AA pulled out of the Hong Kong market in 2022. My point is that DL does not fly to many Asian destinations on its own metal but they rely on its partners especially Korean Air. I had checked many flights to different places in Asia but couldn’t purchase a ticket and DL’s representative response was simply that they do not serve those destinations. I think UA serves a lot more destinations between Asia and...
Okay. AA pulled out of the Hong Kong market in 2022. My point is that DL does not fly to many Asian destinations on its own metal but they rely on its partners especially Korean Air. I had checked many flights to different places in Asia but couldn’t purchase a ticket and DL’s representative response was simply that they do not serve those destinations. I think UA serves a lot more destinations between Asia and the U.S.
I do agree with you that Delta must make quite a lot of money on those Asian routes that it serves but the list of destinations in Asia is lacking when compared to UA. It seems like that is why Delta has been more focused on European destinations.
Pan Am set its goal to serve cities all around the world. They no longer exist.
Delta generates half the revenue across the Pacific that UA does but even this year when UA says its Pacific profitability is at its peak, Delta is reporting 90% of the profits that UA gets.
AA reports 1/2 the Pacific revenue of DL or 1/4 of UA's. and AA is still losing money.
As much as you...
Pan Am set its goal to serve cities all around the world. They no longer exist.
Delta generates half the revenue across the Pacific that UA does but even this year when UA says its Pacific profitability is at its peak, Delta is reporting 90% of the profits that UA gets.
AA reports 1/2 the Pacific revenue of DL or 1/4 of UA's. and AA is still losing money.
As much as you would like to think the number of dots and lines on a route map is the measure of success, real data shows that DL's strategy generates more profit for every dollar of revenue than even United.
US airlines are for-profit companies. If you want to see airlines w/ no regard to profits, move to China.
Absent a corporate contract I don't know who would choose Delta for Pacific flights. Delta has pulled out of Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Manila, reduced Hawaii flights to/from Japan, and also dropped Guam, Palau, etc. United owns the Pacific now for domestic U.S. airlines. And if you have the money or other people's money and don't have to do United, you're probably flying a foreign airline across the Pacific. Delta just isn't in the equation.
You made a fine point about how more people would probably end up choosing to fly a foreign carrier to Asia. Totally agree with this.
Agree with many of the comments from others. I think Delta could expand to other destinations from Seattle.
"Delta is most successful in markets where it has little competition..." Guess we're just not considering LAX, JFK and LGA, three of the most competitive airports in the world - all where Delta is #1 in PAX market share.
Some more mind blowing analysis from Ben.
PAX share is not a measure of profitability.
and yet, if this type of analysis and social media is to be believed, DL only makes money at its ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC hubs and yet they manage to be the world's most profitable airline.
How, pray tell, if DL's 4 hubs are so strong that they can subsidize what others perceive as 4 money losing hubs, did DL manage to build 4 such profitable hubs and why can't any other airline duplicate ATL, DTW, MSP or SLC?
UA is the largest in NYC thanks to their powerful EWR hub.
DL in LAX is a percentage point bigger than the number two airline, and the top four are all within a few points of each other. Nobody makes great money in LAX due to all the intense domestic and international competition, but DL and AA don’t have UA’s SFO hub up the road so that have to make the best of it.
DL has been bleeding cash in JFK for years. Their massive investments in JFK have only recently begun to show a meaningful ROI.
and again, why can't other airlines duplicate what DL has in ATL, DTW, SLC and MSP so that other airlines can bleed money in big coastal hubs?
Seriously, do you know how beyond ridiculous you sound?
The domestic airline industry was deregulated 45 years ago but we are supposed to believe that DL does so well in 4 core hubs - which no other airlines can apparently duplicate - so they can lose...
and again, why can't other airlines duplicate what DL has in ATL, DTW, SLC and MSP so that other airlines can bleed money in big coastal hubs?
Seriously, do you know how beyond ridiculous you sound?
The domestic airline industry was deregulated 45 years ago but we are supposed to believe that DL does so well in 4 core hubs - which no other airlines can apparently duplicate - so they can lose money in 4 coastal hubs?
put the crack pipe down and accept that Delta couldn't possibly be the world's most profitable airline if they ran their network half as poorly as people like you and a few clowns that have access to a handful of data think.
Tim
Are you seriously asking why the American consumer should be demanding delta’s monopolistic pricing techniques continue to then be used to provide sub economic fares to gain share to eliminate competitors?
How stupid are you?
oh please AA shrunk so much at LAX that even UA jumped to 2nd spot without doing anything. Do you want a participation trophy ?
that’s more about the total implosion of AA LAX and not so much a testament of DL LAX
The better question you should be asking Atlanta is why being #1 at JFK *and* LGA and still failed to dethrone UA in just about any metric NYC-wide
I scrolled the 105 comments only to count how many times Tim Dunn replied. @Ben why let anyone person have twenty shots at any one post?
Robbie, you present yourself as a petulant little brat in this post.
Would you prefer healthy debate and discussion is something that should be censored because it upsets you?
Unless you have a set of undescended testicles, MAN UP and open your eyes to others opinions' - you just might find it interesting.
And yes, yes I know you'll reply with great petulance, and that is fine and to be expected, but you...
Robbie, you present yourself as a petulant little brat in this post.
Would you prefer healthy debate and discussion is something that should be censored because it upsets you?
Unless you have a set of undescended testicles, MAN UP and open your eyes to others opinions' - you just might find it interesting.
And yes, yes I know you'll reply with great petulance, and that is fine and to be expected, but you must at least consider what I'm telling you.
Please, for the benefit of the community and everyone else who enjoys healthy debate and discussion.
Let me know if you have any questions, holetonguer.
Oh hi Darnell, the guest
Looks like tim wrote from a different computer to sound like people agree with him
Hardly a surprise
Get a life, tim
Your “guest” accounts are so tragic that you even respond to lol
You think you’re clever?
because Ben is after page clicks since DL has laid his credit card and loyalty program hawking to waste. And he loves to throw out a couple stories that he knows are going to result in a strong rebuttal of his comments - not just from me - and he manages to include me in articles themselves.
Unlike some people, Ben is happy to see me reply and all of the page clicks that result.
...because Ben is after page clicks since DL has laid his credit card and loyalty program hawking to waste. And he loves to throw out a couple stories that he knows are going to result in a strong rebuttal of his comments - not just from me - and he manages to include me in articles themselves.
Unlike some people, Ben is happy to see me reply and all of the page clicks that result.
If he tees up a good discussion, he easily generates more page clicks than Gary -and yet Gary loves to tell us that he beats OMAAT in total page views.
SeaTac just finished its international arrivals terminal, in which I believe Delta invested close to $1B (if not more?). But please, tell me more about how Delta “isn’t pulling back significantly, but isn’t growing significantly” there.
This feels like a chicken-and-egg issue. Since announcing their hub there, Delta has steadily reduced rather than increased Asia service, downgraded the lucrative JFK route from Delta One to regular domestic first on A321neo’s, and made other cuts. If you don’t really put in the flights and presence to “feel” like a hub, how can you be surprised when it doesn’t work out? 5 flights a day to Spokane and Minneapolis only get you so far.
Exactly. Going West from Michigan, I often see DOUBLE connections in paid first. XXX-DTW and then DTW-SEA and then SEA to say LAX or PHX. Who in their right mind -- especially with the elimination of miles and segments -- is going to fly to SEA from DTW to get to LAX or PHX? I've even seen XXX to DTW, DTW to SEA and SEA to DEN. I'm not backtracking from Seattle to Denver. Even for places like Spokane and Boise, I'd rather connect through Salt Lake City.
If Delta's SEA strategy is about Asia, it's not doing it very well, serving only 3 destinations, all of which have multiple flights to other Delta hubs. It's especially surprising that Delta doesn't serve Singapore, Taipei, and Hong Kong, which are all huge Asian business hubs (though Hong Kong has declined some recently). Singapore and EVA both serve Seattle, and Cathay used to. United has 2x daily to all three destinations from SFO (and also...
If Delta's SEA strategy is about Asia, it's not doing it very well, serving only 3 destinations, all of which have multiple flights to other Delta hubs. It's especially surprising that Delta doesn't serve Singapore, Taipei, and Hong Kong, which are all huge Asian business hubs (though Hong Kong has declined some recently). Singapore and EVA both serve Seattle, and Cathay used to. United has 2x daily to all three destinations from SFO (and also has daily flights to HKG from LAX and EWR). Neither Delta nor American serves SIN, TPE, or HKG at all with their own metal. United is very much the dominant US airline for business travel to Asia.
And again, where did Delta ever say what their goal for size at SEA was? You and others think that DL should replicate UA's SFO hub when DL never gave any basis for those expectations and is re-adding flights to China as quickly as the Chinese government allows them to do so.
and DL does use SEA as a transatlantic gateway and serves the local and western US connecting markets in the same way that...
And again, where did Delta ever say what their goal for size at SEA was? You and others think that DL should replicate UA's SFO hub when DL never gave any basis for those expectations and is re-adding flights to China as quickly as the Chinese government allows them to do so.
and DL does use SEA as a transatlantic gateway and serves the local and western US connecting markets in the same way that UA does from SFO even though both DL and UA have multiple other more eastern US hubs to Europe
Delta doesn't need permission from the Chinese government to serve Singapore, Taipei, or Hong Kong.
Also, Delta serves 3 cities in Europe (all partner hubs) from SEA with at most 4 flights a day on its own metal. That's pretty minimal. If the strategy in SEA is internationally focused, I don't see it.
Worth reminding folks that, last I checked, delta’s pilot contract requires delta to fly a minimum of 50% in the JV with KE.
The cheapest place to do that is from Hawaii and SEA from a financial perspective. Ties up the planes less.
Delta and their one man fan club love to preach about their growth coming to ICn. It isn’t because of some master plan, it’s because KE is trying to buy Asiana...
Worth reminding folks that, last I checked, delta’s pilot contract requires delta to fly a minimum of 50% in the JV with KE.
The cheapest place to do that is from Hawaii and SEA from a financial perspective. Ties up the planes less.
Delta and their one man fan club love to preach about their growth coming to ICn. It isn’t because of some master plan, it’s because KE is trying to buy Asiana and delta would be breaking their pilot contract if they didn’t keep flying at 50% vs the new KE.
Sea and Hawaii Asia flying are the cheapest ways to do that from a plane usage and fuel cost perspective unless delta wants to demand KE cut JV flying
Haven’t looked at the contract in a bit but I don’t believe that’s changed any time with the recent contract renewals
say what?
Let us know when Delta will fly HNL-ICN.
DL flies more from the eastern US to ICN than from the western US. DL right now has precisely ONE flight from the west coast to ICN.
Also, DL's pilot contract requires proportional growth - which could be triggered by completion of the Asiana merger - but also existing capacity is measured on a global basis, not by global region and not by carrier.
Since you seem to have forgotten, their JV includes Japan. So no, delta doesn’t fly icn-Hnl, but they do fly HND-HNL
So yes, it’s pertinent that 2 of 3 pacific flights out of Seattle fulfill their pilot contract, to say nothing of keeping HNd-HNL despite telling DOt it was unprofitable.
Also worth noting that, yes, there’s nuance in the pilot contract but that delta lost every violation arbitration ALPA brought against them specific to this exact topic about balanced flying in the JV with KE specifically.
first, Max,
EVERY Delta widebody international flight meets the "requirements" of Delta's scope obligations.
second, the scope violation w/ KE came under the PREVIOUS pilot contract - not the current one. DALPA accepted a totally changed scope definition and penalties because DALPA negotiated a scope clause that had no realistic teeth - and the current agreement is not specific to KE-DL
and third, if DL adds more flights to ICN, so be...
first, Max,
EVERY Delta widebody international flight meets the "requirements" of Delta's scope obligations.
second, the scope violation w/ KE came under the PREVIOUS pilot contract - not the current one. DALPA accepted a totally changed scope definition and penalties because DALPA negotiated a scope clause that had no realistic teeth - and the current agreement is not specific to KE-DL
and third, if DL adds more flights to ICN, so be it. I find it laughable that you mock that Delta MIGHT be "forced" to start new ICN flights when the reality is that they have been waiting for resolution of the Korean-Asiana merger and have not been adding so as not to negatively influence approval.
and finally you and others love to talk about widebody growth but forget that Delta returned thousands of jobs that a decade ago were flown by regional pilots to Delta pilots and DL currently flies hundreds fewer RJs than either AA or UA.
Delta IS adding and will add longhaul international flights just as UA will; both have the resources and ability to get revenue. So far this year, DL and UA are matching each other's industry leading growth rates. The notion that DL isn't growing or won't grow including on longhaul international routes is patently contrary to reality
Night night tim. Again. Your delta corporate projection doesn’t reflect the reality of arbitration that delta lost.
You’re doing normal stupid thing of trying to distract with new unrelated topics when you know you’re wrong. New jobs? I’m against their widebody growth? Lol. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m simply noting that they’re forced to do it and it’s not a profitability reason in some cases.
Enjoy your night. You are so good at...
Night night tim. Again. Your delta corporate projection doesn’t reflect the reality of arbitration that delta lost.
You’re doing normal stupid thing of trying to distract with new unrelated topics when you know you’re wrong. New jobs? I’m against their widebody growth? Lol. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m simply noting that they’re forced to do it and it’s not a profitability reason in some cases.
Enjoy your night. You are so good at letting me know when you’ve lost an argument. Same thing over and over. Distract distract, “look over there at this thing that you didn’t say”
So predictable
94% Approval Rating for ME! Tuesday night in the Great Site on OMAAT proved that high and very beautiful number correct.
of course you are going to bed now that you have been told that you were dead wrong on the Delta pilot contract's terms and the fact that what you think has nothing to do with reality.
EVERY Delta widebody flight to/from outside of the US counts in the scope agreement and the requirements are not based on what DL does with any single carrier.
I think a big part of the issue is Delta is so strongly based the eastern half of the US (Central and Eastern time zones), and as a result, it can route most of its transpacific routes through Detroit and Minneapolis. Seattle as a connecting hub to Asia really only works for those cities in the Mountain and Pacific time zones, and United has a stronger network out of Denver, LAX, and SFO. Seattle also...
I think a big part of the issue is Delta is so strongly based the eastern half of the US (Central and Eastern time zones), and as a result, it can route most of its transpacific routes through Detroit and Minneapolis. Seattle as a connecting hub to Asia really only works for those cities in the Mountain and Pacific time zones, and United has a stronger network out of Denver, LAX, and SFO. Seattle also is not in a good location to connect the west coast to Europe, Detroit and MSP are better.
Another unsung aspect of Alaska’s strategy against DL in SEA was their addition of routes that DL would have otherwise been competing for. GEG-LAX, RDM-SAN, ANC-LAS are all markets that Delta could offer 1-stop connections on via SEA, but AS now serves nonstop. This pulls traffic away from Delta while freeing up seats for Alaska to offer to local passengers instead. Combined with PAE flying, AS has done a nice job of pressuring the Delta...
Another unsung aspect of Alaska’s strategy against DL in SEA was their addition of routes that DL would have otherwise been competing for. GEG-LAX, RDM-SAN, ANC-LAS are all markets that Delta could offer 1-stop connections on via SEA, but AS now serves nonstop. This pulls traffic away from Delta while freeing up seats for Alaska to offer to local passengers instead. Combined with PAE flying, AS has done a nice job of pressuring the Delta domestic.
And to the point others have made - it isn’t enough for DL to achieve equal RASM to AS, DL needs to exceed it by quite a bit to become profitable
Delta was the first to fly GEG-LAX and still does.
Delta's SEA hub has allowed them to grow significantly in other PNW markets such as GEG, BOI, and PDX.
Using this same analysis methodology on AA puts the ranking as such:
#1: PHL
#2: DCA
#3: LAX
#4: DFW
#5: MIA
#6: ORD
#7: CLT (!!)
#8: PHX
#9: LGA
#10: JFK
I point this out as I'd be quite skeptical that PHL and LAX are better hubs for AA than DFW, and that CLT - a hub they have intentionally grown in the...
Using this same analysis methodology on AA puts the ranking as such:
#1: PHL
#2: DCA
#3: LAX
#4: DFW
#5: MIA
#6: ORD
#7: CLT (!!)
#8: PHX
#9: LGA
#10: JFK
I point this out as I'd be quite skeptical that PHL and LAX are better hubs for AA than DFW, and that CLT - a hub they have intentionally grown in the past many years because of it's profitability - is their 2nd worst performing non-NYC hub. Your alternative headline to this story could have realistically been "Charlotte: The 3rd worst hub city for AA"
Be careful of your conclusions on suspect analysis...
thank you.. but again, there is all kinds of missing data and undeclared and unchallenged assumptions.
Given that AA has said repeatedly pre and post-covid that DCA, CLT and DFW are their best performing hubs, they clearly see a different picture than what outsiders see.
There are lots of airline fans that play the role on social media of CEO-in-waiting but they still haven't been asked to make the decisions that the airlines actually are making.
Are you trying to reverse engineer his calculations? His post which goes over the top and bottom 20 show LAX as the #3 worst hub for AA. Also, ATL is #1 best for DL and DTW is #2 for DL so claiming SEA is biggest loser for DL is probably not far off.
Internally, SEA is known as the Lazarus for DL. Saving the dying is tough but doable, resurrecting the dead requires miracles. While...
Are you trying to reverse engineer his calculations? His post which goes over the top and bottom 20 show LAX as the #3 worst hub for AA. Also, ATL is #1 best for DL and DTW is #2 for DL so claiming SEA is biggest loser for DL is probably not far off.
Internally, SEA is known as the Lazarus for DL. Saving the dying is tough but doable, resurrecting the dead requires miracles. While an underperforming domestic system can be offset by a robust international system, six long-haul internationals isn’t going to save the 95% of domestic routes out of SEA that are underperforming the rest of the network. ATL and DTW are great examples to show that you don’t have to rob domestic to pay international for transpacific to be profitable.
SEA has less transpacific routes than DL in LAX or AA in DFW, and the exact same routes as DTW. It has less international flights than SFO has transpacific for UA. “SEA is DLs primary transpacific gateway” is a catch phrase used to mask the airline’s lethargy and general indifference of the perpetual dumpster fire that is SEA. At least SEA is relatively small and if you’re going to have a fire onboard, best it’s on your smallest aircraft.
Is it any surprise than much of the discussions regarding long haul expansion for DL including transpacific has SEA omitted from the conversation?
which makes their application of JFK-Tokyo Haneda that much more tragically comical
Even assuming the rankings here were flawed, no one could claim with a straight face that JFK is a strong hub for AA, not even Tim Dunn if he were on FORT WORTH’s payroll
which also brings me to my other point - LGA and JFK are some of the weakest hubs AA has system wide.
So who the hell...
which makes their application of JFK-Tokyo Haneda that much more tragically comical
Even assuming the rankings here were flawed, no one could claim with a straight face that JFK is a strong hub for AA, not even Tim Dunn if he were on FORT WORTH’s payroll
which also brings me to my other point - LGA and JFK are some of the weakest hubs AA has system wide.
So who the hell would believe the 6-letter handle guy always with perfectly spot on inside scoops for AA announcements and changes would be located at the hub AA cares least about instead of simply being the official marketing department handle and but intentionally made to mislead people thinking he has no insiders connection to Fort Worth ???
Many people have lost some, or all, of their 5 senses to COVID, and even then, this STILL doesn’t pass the smell test.
Delta/Alaska was fine but you got your facts wrong. Delta/Alaska code share was to reup the partnership but Alaska decided to sign an agreement with American Airlines at the same time. Delta ask them to stay with them only since American is big 3 competitor and Alaska refused. Delta ended the code share with Alaska. They are also expanding flights to Europe and Asia. They use all the hubs to feed these routes. Originating traffic...
Delta/Alaska was fine but you got your facts wrong. Delta/Alaska code share was to reup the partnership but Alaska decided to sign an agreement with American Airlines at the same time. Delta ask them to stay with them only since American is big 3 competitor and Alaska refused. Delta ended the code share with Alaska. They are also expanding flights to Europe and Asia. They use all the hubs to feed these routes. Originating traffic to Asia and Europe is not just Seattle passengers. A much bigger picture than you are painting.
Why would AS reup when DL was attacking them in Seattle? I don't think the facts are wrong
DL has invested in high-revenue, mostly tech hubs (SEA, BOS, AUS, RDU) ... and SEA has the highest tech immigrant pool that needs to fly back home abroad.
Covid wfh, tech layoffs, and plummeting intl fares probs explains their poor performance — but they'll orobably bank this will change.
Everyone is talking about the AA news from Austin, but leat we forget that DL actually named it a "Focus City" first. They failed and pulled back even more, just not at once time like AA. Lots of "Tech Hubs" hurting these days, and with AI coming up, me thinks they will shrink even more.
How many different screennames do you have?
And once again, no, there's ZERO evidence that United is making AUS into a hub.
They should concentrate on one west coast hub, specifically LAX. I don’t understand why large US carriers are focused on multiple hubs like low cost carriers such as Ryanair in Europe.
Longhaul westbound and South Pacific flights should simply be concentrated at LAX, which is the prime SkyTeam west coast hub and delta spent a fortune rebuilding the terminals.
LAX is maxed out on gates, and has contractual agreements with the surrounding cities that prevent it from adding more gates for decades. As such, there's not much room to (physically) grow such an operation.
The gates for the Terminal to be built next to United are coming at the net cost of regional+remote gates being decommissioned. The proposed terminal extension next to Southwest isn't finalized, and will also require a net balance.
DL has...
LAX is maxed out on gates, and has contractual agreements with the surrounding cities that prevent it from adding more gates for decades. As such, there's not much room to (physically) grow such an operation.
The gates for the Terminal to be built next to United are coming at the net cost of regional+remote gates being decommissioned. The proposed terminal extension next to Southwest isn't finalized, and will also require a net balance.
DL has some wiggle room with the advent of its new T3, and the use of CUTE gates at TBIT, but it's not like they can add dozens upon dozens of flights without pulling back on extant ones. Same for others.
In fact that’s not entirely true as they’ve added significantly more gates. The MSC added 15 with another 8 being built now . The refurbished T3 has 4 more than the original structure. Considering several Chinese carriers stopped flying to LA and there are significantly fewer flights there now than pre Covid, there is room.
and in addition, DL is receiving incentives from LAWA to add international longhaul flights -just like AA got when it tried to build LAX international.
The difference is that AA couldn't make the flights work while DL is, so far, succeeding at the flights while gaining access to more gates in the MSC and reducing its financial obligations from its large and costly rebuild of T2 and 3
In fact that’s not entirely true as they’ve added significantly more gates.
So in other words, you completely missed that whole part about "at the net cost of regional+remote gates being decommissioned," eh...
To answer your question about the multiple hubs, it's because of geography. The Continental US is almost twice the size of Europe, so any major airline having only one central hub like most European carriers wouldn't make sense; especially since the major US cities are more spread out, in particular the further west you go.
Inside info. Delta did screw over Alaska. Because as us Seattle people remember the Northwest acquisition. An Exec. From Northwest had info on the International expansion at SEA in the future for arrivals. So yes the end game was to act like partners with AS then pull the rug. DL ultimately wanted the gate control. So now fast forward to the completion of that project for the Port of Seattle. Guess what? The massive sky...
Inside info. Delta did screw over Alaska. Because as us Seattle people remember the Northwest acquisition. An Exec. From Northwest had info on the International expansion at SEA in the future for arrivals. So yes the end game was to act like partners with AS then pull the rug. DL ultimately wanted the gate control. So now fast forward to the completion of that project for the Port of Seattle. Guess what? The massive sky bridge came out too low and the larger long haul aircraft tails won’t pass under it. Who has the most gate space around that bridge Delta. I’d say that’s karma!
Yup! All FACTS! You don't see Timmy Dunce responding to those comments!
The DL hub in Seattle only makes sense in conjunction with an international hub. Since the data you presented excluded the international flights, you really cannot draw any conclusion about the performance. DL is also in it for the long haul, can the last four years have been a total aberration due to all the travel and flight restrictions due to Covid.
DL wants to be a global airline and they need a transpacific...
The DL hub in Seattle only makes sense in conjunction with an international hub. Since the data you presented excluded the international flights, you really cannot draw any conclusion about the performance. DL is also in it for the long haul, can the last four years have been a total aberration due to all the travel and flight restrictions due to Covid.
DL wants to be a global airline and they need a transpacific hub gateway city on the West Coast. SLC and MSP can't play that role because they don't have enough O/D traffic, and MSP is located too far east (and close to DTW as well.) DL's realistic options are LAX SFO PDX and SEA. LAX is ~2 flight hours farther south, has a ton of foreign competition. SFO is dominated by UA. SEA has twice the O/D traffic as PDX, so SEA it is, even though AS is domestic competition.
If and when things return to normal in Asia, DL has the opportunity to from from SEA to TYO, KIX, ICN, TPE, HKG, PVG, PEK/PKX, potentially secondary Chinese cities, SIN, BKK, potentially India... A West Coast hub will operate in a complementary fashion to the JV hub at ICN, just like UA has East Coast hubs at IAD and EWR and also flows traffic to LH group partners at FRA MUC ZRH. But when a market can only support a flight from a single USA hub, it will likely be at SEA which can flow traffic from throughout DL network.
SEA is geographically closer to every destination in Asia than any other major airport in the 48 states. That means shorter flights and less fuel consumption.
DL is in it for the long haul. I would not give up on Asia and Asian growth. Xi Jinping will not live forever.
An added bonus is that SEA is also close to London and northern Europe, so it's also reasonable to flow European connections from the Western USA via SEA, though this doesn't appear to be a major strategy for DL.
Having said all of the above, DL has some challenges in Seattle. AS is loved locally, and frankly AS's Mileage program is the best in USA and DL's is the worst. So DL is operating with a significant handicap in the SEA local market for anyone who cares about frequent flyer earnings. I don't think DL planned on AS putting up such a strong fight, and DL is pursuing its mileage program goals without regard for the handicap it creates in the SEA market.
Interesting times, but I don't see DL abandoning SEA because the opportunity in Asia is important and they don't really have great alternatives for Asia service beyond what they can operate from their fortress hubs at DTW and ATL, and there are too many customers west of those two cities to ignore.
it is also worth noting that DL's international revenue - which the author of the comments can't see but some of us have seen because we have access to DOT international data - is higher than AA's transpacific flights was from most of its hubs.
DL's SEA hub is stable. Delta is not a company to put up w/ losses. To somehow think that DL is running an unprofitable hub and yet neither growing...
it is also worth noting that DL's international revenue - which the author of the comments can't see but some of us have seen because we have access to DOT international data - is higher than AA's transpacific flights was from most of its hubs.
DL's SEA hub is stable. Delta is not a company to put up w/ losses. To somehow think that DL is running an unprofitable hub and yet neither growing or cutting raises all kinds of red flags about what can't be seen and why the wrong conclusions are reached
Not sure why you’re getting so bent out of shape about this, tim.
I know you do regardless most of the time but it shouldn’t surprise anyone that delta isn’t doing well in SEA.
1. Pacific travel largely hasn’t come back evidenced by delta only flying hub to hub routes plus HND which is more of a strategic slot play. AS can sell corporate traffic on JL and other carriers to help build...
Not sure why you’re getting so bent out of shape about this, tim.
I know you do regardless most of the time but it shouldn’t surprise anyone that delta isn’t doing well in SEA.
1. Pacific travel largely hasn’t come back evidenced by delta only flying hub to hub routes plus HND which is more of a strategic slot play. AS can sell corporate traffic on JL and other carriers to help build corporate share in SEA and offset the delta international flight advantage
2. Meaning, delta is basically using sea as a domestic hub when they have higher costs than AS while simultaneously half the size of AS. That’s just not a good place to be when SEA is basically a domestic hub right now. Of course delta isn’t making money there. Even you know that but you just hate admitting it.
Delta can’t grow in Seattle to try to build size vs AS. There aren’t enough gates so the question is whether they want to cut and run or lose money as is pretty obvious. They’re choosing to subsidize it via their fortress hubs where delta tells everyone at investor day is where they make their profits, not the coastal hubs. That’s not me saying it, it’s delta.
This isn’t rocket science
And let’s not get going on your lack of understanding about international revenue accounting. Enrilia, at least, is honest about what’s publicly available and what isn’t and tries to allocate costs as such.
what is laughable is how you scream bloody murder when I quote DOT data about global region profitability - which is reported by each of the US airlines - and which show that DL does far better than its peers in profitability but you mock me when I accurately note that there is no such thing as public data about hub profitability but the author of the article claimed that SEA is low profit or...
what is laughable is how you scream bloody murder when I quote DOT data about global region profitability - which is reported by each of the US airlines - and which show that DL does far better than its peers in profitability but you mock me when I accurately note that there is no such thing as public data about hub profitability but the author of the article claimed that SEA is low profit or unprofitable.
And add in that there are huge pieces of missing data - which is not the case w/ global region data - and the hypocrisy on your end is beyond notable - but not at all surprising.
and to Mark,
and again, what was DL's expectation - not yours - for transpacific from SEA?
DL had Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing and Shanghai pre-covid and they have added as much as they legally can of that list based on their stated plans to become the largest US airline at Shanghai while both AA and UA are both trying to serve both Beijing and Shanghai with their limited amount of China frequencies.
I simply noted Enrilia acknowledges, unlike you, the faults in his own analysis given revenue accounting and spells them out whereas you speak in absolutes when you don’t have data to support your claim. Enrilia isnt trying to compare United vs Delta pacific profitability here which is the absolute stupid statement you often make. Of course delta is more profitable than United but that’s all the dot data tells you, differences in accounting between United...
I simply noted Enrilia acknowledges, unlike you, the faults in his own analysis given revenue accounting and spells them out whereas you speak in absolutes when you don’t have data to support your claim. Enrilia isnt trying to compare United vs Delta pacific profitability here which is the absolute stupid statement you often make. Of course delta is more profitable than United but that’s all the dot data tells you, differences in accounting between United and delta prevent your flawed network comparison between carrier analysis from working.
That isn’t a flaw Enrilia is making. He is, however, noting that very little pacific flying is going on for delta in SEA but he still accounts for it and explains how he accounted for that flaw in the data source. You, tim, never do that. You try to use the data in a way it proclaims what you want rather than what it does.
There’s no debating that, comparing delta’s own rasm accounting against itself vs other hubs, Seattle is atrocious. Which is what Enrilia does, generally speaking. But again, he acknowledges what the data is and isn’t.
Try to keep up ;)
MAX,
acknowledging the limitations of data means admitting that you can't draw conclusions - which is not at all what backwards airline did.
All he did is admitted his data is incomplete and then drew his own conclusions anyway.
If that's not bias and a complete disregard for data, I don't know what it is
And ALL of the US airlines provide the geographical region profit data to the DOT - you...
MAX,
acknowledging the limitations of data means admitting that you can't draw conclusions - which is not at all what backwards airline did.
All he did is admitted his data is incomplete and then drew his own conclusions anyway.
If that's not bias and a complete disregard for data, I don't know what it is
And ALL of the US airlines provide the geographical region profit data to the DOT - you somehow can't grasp that there is as much of a basis for making that comparison as to comparing number of flights per day, fleet size or on-time. It is PUBLIC data whether you like it or not.
and no, the data isn't cooked. You STILL haven't told us where UA is less profitable than the DOT reports in order to push your theory that they are more profitable than DL across the Pacific.
I simply told you (and have to keep reminding you since you’re a broken record) that dot data doesn’t support your UA vs DL profitability claim in a geographic region. It only reaffirms the obvious, that delta is a more profitable carrier overall.
It’s tiring that you can’t grasp such simple and obvious concepts. Enjoy your night
If the TPAC situation is so great for DL in SEA, why are there only three flights. All those Asian stations closed. Doesn’t sound like it’s too successful, especially compared to UA.
Flying out of a smaller airport in WA (PSC), I used both Delta and Alaska this year to determine my go-to for future business travel. (Went back to solely Alaska after the changes in Delta medallion were announced). From PSC, Delta was fantastic when I would connect through MSP or SLC, and it was nice to have those choices from smaller regional airport, but I have never been too crazy with their operations at SEA....
Flying out of a smaller airport in WA (PSC), I used both Delta and Alaska this year to determine my go-to for future business travel. (Went back to solely Alaska after the changes in Delta medallion were announced). From PSC, Delta was fantastic when I would connect through MSP or SLC, and it was nice to have those choices from smaller regional airport, but I have never been too crazy with their operations at SEA. My last DL flight (AUS-SEA) only had 60 people on it. Now a random route like that in the middle of week doesn't necessarily have to have a full load, but 60 pax on a 738 was strange.
Flying both DL and AS next week to SEA, but will be looking at AS (and AA if I have to) for travel in 2024.
It is clear reading these comments that everyone has their own expectations for airlines (and other things) and measure and assess based on the data they can see (if they even use data and not just make subjective evaluations).
The simple reason why DL’s performance in SEA on many routes looks different from AS’ is because DL feeds its own traffic to multiple international flights as well as part of joint ventures while AS...
It is clear reading these comments that everyone has their own expectations for airlines (and other things) and measure and assess based on the data they can see (if they even use data and not just make subjective evaluations).
The simple reason why DL’s performance in SEA on many routes looks different from AS’ is because DL feeds its own traffic to multiple international flights as well as part of joint ventures while AS has no longhaul international routes and has no joint ventures so has to sell its domestic space to foreign airlines at rates that match their financial expectations. Under a JV or as part of a carrier’s own operations, the domestic leg is very likely credited with less revenue than for AS under a codeshare arrangement.
Actual DOT shows that DL is the largest airline for local market revenue from SEA to the eastern US while AS is larger esp. on the west coast but AS and DL get comparable average fares.
DL’s intention was to build SEA as a transpacific gateway to replace NRT but they know they have to compete in the local market but never have expressed any aspirations for being equal to AS – which is contrary to what DL has done relative to B6 in BOS.
AS itself tried to dump capacity into SEA domestic markets to drive out DL and AS' local average fares went down; because AS is a well-run company, they recognize that they have to accept DL's presence and do what is in their financial interest and not try to drive DL out - because they aren't going anywhere.
DL's Pacific strategy is to 1. retain a strong position in Tokyo on their own metal (unlike AA which "subcontracts" out most of its Tokyo presence to JAL 2. Use ICN as a connecting hub for deeper into Asia 3. serve China nonstop where it is allowed on its own metal and 4. eventually to develop its own nonstops from the US to Asia outside of Tokyo, Seoul, and China.
It is a mistake to view DL's Pacific strategy relative to what UA or AA have done and that is true between all 3. The big 3 do not and will not have equal strategies in any part of the world.
SEA was intended to provide a platform for serving the Pacific which is now succeeding in its own way in the domestic market, to Europe and S. America and to Asia. DL's position in SEA is the only one of its hubs where it is not the largest in the local market but it is also the only one where it competes rationally w/ another carrier. The data to determine whether Delta is succeeding at that strategies is simply no more available than whether AA is succeeding in NYC or UA is succeeding to S. America.
"AS and DL get comparable average fares."
Now do costs/CASM and recall that Alaska is an LCC (Delta isn't).
That cost pressure Alaska can provide is probably a big reason for DL's low performance. In a world where it was AA or UA in SEA DL was trying to wedge out I would wager DL's route performance would be much better (in fact this is basically what AS did to UA in SEA over about...
"AS and DL get comparable average fares."
Now do costs/CASM and recall that Alaska is an LCC (Delta isn't).
That cost pressure Alaska can provide is probably a big reason for DL's low performance. In a world where it was AA or UA in SEA DL was trying to wedge out I would wager DL's route performance would be much better (in fact this is basically what AS did to UA in SEA over about 20 years, nuked it as one of their focus cities).
That being said I can get the logic for DL trying to tough it out given that the alternative to using SEA as a "TPAC/whatever TATL they inherited from NW or will try" hub + domestic service is probably trying harder out of LAX, which is just as bad in terms if not worse of a drag because EVERYONE and their uncle has competition there (domestic AND international).
Part of Delta's SeaTac problem is it horrible record of on time departures to Europe. In the last four months of 2022, our family had three different departures for Europe on various Delta flights. All three were over 4 hours late in departure often due to the lack of cleaning crews. On alternative competitive flights from SEA to European destinations, all flights left on time. Certainly weather can cause havoc with any airline but our...
Part of Delta's SeaTac problem is it horrible record of on time departures to Europe. In the last four months of 2022, our family had three different departures for Europe on various Delta flights. All three were over 4 hours late in departure often due to the lack of cleaning crews. On alternative competitive flights from SEA to European destinations, all flights left on time. Certainly weather can cause havoc with any airline but our experienced delays had nothing to do with weather.
Delta's problem is that they had a great transpac hub, but realized the domestic network feeding it was bleeding money because it was too small and uncompetitive. So they doubled down and build a reasonably sized domestic operation, but it's too much flying and not an ideally located domestic hub. AS serves ANC/JNU/KTN/FAI with dozens of flights per day, all flowing to the lower 48. SEA is the perfect hub for these passengers and an...
Delta's problem is that they had a great transpac hub, but realized the domestic network feeding it was bleeding money because it was too small and uncompetitive. So they doubled down and build a reasonably sized domestic operation, but it's too much flying and not an ideally located domestic hub. AS serves ANC/JNU/KTN/FAI with dozens of flights per day, all flowing to the lower 48. SEA is the perfect hub for these passengers and an absolute fortress for AS because of it. Maybe without Covid there'd be enough transpac and enough business demand to support both airlines, but DL is frankly getting their asses kicked. With planes and pilots hard to come by and no relief on the horizon, I don't see any reason why DL should keep throwing resources at SEA.
IND-SEA, Alaska started service Delta quickly announced service so 1 flight a day from Alaska and Delta each. Then, Delta pulled out and now Alaska has 2 flights a day.
Find it weird because Alaska has no other routes to Indianapolis and has almost no name brand recognition from the local IND population unlike Delta. However, clearly there is demand since Alaska increased it to 2 flights a day and flies their 737-900 or...
IND-SEA, Alaska started service Delta quickly announced service so 1 flight a day from Alaska and Delta each. Then, Delta pulled out and now Alaska has 2 flights a day.
Find it weird because Alaska has no other routes to Indianapolis and has almost no name brand recognition from the local IND population unlike Delta. However, clearly there is demand since Alaska increased it to 2 flights a day and flies their 737-900 or MAX 9.
Also haven't seen connecting itineraries where Alaska makes sense to other west coast cities over connecting in SFO, LAX, DEN, PHX from IND.
Keep in mind that, with a place like IND, AS’ size in SEA is twice the share of delta so they have the demand higher from SEA, but AA is also happy to sell IND-SEA to their corporate customers and other customers to build share in a market, IND, where they already have a large chunk of the local market with 12 unique nonstops on AA metal alone vs: delta with 8 & UA with...
Keep in mind that, with a place like IND, AS’ size in SEA is twice the share of delta so they have the demand higher from SEA, but AA is also happy to sell IND-SEA to their corporate customers and other customers to build share in a market, IND, where they already have a large chunk of the local market with 12 unique nonstops on AA metal alone vs: delta with 8 & UA with 6.
The current AA/AS relationship is relatively new but don’t underestimate the strength it gives Alaska to start unique routes where they wouldn’t normally have a strong point of sale, like IND.
AS can sell IND-SEA and beyond. Not just to PNW/Hawaii/Alaska on AS metal, but TYO/PPT/etc. thanks to the global partners.
It's Q2 2023 data. There are more European flights (AMS*2, CDG, LHR) than Asian flights (ICN, HND, PVG) at that time.
Why is Delta performing poorly out of Seattle?
The single most significant reason is air fares are too high.
$1400 RT fates to Hawaii (more than what you'd pay to visit India).
$800 domestic coast to coast fares.
I recently looked at fares from SEA to DFW and Delta was almost 30% more expensive than the competition- Alaska and Southwest.
Another reason is Alaska loyalists use their companion fare to fly which...
Why is Delta performing poorly out of Seattle?
The single most significant reason is air fares are too high.
$1400 RT fates to Hawaii (more than what you'd pay to visit India).
$800 domestic coast to coast fares.
I recently looked at fares from SEA to DFW and Delta was almost 30% more expensive than the competition- Alaska and Southwest.
Another reason is Alaska loyalists use their companion fare to fly which is easy to use with no restrictions.
Delta's companion fare does not go that fare, the credit card has higher annual fees and the base fare itself is high.
Also mileage redemption for domestic flights has worsened for Delta. Even on weekday afternoon flights, one way fares are way too expensive, even using miles.
Shocked! Gobsmacked! And this from a "premium" airline?
*Grabbing popcorn*
I’m here for the comments, from you know who…
Who?
@Tim Dunn - You, bitch!
This comment made my night. Normally I suggest ignoring trolls, especially ones that drone on for days without providing valuable information. My hope for 2024 is that more people will either ignore him or reply with this. I have gotten to the point where I cannot even make myself read his screed. I have tried to make myself do it in the interest of maybe learning something, but my bs firewall does not allow it lol. Thank you. Two thumbs up. Way up!
Seattle is a terrible hub for transpacific flights, especially when you look based on RASM. The average connection into SEA will be a longer flight than say ATL, ORD, etc which in turn lowers the revenue (RASM) attributed to the flight to Asia.
If it’s $1,000 for MCI-ICN, then the RASM for SEA-ICN portion is much lower than if that person connects in DFW, ORD, MSP…
All that to say two things. One being that...
Seattle is a terrible hub for transpacific flights, especially when you look based on RASM. The average connection into SEA will be a longer flight than say ATL, ORD, etc which in turn lowers the revenue (RASM) attributed to the flight to Asia.
If it’s $1,000 for MCI-ICN, then the RASM for SEA-ICN portion is much lower than if that person connects in DFW, ORD, MSP…
All that to say two things. One being that adding international revenue to this analysis will not make SEA better. Second is that hubs in the corner of the country typically struggle to perform, especially looking at SEA and MIA where a lot of people connecting through there are coming from further than 1,000 miles away which is expensive for the airline.
More Delta vapor ware in this case for shareholders, but really good for consumers
Keeps fares low into/out of the Pac NW, makes Alaska more competitive, for example upping the lounge game in Seattle
They underestimate the fortress profit foundation Alaska has with its operations in and to Alaska and the home town loyalty of hardy Pac NW residents and companies
Clearly the Asia gateway strategy isn't playing like they planned. At this point...
More Delta vapor ware in this case for shareholders, but really good for consumers
Keeps fares low into/out of the Pac NW, makes Alaska more competitive, for example upping the lounge game in Seattle
They underestimate the fortress profit foundation Alaska has with its operations in and to Alaska and the home town loyalty of hardy Pac NW residents and companies
Clearly the Asia gateway strategy isn't playing like they planned. At this point it's a hope to keep pressure on Alaska but the DOJ probably won't let them take the spoils of 'winning' that aside from making it harder for Alaska to expand its footprint beyond the Pac NW and CA
Delta is pretty lonely in Seattle while Alaska has one of the greatest fleets of partners ever assembled. Alaska has 6(?) active partners based in east/SE Asia PLUS partners on almost all flights to Europe. Delta isn't even trying transatlantic from Seattle and then doesn't have anything close to Horizon's regional feeder network. Alaska manages SEA as a successful connector hub (international AND domestic) while I'm pretty sure Delta barely even tries
Delta should go back to its roots as a regional Southern airline.
Delta isn't even trying transatlantic from Seattle
Not really sure how you come to that conclusion.
They fly their own metal to all three of the main SkyTeam TATL hubs in Europe, with metal-neutral backup by both AF and VS as well.
Not sure what else you could be realistically/reasonably expecting on that particular front from them @SEA.
“Seattle just isn’t a good connecting domestic hub,”
It isn’t a good trans pacific connecting hub either. I can’t imagine connecting there before I’d do LAX or SFO.
One would then question if you've ever even done any of the three, considering what a pain TPAC connecting at SFO and especially LAX can be, particularly if switching from a domestic to Asian airline.
@ConcordeBoy - I feel the same way about your comment! When was the last time you transited LAX or SFO? I went through both on TPAC flights, once in 2019 and once this past summer, and I can’t understand your complaints. Ten years ago, I get it but not now.
Two weeks ago, seeing as I live in L.A., and transit SFO often.
And no one in their right mind would choose going domestic-to-TBIT at LAX, in terms of ease, over a single-terminal transit in SEA.
Anyone using DL and SEA as a TPAC hub wouldn’t be switching airlines. Same for people using UA in SFO/LAX or DL/AA in LAX.
"Same for people using UA in SFO/LAX or DL/AA in LAX"
What are you talking about? Tons of people switch from DL/AA (and UA too) to their foreign partners at LAX.
My take on this is that Delta is banking on future growth in the Seattle market.
Austin was that growing tech hub city, just like Seattle was decades ago. Seattle houses many large tech companies and while it's been hit one of the hardest with the 2023 layoffs, I suspect Delta wants to at least maintain presence there to capitalize on that growth. Not to mention, there is a massive number of Asian immigrant population...
My take on this is that Delta is banking on future growth in the Seattle market.
Austin was that growing tech hub city, just like Seattle was decades ago. Seattle houses many large tech companies and while it's been hit one of the hardest with the 2023 layoffs, I suspect Delta wants to at least maintain presence there to capitalize on that growth. Not to mention, there is a massive number of Asian immigrant population there who do frequently return to Korea, China, Taiwan, and India, so there's opportunity for market grab there.
More broadly - has a US airline tried to directly fly to many of Asia's largest city from their West Coast hubs? Obviously Delta, United and America all fly a ton of planes to Europe from the eastern US. Did any of these airlines, or their predecessors, try to fly a bunch of frequencies to Bangkok, Kuala Lampur, Jakarta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Phuket, Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul, A/NZ, Tahiti, etc from the...
More broadly - has a US airline tried to directly fly to many of Asia's largest city from their West Coast hubs? Obviously Delta, United and America all fly a ton of planes to Europe from the eastern US. Did any of these airlines, or their predecessors, try to fly a bunch of frequencies to Bangkok, Kuala Lampur, Jakarta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Phuket, Shanghai, Beijing, Seoul, A/NZ, Tahiti, etc from the West Coast? Not even United does this out of SFO, so I guess not. But that is what these West Coast "hubs" probably need long term.
I love the network planning advice of OMAAT commenters.
If only the stupid airlines would listen to you!
I was asking a question, not giving advice...
@ Anthony -- United *does* do that out of SFO. In Asia, the airline flies to HND, HKG, ICN, MNL, NRT, PEK, PVG, SIN, and TPE, and then in the South Pacific the airline flies to AKL, BNE, CHC, MEL, PPT, and SYD. I'm sure I'm missing some.
Fair - I guess I was surprised at the lack of Southeast Asia flying, but you are right in terms of the other regions
Southeast Asia is just....really far from the United States, and thus you need enough high revenue passenger and cargo traffic to support such long flights, which require the longest range, newest aircraft and a ton of fuel. That's why you only see nonstops from the US to premium business markets like SIN and HKG. And of course both of those are large regional hubs with tons of quick and easy connections throughout the region, so...
Southeast Asia is just....really far from the United States, and thus you need enough high revenue passenger and cargo traffic to support such long flights, which require the longest range, newest aircraft and a ton of fuel. That's why you only see nonstops from the US to premium business markets like SIN and HKG. And of course both of those are large regional hubs with tons of quick and easy connections throughout the region, so there just isn't enough extra demand to the other cities/regions of Southeast Asia to support more nonstops from the US, especially with those cost structures.
Yes all a legacy of Pan Am's SFO pacific operation - which they were forced to sell to United in distress in 1985. Beginning of the end for Pan Am, and kept United growing while AA and Southwest dominated domestic.
Solid analysis. I regularly fly into and out of SEA on numerous airlines, and I have to say that it's painfully apparent the extent to which DL's overall experience and reliability lags AS.
you do realize that DOT data shows that Delta now consistently runs a more reliable operation in SEA than AS?
on a system basis, DL scores better in customer metrics.
with all due respect friend, there is no chance in hell I'm getting dragged into your vortex of airline industry misconceptions, incessant factual errors and distortions, and emotions-driven motivated reasoning. that stuff is uninteresting to me and i'd invite you to peddle it elsewhere.
I have to assume that the original poster speaks the truth if all you can muster is a lousy ad-hominem.
Ben: can we get rid of non-constructive posts like this one?
Hate to have to agree with Tim Dunn,
But in the time it took you to write that whiny response, you could've just checked to see if his claim was accurate.... and in this case, it is.
@Concorde - as a rule, I do not feed the trolls as there is nothing to learn from them and time is finite, but I'm happy to engage with you as I know you're a good-faith and data-based commenter.
I know his game well enough that I can be reasonably confident that he's going to point to %late data and ignore %cxled data, when of course the latter is by far the relevant metric for...
@Concorde - as a rule, I do not feed the trolls as there is nothing to learn from them and time is finite, but I'm happy to engage with you as I know you're a good-faith and data-based commenter.
I know his game well enough that I can be reasonably confident that he's going to point to %late data and ignore %cxled data, when of course the latter is by far the relevant metric for most travelers - sure I'm not thrilled if you don't get me there on time, but I'll take late over not getting there at all/next day every time. (FWIW this sort of misdirection is a persistent tactic of his to bait those who may not know better into indulging interminable wall-of-text obfuscatory screeds.)
all you have to say is that you refuse to read and believe real industry data specifically when it counters your theory.
Whether you want to believe it or not, Delta runs a better and more reliable operation in SEA than AS.
Factual and proven.
It's possible that Delta might have been in a better position if it took on the Northwest Airlines name, which was much stronger in Asia and in Seattle. Instead, it kept the Delta name, which is well recognized in the South. Names are not everything but helps. If Delta got the Pan Am name, it would have been better than Delta.
Indeed, that's why "Southwest" does so poorly in Colorado (busiest served airport), Florida (tied for most destinations served in-state), and Illinois (most served year-round destinations).... ;)
LOL. A couple of things...
"Fortunately Alaska got the last laugh here." - I get you don't like the Delta approach to SkyMiles, but when writing these business analysis, why openly cheer for any airline? Also, as I point out repeatedly, Delta does very well in other competitive markets (Boston, NYC, LAX)
Overall, in "coastal" hubs (thinking cities like Boston, NYC, Seattle, LAX, maybe Miami is included), I think you really have do compete...
LOL. A couple of things...
"Fortunately Alaska got the last laugh here." - I get you don't like the Delta approach to SkyMiles, but when writing these business analysis, why openly cheer for any airline? Also, as I point out repeatedly, Delta does very well in other competitive markets (Boston, NYC, LAX)
Overall, in "coastal" hubs (thinking cities like Boston, NYC, Seattle, LAX, maybe Miami is included), I think you really have do compete very well for the O&D first, then have viable connections overseas. Alaska is a strong airline, so Delta is unlikely to ever outfight it directly for Seattle based customers. Then in Asia, Delta for whatever reason never had the right flight / aircraft strategy IMO before the pandemic. For example, SEA to HKG didn't really have an attractive product if I recall correctly - as an NYC based customer flying business, I would probably just choose the Cathay direct to HKG rather than connect in SEA. No Singapore flights either. So I am not sure they ever got the connectivity to Asia correct.
For me, when not visiting Seattle itself, I have connected through SEA when flying to random cities in the area largely for skiing (Vancouver, Redmond), and I enjoy the airport and Skyclub. But when flying to Hawaii I prefer to fly direct from JFK or to connect through LAX, SLC, etc. The elimination of Delta one from JFK to SEA hasn't helped either.
I doubt Delta will draw down on Seattle because they still probably need it long term for Asia, plus there are big corporations in the region that are important to Delta nationally.
@ Anthony -- Of course Delta does well in a lot of other markets, it's why the airline is profitable (in addition to SkyMiles). I'm not cheering for any airline, I'm just pointing out that Delta kind of deceived Alaska in Seattle, and it doesn't seem like the market is doing especially well for the airline.
I think DL blew it completely when, instead continuing to partner with Alaska, which is the perfect partner for DL given their service culture, they decided to pick a fight with AS. Really, what they should have done was tendered an acquisition offer. At that time, and still to a great extent, Alaska's route network would have been a great complement to DL's route network as well as a good cultural fit.
Now, I...
I think DL blew it completely when, instead continuing to partner with Alaska, which is the perfect partner for DL given their service culture, they decided to pick a fight with AS. Really, what they should have done was tendered an acquisition offer. At that time, and still to a great extent, Alaska's route network would have been a great complement to DL's route network as well as a good cultural fit.
Now, I could be biased, because if they had I'd be a DL 3MM now. But, seriously, I do think it was the logical choice. Now that AS acquired VA, I don't think that the government would allow that additional consolidation.
I'm confused by the exclusion of international routes. I understand that the math for the rest of the hubs exclude that as well, but... the whole point of Seattle as a hub is for international connections to Asia? It'd be like saying Jeeps are the worst cars on the market... because the test excludes off road performance. The formula itself here is flawed because it doesn't include the whole picture.
@ Super -- If the whole point of Seattle is to be a transpacific hub, then it doesn't seem like that's being executed very well. Unless I'm missing something, three of Delta's 160+ daily flights are to Asia.
It sounds as if you're suggesting that the last five years have been normal from an airline operating perspective. I'm pretty sure they haven't been, so it's probably a bit premature to base these kinds of conclusions on that time frame. Let's see what the situation is like in five years.
@ DesertGhost -- Of course the past several years haven't been normal, and that's true across hubs, especially in New York, California, etc. You can make of this data what you'd like, I just think it's interesting...
Agreed, 3 int'l flights is poor, but consider it investment in future growth that is likely to come (as DesertGhost stated), that is subsidized by current corporate contracts (I'm speculating here).
Why is Europe being excluded? Before the pandemic there were daily flights to Shanghai, Bejing, Osaka, ICN and NRT.
Doesn't DL interline with a bunch of Asian carriers flying into SEA, and carries their domestic traffic? Yes it does.
I agree that this analysis is very flawed when applied to an International gateway.
@jake
I mean… if we’re going with “interline” as the baseline, so does Alaska. Hell, so do aa or United
As a percentage of total revenue and expenses, Seattle probably has a minimal effect on Delta's bottom line. So, it's quite possible that Delta is willing to live with its losses there - a strategy that apparently worked pretty well in New York. As I often point out in response to Tim Dunn, DOT data are not of the same quality as Delta's internal accounting data, so any conclusions based on those data are incomplete...
As a percentage of total revenue and expenses, Seattle probably has a minimal effect on Delta's bottom line. So, it's quite possible that Delta is willing to live with its losses there - a strategy that apparently worked pretty well in New York. As I often point out in response to Tim Dunn, DOT data are not of the same quality as Delta's internal accounting data, so any conclusions based on those data are incomplete at best. A point of geography: Seattle is quite a bit closer to northern Asia than Los Angeles. so those connecting across the Pacific save time. James J. Hill know that back when people and freight traveled by train and ship.
Doubt it's so much about saving time, as it is about performance over distance:
When DL set the hub up, there was nowhere in north/east/southeast Asia that a combination of A332+A333+77E couldn't hit, if desired. The same couldn't be said for LAX.
Now with the A359, that's not much of a factor, as it can even do the subcontinent with relative ease.
And of course payload/range wasn't the only issue, but a longshot, but a hugely contributory one.
Distance is very much related to time. Seattle is closer to Asia than Los Angeles, so it takes less time and fuel to get there. Fuel and time add cost. Again, James J. Hill understood this when the modes were rail and ships.
If distance was the main driver, there would be TPAC hubs in SEA and TATL hubs in Maine. It’s not all about distance, especially when the domestic flights for connections in SEA from so many other parts of the country are longer than they are to other TPAC hubs, negating any time benefit.
Let's ignore the stupidity of the Maine comment, and remind you that (1) domestic connections were more or less (to Delta's discredit) an afterthought to the international setup of that hub, and (2) at the time they began operating it, they didn't have a dearth of aircraft capable of reliably operating beyond a 9-10ish hour threshold.
No A350s, no A333HGWs, no A339s.
Their (only ten) 77Ls were tied up on East coast rotations +...
Let's ignore the stupidity of the Maine comment, and remind you that (1) domestic connections were more or less (to Delta's discredit) an afterthought to the international setup of that hub, and (2) at the time they began operating it, they didn't have a dearth of aircraft capable of reliably operating beyond a 9-10ish hour threshold.
No A350s, no A333HGWs, no A339s.
Their (only ten) 77Ls were tied up on East coast rotations + Sydney, and most of their 77Es flew to Asia from the east as well.
SEA was basically the domain of 763ERs and A333s, with some A332s in there. That combination would not work from a mid-continent, midwest, or eastern hub attempting to grow Asia.
So SEA and LAX it was, and distance/op-time was VERY MUCH a significant factor.
another copy and paste of facts when the author has no concept about what they are talking about
All you needed to know is that the assessment of Delta’s hub positioning DOES NOT INCLUDE international revenue data.
SEA was never built as a hub to compete directly against AS but rather as a replacement hub in N. America for the Tokyo Narita hub.
Add in that, for 3 years, SEA is operating at...
another copy and paste of facts when the author has no concept about what they are talking about
All you needed to know is that the assessment of Delta’s hub positioning DOES NOT INCLUDE international revenue data.
SEA was never built as a hub to compete directly against AS but rather as a replacement hub in N. America for the Tokyo Narita hub.
Add in that, for 3 years, SEA is operating at a fraction of its previous transpacific size – PVG gets back to daily shortly – and a high percentage of domestic traffic through SEA is connecting to international segments – which the data does not show, and it is no surprise that the “analysis” comes in highly flawed.
Garbage in, garbage out.
I do find you weirdly sycophantic, but I agree with you here. The numbers themselves aren't being gathered correctly. You can't exclude one integral part of performance and then draw any meaningful conclusions
“I do find you weirdly sycophantic”
Why, that’s the nicest thing anyone’s ever written about me.
- Tim Dunn
Delta is the world's only PERFECT airline - and perfect airlines' strategies can never be questioned. You raised a very valid point regarding Covid - but you rarely cut other airlines the same slack. Let's see what the situation is like in five years. I tend to think (note that this is an opinion, not meant to be construed as fact) that both American and Delta will have appropriately sized international gateways from Seattle and...
Delta is the world's only PERFECT airline - and perfect airlines' strategies can never be questioned. You raised a very valid point regarding Covid - but you rarely cut other airlines the same slack. Let's see what the situation is like in five years. I tend to think (note that this is an opinion, not meant to be construed as fact) that both American and Delta will have appropriately sized international gateways from Seattle and will compete with each other more-or-less indirectly.
@ Tim Dunn -- Isn't ICN basically Delta's new version of NRT, given the KE joint venture? What I'm missing is what exactly Delta's long term transpacific strategy in Seattle is? The airline serves HND, ICN, and PVG. Any other routes that are in the pipeline that I'm missing?
Operating 160+ daily flights in order to feed three transpacific flights to destinations that are also served from other seems seems like bad business to me.
you do realize that Delta operates up to a half dozen transatlantic flights?
None of that international revenue is in the data and only the small domestic revenue that feeds those flights is.
@ Tim Dunn -- You commented specifically about how Seattle is about transpacific flights. I then ask you a question about transpacific flights. And then you respond by... changing the topic and talking about transatlantic flights? Can you address my question?
You are correct - in fact Hauenstein in his Laguna conference appearance specifically noted how ICN is the best connection to Asia.
Shots fired
And as usual we don't see Tim Dunn addressing the question.
Tim, are you going to answer Ben’s question regarding DL’s weak TPAC hub of three flights?
Lucky, Timmy will NEVER respond. He changes the subject often and then never gets around to saying when HE is wrong.
You are forgetting Delta's non stop flight from Settle to Incheon (Seoul)
Mike, ICN IS Seoul. Google before typing "Your forgetting"......
Alaska is simply much better than Delta head to head. That's why Delta is playing for second place in Seattle.
It's not hard to add one plus one..
This trolling of Tim Dunn has got to stop.
Wow... An article dedicated to SEA and the word "Asia" doesn't appear once.
@ Semperfix -- The word "Pacific" appears, though, which means the same thing in this context.
Alaska killed a plane load of people (including many Seattleites) in an absolutely horrifying way through corporate greed and shoddy maintenance - unbelievable that the city was so forgiving.
I just read an in-depth article about that. Horrifying. And they kind of got away with it too - their punishment couldnt even be considered a slap on the wrist.
Agreed, that was such gross corporate negligence.
But also want to highlight the absolute valiance in airmanship that the pilots showed in that situation:
They fought to the end, never gave up, and even had the wit to flip the aircraft and fly it UPSIDE DOWN to buy themselves more time to figure something out.
Rest in Reverence, to such incredible aviators.
When??? I don't see it in the news
It’s from 2000. Google Alaska flight 261. And yes, the pilots were great
Alaska Airlines Flight 261 on January 31, 2000
Alaska Airlines Flight 261
When that accident happened I was a top tier AS flyer. It was still MVP Gold then. Alaska had a fiercely loyal customer base then. And the still do, although not quite as much so. I remember being horrified, but not even considering changing airlines for my west coast travel because there really wasn't a reasonable alternative. AS had the west coast locked up if you wanted reasonable frequencies up and down the coast. There...
When that accident happened I was a top tier AS flyer. It was still MVP Gold then. Alaska had a fiercely loyal customer base then. And the still do, although not quite as much so. I remember being horrified, but not even considering changing airlines for my west coast travel because there really wasn't a reasonable alternative. AS had the west coast locked up if you wanted reasonable frequencies up and down the coast. There were and are lots of people who travel those routes a lot and I was one of them.
That has been - so far - knock on wood - their only fatal accident in the entire history of the airline. They played on that pretty heavily in the media.
Only fatal accident you recall...
The 727 crash in Juneau is a fairly
Based on that line of reasoning, you should not fly on any new Boeing narrow bodies — especially Boeings flown by Alaska. But Boeings flown by Delta are fine because . . . Delta really cares!
Indeed. It was the absolute pinnacle of reputational preservation.