Delta is making some interesting additions to its domestic network. In addition to launching its new longest domestic flight (from Boston to Honolulu), Delta is also adding its new longest flight within the lower 48 United States.
While I don’t usually cover random domestic network additions, I’m writing about this because I’m personally interested, as it’s between my current hometown and my previous hometown.
In this post:
Details of Delta’s new Seattle to Miami route
As of December 21, 2024, Delta will add a new daily, year-round flight between Seattle (SEA) and Miami (MIA), with the following schedule:
DL525 Seattle to Miami departing 11:00AM arriving 7:55PM
DL564 Miami to Seattle departing 5:50PM arriving 9:50PM
The 2,747-mile flight is blocked at 5hr55min eastbound and 7hr westbound. Delta will use an Airbus A321neo for the route, featuring 194 seats. This includes 20 first class seats, 42 extra legroom economy seats, and 132 economy seats. This is Delta’s newest narrow body jet, featuring the carrier’s new domestic first class seats.
This will be Delta’s longest domestic flight within the lower 48 United States, just barely beating the carrier’s 2,717-mile flight between Seattle and Fort Lauderdale.
With this new route, Delta will fly to Miami from all nine of its hubs in the United States. Furthermore, Delta will have a total of 38 peak-day departures from Miami, to a total of 13 destinations.
The Seattle to Miami market is becoming competitive
Until 2022, American was the only US carrier flying between Miami and Seattle. Then in 2022, we finally saw Alaska add service between the two cities as well. For so long, Alaska had consolidated its South Florida operations in Fort Lauderdale, but airlines have increasingly embraced that Fort Lauderdale and Miami are not the same market, and there’s merit to flying to both airports.
Now we’re finally seeing Delta adding this service as well. A few thoughts about Delta throwing its hat in the ring:
- Keep in mind that Seattle is Delta’s least profitable domestic hub in terms of revenue per seat mile, so it’s interesting to see the airline add this service
- When it comes to connectivity, this route seems mainly about serving demand between Seattle and Miami, as well as connecting into LATAM’s network, as Delta owns a stake in the airline; however, the timing of this flight isn’t necessarily great for connectivity with LATAM, especially the flight departing Miami
- This doesn’t seem much about feeding into Delta’s Asia network out of Seattle either, given the flight times, as those flights mostly leave Seattle midday
- Alaska and American have the advantage of both having access to American’s network to the Caribbean and Latin America; when I’ve flown between Seattle and Miami, I found there were a lot of people connecting to the Caribbean, especially in winter, and that’s not really an opportunity Delta has
I’m curious to see how this all plays out. Will the Seattle to Miami market be able to support three players?
Bottom line
Delta will be adding a new daily, year-round service between Seattle and Miami, using an Airbus A321neo. This is an interesting addition. On the one hand, this is logical, given Delta’s investment in LATAM, plus Seattle being the last Delta hub from which Miami isn’t served. On the other hand, this is now a pretty competitive route, and Delta doesn’t have as much connectivity as Alaska or American.
What do you make of Delta’s new Seattle to Miami route?
Wish Delta would fix the oven situation in First class. Only having enough room for 16 hot entrees in a 20 seat cabin is ridiculous. It’s not fair to the last four passengers who order to potentially not get a hot meal. Especially on flights as long as this one.
As long as the last 4 cold meals go to staff in those F seats, I think we’re all ok that.
The combination of pre-order (which they now seem to have for most F itineraries) and patience already seems to rectify this.
Are you going to write about Vueling's reentry at London Heathrow with Barcelona and Orly routes?
SEA-MIA and BOS-HNL are clearly signaling to Alaska (who’s buying Hawaiian) that it’s not happy about some route it launched/increased service on/retimed/etc.
So I guess Delta is not offering any kind of domestic Delta One to/from SEA at the current moment? Seems odd for an important hub. Are any of the SEA to Hawaii flights D1? This would in theory be a D1 candidate. SEA to JFK, BOS as well.
Delta hasn't loaded any schedules for its Delta One and Premium Select equipped A321NEOs so it is a little early to jump to any conclusions.
SEA sees plenty of A321NEOs and there will be more premium equipped A321NEOs than the current lie flat 757 fleet.
And DL is larger than AS or B6 in nearly every SEA to eastern US market that DL flies; AS flies SEA-CMH and other markets that DL doesn't...
Delta hasn't loaded any schedules for its Delta One and Premium Select equipped A321NEOs so it is a little early to jump to any conclusions.
SEA sees plenty of A321NEOs and there will be more premium equipped A321NEOs than the current lie flat 757 fleet.
And DL is larger than AS or B6 in nearly every SEA to eastern US market that DL flies; AS flies SEA-CMH and other markets that DL doesn't because it has 2 to 4 other hubs in between those midwest cities and SEA.
and while AS codeshares on many AA flights, that is not a revenue sharing model which means AS really competes on a nonstop basis against nonstops on DL (and in the case AA) as well as multiple other hubs in between the SEA and the eastern US.
“And DL is larger than AS… in nearly every SEA to eastern US market that DL flies.”
Literally the opposite is true, AS is either the same size or larger in nearly every SEA to eastern market direct service that both carriers fly with the exception of DL hubs, and as you point out, DL simply doesn’t fly many city pairs directly, forcing people into less convenient and more expensive connections as they continue...
“And DL is larger than AS… in nearly every SEA to eastern US market that DL flies.”
Literally the opposite is true, AS is either the same size or larger in nearly every SEA to eastern market direct service that both carriers fly with the exception of DL hubs, and as you point out, DL simply doesn’t fly many city pairs directly, forcing people into less convenient and more expensive connections as they continue to cut frequencies to make up for the continued RJ parkings. AS outright eclipses DL in SEA point of sale for most non-DL hub markets.
Lucky - please join us at the kiddie table! I'm old and constipated but I'll explain the big words I use.
People on this site can, for the most part, spell correctly and use proper grammar and don't persist in carrying on with arguments that are patently devoid of facts.
My beef is in trying to construe data to say what it does not and to deny that data exists when it is in plain sight even though some people don't like what it says.
Except Tim Dunn construe the same fluff without realizing it.
Only problem Tim can't see is his own beef.
feel free to get specific examples of the data I get wrong.
I could care less about what beef you do or don't do
while it is nice of you, Ben, to devote two posts to Delta's schedule addition, I do wish you would get basic facts right. I expect a little more of you than the endless discussions over at the kiddie table.
1. Delta has restored or scheduled the same number of international destinations it flew from SEA pre-covid. The only destination it cannot restore is Beijing because the Chinese government has capped the number of flights...
while it is nice of you, Ben, to devote two posts to Delta's schedule addition, I do wish you would get basic facts right. I expect a little more of you than the endless discussions over at the kiddie table.
1. Delta has restored or scheduled the same number of international destinations it flew from SEA pre-covid. The only destination it cannot restore is Beijing because the Chinese government has capped the number of flights US carriers can fly. PVG is back to daily and DL has applied to use the rest of its allowable allocations to add LAX-PVG - which has been pushed back to the fall - and increase DTW-PVG. DL has replaced Beijing with Taipei will starts this summer.
2. Enilria did not say DL's SEA hub was unprofitable because he knows there is no data he can use to say that. He did say that he didn't include international revenue - mostly because he doesn't have access to it - but ignores 5% of the flights and 10% of DL's passengers at SEA which is far above what is statistically insignificant to anyone that does any real analysis.
3. These new flights don't connect in both directions to either to DL's Asia bank in SEA or Latam's S. America flights in MIA so it does not appear that DL is counting on these flights to carry many international passengers at least in the same markets in both directions.
All of the US airlines have reported their profits for 2023 and there are a whole lot of people that say they aren't interested in hearing about it. DL made $2 billion more in profits than any other airline and most of the industry - including AA, AS and HA generated profits a fraction of what DL reported.
These SEA and Hawaii announcements are precisely why airline profitability matters.
DL has said its core 4 hubs (ATL DTW MSP and SLC) deliver the MAJORITY of its hubs but they have never said that any of their 4 coastal hubs are not profitable - even though many on the internet took it that way.
Either DL's coastal hubs have lower profits but high strategic value - in which case DL is justified in adding flights even in highly competitive markets
OR
DL has so much money to play around with and doesn't make money in its coastal hubs or MIA where it has added service and says it wants to become the "airline of choice" but is willing to be a thorn in the flesh to most of the industry players' sides.
Given how profitable DL is, it is beyond ludicrous to think they lose money on 1/3 or more of their network and half of their hubs. It is equally to naive to think that DL has 2 money losing hubs with a dozen longhaul international flights but keeps pouring money into other carrier hubs just because it wants to tick them off.
and given that UA is the only other airline that reported even half of the profits DL made and has an aggressive growth plan while DL managed to keep up w/ UA's capacity growth in 2023 and will have 25 A350-900s available for Pacific expansion in just the next 2 years (including the ex-Latam jets that are getting DL standard interiors so they will no longer be high capacity transatlantic and domestic leisure aircraft), UA's dreams of massive growth which have been the subject of endless internet discussions seems foolish at best.
any reasonable analysis of the industry says DL is the 800 pound beast of the industry that has clear strategies to grow its presence in highly competitive markets and has the cash and the patience to do it slowly but successfully.
If Beijing was replaced with TPE, they are still down one route, because Delta did fly SEA-KIX pre pandemic (which sort of replaced the canceled SEA-HKG route). I flew it in 2019, and was supposed to fly it again in April 2020.
Delta has added several routes on a fairly short term basis from SEA but also cut DTW-NGO and passed on JFK-HND, all undoubtedly because the Yen is not favorable for travel to the US which makes up a large portion of US-Japan travel.
DL says it intends to go back to Hong Kong and execs just reiterated it. Since they said they would do HKG from JFK because of the financial sector and UA can't...
Delta has added several routes on a fairly short term basis from SEA but also cut DTW-NGO and passed on JFK-HND, all undoubtedly because the Yen is not favorable for travel to the US which makes up a large portion of US-Japan travel.
DL says it intends to go back to Hong Kong and execs just reiterated it. Since they said they would do HKG from JFK because of the financial sector and UA can't do that route on the 787 because of Russian airspace restrictions, it will be interesting if DL does it on one of its 2 versions of the A350. CX did operate it on the A350-1000 avoiding Russia but then switched back so the A350 can do it. And DL is getting the most capable A350-900s which will be able to do a lot of routes that nothing from Boeing can fly.
As of March 1, 2020 and the beginning of covid, DL served 4 transpac routes from SEA - HND, ICN, PEK and PVG - plus 3 TATL - LHR, AMS and CDG. All of those are back except for Beijing. TPE will replace in number the destinations DL served pre-covid.
DL still has a larger number of E. Asia destinations from SEA than any UA hub except for SFO.
I just feel like DL is floundering in their SEA hub without a cohesive strategy. Yes, there's the new SkyClub and these new HNL, MIA, and TPE routes, but everything else feels halfbaked and not very exciting.
DL is inferior to AS for economy/premium economy transcons and offers an inferior product out of SEA compared to B6 Mint for premium transcons such as JFK, BOS, and now MIA.
In comparison, DL is very weak TPAC...
I just feel like DL is floundering in their SEA hub without a cohesive strategy. Yes, there's the new SkyClub and these new HNL, MIA, and TPE routes, but everything else feels halfbaked and not very exciting.
DL is inferior to AS for economy/premium economy transcons and offers an inferior product out of SEA compared to B6 Mint for premium transcons such as JFK, BOS, and now MIA.
In comparison, DL is very weak TPAC out of SEA when you look at it's neighboring hubs with United in SFO with the strongest international hub in the US and Air Canada in YVR.
Forgot to add there is also mounting pressure with AS acquiring HA. Delta will all but lose out on the West Coast if it doesn't play its cards correctly. LAX is a 3-way split and DL will never take the majority, even if it currently has the plurality.
btw do you realize that UA does not have a majority of share at ORD or DEN, and by your own logic, won't get it because AA and WN aren't walking away.
In fact, the UA hubs where UA has a majority of traffic is EWR, IAD, IAH and SFO.
DL has the majority of traffic at its core 4 hubs which amount are larger.
DL isn't trying for the majority at LAX....
btw do you realize that UA does not have a majority of share at ORD or DEN, and by your own logic, won't get it because AA and WN aren't walking away.
In fact, the UA hubs where UA has a majority of traffic is EWR, IAD, IAH and SFO.
DL has the majority of traffic at its core 4 hubs which amount are larger.
DL isn't trying for the majority at LAX. It does intend to be profitable - very likely is - and is growing also.
UA loves to talk about its hubs in the top 10 markets. But the top 2 markets for international traffic are JFK and LAX. UA doesn't even fly to LAX and is #3 at LAX.
DL is the largest carrier at JFK, LAX and BOS - all of which are top 10 markets.
ATL is the largest international hub for US carriers and isn't in the top 10 but is practically tied with DFW.
as much as UA loves to talk about the size of the international market in its hubs, DL is in the first place in the top 2 markets and ATL is a far larger international hub than what UA has at any hub.
If DL sees money in international growth - and it clearly does - then there will be a whole lot changing in the international market - on top of the coastal 4 hubs. and DL has the international aircraft coming in and also will have the most capable and largest new generation aircraft in the A350-1000 while UA competes with 787-9s that seat at least 75 fewer seats
did it occur to you that DL serves 3 destinations from Detroit to E. Asia while UA serves just one from both. In fact, DL doesn't serve anything other than Tokyo from every hub except for SFO other than its new LAX-HKG flight.
DL gets half of the TPAC revenue than UA gets. AA gets half what UA gets.
DL's TPAC network is much deeper across its network to the 3 countries it serves while UA's is much more concentrated at SFO and Tokyo.
DL doesn’t fly lax-hkg. Why did you say this? Why do you get so upset when anybody says something that offends your sensibilities regarding delta? What does “while UA just serves one from both” mean? I know you must defend delta and put quash anything that could possibly be construed as anti-delta or mildly critiquing Delta at all costs, but breathe, slow down, and type cogently and coherently.
my statement should have been
n fact, UA doesn't serve anything other than Tokyo from every hub except for SFO other than its new LAX-HKG flight.
Since DL doesn't fly any international flights from SFO, it should have been obvious my statement was in error.
Nobody is defending anything.
DL simply has a more balanced TPAC route system if balance means spreading its network across more cities.
DL serves HND and...
my statement should have been
n fact, UA doesn't serve anything other than Tokyo from every hub except for SFO other than its new LAX-HKG flight.
Since DL doesn't fly any international flights from SFO, it should have been obvious my statement was in error.
Nobody is defending anything.
DL simply has a more balanced TPAC route system if balance means spreading its network across more cities.
DL serves HND and ICN from SEA, MSP, DTW and ATL. LAX is reportedly gaining a ICN flight which would add it to the four other hubs that have HND and ICN.
DL also has PVG from 2 hubs and is adding LAX.
DL doesn't serve as many TPAC destinations but they serve them from more of their hubs than UA.
but even the number of destinations is growing and will continue to grow with the addition of the 25 TPAC capable A350-900s followed right after by the 20 A350-1000s.
That's not true, United does also have LAX-HKG, and it's been growing routes there steadily. Not to mention, you're ignoring the overall TPAC strength that United has to Australia. United is the #1 carrier between the US and Australia, having overtaken the flag carrier of Australia itself. Australian routes fetch some of the highest prices, as much as 2x per seat than many Asian destinations.
Plus United has ANA in Tokyo to help cover its...
That's not true, United does also have LAX-HKG, and it's been growing routes there steadily. Not to mention, you're ignoring the overall TPAC strength that United has to Australia. United is the #1 carrier between the US and Australia, having overtaken the flag carrier of Australia itself. Australian routes fetch some of the highest prices, as much as 2x per seat than many Asian destinations.
Plus United has ANA in Tokyo to help cover its bases, so it doesn't need to spread itself so thin. DL needs to serve both Tokyo as the point to point destination, but also feed into ICN for additional connectivity in Asia.
It's pretty clear the discussion was about E. Asia.
But even in Australia, DL has double daily to SYD from LAX using A350s which seat more than 787s while UA has SYD and MEL. and MEL is also on DL's list.
My point is still true that UA spreads its network over more cities in Asia while DL uses more gateways and results in a deeper network from where it flies.
DL...
It's pretty clear the discussion was about E. Asia.
But even in Australia, DL has double daily to SYD from LAX using A350s which seat more than 787s while UA has SYD and MEL. and MEL is also on DL's list.
My point is still true that UA spreads its network over more cities in Asia while DL uses more gateways and results in a deeper network from where it flies.
DL serves as many hubs from Japan because it is a decent market. It serves as many hubs to ICN - and that number is going to significantly grow in the next couple of years - because that is where DL connects passengers.
So, spare us the silliness about how important Tokyo is and UA is the largest there.
UA just happens to serve fewer cities from HND where the majority of local market revenue goes - which is why UA has tried twice to move NRT flights to HND and gained just GUM - which does nothing for the US.
NRT is a connecting hub for UA just like ICN is for DL.
DL now uses a different country and city for its connections while UA tries to make Tokyo work from 2 airports.
Do you realize that UA serves only Tokyo from Chicago, EWR and IAD while DL has 3 destinations from DTW and 2 from ATL that will soon be 3 flights.
IOW, DL has more TPAC service from its eastern US hubs than UA which matches the differences in DL and UA's domestic and transatlantic systems.
yes, we know about JV partners.
And Korean is the largest Asian carrier across the Pacific - and it is DL's JV partner.
Tim’s absolutely correct about proving everyone’s point about SEA not being strong TPAC and that DL has less overall revenue and profits in the Pacific than UA. He’s also right that the discussion is about E.Asia not TPAC because unlike LAX and SFO for AA/DL/UA which serve other TPAC destinations in addition to E.Asia, SEA does not.
He makes an excellent point about DTW currently serving 3 destinations in E.Asia the exact same as...
Tim’s absolutely correct about proving everyone’s point about SEA not being strong TPAC and that DL has less overall revenue and profits in the Pacific than UA. He’s also right that the discussion is about E.Asia not TPAC because unlike LAX and SFO for AA/DL/UA which serve other TPAC destinations in addition to E.Asia, SEA does not.
He makes an excellent point about DTW currently serving 3 destinations in E.Asia the exact same as SEA. He’s also right about ATL going double daily in ICN while SEA goes single daily. AA currently flies 4x daily to E.Asia from DFW, more than SEA. For UA, there’s as many double daily from SFO than there are daily from SEA: TYO, HKG, and TPE. Even though SIN is SE. Asia, UA is double daily from SFO while SEA is zero daily for DL.
As much as people want to stomp their feet about the Pacific Northwest not having a true TPAC gateway, all they have to do is stop confusing SEA with YVR.
thank you, marketing
I think we are helping some people to see that
1. UA has a massive asset at SFO and it is unmatched in the US - the only likely comparable is Korean at ICN on the other side of the Pacific - but UA's E. Asia system is pretty thin elsewhere - mostly just Tokyo.
2. AA also has the majority of its TPAC system at DFW but that...
thank you, marketing
I think we are helping some people to see that
1. UA has a massive asset at SFO and it is unmatched in the US - the only likely comparable is Korean at ICN on the other side of the Pacific - but UA's E. Asia system is pretty thin elsewhere - mostly just Tokyo.
2. AA also has the majority of its TPAC system at DFW but that is nearly all of its TPAC system and their E. Asia system is not any larger than DL was at SEA pre-covid and will be by this summer when TPE starts. Given that DL got 2X as much TPAC revenue as AA, the two are not comparable.
3. DL inherited from NW a large single focus hub at NRT but is clearly moving in the direction of having more medium sized gateways that having a massive single hub.
And the same thing is true domestically including at SEA. SEA is AS' home and largest hub where they have to connect most traffic. DL doesn't need to connect traffic at SEA because it has SLC and MSP and all the other eastern US hubs but does as part of its hub structures.
Attempts to compare DL at SEA to other hubs misses the point of what DL is trying to do with its hubs.
And there are still just a handful of TPAC gateways to 4 or more destinations and DL at SEA is on that list.
And if you think through DL's TPAC growth, it is clear they are rebuilding after closing the NRT hub.
LAX is a larger local market than SFO and DL says it is committed to growing TPAC even more as it has already done.
The A350 can simply cover much more of the Pacific than the 787 can.
And the Russia airspace restrictions are hurting UA at EWR. If DL decides to take advantage of the A350s range to add BOM and other destinations in E. Asia, UA's TPAC strength will increasingly be concentrated at SFO while DL will have a better US balanced Asian (including E. Asia) route system.
YVR is a true TPAC hub, SEA is not.
@Tim, United has 5 HND slots (LAX, SFO, IAD, EWR, and ORD) equivalent to DL if we exclude HNL + its NRT service, which includes IAH and DEN. Not to mention, United's JV w/ ANA means that it technically serves more airports to Tokyo than DL does.
UA doesn't need to funnel connecting traffic to NRT like DL does w/ ICN. SFO serves more international destinations...
YVR is a true TPAC hub, SEA is not.
@Tim, United has 5 HND slots (LAX, SFO, IAD, EWR, and ORD) equivalent to DL if we exclude HNL + its NRT service, which includes IAH and DEN. Not to mention, United's JV w/ ANA means that it technically serves more airports to Tokyo than DL does.
UA doesn't need to funnel connecting traffic to NRT like DL does w/ ICN. SFO serves more international destinations alone than DL and AA combined TPAC.
I'm not trying to bash DL. I'm a believer of their product and want them to do better. But their E. Asia TPAC weakness is undeniable. Maybe their TPE service might bring about some opportunities (possibly w/ CI?)
yolo.
UA dropped its HNL-NRT flight because ANA is flying their A380 on the route - which also caused HA to drop that route.
DL does fly HNL-HND.
DL and UA have the same number of continental US HND flights.
DL and UA will have the same number of total flights when UA adds GUM but GUM and HNL are not the same market.
And, as much as you want to...
yolo.
UA dropped its HNL-NRT flight because ANA is flying their A380 on the route - which also caused HA to drop that route.
DL does fly HNL-HND.
DL and UA have the same number of continental US HND flights.
DL and UA will have the same number of total flights when UA adds GUM but GUM and HNL are not the same market.
And, as much as you want to believe otherwise, NRT is almost entirely a connecting hub now.
Seoul is a far larger local market than NRT PLUS ICN is a larger connecting hub.
As much as you want to argue otherwise, in NE Asia, DL is larger including the JV partners that you keep wanting to throw in.
And as soon as DL adds ICN-LAX,JFK and SLC and the 2nd ICN-ATL, DL will be larger in NE Asia (Tokyo plus Seoul) on their own metal than UA.
UA's larger size comes from its double dailies - all from SFO - and from the additional destinations that UA serves "south" of Japan. DL is adding TPE and will add other cities "south of" Japan and Korea.
In other words, the huge gap that you and others seem to think UA has which DL can't close will, in fact, be closed by DL in the next few years. And DL will be doing it with larger and more cost-efficient aircraft which will make it harder for UA to try to undercut DL to keep them from growing - while DL can pick off traffic from UA and still make money.
and NRT will become increasingly less viable in economics which means UA and AA's strategy of hubbing at NRT and trying to claim the local Tokyo traffic at HND will fall apart.
The dominance that UA has over the Pacific is alot more fragile than you want to believe.
Delta has made no announcements about all of these flights. Until they actually do and are flying it’s just wishful thinking on your part
I disagree that B6 offers a better product in the front of the cabin. While the Mint product is nice, the lack of a lounge and poor on time performance would lead me to book DL. JetBlue is a mess when it comes to IROPS. When problems occur, B6 becomes a discount airline in terms of accommodating the passenger.
your comment is unacceptable to the internet keyboard warriors that don't actually buy tickets.
The fact that DL carries so much more domestic revenue at higher fares than B6 from BOS and JFK proves that actual business travelers don't buy the argument that is in any way better.
Let's see what Icahn has to say about how to turn B6 around.
@ Tim Dunn -- I'm confused, which facts did I not get right? I read your rant over and over, but I'm not seeing where you explained the facts that I got wrong?
1) Where in this post did I say anything about the number of Asia flights that Delta operates from Seattle compared to pre-pandemic?
2) Where in this post did I say Delta's Seattle hub was unprofitable?
3) Seems you're saying what I'm saying?
Ben, you do realize Tim is addressing the points made in the paragraph where you commend Scott Kirby’s TPAC strategy and are excited to see Delta adopt a similar plan to reduce the large disparity of SEA trailing other gateways.
Ben,
thanks for your reply.
my points are clearly numbered at the top and highlight connectivity and size of the DL SEA TPAC operations but the biggest point is the linked article you wrote about profitability using revenue number as the basis.
I know you are really smart guy and know that revenue is not the same as profits.
And many of the replies in this long thread are to other...
Ben,
thanks for your reply.
my points are clearly numbered at the top and highlight connectivity and size of the DL SEA TPAC operations but the biggest point is the linked article you wrote about profitability using revenue number as the basis.
I know you are really smart guy and know that revenue is not the same as profits.
And many of the replies in this long thread are to other people who continue to think that UA's megahub strategy at SFO is the best because UA is the biggest across the Pacific.
In fact, UA's TPAC network is more heavily concentrated at SFO than DL's is; DL has as much coverage of Tokyo for the local market while not competing with its own local market at HND by using at hub at NRT - which has been reduced to the same position as what ICN is to DL - because Seoul is a larger local market than NRT now.
and Russian airspace closures are part of the reason but UA's eastern US to Asia route system has been decimated. We'll see in the next couple years but I believe you will see DL use the much more capable A350 and esp. with the -1000 open up routes that the 787-9 simply cannot do.
And DL is still rebuilding its Pacific route system after the Japanese decision to open to TPAC flights but not allow DL to move its NRT hub there, then covid, and then the decision to get rid of the 777s which led them temporarily to having a less capable fleet of A350s.
All of those pieces are now being corrected and the influx of new and reconfigured ex-Latam A350s will allow for enormous growth.
And DL is going to dramatically grow its flights at ICN but has been on the sidelines while the KE/OZ merger gets either approvals or denials. Now that the EU has approved it, the US is the last country and it shouldn't be hard to get the merger over the finish line with similar divestitures.
ICN is simply a far larger connecting hub than anything else in the Pacific which is why KE is the #2 largest TPAC carrier behind UA - displacing DL's #2 position pre-covid. Add in DL's own growth which will come and those that argue about the power of UA's JV simply do not want to see that DL is in a position of TPAC growth while UA will find growth much more difficult.
And the SEA hub including domestic serves a very different role for DL than it does for AS or SFO does for UA.
Finalize that with DL's much higher profits and DL can make announcements that take on other carriers on routes where DL came in as the underdog but now are solidly established which has happened over and over again.
Alaska served MIA prior to 2022 for many years. I think it was before they hooked up with AA. Then they pulled out, and are back again.
Looking at the SEA-MIA flights on December 21st, Delta charging almost 3x what American is charging and 2x more than Alaska for economy tickets!!!
AA 1819 : Main Cabin = $479
AS 305 : Main Cabin = $654
DL 525 : Main Cabin = $1,249
For MIA-SEA flights, the difference is even greater....!
prices are never competitive when flights are loaded for just about any US airline because it takes time for the revenue management systems to run for several days to allocate inventory.
Sure, it's established knowledge that they're hemorrhaging money out of SEA, but they'll make up for it in volume!
established only because it is repeated over and over but those who trample over actual data and can't figure out that Delta made $4 billion more than AA, AS or HA in 2023.
If DL can do stuff like adding the longest domestic continental US flight in a competitive market using a tad of its profits, then the real question is what comes next and what the rest of the industry can do about this 800 pound beast.
Indeed. It’s fascinating how the Internet transforms the term “least profitable” into “money hemorrhaging” and/or failure.
it is more fascinating that they took data that is about revenue generation - and incomplete at that (see above) - and turned into profitability and still can't explain how Delta can keep adding these major strategic routes and still end up making SO much more money than everyone else.
"it's established knowledge that they're hemorrhaging money out of SEA"
It's actually not. SEA was reported to be their least profitable hub, using domestic-only figures. That could mean anything from losing money, to barely sustaining, to making a small but tidy profit. So to go from what was report, to "hemorrhaging money," is a fairly substantial assumption, and definitely not "established knowledge."
thank you.
and the question still is how Delta can manage to have so many underperforming and, according to some, money-losing hubs and still report the largest profits of any airline in the world - and nobody else can figure out how to do the same thing for their hubs.
I suspect the reality is that SEA is profitable for DL but at margins well below ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC but SEA...
thank you.
and the question still is how Delta can manage to have so many underperforming and, according to some, money-losing hubs and still report the largest profits of any airline in the world - and nobody else can figure out how to do the same thing for their hubs.
I suspect the reality is that SEA is profitable for DL but at margins well below ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC but SEA serves key strategic reasons and so DL is willing to sustain lower margins subsidized by its more profitable hubs.
And it is equally notable how much some people invent hub profitability even though there is no data that is released by any airline that allows one to come to any conclusions about the profitability of any hub - but they argue against global region profitability which is released by the DOT with data that comes directly from the DOT.
and the DOT has released profitability by global region data through the 3rd quarter - and it validates very closely the systemwide profit numbers which airlines reported through, wait, wait, the 3rd quarter on their SEC-filed earnings releases to investors - as all publicly traded companies are required to do.
Some people just don't like reality so they ignore the truths which do exist while making up their own reality.
Thankfully, the world doesn't really work that way although some people get by w/ it for a long time.
Delta needs to put the D1 A321neos in SEA. If they really want to stay competitive, then they need to differentiate their product. B6 Mint transcons already serve BOS and JFK, which are important hubs for DL now. I can see the D1 A321neos being very useful for long 5 hours transcon routes like SEA-MIA, SEA-ATL, SEA-JFK, and SEA-BOS
In addition to quickly building up NEO ops, they also deployed the A220’s in SEA to make thin routes viable and to put their most efficient planes in their most beleaguered hub.
Delta should market flights and fares that allow an overnight stay in Seattle on the way to or from Asia. If I had the time and was traveling from Miami to Shanghai or Seoul and wanted to fly on Delta, then breaking the journey might be an idea, particularly on the way to Miami.
Example,
DL PVG-SEA 710PM-342PM
overnight at an airport hotel or hotel in downtown Bellevue or Seattle
DL SEA-MIA 1100AM-950PM
Sounds like punishment, I don't think SEA has the entertainment for overnight fun like ICN or TPE. Maybe if the Public Market lasted until late evenings. Otherwise, something like a MIA-ATL-PVG should be the decent enough
I don’t think delta is relying or wants to rely on low yield overnight transit traffic to make either Mia-sea or sea-Asia flights work.