(emphasis added). I don't think there is any evidence that the Trainer facility has resulted in a "significant" improvement on Delta's fuel expense, especially as the term pertains to an enterprise grossing about $40b per annum. Trainer was an interesting, opportunistic move that demonstrates Delta management's outside-of-the-box thinking, but if the refinery were such a boon, there are plenty of similarly-equipped, somewhat inexpensive (due to the operating cost) refineries on all three US coasts looking for buyers. Thus far UA and AA have not made any moves to that end.

Replacement of Delta's 747, 757, 767, MD-88 and A320 fleets over the next 10-15 years will be a hugely capital-intensive endeavor. Delta needs to be wise with its capex now as it is further behind the curve than UA and AA in fleet replacement.

I agree that Delta is being run in circles around UA right now, and rightfully so, and I have a great deal of respect for the way Anderson has steered the post-merger ship. He's done world's better than I would have anticipated following his time at NW. That said, it is unreasonable to expect these trends to continue in perpetuity, as any longtime airline observer can attest. The business has evolved, but running an airline is a fundamentally low-margin undertaking with broad, diverse exposure to a plethora of exteral factors, and unfortunately is never more than one major geopolitical or economic event from dire straits once again.

Yes, to a certain extent, but not for long. Delta has captured the low-hanging-fruit from SEA with comprehensive Pacific service, a small but growing domestic feeder operation ex-SEA with additional offline feed provided by AS. Now, as Delta has announced its plan to transition SEA into a full-blown hub, that endeavor will be costly and certainly not guaranteed for success. It will be engaging in a fare/capacity war with virtually every new domestic market it enters as its relationship with AS deteriorates. As for the fuel burn, I think you overstate the benefit of a SEA hub vs. a SFO hub on that basis. While the advantage is substantial when compared to an ultra long haul, such as a transpacific flight from EWR, JFK, IAD, ATL, etc., long haul cruise is an extremely efficient phase of flight, so the marginal fuel burn relative to SFO over SEA is limited. The geographical positioning of the SEA hub gives Delta a roughly 10% to -2% fuel burn improvment (negative % being a penalty) enroute to Asia versus a SFO hub, and such advantage diminishes as one moves further south and west in Asia (where most growth is occuring) as well as south and east in the US (ditto) considering city pairs involving one stop in SFO/SEA. Further, as Delta's hub is not nearly as developed as SFO in terms of feed structure, far more markets require a double-connect, which DL must price accordingly over two-stop options. Next, the investment required to create a new hub will be substantial, as will be losses Delta must absorb with new services that are admittedly a fact of life in the airline business. Finally, the SFO local market to Asia is larger and higher yielding than SEA, and SFO is better-positioned to capture LAX-originating flow, the largest US-Asia market and a major piece of UA's traffic to Asia ex-SFO.

I just don't think the SEA operation has nearly the cut-and-dried, out-of-the-box advantage to SFO that you indicate, and certainly not enough to fully negate the advantage of the 787 and its operating cost advantage vs older aircraft, especially considering the costs DL will surely incur as it grows the SEA operation into a full-scale hub.