United continues to expand…Where does Delta stand?
Jul 18, 23, 7:07 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York City
Programs: DL DM & 2MM; Marriott Titanium
Posts: 589
United continues to expand…Where does Delta stand?
https://www.united.com/en/us/newsroom/announcements/cision-125277
Delta was always lagging when it comes to Australia and New Zealand. Now, even more.
Delta was always lagging when it comes to Australia and New Zealand. Now, even more.
Jul 18, 23, 8:31 am
#2
Join Date: Jun 2013
Programs: DL Diamond, UA Premier Gold
Posts: 2,757
Delta block hours are 14% down from 2019, although some of that is due to upgauging. American is down 12% from 2019 levels and United is down 8%. All the LCCs and ULCCs are flying more than they did pre-covid. So yes, Delta has shrunk the most of all the major US carriers. Being the biggest doesn't mean the most profitable though. Delta's conservative strategy seems to be paying off with a higher margin than peers.
Jul 18, 23, 9:13 am
#3
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,073
I'm not sure it really matters what UA does.
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic.
Delta does not have the same set of circumstances so they've chosen to take a partner-based approach where they focus their efforts on funneling to ICN/LHR/CDG/AMS and then make opportunistic investments on heavy business TPAC/TATL routes (e.g., HND, ZRH, FCO, etc.).
You don't have to like the DL strategy vs the UA strategy but they at least have a very clearly defined approach. The one that's most curious to me is AA, they have a clearly defined focus on Latin America and LHR but beyond that it's not entirely clear.
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic.
Delta does not have the same set of circumstances so they've chosen to take a partner-based approach where they focus their efforts on funneling to ICN/LHR/CDG/AMS and then make opportunistic investments on heavy business TPAC/TATL routes (e.g., HND, ZRH, FCO, etc.).
You don't have to like the DL strategy vs the UA strategy but they at least have a very clearly defined approach. The one that's most curious to me is AA, they have a clearly defined focus on Latin America and LHR but beyond that it's not entirely clear.
Jul 18, 23, 9:33 am
#4
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hotlanta.
Programs: I've gone underground!
Posts: 4,324
I agree with what’s said above. Duke787 –I’ve wondered the same. Their strategy has changed so much over the years, more so if you consider AA vs HP vs US.
I suspect AA just took the most profitable aspects of their legacy, taking the old HP model + US in PHL + AA in MIA. They’ve got pretty good capture of the Great Plains + TX, and Latin America + Caribbean.
I suspect AA just took the most profitable aspects of their legacy, taking the old HP model + US in PHL + AA in MIA. They’ve got pretty good capture of the Great Plains + TX, and Latin America + Caribbean.
Jul 18, 23, 10:23 am
#5
Join Date: Aug 2017
Programs: Alaska 75K, Delta Silver, UA 1K, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Platinum + LT Gold
Posts: 9,634
What Duke said. Partner coordination is a key for Delta - here is a very recent example, when AF just announced CDG - RDU, Delta is going to stop flying the route, part of its metal neutral JV agreement.
While it's great UA is expanding, it is doing a terrible job in the operations, especially EWR.
While it's great UA is expanding, it is doing a terrible job in the operations, especially EWR.
Jul 18, 23, 3:36 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 4,658
I'm not sure it really matters what UA does.
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic
Jul 18, 23, 3:47 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL, OZ, AC, AS, AA, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG
Posts: 18,588
Jul 18, 23, 4:08 pm
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Programs: DL, OZ, AC, AS, AA, BA, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, IHG
Posts: 18,588
Jul 18, 23, 7:24 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,073
The more important point is UA can offer O&D point to point flights in their corporate contracts in two cities with some of the highest level of business activity in the world plus add in IAD and they can go after America First corporate contracts for point to point long haul. That’s why they can build out an own-metal first strategy.
DL has that to some degree with NYC and ATL but not enough to fully embrace the UA model, that’s why they instead tend to launch opportunistic O&D TATL flights (like RDU - CDG) and then focus on connecting flow.
Thats also not to say the DL strategy is bad, their earnings over the past few years suggest it’s a good strategy, it just means they don’t have to respond to the moves from UA because DL is pursuing a different strategy than UA for long haul.
Jul 19, 23, 2:50 pm
#11
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,903
But neither JFK nor LGA are fortress hubs for anyone. That's the point.
Jul 20, 23, 6:57 am
#12
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: LAS, MPL
Programs: DL Platinum, 1 MM
Posts: 1,304
I'm not sure it really matters what UA does.
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic.
Delta does not have the same set of circumstances so they've chosen to take a partner-based approach where they focus their efforts on funneling to ICN/LHR/CDG/AMS and then make opportunistic investments on heavy business TPAC/TATL routes (e.g., HND, ZRH, FCO, etc.).
You don't have to like the DL strategy vs the UA strategy but they at least have a very clearly defined approach. The one that's most curious to me is AA, they have a clearly defined focus on Latin America and LHR but beyond that it's not entirely clear.
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic.
Delta does not have the same set of circumstances so they've chosen to take a partner-based approach where they focus their efforts on funneling to ICN/LHR/CDG/AMS and then make opportunistic investments on heavy business TPAC/TATL routes (e.g., HND, ZRH, FCO, etc.).
You don't have to like the DL strategy vs the UA strategy but they at least have a very clearly defined approach. The one that's most curious to me is AA, they have a clearly defined focus on Latin America and LHR but beyond that it's not entirely clear.
Jul 20, 23, 8:34 am
#13
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: PHX
Programs: Delta DM, Marriott Lifetime Titanium, HHonrs Diamond
Posts: 1,332
I'm not sure it really matters what UA does.
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic.
Delta does not have the same set of circumstances so they've chosen to take a partner-based approach where they focus their efforts on funneling to ICN/LHR/CDG/AMS and then make opportunistic investments on heavy business TPAC/TATL routes (e.g., HND, ZRH, FCO, etc.).
You don't have to like the DL strategy vs the UA strategy but they at least have a very clearly defined approach. The one that's most curious to me is AA, they have a clearly defined focus on Latin America and LHR but beyond that it's not entirely clear.
The two have vastly different strategies so it's not all that relevant. UA has mega fortress hubs at EWR and SFO combined with a long-term 787 fleet that allows it to pursue a long, thin point to point TATL and TPAC strategy that can be supported by O&D and connecting traffic.
Delta does not have the same set of circumstances so they've chosen to take a partner-based approach where they focus their efforts on funneling to ICN/LHR/CDG/AMS and then make opportunistic investments on heavy business TPAC/TATL routes (e.g., HND, ZRH, FCO, etc.).
You don't have to like the DL strategy vs the UA strategy but they at least have a very clearly defined approach. The one that's most curious to me is AA, they have a clearly defined focus on Latin America and LHR but beyond that it's not entirely clear.
DL showed it's strategy pre-pandemic when it abandoned SIN, HKG, MNL. It has stayed consistent in their decision, and from a profitability standpoint, it was the correct move.
Frankly, I'm shocked they even bothered to add AKL and PPT.
