It has been several years since the last time I was able to make a series of these threads (summer 2014 is the last set of threads I could find), but they always seemed to be of interest to people on here.

I have gone through the online schedules of AA, DL, and UA, and have tallied up departures by aircraft type for each hub in order to get a picture of how each airline is currently deploying their fleet across their network. This subject has always fascinated me, so the hours of going through schedules are totally worth it . Anyway, this time around I picked a Monday in the middle of the summer (July 23, 2018, to be exact) and collected schedule data from the same day for all three airlines so that comparisons can be made. It is also interesting to see how things have changed over just a few years - here is a link to the UA thread from 2014 for reference: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=572587&hilit=hub+%26+aircraft+type

A few notes/disclaimers:

*This data was collected by hand, so it's possible there are a few inaccuracies. However, I have a high level of confidence in the data.
*Schedules are always subject to change, so the totals from when I collected data may already have changed slightly, and may change further in the coming weeks.
*As we know, the term "hub" is always unavoidably subjective. For the purpose of these threads, I'm classifying a "hub" as a station that has 100+ departures serving 30+ destinations.
*I don't have plans to do this for any other airline's network this summer - if someone would like to make a thread like this for AS, AC, etc., wonderful! Please use 7/23/2018 as the schedule date for a fair comparison.
*For simplicity's sake, I decided not to split out different subfleets in the tallies. International 757-200s will be aggregated with domestic 757-200s, and so on and so forth. I'm also using airline-agnostic aircraft codes, so if a given airline classifies their 737-700s as "73W" (looking at you, DL), the data here will still show "73G" instead.

Enjoy!


ORD

ER4: 49
CR2: 194
CR7: 41
E70: 30
E75: 62
319: 46
320: 56
73G: 27
738: 49
739: 54
752: 4
753: 22
763: 5
772: 13

Total = 652
42.3 % mainline


IAH

ER4: 100
CR7: 13
E70: 20
E75: 125
319: 26
320: 34
73G: 26
738: 66
739: 70
7M9: 11
752: 4
763: 6
789: 2
772: 8

Total = 511
49.5 % mainline


DEN

ER4: 59
CR2: 107
CR7: 39
E70: 9
E75: 49
319: 38
320: 46
738: 40
739: 57
752: 7
753: 11
788: 3
772: 3

Total = 468
43.8 % mainline


EWR

ER4: 128
E70: 43
E75: 29
319: 17
320: 22
73G: 22
738: 65
739: 35
752: 37
763: 7
764: 13
772: 18
77W: 3

Total = 439
54.4 % mainline


SFO

CR2: 28
CR7: 8
E75: 59
319: 20
320: 45
738: 49
739: 47
752: 21
753: 16
788: 4
789: 8
772: 11
77W: 7

Total = 323
70.6 % mainline


IAD

ER4: 36
CR2: 34
CR7: 57
E75: 14
319: 14
320: 9
73G: 3
738: 19
739: 33
752: 10
763: 7
788: 4
772: 8

Total = 248
43.1 % mainline


LAX

CR2: 29
CR7: 3
E75: 34
320: 6
738: 24
739: 38
7M9: 3
752: 12
753: 12
789: 7
772: 3

Total = 171
61.4 % mainline

Here are links to the threads for AA and DL:
AA - https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396833
DL - https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396835

I’ve been hoping to see one of these again, thanks so much.

Thanks FSDan good stuff!!

Crazy to see 59 175 operating from SFO now. Been a very good fit for the markets

man. pathetic % mainline numbers. I know united has always been thought of as a "regional heavy" airline. But this thread really points it out. Thanks for creating these threads.

Thanks for all the work, FSDan. Would you care to add BOS to your AA listing?

Thank You for compiling this information, I have been looking for an update to this for quite a while.

Thanks again

Interesting the gap between ORD and IAH has gotten so large.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Interesting the gap between ORD and IAH has gotten so large.

I suspect that Gap will get smaller within the next 2 years. As IAH will see growth.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Interesting the gap between ORD and IAH has gotten so large.

I suspect that Gap will get smaller within the next 2 years. As IAH will see growth.

AVENSAB727 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Interesting the gap between ORD and IAH has gotten so large.

I suspect that Gap will get smaller within the next 2 years. As IAH will see growth.

ORD is seeing significant growth as well. UA numbers are way up.

chicawgo wrote:

AVENSAB727 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Interesting the gap between ORD and IAH has gotten so large.

I suspect that Gap will get smaller within the next 2 years. As IAH will see growth.

ORD is seeing significant growth as well. UA numbers are way up.

Both hubs are seeing growth, within the next 2 years, they both will get larger.

UAL sure loves their regional jets

N766UA wrote:

UAL sure loves their regional jets

That will change in the next couple years with 160 new 737s and 20+ A319s coming on line.

N766UA wrote:

UAL sure loves their regional jets

That will likely change as they continue to bring those used 319s and the new 737 maxs on board. I just don't think they can go any faster.

I love these lists! Good job FSDan!

Is UA not flying the 77W out of IAH this summer? I also saw a 77W in DEN last week but I'm positive it was a one-off.

I would like someone to make a Delta one. My that would be fun!

yonikasz wrote:

I would like someone to make a Delta one. My that would be fun!

Here you go:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1396835

micstatic wrote:

man. pathetic % mainline numbers. I know united has always been thought of as a "regional heavy" airline. But this thread really points it out. Thanks for creating these threads.

If you think 2018 is pathetic, take a gander at the 2014 numbers (there's a link to that thread in the original post). Core hubs ORD and DEN were just barely north of 30% mainline, and IAH had 300+ ER3/ER4 departures. While UA still has lower % mainline numbers than their competitors in many cases, the number of E75s throughout the system has increased dramatically (which is a very positive trend).

TWA772LR wrote:

I love these lists! Good job FSDan!

Is UA not flying the 77W out of IAH this summer? I also saw a 77W in DEN last week but I'm positive it was a one-off.

There has been a few one-offs with the 777Ws the past couple weeks. They have done rotations to DEN, OGG, HNL and I’m sure others out of SFO.

Thanks for preparing this. It highlights UA's disappointing reliance on 50-seat RJs. I'd like to fly UA but won't spend half my paid F journey in a CRJ when DL and AA can get me to a place like CHA without downgrading en route.

[photoid][/photoid]

micstatic wrote:

man. pathetic % mainline numbers. I know united has always been thought of as a "regional heavy" airline. But this thread really points it out. Thanks for creating these threads.

Oh is it? Take a look at the other threads and notice 40% mainline at ORD for American, 44% at PHL, and 43% mainline at DTW for Delta among others.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Interesting the gap between ORD and IAH has gotten so large.

Difference in seats has narrowed from ORD being a full 22% busier than IAH in Q3 2017 to 17% in Q3 2018.

Difference in flights, however, has widened with the AW CRJs--went from being 21% busier in Q3 2017 to 26% in Q3 2018.

ASM difference narrowed from 16% to 11%.

(ORD is much more seasonal than IAH, though, so the difference for the full year is much less pronounced--10% in seats for 12 months ending June 2018.)

Thank you very much for compiling these data. I am very appreciative of it and have been missing it! It is always interesting to see the spread between mainline and regional, and to compare it with previous seasons.

More specifically, I find it interesting to see how much the E75 has replaced the CR7, and how much UA still relies on the CR2, with the likes of OO and ZW. It’s also interesting to see how the sCO and sUA types have intermingled in the sCO and sUA hubs.

AirStairs wrote:

Thanks for preparing this. It highlights UA's disappointing reliance on 50-seat RJs. I'd like to fly UA but won't spend half my paid F journey in a CRJ when DL and AA can get me to a place like CHA without downgrading en route.

Check DL against UA again.

DEN and DTW have a similar number of flights and a nearly identical percentage of mainline flights.

EWR and MSP have a similar number of flights and a near identical percentage of mainline flights.

The big difference is at DL’s ATL hub with 80% mainline. With a fortress hub of +1000 flights DL has the market share to justify flying a higher percentage of mainline flying.

DTW and MSP have also been called DL fortress hubs but have relatively low mainline percentages when they by and large own the markets in those metro areas. Contrast that with UA who hubs in markets far more competitive like ORD/DEN/SFO. The more competition, the lower the market share. The lower the market share, the harder it is to fill mainline capacity in certain markets. The mainline percentages at UA currently are a testiment to UA’s commitment to upgauging where it makes sense.

UA isn’t going to put a 73G or 319 on a route that doesn’t have the demand to justify it. Outside of A.Net and few in the well-traveled public, the majority of the public has no clue what type of aircraft they’re going to be on, thus does not make purchasing decisions based on who is flying an RJ vs mainline.

77H

77H wrote:

AirStairs wrote:

Thanks for preparing this. It highlights UA's disappointing reliance on 50-seat RJs. I'd like to fly UA but won't spend half my paid F journey in a CRJ when DL and AA can get me to a place like CHA without downgrading en route.

UA isn’t going to put a 73G or 319 on a route that doesn’t have the demand to justify it. Outside of A.Net and few in the well-traveled public, the majority of the public has no clue what type of aircraft they’re going to be on, thus does not make purchasing decisions based on who is flying an RJ vs mainline.

77H

I mean if one is booking domestic F and its not possible on a UA 50 seater, they will decide to book alternatives if possible.

The problem isn't just flying to small markets. Take for example LAX-AUS, UA is all regional, AA, DL and WN are all mainline and this is a 3hr flight, not some short hop.

malev2012 wrote:

77H wrote:

AirStairs wrote:

Thanks for preparing this. It highlights UA's disappointing reliance on 50-seat RJs. I'd like to fly UA but won't spend half my paid F journey in a CRJ when DL and AA can get me to a place like CHA without downgrading en route.

UA isn’t going to put a 73G or 319 on a route that doesn’t have the demand to justify it. Outside of A.Net and few in the well-traveled public, the majority of the public has no clue what type of aircraft they’re going to be on, thus does not make purchasing decisions based on who is flying an RJ vs mainline.

77H

I mean if one is booking domestic F and its not possible on a UA 50 seater, they will decide to book alternatives if possible.

The problem isn't just flying to small markets. Take for example LAX-AUS, UA is all regional, AA, DL and WN are all mainline and this is a 3hr flight, not some short hop.

WN all mainline on this segment? Wow, glad we cleared that one up.

Funny though, you mention lack of first class product being a negative (which UA still has on this segment) yet promote Southwest which obviously doesn’t. I’d rather fly coach on a 175, then on cattle class Southwest any day.

77H wrote:

UA isn’t going to put a 73G or 319 on a route that doesn’t have the demand to justify it. Outside of A.Net and few in the well-traveled public, the majority of the public has no clue what type of aircraft they’re going to be on, thus does not make purchasing decisions based on who is flying an RJ vs mainline.

77H

The problem with that is the bigger the plane, the lower the CASM. Running 319s against Delta 757s is not a winning game, nor is CR2s vs. CR9s. If UA can't get proper scale in its hubs, it needs to think about how it's hubbing.

malev2012 wrote:

77H wrote:

AirStairs wrote:

Thanks for preparing this. It highlights UA's disappointing reliance on 50-seat RJs. I'd like to fly UA but won't spend half my paid F journey in a CRJ when DL and AA can get me to a place like CHA without downgrading en route.

UA isn’t going to put a 73G or 319 on a route that doesn’t have the demand to justify it. Outside of A.Net and few in the well-traveled public, the majority of the public has no clue what type of aircraft they’re going to be on, thus does not make purchasing decisions based on who is flying an RJ vs mainline.

77H

I mean if one is booking domestic F and its not possible on a UA 50 seater, they will decide to book alternatives if possible.

The problem isn't just flying to small markets. Take for example LAX-AUS, UA is all regional, AA, DL and WN are all mainline and this is a 3hr flight, not some short hop.

With your example you have to remember that UA has 2 CA hubs so they aren't funneling as much connecting traffic through LAX like AA and DL so they don't need a mainline plane on the route. And an E7W guarantees that you won't get a middle seat, which most would prefer. Other than that mainline vs an E7W is negligible in your example.

The amount of E175’s in IAH is certainly nothing to laugh at. UA has done a great job at making IAH less ERJ dependent. I remember when not too long ago IAH had almost 200+ ERJ flights.

MIflyer12 wrote:

The problem with that is the bigger the plane, the lower the CASM. Running 319s against Delta 757s is not a winning game, nor is CR2s vs. CR9s. If UA can't get proper scale in its hubs, it needs to think about how it's hubbing.

You're not including the revenue side of the equation. And it doesn't tell the whole story on the cost side either. Unless it's the same route with no connections, the cost side isn't that straight forward. And finally higher capacity aircraft =/= lower CASM. Usually it does, but not always.

flight152 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

micstatic wrote:

man. pathetic % mainline numbers. I know united has always been thought of as a "regional heavy" airline. But this thread really points it out. Thanks for creating these threads.

Oh is it? Take a look at the other threads and notice 40% mainline at ORD for American, 44% at PHL, and 43% mainline at DTW for Delta among others.

The most rediculous is DL at LGA, only 28% Mainline, and AA at DCA with 25%.

STT757 wrote:

flight152 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]

micstatic wrote:

man. pathetic % mainline numbers. I know united has always been thought of as a "regional heavy" airline. But this thread really points it out. Thanks for creating these threads.

Oh is it? Take a look at the other threads and notice 40% mainline at ORD for American, 44% at PHL, and 43% mainline at DTW for Delta among others.

The most rediculous is DL at LGA, only 28% Mainline, and AA at DCA with 25%.

The one redeeming factor for those two hubs is the percentage of departures that have a premium cabin. Despite the high RJ counts, 92.7% of departures at DL's LGA hub have a premium cabin, and 71.8% of departures at AA's DCA hub have a premium cabin. When factoring in large RJs, a lot of UA's hubs look better as well.

I say, fascinating numbers, thanks! As a lover of ORD (even in the thunderstorms), this is great info!

ericm2031 wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

77H wrote:

UA isn’t going to put a 73G or 319 on a route that doesn’t have the demand to justify it. Outside of A.Net and few in the well-traveled public, the majority of the public has no clue what type of aircraft they’re going to be on, thus does not make purchasing decisions based on who is flying an RJ vs mainline.

77H

I mean if one is booking domestic F and its not possible on a UA 50 seater, they will decide to book alternatives if possible.

The problem isn't just flying to small markets. Take for example LAX-AUS, UA is all regional, AA, DL and WN are all mainline and this is a 3hr flight, not some short hop.

With your example you have to remember that UA has 2 CA hubs so they aren't funneling as much connecting traffic through LAX like AA and DL so they don't need a mainline plane on the route. And an E7W guarantees that you won't get a middle seat, which most would prefer. Other than that mainline vs an E7W is negligible in your example.

Then why do they only offer 2×E75 when AA is 4x738/319 with a hub in PHX or DL 3x 319 with a hub at SLC? Or WN 2x 738 with focus cities all around the area LAS PHX OAK? UA has shrunk to be smaller than DL due to hiding from competition on routes like these.

malev2012 wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

malev2012 wrote:

I mean if one is booking domestic F and its not possible on a UA 50 seater, they will decide to book alternatives if possible.

The problem isn't just flying to small markets. Take for example LAX-AUS, UA is all regional, AA, DL and WN are all mainline and this is a 3hr flight, not some short hop.

With your example you have to remember that UA has 2 CA hubs so they aren't funneling as much connecting traffic through LAX like AA and DL so they don't need a mainline plane on the route. And an E7W guarantees that you won't get a middle seat, which most would prefer. Other than that mainline vs an E7W is negligible in your example.

Then why do they only offer 2×E75 when AA is 4x738/319 with a hub in PHX or DL 3x 319 with a hub at SLC? Or WN 2x 738 with focus cities all around the area LAS PHX OAK? UA has shrunk to be smaller than DL due to hiding from competition on routes like these.

UA also offers 3x 738 and 1x739 to EWR which is more then DL offers to JFK and much more then AA offers to the New York area. Any other examples you’d like to cherry pick?

malev2012 wrote:

Then why do they only offer 2×E75 when AA is 4x738/319 with a hub in PHX or DL 3x 319 with a hub at SLC? Or WN 2x 738 with focus cities all around the area LAS PHX OAK? UA has shrunk to be smaller than DL due to hiding from competition on routes like these.

It was just stated. UA has LAX and SFO in California. They're not trying to "win" LAX. Hence UA's general focus at LAX has been for O&D and strategic international connections. LAX-AUS may get a bump down the road as UA increases its mainline fleet, but I would never expect the level of capacity of AA or DL with their reliance on "winning" LAX and also DL's focus at AUS. It's also not fair to throw in PHX and SLC, which thanks to geography have a larger connection catchment area (if we include them, we might as well include AUS-DEN as well). UA faces more competition than any of the US legacies. It's not "running away". It's picking your battles. DL and AA "hide" far more than UA and also carefully pick battles.

KLASM83 wrote:

I say, fascinating numbers, thanks! As a lover of ORD (even in the thunderstorms), this is great info!

The new gates can’t come fast enough! Kirby knows where to target AA in ORD and is implementing it!

FSDan wrote:

It has been several years since the last time I was able to make a series of these threads (summer 2014 is the last set of threads I could find), but they always seemed to be of interest to people on here.

I have gone through the online schedules of AA, DL, and UA, and have tallied up departures by aircraft type for each hub in order to get a picture of how each airline is currently deploying their fleet across their network. This subject has always fascinated me, so the hours of going through schedules are totally worth it . Anyway, this time around I picked a Monday in the middle of the summer (July 23, 2018, to be exact) and collected schedule data from the same day for all three airlines so that comparisons can be made. It is also interesting to see how things have changed over just a few years - here is a link to the UA thread from 2014 for reference: https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=572587&hilit=hub+%26+aircraft+type

A few notes/disclaimers:

*This data was collected by hand, so it's possible there are a few inaccuracies. However, I have a high level of confidence in the data.
*Schedules are always subject to change, so the totals from when I collected data may already have changed slightly, and may change further in the coming weeks.
*As we know, the term "hub" is always unavoidably subjective. For the purpose of these threads, I'm classifying a "hub" as a station that has 100+ departures serving 30+ destinations.
*I don't have plans to do this for any other airline's network this summer - if someone would like to make a thread like this for AS, AC, etc., wonderful! Please use 7/23/2018 as the schedule date for a fair comparison.
*For simplicity's sake, I decided not to split out different subfleets in the tallies. International 757-200s will be aggregated with domestic 757-200s, and so on and so forth. I'm also using airline-agnostic aircraft codes, so if a given airline classifies their 737-700s as "73W" (looking at you, DL), the data here will still show "73G" instead.

Enjoy!


ORD

ER4: 49
CR2: 194
CR7: 41
E70: 30
E75: 62
319: 46
320: 56
73G: 27
738: 49
739: 54
752: 4
753: 22
763: 5
772: 13

Total = 652
42.3 % mainline


IAH

ER4: 100
CR7: 13
E70: 20
E75: 125
319: 26
320: 34
73G: 26
738: 66
739: 70
7M9: 11
752: 4
763: 6
789: 2
772: 8

Total = 511
49.5 % mainline


DEN

ER4: 59
CR2: 107
CR7: 39
E70: 9
E75: 49
319: 38
320: 46
738: 40
739: 57
752: 7
753: 11
788: 3
772: 3

Total = 468
43.8 % mainline


EWR

ER4: 128
E70: 43
E75: 29
319: 17
320: 22
73G: 22
738: 65
739: 35
752: 37
763: 7
764: 13
772: 18
77W: 3

Total = 439
54.4 % mainline


SFO

CR2: 28
CR7: 8
E75: 59
319: 20
320: 45
738: 49
739: 47
752: 21
753: 16
788: 4
789: 8
772: 11
77W: 7

Total = 323
70.6 % mainline


IAD

ER4: 36
CR2: 34
CR7: 57
E75: 14
319: 14
320: 9
73G: 3
738: 19
739: 33
752: 10
763: 7
788: 4
772: 8

Total = 248
43.1 % mainline


LAX

CR2: 29
CR7: 3
E75: 34
320: 6
738: 24
739: 38
7M9: 3
752: 12
753: 12
789: 7
772: 3

Total = 171
61.4 % mainline

Thank you so much for doing this for AA / DL / UA! This is great information and I know it took you a long time to do this! It is really appreciated!

Ideally UA would order the CS100 or ERJ-195E2 to fully realize their large 76 seat regional jet fleet. They're currently at their contractually allowed max of ERJ-170s, Erj-175s and CR-7s. They can add an additional 70 ERJ-175s by ordering 88 100 seat mainline.

Until they do, they're adding used A319s, A320s (38 on order) plus the new Max (61 Max 9s starting to arrive now, and 100 Max 10) arriving in two years.

77H wrote:

AirStairs wrote:

Thanks for preparing this. It highlights UA's disappointing reliance on 50-seat RJs. I'd like to fly UA but won't spend half my paid F journey in a CRJ when DL and AA can get me to a place like CHA without downgrading en route.

Check DL against UA again.

DEN and DTW have a similar number of flights and a nearly identical percentage of mainline flights.

EWR and MSP have a similar number of flights and a near identical percentage of mainline flights.

The big difference is at DL’s ATL hub with 80% mainline. With a fortress hub of +1000 flights DL has the market share to justify flying a higher percentage of mainline flying.

DTW and MSP have also been called DL fortress hubs but have relatively low mainline percentages when they by and large own the markets in those metro areas. Contrast that with UA who hubs in markets far more competitive like ORD/DEN/SFO. The more competition, the lower the market share. The lower the market share, the harder it is to fill mainline capacity in certain markets. The mainline percentages at UA currently are a testiment to UA’s commitment to upgauging where it makes sense.

UA isn’t going to put a 73G or 319 on a route that doesn’t have the demand to justify it. Outside of A.Net and few in the well-traveled public, the majority of the public has no clue what type of aircraft they’re going to be on, thus does not make purchasing decisions based on who is flying an RJ vs mainline.

77H

I have no issue with the use of regional carriers; I specifically was calling out the fact that UA relies on 50 seat regional aircraft with no F cabin far more heavily than AA or DL. It appears that a far greater share of AA and DL's regional flights are larger RJs with F. I get that mainline isn't feasible everywhere.

Didn’t realize DL surpassed UA in the NYC market. Between LGA/JFK, DL is just over 500 flights.
Sad to see ORD is still so 50 seater heavy.

kordcj wrote:

Didn’t realize DL surpassed UA in the NYC market. Between LGA/JFK, DL is just over 500 flights.

DL has only surpassed UA in terms of number of departures. I assume UA is still leading in terms of seat capacity and ASM with more widebodies and intercontinental routes.

Thanx for posting the info.

kordcj wrote:

Didn’t realize DL surpassed UA in the NYC market. Between LGA/JFK, DL is just over 500 flights.
Sad to see ORD is still so 50 seater heavy.

UA still handles more passengers, thanks to their mainline flying and especially their wide body flights. UA has 41 daily wide body flights, the biggest being the 77W, DL has 32 daily wide body flights the largest being the A330. The majority of UA's wide body flights are 777s, the majority of DL's are the smaller 763.

MSPNWA wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

The problem with that is the bigger the plane, the lower the CASM. Running 319s against Delta 757s is not a winning game, nor is CR2s vs. CR9s. If UA can't get proper scale in its hubs, it needs to think about how it's hubbing.

You're not including the revenue side of the equation. And it doesn't tell the whole story on the cost side either. Unless it's the same route with no connections, the cost side isn't that straight forward. And finally higher capacity aircraft =/= lower CASM. Usually it does, but not always.

Revenue? People will pay for frequency, and they'll pay a lot more on routes where there are no good alternatives, but people aren't rushing to pay more for a single-class E145 or CR2 experience vs. mainline (F cabins, E+, wifi). Look at the cost profile of smaller jets from Delta's 12/17 investor presentation. UA and DL may not compete on more than a hundred direct routes but they compete on connections. If DL, on average, is using larger aircraft (and it is, domestically), it's going to have lower costs.

Finally, I'll point out that UA doesn't get a revenue premium to Delta. Look at total revenues divided by ASMs.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Finally, I'll point out that UA doesn't get a revenue premium to Delta. Look at total revenues divided by ASMs.

You have to stage length adjust the data, longer stages naturally generate lower yields the further you go and UA has much longer average stage length.

The variance isn't as much as be you might think. UA's real problem is cost due to shrinking for so many years. The airline has overhead of a much larger airline without the capacity to divide it over. Thankfully that is being worked on.

You might have to copy and paste:
http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2017 ... %20Related)%20per%20Equivalent%20Seat%20Mile%20(TRESM%20ex%20Transport%20Related).htm

STT757 wrote:

kordcj wrote:

Didn’t realize DL surpassed UA in the NYC market. Between LGA/JFK, DL is just over 500 flights.
Sad to see ORD is still so 50 seater heavy.

UA still handles more passengers, thanks to their mainline flying and especially their wide body flights. UA has 41 daily wide body flights, the biggest being the 77W, DL has 32 daily wide body flights the largest being the A330. The majority of UA's wide body flights are 777s, the majority of DL's are the smaller 763.

I just ran some numbers, and if you include ops from all three major NYC airports (EWR, LGA, JFK) DL actually offers more total seats than UA. On 7/23, DL is offering around 61500 seats and UA is offering around 59100.

If UA has better loads than DL, they might still carry more passengers overall. Also, it may be that UA's network ex EWR is less seasonal than DL's from JFK, so UA might offer more seats on a year round basis than DL does. I expect UA is definitely ahead of DL when looking at ASMs given that they have a fair number of flights to India and East Asia, which DL doesn't have. However, it is a bit unfair to say that the majority of DL's widebody flights are on the 763. Only 10 out of 32 are on the 763, with everything else being on the larger 764, 332, and 333. UA does still operate larger widebody aircraft from NYC than DL does on average.

FSDan wrote:

STT757 wrote:

kordcj wrote:

Didn’t realize DL surpassed UA in the NYC market. Between LGA/JFK, DL is just over 500 flights.
Sad to see ORD is still so 50 seater heavy.

UA still handles more passengers, thanks to their mainline flying and especially their wide body flights. UA has 41 daily wide body flights, the biggest being the 77W, DL has 32 daily wide body flights the largest being the A330. The majority of UA's wide body flights are 777s, the majority of DL's are the smaller 763.

I just ran some numbers, and if you include ops from all three major NYC airports (EWR, LGA, JFK) DL actually offers more total seats than UA. On 7/23, DL is offering around 61500 seats and UA is offering around 59100.

If UA has better loads than DL, they might still carry more passengers overall. Also, it may be that UA's network ex EWR is less seasonal than DL's from JFK, so UA might offer more seats on a year round basis than DL does. I expect UA is definitely ahead of DL when looking at ASMs given that they have a fair number of flights to India and East Asia, which DL doesn't have. However, it is a bit unfair to say that the majority of DL's widebody flights are on the 763. Only 10 out of 32 are on the 763, with everything else being on the larger 764, 332, and 333. UA does still operate larger widebody aircraft from NYC than DL does on average.

It's not just passengers, UA handles more cargo.

UA has been up gauging EWR, all of their 764s are flying from EWR exclusively, and they've switched FRA, NRT and one of the two daily TLV flights to 77Ws.

Thanks for putting this together, just saw it via a bump to the DL thread.

As a Chicagoan, the most striking fact is that ORD's AA and UA ops have the lowest percentage of mainline of any the US3's full-service hubs (i.e. longhaul hubs so not including LGA and DCA).

From a pure demographic perspective, it's a little absurd to be using the smallest gauges from the nation's 3rd-largest metro - and the only one with a central location.

I recall with fondness a sense of Chicago pride at having the world's busiest airport for most of my youth. We've lost that distinction since (though can still win in movements), but probably only due to the historical accident of two US3 hubs splitting the O&D market (plus the country's largest LCC hub down the road).

Were AA or UA to eject the other from ORD, we'd certainly see a higher mainline mix with attendant economies of scale for both O&D and connecting pax. ORD's international connectivity would increase as a result (some bump to domestic destinations as well - at least in frequency terms). Given the economies of scale and the persistence of WN at MDW, fares probably wouldn't rise either.

...I realize that's a dream for now... But maybe UA can make an aggressive push to significantly downscale AA's ops. Or maybe AA and UA could come to some ORD-only codeshare where they fly ORD-XXX fives times daily mainline instead of each sending five daily RJ's (and yes I realize there'd be regulatory difficulty with such agreement but antitrust law is flexible enough to allow given demonstration of compelling operating efficiencies).