gsg013 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

DL’s product is inferior because it’s not NW. DL is unable to do anything right, in spite of being hands down the most profitable and arguably best run of the US3. Facts are meaningless when they are the reason that NW doesn’t exist anymore. Big bad Delta is awful in every way.

Jeremy

Delta does a lot of things right but for the investors not the customers. But they can afford to do that now as they as the competition has been thinned out by 50%. FNT and CAK are great examples of how consolidation has negatively effected the customer experience. The only markets that benefited are the major top 10 markets in the country while the rest of the nation pays for those cheap fares with higher than average fares. If airlines charged by the mile no matter what the origin and destination are things would be a whole lot different. Just because you live in a highly competitive market doesn't mean you are entitled to cheap airfares. Everyone should pay the same price for the same segment distance.

You sound like a communist or socialist "Everyone should pay the same price" if that were the case airlines would simply abandon the routes with no competition as there would be no reward for flying them.

You've actually got that backwards there is no reward for flying into the major markets because due to the competition fares are much more diluted compared to markets with zero competition. Imagine even everyone just flew the segments and there were like 9 or 10 completers guess what their revenue would be not very much. No I don't believe that some should foot the bill so others can fly cheaply. At deregulations inception flights between all market fro NYC of similar distance was about the same. People fly from NYC to CVG didn't have to pay 4 times what some one is paying to fly from NYC to MCO.

Yes that’s it in a nutshell. If there are >3 competitors in a market, that is what they call a good old fashioned bloodbath. Nobody is making a proper business return in the middle of a capacity war / fare war, some of which go on for 10 years. If one way fares are $40 each way, guess what, it is not a “clever promotion” by the airlines. It is a desperate bloody death match taking place between a couple airlines. They are much happier charging you $470 or $670 for your domestic round trip than $79 or $179. Major markets tend to collect this unmanageable level of competition where you get a Frontier nonstop A321, a Spirit A319, Southwest, United, and everybody from the Star Wars alien lounge flying the route. Those routes are great for passengers but they are not where the money is made.

MSPNWA wrote:

I'll provide more meat once others have to provide more meat for DL being superior operationally. You need to do some more research and also not take "facts" at face value where they mislead.

Uhh... okay? Seems pretty straight forward no?

Per OAG for the full year 2017, Delta had an on-time performance percentage of 82.76%, with OTP being a reflection of A15. That compares to 81.06% for AS, 79.86% for UA, 78.97% for AA, and 78.55% for WN. Yes, Delta is known to pad their schedule in order to boost A15 metrics, but they choose to do so at the expense of revenue in the form of MCTs, which is an investment. Those statistics show that Delta is better at getting their passengers to their destination on time when compared to their competitors, which I think 10 out of 10 passengers would find important in speaking to the operation of a commercial carrier.

Per the US DOT's February 2018 Air Travel Consumer Report, it is reiterated that Delta tops all US carriers but Hawaiian for the full year 2017 this time per Page 5.

There's my meat. You can certainly choose to argue against my provided statistics which I'm sure you will, but I'll expect that to be complimented with your own objective facts that speak to the contrary as opposed to simply debating mine.

MSPNWA wrote:

JD Power and CS are objective? Please. I base my beliefs on objective facts and subjective experiences of many carriers. They tell me DL's product is far from superior. You're free to believe otherwise of course.

Let's see those objective facts then as you've seen mine in the form of JD Power and CS. Your subjective experiences are irrelevant.

klm617 wrote:

Delta does a lot of things right but for the investors not the customers.

The purpose of corporations in this country, and arguably in the global economy, is the provide maximum financial benefit to their shareholders. Nothing more. You're free to argue against that as many, myself included, do, but corporations putting shareholders first is certainly not unique to Delta.

klm617 wrote:

Everyone should pay the same price for the same segment distance.

I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around how nonsensical of a statement that is. It undermines the basic premise of supply and demand, and is comparable to saying that I should pay the same price for an apple in a town surrounded by ten different apple farms as someone who is buying an apple in a town that has one apple farm five miles away. Nonsense, and it should be made abundantly clear that that's not even loosely reflective of how commercial aviation worked prior to deregulation. Even so, are you implying that the industry should be re-regulated? The airlines would certainly love to go back to guaranteed profits at the hands of the taxpayer in an environment where only the 1% could afford to fly.

klm617 wrote:

At deregulations inception flights between all market fro NYC of similar distance was about the same. People fly from NYC to CVG didn't have to pay 4 times what some one is paying to fly from NYC to MCO.

Please provide evidence to back that claim, because that certainly doesn't jive with anything I've ever seen or heard.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Delta does a lot of things right but for the investors not the customers.

The purpose of corporations in this country, and arguably in the global economy, is the provide maximum financial benefit to their shareholders. Nothing more. You're free to argue against that as many, myself included, do, but corporations putting shareholders first is certainly not unique to Delta.

klm617 wrote:

Everyone should pay the same price for the same segment distance.

I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around how nonsensical of a statement that is. It undermines the basic premise of supply and demand, and is comparable to saying that I should pay the same price for an apple in a town surrounded by ten different apple farms as someone who is buying an apple in a town that has one apple farm five miles away. Nonsense, and it should be made abundantly clear that that's not even loosely reflective of how commercial aviation worked prior to deregulation. Even so, are you implying that the industry should be re-regulated? The airlines would certainly love to go back to guaranteed profits at the hands of the taxpayer in an environment where only the 1% could afford to fly.

klm617 wrote:

At deregulations inception flights between all market fro NYC of similar distance was about the same. People fly from NYC to CVG didn't have to pay 4 times what some one is paying to fly from NYC to MCO.

Please provide evidence to back that claim, because that certainly doesn't jive with anything I've ever seen or heard.

The you have heard wrong when airlines like NY, ML, PE, YX, HP and the like were conceived they didn't gouge certain markets to fund markets where there was stiff competition if you want facts look it up I lived it so I know I don't need to prove anything do a little research on PE pricing and you'll find it yourself even NK, G4 and FL don't currently gouge certain markets to fund other where their margins are less like the US3 do now.

Ugh, more DTW isn’t getting enough service talk from klm617.

How about this, DL dehubs DTW and other carriers duke it out to see how much service DTW can actually support?

Talk about DL's hub at SLC, UAL basically had that captive audience at CLE but it was gutted by Smisek and Co. Way dumb, it was a price controlled local market.

A little surprised at some of the stats: I had no idea UA was that much more captive at 79% over 65.5% (falling) at EWR. That likely means every other airline has chipped away at their market share because of their screw ups.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Delta does a lot of things right but for the investors not the customers.

The purpose of corporations in this country, and arguably in the global economy, is the provide maximum financial benefit to their shareholders. Nothing more. You're free to argue against that as many, myself included, do, but corporations putting shareholders first is certainly not unique to Delta.

klm617 wrote:

Everyone should pay the same price for the same segment distance.

I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around how nonsensical of a statement that is. It undermines the basic premise of supply and demand, and is comparable to saying that I should pay the same price for an apple in a town surrounded by ten different apple farms as someone who is buying an apple in a town that has one apple farm five miles away. Nonsense, and it should be made abundantly clear that that's not even loosely reflective of how commercial aviation worked prior to deregulation. Even so, are you implying that the industry should be re-regulated? The airlines would certainly love to go back to guaranteed profits at the hands of the taxpayer in an environment where only the 1% could afford to fly.

klm617 wrote:

At deregulations inception flights between all market fro NYC of similar distance was about the same. People fly from NYC to CVG didn't have to pay 4 times what some one is paying to fly from NYC to MCO.

Please provide evidence to back that claim, because that certainly doesn't jive with anything I've ever seen or heard.

The you have heard wrong when airlines like NY, ML, PE, YX, HP and the like were conceived they didn't gouge certain markets to fund markets where there was stiff competition if you want facts look it up I lived it so I know I don't need to prove anything do a little research on PE pricing and you'll find it yourself even NK, G4 and FL don't currently gouge certain markets to fund other where their margins are less like the US3 do now.

This is why no one can take you seriously.

What markets is FL currently serving?

NK and G4 don’t gouge consumers? Yeah if al you want is a middle seat on a plane with just the clothes on your back and don’t need a boarding pass.

You should only put forth an actual point instead of baseless conjecture. Where is your bud IPFreely? Did he finally go the way of the dodo on this board?

The only ones from Delta I see who are unhappy are 1) some long-time NW employees, who used their (reputedly ineffective) union as a "security blanket", particularly after being bombarded by constant union propaganda designed to create a conflict between employees and management; and 2) parasitic union "reps" who miss the extra cash they received from the unions, generally for stirring-up that conflict... [/quote]
Thats exactly what happens from time to time lol,Its crazy some people just don't want to be happy they want to create misery.Happy i didn't waste any $$ paying dues for 25 years!!

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... le-reason/

"People Pay More to Fly Delta for One Simple Reason"

https://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/do ... ep2018.pdf
"Delta’s strong customer focus combined with investments in our fleet, network, product, and airline
partners have driven revenue diversity and a significant, sustainable revenue premium to the industry"

RobertS975 wrote:

I don't know how to interpret this data. I think we need to consider what percentage of the pax count is connecting vs O/D. I have been a Delta Diamond Medallion since its inception (and Platinum for a decade prior to that) and I have been to ATL over 100 times, but only once did I actually leave the airport! MSP, many dozens of times, but I have never left the airport. DTW, dozens of connections, but have never left the airport. SLC, many dozens of connections, only once as an O/D. But have flown them to LAX, SFO and SEA, always as a destination. JFK and LGA, mixed... probably a majority of those were a connection, but not overwhelming.

Man, y'all should schedule longer layovers and pop up to downtown on MARTA ... we do have some cool stuff to do in this town, you know ...

(at the very least, tour Mercedes Benz Stadium, visit the Aquarium, and the World of Coca Cola ... and stroll through Centennial Park -- and this is only scratching the surface)

ADrum23 wrote:

Ugh, more DTW isn’t getting enough service talk from klm617.

How about this, DL dehubs DTW and other carriers duke it out to see how much service DTW can actually support?

First- If DL were to ever dehub DTW (or MSP), AA would be moving their Midwest hub there from ORD to fill the void. Yes, as great of a market ORD is, being #1 at MSP/DTW is better than #2 at ORD (but that is a discussion for another thread).

Second- the whole premise is silly, as all hubs generate flights that otherwise wouldn’t be supported if there was no hub. That is the whole point of a hub.

But to bring it back to the OPs topic, the reason DL makes so much money is that their four interior hubs have basically no competition with WN, AA or UA.

I too find it unfair that, when I go to the butcher shop, prime filet mignon costs more than chuck steak. It all comes from the same cow so should cost the same per pound.

That's how this works, right?

winginit wrote:

Uhh... okay? Seems pretty straight forward no?

Per OAG for the full year 2017, Delta had an on-time performance percentage of 82.76%, with OTP being a reflection of A15. That compares to 81.06% for AS, 79.86% for UA, 78.97% for AA, and 78.55% for WN. Yes, Delta is known to pad their schedule in order to boost A15 metrics, but they choose to do so at the expense of revenue in the form of MCTs, which is an investment. Those statistics show that Delta is better at getting their passengers to their destination on time when compared to their competitors, which I think 10 out of 10 passengers would find important in speaking to the operation of a commercial carrier.

Per the US DOT's February 2018 Air Travel Consumer Report, it is reiterated that Delta tops all US carriers but Hawaiian for the full year 2017 this time per Page 5.

There's my meat. You can certainly choose to argue against my provided statistics which I'm sure you will, but I'll expect that to be complimented with your own objective facts that speak to the contrary as opposed to simply debating mine.

Ha, you just did exactly what I warned you not to do. You can't take stats at face value.

What actually matters is the ontime stats to take one passenger from point A to point B. And that's where aggregate stats fail. They fail for two reasons. First, they don't tell us the ontime stats of the relevant airports involved. Airports have inherent advantages and disadvantages in ontime performance due to congestion. And second, they also don't discriminate between nonstops and connections. Mathematically connections decrease the ontime percentage for an itinerary. A 85% ontime carrier with a nonstop is mathematically superior to an 85% airline with a connection.

For an example of #1 of why a specific airport matters, in the first five months of 2018, mainline UA had a higher ontime percentage than DL in the congested airports of LAX, SFO, ORD, and EWR (among others of course). You might come back and say that those are all UA hubs. That's true, but it also makes their ontime marks all that more impressive considering that often their planes are also leaving those congested airports before returning. The fact that DL is behind them when their planes are usually flying in from ATL, MSP, DTW, SLC, and SEA gives us an clue that DL's "superior" operations are propped up by operating from relatively congestion-free airports. We also know that mainline UA has been consistently leading the industry in D0, telling us that as far as what the airline can best control, they are the leading airline in ontime percentage. So if you're flying to LAX, SFO, ORD, or EWR, you're best not to fly DL over UA for ontime. To make a decision on who to fly, it's best to make a decision with all factors, including that a certain airline had multiple massive operational meltdowns in the matter of months.

So I'll say it again. Do more research. Don't take stats at face value where they are misleading or irrelevant.

winginit wrote:

Let's see those objective facts then as you've seen mine in the form of JD Power and CS. Your subjective experiences are irrelevant.

You're again incorrectly assuming what you gave are objective facts. Those "facts" you gave are inherently subjective. My belief is not just based on subjective experiences like a survey. It's also based on objective facts about many airline's products. That my belief isn't as popular doesn't make it objectively less right.

MSPNWA wrote:

Ha, you just did exactly what I warned you not to do. You can't take stats at face value.

And something tells me you're about to do exactly what I think most of us suspected you would, which is debate my facts without providing any of your own... let's see how it pans out.

MSPNWA wrote:

What actually matters is the ontime stats to take one passenger from point A to point B. And that's where aggregate stats fail. They fail for two reasons. First, they don't tell us the ontime stats of the relevant airports involved. Airports have inherent advantages and disadvantages in ontime performance due to congestion. And second, they also don't discriminate between nonstops and connections. Mathematically connections decrease the ontime percentage for an itinerary. A 85% ontime carrier with a nonstop is mathematically superior to an 85% airline with a connection.

Lovely, so let's see some of those stats to back your claim that Delta isn't operationally superior to their primary competitors. Maybe they're below? Fingers crossed!

MSPNWA wrote:

For an example of #1 of why a specific airport matters, in the first five months of 2018, mainline UA had a higher ontime percentage than DL in the congested airports of LAX, SFO, ORD, and EWR (among others of course).

I have no reason to doubt that, and since you seem unable to, I'll go ahead and provide statistics to back your argument. See how this works?

LAX/SFO/ORD/EWR OTP. Metric: A14, Jan-Apr (I don't have May)

UA: 84%
DL: 81%

Not really sure what we've proven here in looking at four airports. Cool.

MSPNWA wrote:

You might come back and say that those are all UA hubs. That's true, but it also makes their ontime marks all that more impressive considering that often their planes are also leaving those congested airports before returning. The fact that DL is behind them when their planes are usually flying in from ATL, MSP, DTW, SLC, and SEA gives us an clue that DL's "superior" operations are propped up by operating from relatively congestion-free airports.

Obviously. Was anyone doubting that? It's no different from the fact that DL has revenue premiums because they can command them out of hubs with less competition. Why are we stating the obvious? Whether it's revenue premiums or superior operations, the fact that they're gained through fortress hubs doesn't make them any less valid. Integrating your logic about connections, all the more reason to connect over say SLC or DTW when compared to SFO or ORD - because SLC and DTW, Delta hubs, are less congested and thus operationally superior. Was your point to prove my point? Interesting approach.

MSPNWA wrote:

We also know that mainline UA has been consistently leading the industry in D0, telling us that as far as what the airline can best control, they are the leading airline in ontime percentage. So if you're flying to LAX, SFO, ORD, or EWR, you're best not to fly DL over UA for ontime. To make a decision on who to fly, it's best to make a decision with all factors, including that a certain airline had multiple massive operational meltdowns in the matter of months.

aaaand with that I think you've lost us, and without showing any facts to back your D0 claim to boot! Well done indeed. What's your point here? If you're looking to on-time performance into a United hub fly United? Insightful! Like you said, to make a decision on who to fly, it's best to make a decision with all factors, to include looking at all hubs that, again, leads to the conclusion that DL is operationally superior to their competitors. Is it because they operate out of less congested hubs? Of course, but all the more reason to, for example, connect over DTW versus ORD.

Unless you're going to show us facts that back your claim that Delta isn't operationally superior to their competitors, I suppose you can carry on with your Delta bashing - certainly not out of character.

klm617 wrote:

if you want facts look it up I lived it so I know I don't need to prove anything

Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States

Pyrex wrote:

I too find it unfair that, when I go to the butcher shop, prime filet mignon costs more than chuck steak. It all comes from the same cow so should cost the same per pound.

That's how this works, right?

But here's the difference what if the only butcher shop in town says all we have is filet minion take it or leave it. You either pay his price or go hungry. But let's say you have 3 or 4 butcher shops in your town there at least you have a choice to pick the cut you are willing to pay for.

jfern022 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

The purpose of corporations in this country, and arguably in the global economy, is the provide maximum financial benefit to their shareholders. Nothing more. You're free to argue against that as many, myself included, do, but corporations putting shareholders first is certainly not unique to Delta.



I cannot even begin to wrap my mind around how nonsensical of a statement that is. It undermines the basic premise of supply and demand, and is comparable to saying that I should pay the same price for an apple in a town surrounded by ten different apple farms as someone who is buying an apple in a town that has one apple farm five miles away. Nonsense, and it should be made abundantly clear that that's not even loosely reflective of how commercial aviation worked prior to deregulation. Even so, are you implying that the industry should be re-regulated? The airlines would certainly love to go back to guaranteed profits at the hands of the taxpayer in an environment where only the 1% could afford to fly.



Please provide evidence to back that claim, because that certainly doesn't jive with anything I've ever seen or heard.

The you have heard wrong when airlines like NY, ML, PE, YX, HP and the like were conceived they didn't gouge certain markets to fund markets where there was stiff competition if you want facts look it up I lived it so I know I don't need to prove anything do a little research on PE pricing and you'll find it yourself even NK, G4 and FL don't currently gouge certain markets to fund other where their margins are less like the US3 do now.

This is why no one can take you seriously.

What markets is FL currently serving?

NK and G4 don’t gouge consumers? Yeah if al you want is a middle seat on a plane with just the clothes on your back and don’t need a boarding pass.

You should only put forth an actual point instead of baseless conjecture. Where is your bud IPFreely? Did he finally go the way of the dodo on this board?

Obviously FL was doing something right as WN felt they needed to eliminate them from the market place. But again G4 and NK still get you from point A to B at a fare less than the US3 and don't charge $1000 for one segment of the same distance and $149 for the other. I really don't care if I am taken seriously as I am not ego driven so how people view my comments really doesn't matter to me the message is where in the value lies. not whether it is embraced or not.

They pad their schedule ridiculously. So the argument against that is they hurt their own profit by increasing block time. Well they can increase the turnaround time instead of just padding schedule. But they choose not to do that so they can pad the a14 figures.

klm617 wrote:

But again G4 and NK still get you from point A to B at a fare less than the US3 and don't charge $1000 for one segment of the same distance and $149 for the other

The gap is not that pronounced, but NK absolutely does charge very different prices even with the same stage-length. Let's use your beloved DTW as an example shall we?

In Q1 2018, NK's average fare for DFWDTW (a distance of 987 miles) was $62. However, their average fare for MSYDTW (a comparable distance of 926 miles) was $115. So while the distance between MSY and DTW is 6% less than the distance between DFW and DTW, the MSYDFW average fare was 85% higher. There are endless examples of this, and it mirrors the behavior of the US3 because it's a rational business practice.

winginit wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

I'll provide more meat once others have to provide more meat for DL being superior operationally. You need to do some more research and also not take "facts" at face value where they mislead.

Uhh... okay? Seems pretty straight forward no?

Per OAG for the full year 2017, Delta had an on-time performance percentage of 82.76%, with OTP being a reflection of A15. That compares to 81.06% for AS, 79.86% for UA, 78.97% for AA, and 78.55% for WN. Yes, Delta is known to pad their schedule in order to boost A15 metrics, but they choose to do so at the expense of revenue in the form of MCTs, which is an investment. Those statistics show that Delta is better at getting their passengers to their destination on time when compared to their competitors, which I think 10 out of 10 passengers would find important in speaking to the operation of a commercial carrier.

Per the US DOT's February 2018 Air Travel Consumer Report, it is reiterated that Delta tops all US carriers but Hawaiian for the full year 2017 this time per Page 5.

There's my meat. You can certainly choose to argue against my provided statistics which I'm sure you will, but I'll expect that to be complimented with your own objective facts that speak to the contrary as opposed to simply debating mine.

MSPNWA wrote:

JD Power and CS are objective? Please. I base my beliefs on objective facts and subjective experiences of many carriers. They tell me DL's product is far from superior. You're free to believe otherwise of course.

Let's see those objective facts then as you've seen mine in the form of JD Power and CS. Your subjective experiences are irrelevant.

Those are a lot closer than I thought they were going to be. I wonder what it looks like with the regional partners mixed in?

tphuang wrote:

They pad their schedule ridiculously. So the argument against that is they hurt their own profit by increasing block time. Well they can increase the turnaround time instead of just padding schedule. But they choose not to do that so they can pad the a14 figures.

What is the difference between padding the A14 figures and getting more people there at the time they say they are going to? I have honestly never planned a trip based on the time I think the flight "should take." I make plans based on the time the airline says I will arrive.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

But again G4 and NK still get you from point A to B at a fare less than the US3 and don't charge $1000 for one segment of the same distance and $149 for the other

The gap is not that pronounced, but NK absolutely does charge very different prices even with the same stage-length. Let's use your beloved DTW as an example shall we?

In Q1 2018, NK's average fare for DFWDTW (a distance of 987 miles) was $62. However, their average fare for MSYDTW (a comparable distance of 926 miles) was $115. So while the distance between MSY and DTW is 6% less than the distance between DFW and DTW, the MSYDFW average fare was 85% higher. There are endless examples of this, and it mirrors the behavior of the US3 because it's a rational business practice.

Again you miss the whole point you are talking about $40 compare say DTW to CHA and DTW to LGA and then tell me what you come up with. If a low cost carrier came into the DTW market and operated both flights one would not be at maybe $400 round trip and the other at $200 they would be in the same ball park as you proved with your example. People are not being gouged on DTW-MSY to subsidize a DTW-DFW route at a much lower fare because of stiffer competition.

cledaybuck wrote:

tphuang wrote:

They pad their schedule ridiculously. So the argument against that is they hurt their own profit by increasing block time. Well they can increase the turnaround time instead of just padding schedule. But they choose not to do that so they can pad the a14 figures.

What is the difference between padding the A14 figures and getting more people there at the time they say they are going to? I have honestly never planned a trip based on the time I think the flight "should take." I make plans based on the time the airline says I will arrive.

And I only care about how long it takes me to get to a location. It annoys me to no end when Airlines excessively pad just for a stat.

tphuang wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

tphuang wrote:

They pad their schedule ridiculously. So the argument against that is they hurt their own profit by increasing block time. Well they can increase the turnaround time instead of just padding schedule. But they choose not to do that so they can pad the a14 figures.

What is the difference between padding the A14 figures and getting more people there at the time they say they are going to? I have honestly never planned a trip based on the time I think the flight "should take." I make plans based on the time the airline says I will arrive.

And I only care about how long it takes me to get to a location. It annoys me to no end when Airlines excessively pad just for a stat.

It’s not just padding for a stat, it’s also building their operational plan, by being realistic about how long taxi times are from some major destinations like NYC, ORD, PHL they can better schedule gate, personnel & aircraft plans rather than having everything fall apart rather than when a drop of rain hits the ground and everything get delayed. The issue really is that in some of the major hubs there is a high degree of variance that occurs in how long the different stages of flight can take.

klm617 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

I too find it unfair that, when I go to the butcher shop, prime filet mignon costs more than chuck steak. It all comes from the same cow so should cost the same per pound.

That's how this works, right?

But here's the difference what if the only butcher shop in town says all we have is filet minion take it or leave it. You either pay his price or go hungry.

You've said that as though in the example filet mignon is the only thing to eat, which it isn't. If you can't afford it you go eat something else. You don't have a right to air travel just like you don't have a right to automobile ownership - sorry if that's news to you.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Pyrex wrote:

I too find it unfair that, when I go to the butcher shop, prime filet mignon costs more than chuck steak. It all comes from the same cow so should cost the same per pound.

That's how this works, right?

But here's the difference what if the only butcher shop in town says all we have is filet minion take it or leave it. You either pay his price or go hungry.

You've said that as though in the example filet mignon is the only thing to eat, which it isn't. If you can't afford it you go eat something else. You don't have a right to air travel just like you don't have a right to automobile ownership - sorry if that's news to you.

But it is Tell me my options if I want to fly from DTW-FRA and show me the options if I just want a hamburger instead of a full blown steak dinner and give the same options say I live in Chicago. You might want to be carful with statements like that as that is how communism is born the idea that a few deserve privileges while the rest are left just to exist.

klm617 wrote:

But it is Tell me my options if I want to fly from DTW-FRA and show me the options if I just want a hamburger instead of a full blown steak dinner and give the same options say I live in Chicago.

What point are you trying to make here? Just went on Google Flights for kicks and to go round trip from DTW to FRA Oct 1 to Oct 8th you have numerous options ranging from WOW ($420) to oneworld ($574) to nonstops by Delta ($1,229) and Lufthansa ($1,270). If you can't afford any of those you're out of luck as you don't have the right to air travel to Frankfurt.

klm617 wrote:

You might want to be carful with statements like that as that is how communism is born the idea that a few deserve privileges while the rest are left just to exist.

What are you even talking about? You don't have a right to air travel it's a service that you have to pay for. That's a fact of life not some radical ideal.

HPAEAA wrote:

tphuang wrote:

cledaybuck wrote:

What is the difference between padding the A14 figures and getting more people there at the time they say they are going to? I have honestly never planned a trip based on the time I think the flight "should take." I make plans based on the time the airline says I will arrive.

And I only care about how long it takes me to get to a location. It annoys me to no end when Airlines excessively pad just for a stat.

It’s not just padding for a stat, it’s also building their operational plan, by being realistic about how long taxi times are from some major destinations like NYC, ORD, PHL they can better schedule gate, personnel & aircraft plans rather than having everything fall apart rather than when a drop of rain hits the ground and everything get delayed. The issue really is that in some of the major hubs there is a high degree of variance that occurs in how long the different stages of flight can take.

As I said previously, they over pad flights by up to 30 minutes more than AA in some cases. That seems pretty excessive. To the point where some DL elites are even complaining/mocking about it online. Not saying that DL doesn't generally run a good operation, but they are also aided by the location of their major hubs and the schedule padding.

And back to the original topic, DL does generally do a good job financially, but it is also aided by totally dominating and milking its fortress hubs to a degree that UA and AA (outside of CLT) cannot do.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

But it is Tell me my options if I want to fly from DTW-FRA and show me the options if I just want a hamburger instead of a full blown steak dinner and give the same options say I live in Chicago.

What point are you trying to make here? Just went on Google Flights for kicks and to go round trip from DTW to FRA Oct 1 to Oct 8th you have numerous options ranging from WOW ($420) to oneworld ($574) to nonstops by Delta ($1,229) and Lufthansa ($1,270). If you can't afford any of those you're out of luck as you don't have the right to air travel to Frankfurt.

klm617 wrote:

You might want to be carful with statements like that as that is how communism is born the idea that a few deserve privileges while the rest are left just to exist.

What are you even talking about? You don't have a right to air travel. That's a fact of life not some radical ideal.

And what are the ORD fares for the same date and my argument then is why should I pay high fares just so people in Chicago could fly for less. No one in Chicago is entitled to fares half as much as they are from Detroit.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

But it is Tell me my options if I want to fly from DTW-FRA and show me the options if I just want a hamburger instead of a full blown steak dinner and give the same options say I live in Chicago.

What point are you trying to make here? Just went on Google Flights for kicks and to go round trip from DTW to FRA Oct 1 to Oct 8th you have numerous options ranging from WOW ($420) to oneworld ($574) to nonstops by Delta ($1,229) and Lufthansa ($1,270). If you can't afford any of those you're out of luck as you don't have the right to air travel to Frankfurt.

klm617 wrote:

You might want to be carful with statements like that as that is how communism is born the idea that a few deserve privileges while the rest are left just to exist.

What are you even talking about? You don't have a right to air travel. That's a fact of life not some radical ideal.

And what are the ORD fares for the same date and my argument then is why should I pay high fares just so people in Chicago could fly for less. No one in Chicago is entitled to fares half as much as they are from Detroit.

Exact same date range - same source but from ORD instead of DTW:

WOW ($360)
oneworld ($684)
Star ($782)
United Nonstop ($1475)

The prices are comparable. Upset that WOW is $60 cheaper out of ORD versus DTW? Take it up with them.

Again, what's your point? You're not stating a rational argument here.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

What point are you trying to make here? Just went on Google Flights for kicks and to go round trip from DTW to FRA Oct 1 to Oct 8th you have numerous options ranging from WOW ($420) to oneworld ($574) to nonstops by Delta ($1,229) and Lufthansa ($1,270). If you can't afford any of those you're out of luck as you don't have the right to air travel to Frankfurt.



What are you even talking about? You don't have a right to air travel. That's a fact of life not some radical ideal.

And what are the ORD fares for the same date and my argument then is why should I pay high fares just so people in Chicago could fly for less. No one in Chicago is entitled to fares half as much as they are from Detroit.

Exact same date range - same source but from ORD instead of DTW:

WOW ($360)
oneworld ($684)
Star ($782)
United Nonstop ($1475)

The prices are comparable. Upset that WOW is $60 cheaper out of ORD versus DTW? Take it up with them.

Again, what's your point? You're not stating a rational argument here.

Go a little bit further out like 10-28 to 11-4 I suspect that you chose a date with less than 30 days advance knowing that's where you'd find the highest fares and you will see from the dates I chose ORD is half the price that DTW is to FRA on LH. Why do you keep dancing around the fact that markets like ATL, MSP, SLC, CVG, CLE, CMH, SDF all pay higher than average international fares to subsidize the low fares offered in markets like JFK, BOS, ORD and the like everyone else gets why don't you.

klm617 wrote:

Go a little bit further out like 10-28 to 11-4 I suspect that you chose a date with less than 30 days advance and you will see from the dates I chose ORD is half the price that DTW is to FRA on LH.

I won't do your digging for you. You make the claim you provide the facts. Not willing to do that? Then be silent on the matter.

klm617 wrote:

Why do you keep dancing around the fact that markets like ATL, MSP, SLC, CVG, CLE, CMH, SDF all pay higher than average international fares to subsidize the low fares offered in markets like JFK, BOS, ORD and the like everyone else gets why don't you.

Dancing around the issue? I embrace the practice and have never said otherwise. But make no mistake that's hardly the only reason that the US3 are so profitable - they're simply leveraging the hub and spoke model as has been done for decades now and that isn't going to change as I'm sure you know. Delta has said numerous times that transcon routes like LAXJFK and SFOJFK are among their most profitable, and those double as some of the most competitive routes in the country. The basic premise of making money in this industry even for carriers who claim to be point to point is leveraging scale within a hub to serve spokes.

Interestingly enough, that concept was dreamed up in Detroit by a man named Lamar Muse at Universal Airlines in 1967 before he went on to work for Southwest - so if you're looking to blame the hub and spoke model... blame Detroit.

Omg some people..and it’s always the same nuckleheads that just can’t wait for a DL thread to chime in how horrible of an airline they are. But yet they still fly them apparently lololol. wow. Little things like padding a schedule by 10mins is annoying to you?? Get a grip. Sounds like smart planning by smart people.

kavok wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Ugh, more DTW isn’t getting enough service talk from klm617.

How about this, DL dehubs DTW and other carriers duke it out to see how much service DTW can actually support?

First- If DL were to ever dehub DTW (or MSP), AA would be moving their Midwest hub there from ORD to fill the void. Yes, as great of a market ORD is, being #1 at MSP/DTW is better than #2 at ORD (but that is a discussion for another thread).

Second- the whole premise is silly, as all hubs generate flights that otherwise wouldn’t be supported if there was no hub. That is the whole point of a hub.

But to bring it back to the OPs topic, the reason DL makes so much money is that their four interior hubs have basically no competition with WN, AA or UA.

It was a sarcastic remark, just to stir the pot....

LAXdude1023 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Exact same date range - same source but from ORD instead of DTW:

WOW ($360)
oneworld ($684)
Star ($782)
United Nonstop ($1475)

The prices are comparable. Upset that WOW is $60 cheaper out of ORD versus DTW? Take it up with them.

Again, what's your point? You're not stating a rational argument here.

Go a little bit further out like 10-28 to 11-4 I suspect that you chose a date with less than 30 days advance knowing that's where you'd find the highest fares and you will see from the dates I chose ORD is half the price that DTW is to FRA on LH. Why do you keep dancing around the fact that markets like ATL, MSP, SLC, CVG, CLE, CMH, SDF all pay higher than average international fares to subsidize the low fares offered in markets like JFK, BOS, ORD and the like everyone else gets why don't you.

Let me see if I can translate here: "People in Chicago pay $500 round trip to Frankfurt, therefore people in Detroit should be entitled to the same nonstop fare".

Thats not how any of this works. Lets take your premise outside the airline industry. Should a person who paid 200k for a 4 bedroom house in Southfield be entitled to the same size house in San Francisco for the same price? After all, that is what communism is. Im no conservative, but the free market with light regulation is certainly preferable to that kind of over-regulation.

Detroit has two nonstop carriers to Frankfurt: LH and DL. What more do they need? In fact, if I price it out now based on a two week advance purchase, DTW-FRA nonstop is CHEAPER than ORD-FRA.

I get that DTW has less competition than ORD and therefore DL tends to charge higher fares than DTW domestically, but thats because ORD's domestic O&D is literally more than twice as large (more than 3x if MDW is included) as DTW's and therefore will attract more competition.

Again you are not comparing apples to apples. Wages in San Francisco and California are generally higher than those in Southfield that's why things are cheaper in Michigan. Stop looking at it from your one sided business view and see it from a customers stand point for once then maybe you might understand. A car in Michigan costs the same in every city in the country people in cities where there is high demand do not pay less for a car than people in small cities that might have one dealership. The US3 are operating very close to the legal term of price fixing in some markets. I never said DTW needs more than 2 carriers in Detroit but was is it unreasonable to say that Chicago travelers should pay $750 as well as other passengers in the same general region not one city paying half as much as another and the O/D of Chicago is not 4 or 5 times as much as that of DTW.

MSPNWA wrote:

Ha, you just did exactly what I warned you not to do. You can't take stats at face value.

What actually matters is the ontime stats to take one passenger from point A to point B. And that's where aggregate stats fail. They fail for two reasons. First, they don't tell us the ontime stats of the relevant airports involved. Airports have inherent advantages and disadvantages in ontime performance due to congestion. And second, they also don't discriminate between nonstops and connections. Mathematically connections decrease the ontime percentage for an itinerary. A 85% ontime carrier with a nonstop is mathematically superior to an 85% airline with a connection.

For an example of #1 of why a specific airport matters, in the first five months of 2018, mainline UA had a higher ontime percentage than DL in the congested airports of LAX, SFO, ORD, and EWR (among others of course). You might come back and say that those are all UA hubs. That's true, but it also makes their ontime marks all that more impressive considering that often their planes are also leaving those congested airports before returning. The fact that DL is behind them when their planes are usually flying in from ATL, MSP, DTW, SLC, and SEA gives us an clue that DL's "superior" operations are propped up by operating from relatively congestion-free airports. We also know that mainline UA has been consistently leading the industry in D0, telling us that as far as what the airline can best control, they are the leading airline in ontime percentage. So if you're flying to LAX, SFO, ORD, or EWR, you're best not to fly DL over UA for ontime. To make a decision on who to fly, it's best to make a decision with all factors, including that a certain airline had multiple massive operational meltdowns in the matter of months.

So I'll say it again. Do more research. Don't take stats at face value where they are misleading or irrelevant.

You're again incorrectly assuming what you gave are objective facts. Those "facts" you gave are inherently subjective. My belief is not just based on subjective experiences like a survey. It's also based on objective facts about many airline's products. That my belief isn't as popular doesn't make it objectively less right.

You know you've lost an argument when you're arguing that facts aren't facts. Your non-fact based conjecture (trolling) is meaningless.

Fact:
All (US) flights are judged the same way for OT-14.

It has nothing to do with:

A) whether it's a connecting or non-stop flight?! That doesn't even make sense. Whether or not there are connecting pax onboard is completely irrelevant to whether it arrives OT. Almost all flights have connecting pax...
B) It's completely immaterial what airport a flight takes off or lands at for whether it arrived ontime. All (US) airlines are judged by the same criteria. If an airline chooses to hub at a delay prone airport, that's on them. DL has hubs at delay prone airports (i.e. JFK, LGA) too. I especially love you arguing that ATL is not a congested airport...that's a good one!