Airline Data Project

Total ASMs:
1. AA
2. DL
3. UAL (almost a tie)

Domestic:
1. AA
2. DL
3. UAL

International:
1. UAL
2. DL
3. AA

Atlantic:
1. DL
2. UAL (almost a tie)
3. AA

Latin America:
1. AA
2. UAL
3. DL

Pacific:
1. UAL (by far)
2. DL
3. AA


I couldn't find stats for number of flights, just ASMs. AA is the largest carrier by ASMs.

Weren't you guys talking about across the Atlantic? :confused:

.
Why yes we were!

.


.
Ok, what's your point n7715x?

Even YOUR data says DAL is #1 Atlantic flier. ("Almost a tie" means NOT tied)
.
We were responding to rbigred300's post.

I stand by my assertion that we (DAL) fly the most trans-atlantic flights.

.
Stop digging.

.

could care less about ASM's.

who makes the most money?

Yeah.....who cares about how many pilot jobs there are. I just want to make sure Ed makes enough money for his condo payment.

Fixed your post, and don't forget about his Tesla payment! :rolleyes:

Hey, only at Delta can you blow $6 Billion on fuel hedges and get a promotion! :eek:

Yes we were talking about the Atlantic and thanks for the replies...I did not know that we were number one.

Also interesting to see the comparisons for the rest of the world though.

ASM metrics are empty seats. how may pilot jobs are there at a broke airline that saturates a market with capacity simply to wear the ASM crown?

Once upon a time we were king kong in the ASM number in the atlantic.......and we were losing hundreds of millions a year....and as a result made our first run at bankruptcy under RA the first.

There are plenty of pilot jobs in the market place. Even flying big shiny airplanes.....Given the choice.....I will take the most highly compensated pilot job....at the most profitable company...any day.

self interest should motivate all of us to not focus on flying a planeload of seats from point A to point B. We should be far more concerned with flying the butts that go in those seats at the highest yield possible.

I was hired to fly airplanes so that is what I focus on. If Delta makes 10 Bazillion dollars a year by flying less widebodies, I end up working Christmas and weekends flying a narrowbody airplanes. I like more ASM's which means I move up and make more money. Higher yields make Ed more money.

It is nice to work for an airline that is profitable, but there is a point where it's not that good for us pilots. We could give all widebody flying to the JV partners and make more money as a corporation with 0 ASM's....would that be good? UAL and AA will be making just as much money as DAL within a couple of years and they will do it flying 5 times more widebodies than us.

30 years ago my first choice of employers was a company that predominantly flew a bunch of cast off narrowbodies....

why? because they had a sound business model, were consistently profitable, and in my estimation represented the best economic future.

I'm reminded of a 25 year old conversation at the reserve unit one weekend...one of our own had left NWA to take a job at USAir...because after all..'he was a pilot...not a FE'....and being a -9 FO was far better than a DC-10 SO.

My observation was 'well....now you are an unemployed pilot...so how is that working for out you?'

I have technical skills to be employed as a pilot....but I always understood my 'job' was to employ those skills in the marketplace to my best economic self interest.