Same, what is that?

Just imagine if the Port Authority ran ATL, and DAL had to pay $11 per 1k lbs instead of $4 per pax. How much money would they be making then?

 

Grumble, you are parroting a UAL beancounter, and the excuses they use for not doing better.

Cheaper landing fees? Yeah a little. But they run an EXTREMELY inefficiently orientated hub system. Running all those pax thru ATL means they fly those pax 20-40% more seat miles to connect them to their destination than we probably do. The vast majority of their pax going through ATL are connecting. A much larger percentage of our pax originate at one of our well positioned hubs. We simply fly them less miles to get them to their destination. I can't believe that isn't several times the savings as the difference in landing fees.

We have both been here a long time, and have heard a couple of decades worth of weak excuses as to why we aren't doing as well as our competitors. The "landing fee excuse" is just version 12.1, circa 2016.

 

Doesn't mean it isn't true. Ball park math based on publicly available info says that a Guppy runs $1600 to land at EWR, vs $700 in ATL. 777 is in the ballpark of $5000 vs $1600. Compound that a few times a day.

Agree on all facts, but their lack of efficiency doesn't seem to be hurting their bottom line. They've found the most profitable path with the limitations imposed and probably why UAL decided to do battle with the PA over landing fees.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/unit...yway-1.1151204

 

ATL is a low cost hub that DAL dominates to an extent that we don't come close to at our own high cost hubs. There are also no nearby surrounding airports to compete with ATL. ATL is a hub with a moat around it for DAL.

It will be interesting to see if this top to bottom review Oscar is talking about will mean significant changes to our overall hub structure.

 

I think there is some change a comin' this next month or so.

 

Actually, because of their hub location their stage length is the lowest of the big 3. So they are NOT extremely inefficient, we are. For that matter so is American by comparison. See for yourself.



http://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/2...ng%20Fleet.htm

 

That chart can be interpreted many ways. The one glaring thing to me is we have the most WB aircraft and do more international flying so naturally our stage length is the longest. IMO that doesn't make us inefficient just a different animal. And it also means for the pilots that there are more pilots in the top paying seats as well.

 

The company took a non-cash write down as a result of our EWR slots no longer having value because the FAA is eliminating slot controls at EWR.