Just one or two more for Allegiant then they should be done. American is sending 18 CRJ's to CVG from what I've heard.



Just click the Image link and you'll get the picture. Mainly just a bunch of G4 planes sitting from a Ramp perspective.

DHL is sending its SJO-MIA flight to CVG instead: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX902

AirportRival wrote:

Just one or two more for Allegiant then they should be done. American is sending 18 CRJ's to CVG from what I've heard.

https://eidaeg.by3302.livefilestore.com ... pmode=none

I tried embedding the photo but a.net doesn't seem to like that so just the link is posted above.

I noticed they were even shuttling in aircraft from other midwestern cities, it's nice to see so many Allegiant aircraft at CVG! Do you know how long they plan on staying?

cvgComair wrote:

DHL is sending its SJO-MIA flight to CVG instead: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ABX902

It is my understanding that a lot of cargo planes from MIA will be spending a few days in CVG.

cvgComair wrote:

AirportRival wrote:

Just one or two more for Allegiant then they should be done. American is sending 18 CRJ's to CVG from what I've heard.

https://eidaeg.by3302.livefilestore.com ... pmode=none

I tried embedding the photo but a.net doesn't seem to like that so just the link is posted above.

I noticed they were even shuttling in aircraft from other midwestern cities, it's nice to see so many Allegiant aircraft at CVG! Do you know how long they plan on staying?

They told us Monday Evening at the earliest but most likely Tuesday. Frontier is sending 3 or 4 planes too but they waited a little late to reserve their spots on Remote parking so they'll be spread out.

cvgComair wrote:

Article just out about how Concourse A does not have enough room a peak hours for the increasing amount of flights. Apparently the Concourse is expected to reach maximum capacity as soon as this summer and CVG needs more gates if any of the carriers want to add more flights. The renovations to open gates A1/2/3/5 just went up for bidding with an estimated cost of $10.4 million. This includes renovating the gate areas and upgrading the baggage systems in the Concourse. I really wonder how soon they will start working on expanding Concourse A, because they are going to need it:

Another issue is that Concourse A was built in 1984, making it 33 years old! The concourse has seen many renovations and is getting quite old and the article mentioned that CVG might need to tear it down completely in order to fix/upgrade the baggage, electrical, and structural systems.

A full demolition and rebuild of Concourse A (with more gates) would be much better than simply trying to renovate and expand the existing structure. I really hope they end up doing that. Then they can design it to modern standards. Heck, do Concourse B while they are at it.

What are the chances AS comes to CVG?

We should see more AeroLogic at CVG since they are replacing world express

I'm sure DAY and CMH could handle some birds if needed......

To redo my above post about the Concourse A expansion (since I can't delete it), has CVG ever considered demolishing both Concourses A and B and building one new terminal building in it's place that can house all the gates (as well as connect to the ticketing and security building above ground)? This could eliminate the underground walkway/train and provide more convenience for passengers. After DL's lease on Concourse B expires in 2020, they should seriously consider that.

ADrum23 wrote:

To redo my above post about the Concourse A expansion (since I can't delete it), has CVG ever considered demolishing both Concourses A and B and building one new terminal building in it's place that can house all the gates (as well as connect to the ticketing and security building above ground)? This could eliminate the underground walkway/train and provide more convenience for passengers. After DL's lease on Concourse B expires in 2020, they should seriously consider that.

Yea that's the master plan

Cvgspotter15 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

To redo my above post about the Concourse A expansion (since I can't delete it), has CVG ever considered demolishing both Concourses A and B and building one new terminal building in it's place that can house all the gates (as well as connect to the ticketing and security building above ground)? This could eliminate the underground walkway/train and provide more convenience for passengers. After DL's lease on Concourse B expires in 2020, they should seriously consider that.

Yea that's the master plan

Yep, that is the plan, except the train will be kept. In the previous master plan they determined it would hinder aircraft movement, plus they want the train to take passengers over to a new international arrivals facility in the main terminal building once Concourse B comes down.

Nice aerial pic of the Allegiant planes at CVG

cvgComair wrote:

Cvgspotter15 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

To redo my above post about the Concourse A expansion (since I can't delete it), has CVG ever considered demolishing both Concourses A and B and building one new terminal building in it's place that can house all the gates (as well as connect to the ticketing and security building above ground)? This could eliminate the underground walkway/train and provide more convenience for passengers. After DL's lease on Concourse B expires in 2020, they should seriously consider that.

Yea that's the master plan

Yep, that is the plan, except the train will be kept. In the previous master plan they determined it would hinder aircraft movement, plus they want the train to take passengers over to a new international arrivals facility in the main terminal building once Concourse B comes down.

Sorry, but I'm not quite following. Why would the train be needed if both concourses are demolished and a single, unified terminal that is connected above ground to the ticketing/security area is constructed? Do you have a link where they describe this?

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

Cvgspotter15 wrote:

Yea that's the master plan

Yep, that is the plan, except the train will be kept. In the previous master plan they determined it would hinder aircraft movement, plus they want the train to take passengers over to a new international arrivals facility in the main terminal building once Concourse B comes down.

Sorry, but I'm not quite following. Why would the train be needed if both concourses are demolished and a single, unified terminal that is connected above ground to the ticketing/security area is constructed? Do you have a link where they describe this?

It's essentially a replace of A, but there is still an underground connection.

Here are the renderings from 2013: https://www.cvgairport.com/docs/default ... f?sfvrsn=2

There is a lot more, but the plan has been removed from their website because the 2050 master plan will replace it. There are going to be a lot of changes, so this is not the best plan to go off of, it is likely they are planning a different terminal layout.

Here is a rendering if they go with a simple expansion of Concourse A, this was the original plan, obviously C is gone and D will never be built: http://www.airportsites.net/cvgpart150m ... 0406-3.pdf

This is my rendering of the Concourse A expansion without Concourse B:

cvgComair wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

Yep, that is the plan, except the train will be kept. In the previous master plan they determined it would hinder aircraft movement, plus they want the train to take passengers over to a new international arrivals facility in the main terminal building once Concourse B comes down.

Sorry, but I'm not quite following. Why would the train be needed if both concourses are demolished and a single, unified terminal that is connected above ground to the ticketing/security area is constructed? Do you have a link where they describe this?

It's essentially a replace of A, but there is still an underground connection.

Here are the renderings from 2013: https://www.cvgairport.com/docs/default ... f?sfvrsn=2

There is a lot more, but the plan has been removed from their website because the 2050 master plan will replace it. There are going to be a lot of changes, so this is not the best plan to go off of, it is likely they are planning a different terminal layout.

Here is a rendering if they go with a simple expansion of Concourse A, this was the original plan, obviously C is gone and D will never be built: http://www.airportsites.net/cvgpart150m ... 0406-3.pdf

This is my rendering of the Concourse A expansion without Concourse B:

Those are not quite what I was thinking. What I was thinking was more along the lines of what the Landside Z and X alternatives provide on page 5-11 of this document https://www.cvgairport.com/docs/default-source/master-plan-report/7-alternatives.pdf?sfvrsn=2

It would be nice to basically demolish the remaining structures and start from scratch, constructing a brand new state-of-the-art terminal with above-ground connections to the ticketing/baggage claim/security building. Hopefully, the 2050 master plan comes out soon and we'll see what they have in store.

ADrum23 wrote:

Those are not quite what I was thinking. What I was thinking was more along the lines of what the Landside Z and X alternatives provide on page 5-11 of this document https://www.cvgairport.com/docs/default-source/master-plan-report/7-alternatives.pdf?sfvrsn=2

It would be nice to basically demolish the remaining structures and start from scratch, constructing a brand new state-of-the-art terminal with above-ground connections to the ticketing/baggage claim/security building. Hopefully, the 2050 master plan comes out soon and we'll see what they have in store.

Thanks for finding that, that was the one I was looking for. As you can see, they did and probably are considering that method. In the doc, they explain they would prefer to have no over ground connections for better aircraft flow, but it still is certainly a possibility. Hopefully that plan comes out soon, it is the only page on the "embrace what's next" page without a link.

cvgComair wrote:

In the doc, they explain they would prefer to have no over ground connections for better aircraft flow

In that case, the status quo (current) layout is acceptable (Concourse A and B with a underground train connecting them), however, both Concourses should be demolished and rebuilt/expanded to modern standards.

Are they serious about getting rid of Concourse B and building one, giant Concourse A that can handle all of the airline operations? If DL keeps their hub and WN expands (both of which I think are fairly likely), I'm not sure you can fit everyone in the Concourse A expansion as proposed.

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

In the doc, they explain they would prefer to have no over ground connections for better aircraft flow

In that case, the status quo (current) layout is acceptable (Concourse A and B with a underground train connecting them), however, both Concourses should be demolished and rebuilt/expanded to modern standards.

Are they serious about getting rid of Concourse B and building one, giant Concourse A that can handle all of the airline operations? If DL keeps their hub and WN expands (both of which I think are fairly likely), I'm not sure you can fit everyone in the Concourse A expansion as proposed.

The outlook in 2012 when they made that plan was waaaayyyy different than the CVG today. At that time CVG had 0 LCC's, DHL had not expanded yet, DL was still making huge cuts every year, and US/AA/UA were pulling back service. The new plan should be so vastly different that the 2035 master plan is effectively useless, which is why they started a new master plan 5 years after the old one came out. Nothing in that plan is serious except building the rental car area and widening the runways.

cvgComair wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

In the doc, they explain they would prefer to have no over ground connections for better aircraft flow

In that case, the status quo (current) layout is acceptable (Concourse A and B with a underground train connecting them), however, both Concourses should be demolished and rebuilt/expanded to modern standards.

Are they serious about getting rid of Concourse B and building one, giant Concourse A that can handle all of the airline operations? If DL keeps their hub and WN expands (both of which I think are fairly likely), I'm not sure you can fit everyone in the Concourse A expansion as proposed.

The outlook in 2012 when they made that plan was waaaayyyy different than the CVG today. At that time CVG had 0 LCC's, DHL had not expanded yet, DL was still making huge cuts every year, and US/AA/UA were pulling back service. The new plan should be so vastly different that the 2035 master plan is effectively useless, which is why they started a new master plan 5 years after the old one came out. Nothing in that plan is serious except building the rental car area and widening the runways.

DHL and Amazon are cargo, so they won't really affect passenger numbers.

Despite the recent growth, I still would be conservative with the expansion of the passenger terminals. Even though DL has been increasing capacity as of late, we still don't know if they will be committed to CVG long-term. I suspect they won't be going anywhere, as they seem to have right-sized their "hub" (more like a glorified focus city, I wish they'd start calling CVG a focus city instead of a hub), but you never know. In any case, I'd keep both Concourses, as I can't see them building a large enough Concourse A to accommodate all of DL's "hub" operations, WN's operations (when they inevitably expand at CVG), as well as all of the international flights that need FIS clearance.

I think the current setup is fine. I'd keep both Concourses, but do a full demolition and rebuild of both. Concourse A would be rebuilt and expanded with a new western wing in addition to the current gates (the western wing would be used while the existing eastern wing is demolished and rebuilt). Concourse B would be rebuilt in-kind (with maybe one or two additional common-use gates for international flights) and a new, state-of-the-art FIS facility would be built as part of the rebuild. Since most of CVG's growth will come from the new DHL and Amazon cargo operations, not a whole lot of new passenger terminal space will be needed (I doubt CVG will ever return to the days of 20+ million passengers that it had during the heyday of the DL hub, at most, I see it topping out at 14-15 million).

DL is apparently adding more point-to-point-style TATL flights:

"This is a result of Network turning their efforts to "focus" cities. These are cities that are underserved and are not a hub for competitors. The model for DL was RDU. In short order, we add ~20 non-stops per peak day (often only 1 flight to many hubs) and a transatlantic flight to CDG, AMS or LHR. Can't talk specifics on this open forum. Think of large cities, near competitor hubs that we currently have only 4x service each day to a couple of our hubs. Austin would fit that description and we have already announced increased service. There are at least 6 others that are being considered. You will see AMS flights to new cities announced later this Fall."

https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delt ... g-7er.html

I don't think CVG fits the bill since it's already a hub, but CMH might.

Delta has cut CVG-MEM effecting November 3rd. I am still unclear why they thought putting the CRJ-900 on the route and eliminating most connecting options was a good idea. Back in June 2016 the route was 2x/CRJ, it had a 81% LF, currently, it's running at less than 50%. It actually is one of the stronger small business routes from Cincinnati, it looks like a casualty of Delta's faulty scheduling, not lower passenger demand.

It appears the CRJ-900 will be moving over to CVG-MCI for the evening turn. I guess it is possible that Delta plans to bring back the route in the spring on a CRJ-200, but has not figured out the routing, however, given their continued cutdown of MEM, I think it's unlikely.

Ultimate Air Shuttle has been musing adding Memphis, so I expect they will add that in short order.

cvgComair wrote:

Delta has cut CVG-MEM effecting November 3rd. I am still unclear why they thought putting the CRJ-900 on the route and eliminating most connecting options was a good idea. Back in June 2016 the route was 2x/CRJ, it had a 81% LF, currently, it's running at less than 50%. It actually is one of the stronger small business routes from Cincinnati, it looks like a casualty of Delta's faulty scheduling, not lower passenger demand.

It appears the CRJ-900 will be moving over to CVG-MCI for the evening turn. I guess it is possible that Delta plans to bring back the route in the spring on a CRJ-200, but has not figured out the routing, however, given their continued cutdown of MEM, I think it's unlikely.

Ultimate Air Shuttle has been musing adding Memphis, so I expect they will add that in short order.

I think BNA/XNA/STL-CVG might be in trouble as well, JAN-MAY average LF for comparison on MEM-CVG was at 63.2% LF but *May '17 LF 28.2%

BNA-CVG average LF was 51.5% *Jan 30.0%
XNA-CVG average LF was 53.9% Jan 42.5%
STL-CVG average LF was 55.4% Jan/Feb lower 40s
Less likely BDL-CVG average LF was 57.3% *Jan 31.1%

I understand that fares on these routes are high, but I mean....

Midwestindy wrote:

I think BNA/XNA/STL-CVG might be in trouble as well, JAN-MAY average LF for comparison on MEM-CVG was at 63.2% LF but *May '17 LF 28.2%

BNA-CVG average LF was 51.5% *Jan 30.0%
XNA-CVG average LF was 53.9% Jan 42.5%
STL-CVG average LF was 55.4% Jan/Feb lower 40s
Less likely BDL-CVG average LF was 57.3% *Jan 31.1%

I understand that fares on these routes are high, but I mean....

I agree, DL reducing frequency on these routes has killed connection opportunities and same-day business travel demand. I think XNA is probably safe because of P&G, but I am not so sure about the others. DL's changing of these routes from 2x/CRJ to 1x/CR7/9 was not a good idea, the 2x is really necessary to keep up demand. It is beyond me why they did not replace the CRJ-200's on CVG-RDU/ORD/BWI/CLT/PHL/YYZ and keep the remaining CRJ-200's on these smaller routes. It would have eliminated the same number of CRJ-200's.

Just for comparison, here was June 2016 when all these routes had more frequency:
CVG-XNA: 60%
CVG-BDL: 63%
CVG-STL: 76%
CVG-MEM: 81%
CVG-BNA: 80%
CVG-MKE: 74%

I think the numbers speak for themselves...

cvgComair wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I think BNA/XNA/STL-CVG might be in trouble as well, JAN-MAY average LF for comparison on MEM-CVG was at 63.2% LF but *May '17 LF 28.2%

BNA-CVG average LF was 51.5% *Jan 30.0%
XNA-CVG average LF was 53.9% Jan 42.5%
STL-CVG average LF was 55.4% Jan/Feb lower 40s
Less likely BDL-CVG average LF was 57.3% *Jan 31.1%

I understand that fares on these routes are high, but I mean....

I agree, DL reducing frequency on these routes has killed connection opportunities and same-day business travel demand. I think XNA is probably safe because of P&G, but I am not so sure about the others. DL's changing of these routes from 2x/CRJ to 1x/CR7/9 was not a good idea, the 2x is really necessary to keep up demand. It is beyond me why they did not replace the CRJ-200's on CVG-RDU/ORD/BWI/CLT/PHL/YYZ and keep the remaining CRJ-200's on these smaller routes. It would have eliminated the same number of CRJ-200's.

Just for comparison, here was June 2016 when all these routes had more frequency:
CVG-XNA: 60%
CVG-BDL: 63%
CVG-STL: 76%
CVG-MEM: 81%
CVG-BNA: 80%
CVG-MKE: 74%

I think the numbers speak for themselves...

His numbers are January-May and yours are June though.

cledaybuck wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I think BNA/XNA/STL-CVG might be in trouble as well, JAN-MAY average LF for comparison on MEM-CVG was at 63.2% LF but *May '17 LF 28.2%

BNA-CVG average LF was 51.5% *Jan 30.0%
XNA-CVG average LF was 53.9% Jan 42.5%
STL-CVG average LF was 55.4% Jan/Feb lower 40s
Less likely BDL-CVG average LF was 57.3% *Jan 31.1%

I understand that fares on these routes are high, but I mean....

I agree, DL reducing frequency on these routes has killed connection opportunities and same-day business travel demand. I think XNA is probably safe because of P&G, but I am not so sure about the others. DL's changing of these routes from 2x/CRJ to 1x/CR7/9 was not a good idea, the 2x is really necessary to keep up demand. It is beyond me why they did not replace the CRJ-200's on CVG-RDU/ORD/BWI/CLT/PHL/YYZ and keep the remaining CRJ-200's on these smaller routes. It would have eliminated the same number of CRJ-200's.

Just for comparison, here was June 2016 when all these routes had more frequency:
CVG-XNA: 60%
CVG-BDL: 63%
CVG-STL: 76%
CVG-MEM: 81%
CVG-BNA: 80%
CVG-MKE: 74%

I think the numbers speak for themselves...

His numbers are January-May and yours are June though.

They are still pretty similar, here is CVG-MEM YOY:
May 2016: 85%
May 2017: 28%

Those drop off in numbers are crazy. I will say I rarely see CVG as a connection option anymore and if I do it seems like it is more expensive or a longer layover. At least it is still 2x daily. I have noticed they changed the pricing to where it is much cheaper to book a RT than just a one way or 2 separate one ways. I don't remember it being like that before for that route.

How many connection options are still available at CVG? I can't find many.

Jshank83 wrote:

Those drop off in numbers are crazy. I will say I rarely see CVG as a connection option anymore and if I do it seems like it is more expensive or a longer layover. At least it is still 2x daily. I have noticed they changed the pricing to where it is much cheaper to book a RT than just a one way or 2 separate one ways. I don't remember it being like that before for that route.

This is interesting, I don't think DL can afford to cut very much more out of CVG, or else it will drop LFs across the board.

Routes like YYZ-CVG Jan-Feb 40.66% LF (*Jan 27% LF), EWR-CVG Jan-May 48.3% LF, and STL/BNA/XNA/BDL are treading water

Routes like RDU/MCI/ORD/DCA/PHL/MKE/DFW/IAH/CLT are doing fine, but some are almost empty during the winter months.

I think this shows DL is at least somewhat committed to CVG, or else they wouldn't have kept some of these routes around.

Midwestindy wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

Those drop off in numbers are crazy. I will say I rarely see CVG as a connection option anymore and if I do it seems like it is more expensive or a longer layover. At least it is still 2x daily. I have noticed they changed the pricing to where it is much cheaper to book a RT than just a one way or 2 separate one ways. I don't remember it being like that before for that route.

This is interesting, I don't think DL can afford to cut very much more out of CVG, or else it will drop LFs across the board.

Routes like YYZ-CVG Jan-Feb 40.66% LF (*Jan 27% LF), EWR-CVG Jan-May 48.3% LF, and STL/BNA/XNA/BDL are treading water

Routes like RDU/MCI/ORD/DCA/PHL/MKE/DFW/IAH/CLT are doing fine, but some are almost empty during the winter months.

I think this shows DL is at least somewhat committed to CVG, or else they wouldn't have kept some of these routes around.

This is precisely the reason I don't understand why DL insists on keeping their CVG "hub". Those numbers don't look good, they seem to be losing money. But as you said, if they cut any further, they will drop LFs.

This reinforces the reason why I think it would be beneficial to both CVG and DL if DL would just formally close the CVG hub. Thanks to other carriers coming in, CVG wouldn't lose much at this point because if DL closed, carriers like WN would significantly expand (they probably expand in the coming years regardless).

Alternatively, as I mentioned a while ago, DL can simply cut all the remaining connections out of CVG and focus on being a pure O&D hub/focus city.

cvgComair wrote:

Delta has cut CVG-MEM effecting November 3rd. I am still unclear why they thought putting the CRJ-900 on the route and eliminating most connecting options was a good idea. Back in June 2016 the route was 2x/CRJ, it had a 81% LF, currently, it's running at less than 50%. It actually is one of the stronger small business routes from Cincinnati, it looks like a casualty of Delta's faulty scheduling, not lower passenger demand.

It appears the CRJ-900 will be moving over to CVG-MCI for the evening turn. I guess it is possible that Delta plans to bring back the route in the spring on a CRJ-200, but has not figured out the routing, however, given their continued cutdown of MEM, I think it's unlikely.

Ultimate Air Shuttle has been musing adding Memphis, so I expect they will add that in short order.

Won't be the last I'm afraid. Routes like CVG-MCI/BNA/BWI/MKE are all on life support in my opinion. The only nonstop destinations I see staying around are DL's hubs and the top 15-20 largest markets.

ADrum23 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Jshank83 wrote:

Those drop off in numbers are crazy. I will say I rarely see CVG as a connection option anymore and if I do it seems like it is more expensive or a longer layover. At least it is still 2x daily. I have noticed they changed the pricing to where it is much cheaper to book a RT than just a one way or 2 separate one ways. I don't remember it being like that before for that route.

This is interesting, I don't think DL can afford to cut very much more out of CVG, or else it will drop LFs across the board.

Routes like YYZ-CVG Jan-Feb 40.66% LF (*Jan 27% LF), EWR-CVG Jan-May 48.3% LF, and STL/BNA/XNA/BDL are treading water

Routes like RDU/MCI/ORD/DCA/PHL/MKE/DFW/IAH/CLT are doing fine, but some are almost empty during the winter months.

I think this shows DL is at least somewhat committed to CVG, or else they wouldn't have kept some of these routes around.

This is precisely the reason I don't understand why DL insists on keeping their CVG "hub". Those numbers don't look good, they seem to be losing money. But as you said, if they cut any further, they will drop LFs.

This reinforces the reason why I think it would be beneficial to both CVG and DL if DL would just formally close the CVG hub. Thanks to other carriers coming in, CVG wouldn't lose much at this point because if DL closed, carriers like WN would significantly expand (they probably expand in the coming years regardless).

Alternatively, as I mentioned a while ago, DL can simply cut all the remaining connections out of CVG and focus on being a pure O&D hub/focus city.

It really doesn't matter was DL calls it. In realty it already is a de facto focus city.

G4 is making some big upgauges at CVG next Spring (listed in times per week):

CVG-JAX/MSY/SAV/AUS/AZA frequency increased from 2 to 3x/week
CVG-VPS frequency increased from 2 to 4x/week
CVG-SFB/PIE/FLL/PGD frequency increased from 7 to 8x/week

Based on my calcs below, G4 will operate 86 flights/week, which is an increase by 17 flights/week for '16/'17 YOY!

MYR - 0
SJU - 1
BWI - 2
DEN - 2
PVD - 2
RDU - 2
PVD - 2
RDU - 2
DEN - 2
AZA - 3
JAX - 3
MSY - 3
SAV - 3
AUS - 3
AUS - 3
AZA - 3
LAX - 4
VPS - 4
EWR - 5
LAS - 5
SFB - 8
PIE - 8
FLL - 8
PGD - 8

cvgComair wrote:

G4 is making some big upgauges at CVG next Spring (listed in times per week):

CVG-JAX/MSY/SAV/AUS/AZA frequency increased from 2 to 3x/week
CVG-VPS frequency increased from 2 to 4x/week
CVG-SFB/PIE/FLL/PGD frequency increased from 7 to 8x/week

Based on my calcs below, G4 will operate 86 flights/week, which is an increase by 17 flights/week for '16/'17 YOY!

MYR - 0
SJU - 1
BWI - 2
DEN - 2
PVD - 2
RDU - 2
PVD - 2
RDU - 2
DEN - 2
AZA - 3
JAX - 3
MSY - 3
SAV - 3
AUS - 3
AUS - 3
AZA - 3
LAX - 4
VPS - 4
EWR - 5
LAS - 5
SFB - 8
PIE - 8
FLL - 8
PGD - 8

Doesn't G4 have some more announcements for the spring coming up, or are these finalized

Midwestindy wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

G4 is making some big upgauges at CVG next Spring (listed in times per week):

CVG-JAX/MSY/SAV/AUS/AZA frequency increased from 2 to 3x/week
CVG-VPS frequency increased from 2 to 4x/week
CVG-SFB/PIE/FLL/PGD frequency increased from 7 to 8x/week

Based on my calcs below, G4 will operate 86 flights/week, which is an increase by 17 flights/week for '16/'17 YOY!

MYR - 0
SJU - 1
BWI - 2
DEN - 2
PVD - 2
RDU - 2
PVD - 2
RDU - 2
DEN - 2
AZA - 3
JAX - 3
MSY - 3
SAV - 3
AUS - 3
AUS - 3
AZA - 3
LAX - 4
VPS - 4
EWR - 5
LAS - 5
SFB - 8
PIE - 8
FLL - 8
PGD - 8

Doesn't G4 have some more announcements for the spring coming up, or are these finalized

For sure, these are increases G4 just loaded into the schedule on existing routes. I am sure CVG will see more new routes for the Winter and Spring. I think G4 is likely to add OAK/SAN, whatever international routes they are planning, plus a few surprise routes.

Until roughly a year or so ago Delta was pretty tightly banked in Cincinnati (outside of flights to big hubs like ATL, LGA, DTW, MSP). That has changed and it's definitely having an effect.

Here's the early/mid morning from the October 2015 schedule as an example (excluding ATL, LGA, etc.)

Only a few key markets had an early morning originators from Cincinnati
640 ord
700 ewr
700 phl
700 yyz
700 dca
715 bos

Then the big morning bank came in with arrivals between 8:02 and 8:50
dca 802
bos 832
ewr 832
ord 835
mci 836
clt 847
bna 849
mke 849
pit 849
rdu 849
phl 850

Then about 30 minutes later the departures started -- Cincinnati has a 30 minute minimum connecting time so just about everything was a legal connection.
919 den
930 ord
930 lax
930 bna
930 sfo
930 tpa
935 bwi
935 clt
935 xna
935 fll
935 bdl
935 mem
936 rdu
940 dfw
945 mco

Except for (apparently, oddly) an illegal 29-minute PHL-CVG-DEN connection, everything else connected.

Compare that to this September

A whole lot more originators out of CVG means a better schedule for local Cincinnati business travelers but no connecting feed (except for a couple of red-eye arrivals on certain days)
630 ewr
650 clt
700 bos
700 bdl
700 dca
702 rdu
711 yyz
719 ord
720 phl
735 mem
745 bwi
800 fll

Then the mid-morning bank arrives between 808 and 917
dca 808
bos 811
ord 815
mke 825
rdu 825
bna 839
dfw 917

But the corresponding departures are a much shorter list and several possible connections aren't legal because they are under 30 minutes
842 sea (does not operate Tuesday/Wednesday/Sunday)
845 mco
855 las
900 sfo
905 den
905 mci
914 lax
915 xna
915 tpa
920 iah
925 dfw

There are similar issues through the day -- far fewer connection opportunities all through the day. Several flight (especially mid-day) don't operate on Tuesday and Wednesday so even fewer connection opportunities exist those days. My quick tally only found five fewer weekday departures in 2017 versus 2015 so it's not liek a drastic cut in flights is the culprit. It's fewer connecting opportunities.

Of course the primary purpose of the CVG operation is the high-fare business traffic market. But business demand varies from flight to flight and the ability to fill otherwise-empty seats with connecting traffic is a powerful tool for network carriers. With tight banks a Cincinnati connection was often the fastest one in markets like Kansas City-Hartford and Raleigh-Milwaukee, and business fares for those connections were typically pretty expensive. It's not like CVG relied on $99 transcon connecting traffic to fill seats.

With fewer connections to bolster yields I fear we'll see more routes struggle, unfortunately.

knope2001 wrote:

Until roughly a year or so ago Delta was pretty tightly banked in Cincinnati (outside of flights to big hubs like ATL, LGA, DTW, MSP). That has changed and it's definitely having an effect.

With fewer connections to bolster yields I fear we'll see more routes struggle, unfortunately.

It's a shame, and it's hard to see the reasoning behind some of it...

Midwestindy wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

Until roughly a year or so ago Delta was pretty tightly banked in Cincinnati (outside of flights to big hubs like ATL, LGA, DTW, MSP). That has changed and it's definitely having an effect.

With fewer connections to bolster yields I fear we'll see more routes struggle, unfortunately.

It's a shame, and it's hard to see the reasoning behind some of it...

And DL has said they are purposely unbanking the schedule, which I just don't get. Very nice analysis by knope2001, not only have the frequency changes hurt loads, but the retiming seems to be having some effect as well. Maybe DL will revaluate this and try to solidify its banking more, but I think the recent changes show they have no intention of doing this. Very unfortunate indeed...

knope2001 wrote:

My quick tally only found five fewer weekday departures in 2017 versus 2015 so it's not liek a drastic cut in flights is the culprit. It's fewer connecting opportunities.

Part of the small reductions in overall frequency is DL's hub routes have been given extra frequency in replacement. Here are the frequency cuts for smaller regional routes, comparing May 2015 to May 2017.

BWI 3<2
GRR 1<0
BDL 2<1
MCI 3<2
MEM 2<1
BNA 2<1
MKE 2<1
PIT 2<0
RDU 3<2
RIC 1<0
STL 3<2

On top of this, these levels are right after a 20 flight cutdown in Spring 2015, so many routes had 3rd or 4th daily flights before then. Daily flights were around 106 then compared to just over 80 now.

The time for CVG-STL also makes no sense to me.

STL-CVG
8:35-10:50 am
12:45-2:57 pm

CVG-STL
12:10-12:19 pm
8:55- 9:10 pm


The 8:55 flight is the only one that makes any sense.

It should be STL-CVG in that morning bank. And the the 2nd one should be after 5 pm.

CVG-STL early should be in the morning sometime.

The midday flights don't make much sense unless they are setting them up well for connections but I have a feeling they aren't.

Jshank83 wrote:

Those drop off in numbers are crazy. I will say I rarely see CVG as a connection option anymore and if I do it seems like it is more expensive or a longer layover. At least it is still 2x daily. I have noticed they changed the pricing to where it is much cheaper to book a RT than just a one way or 2 separate one ways. I don't remember it being like that before for that route.

This is exactly what happened with United in Cleveland. Of course they can mention how badly the hub operation is doing if they price itineraries with certain connections at a much higher price. It's too bad; having these smaller hubs to help relieve pressure on the megahubs when they may experience weather or other emergency delays has got to have some degree of convenience. Perhaps not enough to justify whatever costs they incur; it always comes down to money and maximizing profit of course.

The sad part about this cut is that another airline that currently flies to CVG is not likely to add it back. Ultimate Air Shuttle could possibly add it and would probably do well on it but they fly out of LUK and have been slow about adding new cities and growing. Maybe the rumors that I've been hearing about Delta reducing even more at CVG are true. I didn't want to believe them and I hope I'm wrong.

Definitely a little frustrating to see how a market like CVG-MEM is led down the path to failure like this. The planners have all the data at their fingertips to know how CVG-MEM was doing in the 2x/day banked-hub world. They knew the relative size of the local market, if more travel originated in MEM or CVG, the extent to which connections were needed to fill seats, etc. That CVG-MEM is struggling now that it is 1x/day with virtually no connecting feed possible isn’t a big surprise.

A few things to their defense, however:

--You can’t meet every want and need in the real world. Every business market like this would love a 7:30am and a 6:00pm departure both directions but that’s obviously impossible without a massive fleet which doesn’t have much to do the rest of the day. Higher scheduling priority probably goes to larger and/or competitive markets and smaller monopolies like CVG-MEM necessarily are lower priority. A number of the remaining Cincinnati markets are not timed well for business traffic originating in one city or the other, but they need to make the best out of what they have.

--The retiming of Cincinnati included having a lot more 7:00am originators instead of the solid bank of 9:00am hub bank departures. That move may reflect a concern they were not getting enough of the local Cincinnati-based market onto those flights. Maybe they were finding that by having so many of their first-of-the-morning flights not until 9:00am they were losing too many customers to competitors and/or early morning connecting Delta flights. More 7:00am departures from Cincinnati helps better serve the business travelers in those particular markets but it kills the connectivity. But the downside is that markets like MEM which aren’t big enough to cut it without connecting traffic struggle.

--It’s possible that even though the planners knew the odds were not good for the retimed CVG-MEM flight it was the only option other than cutting it. It’s possible the market might have risen to the occasion and done better and so they decided to give it a try in the re-timed CVG world rather than cut it outright from that start.

A few years back I had the opportunity to communicate with a planner about a similar move which seemed destined to fail – a big dead-of-winter capacity upgrade in a market with notoriously weak winter demand. Essentially the response was “well it’s what we need to do and the market will either rise to the occasion or get cut”. Predictably results were disastrous. The capacity expansion got scaled back months later (frustratingly as they were moving into the time of year where seasonal demand could have made better use of that capacity) and within two years the route was dumped completely. From my perspective the words set up to fail seem most appropriate. But the planners who made the decision to do what they did had different influences and a different take on it.

It’s possible that the banked Cincinnati operation we saw until the last year or two had too many weak spots and was trending steadily downward. The reworked operation we see today might be working out better for those markets with enough local demand but the consequence could be further losses of markets on the margins. The “death by a thousand cuts” scenario is worrisome.

AirportRival wrote:

The sad part about this cut is that another airline that currently flies to CVG is not likely to add it back. Ultimate Air Shuttle could possibly add it and would probably do well on it but they fly out of LUK and have been slow about adding new cities and growing.

Maybe if Ultimate flew to MidAmerica Airport across the river they could make St Louis work; BLV fits their playbook..

Lots of diversion from ATL at CVG currently, from what I can see there are 3 764s 1 a330 and 1 763 as well as a CRJ9 752 and 738.

Midwestindy wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

Until roughly a year or so ago Delta was pretty tightly banked in Cincinnati (outside of flights to big hubs like ATL, LGA, DTW, MSP). That has changed and it's definitely having an effect.

With fewer connections to bolster yields I fear we'll see more routes struggle, unfortunately.

It's a shame, and it's hard to see the reasoning behind some of it...

Southwest has nonstop service from MDW to CVG and all of the East Coast destinations that Delta serves nonstop out of CVG, with the exception of JFK (but Southwest already has several daily nonstops out of MDW to LGA and EWR). Southwest also has nonstop service from DEN, DAL, HOU, MCI, STL, and MKE to most of the East Coast destinations that are served nonstop out of CVG on Delta. Most of those flying from DEN, DFW/DAL, IAH/HOU, MCI, STL, ORD/MDW, or MKE to the East Coast aren't going to be connecting through CVG since Southwest has nonstop service from these cities to most of the East Coast destinations that Delta serves nonstop out of CVG, since connections can be made from these cities to East Coast destinations through Delta's DTW and ATL hubs, since AA also has hubs at DFW and ORD, since UA also has hubs at DEN, IAH, and ORD, and since connections can be made from these cities to East Coast destinations on airlines other than Delta through airports other than CVG.

Cvgspotter15 wrote:

Lots of diversion from ATL at CVG currently, from what I can see there are 3 764s 1 a330 and 1 763 as well as a CRJ9 752 and 738.

There were only two 764's, no 330's, and the 763 was the CDG flight. There were some narrow bodies too like a couple 739's, a 321, a 752, a 737, and a 717. Every thing else was pretty unnoticeable.

jplatts wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

Until roughly a year or so ago Delta was pretty tightly banked in Cincinnati (outside of flights to big hubs like ATL, LGA, DTW, MSP). That has changed and it's definitely having an effect.

With fewer connections to bolster yields I fear we'll see more routes struggle, unfortunately.

It's a shame, and it's hard to see the reasoning behind some of it...

Southwest has nonstop service from MDW to CVG and all of the East Coast destinations that Delta serves nonstop out of CVG, with the exception of JFK (but Southwest already has several daily nonstops out of MDW to LGA and EWR). Southwest also has nonstop service from DEN, DAL, HOU, MCI, STL, and MKE to most of the East Coast destinations that are served nonstop out of CVG on Delta. Most of those flying from DEN, DFW/DAL, IAH/HOU, MCI, STL, ORD/MDW, or MKE to the East Coast aren't going to be connecting through CVG since Southwest has nonstop service from these cities to most of the East Coast destinations that Delta serves nonstop out of CVG, since connections can be made from these cities to East Coast destinations through Delta's DTW and ATL hubs, since AA also has hubs at DFW and ORD, since UA also has hubs at DEN, IAH, and ORD, and since connections can be made from these cities to East Coast destinations on airlines other than Delta through airports other than CVG.

Just because there is nonstop service, doesn't mean everyone will take it
Lots of connections were still popular through CVG in 2016
MKE-CVG-CLT, CVG was the most popular connection behind ORD, DTW, and ATL
MKE-CVG-XNA, CVG was the most popular connection behind ORD, MSP, and DFW
CVG was also a common connection if you were flying MKE-BNA, or if you were flying into or out of XNA, MEM, or PIT.

Midwestindy wrote:

Just because there is nonstop service, doesn't mean everyone will take it
Lots of connections were still popular through CVG in 2016
MKE-CVG-CLT, CVG was the most popular connection behind ORD, DTW, and ATL
MKE-CVG-XNA, CVG was the most popular connection behind ORD, MSP, and DFW
CVG was also a common connection if you were flying MKE-BNA, or if you were flying into or out of XNA, MEM, or PIT.

Southwest Airlines is going to be starting MKE-BNA nonstop service on November 4th, and those flying between MKE and BNA will no longer have to connect through CVG after Southwest starts MKE-BNA nonstop service.

Amazon will be adding service from CVG to PVD, nice to see a new destination, hopefully they continue to roll out new cities!

cvgComair wrote:

Amazon will be adding service from CVG to PVD, nice to see a new destination, hopefully they continue to roll out new cities!

Don't they have plans to build a massive hub operation at CVG eventually?

I'll reask this question since it got lost in the shuffle before.

What are the chances Alaska and/or JetBlue come into CVG and launch service? Alaska could launch CVG-SEA while JetBlue could launch CVG-BOS or CVG-FLL