It is interesting to hypothesize about how they get to 150 flights per day. I do think some frequency increases will happen, and they've demostrated this with cities like MKE, SEA - start out with a single flight and then add. I do think we'll see this with Austin, Nashville etc.. For example, I would bet that they eventually add an AM flight from BOS-AUS at some point. However, that 5:30AM - 8AM bank is getting pretty crowded.
I also think that they'll add frequencies to some of the bigger corporate cities - SFO, SEA.
Possibly some additional Florida and island flying?
Possibly another destination or two in Europe?
But that's not going to be 50 flights. They're going to have to add new cities. The obvious candidates (DCA, ORD) are not without problems. I will be interested to watch things evolve.
Interesting to consider, indeed. I agree that some of the domestic candidates are obvious - new flights, assuming they could get sufficient slots and gates, to DCA, ORD, possibly DFW, MIA/FLL, maybe SAN, etc., added frequencies on transcons, etc. But, as said, that's a lot easier said than done - where is Delta going to get slots at DCA, or gates at ORD? And how are AA, JetBlue and United going to respond to incursions into some of their hubs and core markets? As I mentioned in a previous post - that should be fascinating to watch!
It is just DL focusing on several markets where they expect sustainable growth. I think it has more to do with the actual market and less with a strategy to build up "mini-hubs". I agree these markets are very competitive but DL probably expects to overwhelm the competition and a few of the competitors to drop.
Right - again, I'm sure that's Delta's internal logic and rationale. The question, I think, is going to be whether or not Delta can actually achieve "sustainable" growth in these highly competitive markets without materially eroding said markets' economics. I would be surprised if Delta was banking on its ability to "overwhelm the competition" and drive a few of them to drop out of certain markets. The experience in SEA should, if nothing else, have validated that competitors are fully capable of pushing back. And frankly, if anything, I'd argue that JetBlue in some ways is actually an even stronger competitor in BOS than Alaska is in SEA.
I don't see how they can add frequencies to places like SFO or LAX without getting major retaliation. And any flights to washington regions and ORD are going to be major bloodbath and they will get serious push backs by AA/UA. This is not Seattle where they can just add flights without seriously encroaching on other legacies that can hurt them on other routes.
Just go by SFO to BOS, they have 2 frequencies against 7 from UA, 4 from B6 and 3 from VX. And there is no product advantage from DL even with delta one. Given UA's network advantage here, it should seriously dominate DL on routes like this.
I generally agree. I'm sure Delta can add lots of additional flights out of BOS, including to lots of places overlapping existing capacity on AA, JetBlue and United - but that is going to entail overlaying a lot of capacity on top of airlines that have been established, entrenched and (in some cases) dominant in some of these markets for years. All of that is to say - I see now plausible way that Delta could dump that much additional capacity into the BOS market without eroding yields.