Please continue your discussion and to post your updates here.

Link to previous thread:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1351503

YAY us we have made it to a Detroit discussion thread part 5 when in the past most of the Detroit threads have mostly been DOA and filled with nothing but negative feedback.

alfa164 wrote:
Exactly. Until the perception of Detroit changes - and it will only change with noticeable improvements, over a period of time - there will be little success in luring travels from other parts of the world to the DTW area.

How would the perception change if fanboys from other cities beating it down intentionally. Buffalo fanboy Wolf Blizter makes sure to repeat Detroit is the worst every opportunity he gets, absolutely fake news. Same with every one else.

Is City of Detroit worst than South Boston, South Atlanta or South Chicago. Absolutely not.

A 5,800 Square mile area with over 5+ Million people with some of the wealthiest ZIP codes, large concentration of Technology companies and 600K IT professionals is judged by judged by 142 Square miles and 677K population. Even City is doing real good.

Microsoft is opening a technology center in City of Detroit.
Amazon already has a development center.
City's business space occupancy reached record high.
State's unemployment recovered from very high 14.5 to one of the lowest in the country.
Out of state cars and bad drivers are everywhere.
In some cities minimum price of new construction is $500K, but only abandoned property in Detroit makes news.
Detroit blight is removed
Urban farming is very popular

All this is private sector, proud to be not nursing on federal government.

I know DTW passenger counts have grown in the past 2 years but does it really tell the whole picture. Is DTW growing at the same pace as other airports in it's category. I know less than 10 years ago DTW was in the top 15 airports in the world for enplanements and now it's not even in the top 50. So as passenger go up is DTW really doing that well because to me it seems like our airport slips more and more down ward on the list of the worlds busiest airports while CLT continues to hold it's position with less O/D traffic that the Detroit area.

Ok I'll say this. DTW is a world-class airport! The McNamara terminal is so nice inside and connecting through DTW is a breeze compared to some of the other major hubs in the country. That being said, long term growth at DTW will depend on moving bodies through the airport at ever increasing numbers. People from outside the 'D', as some of us locals affectionately refer to it, are quick to blast Detroit in negative terms as many of you are familiar. Detroit, the city itself, has last over a million people since the late 1950s. A million. That has all sorts of deleterious effects over time as one can imagine. That being said, downtown Detroit is a nice area and the real traffic factor for DTW are and will continue to be, at least over the next decade, people in the burbs. The Metro Detroit Urban area is the 14th most populous MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area - Census - stuff) in the country . There is a lot of potential to tap into the population for the leisure market and also a huge potential for greater business travel demand.

I don't buy into DTW being marginalized by DL. I just don't see it happening. I don't have specific and articulable evidence to back this claim up, just an overall feeling. I do think DTW, at least for the leisure market segment consumer, would benefit from having greater competition among airlines. I'd also like to see DL continue to focus its Asian operations out of DTW for the Midwest / East Coast and try to expand further into Europe (this is evidenced already by adding MUC for example) as well as seasonal service to FCO. I'm really curious to see what the pax numbers are for FY2016 and that should be coming out soon. Hopefully it will approach 2005 levels as I recall that was the peak year in overall pax numbers. I am excited to see what the future holds for DTW.

The new Catcora restaurant opened at the McNamara, it's not bad if you pass through and have time to eat.

And just like that Providence has as many Nonstop destinations to Europe as Detroit has rather laughable that Detroit can't even land on new route to Europe. Which the WCAA would get of their but and start marketing this airport so we can get some real choices to fly as far as price goes instead of being susceptible to Delta's price gouging to Europe. Remember the slap in the face DL adding DUB-BOS instead of linking their 3rd largest hub DTW with tons of onward connections.

*D8 PVD-BFS
*D8 PVD-DUB
*D8 PVD-EDI
*D8 PVD-ORK
*D8 PVD-SNN

I don't know what it says about DTW, but here's a list of airports east of the Mississippi that see DL mainline, but aren't connected to the DTW hub (excl FNT):

ATL (24): Charleston (WV)*, Charlottesville*, Newport News, Roanoke*, Asheville*, Tri-Cities (TN), Fayetteville (NC), Jacksonville (NC), Wilmington (NC), Columbia (SC)*, Augusta (GA), Daytona Beach, Melbourne, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, Key West, Pensacola, Gainesville, Tallahassee, Gulfport, Mobile, Shreveport, Lafayette, Baton Rouge
MSP(1)-Duluth

*=Were served from DTW back in the NW days.

A lot of these are destinations that NW served via MEM back in the day; but the most northerly ones and CAE, IIRC, had DTW service. Of what's on there, ROA, CHO, CRW, AVL, and CAE would make the most sense. ILM and BTR both seem large enough that they should have some service to the Midwest, but don't; ILM and some of the Florida destinations could make sense on a seasonal basis for beach traffic.

GSP psgr wrote:

I don't know what it says about DTW, but here's a list of airports east of the Mississippi that see DL mainline, but aren't connected to the DTW hub (excl FNT):

ATL (24): Charleston (WV)*, Charlottesville*, Newport News, Roanoke*, Asheville*, Tri-Cities (TN), Fayetteville (NC), Jacksonville (NC), Wilmington (NC), Columbia (SC)*, Augusta (GA), Daytona Beach, Melbourne, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, Key West, Pensacola, Gainesville, Tallahassee, Gulfport, Mobile, Shreveport, Lafayette, Baton Rouge
MSP(1)-Duluth

*=Were served from DTW back in the NW days.

A lot of these are destinations that NW served via MEM back in the day; but the most northerly ones and CAE, IIRC, had DTW service. Of what's on there, ROA, CHO, CRW, AVL, and CAE would make the most sense. ILM and BTR both seem large enough that they should have some service to the Midwest, but don't; ILM and some of the Florida destinations could make sense on a seasonal basis for beach traffic.

I agree with you and it does speak volumes about the position that DTW holds in the Delta network as to the fact that Delta want's that traffic diverted away from Detroit and to flow over Atlanta. Concerning these four anyone traveling to the west coast has some serious back tracking to do if they want to fly Delta. Not very customer friendly at all. If I lived I those cities I would be a loyal AA flyer as they have the most convenient options from those airports but with all the consolidation that has gone on in many markets the customer has been held hostage with little or no choice with little concern given to the customer experience. Certainly those cities warrant at least a morning departure for west bound connections over Detroit but again Delta will do nothing that may negatively impact their Atlanta operation so the customer and the Detroit market suffers.

KDTWflyer wrote:

I don't buy into DTW being marginalized by DL. I just don't see it happening. I don't have specific and articulable evidence to back this claim up, just an overall feeling. I do think DTW, at least for the leisure market segment consumer, would benefit from having greater competition among airlines. I'd also like to see DL continue to focus its Asian operations out of DTW for the Midwest / East Coast and try to expand further into Europe (this is evidenced already by adding MUC for example) as well as seasonal service to FCO. I'm really curious to see what the pax numbers are for FY2016 and that should be coming out soon. Hopefully it will approach 2005 levels as I recall that was the peak year in overall pax numbers. I am excited to see what the future holds for DTW.

While I don't think that DTW is "marginalized" by Delta, I do think that to an extent it suffers from the low fuel prices that make it very attractive to shove a lot of capacity in bulk through ATL that might better flow over DTW. I do think that ATL might be at somewhat of a peak vis a vis DTW currently for a few reasons: 1) low fuel prices, 2) relatively low CPE costs (the bulk of the terminals have been long since paid for), and 3) capacity to create economies of scale. Fuel prices won't stay this low, ATL is about to embark on a costly $6 billion capital expansion that doesn't really create all that much more passenger capacity for DL (something like 12 international gates), and the fact that ATL is already strained to it's limits during key parts of the day (early AM rush and evening international departures). Meanwhile, DTW's got lots of capacity and isn't embarking on anything nearly so expensive as what ATL wants to do. I'd expect to see some modest rebalancing of flows in the next few years.

flymco753 wrote:

DTW-JAX can easily be a daily M88 but a CR7 is flown to restrict the mount of flow past ATL.

Well that's why G4 would be perfect for this route, JAX is such an eyesore in Detroit's network, same with SRQ which I'm surprised hasn't ended yet. There is not that many major gaps in Detroit though as much as people think, yes we have routes like SMF and SNA where a ton of people go to with no nonstop but the biggest issues are breaking monopolized routes like SAN and PDX.

flymco753 wrote:

The reason DL doesn't update aircraft or add Southeast routes is to protect ATL service, which is also why you'll never see routes like YYC, YEG, BOI, to protect MSP service, it goes each way. DTW-JAX can easily be a daily M88 but a CR7 is flown to restrict the mount of flow past ATL.

And that is the most irritating thing because it dies not do the same here in Detroit as far as protecting routes in and out of Detroit. I can't think of any market out of Detroit that Delta does not protect in the same manner by not having flights to other hubs so that the bulk of the passengers flow over Detroit. For MSP you can add DLH, HNL and RST to that list. even MBS,LAN,AZO,TVC, and FNT have the MSP connection that takes passengers away from DTW the same can not be said for WI and MN markets most are exclusive to MSP.

klm617 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

The reason DL doesn't update aircraft or add Southeast routes is to protect ATL service, which is also why you'll never see routes like YYC, YEG, BOI, to protect MSP service, it goes each way. DTW-JAX can easily be a daily M88 but a CR7 is flown to restrict the mount of flow past ATL.

And that is the most irritating thing because it dies not do the same here in Detroit as far as protecting routes in and out of Detroit. I can't think of any market out of Detroit that Delta does not protect in the same manner by not having flights to other hubs so that the bulk of the passengers flow over Detroit. For MSP you can add DLH, HNL and RST to that list. even MBS,LAN,AZO,TVC, and FNT have the MSP connection that takes passengers away from DTW the same can not be said for WI and MN markets most are exclusive to MSP.

Delta doesn't do much to protect its Michigan service from DTW but they protect their inner NY markets pretty well like ITH, BGM, and ELM.

flymco753 wrote:

What I think is strange is DL is cutting capacity to MCO next summer, by quite a bit. Per PDEW, MCO is DTW's 2nd largest market behind NYC (SWF, HPN, EWR, JFK, LGA). In years past NW and DL both could hold at least a few 757's during the summer but it will be 4x 739 2x A320. MSP, a much smaller O&D base to MCO will maintain 3x 757 1x 739. For NK they're up 1 daily to MSP on the 32S and DTW will be the 321S and 32S. DTW will have 3 weekly A321 on F9 and MSP will not have service. MSP will also have SY 1x daily on the 737/8. MCO-DTW is already miserable to travel on if you don't have a confirmed seat, why trim the market? Personally I'd target B6 or WN for daily service, the amount of seats vs the PDEW trends for the last few Summer quarters won't come close. Where do these pax have to go? The amount of connection opportunities aren't great, I won't connect on this route unless it's super urgent.

I know you have some erection towards B6 flying nonstop to MCO but people have to keep telling you it won't happen. If that's what you think is right which I hope not because I know you work for another company, than march up to their headquarters in New York and tell them. As for southwest though, yes I agree that the service has slipped for them, I think whoever is in charge of this area didn't asses that well enough because murder routes like EWR and PHL have flights, DTW could be at least daily. I don't know what to tell you other than that, you might not connect but other people will if it's cheaper, CLT and ATL are calling their names.

AA can't make DFW-PTY work, but CM seems to be fine at ORD and BOS. Maybe they know something AA doesn't know. Maybe they'll give DTW a try, but I think there are several cities ahead of our friends in Michigan.

globalcabotage wrote:

AA can't make DFW-PTY work, but CM seems to be fine at ORD and BOS. Maybe they know something AA doesn't know. Maybe they'll give DTW a try, but I think there are several cities ahead of our friends in Michigan.

Maybe, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened eventually, but the problem is the brand is basically unknown so they would have to spend a long time advertising their flight before it starts. That'll be a long process.

flymco753 wrote:

iFlyDTW wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

What I think is strange is DL is cutting capacity to MCO next summer, by quite a bit. Per PDEW, MCO is DTW's 2nd largest market behind NYC (SWF, HPN, EWR, JFK, LGA). In years past NW and DL both could hold at least a few 757's during the summer but it will be 4x 739 2x A320. MSP, a much smaller O&D base to MCO will maintain 3x 757 1x 739. For NK they're up 1 daily to MSP on the 32S and DTW will be the 321S and 32S. DTW will have 3 weekly A321 on F9 and MSP will not have service. MSP will also have SY 1x daily on the 737/8. MCO-DTW is already miserable to travel on if you don't have a confirmed seat, why trim the market? Personally I'd target B6 or WN for daily service, the amount of seats vs the PDEW trends for the last few Summer quarters won't come close. Where do these pax have to go? The amount of connection opportunities aren't great, I won't connect on this route unless it's super urgent.

I know you have some erection towards B6 flying nonstop to MCO but people have to keep telling you it won't happen. If that's what you think is right which I hope not because I know you work for another company, than march up to their headquarters in New York and tell them. As for southwest though, yes I agree that the service has slipped for them, I think whoever is in charge of this area didn't asses that well enough because murder routes like EWR and PHL have flights, DTW could be at least daily. I don't know what to tell you other than that, you might not connect but other people will if it's cheaper, CLT and ATL are calling their names.

Ok but when you look at YoY comparisons this years seats don't equate nearly to what last years seats were. I travel this market more frequently than you think, and it has gotten to a point where employees who work for the airlines can never get a seat regardless of the time of year. There is instances where I buy my ticket to make sure I get to where I need if it's vacation or an emergency, and even 3-5 months out I've had to pay rediculous amounts of points or miles to get either way.

Yeah but this is all based off your beliefs, the people that travel to Disney don't care who they fly unless it's cheap. Airlines keep reducing seats because the yield on this route is so low that adding unnecessary seats will be a money looser. This is also in perfectly good driving distance, if you don't stop you can make it from Detroit to Mickey in 18 hours on maybe 2 tanks of gas? Less than $100 both ways and you bring all the baggage you want. This route won't be the same caliber as EWR, PHL, ATL or ORD ever. You're out of options, nobody else would fly it other than the carriers that already do.

iFlyDTW wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

iFlyDTW wrote:

I know you have some erection towards B6 flying nonstop to MCO but people have to keep telling you it won't happen. If that's what you think is right which I hope not because I know you work for another company, than march up to their headquarters in New York and tell them. As for southwest though, yes I agree that the service has slipped for them, I think whoever is in charge of this area didn't asses that well enough because murder routes like EWR and PHL have flights, DTW could be at least daily. I don't know what to tell you other than that, you might not connect but other people will if it's cheaper, CLT and ATL are calling their names.

Ok but when you look at YoY comparisons this years seats don't equate nearly to what last years seats were. I travel this market more frequently than you think, and it has gotten to a point where employees who work for the airlines can never get a seat regardless of the time of year. There is instances where I buy my ticket to make sure I get to where I need if it's vacation or an emergency, and even 3-5 months out I've had to pay rediculous amounts of points or miles to get either way.

Yeah but this is all based off your beliefs, the people that travel to Disney don't care who they fly unless it's cheap. Airlines keep reducing seats because the yield on this route is so low that adding unnecessary seats will be a money looser. This is also in perfectly good driving distance, if you don't stop you can make it from Detroit to Mickey in 18 hours on maybe 2 tanks of gas? Less than $100 both ways and you bring all the baggage you want. This route won't be the same caliber as EWR, PHL, ATL or ORD ever. You're out of options, nobody else would fly it other than the carriers that already do.

Are you kidding me you are advocating driving to Disney just because airlines won't add seats in the DTW-MCO market when the volume of traffic indicates that this market warrants the additional capacity. Another beautiful example of how consolidation in the airline industry has helped the consumer.

The issue is that DTW-MCO has become one of the few truly competitive and relatively low cost DL flights out of DTW. Yes the demand is there, but as stated the yields are low.

My guess is DL sees the opportunity to charge more for tickets, but expects not as many pax will pay the higher cost. They can still profit more by doing this:

As a simple example from a $$ profit perspective, $200*1000seats/day< $300*800seats/day. Especially when 1000 seats generates $200,000 profit with higher costs vs. 800 seats generating $240,000 profit with lower costs.

Peak travel week and travel days like Christmas/New Years holiday period, Presidents Weekend, April school Spring break week, Easter weekend, and Saturdays in March are higher demand periods for a market like MCO (and other sun markets) and DL (and other legacies) for that matter charge a premium of nonstops during prime/peak travel times. Demand-based pricing is nothing new in this industry. Cheap fares are not difficult to MCO with a bit of flexibility in day and time of departure even during peak times, not to mention the numerous connecting options.

Now, you're also conflicting your assumptions based on the ability to get non-rev space on DTW-MCO. Keep in mind, that with system load factors already in the mid/high 80% that most flights, especially at popular day-of-the-week and time-of-the-day are going to be sold-out. MCO also has a lot of non-rev demand. DL has a significant number of pilots and FA's that live in Florida, in fact that it used to be said that outside of Metro Detroit, Florida was the most popular state of residence for DTW-based pilots and FAs. That's just the commuter non-revs not to mention those going for leisure and/or likely of a lower pass status.

kavok wrote:

The issue is that DTW-MCO has become one of the few truly competitive and relatively low cost DL flights out of DTW. Yes the demand is there, but as stated the yields are low.

My guess is DL sees the opportunity to charge more for tickets, but expects not as many pax will pay the higher cost. They can still profit more by doing this:

As a simple example from a $$ profit perspective, $200*1000seats/day< $300*800seats/day. Especially when 1000 seats generates $200,000 profit with higher costs vs. 800 seats generating $240,000 profit with lower costs.

But why is it OK to give seats away at rock bottom prices in the CHI, NYC, BOS and other major cities while people in places like DET, CLE,CMH and the like pay artificially high prices to subsidize cheap travel from the major US cities. People in the major markets should also have the capacity restricted so they also pay artificially high fares that the airlines deem acceptable. While I understand your theory it's not the nature of how airlines do business in every market and I blame the WCAA for the lack of completion and their pandering they do to Delta.

Interesting fact: Delta in Detroit is, by flight numbers at least, only ~90% of what CVG was at it's peak in 2001 (505 daily flights, 174 of which were mainline), and this is after the massive cuts at CVG. I'm not sure what the story is in terms of ASMs, but my guess is that things are at least close-most of the DL Connection flights in 2001 were CRJ-200s.

I'll throw out another interesting idea; with the retirement of the 744s, JFK-TLV is now a 772, which is a smaller aircraft. Do you think DTW-TLV on a 763/764 could work? It's a convenient connection for ORD, LAX, DFW, and IAH, and the big Florida markets, and around 500 air miles less than ATL-TLV.

iFlyDTW wrote:

klm617 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

The reason DL doesn't update aircraft or add Southeast routes is to protect ATL service, which is also why you'll never see routes like YYC, YEG, BOI, to protect MSP service, it goes each way. DTW-JAX can easily be a daily M88 but a CR7 is flown to restrict the mount of flow past ATL.

And that is the most irritating thing because it dies not do the same here in Detroit as far as protecting routes in and out of Detroit. I can't think of any market out of Detroit that Delta does not protect in the same manner by not having flights to other hubs so that the bulk of the passengers flow over Detroit. For MSP you can add DLH, HNL and RST to that list. even MBS,LAN,AZO,TVC, and FNT have the MSP connection that takes passengers away from DTW the same can not be said for WI and MN markets most are exclusive to MSP.

Delta doesn't do much to protect its Michigan service from DTW but they protect their inner NY markets pretty well like ITH, BGM, and ELM.

What is interesting about this along with SWF is what Delta is basically surrendering all the lost cost Florida traffic in these markets to the other airlines as the connection to Florida all require and out of the way connection in Detroit so they are only targeting the high fare business traveler for the most part from those 4 destinations but how they have them liked in the system.

GSP psgr wrote:

Interesting fact: Delta in Detroit is, by flight numbers at least, only ~90% of what CVG was at it's peak in 2001 (505 daily flights, 174 of which were mainline), and this is after the massive cuts at CVG. I'm not sure what the story is in terms of ASMs, but my guess is that things are at least close-most of the DL Connection flights in 2001 were CRJ-200s.

I'll throw out another interesting idea; with the retirement of the 744s, JFK-TLV is now a 772, which is a smaller aircraft. Do you think DTW-TLV on a 763/764 could work? It's a convenient connection for ORD, LAX, DFW, and IAH, and the big Florida markets, and around 500 air miles less than ATL-TLV.

I think it would but Delta will never try it because it doesn't want to take passengers away from the JFK flight. Remember when EL AL ran charters from DTW to TLV.

GSP psgr wrote:

Interesting fact: Delta in Detroit is, by flight numbers at least, only ~90% of what CVG was at it's peak in 2001 (505 daily flights, 174 of which were mainline), and this is after the massive cuts at CVG. I'm not sure what the story is in terms of ASMs, but my guess is that things are at least close-most of the DL Connection flights in 2001 were CRJ-200s.

I'll throw out another interesting idea; with the retirement of the 744s, JFK-TLV is now a 772, which is a smaller aircraft. Do you think DTW-TLV on a 763/764 could work? It's a convenient connection for ORD, LAX, DFW, and IAH, and the big Florida markets, and around 500 air miles less than ATL-TLV.

CVG's peak was in 2005 when they hit 670 daily flights right before the bankruptcy, but over 450 of those were DL connection flights. Many of the mainline adds were weaker routes that did not last long like CVG-ANC/FCO/SJD/PVR/etc.

cvgComair wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

Interesting fact: Delta in Detroit is, by flight numbers at least, only ~90% of what CVG was at it's peak in 2001 (505 daily flights, 174 of which were mainline), and this is after the massive cuts at CVG. I'm not sure what the story is in terms of ASMs, but my guess is that things are at least close-most of the DL Connection flights in 2001 were CRJ-200s.

I'll throw out another interesting idea; with the retirement of the 744s, JFK-TLV is now a 772, which is a smaller aircraft. Do you think DTW-TLV on a 763/764 could work? It's a convenient connection for ORD, LAX, DFW, and IAH, and the big Florida markets, and around 500 air miles less than ATL-TLV.

CVG's peak was in 2005 when they hit 670 daily flights right before the bankruptcy, but over 450 of those were DL connection flights. Many of the mainline adds were weaker routes that did not last long like CVG-ANC/FCO/SJD/PVR/etc.

I remember at the end there were some real reach routes on CRJs, I want to say Wilmington, DE, New Haven, Bangor and the like and a 1 stop redeye to LAS. They were running out of places to fly the things.

klm617 wrote:

Are you kidding me you are advocating driving to Disney just because airlines won't add seats in the DTW-MCO market when the volume of traffic indicates that this market warrants the additional capacity. Another beautiful example of how consolidation in the airline industry has helped the consumer.

I'm bemused by your thinking. There has always been, and always will be, a large faction of the market that prefers to drive. You have to consider the overall cost -- in addition to airfare and baggage fees, there's also local transportation cost and for many, airport parking fees. For most people traveling to Florida, local transportation = rental car and they can be quite costly, especially larger family vehicles. For a family of four already budgeting $3,000 for attraction tickets, lodging, meals, etc. the prospects of driving to and from Orlando for $150 in gas sounds much more appealing than spending another $1,000 on "rock bottom" airfare, baggage, rental car & airport parking. Ultimately, if you plan accordingly and drive straight through, the trip can be made in 17-18 hours -- or less if you have a lead foot (and radar detector).

GSP psgr wrote:

Interesting fact: Delta in Detroit is, by flight numbers at least, only ~90% of what CVG was at it's peak in 2001 (505 daily flights, 174 of which were mainline), and this is after the massive cuts at CVG. I'm not sure what the story is in terms of ASMs, but my guess is that things are at least close-most of the DL Connection flights in 2001 were CRJ-200s.

Nope. In terms of physical capacity, DTW is still -- even at its lowest point -- slightly larger than CVG was at its peak in 2006 (the numbers given by another poster are slightly off, CVG was at 75% regional by 2005, nearly all of which were 50-seaters). In terms of ASM, DTW is considerably larger -- both domestically and overall -- than CVG was at its peak. DTW also surpasses CVG in enplanements.

You have to remember, during DL's bankruptcy it engineered a plan to acquire preowned aircraft (at the time, it was looking at MD-80) and flow most of its traffic via ATL while simultaneously building a hub at JFK -- a plan which it gradually executed. DL sought to divest the crux of its 50-seat fleet and dump its debt obligations at CVG; it was pretty clear it was seeking to significantly downsize CVG and the airport even hired the Boyd Group, which more-or-less told it to prepare for the worst. Ultimately, DL agreed to keep many of its 50-seaters, reached a deal on the debt, didn't acquire the MD-80 and the pull down was more gradual and less dramatic.

I realize the CVG fan boys have long insisted the airport was a victim of the merger, but that's simply not true -- plans to downsize/dehub CVG were made during DL's bankruptcy, but the pull down was gradual. And that's a fact that can't be argued with.

compensateme wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Are you kidding me you are advocating driving to Disney just because airlines won't add seats in the DTW-MCO market when the volume of traffic indicates that this market warrants the additional capacity. Another beautiful example of how consolidation in the airline industry has helped the consumer.

I'm bemused by your thinking. There has always been, and always will be, a large faction of the market that prefers to drive. You have to consider the overall cost -- in addition to airfare and baggage fees, there's also local transportation cost and for many, airport parking fees. For most people traveling to Florida, local transportation = rental car and they can be quite costly, especially larger family vehicles. For a family of four already budgeting $3,000 for attraction tickets, lodging, meals, etc. the prospects of driving to and from Orlando for $150 in gas sounds much more appealing than spending another $1,000 on "rock bottom" airfare, baggage, rental car & airport parking. Ultimately, if you plan accordingly and drive straight through, the trip can be made in 17-18 hours -- or less if you have a lead foot (and radar.

I think a certain poster above has a hard time with comprehending this exact reason as to why this markets doesn't need JetBlue. He/she/it feels that because they fly non revenue to get to work in Detroit (which totally gives away who they work for) that they're obligated to a personal nonstop on an airline they don't even work for, and would possibly hurt the airline they work for. The market is fine where it is, there is no reason to grow. All of the excess passengers can use perfectly good ATL or CLT to get there. Maybe SW would be the only last logical option but B6 doesn't ever need to happen.

compensateme wrote:

You have to remember, during DL's bankruptcy it engineered a plan to acquire preowned aircraft (at the time, it was looking at MD-80) and flow most of its traffic via ATL while simultaneously building a hub at JFK -- a plan which it gradually executed. DL sought to divest the crux of its 50-seat fleet and dump its debt obligations at CVG; it was pretty clear it was seeking to significantly downsize CVG and the airport even hired the Boyd Group, which more-or-less told it to prepare for the worst. Ultimately, DL agreed to keep many of its 50-seaters, reached a deal on the debt, didn't acquire the MD-80 and the pull down was more gradual and less dramatic.

I realize the CVG fan boys have long insisted the airport was a victim of the merger, but that's simply not true -- plans to downsize/dehub CVG were made during DL's bankruptcy, but the pull down was gradual. And that's a fact that can't be argued with.

While I agree CVG's future was still in the 200 daily flights range without the merger, the hub was a victim of the merger. Delta's capacity was only reduced by 3% in 2007 compared to 29% in 2006. While it was a big cut in 2006 due to the bankruptcy, most of those changes were aimed at increasing profitability, not a draw-down of the CVG hub. Most of the changes were to smaller destinations served well from ATL, early morning departures, and late-night departures. Once these changes were made, they even added some new destinations in the 2006/early 2007 timeframe. It was not until the merger was announced that DL cut further, and they went down big time, from 2008-2012, DL reduced capacity by 10-20% every year! These cuts removed connecting flows and changed CVG from a continuous hub to the clearly defined banks that we see now. It's completely ignorant to say that the plan was to completely dehhub CVG before the merger, as they put it, they were "right sizing" CVG. The extent of the "right sizing" dramatically changed when DL merged with Northwest adding DTW into the network, the fact that Richard Anderson was the new CEO did not help matters. While no one was going to speculate CVG would rival ATL like some said in the 90's or regian its 670 departures, there is no way DL would cede the entire Midwest if the merger had not happened. ATL is a great hub location, but there are many flows that cannot work without a CVG/DTW/MSP.

Listed here are adds in 2004, these are the same cities DL cut in 2006: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/0 ... delta.html.

If you want to go the origin of the problems, I would call 2000 the "peak" year at CVG, where traffic hit 22.4 million, just under the peak in 2005, but many more flights were on larger aircraft with less frequency (727/737 used extensively). This time was also the peak of profitability for the CVG hub, but that changed due to the combination of 9/11, the Comair Pilot Strike, and rising fuel prices greatly reduced the profitability of CVG as hub for Delta, the rise in 50-seaters was the way DL tried to keep CVG profitable, but it failed. DL stated in 2003 that none of their hubs except ATL were profitable†, but they needed to keep hubs like CVG/JFK/SLC to maintain operations. PDX/MCO/LAX/BOS/DFW were all dehubbed around this time. CVG was essential for an independent DL network, but DL as an airline was not feasible without the merger with NW.

†“Delta CEO Warns Airlines Have More Hubs Than Needed,” Lucy May, Pittsburgh Business Journal, October 6, 2003.
†http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/Missed-Connections-II.pdf

cvgComair wrote:

It's completely ignorant to say that the plan was to completely dehhub CVG before the merger, as they put it, they were "right sizing" CVG. The extent of the "right sizing" dramatically changed when DL merged with Northwest adding DTW into the network, the fact that Richard Anderson was the new CEO did not help matters. While no one was going to speculate CVG would rival ATL like some said in the 90's or regian its 670 departures, there is no way DL would cede the entire Midwest if the merger had not happened. ATL is a great hub location, but there are many flows that cannot work without a CVG/DTW/MSP.

With all due respect, why on Earth do you think DL pursued Richard Anderson as CEO? Even before DL & NW filed for bankruptcy, it was widely reported that the two had flirted with a merger. It wasn't until DL successfully fought off US' hostile bid and named Richard Anderson CEO that talks progressed. You're pretty naive if you believe DL pursued NW solely for its MSP hub, then had to choose between DTW & CVG, picking the former due to its nicer facilities and CEO bias. Of course, that narrative ignores the fact that DTW had more than double the local enplanements and revenues that dwarfed CVG. Reality was, CVG was not working for DL and sought to replace it.

Well before the merger, DL discussed the move away from 50-seaters and back toward lower CASM mainline jets. That's not an overnight process, nor did it bond well for CVG, especially given DL's desire to keep capacity flat. Reality is, as DL's contracts with Connection carriers expired, leases at CVG came up & mainline jobs (they were already shopping for second-hand aircraft) arrived on property, CVG was going to be squeezed by ATL, JFK & codeshare revenues. No doubt that CVG in an independent DL network would resemble the CVG of today more than it would the CVG of post-bankruptcy.

If you want to go the origin of the problems, I would call 2000 the "peak" year at CVG, where traffic hit 22.4 million, just under the peak in 2005, but many more flights were on larger aircraft with less frequency (727/737 used extensively). This time was also the peak of profitability for the CVG hub,

Peak profitability? There are several former DL network planners on these forums who've said CVG was a money loser most of the mid-1990s, even while most of the rest of the network was profitable; the transition to CRJ was an attempt to turn its fortunes around.

That CVG was a prosperous hub that "printed money" until the move to the CRJ is simply an unsubstantiated a.net myth. Put simply, CVG lacked the local traffic to be a successful, large hub.

I'm bemused by your thinking. There has always been, and always will be, a large faction of the market that prefers to drive. You have to consider the overall cost -- in addition to airfare and baggage fees, there's also local transportation cost and for many, airport parking fees. For most people traveling to Florida, local transportation = rental car and they can be quite costly, especially larger family vehicles. For a family of four already budgeting $3,000 for attraction tickets, lodging, meals, etc. the prospects of driving to and from Orlando for $150 in gas sounds much more appealing than spending another $1,000 on "rock bottom" airfare, baggage, rental car & airport parking. Ultimately, if you plan accordingly and drive straight through, the trip can be made in 17-18 hours -- or less if you have a lead foot (and radar detector).


I understand that there a people who want to drive but for those who don't they should have to pay sky high airfares just because Delta wants to chock the market as far as capacity to keep fares artificially high. There should be enough seats in the market so a family wanting to travel to Disney can get round trips for about $200 but that's not the case. If flights are repeatedly over sold the market is underserved and I bet people in NYC and CHI aren't subject to $500 rounds trips to Florida plus baggage charges like people in Detroit are.

cvgComair wrote:

compensateme wrote:

You have to remember, during DL's bankruptcy it engineered a plan to acquire preowned aircraft (at the time, it was looking at MD-80) and flow most of its traffic via ATL while simultaneously building a hub at JFK -- a plan which it gradually executed. DL sought to divest the crux of its 50-seat fleet and dump its debt obligations at CVG; it was pretty clear it was seeking to significantly downsize CVG and the airport even hired the Boyd Group, which more-or-less told it to prepare for the worst. Ultimately, DL agreed to keep many of its 50-seaters, reached a deal on the debt, didn't acquire the MD-80 and the pull down was more gradual and less dramatic.

I realize the CVG fan boys have long insisted the airport was a victim of the merger, but that's simply not true -- plans to downsize/dehub CVG were made during DL's bankruptcy, but the pull down was gradual. And that's a fact that can't be argued with.

While I agree CVG's future was still in the 200 daily flights range without the merger, the hub was a victim of the merger. Delta's capacity was only reduced by 3% in 2007 compared to 29% in 2006. While it was a big cut in 2006 due to the bankruptcy, most of those changes were aimed at increasing profitability, not a draw-down of the CVG hub. Most of the changes were to smaller destinations served well from ATL, early morning departures, and late-night departures. Once these changes were made, they even added some new destinations in the 2006/early 2007 timeframe. It was not until the merger was announced that DL cut further, and they went down big time, from 2008-2012, DL reduced capacity by 10-20% every year! These cuts removed connecting flows and changed CVG from a continuous hub to the clearly defined banks that we see now. It's completely ignorant to say that the plan was to completely dehhub CVG before the merger, as they put it, they were "right sizing" CVG. The extent of the "right sizing" dramatically changed when DL merged with Northwest adding DTW into the network, the fact that Richard Anderson was the new CEO did not help matters. While no one was going to speculate CVG would rival ATL like some said in the 90's or regian its 670 departures, there is no way DL would cede the entire Midwest if the merger had not happened. ATL is a great hub location, but there are many flows that cannot work without a CVG/DTW/MSP.

Listed here are adds in 2004, these are the same cities DL cut in 2006: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/0 ... delta.html.

If you want to go the origin of the problems, I would call 2000 the "peak" year at CVG, where traffic hit 22.4 million, just under the peak in 2005, but many more flights were on larger aircraft with less frequency (727/737 used extensively). This time was also the peak of profitability for the CVG hub, but that changed due to the combination of 9/11, the Comair Pilot Strike, and rising fuel prices greatly reduced the profitability of CVG as hub for Delta, the rise in 50-seaters was the way DL tried to keep CVG profitable, but it failed. DL stated in 2003 that none of their hubs except ATL were profitable†, but they needed to keep hubs like CVG/JFK/SLC to maintain operations. PDX/MCO/LAX/BOS/DFW were all dehubbed around this time. CVG was essential for an independent DL network, but DL as an airline was not feasible without the merger with NW.

†“Delta CEO Warns Airlines Have More Hubs Than Needed,” Lucy May, Pittsburgh Business Journal, October 6, 2003.
†http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/Missed-Connections-II.pdf

But CVG has not suffered at all since the loss of Delta I'd say they faired better Airfares are lower because of increased operations plus I would venture to say that aircraft movements have not really fallen off all that much by the fact that it's not a cargo hub for 2 airlines. Were are Detroit has not faired as well almost all dedicated cargo flights have dried up airfares are sky high plus we have minimal choice as far as options other than Skyteam airlines plus very little or no options as far as ne entrants into this market.

compensateme wrote:

With all due respect, why on Earth do you think DL pursued Richard Anderson as CEO? Even before DL & NW filed for bankruptcy, it was widely reported that the two had flirted with a merger. It wasn't until DL successfully fought off US' hostile bid and named Richard Anderson CEO that talks progressed. You're pretty naive if you believe DL pursued NW solely for its MSP hub, then had to choose between DTW & CVG, picking the former due to its nicer facilities and CEO bias. Of course, that narrative ignores the fact that DTW had more than double the local enplanements and revenues that dwarfed CVG. Reality was, CVG was not working for DL and sought to replace it.

Anderson did great things for DL as an airline and DL bought NW so it could continue as a viable airline (with DTW and MSP as hubs). Its pretty clear though that Anderson would not give CVG a chance in the new DL network like MEM got, simply because he was the NW CEO. My biggest problem was Anderson/DL keeping MEM larger than CVG for so long. MEM has a weaker O&D market, really close to ATL, and look at it now! The fact that DL stated they would consider keeping MEM "complementary" to ATL was ridiculous! The comparison of DL's network at CVG and MEM says enough. I am originally from Toledo, lets just say the DTW/TOL area is a vastly different place than it was a decade ago, today DTW is a great hub for DL. Personally SLC is my first choice due to its geographic location. At least Anderson and now Bastian have kept CVG stable, frankly that is all I want. While I miss flights like CVG-HNL/FRA/SAN, the high prices of a hub were really annoying. However, klm617 got it right, CVG has more than comeback with its cargo success, two hubs for DHL and Amazon are pretty cool. I had always wished Delta would have bought CO, they were both SkyTeam. In that network, CVG would have stayed much more important. Now that would have been interesting!

compensateme wrote:

Peak profitability? There are several former DL network planners on these forums who've said CVG was a money loser most of the mid-1990s, even while most of the rest of the network was profitable; the transition to CRJ was an attempt to turn its fortunes around.

That CVG was a prosperous hub that "printed money" until the move to the CRJ is simply an unsubstantiated a.net myth. Put simply, CVG lacked the local traffic to be a successful, large hub.

Well DL was doing something very, very wrong then. Not sure why they would have invested the money in CVG that they did in the 90's if it was losing money! That's interesting, I am not saying you are wrong, I would love to know more about the profitability of CVG during the 90's. Do you know who/what forums this was discussed? I know Comair was making tons of money at CVG during this time, connecting passengers on small aircraft with high frequencies. They were worth over 2 billion at that time! I have to wonder how DL could not be making money even during that time!

cvgComair wrote:

Anderson did great things for DL as an airline and DL bought NW so it could continue as a viable airline (with DTW and MSP as hubs). Its pretty clear though that Anderson would not give CVG a chance in the new DL network like MEM got, simply because he was the NW CEO. My biggest problem was Anderson/DL keeping MEM larger than CVG for so long. MEM has a weaker O&D market, really close to ATL, and look at it now! The fact that DL stated they would consider keeping MEM "complementary" to ATL was ridiculous! The comparison of DL's network at CVG and MEM says enough.

The difference between CVG & MEM was that DL had an exit plan of sorts for CVG whereas NW had none for MEM. It's doubtful DL ever intended to keep a hub at MEM, but used the time it needed to create an exit plan to buy goodwill ('we kept our promise in not closing any hubs, but the losses continued.').

When you downsize / close a hub, it creates a surplus of resources; DL knew this from its experience in de-hubbing DFW, which lead to a large amount of (by its own admission, very unprofitable) expansion at SLC & CVG. DL's post-bankruptcy plan was clear: domestic capacity would be reduced but feed would increase at ATL & JFK to support long-haul operations; there would be less reliance of 50-seaters and more on lower CASM mainline jets. The plan would be executed gradually, as DL's contracts & lease agreements expired and pre-owned aircraft joined the fleet. And guess what? It was. CVG would play a very minor role in the DL network, whether it moved forward independent or not.

Well DL was doing something very, very wrong then. Not sure why they would have invested the money in CVG that they did in the 90's if it was losing money! That's interesting, I am not saying you are wrong, I would love to know more about the profitability of CVG during the 90's. Do you know who/what forums this was discussed? I know Comair was making tons of money at CVG during this time, connecting passengers on small aircraft with high frequencies. They were worth over 2 billion at that time! I have to wonder how DL could not be making money even during that time!

A Midwestern hub was viewed as the Holy Grail in the 1980s/1990s, during an era in which ORD -- then the largest airport in the world -- was at capacity and overall air traffic was projected to grown exponentially. DL requested investments at CVG, US at PIT (which isn't Midwestern but served many of the same traffic flows), NW at DTW, CO at CLE, etc. Of course, a generation later, projected growth never materialized and changing demographics have altered traffic flows.

And it was discussed in this forum. The ongoing myth is that CVG "printed money" for DL until it made a poor decision to change most serve to RJ; posters like worldtraveler, who have credibility, made it clear that CVG was unprofitable throughout the 1990s and that WAS the reason it became a RJ hub -- because that's when it finally turned a consistent profit. DL's purchase price of OH had a lot to do with what was on OH's balance sheet -- OH would've been profitable whether the service it was operating for DL was or not since that was the nature of those agreements. DL's desire to acquire OH was largely over the belief that it might bolt to another legacy when its agreement with DL expired (and that type of flying wasn't easily replaced back then). If that happened, its hub would not have been CVG...

klm617 wrote:

I think it would but Delta will never try it because it doesn't want to take passengers away from the JFK flight. Remember when EL AL ran charters from DTW to TLV.

-The idea would be to put the bulk of the connecting traffic on a 767 DTW-TLV (a 767 would struggle to make ATL-TLV) and free up more O&D space for NYC based passengers on JFK-TLV. Probably won't happen though; though DL really doesn't have a ~400 seat aircraft replacement for the 744s, having not ordered 773s.

-Another thought in the Middle East might be a DTW-RUH/JED route on Saudia, which is, at least in theory, a SkyTeam member (although they're not in the innermost circle of Delta's JVs). Again, probably unlikely, but remotely plausible. I'd still expect someone like TK or EK first.....personally, I think DTW has TK written all over it.

Spirit is increasing some flights I thought I'd like to mention them.
Oakland from A320 to A321
Houston from A319 to A321
Dallas from once daily to twice daily A320/A319
Los Angeles from once daily to twice daily A320/A321
This summer there will be 29 daily departures, Spirit also has the second largest market share at DTW, I think it will be 10% by 2022.

flymco753 wrote:

iFlyDTW wrote:

compensateme wrote:

WN has shown their Saturday flight success to extend it to April, F9 has shown their success by adding a 2nd daily, I think it'll be 12x weekly next month.

Right here is where you shot yourself right in the foot, there's no way any carrier would want to enter a market with Delta, Frontier, Southwest and Spirit already in it, all selling tickets for dirt cheap. Did you even count how many weekly flights DTW to MCO will have next month? 83 weekly flights if that's not enough for you than take your complaints to all of these airlines headquarters and tell them to add more flights, because I guarantee you youll get laughed at.

flymco753 wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that this route COULD do B6, the seat/PDEW ratio falls short and obviously no other airline is going to add more than what has already been served. WN has shown their Saturday flight success to extend it to April, F9 has shown their success by adding a 2nd daily, I think it'll be 12x weekly next month.

MCO is hardly an underserved or trophy market.

Yes, DL has gradually reduced capacity in the market, but its local enplaements have slightly grown; DL has simply reduced the amount of connecting traffic via DTW. DL's now collecting higher average fares that are equal to MSP (a decade ago, it was half) and better those from AA/UA ORD, AA DFW, etc. The market's never been better for NW-DL and DL isn't going to change that.

The most pressing need in the market was for low cost service, and NK (via upgauging & extension in additional frequency) and F9's entry into the market have satisfied that. Outside a handful of peak dates, you won't have to pay more than RT$200, including baggage; if you're flexible and aggressive in your search, you can get it down to RT$120, including baggage. As I mentioned earlier, a large faction of the market will always choose to drive; airfare / car rental / airport parking / etc. are controllable costs. The price of Disney tickets are not.

One thing to keep in mind is that the youth population in Metro Detroit, like that of most rest of the Midwest, is shrinking. Put simply, DTW/MCO is not a growing market; traffic to Southern Florida over the past 10-15 years has far outpaced MCO. Put simply, B6 would have to "steal" traffic from other airlines, and given the low fares, I don't see that happening.

The most likely addition would be WN adding Saturday-only service during the summer months. But given their mediocre winter performance, I don't see that happening. The most likely reason for the April extension this year is because of the late Easter holiday and desire to capture that Holiday school traffic.

klm617 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

And that is the most irritating thing because it dies not do the same here in Detroit as far as protecting routes in and out of Detroit. I can't think of any market out of Detroit that Delta does not protect in the same manner by not having flights to other hubs so that the bulk of the passengers flow over Detroit. For MSP you can add DLH, HNL and RST to that list. even MBS,LAN,AZO,TVC, and FNT have the MSP connection that takes passengers away from DTW the same can not be said for WI and MN markets most are exclusive to MSP.

Many people from LAN, AZO, MBS and FNT drive to DTW. There's no reason to have flights.

So weve reached the final verdict on MCO, DL will shrink its seats to meet local demand, no other carrier will make an entry into the market, and B6 isn't happening case closed.