DTWLAX wrote:

enilria wrote:

*DL DTW-SNA SEP 0>0.7 OCT 0>0.9 NOV 0>0.9

I hope this sticks around longer.
What aircraft will DL be using? A319 or B737?

NW flew this route for many years. I'm surprised it was dropped. They flew SJC-DTW for awhile too. Maybe DL will resume that next?

Re: AA dropping LGA-YYZ

Several posters claim AA is still selling tickets on that route. It's possible AA is cancelling LGA-YYZ and hasn't removed it from its schedules yet.

Austin787 wrote:

Re: AA dropping LGA-YYZ

Several posters claim AA is still selling tickets on that route. It's possible AA is cancelling LGA-YYZ and hasn't removed it from its schedules yet.

The route's not being cancelled; it was either a filing error or a timing issue. Earlier, the route was showing only full Y for sale but it's since been corrected.

As I've mentioned many times, I enjoy these threads as much as anybody, but very frequently they pick up filing errors / timing issues. In spite of it being pointed out, they get discussed to death for a week until the next installment.

enilria wrote:

Just 7 RTs LAX-DEN
*UA LAX-DEN JUN 9>7 JUL 9>7 AUG 9>8

That's not really very surprising. Yes it's a large business route, but tourist numbers drop in the summer. DL does the same on SLC-LAX where it often flies fewer round trips in summer than during the rest of the year. Also note that one of the daily flights is now operated on a 772, so capacity is probably not down much.

compensateme wrote:

The route's not being cancelled; it was either a filing error or a timing issue. Earlier, the route was showing only full Y for sale but it's since been corrected.

Glad to hear - I sincerely hope that's the case. As others said - YYZ is an important business market for NYC O&D, not to mention incredibly historic for AA. It would be quite sad to see that route go.

Nonetheless, I still think AA needs to step it up - or, more precisely, pick up the pace - in NYC. There are still too many 50-seat jets at LGA, in particular in competitive business markets like CLE, CVG, RDU, BNA, STL, YUL, etc.

OA412 wrote:

enilria wrote:

Just 7 RTs LAX-DEN
*UA LAX-DEN JUN 9>7 JUL 9>7 AUG 9>8

That's not really very surprising. Yes it's a large business route, but tourist numbers drop in the summer. DL does the same on SLC-LAX where it often flies fewer round trips in summer than during the rest of the year. Also note that one of the daily flights is now operated on a 772, so capacity is probably not down much.

I agree. If you look at all players involved, there's still a ton of capacity, and UA still comes out ahead, even if the market is a little more fractured than it has been historically:

Jun 16, LAX-DEN
UA: 1x 772 HD, 4x 739, 2x 738 (though if upcoming weeks are any indication, I speculate some of those 737s are placeholders that could be upgauged to 753s closer to departure)
AA: 4x A319 (currently is 5x E175, so an increase in seat count)
DL: 5x E175 (operated by SkyWest)
F9: 2x A320
NK: 1x A320, 1x A319
WN: 2x 738, 6x 73G

intotheair wrote:

Jun 16, LAX-DEN
UA: 1x 772 HD, 4x 739, 2x 738 (though if upcoming weeks are any indication, I speculate some of those 737s could be upgauged to 753s)
WN: 2x 738, 6x 73G

Just out of curiosity - will this the first time ever that Southwest has eclipsed United in frequency on this route? Per the above, United would still obviously have the most capacity, but interesting nonetheless that Southwest is at 8x daily vs United 7x. In any event, United's DEN hub is extremely impressive - seems to be going from strength to strength these days.

I just did a quick check in SABRE .. for 10JUL, 10AUG, 10SEP, 10OCT, 10NOV, 10DEC, 10JAN .. the schedule pretty much holds all the way through:
110JULLGAYYZ‡AA/D«
10JUL MON LGA/EDT YYZ/EDT‡0
1AA/** 3909 Y7 B0 H7 K7 M7 LGAYYZ 120P 305P ER4 0 DCA /E
L7 G7 V7 S0 N0 Q7 O7
2AA/** 3896 Y7 B0 H7 K7 M7 LGAYYZ 1200N 141P ER4 0 DCA /E
L7 G7 V7 S0 N0 Q7 O7
3AA/** 3878 Y7 B0 H7 K7 M7 LGAYYZ 929A 1122A ER4 0 XJ DCA /E
L7 G7 V7 S0 N0 Q7 O7
4AA/** 3890 Y7 B0 H7 K7 M7 LGAYYZ 515P 705P ER4 0 DCA /E
L7 G7 V7 S0 N0 Q7 O7
5AA/** 3876 Y7 B0 H7 K7 M7 LGAYYZ 811P 957P ER4 0 DCA /E
L7 G7 V7 S1 N0 Q7 O7
NO MORE - 1* FOR CONX.

FWIW: I just checked an internal AA reference (Market Changes) that lists LGA-YYZ in the international seasonal markets section, with a season-ending date of 28MAY17. The reference does not show a restart date yet. (It doesn't show the next season's dates for most city pairs in the reference, so I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean it's not coming back at all.) LGA-YYZ does not show up in the Discontinued markets section.

enilria wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

enilria wrote:

VS BOS-MAN OCT 0.2>0
VS SFO-MAN OCT 0.4>0

I'm wondering how this MAN operation is going to work out for VS/DL. Fares are fairly low in coach especially with MT on both routes (the most underrated deal to Europe btw) but it does appear the low J fare buckets are sold out for the start.

A DL 757 would have been perfect for BOS with daily or worst case 4 weekly.

I don't understand the MAN operation either. The big problem with the VX LHR operation is that it doesn't have any real connection ability. MAN is just the same in spades. I wonder if it is operated for political reasons or something similar.

I think both of these were foolish adds. SFO and BOS both have hundreds of 1 stop daily options and they were trying to compete with less than daily service. If they wanted to add BOS they should have did it with a daily 757 but I still have to believe that a DTW-MAN daily 757 would have been the best option with and endless amount of connections that could have been fed on the Detroit side

enilria wrote:

Orlando-Brazil keeps getting back more capacity
JJ MCO-GRU JUL 1.5>1.6 AUG 1.4>1.5 SEP 1.4>1.5

JJ is actually relaunching GIG-MCO as well.

TransGlobalGold wrote:

Re: Silver and Cuba. It's obvious service to Cuba isn't the gold mine airlines expected it to be. The reality is also the general public still is leery of flying turbo-props. I think they are gone for good in Cuba.

I think why that is a big deal is that it puts a few more nails in Silver. That was their great hope.

compensateme wrote:

As I've mentioned many times, I enjoy these threads as much as anybody, but very frequently they pick up filing errors / timing issues. In spite of it being pointed out, they get discussed to death for a week until the next installment.

Well, there is really no way to know. 97% of the time the airlines file accurate schedules. You would really expect more from AA. The $2400 roundtrip fares from this morning indicate they screwed up somewhere.

Wingtips56 wrote:

FWIW: I just checked an internal AA reference (Market Changes) that lists LGA-YYZ in the international seasonal markets section, with a season-ending date of 28MAY17. The reference does not show a restart date yet. (It doesn't show the next season's dates for most city pairs in the reference, so I wouldn't necessarily take it to mean it's not coming back at all.) LGA-YYZ does not show up in the Discontinued markets section.

You know, I'll tell that I know A LOT OF AIRLINE PLANNERS all the way up the corporate ladder who watch this thread. It's quite possible this thread caused LGA-YYZ to reappear, either because it was a mistake or it caused somebody to make a phone call and question the decision by an underling.

commavia wrote:

intotheair wrote:

Jun 16, LAX-DEN
UA: 1x 772 HD, 4x 739, 2x 738 (though if upcoming weeks are any indication, I speculate some of those 737s could be upgauged to 753s)
WN: 2x 738, 6x 73G

Just out of curiosity - will this the first time ever that Southwest has eclipsed United in frequency on this route? Per the above, United would still obviously have the most capacity, but interesting nonetheless that Southwest is at 8x daily vs United 7x. In any event, United's DEN hub is extremely impressive - seems to be going from strength to strength these days.

I'm not sure. I feel like LAX-DEN on UA has always been around 7-9x even going back to the PMUA days when there would be domestic 763s and 772s on it, and that UA has always had an even stronger hold on SFO-DEN. (At one point, UA on SFO-DEN was 14x!) What's also interesting is that UA's departures are more clustered earlier in the day, especially in the morning (probably for connection purposes), with the last departure around 17h30/18h00. WN's last departure of the day is 21h40 and arrives DEN after midnight, which to me may signify that it's more of a fleet utilitzation/positioning thing. But it's a similar case with AA and DL too — they all have late last departures on LAX-DEN, while UA doesn't. Right now, UA does have a LAX-DEN departure at 20h on an A320 — looks like that's the frequency that's going away.

Was EW scheduled to operate SEA-CGN in October? I believe the original announcement only had the flights operating from July 11 through the end of September.

enilria wrote:

enilria wrote:

**AA LGA-YYZ JUL 5>0.8 AUG 5>0.1 SEP 5>0.2 OCT 5>0.1 NOV 5>0

I checked AA.com and the flights still appear for August which indicates it's a misfile, BUT only full coach is available for sale. The lowest price is $2432 RT. So, that's broken. That means either they are cancelling it and have basically closed all the inventory, OR it's just screwed up.

I just checked aa.com and in the 3 hours since this post there are $197 r/t fares posted for sale 5x ERJ. Clearly a misfile.

jfklganyc wrote:

They have one runway for arrivals and one for departures. They have 456000 operations per year with unrestricted airspace around them.

By comparison, JFK has a similar amount of operations with 12 million more pax per year (more widebodies) and a horrendous airspace situation and they routinely operate with parallel operations. As a matter of fact, they have a runway closed for the next 3 months forcing a 2 runway parallel operation.

Will YYZ be a breeze during construction? No. Not a horrific situation though.

The issue with the YYZ southern parallels is spacing. Laterally they are too close to one another to allow for simultaneous operation, even with departing/arriving traffic. Will it be brutal, no, however, it will definitely restrict their flows. The GTAA has asked for airline assistance to combat this issue, and prepared its staff to work with potential delays. It's just going to create a bit of a bottleneck, and they are trying to mitigate as much as possible. Still doesn't solve the lack of gate space issue though. Runway comes back, gates still need to be built.

commavia wrote:

compensateme wrote:

The route's not being cancelled; it was either a filing error or a timing issue. Earlier, the route was showing only full Y for sale but it's since been corrected.

Glad to hear - I sincerely hope that's the case. As others said - YYZ is an important business market for NYC O&D, not to mention incredibly historic for AA. It would be quite sad to see that route go.

Nonetheless, I still think AA needs to step it up - or, more precisely, pick up the pace - in NYC. There are still too many 50-seat jets at LGA, in particular in competitive business markets like CLE, CVG, RDU, BNA, STL, YUL, etc.

AA operates way too many ERJ-145's from CVG. With Frontier entering CVG-LGA with a daily A320 and DL already having 6xCRJ-900, they will barely have any market share. AA is going to add mainline for the first time since 2001 in April, but its only 2x/day MD-80 to DFW. AA does not have a majority market share to most of its hubs at CVG to DCA/LAX/PHX/MIA(FLL)/LGA/JFK/ORD, and has strong competition by DL/F9 on PHL/CLT/DFW, which are the only AA hubs that they hold a majority of the seats to from CVG. AA does has it tough at CVG because of DL, but that does not explain it at CLE/CMH.

NYC-YYZ is extremely competitive and the market demands frequency. Many people do the flights not even staying overnight, etc. its a very competitive market, so i wouldn't be too surprised if this is true. Its so short they don't need anything more then a 145, we are talking 350 miles Montreal is even less and also all 145s. I guess we will see if this sticks, could be a mistake.

It could be a mistake, but maybe AA just doesn't want to use so many frequencies/gate space in LGA for Toronto. JFK is needed for connections to the Caribbean, Europe, One World Airlines.

intotheair wrote:

commavia wrote:

intotheair wrote:

Jun 16, LAX-DEN
UA: 1x 772 HD, 4x 739, 2x 738 (though if upcoming weeks are any indication, I speculate some of those 737s could be upgauged to 753s)
WN: 2x 738, 6x 73G

Just out of curiosity - will this the first time ever that Southwest has eclipsed United in frequency on this route? Per the above, United would still obviously have the most capacity, but interesting nonetheless that Southwest is at 8x daily vs United 7x. In any event, United's DEN hub is extremely impressive - seems to be going from strength to strength these days.

I'm not sure. I feel like LAX-DEN on UA has always been around 7-9x even going back to the PMUA days when there would be domestic 763s and 772s on it, and that UA has always had an even stronger hold on SFO-DEN. (At one point, UA on SFO-DEN was 14x!) What's also interesting is that UA's departures are more clustered earlier in the day, especially in the morning (probably for connection purposes), with the last departure around 17h30/18h00. WN's last departure of the day is 21h40 and arrives DEN after midnight, which to me may signify that it's more of a fleet utilitzation/positioning thing. But it's a similar case with AA and DL too — they all have late last departures on LAX-DEN, while UA doesn't. Right now, UA does have a LAX-DEN departure at 20h on an A320 — looks like that's the frequency that's going away.

Scott Kirby has specifically singled out DEN where they need to grow the local market. They are about 10% behind in market share for the local market behind WN. The last departures from XXX are leaving too early and causing people to lose time to
conduct business and have to cut their days short.

ericm2031 wrote:

Scott Kirby has specifically singled out DEN where they need to grow the local market. They are about 10% behind in market share for the local market behind WN. The last departures from XXX are leaving too early and causing people to lose time to
conduct business and have to cut their days short.

Just curious, but where/how did you arrive at that figure? I don't really doubt it if we're only talking about DEN-based passengers, though UA is still quite a bit ahead of WN for total marketshare at DEN according to the December numbers (42% vs. 29%). Amazing when you think about the days when UA had nearly 80% marketshare at DEN, how DEN wasn't even on WN's radar for so long, and all the events that led to what the market is today.

commavia wrote:

intotheair wrote:

Jun 16, LAX-DEN
UA: 1x 772 HD, 4x 739, 2x 738 (though if upcoming weeks are any indication, I speculate some of those 737s could be upgauged to 753s)
WN: 2x 738, 6x 73G

Just out of curiosity - will this the first time ever that Southwest has eclipsed United in frequency on this route? Per the above, United would still obviously have the most capacity, but interesting nonetheless that Southwest is at 8x daily vs United 7x. In any event, United's DEN hub is extremely impressive - seems to be going from strength to strength these days.

I believe so. WN is currently at 7 daily flights. UA has always hovered around 8 or 9 daily (sometimes dipping to 7 daily).

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

NYC-YYZ is extremely competitive and the market demands frequency. Many people do the flights not even staying overnight, etc. its a very competitive market, so i wouldn't be too surprised if this is true. Its so short they don't need anything more then a 145, we are talking 350 miles Montreal is even less and also all 145s. I guess we will see if this sticks, could be a mistake.

It could be a mistake, but maybe AA just doesn't want to use so many frequencies/gate space in LGA for Toronto. JFK is needed for connections to the Caribbean, Europe, One World Airlines.

It appears to be a misfile, as has already been discussed multiple times in this thread.

So I guess the 33s/15s will be in use more during this time?

whywhyzee wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

They have one runway for arrivals and one for departures. They have 456000 operations per year with unrestricted airspace around them.

By comparison, JFK has a similar amount of operations with 12 million more pax per year (more widebodies) and a horrendous airspace situation and they routinely operate with parallel operations. As a matter of fact, they have a runway closed for the next 3 months forcing a 2 runway parallel operation.

Will YYZ be a breeze during construction? No. Not a horrific situation though.

The issue with the YYZ southern parallels is spacing. Laterally they are too close to one another to allow for simultaneous operation, even with departing/arriving traffic. Will it be brutal, no, however, it will definitely restrict their flows. The GTAA has asked for airline assistance to combat this issue, and prepared its staff to work with potential delays. It's just going to create a bit of a bottleneck, and they are trying to mitigate as much as possible. Still doesn't solve the lack of gate space issue though. Runway comes back, gates still need to be built.

enilria wrote:

You know, I'll tell that I know A LOT OF AIRLINE PLANNERS all the way up the corporate ladder who watch this thread. It's quite possible this thread caused LGA-YYZ to reappear, either because it was a mistake or it caused somebody to make a phone call and question the decision by an underling.

With all due respect... as I've pointed out numerous times, timing is your issue -- you capture the data while airlines are filing their schedule changes, while results in the equivalent of false positives on your end. If you were to do your data capture 24 hours after you do, you'd capture a lot fewer errors. Of course, these errors wouldn't get discussed to death and you couldn't claim credit for finding them .

LeaderOne wrote:

So I guess the 33s/15s will be in use more during this time?

whywhyzee wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

They have one runway for arrivals and one for departures. They have 456000 operations per year with unrestricted airspace around them.

By comparison, JFK has a similar amount of operations with 12 million more pax per year (more widebodies) and a horrendous airspace situation and they routinely operate with parallel operations. As a matter of fact, they have a runway closed for the next 3 months forcing a 2 runway parallel operation.

Will YYZ be a breeze during construction? No. Not a horrific situation though.

The issue with the YYZ southern parallels is spacing. Laterally they are too close to one another to allow for simultaneous operation, even with departing/arriving traffic. Will it be brutal, no, however, it will definitely restrict their flows. The GTAA has asked for airline assistance to combat this issue, and prepared its staff to work with potential delays. It's just going to create a bit of a bottleneck, and they are trying to mitigate as much as possible. Still doesn't solve the lack of gate space issue though. Runway comes back, gates still need to be built.

Likely. Usually they only switch to the north/south parallels when the crosswind exceeds the threshold for safety on the east west runways. Since flow is constrained anyways now, yes there will be a lot more 33/15 action. At least controllers seem to think so.

With the DEN gate space being so tight, is it possible some of these schedule changes are trying to get additional cities gate space at DEN? I mean, is LAX-DEN really all that high yielding, or is it more important to yield have the CID-LAX passenger vs. market share? Is not a flight every 3 hours or so not enough for frequency in a market?

enilria wrote:

You know, I'll tell that I know A LOT OF AIRLINE PLANNERS all the way up the corporate ladder who watch this thread. It's quite possible this thread caused LGA-YYZ to reappear, either because it was a mistake or it caused somebody to make a phone call and question the decision by an underling.

I think it would be wise for them to watch for errors here and compare to other market competitors as well as the response by others. There is nothing wrong with trying to get as much information as possible for someone in a decision making position.

As far as the unnecessary snarky remark from elsewhere on this thread, I enjoy the educational process of seeing into the crooks and nooks of route planning that you provide us in an easy to read format. The discussions that result, even when there are curious finds/errors, are always educational for me. Thanks.

I guess 4Y had harsh competition from Ravn massive operations in BET.

IAH is a much smaller hub than it once was. I'm amazed how flights have been drastically reduced since the glory days.

compensateme wrote:

enilria wrote:

You know, I'll tell that I know A LOT OF AIRLINE PLANNERS all the way up the corporate ladder who watch this thread. It's quite possible this thread caused LGA-YYZ to reappear, either because it was a mistake or it caused somebody to make a phone call and question the decision by an underling.

With all due respect... as I've pointed out numerous times, timing is your issue -- you capture the data while airlines are filing their schedule changes, while results in the equivalent of false positives on your end. If you were to do your data capture 24 hours after you do, you'd capture a lot fewer errors. Of course, these errors wouldn't get discussed to death and you couldn't claim credit for finding them .

#1 I think you miss the fact that it is a live system. Airlines file their schedules continuously. It is a living document. There is no perfect time to pull the data.
#2 I don't decide when the data is captured. I don't have access to a live schedule database LOL. Nobody has that except employees of the two schedule database companies.
#3 I think you are misunderstanding the fundamental concept of an error. They didn't file their schedule with these flights missing on purpose. Obviously they didn't know they weren't filed. It remains like that until something tips them off. Perhaps a passenger calls RES to ask or maybe the reservations get cued to reaccom (which probably takes a few days) or a revenue management analyst notices it or they see it on this thread. Again, I get PMs all the time from airlines saying "thanks for alerting us to that", so I know it's happening and it would have taken longer to get fixed without this thread. Regardless, it's true when this data is published. I have no way to know what people are thinking, only what they told the world when they sent out their schedule. Humans make mistakes or change their minds!

sldispatcher wrote:

I think it would be wise for them to watch for errors here and compare to other market competitors as well as the response by others. There is nothing wrong with trying to get as much information as possible for someone in a decision making position.

As far as the unnecessary snarky remark from elsewhere on this thread, I enjoy the educational process of seeing into the crooks and nooks of route planning that you provide us in an easy to read format. The discussions that result, even when there are curious finds/errors, are always educational for me. Thanks.

TWA772LR wrote:

Never thought I'd see the day where IAH-LAS becomes only 5x daily.

Spirit, Frontier, and Southwest (albeit from HOU Hobby) fly the route also

enilria wrote:

enilria wrote:

**AA LGA-YYZ JUL 5>0.8 AUG 5>0.1 SEP 5>0.2 OCT 5>0.1 NOV 5>0

I checked AA.com and the flights still appear for August which indicates it's a misfile, BUT only full coach is available for sale. The lowest price is $2432 RT. So, that's broken. That means either they are cancelling it and have basically closed all the inventory, OR it's just screwed up.

Likely has more to do with changes due Air Wisconsin dropping AA as a result of their new contract with UA.

avi8 wrote:

IAH is a much smaller hub than it once was. I'm amazed how flights have been drastically reduced since the glory days.

If IAH and CLE are your only E-W hubs, then yeah, IAH will be big. If you add ORD and DEN into the mix, then IAH isn't near as efficient as an E-W hub. Be glad you aren't CLE!

On the flip side, look at the reductions at IAD since the merger and EWR was added to the toolbox. The combined United has taken the best of both pre-merger companies and created a pretty robust route/hub structure.

sldispatcher wrote:

With the DEN gate space being so tight, is it possible some of these schedule changes are trying to get additional cities gate space at DEN? I mean, is LAX-DEN really all that high yielding, or is it more important to yield have the CID-LAX passenger vs. market share? Is not a flight every 3 hours or so not enough for frequency in a market?

It's possible. UA must be able to command some sort of premium on that route being the most established carrier on what is a hub-hub route. But on the other hand, I just booked a $54 o/w fare for a midday flight in a few weeks, so it's definitely a fiercely competitive market. There are more seats on LAX-DEN then there were even just a year ago. There are the ULCCs, AA has upgauged to mainline, and DL has entered the market. And then take a look at UA's fleet shuffle — the afternoon departure on the 772 HD probably takes over for what used to be two separate departures on narrowbodies, and now that those are freed up, we're starting to see A319s on routes like DEN-BUR for the first time in almost a decade. Seeing how UA's departures are all clustered in the morning hours, and seeing how Kirby is pushing for even more heavily banked structures at hubs again, you're probably right that frequency probably doesn't matter to UA all that much.

So I think there are a number of factors at play here. And again — in terms of capacity, UA still comes out ahead on LAX-DEN. I think we're all probably overanalyzing this a little bit.

The all time record for pax traffic at IAH was 2015 at 43.0 million..they did 41.6 million in 2016. How is that "a much smaller hub"? As recently as 2013 they had 39.8 million.