klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

First of all when traveling from IND to europe most flights require a double connect even over DTW. The only places you could reach one stop over DTW are LHR, AMS, CDG, and FRA year rounf and FCO and MUC in the summer. The only hubs that offer onestop connections to most of Europe in the US are JFK and ATL so any for city around those hubs it would be pointless to waste a frame if they can connect at either JFK or ATL that is unless a city is offering big money.

Ninety percent or more of the IND-Europe O&D can connect one-stop over DTW, ORD and/or PHL, and I'm not sure why you assume ATL is uncompetitive.

Because it adds time to your trip and 376 miles in each direction at least out of the way who wants to do that when you can transfer at ORD with either AA or UA and probably cheaper. ATL is very noncompetitive if you are an IND originating traveler headed to Europe.

It may add time. Westbound, ORD is less competitive than the mileage suggests because of the terminal change. Even with GE and Precheck, I don't book less than 120 minutes coming off of a TATL flight at ORD.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1372427&p=19801027&hilit=gates#p19801027

This thread could be helpful
Considering it appears DL is interested in acquiring many more gates at AUS and has plenty of gate space at both CMH and IND...

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Airlines love serving Capital cities such as Austin and Sacramento plus Indianapolis. Think "Government Jobs / Government Money".

Using that kind of logic then you would also have to add MEM into the mix.

I could see DL starting an RIC to SLC flight. UA started an RIC to DEN that quickly went mainline and has been quite successful.....usually flying an A319. So why not DL to its western hub?

DL already has a large presence at RIC with flights to ATL....DTW...MSP....LGA....JFK.....CVG and BOS. Why not?

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Ninety percent or more of the IND-Europe O&D can connect one-stop over DTW, ORD and/or PHL, and I'm not sure why you assume ATL is uncompetitive.

Because it adds time to your trip and 376 miles in each direction at least out of the way who wants to do that when you can transfer at ORD with either AA or UA and probably cheaper. ATL is very noncompetitive if you are an IND originating traveler headed to Europe.

It may add time. Westbound, ORD is less competitive than the mileage suggests because of the terminal change. Even with GE and Precheck, I don't book less than 120 minutes coming off of a TATL flight at ORD.

In ATL you have to change terminals too.

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Because it adds time to your trip and 376 miles in each direction at least out of the way who wants to do that when you can transfer at ORD with either AA or UA and probably cheaper. ATL is very noncompetitive if you are an IND originating traveler headed to Europe.

It may add time. Westbound, ORD is less competitive than the mileage suggests because of the terminal change. Even with GE and Precheck, I don't book less than 120 minutes coming off of a TATL flight at ORD.

In ATL you have to change terminals too.

Huh? If we are defining ATL as a terminal change, is there any US hub where that is unnecessary on some itineraries? I guess BA to AA at PHX or SAN?

klm617 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Airlines love serving Capital cities such as Austin and Sacramento plus Indianapolis. Think "Government Jobs / Government Money".

Using that kind of logic then you would also have to add MEM into the mix.

Might want to check that atlas again . . .

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

DL seems to be liking the one offs.

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

I would remove BNA and PVD. I don't think DL is jumping in on BNA with BA just launching and distance to ATL. PVD is too close to BOS.

I think the key to the quote in the OP is "close to hubs of other competitors" (or something similar). I think this could capture MSY (close to IAH/HOU), but having BA may hurt its chances, too. DL would run off DE, but I'm OK with that. I do think MKE, too (see ORD/MDW), but a bit close to MSP. I hesitate on this one, but possible - FLL. Although I threw out PVD, DL has historically been quite strong in BDL, which I think a 757 back on BDL-AMS is possible.

klm617 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Airlines love serving Capital cities such as Austin and Sacramento plus Indianapolis. Think "Government Jobs / Government Money".

Using that kind of logic then you would also have to add MEM into the mix.

More like BNA......

jbs2886 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

I would remove BNA and PVD. I don't think DL is jumping in on BNA with BA just launching and distance to ATL. PVD is too close to BOS.

I think the key to the quote in the OP is "close to hubs of other competitors" (or something similar). I think this could capture MSY (close to IAH/HOU), but having BA may hurt its chances, too. DL would run off DE, but I'm OK with that. I do think MKE, too (see ORD/MDW), but a bit close to MSP. I hesitate on this one, but possible - FLL. Although I threw out PVD, DL has historically been quite strong in BDL, which I think a 757 back on BDL-AMS is possible.

MSY yes, MKE is risky because it is hard to determine demand to Europe with so much bleed to ORD. FLL/PVD would be odd....

Midwestindy wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

I would remove BNA and PVD. I don't think DL is jumping in on BNA with BA just launching and distance to ATL. PVD is too close to BOS.

I think the key to the quote in the OP is "close to hubs of other competitors" (or something similar). I think this could capture MSY (close to IAH/HOU), but having BA may hurt its chances, too. DL would run off DE, but I'm OK with that. I do think MKE, too (see ORD/MDW), but a bit close to MSP. I hesitate on this one, but possible - FLL. Although I threw out PVD, DL has historically been quite strong in BDL, which I think a 757 back on BDL-AMS is possible.

MSY yes, MKE is risky because it is hard to determine demand to Europe with so much bleed to ORD. FLL/PVD would be odd....

MKE could also draw from the wealthier north shore of Chicago. Its historically been strong for NW. But, no idea - this strategy on the whole has not been tested thoroughly and depends on the intricacies of each market. Also, "odd" re: PVD? You were the one who suggested PVD

According to this interview, AMS wants flights too LAS, SAN, DEN, & TPA. Just something for you guys to think about...
http://cdn1.pps-publications.com/anna-a ... ex.html#18

Indy wrote:

Two cities that should be next for AMS service with DL are STL and CMH. CMH should be able to support the flight much the way IND got CDG. And while STL did get WOW, it is a big enough market to support DL/AMS at the same time.

If a US carrier were to add TATL service at STL, it would most likely be AA. Despite the dehubbing, they're still the #2 carrier (well above DL still) and have the strongest base/history there of any carrier not named Southwest. I could definitely see a modest domestic expansion at STL from DL, but I wouldn't be so confident on TATL service.

jbs2886 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I would remove BNA and PVD. I don't think DL is jumping in on BNA with BA just launching and distance to ATL. PVD is too close to BOS.

I think the key to the quote in the OP is "close to hubs of other competitors" (or something similar). I think this could capture MSY (close to IAH/HOU), but having BA may hurt its chances, too. DL would run off DE, but I'm OK with that. I do think MKE, too (see ORD/MDW), but a bit close to MSP. I hesitate on this one, but possible - FLL. Although I threw out PVD, DL has historically been quite strong in BDL, which I think a 757 back on BDL-AMS is possible.

MSY yes, MKE is risky because it is hard to determine demand to Europe with so much bleed to ORD. FLL/PVD would be odd....

MKE could also draw from the wealthier north shore of Chicago. Its historically been strong for NW. But, no idea - this strategy on the whole has not been tested thoroughly and depends on the intricacies of each market. Also, "odd" re: PVD? You were the one who suggested PVD

No I didn't suggest PVD, 777Mech did.

Anyway, MKE is really far away from most of the wealthier northern suburbs of Chicago, and ORD offers way more options than MKE could. I have family in Lake Forest and Gurnee, and for travel MKE is so out of the way and is never even an option. Even from parts of Southern WI, ORD is closer....

Midwestindy wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

MSY yes, MKE is risky because it is hard to determine demand to Europe with so much bleed to ORD. FLL/PVD would be odd....

MKE could also draw from the wealthier north shore of Chicago. Its historically been strong for NW. But, no idea - this strategy on the whole has not been tested thoroughly and depends on the intricacies of each market. Also, "odd" re: PVD? You were the one who suggested PVD

No I didn't suggest PVD, 777Mech did.

Anyway, MKE is really far away from most of the wealthier northern suburbs of Chicago, and ORD offers way more options than MKE could. I have family in Lake Forest and Gurnee, and for travel MKE is so out of the way and is never even an option. Even from parts of Southern WI, ORD is closer....

My family geography is similar to yours but I like MKE when the schedules make sense. The airport experience is so much easier that the added distance is not necessarily dispositive.

Midwestindy wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

MSY yes, MKE is risky because it is hard to determine demand to Europe with so much bleed to ORD. FLL/PVD would be odd....

MKE could also draw from the wealthier north shore of Chicago. Its historically been strong for NW. But, no idea - this strategy on the whole has not been tested thoroughly and depends on the intricacies of each market. Also, "odd" re: PVD? You were the one who suggested PVD

No I didn't suggest PVD, 777Mech did.

Anyway, MKE is really far away from most of the wealthier northern suburbs of Chicago, and ORD offers way more options than MKE could. I have family in Lake Forest and Gurnee, and for travel MKE is so out of the way and is never even an option. Even from parts of Southern WI, ORD is closer....

Whoops, you are right, 777Mech did. My bad. And yes, I live in Chicago, distance-wise northern suburbs are closer to ORD...ORD just has a traffic problem. Whether people would choose to go to MKE for a non-stop to Europe on DL to avoid ORD is really untested.

jbs2886 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

I would remove BNA and PVD. I don't think DL is jumping in on BNA with BA just launching and distance to ATL. PVD is too close to BOS.

I think the key to the quote in the OP is "close to hubs of other competitors" (or something similar). I think this could capture MSY (close to IAH/HOU), but having BA may hurt its chances, too. DL would run off DE, but I'm OK with that. I do think MKE, too (see ORD/MDW), but a bit close to MSP. I hesitate on this one, but possible - FLL. Although I threw out PVD, DL has historically been quite strong in BDL, which I think a 757 back on BDL-AMS is possible.

BDL-AMS was done before by NW. Once the seed money was gone, so was the flight.

FLYKTPA wrote:

According to this interview, AMS wants flights too LAS, SAN, DEN, & TPA. Just something for you guys to think about...
http://cdn1.pps-publications.com/anna-a ... ex.html#18

Thank you for the link, FlyK'.

I have thoughts re: AMS and it's nice to have them shared by the Director Aviation Marketing at Schiphol Airport! (And I'd bet the folks at SDIA share them as well....)

AMS-SAN served by either DL or KL would bring us the ideal arrangement of all 3 alliances connecting Europe with San Diego. (And offer us 3 of the largest int'l hubs in Europe for world-wide travel!

bb

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

It likely is a consideration, but this should already play out in the route network from those cities, and so far the domestic route network has proved a decent predictor. I'm defining hubs/focus cities as ATL, NYC (JFK and/or LGA), BOS, DTW, MSP, SLC, LAX, SEA, RDU, CVG, and MCO, and please correct if I missed a route or two.

To use IND as an example, they have flights to all those cities except SEA and CVG (obviously).
CMH is connected to every DL US hub/focus with the exception of SEA, SLC, and (as with IND) CVG.
AUS - connected (or soon to be) to all major DL cities except MCO and CVG.
MCI - missing RDU, MCO, and SEA.
BNA - every hub/focus city connected or soon to be except MCO.
MKE - has SEA, CVG, and BOS but missing LAX, RDU, and MCO.
BDL is ATL/DTW/MSP plus CVG and RDU, not much route-wise (for obvious reasons no NYC/BOS).
TPA has all cities except SEA and MCO (for obvious reasons).

So, assuming six (the theoretical number of TATL routes this year) and also taking two off the board for IND-CDG and MCO-AMS, if I guessed I'd say AUS, TPA, CMH, and maybe BNA. All these cities (maybe excepting BDL) are small focus cities already so they already have the foundation to expand into non-DL stronghold routes if DL wants to grow them.

*edited for format

cheapgreek wrote:

BDL-AMS was done before by NW. Once the seed money was gone, so was the flight.

Northwest's whole low-density 757 TATL experiment was over pretty quickly. 2007 timing into the global financial crisis didn't help.

jbs2886 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

I would remove BNA and PVD. I don't think DL is jumping in on BNA with BA just launching and distance to ATL. PVD is too close to BOS.

I think the key to the quote in the OP is "close to hubs of other competitors" (or something similar). I think this could capture MSY (close to IAH/HOU), but having BA may hurt its chances, too. DL would run off DE, but I'm OK with that. I do think MKE, too (see ORD/MDW), but a bit close to MSP. I hesitate on this one, but possible - FLL. Although I threw out PVD, DL has historically been quite strong in BDL, which I think a 757 back on BDL-AMS is possible.

BDL-AMS was done before by NW. Once the seed money was gone, so was the flight. As far as PVD being close to BOS, that's a plus. Much easier to fly out of PVD than BOS, 3 minutes off I-95. Also PVD has a large population area to draw from with many ethnic areas that would use the service.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I could see DL starting an RIC to SLC flight. UA started an RIC to DEN that quickly went mainline and has been quite successful.....usually flying an A319. So why not DL to its western hub?

DL already has a large presence at RIC with flights to ATL....DTW...MSP....LGA....JFK.....CVG and BOS. Why not?

Just for Clarification, DL doesn't operate RIC-CVG and RIC-SLC is only 30-40 PDEW...

cheapgreek wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

I would remove BNA and PVD. I don't think DL is jumping in on BNA with BA just launching and distance to ATL. PVD is too close to BOS.

I think the key to the quote in the OP is "close to hubs of other competitors" (or something similar). I think this could capture MSY (close to IAH/HOU), but having BA may hurt its chances, too. DL would run off DE, but I'm OK with that. I do think MKE, too (see ORD/MDW), but a bit close to MSP. I hesitate on this one, but possible - FLL. Although I threw out PVD, DL has historically been quite strong in BDL, which I think a 757 back on BDL-AMS is possible.

BDL-AMS was done before by NW. Once the seed money was gone, so was the flight. As far as PVD being close to BOS, that's a plus. Much easier to fly out of PVD than BOS, 3 minutes off I-95. Also PVD has a large population area to draw from with many ethnic areas that would use the service.

I disagree that its a plus - because BOS is a DL hub. PVD's catchment would draw from its own BOS flights, which is counterproductive for DL's growth in BOS. As someone else pointed out, BDL-AMS was done with a different config aircraft and right before the great recession. The market is very different now.

Again, I refer to the quote in the OP - which is focus cities close to major hubs of competitors. PVD is neither a focus city nor close to a hub of a major competitor (at least in how I read that - i.e., ORD, IAH, DFW, etc.).

Midwestindy wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I could see DL starting an RIC to SLC flight. UA started an RIC to DEN that quickly went mainline and has been quite successful.....usually flying an A319. So why not DL to its western hub?

DL already has a large presence at RIC with flights to ATL....DTW...MSP....LGA....JFK.....CVG and BOS. Why not?

Just for Clarification, DL doesn't operate RIC-CVG and RIC-SLC is only 30-40 PDEW...

Hmmmm....they did for many years. DL used to run two MD-88's daily. I went through the CVG a number of times on business. As for SLC...I think the connecting flights to the west coast could justify a flight....not just O&D traffic.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

I could see DL starting an RIC to SLC flight. UA started an RIC to DEN that quickly went mainline and has been quite successful.....usually flying an A319. So why not DL to its western hub?

DL already has a large presence at RIC with flights to ATL....DTW...MSP....LGA....JFK.....CVG and BOS. Why not?

Just for Clarification, DL doesn't operate RIC-CVG and RIC-SLC is only 30-40 PDEW...

Hmmmm....they did for many years. DL used to run two MD-88's daily. I went through the CVG a number of times on business. As for SLC...I think the connecting flights to the west coast could justify a flight....not just O&D traffic.

What you took on DL to CVG in the past has no relevance frankly - CVG of the past is gone. Maybe a CRJ200/700 is possible though.

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

It may add time. Westbound, ORD is less competitive than the mileage suggests because of the terminal change. Even with GE and Precheck, I don't book less than 120 minutes coming off of a TATL flight at ORD.

In ATL you have to change terminals too.

Huh? If we are defining ATL as a terminal change, is there any US hub where that is unnecessary on some itineraries? I guess BA to AA at PHX or SAN?

Yes At DTW you arrive internationally in the very same building as you depart domestically.

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

In ATL you have to change terminals too.

Huh? If we are defining ATL as a terminal change, is there any US hub where that is unnecessary on some itineraries? I guess BA to AA at PHX or SAN?

Yes At DTW you arrive internationally in the very same building as you depart domestically.

. . . Unless your flight leaves from B or C. MSP might meet your "one roof" criterion, but there are some long walks.

jbs2886 wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Just for Clarification, DL doesn't operate RIC-CVG and RIC-SLC is only 30-40 PDEW...

Hmmmm....they did for many years. DL used to run two MD-88's daily. I went through the CVG a number of times on business. As for SLC...I think the connecting flights to the west coast could justify a flight....not just O&D traffic.

What you took on DL to CVG in the past has no relevance frankly - CVG of the past is gone. Maybe a CRJ200/700 is possible though.

CVG-RIC, along with PIT/GRR were pretty unexpectedly cut due to a pilot and aircraft shortage. Source here: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/ ... ities.html. The flights were actually not doing that bad, and DL continued to schedule flights on/off for multiple months after they were cut. While I am not sure the routes will ever come back, it is worth noting that DL still includes them on its route map and all of the capacity reactions made at this time have since been reversed.

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

dc10lover wrote:

As I said earlier, Airlines love serving Capital cities such as Austin and Sacramento plus Indianapolis. Think "Government Jobs / Government Money".

Using that kind of logic then you would also have to add MEM into the mix.

Might want to check that atlas again . . .

LOL yes you are correct sometimes my ignorance comes shining through.

Cubsrule wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

MKE could also draw from the wealthier north shore of Chicago. Its historically been strong for NW. But, no idea - this strategy on the whole has not been tested thoroughly and depends on the intricacies of each market. Also, "odd" re: PVD? You were the one who suggested PVD

No I didn't suggest PVD, 777Mech did.

Anyway, MKE is really far away from most of the wealthier northern suburbs of Chicago, and ORD offers way more options than MKE could. I have family in Lake Forest and Gurnee, and for travel MKE is so out of the way and is never even an option. Even from parts of Southern WI, ORD is closer....

My family geography is similar to yours but I like MKE when the schedules make sense. The airport experience is so much easier that the added distance is not necessarily dispositive.

The airport experience is always easier at a smaller airport that is not a global hub and among the busiest in the world (like ORD is). Nonetheless, I favor convenience over anything, and if that means going to the busier, crowded airport that is closer than the smaller, simpler one an hour and a half away, so be it (this is my personal preference).

I used to live in the Chicago area (born and raised) before moving to Nashville 3 years ago. I lived in the western suburbs and I always thought ORD was easier to get to as opposed to MDW. In fact, for most of Chicagoland (outside of downtown and the south suburbs), I'd argue ORD is easier to get to than MDW. Even though ORD is crowded and dated, I always liked going there because I didn't have to wind my way into the area where MDW is. In fact, when I fly up to Chicago from Nashville, I prefer ORD over MDW (even though WN, the largest carrier at BNA, only operates into MDW). This is why I am so adamant about AA launching mainline flights to ORD from BNA (and frankly, I am absolutely baffled they have not done so), because of WN's insistence on only flying into MDW and my personal refusal to fly UA until they improve themselves to somewhat acceptable standards.

adtall wrote:

777Mech wrote:

I would look toward where DL has a huge FF base, and what immediately comes to mind is BNA, MCI, AUS, PVD and JAX

I can see the first 3 getting AMS service, with the latter 2 getting seasonal AMS or CDG service. JAX is the shot in the dark though.

It likely is a consideration, but this should already play out in the route network from those cities, and so far the domestic route network has proved a decent predictor. I'm defining hubs/focus cities as ATL, NYC (JFK and/or LGA), BOS, DTW, MSP, SLC, LAX, SEA, RDU, CVG, and MCO, and please correct if I missed a route or two.

To use IND as an example, they have flights to all those cities except SEA and CVG (obviously).
CMH is connected to every DL US hub/focus with the exception of SEA, SLC, and (as with IND) CVG.
AUS - connected (or soon to be) to all major DL cities except MCO and CVG.
MCI - missing RDU, MCO, and SEA.
BNA - every hub/focus city connected or soon to be except MCO.
MKE - has SEA, CVG, and BOS but missing LAX, RDU, and MCO.
BDL is ATL/DTW/MSP plus CVG and RDU, not much route-wise (for obvious reasons no NYC/BOS).
TPA has all cities except SEA and MCO (for obvious reasons).

So, assuming six (the theoretical number of TATL routes this year) and also taking two off the board for IND-CDG and MCO-AMS, if I guessed I'd say AUS, TPA, CMH, and maybe BNA. All these cities (maybe excepting BDL) are small focus cities already so they already have the foundation to expand into non-DL stronghold routes if DL wants to grow them.

*edited for format

Delta also flys to CUN, MCO, and CLE from BDL. Delta previously flew to SLC and LAX in the 2000's. I could see SEA added on DL before AS.

I'm surprised that DL hasn't muscled a little more presence in LAS. Even UA and AA have bigger presence in LAS than DL. I guess maybe it's because SLC and LAX hub is close by, but still. I think they can at least add more flights directly in and out of LAS, even if it's seasonal like LAS-HNL(I do believe HNL is seasonal already? Wasn't sure. So maybe a daily regular scheduled), LAS-NRT or HND, LAS-ICN, LAS-AMS, LAS-LHR, LAS-CDG, LAS-YVR, LAS-YYZ, or even LAS-FRA. I wonder, if KLM on it's side had considered AMS-LAS and codeshare with DL? Texas cities has been a focus for DL for some time now. It's slowly trying to increase services to AUS, IAH, SAT, and DFW. I don't see them operating anything directly out of those cities internationally anytime soon. I think KLM or AirFrance should make that move with a JV agreement with DL, AMS-AUS by KLM/AirFrance or even getting VA JV to compete with BA in AUS. What I've noticed is more flights added feeding the respective LAX, SEA, DTW, MSP, ATL hubs to those Texas cities either by mainline DL or operated by DL Connection carriers. There's plans to increase more flights to TX from LAX hub once the CS100s are delivered. The 717-200s that are based in LAX really don't have the greatest range to do LAX to TX, or otherwise it runs in to payload optimization. They've tried LAX-SAT with the 717-200s and it has run in to quite a lot of operational problems with range and payload. It's a pain in the rear come summer time as those planes have their limitations. From experience at DEN during summer time, those 717-200s have either left bags or DL buying out some passengers for later flights. The CS100 will definitely allow DL to get in to those markets like IAH dominated by UA, DFW dominated by AA, DAL & HOU dominated by WN, specially with CS100 range capabilities far better than the current 717-200s in the fleet. I also wonder, SAN? DL or KLM never considered SAN-AMS? JL does NRT-SAN and BA does LHR-SAN. Who knows? Just from observation and experience working with DL. I'm looking forward to the 2 brand new modern aircrafts entering service between now and 2018, the A350 entering this year and the CS100 sometime next year.

Isn't LAS very low yield? Might can have full flights but are they gonna make money???

Trololzilla wrote:

Indy wrote:

Two cities that should be next for AMS service with DL are STL and CMH. CMH should be able to support the flight much the way IND got CDG. And while STL did get WOW, it is a big enough market to support DL/AMS at the same time.

If a US carrier were to add TATL service at STL, it would most likely be AA. Despite the dehubbing, they're still the #2 carrier (well above DL still) and have the strongest base/history there of any carrier not named Southwest. I could definitely see a modest domestic expansion at STL from DL, but I wouldn't be so confident on TATL service.

Agree with this. I would be pretty shocked if DL added TATL in STL. AA/BA makes way more sense. There is a club for AA and a lot more flyers. I could see DL adding BOS but that is about it. SEA already has 3x daily (2 mainline at the moment but about to be 3 mainline), RDU is 2x daily. WN just is too big here to make many inroads against them. DL could try running smaller jets STL-RDU/SEA/BOS and routing some international through them. But that is best case.

I think MCI getting more DL flights (and flights in general) is going to be based a lot on if their new terminal gets a yes or no vote.

I think DTW-MAN and DTW-DUB should be givens as these are pretty big holes in the Delta network.

klm617 wrote:

Don't know why any of you fail to mention MKE as it had a very large NW presence for years and most flights from MKE to Europe now require 2 stops unless you fly AA or UA over ORD. According to what they are saying MKE makes perfect sense.

Granted, I don't travel to Europe THAT often, but when I have I never considered flying from MKE. ORD has way more options/direct flights and the prices were always lower. If you live south of Oak Creek then you really shouldn't by flying MKE-ORD anyways.

Midwestindy wrote:

I have family in Lake Forest and Gurnee, and for travel MKE is so out of the way and is never even an option. Even from parts of Southern WI, ORD is closer....

jbs2886 wrote:

And yes, I live in Chicago, distance-wise northern suburbs are closer to ORD...ORD just has a traffic problem. Whether people would choose to go to MKE for a non-stop to Europe on DL to avoid ORD is really untested.

In recent years I haven't had any issues with traffic while driving from Wisconsin to ORD. From my place in Racine it takes exactly 60 minutes. If MKE does get a TATL flight then I think the focus should be more on the local area as opposed to banking on having people from Chicago drive up. I'm not convinced people from Illinois would drive up to MKE just to catch a flight through KEF anyways (if that's a flight that ends up getting added). I'd still probably drive down to ORD, but a nonstop flight to London would be more desirable.

mke717spotter wrote:

In recent years I haven't had any issues with traffic while driving from Wisconsin to ORD. From my place in Racine it takes exactly 60 minutes. If MKE does get a TATL flight then I think the focus should be more on the local area as opposed to banking on having people from Chicago drive up. I'm not convinced people from Illinois would drive up to MKE just to catch a flight through KEF anyways (if that's a flight that ends up getting added). I'd still probably drive down to ORD, but a nonstop flight to London would be more desirable.

I agree with you, but to be fair, those in Southern Wisconsin further west than you (such as around Lake Geneva) and the North/Northwest suburbs of Chicago (Western Lake County and northeastern McHenry County) have difficulty getting to ORD due to the lack of freeways/interstates in those parts.

I apologize for those of you who might've seen me post this repeatedly elsewhere, but it applies here as well: DL at CMH moved to Gates C52-56 when C was expanded in 2002, but have been creeping their way back up the Concourse. They added C51 for NW pre-merger and have since set up shop at C50 and C49 within the last year.; there are three gates open, C46-48 (once known as C1, C2, and C2A, their original gates in C).

C46 connects directly to the FIS facility and can be made sterile with a set of doors which close and have no handles on the concourse side. Further, CMH just added a new TSA checkpoint which has paths to/from C46, Concourse C (presumably for re-entering the concourse), and the ticketing lobby. TSA is currently using it for peak times, but one TSA agent I talked to said there have been rumors of London service.

While the rumor/gut feel 'round these parts has long been AA/BA to LHR, all that would make DL to CDG or AMS make a LOT of sense.

MCO makes the case as a firm alternative to ATL, I really think these Saturday RJ routes have a chance at going daily along with MSY, AUS and others as future candidates while adding MCO-Caribbean/South America and an additional Europe route and could connecting people to MEX on AM and Canada on WS, while moving DL's partners and codeshares to airside 4, it could work for MCO and DL, the only issue is obviously Mother Nature.

jagraham wrote:

I believe DL must sharpen its domestic strategy. Right now, AA can take you from any top ten metro area to any other top ten metro area nonstop with a few exceptions from Houston. WN is in place to do the top 10, with BWI able to access both DC and Philly customers (yes I know frequent traveler preferences mean serving DC and Philly with BWI is not the ideal solution!). As AA in particular rationalizes its network, DL will need to respond or it will find itself offering connecting flights in competition with AA nonstops for too many city pairs

I am going to disagree with you here, DL does not need more hubs or routes in large cities to remain competitive. The opinion that air travel is most important/profitable in the top 10 cities is absurd. DL is taking advantage of the large markets AA/UA are ignoring. There are many seemingly odd routes like CVG-XNA, IND-CDG, RDU-AUS, MCO-BHM, etc that DL serves to meet business demands. Routes such as LAX-ORD are not a necessity to all travelers, there is demand outside the "top 10 cities". Plus, DL dominates a bunch of medium sized cities including Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Minneapolis, Raleigh, and Salt Lake City, these still seem like pretty strong business cities to me. Last time I checked, AA/UA are not offering nonstops on tons of city pairs that DL does, I am not really getting your point. The majority of the 300 million citizens in the US do not live in the top 10 cities, so why would this large majority of travelers want to connect...enter Delta.

flymco753 wrote:

MCO makes the case as a firm alternative to ATL, I really think these Saturday RJ routes have a chance at going daily along with MSY, AUS and others as future candidates while adding MCO-Caribbean/South America and an additional Europe route and could connecting people to MEX on AM and Canada on WS, while moving DL's partners and codeshares to airside 4, it could work for MCO and DL, the only issue is obviously Mother Nature.

Episode 395 of: When Will Delta Dehub Atlanta?

Seriously? MCO? Certainly there is a possibility but the amount of optimization that DL has put into ATL is mindblowing. There's no reason that they would want to move stuff away from ATL... even in the rare cases where geography is in Orlando's favor, DL can probably move people faster and cheaper through their megahub than through Orlando. They serve orlando because the O/D market exists for some of the more unusual midwestern flights, not because they are reevaluating ATL's hub status. There's no reason that anyone would need to connect through MCO on say, indianapolis to sao paulo, when both flights likely have a much higher frequency in and out of ATL and have been timed accordingly to meet these kinds of needs. MCO is a focus city because they saw a market for O/D, not a hub.

Look it--DL is doing ''tis with many cities. Pittsburgh is a good example. RDU is an excellent example. Maybe they'll do it with BNa maybe? This. Is also smart because they can upgauge the pricing on transatlantic flights from these so called focus cities. Now if you're. Looking for transatlantic competition, just take a look at WOW sir. They've got now some of these cities down, and they can eat away at some traffic (maybe). But curiously enough, if you look at all of these so called focus cities, they are mostly ex hubs of American, US airways, etc. or even Delta. So some of the demand is there, just the airlines are not.

Cheers from Houston!

rbavfan wrote:

Also as New Orleans is a former French city & there are a lot of family links

No there aren't. And there haven't been for decades, if not centuries.

What remains of Louisiana's francophone culture (1) is derived from Canada, not directly from France and (2) exists primarily in the southwest of the state (Acadiana area) not the southeast (New Orleans area).

Nowadays you'll run into a Spanish or Vietnamese speaker in New Orleans, longggg before you'll encounter anyone who speaks French/Cajun-French as even a secondary language; much less anyone who has any familial ties to France.

New York City, Los Angeles, and Miami are the primary US places for that.

rbavfan wrote:

CDG would make much more sense before FRA.

...except that MSY-FRA already exists.

That said, this post originated on some obscure board called "Airline Pilot Central"... by a seemingly random user.

So let's keep that in mind FWIW.

Indy wrote:

I think DL will focus more expansion in IND. They already have an investment here with the Sky Club and now the CDG flight coming. They have a very long history here and a big FF base. They also have plenty of room to expand. Not saying they would, but they have the space to easily double their operation here.

It's worth noting that with the IND subsidy DL makes more money if the flights are full, so it wouldn't shock me if they added more p2p routes to ensure the flights go out completely full. Right now, they are wasting a lot of money by leasing a lot of gates in IND but only using a few, it would make sense for them to utilize some of the extra gates for p2p flights(which is why they got all the extra gate space in the first place).

I think AUS-AMS should be the most logical next addition.

Maybe AUS-CDG, but for some reason I think AMS would make more sense. I feel AUS have more links with Germany / Scandinavia / UK and then AMS would be a better fit.