Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
klm617 wrote:I am also thinking that GRR-AMS is not out of the question.
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.
cvgComair wrote: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.
jagraham wrote:cvgComair wrote:I will be interested to see where this goes, DL has really stepped up PTP routes in recent years and I think it is a really exciting strategy. DL has a pretty interesting hub/focus city structure, which is quite unique:
Large Hubs: ATL, MSP, DTW, LGA/JFK, SLC
Small Hubs: LAX, SEA, CVG, BOS
International Hubs: NRT, CDG, AMS, LHR
Focus Cities: RDU, MCO
DL has already been expanding aggressively in their small hub category, I think focus cities are the next logical step. I could see IND/AUS/BNA/CMH/MSY/MKE all being good cities for expansion.
"Interesting hub/focus city structure" may not quite cut it. 90% of domestic flying starts or ends in the top ten metro areas, and 99% in the top twenty (or so; picking what is #20 can be a challenge). The consolidation over the years has left DL with 2 nationwide network carrier competitors, while WN has grown into a nationwide network carrier..
When looking at the top ten CSAs you get (hub in CAP, focus in lowercase)
CSA NYC LA CHI WAS SFO BOS DAL PHI HOU MIA
AA JFK LAX ORD DCA sfo bos DFW PHI -- MIA
UA EWR LAX ORD IAD SFO bos -- -- IAH --
WN -- LAX ORD BWI OAK bos DAL -- HOU fll
DL JFK/LGA LAX ORD dca -- bos -- -- -- --
DL has 4 hubs and 2 focus cities in 5 of the top ten CSAs. Of course DL about owns 11 thru 15, with ATL DTW MSP and SEA being hubs, and the first three being fortress hubs. Only PHX is a hub in 11 thru 15 that is not DL. This is a consequence of a regional focus strategy on the part of both DL and NW when there were more airlines and none were truly big enough to be national. Which is no longer the case.
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
klm617 wrote:I am also thinking that GRR-AMS is not out of the question. A lot of expansion has gone on there and it's closer to Northern Michigan a big tourist draw. Michigan broke all records this year as far as tourism so a GRR-AMS link makes sense.
klm617 wrote:I am also thinking that GRR-AMS is not out of the question. A lot of expansion has gone on there and it's closer to Northern Michigan a big tourist draw. Michigan broke all records this year as far as tourism so a GRR-AMS link makes sense.
cvgComair wrote: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.
ibhalla wrote: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!
ibhalla wrote: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!
luv2cattlecall 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.
RIC-SLC seems like a perfect fit for the CS100
msycajun wrote:SunsetLimited wrote:I hope DL doesn't start MSY-Europe. I don't want to see BA and DE suffer, which I'm sure they would in some respect if DL starts a flight, granted BA moreso.
I'd like to see a MSY-CDG flight but not this soon. The nonstop European market needs time to mature. Let's revisit the idea in two years. Until then, quite happy with direct service to LHR and FRA!
I don't think BA would suffer. Granted it's spot checks, but if you compare MSY/AUS/BNA/SJC-LHR nonstops, MSY is routinely 40-100% more expensive. If they feel there is that kind of demand, a Skyteam nonstop should do well. Remember there are a lot of DL loyalists who are not flying BA or DE, especially at those prices. FRA is a comparatively small market, so I'd gladly trade DE's limited seasonal service for a year-round service to CDG with more frequency.
AAvgeek744 wrote:ibhalla wrote: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!
I think DL is maxed out on roon at BNA. Whenever B is expanded, along with the D extension, some of the smaller carriers on B could possibly go to D and free up a couple gates for Delta.
jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
TransWorldOne wrote:jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
I largely agree with you here. DL tends to be very conservative and prefers to lean on its JV partners to serve "far flung" destinations. I wouldn't expect to see any new transoceanic destinations that don't involve AMS, CDG, ICN, or LHR any time soon. The last time I recall DL being rather ambitious was when they announced several routes to Sub-Saharan Africa back in 2008. Many of the routes didn't stick but DL remains the top US carrier to Africa today. Also, DL is unique in that it is the only US airline with nonstop service to Iceland but other than that, they seem to trail AA and UA in nearly every other region of the world.
TransWorldOne wrote:The last time I recall DL being rather ambitious was when they announced several routes to Sub-Saharan Africa back in 2008. Many of the routes didn't stick but DL remains the top US carrier to Africa today.
Midwestindy wrote:With MCO, IND, AUS, and PIT likely off the board, does anyone have any ideas on the cities being considered for AMS TATL flight, or any ideas for p2p routes?
I would consider CMH/TPA-AMS possibilities, along with maybe BDL-BNA/IND
BoeingGuy wrote:Midwestindy wrote:With MCO, IND, AUS, and PIT likely off the board, does anyone have any ideas on the cities being considered for AMS TATL flight, or any ideas for p2p routes?
I would consider CMH/TPA-AMS possibilities, along with maybe BDL-BNA/IND
Does JAX have potential for trans-Atlantic service? It's a pretty large city. I know CSX Railroad has headquarters there, but otherwise don't know much about the city.
What about STL or even MKE? What's left? PHX maybe?
BoeingGuy wrote:Midwestindy wrote:With MCO, IND, AUS, and PIT likely off the board, does anyone have any ideas on the cities being considered for AMS TATL flight, or any ideas for p2p routes?
I would consider CMH/TPA-AMS possibilities, along with maybe BDL-BNA/IND
Does JAX have potential for trans-Atlantic service? It's a pretty large city. I know CSX Railroad has headquarters there, but otherwise don't know much about the city.
What about STL or even MKE? What's left? PHX maybe?
BoeingGuy wrote:Midwestindy wrote:With MCO, IND, AUS, and PIT likely off the board, does anyone have any ideas on the cities being considered for AMS TATL flight, or any ideas for p2p routes?
I would consider CMH/TPA-AMS possibilities, along with maybe BDL-BNA/IND
Does JAX have potential for trans-Atlantic service? It's a pretty large city. I know CSX Railroad has headquarters there, but otherwise don't know much about the city.
What about STL or even MKE? What's left? PHX maybe?
ibhalla wrote:jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
Good point, good point. Delta is very conservative with long haul, but with short haul, they are less so.
airzona11 wrote:TransWorldOne wrote:jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
I largely agree with you here. DL tends to be very conservative and prefers to lean on its JV partners to serve "far flung" destinations. I wouldn't expect to see any new transoceanic destinations that don't involve AMS, CDG, ICN, or LHR any time soon. The last time I recall DL being rather ambitious was when they announced several routes to Sub-Saharan Africa back in 2008. Many of the routes didn't stick but DL remains the top US carrier to Africa today. Also, DL is unique in that it is the only US airline with nonstop service to Iceland but other than that, they seem to trail AA and UA in nearly every other region of the world.
They all have their areas of dominance. DL flies most to Europe. AA to South America. UA to Asia.
SESGDL wrote:jagraham wrote:cvgComair wrote:I will be interested to see where this goes, DL has really stepped up PTP routes in recent years and I think it is a really exciting strategy. DL has a pretty interesting hub/focus city structure, which is quite unique:
Large Hubs: ATL, MSP, DTW, LGA/JFK, SLC
Small Hubs: LAX, SEA, CVG, BOS
International Hubs: NRT, CDG, AMS, LHR
Focus Cities: RDU, MCO
DL has already been expanding aggressively in their small hub category, I think focus cities are the next logical step. I could see IND/AUS/BNA/CMH/MSY/MKE all being good cities for expansion.
"Interesting hub/focus city structure" may not quite cut it. 90% of domestic flying starts or ends in the top ten metro areas, and 99% in the top twenty (or so; picking what is #20 can be a challenge). The consolidation over the years has left DL with 2 nationwide network carrier competitors, while WN has grown into a nationwide network carrier..
When looking at the top ten CSAs you get (hub in CAP, focus in lowercase)
CSA NYC LA CHI WAS SFO BOS DAL PHI HOU MIA
AA JFK LAX ORD DCA sfo bos DFW PHI -- MIA
UA EWR LAX ORD IAD SFO bos -- -- IAH --
WN -- LAX ORD BWI OAK bos DAL -- HOU fll
DL JFK/LGA LAX ORD dca -- bos -- -- -- --
DL has 4 hubs and 2 focus cities in 5 of the top ten CSAs. Of course DL about owns 11 thru 15, with ATL DTW MSP and SEA being hubs, and the first three being fortress hubs. Only PHX is a hub in 11 thru 15 that is not DL. This is a consequence of a regional focus strategy on the part of both DL and NW when there were more airlines and none were truly big enough to be national. Which is no longer the case.
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
The fault in your logic is that you're not considering the fragmentation that's faced in a market like Chicago. While Chicago may generate some 40 million domestic O&D passengers annually, it's being pretty equally distributed amongst AA, UA and WN. DL on the other hand handily dominates its four largest hubs, so while MSP only generates around 15 million domestic O&D passengers each year, DL is controlling a large swath of this market and controlling pricing. While the big cities are more glamorous, they are not the most profitable. NYC is a massive market but likely on the lower end for profitability compared to the other legacy fortress hubs. Also, DL is a close second in New York and a more distant second in LA, so DL does have a major presence in the two most important US markets. DL's strategy is working just fine as their balance sheet and income statements continually show.
Jeremy
klm617 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:klm617 wrote:
If you are flying Delta out of MKE other than FRA, AMS, LHR and CDG year round or FCO and MUC summer only you have to make 2 stops to get to anywhere else in europe from MKE on skyteam
I'm not sure if you have heard, but Delta's two largest TATL hubs are ATL and JFK, and MKE has plenty of service to both.
Please provide me with a link to where I can find MKE to JFK nonstops
pitbosflyer wrote:klm617 wrote:Cubsrule wrote:
I'm not sure if you have heard, but Delta's two largest TATL hubs are ATL and JFK, and MKE has plenty of service to both.
Please provide me with a link to where I can find MKE to JFK nonstops
Its true DL only flies to LGA. But why all this talk about MKE to ATL. What would prevent people from just connecting through DTW on DL. Pretty similar to connecting through ORD.
tkoenig95 wrote:Now is certainly the perfect timing for DL in AUS. On the brink of a concourse expansion and also having the city see an existentialist boom in the last 5-7 years, DL could be ahead of the curve in terms of legacy carriers taking advantage of a market that has yet to consumed (other than WN who is operating on a different business model).
With DL adding 4 routes to AUS in the past year I think this could be their experiment, if you will, to see how the local market is reacting to their more existent presence. Additions to MCO, CVG, LAS, and other Northeast destination would be a hit, but should we wait a while to see what their int'l expansion would consist of?
klm617 wrote:pitbosflyer wrote:klm617 wrote:
Please provide me with a link to where I can find MKE to JFK nonstops
Its true DL only flies to LGA. But why all this talk about MKE to ATL. What would prevent people from just connecting through DTW on DL. Pretty similar to connecting through ORD.
Because you can only get one stop service over DTW to 4 cities year round everything else is a double connect unless you got to ATL. A MKE-AMS nonstop would give you one stop service in Europe to many of the skyteam destinations.
carljanderson wrote:If LAS does get a flight, would that the final nudge for DL to put a SkyClub in LAS?
Midwestindy wrote:I almost feel as if this would further hurt feed to MSP/DTW on their AMS services, DTW is already shot down to 2x on some off days during the winter and MSP can see as little as 1x on some days.carljanderson wrote:If LAS does get a flight, would that the final nudge for DL to put a SkyClub in LAS?
I wonder if DL could route connections through LAS if they get AMS, and really build it into a focus city. ex. HNL/SJC/SAN/SNA-LAS-AMS.
Just some food for thought....
flymco753 wrote:I find this interesting, so if you go on the flydelta app, you'll see that in terms of domestic "hubs", MCO is included in the advanced terminal maps where it shows you a picture of virtually the whole airport. I was intrigued to know if this is a nudge towards formally calling MCO a focus city. I also think a case can be presented for more RJ flying to destinations like AUS, MSY, and perhaps TVC and MSN on a seasonal basis. The thing is, you know DL isn't going to add p2p on routes like ORD/MDW, EWR, IAD, IAH, DFW, DEN, PDX, etc. because of the fact they are major hubs for other carriers other than DL, so I think the focus for MCO p2p will stay on markets without other major carriers being dominant. I expect more p2p to be announced in the next year along with daily RJ service to current markets served on a weekend basis.
flymco753 wrote:Midwestindy wrote:I almost feel as if this would further hurt feed to MSP/DTW on their AMS services, DTW is already shot down to 2x on some off days during the winter and MSP can see as little as 1x on some days.carljanderson wrote:If LAS does get a flight, would that the final nudge for DL to put a SkyClub in LAS?
I wonder if DL could route connections through LAS if they get AMS, and really build it into a focus city. ex. HNL/SJC/SAN/SNA-LAS-AMS.
Just some food for thought....
jagraham wrote:
Delta has tacitly acknowledged that with its moves in New York and LAX. Especially, the T2/T3 acquisition at LAX will allow Delta to become #1 in LA, and be a better partner to the Skyteam members that serve LAX.
Midwestindy wrote:If the strategy is to build current focus cities, I don't see why not. BHM is launching in December, so I'd think in the next 2 months we'll hear about February adds.flymco753 wrote:I find this interesting, so if you go on the flydelta app, you'll see that in terms of domestic "hubs", MCO is included in the advanced terminal maps where it shows you a picture of virtually the whole airport. I was intrigued to know if this is a nudge towards formally calling MCO a focus city. I also think a case can be presented for more RJ flying to destinations like AUS, MSY, and perhaps TVC and MSN on a seasonal basis. The thing is, you know DL isn't going to add p2p on routes like ORD/MDW, EWR, IAD, IAH, DFW, DEN, PDX, etc. because of the fact they are major hubs for other carriers other than DL, so I think the focus for MCO p2p will stay on markets without other major carriers being dominant. I expect more p2p to be announced in the next year along with daily RJ service to current markets served on a weekend basis.
I'm actually pretty surprised more p2p routes haven't gone year-round, CMH-MCO I could see going year-round, and I'm pretty surprised AUS/MSY/MSN-MCO haven't been added (but I expect some may be added by the end of the fall).
flymco753 wrote:You have a point. I'd say 80% runs through SLC, but if they want to maintain SLC they'd have to focus more on getting markets like BZN/GEG/FCA, etc. to pass through SLC, which may in turn hit MSP over the head.Midwestindy wrote:I almost feel as if this would further hurt feed to MSP/DTW on their AMS services, DTW is already shot down to 2x on some off days during the winter and MSP can see as little as 1x on some days.
I wonder if DL could route connections through LAS if they get AMS, and really build it into a focus city. ex. HNL/SJC/SAN/SNA-LAS-AMS.
Just some food for thought....Midwestindy wrote:Wouldn't most of that feed be going through SLC rather than DTW or MSP though?
klm617 wrote:pitbosflyer wrote:klm617 wrote:
Please provide me with a link to where I can find MKE to JFK nonstops
Its true DL only flies to LGA. But why all this talk about MKE to ATL. What would prevent people from just connecting through DTW on DL. Pretty similar to connecting through ORD.
Because you can only get one stop service over DTW to 4 cities year round everything else is a double connect unless you got to ATL. A MKE-AMS nonstop would give you one stop service in Europe to many of the skyteam destinations.
klm617 wrote:I am also thinking that GRR-AMS is not out of the question. A lot of expansion has gone on there and it's closer to Northern Michigan a big tourist draw. Michigan broke all records this year as far as tourism so a GRR-AMS link makes sense.
gsg013 wrote:A few comments, DL isn't committed to EWR as they are JFK or LGA and EWR has no p2p other than CDG and AMS to correlate with LGA not being able to sustain such service, so I'd say a no go on BNA-EWR for DL. I notice that DL likes to stay out of UA's waters when it comes to p2p. If DL thought EWR would be good for additional p2p, they would've added MCO, TPA, and FLL a long time ago.I keep mentioning this route but they should throw a RJ on BNA-EWR. It is a great O&D route with high fares and high yields. I know a ton of Nashville folks that would love to jump on that rather than going to LGA who also would pay a significant premium to avoid UA to EWR. (Maybe I have wishful thinking). I think its not a matter of if but when DL adds something. They could use the JV with VS to throw an 787 on BNA-LHR daily. Alternatively DL could fly a 763 to either CDG or AMS.
flymco753 wrote:If the strategy is to build current focus cities, I don't see why not. BHM is launching in December, so I'd think in the next 2 months we'll hear about February adds.
gsg013 wrote:I sure hope DL expands out of BNA. I know they have the one JFK departure generally used to feed INTL connections I wish they did a few more Point to Point routes out of BNA like they are doing out of RDU. I keep mentioning this route but they should throw a RJ on BNA-EWR. It is a great O&D route with high fares and high yields. I know a ton of Nashville folks that would love to jump on that rather than going to LGA who also would pay a significant premium to avoid UA to EWR. (Maybe I have wishful thinking).
BNA could also use a DL non-stop to Europe (I know BA will be flying the 787-8 soon). I think its not a matter of if but when DL adds something. They could use the JV with VS to throw an 787 on BNA-LHR daily. Alternatively DL could fly a 763 to either CDG or AMS.
MIflyer12 wrote:ibhalla wrote:jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
Good point, good point. Delta is very conservative with long haul, but with short haul, they are less so.
There's lots of evidence against that. 77Ls to JNB - the only U.S. carrier serving JNB. Lagos. Malaga. Past efforts to Bucharest, Kiev, Amman, Pisa...
ATL-Asia is always going to be a tough putt because ATL isn't a geographically logical connection to much of Asia (overflying much nearer hubs), and because flights to much of Asia will be ULH. Hence the ongoing work on growing Asia out of SEA, DTW and LAX.
The JV with Aeromexico should produce many new airport pairs. There should be some Central America and near South America cities that could be added with range & airport-altitude capable planes smaller than 757-200s.
jagraham wrote:SESGDL wrote:jagraham wrote:
"Interesting hub/focus city structure" may not quite cut it. 90% of domestic flying starts or ends in the top ten metro areas, and 99% in the top twenty (or so; picking what is #20 can be a challenge). The consolidation over the years has left DL with 2 nationwide network carrier competitors, while WN has grown into a nationwide network carrier..
When looking at the top ten CSAs you get (hub in CAP, focus in lowercase)
CSA NYC LA CHI WAS SFO BOS DAL PHI HOU MIA
AA JFK LAX ORD DCA sfo bos DFW PHI -- MIA
UA EWR LAX ORD IAD SFO bos -- -- IAH --
WN -- LAX ORD BWI OAK bos DAL -- HOU fll
DL JFK/LGA LAX ORD dca -- bos -- -- -- --
DL has 4 hubs and 2 focus cities in 5 of the top ten CSAs. Of course DL about owns 11 thru 15, with ATL DTW MSP and SEA being hubs, and the first three being fortress hubs. Only PHX is a hub in 11 thru 15 that is not DL. This is a consequence of a regional focus strategy on the part of both DL and NW when there were more airlines and none were truly big enough to be national. Which is no longer the case.
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
The fault in your logic is that you're not considering the fragmentation that's faced in a market like Chicago. While Chicago may generate some 40 million domestic O&D passengers annually, it's being pretty equally distributed amongst AA, UA and WN. DL on the other hand handily dominates its four largest hubs, so while MSP only generates around 15 million domestic O&D passengers each year, DL is controlling a large swath of this market and controlling pricing. While the big cities are more glamorous, they are not the most profitable. NYC is a massive market but likely on the lower end for profitability compared to the other legacy fortress hubs. Also, DL is a close second in New York and a more distant second in LA, so DL does have a major presence in the two most important US markets. DL's strategy is working just fine as their balance sheet and income statements continually show.
Jeremy
With respect to population, over 107 million, or a third of the country, lives in the top ten metro areas. And the top ten metro areas have a disproportionate share of the Fortune 500 headquarters and their travel needs.
90% of the origin or destination traffic coming from the top ten metro areas has been covered in other a.net threads. One example
viewtopic.php?t=558079
So while 1/3 of the population lives in the top ten metro areas, a disproportionate 90% of air travel touches one of these metro areas on one end of the trip. Not counting connections.
Hence, the top ten metro areas are more significant than their population (even at 1/3 of the country) would suggest.
My point is that before consolidation, a regional strategy worked well. After consolidation, with three airlines serving most of the top ten metro areas with 90% of trips originating or ending in one of these metro areas, a regional strategy does not work as well.
Delta has tacitly acknowledged that with its moves in New York and LAX. Especially, the T2/T3 acquisition at LAX will allow Delta to become #1 in LA, and be a better partner to the Skyteam members that serve LAX.
American consolidated last. And US and HP never fully consolidated, so there are more underlying issues to be dealt with than the usual merger. Nevertheless, AA has the hubs. And the planes to service metro areas 11 thru 20 from the 7 hubs and 2 focus cities they already have. A lot can (and maybe should) be said about aircraft strategy and risk tolerance, but my point is that AA, and to a great extent WN, only have to rejig their schedules to provide multiple nonstops for 95% of trips in the US. Delta has farther to go to hit that data point. Delta can do it with the hubs they have, but it requires more point to point flying. And more of a presence at airports where somebody else has a hub. Maybe even a fortress hub. Is it easier for AA to fly its frequent flyers to DTW or MSP, or DL to fly its frequent flyers to DFW or MIA?
klm617 wrote:[I disagree because it's ATL they will fly it anyway even if it doesn't give them the best margins something they would never dream of doing at the other hubs. If it doesn't make money at the other hubs it gets cut pretty quick while if it's flown out of ATL it's given chance after chance PVG now being tried three times backs that up. As far as growing SEA and DTW to Asia that's not happening either SEA has had no increase as far as Asia goes and DTW has actually been shrunk in terms of capacity so ATL is the focal point for Asia expansion right now they have almost as many seats to Asia if not more when you include the KE ICN flight. SEA also now has more capacity to Asia than DTW
MIflyer12 wrote:ibhalla wrote:jumbojet wrote:I've been following Delta Air Lines very closely since the early 2000's. Any future international DL growth will be limited to TATL where they are one of the strongest airlines. TPAC flying right now has way to many seats for all airlines and its tough for anyone to pay the rent. Starting anything new over the Pacific will pretty much mean zero profit and that goes for all US3 airlines. Plus, DL has always leaned toward the conservative side whereas AA and UA take risks and chances and have more of a tolerance for losing money. Even once SEA and LAX have more gates for DL to use, unless DL is going to make money, you will not see anything new over the Pacific. So yeah, while UA announces new routes like every other day to fascinating, far off locations (think IAH-SYD, LAX-SIN, SFO-SIN) we are stuck with a very conservative airline. Don't expect anything along the lines of what UA does anytime soon.
Good point, good point. Delta is very conservative with long haul, but with short haul, they are less so.
There's lots of evidence against that. 77Ls to JNB - the only U.S. carrier serving JNB. Lagos. Malaga. Past efforts to Bucharest, Kiev, Amman, Pisa...
ATL-Asia is always going to be a tough putt because ATL isn't a geographically logical connection to much of Asia (overflying much nearer hubs), and because flights to much of Asia will be ULH. Hence the ongoing work on growing Asia out of SEA, DTW and LAX.
The JV with Aeromexico should produce many new airport pairs. There should be some Central America and near South America cities that could be added with range & airport-altitude capable planes smaller than 757-200s.