cofannyc wrote:

According to DOT T-100 data, there were 831 million domestic seats flying in 1999 and 833 million domestic seats flying in 2016. So the seats might not have been replaced in the exact markets, but the capacity never disappeared.

psa1011 wrote:

I'm sure this dumb question has been answered over the years, but I will ask it anyway.

Which airlines/airports have absorbed the many hundreds of flights worth of passengers that formerly used STL, CVG, MEM, PIT, CLE and others? I realize that 9/11 and other travel annoyances have resulted in relatively smaller amounts of people flying, but I don't see how this accounts for the entirety of the shifting in travel.

Looking at departedflights.com, I find several examples. For one, STL in 1999 - TWA had over 500 daily departures. STL-ABQ had a total of seven daily flights (five on TWA, two on WN). Today there are exactly zero flights between these two cities. SAN had 11 daily flights to ORD on AA & UA during this same period, while today there are 9-10 daily flights on AA, UA & Spirit (no widebodies); SAN-DFW had 14 daily flights in 1999 on AA & DL, while today they have nine on AA & Spirit. In the intervening years, I can say the same thing about countless other flights to and from the aforementioned former hubs. WN has obviously grown substantially at DEN, STL, SAN and elsewhere, as have Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant. But these additions still do not account for the thousands of seats no longer in the sky.

While there may be fewer people flying due to the annoyance associated with air travel, I still am not seeing how that accounts for the tremendous drop in flights offered. At no point did we see SAN-ORD/DFW and other routes upgauged to widebodies, nor did we really see any noticeable increases in frequencies on UA/DL/AA mainline jets to carry more passengers. And ULCC's are not handling all of it either.

Or perhaps I am just missing the obvious.

Thanks for the input.

cofannyc wrote:

According to DOT T-100 data, there were 831 million domestic seats flying in 1999 and 833 million domestic seats flying in 2016. So the seats might not have been replaced in the exact markets, but the capacity never disappeared.

deltal1011man wrote:

Just for example, DL/NW combined would have been ~1,050 with ~250 on order for mainlines only. DL is about ~200 short of that today.

Cubsrule wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

Just for example, DL/NW combined would have been ~1,050 with ~250 on order for mainlines only. DL is about ~200 short of that today.

Isn’t average gauge up a fair amount, though?

drdisque wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

Just for example, DL/NW combined would have been ~1,050 with ~250 on order for mainlines only. DL is about ~200 short of that today.

Isn’t average gauge up a fair amount, though?

Eh not really, the 1999 fleet had a fair amount of domestic widebodies (DC-10-40's at NW, domestic 767's and L1011 stragglers at DL) and 757's that are no longer with us, so that makes up for the DC-9-10's if we assume that the 717's have more or less one-for-one replaced the DC-9-30/40/50 and 737-200. A320's and 737-800's have more or less one-for-one replaced the 727-200.

deltal1011man wrote:

A fair amount of that is recent growth in the consolidated marketplace. I'm too lazy to look at the numbers but capacity went down a good bit post 9/11.

psa1011 wrote:

I'm sure this dumb question has been answered over the years, but I will ask it anyway.

Which airlines/airports have absorbed the many hundreds of flights worth of passengers that formerly used STL, CVG, MEM, PIT, CLE and others? I realize that 9/11 and other travel annoyances have resulted in relatively smaller amounts of people flying, but I don't see how this accounts for the entirety of the shifting in travel.

Looking at departedflights.com, I find several examples. For one, STL in 1999 - TWA had over 500 daily departures. STL-ABQ had a total of seven daily flights (five on TWA, two on WN). Today there are exactly zero flights between these two cities. SAN had 11 daily flights to ORD on AA & UA during this same period, while today there are 9-10 daily flights on AA, UA & Spirit (no widebodies); SAN-DFW had 14 daily flights in 1999 on AA & DL, while today they have nine on AA & Spirit. In the intervening years, I can say the same thing about countless other flights to and from the aforementioned former hubs. WN has obviously grown substantially at DEN, STL, SAN and elsewhere, as have Spirit, Frontier and Allegiant. But these additions still do not account for the thousands of seats no longer in the sky.

While there may be fewer people flying due to the annoyance associated with air travel, I still am not seeing how that accounts for the tremendous drop in flights offered. At no point did we see SAN-ORD/DFW and other routes upgauged to widebodies, nor did we really see any noticeable increases in frequencies on UA/DL/AA mainline jets to carry more passengers. And ULCC's are not handling all of it either.

Or perhaps I am just missing the obvious.

Thanks for the input.

Cubsrule wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Isn’t average gauge up a fair amount, though?

Eh not really, the 1999 fleet had a fair amount of domestic widebodies (DC-10-40's at NW, domestic 767's and L1011 stragglers at DL) and 757's that are no longer with us, so that makes up for the DC-9-10's if we assume that the 717's have more or less one-for-one replaced the DC-9-30/40/50 and 737-200. A320's and 737-800's have more or less one-for-one replaced the 727-200.

I was thinking more since the merger. Average gauge went down in the 00s as NW replaced -10s and 742s with fewer 330s and 753s and 319s replaced some 72S.

rbavfan wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Eh not really, the 1999 fleet had a fair amount of domestic widebodies (DC-10-40's at NW, domestic 767's and L1011 stragglers at DL) and 757's that are no longer with us, so that makes up for the DC-9-10's if we assume that the 717's have more or less one-for-one replaced the DC-9-30/40/50 and 737-200. A320's and 737-800's have more or less one-for-one replaced the 727-200.

I was thinking more since the merger. Average gauge went down in the 00s as NW replaced -10s and 742s with fewer 330s and 753s and 319s replaced some 72S.

Yes but those NW 747's had low enough average load factors that the A330's were full more often. Remember back then the 747's were used because no other aircraft could fly a lot of the routes. Either due to ETOPS or actual max range needed. In the 80's 4 hollers & 3 hollers were used on overseas routes. Twins started TATL in the early to mid 80's in limited numbers. So as the A330/767/777 became longer range and the ETOPS grew above the 120m limit many 747 routes could be flown by air frames that fit their real loads. A 747 seating 380 seats back then averaged 271 seats. A330-300 catagory.

rbavfan wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

drdisque wrote:

Eh not really, the 1999 fleet had a fair amount of domestic widebodies (DC-10-40's at NW, domestic 767's and L1011 stragglers at DL) and 757's that are no longer with us, so that makes up for the DC-9-10's if we assume that the 717's have more or less one-for-one replaced the DC-9-30/40/50 and 737-200. A320's and 737-800's have more or less one-for-one replaced the 727-200.

I was thinking more since the merger. Average gauge went down in the 00s as NW replaced -10s and 742s with fewer 330s and 753s and 319s replaced some 72S.

Yes but those NW 747's had low enough average load factors that the A330's were full more often. Remember back then the 747's were used because no other aircraft could fly a lot of the routes. Either due to ETOPS or actual max range needed. In the 80's 4 hollers & 3 hollers were used on overseas routes. Twins started TATL in the early to mid 80's in limited numbers. So as the A330/767/777 became longer range and the ETOPS grew above the 120m limit many 747 routes could be flown by air frames that fit their real loads. A 747 seating 380 seats back then averaged 271 seats. A330-300 catagory.

Cubsrule wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I was thinking more since the merger. Average gauge went down in the 00s as NW replaced -10s and 742s with fewer 330s and 753s and 319s replaced some 72S.

Yes but those NW 747's had low enough average load factors that the A330's were full more often. Remember back then the 747's were used because no other aircraft could fly a lot of the routes. Either due to ETOPS or actual max range needed. In the 80's 4 hollers & 3 hollers were used on overseas routes. Twins started TATL in the early to mid 80's in limited numbers. So as the A330/767/777 became longer range and the ETOPS grew above the 120m limit many 747 routes could be flown by air frames that fit their real loads. A 747 seating 380 seats back then averaged 271 seats. A330-300 catagory.

All true. It’s also probably true that increased range increased utilization by cutting out lots of stops at ANC.

Cubsrule wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

Just for example, DL/NW combined would have been ~1,050 with ~250 on order for mainlines only. DL is about ~200 short of that today.

Isn’t average gauge up a fair amount, though?

klm617 wrote:

As far as CVG that capacity just went away. It was not transferred to any other hubs at all. As far as transit passengers those were absorbed by ATL, DTW and MSP

deltal1011man wrote:

klm617 wrote:

As far as CVG that capacity just went away. It was not transferred to any other hubs at all. As far as transit passengers those were absorbed by ATL, DTW and MSP

I know I'm wasting my time

but this is incorrect. The majority of CVG's capacity went to NYC. Both JFK and LGA were growing a ton while CVG was getting smaller.
Also DTW did receive some of CVG's capacity and flows.

In terms of departures most of the hubs have been relatively flat outside of NYC, LAX and SEA with the exception of MEM, CVG and ATL, which is down about 200 flights from its peak but its gauge is actually larger. DTW is starting to see a small decrease in departures as more 76 seat RJs and 130-160 seaters flow in from ATL/MSP (which are being replaced by 739s and 321s.)

psa1011 wrote:

I suppose I can't disagree with statistics when it comes to load factors in 1999 vs. today, but it seems strange that the major airlines would've proactively flown so many seats. Just looking at SAN-STL or SAN-DFW, there were no wide bodies flown, just as today. The price of fuel, and demand for frequency, must have been the major factors here.

psa1011 wrote:

I suppose I can't disagree with statistics when it comes to load factors in 1999 vs. today, but it seems strange that the major airlines would've proactively flown so many seats. Just looking at SAN-STL or SAN-DFW, there were no wide bodies flown, just as today. The price of fuel, and demand for frequency, must have been the major factors here.

cvgComair wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

klm617 wrote:

As far as CVG that capacity just went away. It was not transferred to any other hubs at all. As far as transit passengers those were absorbed by ATL, DTW and MSP

I know I'm wasting my time

but this is incorrect. The majority of CVG's capacity went to NYC. Both JFK and LGA were growing a ton while CVG was getting smaller.
Also DTW did receive some of CVG's capacity and flows.

In terms of departures most of the hubs have been relatively flat outside of NYC, LAX and SEA with the exception of MEM, CVG and ATL, which is down about 200 flights from its peak but its gauge is actually larger. DTW is starting to see a small decrease in departures as more 76 seat RJs and 130-160 seaters flow in from ATL/MSP (which are being replaced by 739s and 321s.)

Only CVG’s international capacity went to JFK, the domestic flows are entirely different. Maybe some of CVG’s NE traffic was shifted to NYC, but most of CVG’s domestic capacity went to ATL, both had pretty much the same east/west flow. If you look at seat numbers from DL, there was a direct correlation between CVG decreasing and ATL increasing. DTW really didn’t receive anything from CVG, DL’s pax numbers and daily departures have been pretty flat in DTW.

bfitzflyer wrote:

Going back 30 years, and I don't have the actual data, but I believe NWA had 400 flights a day in Memphis say around 87 or 88, not long after the merger. and now combined DL and NWA is probably 40 i f not less.

SESGDL wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Going back 30 years, and I don't have the actual data, but I believe NWA had 400 flights a day in Memphis say around 87 or 88, not long after the merger. and now combined DL and NWA is probably 40 i f not less.

MEM peaked at just under 300 flights in 1987, there’s data on departedflights showing the evolution, or devolution, of the hub.

Jeremy

bfitzflyer wrote:

Going back 30 years, and I don't have the actual data, but I believe NWA had 400 flights a day in Memphis say around 87 or 88, not long after the merger. and now combined DL and NWA is probably 40 i f not less.

thegoldenargosy wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Going back 30 years, and I don't have the actual data, but I believe NWA had 400 flights a day in Memphis say around 87 or 88, not long after the merger. and now combined DL and NWA is probably 40 i f not less.

I'd honestly be surprised if there was even 40 departures now. It was mostly an RJ hub before DL dropped it as a hub.

jfklganyc wrote:

There are many factors here being glossed over.

To generalize the answer for original question: For much of the 2000’s capacity was way down versus 2000.

There are many moving pieces to that, but in general the early-mid 2000s were a lost decade for US aviation.

Widebodies went away so guage got smaller

RJs increased coverage so guage went smaller yet

In recent years, RJs went away so guage got larger again

Airlines disappeared through mergers and synergies. Airlines combined are smaller than they were sitting side by side when they were separate entities.

New airlines such as B6 NK F9 and even WN have a much larger share of the pie. They fly with high density (in most cases single class) narrowbodies

There are now a pleathora of nonstops bypassing the need for mid continent hubs. I can now fly non stop to any medium sized city in the midwest from LGA, whereas 20 years ago a connection in ORD STL or CVG was necessary.

Population has shifted in the country to places south and southwest effecting where people start and end their journeys.

Who would have ever thought that towns like Houston and Dallas were going rival (and possibly surpass) cities like Chicago nevermind places like STL or PIT? But it has happened and continues to trend in that direction. Whereas 20 years ago Chicago seemed the center of aviation, today you think of Atlanta and Texas hubs for that role.

Finally, load factors. Every flight, everywhere, all hours of each day of the week is full. If it isnt full, you wonder why it isnt full.

MAH4546 wrote:

And we are not even scratching the surface of international flying. Barcelona in 2010 had a few flights to JFK on Iberia and Delta and a triangle route to Atlanta via Madrid. Today it's literally connected to JFK, EWR, MIA, FLL, CLT, ORD, PHL, IAD, LAX, SFO, OAK and BOS. AA alone has five daily flights to the airport that barely had year-round service to New York 20 years ago.

lowfareair wrote:

MAH4546 wrote:

And we are not even scratching the surface of international flying. Barcelona in 2010 had a few flights to JFK on Iberia and Delta and a triangle route to Atlanta via Madrid. Today it's literally connected to JFK, EWR, MIA, FLL, CLT, ORD, PHL, IAD, LAX, SFO, OAK and BOS. AA alone has five daily flights to the airport that barely had year-round service to New York 20 years ago.

You might want to double-check that year, I know PHL-BCN has been operating since at least 2005.

bfitzflyer wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

Going back 30 years, and I don't have the actual data, but I believe NWA had 400 flights a day in Memphis say around 87 or 88, not long after the merger. and now combined DL and NWA is probably 40 i f not less.

MEM peaked at just under 300 flights in 1987, there’s data on departedflights showing the evolution, or devolution, of the hub.

Jeremy

Thanks so much, I will look for that post, curious if that included airlink.