SumChristianus wrote:

How about OneJet coming to DET (Detroit-City)? With their recent purchase of Ultimate Air Shuttle, if any carrier is ever able to restart services there (IF), they would seem the most likely to make it work.

MDW, (Cleveland-Burke), CVG or LUK, NYC (somewhere), and a few other buisness destinations.

Is DET permanently unable to take commercial traffic though?

Was just a thought...

I think Onejet is a great starting point for DET but in the long term think that an Allegiant like operation would be in the best interest of KDET. With all of the sports stadiums and concert venues now located in Detroit KDET is logistically logical of getting performers and teams to and from these venues not to mention it's close proximity to the wealth of this area..

Can I ask a stupid question as to why 90% of the posts is this thread are rampant speculation, wish-lists, or pipe dreams about the future versus what is currently happening in the here and now?

It seriously makes we question how much many of you actually use, visit, work, or fly through DTW versus some perverted version of fanboyism.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Can I ask a stupid question as to why 90% of the posts is this thread are rampant speculation, wish-lists, or pipe dreams about the future versus what is currently happening in the here and now?

It seriously makes we question how much many of you actually use, visit, work, or fly through DTW versus some perverted version of fanboyism.

That and the obsession with commercial service at DET. I doubt many of the people have ever driven to the neighborhood* DET is in versus just looking at Google maps for various driving times from the relevant suburbs.

*for the record, my grandpa is buried in one of the cemeteries that blocks runway expansion at DET. I know the neighborhood well. Didn't want the username to make it seem like I didn't know anything.

klm617 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

How about OneJet coming to DET (Detroit-City)? With their recent purchase of Ultimate Air Shuttle, if any carrier is ever able to restart services there (IF), they would seem the most likely to make it work.

MDW, (Cleveland-Burke), CVG or LUK, NYC (somewhere), and a few other buisness destinations.

Is DET permanently unable to take commercial traffic though?

Was just a thought...

I think Onejet is a great starting point for DET but in the long term think that an Allegiant like operation would be in the best interest of KDET. With all of the sports stadiums and concert venues now located in Detroit KDET is logistically logical of getting performers and teams to and from these venues not to mention it's close proximity to the wealth of this area..

1) Reopening the facility is cost-prohibitive, requires massive fighting against NIMBYs, and illogical when DTW is relatively easy to reach.
2) Performers who use smaller planes (sports teams generally use things no smaller than the A321, which can't land on DET's short runways) can use DET anyway. That's not commercial service.
3) Why would a ULCC like Allegiant be interested in footing the fees it would take to open up this thing, when DTW is there?

tys777 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Can I ask a stupid question as to why 90% of the posts is this thread are rampant speculation, wish-lists, or pipe dreams about the future versus what is currently happening in the here and now?

It seriously makes we question how much many of you actually use, visit, work, or fly through DTW versus some perverted version of fanboyism.

That and the obsession with commercial service at DET. I doubt many of the people have ever driven to the neighborhood* DET is in versus just looking at Google maps for various driving times from the relevant suburbs.

*for the record, my grandpa is buried in one of the cemeteries that blocks runway expansion at DET. I know the neighborhood well. Didn't want the username to make it seem like I didn't know anything.

My entire family is buried in that very same cemetery. Once again the reopening of that airport would be the catalyst to revitalizing that area. You have to start some where again like I say let the airport define the area don't let the area define the airport.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

How about OneJet coming to DET (Detroit-City)? With their recent purchase of Ultimate Air Shuttle, if any carrier is ever able to restart services there (IF), they would seem the most likely to make it work.

MDW, (Cleveland-Burke), CVG or LUK, NYC (somewhere), and a few other buisness destinations.

Is DET permanently unable to take commercial traffic though?

Was just a thought...

I think Onejet is a great starting point for DET but in the long term think that an Allegiant like operation would be in the best interest of KDET. With all of the sports stadiums and concert venues now located in Detroit KDET is logistically logical of getting performers and teams to and from these venues not to mention it's close proximity to the wealth of this area..

1) Reopening the facility is cost-prohibitive, requires massive fighting against NIMBYs, and illogical when DTW is relatively easy to reach.
2) Performers who use smaller planes (sports teams generally use things no smaller than the A321, which can't land on DET's short runways) can use DET anyway. That's not commercial service.
3) Why would a ULCC like Allegiant be interested in footing the fees it would take to open up this thing, when DTW is there?

Because Delta is the hub carrier at Detroit like a 1000 pound gorilla pretty much nixing anything that is going to happen at DTW. DET provides something different like BKL and LCK and give a carrier a fighting chance at entering DET. But I do agree with one thing the biggest road block is the political pandering by the cities of Warren and Eastpoint that would love to see the airport closed. Could you imagine the time saved if you could fly out of DET for those execs that work Downtown and at the Warren Tech Center.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Can I ask a stupid question as to why 90% of the posts is this thread are rampant speculation, wish-lists, or pipe dreams about the future versus what is currently happening in the here and now?

It seriously makes we question how much many of you actually use, visit, work, or fly through DTW versus some perverted version of fanboyism.

Because speculation is all we have with those who are discontent with the current situation at DTW. Why are so many able to embrace what is going on at the airport and how it's lagging far behind other markets of similar size when the region is booming in business and income is growing. While the city of neighborhoods may be stagnant the rest of the city and region is not. You all maybe be happy about taking about a Delta A321 replacing a 757 or getting excited about an A350 being put on the Detroit-Amsterdam route that doesn't stimulate my interest as talking about what could be. This market always had something interesting going on that was until Delta took over now in 10 years your hub carrier adds three routes that's not very stimulating especially when you see routes being added all over the place at other airports. This was once a market that every major US airline wanted to be in and that has changed and for the most part the only different from then to know is the fact that Delta hubs here. YIP is a ghost town because most bulk cargo is trucked in from Chicago and there is a reason for that. It's very odd that there was this great plan for a trade free zone called an Aerotroplis that there are NO international bulk carriers serving Detroit do you ever ask yourself why that is. Sorry but you may be content with being at Delta's mercy for everything that goes on in this market but I'm not and I will continue to post about things that I KNOW are viable but aren't happening for some reason. Everyone here can make excuses that it's Detroit and the region that is hampering growth but that has never stopped the airport from growing or gaining new service and Detroit has been through some hard economic times not just recently and that never hampered growth here as air service always flourished no matter what the economic conditions were in the region. So while you prefer to live in a world of what is I prefer to live in a world of what can be because standing still serves no purpose for me

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Can I ask a stupid question as to why 90% of the posts is this thread are rampant speculation, wish-lists, or pipe dreams about the future versus what is currently happening in the here and now?

It seriously makes we question how much many of you actually use, visit, work, or fly through DTW versus some perverted version of fanboyism.

That and the obsession with commercial service at DET. I doubt many of the people have ever driven to the neighborhood* DET is in versus just looking at Google maps for various driving times from the relevant suburbs.

*for the record, my grandpa is buried in one of the cemeteries that blocks runway expansion at DET. I know the neighborhood well. Didn't want the username to make it seem like I didn't know anything.

My entire family is buried in that very same cemetery. Once again the reopening of that airport would be the catalyst to revitalizing that area. You have to start some where again like I say let the airport define the area don't let the area define the airport.

I think that neighborhood needs more than an airport, plus the cost would be insane and I think the region has a better use of that money.

tys777 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

That and the obsession with commercial service at DET. I doubt many of the people have ever driven to the neighborhood* DET is in versus just looking at Google maps for various driving times from the relevant suburbs.

*for the record, my grandpa is buried in one of the cemeteries that blocks runway expansion at DET. I know the neighborhood well. Didn't want the username to make it seem like I didn't know anything.

My entire family is buried in that very same cemetery. Once again the reopening of that airport would be the catalyst to revitalizing that area. You have to start some where again like I say let the airport define the area don't let the area define the airport.

I think that neighborhood needs more than an airport, plus the cost would be insane and I think the region has a better use of that money.

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

Why not ditch the plan of using DET and make PTK an alternative?

klm617 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Can someone explain why DL doesn't fly DTW-HNL? Is there not enough of a market?

Because they have committed to a MSP-HNL route and if they added DTW-HNL that would negatively impact MSP-HNL. MSP-HNL was sort of a consolation prize when they decided not to bring back MSP-FCO

Actually, DTW-HNL was a financial bloodbath the last time they did it. MSP was much stronger, but still not great. So Delta has reduced the frequency of MSP dramatically. To be clear, MSP has always had a stronger tendency toward Hawai‘i than DTW has. Similar to how Minnesotans travel to Arizona and the Desert Southwest while Michiganders prefer Florida and the Caribbean. It is a lot about geography.

Allocating widebodies from MSP/DTW/JFK to Hawai‘i is something Delta does when they need to reduce capacity from transatlantic/transpacific routes. Since international is performing well at the moment, we are seeing a little less Hawai‘i capacity from those interior hubs at the moment.

The problem for DTW-HNL is the length of haul versus the fares. Not many eastern hubs can provide enough unique premium traffic to support at 10-11 hour flight. DTW can't. CLT couldn't. IAD struggles greatly. HA spent years getting JFK to work. DL struggles from JFK except for basically one week of the year. ATL is the exception because it there are so many DL premium flyers in the Southeast and there is a significant amount of government traffic on the route. The front cabin of ATL-HNL does very well.

Also, the dramatic build up of Hawai‘i service (West Coast, DFW, DEN, ORD, SLC) over the past few years has made it even more challenging for DTW/MSP. There are a lot of options now that weren't available a few years ago.

klm617 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I think Onejet is a great starting point for DET but in the long term think that an Allegiant like operation would be in the best interest of KDET. With all of the sports stadiums and concert venues now located in Detroit KDET is logistically logical of getting performers and teams to and from these venues not to mention it's close proximity to the wealth of this area..

1) Reopening the facility is cost-prohibitive, requires massive fighting against NIMBYs, and illogical when DTW is relatively easy to reach.
2) Performers who use smaller planes (sports teams generally use things no smaller than the A321, which can't land on DET's short runways) can use DET anyway. That's not commercial service.
3) Why would a ULCC like Allegiant be interested in footing the fees it would take to open up this thing, when DTW is there?

Because Delta is the hub carrier at Detroit like a 1000 pound gorilla pretty much nixing anything that is going to happen at DTW. DET provides something different like BKL and LCK and give a carrier a fighting chance at entering DET. But I do agree with one thing the biggest road block is the political pandering by the cities of Warren and Eastpoint that would love to see the airport closed. Could you imagine the time saved if you could fly out of DET for those execs that work Downtown and at the Warren Tech Center.

This isn't the kind of traffic airlines like Allegiant chase. They chase rock-bottom leisure fares that are willing to drive out. That's why they serve SFB over MCO, for example.
Even then, time savings of <1hr are nothing to write home about. Certainly nothing worth the cost of reopening commercial service at DET.

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

My entire family is buried in that very same cemetery. Once again the reopening of that airport would be the catalyst to revitalizing that area. You have to start some where again like I say let the airport define the area don't let the area define the airport.

I think that neighborhood needs more than an airport, plus the cost would be insane and I think the region has a better use of that money.

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

No airline worth the effort is going to go to DET. Metro Detroit already has a more than adequate secondary airport....FNT. As Allegiant continues to expand there, you are going to see it start returning to its role during the AirTran days. I can assure you that Allegiant views FNT as its Southeast Michigan airport.

Metro Detroit has Southwest, Spirit and Frontier at DTW and Allegiant at FNT. There is plenty of capacity at each airport for them to grow. There is literally nothing holding them back EXCEPT the market. None of them have any desire whatsoever to go to DET. Allegiant has looked at this closely and nixed it. Not going to happen. DET's future is as a GA airport, if it has any at all.

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

My entire family is buried in that very same cemetery. Once again the reopening of that airport would be the catalyst to revitalizing that area. You have to start some where again like I say let the airport define the area don't let the area define the airport.

I think that neighborhood needs more than an airport, plus the cost would be insane and I think the region has a better use of that money.

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

I would argue that investing in a true regional mass transportation option would be a better spend of the money when it comes to an economic driver than putting it into city airport.

tys777 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

I think that neighborhood needs more than an airport, plus the cost would be insane and I think the region has a better use of that money.

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

I would argue that investing in a true regional mass transportation option would be a better spend of the money when it comes to an economic driver than putting it into city airport.

The people keep voting no

jetlanta wrote:

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

No airline worth the effort is going to go to DET. Metro Detroit already has a more than adequate secondary airport....FNT. As Allegiant continues to expand there, you are going to see it start returning to its role during the AirTran days. I can assure you that Allegiant views FNT as its Southeast Michigan airport.

Metro Detroit has Southwest, Spirit and Frontier at DTW and Allegiant at FNT. There is plenty of capacity at each airport for them to grow. There is literally nothing holding them back EXCEPT the market. None of them have any desire whatsoever to go to DET. Allegiant has looked at this closely and nixed it. Not going to happen. DET's future is as a GA airport, if it has any at all.

And also Toledo.....Just flew Toledo-Sanford for $53 one way, plus $12.50 for half of a checked bag. Live by Livonia in Oakland County.

tys777 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

I think that neighborhood needs more than an airport, plus the cost would be insane and I think the region has a better use of that money.

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

I would argue that investing in a true regional mass transportation option would be a better spend of the money when it comes to an economic driver than putting it into city airport.

I got news for you I'd love an effective mass transit system but my issue is that the system is so mismanaged now. I can only imagine how many are riding for free because the bus drivers are in fear of their lives if they get into a confrontation with a nonpaying passenger. I depend on public transit and I voted no because the people who are in charge of running it have no accountability to where the money is spent. You got most of the system that can't even stay on a schedule most posted stop times are hit or miss to whether you make your connection or miss it. I used to use the bus to travel 5 miles some days it' took 20 minutes and others it took 40 and I'm not paying extra taxes just to line the pockets of people and not have service accountability standards. Your governor stole you money for the roads promising they would be fixed and this past winter they were worse then they had ever been those kinds of oversights will not happen if there was investment in DET as the cost there would be tightly controlled with little or no waste. There have even been investors that are willing to pump millions into the airport non taxpayer money and they were told no, can you say corruption. Give someone a 40 year lease on the property and let them make the investment to bring it up to commercial speed. There was no problem turning Belle Isle over to the state of Michigan so turn the airport over to somebody and make it viable at no cost to the tax payer.

flymco753 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

I would argue that investing in a true regional mass transportation option would be a better spend of the money when it comes to an economic driver than putting it into city airport.

The people keep voting no

I get that, I'm just saying that it's a better use of funding IMO. Also, if the government wants to get a regional transit completed, they would find a way to fund it outside of a ballot initiative.

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

I would argue that investing in a true regional mass transportation option would be a better spend of the money when it comes to an economic driver than putting it into city airport.

I got news for you I'd love an effective mass transit system but my issue is that the system is so mismanaged now. I can only imagine how many are riding for free because the bus drivers are in fear of their lives if they get into a confrontation with a nonpaying passenger. I depend on public transit and I voted no because the people who are in charge of running it have no accountability to where the money is spent. You got most of the system that can't even stay on a schedule most posted stop times are hit or miss to whether you make your connection or miss it. I used to use the bus to travel 5 miles some days it' took 20 minutes and others it took 40 and I'm not paying extra taxes just to line the pockets of people and not have service accountability standards. Your governor stole you money for the roads promising they would be fixed and this past winter they were worse then they had ever been those kinds of oversights will not happen if there was investment in DET as the cost there would be tightly controlled with little or no waste. There have even been investors that are willing to pump millions into the airport non taxpayer money and they were told no, can you say corruption. Give someone a 40 year lease on the property and let them make the investment to bring it up to commercial speed. There was no problem turning Belle Isle over to the state of Michigan so turn the airport over to somebody and make it viable at no cost to the tax payer.

Detroit knows corruption and shady deals pretty dang well. I have no doubts that there is still levels of corruption in city hall and Lansing.

City Airport as a GA Airport is a viable solution. Especially with the private investment offered. I just don't see the future of commercial service as eagerly as you do, especially with runway limitations.

tys777 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

I would argue that investing in a true regional mass transportation option would be a better spend of the money when it comes to an economic driver than putting it into city airport.

The people keep voting no

I get that, I'm just saying that it's a better use of funding IMO. Also, if the government wants to get a regional transit completed, they would find a way to fund it outside of a ballot initiative.

And I agree 100% with you but I can't vote for something that is just another corporate money grab from the tax payers like the bogus road funding tax we now pay with has netted us nothing but worse roads. There are to many friends in this state that get over priced contracts and deliver an inferior product for the prices they are charging. The great thing about DET is it can easily be reached but the current bus system with little modification. Anyone from the east side that wants to use public transport to get to DTW has plan for a 6 hour transit time and I don't see that changing with regional transit.

jetlanta wrote:

klm617 wrote:

tys777 wrote:

I think that neighborhood needs more than an airport, plus the cost would be insane and I think the region has a better use of that money.

Sorry to disagree with you but it's a well known fact that airports create a lot of revenue. Remember all the money that was dumped into the airport to land Southwest there. The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs. Where in your eyes would the money be better spent ? I don't understand the agenda in this market to make sure that airline service and options do not grow it really bewilders me. Would you be content working for a company that cut you wages by one third and then it gave it back to you in one percent increments every year

No airline worth the effort is going to go to DET. Metro Detroit already has a more than adequate secondary airport....FNT. As Allegiant continues to expand there, you are going to see it start returning to its role during the AirTran days. I can assure you that Allegiant views FNT as its Southeast Michigan airport.

Metro Detroit has Southwest, Spirit and Frontier at DTW and Allegiant at FNT. There is plenty of capacity at each airport for them to grow. There is literally nothing holding them back EXCEPT the market. None of them have any desire whatsoever to go to DET. Allegiant has looked at this closely and nixed it. Not going to happen. DET's future is as a GA airport, if it has any at all.

Thank you for this insight jetatlanta lets hope that proves to be the case as far as FNT goes. Still waiting for FNT-LAS and FNT-MCO those two were AirTran mainstays in the market proving that they were more than viable.

klm617 wrote:

I will continue to post about things that I KNOW are viable but aren't happening for some reason.

And how is it that you KNOW these things are viable? With the mountains of aviation data that you have at your fingertips? That's a serious question - how is it that you know better than the minds of the countless commercial aviation network and city planners?

klm617 wrote:

The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs.

Please provide the facts and figures that you have to back that statement. What is the amount of money that would be needed to bring it up to speed? How does that compare to the cost of not doing so? Looking forward to your specific facts and figures - thanks.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I will continue to post about things that I KNOW are viable but aren't happening for some reason.

And how is it that you KNOW these things are viable? With the mountains of aviation data that you have at your fingertips? That's a serious question - how is it that you know better than the minds of the countless commercial aviation network and city planners?

klm617 wrote:

The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs.

Please provide the facts and figures that you have to back that statement. What is the amount of money that would be needed to bring it up to speed? How does that compare to the cost of not doing so? Looking forward to your specific facts and figures - thanks.

It would take more money to tear the airport down and clean up the land it's siting on than to just make the needed updates and market it to prospective customers.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I will continue to post about things that I KNOW are viable but aren't happening for some reason.

And how is it that you KNOW these things are viable? With the mountains of aviation data that you have at your fingertips? That's a serious question - how is it that you know better than the minds of the countless commercial aviation network and city planners?

klm617 wrote:

The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs.

Please provide the facts and figures that you have to back that statement. What is the amount of money that would be needed to bring it up to speed? How does that compare to the cost of not doing so? Looking forward to your specific facts and figures - thanks.

It would take more money to tear the airport down and clean up the land it's siting on than to just make the needed updates and market it to prospective customers.

I'll ask again - how do you know that? You've made that claim as if it's a fact, so you must have information to back that statement. This thread is proof that you make a habit of stating opinions as facts, so you'll have to excuse us if you don't accept your statement there as fact without proof.

How much money would it cost to tear down the airport and clean up the land? Comparatively, how much money would it cost to make the required updates and market it to prospective customers? Without facts, your statement is an opinion, and should be identified as such.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I will continue to post about things that I KNOW are viable but aren't happening for some reason.

And how is it that you KNOW these things are viable? With the mountains of aviation data that you have at your fingertips? That's a serious question - how is it that you know better than the minds of the countless commercial aviation network and city planners?

klm617 wrote:

The amount of money it would take to bring it up to speed is a misconception the money it cost to not bring it up to speed is greater than the renovation costs.

Please provide the facts and figures that you have to back that statement. What is the amount of money that would be needed to bring it up to speed? How does that compare to the cost of not doing so? Looking forward to your specific facts and figures - thanks.

It would take more money to tear the airport down and clean up the land it's siting on than to just make the needed updates and market it to prospective customers.

I dunno, it's been a while since that terminal has been used. It's going to cost some $$ to bring it up to snuff, and is that parking lot even big enough?

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

And how is it that you KNOW these things are viable? With the mountains of aviation data that you have at your fingertips? That's a serious question - how is it that you know better than the minds of the countless commercial aviation network and city planners?



Please provide the facts and figures that you have to back that statement. What is the amount of money that would be needed to bring it up to speed? How does that compare to the cost of not doing so? Looking forward to your specific facts and figures - thanks.

It would take more money to tear the airport down and clean up the land it's siting on than to just make the needed updates and market it to prospective customers.

I'll ask again - how do you know that? You've made that claim as if it's a fact, so you must have information to back that statement. This thread is proof that you make a habit of stating opinions as facts, so you'll have to excuse us if you don't accept your statement there as fact without proof.

How much money would it cost to tear down the airport and clean up the land? Comparatively, how much money would it cost to make the required updates and market it to prospective customers? Without facts, your statement is an opinion, and should be identified as such.

Until you have facts to the contrary my points are just as valid as yours. Yours is just an opinion also why are you so dead set against growing this market or offering positive suggestions on how to bring more options into this market and please don't come up with the statement Detroit is already antiquely served because that's just not true if people are driving to other airports to get better options.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

It would take more money to tear the airport down and clean up the land it's siting on than to just make the needed updates and market it to prospective customers.

I'll ask again - how do you know that? You've made that claim as if it's a fact, so you must have information to back that statement. This thread is proof that you make a habit of stating opinions as facts, so you'll have to excuse us if you don't accept your statement there as fact without proof.

How much money would it cost to tear down the airport and clean up the land? Comparatively, how much money would it cost to make the required updates and market it to prospective customers? Without facts, your statement is an opinion, and should be identified as such.

Until you have facts to the contrary my points are just as valid as yours. Yours is just an opinion also why are you so dead set against growing this market or offering positive suggestions on how to bring more options into this market and please don't come up with the statement Detroit is already antiquely served because that's just not true if people are driving to other airports to get better options.

Excuse me? Where did I say that you were incorrect? I did not make a counter-claim of any kind, but instead simply asked you to provide facts that support your claim that "it would take more money to tear the airport down and clean up the land it's sitting on that to just make the needed updates and market it to prospective customers". Until you provide those supporting facts, what you've stated is an opinion, and an uniformed one at that. It's speculation, and should be identified as such instead of being stated as though it's a fact.

So I'll ask again, how much money would it cost to tear down the airport and clean up the land? Comparatively, how much money would it cost to make the required updates and market it to prospective customers?

If you don't know either of those answers, please say so and confirm that your previous claim was speculative. I'll wait.

klm617 wrote:

why are you so dead set against growing this market or offering positive suggestions on how to bring more options into this market

I have not once stated or implied that I am in any way against growing the Detroit market. What I have done is refuted, with facts, many of the ridiculous claims that you make in this thread and on these forums.

klm617 wrote:

and please don't come up with the statement Detroit is already antiquely served because that's just not true if people are driving to other airports to get better options.

So if people are driving to other airports to get better options an airport isn't adequately served? By that logic LAX isn't adequately served.

Here's a question for you - what does adequate service at DTW or at a combination of DTW and a secondary airport look like? Using specific metrics would be helpful (daily flights, number of destinations, etc.)

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

I'll ask again - how do you know that? You've made that claim as if it's a fact, so you must have information to back that statement. This thread is proof that you make a habit of stating opinions as facts, so you'll have to excuse us if you don't accept your statement there as fact without proof.

How much money would it cost to tear down the airport and clean up the land? Comparatively, how much money would it cost to make the required updates and market it to prospective customers? Without facts, your statement is an opinion, and should be identified as such.

Until you have facts to the contrary my points are just as valid as yours. Yours is just an opinion also why are you so dead set against growing this market or offering positive suggestions on how to bring more options into this market and please don't come up with the statement Detroit is already antiquely served because that's just not true if people are driving to other airports to get better options.

Excuse me? Where did I say that you were incorrect? I did not make a counter-claim of any kind, but instead simply asked you to provide facts that support your claim that "it would take more money to tear the airport down and clean up the land it's sitting on that to just make the needed updates and market it to prospective customers". Until you provide those supporting facts, what you've stated is an opinion, and an uniformed one at that. It's speculation, and should be identified as such instead of being stated as though it's a fact.

So I'll ask again, how much money would it cost to tear down the airport and clean up the land? Comparatively, how much money would it cost to make the required updates and market it to prospective customers?

If you don't know either of those answers, please say so and confirm that your previous claim was speculative. I'll wait.

klm617 wrote:

why are you so dead set against growing this market or offering positive suggestions on how to bring more options into this market

I have not once stated or implied that I am in any way against growing the Detroit market. What I have done is refuted, with facts, many of the ridiculous claims that you make in this thread and on these forums.

klm617 wrote:

and please don't come up with the statement Detroit is already antiquely served because that's just not true if people are driving to other airports to get better options.

So if people are driving to other airports to get better options an airport isn't adequately served? By that logic LAX isn't adequately served.

Here's a question for you - what does adequate service at DTW or at a combination of DTW and a secondary airport look like? Using specific metrics would be helpful (daily flights, number of destinations, etc.)

My opinion was speculative yes. As a hub airport for a major carrier DTW should have the service needed to provide for the needs of the travelers of this region. Detroit was always a front runner when it came to new service with that being said this market should be growing at the same rate as other airports serving the same population base. While we now have WOW in this market lets see how that plays out and if they are reliable enough to take hold in this market FI would have been better for the airport just like getting EI service would be better than DY. A market of this size should have had one of the ME3 serving it especially with the amount of Indian and Bangladeshi people that live in the area. Perhaps Detroit is run down but the people that used Detroit as their airport of choice has not changed Detroit has been they way it is for decades and that never stopped growth at the airport. What has stopped growth started when Northwest made Detroit it's hub but the difference between now and then is Northwest kept DTW on a path of decent growth every year something Delta is not committed to at Detroit out of all the hubs and focus cities it's the last to see any additional flights even CVG is now seeing growth. Detroit is the only hub without a single domestic widebody flight. The airport needs to grow to stay viable again I ask the state is one of the largest manufacturing bases in the region and there is not one single dedicated bulk cargo carrier that serves Detroit. YIP used to be a major cargo hub why is that airport not being marketed to perspective airfreight airlines as a great place to base a cargo hub they is ample space there for such an operation but yet nothing ever gets off the group because there is such a lack of vision when it comes to commercial aviation in the Detroit market.

Detroit is the only major market in the USA that is seeing little to no growth while the economy is growing by leaps and bounds in Southeastern Michigan. So why is service growing at every other airport in the country but not Detroit. Again I go back to the huge reduction in Asia capacity out of Detroit with the retirement of the 747 but rather than add that capacity back they moved it to Atlanta. Now both SEA and ATL have double the capacity that Detroit has to ICN KE could have easily added a 3 weekly A330 to make up for that loss that seemed to work for 10 years prior.

klm617 wrote:

Detroit is the only major market in the USA that is seeing little to no growth while the economy is growing by leaps and bounds in Southeastern Michigan. So why is service growing at every other airport in the country but not Detroit. Again I go back to the huge reduction in Asia capacity out of Detroit with the retirement of the 747 but rather than add that capacity back they moved it to Atlanta. Now both SEA and ATL have double the capacity that Detroit has to ICN KE could have easily added a 3 weekly A330 to make up for that loss that seemed to work for 10 years prior.

Please cite numbers to prove that DTW is shrinking. What you posted is anecdotal.

Meanwhile....
Regarding the 777 mod, it appears that DL loaded the first modified 777 into the schedule starting in July, to be used on DTW-PEK on alternating days with an A350.

The internal code for the seat map that shows is D7L and it shows the following layout:
28 Suites (1-2-1), 48 Premium Select (2-4-2), 220 Economy (3-3-3).

No idea now to post the picture of the seat-map, but you can search a DTW-PEK flight and find it starting in July.

Some Data......
Full year 2017 Load Factors from USDOT T100
Outbound from DTW
DEST Load Factor

SNA … 92.2%
LAX … 91.3%
SLC … 90.8%
SJU … 90.3%
SEA … 89.7%
PHX … 89.6%
DEN … 89.5%
SRQ … 89.5%
LAS … 89.3%
DAL … 89.1%
AVP … 88.8%
MCO … 88.4%
SAN … 87.3%
OAK … 87.1%
PWM … 86.9%
SWF … 86.4%
PBI … 86.2%
GSP … 86.2%
BOS … 86.1%
BTV … 86.0%
HPN … 85.7%
ATL … 85.5%
JAX … 84.5%
MHT … 84.2%
DSM … 84.2%
TPA … 83.9%
IAH … 83.9%
SAT … 83.8%
JFK … 83.3%
BDL … 83.2%
FLL … 83.2%
DFW … 83.2%
RSW … 83.1%
MSP … 83.0%
MYR … 82.6%
TTN … 82.6%
AUS … 82.5%
SFO … 82.4%
PVD … 82.3%
GSO … 81.8%
MKE … 81.8%
RIC … 81.8%
LGA … 81.6%
BNA … 81.3%
CHS … 81.3%
MCI … 81.3%
ALB … 80.9%
MDT … 80.7%
CVG … 80.5%
MSY … 80.4%
DCA … 80.2%
PDX … 79.9%
CLE … 79.9%
TVC … 79.8%
EWR … 79.6%
ERI … 79.4%
OMA … 79.3%
CWA … 79.2%
RDU … 79.2%
MIA … 79.2%
STL … 78.9%
MSN … 78.9%
ROC … 78.8%
SCE … 78.8%
SAV … 78.7%
GRB … 78.5%
ORF … 78.5%
OKC … 78.5%
PHL … 78.5%
MQT … 77.9%
SBN … 77.8%
GRR … 77.6%
SYR … 76.9%
IAD … 76.7%
BWI … 76.3%
ORD … 76.0%
CID … 75.9%
TYS … 75.9%
TUL … 75.6%
BHM … 75.6%
HSV … 75.4%
CLT … 74.9%
DAY … 74.7%
CMH … 74.6%
CHA … 74.6%
PIT … 74.4%
IND … 74.2%
BGM … 74.1%
SDF … 73.7%
LIT … 73.7%
MEM … 73.6%
ABE … 73.0%
ITH … 72.7%
FWA … 72.4%
BUF … 72.0%
MBS … 71.8%
ATW … 71.5%
ELM … 70.9%
MLI … 70.1%
AZO … 69.5%
EVV … 69.4%
MDW … 69.1%
LAN … 69.0%
PLN … 68.8%
LEX … 68.8%
CAK … 67.3%
CIU … 67.1%
PIA … 58.2%
ESC … 52.0%
IMT … 51.7%
APN … 41.9%
Total … 81.4%
Longer haul flights such as the west coast and Florida do well, shorter haul markets not so much (but IMT/ESC being EAS markets, are to be expected to be worse).
(Note: These are outbound statistics for domestic segments only)
LAX, DEN, SRQ, SJU, and LAS look like they could take more capacity (on a load basis at least) while it's easy to see why DL upgauged DTW-SNA to a 757.

SumChristianus wrote:

Some Data......
Full year 2017 Load Factors from USDOT T100
Outbound from DTW
DEST Load Factor

PDX … 79.9%

Huh... is PDX really that low...? I guess this explains Alaska's struggle to keep this route year-round. All in all, 79.9% isn't all that bad, but Delta is obviously taking the larger share of these passengers, so Delta's LF is probably around 89%, while Alaska's is probably around 69%...

SumChristianus wrote:

Some Data......

Longer haul flights such as the west coast and Florida do well, shorter haul markets not so much (but IMT/ESC being EAS markets, are to be expected to be worse).
(Note: These are outbound statistics for domestic segments only)
LAX, DEN, SRQ, SJU, and LAS look like they could take more capacity (on a load basis at least) while it's easy to see why DL upgauged DTW-SNA to a 757.

Regarding the short-haul markets, some of them have almost zero local traffic and are entirely connecting traffic to feed the network, and its typically common to have lower load factors and hence higher fares for traffic in/out of the market (LAN, AZO, MBS). Plus the EAS markets like IMT, ESC, APN, CIU and some of the PLN flights).

On the flip side, you have short flights that do have local traffic that command very high fares- like LEX, PIA, EVV where its not uncommon to see for fares midweek travel that would equate to RASM of $0.75-$1.00.

klm617 wrote:

Detroit is the only major market in the USA that is seeing little to no growth while the economy is growing by leaps and bounds in Southeastern Michigan.

Define that please with supporting facts and a time period or, once again, identify your claim as speculative. Additionally, please define whether by growth you're referring to seats, departures, ASMs, or some other metric.

Without any of the above your claim is, again, speculative and without backing.

SumChristianus wrote:

Some Data......
Full year 2017 Load Factors from USDOT T100
Outbound from DTW
DEST Load Factor

SNA … 92.2%
LAX … 91.3%
SLC … 90.8%
SJU … 90.3%
SEA … 89.7%
PHX … 89.6%
DEN … 89.5%
SRQ … 89.5%
LAS … 89.3%
DAL … 89.1%
AVP … 88.8%
MCO … 88.4%
SAN … 87.3%
OAK … 87.1%
PWM … 86.9%
SWF … 86.4%
PBI … 86.2%
GSP … 86.2%
BOS … 86.1%
BTV … 86.0%
HPN … 85.7%
ATL … 85.5%
JAX … 84.5%
MHT … 84.2%
DSM … 84.2%
TPA … 83.9%
IAH … 83.9%
SAT … 83.8%
JFK … 83.3%
BDL … 83.2%
FLL … 83.2%
DFW … 83.2%
RSW … 83.1%
MSP … 83.0%
MYR … 82.6%
TTN … 82.6%
AUS … 82.5%
SFO … 82.4%
PVD … 82.3%
GSO … 81.8%
MKE … 81.8%
RIC … 81.8%
LGA … 81.6%
BNA … 81.3%
CHS … 81.3%
MCI … 81.3%
ALB … 80.9%
MDT … 80.7%
CVG … 80.5%
MSY … 80.4%
DCA … 80.2%
PDX … 79.9%
CLE … 79.9%
TVC … 79.8%
EWR … 79.6%
ERI … 79.4%
OMA … 79.3%
CWA … 79.2%
RDU … 79.2%
MIA … 79.2%
STL … 78.9%
MSN … 78.9%
ROC … 78.8%
SCE … 78.8%
SAV … 78.7%
GRB … 78.5%
ORF … 78.5%
OKC … 78.5%
PHL … 78.5%
MQT … 77.9%
SBN … 77.8%
GRR … 77.6%
SYR … 76.9%
IAD … 76.7%
BWI … 76.3%
ORD … 76.0%
CID … 75.9%
TYS … 75.9%
TUL … 75.6%
BHM … 75.6%
HSV … 75.4%
CLT … 74.9%
DAY … 74.7%
CMH … 74.6%
CHA … 74.6%
PIT … 74.4%
IND … 74.2%
BGM … 74.1%
SDF … 73.7%
LIT … 73.7%
MEM … 73.6%
ABE … 73.0%
ITH … 72.7%
FWA … 72.4%
BUF … 72.0%
MBS … 71.8%
ATW … 71.5%
ELM … 70.9%
MLI … 70.1%
AZO … 69.5%
EVV … 69.4%
MDW … 69.1%
LAN … 69.0%
PLN … 68.8%
LEX … 68.8%
CAK … 67.3%
CIU … 67.1%
PIA … 58.2%
ESC … 52.0%
IMT … 51.7%
APN … 41.9%
Total … 81.4%
Longer haul flights such as the west coast and Florida do well, shorter haul markets not so much (but IMT/ESC being EAS markets, are to be expected to be worse).
(Note: These are outbound statistics for domestic segments only)
LAX, DEN, SRQ, SJU, and LAS look like they could take more capacity (on a load basis at least) while it's easy to see why DL upgauged DTW-SNA to a 757.

Interesting you brought up SJU and SRQ. Some of my observations show that Delta got rid of the DTW flight which was planned for the weekend next winter on the 757. They took that away and put an 8th Saturday MCO flight in. Delta figures they can capture the traffic via Atlanta for both SJU and SRQ, they both command high fares and high LF’s. I see this being the end of SRQ for that similar reason. The reason DL keeps PUJ, NAS, MBJ, GCM, CZM and what not is because they sell vacation deals on Delta vacations which a lot of folks utilize in Detroit. Plus, MBJ and PUJ are the two largest Caribbean markets from DTW, there’s no way DL can escape that.

All in all, expect SJU, SRQ, and LIT to be the best 3 routes on the chopping block.

DL isn't getting rid of weekend-only seasonal DTW-SRQ. No way.
Its loaded for next winter on Saturdays, varying between a 717 or A320 depending on the week.
Its a popular leisure, second-home/vacaion property area, and snowbird retreat for people in the Midwest that love the gulf side of Florida.
Its flown on Saturdays using using fleet-slack on the weekend and it also commands a fare premium over TPA or MCO.

DTW-SJU, well that is much more about what is going on in SJU and their issues there as well as the fact that its prominence as a vacation destination is declining exponentially.

DTW-LIT has been an on-again, off-again route over the years since it fits into the long & thin category and overflies other hubs. Its been cut at least once before.

FA9295 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

Some Data......
Full year 2017 Load Factors from USDOT T100
Outbound from DTW
DEST Load Factor

PDX … 79.9%

Huh... is PDX really that low...? I guess this explains Alaska's struggle to keep this route year-round. All in all, 79.9% isn't all that bad, but Delta is obviously taking the larger share of these passengers, so Delta's LF is probably around 89%, while Alaska's is probably around 69%...

Probably a combination of Dl's 2x daily reatliation to a relatively weak-performing AS flight and the AS flight itself.

It will probably be higher this year with DL/NK.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

DL isn't getting rid of weekend-only seasonal DTW-SRQ. No way.
Its loaded for next winter on Saturdays, varying between a 717 or A320 depending on the week.
Its a popular leisure, second-home/vacaion property area, and snowbird retreat for people in the Midwest that love the gulf side of Florida.
Its flown on Saturdays using using fleet-slack on the weekend and it also commands a fare premium over TPA or MCO.

DTW-SJU, well that is much more about what is going on in SJU and their issues there as well as the fact that its prominence as a vacation destination is declining exponentially.

DTW-LIT has been an on-again, off-again route over the years since it fits into the long & thin category and overflies other hubs. Its been cut at least once before.

LIT has been an eyesore for a while, the market simply isn't there. Little Rock isn't the kind of place where I would want to go visit to be completely honest. I still think SRQ is on the way out because it seems like Delta's strategy with southern seasonal routes is to cut them and send them through Atlanta with NYC being the only exception. I feel like Allegiant is very close to flying into DTW for a few reasons, because they know they can capture VPS, SRQ and JAX traffic. If they are successful with PIT, IND, CVG-SRQ then it would be potential for DTW. G4 could capture more and maximize potential from DTW to these markets as opposed to TOL or FNT. I don't expect G4 to add the typical LAS, PIE, PGD, FLL markets. SFB would be the only one because it could draw traffic from areas north of the city, particularly Daytona Beach, a route DL obviously won't add. I still see SFB a far opportunity because NK and F9 have a choke hold on the ULCC market. You're probably right about SJU, and seeing the recent activity happening in the streets of San Juan makes it worse. I just wonder why they would keep going from MSP-SJU.

flymco753 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

DL isn't getting rid of weekend-only seasonal DTW-SRQ. No way.
Its loaded for next winter on Saturdays, varying between a 717 or A320 depending on the week.
Its a popular leisure, second-home/vacaion property area, and snowbird retreat for people in the Midwest that love the gulf side of Florida.
Its flown on Saturdays using using fleet-slack on the weekend and it also commands a fare premium over TPA or MCO.

DTW-SJU, well that is much more about what is going on in SJU and their issues there as well as the fact that its prominence as a vacation destination is declining exponentially.

DTW-LIT has been an on-again, off-again route over the years since it fits into the long & thin category and overflies other hubs. Its been cut at least once before.

LIT has been an eyesore for a while, the market simply isn't there. Little Rock isn't the kind of place where I would want to go visit to be completely honest. I still think SRQ is on the way out because it seems like Delta's strategy with southern seasonal routes is to cut them and send them through Atlanta with NYC being the only exception. I feel like Allegiant is very close to flying into DTW for a few reasons, because they know they can capture VPS, SRQ and JAX traffic. If they are successful with PIT, IND, CVG-SRQ then it would be potential for DTW. G4 could capture more and maximize potential from DTW to these markets as opposed to TOL or FNT. I don't expect G4 to add the typical LAS, PIE, PGD, FLL markets. SFB would be the only one because it could draw traffic from areas north of the city, particularly Daytona Beach, a route DL obviously won't add. I still see SFB a far opportunity because NK and F9 have a choke hold on the ULCC market. You're probably right about SJU, and seeing the recent activity happening in the streets of San Juan makes it worse. I just wonder why they would keep going from MSP-SJU.

There's a good reason for Delta to not serve as many Florida and Deep South destinations from its Midwest hubs. DTW and MSP are too far north for Coasts-Florida flows, whereas ATL is well-positioned to take pax from everywhere to Florida. So the routes DL is flying from DTW to Florida must be justified on O&D.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

DL isn't getting rid of weekend-only seasonal DTW-SRQ. No way.
Its loaded for next winter on Saturdays, varying between a 717 or A320 depending on the week.
Its a popular leisure, second-home/vacaion property area, and snowbird retreat for people in the Midwest that love the gulf side of Florida.
Its flown on Saturdays using using fleet-slack on the weekend and it also commands a fare premium over TPA or MCO.

DTW-SJU, well that is much more about what is going on in SJU and their issues there as well as the fact that its prominence as a vacation destination is declining exponentially.

DTW-LIT has been an on-again, off-again route over the years since it fits into the long & thin category and overflies other hubs. Its been cut at least once before.

LIT has been an eyesore for a while, the market simply isn't there. Little Rock isn't the kind of place where I would want to go visit to be completely honest. I still think SRQ is on the way out because it seems like Delta's strategy with southern seasonal routes is to cut them and send them through Atlanta with NYC being the only exception. I feel like Allegiant is very close to flying into DTW for a few reasons, because they know they can capture VPS, SRQ and JAX traffic. If they are successful with PIT, IND, CVG-SRQ then it would be potential for DTW. G4 could capture more and maximize potential from DTW to these markets as opposed to TOL or FNT. I don't expect G4 to add the typical LAS, PIE, PGD, FLL markets. SFB would be the only one because it could draw traffic from areas north of the city, particularly Daytona Beach, a route DL obviously won't add. I still see SFB a far opportunity because NK and F9 have a choke hold on the ULCC market. You're probably right about SJU, and seeing the recent activity happening in the streets of San Juan makes it worse. I just wonder why they would keep going from MSP-SJU.

There's a good reason for Delta to not serve as many Florida and Deep South destinations from its Midwest hubs. DTW and MSP are too far north for Coasts-Florida flows, whereas ATL is well-positioned to take pax from everywhere to Florida. So the routes DL is flying from DTW to Florida must be justified on O&D.

The highest SRQ peaks is Q1 at 125 PDEW. The weekend flight is bogus, it should be daily in Q1.

flymco753 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

LIT has been an eyesore for a while, the market simply isn't there. Little Rock isn't the kind of place where I would want to go visit to be completely honest. I still think SRQ is on the way out because it seems like Delta's strategy with southern seasonal routes is to cut them and send them through Atlanta with NYC being the only exception. I feel like Allegiant is very close to flying into DTW for a few reasons, because they know they can capture VPS, SRQ and JAX traffic. If they are successful with PIT, IND, CVG-SRQ then it would be potential for DTW. G4 could capture more and maximize potential from DTW to these markets as opposed to TOL or FNT. I don't expect G4 to add the typical LAS, PIE, PGD, FLL markets. SFB would be the only one because it could draw traffic from areas north of the city, particularly Daytona Beach, a route DL obviously won't add. I still see SFB a far opportunity because NK and F9 have a choke hold on the ULCC market. You're probably right about SJU, and seeing the recent activity happening in the streets of San Juan makes it worse. I just wonder why they would keep going from MSP-SJU.

There's a good reason for Delta to not serve as many Florida and Deep South destinations from its Midwest hubs. DTW and MSP are too far north for Coasts-Florida flows, whereas ATL is well-positioned to take pax from everywhere to Florida. So the routes DL is flying from DTW to Florida must be justified on O&D.

The highest SRQ peaks is Q1 at 125 PDEW. The weekend flight is bogus, it should be daily in Q1.

Do you seriously think they're equally distributed across the week?

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

There's a good reason for Delta to not serve as many Florida and Deep South destinations from its Midwest hubs. DTW and MSP are too far north for Coasts-Florida flows, whereas ATL is well-positioned to take pax from everywhere to Florida. So the routes DL is flying from DTW to Florida must be justified on O&D.

The highest SRQ peaks is Q1 at 125 PDEW. The weekend flight is bogus, it should be daily in Q1.

Do you seriously think they're equally distributed across the week?

....probably not.

FA9295 wrote:

Huh... is PDX really that low...? I guess this explains Alaska's struggle to keep this route year-round. All in all, 79.9% isn't all that bad, but Delta is obviously taking the larger share of these passengers, so Delta's LF is probably around 89%, while Alaska's is probably around 69%...

I didn’t look at the splits, but pointing out that you have to take into consideration DL operated one flight in the market, departing DTW in the evening and returning overnight. I wouldn’t expect this type of schedule to have a 90% LF.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

DL isn't getting rid of weekend-only seasonal DTW-SRQ. No way.
Its loaded for next winter on Saturdays, varying between a 717 or A320 depending on the week.
Its a popular leisure, second-home/vacaion property area, and snowbird retreat for people in the Midwest that love the gulf side of Florida.
Its flown on Saturdays using using fleet-slack on the weekend and it also commands a fare premium over TPA or MCO.

DTW-SJU, well that is much more about what is going on in SJU and their issues there as well as the fact that its prominence as a vacation destination is declining exponentially.

DTW-LIT has been an on-again, off-again route over the years since it fits into the long & thin category and overflies other hubs. Its been cut at least once before.

LIT has been an eyesore for a while, the market simply isn't there. Little Rock isn't the kind of place where I would want to go visit to be completely honest. I still think SRQ is on the way out because it seems like Delta's strategy with southern seasonal routes is to cut them and send them through Atlanta with NYC being the only exception. I feel like Allegiant is very close to flying into DTW for a few reasons, because they know they can capture VPS, SRQ and JAX traffic. If they are successful with PIT, IND, CVG-SRQ then it would be potential for DTW. G4 could capture more and maximize potential from DTW to these markets as opposed to TOL or FNT. I don't expect G4 to add the typical LAS, PIE, PGD, FLL markets. SFB would be the only one because it could draw traffic from areas north of the city, particularly Daytona Beach, a route DL obviously won't add. I still see SFB a far opportunity because NK and F9 have a choke hold on the ULCC market. You're probably right about SJU, and seeing the recent activity happening in the streets of San Juan makes it worse. I just wonder why they would keep going from MSP-SJU.

There's a good reason for Delta to not serve as many Florida and Deep South destinations from its Midwest hubs. DTW and MSP are too far north for Coasts-Florida flows, whereas ATL is well-positioned to take pax from everywhere to Florida. So the routes DL is flying from DTW to Florida must be justified on O&D.

And that makes complete sense except the reverse is not true for ATL. Passengers are routed from the upper Midwest through ATL on many out of the way routings. With that rule of thumb ATL should not be liked places like ATW, MSN and the like but yet they still are.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

DL isn't getting rid of weekend-only seasonal DTW-SRQ. No way.
Its loaded for next winter on Saturdays, varying between a 717 or A320 depending on the week.
Its a popular leisure, second-home/vacaion property area, and snowbird retreat for people in the Midwest that love the gulf side of Florida.
Its flown on Saturdays using using fleet-slack on the weekend and it also commands a fare premium over TPA or MCO.

DTW-SJU, well that is much more about what is going on in SJU and their issues there as well as the fact that its prominence as a vacation destination is declining exponentially.

DTW-LIT has been an on-again, off-again route over the years since it fits into the long & thin category and overflies other hubs. Its been cut at least once before.

Flying LIT-DTW does not over fly other hubs and provides better timely connections to all of the northeast. Mist routings over ATL from LIT are out of the way.

SumChristianus wrote:

Some Data......
Full year 2017 Load Factors from USDOT T100
Outbound from DTW
DEST Load Factor

SNA … 92.2%
LAX … 91.3%
SLC … 90.8%
SJU … 90.3%
SEA … 89.7%
PHX … 89.6%
DEN … 89.5%
SRQ … 89.5%
LAS … 89.3%
DAL … 89.1%
AVP … 88.8%
MCO … 88.4%
SAN … 87.3%
OAK … 87.1%
PWM … 86.9%
SWF … 86.4%
PBI … 86.2%
GSP … 86.2%
BOS … 86.1%
BTV … 86.0%
HPN … 85.7%
ATL … 85.5%
JAX … 84.5%
MHT … 84.2%
DSM … 84.2%
TPA … 83.9%
IAH … 83.9%
SAT … 83.8%
JFK … 83.3%
BDL … 83.2%
FLL … 83.2%
DFW … 83.2%
RSW … 83.1%
MSP … 83.0%
MYR … 82.6%
TTN … 82.6%
AUS … 82.5%
SFO … 82.4%
PVD … 82.3%
GSO … 81.8%
MKE … 81.8%
RIC … 81.8%
LGA … 81.6%
BNA … 81.3%
CHS … 81.3%
MCI … 81.3%
ALB … 80.9%
MDT … 80.7%
CVG … 80.5%
MSY … 80.4%
DCA … 80.2%
PDX … 79.9%
CLE … 79.9%
TVC … 79.8%
EWR … 79.6%
ERI … 79.4%
OMA … 79.3%
CWA … 79.2%
RDU … 79.2%
MIA … 79.2%
STL … 78.9%
MSN … 78.9%
ROC … 78.8%
SCE … 78.8%
SAV … 78.7%
GRB … 78.5%
ORF … 78.5%
OKC … 78.5%
PHL … 78.5%
MQT … 77.9%
SBN … 77.8%
GRR … 77.6%
SYR … 76.9%
IAD … 76.7%
BWI … 76.3%
ORD … 76.0%
CID … 75.9%
TYS … 75.9%
TUL … 75.6%
BHM … 75.6%
HSV … 75.4%
CLT … 74.9%
DAY … 74.7%
CMH … 74.6%
CHA … 74.6%
PIT … 74.4%
IND … 74.2%
BGM … 74.1%
SDF … 73.7%
LIT … 73.7%
MEM … 73.6%
ABE … 73.0%
ITH … 72.7%
FWA … 72.4%
BUF … 72.0%
MBS … 71.8%
ATW … 71.5%
ELM … 70.9%
MLI … 70.1%
AZO … 69.5%
EVV … 69.4%
MDW … 69.1%
LAN … 69.0%
PLN … 68.8%
LEX … 68.8%
CAK … 67.3%
CIU … 67.1%
PIA … 58.2%
ESC … 52.0%
IMT … 51.7%
APN … 41.9%
Total … 81.4%
Longer haul flights such as the west coast and Florida do well, shorter haul markets not so much (but IMT/ESC being EAS markets, are to be expected to be worse).
(Note: These are outbound statistics for domestic segments only)
LAX, DEN, SRQ, SJU, and LAS look like they could take more capacity (on a load basis at least) while it's easy to see why DL upgauged DTW-SNA to a 757.

Very interesting that some of the highest LF routes are relegated to RJ routes or once a day like PBI, GSP, BTV and AVP

There's no local or corporate market for LIT, it LITerally makes no sense to fly there from the Midwest unless it's ORD.

flymco753 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

The highest SRQ peaks is Q1 at 125 PDEW. The weekend flight is bogus, it should be daily in Q1.

Do you seriously think they're equally distributed across the week?

....probably not.

And that's why it's a weekend flight.

SumChristianus wrote:

Some Data......
Full year 2017 Load Factors from USDOT T100
Outbound from DTW
DEST Load Factor

MQT … 77.9%

MQT being that high is really interesting to me. I was fully expecting it to be closer to the bottom of the list. I'm holding out hope that the good load factor means we might eventually get E-Jets in the future, or at least CRJs larger than the -200. Of course, multiple factors play into this but it's nice to see that it might not be a total pipe dream.