Detroit air service discussion - 2018

klm617 · Wed May 16, 2018 10:49 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
You're assuming Delta wants to expand capacity on DTW-LHR.
Delta, on the other hand, thinks DTW-AMS (connecting its hub to a partner hub with enormous feed throughout Europe) is a better choice.
Past records of service show that DTW-AMS is consistently a bigger route for Delta, so they can't be faulted for upgauging there.

But they already have the DTW-AMS route locked up and from what everyone says here they can't seem to work DTW-LHR so why not put their best product on the route to attract new customers and see what happens

Why add more seats when you can't fill the ones you already have?
klm617 wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Load factors on DL DTW-LHR are pretty mediocre as they are, I know the data has been posted here but they are pretty lackluster, and range from ~60% in winter to mid-80% in peak summer. They don't need more capacity on DTW-AMS runs at consistently higher load factors and can absorb a lot of incremental capacity, particularly during peak summer.

So here is my question if DTW-LHR has so many empty seats why are so many GRR passengers routed over ATL when there are plenty of empty seats on the DTW-LHR route.

Are they routing so many GRR passengers to London via ATL? Are there that many GRR-LHR pax to begin with? Do you have any facts on your side at all?

Buy running your latest and greatest product out there and running it up the flagpole. LHR is a major VS/DL station so why not put your best out there to attract more customers. The consensus on here is that they are running a lot of GRR connections over ATL rather than DTW if Detroit is going out less than full why are the folks from GRR flying to ATL to get to LHR rather than Detroit.

2Holer4Longhaul · Wed May 16, 2018 11:19 pm

klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:

But they already have the DTW-AMS route locked up and from what everyone says here they can't seem to work DTW-LHR so why not put their best product on the route to attract new customers and see what happens

Why add more seats when you can't fill the ones you already have?
klm617 wrote:

So here is my question if DTW-LHR has so many empty seats why are so many GRR passengers routed over ATL when there are plenty of empty seats on the DTW-LHR route.

Are they routing so many GRR passengers to London via ATL? Are there that many GRR-LHR pax to begin with? Do you have any facts on your side at all?

Buy running your latest and greatest product out there and running it up the flagpole. LHR is a major VS/DL station so why not put your best out there to attract more customers. The consensus on here is that they are running a lot of GRR connections over ATL rather than DTW if Detroit is going out less than full why are the folks from GRR flying to ATL to get to LHR rather than Detroit.

1. Clearly LHR isn't such a major station ex-DTW if they can't fill the flights they have. Better use the flagship product on key markets.
2. There is no consensus about this that I see. There's you making unsubstantiated claims. Please either bring out evidence or keep mum.

gnakra80 · Wed May 16, 2018 11:26 pm

How do you know this?

(first time poster, but i had to question where KLM gets all this doomsday information)

klm617 wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
You're assuming Delta wants to expand capacity on DTW-LHR.
Delta, on the other hand, thinks DTW-AMS (connecting its hub to a partner hub with enormous feed throughout Europe) is a better choice.
Past records of service show that DTW-AMS is consistently a bigger route for Delta, so they can't be faulted for upgauging there.

Load factors on DL DTW-LHR are pretty mediocre as they are, I know the data has been posted here but they are pretty lackluster, and range from ~60% in winter to mid-80% in peak summer. They don't need more capacity on DTW-AMS runs at consistently higher load factors and can absorb a lot of incremental capacity, particularly during peak summer.

So here is my question if DTW-LHR has so many empty seats why are so many GRR passengers routed over ATL when there are plenty of empty seats on the DTW-LHR route.

winginit · Wed May 16, 2018 11:36 pm

klm617 wrote:
So here is my question if DTW-LHR has so many empty seats why are so many GRR passengers routed over ATL when there are plenty of empty seats on the DTW-LHR route.

Please reference your data that supports your claim that 'so many GRR passengers' are being routed over ATL. A comparison of those figures versus those being routed over DTW would be helpful as well. MIDT should do the trick.

klm617 wrote:
But they already have the DTW-AMS route locked up and from what everyone says here they can't seem to work DTW-LHR so why not put their best product on the route to attract new customers and see what happens

Because increasing capacity is not how you bolster a struggling load factor even with a new product. Commercial Aviation 101

klm617 wrote:
The consensus on here is that they are running a lot of GRR connections over ATL rather than DTW

That's the consensus according to who? You? Per forum rules, please bring to light the data that backs your claim that substantial volumes of passengers travelling between GRR and LHR are being flown over ATL as opposed to DTW or mark your claim as baseless speculation.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
1. Clearly LHR isn't such a major station ex-DTW if they can't fill the flights they have. Better use the flagship product on key markets.
2. There is no consensus about this that I see. There's you making unsubstantiated claims. Please either bring out evidence or keep mum.

MastaHanky · Thu May 17, 2018 12:29 am

klm617 wrote:
Buy running your latest and greatest product out there and running it up the flagpole. LHR is a major VS/DL station so why not put your best out there to attract more customers. The consensus on here is that they are running a lot of GRR connections over ATL rather than DTW if Detroit is going out less than full why are the folks from GRR flying to ATL to get to LHR rather than Detroit.

Who are these customers that are magically going to appear if Delta puts their best product on DTW-LHR? Are there thousands of people saying, "I'd sure love to fly to London, but the current lie-flat business class seat in the 763 isn't good enough for me?"

BTW, DL runs about 30% more international connections from GRR over Detroit than it does Atlanta - not that the <20 people a day who fly GRR-LHR will impact that much.

winginit · Thu May 17, 2018 3:43 am

MastaHanky wrote:
BTW, DL runs about 30% more international connections from GRR over Detroit than it does Atlanta - not that the <20 people a day who fly GRR-LHR will impact that much.

There's the stat that I was looking for thank you. Is that MIDT? Not that klm will put any merit or thought into, you know, facts or data that he's upset he doesn't have access to.

flymco753 · Thu May 17, 2018 3:50 pm

I told someone at my university about the new Delhi flights coming on WOW, and after showing him the prices and how much cheaper it would cost him and his family will be going for 2 weeks in January. He said something about taking gifts with him?

alfa164 · Thu May 17, 2018 4:15 pm

flymco753 wrote:
I told someone at my university about the new Delhi flights coming on WOW, and after showing him the prices and how much cheaper it would cost him and his family will be going for 2 weeks in January. He said something about taking gifts with him?

Every gift he takes will probably cost him about $50.00 extra in fees...

seanpmassey · Sat May 19, 2018 3:44 am

klm617 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.

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.

ATW is one of my two home airports. So I'm curious about this statement - what out-of-the-way routings is Delta forcing me through ATL on? And how many DTW frequencies have been cut to support ATL?

The fact is that Delta does not route many Upper Midwest passengers through ATL. If I look at airports in Wisconsin and Michigan, most places that Delta serves primarily offer service to MSP and DTW. If they offer ATL service, it's usually one or two flights - an early morning and a mid-late afternoon departure.

Annecdotally, I only choose an ATW->ATL routing when I'm heading somewhere in the south or southeast for work as ATL tends to have better options than DTW for North Carolina. I think the only time I purposely chose to go through ATL over DTW was because I wanted the extra miles for status purposes.

flymco753 · Mon May 28, 2018 8:37 pm

NK is going 2x on BWI.

klm617 · Mon May 28, 2018 9:23 pm

seanpmassey wrote:
klm617 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.

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.

ATW is one of my two home airports. So I'm curious about this statement - what out-of-the-way routings is Delta forcing me through ATL on? And how many DTW frequencies have been cut to support ATL?

The fact is that Delta does not route many Upper Midwest passengers through ATL. If I look at airports in Wisconsin and Michigan, most places that Delta serves primarily offer service to MSP and DTW. If they offer ATL service, it's usually one or two flights - an early morning and a mid-late afternoon departure.

Annecdotally, I only choose an ATW->ATL routing when I'm heading somewhere in the south or southeast for work as ATL tends to have better options than DTW for North Carolina. I think the only time I purposely chose to go through ATL over DTW was because I wanted the extra miles for status purposes.

For what it's worth the DTW-ATW and ATL-ATW capacity are pretty much equal per the current schedule.

2Holer4Longhaul · Mon May 28, 2018 10:01 pm

klm617 wrote:
seanpmassey wrote:
klm617 wrote:

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.

ATW is one of my two home airports. So I'm curious about this statement - what out-of-the-way routings is Delta forcing me through ATL on? And how many DTW frequencies have been cut to support ATL?

The fact is that Delta does not route many Upper Midwest passengers through ATL. If I look at airports in Wisconsin and Michigan, most places that Delta serves primarily offer service to MSP and DTW. If they offer ATL service, it's usually one or two flights - an early morning and a mid-late afternoon departure.

Annecdotally, I only choose an ATW->ATL routing when I'm heading somewhere in the south or southeast for work as ATL tends to have better options than DTW for North Carolina. I think the only time I purposely chose to go through ATL over DTW was because I wanted the extra miles for status purposes.

For what it's worth the DTW-ATW and ATL-ATW capacity are pretty much equal per the current schedule.

Here's what a simple search on Flightaware found.
ATL-ATW today: 1xB712, 1xCR9
DTW-ATW: 1xCR9, 2x CR7, 1x CRJ.
As of last I checked, a CRJ-100 and 2 CRJ-700s are significantly more than one 717.
Please start bringing facts to the table instead of pulling statements out of who-knows-where.

klm617 · Mon May 28, 2018 10:50 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:
seanpmassey wrote:

ATW is one of my two home airports. So I'm curious about this statement - what out-of-the-way routings is Delta forcing me through ATL on? And how many DTW frequencies have been cut to support ATL?

The fact is that Delta does not route many Upper Midwest passengers through ATL. If I look at airports in Wisconsin and Michigan, most places that Delta serves primarily offer service to MSP and DTW. If they offer ATL service, it's usually one or two flights - an early morning and a mid-late afternoon departure.

Annecdotally, I only choose an ATW->ATL routing when I'm heading somewhere in the south or southeast for work as ATL tends to have better options than DTW for North Carolina. I think the only time I purposely chose to go through ATL over DTW was because I wanted the extra miles for status purposes.

For what it's worth the DTW-ATW and ATL-ATW capacity are pretty much equal per the current schedule.

Here's what a simple search on Flightaware found.
ATL-ATW today: 1xB712, 1xCR9
DTW-ATW: 1xCR9, 2x CR7, 1x CRJ.
As of last I checked, a CRJ-100 and 2 CRJ-700s are significantly more than one 717.
Please start bringing facts to the table instead of pulling statements out of who-knows-where.

59 seats a day is not significantly more in my book. Last I checked it was 2 CRJ a CRJ 900 and a CRJ 700

flymco753 · Mon May 28, 2018 10:58 pm

DTW-ATW: 2x CRJ (100), 1x CR7 (69), 1x CR9 (76) Total: 245
ATL-ATW: 1x CR9 (76), 1x 717 (110) Total: 186

flymco753 · Tue May 29, 2018 1:18 am

I want to bring SRQ back up because I think there needs to be a solution.
In this article that I read, Detroit is among one of the top destinations that is attracted to visiting Sarasota/Bradenton.
Among that list is NYC, Atlanta, Chicago, Boston, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh. http://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20180 ... omist-says

Breaking down the list; NYC has daily nonstops (presumably because the market can support it year round) as does Chicago. Atlanta is there to flow connections to the north because that's just how DL utilizes Florida flying. Boston is seasonal, Indianapolis and Pittsburgh have twice weekly year round flights.

What if G4 were to get into DTW and do SRQ? Sarasota is a market that neither FNT or TOL has the pax for, if G4 were to do the more complex markets from DTW like VPS, SRQ, JAX, CHS, and SAV then there would be really no negative affect on FNT or TOL's service on Allegiant.

Detroiters will willingly pay $65 one-way to pack a flight to Sarasota. Detroit's Florida network is so diverse that additional services would really have no affect on surrounding Florida services.

2Holer4Longhaul · Tue May 29, 2018 2:29 am

flymco753 wrote:
DTW-ATW: 2x CRJ (100), 1x CR7 (69), 1x CR9 (76) Total: 245
ATL-ATW: 1x CR9 (76), 1x 717 (110) Total: 186

61 seats a day is not nothing. They're not "about the same". DTW-ATW has almost 4/3rds of ATL-ATW.
These are facts KLM617 shouldn't argue with.

2Holer4Longhaul · Tue May 29, 2018 2:30 am

For some reason I can't edit my last post. I meant to say 59 seats, not 61.

winginit · Tue May 29, 2018 5:27 pm

klm617 wrote:
For what it's worth the DTW-ATW and ATL-ATW capacity are pretty much equal per the current schedule.

... measured how? Let's look at facts shall we?

Annualized Directional Capacity to ATW, Year Ending August 2018:

ATL: 669 Flights, 63,402 Seats, 48.5M ASMs
DTW: 1,078 Flights, 71,912 Seats, 21.4M ASMs

Those are not 'pretty much equal' by any metric.

2Holer4Longhaul · Tue May 29, 2018 8:06 pm

winginit wrote:
klm617 wrote:
For what it's worth the DTW-ATW and ATL-ATW capacity are pretty much equal per the current schedule.

... measured how? Let's look at facts shall we?

Annualized Directional Capacity to ATW, Year Ending August 2018:

ATL: 669 Flights, 63,402 Seats, 48.5M ASMs
DTW: 1,078 Flights, 71,912 Seats, 21.4M ASMs

Those are not 'pretty much equal' by any metric.

And before KLM617 makes some ludicrous claim that they are equal because available seat-miles from ATL are higher, let's point out that this is absurd. ASM is higher because distance is higher even though capacity is lower.

winginit · Tue May 29, 2018 8:28 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
winginit wrote:
klm617 wrote:
For what it's worth the DTW-ATW and ATL-ATW capacity are pretty much equal per the current schedule.

... measured how? Let's look at facts shall we?

Annualized Directional Capacity to ATW, Year Ending August 2018:

ATL: 669 Flights, 63,402 Seats, 48.5M ASMs
DTW: 1,078 Flights, 71,912 Seats, 21.4M ASMs

Those are not 'pretty much equal' by any metric.

And before KLM617 makes some ludicrous claim that they are equal because available seat-miles from ATL are higher, let's point out that this is absurd. ASM is higher because distance is higher even though capacity is lower.

I'd be shocked if he knew what an ASM is.

compensateme · Tue May 29, 2018 10:42 pm

And before KLM617 makes some ludicrous claim that they are equal because available seat-miles from ATL are higher, let's point out that this is absurd. ASM is higher because distance is higher even though capacity is lower.

I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time than troll him. Myself and others ignore him and attempt to reboot this thread, but out postings are quickly drowned out by this perpetual nonsense.

flymco753 · Thu May 31, 2018 11:58 am

Southwest returns the seasonal Saturday DTW-MCO flights beginning the first week of August. Tampa will most likely be involved next extension.

flymco753 · Thu May 31, 2018 12:15 pm

flymco753 wrote:
Southwest returns the seasonal Saturday DTW-MCO flights beginning the first week of August. Tampa will most likely be involved next extension.

Also upgagued, 73H>738.

klm617 · Thu May 31, 2018 7:06 pm

What do you all think that the WCAA should being doing as far as growth what markets and airlines should they be perusing for growth in this market and what should be their plan of action. Also what current opportunities is the WCAA pursuing for service enhancements at DTW if any. To say that DTW is already well served is not acceptable because in any organization growth is always the goal.

2Holer4Longhaul · Thu May 31, 2018 7:59 pm

klm617 wrote:
What do you all think that the WCAA should being doing as far as growth what markets and airlines should they be perusing for growth in this market and what should be their plan of action. Also what current opportunities is the WCAA pursuing for service enhancements at DTW if any. To say that DTW is already well served is not acceptable because in any organization growth is always the goal.

The portion of your post I boldfaced is one of the biggest a.net misconceptions.
The goal of any for-profit organization is profit
The goal of any government or non-profit organization is to best serve the groups it is tasked to serve.
Sometimes, growth serves these goals. Sometimes, it does not.

klm617 · Thu May 31, 2018 9:34 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What do you all think that the WCAA should being doing as far as growth what markets and airlines should they be perusing for growth in this market and what should be their plan of action. Also what current opportunities is the WCAA pursuing for service enhancements at DTW if any. To say that DTW is already well served is not acceptable because in any organization growth is always the goal.

The portion of your post I boldfaced is one of the biggest a.net misconceptions.
The goal of any for-profit organization is profit
The goal of any government or non-profit organization is to best serve the groups it is tasked to serve.
Sometimes, growth serves these goals. Sometimes, it does not.

In this case it does because more options is better for all those who potentially may use the airport plus it generates more fund for improvements. With you way of thinking no airport should seek greater options and usage. Also please explain how your comment pertains to DTW and it's customers because the same argument would apply to CLT, ATL and the like. I really don't believe that exclusivity contracts are in the best interest of the traveling public do you.

flymco753 · Thu May 31, 2018 11:14 pm

klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What do you all think that the WCAA should being doing as far as growth what markets and airlines should they be perusing for growth in this market and what should be their plan of action. Also what current opportunities is the WCAA pursuing for service enhancements at DTW if any. To say that DTW is already well served is not acceptable because in any organization growth is always the goal.

The portion of your post I boldfaced is one of the biggest a.net misconceptions.
The goal of any for-profit organization is profit
The goal of any government or non-profit organization is to best serve the groups it is tasked to serve.
Sometimes, growth serves these goals. Sometimes, it does not.

In this case it does because more options is better for all those who potentially may use the airport plus it generates more fund for improvements. With you way of thinking no airport should seek greater options and usage. Also please explain how your comment pertains to DTW and it's customers because the same argument would apply to CLT, ATL and the like. I really don't believe that exclusivity contracts are in the best interest of the traveling public do you.

The WCAA knows the airport can be further served. He does quite a bit to attract service like attending routes. It lies solely on the airline and their business plans whether they want to serve DTW or not. WOW's business plans were obviously to serve Detroit and not Atlanta. Aer Lingus is the same, they want in on Detroit because they, like WOW, will have the equipment to do so and let a route like Detroit or Minneapolis grow into either a daily flight or A330. EK however may think their 77L is too dense to serve DTW because perhaps they don't feel confident (yet) that the flights will generate a revenue, if any.

2Holer4Longhaul · Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:38 pm

klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:
What do you all think that the WCAA should being doing as far as growth what markets and airlines should they be perusing for growth in this market and what should be their plan of action. Also what current opportunities is the WCAA pursuing for service enhancements at DTW if any. To say that DTW is already well served is not acceptable because in any organization growth is always the goal.

The portion of your post I boldfaced is one of the biggest a.net misconceptions.
The goal of any for-profit organization is profit
The goal of any government or non-profit organization is to best serve the groups it is tasked to serve.
Sometimes, growth serves these goals. Sometimes, it does not.

In this case it does because more options is better for all those who potentially may use the airport plus it generates more fund for improvements. With you way of thinking no airport should seek greater options and usage. Also please explain how your comment pertains to DTW and it's customers because the same argument would apply to CLT, ATL and the like. I really don't believe that exclusivity contracts are in the best interest of the traveling public do you.

Really? Really?
If DTW starts giving incentives left and right for any service, airlines who might have otherwise served DTW sans incentive could be deterred by the established and subsidized carrier. As DTW already has plenty of service, there's no major need for incentives anyway.
By the way, I don't understand your point about CLT and ATL, mostly because you said I said something about it which I did not. Could you explain that?

klm617 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 3:54 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
The portion of your post I boldfaced is one of the biggest a.net misconceptions.
The goal of any for-profit organization is profit
The goal of any government or non-profit organization is to best serve the groups it is tasked to serve.
Sometimes, growth serves these goals. Sometimes, it does not.

In this case it does because more options is better for all those who potentially may use the airport plus it generates more fund for improvements. With you way of thinking no airport should seek greater options and usage. Also please explain how your comment pertains to DTW and it's customers because the same argument would apply to CLT, ATL and the like. I really don't believe that exclusivity contracts are in the best interest of the traveling public do you.

Really? Really?
If DTW starts giving incentives left and right for any service, airlines who might have otherwise served DTW sans incentive could be deterred by the established and subsidized carrier. As DTW already has plenty of service, there's no major need for incentives anyway.
By the way, I don't understand your point about CLT and ATL, mostly because you said I said something about it which I did not. Could you explain that?

Because both of those airports have more than enough service for the market they are serving but they are both in expansion mode. Which means if they are in expansion mode than surly Detroit should be too.

flymco753 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 pm

DTW’s incentive program is decent. ATL, CLT & MSP have among some of the worst incentives that I’ve seen on their airports websites. That’s probably why airlines don’t flock to these airports.

Has anyone driven past the north exit at the airport? When I came in I asked my grandparents to take us north to see it and it looks sharp so far. I can’t imagine what it’ll look like with vegetation.

The Berry Terminal is completely gone, next up the Smith.

ikolkyo · Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:32 pm

flymco753 wrote:
DTW’s incentive program is decent. ATL, CLT & MSP have among some of the worst incentives that I’ve seen on their airports websites. That’s probably why airlines don’t flock to these airports.

Has anyone driven past the north exit at the airport? When I came in I asked my grandparents to take us north to see it and it looks sharp so far. I can’t imagine what it’ll look like with vegetation.

The Berry Terminal is completely gone, next up the Smith.

I haven’t been around DTW in quite some time Berry is totally gone? Sheesh! Unfortunately Smith would indeed be up next

PSU.DTW.SCE · Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:42 pm

The Berry is completely gone, its been down since about early-April.

The North entrance is a lot better and enables better flow, much better signage, and better split to go to the McNamara that doesn't require the immediate lane shift like it used to do.

Now if MDOT would finish-up their portion, the roadway of Merriman and the I-94 ramps are litterally blown-out, like most of Michigan's roads.

ikolkyo · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:08 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
The Berry is completely gone, its been down since about early-April.

The North entrance is a lot better and enables better flow, much better signage, and better split to go to the McNamara that doesn't require the immediate lane shift like it used to do.

Now if MDOT would finish-up their portion, the roadway of Merriman and the I-94 ramps are litterally blown-out, like most of Michigan's roads.

Knowing MDOT it will be awhile..

klm617 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:12 pm

flymco753 wrote:
DTW’s incentive program is decent. ATL, CLT & MSP have among some of the worst incentives that I’ve seen on their airports websites. That’s probably why airlines don’t flock to these airports.

Has anyone driven past the north exit at the airport? When I came in I asked my grandparents to take us north to see it and it looks sharp so far. I can’t imagine what it’ll look like with vegetation.

The Berry Terminal is completely gone, next up the Smith.

LOL when I was there last week didn't even notice it was gone. Used to love that terminal it had such a european feeling to it.

PSU.DTW.SCE · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:21 pm

Smith demolition is supposed to start later this year, but the majority of the work will be in 2019 to bring it down.
This year will supposedly be a bunch of interior prep/utility disconnects/etc.

flymco753 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 5:32 pm

I wonder if they’ll sell anything from inside the Smith, I’m very interested in bringing some old AirTran stuff home to Orlando.

PSU.DTW.SCE · Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:00 pm

Here's video that someone took inside the Smith Terminal in 2014, and as you can see theres not much left. Everything that was converted into office space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXqW2hx2Seo

I was in MEM this past week, and hadn't been there since about 2007 pre-merger. The main terminal building reminds me of the old Davey, and the relic throughback concourse A & C remind me a lot of the Smith. Granted, MEM is so vacant these days, with B closed-off now and going to start a reno later this year. Either way, MEM was a throw-back to reminding me of the old DTW terminals. MSP F-concourse also reminds me a lot of the old DTW Davey concourses.

LAXdude1023 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:49 pm

compensateme wrote:
And before KLM617 makes some ludicrous claim that they are equal because available seat-miles from ATL are higher, let's point out that this is absurd. ASM is higher because distance is higher even though capacity is lower.

I suggest you find something more productive to do with your time than troll him. Myself and others ignore him and attempt to reboot this thread, but out postings are quickly drowned out by this perpetual nonsense.

I agree. In an effort to get this back on track, I think we should establish that yes there is room for some expansion but its important to know the limits of any market.

Domestically: ICT, ABQ, and SMF seem like logical adds.

Internationally, there is no need for DTW to have service to Poland or India nonstop. None. What is logical would be:

1) EK to DXB or QR to DOH
2) TK to IST

The largest unserved international markets from DTW in 2016 that have 20 or more PDEW were:

1) BEY at 50 PDEW
2) BOM at 28 PDEW
3) AUA at 27 PDEW
4) HKG at 25 PDEW
5) YVR at 24 PDEW
6) DEL at 23 PDEW
7) STR at 20 PDEW
8) SJO at 20 PDEW

DTW-India bounces between 110-140 PDEW depending on the year.

Of these, AUA, YVR, and SJO are very seasonal and heavy towards Saturday and Sunday travel.

2Holer4Longhaul · Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:49 pm

klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:

In this case it does because more options is better for all those who potentially may use the airport plus it generates more fund for improvements. With you way of thinking no airport should seek greater options and usage. Also please explain how your comment pertains to DTW and it's customers because the same argument would apply to CLT, ATL and the like. I really don't believe that exclusivity contracts are in the best interest of the traveling public do you.

Really? Really?
If DTW starts giving incentives left and right for any service, airlines who might have otherwise served DTW sans incentive could be deterred by the established and subsidized carrier. As DTW already has plenty of service, there's no major need for incentives anyway.
By the way, I don't understand your point about CLT and ATL, mostly because you said I said something about it which I did not. Could you explain that?

Because both of those airports have more than enough service for the market they are serving but they are both in expansion mode. Which means if they are in expansion mode than surly Detroit should be too.

The expansion there is happening for the most part organically by the hub carrier, not by the airport authority whoring itself out like you want to see.
Part of it could be that the South/Southeast is growing, whereas the Rust Belt for the most part is suffering.

alfa164 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:00 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
In an effort to get this back on track, I think we should establish that yes there is room for some expansion but its important to know the limits of any market.
Domestically: ICT, ABQ, and SMF seem like logical adds.
Internationally, there is no need for DTW to have service to Poland or India nonstop. None. What is logical would be:
1) EK to DXB or QR to DOH
2) TK to IST
The largest unserved international markets from DTW in 2016 that have 20 or more PDEW were:
1) BEY at 50 PDEW
2) BOM at 28 PDEW
3) AUA at 27 PDEW
4) HKG at 25 PDEW
5) YVR at 24 PDEW
6) DEL at 23 PDEW
7) STR at 20 PDEW
8) SJO at 20 PDEW
DTW-India bounces between 110-140 PDEW depending on the year.
Of these, AUA, YVR, and SJO are very seasonal and heavy towards Saturday and Sunday travel.

The only unserved international market with even a smidgen of traffic that would deserve a direct flight is BEY, and the US government has not yet cleared that airport's security program to allow non-stops. Therefore it is served via connections (CDG, FRA for instance) as the second-best choice.

I suspect RJ was getting a lot of the BEY traffic in order to justify their flight.

LAXdude1023 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 8:31 pm

alfa164 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
In an effort to get this back on track, I think we should establish that yes there is room for some expansion but its important to know the limits of any market.
Domestically: ICT, ABQ, and SMF seem like logical adds.
Internationally, there is no need for DTW to have service to Poland or India nonstop. None. What is logical would be:
1) EK to DXB or QR to DOH
2) TK to IST
The largest unserved international markets from DTW in 2016 that have 20 or more PDEW were:
1) BEY at 50 PDEW
2) BOM at 28 PDEW
3) AUA at 27 PDEW
4) HKG at 25 PDEW
5) YVR at 24 PDEW
6) DEL at 23 PDEW
7) STR at 20 PDEW
8) SJO at 20 PDEW
DTW-India bounces between 110-140 PDEW depending on the year.
Of these, AUA, YVR, and SJO are very seasonal and heavy towards Saturday and Sunday travel.

The only unserved international market with even a smidgen of traffic that would deserve a direct flight is BEY, and the US government has not yet cleared that airport's security program to allow non-stops. Therefore it is served via connections (CDG, FRA for instance) as the second-best choice.

I suspect RJ was getting a lot of the BEY traffic in order to justify their flight.

Thats why I think TK is the best fit personally. It can capture BEY, BOM, and DEL nicely.

alfa164 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:05 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
In an effort to get this back on track, I think we should establish that yes there is room for some expansion but its important to know the limits of any market.
Domestically: ICT, ABQ, and SMF seem like logical adds.
Internationally, there is no need for DTW to have service to Poland or India nonstop. None. What is logical would be:
1) EK to DXB or QR to DOH
2) TK to IST
The largest unserved international markets from DTW in 2016 that have 20 or more PDEW were:
1) BEY at 50 PDEW
2) BOM at 28 PDEW
3) AUA at 27 PDEW
4) HKG at 25 PDEW
5) YVR at 24 PDEW
6) DEL at 23 PDEW
7) STR at 20 PDEW
8) SJO at 20 PDEW
DTW-India bounces between 110-140 PDEW depending on the year.
Of these, AUA, YVR, and SJO are very seasonal and heavy towards Saturday and Sunday travel.

The only unserved international market with even a smidgen of traffic that would deserve a direct flight is BEY, and the US government has not yet cleared that airport's security program to allow non-stops. Therefore it is served via connections (CDG, FRA for instance) as the second-best choice.
I suspect RJ was getting a lot of the BEY traffic in order to justify their flight.

Thats why I think TK is the best fit personally. It can capture BEY, BOM, and DEL nicely.

I tend to agree, but I don't know what TK would offer above and beyond what the established players offer - other than possibly some cut-rate, desperate-for-traffic fares.

LAXdude1023 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:23 pm

alfa164 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
The only unserved international market with even a smidgen of traffic that would deserve a direct flight is BEY, and the US government has not yet cleared that airport's security program to allow non-stops. Therefore it is served via connections (CDG, FRA for instance) as the second-best choice.
I suspect RJ was getting a lot of the BEY traffic in order to justify their flight.

Thats why I think TK is the best fit personally. It can capture BEY, BOM, and DEL nicely.

I tend to agree, but I don't know what TK would offer above and beyond what the established players offer - other than possibly some cut-rate, desperate-for-traffic fares.

Perhaps. The market could probably handle an ME3 though.

klm617 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:15 pm

alfa164 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
In an effort to get this back on track, I think we should establish that yes there is room for some expansion but its important to know the limits of any market.
Domestically: ICT, ABQ, and SMF seem like logical adds.
Internationally, there is no need for DTW to have service to Poland or India nonstop. None. What is logical would be:
1) EK to DXB or QR to DOH
2) TK to IST
The largest unserved international markets from DTW in 2016 that have 20 or more PDEW were:
1) BEY at 50 PDEW
2) BOM at 28 PDEW
3) AUA at 27 PDEW
4) HKG at 25 PDEW
5) YVR at 24 PDEW
6) DEL at 23 PDEW
7) STR at 20 PDEW
8) SJO at 20 PDEW
DTW-India bounces between 110-140 PDEW depending on the year.
Of these, AUA, YVR, and SJO are very seasonal and heavy towards Saturday and Sunday travel.

The only unserved international market with even a smidgen of traffic that would deserve a direct flight is BEY, and the US government has not yet cleared that airport's security program to allow non-stops. Therefore it is served via connections (CDG, FRA for instance) as the second-best choice.

I suspect RJ was getting a lot of the BEY traffic in order to justify their flight.

RJ carriers a lot of Iraq traffic. A lot of people get off in Amman and then go by bus to Iraq from there.

klm617 · Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:24 pm

alfa164 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
The only unserved international market with even a smidgen of traffic that would deserve a direct flight is BEY, and the US government has not yet cleared that airport's security program to allow non-stops. Therefore it is served via connections (CDG, FRA for instance) as the second-best choice.
I suspect RJ was getting a lot of the BEY traffic in order to justify their flight.

Thats why I think TK is the best fit personally. It can capture BEY, BOM, and DEL nicely.

I tend to agree, but I don't know what TK would offer above and beyond what the established players offer - other than possibly some cut-rate, desperate-for-traffic fares.

And that's what this market needs to stimulate growth. We already know that DL has most of the business traffic sewn up. So growth right now need to come from putting people in the air that normally couldn't afford to travel or by bringing the leakage travelers back to DTW. Hence the need for EI and EK. I really don't have any confidence in the longevity of DY so it's best not even to waste time with them and cause damage to WW and passably EI if they do chose Detroit. Keep in mind that O/D is not the only measure for growth as I am sure the O/D between ORD and AKL is not that big but yet the link was added so we also have to look at hub links that are possabilities even though the O/D numbers might not be there which again brings MAN into play.

LAXdude1023 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 1:03 am

klm617 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
Thats why I think TK is the best fit personally. It can capture BEY, BOM, and DEL nicely.

I tend to agree, but I don't know what TK would offer above and beyond what the established players offer - other than possibly some cut-rate, desperate-for-traffic fares.

And that's what this market needs to stimulate growth. We already know that DL has most of the business traffic sewn up. So growth right now need to come from putting people in the air that normally couldn't afford to travel or by bringing the leakage travelers back to DTW. Hence the need for EI and EK. I really don't have any confidence in the longevity of DY so it's best not even to waste time with them and cause damage to WW and passably EI if they do chose Detroit. Keep in mind that O/D is not the only measure for growth as I am sure the O/D between ORD and AKL is not that big but yet the link was added so we also have to look at hub links that are possabilities even though the O/D numbers might not be there which again brings MAN into play.

That isnt apples to apples.

ORD/IAH-AKL are not big O&D markets, that is true. However, IAH-Australia is rich in J traffic to PER/BNE/MEL because of oil and ORD-Australia is a big market. But even thats not the reason. AKL, IAH, and ORD are all big Star Alliance hubs. When you have a hub on both ends, it makes it so much easier. A route like DFW-HKG is about 40-45 PDEW but when connections at both DFW and HKG are factored, it became a successful flight. Take away connections at DFW or HKG, the future of the flight would be uncertain.

I do agree, DTW could probably support an ME3 and I think its if not when. But O&D and partner hubs tell all the story.

klm617 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:16 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
alfa164 wrote:

I tend to agree, but I don't know what TK would offer above and beyond what the established players offer - other than possibly some cut-rate, desperate-for-traffic fares.

And that's what this market needs to stimulate growth. We already know that DL has most of the business traffic sewn up. So growth right now need to come from putting people in the air that normally couldn't afford to travel or by bringing the leakage travelers back to DTW. Hence the need for EI and EK. I really don't have any confidence in the longevity of DY so it's best not even to waste time with them and cause damage to WW and passably EI if they do chose Detroit. Keep in mind that O/D is not the only measure for growth as I am sure the O/D between ORD and AKL is not that big but yet the link was added so we also have to look at hub links that are possabilities even though the O/D numbers might not be there which again brings MAN into play.

That isnt apples to apples.

ORD/IAH-AKL are not big O&D markets, that is true. However, IAH-Australia is rich in J traffic to PER/BNE/MEL because of oil and ORD-Australia is a big market. But even thats not the reason. AKL, IAH, and ORD are all big Star Alliance hubs. When you have a hub on both ends, it makes it so much easier. A route like DFW-HKG is about 40-45 PDEW but when connections at both DFW and HKG are factored, it became a successful flight. Take away connections at DFW or HKG, the future of the flight would be uncertain.

I do agree, DTW could probably support an ME3 and I think its if not when. But O&D and partner hubs tell all the story.

Exactly you have a VS stronghold in MAN and you have a DL stronghold at Detroit which is exactly the same as your reasoning on AKL-ORD and at only half the flight time. Why is it not apples to apples if anything DTW-MAN on a 757 could be more of a success than ORD-AKL.

LAXdude1023 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 3:51 am

klm617 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
klm617 wrote:

And that's what this market needs to stimulate growth. We already know that DL has most of the business traffic sewn up. So growth right now need to come from putting people in the air that normally couldn't afford to travel or by bringing the leakage travelers back to DTW. Hence the need for EI and EK. I really don't have any confidence in the longevity of DY so it's best not even to waste time with them and cause damage to WW and passably EI if they do chose Detroit. Keep in mind that O/D is not the only measure for growth as I am sure the O/D between ORD and AKL is not that big but yet the link was added so we also have to look at hub links that are possabilities even though the O/D numbers might not be there which again brings MAN into play.

That isnt apples to apples.

ORD/IAH-AKL are not big O&D markets, that is true. However, IAH-Australia is rich in J traffic to PER/BNE/MEL because of oil and ORD-Australia is a big market. But even thats not the reason. AKL, IAH, and ORD are all big Star Alliance hubs. When you have a hub on both ends, it makes it so much easier. A route like DFW-HKG is about 40-45 PDEW but when connections at both DFW and HKG are factored, it became a successful flight. Take away connections at DFW or HKG, the future of the flight would be uncertain.

I do agree, DTW could probably support an ME3 and I think its if not when. But O&D and partner hubs tell all the story.

Exactly you have a VS stronghold in MAN and you have a DL stronghold at Detroit which is exactly the same as your reasoning on AKL-ORD and at only half the flight time. Why is it not apples to apples if anything DTW-MAN on a 757 could be more of a success than ORD-AKL.

Not at all. From MAN, VS only serves destinations in the US and Barbados. There is no hub at the MAN end for VS. Therefore, its just a one sided hub at DTW for connections to be made.

flymco753 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:14 am

However it would be good to note that MAN has grown over 4x in the last 3 years according to MIDT data. MAN is the quickest growing city in Europe behind TIR and ahead of KEF. KEF may take 2nd due to the fact that there’s a nonstop now. The last two years KEF has nearly doubled each year.

NWADTWE16 · Sat Jun 02, 2018 4:29 am

I still think F9 could do the Florida adds better than G4. F9 has built a following not just in Detroit Metro, but also with our friends in Ontario. My last flight to RSW was close to 50% Canadian from talking to them.

DL is not going to do SRQ, in fact, they cut the 3 weeks they offered this year to 2 weeks next year from what I heard. It's ridiculous so F9 grows with SRQ/PBI/JAX and along with their MIA/TPA/RSW/MCO that's a very attractive Florida portfolio, one that billboard and even TV advertising would be wise to flaunt.
Someone needs to try some new Caribbean spots as well, I've always said AUA along with SXM and STT would all work from DTW. To Delta's credit they have added or increased SJD/MBJ/CUN/NAS/GCM in recent years.

Had friends travel on quite a few different DTW-KEF flights recently, and they loved it. Many just went to KEF, a few carrier onward, but they all enjoyed the deal/flight they received and fwiw (their opinion) the flights were "quite full". The new timings will surely lock this in as a success.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net