winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Here are the numbers through July per the WCAA website

WOW 9,691 - 100.0% 0.1% 0.0%

So I averaged at 52 flights in those months that being said they are carrying 187.2 passengers per flight. I'd say that's pretty good.

flymco753 wrote:

Well enplaned/deplaned LF = total monthly pax / total monthly seats

In this case the enplaned LF is 92% and deplaned is 94%.

As a reminder, load factor is entirely meaningless in the context of whether or not a route is profitable for a carrier unless it's paired with fare/yield data, which we don't have. That being the case, to say that DTWKEF is proving successful for WW by way of profitability is entirely speculative and should be identified as such.

Many will recall that routes like JFKHND or ORDDEL for AA or ATLDXB for DL were jam packed with load factors that always hovered in the 90s yet they lost both of those carriers millions of dollars over the courses of their operations.

You’re right. FI uses a number of its flights to haul seafood. Just another avenue for revenue. I’m not sure if WW offers that.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Here are the numbers through July per the WCAA website

WOW 9,691 - 100.0% 0.1% 0.0%

So I averaged at 52 flights in those months that being said they are carrying 187.2 passengers per flight. I'd say that's pretty good.

flymco753 wrote:

Well enplaned/deplaned LF = total monthly pax / total monthly seats

In this case the enplaned LF is 92% and deplaned is 94%.

As a reminder, load factor is entirely meaningless in the context of whether or not a route is profitable for a carrier unless it's paired with fare/yield data, which we don't have. That being the case, to say that DTWKEF is proving successful for WW by way of profitability is entirely speculative and should be identified as such.

Many will recall that routes like JFKHND or ORDDEL for AA or ATLDXB for DL were jam packed with load factors that always hovered in the 90s yet they lost both of those carriers millions of dollars over the courses of their operations.

Not in the case of a LCC load factor paints a pretty good picture how well a flight is doing where as with a legacy where there are so many fares I would agree because you have to have the up front seat filled more so, so you argument for a carrier like NK and WW holds very little water being the aircraft is priced out pretty much evenly. On Delta you need the $1000+ C class fares to cover it's cost and the low end fares in the back. Again WW's faith to carry $ weekly through the winter says a lot about how well they are doing.


By your rule of thumb every post on this forum about the success or failure of a route is speculative. Where is the data that show all the flights you listed above lost money. Just because they were dropped means nothing but perhaps that the aircraft could make more money else where but doesn't indicate those routes lost money. Just because an airline drops a route doesn't mean it's not making money it could simply mean that there were better opportunities else where so you comment would also be speculative also.

klm617 wrote:

Not in the case of a LCC load factor paints a pretty good picture how well a flight is doing where as with a legacy where there are so many fares I would agree because you have to have the up front seat filled more so, so you argument for a carrier like NK and WW holds very little water being the aircraft is priced out pretty much evenly.

That is complete and utter nonsense. NK and WW very effectively revenue manage like virtually all other carriers even in the LCC or ULCC space. To say they sell out all of their inventory at low fares is ignorant - plain and simple.

klm617 wrote:

By your rule of thumb every post on this forum about the success or failure of a route is speculative.

That's correct, unless insider data is shared, which is ill-advised, or unless executives publicly state that routes lost significant sums of money, which will bring me to my next point

klm617 wrote:

Where is the data that show all the flights you listed above lost money. Just because they were dropped means nothing but perhaps that the aircraft could make more money else where but doesn't indicate those routes lost money. Just because an airline drops a route doesn't mean it's not making money it could simply mean that there were better opportunities else where so you comment would also be speculative also.

There's of course a reason that I used the examples that I did. Respective AA and DL executives publicly stated that the routes mentioned lost tens of millions of dollars annually before they were cancelled even though T100 showed that load factors were consistently in the 90s.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Not in the case of a LCC load factor paints a pretty good picture how well a flight is doing where as with a legacy where there are so many fares I would agree because you have to have the up front seat filled more so, so you argument for a carrier like NK and WW holds very little water being the aircraft is priced out pretty much evenly.

That is complete and utter nonsense. NK and WW very effectively revenue manage like virtually all other carriers even in the LCC or ULCC space. To say they sell out all of their inventory at low fares is ignorant - plain and simple.

klm617 wrote:

By your rule of thumb every post on this forum about the success or failure of a route is speculative.

That's correct, unless insider data is shared, which is ill-advised, or unless executives publicly state that routes lost significant sums of money, which will bring me to my next point

klm617 wrote:

Where is the data that show all the flights you listed above lost money. Just because they were dropped means nothing but perhaps that the aircraft could make more money else where but doesn't indicate those routes lost money. Just because an airline drops a route doesn't mean it's not making money it could simply mean that there were better opportunities else where so you comment would also be speculative also.

There's of course a reason that I used the examples that I did. Respective AA and DL executives publicly stated that the routes mentioned lost tens of millions of dollars annually before they were cancelled even though T100 showed that load factors were consistently in the 90s.

That's simply not true WW and NK don't have seat they sell at 5 times the cost like Delta and American to cover the back of the airplane. So if the legacies sell the back cabin but not the front it will have a greater negative effect on revenue than it would on a budget airline where maybe they good double the fare for the best seats. Where there LCC make their money is on all the add ons they charge for and that is directly linked to load factor. Again did any of the airline CEO's give numbers to what they were losing with data or are we just expected to believe the rhetoric the throw out there. Delta execs said no hubs are going to be closed so where is CVG and MEM now in the grand scheme of things even airline execs lie.

At high level klm617 is going in the right direction here.

While you can't make a definitive statement about profitability of a given route, there are some general "rules of thumb"

ULCC / LCC generally need to have overall Load Factors well above 80% to have a chance of profitability on a given route.

Legacy airlines with a more diverse fare structure and ability to capture revenue premiums due to either limited access or more premium passengers/traffic flows can sustain routes in the 60-80% LF range, if there is sufficient premium traffic to make up for the lack of demand or lack of access to lower fare buckets.

That said, its no surprise that WW is posting load factors >90%. Filling an aircraft to Europe during peak summer at less-than-legacy fares is a no-brainer. Legacies like DL are spilling passengers at lower price points all over the place. If WW didn't have a LF like that, then it all comes down to marketing and/or inability to get the flights posted on the right online channels. Its the off-season where they could struggle to fill the flight, but unlike other Midwest markets they are keeping their schedule intact through the low season.

That said it goes back to a broader point as to whether WW can sustain itself in the longer term and if their overall business model is sustainable.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Not in the case of a LCC load factor paints a pretty good picture how well a flight is doing where as with a legacy where there are so many fares I would agree because you have to have the up front seat filled more so, so you argument for a carrier like NK and WW holds very little water being the aircraft is priced out pretty much evenly.

That is complete and utter nonsense. NK and WW very effectively revenue manage like virtually all other carriers even in the LCC or ULCC space. To say they sell out all of their inventory at low fares is ignorant - plain and simple.

klm617 wrote:

By your rule of thumb every post on this forum about the success or failure of a route is speculative.

That's correct, unless insider data is shared, which is ill-advised, or unless executives publicly state that routes lost significant sums of money, which will bring me to my next point

klm617 wrote:

Where is the data that show all the flights you listed above lost money. Just because they were dropped means nothing but perhaps that the aircraft could make more money else where but doesn't indicate those routes lost money. Just because an airline drops a route doesn't mean it's not making money it could simply mean that there were better opportunities else where so you comment would also be speculative also.

There's of course a reason that I used the examples that I did. Respective AA and DL executives publicly stated that the routes mentioned lost tens of millions of dollars annually before they were cancelled even though T100 showed that load factors were consistently in the 90s.

Your argument is very misguided. The world’s network carriers operate a large portion of their network at a loss, due to the contribution (not in an accounting sense, of course) of those routes. We’ve discussed NYC before, a market DL’s pouring billions of dollars into and dedicating vast resources, even knowing that over the long-term, factoring in opportunity cost, it will generate a direct negative return. But of course, these services yield lucrative contacts that generate heavy profits systemwide.

But that’s generally not how ULCC work. That’s not saying ULCC don’t get involved into corporate contracts — they do, just not the vast web the legacies play in.

WW opted to go year round on DTW, while pausing SFO and rolling back seasonality elsewhere, including one other Midwestern airport. That itself is a clue that the flight has been successful for WW — perhaps not profitable yet, which wouldn’t be unusual. Ultimately, it really isn’t surprising - DTW remains one of the largest markets in the nation, and has consistently averaged among the highest long haul fares.

That said, I do find it humorous how the lynch mob comes out wherever it’s suggested a DTW is ‘doing well’ in spite of that baseless claim being made for every route in existence. Where is that lynch mob for the series of posting suggesting the “real” reason ATL-LIS is ending is because the flight didnwe but there’s a lack of gates?

klm617 wrote:

]Not in the case of a LCC load factor paints a pretty good picture how well a flight is doing where as with a legacy where there are so many fares I would agree because you have to have the up front seat filled more so, so you argument for a carrier like NK and WW holds very little water being the aircraft is priced out pretty much evenly. On Delta you need the $1000+ C class fares to cover it's cost and the low end fares in the back. Again WW's faith to carry $ weekly through the winter says a lot about how well they are doing.

You may be able to show that LCC's don't have as wide a variation in fares as the more mature carriers, but that in no way shows they are successful. The fact that WOW has been continually in the headlines with stories about their serious financial problems, and Icelandic's cash reserves have fallen so much that they have been forced to notify their bondholder, shows these airlines struggle just as much - if not more - than the major airlines do with financial pressures. They can easily fill their planes with cheap fares and still lose a bundle of money.

klm617 wrote:

By your rule of thumb every post on this forum about the success or failure of a route is speculative.

Unless you have inside data from some specific airlines, that is right - most every post I see here is pure speculation. I read many posts claiming that routes are successful or are failures, and I can tell you almost every one of them has no basis in reality. Some people actually ready this stuff to get their fill of humor every day.

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

]Not in the case of a LCC load factor paints a pretty good picture how well a flight is doing where as with a legacy where there are so many fares I would agree because you have to have the up front seat filled more so, so you argument for a carrier like NK and WW holds very little water being the aircraft is priced out pretty much evenly. On Delta you need the $1000+ C class fares to cover it's cost and the low end fares in the back. Again WW's faith to carry $ weekly through the winter says a lot about how well they are doing.

You may be able to show that LCC's don't have as wide a variation in fares as the more mature carriers, but that in no way shows they are successful. The fact that WOW has been continually in the headlines with stories about their serious financial problems, and Icelandic's cash reserves have fallen so much that they have been forced to notify their bondholder, shows these airlines struggle just as much - if not more - than the major airlines do with financial pressures. They can easily fill their planes with cheap fares and still lose a bundle of money.

klm617 wrote:

By your rule of thumb every post on this forum about the success or failure of a route is speculative.

Unless you have inside data from some specific airlines, that is right - most every post I see here is pure speculation. I read many posts claiming that routes are successful or are failures, and I can tell you almost every one of them has no basis in reality. Some people actually ready this stuff to get their fill of humor every day.

Again LCCs basically have three fare buckets basic, basic+ and premium and they don't discount those fares except for a sale here and there that is across the board. They don't give away seats to fill up a plane if they are not filling the seats at the prescribed price they pull out. The US3 on a regular basis raise and lower fare fares based on market conditions or if they want to get the upper hand on the competition. LCC don't go around discounting discount fares they just pull out of the market and F9 and WW are good examples of that. The reason WOW is in trouble is not because their routes don't make money it's because of their massive expansion cost. They grew pretty big pretty fast. It is of note that while WW is running STL and DTW through the winter it has dropped MIA, SFO and DFW in the winter and that says a lot about the potential of those two underserved TATL markets.

klm617 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

]Not in the case of a LCC load factor paints a pretty good picture how well a flight is doing where as with a legacy where there are so many fares I would agree because you have to have the up front seat filled more so, so you argument for a carrier like NK and WW holds very little water being the aircraft is priced out pretty much evenly. On Delta you need the $1000+ C class fares to cover it's cost and the low end fares in the back. Again WW's faith to carry $ weekly through the winter says a lot about how well they are doing.

You may be able to show that LCC's don't have as wide a variation in fares as the more mature carriers, but that in no way shows they are successful. The fact that WOW has been continually in the headlines with stories about their serious financial problems, and Icelandic's cash reserves have fallen so much that they have been forced to notify their bondholder, shows these airlines struggle just as much - if not more - than the major airlines do with financial pressures. They can easily fill their planes with cheap fares and still lose a bundle of money.

klm617 wrote:

By your rule of thumb every post on this forum about the success or failure of a route is speculative.

Unless you have inside data from some specific airlines, that is right - most every post I see here is pure speculation. I read many posts claiming that routes are successful or are failures, and I can tell you almost every one of them has no basis in reality. Some people actually ready this stuff to get their fill of humor every day.

Again LCCs basically have three fare buckets basic, basic+ and premium and they don't discount those fares except for a sale here and there that is across the board. They don't give away seats to fill up a plane if they are not filling the seats at the prescribed price they pull out. The US3 on a regular basis raise and lower fare fares based on market conditions or if they want to get the upper hand on the competition. LCC don't go around discounting discount fares they just pull out of the market and F9 and WW are good examples of that. The reason WOW is in trouble is not because their routes don't make money it's because of their massive expansion cost. They grew pretty big pretty fast. It is of note that while WW is running STL and DTW through the winter it has dropped MIA, SFO and DFW in the winter and that says a lot about the potential of those two underserved TATL markets.

You're speaking nonsense.
First of all, consider the following: LCCe have a simpler fare structure, but the prices of these fares shift over time. Moreover, the mix of fares on a flight is not told by the LF.
Now consider their costs, which are not the same in every market. Things like fuel, fees, etc.
Throw in the revenue from fees customers pay.
What you've got is a complex (though simpler than legacies) model in which LF is one of a number of factors.
That doesn't mean that DTW is failing for WW. Without insider information, I think it likely that the opposite is true. It's just to say that we're extrapolating from incomplete information.

compensateme wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

As far as Asia, was DTW-HKG an even bigger dog than SEA-HKG? I sort of got the impression that while DTW-HKG wasn't doing well, part of the reason it was moved was to bolster the attractiveness of the SEA operation and allow for a smaller aircraft to be used (at the expense of a huge amount of network connectivity). Honestly, a small subfleet of 787s would fit for those long/thin Asia markets they have to have in their portfolio (HKG, SIN, India, maybe TPE, NGO, and KIX).

DL ended DTW long before it attempted a SEA gateway. I’m surprised DL didn’t attempt HKG from DTW again, given that travel via SEA is two stops for the crux of its network. No doubt SEA woud’ve been kept even if was posting modest losses — one can only assume the market is a huge dog for DL.

2) Does my memory deceive me**, or were the B gates originally designed for DC-9 sized aircraft and then converted to RJ gates later? My guess is that we'd never see that setup return, but with more 717s coming off of the NYC/LAX operations to DTW, I could see A going basically all mainline again.

There were few gates on B initially; CO had three and the rest were used for the Avro RJ85. It’s possible the occasional DC-9 parked there, but definitely not common. While the gates can handle all narrowbody aircraft (CO use to regularly operate the 757 to IAH, and DL occasionally brought a 763/764 in), they definitely wern’t spaced to hold large amounts of people.

**My memory also remembers a great Chicago style pizza place that used to be in A circa 2003.

Pizza Papalis, a popular local chain. The pizzas take at least 30 minutes to cook, so the DTW location only served personal pizzas that were mostly precooked. Unfortunately, it never caught on.

Personally, I think if Delta wades back into HKG, they'll do it from Los Angeles. Better connectivity than Seattle, shorter stage length than Detroit, vast O&D market to theoretically pull from.

I was at least half right on B; I think mainline capable=NW DC-9s just based on the era. And yes! Pizza Papalis was the place I was thinking of.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

You may be able to show that LCC's don't have as wide a variation in fares as the more mature carriers, but that in no way shows they are successful. The fact that WOW has been continually in the headlines with stories about their serious financial problems, and Icelandic's cash reserves have fallen so much that they have been forced to notify their bondholder, shows these airlines struggle just as much - if not more - than the major airlines do with financial pressures. They can easily fill their planes with cheap fares and still lose a bundle of money.



Unless you have inside data from some specific airlines, that is right - most every post I see here is pure speculation. I read many posts claiming that routes are successful or are failures, and I can tell you almost every one of them has no basis in reality. Some people actually ready this stuff to get their fill of humor every day.

Again LCCs basically have three fare buckets basic, basic+ and premium and they don't discount those fares except for a sale here and there that is across the board. They don't give away seats to fill up a plane if they are not filling the seats at the prescribed price they pull out. The US3 on a regular basis raise and lower fare fares based on market conditions or if they want to get the upper hand on the competition. LCC don't go around discounting discount fares they just pull out of the market and F9 and WW are good examples of that. The reason WOW is in trouble is not because their routes don't make money it's because of their massive expansion cost. They grew pretty big pretty fast. It is of note that while WW is running STL and DTW through the winter it has dropped MIA, SFO and DFW in the winter and that says a lot about the potential of those two underserved TATL markets.

You're speaking nonsense.
First of all, consider the following: LCCe have a simpler fare structure, but the prices of these fares shift over time. Moreover, the mix of fares on a flight is not told by the LF.
Now consider their costs, which are not the same in every market. Things like fuel, fees, etc.
Throw in the revenue from fees customers pay.
What you've got is a complex (though simpler than legacies) model in which LF is one of a number of factors.
That doesn't mean that DTW is failing for WW. Without insider information, I think it likely that the opposite is true. It's just to say that we're extrapolating from incomplete information.

It's not nonsense. Legacies need to sell their premium cabin that's where they make their money. So a flight that is 60% full but has sold the entire premium might be turning a profit were as LCCs make their money on overall load factor. LCC don't have a fare bucket that sells business class ticket at $2000 a piece they have a fare scale that varies very little and they don't discount on already discounted fares Well yes every airline has fixed cost the Legacy needs to sell premium seats to cover that while a LCC needs to sell all the seats it can because they don't have those high end fares to cover for a low load factor. Again the LCC rather than lower fares will just leave the market if they are not selling enough seats the legacy has some pricing flexibility to lower fares if they want to fill the back of the airplane because of the fact they have the premium cabin to cover that. So a 60% load factor on a legacy with the premium cabin 100% sold out might make money were as a 60% load factor on a LCC is probably a loser.

GSP psgr wrote:

compensateme wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

DL ended DTW long before it attempted a SEA gateway. I’m surprised DL didn’t attempt HKG from DTW again, given that travel via SEA is two stops for the crux of its network. No doubt SEA woud’ve been kept even if was posting modest losses — one can only assume the market is a huge dog for DL.



There were few gates on B initially; CO had three and the rest were used for the Avro RJ85. It’s possible the occasional DC-9 parked there, but definitely not common. While the gates can handle all narrowbody aircraft (CO use to regularly operate the 757 to IAH, and DL occasionally brought a 763/764 in), they definitely wern’t spaced to hold large amounts of people.



Pizza Papalis, a popular local chain. The pizzas take at least 30 minutes to cook, so the DTW location only served personal pizzas that were mostly precooked. Unfortunately, it never caught on.

Personally, I think if Delta wades back into HKG, they'll do it from Los Angeles. Better connectivity than Seattle, shorter stage length than Detroit, vast O&D market to theoretically pull from.

I was at least half right on B; I think mainline capable=NW DC-9s just based on the era. And yes! Pizza Papalis was the place I was thinking of.

I don't see DL going back to HKG they have KE to cover the HKG market for them with better brand recognition.

So at this point can we say the window of opportunity is now closed for any new international flights from Detroit for summer 2019 ?

The window is getting a lot smaller and less likely, but early-November is about as late as anyone would announce new international service for Summer 2019
Many airlines have already made their big new service announcements for S19.

The exception being how close-in the AM flights were added, but those markets have more in common with domestic flights than TATL/TPAC flights.

Domestically, there is still a lot of time for things to happen, as those are more typically in the 3-6 month advance timeframe.

klm617 wrote:

That's simply not true WW and NK don't have seat they sell at 5 times the cost like Delta and American to cover the back of the airplane. So if the legacies sell the back cabin but not the front it will have a greater negative effect on revenue than it would on a budget airline where maybe they good double the fare for the best seats. Where there LCC make their money is on all the add ons they charge for and that is directly linked to load factor.

You are, of course, speaking complete nonsense as usual, and also as usual, I'll use a bit of factual evidence to back my claim that just like any other carrier, WW uses Revenue Management and specifically Yield Management to charge fares that are often multiple times higher than the most discounted fares.

Let's just pick some very basic nonstop one-way fares between DTW and KEF strictly on WW to see whether or not they revenue manage with the result of having fares that are many times higher or lower than others:

WOW! A one-way fare for $109.99 - amazing. They must sell out the whole plane at that fare per your logic right?



Wrong. Here's a day where the lowest one-way fare is a whopping $729.99 - almost 7X higher than the lowest price available on other dates! What do we call that? Revenue management. Learn about it.



So, in summary...

klm617 wrote:

they have a fare scale that varies very little and they don't discount on already discounted fares

We've proven that for WOW it varies at the very least to the tune of roughly 7X all within the same cabin, which I would argue is comparable to many legacy carriers. Like I initially argued, even LCCs use the same basic revenue management mechanics.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

That's simply not true WW and NK don't have seat they sell at 5 times the cost like Delta and American to cover the back of the airplane. So if the legacies sell the back cabin but not the front it will have a greater negative effect on revenue than it would on a budget airline where maybe they good double the fare for the best seats. Where there LCC make their money is on all the add ons they charge for and that is directly linked to load factor.

You are, of course, speaking complete nonsense as usual, and also as usual, I'll use a bit of factual evidence to back my claim that just like any other carrier, WW uses Revenue Management and specifically Yield Management to charge fares that are often multiple times higher than the most discounted fares.

Let's just pick some very basic nonstop one-way fares between DTW and KEF strictly on WW to see whether or not they revenue manage with the result of having fares that are many times higher or lower than others:

WOW! A one-way fare for $109.99 - amazing. They must sell out the whole plane at that fare per your logic right?



Wrong. Here's a day where the lowest one-way fare is a whopping $729.99 - almost 7X higher than the lowest price available on other dates! What do we call that? Revenue management. Learn about it.

As you always say that is data from one day not a rule of thumb and as you proved by your post fares range between $109 each way to about $400. Funny how you chose the week before Christmas as the basis for your data.You need to take an average you yourself should know this as being an a.net rule . I can't believe you spend that much of you life trying to discredit me. I'm just a simple guy with a big mouth what threat am I to you with my opinions. You need to visit the Austin becoming a Delta focus city threat as they need a lot of clarity there as there are more myths in that one thread than what I post my friend.

klm617 wrote:

As you always say that is data from one day not a rule of thumb and as you proved by your post fares range between $109 each way to about $400. Funny how you chose the week before Christmas as the basis for your data.

Let's recap.

I said that WW effectively revenue manages like everyone else, and to say that they sell out all of their inventory at consistent low fares is ridiculous:

winginit wrote:

NK and WW very effectively revenue manage like virtually all other carriers even in the LCC or ULCC space. To say they sell out all of their inventory at low fares is ignorant - plain and simple.

You said that wasn't true. You of course didn't provide any facts or evidence, but what else is new:

klm617 wrote:

That's simply not true WW and NK don't have seat they sell at 5 times the cost like Delta and American to cover the back of the airplane.

I provided evidence refuting your claim, and you cried that I was picking on you. Averages are irrelevant here - my claim was that WW effectively revenue manages and the result is that fares can vary notably (to the tune of 7X) based on supply and demand. That's proven true. The end.

Pretty good week for DTW:

DL DTW-FLL MAR 5>6[6]
*DL DTW-JAX DEC 1.0>1.3[1.0] JAN 1.0>1.9[1.0] FEB 1.0>1.9[1.0] MAR 1.0>2[1.0]
*DL DTW-LSE MAR 0>1.0[0] APR 0>1.0[0] MAY 0>1.0[0] JUN 0>1.0[0] JUL 0>1.0[0]
DL DTW-MKE MAR 5>6[6]
DL DTW-TVC JAN 3>4[4] FEB 3>4[4]

DTW-LSE is 1x/day effective March 2, 2019:
DL4297 12:15PM DTW LSE 01:00PM CRJ
DL4297 01:30PM LSE DTW 4:15PM CRJ

cvgComair wrote:

Pretty good week for DTW:

DL DTW-FLL MAR 5>6[6]
*DL DTW-JAX DEC 1.0>1.3[1.0] JAN 1.0>1.9[1.0] FEB 1.0>1.9[1.0] MAR 1.0>2[1.0]
*DL DTW-LSE MAR 0>1.0[0] APR 0>1.0[0] MAY 0>1.0[0] JUN 0>1.0[0] JUL 0>1.0[0]
DL DTW-MKE MAR 5>6[6]
DL DTW-TVC JAN 3>4[4] FEB 3>4[4]

DTW-LSE is 1x/day effective March 2, 2019:
DL4297 12:15PM DTW LSE 01:00PM CRJ
DL4297 01:30PM LSE DTW 4:15PM CRJ

Yes it was a pretty good week for DTW. It seems the previous reductions in JAX, CRS and TVC were revered this week. So so far we lost CAK, PIA and TUL but gained HNL, LSE and ORH plus extra LHR frequency. Call me crazy but most exciting to me is the added LHR frequencies. What does everyone feel about DE adding DTW for the summer of 2019 does any one see this as a possibility ?

Why hasn’t ORH been filed yet?

I actually want to see CAK come back, but it seems like that airport has seen reductions across the board besides NK. Was LSE served in the past? What type of market is on DTW-LSE?

The LSE-DTW market is similar to the LAN-MSP situation , in that both LAN and LSE are smaller market airports within a moderate driving distance of a DL hub.

The advantage these flights offer is for DL pax in the LSE/LAN area who are 1) probably most loyal to DL given their proximity to the DL hub, and 2) going to fly through DTW/MSP anyway, it eliminates the need to make that moderate drive (or flight) to the close hub to catch a flight to another DL hub. And just as MSP offers nonstop destinations DTW doesn’t (and vice versa), it opens a bunch of new one stop options for LSE flyers.

I know there are a lot of LAN area DL FF who appreciate the MSP flight option, even if they mostly fly from, or connect through DTW. I am guessing the same could be true for DL FF who live closer to LSE.

Has anyone noticed that starting about 2 months ago there has been a more positive vibe with dtw and delta? Adding new routes, defending the turf a little, bringing back new routes? I wonder what suddenly brought the change? According to their ceo , there are more international announcements coming for dtw

dtwpilot225 wrote:

Has anyone noticed that starting about 2 months ago there has been a more positive vibe with dtw and delta? Adding new routes, defending the turf a little, bringing back new routes? I wonder what suddenly brought the change? According to their ceo , there are more international announcements coming for dtw

I was thinking this very same thing and wondering if the fact that Aer Lingus added MSP has something to do with it as we know Delta will always make it's dissatisfaction known in some way hence showing Detroit a little more love than it does to MSP at the moment.. I was also thinking that being that Delta want's to be number one in Boston and New York they need to give those customer better options for their east west travel so for the cities that are not connect nonstop to either Boston or New York Detroit is the logical place for them to connect to those destinations. One other notable fact that it's the first time in a long time that Atlanta has not seen any new destinations or service in the upcoming year in fact it has lost two LIS and MHT which is shocking in itself. Can't imagine what Delta would add at Detroit internationally but one never knows I would have never expected DTW-HNL to be added.

So Ed Bastian states in this article many things (Which I don't believe coming from him) He states again the Detroit is Delta's number one Asian gateway which again nothing has been added in years to the Detroit-Asia portfolio while ATL and SEA all have been getting new or enhanced Asia links and together with the KE JV SEA and ATL are pretty much on par with the Detroit capacity. SEA having 6 flights to Asia while ATL is now up to four and Detroit is at less than 5 daily. He also states that Detroit is the number two hub in the Delta network which he also says about MSP when he's in that city. He also talks about international expansion which doesn't jive with what Delta has been doing around the network. Ever hub in the past has seen growth internationally through diversity and capacity some Detroit has not really seen. While we have seen gains in international flights to Paris and now London we have seen reductions FRA, ICN, NRT and PVG. so at this point it is pretty much a wash. If what he says about international growth is true let us speculate what might be in the pipeline but like I say I really don't have much faith in Bastian's words as his story is pretty much the same in every city he visits. I really think that if there is any truth to his words KE to ICN and DL to MAN should be givens or perhaps he was just referring to the modest addition of 4 extra weekly LHR flights from Detroit as international expansion in his mind.

So klm 617, you were saying for years that DTW needed an Icelandic carrier for cheap fares to Europe. Have you flown on WOW yet?

johns624 wrote:

So klm 617, you were saying for years that DTW needed an Icelandic carrier for cheap fares to Europe. Have you flown on WOW yet?

Not yet I'm still bound to my beloved Delta. But I look forward to flying them the first time they fit my travels plans with price and schedule.

klm617 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So klm 617, you were saying for years that DTW needed an Icelandic carrier for cheap fares to Europe. Have you flown on WOW yet?

Not yet I'm still bound to my beloved Delta. But I look forward to flying them the first time they fit my travels plans with price and schedule.

So your many years of ranting was just an act?

johns624 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So klm 617, you were saying for years that DTW needed an Icelandic carrier for cheap fares to Europe. Have you flown on WOW yet?

Not yet I'm still bound to my beloved Delta. But I look forward to flying them the first time they fit my travels plans with price and schedule.

So your many years of ranting was just an act?

When DL throws DTW a bone he’s happy, when they don’t he gets upset.

johns624 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

So klm 617, you were saying for years that DTW needed an Icelandic carrier for cheap fares to Europe. Have you flown on WOW yet?

Not yet I'm still bound to my beloved Delta. But I look forward to flying them the first time they fit my travels plans with price and schedule.

So your many years of ranting was just an act?

No not at all but I am not adding a stop to my flight plus the chance of a missed connection to save 100 dollars. When the fare savings is significant or my destination is KEF you can bet I'll be on WOW unless FI comes to town then I'll be on FI

Wow air is actually pretty efficient, they wouldn’t have 90+ load factors to date if the passengers would consistently miss their connecting flights.

feeling pretty, pretty, pretty good about those DTW adds. I know DL has stated they are hearing their clients when they are asking for more alternative to ATL connections, and at the same time, their clients are rating DTW as the best hub experience, so, let's hope this is just them listening to their customers.

@KLM, I think we will see DY at DTW soon, and before we see Condor. By 2020, I am seeing EK or QR along with DY/EI/WW/RJ and in Terminal A, a return of KL/VS & KE or at least 2 of those three plus WS.

After further research, I see the DTW-LSE add is basically the result of a $750k federal grant LSE received in July to get service to DTW. The USDOT's Small Community Air Service Development Program awarded several grants to airports back in July. One of the winners (of $750k) was LSE, who had requested the funds to get service back to DTW and the eastern connections it provides. Currently LSE just has service to MSP via DL, and ORD via AA. So credit more to LSE, for basically subsidizing this new DTW addition. It will be good for LSE pax, and always good to have another market served from DTW.

I'm thinking by 2022...

VS could get into MAN less than daily. A source who asked to be anonymous has indicated that there is double digit growth over the last 3 years. Unfortunately, this is still very premature and will take at least 2 more years to prove that it would become a growth market that could support air service. One of the markets that outpaced MAN recently was KEF which now has a nonstop. DTW is in a good location for MAN service from midwest cities and points west.

WS into YOW with Encore, and YYC with Westjet. I'm not too sure how to explain this one related to growth in the DTW-YYC market because in reality it's not growing. It will have to do more with the fact that there's opportunity for DL/WS to compete with ORD from the east coast.

Can't see KE into ICN just yet. What I can see is a 3x weekly AM flight to GDL. GDL would have to cater to 2 types of traffic that travel on different days. I dont see any other adds for AM after GDL since that's the last market they'd get into simply because there's no other market in Mexico that has that much traffic. There's a fairly large gap between GDL and the next largest market in Mexico.

DL hasn't responded to MSP about DUB. SO there's no definitive way to know if they'd respond at DTW. Probably not. If I remember reading a news article by one of y'alls local press about the HNL flight, they want to expand into more Latin markets. SJO seasonally? Markets big enough, but will it interfere with ATL? How about emerging tech markets in Latin Am? Caribbean? Could support a weekend SXM or AUA flight. There's room for DL in some international markets.

Could see more OO at-risk markets if they put money towards it. ROA was mentioned somewhere, HVN maybe. I do want to see some out of the box thinking like ILM, ICT, CHO, or CAE.

Domestically, all that's left that averages well in terms of PDEW is SMF, ELP, and TUS in the mainland, ANC including the 50 states. Actually ANC and SMF are close.

BenflysDTW wrote:

Wow air is actually pretty efficient, they wouldn’t have 90+ load factors to date if the passengers would consistently miss their connecting flights.

I agree with you but my issue is when I have to be some where at an exact time I can't chance it. If I was just going from point A to point B and time didn't matter it would be OK. One glitch in the system and I could really be screwed. That's why I see EI and FI as better options. @johns624 when I was talking about Icelandic carriers before WW started Detroit I never mentioned them my comments were always directed at Icelandair adding Detroit.

DTW had some interesting stuff posted on their Facebook page over the past week.

- 60th Anniversary of the LC Smith Terminal opening in 1958
- 60th Anniversary of AA serving DTW, coinciding with the opening of LC Smith
(Including some vintage photos of Smith Terimal and old AA aircraft)

- July 2018 set the all-time O&D record for DTW, and was the most passenger in a month (O&D + Connecting) since July 2005.

DL is going x2 daily on MD-90 to JAX, alongside NK’s A320. This is 450+ seats on peak day departures. Up from 76...

BenflysDTW wrote:

DL is going x2 daily on MD-90 to JAX, alongside NK’s A320. This is 450+ seats on peak day departures. Up from 76...

Isn't that funny how that works LOL

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

DTW had some interesting stuff posted on their Facebook page over the past week.

- 60th Anniversary of the LC Smith Terminal opening in 1958
- 60th Anniversary of AA serving DTW, coinciding with the opening of LC Smith
(Including some vintage photos of Smith Terimal and old AA aircraft)

- July 2018 set the all-time O&D record for DTW, and was the most passenger in a month (O&D + Connecting) since July 2005.

We need to keep this positive ball rolling lot's of good news the last month.

BenflysDTW wrote:

DL is going x2 daily on MD-90 to JAX, alongside NK’s A320. This is 450+ seats on peak day departures. Up from 76...

It isn’t often DL responds to NK with capacity increases; the last example I can think of is MSY — a market DL had reduced to 2xCR9 (from NW’s 3x319). Of course, that was suppressing the market, which is probably true of JAX as well.

compensateme wrote:

BenflysDTW wrote:

DL is going x2 daily on MD-90 to JAX, alongside NK’s A320. This is 450+ seats on peak day departures. Up from 76...

It isn’t often DL responds to NK with capacity increases; the last example I can think of is MSY — a market DL had reduced to 2xCR9 (from NW’s 3x319). Of course, that was suppressing the market, which is probably true of JAX as well.

DL is smart by ramping up on CHS because there's potential for NK in that market too.

Anywho, NK and DL should coincide fine on JAX. You have it right on suppression though. MSY and MCI were 2 good examples of that. Surprised DL didn't double down on PBI first.

Todays interesting fact Detroit was actually Condor's first scheduled route from the USA to Frankfurt that was not a charter back in 1994 when they flew 3 767's a week as a Lufthansa code share and that was later switched to 3 weekly 757's during the winter and then it was dropped. Lufthansa then returned in 1998 with the daily A340. So this year marks 20 years of Lufthansa serving Detroit

Yep, JAX was a DL "suppressed" market. Back with NW it was 3x a day at its peak a mix of D9S & 319s with roughly 375 seats/day in the market. The fact that DL dropped it to as low as 66 seat/day was silly.

CHS was a later add for NW at DTW that didn't come along until NW made a push into the Southeast with the CRJ's in the early-2000s. They didn't really have a good aircraft to serve many of these markets with the right frequency/capacity until they got CRJs in the fleet. DTW-CHS at its peak in 2005 was 4x CRJ, at 200 seats/day in the market.

That said, I have family in Hilton Head and I usually look at either SAV or CHS flights to go there, depending on price. SAV is closer but CHS has a morning nonstop from DTW whereas SAV typically does not.

JetBlue is ending DTW-FLL effective January 2019.

Not a big deal really. F9 made the mistake of doing MIA last year, look how that turned out.

However, as we look forward to what B6 could do, it can either go 2 ways. Either BOS falls apart and they exit, or basic economy works out and they go for MCO next. As long as SEA doesn't fall apart, AS will only do SEA. That's the problem with carriers like AS and B6 with a market where DL is commanding and NK has the high ground for low fares. There's no room for them.

flymco753 wrote:

Not a big deal really. F9 made the mistake of doing MIA last year, look how that turned out.

However, as we look forward to what B6 could do, it can either go 2 ways. Either BOS falls apart and they exit, or basic economy works out and they go for MCO next. As long as SEA doesn't fall apart, AS will only do SEA. That's the problem with carriers like AS and B6 with a market where DL is commanding and NK has the high ground for low fares. There's no room for them.

B6's interline relationships help make BOS work so I don't think that will go anywhere. FLL depends on getting enough Caribbean and Central/South American traffic (in addition to O&D to the Miami metro) and I guess DL was able to protect its market share. I'm frankly a little surprised at this unless the connections at FLL just weren't timed well. B6 can be quite a bit cheaper on some of those Caribbean routes.

Good afternoon - newbie to the forum here.

In terms of B6 and DTW-FLL, I can tell you from personal experience the connections were poorly timed. I have been trying to book a flight to the Caribbean and I either have to stay a night before or after because one of the FLL connections are not timed, or come back through BOS. For example, I wanted to go DTW-BGI. Could go any day DTW-FLL-BGI. However, could ONLY come back on a Sunday BGI-BOS-DTW. The BGI-FLL flight could not connect to the FLL-DTW flight.

I tried at least four destinations and got the same results. I like B6 a lot and don't mind the connection options, but I am probably one of the few.

klakzky123 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Not a big deal really. F9 made the mistake of doing MIA last year, look how that turned out.

However, as we look forward to what B6 could do, it can either go 2 ways. Either BOS falls apart and they exit, or basic economy works out and they go for MCO next. As long as SEA doesn't fall apart, AS will only do SEA. That's the problem with carriers like AS and B6 with a market where DL is commanding and NK has the high ground for low fares. There's no room for them.

B6's interline relationships help make BOS work so I don't think that will go anywhere. FLL depends on getting enough Caribbean and Central/South American traffic (in addition to O&D to the Miami metro) and I guess DL was able to protect its market share. I'm frankly a little surprised at this unless the connections at FLL just weren't timed well. B6 can be quite a bit cheaper on some of those Caribbean routes.

I think NK hurt B6 more than Delta did but that's just me NK has a huge following here in Detroit. Interesting as they routed quite a few EK connections over FLL could this mean something is in the works.

If a potential DTW-DXB route had implications on DTW-FLL's viability, B6 would have to pull it AFTER DTW-DXB is announced. Doing it before or at the same time would be indicative of collusion, which is illegal since B6 and EK don't have a Joint Venture.

As I said in other forums about NK, you have to pick your poison. To be honest, I'd much rather see NK and DL go at it as opposed to watching 5 airlines offer the same product at a premium price. Look at BNA-LAX as an example where DL, AA, and WN fly the route. What does DL offer over AA for people who dont care who they fly? At least in a market like DTW-FLL or the Miami Area in general, you have AA and DL who charge the higher price and NK who charges the lower price. There's options at least.

My favorite market is obviously MCO, but in order for B6 to even be compatible in that route they need to introduce basic economy and fly it on an A321 for better margins. It cant be an E90 or 220 route for sure. This winter will see a lot of flying between DTW-MCO, spanning to 15 flights on Saturdays and 14 during the week. DL obviously using their basic economy with the larger 757 (compared to a 737 or 321). NK upgagued their previously planned A319s with the denser A320, so the market will be 3x A320 and 1x A321. Frontier pulled the A321 but that's fine because the A320 is still dense. Southwest has their 738 on the route, which offers more seats then the -700. B6 wouldn't be able to get away with flying anything less than an A321 if they want a decent margin with their basic economy. That means the route should be here in time for the opening of Terminal C in 2021.