cvgComair wrote:

Work began today on expanding the parking garage and moving the entrance area. The road realignment will start in June. http://www.fox19.com/story/37401382/wor ... r-facility

What will become of the Terminal 1 garage? And why aren't they just demolishing the whole Terminal 2 garage and expanding the Terminal 3 garage slightly to replace it? Are both garages well-used?

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

Work began today on expanding the parking garage and moving the entrance area. The road realignment will start in June. http://www.fox19.com/story/37401382/wor ... r-facility

What will become of the Terminal 1 garage? And why aren't they just demolishing the whole Terminal 2 garage and expanding the Terminal 3 garage slightly to replace it? Are both garages well-used?

They are basically demolishing a cut-through of Garage 2, making one big garage, which should be enough spaces for now, while Garage 1 will be kept for overflow. The garages rarely get full, but it is expensive to remove parts of them and they are using them as overflow for long-term, which frequently is at full capacity. I am sure they are trying to save money, with all the terminal renovations, long term parking expansion, rental car relocation, and runway 9/27 widening, they are spending quite a bit of money. (Direct link if the image stops working: https://photos.app.goo.gl/1yw2wXKzCFJjQ6Xq2)

boscmh wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

F9 seems weak at CMH, though I'd imagine both could hold their own. The bigger battle could be NK vs G4 but, even then, G4 has seemed to go such gangbusters at LCK

I agree this is the generally accepted perception, but what's really interesting is that "weak" F9 still carried more pax through CMH last year (288k) than G4 did at LCK (260k). I think being so out of the way down at Rickenbacker undeniably hurts them somewhat...

DeltaRules wrote:

NK's efforts to get their name out there definitely seem unique as compared to other entrants which have come and gone. I can't remember B6, F9, or J1 doing anything special to drum up publicity. I seem to remember G4 doing something, but can't remember what and I don't think it was as big.

NK is definitely doing some serious marketing. They have multiple billboards running right now around the city (I've seen at least a half dozen or so - along High St, 315, 71, downtown, etc), in addition to social media ads, and they're running a month-long sweepstakes with local news WSYX/WTTE - https://www.instagram.com/p/Bep3Ci6nbMJ/?taken-at=3001945

I remember B6 running billboards and maybe having some other promotions initially, but I've never seen anything at all for F9 or G4

I remember Frontier actually having a billboard along the Norwood Lateral in Cincinnati back in the Summer of 2013 just after Frontier started CVG-DEN nonstop service.

Frontier actually also used to have ads for DFW-DEN nonstop service at DFW International Airport several years ago, but this was prior to the repeal of the Wright Amendment, prior to Frontier adopting the ULCC business model, and prior to Southwest serving DEN nonstop from DAL.

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

cvgComair wrote:

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

Hm, could DL be expanding back to the point where they will need all of B long-term? Or perhaps F9 comes to establish their hub in B long-term.

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

Hm, could DL be expanding back to the point where they will need all of B long-term? Or perhaps F9 comes to establish their hub in B long-term.

Yeah, all the possibilities I could think of are (ranked from most to least likely IMO):
a) DL needs the gates, they plan on continuing expansion long-term
b) F9 builds up their small hub operation (they only have 8 gates at DEN, 5 at CVG would be pretty good sized)
c) WN builds CVG up to peer airport op size
d) Another carrier comes to CVG (who would need 5 gates though...)

Frankly, I think a/b/c are all going to happen to some extent anyways, so I guess it is anyone's guess who actually will take the gates. WN/F9 don't necessarily need to move to B to get more gates and DL does not necessarily need all of its gates to expand.

cvgComair wrote:

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

I actually forgot to post this, but I talked to a SC agent recently who said that the AA relocation is indeed temporary.

DL's footing at CVG up to this point has been one of not wanting to allow others in if they can help it, so I don't see them ceding gates to the likes of F9. I don't think they have much choice when it comes to giving up an international gate, but B gets pretty close to capacity at times with RON aircraft. If DL is indeed planning to add 4-6 cities back, giving up gates is a bad idea.

WWads wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

I actually forgot to post this, but I talked to a SC agent recently who said that the AA relocation is indeed temporary.

Did they say what the long term plans are for the Concourse?

cvgComair wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

Hm, could DL be expanding back to the point where they will need all of B long-term? Or perhaps F9 comes to establish their hub in B long-term.

Yeah, all the possibilities I could think of are (ranked from most to least likely IMO):
a) DL needs the gates, they plan on continuing expansion long-term
b) F9 builds up their small hub operation (they only have 8 gates at DEN, 5 at CVG would be pretty good sized)
c) WN builds CVG up to peer airport op size
d) Another carrier comes to CVG (who would need 5 gates though...)

Frankly, I think a/b/c are all going to happen to some extent anyways, so I guess it is anyone's guess who actually will take the gates. WN/F9 don't necessarily need to move to B to get more gates and DL does not necessarily need all of its gates to expand.

Hopefully, it's more of A than anything else, I would love to see DL get back to at least 100 flights a day. F9 could be accommodated in A easily. I don't think airlines like UA and AA need a lot of gates, they can stay in A easily.

Of course, I still expect we may see both A and B demolished and replaced with a new terminal design long-term, unless DL builds up a decent amount again.

ADrum23 wrote:

WWads wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

I actually forgot to post this, but I talked to a SC agent recently who said that the AA relocation is indeed temporary.

Did they say what the long term plans are for the Concourse?

No, I only had time to ask about the gate situation. That's all the info they'd give me.

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Hm, could DL be expanding back to the point where they will need all of B long-term? Or perhaps F9 comes to establish their hub in B long-term.

Yeah, all the possibilities I could think of are (ranked from most to least likely IMO):
a) DL needs the gates, they plan on continuing expansion long-term
b) F9 builds up their small hub operation (they only have 8 gates at DEN, 5 at CVG would be pretty good sized)
c) WN builds CVG up to peer airport op size
d) Another carrier comes to CVG (who would need 5 gates though...)

Frankly, I think a/b/c are all going to happen to some extent anyways, so I guess it is anyone's guess who actually will take the gates. WN/F9 don't necessarily need to move to B to get more gates and DL does not necessarily need all of its gates to expand.

Hopefully, it's more of A than anything else, I would love to see DL get back to at least 100 flights a day. F9 could be accommodated in A easily. I don't think airlines like UA and AA need a lot of gates, they can stay in A easily.

Of course, I still expect we may see both A and B demolished and replaced with a new terminal design long-term, unless DL builds up a decent amount again.

The old concourses were demolished at Dallas Love Field (the home base of Southwest Airlines) and replaced with a new concourse, and in addition, the baggage claim, the ticketing areas, and the terminal entrance were also all renovated at Dallas Love Field. There are also more passengers who travel through DAL per year than do through CVG, with over 15 million passengers per year at DAL vs. 7.8 million passengers at CVG.

The CVG terminal could be rebuilt along the lines of the new DAL terminal, but the rebuilt CVG terminal would likely have more gates than the renovated DAL terminal does. Two things that a rebuilt CVG terminal would have that DAL does not have are an international arrivals facility and gates capable of accommodating widebody aircraft.

jplatts wrote:

The old concourses were demolished at Dallas Love Field (the home base of Southwest Airlines) and replaced with a new concourse, and in addition, the baggage claim, the ticketing areas, and the terminal entrance were also all renovated at Dallas Love Field. There are also more passengers who travel through DAL per year than do through CVG, with over 15 million passengers per year at DAL vs. 7.8 million passengers at CVG.

The CVG terminal could be rebuilt along the lines of the new DAL terminal, but the rebuilt CVG terminal would likely have more gates than the renovated DAL terminal does. Two things that a rebuilt CVG terminal would have that DAL does not have are an international arrivals facility and gates capable of accommodating widebody aircraft.

So they really don't compare at all do they? DAL has twice the passengers and no international. So they have different needs.

Jshank83 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

The old concourses were demolished at Dallas Love Field (the home base of Southwest Airlines) and replaced with a new concourse, and in addition, the baggage claim, the ticketing areas, and the terminal entrance were also all renovated at Dallas Love Field. There are also more passengers who travel through DAL per year than do through CVG, with over 15 million passengers per year at DAL vs. 7.8 million passengers at CVG.

The CVG terminal could be rebuilt along the lines of the new DAL terminal, but the rebuilt CVG terminal would likely have more gates than the renovated DAL terminal does. Two things that a rebuilt CVG terminal would have that DAL does not have are an international arrivals facility and gates capable of accommodating widebody aircraft.

So they really don't compare at all do they? DAL has twice the passengers and no international. So they have different needs.

If CVG really wants to build a new unified concourse, RDU is the example to follow. Not DAL. Love has a relatively small number of gates, but WN makes it work since their model is about maximizing utilization and minimizing ground time. A legacy would not be able to make a concourse of that size work with a similar operation.

To put things in perspective, DAL has 20 gates total, while RDU T2 has 36. T1 has 9.

In CVG's case, a lengthened version of T2 would probably be the best fit. My view though is that the current concourses are perfectly fine and don't need much more than some maintenance and a new baggage system in B.

WWads wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

This is interesting, apparently AA is only moving to Concourse B temporarily while the apron around Concourse A is redone. The gates are still being turned into common use, but AA will not be staying long. That means another airline will eventually be taking the gates or Delta wants them back after the apron work is done.

The thing I find interesting is why would AA move to B if another current airline was eventually going to move to B, why wouldn't they just move that carrier now?

I actually forgot to post this, but I talked to a SC agent recently who said that the AA relocation is indeed temporary.

DL's footing at CVG up to this point has been one of not wanting to allow others in if they can help it, so I don't see them ceding gates to the likes of F9. I don't think they have much choice when it comes to giving up an international gate, but B gets pretty close to capacity at times with RON aircraft. If DL is indeed planning to add 4-6 cities back, giving up gates is a bad idea.

The last line is my thinking. If DL wants to expand again AND keep others out, the only way to do that is to hold on to every gate they can.

CVG will probably need a few more gates to allow current airlines to expand at some point, but they're approaching a point much like CMH where the question becomes "who's left to enter the market to fill more gates?". B6, AS/VX, SY, maybe NK seem to be the extent of the possibilities.

WWads wrote:

If CVG really wants to build a new unified concourse, RDU is the example to follow. Not DAL. Love has a relatively small number of gates, but WN makes it work since their model is about maximizing utilization and minimizing ground time. A legacy would not be able to make a concourse of that size work with a similar operation.

To put things in perspective, DAL has 20 gates total, while RDU T2 has 36. T1 has 9.

In CVG's case, a lengthened version of T2 would probably be the best fit. My view though is that the current concourses are perfectly fine and don't need much more than some maintenance and a new baggage system in B.

The thing is though, the airport has admitted (in an article that was previously linked to on this thread) that the underlying infrastructure in the concourses is approaching 30-40 years old and is obsolete (in fact, I think part of A may have been built when the original Terminal C was built). The Concourses may appear fine on the outside, but underneath where we don't see is the problem. Plus, the current layout was built for a large connecting hub operation, CVG's future (passenger wise) will likely be primarily O&D. Thus, the current layout doesn't make much sense. For example, do you really need to maintain the people mover for a O&D airport?

Even if the current layout is retained, at least A will need to be completely rebuilt/expanded with a new design. B won't need that extensive of work, but the ultimate fate of the current concourses will be tied to the airlines long term plans.

DeltaRules wrote:

The last line is my thinking. If DL wants to expand again AND keep others out, the only way to do that is to hold on to every gate they can.

CVG will probably need a few more gates to allow current airlines to expand at some point, but they're approaching a point much like CMH where the question becomes "who's left to enter the market to fill more gates?". B6, AS/VX, SY, maybe NK seem to be the extent of the possibilities.

CVG needs to get a firm commitment from DL on their future plans for the airport before deciding on any long term terminal plan. Are they going to stay at their current level of service (with a few additions) or are they going to build back up CVG into an actual hub again? Since the former is the most likely scenario, they won't need all of B if they go that route. Thus, B could be freed up for other airlines to use while CVG decides on a new terminal design that better serves an O&D airport. As I stated above, the current layout is not suitable for an O&D airport.

If however, DL wants to build back up CVG into some sort of reliever hub (which I'd be shocked if that happened), then the current concourse layout could stay and DL could take back all of B permanently, but B would need some renovations and possibly a few new gates. Meanwhile the long proposed west wing of A would need to be built with 10-15 gates and the current section demolished and rebuilt (similar to what was proposed in the 2025 master plan).

A few things on the terminal:
- Based on what I have heard about the terminal shuffles/etc, CVG is planning on keeping the current layout until a little after 2030 (not coincidently, this is when the B concessions stuff expires), with a completely new terminal a possibility for the long-term, but a tear-down-rebuild sections of the current setup is being the default.
- Yes, all of Concourse A was built right after terminal C went up, by 2030, it will be approaching 50 years old.
- The people mover isn't a huge issue for the airport, they prefer the underground connection for ease of aircraft and equipment around the tunnel and the shape of the terminal area is not optimized for a north/south concourse setup. While the exact layout of the terminal area has not been decided yet, I don't think they are planning on anything too radically different.
- They want to move the FIS to landside so that passengers do not have to re-clear security. In order to accomplish this, they are going to block off one of the trains to transport pax to the FIS facility so that busses are not needed. (This is for the unified A once B comes down, which is why the train will have to be kept).
- IMO, we are probably going to see an new Concourse A like the 2035 master plan, but extended farther to the west.

cvgComair wrote:

A few things on the terminal:
- Based on what I have heard about the terminal shuffles/etc, CVG is planning on keeping the current layout until a little after 2030 (not coincidently, this is when the B concessions stuff expires), with a completely new terminal a possibility for the long-term, but a tear-down-rebuild sections of the current setup is being the default.
- Yes, all of Concourse A was built right after terminal C went up, by 2030, it will be approaching 50 years old.
- The people mover isn't a huge issue for the airport, they prefer the underground connection for ease of aircraft and equipment around the tunnel and the shape of the terminal area is not optimized for a north/south concourse setup. While the exact layout of the terminal area has not been decided yet, I don't think they are planning on anything too radically different.
- They want to move the FIS to landside so that passengers do not have to re-clear security. In order to accomplish this, they are going to block off one of the trains to transport pax to the FIS facility so that busses are not needed. (This is for the unified A once B comes down, which is why the train will have to be kept).
- IMO, we are probably going to see an new Concourse A like the 2035 master plan, but extended farther to the west.

So they still want one unified concourse? Like I said above, I still would think any concourse plans would have to wait and see what airlines like DL, F9, WN, etc want to do long term.

Ultimate Air Shuttle has extended the LUK-PDK route through the end of the schedule and has added a 2nd daily flight. The route was originally scheduled to end in mid-March.

brooklynchris13 wrote:

Although I too get frustrated at sometimes at the lack of CMH related stuff and the overabundance of information on CVG (did we ever find out if the new Cinnabon was going to go next to escalator 4 or elevator 2?) I actually like having CMH and CVG and all the rest together. I loved how large this thread became at the end of 2017 and I think it sends a good message to the rest of the A-Netters about just how much does go in with aviation in this state. Yes, it has been CVGs turn lately (are the parking spots in the new garage going to be diagonal or straight in, did we find out about that) but I know that there will soon come a day when JPlatts gets his wish, Southwest connects CMH to every single other southwest station with a non-stop flight, we get service to AMS, LHR, CDG, and KEF (probably on the same day) and things even out a bit. Till then I really feel sorry for the people on here who are fans of HTS(?!) have we ever even talked about them? On that note, what is replacing the DH8s into there for AA? I assume CR2s? Have a good day all and remember, the C in CMH does not stand for Cincinnati either.

+2pts

While I can't say that I get down into the weeds when it comes to CVG or TOL, etc, I do skim the various posts and like to keep tabs on all the Ohio airports. So, I believe I would be in favor of keeping everyone in a single thread. (I would actually be in favor of bringing CLE back into the fold, too.)

In fact, I would be in favor of adding most of the small airports in WV, too. (I have a soft spot for CRW.)

Looks like Delta added nonstop CVG-PHX as of November 4th

topguncnod wrote:

Looks like Delta added nonstop CVG-PHX as of November 4th

That's great for CVG! Seems a long time away to already load it...my guess is they are trying to keep WN off after their seasonal pilot.

It looks the flight is well timed for (possibly primarily) leisure travel with a 7:30am departure from CVG and 11:05pm arrival at CVG. I wonder if DL, if their expansion continues, will be more leisure or business focused.

topguncnod wrote:

Looks like Delta added nonstop CVG-PHX as of November 4th

This is great! It shows that delta is still semi committed to CVG!

Wow! No wonder I didn't catch that one, that is pretty far in the future. Pretty exciting to see them back on the route, plus it is daily and on the 738.

Any chance it’s a seasonal flight?

topguncnod wrote:

Any chance it’s a seasonal flight?

It is possible, but given that Spring/Summer would be peak time for the flight, I find it odd they are starting in November if it were seasonal. That makes me think it is year round given that they have it scheduled daily/738 in the late fall/winter. Even since 2012, the route operated just for Feb/March/April, then cut after the 2015 season.

Smart add by DL

cvgComair wrote:

topguncnod wrote:

Any chance it’s a seasonal flight?

It is possible, but given that Spring/Summer would be peak time for the flight, I find it odd they are starting in November if it were seasonal. That makes me think it is year round given that they have it scheduled daily/738 in the late fall/winter. Even since 2012, the route operated just for Feb/March/April, then cut after the 2015 season.

Spring and winter are peak for PHX, summer is unbearably hot

Midwestindy wrote:

Smart add by DL

cvgComair wrote:

topguncnod wrote:

Any chance it’s a seasonal flight?

It is possible, but given that Spring/Summer would be peak time for the flight, I find it odd they are starting in November if it were seasonal. That makes me think it is year round given that they have it scheduled daily/738 in the late fall/winter. Even since 2012, the route operated just for Feb/March/April, then cut after the 2015 season.

Spring and winter are peak for PHX, summer is unbearably hot

This was my thinking. If it were a seasonal add, that would be the season.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I257 using Tapatalk

Also, the 2nd daily sat for CVG-RSW/TPA has been extended through the end of the schedule and RSW/TPA are both all mainline again (some of the 2nd sat-only flights are still RJ). ORD is now 2x/day on Saturdays, plus CVG-BWI/DCA/RDU Saturday flights have been added (BWI/RDU at 1x and DCA at 2x). Huge Saturday increases!

Midwestindy wrote:

Smart add by DL

cvgComair wrote:

topguncnod wrote:

Any chance it’s a seasonal flight?

It is possible, but given that Spring/Summer would be peak time for the flight, I find it odd they are starting in November if it were seasonal. That makes me think it is year round given that they have it scheduled daily/738 in the late fall/winter. Even since 2012, the route operated just for Feb/March/April, then cut after the 2015 season.

Spring and winter are peak for PHX, summer is unbearably hot

That makes sense with the summer, I was thinking more that November is not peak. I would love to see them fly CVG-PHX in the late-fall/Winter/Spring and do CVG-SAN in the Summer/early-fall, that would optimize each route for its peak season, while only using one aircraft.

jtwall wrote:

topguncnod wrote:

Looks like Delta added nonstop CVG-PHX as of November 4th

That's great for CVG! Seems a long time away to already load it...my guess is they are trying to keep WN off after their seasonal pilot.

It looks the flight is well timed for (possibly primarily) leisure travel with a 7:30am departure from CVG and 11:05pm arrival at CVG. I wonder if DL, if their expansion continues, will be more leisure or business focused.

There are destinations that WN does serve nonstop from PHX that none of the US3 serve nonstop from PHX, including SDF, CLE, and BNA. In addition, JFK is currently the only East Coast airport not served by WN that passengers would be connecting to through CVG on DL, but JFK already has nonstop service from PHX on DL, AA, and B6.

DL can also connect passengers to its East Coast destinations from PHX through its ATL, DTW, and JFK hubs. WN can also already connect passengers from PHX to its East Coast destinations through DEN, DAL, STL, BNA, ATL, MDW, and BWI.

DL cannot connect passengers to any non-DL hub destinations from CVG through PHX, and DL will already have year-round nonstop service to its SEA and LAX hubs from CVG when it resumes CVG-PHX nonstop service. On the other hand, WN will be able to connect passengers to destinations in California and Nevada from CVG through PHX when it starts CVG-PHX seasonal nonstop service on March 8th.

The resumption of DL CVG-PHX nonstop service is targeted primarily towards O&D travel between CVG and PHX and towards Cincinnati-area travelers who are loyal to DL.

jplatts wrote:

jtwall wrote:

topguncnod wrote:

Looks like Delta added nonstop CVG-PHX as of November 4th

That's great for CVG! Seems a long time away to already load it...my guess is they are trying to keep WN off after their seasonal pilot.

It looks the flight is well timed for (possibly primarily) leisure travel with a 7:30am departure from CVG and 11:05pm arrival at CVG. I wonder if DL, if their expansion continues, will be more leisure or business focused.

There are destinations that WN does serve nonstop from PHX that none of the US3 serve nonstop from PHX, including SDF, CLE, and BNA. In addition, JFK is currently the only East Coast airport not served by WN that passengers would be connecting to through CVG on DL, but JFK already has nonstop service from PHX on DL, AA, and B6.

DL can also connect passengers to its East Coast destinations from PHX through its ATL, DTW, and JFK hubs. WN can also already connect passengers from PHX to its East Coast destinations through DEN, DAL, STL, BNA, ATL, MDW, and BWI.

DL cannot connect passengers to any non-DL hub destinations from CVG through PHX, and DL will already have year-round nonstop service to its SEA and LAX hubs from CVG when it resumes CVG-PHX nonstop service. On the other hand, WN will be able to connect passengers to destinations in California and Nevada from CVG through PHX when it starts CVG-PHX seasonal nonstop service on March 8th.

The resumption of DL CVG-PHX nonstop service is targeted primarily towards O&D travel between CVG and PHX and towards Cincinnati-area travelers who are loyal to DL.

I think you've established how the hub and spoke system works. There are multiple connecting options when traveling from Point to A to Point B if it isn't served non-stop. Those decisions are made by price, schedule, and loyalty to an airline.

I'm glad to see DL adding another 738 route out of CVG.

I'm juggling all three ULCCs against DL for a Daytona trip in March- if I wind up on one of them, I'll report back how the experience goes. It looks like the CMH-MCO Friday night flight I'm considering is an A321, so they're back to the big baby bus at CMH.

NoTime wrote:

+2pts

While I can't say that I get down into the weeds when it comes to CVG or TOL, etc, I do skim the various posts and like to keep tabs on all the Ohio airports. So, I believe I would be in favor of keeping everyone in a single thread. (I would actually be in favor of bringing CLE back into the fold, too.)

In fact, I would be in favor of adding most of the small airports in WV, too. (I have a soft spot for CRW.)

I'd be alright adding West Virginia chat- we've already "adopted" two of their airports (PKB and HTS) due to proximity to Ohio and I don't figure there will be too much about the others which would derail the thread too much, with CRW the only one to see legacy service.

jplatts wrote:

jtwall wrote:

topguncnod wrote:

Looks like Delta added nonstop CVG-PHX as of November 4th

That's great for CVG! Seems a long time away to already load it...my guess is they are trying to keep WN off after their seasonal pilot.

It looks the flight is well timed for (possibly primarily) leisure travel with a 7:30am departure from CVG and 11:05pm arrival at CVG. I wonder if DL, if their expansion continues, will be more leisure or business focused.

There are destinations that WN does serve nonstop from PHX that none of the US3 serve nonstop from PHX, including SDF, CLE, and BNA. In addition, JFK is currently the only East Coast airport not served by WN that passengers would be connecting to through CVG on DL, but JFK already has nonstop service from PHX on DL, AA, and B6.

DL can also connect passengers to its East Coast destinations from PHX through its ATL, DTW, and JFK hubs. WN can also already connect passengers from PHX to its East Coast destinations through DEN, DAL, STL, BNA, ATL, MDW, and BWI.

DL cannot connect passengers to any non-DL hub destinations from CVG through PHX, and DL will already have year-round nonstop service to its SEA and LAX hubs from CVG when it resumes CVG-PHX nonstop service. On the other hand, WN will be able to connect passengers to destinations in California and Nevada from CVG through PHX when it starts CVG-PHX seasonal nonstop service on March 8th.

The resumption of DL CVG-PHX nonstop service is targeted primarily towards O&D travel between CVG and PHX and towards Cincinnati-area travelers who are loyal to DL.

In some of your posts, you need to consider apples to apples comparisons. WN doesn't serve JFK and probably never will, so there's no reason to bring it up.

DL adding CVG-PHX is clearly in response to WN adding CVG-PHX, which didn't someone say previously is going year round in May?

My question is, with the expansion in recent years, I wonder if DL is beginning to regret cutting back as much as they have at CVG? I mean, they don't have nearly as big of a presence anymore and here they are trying to fend off WN, just like the old days. I am really curious to know what DL's long term plans for CVG are.

BTW: What are the chances DL resumes CVG-MSN? That is a route I'd like to see resume.

ADrum23 wrote:

DL adding CVG-PHX is clearly in response to WN adding CVG-PHX, which didn't someone say previously is going year round in May?

My question is, with the expansion in recent years, I wonder if DL is beginning to regret cutting back as much as they have at CVG? I mean, they don't have nearly as big of a presence anymore and here they are trying to fend off WN, just like the old days. I am really curious to know what DL's long term plans for CVG are.

BTW: What are the chances DL resumes CVG-MSN? That is a route I'd like to see resume.

It could be them trying to have it both ways: "We don't want to have as much of a presence here, but lol if you're going to expand here new kid" (throws a 738 on a route WN could grow and hangs on to gates others could use to expand).

ADrum23 wrote:

DL adding CVG-PHX is clearly in response to WN adding CVG-PHX, which didn't someone say previously is going year round in May?

My question is, with the expansion in recent years, I wonder if DL is beginning to regret cutting back as much as they have at CVG? I mean, they don't have nearly as big of a presence anymore and here they are trying to fend off WN, just like the old days. I am really curious to know what DL's long term plans for CVG are.

BTW: What are the chances DL resumes CVG-MSN? That is a route I'd like to see resume.

For the most part, CVG-MSN/RIC/PIT/GRR/MEM were cut because of pilot/aircraft shortages and high % connecting pax, the LF's on all of the routes were similar to CVG-STL/BNA/MCI/BWI/etc at the time. (the same goes for non-CR2 routes like CVG-SAN/MSY/PHX/JAX). This was the last of the infamous "right-sizing" cuts. Starting in 2015, the DL's stance on CVG changed dramatically, per Richard Anderson in 2015, "Delta CEO Richard Anderson said during a conference call this month to discuss third-quarter earnings that the Cincinnati hub has contributed to 'new record levels' of performance on domestic flights." This was around the time that the CVG CEO said that DL thought it cut too much at CVG and all the expansion rumors came about, but little came of it. While the 2016 announcement was a welcome change, it was still mostly a PR move.

Now that DL is clearly going in the opposite direction and growing quite significantly, I suppose there are a lot of options for them. At this point, G4/F9 are firmly entrenched in CVG, the pricing condition is unlikely to change in DL's favor no matter how much they add. Many of the RJ routes can work from CVG, but the bulk of the traffic is going to be connecting and on CR2's. They certainly could upgrade routes like CVG-MCI/STL/CLT/RDU/PHL/ORD to CR9's and push the CRJ's on a few of these RJ routes. The recent upguages certainly make this a possible proposition as the amount of CRJ's is scheduled to plummet starting this summer. For now, I think it is likely that MEM will be back and perhaps PIT, but until these are added, I cannot see DL trying any other CRJ routes.

Per future DL growth, I think this what we could see over the next few years:
- CVG to PHL/CLT/ORD/STL/MCI/BWI some or all frequencies on larger RJ's
- CVG to BNA at 2x/(CRJ and/or CR7)
- CVG to MKE/MEM/PIT at 2x/CRJ
- CVG to JAX/MSY/SAT at 1xCR7/9 (seasonal, something like daily spring, sat-only summer, etc)
- CVG to SAN at 1x738 (summer seasonal)
- CVG to SEA/DEN (maybe LAS and/or SFO) summer seasonal 2nd daily
- some kind of TATL growth, either April/May/June A330 CVG-CDG or seasonal CVG-(LHR or AMS) flight

DeltaRules wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

DL adding CVG-PHX is clearly in response to WN adding CVG-PHX, which didn't someone say previously is going year round in May?

My question is, with the expansion in recent years, I wonder if DL is beginning to regret cutting back as much as they have at CVG? I mean, they don't have nearly as big of a presence anymore and here they are trying to fend off WN, just like the old days. I am really curious to know what DL's long term plans for CVG are.

BTW: What are the chances DL resumes CVG-MSN? That is a route I'd like to see resume.

It could be them trying to have it both ways: "We don't want to have as much of a presence here, but lol if you're going to expand here new kid" (throws a 738 on a route WN could grow and hangs on to gates others could use to expand).

Then come 2020 when their lease is up, the airport can say, "Ok, since your not interested in having a hub here anymore, we are going to convert all the gates in B to common use." It seems CVG is really starting to abandon their DL roots and starting to embrace being a multi-carrier, primarily O&D airport, so I don't think the airport would be too happy with DL trying to kick others off routes.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome DL expansion at CVG, but it's kind of pointless to fend off others unless they plan on building up an actual hub again. There are other markets that would make more sense for DL to focus on.

cvgComair wrote:

Ultimate Air Shuttle has extended the LUK-PDK route through the end of the schedule and has added a 2nd daily flight. The route was originally scheduled to end in mid-March.

Excellent news. Discontinuing PDK was ominous.

ADrum23 wrote:

Then come 2020 when their lease is up, the airport can say, "Ok, since your not interested in having a hub here anymore, we are going to convert all the gates in B to common use." It seems CVG is really starting to abandon their DL roots and starting to embrace being a multi-carrier, primarily O&D airport, so I don't think the airport would be too happy with DL trying to kick others off routes.

Don't get me wrong, I welcome DL expansion at CVG, but it's kind of pointless to fend off others unless they plan on building up an actual hub again. There are other markets that would make more sense for DL to focus on.

I don't know the exact terms, but I think it is very unlikely that the airport kick's DL out of their gates in B. DL did build Concourse A/B/C for the airport with their own money, my guess is that DL is welcome for as long as they want the gates. Instead of abandoning the DL roots, I think the airport is starting to treat other carriers more equally to DL. Even then, Delta still wields significant control at CVG, which is mostly attributed to the fact that A and B were built by Delta, for Delta. In Delta's view, the new common use gates in B are probably a huge plus, they get extra lease revenue, probably reduced land lease fees, extra concession revenue, and they still can use those 6 gates for overflow.

DL may be going after other carriers, but in turn they are lower prices, which is beneficial for the airport. At the moment, no one seems to be retreating. Given that G4 pulls routes at the first bad sign, I think it is safe to assume CVG can handle all of these flights. Even F9, who is shaky with keeping routes up is remaining strong in CVG, just look what they are doing in CLE...

cvgComair wrote:

Even then, Delta still wields significant control at CVG, which is mostly attributed to the fact that A and B were built by Delta, for Delta.

DL may be going after other carriers, but in turn they are lower prices, which is beneficial for the airport. At the moment, no one seems to be retreating.

This is an interesting point. Unlike peer airports that had large scale hubs of similar size (STL and PIT come to mind), CVG is unique in the fact that DL didn't completely abandon their hub operation and maintains a large presence and is even beginning to expand a bit again. Therefore, I fear that they may just do enough to undercut other airlines from significantly expanding, but not enough to build an actual hub to make up for it again. While F9 and G4 have been able to gain a foothold in CVG, DL may view WN as more of a legitimate thread and may do much more to undercut them.

DeltaRules wrote:

NoTime wrote:

+2pts

While I can't say that I get down into the weeds when it comes to CVG or TOL, etc, I do skim the various posts and like to keep tabs on all the Ohio airports. So, I believe I would be in favor of keeping everyone in a single thread. (I would actually be in favor of bringing CLE back into the fold, too.)

In fact, I would be in favor of adding most of the small airports in WV, too. (I have a soft spot for CRW.)

I'd be alright adding West Virginia chat- we've already "adopted" two of their airports (PKB and HTS) due to proximity to Ohio and I don't figure there will be too much about the others which would derail the thread too much, with CRW the only one to see legacy service.

That's kind of what I was thinking. But, for the record, CKB now has United service and LWB is adding it soon. Looks like the whole Via Air experiment isn't working out. I wonder if PKB will follow...?

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

This is an interesting point. Unlike peer airports that had large scale hubs of similar size (STL and PIT come to mind), CVG is unique in the fact that DL didn't completely abandon their hub operation and maintains a large presence and is even beginning to expand a bit again. Therefore, I fear that they may just do enough to undercut other airlines from significantly expanding, but not enough to build an actual hub to make up for it again. While F9 and G4 have been able to gain a foothold in CVG, DL may view WN as more of a legitimate thread and may do much more to undercut them.

I think this is a legitimate concern. CVG is reinventing itself but this is in large part due to new carriers with new fare structures that the O&D traveler has embraced. This wouldn’t have happened had Delta not created a tremendous void through its downsizing. New carriers trying to get a foothold in CVG back in DL’s heyday were matched on price and quickly driven out of the market when the public ran back to DL. To avoid history repeating itself, people should support the new carriers and not run back to Delta when it tries to restablish routes it cut. Diversity of airlines will drive CVG’s future, not a return to hub for DL or anyone else. I’m a fan of DL and I like that they focus on CVG. But I don’t want to return to the days where they become competitive only long enough to drive the competition off and then raise fares to unconscionable levels because they are the only game in town.

GSM605 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

This is an interesting point. Unlike peer airports that had large scale hubs of similar size (STL and PIT come to mind), CVG is unique in the fact that DL didn't completely abandon their hub operation and maintains a large presence and is even beginning to expand a bit again. Therefore, I fear that they may just do enough to undercut other airlines from significantly expanding, but not enough to build an actual hub to make up for it again. While F9 and G4 have been able to gain a foothold in CVG, DL may view WN as more of a legitimate thread and may do much more to undercut them.

I think this is a legitimate concern. CVG is reinventing itself but this is in large part due to new carriers with new fare structures that the O&D traveler has embraced. This wouldn’t have happened had Delta not created a tremendous void through its downsizing. New carriers trying to get a foothold in CVG back in DL’s heyday were matched on price and quickly driven out of the market when the public ran back to DL. To avoid history repeating itself, people should support the new carriers and not run back to Delta when it tries to restablish routes it cut. Diversity of airlines will drive CVG’s future, not a return to hub for DL or anyone else. I’m a fan of DL and I like that they focus on CVG. But I don’t want to return to the days where they become competitive only long enough to drive the competition off and then raise fares to unconscionable levels because they are the only game in town.

My thinking is DL tolerated F9 and G4 because they saw them as niche ULCC's that targeted leisure travelers to places like Florida. However, when WN came along, they view them as more of a real threat because WN is increasingly popular amongst business travelers and could capture some of that traffic if they don't respond. Granted, I doubt DL will drive WN out of the market completely, but they may cause them not to expand as much as they could.

GSM605 wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

This is an interesting point. Unlike peer airports that had large scale hubs of similar size (STL and PIT come to mind), CVG is unique in the fact that DL didn't completely abandon their hub operation and maintains a large presence and is even beginning to expand a bit again. Therefore, I fear that they may just do enough to undercut other airlines from significantly expanding, but not enough to build an actual hub to make up for it again. While F9 and G4 have been able to gain a foothold in CVG, DL may view WN as more of a legitimate thread and may do much more to undercut them.

I think this is a legitimate concern. CVG is reinventing itself but this is in large part due to new carriers with new fare structures that the O&D traveler has embraced. This wouldn’t have happened had Delta not created a tremendous void through its downsizing. New carriers trying to get a foothold in CVG back in DL’s heyday were matched on price and quickly driven out of the market when the public ran back to DL. To avoid history repeating itself, people should support the new carriers and not run back to Delta when it tries to restablish routes it cut. Diversity of airlines will drive CVG’s future, not a return to hub for DL or anyone else. I’m a fan of DL and I like that they focus on CVG. But I don’t want to return to the days where they become competitive only long enough to drive the competition off and then raise fares to unconscionable levels because they are the only game in town.

WN successfully competes against DL on DAL-ATL, DAL-DTW, DAL-LAX, DAL-LGA, and DAL-SLC nonstop service. The situation has also changed in the DFW Metroplex with Delta eliminating its DFW hub 13 years ago, with the repeal of the Wright Amendment, and with WN adding nonstop service from DAL to Delta's ATL, DTW, LAX, LGA, SLC, and SEA hubs plus Delta's BOS and RDU focus cities.

WN would also be able to connect passengers from CVG to at least ABQ, AMA, AUS, ELP, HOU, LIT, LBB, MAF, OKC, SAT, and TUL through DAL if it adds DAL-CVG nonstop service. DL, on the other hand, is more reliant on nonstop travel between DFW and CVG on its DFW-CVG nonstop flights, and DL cannot connect passengers to these destinations from CVG through DFW on its DFW-CVG nonstop flights.

DL does not serve AMA, CRP, LBB, and MAF, but WN would be able to connect passengers to these smaller Texas markets from CVG through DAL and HOU if it adds CVG-DAL and CVG-HOU nonstop service.

WN can do well on DAL-CVG nonstop service if it adds DAL-CVG nonstop service since there is probably enough demand for DAL-CVG nonstop service with F9 doing DFW-CVG nonstop service on a seasonal, less-than-daily basis, since WN has been able to successfully compete against DL on nonstop routes to other DL hubs from DAL, and since there are many travelers in Texas who would still choose to fly on WN to CVG if DL did lower DFW-CVG fares in response to WN adding DAL-CVG nonstop service.

DAL is located in the City of Dallas and is much closer to Downtown Dallas than DFW Airport is, and the convenience factor would probably cause some Cincinnati-area travelers to choose to fly to DAL on WN over DFW on DL if WN adds DAL-CVG nonstop service. On the other hand, there are some Cincinnati-area customers who are loyal to DL and who would choose to fly on DL to DFW, even if WN adds DAL-CVG nonstop service.

I had another comment here regarding the previous post and I'm not going to encourage.

As for DL/CVG talk, I just realized F9 added CVG-AUS only for DL to do so as well. The Widget attempting to throw the block there, too?

DeltaRules wrote:

I had another comment here regarding the previous post and I'm not going to encourage.

As for DL/CVG talk, I just realized F9 added CVG-AUS only for DL to do so as well. The Widget attempting to throw the block there, too?

Maybe. Who knows what is going on here? Certainly, there is room for more than one carrier on certain routes, but if DL is going to try and undercut WN and F9 while maintaining their current number of flights, I don't feel that is in CVG's best interests.

DeltaRules wrote:

As for DL/CVG talk, I just realized F9 added CVG-AUS only for DL to do so as well. The Widget attempting to throw the block there, too?

AUS is beyond the LGA perimeter, and the LGA perimeter restrictions prevent DL from serving AUS nonstop from LGA on weekdays and Sundays. DL will be able to connect passengers to its LGA hub from AUS through CVG (and vice versa) after DL brings back AUS-CVG nonstop service, but DL can also connect passengers between LGA and AUS through its ATL and DTW hubs and RDU focus city.

F9 will also be able to connect passengers between AUS and LGA through CVG once it starts AUS-CVG nonstop service, but most of the Austin-area travelers who travel to NYC prefer to do so on airlines other than F9. Most of the NYC-area travelers also prefer to fly to AUS on airlines other than F9.

ADrum23 wrote:

DeltaRules wrote:

I had another comment here regarding the previous post and I'm not going to encourage.

As for DL/CVG talk, I just realized F9 added CVG-AUS only for DL to do so as well. The Widget attempting to throw the block there, too?

Maybe. Who knows what is going on here? Certainly, there is room for more than one carrier on certain routes, but if DL is going to try and undercut WN and F9 while maintaining their current number of flights, I don't feel that is in CVG's best interests.

WN has over 50% market share in the Albuquerque, Kansas City, Nashville, Sacramento, and St. Louis markets, and there are travelers in these markets who would choose to fly on WN over its competitors, even if DL undercuts WN on nonstop routes out of ABQ, MCI, BNA, SMF, or STL.

DL does not allow ticket changes on its Basic Economy tickets and DL does charge change fees on non-refundable fare Main Cabin, Comfort+, and First Class tickets. On the other hand, WN allows ticket changes without having to pay change fees, even on its cheapest tickets. WN also allows passengers to apply unused funds from cancelled tickets towards future travel within 1 year of original ticket purchase without having to pay any change fees.

WN also does have change fees for the 1st and 2nd checked bags, whereas the other airlines in the U.S. all now usually charge fees for the 1st and 2nd checked bags in Economy Class.

No change fees and no fees for the 1st and 2nd checked bags are two of the main competitive advantages that WN has over other airlines in the U.S., and these competitive advantages have steered some travelers who would otherwise fly on other airlines to fly on WN.

A cheaper DL fare can no longer be compared against a more expensive WN fare on the basis of price alone since DL does impose restrictions on Basic Economy tickets that WN does not impose on its cheapest fare tickets, since DL does charge for the 1st and 2nd checked bags whereas WN does not charge for the 1st and 2nd checked bags, and WN also allows ticket changes without having to pay change fees.

jplatts wrote:

WN has over 50% market share in the Albuquerque, Kansas City, Nashville, Sacramento, and St. Louis markets, and there are travelers in these markets who would choose to fly on WN over its competitors, even if DL undercuts WN on nonstop routes out of ABQ, MCI, BNA, SMF, or STL.

DL does not allow ticket changes on its Basic Economy tickets and DL does charge change fees on non-refundable fare Main Cabin, Comfort+, and First Class tickets. On the other hand, WN allows ticket changes without having to pay change fees, even on its cheapest tickets. WN also allows passengers to apply unused funds from cancelled tickets towards future travel within 1 year of original ticket purchase without having to pay any change fees.

Ok, what is your point? Most people fly with the airline that has the largest share at their local airport, so of course people in the markets you mentioned would fly WN. DL wouldn't undercut WN out of those cities because DL is not the largest airline in any of those markets.

At CVG on the other hand, despite the cutbacks, DL is still the largest by quite a lot, so they have all the leverage there to undercut WN. If you are a DL FF and have the option of DL or WN, which would you choose?

ADrum23 wrote:

Ok, what is your point? Most people fly with the airline that has the largest share at their local airport, so of course people in the markets you mentioned would fly WN. DL wouldn't undercut WN out of those cities because DL is not the largest airline in any of those markets.

At CVG on the other hand, despite the cutbacks, DL is still the largest by quite a lot, so they have all the leverage there to undercut WN. If you are a DL FF and have the option of DL or WN, which would you choose?

I agree that most DL FF's would prefer to fly on DL unless the WN fare is significantly cheaper than the DL fare.

WN also serves DL's ATL, DTW, LAX, MSP, LGA, SLC, and SEA hubs and DL's BOS and RDU focus cities. The only DL hub in the U.S. that WN doesn't serve is JFK, but WN does serve LGA, EWR, and ISP in the NYC metropolitan area.

WN did have to face similar competitive challenges when it entered ATL, MSP, and SLC, all of which were hubs for DL prior to WN's entry into these three markets, but WN was able to successfully compete against DL at ATL, MSP, and SLC.

topguncnod wrote:

https://news.delta.com/delta-continues-expansion-most-popular-destinations-cincinnatinorthern-kentucky

Given that the press release is out, do you think that this is all DL may do at CVG in 2018? If I recall correctly, they only announced the SEA year-round change previously.