Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

pdt2f wrote:

I was dummy booking some flights on DL’s app for January 2019 the other day and they’ll apparently be running 757’s in the mornings on the ATL route. Of course, being 10 months in advance that could change, but it would be interesting to see if they upgauge the route, especially if they provide less frequency b/c of WN’s service.

As an aside, I’m a little shocked at the block times SWA has for the BNA-ATL route. It appears all of them are exactly 1:00 or 1:05. Delta’s block times are no less than 1:02 up to 1:18 depending on the time of day. SWA’s times will need to be increased due to ATL flow times. They certainly won’t get advantageous flow times from ATC.

It shouldn't be a problem as long as they push on time. Flight time is typically 40-45 minutes depending on runway configurations at both ends.

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

As an aside, I’m a little shocked at the block times SWA has for the BNA-ATL route. It appears all of them are exactly 1:00 or 1:05. Delta’s block times are no less than 1:02 up to 1:18 depending on the time of day. SWA’s times will need to be increased due to ATL flow times. They certainly won’t get advantageous flow times from ATC.

It shouldn't be a problem as long as they push on time. Flight time is typically 40-45 minutes depending on runway configurations at both ends.

I fly this weekly in both directions and the usually wheels up time delay (BNA-ATL) ranges from 10-25 minutes. Add in another 10 minutes of average taxi time in ATL and a 38-42 minute flight becomes almost impossible to pull off without overblocking and causing delays (assuming 1:00 or 1:05 block times).

My overall point is I predict those scheduled block times will increase modestly as they get experience on the route. Delta’s times are padded well.

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

It shouldn't be a problem as long as they push on time. Flight time is typically 40-45 minutes depending on runway configurations at both ends.

I fly this weekly in both directions and the usually wheels up time delay (BNA-ATL) ranges from 10-25 minutes. Add in another 10 minutes of average taxi time in ATL and a 38-42 minute flight becomes almost impossible to pull off without overblocking and causing delays (assuming 1:00 or 1:05 block times).

My overall point is I predict those scheduled block times will increase modestly as they get experience on the route. Delta’s times are padded well.

Right, because DL schedules the flights at about 15 minutes before their slot and sometimes pushes early. But nothing says that WN can or should schedule like that.

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

I fly this weekly in both directions and the usually wheels up time delay (BNA-ATL) ranges from 10-25 minutes. Add in another 10 minutes of average taxi time in ATL and a 38-42 minute flight becomes almost impossible to pull off without overblocking and causing delays (assuming 1:00 or 1:05 block times).

My overall point is I predict those scheduled block times will increase modestly as they get experience on the route. Delta’s times are padded well.

Right, because DL schedules the flights at about 15 minutes before their slot and sometimes pushes early. But nothing says that WN can or should schedule like that.

Actually they don’t. Delta has to call to get the actual slot times. Slot times vary wildly with any given day so it’s almost impossible to schedule flight around them.

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Right, because DL schedules the flights at about 15 minutes before their slot and sometimes pushes early. But nothing says that WN can or should schedule like that.

Actually they don’t. Delta has to call to get the actual slot times. Slot times vary wildly with any given day so it’s almost impossible to schedule flight around them.

Yeah, but there's something more to it than that (or many DL pilots are liars, which I doubt). I've had numerous BNA-ATL flights on which the pilots have announced that we have to wait for a wheels up time due to an early push. If they called when they pushed, that wouldn't happen.

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Actually they don’t. Delta has to call to get the actual slot times. Slot times vary wildly with any given day so it’s almost impossible to schedule flight around them.

Yeah, but there's something more to it than that (or many DL pilots are liars, which I doubt). I've had numerous BNA-ATL flights on which the pilots have announced that we have to wait for a wheels up time due to an early push. If they called when they pushed, that wouldn't happen.

Delta crews are supposed to call 20 minutes or more prior to departure for the flow time. They ask for a flow time of scheduled departure time plus 10 minutes to allow for standard taxi time to the runway. Once received from ATC, that time can’t be adjusted earlier so an early push means nothing in the grand scheme of things. An early push usually means the gate is needed for another Inbound flight.

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Yeah, but there's something more to it than that (or many DL pilots are liars, which I doubt). I've had numerous BNA-ATL flights on which the pilots have announced that we have to wait for a wheels up time due to an early push. If they called when they pushed, that wouldn't happen.

Delta crews are supposed to call 20 minutes or more prior to departure for the flow time. They ask for a flow time of scheduled departure time plus 10 minutes to allow for standard taxi time to the runway. Once received from ATC, that time can’t be adjusted earlier so an early push means nothing in the grand scheme of things. An early push usually means the gate is needed for another Inbound flight.

I think the early pushes are more about DL's incessant attention to D0, especially for agents. Yet another reason that that focus is somewhat misguided.

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Delta crews are supposed to call 20 minutes or more prior to departure for the flow time. They ask for a flow time of scheduled departure time plus 10 minutes to allow for standard taxi time to the runway. Once received from ATC, that time can’t be adjusted earlier so an early push means nothing in the grand scheme of things. An early push usually means the gate is needed for another Inbound flight.

I think the early pushes are more about DL's incessant attention to D0, especially for agents. Yet another reason that that focus is somewhat misguided.

I’m not following. Are you suggesting there shouldn’t be an incessant focus on D0? Should they just stay at the gate and potentially miss the flow time and make the delay worse?

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I think the early pushes are more about DL's incessant attention to D0, especially for agents. Yet another reason that that focus is somewhat misguided.

I’m not following. Are you suggesting there shouldn’t be an incessant focus on D0? Should they just stay at the gate and potentially miss the flow time and make the delay worse?

No, I'm suggesting that no passenger cares about D0. We care about A0 (or maybe A5 or A15). I don't care if the plane pushes 10 minutes early, on time, or 30 minutes late if I get where I'm going when I'm supposed to be there.

ilovelamp wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

I’m not following. Are you suggesting there shouldn’t be an incessant focus on D0? Should they just stay at the gate and potentially miss the flow time and make the delay worse?

No, I'm suggesting that no passenger cares about D0. We care about A0 (or maybe A5 or A15). I don't care if the plane pushes 10 minutes early, on time, or 30 minutes late if I get where I'm going when I'm supposed to be there.

The airlines care about D0 because those stats are tracked by the DOT. A0 (not A14 like most other airlines) is becoming the incessant focus at Delta so that’s why D0 is becoming more critical.

evank516 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

This is completely random, but I've noticed Concourse B is pretty packed with people now compared like 2 short years ago. It was pretty much shoulder to shoulder walking down to the end to of the Concourse last week.

I flew to BNA from DTW on an A320 and it was oversold. The agents were complaining about why there aren't larger aircraft, so I assume once hold space is expanded you'll start seeing some 737-800's or even -900's on the route for Delta.

I don't think the 738 would qualify as a larger aircraft compared to the A320. Both have very similar capacity depending on layout. The 739 would, the A321 would, and the 757 would, and I think they can manage a 739 there, but anything larger probably requires some renovations.

flymco753 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

I flew to BNA from DTW on an A320 and it was oversold. The agents were complaining about why there aren't larger aircraft, so I assume once hold space is expanded you'll start seeing some 737-800's or even -900's on the route for Delta.

I don't think the 738 would qualify as a larger aircraft compared to the A320. Both have very similar capacity depending on layout. The 739 would, the A321 would, and the 757 would, and I think they can manage a 739 there, but anything larger probably requires some renovations.

You're right about the 738 being the same size as the 320, roughly. I think as they expand the hold areas, 739 service to SEA, LAX and A321 service to DTW is possible while increasing LGA and MSP to 717's.

flymco753 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

I flew to BNA from DTW on an A320 and it was oversold. The agents were complaining about why there aren't larger aircraft, so I assume once hold space is expanded you'll start seeing some 737-800's or even -900's on the route for Delta.

I don't think the 738 would qualify as a larger aircraft compared to the A320. Both have very similar capacity depending on layout. The 739 would, the A321 would, and the 757 would, and I think they can manage a 739 there, but anything larger probably requires some renovations.

You're right about the 738 being the same size as the 320, roughly. I think as they expand the hold areas, 739 service to SEA, LAX and A321 service to DTW is possible while increasing LGA and MSP to 717's.

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

I don't think the 738 would qualify as a larger aircraft compared to the A320. Both have very similar capacity depending on layout. The 739 would, the A321 would, and the 757 would, and I think they can manage a 739 there, but anything larger probably requires some renovations.

You're right about the 738 being the same size as the 320, roughly. I think as they expand the hold areas, 739 service to SEA, LAX and A321 service to DTW is possible while increasing LGA and MSP to 717's.

Why would they need to expand the hold areas? DL has flown 757s on and off to ATL for decades.

gsg013 wrote:

Agree that NYC-BNA could definitely be allocated a mainline flight at least once a day. The issue I see is that the yield on the flight is fairly high so keeping the RJ allows to cap capacity and keep those yields high. I think in the short term it could go to a 717 and eventually C-Series.

That being said I do believe that LGA-BNA will be one of the first routes to see the C-series. (Potentially after LGA-DFW). Another Point to Point route I could see DL adding via RJ could be EWR-BNA. (It would annoy UA to no end however I know many many people in the NJ area who fly the route and would rather shlep across the GWB to LGA than jump on the UA direct flight from EWR).

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

You're right about the 738 being the same size as the 320, roughly. I think as they expand the hold areas, 739 service to SEA, LAX and A321 service to DTW is possible while increasing LGA and MSP to 717's.

Why would they need to expand the hold areas? DL has flown 757s on and off to ATL for decades.

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Why would they need to expand the hold areas? DL has flown 757s on and off to ATL for decades.

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

OK, but this conversation seems awfully hypothetical. There's no need for 321s to DTW or 739s to LAX.

evank516 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

OK, but this conversation seems awfully hypothetical. There's no need for 321s to DTW or 739s to LAX.

Do the 321s even fly out of DTW? I think the only place worthy of seeing 321s and 739s is ATL.

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Why would they need to expand the hold areas? DL has flown 757s on and off to ATL for decades.

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

OK, but this conversation seems awfully hypothetical. There's no need for 321s to DTW or 739s to LAX.

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

OK, but this conversation seems awfully hypothetical. There's no need for 321s to DTW or 739s to LAX.

You'd be surprised, I suspect the evening turn that leaves BNA at 6pm would be able to hold it. However I think it would be 2020 earliest that you'd see that happen.

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

OK, but this conversation seems awfully hypothetical. There's no need for 321s to DTW or 739s to LAX.

You'd be surprised, I suspect the evening turn that leaves BNA at 6pm would be able to hold it. However I think it would be 2020 earliest that you'd see that happen.

Are you talking about DTW or LAX?

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

You'd be surprised, I suspect the evening turn that leaves BNA at 6pm would be able to hold it. However I think it would be 2020 earliest that you'd see that happen.

Are you talking about DTW or LAX?

BNA-DTW, sorry for not clarifying. The rest of the aircraft would be 717 of the 6 frequencies.

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

You're right about the 738 being the same size as the 320, roughly. I think as they expand the hold areas, 739 service to SEA, LAX and A321 service to DTW is possible while increasing LGA and MSP to 717's.

Why would they need to expand the hold areas? DL has flown 757s on and off to ATL for decades.

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

EvanWSFO wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Why would they need to expand the hold areas? DL has flown 757s on and off to ATL for decades.

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

AA and DL seem to be mirroring each other on BNA-LAX. Both have 738's on the morning flight, 319's on the evening. A 739 to SEA is a big leap from the current 319. With AS going double daily, the 739 might be a little too big.

pdt2f wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

AA and DL seem to be mirroring each other on BNA-LAX. Both have 738's on the morning flight, 319's on the evening. A 739 to SEA is a big leap from the current 319. With AS going double daily, the 739 might be a little too big.

I may be wrong but I think DL is moving to 738’s to SEA in the summer/fall.

flymco753 wrote:

That's a per flight basis though, think of having an A321 going to DTW next to a 739 going to LAX in the current configuration, on top of an RJ going to BOS on one side and another going to MSP, there'd be no place to sit.

southwest1675 wrote:

Was looking at BNA's maps, and I don't know if this is a mistake, but it has British Airways out of Concourse B https://flynashville.com/im/Pages/Landing.aspx

Ph1l1p wrote:

Nashville will also only ever have the 787-8 as the space at A5 is just too tight for the 787-9

Cubsrule wrote:

Ph1l1p wrote:

Nashville will also only ever have the 787-8 as the space at A5 is just too tight for the 787-9

Help me with your choice of the word “ever.” Obviously the new IAB will have plenty of room for the 789 (or any other aircraft BA chooses).

Ph1l1p wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Ph1l1p wrote:

Nashville will also only ever have the 787-8 as the space at A5 is just too tight for the 787-9

Help me with your choice of the word “ever.” Obviously the new IAB will have plenty of room for the 789 (or any other aircraft BA chooses).

The present plans for Nashville is that the 787-9 won’t go to on the route, if an aircraft substitution was needed, the space and the tight turns at A5 make it impossible for anything larger. Once the new IAB opens and new stands have been built then who knows, other aircraft could/will be considered, especially if the route does well. But the new IAB is still gong to be a few years away, so for the moment it wiill be the 787-8.

Ph1l1p wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Ph1l1p wrote:

Nashville will also only ever have the 787-8 as the space at A5 is just too tight for the 787-9

Help me with your choice of the word “ever.” Obviously the new IAB will have plenty of room for the 789 (or any other aircraft BA chooses).

The present plans for Nashville is that the 787-9 won’t go to on the route, if an aircraft substitution was needed, the space and the tight turns at A5 make it impossible for anything larger. Once the new IAB opens and new stands have been built then who knows, other aircraft could/will be considered, especially if the route does well. But the new IAB is still gong to be a few years away, so for the moment it wiill be the 787-8.

Cubsrule wrote:

Ph1l1p wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Help me with your choice of the word “ever.” Obviously the new IAB will have plenty of room for the 789 (or any other aircraft BA chooses).

The present plans for Nashville is that the 787-9 won’t go to on the route, if an aircraft substitution was needed, the space and the tight turns at A5 make it impossible for anything larger. Once the new IAB opens and new stands have been built then who knows, other aircraft could/will be considered, especially if the route does well. But the new IAB is still gong to be a few years away, so for the moment it wiill be the 787-8.

All quite understandable. A5 is unquestionably tight, but A5 won’t be the gate forever. Hence my question about your word choice.

EvanWSFO wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Ph1l1p wrote:

The present plans for Nashville is that the 787-9 won’t go to on the route, if an aircraft substitution was needed, the space and the tight turns at A5 make it impossible for anything larger. Once the new IAB opens and new stands have been built then who knows, other aircraft could/will be considered, especially if the route does well. But the new IAB is still gong to be a few years away, so for the moment it wiill be the 787-8.

All quite understandable. A5 is unquestionably tight, but A5 won’t be the gate forever. Hence my question about your word choice.

I'm sure if the traffic warrants a 789, BA and MNAA will find a way to get them into A5 until the IAB is built.

ADrum23 wrote:

EvanWSFO wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

All quite understandable. A5 is unquestionably tight, but A5 won’t be the gate forever. Hence my question about your word choice.

I'm sure if the traffic warrants a 789, BA and MNAA will find a way to get them into A5 until the IAB is built.

Agreed. I don't see any reason why A5 couldn't handle a 789 or even a 777. It would not be pretty, but it could work. Nonetheless, I don't see BA putting anything bigger than a 788 on BNA-LHR for the foreseeable future. If anything, the flight will go daily before any aircraft upgauges.

The new IAB gates will be able to accommodate aircraft as a large as the 744/8 if necessary.

southwest1675 wrote:

I figure the BA signage and such will go up pretty soon.

evank516 wrote:

southwest1675 wrote:

I figure the BA signage and such will go up pretty soon.

Who is doing their ground handling? Could it be AA despite them being in another concourse?

Cubsrule wrote:

No, I'm suggesting that no passenger cares about D0. We care about A0 (or maybe A5 or A15). I don't care if the plane pushes 10 minutes early, on time, or 30 minutes late if I get where I'm going when I'm supposed to be there.

gsg013 wrote:

Has anyone booked the BA direct to LHR yet? How have the prices been in Y | W | J? Has anyone seen any good award availability open up for the route? I would assume a typical J fare would be in the $4000-$6000 RT?

pdt2f wrote:

Does anyone know the frequency changes that WN is making this summer? I know they’re not adding any new locations until ATL in August but are they increasing or decreasing frequency on any routes?