With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

Delta currently has nonstop service to its LAX, SLC, MSP, DTW, CVG, LGA, JFK, and ATL hubs from DFW, but not to SEA, BOS, or RDU from DFW. Delta used to serve SEA, BOS, and RDU nonstop from DFW back when it had its hub at DFW, and Delta could bring back nonstop service from DFW to at least SEA and BOS and possibly its RDU focus city.

The issue with DL building up RDU is that at some point you are moving connecting pax from ATL to RDU, which goes against DLs strategy.

RDU is a decent sized (and growing) market that can easily justify many point to point flights from O-D alone. DL is expanding to capture these pax. But at some point, most of the O-D traffic is captured, and then to further grow the destination list, DL would have to rely on connecting pax to fill the voids.

Again, if you look at DLs strategy, DL tries to route any connection through ATL if they can somehow justify it. Therefore, given RDUs close proximity to ATL, I can’t ever see DL growing RDU to anything more than a focus city. DL may one day call it a “hub” for PR purposes, but RDU will never grow to be a hub like a SEA.

airportlover wrote:

With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

I think at this point, MCO offers enough opportunities to be named a focus city for DL, it could stand as a reliever to ATL. While storms in the mid-day of the summer might be an issue, MCO from my perspective handles ground stops fairly well during storms. I think if DL can add more p2p like AUS and RDU it'll finally qualify MCO as a focus city.

Beyond AMS, CUN, and GRU, BSB could return when economic conditions improve and DL could do some more LatAm flying from MCO, as well as CDG in the future, not to mention the connections that could be done on AM, WS and VS if they really wanted to.

Midwestindy wrote:

airportlover wrote:

With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

Who cares? Delta considers it a hub for them. They connect traffic over there. They invest in the facilities there. They invest in the local community. It might not be their only hub nor their biggest, but they call it and consider it a hub. Who are we to tell them they’re wrong?

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

airportlover wrote:

With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

airportlover wrote:

With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

Isn’t basing whether or not SEA a hub on how big DL is compared to AS rather arbitrary, even by the standards that people on this website have used to define hubs?

The fact is, DL has built out its network and schedule out of SEA in such a way to facilitate large volumes of connecting traffic, most notably to Asia. If that doesn’t qualify as a hub, I’m not sure what does.

jasoncrh wrote:

Who cares? Delta considers it a hub for them. They connect traffic over there. They invest in the facilities there. They invest in the local community. It might not be their only hub nor their biggest, but they call it and consider it a hub. Who are we to tell them they’re wrong?

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

I just feel that a hub must have significant seat departures and have a strong footing with the local community. I do not think that most Seattleites prefer Delta nor have to fly it most of the time. But I do see your point in saying that connections do flow through Seattle. And SEA fits nicely into Delta's current strategy at BOS, RDU, and SEA. DL can always use more capacity on the West Coast, as that is their weak spot compared to UA at SFO, AS at SEA/PDX, and AA/DL/UA at LAX. I always view SEA as the one true hub operated by an airline other than the three legacies. And I do believe that will remain for quite some time because DL is running out of growth opportunities at SEA. Growing SEA, RDU, and BOS just proves that they are hungry for growth, as DTW and MSP are barely growing, SLC is a tiny market for a hub, LAX has no room left, NYC is the same (unless AA cuts capacity there), ATL can continue to grow (but it is already huge), and the lack of a Texas hub continues to hurt them (just like United is hurt by its lack of a Southeast hub; IAH and IAD do NOT count.)

airportlover wrote:

Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

In terms of passengers (not seats), AS has 50% market share and DL has 21% market share in SEA. So it’s not 1/3 more, it’s 2.5 times more.

But there is no legal or technical definition of a “hub”. Any airline can call any airport they want a hub.

IPFreely wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

In terms of passengers (not seats), AS has 50% market share and DL has 21% market share in SEA. So it’s not 1/3 more, it’s 2.5 times more.

But there is no legal or technical definition of a “hub”. Any airline can call any airport they want a hub.

To the OP's question: The last investor day included talk of BOS and RDU as focus cities. That's a pretty clear indicator of intent. Not as connecting hubs. Look at that same investor day presentation for a reference to costs by aircraft size. Need to understand why traffic gets routed over ATL on mainline vs. an E75 via RDU? See slide #41.

IPFreely wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

In terms of passengers (not seats), AS has 50% market share and DL has 21% market share in SEA. So it’s not 1/3 more, it’s 2.5 times more.

But there is no legal or technical definition of a “hub”. Any airline can call any airport they want a hub.

Thank you for the numbers. It is interesting that AS leads by so much more than I thought. However, DL has no other choice for a transpacific hub if they are intent on closing NRT. They need SEA, and SEA is, I assume, happy to have them and the Asian (and European) routes that DL brings.

Delta has spent the last few years establishing an Asian hub at SEA and they have been doing an impressive job at it. Delta could be much larger at SEA if there were more gate space. Gate space at SEA is at quite a premium nowadays. They are an easy 2nd airline to AS here. And from what I hear, they are doing quite well competing or coexisting with AS. Obviously, it's much smaller than LAX...but if you watch the air traffic into SEA, it's definitely noticeable.

airportlover wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

In terms of passengers (not seats), AS has 50% market share and DL has 21% market share in SEA. So it’s not 1/3 more, it’s 2.5 times more.

But there is no legal or technical definition of a “hub”. Any airline can call any airport they want a hub.

Thank you for the numbers. It is interesting that AS leads by so much more than I thought. However, DL has no other choice for a transpacific hub if they are intent on closing NRT. They need SEA, and SEA is, I assume, happy to have them and the Asian (and European) routes that DL brings.

Passenger counts or seats isn't a very good way to measure hub size when carriers have radically different networks. Lots of AS/QX departures out of SEA are very short haul. Look at RPMs for a better measure of revenue potential. Do you want to count a Q400 SEA-YKM the same as a 333 SEA-AMS?

airportlover wrote:

I just feel that a hub must have significant seat departures and have a strong footing with the local community.

Never heard that as the definition of a hub. A hub is an operational characteristic. Any airline can deem an airport to be a hub if it meets its own requirements which typically center around pax and cargo connections as well as fleet and personnel bases.
The one thing that is surprising to me in that slide is that BOS is no longer listed as a hub. It was for many years.

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

airportlover wrote:

With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

There are so many things wrong here.

1) Calling SEA a hub is not just "PR" - there are numerous executives focused on the market. More importantly its a major connection center for TPAC flights and to a lesser extent, TATL. That is kind of the classic definition of a hub - a major transfer point.
2) I think the fact that 5 years ago or so DL was just flying to its hubs from SEA, but now has dozens of cities is evidence DL CAN compete with Alaska. You have no evidence to suggest otherwise. The fact that AS is larger doesn't mean DL isn't competing.
3) SEA is not a fairly small market.
4) Alaska is "solely focused on SEA" - this is demonstrably false. AS purchased Virgin America. Most of AS's growth has been in California this year. Did you also forget about PDX?
5) DL cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW? DL has to spread their resources among their hubs, but no idea how you say they care "more" about other hubs. If anything, SEA has gotten more adds, so DL cares more about SEA.

airportlover wrote:

Thank you for the numbers. It is interesting that AS leads by so much more than I thought. However, DL has no other choice for a transpacific hub if they are intent on closing NRT. They need SEA, and SEA is, I assume, happy to have them and the Asian (and European) routes that DL brings.

A couple of years ago the theory was that SEA would replace NRT as a trans-Pacific hub. But that was before the JV with Korean. Now ICN might provide the further connections to Asia that NRT used to provide, leaving SEA as a gateway only to ICN and Japan.

It doesnt matter what you "feel". Delta has invested in SEA, built up well-defined connecting banks, invested in terminal facilities, added destinations... and calls it a hub. There's really not much more to it.

airportlover wrote:

jasoncrh wrote:

Who cares? Delta considers it a hub for them. They connect traffic over there. They invest in the facilities there. They invest in the local community. It might not be their only hub nor their biggest, but they call it and consider it a hub. Who are we to tell them they’re wrong?

airportlover wrote:

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

I just feel that a hub must have significant seat departures and have a strong footing with the local community. I do not think that most Seattleites prefer Delta nor have to fly it most of the time. But I do see your point in saying that connections do flow through Seattle. And SEA fits nicely into Delta's current strategy at BOS, RDU, and SEA. DL can always use more capacity on the West Coast, as that is their weak spot compared to UA at SFO, AS at SEA/PDX, and AA/DL/UA at LAX. I always view SEA as the one true hub operated by an airline other than the three legacies. And I do believe that will remain for quite some time because DL is running out of growth opportunities at SEA. Growing SEA, RDU, and BOS just proves that they are hungry for growth, as DTW and MSP are barely growing, SLC is a tiny market for a hub, LAX has no room left, NYC is the same (unless AA cuts capacity there), ATL can continue to grow (but it is already huge), and the lack of a Texas hub continues to hurt them (just like United is hurt by its lack of a Southeast hub; IAH and IAD do NOT count.)

I’m puzzled as to why DL doesn’t leap on some of the unserved Boston-Asia markets like Korea, while everyone twiddles their thumbs over whether KE will or won’t come back. No one necessarily wants to (or even needs to) be routed through a place like DTW or MSP.

Delta only has so many airplanes. They have to put them where they think they will be most productive. The fact they havent put them on BOS - Asia yet indicates that either they dont think they can get the most from them in Boston or that they have other deployment priorities. Not that mysterious.

chrisnh wrote:

I’m puzzled as to why DL doesn’t leap on some of the unserved Boston-Asia markets like Korea, while everyone twiddles their thumbs over whether KE will or won’t come back. No one necessarily wants to (or even needs to) be routed through a place like DTW or MSP.

airbazar wrote:

airportlover wrote:

The one thing that is surprising to me in that slide is that BOS is no longer listed as a hub. It was for many years.

Assuming they are referring to a "hub" as a primary connecting point (i.e. an operational definition), it seems correct to have BOS listed as a focus city. Sure, DL will sell connections over BOS to Europe in order to supplement the local demand, but the vast majority of their operation there is aimed at catering to the O&D market. Same with CVG - there are some connections available, but most of the operation these days is catering to the local business community. One interesting (although still arbitrary) way to look at it is "how many markets are reachable from this hub and no other hub?" Some examples in DL's network:

JNU, HKG - reachable only from SEA
SYD - reachable only from LAX
EKO, BTM - reachable only from SLC
YXE, LSE - reachable only from MSP
ERI, SWF - reachable only from DTW
JAN, MLB - reachable only from ATL
ACC, PRG - reachable only from NYC

I don't believe CVG, RDU, and BOS have any unique markets that are not served from any other DL hub.

So looks like they're shifting their focus to BOS now and away from RDU.

chrisnh wrote:

I’m puzzled as to why DL doesn’t leap on some of the unserved Boston-Asia markets like Korea, while everyone twiddles their thumbs over whether KE will or won’t come back. No one necessarily wants to (or even needs to) be routed through a place like DTW or MSP.

I would be surprised if BOS-ICN is not quickly announced following the finalization of the DL-KE JV.

IPFreely wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Thank you for the numbers. It is interesting that AS leads by so much more than I thought. However, DL has no other choice for a transpacific hub if they are intent on closing NRT. They need SEA, and SEA is, I assume, happy to have them and the Asian (and European) routes that DL brings.

A couple of years ago the theory was that SEA would replace NRT as a trans-Pacific hub. But that was before the JV with Korean. Now ICN might provide the further connections to Asia that NRT used to provide, leaving SEA as a gateway only to ICN and Japan.

And PVG. And PEK. And HKG. So basically the largest Asian business markets from the US. Does that not meet your standards for a transpacific hub?

BOS will grow but won't become a real hub (i.e. a complex designed around connecting traffic) simply because of JFK. NYC just has that much more O&D and therefore can support 2nd tier European cities and smaller US that DL would struggle to fill from Boston.

jbs2886 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

There are so many things wrong here.

1) Calling SEA a hub is not just "PR" - there are numerous executives focused on the market. More importantly its a major connection center for TPAC flights and to a lesser extent, TATL. That is kind of the classic definition of a hub - a major transfer point.
2) I think the fact that 5 years ago or so DL was just flying to its hubs from SEA, but now has dozens of cities is evidence DL CAN compete with Alaska. You have no evidence to suggest otherwise. The fact that AS is larger doesn't mean DL isn't competing.
3) SEA is not a fairly small market.
4) Alaska is "solely focused on SEA" - this is demonstrably false. AS purchased Virgin America. Most of AS's growth has been in California this year. Did you also forget about PDX?
5) DL cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW? DL has to spread their resources among their hubs, but no idea how you say they care "more" about other hubs. If anything, SEA has gotten more adds, so DL cares more about SEA.

1) Fine, maybe it's not just PR, but SEA is NOT a full-fledged connecting hub. DL does not serve too many smaller markets from SEA, not to mention some primary markets throughout the country.
2) I agree, but frequent flyers will basically always prefer the larger carrier with more nonstop destinations, and that is undeniably AS at SEA. Unless you fly solely internationally, AS most likely works better for you.
3) I meant to say SEA is not in the same league as NYC, Chicago, LA, San Fran, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Boston, Philly, D.C., etc. It is not a small market, but it is definitely smaller than people on a.net like to believe. Seattle is the third city on the West Coast. I consider the main West Coast cities to be LA, San Fran/Silicon Valley, Portland, and Seattle. Las Vegas and Phoenix are Interior West, along with DEN and SLC.
4) You know what I meant here. SEA is the largest hub for AS by quite a lot. Even though there has been recent growth in California, they only dominate SEA and PDX (which is quite a bit smaller).
5) Yes, DL does and should care more about their other hubs. ATL, MSP, DTW, and SLC are all fortresses. They are strong in NYC, albeit with competition. SEA has intense competition, and DL realizes that they have to focus on their existing strengths, which they are. DL continues to grow the European network from JFK and has invested in new facilities at LGA and SLC. DTW and MSP have stagnated, but I do see some growth at MSP as Minneapolis has really rebounded. ATL is growing slowly, but DL is focused on increasing mainline and offering the best product to business travelers.

jasoncrh wrote:

Delta only has so many airplanes. They have to put them where they think they will be most productive. The fact they havent put

them on BOS - Asia yet indicates that either they dont think they can get the most from them in Boston or that they have other deployment priorities. Not that mysterious.

chrisnh wrote:

I’m puzzled as to why DL doesn’t leap on some of the unserved Boston-Asia markets like Korea, while everyone twiddles their thumbs over whether KE will or won’t come back. No one necessarily wants to (or even needs to) be routed through a place like DTW or MSP.

I understand your point, but BOS was woefully underserved by the US carriers for years. The international expansion, largely by foreign carriers, leads me to believe that there has been a certain amount of missed opportunities.

ShinyAndChrome wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Thank you for the numbers. It is interesting that AS leads by so much more than I thought. However, DL has no other choice for a transpacific hub if they are intent on closing NRT. They need SEA, and SEA is, I assume, happy to have them and the Asian (and European) routes that DL brings.

A couple of years ago the theory was that SEA would replace NRT as a trans-Pacific hub. But that was before the JV with Korean. Now ICN might provide the further connections to Asia that NRT used to provide, leaving SEA as a gateway only to ICN and Japan.

And PVG. And PEK. And HKG. So basically the largest Asian business markets from the US. Does that not meet your standards for a transpacific hub?

They offer the Asian destinations, but they do NOT offer a strong domestic feeder network. That is where the resources need to be now. Why should someone connect on DL in SEA over UA in SFO assuming no airline loyalty? This is not a criticism of DL or SEA, but every airline has a weak point, and DL's is the West Coast. Their southeast, New York, and Midwest operations are enviable, but United is the clear king of the West Coast.

airportlover wrote:

1) Fine, maybe it's not just PR, but SEA is NOT a full-fledged connecting hub. DL does not serve too many smaller markets from SEA, not to mention some primary markets throughout the country.
2) I agree, but frequent flyers will basically always prefer the larger carrier with more nonstop destinations, and that is undeniably AS at SEA. Unless you fly solely internationally, AS most likely works better for you.

1) DL is building a hub in SEA. They aren't going to launch all small markets. They've been gradually adding a number, but can't anymore (or at least many more) without more gates. When that happens in a few years, I'll anticipate you will see a big expansion. This goes for the "primary markets". Given Seattle's geography, some may not be primary for Seattle, or, it makes sense to connect through another DL hub.

2) Will they? I fly AA in ORD, but UA is bigger. What about in LAX? SFO? NYC? Dallas? Houston? Heck, look at WN in countless cities (SLC, DEN, PHX). Its not just FF, its corporate contracts that are important. DL offers a national network with international flights, corporations will value that and provide DL a lot of business in Seattle. Your premise here is fatally flawed as there are a lot of factors that influence flyer's choices and ignores the size of markets that can have multiple large carriers.

Since loosing all the partners this year, there is a fair amount of as loyalists switching to dl and that will likely only going to continue with their westjet jv.

Dl at Seattle is definitely a hub. I don't think it's particularly high yielding one based on the average fares I have seen in west coast. But it's a strategic play they are making.

Now if there is ever a economic downturn, Would be interesting to see if they keep it.

jbs2886 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

1) Fine, maybe it's not just PR, but SEA is NOT a full-fledged connecting hub. DL does not serve too many smaller markets from SEA, not to mention some primary markets throughout the country.
2) I agree, but frequent flyers will basically always prefer the larger carrier with more nonstop destinations, and that is undeniably AS at SEA. Unless you fly solely internationally, AS most likely works better for you.

1) DL is building a hub in SEA. They aren't going to launch all small markets. They've been gradually adding a number, but can't anymore (or at least many more) without more gates. When that happens in a few years, I'll anticipate you will see a big expansion. This goes for the "primary markets". Given Seattle's geography, some may not be primary for Seattle, or, it makes sense to connect through another DL hub.

2) Will they? I fly AA in ORD, but UA is bigger. What about in LAX? SFO? NYC? Dallas? Houston? Heck, look at WN in countless cities (SLC, DEN, PHX). Its not just FF, its corporate contracts that are important. DL offers a national network with international flights, corporations will value that and provide DL a lot of business in Seattle. Your premise here is fatally flawed as there are a lot of factors that influence flyer's choices and ignores the size of markets that can have multiple large carriers.

2) This assumption was only based on my experiences in the NYC area. North Jersey, Staten Island, and Rockland-county based travelers prefer EWR/UA. Westchester/the rest of the Hudson Valley prefers Hpn, then LGA/JFK, but they will use EWR too. Manhattanites use all three fairly equally. The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens use LGA/JFK. Long Island uses LGA/JFK. People from Connecticut use HPN, then LGA/JFK, but will also use EWR. People who use LGA/JFK prefer JetBlue for the Caribbean and Florida and Delta to everywhere else. American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports. I assumed that was the situation in SEA, but I have heard of AA loyalists in Chicago. WN is never really on my radar being based in NYC.

airportlover wrote:

ShinyAndChrome wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

A couple of years ago the theory was that SEA would replace NRT as a trans-Pacific hub. But that was before the JV with Korean. Now ICN might provide the further connections to Asia that NRT used to provide, leaving SEA as a gateway only to ICN and Japan.

And PVG. And PEK. And HKG. So basically the largest Asian business markets from the US. Does that not meet your standards for a transpacific hub?

They offer the Asian destinations, but they do NOT offer a strong domestic feeder network. That is where the resources need to be now. Why should someone connect on DL in SEA over UA in SFO assuming no airline loyalty? This is not a criticism of DL or SEA, but every airline has a weak point, and DL's is the West Coast. Their southeast, New York, and Midwest operations are enviable, but United is the clear king of the West Coast.

And what is your threshold for a “strong domestic feeder network”? Even with the gate constraints in SEA, within the Pacific and Mountain time zones, DL already serves many of the largest cities from SEA and a fair number of smaller and midsize markets. Once you start looking at the smaller markets in the eastern half of the country, not only is the local demand probably insufficient to SEA, but they already have one-stop access to Asia from ATL and DTW.

Also, if DL has a hole in its domestic network, it’s in Texas and that surrounding region around the center of the country. Between the domestic and international networks out of LAX and SEA plus the domestic connectivity through SLC and MSP, DL has a pretty strong network in the West. It’s arguably AA that’s weakest overall when looking at the West Coast as a whole. Anyone living north of Central CA likely has to backtrack to get to a lot of places domestically or internationally on AA. The AS partnership partially ameliorated this, but that’s been dramatically pared back.

airportlover wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

1) Fine, maybe it's not just PR, but SEA is NOT a full-fledged connecting hub. DL does not serve too many smaller markets from SEA, not to mention some primary markets throughout the country.
2) I agree, but frequent flyers will basically always prefer the larger carrier with more nonstop destinations, and that is undeniably AS at SEA. Unless you fly solely internationally, AS most likely works better for you.

1) DL is building a hub in SEA. They aren't going to launch all small markets. They've been gradually adding a number, but can't anymore (or at least many more) without more gates. When that happens in a few years, I'll anticipate you will see a big expansion. This goes for the "primary markets". Given Seattle's geography, some may not be primary for Seattle, or, it makes sense to connect through another DL hub.

2) Will they? I fly AA in ORD, but UA is bigger. What about in LAX? SFO? NYC? Dallas? Houston? Heck, look at WN in countless cities (SLC, DEN, PHX). Its not just FF, its corporate contracts that are important. DL offers a national network with international flights, corporations will value that and provide DL a lot of business in Seattle. Your premise here is fatally flawed as there are a lot of factors that influence flyer's choices and ignores the size of markets that can have multiple large carriers.

2) This assumption was only based on my experiences in the NYC area. North Jersey, Staten Island, and Rockland-county based travelers prefer EWR/UA. Westchester/the rest of the Hudson Valley prefers Hpn, then LGA/JFK, but they will use EWR too. Manhattanites use all three fairly equally. The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens use LGA/JFK. Long Island uses LGA/JFK. People from Connecticut use HPN, then LGA/JFK, but will also use EWR. People who use LGA/JFK prefer JetBlue for the Caribbean and Florida and Delta to everywhere else. American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports. I assumed that was the situation in SEA, but I have heard of AA loyalists in Chicago. WN is never really on my radar being based in NYC.

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

airportlover wrote:

With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

It's all PR just like saying ATL is 2 hours away from 80% of the population that is also false.

tlecam wrote:

airportlover wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

1) DL is building a hub in SEA. They aren't going to launch all small markets. They've been gradually adding a number, but can't anymore (or at least many more) without more gates. When that happens in a few years, I'll anticipate you will see a big expansion. This goes for the "primary markets". Given Seattle's geography, some may not be primary for Seattle, or, it makes sense to connect through another DL hub.

2) Will they? I fly AA in ORD, but UA is bigger. What about in LAX? SFO? NYC? Dallas? Houston? Heck, look at WN in countless cities (SLC, DEN, PHX). Its not just FF, its corporate contracts that are important. DL offers a national network with international flights, corporations will value that and provide DL a lot of business in Seattle. Your premise here is fatally flawed as there are a lot of factors that influence flyer's choices and ignores the size of markets that can have multiple large carriers.

2) This assumption was only based on my experiences in the NYC area. North Jersey, Staten Island, and Rockland-county based travelers prefer EWR/UA. Westchester/the rest of the Hudson Valley prefers Hpn, then LGA/JFK, but they will use EWR too. Manhattanites use all three fairly equally. The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens use LGA/JFK. Long Island uses LGA/JFK. People from Connecticut use HPN, then LGA/JFK, but will also use EWR. People who use LGA/JFK prefer JetBlue for the Caribbean and Florida and Delta to everywhere else. American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports. I assumed that was the situation in SEA, but I have heard of AA loyalists in Chicago. WN is never really on my radar being based in NYC.

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

klm617 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

It's all PR just like saying ATL is 2 hours away from 80% of the population that is also false.

How is that false? It clearly means 2 hours flight time.

For BOS - I believe DL uses focus vs. hubs term interchangeably - almost all websites and documents I have seen used to list BOS as a hub vs. focus city. The DL inflight magazine also does not list BOS as a hub so it makes sense. Another angle maybe DL is working to make BOS as a true hub with connections and hopefully in the next few years when they get all the Terminal A gates, they may offer a lot more connectivity options. Nevertheless, DL does not even connect to fortress hubs of US2 carriers. E.g.
UA - ORD, IAH, IAD, DEN, EWR
AA - ORD, PHL, DFW, CLT, DCA, PHX, MIA
Some of these are very large stations. As you can see, there are a lot of dots that are missing with DL and with B6 also being a powerful competitor at Logan is going to be tough for DL to be at all these stations and make money. Maybe they may continue to add stations from BOS where it makes sense and provide connections to TATL and codeshare partners.

N717TW wrote:

BOS will grow but won't become a real hub (i.e. a complex designed around connecting traffic) simply because of JFK. NYC just has that much more O&D and therefore can support 2nd tier European cities and smaller US that DL would struggle to fill from Boston.

So you don't consider DUB a second tier European city?
DL already does a lot of connections in Boston, regardless of what they call it and it's clear from them that they intend to grow it. A hub in JFK or LGA doesn't negate a hub (or connecting operations), in BOS. The size will never be the same simply because the airport can't handle it but I fully expect their BOS expansion to continue, both domestically, international, and thru their partners. I fully expect to see a few DL A321NEOs flying to Europe from BOS in the future.

IMO Delta won't be able to expand internationally in Boston. They missed their opportunity. The last 4 years have seen Boston gain a ton of international carriers, there aren't that many destinations right now that would have sufficient demand and not be served by some airline by this point and would have enough traffic to warrant several airlines to fly the route. Domestically Delta could probably add a few more routes, but they also missed their opportunity to capitalize on the market because they treated Boston like a joke until jetBlue became the major carrier in Boston. Sure, Delta could expand a little bit more in Boston, but I do believe that they missed the opportunity to capitalize on the Boston market. Their only real hope by this point is to work with some codeshares to offer connections.

NickolayAv wrote:

IMO Delta won't be able to expand internationally in Boston. They missed their opportunity. The last 4 years have seen Boston gain a ton of international carriers, there aren't that many destinations right now that would have sufficient demand and not be served by some airline by this point and would have enough traffic to warrant several airlines to fly the route. Domestically Delta could probably add a few more routes, but they also missed their opportunity to capitalize on the market because they treated Boston like a joke until jetBlue became the major carrier in Boston. Sure, Delta could expand a little bit more in Boston, but I do believe that they missed the opportunity to capitalize on the Boston market. Their only real hope by this point is to work with some codeshares to offer connections.

They believe otherwise:
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news ... looks.html
The article is behind a pay wall but with so many of these sites, if you stop the page from loading at the right time you get the full article to display

airportlover wrote:

tlecam wrote:

airportlover wrote:

2) This assumption was only based on my experiences in the NYC area. North Jersey, Staten Island, and Rockland-county based travelers prefer EWR/UA. Westchester/the rest of the Hudson Valley prefers Hpn, then LGA/JFK, but they will use EWR too. Manhattanites use all three fairly equally. The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens use LGA/JFK. Long Island uses LGA/JFK. People from Connecticut use HPN, then LGA/JFK, but will also use EWR. People who use LGA/JFK prefer JetBlue for the Caribbean and Florida and Delta to everywhere else. American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports. I assumed that was the situation in SEA, but I have heard of AA loyalists in Chicago. WN is never really on my radar being based in NYC.

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

I would suggest that AA has a significant O&D presence at LGA. AA's preferred connecting hub in the northeast is Philly, not LGA. AA's presence at LGA is aimed at corporate contracts and O&D travelers.

"Only city people prefer LGA" - you realize that there's 8.5 million "city people", almost the same as the entire state of New Jersey (8.9M)?

You really dont know what you're talking about.
LGA is perfectly located for suburbanites from Westchester County and up into parts of Connecticut, as well as large portions of the suburbs on Long Island. Anecdotally I know tons of people from those places that fly out of LGA.
You really have no basis to say that most people on AA are not nyc-based. I actually worked for a company that tracks those types of things and can tell you that AA does, indeed, get a lot of NYC - based business.

airportlover wrote:

tlecam wrote:

airportlover wrote:

2) This assumption was only based on my experiences in the NYC area. North Jersey, Staten Island, and Rockland-county based travelers prefer EWR/UA. Westchester/the rest of the Hudson Valley prefers Hpn, then LGA/JFK, but they will use EWR too. Manhattanites use all three fairly equally. The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens use LGA/JFK. Long Island uses LGA/JFK. People from Connecticut use HPN, then LGA/JFK, but will also use EWR. People who use LGA/JFK prefer JetBlue for the Caribbean and Florida and Delta to everywhere else. American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports. I assumed that was the situation in SEA, but I have heard of AA loyalists in Chicago. WN is never really on my radar being based in NYC.

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

tlecam wrote:

I understand your point, but BOS was woefully underserved by the US carriers for years. The international expansion, largely by foreign carriers, leads me to believe that there has been a certain amount of missed opportunities.

That was my point, yes. Hainan, JAL, and Cathay are doing a booming business at Boston...business that was there for the taking by any US carrier willing to try. Yes, the BOS economy is better and more balanced now and smaller, longer-legged planes are available compared to the 747-400s Korean brought in well over a decade ago. So just to use Seoul as an example, it isn't a matter of 'whether,' it's a matter of whose metal will serve it. And since Terminal A can't accept any flight from Seoul, I guess that means KE will get the nod. The whole 'Terminal E-->Terminal A' tug routine probably cuts down on what DL will do internationally at Boston. It's not an optimum model.

airportlover wrote:

ShinyAndChrome wrote:

IPFreely wrote:

A couple of years ago the theory was that SEA would replace NRT as a trans-Pacific hub. But that was before the JV with Korean. Now ICN might provide the further connections to Asia that NRT used to provide, leaving SEA as a gateway only to ICN and Japan.

And PVG. And PEK. And HKG. So basically the largest Asian business markets from the US. Does that not meet your standards for a transpacific hub?

They offer the Asian destinations, but they do NOT offer a strong domestic feeder network. That is where the resources need to be now. Why should someone connect on DL in SEA over UA in SFO assuming no airline loyalty? This is not a criticism of DL or SEA, but every airline has a weak point, and DL's is the West Coast. Their southeast, New York, and Midwest operations are enviable, but United is the clear king of the West Coast.

Although DL is still second fiddle to AS in SEA domestically by far, Delta certainly has Seattle structured as a connecting hub. If you spend some time exploring some of the "skipped leg" fare deal sites or look at some of DL's gate displays with connections listed at SeaTac, you'll see that Delta offers a lot of connecting itineraries over Seattle, many of them very affordable. I've personally seen some bargain basement DL connecting itineraries on things like HNL-SEA-XXX, DTW-SEA-SAN, etc.

RDU is an important part of DL's footprint in the southeast, but as a hub would be functionally too redundant to ATL to make any sense. RDU would be an attractive option for any airline that wasn't Delta or AA if it wanted a viable southeastern prospect. I can't see DL routing traffic through BOS instead of JFK, ATL, and DTW, I think the "focus city" title is pretty apt for the large, well-served stations. There's certainly an argument that Delta doesn't necessarily have the most ideal arrangements on the West coast, but I don't think an airline the size of Delta feels that they're missing a hub to handle any meaningful directional traffic flows in markets they'd have an opportunity to do so.

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

airportlover wrote:

With the growth of Delta at SEA and their attempt to turn it into a transpacific gateway, do you think there is much more to add without SEA becoming a hub? Same thing with BOS.

Also, do you guys think that RDU will be built up to the size of SEA OR BOS but offer more domestic connection opportunities (this seems like overlapping with ATL, but ATL may be at capacity)?

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

I'm not following your point. SEA is already a hub for DL with over 150 peak daily flights. And did you just call SEA a small market? It's by no means a small market.

Jeremy

chrisnh wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I understand your point, but BOS was woefully underserved by the US carriers for years. The international expansion, largely by foreign carriers, leads me to believe that there has been a certain amount of missed opportunities.

That was my point, yes. Hainan, JAL, and Cathay are doing a booming business at Boston...business that was there for the taking by any US carrier willing to try. Yes, the BOS economy is better and more balanced now and smaller, longer-legged planes are available compared to the 747-400s Korean brought in well over a decade ago. So just to use Seoul as an example, it isn't a matter of 'whether,' it's a matter of whose metal will serve it. And since Terminal A can't accept any flight from Seoul, I guess that means KE will get the nod. The whole 'Terminal E-->Terminal A' tug routine probably cuts down on what DL will do internationally at Boston. It's not an optimum model.

I don’t know if it’s a perfect apples-to-apples though. Carriers like JL, CX, and HU connect to large hubs on the other side of the Pacific whereas the US3’s BOS domestic connectivity is much more limited. Maybe it was a missed opportunity in the era of big 5th freedom hubs but I don’t know if US carriers were really leaving all that much on the table, at least in terms of transpacific.

That said, I agree that BOS seems like a low hanging fruit for KE assuming all goes well with the JV.

klm617 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

SEA is already a "hub": http://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts


http://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc ... script.pdf
Here is what was said about RDU and BOS on Investor Day: "So, where we see opportunities domestically in a city like Raleigh where it didn't have a preferred carrier, yet it
was growing and it was a very large city. So we've invested in Raleigh. We've invested in putting assets there. And as we were investing, the returns were going up, and I think Raleigh is a great success story. Now we're working on Boston. So you see the combination of these mega factories, if you will, that are producing these much more efficient and industry-leading cost structures, combined with leading positions in cities that we choose to be the leading carrier in. We're working on Boston now. We had some efforts going on secondary cities in the West Coast, but linking
those two together, so not only do we have the hub positions but we have point-of-sale strength in a lot of the outstations as well. And I think that's the Delta difference and that's what we're working on domestically over the next few years."

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

It's all PR just like saying ATL is 2 hours away from 80% of the population that is also false.

Is it? Delta has been stating this for some time now.

jbs2886 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

But isn't calling SEA a hub just for PR? I mean, they can't compete with Alaska there, and they are smart not to flood SEA, still a fairly small market, with lots of capacity. Also, Alaska is solely focused on SEA whereas Delta cares more about ATL, JFK/LGA, MSP, DTW, etc. However, Delta does have an edge in international destinations, serving AMS, PEK, HKG CDG, ICN, and PVG. Alaska probably has about one-third more seats out of SEA than Delta. Does anyone have the numbers?

It's all PR just like saying ATL is 2 hours away from 80% of the population that is also false.

How is that false? It clearly means 2 hours flight time.

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

tlecam wrote:

airportlover wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

I would suggest that AA has a significant O&D presence at LGA. AA's preferred connecting hub in the northeast is Philly, not LGA. AA's presence at LGA is aimed at corporate contracts and O&D travelers.

"Only city people prefer LGA" - you realize that there's 8.5 million "city people", almost the same as the entire state of New Jersey (8.9M)?

Yes, I completely realize that. I bet I know population statistics better than you, in fact. I did not mean to say city people using LGA as something derogatory. That is totally fine, and I have nothing against it. I was just stating the fact based on my knowledge.

Noise wrote:

So looks like they're shifting their focus to BOS now and away from RDU.

Good question and I don’t see any answer to it up here... is RDU at status? There was one person assigned to just RDu for route planning, according to the Business Journal.. but maybe they are at capacity, saturation, or just in upgrade mode now?