MIflyer12 wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Pilots confirmed there's an AE that puts Delta's first CSeries base at NYC. That's not to say that they won't get to LAX (and need to come back), but LAX isn't going to be the focus of CSeries departures.

if LAX isn't opened with NYC on the first AE it will be opened shortly after as cessna2 pointed out.

Well, NYC was opened and LAX was not, so stay tuned for the next AE.

No AE has yet gone out for any base for the CS100 at Delta. There was a note to the pilots that when the AE did go out, it was anticipated that NYC would be the first pilot base.

Faro wrote:

On a sidenote, is it correct that CSeries' PW GTF's are not experiencing the troubles besetting their A320neo brethren?...


Faro

Correct. Internal differences, and mounting point differences between them.

MIflyer12 wrote:

deltal1011man wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Pilots confirmed there's an AE that puts Delta's first CSeries base at NYC. That's not to say that they won't get to LAX (and need to come back), but LAX isn't going to be the focus of CSeries departures.

if LAX isn't opened with NYC on the first AE it will be opened shortly after as cessna2 pointed out.

Well, NYC was opened and LAX was not, so stay tuned for the next AE.

err no.

its not expected for the CS to be on an AE till the summer. Nothing opened on the latest AE.

Port of Seattle has been painting C Series markings & stop bars here in SEA, noticed it at the DL narrowbody gates and some hard stands.

That of course doesn't exactly mean we're getting them early on but it is worth noting that SEA already has a fair bit of 717 service already

452QX wrote:

Port of Seattle has been painting C Series markings & stop bars here in SEA, noticed it at the DL narrowbody gates and some hard stands.

That of course doesn't exactly mean we're getting them early on but it is worth noting that SEA already has a fair bit of 717 service already

will see turns crewed out of LAX (and some NYC) at first then at some point base number 3 will be SEA.

Midwestindy wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Why would DL or any other airline try that? No airline is going to add a focus city that is reliant on connections in a small market like SDF. DL doesn't serve their hubs in SLC, LAX, SEA, and JFK, or serve their focus cities in RDU and BOS from SDF, but now DL would be interested in making it a focus city with flights like Louisville to Oklahoma city and Louisville to Norfolk.....c'mon. SDF should work on getting service to all the hub stations, before a focus city comes into the equation.

"You are missing the point. Piedmont had a small hub operation in DAY in the 80's that was very profitable. It flew routes that would be very thin if pt to pt...but...they promoted a no nonsense hub at DAY. It worked until US bought PI and closed it because of proximity to PIT (at the time a fortress hub for US) and IND (then a focus city for US). What I describe is exactly what Jet Blue once talked about when discussing an expansion into fly-over country. DL could do same at SDF...as could WN, UA or AA. CSA for Louisville is 1.5M and it is geographically desirable (why do you think UPS is there?).

For a different perspective...I took the CSA of BNA, IND, CVG, MEM, CMH and SDF and divided it by the annual total passenger counts from 2017. BNA 6.9. IND 3.6. CVG 3.5 MEM 3.05 CMH 3.05 SDF 2.28
SDF has ZERO connecting traffic. BNA has substantial connecting traffic from WN. IND has connecting traffic via DL and WN. CVG is still considered a hub for DL and a focus for F9. MEM is not a hub or focus city. CMH has some WN "focus". I submit that a score > 3.05 could indicate presence of meaningful connecting traffic and below 3 could indicate under-served.

You are oversimplifying it dramatically, airports have different pax counts for a number of different reasons, and population has a very small influence.

I suggest you look at airports like XNA and LOS as to why population has little to no affect on air service.

SDF isn't "underserved," it just doesn't have the amount of corporate travel that cities like CVG, IND, CMH, and BNA do, so there is no reason for an airline (other than someone like J1 or G4) to build up a hub/focus city there

"Hmmm...XNA serves a MSA (not part of a CSA) of 525,032 and served 1,338,042 passengers giving it a score of 2.55...indicating zero connection and/or under served but a higher score than SDF. No offense but there is far more activity of every kind going on in Louisville than in NW Arkansas.. Walmart is HQ'd there and thus drives a lot of traffic....but....W is notoriously cheap...so...it is not as big a driver as you might expect. (Unless you have called on W in Bentonville you have no idea what I mean). I can not find a US airport coded LOS. G4 (Allegiant) is strictly a leisure/low budget carrier. Not sure who J1 is?

The amount of corporate travel for cities like SDF, CVG, IND, CMH and BNA is not as meaningfully different as the difference in total passenger counts. CVG has the largest number of Fortune 1000 HQ's of the group. IND, CMH and BNA have sizable business presence but they also are state capitals (5-10% of their economies/population)....how many state employees are flying around on business??

Am sure population is a major factor as is corporate/business activity and tourism. Add to it the fact there are many 'major airports' within 2 hours of each of these cities and the would be passenger has lots of choices.

My method may be 'simple' but it stands up to your scrutiny."

HeyHey...hey....thanks for the link but the numbers don't add up for BNA. In 2016 BNA reported 12,979,803 passengers. If your cited stats are enplanements only they total 5.7M. Double that to 11.4 for deplanements and you are missing 1.4M passengers. Thus...no confidence in your numbers. Furthering that vote of no confidence in stats....in the fine print on T-100 Stats from DOT it states: NOTE: T-100 data includes both local O&D traffic and connecting traffic all combined together. This means a passenger who flies to BNA from MDW is counted as 1 deplaned passenger...the D in O&D... and that same passenger who connects to ECP is counted as an enplaned passenger...the O in O&D. So when BNA publishes 14,134,448 annual passengers for 2017...that is all passengers who's Destination is BNA or somewhere else via connection and who's Origination is BNA or somewhere else. I suspect only the airlines know the actual counts. I would suggest that BNA has at least 40% of it PAX count is connecting traffic. (Other than WN service increases...how else do you explain 8.9% passenger growth from 2016 to 2017? Nashville population is growing by 36,000/year....8,9% growth is 6x's that growth....and no....there are not that many more tourist flying into Nashville either. It is connection driven growth.

In re choice of airports....am certain there are more people from E-Town who choose to drive 45 mins to SDF than the 2 hour trek to BNA regardless of final destination. Even with a connection they can probably get to SEA, SFO, LAX etc quicker via SDF than treking 2 hours to BNA in both directions. Makes even less sense for shorter flights. Very likely that Bowling Green, Paducah choose BNA over SDF most of the time. Lexington scores 1.78 by my method indicating under-served and makes sense as CVG and SDF are closeby and both provide more options.

Nashville is big and growing but it is not yet 50% larger than Louisville...it is 25% larger (CSA v CSA).

Dynamism?? Not sure how you measure that but per capita income AVERAGES @6% difference among SDF, BNA,STL,CMH,CVG AND IND.

For another perspective...ATL. 103M annual PAX and widely accepted that 80% connect. ATL CSA is 6.5M people. If you take out the connections...ATL scores 2.33. Is ATL less dynamic? Less touristy? It is also a state capital (like IND, BNA, CMH).

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Nashville is big and growing but it is not yet 50% larger than Louisville...it is 25% larger (CSA v CSA).

Dynamism?? Not sure how you measure that but per capita income AVERAGES @6% difference among SDF, BNA,STL,CMH,CVG AND IND.

For another perspective...ATL. 103M annual PAX and widely accepted that 80% connect. ATL CSA is 6.5M people. If you take out the connections...ATL scores 2.33. Is ATL less dynamic? Less touristy? It is also a state capital (like IND, BNA, CMH).

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

"You are missing the point. Piedmont had a small hub operation in DAY in the 80's that was very profitable. It flew routes that would be very thin if pt to pt...but...they promoted a no nonsense hub at DAY. It worked until US bought PI and closed it because of proximity to PIT (at the time a fortress hub for US) and IND (then a focus city for US). What I describe is exactly what Jet Blue once talked about when discussing an expansion into fly-over country. DL could do same at SDF...as could WN, UA or AA. CSA for Louisville is 1.5M and it is geographically desirable (why do you think UPS is there?).

For a different perspective...I took the CSA of BNA, IND, CVG, MEM, CMH and SDF and divided it by the annual total passenger counts from 2017. BNA 6.9. IND 3.6. CVG 3.5 MEM 3.05 CMH 3.05 SDF 2.28
SDF has ZERO connecting traffic. BNA has substantial connecting traffic from WN. IND has connecting traffic via DL and WN. CVG is still considered a hub for DL and a focus for F9. MEM is not a hub or focus city. CMH has some WN "focus". I submit that a score > 3.05 could indicate presence of meaningful connecting traffic and below 3 could indicate under-served.

You are oversimplifying it dramatically, airports have different pax counts for a number of different reasons, and population has a very small influence.

I suggest you look at airports like XNA and LOS as to why population has little to no affect on air service.

SDF isn't "underserved," it just doesn't have the amount of corporate travel that cities like CVG, IND, CMH, and BNA do, so there is no reason for an airline (other than someone like J1 or G4) to build up a hub/focus city there

"Hmmm...XNA serves a MSA (not part of a CSA) of 525,032 and served 1,338,042 passengers giving it a score of 2.55...indicating zero connection and/or under served but a higher score than SDF. No offense but there is far more activity of every kind going on in Louisville than in NW Arkansas.. Walmart is HQ'd there and thus drives a lot of traffic....but....W is notoriously cheap...so...it is not as big a driver as you might expect. (Unless you have called on W in Bentonville you have no idea what I mean). I can not find a US airport coded LOS. G4 (Allegiant) is strictly a leisure/low budget carrier. Not sure who J1 is?

The amount of corporate travel for cities like SDF, CVG, IND, CMH and BNA is not as meaningfully different as the difference in total passenger counts. CVG has the largest number of Fortune 1000 HQ's of the group. IND, CMH and BNA have sizable business presence but they also are state capitals (5-10% of their economies/population)....how many state employees are flying around on business??

Am sure population is a major factor as is corporate/business activity and tourism. Add to it the fact there are many 'major airports' within 2 hours of each of these cities and the would be passenger has lots of choices.

My method may be 'simple' but it stands up to your scrutiny."

You are missing the points of everything I'm saying, so I am not going to repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time.

However, I think it is pretty wrong to compare SDF to CVG, IND, or BNA. A better comparison to SDF is OMA, JAX, and BUF, and it is NOT because of population, I am comparing it to airports with a similar levels of service and O&D pax. And service is only slightly determined by population, but instead it is determined by O&D pax (whether they come from business or leisure), that's air service 101. SDF simply has fewer O&D pax than CVG, IND, or BNA regardless of leakage.

Delta route planning doesn't look at SDF and say it is a CSA of 1.5 million, so we must have service to X number of destinations, at X number of frequencies, they look at the O&D pax, yield, and other important variables for SDF to determine air service.

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

For a different perspective...I took the CSA of BNA, IND, CVG, MEM, CMH and SDF and divided it by the annual total passenger counts from 2017. BNA 6.9. IND 3.6. CVG 3.5 MEM 3.05 CMH 3.05 SDF 2.28
SDF has ZERO connecting traffic. BNA has substantial connecting traffic from WN. IND has connecting traffic via DL and WN. CVG is still considered a hub for DL and a focus for F9. MEM is not a hub or focus city. CMH has some WN "focus". I submit that a score > 3.05 could indicate presence of meaningful connecting traffic and below 3 could indicate under-served.

Isn’t it just as likely that a score over 3.05 indicates an airport that draws passengers from outside its CSA. Look at a place like BOIwhich comes out to 4.63 based on your statistic or ABQ at 4.33. They punch above their weight because they draw from outside their cities, not heavy connecting traffic.

"Perhaps, however ABQ and BOI are 'remote Western cities' (the entire state of NM has 2.1M people; ID has 1.7M) that use air travel more than Eastern cities where distance are much less between cities. Closest big city to BOI is PDX or SLC and they are both @400 miles away; nearest big city to ABQ is DEN or PHX and they are both 400+ miles away. 400 mile radius of most cities in the East will identify many big cities 200 miles or less.

Here are some scores for mega hubs: DEN 19.09. CLT 18.09. ATL 16.96 ORD 8.06

Those distances may increase the propensity to travel by air somewhat, but the point I was making is that airports like BOI and ABQ aren't surrounded by airports with better options. They don't leak their city's passengers to other airports, and they draw nearly every passenger from areas within a two hour drive of their metro areas. SDF has tons of competition for passengers in surrounding areas. They also don't leak their own city's demand. SDF sees some of this simply because an hour and a half drive to CVG to catch the nonstop to LAX or SEA or CDG is for many travelers a better and faster alternative to a connection in a hub.

Another reason you won't see SDF as a hub for any of the majors is that it is completely redundant to their networks. What major traffic flow makes sense through SDF that DL, AA, UA, and WN don't already cover through hubs?

Midwestindy wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Nashville is big and growing but it is not yet 50% larger than Louisville...it is 25% larger (CSA v CSA).

Dynamism?? Not sure how you measure that but per capita income AVERAGES @6% difference among SDF, BNA,STL,CMH,CVG AND IND.

For another perspective...ATL. 103M annual PAX and widely accepted that 80% connect. ATL CSA is 6.5M people. If you take out the connections...ATL scores 2.33. Is ATL less dynamic? Less touristy? It is also a state capital (like IND, BNA, CMH).

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

You are oversimplifying it dramatically, airports have different pax counts for a number of different reasons, and population has a very small influence.

I suggest you look at airports like XNA and LOS as to why population has little to no affect on air service.

SDF isn't "underserved," it just doesn't have the amount of corporate travel that cities like CVG, IND, CMH, and BNA do, so there is no reason for an airline (other than someone like J1 or G4) to build up a hub/focus city there

"Hmmm...XNA serves a MSA (not part of a CSA) of 525,032 and served 1,338,042 passengers giving it a score of 2.55...indicating zero connection and/or under served but a higher score than SDF. No offense but there is far more activity of every kind going on in Louisville than in NW Arkansas.. Walmart is HQ'd there and thus drives a lot of traffic....but....W is notoriously cheap...so...it is not as big a driver as you might expect. (Unless you have called on W in Bentonville you have no idea what I mean). I can not find a US airport coded LOS. G4 (Allegiant) is strictly a leisure/low budget carrier. Not sure who J1 is?

The amount of corporate travel for cities like SDF, CVG, IND, CMH and BNA is not as meaningfully different as the difference in total passenger counts. CVG has the largest number of Fortune 1000 HQ's of the group. IND, CMH and BNA have sizable business presence but they also are state capitals (5-10% of their economies/population)....how many state employees are flying around on business??

Am sure population is a major factor as is corporate/business activity and tourism. Add to it the fact there are many 'major airports' within 2 hours of each of these cities and the would be passenger has lots of choices.

My method may be 'simple' but it stands up to your scrutiny."

You are missing the points of everything I'm saying, so I am not going to repeat myself for the 3rd or 4th time.

However, I think it is pretty wrong to compare SDF to CVG, IND, or BNA. A better comparison to SDF is OMA, JAX, and BUF, and it is NOT because of population, I am comparing it to airports with a similar levels of service and O&D pax. And service is only slightly determined by population, but instead it is determined by O&D pax (whether they come from business or leisure), that's air service 101. SDF simply has fewer O&D pax than CVG, IND, or BNA regardless of leakage.

Delta route planning doesn't look at SDF and say it is a CSA of 1.5 million, so we must have service to X number of destinations, at X number of frequencies, they look at the O&D pax, yield, and other important variables for SDF to determine air service.

"If you are with DL route planning then my apologies....my point is the way O&D stats are posted on this board are incorrect. A note on the DOT screens advises that T-100 O&D stats INCLUDE O, D and CX traffic ALL TOGETHER. I am 100% certain that CVG and BNA have large and LARGE respectively CX passenger numbers in their stats. I suspect INDY and CMH also have meaningful connecting traffic in their numbers.

My initial inquiry is based on simple math....what explains the differences? Answer....it depends...but Connecting Traffic is not readily identifiable.

Alias1024 wrote:

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

Isn’t it just as likely that a score over 3.05 indicates an airport that draws passengers from outside its CSA. Look at a place like BOIwhich comes out to 4.63 based on your statistic or ABQ at 4.33. They punch above their weight because they draw from outside their cities, not heavy connecting traffic.

"Perhaps, however ABQ and BOI are 'remote Western cities' (the entire state of NM has 2.1M people; ID has 1.7M) that use air travel more than Eastern cities where distance are much less between cities. Closest big city to BOI is PDX or SLC and they are both @400 miles away; nearest big city to ABQ is DEN or PHX and they are both 400+ miles away. 400 mile radius of most cities in the East will identify many big cities 200 miles or less.

Here are some scores for mega hubs: DEN 19.09. CLT 18.09. ATL 16.96 ORD 8.06

Those distances may increase the propensity to travel by air somewhat, but the point I was making is that airports like BOI and ABQ aren't surrounded by airports with better options. They don't leak their city's passengers to other airports, and they draw nearly every passenger from areas within a two hour drive of their metro areas. SDF has tons of competition for passengers in surrounding areas. They also don't leak their own city's demand. SDF sees some of this simply because an hour and a half drive to CVG to catch the nonstop to LAX or SEA or CDG is for many travelers a better and faster alternative to a connection in a hub.

Another reason you won't see SDF as a hub for any of the majors is that it is completely redundant to their networks. What major traffic flow makes sense through SDF that DL, AA, UA, and WN don't already cover through hubs?

"I know very few biz travelers that make the trek to CVG to catch a NS domestic flight. Why? DL has the only CVG flights that would be of interest. The timing usually makes no sense and if mechanical or weather delays occur...it was a really bad move vs SDF to ATL/DTW/MSP.

I am not suggesting SDF should be a hub for anyone. As for Major traffic flow makes sense through SDF that DL, AA, UA and WN don't already cover through hubs....there are major traffic flows as measured by driving between many cities across the USA that the fortress hubs pretty much have abandoned as they confine all their operations to hub/spoke or focus for WN (altho BWI , PHX and MDW are hubs for WN). At the end of the day there are far more people interested in going from SDF to CLE or CVG to PIT etc than those cities to LAX, SEA or SFO. The carrier that figures out how to capture that traffic would be busy...the trick would be can they do it profitably. The C Series...maybe other 75-110 seaters could make it work.

Here are some numbers for selected Midwest markets.
Q4 2017 Outbound Domestic O/D (passengers who begin a journey at XXX and are on a totally domestic itinerary)
BNA 16,277 PDEW
STL 14,393 PDEW
MCI 13,943 PDEW
PIT 11,144 PDEW
IND 11,141 PDEW
CLE 10,980 PDEW
CMH 9,398 PDEW
CVG 9,196 PDEW
MKE 8,621 PDEW
SDF 4,368 PDEW
GRR 3,485 PEW
DAY 2,217 PDEW
This is DB1B data, actual boarded passengers (T100 data) would be larger, as it includes international and connecting passengers, which for IND, for example equate to ~1000 international PDEW and around ~400 PDEW of connecting passengers.
Are you suggesting routes like SDF-CLE, CLE-CVG, IND-GRR, etc. or shorthaul IND-SDF-CMH, CVG-SDF-STL connections?

You are oversimplifying it dramatically, airports have different pax counts for a number of different reasons, and population has a very small influence.

I agree compare AUS to SAT, AUS to ELP, CLT to ORF, etc. Population is part of demand, but buisness, air service available, geography, and many other factors contribute to air service demand.

I think everyone has some great ideas for where we could see the CSeries go, however let's stick to the facts and the issues Delta is most likely trying to face with this new jet. It's been stated that the C-Series will start flying out of NYC and later on LAX. DL runs their Connection fleet on some very long routes out of JFK and LGA, particularly to IAH and DFW. Furthermore, as we see when IROPS happen, the operational reliability of the Connection product is nothing compared to that of mainline. Lastly, Yahoo picked up the leaked memo to pilots about the possibility of a DFW virtual pilot base and that the CSeries would rotate through DFW often.

Thus, it's safe to say that as some other posters have shared the CSeries will free up 76 seat jets to replace CR2 flying to the maximum amount possible as they are delivered. Will this result in some new routes? Of course! And from Delta's growth I would gander to say we can see upguaging and new routes out of BOS, RDU and SEA to start. Furthermore, as another poster shared, the redeployment of the 717 to DTW/MSP/ATL and running sort of how NW utilized the DC-9 fleet on shorter or thin routes.

I believe Delta's #1 priority is offering that consistent and reliable product and that often means bringing flying back to the mainline and weighing less of the operation on DL Connection. Sure, DL Connection's operation can be improved, but with so many different carriers involved and different company cultures, there is only so much you can control. The CSeries allows Delta to bring a better and more consistent product into markets that have historically seen E-Jets and CR9's without dumping too much capacity in the market. Imagine a LGA IROP where every DFW segment except the mainline doesn't just cancel as we often see Republic do today.

That's just my 2 Cents on the matter. It's going to be a game changer, and surely exciting!

Bluegrass60 wrote:

At the end of the day there are far more people interested in going from SDF to CLE or CVG to PIT etc than those cities to LAX, SEA or SFO. The carrier that figures out how to capture that traffic would be busy...the trick would be can they do it profitably. The C Series...maybe other 75-110 seaters could make it work.

Not a chance

Due to its age, the thread will probably be locked, but all this route discussion really belongs in its own thread: Potential Delta CSeries Routes

Bluegrass60 wrote:

Walmart is HQ'd there and thus drives a lot of traffic....but....W is notoriously cheap...so...it is not as big a driver as you might expect. (Unless you have called on W in Bentonville you have no idea what I mean).

Regardless of how much Walmart directly spends on traffic for business, employees of WM and its supplier community (and Tyson and JB Hunt for that matter) are free to do as they please in their personal lives.

Clearly getting way off topic but had to clear-up that generalization of the XNA catchment area.

Looks like its been confirmed that LAX will be the 2nd CS100 base. The LAX 717 base will be closing in the next 18-24 months.

cessna2 wrote:

Looks like its been confirmed that LAX will be the 2nd CS100 base. The LAX 717 base will be closing in the next 18-24 months.

Where was this confirmed?

ilovelamp wrote:

cessna2 wrote:

Looks like its been confirmed that LAX will be the 2nd CS100 base. The LAX 717 base will be closing in the next 18-24 months.

Where was this confirmed?

It was in a pilot memo released with the latest AE.

cessna2 wrote:

Looks like its been confirmed that LAX will be the 2nd CS100 base. The LAX 717 base will be closing in the next 18-24 months.

Announced today internally...Initial C Series pilot bases are NYC and SLC.

many321 wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

cessna2 wrote:

Looks like its been confirmed that LAX will be the 2nd CS100 base. The LAX 717 base will be closing in the next 18-24 months.

Announced today internally...Initial C Series pilot bases are NYC and SLC.

if true, nice. I might spot the CS100 in ONT when it gets there from SLC. (They use 717/ERJ175 or CRJ700).

It’s true.

ilovelamp wrote:

cessna2 wrote:

Looks like its been confirmed that LAX will be the 2nd CS100 base. The LAX 717 base will be closing in the next 18-24 months.

Announced today internally...Initial C Series pilot bases are NYC and SLC.

if true, nice. I might spot the CS100 in ONT when it gets there from SLC. (They use 717/ERJ175 or CRJ700).

Good to know the bases. Like Many321, I’m hoping to see these flow through PHX.

ilovelamp wrote:

many321 wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Announced today internally...Initial C Series pilot bases are NYC and SLC.

if true, nice. I might spot the CS100 in ONT when it gets there from SLC. (They use 717/ERJ175 or CRJ700).

It’s true.

Facinating. I honestly didn't expect SLC. This ensures both coasts see the type.

Lightsaber

ilovelamp wrote:

cessna2 wrote:

Looks like its been confirmed that LAX will be the 2nd CS100 base. The LAX 717 base will be closing in the next 18-24 months.

Announced today internally...Initial C Series pilot bases are NYC and SLC.

Average stage length of 1200 miles as well

I suspect SLC will see some significant and very interesting upgauging.

Upgauging? There may be as much downgauging from 320s and MD-90s, I fear.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Upgauging? There may be as much downgauging from 320s and MD-90s, I fear.

Well at least they are nicer planes than the MD-90 and 717. And probably slightly more comfortable than the refurbished A320s.

Delta is first going to start the C-plane in NYC then when that's filled, SLC. So you won't see them in SLC immediately .

With the data points about NYC and then SLC as pilot bases, and 1200 nm average stage length, we start to get a picture of the initial CS1 operation. Once Salt Lake opens, I bet you will see LGA and JFK bridge through Texas to Salt Lake, and then with some turn-backs from Salt Lake to medium size markets in the east. MCI, STL, IND, and MKE, among others, could also be bridges from NYC to SLC. For the time being, I bet LAX 717 will stay open as a pilot base. The 717 will continue to do shorter bounces on the west coast, which will keep the CS on relatively longer stages to take advantage of the GTF fuel burn performance in cruise.

TW870 wrote:

With the data points about NYC and then SLC as pilot bases, and 1200 nm average stage length, we start to get a picture of the initial CS1 operation. Once Salt Lake opens, I bet you will see LGA and JFK bridge through Texas to Salt Lake, and then with some turn-backs from Salt Lake to medium size markets in the east. MCI, STL, IND, and MKE, among others, could also be bridges from NYC to SLC. For the time being, I bet LAX 717 will stay open as a pilot base. The 717 will continue to do shorter bounces on the west coast, which will keep the CS on relatively longer stages to take advantage of the GTF fuel burn performance in cruise.

LAX 717 pilot base is closing as well. They will open up a 320 base in its place.

Unrelated, the MSP MD-88 and DTW 777 base will close as well.

777Mech wrote:

TW870 wrote:

With the data points about NYC and then SLC as pilot bases, and 1200 nm average stage length, we start to get a picture of the initial CS1 operation. Once Salt Lake opens, I bet you will see LGA and JFK bridge through Texas to Salt Lake, and then with some turn-backs from Salt Lake to medium size markets in the east. MCI, STL, IND, and MKE, among others, could also be bridges from NYC to SLC. For the time being, I bet LAX 717 will stay open as a pilot base. The 717 will continue to do shorter bounces on the west coast, which will keep the CS on relatively longer stages to take advantage of the GTF fuel burn performance in cruise.

LAX 717 pilot base is closing as well. They will open up a 320 base in its place.

Unrelated, the MSP MD-88 and DTW 777 base will close as well.

Where will 717 base move to? In LAX does mean a reduction of 717 flying and increase in 320 family flying?

TW870 wrote:

Once Salt Lake opens, I bet you will see LGA and JFK bridge through Texas to Salt Lake..........

Back in March, 2018 Glen Hauenstein publicly stated that Delta's CSeries will debut on DFW-LGA. My guess is that the bridge from the east coast through DFW to LAX will happen very shortly thereafter, as will DFW-JFK.

DL747400 wrote:

TW870 wrote:

Once Salt Lake opens, I bet you will see LGA and JFK bridge through Texas to Salt Lake..........

Back in March, 2018 Glen Hauenstein publicly stated that Delta's CSeries will debut on DFW-LGA. My guess is that the bridge from the east coast through DFW to LAX will happen very shortly thereafter, as will DFW-JFK.

They could kill several birds at once by basing the CSeries at AUS...

INFINITI329 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

TW870 wrote:

With the data points about NYC and then SLC as pilot bases, and 1200 nm average stage length, we start to get a picture of the initial CS1 operation. Once Salt Lake opens, I bet you will see LGA and JFK bridge through Texas to Salt Lake, and then with some turn-backs from Salt Lake to medium size markets in the east. MCI, STL, IND, and MKE, among others, could also be bridges from NYC to SLC. For the time being, I bet LAX 717 will stay open as a pilot base. The 717 will continue to do shorter bounces on the west coast, which will keep the CS on relatively longer stages to take advantage of the GTF fuel burn performance in cruise.

LAX 717 pilot base is closing as well. They will open up a 320 base in its place.

Unrelated, the MSP MD-88 and DTW 777 base will close as well.

Where will 717 base move to? In LAX does mean a reduction of 717 flying and increase in 320 family flying?

I think the entire 717 fleet will be based in MSP/DTW/ATL once enough of the CSeries are on the property. Sounds like LAX will see increased A319 flying as the 717s are moved back east. There are 70 A321ceos still on order, so I anticipate LAX seeing more A321 flying.

I've heard rumors of C-Series on LGA-BNA understand it is only 764 miles however the plane could then go on BNA-LAX which is around 1750 miles.

Not saying it will be the first route or even first few but I think it is on the radar to get some mainline to BNA from New York.

Obviously LGA-DFW and JFK-IAH will be the first few deployments. I wonder about some turns down to south florida from New York as well which would be right in the 1100 mile stage length for the routes.

gsg013 wrote:

I've heard rumors of C-Series on LGA-BNA understand it is only 764 miles however the plane could then go on BNA-LAX which is around 1750 miles.

Not saying it will be the first route or even first few but I think it is on the radar to get some mainline to BNA from New York.

Obviously LGA-DFW and JFK-IAH will be the first few deployments. I wonder about some turns down to south florida from New York as well which would be right in the 1100 mile stage length for the routes.

Why would Delta down gauge from a 160 seat 737-800 to a 108 seat C Series on the BNA-LAX route? Makes no sense.

What will be the maximum range of DL’s CS100s? BNA-LAX might be pushing it, especially in the winter. Remember they will be derated, that is partially how DL was able to get such a good price for them. If they want to use them to the CS100’s full potential they are going to have to cough up money to BBD/Airbus to upgrade to the max MTOW.

ilovelamp wrote:

gsg013 wrote:

I've heard rumors of C-Series on LGA-BNA understand it is only 764 miles however the plane could then go on BNA-LAX which is around 1750 miles.

Not saying it will be the first route or even first few but I think it is on the radar to get some mainline to BNA from New York.

Obviously LGA-DFW and JFK-IAH will be the first few deployments. I wonder about some turns down to south florida from New York as well which would be right in the 1100 mile stage length for the routes.

Why would Delta down gauge from a 160 seat 737-800 to a 108 seat C Series on the BNA-LAX route? Makes no sense.

In order to add another frequency

Midwestindy wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

gsg013 wrote:

I've heard rumors of C-Series on LGA-BNA understand it is only 764 miles however the plane could then go on BNA-LAX which is around 1750 miles.

Not saying it will be the first route or even first few but I think it is on the radar to get some mainline to BNA from New York.

Obviously LGA-DFW and JFK-IAH will be the first few deployments. I wonder about some turns down to south florida from New York as well which would be right in the 1100 mile stage length for the routes.

Why would Delta down gauge from a 160 seat 737-800 to a 108 seat C Series on the BNA-LAX route? Makes no sense.

In order to add another frequency

Maybe. Using a CS100 might also reflect they're not getting the yields they want with a 738.

ilovelamp wrote:

Why would Delta down gauge from a 160 seat 737-800 to a 108 seat C Series on the BNA-LAX route? Makes no sense.

Perhaps they want to increase frequency?

gsg013 wrote:

Obviously LGA-DFW and JFK-IAH will be the first

FYI- DL doesn’t fly JFK-IAH currently, only LGA-IAH. DL to Texas from the NY area consists of JFK-DFW/AUS/SAT and LGA-DFW/IAH.

Midwestindy wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

gsg013 wrote:

I've heard rumors of C-Series on LGA-BNA understand it is only 764 miles however the plane could then go on BNA-LAX which is around 1750 miles.

Not saying it will be the first route or even first few but I think it is on the radar to get some mainline to BNA from New York.

Obviously LGA-DFW and JFK-IAH will be the first few deployments. I wonder about some turns down to south florida from New York as well which would be right in the 1100 mile stage length for the routes.

Why would Delta down gauge from a 160 seat 737-800 to a 108 seat C Series on the BNA-LAX route? Makes no sense.

In order to add another frequency

This was my thinking not as a replacement but as an addition

DL747400 wrote:

ilovelamp wrote:

Why would Delta down gauge from a 160 seat 737-800 to a 108 seat C Series on the BNA-LAX route? Makes no sense.

Perhaps they want to increase frequency?

Or right size the route.

All that matters is serving the premium customers. If too many seats are sold at a discount, those are not profitable customers and should be ignored.

Perhaps it is increasing frequency for those premium customers to serve a desired time slot. Or it is *significantly* cutting the cost per flight to take an unprofitable flight to a profitable flight and re-allocating the 738 to where it is needed. Or... parking a much higher variable cost frame (trim the line by one or two flights per day, the 738s are becoming old enough to go into lower utilization duty).


There is an obsession here on a.net to replace like with like. But let's look at the 744. Many were replaced with A350s! Certainly not one for one. Perhaps LAX is being fragmented (new route to the region that accommodates demand without a connection or without a drive). There is more than frequency at one destination. I often fly and then drive hours, but I would pay more to save hours of my time.

I look forward to the Delta Cseries fragmenting the market. What regional cities around Nashville could DL fly to and provide more convenient service?

I'm personally desiring more flights to Florida. For example, soon I will take DL's LAX-TPA flight. However, more times than not I must connect as the once per day direct is not when I need it to be.
But it isn't just TPA. ORD, JAX, and others appeal to me. For example, if there were an LAX to Sarasota Florida (SRQ) flight, I wouldn't be flying to TPA. :no: I would take the more convenient flight if the premium wasn't too high. Or if there were an earlier TPA-LAX flight, I would be taking that. This time I paid for 1st, but I would happily pay for Y+ at an earlier time (but still afternoon... yea, I'm picky, but willing to pay for my pickiness). With two kids and a dog, I'm not dealing with a connection (if possible).

I so want DL to use the C-series for its range. Now, I respect the flights have to be very profitable, so I'm not expecting all my whims to be met. I do not expect LAX to be the only city to benefit either. However, if the C-series performs as well as I've been reading about... I fully expect DL to not only exercise every option, but to order more aircraft. But... I'm not expecting Bombardier to have a free ride. :no: I fully expect DL to talk with Embraer if both aircraft are successful as I see too many lines that could be served well by the E2-195.

It all depends on ongoing negotiations with DALPA. I fully expect DL to ask for an increase in the RJ maximum weight, more 76 seater RJs (even try for more seats, but I would be surprised if DALPA allowed that), in return for a trade of more small jets (c-series or E2). If there is no increase in RJs, I expect fewer c-series/E2 and more NEO/MAX. Cest la vie, DL needs to make money and increase profit margins.

Being naturally interested in what is best for me, I want more TCON thin routes (c-series). Yea, that is also why I root for the C-series at JetBlue (B6). Hey, I'm rational, as Upton Sinclair (writer) notes (horribly rephrased), we all see the economics we want to see.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Being naturally interested in what is best for me, I want more TCON thin routes (c-series). Yea, that is also why I root for the C-series at JetBlue (B6). Hey, I'm rational, as Upton Sinclair (writer) notes (horribly rephrased), we all see the economics we want to see.

Lightsaber

That's just being human...and why not? Dreams are free.

First CS100 is Oct 31. Then 4 on property by dec 31. About 14 on property by summer 2019.

The range restriction is purely artificial—the most that changed is a software mode to the fueling computer restricting the uplift. That can be changed with a Service Bulletin.

GF

F/As are beginning to train on C series mockups, according to an instructor that I know... he says they are saying Fall 2018...

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The range restriction is purely artificial—the most that changed is a software mode to the fueling computer restricting the uplift. That can be changed with a Service Bulletin.

GF

It is also paying a fee for the increase in MTOW as well as a changed maintenance plan to reflect the higher stress on the airframe.


What is the limit on the range for DL? The plane has far more range than continental US TCON operations require. (2900nm required vs. 3300nm at maximum MTOW/fuel uptake).

DL negotiated an incredible deal, so all upgrades will be at fee. I'm curious how low of a MTOW/fuel uptake they had to agree to for the low price. I'm also curious as to what thrust the engines are derated to (maintained by a software plug-basically a small memory stick in a rugged configuration).

Lightsaber

Polot wrote:

What will be the maximum range of DL’s CS100s? BNA-LAX might be pushing it, especially in the winter. Remember they will be derated, that is partially how DL was able to get such a good price for them. If they want to use them to the CS100’s full potential they are going to have to cough up money to BBD/Airbus to upgrade to the max MTOW.

2000NM