KarlB737 wrote:

stl07 wrote:

Come on guys, we all know it is going to be the new fortress mega hub of Metro airways.

I'm sure you remember this writeup from 2017. Since it is unlikely the FAA will allow DET to close we'll see how this Metropolitan Airways thing plays out.

Courtesy: D Business
Metropolitan Airways Plans To Offer Business Flights At Detroit City Airport In 2018

http://www.dbusiness.com/daily-news/Annual-2017/Metropolitan-Airways-Plans-to-Offer-Business-Flights-at-Detroit-City-Airport-in-2018/

I can't decide if its a hoax or a pipe dream

KICT wrote:

I agree. All runways within 50 mi. of downtown Detroit need nonstops to Tokyo and LAX.

Aren't you forgetting every other inhabitable place in the world with a runway? Oh and don't forget it ALL has to be on the Big Evil Airline Called Delta that keeps denying making Detroit into ATL².

klm617 wrote:

blockski wrote:

DET is only 264 acres. MDW is 650 acres. Even SNA is just over 500 acres.

There’s simply no business case here. High cost, low reward.

The airport is NOT a business it's a public facility.

Not much of a public facility if there isn't a BUSINESS case for BUSINESSES (see: airlines) to serve it, which there is not.

To you-know-who: enough already.

Plans to re-develop DET came in the 1980s; it was a different world back then: Post-deregulation created a new service frenzy but DTW was maxed out and had 30-years remaining on a leasing arrangement that required near universal approval from its signers to implement any capital improvement project. Ultimately, this torpedoed multiple attempts by the County to expand and modernize the facilities. Not to mention Metro Detroit was the #5 MSA and #2 in discretionary income.

But things slowly changed. The initial frenzy died down, bankruptcies/mergers opened gates and the PFC finally enabled the airport to expand. Nobody was interested in DET through the 1990s until ProAir came to town in 1998. ProAir was an ill-conceived airline, rushed into service (literally -- its first flight from DET was hours after it announced service) to take advantage of auto industry money (namely GM). Unsurprisingly, it was a disaster, with LF around 25% in spite of cheap airfares. After it was shut down, the reboot -- BTW -- was suppose to be from DTW, not DET.

Today, a rebuilt DTW has oodles of capacity and can easily accommodate growth well into the future, even if the local demographics haven't been as favorable. DET, meanwhile, would need tens of millions in info-structure upgrades (including a new passenger terminal), would need to attract ground transportation (the only current rental car option is a rent-a-wreck type) and would require millions in city services for police, fire, security, etc.

So let's recap:
(1) DET would require tens of millions in upgrades before it became a viable option for commercial air service + millions annually for city services;
(2) DTW has oodles of capacity;
(3) Nobody wants to fly from DET -- the surrounding neighborhood is sketchy, and many people just wouldn't feel safe or comfortable parking or getting ground transportation. This helps explains the poor LF posted by WN and ProAir in the 1990s... and the area's gotten worse.
(4) It wouldn't deliver much of a savings, IF ANY, to airlines.

CTRL+C, CTRL+V from my post in the DTW Air Service 2017 #1,278,894 thread 8 months ago:
---

There is no justification for the city/state/federal government to spend public money to make DET viable for commerical airline operations at this point. It is such an uphill battle it has all the hallmarks of becoming a giant porkbarrel project in light of the fact there is more than ample airfield, airside, and landside capacity at DTW with modern infrastructure and that the region has far more pressing public infrastructure needs that opening another airport for niche or token leisure quasi-charter like operations.

Here is a short list of all of the issues with DET:

Runway width - 100 ft, where most runways used by airlines are 150 ft, which causes significant crosswind limitations
Runway length - 5,090 ft, and has cemeteries located on adjacent properties at both ends. In the current political environment there is no justifiable reason to move grave-sites for a airport/runway that is not needed
Terminal - has been essentially mothballed for over 17 years, and also every furnishing or fixture would need replacing, not to mention likely infestation or mold damage. Who knows the state of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems
Jetbridges - highly unlikely they have been maintained to any sort of operable condition, likely need to be replaced
Security Screening / TSA - would need to invest millions to install modern security screening, systems, certify/inspect the terminal space and set-up back-office support. Not to mention actually staffing the TSA screening
Concessions - need to build-out basic airport concessions
Parking - very limited parking in and around the terminal, would need to set-up parking lots, repave lots, etc.
Rental Cars - would need to get rental car vendors established
ARFF - not sure that DET still have ARFF capabilities for airline service, might need upgraded equipment here
Access - need to install all sorts of directional signage from I-94, probably need to repave/rebuilt Conner Ave from I-94

All for a handful of token flights?

For as convenient as DET may be to Macomb County, its just as inconvenient to the other parts of Metro Detroit. If DTW were constrained in any aspect then there might be case for DET but with all of the capacity and infrastructure in place DTW its not a good use of public or private funds to make DET viable again for large-scale commercial flights.

klm617 wrote:

KICT wrote:

In all seriousness, the land that DET is on is better used to expand the cemetery that exists north AND south of the primary runway. The idea that DET has a "future" is on its face absurd. Shut it down!

I can't imagine anyone on an aviation forum that is in favor of less runways space buy shutting an airport down. So I love aviation and would never under any circumstances be in favor of killing an airport just for the sake of killing it.

Future development of DET is a WASTE of taxpayer money. It has nothing to do with my love of aviation.
It's called rational thinking, sound decision making, and the appropriate use of resources.
DET is dead. Get over it.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

CTRL+C, CTRL+V from my post in the DTW Air Service 2017 #1,278,894 thread 8 months ago:
---

There is no justification for the city/state/federal government to spend public money to make DET viable for commerical airline operations at this point. It is such an uphill battle it has all the hallmarks of becoming a giant porkbarrel project in light of the fact there is more than ample airfield, airside, and landside capacity at DTW with modern infrastructure and that the region has far more pressing public infrastructure needs that opening another airport for niche or token leisure quasi-charter like operations.

Here is a short list of all of the issues with DET:

Runway width - 100 ft, where most runways used by airlines are 150 ft, which causes significant crosswind limitations
Runway length - 5,090 ft, and has cemeteries located on adjacent properties at both ends. In the current political environment there is no justifiable reason to move grave-sites for a airport/runway that is not needed
Terminal - has been essentially mothballed for over 17 years, and also every furnishing or fixture would need replacing, not to mention likely infestation or mold damage. Who knows the state of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems
Jetbridges - highly unlikely they have been maintained to any sort of operable condition, likely need to be replaced
Security Screening / TSA - would need to invest millions to install modern security screening, systems, certify/inspect the terminal space and set-up back-office support. Not to mention actually staffing the TSA screening
Concessions - need to build-out basic airport concessions
Parking - very limited parking in and around the terminal, would need to set-up parking lots, repave lots, etc.
Rental Cars - would need to get rental car vendors established
ARFF - not sure that DET still have ARFF capabilities for airline service, might need upgraded equipment here
Access - need to install all sorts of directional signage from I-94, probably need to repave/rebuilt Conner Ave from I-94

All for a handful of token flights?

For as convenient as DET may be to Macomb County, its just as inconvenient to the other parts of Metro Detroit. If DTW were constrained in any aspect then there might be case for DET but with all of the capacity and infrastructure in place DTW its not a good use of public or private funds to make DET viable again for large-scale commercial flights.

OK fair enough to all your points then what to we do to stimulate growth in this market. Income is up, employment is up, business is doing fairly well but yet this market is not growing. Every airport in the country is growing at the rate that air travel is or better except Detroit. Airports in the class size of Detroit are adding new routes all the time but not Detroit. The longer we allow Delta to get deeper entrenched in this market the less likely that DTW will grow. The airport still in not actively looking to expand this market and all Delta does when it adds capacity is subtract it from someplace else so there is never going to really be any growth as far as this hub goes. The longer TW just sits in the sidelines and waits the worse it's going to get the time is now not 5 years from now for the WCAA to get aggressive about attracting airlines service here so when the next downturn comes these new carriers will be established in this market and as we all know DTW missed the boat on the ME3 boom.

klm617 wrote:

Every airport in the country is growing at the rate that air travel is or better except Detroit. Airports in the class size of Detroit are adding new routes all the time but not Detroit.

Macroeconomic drivers are certainly something that should go hand in hand with that analysis. Primarily the fact that Detroit's population has been falling since the 1950's and only last year appeared to be bottoming out, the highest rate of concentrated poverty among the Top 25 metro areas in the country, and is still by many metrics categorized as the worst place to live in America when considering home value and education prevalence. These are economic facts that come into play when considering where to expand, and on top of that you're already very obviously dealing with a DL fortress hub, but on that note...

klm617 wrote:

The longer we allow Delta to get deeper entrenched in this market the less likely that DTW will grow.

I'm curious what it is that you mean here. It sounds as though you're of the impression that DL is increasing their market share at DTW and leveraging that to prevent OA growth. That, as I'd like to think you know but honestly can't be sure, is not the case per the below:

DL + JV Partners Percentage of DTW Seats. I used Year Ending August periods to best reflect 2018 as the winter schedule is not yet finalized:

2010: 81.0%
2011: 80.3%
2012: 80.2%
2013: 80.0%
2014: 78.6%
2015: 76.5%
2016: 74.8%
2017: 73.6%
2018: 73.1%

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Every airport in the country is growing at the rate that air travel is or better except Detroit. Airports in the class size of Detroit are adding new routes all the time but not Detroit.

Macroeconomic drivers are certainly something that should go hand in hand with that analysis. Primarily the fact that Detroit's population has been falling since the 1950's and only last year appeared to be bottoming out, the highest rate of concentrated poverty among the Top 25 metro areas in the country, and is still by many metrics categorized as the worst place to live in America when considering home value and education prevalence. These are economic facts that come into play when considering where to expand, and on top of that you're already very obviously dealing with a DL fortress hub, but on that note...

klm617 wrote:

The longer we allow Delta to get deeper entrenched in this market the less likely that DTW will grow.

I'm curious what it is that you mean here. It sounds as though you're of the impression that DL is increasing their market share at DTW and leveraging that to prevent OA growth. That, as I'd like to think you know but honestly can't be sure, is not the case per the below:

DL + JV Partners Percentage of DTW Seats. I used Year Ending August periods to best reflect 2018 as the winter schedule is not yet finalized:

2010: 81.0%
2011: 80.3%
2012: 80.2%
2013: 80.0%
2014: 78.6%
2015: 76.5%
2016: 74.8%
2017: 73.6%
2018: 73.1%

You are just looking at the city proper you have to look at the entire region as far as growth to get the full picture. It would be the same as if you just used the south side od Chicago to gauge the prosperity of the region. Detroit is no longer the driving force of the region it is the surrounding areas. To your second remark those number are just a good indicator of my point the reason that market share is shrinking is because Delta keeps reducing capacity in the market not that other carriers are wining more passengers. Again Delta keeps the competition and bay and the reduces capacity. This market should be seeing growth but the Delta control in this market keeps that from happening. DET would be a great way to stimulate growth as far as air travel growing in the Detroit market because Delta could do very little to a competitor as far as chasing them out of the market if they were to chose DET to start flights.

klm617 wrote:

You are just looking at the city proper you have to look at the entire region as far as growth to get the full picture. It would be the same as if you just used the south side od Chicago to gauge the prosperity of the region. Detroit is no longer the driving force of the region it is the surrounding areas.

Did you look at any of my sources? If so you would have seen that several of them speak to the entire Metropolitan area - not just Detroit city proper.

klm617 wrote:

To your second remark those number are just a good indicator of my point the reason that market share is shrinking is because Delta keeps reducing capacity in the market not that other carriers are wining more passengers. Again Delta keeps the competition and bay and the reduces capacity.

You've said there that Delta "keeps reducing capacity", and yet the carrier has actually increased capacity steadily since 2015. Prior to that capacity trended generally with GDP of the metro area. You need to clarify what time period you're referring to.

klm617 wrote:

This market should be seeing growth

Why? Because you love Detroit and think it's neat? The GDP per capita of metro Detroit is essentially exactly where it was in 2005 having only last year recovered from staggering declines. Why does that warrant growth?

klm617 wrote:

DET would be a great way to stimulate growth as far as air travel growing in the Detroit market because Delta could do very little to a competitor as far as chasing them out of the market if they were to chose DET to start flights.

You're incorrect, but at this point you know that. There is no business case for the massive capital investment that would be needed at DET, and a business case is needed for a business to operate in/out of DET, because that's how, you know, business works.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

You are just looking at the city proper you have to look at the entire region as far as growth to get the full picture. It would be the same as if you just used the south side od Chicago to gauge the prosperity of the region. Detroit is no longer the driving force of the region it is the surrounding areas.

Did you look at any of my sources? If so you would have seen that several of them speak to the entire Metropolitan area - not just Detroit city proper.

klm617 wrote:

To your second remark those number are just a good indicator of my point the reason that market share is shrinking is because Delta keeps reducing capacity in the market not that other carriers are wining more passengers. Again Delta keeps the competition and bay and the reduces capacity.

You've said there that Delta "keeps reducing capacity", and yet the carrier has actually increased capacity steadily since 2015. Prior to that capacity trended generally with GDP of the metro area. You need to clarify what time period you're referring to.

klm617 wrote:

This market should be seeing growth

Why? Because you love Detroit and think it's neat? The GDP per capita of metro Detroit is essentially exactly where it was in 2005 having only last year recovered from staggering declines. Why does that warrant growth?

klm617 wrote:

DET would be a great way to stimulate growth as far as air travel growing in the Detroit market because Delta could do very little to a competitor as far as chasing them out of the market if they were to chose DET to start flights.

You're incorrect, but at this point you know that. There is no business case for the massive capital investment that would be needed at DET, and a business case is needed for a business to operate in/out of DET, because that's how, you know, business works.

Read this.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/busin ... /86768482/.

And by the way Delta is NOT increasing capacity it's been flat for 10 years now and enplanements reflect that. In fact from 2016 to 2017 the number of passenger Delta carried through Detroit declined. So while keeping the competition out they are quietly reducing options in the market.

I'm a big supporter of Detroit but it's a huge waste of money and time to have DET be anything more than it already is.

tb727 wrote:

I'm a big supporter of Detroit but it's a huge waste of money and time to have DET be anything more than it already is.

I don't understand why some people (well, one, at least) keep beating this dead horse.

And like a dead horse, it is really starting to stink...

tb727 wrote:

I'm a big supporter of Detroit but it's a huge waste of money and time to have DET be anything more than it already is.

Again I ask the question then if not DET what needs to be done to grow this market then when the hub carrier and airport is committed to restricting growth at DTW when civil aviation as a whole is growing at every hub in the country EXCEPT Detroit. No one wants to seem to brainstorm on this issue. I see DET as a way of forcing the growth in the Detroit market if it is beating a dead horse that what horse do we need to beat to stop the leakage of passenger and cargo revenue from DTW to other neighboring airports because there aren't enough forward thinking people working on this. Even YIP is a shadow of what it once was with NO secluded cargo service. Let's shut down YIP and move all those movements to DTW as maintaining YIP is also a waste of money.

klm617 wrote:

tb727 wrote:

I'm a big supporter of Detroit but it's a huge waste of money and time to have DET be anything more than it already is.

Again I ask the question then if not DET what needs to be done to grow this market then when the hub carrier and airport is committed to restricting growth at DTW when civil aviation as a whole is growing at every hub in the country EXCEPT Detroit. No one wants to seem to brainstorm on this issue. I see DET as a way of forcing the growth in the Detroit market if it is beating a dead horse that what horse do we need to beat to stop the leakage of passenger and cargo revenue from DTW to other neighboring airports because there aren't enough forward thinking people working on this. Even YIP is a shadow of what it once was with NO secluded cargo service. Let's shut down YIP and move all those movements to DTW as maintaining YIP is also a waste of money.

Your answer to "leakage" from DTW is to have people fly out of DET as an alternative? I don't think it's as big of an issue as you want it to be. DTW has a full range of services available. 2 ULCC for the budget minded(a pretty decent size hub for one of them with a state of the art hangar). Every legacy is here, with AA having a sizable operation, and a large international hub for Delta that has non-stop flights to 3 continents. There are also, what, 5 international carriers here as well? What are you so worried about all the time? People flying out of FNT, LAN or GRR? Most of my friends that live up north pass all those airports and still drive 4-5 hours to DTW and fly out of there. You might have a few people drive to ORD or YYZ, big deal. It's part of the adventure of traveling to go find a deal and do that.

What do you want with DET? Have you been there? We weren't even allowed to leave the airport when I flew freight and air ambulance flights in there. I've driven through those neighborhoods during the day and the hair on the back of my neck stood up and my mindset was that lights and stop signs are optional, and I've driven through a good portion of Detroit. Do you think people would use DET because it's closer to their neighborhoods and can take the ever so reliable public transportation to the airport?

A big problem with YIP is the lack of customs on the weekends. Don't get me started there. YIP is unique, it doesn't have scheduled service because the kind of freight going there doesn't need scheduled service.

klm617 wrote:

tb727 wrote:

I'm a big supporter of Detroit but it's a huge waste of money and time to have DET be anything more than it already is.

Again I ask the question then if not DET what needs to be done to grow this market then when the hub carrier and airport is committed to restricting growth at DTW when civil aviation as a whole is growing at every hub in the country EXCEPT Detroit.

DTW has plenty of vacant ticket counter, back office space and gates available. Additionally, there’s new service incentives and shared vendors that would make it much cheaper to fly out of DTW than DET.

DL has such a grip on the market that it makes other Airlines difficult and/or reluctant to grow here. This is also true of MSP and ATL to some extent... DET is not the solution.

compensateme wrote:

klm617 wrote:

tb727 wrote:

I'm a big supporter of Detroit but it's a huge waste of money and time to have DET be anything more than it already is.

Again I ask the question then if not DET what needs to be done to grow this market then when the hub carrier and airport is committed to restricting growth at DTW when civil aviation as a whole is growing at every hub in the country EXCEPT Detroit.

DTW has plenty of vacant ticket counter, back office space and gates available. Additionally, there’s new service incentives and shared vendors that would make it much cheaper to fly out of DTW than DET.

DL has such a grip on the market that it makes other Airlines difficult and/or reluctant to grow here. This is also true of MSP and ATL to some extent... DET is not the solution.

But the longer that grip is held the worse it's going to be at the airport and the people who use it. I can't understand why the people at the airport are content with this zero growth that has been going on while other airport are growing along at a pace or better than commercial aviation is. Every major hub is taking about airport expansion even CLT to accommodate growth at the people who run DTW are OK with zero to no growth and even part of a concourse walled off. Delta has no future plans for DTW other than the status quo and I'm sorry that's just not good enough for me and the amount of money it makes in this market.

klm617 wrote:

Delta has no future plans for DTW other than the status quo and I'm sorry that's just not good enough for me and the amount of money it makes in this market.

So you want them to offer service that doesn't make enough money as some form of charity? The network is set up like it is to maximize profits. Anything else is just conspiracy theory.

DTW is a great airport and under rated city, but any growth is going to be slow.

klm, I admire your never ending passion for growing DTW with your dozens and dozens of posts about it. It's just what the local market and environment is dictating right now. There is not much more you can do other than buy tickets and fly more. Have your family and friends do the same. And if you really want it to grow, fly the big yellow bus so a company that is growing(ie adding new cities) adds more here.

william wrote:

This is the view across from the terminal.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4091395 ... 312!8i6656

The terminal & parking area doesn't look any better...unless I'm missing something.

WN and Pro Air used that?


I'm confused about something. Before DTW opened, did the airlines use DET or YIP?

727LOVER wrote:

william wrote:

Before DTW opened, did the airlines use DET or YIP?

YIP and years before that DET. When I was a kid I can remember flying from TVC to YIP on a Capital Airlines Viscount. I have flown on both Southwest and Pro Air in and out of DET when it was available just for the DET experience.

klm617 wrote:

And by the way Delta is NOT increasing capacity it's been flat for 10 years now and enplanements reflect that. In fact from 2016 to 2017 the number of passenger Delta carried through Detroit declined. So while keeping the competition out they are quietly reducing options in the market.

You. are. wrong. again, which is at this point staggering.

Capacity and enplanements are different things. Surely you know this. Below are Delta's DTW seats (nondirectional) from 2015 to 2018 from OAG.

2015: 14.9M
2016: 15.2M
2017: 15.3M
2018: 15.5M

That's a 4% capacity increase between 2015 and 2018.

727LOVER wrote:

william wrote:

This is the view across from the terminal.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.4091395 ... 312!8i6656

The terminal & parking area doesn't look any better...unless I'm missing something.

WN and Pro Air used that?

I'm confused about something. Before DTW opened, did the airlines use DET or YIP?

The first airport with scheduled air service in the Detroit area was Ford Airport, which was located across the street from Greenfield Village in Dearborn. It opened in the early 1920s.

The first portion of DTW (the northeast corner, at Middlebelt Road and the Norfolk Southern railroad tracks) opened in 1929, and airlines moved there from Ford Airport.

DET opened in 1931, and airlines moved there from DTW. However, a large natural gas storage tank was located near the intersection of DET's two runways, so DET had very high weather minimums. AA actually kept their DTW station open because so many flights diverted to DTW when DET's ceiling was below minimums.

The DC-4 and Constellation were too big to land at DET. After World War II, AA wanted to move to DTW, but the other airlines wanted to move to YIP because YIP's runways and taxiways were better than DTW. YIP was intended as an interim airport for the Detroit area; there were serious proposals for "permanent" airports in Detroit in Warren where the General Motors Technical Center was later built, on a man made island in Lake St Clair, and even in Windsor, Ontario. If YQG had become Detroit's permanent airport, a second span would have been built next to the Ambassador Bridge, with a freeway linking the new span to a US domestic terminal at YQG, so passengers would not have had to clear customs.

In 1954, when Pan Am began flying to Detroit, they chose DTW over YIP; BOAC did the same when they added flights to Detroit two years later.

Finally, in 1958, AA got fed up with delays in choosing a permanent location for a Detroit airport, and moved back to DTW. AA was followed by Allegheny, Northwest, and Delta in 1959. Eastern, TWA, Lake Central, Mohawk, North Central, and United continued to serve YIP until 1966.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

And by the way Delta is NOT increasing capacity it's been flat for 10 years now and enplanements reflect that. In fact from 2016 to 2017 the number of passenger Delta carried through Detroit declined. So while keeping the competition out they are quietly reducing options in the market.

You. are. wrong. again, which is at this point staggering.

Capacity and enplanements are different things. Surely you know this. Below are Delta's DTW seats (nondirectional) from 2015 to 2018 from OAG.

2015: 14.9M
2016: 15.2M
2017: 15.3M
2018: 15.5M

That's a 4% capacity increase between 2015 and 2018.

I can not dispute this data because I have no access to it. I have to trust what you are showing me but then again I don't believe that we have seen a 4% increase in capacity at the DTW hub and even if it's 4% that's very small indeed only 1% a year and that's pretty bad.

klm617 wrote:

I can not dispute this data because I have no access to it. I have to trust what you are showing me but then again I don't believe that we have seen a 4% increase in capacity at the DTW hub and even if it's 4% that's very small indeed only 1% a year and that's pretty bad.

If you don't have access to data like this, why do you keep acting like you do and continue making false claims?

It is so difficult and expensive to build a new airport in major cities that I can't remember when a new airport for a large city was built. Its an asset to have another airport and DET should remain open and perhaps rehabbing it as cheaply as possible to make it attractive to several airlines with commuter aircraft to several hub airports. I'm talking about 10-15 daily flights at first but nothing in the magnitude of a large airport. Also general aviation can be a source of income and the addition of jobs.

klm617 wrote:

I can not dispute this data because I have no access to it.

If you have no access to capacity data what is your source for the false claim below?

klm617 wrote:

And by the way Delta is NOT increasing capacity it's been flat for 10 years now

Are you just spewing your opinions and claiming them as objective truths?

klm617 wrote:

I have to trust what you are showing me but then again I don't believe that we have seen a 4% increase in capacity at the DTW hub

What you 'believe' is irrelevant. There are facts and there are opinions. The data I have provided comes directly from OAG and is a statement of fact regarding DL's capacity at DTW. What you routinely post are seemingly baseless opinions, and you should identify them as such.

klm617 wrote:

and even if it's 4% that's very small indeed only 1% a year and that's pretty bad.

At this point you're honestly just embarrassing yourself. How fast is it that you think legacy airline's grow at established hubs? What is, for you, an acceptable rate of growth to ensure that RASM erosion is prevented and shareholders remain satisfied?

cheapgreek wrote:

It is so difficult and expensive to build a new airport in major cities that I can't remember when a new airport for a large city was built. Its an asset to have another airport and DET should remain open and perhaps rehabbing it as cheaply as possible to make it attractive to several airlines with commuter aircraft to several hub airports. I'm talking about 10-15 daily flights at first but nothing in the magnitude of a large airport. Also general aviation can be a source of income and the addition of jobs.

That said, I am a proponent of keeping DET open as a General Aviation airport. Like you said, land acquisition makes it difficult to establish an a new airport. There is value in having GA airport close to downtown, Warren, and Grosse Pointe, particularly since DTW is not well suited for light GA/recreational aircraft.

I, like many others are not in support of plowing millions of dollars into a "if you build it, they will come" scenario, or trying to make it attractive for scheduled commercial service when there is ample capacity for such within the region at DTW. There isn't a market for "commuter" aircraft to aircraft hubs. Everyone that would do this is already well-established at DTW. The Metro Detroit region is very sprawled out, and the commercial, industrial, and residential power centers are dispersed across the region.