If true about DL making AUS a focus city and possibly a future hub I can see they mirroring their old DFW hub as east west connecting hub and add smaller cities like: HSV BHM MOB MGM LIT FSM XNA JAN GPT MSY BTR LCH LFT SHV MLU MEM BNA MCI STL OKC TUL various intra Texas routes ONT LAS PHX ABQ DEN COS SAN SFO OAK SNA SJC HNL OGG

Chuska wrote:

Maybe DL can do AUS-ABQ daily instead of the current situation we have with 3 airlines each doing it two or three days per week. Have a great day everyone!

I can definitely see this route being flown daily with a CR7. Neither WN, F9, or G4 would be able to compete with this

Let the Battle for Austin commence

I think looking at the current Focus Cities will give indication of what type of operation DL might build in Austin. It won't be a mini-hub, but it will be a focus. For example, take RDU (for some reason RDU always interests me, not sure why). It is a focus city and has p2p routes. The volume of routes and the routes selected will probably have to do with competing with WN to a large degree, the "ULCC" operations in AUS and to a lesser extent the fortress hubs.

As indicated, they already connect the focus and hubs, but for p2p, it will depend on who they market and how they poach what already exists. Would someone pay more to fly on a DL connection with more frequency than they would on a ULCC 2 days a week? And how about competing for business and leisure from WN? It will be interesting to see how it works out.

I wonder if MCI might be next, I thought BNA is a long shot since it is close to ATL and the "large focus/small hub at CVG" but with the terminal expansion at BNA like the one going on at AUS, I thought that might attract them.

Congrats to AUS and DL. I hope it works out.

An AUS focus city makes sense for any carrier not named UA,AA, or WN. I am surprised jetBlue never made AUS more of a focus city. I presumed, had jetBlue bought VirginAm that might still happen but alas no.nIf DL gets 6-7 gates with the expansion, and with good marketing, it could work well I think.

YMMV.

If you look at DLs current focus cities, the destinations served from them are either 1) DL hubs or 2) destinations that are geared toward O-D on both ends. Yes, some connections still end up happening through focus cities... but again the aim is more pure O-D on both sides on routes to non DL-hubs.

For that reason, I would think the best predictor would be to look at the PDEW numbers for Austin, and simply see which routes exceed say 150 PDEW. Then cross off the AA/UA hubs and you probably have a rough list.

They might try some small RJ flying to small Texas cities... but I would only expect that after the other routes of the focus city takes hold.

kavok wrote:

If you look at DLs current focus cities, the destinations served from them are either 1) DL hubs or 2) destinations that are geared toward O-D on both ends. Yes, some connections still end up happening through focus cities... but again the aim is more pure O-D on both sides on routes to non DL-hubs.

For that reason, I would think the best predictor would be to look at the PDEW numbers for Austin, and simply see which routes exceed say 150 PDEW. Then cross off the AA/UA hubs and you probably have a rough list.

They might try some small RJ flying to small Texas cities... but I would only expect that after the other routes of the focus city takes hold.

I agree. Let connections flow over the true hubs which are geared for that, and let the focus cities be more about O&D and skimming some of the premium cream off the top.

Agree with others above, this will be to maximize O/D, will be interesting to see where they choose. WN/AA/UA aren't going to just let them have the market share, so this will be fun to watch.

tphuang wrote:

Austin cannot duplicate the success of CLT for 2 very simple reasons.
1) It currently does not have the gate space. And it would take years to build it to the size of a good hub. During that time, it would have to compete against AA at DFW, UA at IAH and WN at both HOU/DAL. Which are all airports with much larger O&D. It would simply get crushed as long as it's that much smaller than those mega hubs around them.
2) WN is much larger with much deeper roots. DL has much higher cost than WN, so it needs to generate consistent revenue premium in order to be viable. It simply can't do that. I've seen the numbers on BOS-AUS, the one root where it doesn't own point of sale on the other end and both B6/WN are crushing them on that route.

Now the next question is whether it can develop into a focus city the size of RDU/CVG. This is more plausible. But the big problem is where AUS is located and who it's largest markets are.
Out of the top markets, DL currently operates to ATL/LAX/NYC. In order to be more viable, it needs to fly to one of Dallas/Houston, Chicago and San Francisco and maybe Phoenix. Those are all large for business travellers out of Austin. Delta has no presence in any of those cities. Is it going to add flight to DAL or DFW? No, it would get crushed. Same with IAH or HOU. Same with ORD, where it still doesn't operate flights to LAX and it's ORD-SEA flight is bleeding money. Could it add flight to SFO or SJC? I really doubt it. Already multiple competitors with dominant point of sale or much lower cost.

So, the only markets I see it could add in the near term are LAS, MCO, IND, CUN, MEX and AMS. AMS is going to be a problem because BA/AA JV is going to take the higher yielding customers to Europe along with the largest O&D location. MEX/CUN will probably do fine over time. IND should do fine. I can't see it making any money on MCO given how entrenched WN/B6 are in that market. And same with LAS which is dominated by WN on both end.

As for serving small Texas communities, that's going to be hard. AA and UA already covers all these communities out of DFW and IAH. Both of those markets have much larger O&D than AUS and longer history in Texas. DL would have to be picking the lowest yielding crowd and that's not going to work with their very high costs.

Reality is Texas will always be hard for DL. That's why Ed Bastian said "Mexico is DL's Texas". They will have far easier time making MCO/IND into focus cities.

DL is not growing AUS to the size of RDU/CVG, if DL wanted to grow even to the size of MCO they would have to nearly TRIPLE the amount of passengers they carry a day from AUS....the idea that people think that DL is even thinking of opening up routes like AUS-ORD/DEN is quite amusing though.

I think that LAS, MCO, IND, CUN, and AMS are reasonable, but beyond that you enter into hyper-competitive territory which is not the purpose of a focus city.

I can see AUS to IAH, AUS to CUN, and AUS to SJO. IAH be nice can pull traffic for destination like IAH - AUS - LAX. Why not AUS to CDG over AUS to AMS?

I wish AA would Fill a Few Focus Cities in PNW and the WestCoast. International is not the rage and Domestic hubs are pretty much set so it will be the place to fill in next.

Midwestindy wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Austin cannot duplicate the success of CLT for 2 very simple reasons.
1) It currently does not have the gate space. And it would take years to build it to the size of a good hub. During that time, it would have to compete against AA at DFW, UA at IAH and WN at both HOU/DAL. Which are all airports with much larger O&D. It would simply get crushed as long as it's that much smaller than those mega hubs around them.
2) WN is much larger with much deeper roots. DL has much higher cost than WN, so it needs to generate consistent revenue premium in order to be viable. It simply can't do that. I've seen the numbers on BOS-AUS, the one root where it doesn't own point of sale on the other end and both B6/WN are crushing them on that route.

Now the next question is whether it can develop into a focus city the size of RDU/CVG. This is more plausible. But the big problem is where AUS is located and who it's largest markets are.
Out of the top markets, DL currently operates to ATL/LAX/NYC. In order to be more viable, it needs to fly to one of Dallas/Houston, Chicago and San Francisco and maybe Phoenix. Those are all large for business travellers out of Austin. Delta has no presence in any of those cities. Is it going to add flight to DAL or DFW? No, it would get crushed. Same with IAH or HOU. Same with ORD, where it still doesn't operate flights to LAX and it's ORD-SEA flight is bleeding money. Could it add flight to SFO or SJC? I really doubt it. Already multiple competitors with dominant point of sale or much lower cost.

So, the only markets I see it could add in the near term are LAS, MCO, IND, CUN, MEX and AMS. AMS is going to be a problem because BA/AA JV is going to take the higher yielding customers to Europe along with the largest O&D location. MEX/CUN will probably do fine over time. IND should do fine. I can't see it making any money on MCO given how entrenched WN/B6 are in that market. And same with LAS which is dominated by WN on both end.

As for serving small Texas communities, that's going to be hard. AA and UA already covers all these communities out of DFW and IAH. Both of those markets have much larger O&D than AUS and longer history in Texas. DL would have to be picking the lowest yielding crowd and that's not going to work with their very high costs.

Reality is Texas will always be hard for DL. That's why Ed Bastian said "Mexico is DL's Texas". They will have far easier time making MCO/IND into focus cities.

DL is not growing AUS to the size of RDU/CVG, if DL wanted to grow even to the size of MCO they would have to nearly TRIPLE the amount of passengers they carry a day from AUS....the idea that people think that DL is even thinking of opening up routes like AUS-ORD/DEN is quite amusing though.

I think that LAS, MCO, IND, CUN, and AMS are reasonable, but beyond that you enter into hyper-competitive territory which is not the purpose of a focus city.

DL isn’t doing AUS-DEN/ORD, but I don’t see why they couldn’t build it up to CVG/RDU level over time. AUS is growing so fast that they could support two focus city operations. But it would have to be a slow and steady process to build up their FF base in AUS.

I’d start by doing what you said (and add PIT and BNA to that list) and then work from there depending on how the market reacts).

Delete

And now the news outlets are picking up on this as well.

http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/delta-chooses-austin-as-focus-city-bringing-more-direct-flights/1255011066

LH658 wrote:

I can see AUS to IAH, AUS to CUN, and AUS to SJO. IAH be nice can pull traffic for destination like IAH - AUS - LAX. Why not AUS to CDG over AUS to AMS?

Because AMS and AUS are a better match due to both being hipster cities and DL has run the route before during SXSW. Also, they’ve just added a bunch of flights to CDG recently so they need to balance it out a bit. AMS is easier to connect in anyway.

ADrum23 wrote:

And now the news outlets are picking up on this as well.

http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/delta-chooses-austin-as-focus-city-bringing-more-direct-flights/1255011066

"Delta has eight hubs across the United States. The company's three other "Focus Cities" are Boston, Nashville and Raleigh-Durham."

Whoever wrote this needs to do some fact checking

Spokesperson seemed caught off guard

I think many are not considering the long term here. First off, once this 9 gate expansion is completed at the end of this year, the airport expansion is not going to come to a halt. AUS will be in some stage of expansion construction for the next decade. This 9 gate expansion is nothing compared to what is coming after, it litterally is the smallest of the upcoming expansions to the port.

Second of all, Delta knows quite well what it's doing. Those of us here in Austin have been seeing this coming for over a year now. This isn't just a bunch of nothing.

AUS is going to more than double in size in a fairly short amount of time in number of gates. We are talking minimum 64-74 gates. Those gates will be filled, and I would not be surprised if Delta plans to fill a bunch of those in the next 6-8-10 years. Also I have a very informed source which I'm lucky enough to know. As far as the Austin-Amsterdam non-stop discussion, that is a very very good bet to take. Will likely be after this 9 gate expansion is completed in a few more months.

Amazing to see how many people have lost their minds over something that has not even been announced.

they only have 3 gates now, who's going to give them more gates?

1 gate = 10 flts at best.

mercure1 wrote:

they only have 3 gates now, who's going to give them more gates?

1 gate = 10 flts at best.

Presumably, they will be getting several of the 9 new gates that are being added with the expansion.

mercure1, there is a 9 gate expansion that is due to be completed in early 2019. Of this, DL will be getting additional gates, rumor is 3 additional to make 6. Additionally, there will be 2 CUTE gates for international available.

I beg to differ, but AUS has a relatively high amount of nonstops, and with options. Perhaps not Austin to Tulsa or Quad City, but to ... well all the big cities.

Dl is not wn. They don’t run 10 flights per gate. And if they fly internationally, it will block off a gate and possibly adjacent one for good part of the day.

Delta at RDU has 11 gates... so if you are saying DL at AUS will be growing to the same size as RDU, the numbers don’t add up. This fall, DL will be at 80 daily flights at 11 gates.. if AUS has 6.. I would expect 36-48 flights.... they would either need to have more gates at AUS or they are underutilizing their gates at RDU

Good move by Delta. They’ve chosen to expand to some high growth markets in the last few years like SEA, RDU, MCO and now AUS. They provide a good alternative to WN in many of those markets and having Intl flights helps appeal to businesses. These moves are all very smart in the long run.

jscottwomack wrote:

SabresDoc wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Here is a map of the nonstop routes that could be served nonstop out of AUS by DL:

I agree with some of the others that ORD and the intra-Texas routes may not be what DL has in mind. But, living in TPA, I would love to have the AUS-TPA route added to compete with WN.

I think Delta will try some of the intra-Texas. Even add OKC, Tulsa. I would fly from OKC to AUS to avoid changing planes in DFW. ORD will probably happen as well. Delta is getting more gates with the expansion at O'Hare.

If Delta does turn it into a focus city, I think it is going to be completely based on the AUS O&D market for the near future. Connections are going to be a side effect, not the strategy. But if and when they do look at connections, I think people have it wrong. They aren't going to care about the intra-Texas market to places like MAF, LBB and AMA. Instead, the benefit would come from connecting markets between AUS and ATL to the west. When DFW closed, the biggest network loss was the market share loss from the Gulf States region, where Delta is the dominant carrier. Reconnecting JAN, MOB, GPT, PNS, etc... to the west is Delta's biggest opportunity in terms of AUS as a hub. Some might recall that AA didn't even fly DFW-PNS before Delta closed DFW. That is the traffic they'd want back with an AUS hub because those are Delta's core markets. It's "heartland".

Obviously, we all know that the goal for DL in this move is to go after the business traveler in the Austin market. This will create a battleground between WN, AA, and UA. Obviously without knowing many details, it's tough to gauge what the response will be from each, but what are some of the things we could see, aside from fare wars?

Its unlikely AA or UA would add flights outside of their hubs, but what about additional frequencies, larger aircraft? Perhaps more premium offerings?

I could see WN matching routes added by DL.

What about targeted promotions? Double/triple miles? AA already has an elite-heavy FF base in Austin, I doubt they would do too much to increase those ranks...and if they did it would be a further dilution of benefits...if everyone is Exec Plat, no one is Exec Plat...Something along those lines could do more harm than good, driving those elite fliers to Delta.

To clarify, looking at the DL schedule today, it looks like 18-19 departures for a total of 36-38 flights. Doubling their gates would create the opportunity to double that capacity to say 40 departures, or 80 flights. Additionally, with the CUTE international gates, the AMS and eventually the ICN flight would likely be in addition.

No one is saying that Austin will be the next hub (at least not at the present time) and no one is saying it will be on par with RDU or BOS or CVG. But doubling capacity would be huge in itself.

To understand the potential of DL IN THE FUTURE however, one would need to look at the airport's master plan which should be solidified by the end of this month. I have a good source with the architectural/engineering firm that has been chosen by the airport for the expansion and it is certain that as soon as the 9-gate expansion is complete, work will begin immediately on a much larger expansion that could bring an additional 20-40 gates to the airport in the next 5 years.

Just because an airline currently operates a route does not mean that airline is a lock for that route if another entrant emerges. In my marketing classes, there was an excellent study regarding McDonald's and Wendy's. McDonald's spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on researching new locations to ensure their viability and success. In the early days, Wendy's did not have the luxury of doing so, and they adopted a strategy of targeting locations where McDonald's was expanding, knowing that the research had already been done. My point being, even though WN (or anyone else) operates a route does not mean there's not room for DL or any other entrant. It just means that they are currently the only option.

jplatts wrote:

Here is a map of the nonstop routes that could be served nonstop out of AUS by DL:

Current local DL route rumor is AUS will add a West coast city at the end of November and an East coast city at the end of December.
Speculation is
West Coast: PDX, or SJC
East Coast: MCO .

Just speculation of course.

reggiet wrote:

Current local DL route rumor is AUS will add a West coast city at the end of November and an East coast city at the end of December.
Speculation is
West Coast: PDX, or SJC
East Coast: MCO .

Just speculation of course.

Are those the announcement dates or the actual route start dates? Regardless, none would shock me, though adding PDX or SJC would add more credibility than MCO would to this focus city rumor. Adding SJC instead of SFO should also avoid a response from UA.

Sightseer wrote:

reggiet wrote:

Current local DL route rumor is AUS will add a West coast city at the end of November and an East coast city at the end of December.
Speculation is
West Coast: PDX, or SJC
East Coast: MCO .

Just speculation of course.

Are those the announcement dates or the actual route start dates? Regardless, none would shock me, though adding PDX or SJC would add more credibility than MCO would to this focus city rumor. Adding SJC instead of SFO should also avoid a response from UA.

SJC also already has WN and AS flying it; unlikely there's room for three carriers there.

ucdtim17 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

reggiet wrote:

Current local DL route rumor is AUS will add a West coast city at the end of November and an East coast city at the end of December.
Speculation is
West Coast: PDX, or SJC
East Coast: MCO .

Just speculation of course.

Are those the announcement dates or the actual route start dates? Regardless, none would shock me, though adding PDX or SJC would add more credibility than MCO would to this focus city rumor. Adding SJC instead of SFO should also avoid a response from UA.

SJC also already has WN and AS flying it; unlikely there's room for three carriers there.

Would OAK be a possibility? Only Southwest flies to there.

ucdtim17 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Regardless, none would shock me, though adding PDX or SJC would add more credibility than MCO would to this focus city rumor. Adding SJC instead of SFO should also avoid a response from UA.

SJC also already has WN and AS flying it; unlikely there's room for three carriers there.

Perhaps not, but I still wouldn't be surprised to see them try, assuming this rumor is valid.

ERJ170 wrote:

Delta at RDU has 11 gates... so if you are saying DL at AUS will be growing to the same size as RDU, the numbers don’t add up. This fall, DL will be at 80 daily flights at 11 gates.. if AUS has 6.. I would expect 36-48 flights.... they would either need to have more gates at AUS or they are underutilizing their gates at RDU

DL has 3 gates at AUS and in the DL hub thread they show:

AUS
CR9: 2
-----
A319: 11
A320: 9
A321: 4
B738: 1

27 Departures (92.6% mainline)
10 Destinations

Maybe they are using some CUTE gates or something, but that is 9 flights/day and 92.6% are mainline. So ya, upwards of 50 is doable, particularly if they are using international CUTE gates for a few of those potential adds in the future (i.e. AMS).

tcfc424 wrote:

I have a good source with the architectural/engineering firm that has been chosen by the airport for the expansion and it is certain that as soon as the 9-gate expansion is complete, work will begin immediately on a much larger expansion that could bring an additional 20-40 gates to the airport in the next 5 years.

Absent a solid commitment (which would include a lease) from an airline (or airlines), I don't see a gate expansion approaching that sort of scale in AUS's near future. Airline consolidation has lessened the total number of gates needed as hubs have closed and merged carriers can operate from fewer gates than their individual predecessors. As the Austin area grows in population, more point-to-point routes will make sense, but that's going to be incremental growth which won't justify doubling the number of gates at the airport.

jetlanta wrote:

When DFW closed, the biggest network loss was the market share loss from the Gulf States region, where Delta is the dominant carrier. Reconnecting JAN, MOB, GPT, PNS, etc... to the west is Delta's biggest opportunity in terms of AUS as a hub. Some might recall that AA didn't even fly DFW-PNS before Delta closed DFW. That is the traffic they'd want back with an AUS hub because those are Delta's core markets. It's "heartland".

And they had the opportunity to undo that network loss when they merged with NW. But clearly the westward connectivity from the Gulf States wasn't valuable enough to justify maintaining MEM as a hub. AUS's catchment at some point will be large enough to justify a hub, but it still suffers from geography very similar to IAH but worse because it's farther west. It's not a great hub for Mexico, either, because business ties between Austin & Mexico are relatively weak.

As others have pointed out, WN is the key reason why AUS probably won't ever have a network carrier hub. They're the largest carrier at AUS by a mile and they won't walk away from that business without a fight that they have the cost advantage to win. And for about three-quarters of people on a given DL flight (basically those in Y-minus) the WN product is better.

The destinations will all be curren WN no nonstop monopolies where DL is decently sized and there is solid O&D. Markets like STL.

I give this about 6 months until JetBlue kicks DL's behind there...then DL "un-focuses" AUS ... pretending it was never that big a deal to them anyway. Watch.
(Besides it'll be mostly RJs anyway).

CarlosSi wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Are those the announcement dates or the actual route start dates? Regardless, none would shock me, though adding PDX or SJC would add more credibility than MCO would to this focus city rumor. Adding SJC instead of SFO should also avoid a response from UA.

SJC also already has WN and AS flying it; unlikely there's room for three carriers there.

Would OAK be a possibility? Only Southwest flies to there.

Unlikely. DL doesn't even serve SEA-OAK and only sporadically flies ATL-OAK.

F27500 wrote:

I give this about 6 months until JetBlue kicks DL's behind there...then DL "un-focuses" AUS ... pretending it was never that big a deal to them anyway. Watch.
(Besides it'll be mostly RJs anyway).

Why? B6 has been pretty quiet about Austin for many years. Seems they are happy with austin being a spoke.

ScottB wrote:

As others have pointed out, WN is the key reason why AUS probably won't ever have a network carrier hub. They're the largest carrier at AUS by a mile and they won't walk away from that business without a fight that they have the cost advantage to win. And for about three-quarters of people on a given DL flight (basically those in Y-minus) the WN product is better.

DL currently does have nonstop service out of AUS to destinations that WN doesn't currently served nonstop from AUS, including CVG, DTW, MSP, JFK, RDU, SLC, and SEA. However, WN did previously serve SEA nonstop from AUS, and WN also already serves EWR in the NYC market nonstop from AUS.

I could see WN adding AUS-RDU nonstop service since there is business travel to the Research Triangle by WN's customer base in the AUS market with both the Research Triangle and Greater Austin both being major high-tech corridors. WN also still has significant market share at RDU, despite RDU being a DL focus city, and WN even carries more passengers per year on its flights out of RDU than DL does on its mainline flights out of RDU.

I could see WN possibly bringing back AUS-SEA nonstop service since SEA is a major high-tech destination traveled to by WN's customer base in the AUS market. WN dropped AUS-SEA nonstop earlier this year due to the WN plane shortage earlier this year, due to WN being maxed out at AUS until additional gates are opened at AUS, and due to WN expanding AUS to California nonstop service.

At least in my opinion, WN will need to add AUS-RDU nonstop service and bring back AUS-SEA nonstop service in order to retain Austin-area business travelers that it would otherwise lose to DL with DL's expansion at AUS.

malev2012 wrote:

many businesses that had their Euro base in LHR have moved continental post Brexit.

Brexit hasn't happened yet... and what businesses are you referring to?

Remember that DL with the cseries is going to have the same to better CASM as the competition with 25-40% less seats to sell. This will give them a large advantage over the competition that will help slot with this strategy

ScottB wrote:

jetlanta wrote:

When DFW closed, the biggest network loss was the market share loss from the Gulf States region, where Delta is the dominant carrier. Reconnecting JAN, MOB, GPT, PNS, etc... to the west is Delta's biggest opportunity in terms of AUS as a hub. Some might recall that AA didn't even fly DFW-PNS before Delta closed DFW. That is the traffic they'd want back with an AUS hub because those are Delta's core markets. It's "heartland".

And they had the opportunity to undo that network loss when they merged with NW. But clearly the westward connectivity from the Gulf States wasn't valuable enough to justify maintaining MEM as a hub. AUS's catchment at some point will be large enough to justify a hub, but it still suffers from geography very similar to IAH but worse because it's farther west. It's not a great hub for Mexico, either, because business ties between Austin & Mexico are relatively weak.

As others have pointed out, WN is the key reason why AUS probably won't ever have a network carrier hub. They're the largest carrier at AUS by a mile and they won't walk away from that business without a fight that they have the cost advantage to win. And for about three-quarters of people on a given DL flight (basically those in Y-minus) the WN product is better.

MEM was closed because it was Memphis and too close to ATL. AUS is neither of those things. I'd point out that Delta operates a very successful Focus City in RDU, where WN is hardly a small player. Delta wouldn't need it to be a 500 flight hub. But they could accomplish a lot with 100-150 with RJS and C-Series aircraft.

JDawgboy512 wrote:

I think many are not considering the long term here. First off, once this 9 gate expansion is completed at the end of this year, the airport expansion is not going to come to a halt. AUS will be in some stage of expansion construction for the next decade. This 9 gate expansion is nothing compared to what is coming after, it litterally is the smallest of the upcoming expansions to the port.

Second of all, Delta knows quite well what it's doing. Those of us here in Austin have been seeing this coming for over a year now. This isn't just a bunch of nothing.

AUS is going to more than double in size in a fairly short amount of time in number of gates. We are talking minimum 64-74 gates. Those gates will be filled, and I would not be surprised if Delta plans to fill a bunch of those in the next 6-8-10 years. Also I have a very informed source which I'm lucky enough to know. As far as the Austin-Amsterdam non-stop discussion, that is a very very good bet to take. Will likely be after this 9 gate expansion is completed in a few more months.

First, the new master plan isn't even finished yet, how do you know the new island concourse have 30-40 gates (what would be needed to get to the number you arrived at)?

Second, does your source believe DL is interested in building AUS up into a full blown hub (eventually) or a lesser focus city?

Midwestindy wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

And now the news outlets are picking up on this as well.

http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/delta-chooses-austin-as-focus-city-bringing-more-direct-flights/1255011066

"Delta has eight hubs across the United States. The company's three other "Focus Cities" are Boston, Nashville and Raleigh-Durham."

Whoever wrote this needs to do some fact checking

Spokesperson seemed caught off guard

Yeah, it does seem a little odd to me that the news ran a story on this when we haven't even heard any concrete plans yet, and they've basically said it is going to be on the level of RDU/CVG/BOS. Did they get some info we didn't?

ScottB wrote:

As others have pointed out, WN is the key reason why AUS probably won't ever have a network carrier hub. They're the largest carrier at AUS by a mile and they won't walk away from that business without a fight that they have the cost advantage to win. And for about three-quarters of people on a given DL flight (basically those in Y-minus) the WN product is better.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. They are the largest carrier at AUS, but they are by no means overwhelmingly dominant (right now). 70 or so flights is not insurmountable. A fair amount of their destinations only have one or two flights per day. If DL can prevent WN from getting too many more gates, they can keep them in check.

DL offers assigned seats and power outlets in Y, something that appeals to business pax more than you think. And they have actual food for purchase. So no, the Y product is not better on WN.

Lastly, WN has nearby SAT they can focus on if they lose some ground to DL at AUS. Think of it as AUS could be the large international airport hub for the region (like DFW/IAH) and SAT will be the DAL/HOU for the region.

Have people looked at how they can even grow to the size that some have mentioned here? You have to actually come up with places they may fly to. So far I came up with 5 cities which are all once a day flight. That brings the total to what. 25 or 30 flights? Where else do they add?

They can’t be the major business choice without flight to Dallas or Houston, Chicago or Bay Area. Adding leisure flights like Cancun or Orlando is not going to do it. Aa will still be the better choice for business travelers. They still won’t be flying to London which is the top international business market.

As for rdu vs aus, the issue is wn is far stronger in aus than it is in rdu. It has strong hubs in great majority of top markets out of aus.

How about this, come up with a plan to add 20 more flights that won’t be going into wn aa ua fortress hubs.

ADrum23 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

As others have pointed out, WN is the key reason why AUS probably won't ever have a network carrier hub. They're the largest carrier at AUS by a mile and they won't walk away from that business without a fight that they have the cost advantage to win. And for about three-quarters of people on a given DL flight (basically those in Y-minus) the WN product is better.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. They are the largest carrier at AUS, but they are by no means overwhelmingly dominant (right now). 70 or so flights is not insurmountable. A fair amount of their destinations only have one or two flights per day. If DL can prevent WN from getting too many more gates, they can keep them in check.

DL offers assigned seats and power outlets in Y, something that appeals to business pax more than you think. And they have actual food for purchase. So no, the Y product is not better on WN.

Lastly, WN has nearby SAT they can focus on if they lose some ground to DL at AUS. Think of it as AUS could be the large international airport hub for the region (like DFW/IAH) and SAT will be the DAL/HOU for the region.

You seriously lack knowledge on how many business people like and fly WN. I know people who fly WN exclusively unless they don't fly to a particular city, which is rare and I'm talking Partner and Executive level people. One of them is 6' 8" and likes it a hell of a lot more than AA.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

As others have pointed out, WN is the key reason why AUS probably won't ever have a network carrier hub. They're the largest carrier at AUS by a mile and they won't walk away from that business without a fight that they have the cost advantage to win. And for about three-quarters of people on a given DL flight (basically those in Y-minus) the WN product is better.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. They are the largest carrier at AUS, but they are by no means overwhelmingly dominant (right now). 70 or so flights is not insurmountable. A fair amount of their destinations only have one or two flights per day. If DL can prevent WN from getting too many more gates, they can keep them in check.

DL offers assigned seats and power outlets in Y, something that appeals to business pax more than you think. And they have actual food for purchase. So no, the Y product is not better on WN.

Lastly, WN has nearby SAT they can focus on if they lose some ground to DL at AUS. Think of it as AUS could be the large international airport hub for the region (like DFW/IAH) and SAT will be the DAL/HOU for the region.

You seriously lack knowledge on how many business people like and fly WN. I know people who fly WN exclusively unless they don't fly to a particular city, which is rare and I'm talking Partner and Executive level people. One of them is 6' 8" and likes it a hell of a lot more than AA.

I know people who would also much rather fly in first than in economy, it goes both ways. Yes the WN base and following at AUS is big but if DL really is going to make AUS a focus city, I’m pretty sure they know what they are doing and know all about WN. We will have to wait and see what happens. I suspect nothing much until the extension opens. Neither is likely to back down from a fight.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

ScottB wrote:

As others have pointed out, WN is the key reason why AUS probably won't ever have a network carrier hub. They're the largest carrier at AUS by a mile and they won't walk away from that business without a fight that they have the cost advantage to win. And for about three-quarters of people on a given DL flight (basically those in Y-minus) the WN product is better.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. They are the largest carrier at AUS, but they are by no means overwhelmingly dominant (right now). 70 or so flights is not insurmountable. A fair amount of their destinations only have one or two flights per day. If DL can prevent WN from getting too many more gates, they can keep them in check.

DL offers assigned seats and power outlets in Y, something that appeals to business pax more than you think. And they have actual food for purchase. So no, the Y product is not better on WN.

Lastly, WN has nearby SAT they can focus on if they lose some ground to DL at AUS. Think of it as AUS could be the large international airport hub for the region (like DFW/IAH) and SAT will be the DAL/HOU for the region.

You seriously lack knowledge on how many business people like and fly WN. I know people who fly WN exclusively unless they don't fly to a particular city, which is rare and I'm talking Partner and Executive level people. One of them is 6' 8" and likes it a hell of a lot more than AA.

I never said business people don't like flying WN, I'm sure a fair amount do, but given the option between a legacy like DL and WN, most business pax will go DL unless the cost is astronomically different. Most of them like upgrades, lounge access, power outlets, assigned seats, etc.

Friend of mine got hired at DL DFW and was told by a manager to look into applying for FT, (she's RR right now) at AUS because they're going to be "growing significantly" there soon. She was thinking about it but wasn't sure what he meant. .. This now seems to confirm that. Maybe an SEA style attempt to break into the Texas market?

ADrum23 wrote:

given the option between a legacy like DL and WN, most business pax will go DL unless the cost is astronomically different. Most of them like upgrades, lounge access, power outlets, assigned seats, etc.

That has already been demonstrated to be false in Austin. WN is the leading carrier in share in 6 of the top 10 and 16 of the top 25 markets from AUS -- and not because they have the lowest fares, either. On the regional jets DL is likely to use at AUS, passengers in Y-minus typically don't get power ports; for business travelers who often book at the last moment, that assigned seat is often at the back of the aircraft next to the lav. And on most of DL's regional jets, the overhead bins aren't large enough for most rollaboards, so the business traveler gets to enjoy the scrum in the jetway once the ground crew gets around to delivering the gate-checked bags. Oh yeah, and don't forget the baggage and change fees.

ADrum23 wrote:

WN has nearby SAT they can focus on if they lose some ground to DL at AUS. Think of it as AUS could be the large international airport hub for the region (like DFW/IAH) and SAT will be the DAL/HOU for the region.

Huh? Have you ever been to DAL or HOU? People aren't using WN at those airports because it's cheap. They fly WN because it's convenient and the customer experience is consistent. There is room for DL to add a few point-to-point routes, but dislodging WN from its leadership at AUS would be extremely expensive and likely would take many years. At present, DL's network is near-useless if you want to travel between Austin and virtually anywhere within 750 miles.

jetlanta wrote:

I'd point out that Delta operates a very successful Focus City in RDU, where WN is hardly a small player.

Delta has been one of the largest carriers at RDU for decades; WN has served RDU for under 20 years. The ATL hub is well-situated for connecting traffic from RDU to markets which aren't served non-stop; that's not really true for any DL hub with respect to AUS.