So on slide 17 of DL's investor day presentation, they state: "A220 deliveries enable retirement of additional 50-seat regional jets".

https://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc_downloads/investor%20updates/Investor-Day-2018-Presentation.pdf

Since DL is down to just over 100 50 seaters across its connection carriers, will the introduction of the A220 lead to further upgauging to the point where 50 seaters are no more at DL, or will some routes still need them?

I've always felt that Delta is missing out on a revenue premium by not having F on CRJs. One or two rows of F at 3 across, maybe one or two rows of Comfort + and the remaining as Main Cabin. It would present a much more consistent product for Medallions and they would be the only Big 3 carrier with three or more cabins on every flight. I know that the one row of DC+ at the front of the plane kind of helps but it's really just lipstick on a pig. I support a draw down of CRJs and upgauging but for the markets that cant support that I think DL would benefit themselves if they added F, even if just 3 seats.

Will be interesting to see the DC network in 2 or 3 years once all A220s are on property.

ThomasMTroxell wrote:

I've always felt that Delta is missing out on a revenue premium by not having F on CRJs. One or two rows of F at 3 across, maybe one or two rows of Comfort + and the remaining as Main Cabin. It would present a much more consistent product for Medallions and they would be the only Big 3 carrier with three or more cabins on every flight. I know that the one row of DC+ at the front of the plane kind of helps but it's really just lipstick on a pig. I support a draw down of CRJs and upgauging but for the markets that cant support that I think DL would benefit themselves if they added F, even if just 3 seats.

Will be interesting to see the DC network in 2 or 3 years once all A220s are on property.

If comfort + on the CR2 is lipstick on a pig then F on a CR2 is a wig on a warthog.

It’s down to just Skywest and Endeavor flying them. I can imagine Endeavor holding onto them the longest since Delta owns Endeavor and could then give them the Comair treatment after the CRJ-200 is retired. Just move Endeavor's CRJ-900 frames to the other DCI carriers.

I wonder what markets they would exit if they did get rid of them all?

I recall hearing in one of the executive briefings that the long range plan is to stabilize at around 50 total aircraft in that fleet. There will always be markets that can't support any more than 50 seats.

B757Forever wrote:

I recall hearing in one of the executive briefings that the long range plan is to stabilize at around 50 total aircraft in that fleet. There will always be markets that can't support any more than 50 seats.

Yup. DL actually does a decent amount of flying to non-EAS very small markets (ABY, BQK, VLD ex-ATL, for instance).

Speaking of ATL, I saw an A220 in the flesh for the first time there yesterday. What an ugly airplane.

TTailedTiger wrote:

It’s down to just Skywest and Endeavor flying them. I can imagine Endeavor holding onto them the longest since Delta owns Endeavor and could then give them the Comair treatment after the CRJ-200 is retired. Just move Endeavor's CRJ-900 frames to the other DCI carriers.

Yeah, unlikely, considering 9E is the largest CR9 operator in the world. In terms of DCI, expect for plans to be in motion for 3 carriers to be the entirety of DCI flying by 2020. Cost isn't the primary driver of regional these days at Delta, it's performance. And when you look at the numbers, it's very clear that the 2 bottom performing carriers of late are the 2 DCI carriers owned by Trans States...

In terms of 50 seat flying, I would imagine the long term plan is around 65 or so Delta Connection 50 seaters. Plus whatever OO is going to run as branded/at-risk flying, which right now is a sizeable portion of the 90+ CR2 fleet they have at Delta.

Delta is trying for a win-win in pilot negotiations:
Back in 2012, the two sides reached an innovative agreement that allowed Delta to take more 76-seat jets in exchange for adding 88 110-seat Boeing 717s to its mainline fleet.


https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/ ... win-w.aspx

Look at the chart on the same page 17 and page 18. Delta is on a unit cost reduction effort. Going to the A220 is going to save 20%+ over an E175 or about 28% per seat over the 50 seaters.

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations go. Since Delta has the highest profits, the unions want industry leading terms. However, Delta is a business. They will not sign a deal until it improves profits.

Honestly, if a market cannot run a 70 seater profitably, it is done. Few super high yeild markets remain and the ULCCs, B6 (w/A220), or Moxie will take them if unit costs do not drop.

The era of high premium fares is ending. Obviously, DL is retaining better than most. 50 seaters are expensive on fuel, maintenance, and pilots per passenger.

Lightsaber

DiamondFlyer wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

It’s down to just Skywest and Endeavor flying them. I can imagine Endeavor holding onto them the longest since Delta owns Endeavor and could then give them the Comair treatment after the CRJ-200 is retired. Just move Endeavor's CRJ-900 frames to the other DCI carriers.

Yeah, unlikely, considering 9E is the largest CR9 operator in the world. In terms of DCI, expect for plans to be in motion for 3 carriers to be the entirety of DCI flying by 2020. Cost isn't the primary driver of regional these days at Delta, it's performance. And when you look at the numbers, it's very clear that the 2 bottom performing carriers of late are the 2 DCI carriers owned by Trans States...

In terms of 50 seat flying, I would imagine the long term plan is around 65 or so Delta Connection 50 seaters. Plus whatever OO is going to run as branded/at-risk flying, which right now is a sizeable portion of the 90+ CR2 fleet they have at Delta.

You really should brush on your airline history. Comair had an enormous CRJ fleet. The largest of any regional airline. Fleet size is no obstacle. There's nothing wrong with your opinion but don't state it as fact.

TTailedTiger wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

It’s down to just Skywest and Endeavor flying them. I can imagine Endeavor holding onto them the longest since Delta owns Endeavor and could then give them the Comair treatment after the CRJ-200 is retired. Just move Endeavor's CRJ-900 frames to the other DCI carriers.

Yeah, unlikely, considering 9E is the largest CR9 operator in the world. In terms of DCI, expect for plans to be in motion for 3 carriers to be the entirety of DCI flying by 2020. Cost isn't the primary driver of regional these days at Delta, it's performance. And when you look at the numbers, it's very clear that the 2 bottom performing carriers of late are the 2 DCI carriers owned by Trans States...

In terms of 50 seat flying, I would imagine the long term plan is around 65 or so Delta Connection 50 seaters. Plus whatever OO is going to run as branded/at-risk flying, which right now is a sizeable portion of the 90+ CR2 fleet they have at Delta.

You really should brush on your airline history. Comair had an enormous CRJ fleet. The largest of any regional airline. Fleet size is no obstacle. There's nothing wrong with your opinion but don't state it as fact.

So Delta’s gonna close their best performing regional because... why again? And who’s gonna fly 150 new jets at, er, Skywest? You think they’re gonna attract a couple thousand more pilots on their garbage contract in this climate?

tlecam wrote:

I wonder what markets they would exit if they did get rid of them all?

Detroit to Iron Mountain, Pellston, Alpena, Marquette, Sault St Marie, Wasau, et al...

Atlanta to New Bern, Columbus, Albany, Brunswick, etc.

There are a large number of routes that will never support a bigger jet. The CRJ2 is also just much better on runway space than a 900, especially in contaminated conditions.

TTailedTiger wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

It’s down to just Skywest and Endeavor flying them. I can imagine Endeavor holding onto them the longest since Delta owns Endeavor and could then give them the Comair treatment after the CRJ-200 is retired. Just move Endeavor's CRJ-900 frames to the other DCI carriers.

Yeah, unlikely, considering 9E is the largest CR9 operator in the world. In terms of DCI, expect for plans to be in motion for 3 carriers to be the entirety of DCI flying by 2020. Cost isn't the primary driver of regional these days at Delta, it's performance. And when you look at the numbers, it's very clear that the 2 bottom performing carriers of late are the 2 DCI carriers owned by Trans States...

In terms of 50 seat flying, I would imagine the long term plan is around 65 or so Delta Connection 50 seaters. Plus whatever OO is going to run as branded/at-risk flying, which right now is a sizeable portion of the 90+ CR2 fleet they have at Delta.

You really should brush on your airline history. Comair had an enormous CRJ fleet. The largest of any regional airline. Fleet size is no obstacle. There's nothing wrong with your opinion but don't state it as fact.

And you should brush up on the pilot market. When Comair was shut down, there was a glut of unemployed pilots on the street waiting to work for peanuts at places like GoJet. That is 100% not the case today, as even the best regionals are having to get creative to staff airplanes. No one could staff the 108 CR9's at Endeavor in the 6 months that Endeavor would have pilots until they bail. No one could get 108 CR9's thru conformance checks in 12 months even.

N766UA wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I wonder what markets they would exit if they did get rid of them all?

Detroit to Iron Mountain, Pellston, Alpena, Marquette, Sault St Marie, Wasau, et al...

Atlanta to New Bern, Columbus, Albany, Brunswick, etc.

There are a large number of routes that will never support a bigger jet. The CRJ2 is also just much better on runway space than a 900, especially in contaminated conditions.

All of those routes out of DTW sans CWA, are At-Risk/EAS flying, which is up to Skywest to drop or keep, not Delta, at the end of the day. The complex part of the CR2 situation at Delta is figuring out what is fee for departure controlled Delta flying and what is Skywest At-Risk/EAS flying.

I think in the end. Its “schismatics” Delta won’t have any 50 seat jets. But Delta passengers will fly on a 50 seat jet to get to a Delta hub.. I’ve heard around 50 total 50 seaters mostly “prorate”... But that way they can claim no “50 seaters”..

The 2017 Investor Day presentation (yeh, a year ago) pointed to about 50 CR2s in the fleet in 2023. See slide page 25.

Delta has already dropped about 50 destinations from the 2008 peak, even while growing the LAX and SEA hubs. What's the incremental trip cost of a CR7 vs. a CR2 on a 600-mile segment?

amcnd wrote:

I think in the end. Its “schismatics” Delta won’t have any 50 seat jets. But Delta passengers will fly on a 50 seat jet to get to a Delta hub.. I’ve heard around 50 total 50 seaters mostly “prorate”... But that way they can claim no “50 seaters”..

I’m sure Delta PR can whip up something that says Delta does not fly 50 seat airplanes. Add in the cockpit seats and jumpseats and you have a 55 seater. Only at delta.

MIflyer12 wrote:

The 2017 Investor Day presentation (yeh, a year ago) pointed to about 50 CR2s in the fleet in 2023. See slide page 25.

Delta has already dropped about 50 destinations from the 2008 peak, even while growing the LAX and SEA hubs. What's the incremental trip cost of a CR7 vs. a CR2 on a 600-mile segment?

CR7 will probably exit the fleet faster than the CR2 does. Only offers one lav and 69 seats. Being replaced with 70 seat CR9 or 175SC, offering a better product for the entire cabin. Keep a handful flying at OO in order to do ASE and that's it.

lightsaber wrote:

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations go. Since Delta has the highest profits, the unions want industry leading terms. However, Delta is a business. They will not sign a deal until it improves profits.

Lightsaber

There is no way that there is going to be any haggling over the bottom end of the scope question. The A220 is coming in as a mainline airplane, and they have a fixed number of jets in the 76-seat category. None of that is going to change, because all of the action is going to be on the high end. It is going to be all about block hour balancing in the JVs, and especially with Korean. The E2 and the MR9 are not happening, because it would destabilize negotiations at a moment when DL wants to give as little as possible on the top end in joint venture negotiations. ICN and BOM are going to be the center of the negotiations this time, not regional jets.

N766UA wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I wonder what markets they would exit if they did get rid of them all?

Detroit to Iron Mountain, Pellston, Alpena, Marquette, Sault St Marie, Wasau, et al...

Atlanta to New Bern, Columbus, Albany, Brunswick, etc.

There are a large number of routes that will never support a bigger jet. The CRJ2 is also just much better on runway space than a 900, especially in contaminated conditions.

If you are talking runway length, the CR2 is the least efficient off short runways compared to the 700 and 900. 700's are best according to a PSA pilot I was seated next to some months ago. A more advanced wing gives the 700-900 better numbers.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Yeah, unlikely, considering 9E is the largest CR9 operator in the world. In terms of DCI, expect for plans to be in motion for 3 carriers to be the entirety of DCI flying by 2020. Cost isn't the primary driver of regional these days at Delta, it's performance. And when you look at the numbers, it's very clear that the 2 bottom performing carriers of late are the 2 DCI carriers owned by Trans States...

In terms of 50 seat flying, I would imagine the long term plan is around 65 or so Delta Connection 50 seaters. Plus whatever OO is going to run as branded/at-risk flying, which right now is a sizeable portion of the 90+ CR2 fleet they have at Delta.

You really should brush on your airline history. Comair had an enormous CRJ fleet. The largest of any regional airline. Fleet size is no obstacle. There's nothing wrong with your opinion but don't state it as fact.

And you should brush up on the pilot market. When Comair was shut down, there was a glut of unemployed pilots on the street waiting to work for peanuts at places like GoJet. That is 100% not the case today, as even the best regionals are having to get creative to staff airplanes. No one could staff the 108 CR9's at Endeavor in the 6 months that Endeavor would have pilots until they bail. No one could get 108 CR9's thru conformance checks in 12 months even.

The "Comair treatment" happened over many many years, I'd have to look at the fleet sizes, but the strike in March 2001 and the IT meltdown in December 2004 didn't help. Delta gradually, but continually reduced the flying that Comair did. In the end all the junior pilots were furloughed or moved over to another operator, and the seniority of the pilots at Comair made it too expensive to operate. The Comair treatment was a gradual but continual shrinking of their fleet. AFAIK, DL wasn't happy with their heavy dependence on Comair and the trouble it caused them so they diversified away from having Comair as their major regional operator.

DL (Skywest) uses them on PSC-MSP, which for a 3 hour flight, is tough. I've also done it on PSP-SLC, which isn't as long, but an equally uncomfortable experience. Even in first class, there is no IFE, and it feels very small inside.

I'll be glad when they're gone...bring on the A220!

Yup and the next day they will bring 49 seaters on property.

TW870 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations go. Since Delta has the highest profits, the unions want industry leading terms. However, Delta is a business. They will not sign a deal until it improves profits.

Lightsaber

There is no way that there is going to be any haggling over the bottom end of the scope question. The A220 is coming in as a mainline airplane, and they have a fixed number of jets in the 76-seat category. None of that is going to change, because all of the action is going to be on the high end. It is going to be all about block hour balancing in the JVs, and especially with Korean. The E2 and the MR9 are not happening, because it would destabilize negotiations at a moment when DL wants to give as little as possible on the top end in joint venture negotiations. ICN and BOM are going to be the center of the negotiations this time, not regional jets.

Then the contract won't be amended early. DL is having no issue recruiting pilots. If nothing will change in DL's favor, they must hold out

You stated DALPA's likely opening position. In no way am I expecting early resolution. But if pilots want an early amended contract, they will concern something.

If there is no DL scope change, the RJs will be puntrd out of markets by ULCCs, JetBlue, and eventually Moxie.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.
....
Then the contract won't be amended early. DL is having no issue recruiting pilots. If nothing will change in DL's favor, they must hold out

You stated DALPA's likely opening position. In no way am I expecting early resolution. But if pilots want an early amended contract, they will concern something.

If there is no DL scope change, the RJs will be puntrd out of markets by ULCCs, JetBlue, and eventually Moxie.

Lightsaber

It's an interesting bargaining chip from DL. But let's be honest, DALPA has all the leverage on this item right now. Why on earth trade for reduced 50 seaters when they are already penciled out to investors? That'd be like bargaining a few years back for reduced MD88s in exchange for 321s. I seem to recall some Air Canada E190s promised in exchange for a ratification vote, then cancelled when pilots voted down the TA. Then, within 6 months the C series was ordered.

If DL is willing to cede market share on regional routes, that's their decision. They know the current scope language. I can't say it's prudent to establish your future business model on the basis a workgroup agrees to future concessions (I see you Mitsubishi & Embaer). DL is free to buy as many E175E2s and MRJ9s they want...just can't outsource the labor. Yes labor costs would be higher. But they can also add more seats than 76, better control their brand and reliability, cut out the redundant regional mgmt, capture some of the OO/RP profit & dividend.

If DALPA doesnt give on MTOW or additional seats/frames, what are DL's options in say 10 years? Shrink the network is the only option? What's the real cost difference between a regional airline crewed E175sc vs a 80+seat E175E2 operated by DL crews?

Cactusjuba wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

TW870 wrote:

There is no way that there is going to be any haggling over the bottom end of the scope question. The A220 is coming in as a mainline airplane, and they have a fixed number of jets in the 76-seat category. None of that is going to change, because all of the action is going to be on the high end. It is going to be all about block hour balancing in the JVs, and especially with Korean. The E2 and the MR9 are not happening, because it would destabilize negotiations at a moment when DL wants to give as little as possible on the top end in joint venture negotiations. ICN and BOM are going to be the center of the negotiations this time, not regional jets.

Then the contract won't be amended early. DL is having no issue recruiting pilots. If nothing will change in DL's favor, they must hold out

You stated DALPA's likely opening position. In no way am I expecting early resolution. But if pilots want an early amended contract, they will concern something.

If there is no DL scope change, the RJs will be puntrd out of markets by ULCCs, JetBlue, and eventually Moxie.

Lightsaber

If DL is willing to cede market share on regional routes, that's their decision. They know the current scope language. I can't say it's prudent to establish your future business model on the basis a workgroup agrees to future concessions (I see you Mitsubishi & Embaer). DL is free to buy as many E175E2s and MRJ9s they want. Just can't outsource their labor. Yes labor costs would be higher. But they can also add more seats than 76, better control their brand and reliability, cut out the redundant regional mgmt, capture some of the OO/RP profit & dividend.

If DALPA doesnt give on MTOW or additional seats/frames what are DL's options in say 10 years? Shrink the network is the only option? Whats real cost difference between a regional operated E175sc vs a 80+seat E175E2 operated by DL?

It is the station costs per my understanding. For operating mainline isn't just pilots, it is the whole cost structure.

Then again, it looks like I'm wrong. Quotes from the CEO of DL: "Delta Air Lines Chief Executive Ed Bastian said on Friday he was satisfied with pilot contract language governing the outsourcing of regional flights and does not see it becoming an issue during upcoming negotiations."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/26/reuters ... s-ceo.html

To me that implies accepting more A220s and further narrowbody upgauging (more than the PowerPoint notes). But it will be based on costs.

Huh... Not the strategy I would have pursued. But then again, DL makes money. One advantage to DL not trying to amend scope clause is they can take their time negotiating. Interesting.

So getting back to thread, since there is no economical 50 seater in production, this implies DL will reduce 50 seat flying as airframes wear out. But then again, CRJs have an 80,000 flight cycle life (post latest LOV extension). They have many years of flying left.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Then the contract won't be amended early. DL is having no issue recruiting pilots. If nothing will change in DL's favor, they must hold out

You stated DALPA's likely opening position. In no way am I expecting early resolution. But if pilots want an early amended contract, they will concern something.

If there is no DL scope change, the RJs will be puntrd out of markets by ULCCs, JetBlue, and eventually Moxie.

Lightsaber

If DL is willing to cede market share on regional routes, that's their decision. They know the current scope language. I can't say it's prudent to establish your future business model on the basis a workgroup agrees to future concessions (I see you Mitsubishi & Embaer). DL is free to buy as many E175E2s and MRJ9s they want. Just can't outsource their labor. Yes labor costs would be higher. But they can also add more seats than 76, better control their brand and reliability, cut out the redundant regional mgmt, capture some of the OO/RP profit & dividend.

If DALPA doesnt give on MTOW or additional seats/frames what are DL's options in say 10 years? Shrink the network is the only option? Whats real cost difference between a regional operated E175sc vs a 80+seat E175E2 operated by DL?

It is the station costs per my understanding. For operating mainline isn't just pilots, it is the whole cost structure.

Then again, it looks like I'm wrong. Quotes from the CEO of DL: "Delta Air Lines Chief Executive Ed Bastian said on Friday he was satisfied with pilot contract language governing the outsourcing of regional flights and does not see it becoming an issue during upcoming negotiations."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/26/reuters ... s-ceo.html

To me that implies accepting more A220s and further narrowbody upgauging (more than the PowerPoint notes). But it will be based on costs.

Huh... Not the strategy I would have pursued. But then again, DL makes money. One advantage to DL not trying to amend scope clause is they can take their time negotiating. Interesting.

So getting back to thread, since there is no economical 50 seater in production, this implies DL will reduce 50 seat flying as airframes wear out. But then again, CRJs have an 80,000 flight cycle life (post latest LOV extension). They have many years of flying left.

Lightsaber

If you're interested in how DL may handle the E2/MRJ issue, I'd watch UA negotiations first. Again, over the years if nothing changes, it will be 70 or 76 seat SKW/RP E175 vs +80 seat DL E175-E2. If the fuel savings and additional seats help get costs close, it might be worth it. In addition, DL can potentially exchanged this "give" for cost efficiencies elsewhere. Otherwise CR2s get parked but the 70 & 76 frames are full at contract limits. You could only hope to continue the upgauge strategy and drop what can't fit. We'll see the strategy they take, but I'd bet on the former.

I think the Endeavor CR2s are first to get chopped. SKW will fly the at risk for a long time.

Don't forget the "at risk" flying . . DL could even let some 50 seat flying happen under the regionals' code and paint scheme.

Cactusjuba wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

If DL is willing to cede market share on regional routes, that's their decision. They know the current scope language. I can't say it's prudent to establish your future business model on the basis a workgroup agrees to future concessions (I see you Mitsubishi & Embaer). DL is free to buy as many E175E2s and MRJ9s they want. Just can't outsource their labor. Yes labor costs would be higher. But they can also add more seats than 76, better control their brand and reliability, cut out the redundant regional mgmt, capture some of the OO/RP profit & dividend.

If DALPA doesnt give on MTOW or additional seats/frames what are DL's options in say 10 years? Shrink the network is the only option? Whats real cost difference between a regional operated E175sc vs a 80+seat E175E2 operated by DL?

It is the station costs per my understanding. For operating mainline isn't just pilots, it is the whole cost structure.

Then again, it looks like I'm wrong. Quotes from the CEO of DL: "Delta Air Lines Chief Executive Ed Bastian said on Friday he was satisfied with pilot contract language governing the outsourcing of regional flights and does not see it becoming an issue during upcoming negotiations."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/26/reuters ... s-ceo.html

To me that implies accepting more A220s and further narrowbody upgauging (more than the PowerPoint notes). But it will be based on costs.

Huh... Not the strategy I would have pursued. But then again, DL makes money. One advantage to DL not trying to amend scope clause is they can take their time negotiating. Interesting.

So getting back to thread, since there is no economical 50 seater in production, this implies DL will reduce 50 seat flying as airframes wear out. But then again, CRJs have an 80,000 flight cycle life (post latest LOV extension). They have many years of flying left.

Lightsaber

If you're interested in how DL may handle the E2/MRJ issue, I'd watch UA negotiations first. Again, over the years if nothing changes, it will be 70 or 76 seat SKW/RP E175 vs +80 seat DL E175-E2. If the fuel savings and additional seats help get costs close, it might be worth it. In addition, DL can potentially exchanged this "give" for cost efficiencies elsewhere. Otherwise CR2s get parked but the 70 & 76 frames are full at contract limits. You could only hope to continue the upgauge strategy and drop what can't fit. We'll see the strategy they take, but I'd bet on the former.

I think the Endeavor CR2s are first to get chopped. SKW will fly the at risk for a long time.

Well, even if the CR2s that are in service run out of cycles, DL has a large number of former Pinncale 200s that have been parked in the last few years that can come back as replacement. Not to mention the 9E 200s are some of the newest 200s our there, some as late as 2005 deliveries.

I’d bet on initially OO parking some 200s first, as they have a large number on shorter term contracts

N174UA wrote:

DL (Skywest) uses them on PSC-MSP, which for a 3 hour flight, is tough. I've also done it on PSP-SLC, which isn't as long, but an equally uncomfortable experience. Even in first Day class, there is no IFE, and it feels very small inside.

I'll be glad when they're gone...bring on the A220!

That is absolutely untrue, there are no 3 hour+ CR2 flights in the Delta system today. In fact there are very few that are even blocked over 2 hours, most under 600 miles these days.

N174UA wrote:

DL (Skywest) uses them on PSC-MSP, which for a 3 hour flight, is tough. I've also done it on PSP-SLC, which isn't as long, but an equally uncomfortable experience. Even in first class, there is no IFE, and it feels very small inside.

I'll be glad when they're gone...bring on the A220!

CR2s? I'm seeing nothing but CR9s in a week in January which pretty well ought to define off off off peak on PSC-MSP.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

The 2017 Investor Day presentation (yeh, a year ago) pointed to about 50 CR2s in the fleet in 2023. See slide page 25.

Delta has already dropped about 50 destinations from the 2008 peak, even while growing the LAX and SEA hubs. What's the incremental trip cost of a CR7 vs. a CR2 on a 600-mile segment?

CR7 will probably exit the fleet faster than the CR2 does. Only offers one lav and 69 seats. Being replaced with 70 seat CR9 or 175SC, offering a better product for the entire cabin. Keep a handful flying at OO in order to do ASE and that's it.

So what's the difference in trip cost between a CR2 and a 70-seat CR9/175SC? If it's material, DL will keep using CR2s in certain markets until they wear out or fleet size becomes wholly uneconomic. Then, if there's no alternative, they'll drop a bunch more destinations - just as AA and UA will be forced to do.

Fargo wrote:

So on slide 17 of DL's investor day presentation, they state: "A220 deliveries enable retirement of additional 50-seat regional jets".

https://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc_downloads/investor%20updates/Investor-Day-2018-Presentation.pdf

Since DL is down to just over 100 50 seaters across its connection carriers, will the introduction of the A220 lead to further upgauging to the point where 50 seaters are no more at DL, or will some routes still need them?

At some point the 50 seaters will hit a cycle limit so yes, one day they will gone (unless BBD or EMB can get Rolls/GE/PW to come up with an engine to re-engine the airplane)

lightsaber wrote:

Delta is trying for a win-win in pilot negotiations:
Back in 2012, the two sides reached an innovative agreement that allowed Delta to take more 76-seat jets in exchange for adding 88 110-seat Boeing 717s to its mainline fleet.


https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/ ... win-w.aspx

Look at the chart on the same page 17 and page 18. Delta is on a unit cost reduction effort. Going to the A220 is going to save 20%+ over an E175 or about 28% per seat over the 50 seaters.

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations go. Since Delta has the highest profits, the unions want industry leading terms. However, Delta is a business. They will not sign a deal until it improves profits.

Honestly, if a market cannot run a 70 seater profitably, it is done. Few super high yeild markets remain and the ULCCs, B6 (w/A220), or Moxie will take them if unit costs do not drop.

The era of high premium fares is ending. Obviously, DL is retaining better than most. 50 seaters are expensive on fuel, maintenance, and pilots per passenger.

Lightsaber

Two things
1) you are about 3-4 contracts ahead of Delta. The next battle ground(on the small A/C side) is going to be 70 seaters. Why do you think Delta is ordering CR9s and E75s as 70 seaters? "oh come on guys, we already have them, what will 6 seats hurt"
Having said that, Delta and the pilots are much more worried about top end outsourcing than they are bottom end. This contract will be a fight over JV scope.

2) It is going to take a down turn to get the pilots to agree to upping the MTOW. My honest guess is EMB is going to do a paper de-rate like they have done on the current e-jets for US operations. More importantly Delta isn't going to go very long without a contract this time around due to the huge upcoming pilot hiring that is about to happen. IIRC they are going to lose 50%+ of the list in the next 5-7 years. When you are going to hit a huge hiring need you don't send out a low ball pilot contract, unless you want to help United, American and Southwest.

TTailedTiger wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

It’s down to just Skywest and Endeavor flying them. I can imagine Endeavor holding onto them the longest since Delta owns Endeavor and could then give them the Comair treatment after the CRJ-200 is retired. Just move Endeavor's CRJ-900 frames to the other DCI carriers.

Yeah, unlikely, considering 9E is the largest CR9 operator in the world. In terms of DCI, expect for plans to be in motion for 3 carriers to be the entirety of DCI flying by 2020. Cost isn't the primary driver of regional these days at Delta, it's performance. And when you look at the numbers, it's very clear that the 2 bottom performing carriers of late are the 2 DCI carriers owned by Trans States...

In terms of 50 seat flying, I would imagine the long term plan is around 65 or so Delta Connection 50 seaters. Plus whatever OO is going to run as branded/at-risk flying, which right now is a sizeable portion of the 90+ CR2 fleet they have at Delta.

You really should brush on your airline history. Comair had an enormous CRJ fleet. The largest of any regional airline. Fleet size is no obstacle. There's nothing wrong with your opinion but don't state it as fact.

You really need to never ever tell someone who knows a lot more about an issue than you do to look at history.

Comair and Endeavor aren't even remotely comparable and more importantly the industry isn't remotely comparable to the down fall of OH days. DiamondFlyer is right, 9E isn't going anywhere.

Cubsrule wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

I recall hearing in one of the executive briefings that the long range plan is to stabilize at around 50 total aircraft in that fleet. There will always be markets that can't support any more than 50 seats.

Yup. DL actually does a decent amount of flying to non-EAS very small markets (ABY, BQK, VLD ex-ATL, for instance).

Speaking of ATL, I saw an A220 in the flesh for the first time there yesterday. What an ugly airplane.

correct. You will see 50 seaters stay in ATL/MSP/DTW while SLC/NYC/LAX/SEA/BOS will go all F class aircraft.

*note this does not include OO pro-rate flying out of SLC but that is down to a hand full of routes. IIRC its like 5 airplanes worth of flying.

and I actually like the look of the 220. IMO the E90/E95 E2 are better looking but both look fine.

amcnd wrote:

I think in the end. Its “schismatics” Delta won’t have any 50 seat jets. But Delta passengers will fly on a 50 seat jet to get to a Delta hub.. I’ve heard around 50 total 50 seaters mostly “prorate”... But that way they can claim no “50 seaters”..

It is 50 CRJs not including pro-rate. Delta never counts the pro-rate 50 seaters because at the end of the day they have no control over them. I guess they could tell OO they aren't allowed to sell them under the Delta brand but it seems pretty stupid to pass on free feed.

jetmatt777 wrote:

amcnd wrote:

I think in the end. Its “schismatics” Delta won’t have any 50 seat jets. But Delta passengers will fly on a 50 seat jet to get to a Delta hub.. I’ve heard around 50 total 50 seaters mostly “prorate”... But that way they can claim no “50 seaters”..

I’m sure Delta PR can whip up something that says Delta does not fly 50 seat airplanes. Add in the cockpit seats and jumpseats and you have a 55 seater. Only at delta.

lightsaber wrote:

TW870 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations go. Since Delta has the highest profits, the unions want industry leading terms. However, Delta is a business. They will not sign a deal until it improves profits.

Lightsaber

There is no way that there is going to be any haggling over the bottom end of the scope question. The A220 is coming in as a mainline airplane, and they have a fixed number of jets in the 76-seat category. None of that is going to change, because all of the action is going to be on the high end. It is going to be all about block hour balancing in the JVs, and especially with Korean. The E2 and the MR9 are not happening, because it would destabilize negotiations at a moment when DL wants to give as little as possible on the top end in joint venture negotiations. ICN and BOM are going to be the center of the negotiations this time, not regional jets.

Then the contract won't be amended early. DL is having no issue recruiting pilots. If nothing will change in DL's favor, they must hold out

You stated DALPA's likely opening position. In no way am I expecting early resolution. But if pilots want an early amended contract, they will concern something.

If there is no DL scope change, the RJs will be puntrd out of markets by ULCCs, JetBlue, and eventually Moxie.

Lightsaber

early? no. It will half depend on how long United UALPA take but I'm willing to bet Delta has a TA in 6-9 months of the contract becomes amenable.

Cactusjuba wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.
....
Then the contract won't be amended early. DL is having no issue recruiting pilots. If nothing will change in DL's favor, they must hold out

You stated DALPA's likely opening position. In no way am I expecting early resolution. But if pilots want an early amended contract, they will concern something.

If there is no DL scope change, the RJs will be puntrd out of markets by ULCCs, JetBlue, and eventually Moxie.

Lightsaber

It's an interesting bargaining chip from DL. But let's be honest, DALPA has all the leverage on this item right now. Why on earth trade for reduced 50 seaters when they are already penciled out to investors? That'd be like bargaining a few years back for reduced MD88s in exchange for 321s. I seem to recall some Air Canada E190s promised in exchange for a ratification vote, then cancelled when pilots voted down the TA. Then, within 6 months the C series was ordered.

If DL is willing to cede market share on regional routes, that's their decision. They know the current scope language. I can't say it's prudent to establish your future business model on the basis a workgroup agrees to future concessions (I see you Mitsubishi & Embaer). DL is free to buy as many E175E2s and MRJ9s they want...just can't outsource the labor. Yes labor costs would be higher. But they can also add more seats than 76, better control their brand and reliability, cut out the redundant regional mgmt, capture some of the OO/RP profit & dividend.

If DALPA doesnt give on MTOW or additional seats/frames, what are DL's options in say 10 years? Shrink the network is the only option? What's the real cost difference between a regional airline crewed E175sc vs a 80+seat E175E2 operated by DL crews?

It was 40 739s and 20 E90s for 50(IIRC) more 76 seaters and a reduction from 125 50 seaters to 50.

TA was voted down, 30 of the 40 739s came or are coming anyways, ~15 additional (and higher paying) 752s were kept and got the 199 seat mod and the E90s were ordered (later sold due to the CS) anyways.

lightsaber wrote:

Cactusjuba wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

Then the contract won't be amended early. DL is having no issue recruiting pilots. If nothing will change in DL's favor, they must hold out

You stated DALPA's likely opening position. In no way am I expecting early resolution. But if pilots want an early amended contract, they will concern something.

If there is no DL scope change, the RJs will be puntrd out of markets by ULCCs, JetBlue, and eventually Moxie.

Lightsaber

If DL is willing to cede market share on regional routes, that's their decision. They know the current scope language. I can't say it's prudent to establish your future business model on the basis a workgroup agrees to future concessions (I see you Mitsubishi & Embaer). DL is free to buy as many E175E2s and MRJ9s they want. Just can't outsource their labor. Yes labor costs would be higher. But they can also add more seats than 76, better control their brand and reliability, cut out the redundant regional mgmt, capture some of the OO/RP profit & dividend.

If DALPA doesnt give on MTOW or additional seats/frames what are DL's options in say 10 years? Shrink the network is the only option? Whats real cost difference between a regional operated E175sc vs a 80+seat E175E2 operated by DL?

It is the station costs per my understanding. For operating mainline isn't just pilots, it is the whole cost structure.

Then again, it looks like I'm wrong. Quotes from the CEO of DL: "Delta Air Lines Chief Executive Ed Bastian said on Friday he was satisfied with pilot contract language governing the outsourcing of regional flights and does not see it becoming an issue during upcoming negotiations."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/26/reuters ... s-ceo.html

To me that implies accepting more A220s and further narrowbody upgauging (more than the PowerPoint notes). But it will be based on costs.

Huh... Not the strategy I would have pursued. But then again, DL makes money. One advantage to DL not trying to amend scope clause is they can take their time negotiating. Interesting.

So getting back to thread, since there is no economical 50 seater in production, this implies DL will reduce 50 seat flying as airframes wear out. But then again, CRJs have an 80,000 flight cycle life (post latest LOV extension). They have many years of flying left.

Lightsaber

I think if you saw the numbers you would. Fact is Delta Delta has a pretty high revenue advantage on the industry and management has said a big part of that is more domestic mainline compared to their peers.

edit to add. Something tells me we are going to see even more product alignment with DCI and DCI pulled back to short routes and 220s take over most of the longer DCI flying.
Also betting we either see product improvement on the 717 or they will be parked rather quickly and replaced by 220s.
JMO

The economics of a 50-seat jet are dead unless they can run the things off of water. Aside of fuel, the hull cost is too high. It’s more likely we’ll see 40-seat props as an ATR can be had new for $15 mill, but even that’s got slim odds. Long thin small market flights are an endangered species.

The quick rise & fall of the regional jets ERJ & CRJ remains a remarkable story.

I guess a moonshot design would be required to get back those flights.

Something much better on all relevant performance indicators.

tlecam wrote:

I wonder what markets they would exit if they did get rid of them all?

If they keep roughly 50, they would probably fly the markets like MSP-SD, WI, IA, and some other small Midwest cities like Peoria, Quad Cities, IMT, etc. Short routes for sure.

amcnd wrote:

I think in the end. Its “schismatics” Delta won’t have any 50 seat jets. But Delta passengers will fly on a 50 seat jet to get to a Delta hub.. I’ve heard around 50 total 50 seaters mostly “prorate”... But that way they can claim no “50 seaters”..

The locals in South Bend have been trying to get rid of the 50-seaters on certain Delta routes for a few years now but with the Skywest maintenance base there they seem to be hanging on. The ATL flights are long overdue for an upguage and the noon flight is opwerated by an Endeavor CR9. The Plan the airport and the DGS folks would like to see is the ATL flights use CRJ9's and a B717. THe MSP flights all CTJ9 and the DTW flights retain all CRJ2's. There is an open RFP with DGS for a daily SBN-JFK flight with a CRJ9 or something else

The growth and demand is there especially for the ATL flights but with Skywest rotating CRJ2's in for maintenance every night that has hamstrung the upguage process although the maintenance base can now work on the larger CRJ's and has worked on a few CRJ700's

cheapgreek wrote:

N766UA wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I wonder what markets they would exit if they did get rid of them all?

Detroit to Iron Mountain, Pellston, Alpena, Marquette, Sault St Marie, Wasau, et al...

Atlanta to New Bern, Columbus, Albany, Brunswick, etc.

There are a large number of routes that will never support a bigger jet. The CRJ2 is also just much better on runway space than a 900, especially in contaminated conditions.

If you are talking runway length, the CR2 is the least efficient off short runways compared to the 700 and 900. 700's are best according to a PSA pilot I was seated next to some months ago. A more advanced wing gives the 700-900 better numbers.

Hence DL sending the CR7 into EYW.

Is DL flying anywhere 1x with CR1/2? IMT for example is 3x. Thats 150 seats. Why not just cut frequency to 2x and use E70? That would give 138 seats, and unless those 3 flights are running at 100%, should be good. Ideally I would imagine they would like to axe CR2 all together so that they can be earning premium income on all flights. Obviously reality is different, but I bet they wish they could.

freakyrat wrote:

amcnd wrote:

I think in the end. Its “schismatics” Delta won’t have any 50 seat jets. But Delta passengers will fly on a 50 seat jet to get to a Delta hub.. I’ve heard around 50 total 50 seaters mostly “prorate”... But that way they can claim no “50 seaters”..

The locals in South Bend have been trying to get rid of the 50-seaters on certain Delta routes for a few years now but with the Skywest maintenance base there they seem to be hanging on. The ATL flights are long overdue for an upguage and the noon flight is opwerated by an Endeavor CR9. The Plan the airport and the DGS folks would like to see is the ATL flights use CRJ9's and a B717. THe MSP flights all CTJ9 and the DTW flights retain all CRJ2's. There is an open RFP with DGS for a daily SBN-JFK flight with a CRJ9 or something else

The growth and demand is there especially for the ATL flights but with Skywest rotating CRJ2's in for maintenance every night that has hamstrung the upguage process although the maintenance base can now work on the larger CRJ's and has worked on a few CRJ700's

I'm taking a trip to SBN in a little and I hope they figure out a way to get big RJs in there fast.

I'm actually going via MSP and DTW because the non-stop options when I booked were all CR2s.

My home airport is SBN and I fly DL exclusively. They're still using the CRJ, which is a miserable experience, with a CRJ-900 swapped in on the afternoon ATL leg every once in a while.

Cubsrule wrote:

B757Forever wrote:

Speaking of ATL, I saw an A220 in the flesh for the first time there yesterday. What an ugly airplane.

Really? Oh of course the CRJ2 is so much prettier! NOT! What rubbish! And having flown on both the -100 and -300 with LX earlier this year, I can tell you that it's a winner for DL. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

capitalflyer wrote:

Is DL flying anywhere 1x with CR1/2? IMT for example is 3x. Thats 150 seats. Why not just cut frequency to 2x and use E70? That would give 138 seats, and unless those 3 flights are running at 100%, should be good.

As all allocated 70/76 seater Rjs are all profitably used elsewhere, that would obviously involve a $ trade-off.

The question is whether such a new 2x E70 service (versus 3x CR2) would result in an overall better yield - taking into account the losses from those routes where these E70s operated. The real focus is to make the best use of the few 70/76 seaters available. Then determine if the remaining routes can still be profitably operated with 50 seater.

Currently I suspect that such substitution doesn't add up yet in most cases - due to the insufficient number of 70/76 seat RJs available. That should change when the A220 comes online (and its cascading effect in freeing up 76 seater RJs)

Fargo wrote:

So on slide 17 of DL's investor day presentation, they state: "A220 deliveries enable retirement of additional 50-seat regional jets".

https://s1.q4cdn.com/231238688/files/doc_downloads/investor%20updates/Investor-Day-2018-Presentation.pdf

Since DL is down to just over 100 50 seaters across its connection carriers, will the introduction of the A220 lead to further upgauging to the point where 50 seaters are no more at DL, or will some routes still need them?

A leader in the Allied Pilots Association recently made comments I read that Delta will eliminate 50 seaters. I assumed he had no idea what he was talking about, but I guess it could happen.

DL717 wrote:

The economics of a 50-seat jet are dead unless they can run the things off of water. Aside of fuel, the hull cost is too high. It’s more likely we’ll see 40-seat props as an ATR can be had new for $15 mill, but even that’s got slim odds. Long thin small market flights are an endangered species.

Even the hull cost of the Turboprops are too high per passenger too and half the premium passengers I know prefer to drive than fly a Turboprop; For example, my sister should naturally be a UA customer based on where she lives. But despite 2/3rds of her AA E170/175 flights missing connections. It's become routine:
Her:. "The Barbiejet won't start again."
Me: "It's the one with the engines under the wings?"
Her. "Yes, why don't they teach the pilots and mechanics how to start it? Don't explain the issue again; can you pick me up at 11pm, it is too late for Dad?"
Me:. " Sure, I'm looking forward to seeing you again "

I think some is the lack of domestic first on Turboprops. It is also those scary spinny thingies on the wings my sister doesn't like. Most of my medical doctor relatives, who are also Uber double platinum frequent flyers just won't get on Turboprops. Heck, I have maybe 20 relatives who won't unless I am on board (as if me beiIcannot explain as I love to fly, but

So DL needs to figure out how to serve

DL717 wrote:

The economics of a 50-seat jet are dead unless they can run the things off of water. Aside of fuel, the hull cost is too high. It’s more likely we’ll see 40-seat props as an ATR can be had new for $15 mill, but even that’s got slim odds. Long thin small market flights are an endangered species.

Even the hull cost of the Turboprops are too high per passenger too and half the premium passengers I know prefer to drive than fly a Turboprop; For example, my sister should naturally be a UA customer based on where she lives. But despite 2/3rds of her AA E170/175 flights missing connections. It's become routine:
Her:. "The Barbiejet won't start again."
Me: "It's the one with the engines under the wings?"
Her. "Yes, why don't they teach the pilots and mechanics how to start it? Don't explain the issue again; can you pick me up at 11pm, it is too late for Dad?"
Me:. " Sure, I'm looking forward to seeing you again "

I think some is the lack of domestic first on Turboprops. It is also those scary spinny thingies on the wings my sister doesn't like. Most of my medical doctor relatives, who are also Uber double platinum frequent flyers just won't get on Turboprops. Heck, I have maybe 20 relatives who won't unless I am on board (as if my aerospace engineering matters as a passenger). Icannot explain as I love to fly, but they all spend 8X to 20x what I do per year

So DL needs to figure out how to serve small markets profitably with the frequency premium customers expect. Since so much of their profit is JVs (see later slides in OP link), the pilot contract amendment will be interesting.

This is the prisoner's delima. If only one of the US3 pilot groups expands scope, their employer will have far more profit and growth (more mainline pilot jobs). But if all do, it is outsourcing pilot jobs to lower wage airlines.

I wonder how much more small City service can be cut before political demands require a fix? (Eliminate the pilot shortage.)

Meh, I live near LAX, this doesn't effect me.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

Delta is trying for a win-win in pilot negotiations:
Back in 2012, the two sides reached an innovative agreement that allowed Delta to take more 76-seat jets in exchange for adding 88 110-seat Boeing 717s to its mainline fleet.


https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/ ... win-w.aspx

Look at the chart on the same page 17 and page 18. Delta is on a unit cost reduction effort. Going to the A220 is going to save 20%+ over an E175 or about 28% per seat over the 50 seaters.

So, in my opinion, Delta will give up 50 seaters for 76 seat scope clauses. In particular, higher MTOW for E2-175 or MR9.

It will be interesting to see how the negotiations go. Since Delta has the highest profits, the unions want industry leading terms. However, Delta is a business. They will not sign a deal until it improves profits

There is pretty much a zero chance the pilots agree to an increase in MTOW for RJs. Ironically the 220 added to the problem. The pilots now overwhelming feel if they want larger RJs.....Delta pilots should fly them. An increase in MTOW would cost more than Delta is willing to pay.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

N766UA wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I wonder what markets they would exit if they did get rid of them all?

Detroit to Iron Mountain, Pellston, Alpena, Marquette, Sault St Marie, Wasau, et al...

Atlanta to New Bern, Columbus, Albany, Brunswick, etc.

All of those routes out of DTW sans CWA, are At-Risk/EAS flying, which is up to Skywest to drop or keep, not Delta, at the end of the day. The complex part of the CR2 situation at Delta is figuring out what is fee for departure controlled Delta flying and what is Skywest At-Risk/EAS flying.

EAS contracts are run in two-year cycles. Theoretically, DL could plan the drawdown of its CR2 ops to coincide with the expiration of any EAS contracts being operated by the DLC brand (operated by OO or others), such that OO would have to rebid their contracts to operate for UA instead of DL if they wanted to retain those cities.

From my standpoint they could use more 50-seaters. There's so many markets out of DTW and MSP that have either lost service or have very limited frequency since the Saab 340/50-seater drawdown. A further reduction of 50-seaters to levels DL describes would further eliminate more routes and frequencies. Fewer 50-seaters is largely not passenger-friendly now.

JBo wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

N766UA wrote:

Detroit to Iron Mountain, Pellston, Alpena, Marquette, Sault St Marie, Wasau, et al...

Atlanta to New Bern, Columbus, Albany, Brunswick, etc.

All of those routes out of DTW sans CWA, are At-Risk/EAS flying, which is up to Skywest to drop or keep, not Delta, at the end of the day. The complex part of the CR2 situation at Delta is figuring out what is fee for departure controlled Delta flying and what is Skywest At-Risk/EAS flying.

EAS contracts are run in two-year cycles. Theoretically, DL could plan the drawdown of its CR2 ops to coincide with the expiration of any EAS contracts being operated by the DLC brand (operated by OO or others), such that OO would have to rebid their contracts to operate for UA instead of DL if they wanted to retain those cities.

And I keep hoping that Delta and Skywest will rebid to take back CMX after it moved to United Connection about 8 or 10 years back. People up here still prefer to go to Detroit or Minneapolis and not Chicago. Detroit because CMX is in Michigan even if we are 550 miles from Detroit. Minneapolis for the reliability especially in winter operations. 6 inches in Chicago and all regional aircraft flights get cancelled. 6 inches in Minneapolis and you may experience a 30-45 minute delay for de-icing. Plus if CMX were in the Delta family I keep hoping that if weather is bad in CMX and they have to divert that they would divert to MQT or ESC (Delta stations) rather than go all the way back to ORD! At least that way I will be only 90 to 120 miles from home and maybe able to find rent a car, rather than being stuck in Chicago 400+ miles away and a tough 8 hour drive to CMX, particularly in winter conditions.