Welcome to the Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread 2019, please continue the discussion by adding your comments below.

Link to previous thread

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1382387

First! And it’s not quite 2019 yet.

Let’s keep it clean, civil, and informative for 2019.

Predictions... Let's be realistic here:
-DL adds more mainline service to DTW. Expect cities like RIC to get some mainline service
-DL cans a few regional routes which are already served from MSP. Maybe CID being one of them
-NK makes DTW-OAK year-round
-DL adds a seasonal international service. Maybe to SJO
-WW doesn't make it to the end of 2019 at DTW
-F9 adds 1 new route, possibly LAS
-AA adds DTW-LAX
-The DL/AM JV results in DTW-MID, on Aeromexico Connect
-UA adds some mainline service on IAD-DTW

Adds: EI to DUB (321LR), F9 to SAT (2x wk, 320), NK to VPS or SRQ/PHX/PUJ/EWR because NK will continue adding and growing to steal DL's market regarding leisure.

Possibilities: B6 to JFK (2x E90), SY to RSW/TPA/MSP, keeping WOW (however if they drop I expect FI very quickly since it worked out well for WOW), NK to BNA or STL or SLC, AA to LAX depending on DL doing ORD-LAX, UA upgsgues IAH.

Reductions: DL to HNL, AM to SLP/GDL, more RJ routes by DL (in particular at risk OO routes), I dont see much more that can be lost other than AA downgauges but they've been upgauging to DCA and PHL lately. UA will put bigger planes in Detroit, Frontier is doing well with what they have. No way B6 pulls out, WN would stay status quo, no reductions other than ATL.

While WN has made cuts on other nonstop routes out of DTW, WN could add DTW-HOU nonstop service and DTW-OAK seasonal nonstop service.

While IAH has nonstop service out of DTW on DL, UA, and NK, there is currently no nonstop service to HOU from DTW, and HOU is also one of the top domestic destinations traveled to from DTW that isn't currently served nonstop from DTW. WN would also be able to connect passengers to AUS, SAT, CRP, HRL, and international destinations from DTW through HOU if WN adds DTW-HOU nonstop service.

While the San Francisco Bay Area already has nonstop service out of DTW on DL, UA, and NK, WN can likely make DTW-OAK nonstop service work on at least a seasonal basis since (a) there is a lot of demand to OAK from DTW during the summer travel season (even with SFO-DTW nonstop service on both DL and UA), (b) there are many travelers in the East Bay that will avoid flying on NK, and (c) there are some travelers in the East Bay who prefer to fly out of OAK instead of SFO.

N292UX wrote:

Predictions... Let's be realistic here:
-DL adds more mainline service to DTW. Expect cities like RIC to get some mainline service
-DL cans a few regional routes which are already served from MSP. Maybe CID being one of them
-NK makes DTW-OAK year-round
-DL adds a seasonal international service. Maybe to SJO
-WW doesn't make it to the end of 2019 at DTW
-F9 adds 1 new route, possibly LAS
-AA adds DTW-LAX
-The DL/AM JV results in DTW-MID, on Aeromexico Connect
-UA adds some mainline service on IAD-DTW

If WOW Air does not make it I expect to see FI come in very quickly. I actually expect WW to increase their service o Detroit when all the dust settles around their uncertainty I believe they are going to survive
.

N292UX wrote:

-The DL/AM JV results in DTW-MID, on Aeromexico Connect

There isn't even ATL-MID, and look at capacity ATL-CUN vs. DTW-CUN. The DTW-MX adds have focused on business, not tourist travel. I'll take the under on DTW-MID.

Unless Alaska changes their flight times, they're gonna add service to another city from DTW this summer. Right now their red-eye from Seattle gets in at around 7am and the morning flight to Seattle leaves DTW at 630am. That 7am arrival has to go somewhere - unless they change the times. Possibly SAN, SFO or LAX?

ASFlyer wrote:

Unless Alaska changes their flight times, they're gonna add service to another city from DTW this summer. Right now their red-eye from Seattle gets in at around 7am and the morning flight to Seattle leaves DTW at 630am. That 7am arrival has to go somewhere - unless they change the times. Possibly SAN, SFO or LAX?

I'd take a stab at LAX, it's about time that a legacy or carrier near said type like B6, WN, AS start service. However, once AA decides they want to do it, that'll make it harder for AS to justify it, as did PDX. Any market they go into is going to include competing with both hub carriers. I guess NK really isnt a hub carrier but they are like one in terms of competitiveness.

flymco753 wrote:

I'd take a stab at LAX, it's about time that a legacy or carrier near said type like B6, WN, AS start service. However, once AA decides they want to do it, that'll make it harder for AS to justify it, as did PDX. Any market they go into is going to include competing with both hub carriers. I guess NK really isnt a hub carrier but they are like one in terms of competitiveness.

While AS has a hub at LAX and while AS already nonstop service to destinations other than AS hubs or former VX destinations from LAX, AS is less likely to add DTW-LAX nonstop service. In addition, while all 3 of the US3 carriers have hubs at LAX, AA is more likely to add DTW-LAX nonstop service than UA or AS is since (a) AA is the dominant carrier at LAX, (b) AA already serves LAX nonstop from other Midwestern destinations such as ORD, CMH, IND, OMA, and STL, (c) AA is the only US3 carrier that doesn't have nonstop service to any West Coast destinations from DTW, and (d) AA has added new nonstop routes out of LAX during the last 6 years.

Look for more a220 flights out of dtw beyond dfw and iah
Maybe aus, sat, mty

Not predictions by any stretch of the imagination but certainly what I see as feasible. I do not think everyone of these should be served but they certainly warrant serious consideration in 2019.

KE DTW-ICN
KL DTW-AMS
LH DTW-MUC
EI DTW-DUB
QR or EK DTW-DOH/DXB one but not both.
LO DTW-WAW
DY DTW-LGW
DL/VS DTW-MAN
DL DTW-ANC
DL DTW-YHZ
AA DTW-LAX
NK DTW-SRQ/VPS




But the reality is we will probably see another flat year where capacity is held in check out of DTW. Here is hoping for the best but accepting the status quo.

Flew out of DTW on the Friday before Christmas and was disappointed to see very little extra activity at the airport over and above a normal day would have expected to see more activity at the airport on such a crucial travel day before the holiday.

I've noticed that flights like FRA & MUC leave during a time between banks which is pretty dead. You should see between banks at MCO, the only people there are the ones going to ATL, other than that it's very dead.

klm617 wrote:

Flew out of DTW on the Friday before Christmas and was disappointed to see very little extra activity at the airport over and above a normal day would have expected to see more activity at the airport on such a crucial travel day before the holiday.

Christmas holiday related traffic is a lot more dispersed and less-concentrated than Thanksgiving travel. Particularly this year with the way the Christmas-New Years holiday fell, which amount to a 2-week holiday period as many of the schools are still on break this week and not going back to 1/7.

Most of the "sun/holiday" seasonal adds didn't start until Sat 12/23.

Plus business travel significantly falls-off at in December, particularly the week before Christmas holiday.

klm617 wrote:

Flew out of DTW on the Friday before Christmas and was disappointed to see very little extra activity at the airport over and above a normal day would have expected to see more activity at the airport on such a crucial travel day before the holiday.

DL most definitely added and upguaged flights that Friday. For example, DL1845 - the long running, late flight to LAX - was pushed back an hour and upgauged to the 753 (I believe it was the only time it operated as such in 2018). In its place, DL added an extra session with the 319 ... which came from PVR — beach add! Reality is, Midfield is such a large and underutilized terminal that it’s hard to notice even a significant increase in activity.

In order for B6 to make a good enough profit on DTW-JFK is by averaging at least a 72% combined LF for 2x daily E190s. I don't assume they'd put the A320 on this route.

I calculated the sample RASM with different ticket prices and in order for B6 to effectively compete against Delta, they'll need an avg yield fare of $230 and av LF of 72% to compete.

As you know, as the avg yield fare decreases, the higher LF will be needed to successfully compete. Take MCO as an example, NK, F9, and when WN flies it, post 90%+ LF's on relatively low CASM aircraft. B6 can add the route, however, itll yield low with a high LF (probably between 88-94% on avg) to fit in. I suspect the A321NEO would be the perfect aircraft for this route at least in the winter while in the summer I wouldn't see a problem with them downgaguing to an A320.

B6 should jump on DTW-JFK at 2x daily with the E190 once they get the slots. I think it's about time with DL's yields increasing along with going all regional with no mainline.

By 2021 B6's operation for DTW should look like: BOS (3x E90), JFK (2x E90), MCO (1x 321N>W, 320>S).

I would like to open up a discussion about the Detroit China market. With so many Chinese carriers applying for long and thin routes to the USA and the Detroit China market being of considerable size why has no Chinese carrier attempted to add Detroit. There seems to be potential there with strong business ties and O/D between Detroit and China one would think one route could at last be attempted from Detroit by a Chinese carrier.

China Southern said they were going to add PEK-DTW with a Boeing 787 back in 2009. Hopefully, they will announce adding the route in the near future to add a second daily flight to Detroit.

If any carrier is going to happen to China, it's going to be an off daily flight on something like Hainan to Shanghai or Beijing, probably Shanghai since that's the biggest China market. I dont see viability for anything more.

NCAD95 wrote:

I would like to open up a discussion about the Detroit China market. With so many Chinese carriers applying for long and thin routes to the USA and the Detroit China market being of considerable size why has no Chinese carrier attempted to add Detroit. There seems to be potential there with strong business ties and O/D between Detroit and China one would think one route could at last be attempted from Detroit by a Chinese carrier.

I think you'll find that nearly all of the long and thin routes between China and the US are launched hand in hand with generous subsidies that essentially guarantee profitability provided by the airport on the Chinese side of the Pacific. Once the subsidies dry up - so does the route.

Given the guaranteed profitability, carriers then choose the most obvious markets to establish their presence in the United States, which is almost always LAX or SFO given the demand.

compensateme wrote:

Reality is, Midfield is such a large and underutilized terminal that it’s hard to notice even a significant increase in activity.

I agree the midfield is underutilized, but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Could you expound a bit more on why you think it is so?

Never understood why DL only has 450 or so flights out of DTW, should be closer to 600 with more connecting flows.

Antoli0794 wrote:

sumeetc2 wrote:

China Southern said they were going to add PEK-DTW with a Boeing 787 back in 2009. Hopefully, they will announce adding the route in the near future to add a second daily flight to Detroit.

https://www.metroairport.com/sites/defa ... _visit.pdf

Sadly just another one on the long list of routes that were talked about but that never came to fruitarian.

TK DTW-IST
QR DTW-DOH
DL DTW-MAN
DY DTW-LGW
EI DTW-DUB

sumeetc2 wrote:

China Southern said they were going to add PEK-DTW with a Boeing 787 back in 2009. Hopefully, they will announce adding the route in the near future to add a second daily flight to Detroit.

Given China Southern has indicated they'll be leaving Skyteam, I wouldn't hold your breath for this one.

flymco753 wrote:

B6 should jump on DTW-JFK at 2x daily with the E190 once they get the slots. I think it's about time with DL's yields increasing along with going all regional with no mainline.

Good analysis. The only part that can't easily be determined is the opportunity cost and/or availability of aircraft roughly the equivalent of 1 E90 during peak operating hours.
In a vacuum it makes sense, but we don't easily know the hundreds of other city pairs that are competing for scare resources. DTW isn't a strategic market for B6, so its at the mercy of whatever strategic market at the time B6 is looking to expand.

klm617 wrote:

Antoli0794 wrote:

sumeetc2 wrote:

China Southern said they were going to add PEK-DTW with a Boeing 787 back in 2009. Hopefully, they will announce adding the route in the near future to add a second daily flight to Detroit.

https://www.metroairport.com/sites/defa ... _visit.pdf

Sadly just another one on the long list of routes that were talked about but that never came to fruitarian.

TK DTW-IST
QR DTW-DOH
DL DTW-MAN
DY DTW-LGW
EI DTW-DUB

There's a difference between "talked about" on a.net versus ones that are more credible and/or real.

The spectrum of routes looks something like this:

1) Rampant speculation & internet rumors
2) Credible reports / rumors of discussions between airport and airline
3) Public announcement / media reports of routes under consideration
4) Public announcement of intent to serve with airline, start dates, equipment, etc.
5) Route actually loaded for sale
6) Route actually starts scheduled service

There are numerous examples of all of the above. There are a whole variety of reasons why things don't progress.

Heck, I can think of all sorts of examples over the years:
NW announced the intent to fly DTW-Baghdad with DC-10-30 service
NW announced, loaded for sale, and cancelled before it ever started DTW-MAD service
AM was notorious for announcing intent to serve routes but never following through about 10 years ago with markets from MEX/MTY to places like DTW, PHL etc.
China Southern announced DTW in 2009 but that didn't and certainly isn't happening now. It never really made sense in the first place.

Fargo wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Reality is, Midfield is such a large and underutilized terminal that it’s hard to notice even a significant increase in activity.

I agree the midfield is underutilized, but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Could you expound a bit more on why you think it is so?

Never understood why DL only has 450 or so flights out of DTW, should be closer to 600 with more connecting flows.

The McNamera Terminal was built in the late '90s with the intent of being the NW Worldgateway and premiere international gateway for NW. After industry consolidation the combined DL network is much different than the standalone NW network. In addition to industry and economic changes, the business plans have changed as well.
~
Here's some numbers to consider:

The McNamera Terminal has ~120 gates (the number has reduced with the conversion of some CR2 only gates on Concourse C into being CR7/CR9 capable), of which 16 RJ-only gates on Concourse C have been shuttered, thus 102 operable gates. There are another 6 gates either temporarily closed at any given time for GSE staging/storage or ramp repair. Thus about 96 gates that are actually in use on a daily basis. During the most recent master plan, DL needs ~85 gates during peak departure banks during their peak summer schedule. Even so, simple math shows their gate turns per day to be under 5. This compares to ATL which is likely somewhere around 8-9+ flights/gate per day.

Departures were closer to 600 but that was back in the peak era of Saab and CRJ flying and with avg. aircraft size increasing (seats per departure) they've reduced the number of flights accordingly with a slight increase in capacity.

DL's network for connecting flows of hub-agnostic traffic strongly relies upon moving as many passengers as feasible on large narrowbody aircraft through ATL. In the current era is very efficient from a fixed cost standpoint of the hub and using lower-CASM aircraft. (e.g, 150-190 seat narrowbodies) as much as feasible.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Antoli0794 wrote:

https://www.metroairport.com/sites/defa ... _visit.pdf

Sadly just another one on the long list of routes that were talked about but that never came to fruitarian.

TK DTW-IST
QR DTW-DOH
DL DTW-MAN
DY DTW-LGW
EI DTW-DUB

There's a difference between "talked about" on a.net versus ones that are more credible and/or real.

The spectrum of routes looks something like this:

1) Rampant speculation & internet rumors
2) Credible reports / rumors of discussions between airport and airline
3) Public announcement / media reports of routes under consideration
4) Public announcement of intent to serve with airline, start dates, equipment, etc.
5) Route actually loaded for sale
6) Route actually starts scheduled service

There are numerous examples of all of the above. There are a whole variety of reasons why things don't progress.

Heck, I can think of all sorts of examples over the years:
NW announced the intent to fly DTW-Baghdad with DC-10-30 service
NW announced, loaded for sale, and cancelled before it ever started DTW-MAD service
AM was notorious for announcing intent to serve routes but never following through about 10 years ago with markets from MEX/MTY to places like DTW, PHL etc.
China Southern announced DTW in 2009 but that didn't and certainly isn't happening now. It never really made sense in the first place.

In the examples I stated above 4 came from the airlines themselves while the 5th came from a very credible source I didn't bother with those pre DL/NW merger because as you stated those are pretty irrelevant now. As for China Southern at the time it did make a lot of sense being they had just joined skyteam and as you say NW was building it's world gateway here so a DTW-PEK link was very important at the time but being the 787 was late into the market and the Delta merger on the horizon I think that kind of killed the route from ever happening.

MastaHanky wrote:

sumeetc2 wrote:

China Southern said they were going to add PEK-DTW with a Boeing 787 back in 2009. Hopefully, they will announce adding the route in the near future to add a second daily flight to Detroit.

Given China Southern has indicated they'll be leaving Skyteam, I wouldn't hold your breath for this one.

When Delta started DTW-PEK I stop holding my breath.

klm617 wrote:

MastaHanky wrote:

sumeetc2 wrote:

China Southern said they were going to add PEK-DTW with a Boeing 787 back in 2009. Hopefully, they will announce adding the route in the near future to add a second daily flight to Detroit.

Given China Southern has indicated they'll be leaving Skyteam, I wouldn't hold your breath for this one.

When Delta started DTW-PEK I stop holding my breath.

I don't think that route can support two flights. Maybe there are other un-served markets in China which could benefit better.

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

MastaHanky wrote:

Given China Southern has indicated they'll be leaving Skyteam, I wouldn't hold your breath for this one.

When Delta started DTW-PEK I stop holding my breath.

I don't think that route can support two flights. Maybe there are other un-served markets in China which could benefit better.

I agree with you 100%. DTW-PVG could use a second carrier but I don't think under the current slot restrictions that DTW-PVG is doable. But one would think that with the Detroit China market being as big as it is that it could land one of these subsidized China routes. Wonder if the airport has had any correspondence with these Chinese carriers showing their interest in having them serve Detroit.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

When Delta started DTW-PEK I stop holding my breath.

I don't think that route can support two flights. Maybe there are other un-served markets in China which could benefit better.

I agree with you 100%. DTW-PVG could use a second carrier but I don't think under the current slot restrictions that DTW-PVG is doable. But one would think that with the Detroit China market being as big as it is that it could land one of these subsidized China routes. Wonder if the airport has had any correspondence with these Chinese carriers showing their interest in having them serve Detroit.

Here's more or less how the process works:

Step 1: A secondary Chinese city comes to prominence via economic or population growth or what have you, and their city and thus their airport authority feel as though a nonstop connection to the U.S. will bring about factories to their city.

Step 2: The city authorizes the airport to offer a carrier (often a Chinese carrier but UA has jumped on opportunities in the past) guaranteed profitability for usually between 18 and 24 months to operate a nonstop between the host city and a US destination.

Step 3: The carrier picks a U.S. city, flies the route for the duration of the subsidies, and then cancels the route because by that point there's usually another secondary Chinese city willing to pony up subsidies. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's for this reason that yields between the US and Secondary Mainland China are so depressed.

In 2018 you had 15 of these routes:

CKG-JFK/LAX (HU)
HGH-LAX (3U)
CSX-LAX (HU)
CTU-JFK/LAX/SFO (HU/UA)
FOC-JFK (MF)
NKG-LAX (MU)
SZX-LAX/SEA (CA/MF)
TAO-LAX/SFO (MF/MU)
TNA-LAX (3U)
WUH-SFO (CZ)

The carrier has some say their US destination, but because there's pressure from the city to serve 'prestige' destinations in the US, you'll see that the carriers always choose LAX, SFO or JFK (with the single exception of one SEA flight) given the market size, economic size, and exposure. If you're looking for a short-term subsidized nonstop between DTW and Mainland China you'll need to beat out LAX, SFO, JFK, and SEA.

To my knowledge, with the sole exception of UA's CTU-SFO flight, no subsidized nonstop between Mainland China and the US has outlived its subsidies - so I'd personally question the long-term benefit of securing such a route.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

I don't think that route can support two flights. Maybe there are other un-served markets in China which could benefit better.

I agree with you 100%. DTW-PVG could use a second carrier but I don't think under the current slot restrictions that DTW-PVG is doable. But one would think that with the Detroit China market being as big as it is that it could land one of these subsidized China routes. Wonder if the airport has had any correspondence with these Chinese carriers showing their interest in having them serve Detroit.

Here's more or less how the process works:

Step 1: A secondary Chinese city comes to prominence via economic or population growth or what have you, and their city and thus their airport authority feel as though a nonstop connection to the U.S. will bring about factories to their city.

Step 2: The city authorizes the airport to offer a carrier (often a Chinese carrier but UA has jumped on opportunities in the past) guaranteed profitability for usually between 18 and 24 months to operate a nonstop between the host city and a US destination.

Step 3: The carrier picks a U.S. city, flies the route for the duration of the subsidies, and then cancels the route because by that point there's usually another secondary Chinese city willing to pony up subsidies. Lather, rinse, repeat. It's for this reason that yields between the US and Secondary Mainland China are so depressed.

In 2018 you had 15 of these routes:

CKG-JFK/LAX (HU)
HGH-LAX (3U)
CSX-LAX (HU)
CTU-JFK/LAX/SFO (HU/UA)
FOC-JFK (MF)
NKG-LAX (MU)
SZX-LAX/SEA (CA/MF)
TAO-LAX/SFO (MF/MU)
TNA-LAX (3U)
WUH-SFO (CZ)

The carrier has some say their US destination, but because there's pressure from the city to serve 'prestige' destinations in the US, you'll see that the carriers always choose LAX, SFO or JFK (with the single exception of one SEA flight) given the market size, economic size, and exposure. If you're looking for a short-term subsidized nonstop between DTW and Mainland China you'll need to beat out LAX, SFO, JFK, and SEA.

To my knowledge, with the sole exception of UA's CTU-SFO flight, no subsidized nonstop between Mainland China and the US has outlived its subsidies - so I'd personally question the long-term benefit of securing such a route.

That makes perfect sense and thank you for your informative explanation.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Fargo wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Reality is, Midfield is such a large and underutilized terminal that it’s hard to notice even a significant increase in activity.

I agree the midfield is underutilized, but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Could you expound a bit more on why you think it is so?

Never understood why DL only has 450 or so flights out of DTW, should be closer to 600 with more connecting flows.

The McNamera Terminal was built in the late '90s with the intent of being the NW Worldgateway and premiere international gateway for NW. After industry consolidation the combined DL network is much different than the standalone NW network. In addition to industry and economic changes, the business plans have changed as well.
~
Here's some numbers to consider:

The McNamera Terminal has ~120 gates (the number has reduced with the conversion of some CR2 only gates on Concourse C into being CR7/CR9 capable), of which 16 RJ-only gates on Concourse C have been shuttered, thus 102 operable gates. There are another 6 gates either temporarily closed at any given time for GSE staging/storage or ramp repair. Thus about 96 gates that are actually in use on a daily basis. During the most recent master plan, DL needs ~85 gates during peak departure banks during their peak summer schedule. Even so, simple math shows their gate turns per day to be under 5. This compares to ATL which is likely somewhere around 8-9+ flights/gate per day.

Departures were closer to 600 but that was back in the peak era of Saab and CRJ flying and with avg. aircraft size increasing (seats per departure) they've reduced the number of flights accordingly with a slight increase in capacity.

DL's network for connecting flows of hub-agnostic traffic strongly relies upon moving as many passengers as feasible on large narrowbody aircraft through ATL. In the current era is very efficient from a fixed cost standpoint of the hub and using lower-CASM aircraft. (e.g, 150-190 seat narrowbodies) as much as feasible.

Thank you for the explanation, those are all good points. However, while I understand ATL is DL's bread and butter, I have to wonder about the future with ATL facing expansion constraints in the coming years (there is only so much more room for gates/runways to be built), would they entertain the idea of bulking up DTW to provide relief? The McNamara Terminal is a pretty nice asset DL has and it would be nice if it were more utilized.

B6 ended FLL, next up on the chopping block and hopefully the last of the year will be WN's ATL flight in June.

More adds compared to losses though.

Fargo wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Fargo wrote:

I agree the midfield is underutilized, but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Could you expound a bit more on why you think it is so?

Never understood why DL only has 450 or so flights out of DTW, should be closer to 600 with more connecting flows.

The McNamera Terminal was built in the late '90s with the intent of being the NW Worldgateway and premiere international gateway for NW. After industry consolidation the combined DL network is much different than the standalone NW network. In addition to industry and economic changes, the business plans have changed as well.
~
Here's some numbers to consider:

The McNamera Terminal has ~120 gates (the number has reduced with the conversion of some CR2 only gates on Concourse C into being CR7/CR9 capable), of which 16 RJ-only gates on Concourse C have been shuttered, thus 102 operable gates. There are another 6 gates either temporarily closed at any given time for GSE staging/storage or ramp repair. Thus about 96 gates that are actually in use on a daily basis. During the most recent master plan, DL needs ~85 gates during peak departure banks during their peak summer schedule. Even so, simple math shows their gate turns per day to be under 5. This compares to ATL which is likely somewhere around 8-9+ flights/gate per day.

Departures were closer to 600 but that was back in the peak era of Saab and CRJ flying and with avg. aircraft size increasing (seats per departure) they've reduced the number of flights accordingly with a slight increase in capacity.

DL's network for connecting flows of hub-agnostic traffic strongly relies upon moving as many passengers as feasible on large narrowbody aircraft through ATL. In the current era is very efficient from a fixed cost standpoint of the hub and using lower-CASM aircraft. (e.g, 150-190 seat narrowbodies) as much as feasible.

Thank you for the explanation, those are all good points. However, while I understand ATL is DL's bread and butter, I have to wonder about the future with ATL facing expansion constraints in the coming years (there is only so much more room for gates/runways to be built), would they entertain the idea of bulking up DTW to provide relief? The McNamara Terminal is a pretty nice asset DL has and it would be nice if it were more utilized.

I really don't see that happening. Delta has kept Detroit pretty flat over the last 10 years and I don't expect that to change. Delta has to keep wall street happy and with all the capacity Delta is adding in places like LAX and BOS other stations are going to suffer for that and DTW is the very last when it comes to expansion at the Delta hubs It has lost over 30 destinations in the last 10 years and is the least protected hub in the Delta network as far as connecting flows go. Keep in mind the Atlanta airport is in expansion mode while part of the McNamara terminal is shuttered with no intention by Delta to open it back up.

flymco753 wrote:

B6 ended FLL, next up on the chopping block and hopefully the last of the year will be WN's ATL flight in June.

More adds compared to losses though.

These are not really big loses as neither airline is really that committed to the Detroit market. I really don't expect DTW-HNL to last past this summer either.

klm617 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

B6 ended FLL, next up on the chopping block and hopefully the last of the year will be WN's ATL flight in June.

More adds compared to losses though.

These are not really big loses as neither airline is really that committed to the Detroit market. I really don't expect DTW-HNL to last past this summer either.

Maybe with the JFK-HNL flight being dropped it’ll help the flight from DTW.

Fargo wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Fargo wrote:

I agree the midfield is underutilized, but I'm curious to know your thoughts. Could you expound a bit more on why you think it is so?

Never understood why DL only has 450 or so flights out of DTW, should be closer to 600 with more connecting flows.

The McNamera Terminal was built in the late '90s with the intent of being the NW Worldgateway and premiere international gateway for NW. After industry consolidation the combined DL network is much different than the standalone NW network. In addition to industry and economic changes, the business plans have changed as well.
~
Here's some numbers to consider:

The McNamera Terminal has ~120 gates (the number has reduced with the conversion of some CR2 only gates on Concourse C into being CR7/CR9 capable), of which 16 RJ-only gates on Concourse C have been shuttered, thus 102 operable gates. There are another 6 gates either temporarily closed at any given time for GSE staging/storage or ramp repair. Thus about 96 gates that are actually in use on a daily basis. During the most recent master plan, DL needs ~85 gates during peak departure banks during their peak summer schedule. Even so, simple math shows their gate turns per day to be under 5. This compares to ATL which is likely somewhere around 8-9+ flights/gate per day.

Departures were closer to 600 but that was back in the peak era of Saab and CRJ flying and with avg. aircraft size increasing (seats per departure) they've reduced the number of flights accordingly with a slight increase in capacity.

DL's network for connecting flows of hub-agnostic traffic strongly relies upon moving as many passengers as feasible on large narrowbody aircraft through ATL. In the current era is very efficient from a fixed cost standpoint of the hub and using lower-CASM aircraft. (e.g, 150-190 seat narrowbodies) as much as feasible.

Thank you for the explanation, those are all good points. However, while I understand ATL is DL's bread and butter, I have to wonder about the future with ATL facing expansion constraints in the coming years (there is only so much more room for gates/runways to be built), would they entertain the idea of bulking up DTW to provide relief? The McNamara Terminal is a pretty nice asset DL has and it would be nice if it were more utilized.

Given DL’s opposition toward further expansion of ATL, one would expect that as certain flight banks reach capacity, DL will shift capacity toward DTW and MSP, where it’s already paying for oodles of capacity it’s not using. In fact, capacity restraints at ATL likely factored into why DL boosted its midday banks at DTW this past summer for the first time since the merger.

Reality is, the economics of the “ATL Superhub” vs. spreading capacity among its hubs would collapse if DL were (indirectly) paying debt servicing toward the estimated ~$10B expansion cost. Especially with interest expenses rising.

That said... with a ton of 321 on order to replace the MD-88/90, and a recession likely in the near future... we’ve got a ways to go before ATL is truly “at capacity.”

compensateme wrote:

Fargo wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

The McNamera Terminal was built in the late '90s with the intent of being the NW Worldgateway and premiere international gateway for NW. After industry consolidation the combined DL network is much different than the standalone NW network. In addition to industry and economic changes, the business plans have changed as well.
~
Here's some numbers to consider:

The McNamera Terminal has ~120 gates (the number has reduced with the conversion of some CR2 only gates on Concourse C into being CR7/CR9 capable), of which 16 RJ-only gates on Concourse C have been shuttered, thus 102 operable gates. There are another 6 gates either temporarily closed at any given time for GSE staging/storage or ramp repair. Thus about 96 gates that are actually in use on a daily basis. During the most recent master plan, DL needs ~85 gates during peak departure banks during their peak summer schedule. Even so, simple math shows their gate turns per day to be under 5. This compares to ATL which is likely somewhere around 8-9+ flights/gate per day.

Departures were closer to 600 but that was back in the peak era of Saab and CRJ flying and with avg. aircraft size increasing (seats per departure) they've reduced the number of flights accordingly with a slight increase in capacity.

DL's network for connecting flows of hub-agnostic traffic strongly relies upon moving as many passengers as feasible on large narrowbody aircraft through ATL. In the current era is very efficient from a fixed cost standpoint of the hub and using lower-CASM aircraft. (e.g, 150-190 seat narrowbodies) as much as feasible.

Thank you for the explanation, those are all good points. However, while I understand ATL is DL's bread and butter, I have to wonder about the future with ATL facing expansion constraints in the coming years (there is only so much more room for gates/runways to be built), would they entertain the idea of bulking up DTW to provide relief? The McNamara Terminal is a pretty nice asset DL has and it would be nice if it were more utilized.

Given DL’s opposition toward further expansion of ATL, one would expect that as certain flight banks reach capacity, DL will shift capacity toward DTW and MSP, where it’s already paying for oodles of capacity it’s not using. In fact, capacity restraints at ATL likely factored into why DL boosted its midday banks at DTW this past summer for the first time since the merger.

Reality is, the economics of the “ATL Superhub” vs. spreading capacity among its hubs would collapse if DL were (indirectly) paying debt servicing toward the estimated ~$10B expansion cost. Especially with interest expenses rising.

That said... with a ton of 321 on order to replace the MD-88/90, and a recession likely in the near future... we’ve got a ways to go before ATL is truly “at capacity.”

I didn't know DL is opposed to the further expansion of ATL, do you have a link or something where it says that? Everything I've heard is grow ATL.

Even if ATL isn't fully "at capacity", there will come a point where it just won't be feasible to expand anymore there. This is where DTW can come and provide a better northern connecting point. Yes, I understand the Detroit economy is not the best at the moment, but after ORD, it is the best geographically positioned airport for E/W flows. Plus, if ORD shows us anything, the surrounding economy does not necessarily have to be the best for the airport to thrive.

Additionally, and I know I'll probably get some angry responses for this....... DL is eventually going to need to choose between DTW and MSP. Given the evolution of their network since the NW merger, it makes no sense today to have two midwest hubs that overlap. While MSP has (arguably) the better economy at the moment, DTW has the better (far superior actually) airport and geography. Therefore, MSP ought to be cut down to a focus city and that capacity should be shifted to bulking up DTW and finish building out SEA (once more gates are built there). What purpose does MSP serve in DL's network that cannot be accomplished by bulking up DTW and SEA?

I also have another thought as to what DL should do, but I won't post it here because it will lead to a ton of angry responses.

Fargo wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Fargo wrote:

Thank you for the explanation, those are all good points. However, while I understand ATL is DL's bread and butter, I have to wonder about the future with ATL facing expansion constraints in the coming years (there is only so much more room for gates/runways to be built), would they entertain the idea of bulking up DTW to provide relief? The McNamara Terminal is a pretty nice asset DL has and it would be nice if it were more utilized.

Given DL’s opposition toward further expansion of ATL, one would expect that as certain flight banks reach capacity, DL will shift capacity toward DTW and MSP, where it’s already paying for oodles of capacity it’s not using. In fact, capacity restraints at ATL likely factored into why DL boosted its midday banks at DTW this past summer for the first time since the merger.

Reality is, the economics of the “ATL Superhub” vs. spreading capacity among its hubs would collapse if DL were (indirectly) paying debt servicing toward the estimated ~$10B expansion cost. Especially with interest expenses rising.

That said... with a ton of 321 on order to replace the MD-88/90, and a recession likely in the near future... we’ve got a ways to go before ATL is truly “at capacity.”

I didn't know DL is opposed to the further expansion of ATL, do you have a link or something where it says that? Everything I've heard is grow ATL.

Even if ATL isn't fully "at capacity", there will come a point where it just won't be feasible to expand anymore there. This is where DTW can come and provide a better northern connecting point. Yes, I understand the Detroit economy is not the best at the moment, but after ORD, it is the best geographically positioned airport for E/W flows. Plus, if ORD shows us anything, the surrounding economy does not necessarily have to be the best for the airport to thrive.

Additionally, and I know I'll probably get some angry responses for this....... DL is eventually going to need to choose between DTW and MSP. Given the evolution of their network since the NW merger, it makes no sense today to have two midwest hubs that overlap. While MSP has (arguably) the better economy at the moment, DTW has the better (far superior actually) airport and geography. Therefore, MSP ought to be cut down to a focus city and that capacity should be shifted to bulking up DTW and finish building out SEA (once more gates are built there). What purpose does MSP serve in DL's network that cannot be accomplished by bulking up DTW and SEA?

I also have another thought as to what DL should do, but I won't post it here because it will lead to a ton of angry responses.

Mature adults will understand that it is your point of view so please post your thoughts the last thing anyone wants is censorship through bullying by other members. By the way I believe Delta has chosen silently by it's actions which hub it prefers and it isn't Detroit. Actually Detroit is a much better hub due to the lack of congestion here and hassle free connections all under one roof.

klm617 wrote:

Fargo wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

The McNamera Terminal was built in the late '90s with the intent of being the NW Worldgateway and premiere international gateway for NW. After industry consolidation the combined DL network is much different than the standalone NW network. In addition to industry and economic changes, the business plans have changed as well.
~
Here's some numbers to consider:

The McNamera Terminal has ~120 gates (the number has reduced with the conversion of some CR2 only gates on Concourse C into being CR7/CR9 capable), of which 16 RJ-only gates on Concourse C have been shuttered, thus 102 operable gates. There are another 6 gates either temporarily closed at any given time for GSE staging/storage or ramp repair. Thus about 96 gates that are actually in use on a daily basis. During the most recent master plan, DL needs ~85 gates during peak departure banks during their peak summer schedule. Even so, simple math shows their gate turns per day to be under 5. This compares to ATL which is likely somewhere around 8-9+ flights/gate per day.

Departures were closer to 600 but that was back in the peak era of Saab and CRJ flying and with avg. aircraft size increasing (seats per departure) they've reduced the number of flights accordingly with a slight increase in capacity.

DL's network for connecting flows of hub-agnostic traffic strongly relies upon moving as many passengers as feasible on large narrowbody aircraft through ATL. In the current era is very efficient from a fixed cost standpoint of the hub and using lower-CASM aircraft. (e.g, 150-190 seat narrowbodies) as much as feasible.

Thank you for the explanation, those are all good points. However, while I understand ATL is DL's bread and butter, I have to wonder about the future with ATL facing expansion constraints in the coming years (there is only so much more room for gates/runways to be built), would they entertain the idea of bulking up DTW to provide relief? The McNamara Terminal is a pretty nice asset DL has and it would be nice if it were more utilized.

I really don't see that happening. Delta has kept Detroit pretty flat over the last 10 years and I don't expect that to change. Delta has to keep wall street happy and with all the capacity Delta is adding in places like LAX and BOS other stations are going to suffer for that and DTW is the very last when it comes to expansion at the Delta hubs It has lost over 30 destinations in the last 10 years and is the least protected hub in the Delta network as far as connecting flows go. Keep in mind the Atlanta airport is in expansion mode while part of the McNamara terminal is shuttered with no intention by Delta to open it back up.

I don't usually agree with you, but I do agree with the notion DL is underutilizing DTW. LAX is important as it is huge O&D market, but BOS on the other hand makes zero sense to me. Every move DL makes in BOS is a head scratcher, why do they feel the need to burn tons of $$$ there when it serves no purpose in your network and those resources could be better utilized elsewhere?

klm617 wrote:

Fargo wrote:

compensateme wrote:

Given DL’s opposition toward further expansion of ATL, one would expect that as certain flight banks reach capacity, DL will shift capacity toward DTW and MSP, where it’s already paying for oodles of capacity it’s not using. In fact, capacity restraints at ATL likely factored into why DL boosted its midday banks at DTW this past summer for the first time since the merger.

Reality is, the economics of the “ATL Superhub” vs. spreading capacity among its hubs would collapse if DL were (indirectly) paying debt servicing toward the estimated ~$10B expansion cost. Especially with interest expenses rising.

That said... with a ton of 321 on order to replace the MD-88/90, and a recession likely in the near future... we’ve got a ways to go before ATL is truly “at capacity.”

I didn't know DL is opposed to the further expansion of ATL, do you have a link or something where it says that? Everything I've heard is grow ATL.

Even if ATL isn't fully "at capacity", there will come a point where it just won't be feasible to expand anymore there. This is where DTW can come and provide a better northern connecting point. Yes, I understand the Detroit economy is not the best at the moment, but after ORD, it is the best geographically positioned airport for E/W flows. Plus, if ORD shows us anything, the surrounding economy does not necessarily have to be the best for the airport to thrive.

Additionally, and I know I'll probably get some angry responses for this....... DL is eventually going to need to choose between DTW and MSP. Given the evolution of their network since the NW merger, it makes no sense today to have two midwest hubs that overlap. While MSP has (arguably) the better economy at the moment, DTW has the better (far superior actually) airport and geography. Therefore, MSP ought to be cut down to a focus city and that capacity should be shifted to bulking up DTW and finish building out SEA (once more gates are built there). What purpose does MSP serve in DL's network that cannot be accomplished by bulking up DTW and SEA?

I also have another thought as to what DL should do, but I won't post it here because it will lead to a ton of angry responses.

Mature adults will understand that it is your point of view so please post your thoughts the last thing anyone wants is censorship through bullying by other members. By the way I believe Delta has chosen silently by it's actions which hub it prefers and it isn't Detroit. Actually Detroit is a much better hub due to the lack of congestion here and hassle free connections all under one roof.

Well, my last thought about DL's network was putting a hub in Austin, Texas, but that can't be said on this site lest I attract the wrath of a certain Prune......

Fargo wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Fargo wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but I do agree with the notion DL is underutilizing DTW. LAX is important as it is huge O&D market, but BOS on the other hand makes zero sense to me. Every move DL makes in BOS is a head scratcher, why do they feel the need to burn tons of $$$ there when it serves no purpose in your network and those resources could be better utilized elsewhere?

It's a long term ploy just like DL's push into LGA/JFK ~10-15 years ago was stretching it for the time.
DL seems to want it all.
Almost done with LAX/NYC/SEA they're now working on BOS and will probably come back for RDU later maybe AUS. DTW's already won.

No, Delta doesn’t “need to choose” between MSP and DTW. They just don’t.

The merger was ten years ago - not to mention that MSP and DTW already coexisted for several decades before that under NW.

SumChristianus wrote:

Fargo wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I don't usually agree with you, but I do agree with the notion DL is underutilizing DTW. LAX is important as it is huge O&D market, but BOS on the other hand makes zero sense to me. Every move DL makes in BOS is a head scratcher, why do they feel the need to burn tons of $$$ there when it serves no purpose in your network and those resources could be better utilized elsewhere?

It's a long term ploy just like DL's push into LGA/JFK ~10-15 years ago was stretching it for the time.
DL seems to want it all.
Almost done with LAX/NYC/SEA they're now working on BOS and will probably come back for RDU later maybe AUS. DTW's already won.

But what purpose does BOS serve in their network? They are getting killed yield wise and that isn't going to change (B6 isn't going anywhere). Is JFK/LGA not sufficient for the NE? They could use the resources their wasting in BOS to bulk up JFK/LGA and DTW.

Also, they still have a ways to go in SEA. They need to get to 250 to 300 flights before being truly finished there. RDU is fine as it is with a few tweaks here and there. And if DL truly wants it all, they need to address their big Lone Star shaped hole.

Not too mention DL has a decent showing in MCO so they got their Florida void filled. The only carrier of the 3 majors that doesnt is UA.

blockski wrote:

No, Delta doesn’t “need to choose” between MSP and DTW. They just don’t.

The merger was ten years ago - not to mention that MSP and DTW already coexisted for several decades before that under NW.

Things have changed a lot in the 10 years since the merger, and they sure aren't the same as they were in the NW days. MSP has been made redundant with the buildup of SEA. DTW alone covers the midwest just fine, and is much better for connections with its geography and better layout.