With all passenger service ceased for years, it will be difficult to redirect passenger flow back to DET. The only incentive that usually works is low fares. Hence it would in ll likelihood have to be a LCC that opens up a base there. There would have to be a sufficient number of routes available to make it worthwhile for any potential DET passenger to change their flying habits. It wouldn't suffice, if let's say AirTran opened a single route to Atlanta.
IMHO, the only potential candidate at this time is ATA, and only if they follow through with their 100-seat aircraft order. In this case, I could see an ATA focus city operation at DET, with nonstops to the important East Coast markets (BOS, LGA, PHL, DCA) along with frequent shuttle flights to MDW for both O&D traffic and connections to destinations that would be out of reach from DET. This operation could be further supported by some ATA connection service to other Midwestern cities. With this sort of integration in a route network, DET might be able to attract a sufficient number of pax to make it work, especially with ATA's low fares and quality product. Besides, they do have a stronghold in the Midwest and are able to make a stand even against Southwest. DET would give them the opportunity to build up an operation without immediate competition and at a fraction of the cost of any service into DTW.
Also, for ATA this would make sense, because even at their main hub at MDW future growth is limited due to lack of gates (and slots?). Therefore, establishing a circle of focus cities around MDW linked by point-to-point routes would be an alternative to a single Midwestern hub, and it would offer more flying options for every regular ATA customer (unlike the STL-centric operation of the late TWA, which made even passengers from Kansas City backtrack in order to catch a flight to the West Coast - if they didn't opt for different carrier right away, that is).
What do think?
AA7573E From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 475 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3459 times:
I think you need to put the pipe down, and separate reality from a fun idea. There is no way ATA could simultaneously find the cash to buy the 100 seat fleet you mentioned, and open a new FOCUS station from the ground up. That sort of money does not grow on trees. So no, I don't think this idea has a chance in hell of getting 'off the ground'.
Ezycrew From Spain, joined Oct 2001, 460 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3441 times:
I remember when Pro Air operated a small hub at DET.
They advertised DET as a convenient downtown airport. However I don't know if noise and space restrictions are a problem there in case an airline wants to have a (mini-)hub.
Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12341 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3437 times:
Unlikely as ATA/TZ right now does not have the money or resources to do this venture. That being said if, and that is a big IF, the airline that does come in most likely will benefit from some sweet incentives to start up service, and also will most likely be the only carrier operating from this airport.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3403 times:
Personally, I don't think any major air carrier will be able to make DET "work" until such time as the city makes make runway improvements. Runway 15-33 is short (about 5,100 feet, IIRC) and has cemetaries at each end that make extending the runway all the more problematic. (Not only would you have to fight the usual "NIMBYs", but you'd also have to convince lots of folks that it was "OK" to move Grannie's final resting place, which I dare say most folks would vehemently oppose). The runway is also narrow (100 feet versus the standard 150 feet) which can entail some restrictive (and thus more easily exceeded) crosswind limitations. If it results in a max 5-knot crosswind limitation and a "normal" runway has 10, you'll be diverting more often at the place with the 5-knot limitation.
There was some talk about building a parallel to 15-33, but there was a railroad line that would have to be re-located, and doing do wouldn't have been possible due to it requiring too sharp a new rail curve to line-up with the existing railroad bridge over I-94. Replacing the railroad bridge with a new one was, of course, exceptionally expensive, and therefore not a viable option.
Somebody with RJs might make some use of the airport (and the new terminal that SWA built and later left behind), but I doubt you'll see 737s, Airbii, or MD80s in there until improvements are made.
OPNLguy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 3339 times:
>>>Pro Air used 737-400's at DET, therefore the airport is not limited to RJ's.
SWA used to run 737-200s, -300s, and -500s in there as well, but I never said that DET was limited to RJs...
The point that I was trying to make is that the current runway length/width and associated performance restrictions make DET an unpalatable place for those airlines who want to run 737s and similar aircraft in/out of there on flights of any signifcant distance. RJs might make better use of DET's limitations than can 737s and other similar aircraft.
Ouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4647 posts, RR: 21
Reply 10, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 6 hours ago) and read 3296 times:
Saabs into DET? Where do you propose pulling them from? They have no spares so they'll need to pull them from a current route. They already eliminated their weakest routes for new flights to FWA and the IND-MDW shuttle. ATA already serves Detroit well enough through FNT and TOL...both very strong cities for the airline.
Burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7786 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3273 times:
Either way, i dont think it would work, not just because of the airport itself but the surroundings of the airport, what I mean by that is apparently that part of Detroit is not exactly the place where you would want to turn your back.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
PJ295 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 3249 times:
I doubt DET would see much expansion for all of the reasons listed above. Isn't FNT a good alternative for the the northern burbs? I know it cant be too much of a hassle for those living in Oakland county.
Jafa From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 782 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3168 times:
Better question is why would ATA want make DET work? There are better markets ripe for cherry picking. Besides NWA price matches already with SWA and other discounters in thier markets. NWA double dips, matching LCC's on price and with "Legacy" carriers using alliances, upgrades, worldperks, price etc. Thats why they always have a high load factor. ATA is new to the scheduled service game and floundering financially, NWA is a formidable competitor.
DET is in a seedy area, most suburbanites don't want to drive there. I have to pass through that area once a week and I don't care for it.
PHX Flyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 3144 times:
<< There are better markets ripe for cherry picking. >>
ATA competes every day with Southwest at MDW, and with two legacy carriers in the same town, and - I must say - they do so very successfully. I don't really think you have a point there.
ATA is in the midst of building a worldwide network, with the Midwest as their home turf. Currently they do not serve Detroit, even though they certainly will sooner rather then later. At DET theywould not face immediate competition. I think everyone agrees that DET and DTW have slightly different catchment areas, and for some folks DET would probably be the better alternative. I didn't get the impression that the ProAir flights were always empty. I am not suggesting that ATA build a major hub to challenge NW at DTW, but rather a gradual build-up of may be 30-40 daily flights over a 3-5 year period, and not until they have the appropriate aircraft at hand.
A340Spotter From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1987 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (11 years 2 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3132 times:
Pro Air flights to ATL-MCO were near full every day. PHL was just a disaster and if it wasn't for Chrysler wanting us to fly there so they'd keep NW in check, we would have pulled out quite fast. EWR/LGA was pretty good loadwise, MKE was great to start and then fell off when NW upped their flights. MDW was good most of the time, IND not so good, but with GM support it was okay.
"Irregardless, it's a Cat III airplane, we don't need an alternate!"
Flyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2072 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3078 times:
ATA does have a great following out of the DTW area because of all of the charters they used to fly out of there. BUT....ATA has really established themselves well in the area via FNT and TOL. Why would they want to go head to head with WN, AA, UA, and big Red? They have no competetion on the FNT route and only AA on the TOL route. I have heard throughout the company that they want to change their focus a little bit to the way AirTran used to do business - find a niche in the smaller markets. *IF* the 717s or 190s were to get ordered and come online, I think you'd see TOL and FNT pick those up really quickly since FNT has the highest load factor of any station and TOL is in the top 5 yielding stations. I just think going up to the Detroit area would be murder in times like this. IMO just stick to what is working well and try small measures to increase revenue where it's needed. I think it would be nice to get a 737 - 800 in both these cities...but in reality...Saabs are all that we're going to see.
PHX Flyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (11 years 2 months 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
<< ATA does have a great following out of the DTW area >>
I have no doubt about that, and that's exactly why ATA should thoroughly assess ALL options to establish a stronger presence there.
It is great to hear that their other Michigan destinations are doing fine, but these are markets of their own. Nobody from the Detroit metropolitan area would drive all the way out to Flint in order to catch an ATA turboprop flight to Midway.
If it is done right, DET can become a viable alternative for a large enough crowd to make it work, just like there are people in Chicago who prefer Midway over O'Hare. ATA can (and does) compete with Southwest by offering the better product, and with all others by offering the lower fares.
Sadly, I heard today that ATA's B717 plans have been shelved for the time being, as Boeing is pondering a shutdown of the B717 line. It looks like we may have to wait for a while until ATA moves ahead with their plans for a smaller jet aircraft.
: Folks drive from Detroit everyday to both FNT and TOL to fly on ATA. joe
: What about Comair or Midwest Connect to DET?
: Sometimes you just have to step back and take a good long look at something before you can begin to appreciate the gravity of the situation. DET is on
: ProAir was looking into acquiring some Saab 2000's to supplement it's 734s.
: Comair is requiring Detroit to put money up before they'll serve the route to CVG. This has been made VERY clear since they have applied with the City
: KarlB737, The Saab 2000s for Pro Air were going to be run for GM as they got their hands slapped (and their wallets) for running those 2000s and charg