Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Delta Dumping ACY-CVG For ACY-ATL?  
User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2668 posts, RR: 6
Posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4157 times:

Looks like (according to Delta.com) that DL will be getting rid of the CVG route out of ACY and going to 2 daily ATL, along with on daily MCO flight. I thought the CVG flights were doing well. This looks like it starts Nov. 16th


I have no association with Spirit Airlines
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRamerinianAir From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Looks like there is a lot of Southern Connecting traffic. Seems that ATL is the better choice for Florida connections. This does somewhat surpise me though . . . MCO does now have connections to other Florida cities. It's better for connections though, at least ACY didn't loose any frequencies.
SR



W N = my Worst Nightmare!!!!!
User currently offlineUsairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3414 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

It is interesting that at the time they announced ACY-ATL/MCO they left out that they would be cancelling CVG-ACY. Funny how this happens all the time in the airline industry

User currently offlineNkops From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2668 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3864 times:

Quoting RamerinianAir (Reply 1):
It is interesting that at the time they announced ACY-ATL/MCO they left out that they would be cancelling CVG-ACY. Funny how this happens all the time in the airline industry

Actually, up until just a couple days ago, they showed one ATL, one CVG and one MCO, then suddenly it changed to 2 ATL and CVG was gone... weird!!



I have no association with Spirit Airlines
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6618 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (8 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

ACY-CVG is gone and so is ERI-CVG (announced by local ERI media). CVG continues to slowly shrink away.

User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (8 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3504 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 4):


ACY-CVG is gone and so is ERI-CVG (announced by local ERI media). CVG continues to slowly shrink away.

MSP-CVG has gone from 8x daily 2 years ago, with 2 mainline flights, to 4x daily now all CRJ-700, and this winter to 3x daily. I didn't believe that CVG was being dehubbed but I'm starting to believe it. DL continually shrinks CVG, I've counted at least 30 more flights being cut this winter while ATL, SLC, JFK, and LAX continue to increase. More mainline flights are being turned over to OH and RP. How much longer before CVG is closed down?

Jeremy


User currently offlineJdwfloyd From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 837 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (8 years 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 3501 times:

Quickly following in the footsteps of PIT. Sorry to see it happen to another city.

User currently offlineDL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (8 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3473 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 5):
I didn't believe that CVG was being dehubbed but I'm starting to believe it.

"Dehubbed" is a little extreme; "rightsized" is probably more appropriate. Bear in mind that DL has dropped a LOT of mainline capacity over the past couple years. All the 732s and 733s are gone, as well as all the 762s and a few 763s. The L-1011s, 727s, and MD-11s also have been retired in the past five years. Very few new airplanes came online in that time, and none in the past couple years. In addition, DL is now expanding in ATL, JFK, SLC, and LAX, both domestically and internationally; the long-haul international flights are pulling all the 763ERs, some of the 764s, and almost all 772ER service out of the domestic system, and the shorter international and longer domestic flights are taking up lots of the 738 capacity. DL has done lots to improve fleet utilization, but there is still only so much that can be done, and with fares unable to cover the costs of fuel, something had to give.

The one thing DL has plenty of is RJs through its regional partners. So as mainline capacity is diverted to longer-haul routes, anything shorter naturally gets transferred to the RJs. DL's smallest mainline aircraft is now a 142-seat MD-88; that's a lot of capacity for small markets, especially with any kind of frequency. Most people would rather have 3x daily CR2 service to their small home market than 1x daily M88 or 5x weekly 738 service (if the M88 or 738 were even available). As for CVG losing flights, the hub was too connection-heavy, which reduces yields. It's now back around a 50/50 O&D/connection balance, which is considered ideal for a hub, and is profitable according to recent public statements.

There are still lots of markets that get much more service to/from CVG than they would if it were just a focus city or a non-hub. A smaller profitable CVG can continue to exist, and may see mainline capacity start to come back to replace RJs in a few years once DL is able to order a smaller mainline A/C. A bigger unprofitable CVG (like it was until recently) was much more likely to be on the chopping block. As it is, CVG is DL's most convenient inter-Midwest and northern transcon connection point and barring a radical market shift like UA disappearing and DL being able to go back to ORD in force, it will continue at its profitable "rightsized" level for the foreseeable future.



F L Y D E L T A J E T S
User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 5):
I didn't believe that CVG was being dehubbed but I'm starting to believe it.

"De-hubbed"? Just for info, CVG still has service to 130 cities and over 400 daily flights during summer season. They got new service to CUN and ANC, and DL also brought back MGM, TLH and PNS. Maybe it's just me, but I'd say some airline would be happy to have a primary hub the size of DL at CVG.


User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3419 times:

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 7):
As for CVG losing flights, the hub was too connection-heavy, which reduces yields. It's now back around a 50/50 O&D/connection balance, which is considered ideal for a hub, and is profitable according to recent public statements.

I don't buy that CVG was too connection heavy arguement....it is a bunch of ATL koolaide. ATL, which is plaqued with delays, is much more connection heavy than any other hub. CVG was the most profitable hub for DL, before Mullin made the decision to go RJ crazy. Once all the RJs came on board, DL started to go frequency crazy, and started to replace many mainline flights at CVG with the RJ, thus killing the hub's profitability. For example, CVG to YYZ ran every hour on the high-cost RJ. I don't think customers would have complained if instead DL ran a cheaper cost 732 or MD-88 every other hour as it would have been more economically viable. Bad management, the ATL koolaide, simple economics and the RJ killed CVG, not the percentage of connection traffic. The use of the term 'rightsizing' is nothing but marketing cow dung to cover up bad management decisions, namely the over reliance on high-cost RJs.

[Edited 2006-09-28 21:48:08]


Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6618 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (8 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 3378 times:

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 8):
"De-hubbed"? Just for info, CVG still has service to 130 cities and over 400 daily flights during summer season. They got new service to CUN and ANC, and DL also brought back MGM, TLH and PNS. Maybe it's just me, but I'd say some airline would be happy to have a primary hub the size of DL at CVG.

Maybe, although I doubt most would want the sky-high fares DL is charging.

I'll agree that I don't think DL will "de-hub" CVG completely, however I could see DL shrinking CVG down to a MEM or CLE sized hub. While DL has added a few flights back, take a look at the number of destinations CVG has lost in the past 2 years:

ICT, MLI, CMI, HOU, MDW, FNT, ERI, BGM, HVN, ACY, PHF, ILM, VPS, DAB, BIL, MLB (Sa only)

Not to mention the hefty capacity cuts, most other markets have seen.


User currently offlineDL787932ER From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 597 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 3355 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 9):
I don't buy that CVG was too connection heavy arguement

You don't have to "buy" it, but it is a fact. The information is available in public reports. CVG was too connection-heavy and unprofitable; now it is more balanced between connections and O&D and is (according to DL senior management) profitable at those levels. Nor is it true that ATL has a significantly higher ratio of connections to O&D than other major hubs.

You seem to have missed the rest of my post, so I'll summarize: DL is expanding at its other hubs while having retired a significant fraction of its mainline fleet, including all of its smallest models, without accepting any new mainline deliveries. Thus even with increased utilization there are not enough mainline aircraft to go around, and there are no "small" mainline aircraft at all (the smallest having 142 seats). Routes that are redundant, less profitable, or unable to sustain multiple frequencies of at least 142 seats thus cannot currently maintain DL mainline service.

However, DL has plenty of RJ capacity. Since no new aircraft are being delivered now, DL uses what it has, which are the RJs, to maintain service and frequency to secondary markets. Since CVG had more service than ideal, as opposed to the other hubs, it makes sense that it would see the capacity reduction, which given DL's current fleet and growth plans means it gets RJs.

You can complain about decisions that were made by bad management in the late 1990s, which led to the current situation. But the fact is that given the current situation (which is that mainline is largely needed elsewhere), CVG was too big and needed to shrink to make money. It has shrunk, and now it is making money. That's not Kool-Aid; it's the facts.



F L Y D E L T A J E T S
User currently offlineJoeman From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 760 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (8 years 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3277 times:

Quoting DL787932ER (Reply 11):
Nor is it true that ATL has a significantly higher ratio of connections to O&D than other major hubs.

What is the ratio?


User currently offlineN766UA From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 8294 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (8 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3245 times:

CVG-ACY does do pretty well, but DL's decisions when it comes to flights and equipment have never made any sense to me. Example: Starting Monday the morning CLE-CVG goes to an E135. That flight is normally a 50 seat CRJ and it's always full. The morning CLE-JFK, however, stays as a 50 seater even though the most people I've ever seen on that flight is 9.


This Website Censors Me
User currently offlineSESGDL From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3489 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (8 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3229 times:

Quoting Joeman (Reply 12):
What is the ratio?

ATL's connecting to O&D ratio is roughly 3:1. The airport had around 25 million O&D passengers last year and accommodated 88 million passengers.

Jeremy


User currently offlineTOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3295 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 5):
MSP-CVG has gone from 8x daily 2 years ago, with 2 mainline flights, to 4x daily now all CRJ-700, and this winter to 3x daily.

Two years ago DL had to compete with NW on the route. Now they codeshare and the market probably had too many seats.


User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3167 times:

Quoting SESGDL (Reply 14):
ATL's connecting to O&D ratio is roughly 3:1. The airport had around 25 million O&D passengers last year and accommodated 88 million passengers.

That is well above DL787932ER's statement that a "50/50 O&D/connection balance, which is considered ideal for a hub." Which based on his statement and your 3:1 ratio of connecting to O&D, ATL is too big and needs to shrink. The connecting traffic reasoning for shrinking a hub, namely CVG, that was designed for connecting traffic, does not hold up. Not a complaint, as DL767932ER states, just a fact.



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineCentPIT From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 990 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (8 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

Quoting Jdwfloyd (Reply 6):
Quickly following in the footsteps of PIT. Sorry to see it happen to another city.

I agree with you...........



Pittsburgh International: US Airways---160 daily departures! (52 destinations)
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6618 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (8 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2995 times:

Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 16):
Which based on his statement and your 3:1 ratio of connecting to O&D, ATL is too big and needs to shrink. The connecting traffic reasoning for shrinking a hub, namely CVG, that was designed for connecting traffic, does not hold up. Not a complaint, as DL767932ER states, just a fact.

ATL is moving less traffic on DL this year, than it did last year. However, there's more to the story. DL actually reduced domestic connecting capacity through ATL by a good margin. However, some of that capacity was instead replaced by international connecting capacity.

Connecting traffic isn't necessarily bad, if it's producing high enough yields. In ATL, DL is adding more high-yield connecting international traffic, while trimming down the lower yield domestic connections. In CVG, DL simply dumped a lot of the low-yield connecting traffic, but with no real increase in international flights.

CVG was designed for connecting traffic, but it was designed many years ago when connecting traffic produced better yields. I can almost guarantee you that knowing what DL knows today, they never would have built as large of a facility at CVG as they now have (a similar argument can be made at other hubs...PIT being a prime example).

I'll agree with you that DL partially killed CVG by pumping it with too much high-cost RJ capacity. These high costs don't mix well with low-yield connecting traffic. ATL has a lot of RJ's too, but it has fared better because the costs are spread across hundreds of mainline planes as well.


User currently offlineHVNandrew From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2947 times:

As others have said, I don't think CVG will ever be de-hubbed completely. But I think there will be a continued transition of mainline flights to RJ flights. I think within the next few years, CVG will shrink down to the size DFW was when DL pulled the plug. Tons of RJ flights flying way too far, with mainline service to only a dozen or so destinations. But, DL won't close CVG like they closed DFW... they really can't.

User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5465 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (8 years 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 18):
Connecting traffic isn't necessarily bad, if it's producing high enough yields. In ATL, DL is adding more high-yield connecting international traffic, while trimming down the lower yield domestic connections. In CVG, DL simply dumped a lot of the low-yield connecting traffic, but with no real increase in international flights.

CO had an investors' conference this week and presented an example that illustrates the local vs flow traffic revenue picture. They used LAX-IAH-MCO for their example. The upshot was that you don't ever want the lower-yield flow pax (LAX-MCO) displacing the higher yielding local pax. So long as local pax aren't being bumped, however, fill up the plane with flow to maximize total revenue - the percentage is irrelevant. (Whether you want to schedule additional flights to maximize the flow traffic revenue is a different problem.)

A replay of the CO conference with accompanying slides is on their website - well worth the time to listen.



I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Questions About Delta's Plan For Depeaking ATL posted Mon Dec 6 2004 05:22:24 by DocChaos
Delta Announcement 11:00 Am Today @ ATL posted Thu Oct 12 2006 09:14:29 by GFA330
Delta To Use T Concourse For International Flights posted Wed Mar 29 2006 18:54:55 by ATLIEN
Delta's Spring Schedule...especially For Masters posted Sat Mar 11 2006 19:34:21 by Flight777
Delta's Spring Schedule...especially For Masters posted Sat Mar 11 2006 19:33:58 by Flight777
Possible Flight Path For BOS-ATL? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 18:54:25 by DeltaGator
Delta: Why No Sky Saver Seats ATL To NRT? posted Mon Nov 7 2005 05:56:51 by Jumbojet
Delta Seeking DIP Financing For Ch 11 Filing posted Sat Sep 10 2005 16:05:25 by Comorin
Delta Sees Big Losses For Rest Of 2005 (Fox News) posted Wed May 11 2005 07:31:10 by Indy
Delta Offering Medallion Level For One Flight posted Tue May 3 2005 17:37:47 by Newyork355