RampGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1857 times:
Just curious why the only Delta Connection carrier not to fly to IND is Skywest. Anyone know why? I'm going to guess that Skywest feels that IND does not have the O/D to warrant starting service to IND.
JayDub From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1770 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 2): My understanding is that the major airline puts routes / destinations in packages.
Correct. With the exception of "at-risk" flights (flying where OO sets the pricing and pays the fuel bills), the major partner tells us where to go. We come back and tell them if we can logistically handle the new destination with any aircraft performance issues and crew placement that may come up.
Quoting Willbdsp (Reply 3): And the fact that Shuttle America/Chautauqua are headquartered in IND as well as have a base there could have something to do with it.
Not likely as SkyWest operates ORD-IND into Shuttle America territory under the UAX banner.
It likely has to do with what hubs the regional carriers fly into. SkyWest only has a DL presence east of SLC with a very small CRJ-900 base in ATL. Now, if DL wanted to operate ATL-IND on a CRJ-900, SkyWest could very well cover that. But to operate CVG or JFK to IND, that would require an aircraft and crew to flow through CVG or JFK....two places where SkyWest has little to no presence.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21286 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1559 times:
Quoting JayDub (Reply 7): Not likely as SkyWest operates ORD-IND into Shuttle America territory under the UAX banner.
...but so does S5. Other things being equal, affiliate carriers are more likely to fly into their bases. Of course, if DL felt that CR9s were warranted, that would mean that OO or 9E would have to fly to IND.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
RampGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1445 times:
Hey, here is a novel idea. Why doesn't Delta just stop being stubborn and bring back the IND-SLC flight and stop thinking that this route was not profitable when in fact it was and use the Skywest CR9?
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8774 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 1433 times:
Quoting RampGuy (Reply 10): Hey, here is a novel idea. Why doesn't Delta just stop being stubborn and bring back the IND-SLC flight and stop thinking that this route was not profitable when in fact it was and use the Skywest CR9?
Maybe because the cost of oil has essentially doubled since that route was discontinued and would most likely be unprofitable to run at this time.
Besides, how do you know that IND-SLC was profitable when it was discontinued?
DeltAirlines From United States of America, joined May 1999, 8774 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (5 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1396 times:
Quoting Rampguy (Reply 12): Because the flights were full all the time. And before you say that full flights don't necessarily
make it profitable, let me remind you that the customers only paid the fare that Delta published.
OK - it still doesn't mean full flights are profitable. A lot of those people could have been on L/U/T tickets, which are not necessarily going to be making profit for DL. Assuming a CASM of about 10 cents/mile (not unreasonable to expect on an RJ on a route of this length), DL would have to be making around $135 per one-way segment to break even ($271 round-trip to be exact for the round-trip). And that's just on the IND-SLC-IND segment; it doesn't include any beyond segments for passengers going on to the West Coast, etc. You take a passenger that's flying IND-SLC-LAX-SLC-IND at a 10 cents/mile CASM and you'd need a roundtrip of $389 before taxes to achieve that amount. There are quite possibly a number of seats on that plane that are being sold below that cost.
DL could have been trying to simply fill seats on that flight thus reducing the cost the it took to operate that flight. It's not hard to achieve high load factors on any given route - just price it cheap enough. Yes, it's partially on DL for having the route and having to mitigate their losses, but they eventually had enough of it.
After all, look at the Delta Shuttle. You could have a 50% load factor on those flights, but the vast majority of those passengers are paying full-fare at about $250 one way. That comes out to be an average RASM of 50 cents/mile. Heck, even with a 30% load factor with a lot of those full fares (which does happen), it's still a RASM of about 25 cents/mile. Thus, that 30% full plane is profitable. Or you could have the fully-loaded IND-SLC route that might have had a lot of people that were simply covering their own travel or being loss-fares and the airline loses money on a full flight.
Again - it's a simple fact that loads aren't the factor of profitability - it's the yields that are.