Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
More Fuel For The Fire On CVG?  
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7528 posts, RR: 8
Posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7155 times:

Other than Delta closing its 757/767 pilot base in CVG as of April 1, today NW Airbus pilots got the new Set of Delta plates (Airport Diagrams). They were told to remove CVG and the new plates did not include CVG, of which used to be atleast a diversion point for the Airbus's. Thus essentually stating the Airbus WILL NOT go to CVG, which was highly rumored for several west flights from CVG after the merger. Food for thought.


"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSkibum9 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1229 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7100 times:

At the same time, DL announced this week that O&D out of CVG was up by a "double-digit" percentage since implementing the new fares, and that they are very happy with the results. They further expect this trend to grow.

Stating that they closed down the 757/767 pilot base at CVG is a little misleading, as they also opened a 767ER pilot base at the same time. It didn't make sense to have a 757/767 pilot base at CVG anymore because it supported domestic operations, which is mostly on MD88 and B738s now. There is no 767 domestic ops at CVG at this point, and very few 757 ops. But at the same time, there is still international flying. It was a better fit to have a 767ER base at CVG instead of relying on pilots from JFK or ATL.

For every negative rumor/fact about CVG there is a positive one. It is all speculation of what DL will do at CVG. Until DL makes an announcement of their intention to de-hub, everything is nothing but fodder, which should not be taken seriously.



Tailwinds!!!
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7076 times:

It should be clear that DL can turn on the CVG traffic when it needs to by reducing fares and can push yields up and traffic down when it wants to. DL has played with fares several times with similar results each time.
DL has a solid position in the local market that it will not walk away from regardless of what it does with the hub per se. If DL pulls down CVG any further, it will come from RJ operations since there is very little mainline left that could be flown by regional carriers but there are still a number of RJ routes that are not necessary for the local market.
Since the original plans for NW in CVG were for the 319s, DL is clearly deciding the higher costs of the 319 relative to the M88 and 738 do not justify switching out for 319s.


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3811 posts, RR: 34
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6956 times:

I happened to see this mentioned in one of the Wall Street Journal Blogs:

Delta Fare Cuts at Cincinnati: Last Chance for the Hub?

Quote:
As we previously wrote about Cincinnati, Delta Airlines, connecting traffic accounts for more than 70% of CVG's total passengers

According to the airport's website, CVG had a total of 13,630,443 passengers in 2008. So only 30% of those passengers were starting or ending their trips in CVG, rather than just passing through. That works out to just under 4.1 million O&D passengers. That seems rather low for a city whose metro population in 2008 was estimated to be 2,155,137.

Hopefully the new lower fares will bring enough people back to CVG, thus saving the hub.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineLambertMan From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2070 posts, RR: 36
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6943 times:



Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 1):
For every negative rumor/fact about CVG there is a positive one. It is all speculation of what DL will do at CVG. Until DL makes an announcement of their intention to de-hub, everything is nothing but fodder, which should not be taken seriously.

Skibum, you make a number of good points that I agree with. With that said, look at what happened when St. Louis was obviously redundant in American's network.

St. Louis began to see smoke (flight reductions, aircraft changes etc.) and where there is smoke, there is almost always eventually fire. I'm not saying that Cincinnati will turn into St. Louis, but down the road I'm not sure they can justify keeping DTW and CVG open.

As of the moment and from just purely outside speculation, one would have to think that Memphis' role in the network is more tenuous than Cincinnati, especially given Cincinnati's sizeable corporate base (P&G, Kroger, Federated, etc.)


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22684 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6885 times:



Quoting LambertMan (Reply 6):
As of the moment and from just purely outside speculation, one would have to think that Memphis' role in the network is more tenuous than Cincinnati, especially given Cincinnati's sizeable corporate base (P&G, Kroger, Federated, etc.)

I'm not sure I agree-- and the seat and destination numbers certainly don't bear this out. MEM isn't sandwiched between hubs in quite the same way that CVG is, and it seems to be a key part of DL's strategy in Texas and surrounding areas. I'm not sure that CVG is a key part of DL's strategy anywhere outside of Cincinnati (which may be good enough).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6853 times:



Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
DL is clearly deciding the higher costs of the 319 relative to the M88 and 738 do not justify switching out for 319s.

The 319 has better performance and typically lower cost than the 737 and MD-88, especially mid-long range.

Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 2):

Seems like the big wigs had other ideas. From listening to the web cast, they were extremely pleased with the performance of Cincinnati with numbers growing in the double digits (percentages

They also said:

They will NOT merge with NW
They want to be a stand-alone carrier (meaning not to merge with anyone)
They were going to take the all the BEST from both airlines
It was going to be about addition not subtraction
on and on.

No where did I say they would pull completely out of CVG, however, removing everything from the Airbus for CVG is a little odd, especially if you need a diversion station from say DTW.. now where would be a better place to divert if you needed to?



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineUSPIT10L From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 3295 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6785 times:

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 8):
They also said:

They will NOT merge with NW
They want to be a stand-alone carrier (meaning not to merge with anyone)
They were going to take the all the BEST from both airlines
It was going to be about addition not subtraction
on and on.

No one makes speculative comments during merger negotiations, Burnsie, you know that. If you have anyone to be bitter at it is Northwest's own management. They are the ones who sold out and outsourced everything they could way before they had to. A solid franchise and brand was flushed right down the toilet. My beef with NWA had more to do with how the employees were treated as a whole, rather than how the operation was run on a day-to-day basis.

[Edited 2009-04-22 18:58:12]


It's a Great Day for Hockey!
User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6724 times:



Quoting Burnsie28 (Thread starter):
They were told to remove CVG and the new plates did not include CVG, of which used to be atleast a diversion point for the Airbus's. Thus essentually stating the Airbus WILL NOT go to CVG, which was highly rumored for several west flights from CVG after the merger.

This doesn't make sense to me at all. As a pilot, why in the world would they pull a chart from their approach plates at a major airport in the middle of the east coast/midwest corridor?



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 6718 times:



Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 10):
This doesn't make sense to me at all. As a pilot, why in the world would they pull a chart from their approach plates at a major airport in the middle of the east coast/midwest corridor?

You got me, but DL didn't give them a CVG plate and they can't use the NW plate since they are moving towards an SOC.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 680 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6660 times:



Quoting Burnsie28 (Thread starter):
Thus essentually stating the Airbus WILL NOT go to CVG, which was highly rumored for several west flights from CVG after the merger.

Since there are no NW employees at CVG (and afaik, no one on here has even mentioned a rumor of NW employees going to CVG), how would those Airbus planes be handled at CVG? The DL employees are not allowed to touch them, until the union contract issue is worked out, right?


Maybe DL had wanted to fly them to CVG, but with the union deal being dragged out, have decided to move to plan B. I don't think this says anything at all about CVG. Unless, of course, one has an agenda, then one can read into it however one needs to to make it fit....


User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7505 posts, RR: 28
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6617 times:

Apparently DL loaded a number of schedule changes recently, taking effect in July, in an attempt to rebalance CVG and DTW. This includes some of the following changes:

DTW-TRI: goes from 2x daily now, to 1x daily in June, to cut in July
DTW-CRW: loses a frequency
DTW-EVV: loses 2 frequencies
CVG-ALB: loses frequencies
CVG-ORD loses frequencies

There are about 20 markets that are being rebalanced between DTW and CVG in July. Generally, 2nd and 3rd tier markets closer to CVG are losing DTW frequencies. 2nd & 3rd tier markets closer to DTW are being reduced at CVG. I haven't been able to pour through the July schedule, but some of these changes are evident to help maintain the duality of DTW and CVG.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
It should be clear that DL can turn on the CVG traffic when it needs to by reducing fares and can push yields up and traffic down when it wants to. DL has played with fares several times with similar results each time.

Yep. Reminds me of Simplifares, circa 2003.

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 4):
Since the original plans for NW in CVG were for the 319s, DL is clearly deciding the higher costs of the 319 relative to the M88 and 738 do not justify switching out for 319s.

I think it has to do with how CVG "flows". Many aircraft that do the CVG-West Coast routes come in from or go out to East Coast destinations. Example: The 8-9am departure bank all utilizes 73W, and 738 a/c that originate in places like BOS, LGA, DCA, etc.

DL's first priority for cross-fleeting the A319's appears to be directed at replacing MD-88's on the Northeast-Florida routes (e.g, LGA-FLL), as well as replacing long/thin Trans-Cons (e.g., TPA-LAX, JAX-LAX) where the route can't fill a ~150 seat a/c with decent yields.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 8):
The 319 has better performance and typically lower cost than the 737 and MD-88, especially mid-long range.

True, but short-range its a wash, particularly if you can fill the seats.

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 10):
This doesn't make sense to me at all. As a pilot, why in the world would they pull a chart from their approach plates at a major airport in the middle of the east coast/midwest corridor?

I'm not familar with how plates are distributed, but I agree, why would all NW-legacy and DL fleet types not carry CVG plates? Its a hub for the airline and could act as a diversion airport. Say, for example DTW is socked in a blizzard, why wouldn't they divert a SFO-DTW flight to CVG (assuming CVG is open) an attempt to redistribute pax in the network?


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22684 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 6605 times:



Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 13):
DTW-TRI: goes from 2x daily now, to 1x daily in June, to cut in July

Wasn't TRI how the Saabs were getting to and from ATL for ATL-HHH?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6509 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 12):
Since there are no NW employees at CVG (and afaik, no one on here has even mentioned a rumor of NW employees going to CVG), how would those Airbus planes be handled at CVG? The DL employees are not allowed to touch them, until the union contract issue is worked out, right?


Maybe DL had wanted to fly them to CVG, but with the union deal being dragged out, have decided to move to plan B. I don't think this says anything at all about CVG.

True but this doesn't cover diversion stations, not even giving them a chart for CVG is really letting the rumors fly wild on the NW pilot side of things. However, it still was and makes a good diversion station if need be, but it can't be utilized now.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7505 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 6318 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14):
Wasn't TRI how the Saabs were getting to and from ATL for ATL-HHH?

Yes, TRI was the Saab bridge into ATL. Can't find if a new one opens up in July. Looks like they are cutting DTW-TRI, to shore up CVG-TRI and ATL-TRI.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 6194 times:



Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 8):
The 319 has better performance and typically lower cost than the 737 and MD-88, especially mid-long range.

On a trip basis, yes. On a per seat basis, no.

Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 13):
There are about 20 markets that are being rebalanced between DTW and CVG in July. Generally, 2nd and 3rd tier markets closer to CVG are losing DTW frequencies. 2nd & 3rd tier markets closer to DTW are being reduced at CVG. I haven't been able to pour through the July schedule, but some of these changes are evident to help maintain the duality of DTW and CVG.

Precisely. DL knows there is a certain amount of internal competition in its network. they want to balance it, not eliminate it or enhance it.

Far too many people fail to appreciate that if DL walks away from a hub, they have a very good chance of losing the local traffic and the international flights. A small hub highly "controlled" hub is the best way DL can maintain the local market. We are still talking about dropping or adding a couple RJ destinations or two; the fundamental footprint of the hub is not unchanged - major cities on both coast and key hubs served by mainline flying, 50 seat and large RJ service east of the Rockies, and several transatlantic flights which constitute the majority of DL's CVG revenue and profits. If you take the hub apart you cannot support the international flights; DOT data shows CVG int'l flights generate higher than average fares when compared with other flights on DL's system to the same destinations and over the past 3 years, those fares have stayed proportionately higher despite the pullbacks on the domestic CVG flights.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22684 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 6009 times:



Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 16):
Yes, TRI was the Saab bridge into ATL. Can't find if a new one opens up in July. Looks like they are cutting DTW-TRI, to shore up CVG-TRI and ATL-TRI.

I'm stumped, too. I checked TLH, GTR, CRW, ROA, and LEX. It's none of those, and MEM-TRI isn't restarting.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineNWAESC From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3380 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5964 times:



Quoting Skibum9 (Reply 1):
Stating that they closed down the 757/767 pilot base at CVG is a little misleading, as they also opened a 767ER pilot base at the same time.

Dumb question, but why would you open a base for a subfleet type? Aren't DL's pilots both 757/767 rated? Is there something so dramatically different about the ER, or is it a case of domestic & Int'l flying being separate?

Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 12):
Since there are no NW employees at CVG (and afaik, no one on here has even mentioned a rumor of NW employees going to CVG), how would those Airbus planes be handled at CVG? The DL employees are not allowed to touch them, until the union contract issue is worked out, right?

Correct, sort of. Since there's no NWA people there, there's no scope clause to violate. Sort of like how DL M/L works NWA flights in SLC.

That of course doesn't relate to the flying *itself*, just the ground ops part....

Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 12):
Maybe DL had wanted to fly them to CVG, but with the union deal being dragged out, have decided to move to plan B.

See above. Nothing stopping them from flying NW planes into CVG, just like there's nothing stopping them from doing so in SLC now.



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5946 times:



Quoting NWAESC (Reply 19):
Aren't DL's pilots both 757/767 rated?

DL's 757/767 pilots are divided into Domestic and International only flying. So guys can either fly only domestic legs or only international, nothing in between.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 793 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5873 times:



Quoting Burnsie28 (Thread starter):
They were told to remove CVG and the new plates did not include CVG, of which used to be atleast a diversion point for the Airbus's.

DL does this on a regular basis. It has to do with cost savings with the master list. It is somehow cheaper to pull them even if they know they are going to re-insert them 2 months later. The pilot carried charts are primarily for regular airports, not alternates. Alternate airport charts are carried in the brick, or the aircraft ship set and are used for diversions.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 15):
True but this doesn't cover diversion stations, not even giving them a chart for CVG is really letting the rumors fly wild on the NW pilot side of things. However, it still was and makes a good diversion station if need be, but it can't be utilized now.

How often does NW actually send aircraft to CVG on diversions. The point of a diversion is to get the aircraft back to the intended destination ASAP. Why would they overfly airports such as FWA, DAY, CMH, all of which are closer, just to go to CVG? Not to mention that they can go to FNT, LAN, MBS, etc. I would also guarantee that CVG plates will be in the brick so if they really had to use it, they still can. The 767 fleet pulled out MSP charts earlier this year only to put them back in recently with the start of the crossfleeting. Your argument is without merit.

Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 20):
DL's 757/767 pilots are divided into Domestic and International only flying. So guys can either fly only domestic legs or only international, nothing in between.

Not necessarily true. Yes, they are different categories but domestic vs international is a very loose translation. 767 domestic pilots fly pleanty of international flying. All of the Carribean, Mexico, and northern Latin America is coverted by domestic. The ER category covers all flying with Oceanic Operations, including the domestic legs of HI. However, the company reserves the right to put domestic, non-oceanic legs in the ER category and does every month in ATL and CVG. So, just because the CVG base is ER does not mean that they can not fly domestic legs. The domestic legs that they fly must be in an ER category bid package.

727forever



727forever
User currently offlineBurnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7528 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5799 times:



Quoting 727forever (Reply 21):
How often does NW actually send aircraft to CVG on diversions. The point of a diversion is to get the aircraft back to the intended destination ASAP. Why would they overfly airports such as FWA, DAY, CMH, all of which are closer, just to go to CVG?

Same reason we got diversions here in GFK one day when MSP was bad. We got a 757 from LGA, A319's from PHL and EWR, and DC-9 from CMH... all of which MSN, MKE, GRB, DLH, etc etc etc are closer on their route.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 21):
The point of a diversion is to get the aircraft back to the intended destination ASAP.

That may be, but often times when weather goes south in a hub, if they have to and think they can accomodate people better at other hubs they will do so, I remember 4 years ago when a BIS flight to MSP overflew MSP and went to DTW instead, I happen to fly on that A320 to ATL that day, after connecting in MSP myself, which was the same day we got diversions to GFK, in fact I got on the 757 from LGA instead of the original GFK-MSP flight. As for being in the brick, they don't know, they are not allowed to open that unless they absolutely need to.



"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5751 times:



Quoting 727forever (Reply 21):
I would also guarantee that CVG plates will be in the brick so if they really had to use it, they still can. The 767 fleet pulled out MSP charts earlier this year only to put them back in recently with the start of the crossfleeting. Your argument is without merit

From a pilot, this makes all the sense and puts all the hopplah to rest.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 21):
So, just because the CVG base is ER does not mean that they can not fly domestic legs. The domestic legs that they fly must be in an ER category bid package.

And the converse is not true... domestic 75/76 pilots cannot fly overwater/int'l. It is cheaper for DL to have one category which can handle everything 75/76 than to have to continue to rotate 767 pilots at the European stations or deadhead them from ATL.
I would suppose it is also true that if DL had plans to pull down CVG international flying, they wouldn't have bothered to put a 76ER int'l base there.


User currently offlineEnilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6999 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5716 times:



Quoting FlyASAGuy2005 (Reply 2):
But you're right, "more fuel for the fire" which you're glad to add huh.

Given that a.net attracts the most knowledgeable people about the industry, it always amazes me that there are more contrarians here than anywhere else.

The bottom line is that CVG is down 30% in DL departures July 09/08. 379 to 266
CVG is losing another 13 flights just between March 2009 and July 2009.

ATL is up 8% for July
DTW is down 3% for July
MSP is flat
SLC is up 3%
MEM is down 3%
JFK is flat

Looks like the writing is on the wall to me. Mainline departures at CVG next month are only 39, down from 60 last May.


User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 9
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5562 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 18):
I'm stumped, too. I checked TLH, GTR, CRW, ROA, and LEX. It's none of those, and MEM-TRI isn't restarting.

Could you bridge them through BNA perhaps??



Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3791 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4363 times:



Quoting DTW.SCE" class=quote target=_blank>PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 13):
Apparently DL loaded a number of schedule changes recently, taking effect in July, in an attempt to rebalance CVG and DTW. This includes some of the following changes:

DTW-TRI: goes from 2x daily now, to 1x daily in June, to cut in July
DTW-crw: loses a frequency
DTW-EVV: loses 2 frequencies
CVG-ALB: loses frequencies
CVG-ORD loses frequencies

There are about 20 markets that are being rebalanced between DTW and CVG in July. Generally, 2nd and 3rd tier markets closer to CVG are losing DTW frequencies. 2nd & 3rd tier markets closer to DTW are being reduced at CVG. I haven't been able to pour through the July schedule, but some of these changes are evident to help maintain the duality of DTW and CVG.

What they appear to be doing is interesting and goes against the whole "cvg is being killed" mentality.

In June CRW-CVG goes from 3x to 2x and ATL goes from 4x to 5x. In July CRW-DTW goes from 3x to 2x, with both flights being jets. There will no longer be a morning flight to DTW ( cant say I understand that). Also in July, CRW-CVG goes back to 3x.


25 Enilria : Huh?
26 Nwaesc : What happened to the announced strategy of timing hubs (in this case DTW & CVG) to compliment each other, rather than cannibalizing each other? Is tha
27 Kcrwflyer : You dont normally add anything on to a hub you're completely removing. ( see PIT ). As PSU.DTW.SCE said, there are about 20 markets where a similar"s
28 727forever : I think the key in your statement is "one day." If necessary, one day, the pilots can pull out CVG charts from the brick and divert to CVG. If they a
29 727forever : Exactly. DL went to great cost to convert the CVG base to an ER base. They wouldn't have done this if they were just going to close the hub and move
30 Flyguy89 : and add to that Chiquita, American Financial Corp., Fidelity, Toyota, 5/3 Bank, and Duke Energy. As stated above, for every negative rumor/fact there
31 WorldTraveler : Despite repeated statements for over a year that DL does not intend to pull out of any of its hubs, a.netters have continued to jump to conclusions t
32 Post contains links Burnsie28 : Ok, its happened on several occasions that we get diversions, everything up to a 753. We have recieved flights that have had to overpass MSP to get h
33 PSU.DTW.SCE : Burnsie, that is as bad of a rumor starter as is when people get all excited when they paint the j-lines at gates for aircraft that don't currently s
34 Brilondon : Things change. DL and the NW merger is happening and although I don't like it one bit I have to accept this as fact. NW is one of the worst airlines
35 Cubsrule : I just posted this in another thread, but it might be more on-topic here, so I'll post it. I do think we're going to see CVG start getting scaled dow
36 LAXDESI : Total US aviation traffic is about 700 million passengers with a population of around 300 million--a ratio of 2.33. CVG ratio of 2 is not too far off
37 Flyguy89 : I agree only because this type of flying distorts the O&D market of CVG. DL should try and make CVG the hub of the tri-state region. By connecting pa
38 Ocracoke : Many? Now how did you come up with that. Did you hire an agency to run a scientific poll over at NW/DL and ask the what they thought the chances of C
39 NWAESC : For roughly the last 10 years or so, it was one DC9/daily, some SF3's, and a lot of RJ85's (there was the XJ hangar there as well). Then it went to a
40 Ocracoke : The noonish flight to MSP is a small, silver painted with red tail B737 looking thingy with winglets....and I know NW doesn't have any B737.....
41 Burnsie28 : 0900 departure to CVG arrives 1157 into CVG NW 1857 1240 departure to MSP arrives 1348 into MSP NW 1852
42 NWAESC : Well, then change my post from "could be wrong," to "am dead wrong." BTW, I would describe the E75 as an Airbus that was left in the dryer too long..
43 Jkudall : DL leadership has publicly stated all NW hubs would see a capacity decrease and that CVG cuts would place it at about the same size as MEM or slightl
44 Flyguy89 : My apologies on the numbers mix-up with the population. I agree, population is not a good gauge for demand, I was just being facetious about the post
45 Cubsrule : NW has also historically priced MEM more as a reliever hub than what DL has done at CVG-- connections that are reasonably done over multiple hubs (OR
46 AADC10 : With all of the legacy carriers cutting capacity, CVG will probably go the way of STL, only faster. Like UA at LAX, DL will probably not even say CVG
47 Cubsrule : ...which is probably at a level which is significantly larger than what AA has at STL; at the time AA bought TW, WN had about 90 daily flights at STL
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...
More Fuel For The VS 777 Rumour. posted Tue Jun 1 2004 18:46:05 by Intheknow
Will There Be More Orders For The Boeing 717? posted Fri Nov 25 2005 04:18:50 by Kaitak744
1 More Order For The A345. posted Sun Nov 20 2005 02:40:47 by AirbusDriver
JAT Using Tunisian Mechanics! More Fuel For Saga. posted Sun Mar 27 2005 11:34:13 by UN_B732
Bang For The Buck On CX-JFK-HKG?LAX-HKG? posted Mon Jan 24 2005 01:11:15 by ASTROJET707
MOre Butter For The UA/US Merger posted Mon Feb 26 2001 00:35:19 by Exusair
No More 727 For The Delta Shuttle. posted Tue Jan 9 2001 19:29:35 by American 767
More Turbulence For CLE On The Horizon posted Wed Jul 2 2003 21:27:29 by Alpha 1
The Crew DID Buy The Fuel For BN502 posted Mon Apr 13 2009 06:08:41 by Isitsafenow
Any Updates On Additional LCF's For The 787? posted Sat Dec 15 2007 09:55:18 by LimoJet