Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DL SLC Hub Prospects  
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 857 posts, RR: 1
Posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10406 times:

With the decline and imminent hub-status loss for CVG and MEM and TPAC growth at SEA, what will become of DL's SLC hub? Will DL try to grow it? Or will more traffic be routed through SEA, MSP and DTW and therefore cause a similar demise as CVG and DTW?

108 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7982 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10393 times:

CVG and MEM are not only redundant, they have been slowly dying. SLC has shrunk a bit (like most hubs) but has held strong and most importantly, it's not redundant. SLC and DEN are really the only 2 hubs that can effectively serve that region


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10343 times:

I foresee pretty much the status-quo in the long term: a smaller-sized efficient Western and largely domestic hub. It works for them and it's probably ideally right-sized so I can't see DL tinkering with the operations there much beyond that.

User currently offlinefrontierflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 216 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10309 times:

I see the opposite happening, that would leave a big hole. CVG and MEM are too close by other hubs. If anything I see growth.

User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10250 times:

Quoting questions (Thread starter):
With the decline and imminent hub-status loss for CVG and MEM and TPAC growth at SEA, what will become of DL's SLC hub?

Nothing happens unless they merge. They need it for geographic coverage.


User currently offlineB4REAL From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2661 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10227 times:

Also consider the growth at LAX as a part of the equation, while a different market and not entirely a hub, it I think is a cause of the slight overall service cuts at SLC. I think MSP is holding it's ground for a good "midsection hub function" of the country, compared to CVG and MEM. SLC is in an unclear direction honestly, and LAX and SEA are doing well (and on a growing trend) by DL's standards.


B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10104 times:

SLC is doing fine and will continue to do fine. It has actually seen quite significant growth in mainline and large RJ departures in recent years, with service on 50-seaters and props diminishing. Also, look at WN in SLC. In the last year or two WN has cut BOI, RNO, ABQ, MCI, etc. as DEN has taken over that capacity. And there is not much other LCC competition for DL in SLC with a market that is more-or-less captive (if you want to drive to anywhere from SLC, you're going to be driving a while), and a strong local economy with both business and tourist demand throughout the year.

Markets that DL serves only from SLC:
EUG
MFR
RDM
LWS
SUN
TWF
PIH
IDA
BTM
WYS
COD
GCC
CPR
RKS
OAK
FAT
BUR
LGB
PSP (also has seasonal MSP service?)
RNO
EKO
SGU
CDC
GJT

For DL, there is not another viable hub for most of those destinations.



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlineB4REAL From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2661 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9947 times:

Quoting FSDan (Reply 6):
Markets that DL serves only from SLC:

That is an important measure of hub strength, markets only served by SLC. Excellent reply. RR Click for you.



B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9887 times:

I might be in the minority here, but if DL wants SLC to be a thing - they need to make it a thing.

I know I frequently harp on people for not understanding the actual statistics of routes, and frequently people don't look. But I do know a lot of the numbers, and I still believe that in some cases building a hub has to do with "...and it will come".

Chickens and eggs are serious topics, but if Delta wants to capture contracts and the like, the flights have to exist.

On the flip side, DL may believe the revenue available West of the Mississippi isn't significant enough that a small SLC and a robust MSP can't serve it... but MSP is way up there, Northerly speaking.

NS


User currently onlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9809 times:

Quoting questions (Thread starter):

flat with some limited growth in the domestic market.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4):
Nothing happens unless they merge.

nothing happens period. Again, SEA would have to be moved fairly far south to be able to hand the flows SLC does

Quoting FSDan (Reply 6):
OAK

Has LAX flights.



yep.
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7773 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9807 times:

I feel like this question comes up every month and the answer is always the same.

SLC is expected to remain status-quo and is not in any danger of being drastically cut/changed/altered/reduced in this CURRENT economic and revenue environment.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9824 times:

I don't think that DL can sustain their weirdness at LAX and do more on the West Coast in general.

LAX is a war and it isn't one DL can profitably win. They can take traffic away from United, perhaps crush AA a bit harder, but can they make money doing it?

NS


User currently offlineboslax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 106 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9785 times:

Quoting B4REAL (Reply 7):
That is an important measure of hub strength, markets only served by SLC

Not sure I completely agree with that assesment.

Among the 24 DL markets listed as only being served from SLC, three of them are Essential Air Service (EAS) markets (BTM, CDC, and WYS). Meaning they cannot be profitably served withouth gov't subsidy. Nine of the markets are SkyWest "At Risk markets" (CPR, COD, EKO, GCC, PIH, RKS, SGU, SUN, and TWF). Meaning Delta does not want to take the risk in serving those markets with a fee/departure structure. With that said, the At Risk markets for SkyWest peform well financially.

Combined, the 24 markets listed represent a little less than 1% of Delta's total passenger revenue. I'm sure each of these communities view nonstop service to SLC as important, however, not sure if Delta does. With Delta's looming major reduction in 50 seat RJ flying, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these markets eliminated.

SLC serves a niche on Delta's system that has value. Some tweaks may occur down the road, but nothing major. The greatest operating feature that SLC has - the lowest cost per enplanment among large hub airports.

[Edited 2012-11-26 19:21:47]

User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9772 times:

Yeah that is definitely an option as well... on the flip side, I wonder what the DOLLAR value of that 1% is?

I am from COS, and I can tell you that most airlines have enjoyed laughing all the way to the bank from such mountain West cities - I bet DL is no different to those markets.

NS


User currently offlineDeltaDC8 From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 15 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 9751 times:

With Delta's continued commitment to SLC what is going on with the Terminal situation? Seems that they are a bit antiquated and constrained.


Clear Skies Above
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7773 posts, RR: 27
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9726 times:

Quoting boslax (Reply 12):
Combined, the 24 markets listed represent a little less than 1% of Delta's total passenger revenue. I'm sure each of these communities view nonstop service to SLC as important, however, not sure if Delta does. With Delta's looming major reduction in 50 seat RJ flying, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these markets eliminated.

Exactly. DL significantly pared-down the EAS flying in the Upper Midwest from DTW and MSP with the Saab 340 retirement. Granted, the fact that much of the flying is "at-risk" helps that DL bearing the true cost burden of these flights.

I would not be surprised to see some reductions in the future to some of the 50 seat markets out of SLC. DL will have to decide if it can still profitably (or reasonably unprofitably on a micro-level) serve some of these unique markets.


User currently offlinejetmatt777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2852 posts, RR: 33
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9716 times:

Quoting DeltaDC8 (Reply 14):
With Delta's continued commitment to SLC what is going on with the Terminal situation? Seems that they are a bit antiquated and constrained.

I believe there was a proposal from SLC recently that addressed an expanded terminal/concourse.

From January:
SLC To Get Brand New Terminal (by tan1mill Jan 17 2012 in Civil Aviation)



No info
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9510 times:

Quoting boslax (Reply 12):
With Delta's looming major reduction in 50 seat RJ flying, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these markets eliminated.

But how many of those "at risk" cities are operated with Brasilias?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7982 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9466 times:

Well, there is much speculation going around. I know the execs won't flat out say anything drastic (look at CVG and MEM, they weren't condemned or anything) so we need to look at the recent history of the SLC hub. I don't have the numbers on me, but IIRC, SLC hasn't been cut very much (not much more or as much as MSP and DTW) and compared to CVG and MEM, SLC is light years away shrinkage-wise.

Now I don't see SLC becoming the west coast ATL (or really that much bigger than SLC is now) but I really don't think LAX can put too much of a dent in SLC... even as a full hub (which DL seems to be struggling to make) SLC will still have a unique market/position and SEA is just so far up I doubt it would really disrupt SLC ops at all.

SLC is no DEN, but it's the next best thing. The Rockies aren't a gold mine but just having SLC or DEN makes you a player in that region... I don't see SLC going anywhere soon, LAX/SEA hubs or not



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently onlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9440 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 11):

Delta has, finally, started to become fairly stable at LAX. Growth is now limited by gate space(some of the DCI flights are being parked at the hangar and PAX bused to T5.)
I do think LAX for Delta will stay fairly flat now.

Quoting DeltaDC8 (Reply 14):

SLC is starting the first phase of moving to a ATL/DEN model airport.



yep.
User currently offlinejetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3365 posts, RR: 35
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9383 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 11):

I don't think that DL can sustain their weirdness at LAX and do more on the West Coast in general.

LAX is a war and it isn't one DL can profitably win. They can take traffic away from United, perhaps crush AA a bit harder, but can they make money doing it?

NS

Yet, Delta is actually solidly profitable at LAX. Go figure.


User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9081 times:

Quoting FSDan (Reply 6):
Markets that DL serves only from SLC

While it is useful to look at that list of relatively small markets, I also find it useful to look at the geography of SLC for connections between larger cities that are also served by other hubs. Connections like SFO-ABQ, BOI-PHX, PDX-AUS, DEN-(California) etc., can be served quite well via SLC, while they wouldn't work nearly as well via MSP, LAX, or SEA. That geographic efficiency is another big reason that the SLC hub isn't going away. Nothing else in the DL system can replace it.



Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 759 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 9034 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 9):
Quoting FSDan (Reply 6):
OAK

Has LAX flights.

Good call.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 21):
While it is useful to look at that list of relatively small markets, I also find it useful to look at the geography of SLC for connections between larger cities that are also served by other hubs. Connections like SFO-ABQ, BOI-PHX, PDX-AUS, DEN-(California) etc., can be served quite well via SLC, while they wouldn't work nearly as well via MSP, LAX, or SEA. That geographic efficiency is another big reason that the SLC hub isn't going away. Nothing else in the DL system can replace it.

  



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8919 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 9):
Quoting enilria (Reply 4):
Nothing happens unless they merge.

nothing happens period. Again, SEA would have to be moved fairly far south to be able to hand the flows SLC does

If you think DL keeps SLC in any merger scenario you need to get a random drug test. It would become CVG if DL obtained another strong Western hub. If we are talking about AS as the merger partner then it is murkier. It is probable that PDX would lose out to SLC in that scenario, but it is also possible that DL would build up LAX significantly. You'd be surprised how much of the SLC connecting flow is SoCal to PacNW. I think the argument could be made that with a bigger LAX, SEA, and MSP that SLC offers very little unique flow. Cutting PDX is the more obvious move, though.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17829 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8735 times:

Quoting jetmatt777 (Reply 16):
I believe there was a proposal from SLC recently that addressed an expanded terminal/concourse.

From January:
SLC To Get Brand New Terminal (by tan1mill Jan 17 2012 in Civil Aviation)

PIT, care to chime in here? IND, how's that beautiful new terminal doin'?  



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offline93Sierra From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8848 times:

I would love to see OO run a 2x daily IWA/AZA to SLC

User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8733 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
PIT, care to chime in here? IND, how's that beautiful new terminal doin'?

SLC is taking a pragmatic approach to new terminal construction. The plan calls for the new facility to be built in phases with I think 4 possible stopping points along the way. They are also re-using some portions of the current facility. If market conditions change, construction could be suspended at any of those points, with a perfectly functional facility that will feel pretty complete. Some portions of the existing facility are about 60 years old, have very poor energy efficiency, don't meet current seismic codes, and truely need to be replaced. Those areas will be mostly be replaced or renovated in the earlier phases of the project. So the highest priorities are in the early phases and the polish items are in the later phases.

Personally, as a flyer who transits SLC fairly often, I'm just excited about all of the new food service updates that have opened there in the past few months. I applaud them for investing in improving the passenger experience right now, even though there is a plan in motion to replace it all fairly soon. As a former resident of SLC, I'm especially excited that they brought in a bunch of local franchises, particularly Cafe Rio and Greek Souvlaki, two of my favorites.



Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8852 times:

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 26):
Some portions of the existing facility are about 60 years old, have very poor energy efficiency, don't meet current seismic codes, and truely need to be replaced.

True.......even the newest concourse (not counting E), is D, which was opened in '84, which would make it almost 30 years old.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 26):
As a former resident of SLC, I'm especially excited that they brought in a bunch of local franchises, particularly Cafe Rio and Greek Souvlaki, two of my favorites.

Where are those located? Haven't seen those yet. A far cry from the days when the only sit down restaurants were in Terminal 1 and there was very little choice of places to eat in #2.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8850 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
I think the argument could be made that with a bigger LAX, SEA, and MSP that SLC offers very little unique flow.

That sounds a bit like AA trying (and failing) to serve the interior west with ORD, DFW, and LAX. UA would be the big winner in the west if DL ever dropped SLC.



Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8688 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 8):
I know I frequently harp on people for not understanding the actual statistics of routes, and frequently people don't look. But I do know a lot of the numbers, and I still believe that in some cases building a hub has to do with "...and it will come".

Chickens and eggs are serious topics, but if Delta wants to capture contracts and the like, the flights have to exist.

I'm not quite sure I follow you here. What numbers are you talking about? Number of flights? Number of Seats, destinations served, market share?

I don't think contracts is a big issue. SLC is Delta's. It may not be the biggest market, but what percentage of companies are going to seek contracts with other airlines that they would have to connect to get everywhere? I bet the majority of companies in SLC that do not contract with DL, have hq's in some city that hubs with another airline, and they mostly fly just between SLC and that city alone.


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8709 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
PIT, care to chime in here? IND, how's that beautiful new terminal doin'?

SLC is not comparable to those cities and this investment for them is much less risky. The SLC airport has no debt and can afford to pay for these terminals plus DL is in full support of the terminals and wants this to happen. They are being built working with Delta to resolve their current problems and make it an even better hub. The terminals will not have a huge increase in operating expenses and Delta is in full support plus SLC is much safer and this is an investment they wont regret.

The new terminals are also needed since the airport was never designed to handle the traffic it sees today plus they would need to spend money to improve earthquake standards on the current terminals anyway so it also makes sense to do it and also offer a facility that better meets the needs of Delta.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8589 times:

Quoting questions (Thread starter):
Or will more traffic be routed through SEA, MSP and DTW and therefore cause a similar demise as CVG and DTW?

I find the above to contradict its self in reference to DTW, if more traffic is routed through DTW causing it to what, contract?



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 8453 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 27):
Where are those located? Haven't seen those yet. A far cry from the days when the only sit down restaurants were in Terminal 1 and there was very little choice of places to eat in #2.

Top of the C concourse, near the terminal 2 security point. The former Dick Clark Grill has been replaced by Market Street Grill (which is a full-service restaurant and also a local favorite). Cafe Rio and Greek Souvlaki are in the nearby food court, together with McD's.

The airport had an offical grand opening for 13 new food outlets this month. Here are a few news clips about it:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8...ocal-flavor-to-dining-options.html
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/5.../airport-lake-salt-dining.html.csp



Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8292 times:

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 28):
Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
I think the argument could be made that with a bigger LAX, SEA, and MSP that SLC offers very little unique flow.

That sounds a bit like AA trying (and failing) to serve the interior west with ORD, DFW, and LAX. UA would be the big winner in the west if DL ever dropped SLC.

Clearly SEA is superior to DFW as an inter-West connect point by multiples. Don't really think that is much of a comparison. A connect via SEA is two hours less than a connect via DFW in hundreds of Inter-west O&Ds. ORD/MSP and LAX/LAX are comparable.

The better question is SLC vs. SEA. Here are DL's top 15 connect routings via SLC from DB1B by volume. These are doing 15 to 30 passengers per day each way.

1) PHX-SEA (non-stop to SEA)
2) DFW-BOI (LAX worse, but possible)
3) LAS-BWI (numerous other options)
4) LAS-GEG (LAX or SEA similar)
5) STL-LAS (MSP or LAX similar)
6) OKC-SEA (MSP or LAX worse, or non-stop SEA)
7) SEA-LAS (non-stop to SEA)
8) SEA-MEM (non-stop to SEA)
9) DFW-PDX (SEA or non-stop if PDX hub retained)
10) SAN-STL (LAX better)
11) OAK-MSP (non-stop to MSP)
12) SAN-SEA (non-stop to SEA)
13) SMF-MCO (numerous other options)
14) BOI-LAS (LAX slightly worse)
15) LAS-SAT (LAX about the same)

I think you can see why the SLC hub isn't more profitable. Low-yield LAS connects dominate the list. Anyway, that stuff is all fairly well covered with SEA and LAX if there was a merger and some capacity diverted to filling the gaps..


User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6120 posts, RR: 14
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 8122 times:

Quoting boslax (Reply 12):
Essential Air Service (EAS) markets (BTM,

BTM is an interesting market, and I think the winner here is SkyWest. Based on BTS data, while there has been some dropoff in pax boardings, I really don't see a reason why the market had to go EAS at all. I think DL just gave up.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7688 times:

Why did DL can SLC-NRT so quickly? Was it not doing well?

I know there are some performance issues on the SLC-NRT leg, but a 77L would fix that.

By all accounts, SLC-CDG is safe and doing well.


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7243 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 35):
Why did DL can SLC-NRT so quickly? Was it not doing well?

I know there are some performance issues on the SLC-NRT leg, but a 77L would fix that.

By all accounts, SLC-CDG is safe and doing well.

Delta operated the route IIRC for two summers. The 777 is too big for the route. The A330 is a better size but it had weight restrictions West bound on both cargo and passengers. They wouldnt sell all the coach seats on the SLC-NRT leg and had cargo restrictions given SLC altitude, summer weather, and runway length. From what i have heard Delta still wants to try this route again after the economy improves believe it or not. I dont think they used all the subsidy money and i am guessing they think they can get people to dig deeper in their pockets. I think the economy would really need to fully recover to have a chance plus SEA seems to be a renewed Asia gateway so I think i wouldnt really hold my breathe waiting for a relaunch. I think London makes more sense personally but the value of a LHR slot is a whole other thread


User currently offlineredzeppelin From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 7093 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 35):
Why did DL can SLC-NRT so quickly? Was it not doing well?
I know there are some performance issues on the SLC-NRT leg, but a 77L would fix that.

I think it is more of a 787 route if it ever comes back, a la UA's DEN-NRT.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 35):
By all accounts, SLC-CDG is safe and doing well.

I think it will do even better once DL finishes the 763 mods and puts a better product on the route.

[Edited 2012-11-27 13:40:32]


Flown: DL,OS,NZ,UN,VV,NW,AA,UA,HP,TZ,AS,AF,KL,SK,WS,AZ,OK; op by OO,MQ,XJ,9E,G7,EV,QX,RP
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 6946 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 30):
SLC is not comparable to those cities and this investment for them is much less risky. The SLC airport has no debt and can afford to pay for these terminals plus DL is in full support of the terminals and wants this to happen. They are being built working with Delta to resolve their current problems and make it an even better hub. The terminals will not have a huge increase in operating expenses and Delta is in full support plus SLC is much safer and this is an investment they wont regret.

Well PIT and IND had little (or no) debt before they committed to their new terminals either. Everything else you said about DL @ SLC is what US said about the new PIT facility when they finally and seemingly reluctantly committed to it.



FLYi
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 6869 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 35):
Why did DL can SLC-NRT so quickly? Was it not doing well?

Apply nail to head. Yes. It was a subsidy deal from day #1. Never a good sign.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 month 1 day ago) and read 6842 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 38):
Well PIT and IND had little (or no) debt before they committed to their new terminals either. Everything else you said about DL @ SLC is what US said about the new PIT facility when they finally and seemingly reluctantly committed to it.

I don't believe that SLC is building a shopping mall with an airport attached to it, though. Remember, this is something that HAD to be built, just to meet the seismic standards. A secondary benefit to building it is to increase capacity and make the gates more versatile as far as what a/c they can handle. Right now, I believe, DL only has 7 gates where widebodies can be parked and I guess the new gates will be able to handle mainline as well as regional a/c.

As I mentioned before, the newest concourse (except for E) is D, which opened in '84. I'm not sure anyone envisioned the expansion needed at that time. WA was still the big fish, then.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 month 23 hours ago) and read 6670 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 40):
I don't believe that SLC is building a shopping mall with an airport attached to it, though. Remember, this is something that HAD to be built, just to meet the seismic standards. A secondary benefit to building it is to increase capacity and make the gates more versatile as far as what a/c they can handle. Right now, I believe, DL only has 7 gates where widebodies can be parked and I guess the new gates will be able to handle mainline as well as regional a/c.

As I mentioned before, the newest concourse (except for E) is D, which opened in '84. I'm not sure anyone envisioned the expansion needed at that time. WA was still the big fish, then.

Don't over emphasis PIT's airmall. It is nothing but the usual amount of airport retail space located in a central area and cleverly marketed as a "mall". As far as something that "had" to be built, again the argument is the same... be it lack of capacity, structural deficiency, etc.

I hope it works out better for SLC than it has for PIT, CVG, IND



FLYi
User currently offlineAerowrench From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 6456 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 11):

Maybe you ought to look at the loads via Travelnet before you assume this "weirdness" won't last. Also,unless your armchair is being fed route yields directly from Delta I would consider gathering intel before making a comment such as this.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 month 22 hours ago) and read 6360 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
You'd be surprised how much of the SLC connecting flow is SoCal to PacNW.

Which is somewhat of a surprise to me, having done almost that route once, but it was PDX-SLC-PHX instead, thanks to a Priceline ticket. With 90-minute connections each way, it was the most grueling trip I'd taken in a long time for some reason, and one I never did again. It took nearly all morning to fly to PHX, and almost all afternoon to get back home.

I'm always surprised at how many connections via SLC show up as options when looking at flights from PDX heading to popular destinations in California and the Southwest in general. The prices are usually within a few dollars of more direct or nonstop routings, usually just the difference in segment and other taxes/fees.

Heading further afield though, SLC is a terrific place to connect. I did LAS-SLC-JFK a year ago or so, and was perfectly happy with it. The paid upgrade to F out of SLC was only $119, IIRC, which I thought was an okay price considering it was a red-eye so I was saving the cost of a hotel that night, and cheaper than the LAS-JFK nonstops at the time.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinejporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 447 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 6029 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
I'm always surprised at how many connections via SLC show up as options when looking at flights from PDX heading to popular destinations in California and the Southwest in general. The prices are usually within a few dollars of more direct or nonstop routings, usually just the difference in segment and other taxes/fees.

This is just DL wanting a piece of the action, instead of letting AS, UA, and WN dominate. I too was surprised to find out that a lot of the connections were from and to West Coast destinations, but I imagine these flights exists also to serve passengers coming from the Midwest to the West. I always find it interesting how airlines in general often compete by charging the same base fare, but will not lower the base fare enough to make the total price of their connecting itinerary equivalent or less than the nonstop. It seems to me that that would be the only way to get most people (myself and many a.netters excluded) to choose a connection over a nonstop.


User currently offlineB4REAL From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2661 posts, RR: 5
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 5990 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
look at CVG and MEM, they weren't condemned or anything

While not condemned, CVG has come pretty close. I the gold standard of DL De-hubbing is DFW in 2005 (I think it was). CVG went from having the most gates (Combined DL and DCI operations) of all US hubs to now having no cities that are exclusively served from CVG (used to have a lot of DCI routes, and one mainline route CVG-PWM back in the day maybe others). CVG hasn't been DFW'd but, it's given a chance to keep what it has, but we'll see how long that lasts.



B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 month 20 hours ago) and read 5953 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 41):
I hope it works out better for SLC than it has for PIT, CVG, IND

I'd say it worked out pretty well for CVG seeing as DL paid for the construction and is still locked into paying for Concourses B and C, a deal almost unheard of nowadays.


User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 857 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 month 18 hours ago) and read 5793 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
IND, how's that beautiful new terminal doin'?
Quoting PITrules (Reply 41):
I hope it works out better for SLC than it has for... IND

What happened to IND?


User currently onlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 month 17 hours ago) and read 5759 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
If you think DL keeps SLC in any merger scenario you need to get a random drug test.

I think you need to go back to like 2nd grande and learn about a thing called a map.

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
It is probable that PDX would lose out to SLC in that scenario, but it is also possible that DL would build up LAX significantly.

......MAP
Maybe SAN...or MIA can replace SLC.   Heck maybe NRT or DEL....

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
I think the argument could be made that with a bigger LAX, SEA, and MSP that SLC offers very little unique flow.

Clearly. I mean, one is in the southwest corner of the US, the other in the Northwest corner and the last one is nearly in canada. Good luck and have fun flying DFW-MSP/SEA/LAX-SFO over SLC

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 28):
UA would be the big winner in the west if DL ever dropped SLC.

And would thank whoever was that stupid greatly.

Quoting enilria (Reply 33):
Clearly SEA is superior to DFW as an inter-West connect point by multiples.

...... huh? You really think people are going to pay the real price to fly ABQ-SEA-PDX over ABQ-SLC-PDX?



yep.
User currently offlineB4REAL From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2661 posts, RR: 5
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 month 9 hours ago) and read 5482 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 46):
I'd say it worked out pretty well for CVG seeing as DL paid for the construction and is still locked into paying for Concourses B and C, a deal almost unheard of nowadays.

Agreed.



B4REAL, spelled like it sounds
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 month 8 hours ago) and read 5449 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 41):
I hope it works out better for SLC than it has for PIT, CVG, IND

Of course, you and others ignore the obvious counterexamples - JAX, MDW, DTW (both terminals), etc. It's certainly possible to build a new terminal that is a financial disaster but it seems that, even in this economic environment, it's also possible to successfully build a new terminal. What is it about SLC that would make it more PIT or IND than DTW or MDW?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 5345 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 41):
I hope it works out better for SLC than it has for PIT, CVG, IND

Unless I'm mistaken, the situations are very much different between SLC and PIT. SLC has been a very successful and established hub for DL since '87. No reason it shouldn't stay that way with a new terminal. Was PIT a hub for US before the new terminal was built? If not, then US had the burden of trying to establish a hub, then hoping it would that hub would be able to pay for that shiny, new terminal.

Quoting enilria (Reply 39):
Apply nail to head. Yes. It was a subsidy deal from day #1. Never a good sign.

So was SLC-CDG, but it seems to be doing well.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 month 6 hours ago) and read 5295 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 51):
Was PIT a hub for US before the new terminal was built?

It only became USAir shortly before the new terminal was opened, but yes, there was a hub. As early as 1979, Allegheny had more than 200 daily departures from PIT. The hub grew pretty steadily from then to the early 1990s, where it plateaued around 500-525 daily departures.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 5255 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 51):
Quoting enilria (Reply 39):
Apply nail to head. Yes. It was a subsidy deal from day #1. Never a good sign.

So was SLC-CDG, but it seems to be doing well.

Several people have stated that they are hearing that DL is about to discontinue SLC-CDG. Is that correct?


User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 5243 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 46):
I'd say it worked out pretty well for CVG seeing as DL paid for the construction and is still locked into paying for Concourses B and C, a deal almost unheard of nowadays.

For Concourse C, yes it is true that DL is stuck with paying off the bonds. And it makes sense that they paying for Concourse B as they are still using it for the downsized hub. However, they did get out of the leases for Concourse A. DL had their leases reduced in exchange for giving up the Concourse A gates so that the airport could move the other airlines there out of Terminal 2. DL was not going to give up those gates to it's competitors while still being forced to make lease payments on them.

[Edited 2012-11-28 08:46:54]

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 month 5 hours ago) and read 5190 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 53):
Several people have stated that they are hearing that DL is about to discontinue SLC-CDG. Is that correct?

Well, I had heard that, too, but it seems to be bookable, up thru next summer.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

Quoting michman (Reply 54):
However, they did get out of the leases for Concourse A. DL had their leases reduced in exchange for giving up the Concourse A

Not quite. DL actually owns all of Concourse B and leases the land it sits on from the airport board, so the airport has no practical control of DL's costs in Concourse B. The deal over Concourse A involved the airport purchasing OH's old headquarter facilities in addition to the obvious of no longer having to make lease payments on some 20 odd gates, still a great deal in my opinion.


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 5055 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 43):
I'm always surprised at how many connections via SLC show up as options when looking at flights from PDX heading to popular destinations in California and the Southwest in general. The prices are usually within a few dollars of more direct or nonstop routings, usually just the difference in segment and other taxes/fees.

That's the problem. It's further out of the way, so DL has to fly people further and be cheaper to get people to go out of the way.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 48):
Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
If you think DL keeps SLC in any merger scenario you need to get a random drug test.

I think you need to go back to like 2nd grande and learn about a thing called a map.

Is that near Mesa Grande?

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 48):
Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
I think the argument could be made that with a bigger LAX, SEA, and MSP that SLC offers very little unique flow.

Clearly. I mean, one is in the southwest corner of the US, the other in the Northwest corner and the last one is nearly in canada. Good luck and have fun flying DFW-MSP/SEA/LAX-SFO over SLC

I showed the top O&Ds for DL's SLC hub and they can all be covered fairly painlessly.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 48):
...... huh? You really think people are going to pay the real price to fly ABQ-SEA-PDX over ABQ-SLC-PDX?

It's interesting that you picked ABQ because it best makes your case on circuity, but let's be honest...airlines are not positioning their hubs based on ABQ because nobody lives in ABQ. The whole metro is only 800,000. PHX has a metro of 4.2 million. How about we use PHX-SEA-PDX vs. PHX-SLC-PDX or even better use SoCal since that's where the biggest bulk of the population is. Anyway, PHX-PDX via LAX is 5.8% longer than SLC and via SEA is 8.7% longer. Those are not uncompetitive...and frankly, that is worst case scenario for a major population center. Look how bad SLC is for SoCal to PDX. SAN-PDX via SEA is 6% shorter than via SLC. SNA-PDX is 9% shorter via SEA than PDX. LAX is much better than either option. I think your argument is ill-founded and ignores the actual O&Ds moving across the SLC hub.

BTW, for everybody else's benefit, I'm only saying that the SLC hub would be in danger if DL merges (and only some danger if the partner was AS). There is no chance of them closing it based upon the current situation.

[Edited 2012-11-28 10:42:45]

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 5006 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
Look how bad SLC is for SoCal to PDX. SAN-PDX via SEA is 6% shorter than via SLC. SNA-PDX is 9% shorter via SEA than PDX. LAX is much better than either option. I think your argument is ill-founded and ignores the actual O&Ds moving across the SLC hub.

It would be interesting to see what the percentage of traffic actually connects on routes such as those, though, unless there are no other options. For instance, I prefer to fly into BUR when traveling from PDX. I can do it for a reasonable price nonstop on AS, save a few bucks and fly via PHX on US, or pay more to connect elsewhere. But even though there are only 3 nonstops vs. a multitude of connections, I'll choose a nonstop to avoid spending all morning, afternoon or evening to fly a distance of just over 800 miles.

I believe SLC's main success is that it connects traffic from many smaller points in the Far and Intermountain Wests where DEN or SEA would be too far out of the way to consider as a connection point except as a last resort. Individually, none of those routes may be in the top 15, but I believe the foundation they provide is what makes the hub viable overall.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 month 3 hours ago) and read 4983 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 58):

I always thought, when working in SLC, that the bulk of connections WERE from the Intermountain West and not SoCal or PHX.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently onlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 month 2 hours ago) and read 4936 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
Is that near Mesa Grande?

grade*

Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
I showed the top O&Ds for DL's SLC hub and they can all be covered fairly painlessly.

Fairly = giving money to United.

Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
I'm only saying that the SLC hub would be in danger if DL merges

Lets just finish it this way then.
100 bucks says, unless Delta buys a DEN hub, SLC stays period.
Deal?

Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
It's interesting that you picked ABQ because it best makes your case on circuity, but let's be honest...airlines are not positioning their hubs based on ABQ because nobody lives in ABQ.

Ok then screw everyone outside of Vegas and LA.

Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
Anyway, PHX-PDX via LAX is 5.8% longer than SLC and via SEA is 8.7% longer

5.8% and 8.7% more fuel and cost....higher fares are unlikely thus loses.

Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
Those are not uncompetitive

sure they are....Once again, your adding cost in a market that already has to much capacity. Delta has to compete with 3 airlines at DEN....you think they will be able to get the premium to fly longer flight? Economics 101....



yep.
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 4908 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 58):
It would be interesting to see what the percentage of traffic actually connects on routes such as those, though, unless there are no other options.

It's in DB1B. It's typically 10-20% depending upon the LCC situation. But 10-20% of a huge market is more than 100% of a small market.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 58):
I believe SLC's main success is that it connects traffic from many smaller points in the Far and Intermountain Wests where DEN or SEA would be too far out of the way to consider as a connection point except as a last resort.

Well, I get that, but if you look at the top O&Ds I posted you realize that for all the high yield 1-sies and 2-sies, there's a crap load of low yield Vegas passengers. It's hard to imagine with it all averaged out that it's not middle of the road or worse.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Lets just finish it this way then.
100 bucks says, unless Delta buys a DEN hub, SLC stays period.
Deal?

I already said above that if they merged with AS that PDX would probably lose out to SLC. I say that because AS is already not that enthused with PDX. So, I'd be betting against myself. What we were debating is if SLC/PDX both were eliminated whether SEA/LAX were an effective substitute. I think they would be in the important O&Ds, but in terms of reality they aren't going to merge with AS and plan to close two hubs, so the bet is moot.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
It's interesting that you picked ABQ because it best makes your case on circuity, but let's be honest...airlines are not positioning their hubs based on ABQ because nobody lives in ABQ.

Ok then screw everyone outside of Vegas and LA.

Well, exactly. You are never going to serve Fargo very well. It's just a fact of life. PHX/SAN/LAX/LAS are the core markets in the PacSW. If you can take those guys in all four directions you have an effective corporate product. ABQ is fringe as is FAR and GJT and COS and BIL. You probably need some service to those cities as a global carrier, but a 360 degree portfolio isn't realistic.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 60):
Quoting enilria (Reply 57):
Anyway, PHX-PDX via LAX is 5.8% longer than SLC and via SEA is 8.7% longer

5.8% and 8.7% more fuel and cost....higher fares are unlikely thus loses.

Sure, but it's actually closer from SoCal and there is nothing between SAN and PHX, so on balance overall circuity weighted by traffic is reduced. That's what is important.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 4884 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 61):
Well, I get that, but if you look at the top O&Ds I posted you realize that for all the high yield 1-sies and 2-sies, there's a crap load of low yield Vegas passengers. It's hard to imagine with it all averaged out that it's not middle of the road or worse.

Looking at a DL system map for SLC, I find it hard to site a better place to connect the population centers outside of the major metro areas in the Far and Intermountain Wests combined where reasonable nonstops aren't available as alternatives.

And not just because I live here, but I think you're selling the unique dynamics of Portland and how it relates to the rest of the PNW a bit short. Building on that, I also don't believe that AS has lost its enthusiasm for PDX in general, even while it looks further afield in places such as SAN to expand further.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 4881 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 61):
I already said above that if they merged with AS that PDX would probably lose out to SLC.

I wish you'd knock off with this s***. Ain't gonna happen - I sure hope not. DL taking over AS would benefit no-one except a few executives in the short term.


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7723 posts, RR: 15
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 month 1 hour ago) and read 4831 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 62):
Looking at a DL system map for SLC, I find it hard to site a better place to connect the population centers outside of the major metro areas in the Far and Intermountain Wests combined where reasonable nonstops aren't available as alternatives.

Which is why, steady-state, there is nothing DL can do with SLC. I said above that nothing is going to change as things now stand. $200 oil or more mergers are a wildcard, but I see no better option in the current situation. While LAX "could" be built up to offset some of SLC, LAX is losing a lot of money now and without SEA to bracket the West Coast it would be a foolish move. I think longer term if the industry keeps consolidating you are going to see transactions to try to control LAX just as DL is trying to do in NYC. It's harder without slots, but nothing is impossible. EWR didn't have slots until recently and CO/UA slowly took control.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 62):
but I think you're selling the unique dynamics of Portland and how it relates to the rest of the PNW a bit short.

See the next point. I love PDX, but SEA has more population and there is not a significant catchment difference between the two cities, so SEA is the de facto winner. I think you are seeing that pretty clearly in AS's long-haul expansion to the East.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 62):
Building on that, I also don't believe that AS has lost its enthusiasm for PDX in general

From what I have seen, PDX was "loved" by the Horizon management team and they fought for it to be grown and expanded. When that group was disbanded and "merged" into the SEA HQ staff, many of those people either left or were marginalized. In the past the AS and QX managements "fought" for resources from the CEO. It appears to me that the ongoing need to prove that SEA was the better place to invest resources left the now remaining SEA based management with a distaste for PDX. That is the clear impression I've gotten. Some of the QX refugees will tell you the same. Over time it may dissolve as more and more new blood comes in.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 63):
DL taking over AS would benefit no-one except a few executives in the short term.

I'm not pro-merger at all. Quite the opposite. I think, however, that as DL becomes more and more dependent upon AS in SEA to feed it's investment in int'l, you will see increased desire on DL's part to lock them up. There is also the question of whether AA's eventual emergence from Ch11 will destabilize the balance of power with AS. In the end it is hard to imagine them or B6 remaining independent.


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 65, posted (2 years 1 month ago) and read 4802 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 64):
In the end it is hard to imagine them or B6 remaining independent.

As I've mentioned before, I was hearing this same thing in 1998. It was inevitable that AS would be unable to remain independent. AA was about the buy them out (nothing like repeating the same mistake for the third time). That was almost 15 years ago and Chester is still Chester.

The day after DL bought AS, most of AS's route structure would be gone - everything from niche routes like BLI/SJC/SAN-Hawaii to stuff like SJC-GDL or SEA-MCI since they could route traffic through SLC. None of this stuff is close to DL's core business. After the initial round of cuts, then DL would realize they really don't like competing with WN on west coast routes like SEA-SJC or SEA-BUR and stuff like that would be gone.

On a different note, is it confirmed that AS/QX is dropping LAP? That was listed in the OAG a few weeks ago.


User currently offlinewoodsboy From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1031 posts, RR: 2
Reply 66, posted (2 years 1 month ago) and read 4787 times:

Ive been flying through SLC for 30 years, first on Western and then even more frequently after I moved to Alaska back in the late 80s. As far as a hub goes, SLC has the best weather and what I feel like are the fewest delays of major hubs in the West. It is also SOOO simple, it may feel antiquated to some but you have to admit that it is fairly compact and well connected with no need for trams. SEA is not in a place for a great hub except for trans Pacific connections because it is so far NW and of course AS dominates SEA and that works for AS and DL. LAX is a horrifying mess, I'll avoid it at all costs unless I have to go to LA and then I'll choose ONT or SNA, never LAX. I put my vote of confidence in for SLC to live long, and prosper!

User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 67, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4683 times:

SLC is taking almost no risk here. It would take alot for Delta to leave SLC and even then someone else would instantally move out of three way low fare Denver if a nearby fortress hub possibility were to open up. Delta leaving a consistantly profitable hub thru high oil prices, mergers and time would be stupid but the real big winner would be united who would see fares really increase and Frontier who would move into a hub and not be in a three way battle and probably do really well and thrive given its low operating costs in SLC. SLC is in no risk of building something that wont be used by someone and its 99.99% gonna be Delta. No risk in building this they would need to spend hundreds of millions to get it up to Earthquake standards anyway, the place far exceeds design ever imagined, Delta needs more mainline and larger RJ capable gates so its a good time to build this.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 68, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4617 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 64):
From what I have seen, PDX was "loved" by the Horizon management team and they fought for it to be grown and expanded. When that group was disbanded and "merged" into the SEA HQ staff, many of those people either left or were marginalized.

AS is back to all mainline to LAX (4x), plus started DCA recently, and we have service to all 4 Hawaiian islands now including double-daily to OGG. Is PDX high priority? Doubt it. But we're not exactly being neglected here, and service that was cut previously is beginning to return and then some. It's my belief that as AS and DL grow closer together, AS will increase support for DL's NRT and AMS flights, despite what's going on up the road. We'll see what happens.

Quoting enilria (Reply 64):
In the end it is hard to imagine them or B6 remaining independent.

I thought conventional wisdom was that DL couldn't make the same routes work that AS could with their cost structure disparity, so I'm surprised that merger rumors keep appearing. If it was advantageous for someone to buy AS, they would have been bought up by now.

The big if might actually be would Alaskans support the airline buying AS to the degree they support AS? That's a critical part of AS' success. AS is very much a part of the infrastructure of the State of Alaska, something difficult to replicate. I'd honestly like to see just one discussion about AS that isn't tainted with a series of buy-out scenarios. It simply clutters the conversation unnecessarily.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently onlineiowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4435 posts, RR: 6
Reply 69, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4447 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

I'd like to see DSM-SLC return, but I don't expect it with the CRJ's on the way out. Mainline is too much for this route. DL flew the route intermittently over the years, with the latest attempt short lived daily service in the summer of 2009.

I feel the SLC market is pretty well tapped out for any new destinations at least in the short-term. Most of the O&D destinations out of SLC are well covered. DL cited in some of the 2008 cuts they were struggling with yields on the routes that were axed. WN also cut some routes in the past few years such as STL, BOI, and RNO.

While SLC is in a great place geographically for connections on DL, realistically a lot of the larger markets such as LAS, Bay Area, socal and SEA have little reason to connect in SLC as they have plenty of non-stops themselves to the larger markets.

Also launched at the same time for a June 2009 start:

Mainline:
SLC-NRT - Gone
SLC-IND - Donwgraded to CR9
SLC-BNA - Downgraded to CR9


RJ equipment:
SLC-DSM - Gone
SLC-BIS - Gone
SLC-FAR - Still around - 1x CR7
SLC-ELP - Gone
SLC-MKE - Gone
SLC-FSD - Gone

2008 cuts:

SLC-YUM - Still hasn't returned
SLC-SBP - Still hasn't returned
SLC-BFL - Still hasn't returned
SLC-DRO - Still hasn't returned
SLC-PIT - Stil hasn't returned


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 70, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4141 times:

Quoting iowaman (Reply 69):
2008 cuts:

SLC-YUM - Still hasn't returned
SLC-SBP - Still hasn't returned
SLC-BFL - Still hasn't returned
SLC-DRO - Still hasn't returned
SLC-PIT - Stil hasn't returned

Several other short-lived routes from SLC come to mind: BLI, YYJ,SLE and I think ACV and YKM. DL expanded to quite a few small west coast markets from SLC and then discontinued them shortly thereafter.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
I thought conventional wisdom was that DL couldn't make the same routes work that AS could with their cost structure disparity, so I'm surprised that merger rumors keep appearing. If it was advantageous for someone to buy AS, they would have been bought up by now.

That's what I keep saying. Anyone who doesn't think that DL would fairly quickly dismantle AS's entire route structure is very naive. First I envision DL deciding that AS's niche routes don't meet their core competency (e.g. SJC-GDL, BLI-HNL/OGG, SJC-LIH, etc). Next, DL would decide they don't need most of AS's non-stop routes when they can route that traffic through their hubs in SLC and MSP (e.g. PDX-BOS, SEA-MCI, SEA-FLL, SAN-MCO, etc). Then, DL would realize that they no longer want to compete with WN and B6 on the west coast routes and they'd be gone (e.g. SEA-SNA, SEA-SJC, SEA-ONT, etc). I can see Richard Anderson saying, "We have no plans to discontinue any of Alaska's routes" until the day after the merger. Thus far, AS's management, BOD and shareholders seem to be intelligent enough to realize this.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 71, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 70):
Anyone who doesn't think that DL would fairly quickly dismantle AS's entire route structure is very naive.

Why merge if you don't want the route system? What else would they gain from a merger like this?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 72, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 71):
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 70):
Anyone who doesn't think that DL would fairly quickly dismantle AS's entire route structure is very naive.

Why merge if you don't want the route system? What else would they gain from a merger like this?

That's my point. It hasn't stopped pointless mergers in the past, and then dismantling of a major part of the route structure.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 73, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4031 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 72):
That's my point. It hasn't stopped pointless mergers in the past, and then dismantling of a major part of the route structure.

Which "pointless" mergers? Which dismantling?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinefjnovak1 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 612 posts, RR: 2
Reply 74, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4026 times:

XNA is another city cut from SLC. I do agree though that they'll give some of these a go again once they have more space.


Go Blue!!
User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3258 posts, RR: 7
Reply 75, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4032 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 73):
Which "pointless" mergers? Which dismantling?

PSA + US Air; Air Cal + American; Reno Air + American; TWA + American. In each case virtually none of the smaller carrier's routes remained within a few years of the takeover.

The US + American West merger resulted in the dismantling of most LAS flights. DL has dismantled MEM and some of CVG. Pan Am + National wasn't very effective. Some people have stated that WN + FL will be a disaster.

Let's ask the question another way. Name one merger that was successful.

This is slightly off topic, but would affect DL's SLC hub should they ever try to takeover AS.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 76, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3998 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 75):
Let's ask the question another way. Name one merger that was successful.

Depends on what you mean by successful. I'd say DL/C&S, DL/NE, DL/WA and even DL/NW. All of them have fundamentally changed DL's route system and made DL a much different airline than it was previous to each of these mergers. In addition, you have DL's acquisition of PA's routes in '91.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 77, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3892 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 76):
I'd say DL/C&S, DL/NE, DL/WA and even DL/NW. All of them have fundamentally changed DL's route system and made DL a much different airline than it was previous to each of these mergers.

. . . though, in at least the latter two, DL dismantled a hub.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 78, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 77):
. . . though, in at least the latter two, DL dismantled a hub.

But they were still successful, no matter what. WA had ONE hub at the time of the merger.....SLC......LAX could have been more rightly called a focus city, albeit a large one.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 79, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3807 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 46):
I'd say it worked out pretty well for CVG seeing as DL paid for the construction and is still locked into paying for Concourses B and C, a deal almost unheard of nowadays.

I'm referring to the level of air service after new facilties were built. Clearly it didn't work out well for CVG, especially the need for the 4th runway.

Quoting questions (Reply 47):

What happened to IND?

IND had a good amount of growth happening before they built a $1 billion (unneeded IMHO) terminal. Before someone mentions the economy, which of course is a factor at all airports, the US still shows some passenger growth, while at IND it is still in decline.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 50):
Of course, you and others ignore the obvious counterexamples - JAX, MDW, DTW (both terminals), etc. It's certainly possible to build a new terminal that is a financial disaster but it seems that, even in this economic environment, it's also possible to successfully build a new terminal.

Not ignoring the other examples, but think they are an apples and oranges comparison. You can't seriously be comparing the Chicago and Detroit markets with SLC, PIT, IND, etc? If Southwest or Delta pulls out of MDW or DTW, someone will pick up the slack. Didn't happen in CVG, PIT. Would someone pick up the slack in SLC? That's the question.

JAX built a terminal catered to the O&D of their own market, and that's good as they have no hub to lose resulting in ton's of extra capacity that still needs to be paid for.

Quoting mayor (Reply 51):
Unless I'm mistaken, the situations are very much different between SLC and PIT. SLC has been a very successful and established hub for DL since '87. No reason it shouldn't stay that way with a new terminal. Was PIT a hub for US before the new terminal was built?

The situations were actually very similar before the new PIT terminal was built. Yes, it was already a US hub for at least 15 years. My point is just because an airport can be a thriving hub before a new terminal does not ensure it will be after.



FLYi
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 80, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3778 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 78):
But they were still successful, no matter what.

Well, sure. But part of that success came from cutting capacity.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 79):
You can't seriously be comparing the Chicago and Detroit markets with SLC, PIT, IND, etc?

I think MDW can be compared with SLC, though WN's operation at MDW is somewhat higher O&D. Chicago and Salt Lake City are not comparable, but MDW in isolation might be.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 79):
JAX built a terminal catered to the O&D of their own market, and that's good as they have no hub to lose resulting in ton's of extra capacity that still needs to be paid for.

I am certainly in favor of not overbuilding, but given that SLC has to have a new terminal for seismic reasons, how many gates would you suggest are appropriate?



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 81, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3780 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 71):
Why merge if you don't want the route system? What else would they gain from a merger like this?
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 72):
That's my point. It hasn't stopped pointless mergers in the past, and then dismantling of a major part of the route structure.


All DL would gain from buying AS would be greater control over AS' routes which support their international flying, Alaskan routes, plus the DCA routes if they're transferrable. With DL's higher costs, who knows if even AS' Hawaiian flying would still be viable.

This debate is obviously for a different thread though. Let someone lay out what the true workable benefits to DL would be by buying out AS. I haven't read of any real solid benefits to DL in such a scenario, considering their higher costs. As I've said before, let's stop polluting every thread that mentions AS with speculations regarding who might buy them out.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 82, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3745 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 80):

I am certainly in favor of not overbuilding, but given that SLC has to have a new terminal for seismic reasons, how many gates would you suggest are appropriate?

Perhaps the SLC airport could fund a portion of the terminal to be used by non DL airlines, then DL can finance the construction bonds for their portion directly (and decide how large they want it). That way, if SLC ever loses the hub then they won't be on the hook to pay for that portion of it. Similar to T3 at CVG.



FLYi
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 83, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3690 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 82):
Perhaps the SLC airport could fund a portion of the terminal to be used by non DL airlines, then DL can finance the construction bonds for their portion directly (and decide how large they want it).

What a great strategy for keeping your hub airline happy: "Here, let us evict you from your perfectly adequate facility and force you to pay for the construction of a new one."

That's not at all what happened in CVG, where Delta sorely needed the space.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 84, posted (2 years 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3685 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 83):

What a great strategy for keeping your hub airline happy: "Here, let us evict you from your perfectly adequate facility and force you to pay for the construction of a new one."

That was not at all the premise of your scenario:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 80):
but given that SLC has to have a new terminal for seismic reasons,

Anyway, why shouldn't they pay for their portion??



FLYi
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 85, posted (2 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3653 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 79):
Not ignoring the other examples, but think they are an apples and oranges comparison. You can't seriously be comparing the Chicago and Detroit markets with SLC, PIT, IND, etc? If Southwest or Delta pulls out of MDW or DTW, someone will pick up the slack. Didn't happen in CVG, PIT. Would someone pick up the slack in SLC? That's the question.

Absolutely SLC would be a hub for someone even if Delta were to leave which is extremely unlikely. SLC is not comparable to PIT or IND either. Frontier would totally move its operation instantally, it would be a blessing for them. In fact i bet you a handful of airlines would be interested if SLC were to open its the perfect geographical location and has all types of unique positive aspects discussed on here many times in many threads but its also why Delta wont leave. SLC as a fortress hub is certainly better than the three way price war in Denver. Denver tried to offer all types of sweat deals to get them to move in when it was just United and they decided SLC being a fortress hub was the best spot. SLC has surivived high oil prices. economic downturns, mergers, hub shut downs choosing it over DFW, it has proven to be a consistantly profitable and very unique for its size city. Delta has no plans to leave and wont but even if they did i think you would see frontier move instantally. SLC is safe in spending the money it would cost a pretty decent penny to just improve what they have to earthquake standards anyway they should build and give Delta more mainline and larger RJ capable gates which it wants.


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 86, posted (2 years 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 85):

The notion that another airline would set up a fortress hub in SLC if DL hypothetically leaves is pure speculation. Maybe it would happen, maybe not.

If it is such a sure thing for DL, then there should be no problem with them financing their portion of it separately. That way, if they ever go bankrupt again and decide they don't want SLC anymore, the city and its airport isn't left with all that debt. Salt lake City should learn from Pittsburgh's mistakes, no matter how safe they think their hub status is.



FLYi
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 87, posted (2 years 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3497 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 84):
Anyway, why shouldn't they pay for their portion??

They will pay, through landing fees and PFCs. Your assertion is that Delta's portion of the terminal should be financed in a radically different way than everyone else's portion, and I don't understand why.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 88, posted (2 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3441 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 87):
Your assertion is that Delta's portion of the terminal should be financed in a radically different way than everyone else's portion, and I don't understand why.

For the simple reason of reassuring the Salt Lake community that if DL ever pulls out, SLC is not left holding the bag.



FLYi
User currently offlineslowroll From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (2 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 87):
They will pay, through landing fees and PFCs. Your assertion is that Delta's portion of the terminal should be financed in a radically different way than everyone else's portion, and I don't understand why.

  
Exactly! A large portion of the cost is being passed on to the airlines in SLC. Each will pay based on their use of the facility. I know of no one here worried or complaining about the cost. The plan is simply to bring the airport up to modern standards, both seismic and operations wise. They actually aren't adding much capacity in terms of number of gates. They simply are making more gates available to mainline aircraft. It's actually a rather measured expansion plan.


User currently offlineflyguy89 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 2019 posts, RR: 21
Reply 90, posted (2 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3426 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 88):
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 87):
Your assertion is that Delta's portion of the terminal should be financed in a radically different way than everyone else's portion, and I don't understand why.

For the simple reason of reassuring the Salt Lake community that if DL ever pulls out, SLC is not left holding the bag.

Airlines just don't make those kind of long-term commitments anymore. CVG seemed to be more the exception than the rule, I'm having a hard time really thinking of another airport (other than JFK) where the tenant carrier offered to pay for and embarked upon such large terminal and infrastructure projects. I mean, it's really incredible when you think about it, IIRC the airport itself only paid for the land side T3 structure and Concourse C while DL paid for Concourse B, the underground connector and tram, maintenance and fuel facilities, the Comair HQ building, quite a deal yes, but unheard of nowadays.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 91, posted (2 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 86):
That way, if they ever go bankrupt again and decide they don't want SLC anymore, the city and its airport isn't left with all that debt. Salt lake City should learn from Pittsburgh's mistakes, no matter how safe they think their hub status is.

I think what you don't realize is that the SLC airport is self funded, not from city, county or state revenues. The only entity that would be saddled with any debt is the SLC airport authority. I'm sure, the way the plan is, right now, has the terminal, in total, being paid for by the airport authority, with the airlines that use it, paying for their portion thru rents, fees, etc.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 80):
how many gates would you suggest are appropriate?

If the gates are more versatile and can be used with multiple types of a/c, you probably wouldn't need any more than you have, now.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 92, posted (2 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3398 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 88):
For the simple reason of reassuring the Salt Lake community that if DL ever pulls out, SLC is not left holding the bag.

Why should that be a goal of this project? Again, I would understand that sentiment if this terminal project were discretionary. It's not.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 93, posted (2 years 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3383 times:

Quoting flyguy89 (Reply 90):

Airlines just don't make those kind of long-term commitments anymore.

Maybe those commitments should be called for in mid sized hubs with one dominant carrier before the airport spends $2 billion. If SLC is such a sure thing for DL as everyone seems to think, then DL should have no problem with this.

Like you said DL paid for CVG's B concourse on their own, and there are plenty examples of terminals being financed privately around the world.

Quoting mayor (Reply 91):
I think what you don't realize is that the SLC airport is self funded, not from city, county or state revenues. The only entity that would be saddled with any debt is the SLC airport authority. I'm sure, the way the plan is, right now, has the terminal, in total, being paid for by the airport authority, with the airlines that use it, paying for their portion thru rents, fees, etc.

Yes, I understand that SLC is self funded, as are the vast majority of airports. So lets say SLC is saddled with that debt if DL goes bankrupt or whatever, it is the airport authority which continues to meet those debt obligations. That means higher fees for the remaining airlines making the airport much less competitive.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 92):
Why should that be a goal of this project? Again, I would understand that sentiment if this terminal project were discretionary. It's not.

So the airport shouldn't be interested in protecting their own self interests?



FLYi
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23308 posts, RR: 20
Reply 94, posted (2 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3360 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 93):
So the airport shouldn't be interested in protecting their own self interests?

Oh, absolutely. But it is in the airport's interest to do what it can to keep the hub, which means working with Delta, not forcing Delta to finance the whole thing because of some remote hypothetical.

The problem at PIT wasn't US. It was ACAA's complete disregard for the costs of its project.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 93):
So lets say SLC is saddled with that debt if DL goes bankrupt or whatever,

Bankrupt airlines continue to pay PFCs and landing fees because they have to do so to operate. "Normal" financing is as good a hedge as any against bankrtupcy.

Quoting PITrules (Reply 93):
Maybe those commitments should be called for in mid sized hubs with one dominant carrier before the airport spends $2 billion.

Again, what choice does the airport have? The old terminal cannot continue to operate in its current state.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3256 posts, RR: 6
Reply 95, posted (2 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3342 times:

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 94):
But it is in the airport's interest to do what it can to keep the hub, which means working with Delta, not forcing Delta to finance the whole thing because of some remote hypothetical.

I'm not suggesting DL pay for the whole thing, just their portion. I'm also not suggesting SLC work against Delta; but why couldn't they negotiate an agreement whereby DL finances their portion of the terminal in exchange for credits for the landing fees and PFCs they would otherwise pay? At the end of they day costs to DL could be the same.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 94):

The problem at PIT wasn't US. It was ACAA's complete disregard for the costs of its project

I agree.

US also was telling PIT that it would remain their main hub, would never pull out, etc, many of the same things DL seems to be telling SLC.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 94):
Bankrupt airlines continue to pay PFCs and landing fees because they have to do so to operate. "Normal" financing is as good a hedge as any against bankrtupcy.

I meant (and should have been more clear) that if DL ever drops SLC as a hub. No more PFCs and landing fees on the scale they currently contribute.



FLYi
User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3640 posts, RR: 0
Reply 96, posted (2 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3312 times:

PITrules I understand your argument and i think its one that say PIT should have done before construction and is totally 100% valid for there. You make good points i just dont think they are applicable to SLC

The reality is Delta will pay the most for this and has already paid the most. The facility is basically upsizing all gates to be mainline and larg RJ compatible. Its really a capacity increase but not more gates. Its a very conservative way to increase capacity if needed down the road and really to give delta what it needs more mainline gates in the two main banks.

SLC has actual cash and no debt. Delta has already dealt with old facilities being held together with basically cheap bandages for along time while the airport built up cash piles and saved for a big re-build. If Delta were to pay for it now they should ask for alot of money back that the airport for the debt it paid off and cash piles it gaining almost entirely from them.

This is a very safe investment for SLC, they wont regret this and they really need to build it for many reasons. I cant wait for the light rail to reach SLC then new terminals there are some good times ahead for this airport!


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 97, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3268 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 95):
US also was telling PIT that it would remain their main hub, would never pull out, etc, many of the same things DL seems to be telling SLC.

I don't understand the basis for the speculation that DL is in dire straights at SLC. It's all speculation and foggy speculation, at that. I don't think DL is telling SLC, anything. All they do is remain profitable and fill up their planes, which, in turn, makes sure that the SLC hub remains viable within the system.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 96):
I cant wait for the light rail to reach SLC then new terminals there are some good times ahead for this airport!

Very, very soon, I believe.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineslowroll From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 98, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3265 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 97):
Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 96):
I cant wait for the light rail to reach SLC then new terminals there are some good times ahead for this airport!

Very, very soon, I believe.

They've begun running the trains to test the tracks, albeit at a very slow speed.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 99, posted (2 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3253 times:

Quoting slowroll (Reply 98):
They've begun running the trains to test the tracks, albeit at a very slow speed.

When are they expecting service to start?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinemichman From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 570 posts, RR: 0
Reply 100, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3225 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 95):
I'm not suggesting DL pay for the whole thing, just their portion. I'm also not suggesting SLC work against Delta; but why couldn't they negotiate an agreement whereby DL finances their portion of the terminal in exchange for credits for the landing fees and PFCs they would otherwise pay? At the end of they day costs to DL could be the same.

This article pretty much lays out how the expansion will be financed -- http://soc.li/ST3GvIE
PFC's will be used to pay for a good part of it, plus car rental fees, federal grants, and a slight increase in gate rental and landing fees.

[Edited 2012-11-29 21:28:52]

User currently onlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 101, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3218 times:

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 63):

I wish you'd knock off with this s***. Ain't gonna happen - I sure hope not. DL taking over AS would benefit no-one except a few executives in the short term.

....So is it not happening or do you think it wont?

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 65):
SEA-MCI since they could route traffic through SLC. None of this stuff is close to DL's core business.

.....*sigh* cutting what would be Delta's Asian hub is stupid. Delta will keep, and grow, Seattle. (both domestically and internationally)

What you still have is a lack of understand of the Delta network. NRT is going to be replaced. SEA will likely be the spot that does it. (and the rest....go look and see why the DOT didn't give Delta SEA-HND to start with.)

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 65):
everything from niche routes like BLI/SJC/SAN-Hawaii to stuff like SJC-GDL

yes. The non-core markets would go. Delta isn't Southwest.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 65):
then DL would realize they really don't like competing with WN on west coast routes like SEA-SJC or SEA-BUR and stuff like that would be gone.

No they wouldn't. Delta isn't American and its is really.....really starting to get annoying that you keep comparing the two. Again SEA without feed is worthless to Delta.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
If it was advantageous for someone to buy AS

huh? So then the DL/NW and UA/CO mergers are clearly worthless.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
I thought conventional wisdom was that DL couldn't make the same routes work that AS could with their cost structure disparity,

No. Care to prove to me that it would fail. You know real data. (and i know, you can't.)

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
The big if might actually be would Alaskans support the airline buying AS to the degree they support AS? That's a critical part of AS' success. AS is very much a part of the infrastructure of the State of Alaska, something difficult to replicate

Sure they would. IIRC most of the AS network out of ANC is supported by the government anyways. Delta will get the same money AS does.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 70):
Next, DL would decide they don't need most of AS's non-stop routes when they can route that traffic through their hubs in SLC and MSP (e.g. PDX-BOS, SEA-MCI, SEA-FLL, SAN-MCO, etc). Then, DL would realize that they no longer want to compete with WN and B6 on the west coast routes and they'd be gone (e.g. SEA-SNA, SEA-SJC, SEA-ONT, etc). I can see Richard Anderson saying, "We have no plans to discontinue any of Alaska's routes" until the day after the merger.

Again. You clearly can't (or don't want to IMHO) grasp why Delta needs AS now, and why Delta would want to buy AS. You think Delta is codesharing with AS because they fly SJC-GDL? No. Its about Seattle and LA. (and to a point Portland) Your right, the p2p stuff that can't hack it will go, but you will also likely see SEA/LAX growth with those aircraft. Till Delta startings flying routes like SLC-HKG/PEK/PVG/HND/KIX/NGO/ICN/TPE etc. then SEA would have a very, very key point in the Delta network. Delta wants its SFO hub.

Quoting mayor (Reply 71):
Why merge if you don't want the route system? What else would they gain from a merger like this?

Logic!!

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 75):

PSA + US Air; Air Cal + American; Reno Air + American; TWA + American. In each case virtually none of the smaller carrier's routes remained within a few years of the takeover.

STOP. Where is Delta on that list? Oh...wait they aren't.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 75):
DL has dismantled MEM and some of CVG.

CVG was gone before the merger. Thank New York for it. (and lack of O/D) and what 1,000 flight a day hub does SEA have right down the road? none. Not apples to apples.

Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 75):
Name one merger that was successful.

Delta/Northwest. I mean they are only going to make over 1B this year.
Delta/Western....SLC still going strong.
How about this, nearly all of the Delta mergers.

Quoting mayor (Reply 76):

Depends on what you mean by successful. I'd say DL/C&S, DL/NE, DL/WA and even DL/NW. All of them have fundamentally changed DL's route system and made DL a much different airline than it was previous to each of these mergers. In addition, you have DL's acquisition of PA's routes in '91.

This.

Quoting mayor (Reply 78):

But they were still successful, no matter what. WA had ONE hub at the time of the merger.....SLC......LAX could have been more rightly called a focus city, albeit a large one.

And LAX is Delta's largest non-hub by far. The only part its really lacking from WA is Mexico. (which it has via AS)



yep.
User currently offlinequestions From Australia, joined Sep 2011, 857 posts, RR: 1
Reply 102, posted (2 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3200 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 101):
What you still have is a lack of understand of the Delta network. NRT is going to be replaced. SEA will likely be the spot that does it. (and the rest....go look and see why the DOT didn't give Delta SEA-HND to start with.)

1. What percentage of DL pax connecting in NRT with Asian destinations originate in the US vs Asia?

2. If NRT goes away would it have to be replaced with a west coast US hub or could an existing DL hub or hubs pick up the point-to-point traffic?

3. Is part of DL's expanding relationship with KE related to an effort to get out of NRT?

4. Why didn't the DOT award DL SEA-HND?


User currently offlinebomber996 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 395 posts, RR: 0
Reply 103, posted (2 years 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Quoting questions (Reply 102):
2. If NRT goes away would it have to be replaced with a west coast US hub or could an existing DL hub or hubs pick up the point-to-point traffic?

Look to an enhanced partnership with KE and their ICN hub to cover a lot of this.

Peace   



AVIATION - A Vacation In Any Town, I Own Nothing
User currently offlinegcb5196 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 25 posts, RR: 0
Reply 104, posted (2 years 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

The light rail is supposed to open in April.

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 105, posted (2 years 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2967 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 88):
for the simple reason of reassuring the Salt Lake community that if DL ever pulls out, SLC is not left holding the bag.

Well, the airport authority has to take some responsibility for this. After all, building a new terminal is probably at least 75% their idea. Of course you have to get your largest tenant on board with the project and this was the problem the last time SLC wanted to expand....DL wasn't ready, financially, to commit to the idea. I don't remember the exact time frame, but I believe it was in the very late 90s or even later than that. The master plan called for an ATL styled airport and from what I can remember, very different from the plan in place, now.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 106, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2862 times:

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 101):
NRT is going to be replaced. SEA will likely be the spot that does it.

If that's true, then I could see a reason for more interest in control over AS' network. It has been noted in other threads that Japan-U.S. traffic has generally been in a slow decline over the better part of the past decade.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 101):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 68):
I thought conventional wisdom was that DL couldn't make the same routes work that AS could with their cost structure disparity,

No. Care to prove to me that it would fail. You know real data. (and i know, you can't.)

I clearly stated I thought it was conventional wisdom (based upon what's repeated in these forums about it over and over), not that I could prove conventional wisdom one way or the other. If you want to take exception to conventional wisdom, as you did, then the burden would fall upon you to make that case. You know, with real data.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineslowroll From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 21 posts, RR: 0
Reply 107, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 99):
Quoting slowroll (Reply 98):
They've begun running the trains to test the tracks, albeit at a very slow speed.

When are they expecting service to start?

Officially, in May 2013. But speculation is that they're ahead of schedule so there might be an April surprise.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10675 posts, RR: 14
Reply 108, posted (2 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2708 times:

Quoting slowroll (Reply 107):
Officially, in May 2013. But speculation is that they're ahead of schedule so there might be an April surprise.

Wonder how many cars will get hit on West Temple from people turning in front of the trains??  



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
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...
Could DL Establish Hub In SJU? posted Thu May 3 2012 12:19:59 by rwy04lga
DL DFW Hub Routes posted Wed Nov 2 2011 10:18:30 by united319
Some Questions About DL's NRT Hub posted Wed Jul 21 2010 18:56:22 by aking8488
DL SLC-NRT: Possible With Winglet 767-300ER? posted Thu Jan 28 2010 14:16:20 by Transpac787
DL SLC-NRT To Operate With Scheduled Weight Limit posted Fri May 1 2009 06:35:15 by Transpac787
DL SLC And Its West Coast Ambitions posted Thu Mar 5 2009 13:38:33 by 9252fly
Delta Adds To SLC Hub posted Thu Feb 19 2009 05:37:27 by FFlyerWorld
Future Aircraft Type For DL's SLC-HNL Flight posted Sun Jan 18 2009 20:51:24 by 1337Delta764
New DL Small Hub Cuts, Fleet Realignment, Etc posted Wed Oct 8 2008 15:47:23 by Centrair
DL SLC-BOS Question posted Thu Dec 13 2007 21:44:00 by Afitch7881