lavalampluva
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:25 pm

flymco753 wrote:
lavalampluva wrote:
klm617 wrote:


I by no means said they were ideal my point was there are many inland airports that have sizeable international operations from their hub carriers. Detroit out of all of these cities is the least diverse even MSP and DEN have more passenger choice than Detroit does. I also believe as I stated before that Detroit can without a doubt sustain one of these LCC summer only flights at 4 weekly like the other airports are landing and any one who believe different just has their head buried in the sand.



Do you ever think about what you're posting. I'm sure that this has been gone over a dozen times, but here we go again.

DTW
Air France Paris
Delta Amsterdam Beijing Frankfurt London Munich Nagoya Paris Seoul Shanghai Tokyo Rome
Lufthansa Frankfurt
Royal Jordanian Amman

MSP
Air France Paris
Condor Frankfurt
Delta Amsterdam London Paris Reykjavik Tokyo
Icelandair Reykjavik
KLM Amsterdam

DEN
British Airways London
Icelandair Reykjavik
Lufthansa Frankfurt Munich
Norwegian London Paris
United London Tokyo


Now you tell me who has more options! :banghead:
You forgot regular non leisure destinations like GRU, MEX, and MTY.

Well yes. I mention to mention the options just from Europe and Asia.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
compensateme
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:32 pm

flymco753 wrote:
What is being placed below the center station across the fountain at the A Concourse, I walked past it yesterday, is it some kind of new interactive display?

Also, DL wants to destroy the end of the C Concourse, don' you think that'd be a better place for NK? If you think about it, they have enough room to put in a few stores and at least 2 restaurants, the only problem I see is ticket counter space. Or another hypothetical option is to build an E Concourse off the D Concourse once the old terminal is gone.


The North Terminal's biggest functional flaw is that gate holds were designed to handle 130-150 passengers, which was then the capacity of a midsize jet. But now the crux of the jets operated by NK, F9 and even many of WN house 175-220 seats, which leads to uncomfortable congested conditions within the terminal. Without discussing the tens of millions in infrastructure needed to move NK into Midfield, consider that its morning and evening push have more seats than the entire Concourse C (not just the shuttered gates) was designed to handle.

Not that DTW needs more gates anyway. Both Midfield and North are oozing with oodles of capacity outside the morning and evening pushes.

BTW, WCAA's solution to the congestion at North is to add a third widebody-capable gate. See, problem solved :).
You're not the CEO; you were a menial aircraft support mechanic intern, and that was four years ago.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6439
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 5:40 pm

compensateme wrote:
flymco753 wrote:
What is being placed below the center station across the fountain at the A Concourse, I walked past it yesterday, is it some kind of new interactive display?

Also, DL wants to destroy the end of the C Concourse, don' you think that'd be a better place for NK? If you think about it, they have enough room to put in a few stores and at least 2 restaurants, the only problem I see is ticket counter space. Or another hypothetical option is to build an E Concourse off the D Concourse once the old terminal is gone.


The North Terminal's biggest functional flaw is that gate holds were designed to handle 130-150 passengers, which was then the capacity of a midsize jet. But now the crux of the jets operated by NK, F9 and even many of WN house 175-220 seats, which leads to uncomfortable congested conditions within the terminal. Without discussing the tens of millions in infrastructure needed to move NK into Midfield, consider that its morning and evening push have more seats than the entire Concourse C (not just the shuttered gates) was designed to handle.

Not that DTW needs more gates anyway. Both Midfield and North are oozing with oodles of capacity outside the morning and evening pushes.

BTW, WCAA's solution to the congestion at North is to add a third widebody-capable gate. See, problem solved :).

Its somewhat of a compromise I suppose since UA & AA operate a lot of regional jets into DTW as well.
I do find it hilarious that people will cram in the gate area for their respective flight, yet an adjacent gate across or down the hall will be vacant. You can easily go sit there or find a quieter area. One doesn't need to "camp-out" in front of their gate for a hour before their flight. Human nature I suppose.
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:00 pm

lavalampluva wrote:
klm617 wrote:


I by no means said they were ideal my point was there are many inland airports that have sizeable international operations from their hub carriers. Detroit out of all of these cities is the least diverse even MSP and DEN have more passenger choice than Detroit does. I also believe as I stated before that Detroit can without a doubt sustain one of these LCC summer only flights at 4 weekly like the other airports are landing and any one who believe different just has their head buried in the sand.



Do you ever think about what you're posting. I'm sure that this has been gone over a dozen times, but here we go again.

DTW
Air France Paris
Delta Amsterdam Beijing Frankfurt London Munich Nagoya Paris Seoul Shanghai Tokyo Rome
Lufthansa Frankfurt
Royal Jordanian Amman

MSP
Air France Paris
Condor Frankfurt
Delta Amsterdam London Paris Reykjavik Tokyo
Icelandair Reykjavik
KLM Amsterdam

DEN
British Airways London
Icelandair Reykjavik
Lufthansa Frankfurt Munich
Norwegian London Paris
United London Tokyo


Now you tell me who has more options! :banghead:



Denver also has Edelweiss to Zurich. As you have very well illustrated that both MSP and DEN have more diversity and choice. Sometimes less is more and I'd rather have more diversity and less monopoly. It's not about destinations that one airline flies to it's about choice for the customer which Detroit is behind when you match it up to both Denver and Minneapolis. Both those markets have airlines that cater to every traveler Detroit does not this market only has the options for the high end traveler there is not one choice in the Detroit market for a budget traveler like both MSP and DEN have on offer.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:22 pm

klm617 wrote:
lavalampluva wrote:
klm617 wrote:


I by no means said they were ideal my point was there are many inland airports that have sizeable international operations from their hub carriers. Detroit out of all of these cities is the least diverse even MSP and DEN have more passenger choice than Detroit does. I also believe as I stated before that Detroit can without a doubt sustain one of these LCC summer only flights at 4 weekly like the other airports are landing and any one who believe different just has their head buried in the sand.



Do you ever think about what you're posting. I'm sure that this has been gone over a dozen times, but here we go again.

DTW
Air France Paris
Delta Amsterdam Beijing Frankfurt London Munich Nagoya Paris Seoul Shanghai Tokyo Rome
Lufthansa Frankfurt
Royal Jordanian Amman

MSP
Air France Paris
Condor Frankfurt
Delta Amsterdam London Paris Reykjavik Tokyo
Icelandair Reykjavik
KLM Amsterdam

DEN
British Airways London
Icelandair Reykjavik
Lufthansa Frankfurt Munich
Norwegian London Paris
United London Tokyo
Edelweiss Zurich


Now you tell me who has more options! :banghead:



Denver also has Edelweiss to Zurich. As you have very well illustrated that both MSP and DEN have more diversity and choice. Sometimes less is more and I'd rather have more diversity and less monopoly. It's not about destinations that one airline flies to it's about choice for the customer which Detroit is behind when you match it up to both Denver and Minneapolis. Both those markets have airlines that cater to every traveler Detroit does not this market only has the options for the high end traveler there is not one choice in the Detroit market for a budget traveler like both MSP and DEN have on offer.

Right. I forgot Edelweiss.

Ok. What diversity!!? :lol:

DTW serves 7 cities in Europe. 1 in the Middle East and 5 in Asia!

DEN has 7 in Europe, 1 in Asia

MSP has 5 in Europe, 1 in Asia.

Unless you're trying to use some new fancy math, I just proved that you're statement is false. DL is NEVER going to make DTW a JFK or ATL. But you should be happy that you have as much as you do. And if you think DL dislikes DTW so much, then why don't they just pull every international departure and give them to another hub?
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
alfa164
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 6:42 pm

lavalampluva wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I by no means said they were ideal my point was there are many inland airports that have sizeable international operations from their hub carriers. Detroit out of all of these cities is the least diverse even MSP and DEN have more passenger choice than Detroit does. I also believe as I stated before that Detroit can without a doubt sustain one of these LCC summer only flights at 4 weekly like the other airports are landing and any one who believe different just has their head buried in the sand.

Do you ever think about what you're posting. :banghead:


I hope that is a rhetorical question... because we all know the answer is clearly "No!".

I just cannot understand why someone continually, inevitably insists on embarrassing himself/herself/itself in every post... :roll:
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 7:17 pm

lavalampluva wrote:
klm617 wrote:
lavalampluva wrote:


Do you ever think about what you're posting. I'm sure that this has been gone over a dozen times, but here we go again.

DTW
Air France Paris
Delta Amsterdam Beijing Frankfurt London Munich Nagoya Paris Seoul Shanghai Tokyo Rome
Lufthansa Frankfurt
Royal Jordanian Amman

MSP
Air France Paris
Condor Frankfurt
Delta Amsterdam London Paris Reykjavik Tokyo
Icelandair Reykjavik
KLM Amsterdam

DEN
British Airways London
Icelandair Reykjavik
Lufthansa Frankfurt Munich
Norwegian London Paris
United London Tokyo
Edelweiss Zurich


Now you tell me who has more options! :banghead:



Denver also has Edelweiss to Zurich. As you have very well illustrated that both MSP and DEN have more diversity and choice. Sometimes less is more and I'd rather have more diversity and less monopoly. It's not about destinations that one airline flies to it's about choice for the customer which Detroit is behind when you match it up to both Denver and Minneapolis. Both those markets have airlines that cater to every traveler Detroit does not this market only has the options for the high end traveler there is not one choice in the Detroit market for a budget traveler like both MSP and DEN have on offer.

Right. I forgot Edelweiss.

Ok. What diversity!!? :lol:

DTW serves 7 cities in Europe. 1 in the Middle East and 5 in Asia!

DEN has 7 in Europe, 1 in Asia

MSP has 5 in Europe, 1 in Asia.

Unless you're trying to use some new fancy math, I just proved that you're statement is false. DL is NEVER going to make DTW a JFK or ATL. But you should be happy that you have as much as you do. And if you think DL dislikes DTW so much, then why don't they just pull every international departure and give them to another hub?



There is more choice in both those markets as fare as options to fly. I know Delta will never make Detroit an ATL or JFK so I really don't look to them because it's really not about more links it's more about more options to keep the competitive playing field more level here in Detroit verse one carrier having a monopoly which is not the case in both MSP and DEN and as you stated DEN has the same amount of links to Europe 7 as Detroit does.. I am looking more to carriers like FI, WW and DY maybe even DE to MUC
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
compensateme
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 8:19 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Its somewhat of a compromise I suppose since UA & AA operate a lot of regional jets into DTW as well.
I do find it hilarious that people will cram in the gate area for their respective flight, yet an adjacent gate across or down the hall will be vacant. You can easily go sit there or find a quieter area. One doesn't need to "camp-out" in front of their gate for a hour before their flight. Human nature I suppose.


I agree 100%.

But cultural issues have a lot to do with it, too: the congestion is at its worst generally right before boarding, with crowds often spilling into the concourse, obstructing traffic; after all, everybody wants to be the first to board. It's my nature to avoid crowds, so I generally look for an empty gate to hang out until shortly before boarding -- when I join the masses and become "that guy" spilling into the concourse. Ironically, I prefer to board last, not first, but if I'm traveling NK that's just not practical -- on NK, I always purchase a premium seat ... and there's nearly always somebody sitting in the seat, explaining to me why they need that seat (health problems, children, etc.) and that I should accept their middle seat in the very back and attempt to guilt trip me when I don't.

That said, it's a shame UA & AA are located at the ends of the terminal. If UA, which operates primarily regional jets into DTW, swapped gates with NK (of course, NK needs several additional gates), it'd be a solid band aid for status quo.
You're not the CEO; you were a menial aircraft support mechanic intern, and that was four years ago.
 
drdisque
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:06 pm

UA needs to be on that end because they do some of the handling for LH. UA also operated the 757 to DTW and was the only North Terminal airline to do so. They also currently have several daily flights on 739's, so they do need big spaces too (remember that a split-scimitared 739 takes up almost as much space as a 757).
 
johns624
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:17 pm

klm617 wrote:

There is more choice in both those markets as fare as options to fly. I know Delta will never make Detroit an ATL or JFK so I really don't look to them because it's really not about more links it's more about more options to keep the competitive playing field more level here in Detroit verse one carrier having a monopoly which is not the case in both MSP and DEN and as you stated DEN has the same amount of links to Europe 7 as Detroit does.. I am looking more to carriers like FI, WW and DY maybe even DE to MUC
DTW has more flights to Asia than DEN and MSP have, though. Although I don't always like the fares, I will pay a premium for a nonstop flight over one where you have to make connections and many others would, too.
 
compensateme
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:40 pm

drdisque wrote:
UA needs to be on that end because they do some of the handling for LH. UA also operated the 757 to DTW and was the only North Terminal airline to do so. They also currently have several daily flights on 739's, so they do need big spaces too (remember that a split-scimitared 739 takes up almost as much space as a 757).


When the North Terminal was in its planning stages, tenants got to pick their gates based based upon their size. NK went first, WN went second; this is why NK & WN have the gates closest to the checkpoints. UA (LH) and AA (BA, which subsequently ended service before the North Terminal opened) did choose the "piers" partially to be with their partners, but largely because they had little better alternative. Alas, while it's convenient for UA to be located near LH, they certainly don't have to be.

UA's service at DTW peaks in the fall, when they have 25 flights of which 7 are scheduled to be operated with mainline (including two 739); additionally, UA handles 3 AC CRJ flights. Mainline is operated throughout the day -- even during the morning, UA (and DTW's) biggest push, there's only one flight. The rest of the year, UA has only 3-4 mainline movements during the day. NK, meanwhile, has 12-14 flights (depending on the season) during the morning push, averaging 191 seats in the fall. The good news is NK is beginning to spread some of its flights out slightly.

So well UA isn't re-locating at DTW, it would provide some relief if they did so.

johns624 wrote:
Although I don't always like the fares, I will pay a premium for a nonstop flight over one where you have to make connections and many others would, too.


Good man. But I'd rather make the drive to ORD* or YYZ and pay $1800 to fly Business Class - as I did on QR earlier this year from ORD - than pay the same amount to fly DL in Economy.

*Or buy a cheap ticket to ORD; WN slashed their lowest fares to ORD by half earlier this year and the price seems to be sticking.
You're not the CEO; you were a menial aircraft support mechanic intern, and that was four years ago.
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 9:48 pm

The reason NK is spacing them apart is because you know there's going to be more routes and additional frequency next summer. I am excited to see what they'll do with 13 Florida flights this winter, 4 of them being on A321's, along with ATL, IAH, LAS and CUN.
Whether you're here on business, returning home, or visiting our world class attractions, welcome to Orlando and Central Florida...
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:18 pm

johns624 wrote:
klm617 wrote:

There is more choice in both those markets as fare as options to fly. I know Delta will never make Detroit an ATL or JFK so I really don't look to them because it's really not about more links it's more about more options to keep the competitive playing field more level here in Detroit verse one carrier having a monopoly which is not the case in both MSP and DEN and as you stated DEN has the same amount of links to Europe 7 as Detroit does.. I am looking more to carriers like FI, WW and DY maybe even DE to MUC
DTW has more flights to Asia than DEN and MSP have, though. Although I don't always like the fares, I will pay a premium for a nonstop flight over one where you have to make connections and many others would, too.


Delta loves you but I always look for the cheapest fare I work hard for my money and refuse to pay artificially high fares just because they monopolize a market. Although I will not drive to ORD or YYZ I will search out the cheapest fare and if it requires a connection so be it.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
Puissance
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 9:37 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:20 pm

I have to give credit to RJ. My daughter just bought a ticket to Greece on them in March for $503. DL and LH are within ten dollars of each other at $1338. They really act as an oligopoly to Europe from DTW. Options from Windsor are $1020 US.
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:07 pm

klm617 wrote:
lavalampluva wrote:
klm617 wrote:


Denver also has Edelweiss to Zurich. As you have very well illustrated that both MSP and DEN have more diversity and choice. Sometimes less is more and I'd rather have more diversity and less monopoly. It's not about destinations that one airline flies to it's about choice for the customer which Detroit is behind when you match it up to both Denver and Minneapolis. Both those markets have airlines that cater to every traveler Detroit does not this market only has the options for the high end traveler there is not one choice in the Detroit market for a budget traveler like both MSP and DEN have on offer.

Right. I forgot Edelweiss.

Ok. What diversity!!? :lol:

DTW serves 7 cities in Europe. 1 in the Middle East and 5 in Asia!

DEN has 7 in Europe, 1 in Asia

MSP has 5 in Europe, 1 in Asia.

Unless you're trying to use some new fancy math, I just proved that you're statement is false. DL is NEVER going to make DTW a JFK or ATL. But you should be happy that you have as much as you do. And if you think DL dislikes DTW so much, then why don't they just pull every international departure and give them to another hub?



There is more choice in both those markets as fare as options to fly. I know Delta will never make Detroit an ATL or JFK so I really don't look to them because it's really not about more links it's more about more options to keep the competitive playing field more level here in Detroit verse one carrier having a monopoly which is not the case in both MSP and DEN and as you stated DEN has the same amount of links to Europe 7 as Detroit does.. I am looking more to carriers like FI, WW and DY maybe even DE to MUC


Keep this also in mind and this is very concerning. In the current economic upswing DEN and MSP are trending up ward while DTW is just the opposite it is trending down ward. So I'd much rather be in DEN and MSP's situation than the situation that DTW is currently in.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6439
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 12:17 pm

Then move to those places. Denver is an economic boom-town now and has been for a better part of the past 20 years. DEN's increase in air service is a reflection of the huge organic economic and population boom in the region, not to mention that Colorado has vast domestic and international tourism appeal for the Rocky Mountains, outdoor recreation, and the ski industry/world-class ski resorts.
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 593
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 1:11 pm

klm617 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
lavalampluva wrote:
Right. I forgot Edelweiss.

Ok. What diversity!!? :lol:

DTW serves 7 cities in Europe. 1 in the Middle East and 5 in Asia!

DEN has 7 in Europe, 1 in Asia

MSP has 5 in Europe, 1 in Asia.

Unless you're trying to use some new fancy math, I just proved that you're statement is false. DL is NEVER going to make DTW a JFK or ATL. But you should be happy that you have as much as you do. And if you think DL dislikes DTW so much, then why don't they just pull every international departure and give them to another hub?



There is more choice in both those markets as fare as options to fly. I know Delta will never make Detroit an ATL or JFK so I really don't look to them because it's really not about more links it's more about more options to keep the competitive playing field more level here in Detroit verse one carrier having a monopoly which is not the case in both MSP and DEN and as you stated DEN has the same amount of links to Europe 7 as Detroit does.. I am looking more to carriers like FI, WW and DY maybe even DE to MUC


Keep this also in mind and this is very concerning. In the current economic upswing DEN and MSP are trending up ward while DTW is just the opposite it is trending down ward. So I'd much rather be in DEN and MSP's situation than the situation that DTW is currently in.


I don't think the DTW economy is as bleak as you make it sound. It has improved since the economic bust a decade ago. It is improving slowly, but it is improving. Sure...you don't have a FI, WW, DY, or DE pounding down the door to start flights, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. FI has been flying to MSP since the late 90s. They have had time to build up a market.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 2:47 pm

Service at DTW is actually improving.

This fall, DL will be running more mainline, and more frequency out of DTW since the PMNW era. Particularly on 717, M88, and M90 aircraft. Also, DL is adding SNA which is a huge deal, this could help determine if thin West Coast destinations can work on a plane the size of the 73W.

NK will have more seats than (as someone pointed it out above) as the B and C Concourse combined at peak travel time thanks to the large amount of 321's NK is deploying at DTW. F9 is starting daily MIA on the A320 and twice daily MCO on the A321.

Obviously, AS is adding PDX, they broke yet another monopoly, that's 2 in 3 years, and next summer they'll peak at 3 daily flights, at this moment.

LH is bringing back the 744 next March, much earlier than before. AF is also starting 777 service, an increase in seats due to the increased demand in Paris travel from DTW. AM has been substituting the 738/73S a lot for the 73W, I expect the 738/S to become a daily visitor in peak season.

Even WN is adding a seasonal TPA, that's a good indicator that WN is committed to winter leisure travel from DTW, I think they'll bring RSW back next.

AA is the only airline slipping at the moment, what once used to be all mainline to CLT with a mixture of 321's and 320's is now only 3x daily mainline (319's) and 4x RJ, PHX is cut to 2 during the summer, and PHL gets mainline removed in the winter.

UA is more stagnant, although IAH get's a mixture of 737's, DEN gets 2 daily 737's, ORD does 2 daily 737s at the least, sometimes EWR flies mainline, and SFO has been upgraded to a 737-900 peak, or an A320, so honestly UA isn't doing that bad.

It's the time of the year where TATL adds generally get announced, I'm eager to hear if DTW will get a Euro LCC of some sort, and if I had to put my finger on a specific carrier that I think would work best for DTW is WOW.
Whether you're here on business, returning home, or visiting our world class attractions, welcome to Orlando and Central Florida...
 
alfa164
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 5:31 pm

lavalampluva wrote:
klm617 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
There is more choice in both those markets as fare as options to fly. I know Delta will never make Detroit an ATL or JFK so I really don't look to them because it's really not about more links it's more about more options to keep the competitive playing field more level here in Detroit verse one carrier having a monopoly which is not the case in both MSP and DEN and as you stated DEN has the same amount of links to Europe 7 as Detroit does.. I am looking more to carriers like FI, WW and DY maybe even DE to MUC

Keep this also in mind and this is very concerning. In the current economic upswing DEN and MSP are trending up ward while DTW is just the opposite it is trending down ward. So I'd much rather be in DEN and MSP's situation than the situation that DTW is currently in.

I don't think the DTW economy is as bleak as you make it sound. It has improved since the economic bust a decade ago. It is improving slowly, but it is improving. Sure...you don't have a FI, WW, DY, or DE pounding down the door to start flights, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. FI has been flying to MSP since the late 90s. They have had time to build up a market.

I am thinking perhaps the poster-who-should-not-be-named drags down the economy of wherever he/she/it is living... that may be the problem in Detroit now... ;)
 
compensateme
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:12 pm

alfa164 wrote:
I am thinking perhaps the poster-who-should-not-be-named drags down the economy of wherever he/she/it is living... that may be the problem in Detroit now... ;)


I'm thinking that you must really enjoy trolling/interacting with him, as you're really the only one doing so, and it's distracting from those of us trying to create a "real" discussion.
You're not the CEO; you were a menial aircraft support mechanic intern, and that was four years ago.
 
compensateme
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 6:22 pm

Pulling some quick numbers:

This summer, the North Terminal had 128 peak-day departures, of which 78 were on mainline jets. Early fall, that number climbs to 129, with 78 on mainline jets. This equates to about 4.75 departures per gate, which demonstrates how poorly utilized -- as a whole -- the North Terminal is. But that said, most of the North's activity comes in the morning and evening; midday, there's very little activity (and at times, not a single aircraft parked at the terminal). Because of this, I do think DTW will pursue the 4 gate addition since it will - at the minimum - provide some empty gate cushion for when times are busy (as mentioned, most holds were built to handle 130-150 people, not the 175-220 common today). But long-term expansion is just not necessary.
You're not the CEO; you were a menial aircraft support mechanic intern, and that was four years ago.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6439
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 7:21 pm

For a lot of detailed information about actual, historical data, forecast projections, and airport infrastructure requirements I suggest a read of the following document that has been prepared this summer in regards to the DTW Master Plan update.
http://detroitmetroairportmasterplan.or ... irport.pdf

There is a lot of good information in there that helps answer a lot of questions about short, medium, and long-term plans based on forecast. The airports need this so they can appropriately budget, plan, and executive infrastructure-related projects.

In the short-term, much of the infrastructure replacement/enhancement is either airfield or landside repair and replacement. The terminals themselves have ample capacity for the next 20 years based on planning assumptions. The only near-term expansion of actual terminal space is on the North Terminal with the addition of one more FIS-capable widebody gate, and the addition of 3 narrowbody gates, plus additional RON parking once the Berry & Smith terminals are demolished.
 
11725Flyer
Posts: 840
Joined: Mon May 30, 2016 4:51 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Fri Aug 11, 2017 8:35 pm

Looks like Delta will be bringing some 747 service back to DTW for a few days.

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... gust-2017/
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:15 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
For a lot of detailed information about actual, historical data, forecast projections, and airport infrastructure requirements I suggest a read of the following document that has been prepared this summer in regards to the DTW Master Plan update.
http://detroitmetroairportmasterplan.or ... irport.pdf

There is a lot of good information in there that helps answer a lot of questions about short, medium, and long-term plans based on forecast. The airports need this so they can appropriately budget, plan, and executive infrastructure-related projects.

In the short-term, much of the infrastructure replacement/enhancement is either airfield or landside repair and replacement. The terminals themselves have ample capacity for the next 20 years based on planning assumptions. The only near-term expansion of actual terminal space is on the North Terminal with the addition of one more FIS-capable widebody gate, and the addition of 3 narrowbody gates, plus additional RON parking once the Berry & Smith terminals are demolished.


When reading through this report there are a couple off things that disturbed me. Number 1 why was Windsor area not included as part of the service area that uses DTW also DTW does not have competitive airfares in general airfares a higher than other markets of similar length and size. Not to mention Delta is talked about way to much in this report. I also noticed that Detroit is very close to losing it's number one status in the Delta system as an Asian gateway. I suspect that that will happen next year with all the shifting of Asia flying from Detroit to Atlanta. Also I see that DTW-LON is in fact a bigger market than DTW-FRA yet it has way less capacity than DTW-FRA.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
johns624
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 1:27 am

If they are shifting so much Asian flying to ATL, why are the A350's based in DTW?
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:57 am

DTW-FRA is nearly twice the size of LON. CDG will overtake LON though, as that market will grow more throughout the next few years. I don't expect anyone to operate more flights, but AF is already adding capacity by flying the 777.
Whether you're here on business, returning home, or visiting our world class attractions, welcome to Orlando and Central Florida...
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 2:17 pm

AM is bringing MTY back in March, hopefully they put the codeshare on it this time as they didn't the last few times, I think the codeshare is the successor for that flight.
Whether you're here on business, returning home, or visiting our world class attractions, welcome to Orlando and Central Florida...
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:13 pm

flymco753 wrote:
DTW-FRA is nearly twice the size of LON. CDG will overtake LON though, as that market will grow more throughout the next few years. I don't expect anyone to operate more flights, but AF is already adding capacity by flying the 777.



Not according to the report PSU shared it shows London having more O/D passengers that Frankfurt from Detroit.
Last edited by klm617 on Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:30 pm

johns624 wrote:
If they are shifting so much Asian flying to ATL, why are the A350's based in DTW?


Because they want to reduce capacity at DTW by replacing the 744. Those seats are being shifted to ATL . It is by no coincidence that the flights that were a 744 ICN and PVG and are switching now to an A350 will both be liked to ATL now with nonstops. Why didn't KE add Detroit 3 X weekly to pick up that slack instead they are now sending those lost connections over ATL. I anwser to your question as to why the A350 will be based at Detroit simple answer they want international capacity to be further eroded at Detroit. To say the 744 was too big for it's Asia routes is simply not true because as you see they just shifted the capacity to another hub. What Mr. Bastian meant was the 744 was to large to link ATL to Asia as the volume indicated that the 744 was not to big it was just to big for ATL service. Had the route not warented a plane the size of the 744 out of Detroit that capacity would not have been made up with the new ATL flights. If Delta would have operated the 777 over ATL and the 744 over Detroit then yes you would have an over capacity situation so DTW to Asia had to be reduced to make ATL Asia viable.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 4:49 pm

klm617 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
If they are shifting so much Asian flying to ATL, why are the A350's based in DTW?


Because they want to reduce capacity at DTW by replacing the 744. Those seats are being shifted to ATL . It is by no coincidence that the flights that were a 744 ICN and PVG and are switching now to an A350 will both be liked to ATL now with nonstops. Why didn't KE add Detroit 3 X weekly to pick up that slack instead they are now sending those lost connections over ATL. I anwser to your question as to why the A350 will be based at Detroit simple answer they want international capacity to be further eroded at Detroit. To say the 744 was too big for it's Asia routes is simply not true because as you see they just shifted the capacity to another hub. What Mr. Bastian meant was the 744 was to large to link ATL to Asia as the volume indicated that the 744 was not to big it was just to big for ATL service. Had the route not warented a plane the size of the 744 out of Detroit that capacity would not have been made up with the new ATL flights. If Delta would have operated the 777 over ATL and the 744 over Detroit then yes you would have an over capacity situation so DTW to Asia had to be reduced to make ATL Asia viable.


Just another quick question, why do you think DL has something against DTW, correct me if I am wrong but DTW has nonstops to PEK/NGO/NRT/PVG/ICN, which is more than what DL offers at SEA/LAX/ATL.
 
johns624
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 6:47 pm

klm617 wrote:
Because they want to reduce capacity at DTW by replacing the 744. Those seats are being shifted to ATL . It is by no coincidence that the flights that were a 744 ICN and PVG and are switching now to an A350 will both be liked to ATL now with nonstops. Why didn't KE add Detroit 3 X weekly to pick up that slack instead they are now sending those lost connections over ATL. I anwser to your question as to why the A350 will be based at Detroit simple answer they want international capacity to be further eroded at Detroit. To say the 744 was too big for it's Asia routes is simply not true because as you see they just shifted the capacity to another hub. What Mr. Bastian meant was the 744 was to large to link ATL to Asia as the volume indicated that the 744 was not to big it was just to big for ATL service. Had the route not warented a plane the size of the 744 out of Detroit that capacity would not have been made up with the new ATL flights. If Delta would have operated the 777 over ATL and the 744 over Detroit then yes you would have an over capacity situation so DTW to Asia had to be reduced to make ATL Asia viable.
Well, that just makes sense. The 744's needed to be retired and DL didn't want/need the 748. So, if you're flying a slightly smaller plane, you split the termini. DTW couldn't fill two 359s but they each can fill one. DTW still has more Asian nonstop than ATL. They may not have the tail painted the color you want, but they are there.
 
beerbus
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:41 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sat Aug 12, 2017 9:11 pm

klm617 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
If they are shifting so much Asian flying to ATL, why are the A350's based in DTW?


Because they want to reduce capacity at DTW by replacing the 744. Those seats are being shifted to ATL . It is by no coincidence that the flights that were a 744 ICN and PVG and are switching now to an A350 will both be liked to ATL now with nonstops. Why didn't KE add Detroit 3 X weekly to pick up that slack instead they are now sending those lost connections over ATL. I anwser to your question as to why the A350 will be based at Detroit simple answer they want international capacity to be further eroded at Detroit. To say the 744 was too big for it's Asia routes is simply not true because as you see they just shifted the capacity to another hub. What Mr. Bastian meant was the 744 was to large to link ATL to Asia as the volume indicated that the 744 was not to big it was just to big for ATL service. Had the route not warented a plane the size of the 744 out of Detroit that capacity would not have been made up with the new ATL flights. If Delta would have operated the 777 over ATL and the 744 over Detroit then yes you would have an over capacity situation so DTW to Asia had to be reduced to make ATL Asia viable.


At the risk of feeding the troll, please let me enlighten you on the economics of flying 744's to Asia. They are not good. At NW we realized that we had too many seats on a single flight to Asia because of the 744's capacity. The large number of seats caused us to sell discounted seats to fill the aircraft. At one time the 744 made sense, but as numerous posters have explained to you, the dynamics of USA-Asia flying has changed. Think about this- is UA trying to shaft ORD and SFO by parking their 744's and replacing them with 777's and future A350-10's? No- they are following the same strategy. Right sizing the aircraft to the new market dynamics.

In any event, NW's use of the 744 drove down it's Revenue Per Passenger Mile, also known as Yield. Why did yield decline? Why did NW receive less average revenue per mile that each passenger flew than it's competition?

Because we had too many seats to fill. (I know this- because I used to fill them) To fill those seats- we discounted them, offering many of them to consolidators (bucket shops) at deeply discounted prices. Those low yield passengers helped fill the plane, but flying a large plane full of low-yield passengers does not lead to long-term financial stability. Putting cheap butts in excess 744 seats drove down our yield. Higher Yield translates into higher Net Profit. Higher Net Profits translates in to lower borrowing costs, and more money to invest in aircraft and staff. In the end, airline profitability is all about passenger yield.

The A350 is the right sized aircraft for the market. The 744 is/was TOO LARGE. If it was the right size- I guarantee you that DL would have placed an order for 748i's and used them to replace 744's.

The carrier with the highest yield will generally be the most successful long-term. Many components go into why one carrier generates higher yield than another. ( i.e. Good customer service generates more high yield business traffic). But the fastest way to reduce yield, and decrease overall profitability is to fly too many seats in a particular market. And the the way to long-term profitability is via capacity discipline. DL usually refuses to chase low-yield traffic in ALL their markets, just not DTW. Instead they make use of the multiple sized AC in their fleet to right-size capacity. And note that they have cancelled Asia service from SFO and JFK too. They had lousy yields. Those assets were moved to where they can generate the highest yield (and net profits)- which then allows DL to make capital investments and raise salaries above post-bankruptcy levels.

So there is no high-yield "slack" in DTW for KE, DL, KL, or anyone else for that matter right now to pick up. There might be low-yield slack....but you cannot run an airline long-term of low yields. Each airline has a route planning department full of number cruncher's trying to maximize the return on capital. They have much more operating, passenger, and cost data that anyone on Airliners has. When they see an opportunity- they strike. And the people in Route Planning are reviewed by senior management on overall flight profitability. And they don't care if the flight leaves from DTW OR ATL.
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:32 am

Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
If they are shifting so much Asian flying to ATL, why are the A350's based in DTW?


Because they want to reduce capacity at DTW by replacing the 744. Those seats are being shifted to ATL . It is by no coincidence that the flights that were a 744 ICN and PVG and are switching now to an A350 will both be liked to ATL now with nonstops. Why didn't KE add Detroit 3 X weekly to pick up that slack instead they are now sending those lost connections over ATL. I anwser to your question as to why the A350 will be based at Detroit simple answer they want international capacity to be further eroded at Detroit. To say the 744 was too big for it's Asia routes is simply not true because as you see they just shifted the capacity to another hub. What Mr. Bastian meant was the 744 was to large to link ATL to Asia as the volume indicated that the 744 was not to big it was just to big for ATL service. Had the route not warented a plane the size of the 744 out of Detroit that capacity would not have been made up with the new ATL flights. If Delta would have operated the 777 over ATL and the 744 over Detroit then yes you would have an over capacity situation so DTW to Asia had to be reduced to make ATL Asia viable.


Just another quick question, why do you think DL has something against DTW, correct me if I am wrong but DTW has nonstops to PEK/NGO/NRT/PVG/ICN, which is more than what DL offers at SEA/LAX/ATL.


Actually that's not true SEA has more with double daily ICN. The reason I think that Delta has something against Detroit is because they keep shrinking this hub in favor of other hubs in the system. Their is nothing in the pipeline as far as further Delta expansion in the Detroit market. Every time new markets are added Detroit is never considered.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 1:59 am

beerbus wrote:
klm617 wrote:
johns624 wrote:
If they are shifting so much Asian flying to ATL, why are the A350's based in DTW?


Because they want to reduce capacity at DTW by replacing the 744. Those seats are being shifted to ATL . It is by no coincidence that the flights that were a 744 ICN and PVG and are switching now to an A350 will both be liked to ATL now with nonstops. Why didn't KE add Detroit 3 X weekly to pick up that slack instead they are now sending those lost connections over ATL. I anwser to your question as to why the A350 will be based at Detroit simple answer they want international capacity to be further eroded at Detroit. To say the 744 was too big for it's Asia routes is simply not true because as you see they just shifted the capacity to another hub. What Mr. Bastian meant was the 744 was to large to link ATL to Asia as the volume indicated that the 744 was not to big it was just to big for ATL service. Had the route not warented a plane the size of the 744 out of Detroit that capacity would not have been made up with the new ATL flights. If Delta would have operated the 777 over ATL and the 744 over Detroit then yes you would have an over capacity situation so DTW to Asia had to be reduced to make ATL Asia viable.


At the risk of feeding the troll, please let me enlighten you on the economics of flying 744's to Asia. They are not good. At NW we realized that we had too many seats on a single flight to Asia because of the 744's capacity. The large number of seats caused us to sell discounted seats to fill the aircraft. At one time the 744 made sense, but as numerous posters have explained to you, the dynamics of USA-Asia flying has changed. Think about this- is UA trying to shaft ORD and SFO by parking their 744's and replacing them with 777's and future A350-10's? No- they are following the same strategy. Right sizing the aircraft to the new market dynamics.

In any event, NW's use of the 744 drove down it's Revenue Per Passenger Mile, also known as Yield. Why did yield decline? Why did NW receive less average revenue per mile that each passenger flew than it's competition?

Because we had too many seats to fill. (I know this- because I used to fill them) To fill those seats- we discounted them, offering many of them to consolidators (bucket shops) at deeply discounted prices. Those low yield passengers helped fill the plane, but flying a large plane full of low-yield passengers does not lead to long-term financial stability. Putting cheap butts in excess 744 seats drove down our yield. Higher Yield translates into higher Net Profit. Higher Net Profits translates in to lower borrowing costs, and more money to invest in aircraft and staff. In the end, airline profitability is all about passenger yield.

The A350 is the right sized aircraft for the market. The 744 is/was TOO LARGE. If it was the right size- I guarantee you that DL would have placed an order for 748i's and used them to replace 744's.

The carrier with the highest yield will generally be the most successful long-term. Many components go into why one carrier generates higher yield than another. ( i.e. Good customer service generates more high yield business traffic). But the fastest way to reduce yield, and decrease overall profitability is to fly too many seats in a particular market. And the the way to long-term profitability is via capacity discipline. DL usually refuses to chase low-yield traffic in ALL their markets, just not DTW. Instead they make use of the multiple sized AC in their fleet to right-size capacity. And note that they have cancelled Asia service from SFO and JFK too. They had lousy yields. Those assets were moved to where they can generate the highest yield (and net profits)- which then allows DL to make capital investments and raise salaries above post-bankruptcy levels.

So there is no high-yield "slack" in DTW for KE, DL, KL, or anyone else for that matter right now to pick up. There might be low-yield slack....but you cannot run an airline long-term of low yields. Each airline has a route planning department full of number cruncher's trying to maximize the return on capital. They have much more operating, passenger, and cost data that anyone on Airliners has. When they see an opportunity- they strike. And the people in Route Planning are reviewed by senior management on overall flight profitability. And they don't care if the flight leaves from DTW OR ATL.


I agree with everything you are saying and understand it but why is that the rule of thumb where Detroit is concerned. Why is not the same logic used when we talk about cities like BOS, ORD, NYC, ATL, , AND LAX. Carriers are always dumping excess excess capacity in those markets trashing yields with an abundance of low fare seats and please don't tell me because those are bigger markets because the same rules should apply for those cities as with Detroit and please don't tell me that KEF-MSP warrants 14 flights a week while DTW has zero somebody is giving away seats there . Delta route planner are not crunching numbers say what can we add in the Detroit market because even if it warranted service it's not going to be added. Sorry DTW-MAN and DTW-DUB are doable with a 757 in the summer and so is a KE DTW-ICN flight.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
2Holer4Longhaul
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2017 5:03 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:36 am

klm617 wrote:
beerbus wrote:
klm617 wrote:

Because they want to reduce capacity at DTW by replacing the 744. Those seats are being shifted to ATL . It is by no coincidence that the flights that were a 744 ICN and PVG and are switching now to an A350 will both be liked to ATL now with nonstops. Why didn't KE add Detroit 3 X weekly to pick up that slack instead they are now sending those lost connections over ATL. I anwser to your question as to why the A350 will be based at Detroit simple answer they want international capacity to be further eroded at Detroit. To say the 744 was too big for it's Asia routes is simply not true because as you see they just shifted the capacity to another hub. What Mr. Bastian meant was the 744 was to large to link ATL to Asia as the volume indicated that the 744 was not to big it was just to big for ATL service. Had the route not warented a plane the size of the 744 out of Detroit that capacity would not have been made up with the new ATL flights. If Delta would have operated the 777 over ATL and the 744 over Detroit then yes you would have an over capacity situation so DTW to Asia had to be reduced to make ATL Asia viable.


At the risk of feeding the troll, please let me enlighten you on the economics of flying 744's to Asia. They are not good. At NW we realized that we had too many seats on a single flight to Asia because of the 744's capacity. The large number of seats caused us to sell discounted seats to fill the aircraft. At one time the 744 made sense, but as numerous posters have explained to you, the dynamics of USA-Asia flying has changed. Think about this- is UA trying to shaft ORD and SFO by parking their 744's and replacing them with 777's and future A350-10's? No- they are following the same strategy. Right sizing the aircraft to the new market dynamics.

In any event, NW's use of the 744 drove down it's Revenue Per Passenger Mile, also known as Yield. Why did yield decline? Why did NW receive less average revenue per mile that each passenger flew than it's competition?

Because we had too many seats to fill. (I know this- because I used to fill them) To fill those seats- we discounted them, offering many of them to consolidators (bucket shops) at deeply discounted prices. Those low yield passengers helped fill the plane, but flying a large plane full of low-yield passengers does not lead to long-term financial stability. Putting cheap butts in excess 744 seats drove down our yield. Higher Yield translates into higher Net Profit. Higher Net Profits translates in to lower borrowing costs, and more money to invest in aircraft and staff. In the end, airline profitability is all about passenger yield.

The A350 is the right sized aircraft for the market. The 744 is/was TOO LARGE. If it was the right size- I guarantee you that DL would have placed an order for 748i's and used them to replace 744's.

The carrier with the highest yield will generally be the most successful long-term. Many components go into why one carrier generates higher yield than another. ( i.e. Good customer service generates more high yield business traffic). But the fastest way to reduce yield, and decrease overall profitability is to fly too many seats in a particular market. And the the way to long-term profitability is via capacity discipline. DL usually refuses to chase low-yield traffic in ALL their markets, just not DTW. Instead they make use of the multiple sized AC in their fleet to right-size capacity. And note that they have cancelled Asia service from SFO and JFK too. They had lousy yields. Those assets were moved to where they can generate the highest yield (and net profits)- which then allows DL to make capital investments and raise salaries above post-bankruptcy levels.

So there is no high-yield "slack" in DTW for KE, DL, KL, or anyone else for that matter right now to pick up. There might be low-yield slack....but you cannot run an airline long-term of low yields. Each airline has a route planning department full of number cruncher's trying to maximize the return on capital. They have much more operating, passenger, and cost data that anyone on Airliners has. When they see an opportunity- they strike. And the people in Route Planning are reviewed by senior management on overall flight profitability. And they don't care if the flight leaves from DTW OR ATL.


I agree with everything you are saying and understand it but why is that the rule of thumb where Detroit is concerned. Why is not the same logic used when we talk about cities like BOS, ORD, NYC, ATL, , AND LAX. Carriers are always dumping excess excess capacity in those markets trashing yields with an abundance of low fare seats and please don't tell me because those are bigger markets because the same rules should apply for those cities as with Detroit and please don't tell me that KEF-MSP warrants 14 flights a week while DTW has zero somebody is giving away seats there . Delta route planner are not crunching numbers say what can we add in the Detroit market because even if it warranted service it's not going to be added. Sorry DTW-MAN and DTW-DUB are doable with a 757 in the summer and so is a KE DTW-ICN flight.
th
The same logic is used there, but because they actually are bigger markets, they get more flights.
DTW-MAN and DTW-DUB are well within the 757 operating range, and you can get decent load factors there in summer, but that is not the most profitable use of those 757s for Delta, so it is not the use that happens.
Just because a route can make money, doesn't mean it will make MORE money than the alternative use of the resources.
A junkie for A340s, A380s, and of course Her Majesty the Boeing 747. I wish they were financially viable, but it is not to be.
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 2:14 pm

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:
beerbus wrote:

At the risk of feeding the troll, please let me enlighten you on the economics of flying 744's to Asia. They are not good. At NW we realized that we had too many seats on a single flight to Asia because of the 744's capacity. The large number of seats caused us to sell discounted seats to fill the aircraft. At one time the 744 made sense, but as numerous posters have explained to you, the dynamics of USA-Asia flying has changed. Think about this- is UA trying to shaft ORD and SFO by parking their 744's and replacing them with 777's and future A350-10's? No- they are following the same strategy. Right sizing the aircraft to the new market dynamics.

In any event, NW's use of the 744 drove down it's Revenue Per Passenger Mile, also known as Yield. Why did yield decline? Why did NW receive less average revenue per mile that each passenger flew than it's competition?

Because we had too many seats to fill. (I know this- because I used to fill them) To fill those seats- we discounted them, offering many of them to consolidators (bucket shops) at deeply discounted prices. Those low yield passengers helped fill the plane, but flying a large plane full of low-yield passengers does not lead to long-term financial stability. Putting cheap butts in excess 744 seats drove down our yield. Higher Yield translates into higher Net Profit. Higher Net Profits translates in to lower borrowing costs, and more money to invest in aircraft and staff. In the end, airline profitability is all about passenger yield.

The A350 is the right sized aircraft for the market. The 744 is/was TOO LARGE. If it was the right size- I guarantee you that DL would have placed an order for 748i's and used them to replace 744's.

The carrier with the highest yield will generally be the most successful long-term. Many components go into why one carrier generates higher yield than another. ( i.e. Good customer service generates more high yield business traffic). But the fastest way to reduce yield, and decrease overall profitability is to fly too many seats in a particular market. And the the way to long-term profitability is via capacity discipline. DL usually refuses to chase low-yield traffic in ALL their markets, just not DTW. Instead they make use of the multiple sized AC in their fleet to right-size capacity. And note that they have cancelled Asia service from SFO and JFK too. They had lousy yields. Those assets were moved to where they can generate the highest yield (and net profits)- which then allows DL to make capital investments and raise salaries above post-bankruptcy levels.

So there is no high-yield "slack" in DTW for KE, DL, KL, or anyone else for that matter right now to pick up. There might be low-yield slack....but you cannot run an airline long-term of low yields. Each airline has a route planning department full of number cruncher's trying to maximize the return on capital. They have much more operating, passenger, and cost data that anyone on Airliners has. When they see an opportunity- they strike. And the people in Route Planning are reviewed by senior management on overall flight profitability. And they don't care if the flight leaves from DTW OR ATL.


I agree with everything you are saying and understand it but why is that the rule of thumb where Detroit is concerned. Why is not the same logic used when we talk about cities like BOS, ORD, NYC, ATL, , AND LAX. Carriers are always dumping excess excess capacity in those markets trashing yields with an abundance of low fare seats and please don't tell me because those are bigger markets because the same rules should apply for those cities as with Detroit and please don't tell me that KEF-MSP warrants 14 flights a week while DTW has zero somebody is giving away seats there . Delta route planner are not crunching numbers say what can we add in the Detroit market because even if it warranted service it's not going to be added. Sorry DTW-MAN and DTW-DUB are doable with a 757 in the summer and so is a KE DTW-ICN flight.
th
The same logic is used there, but because they actually are bigger markets, they get more flights.
DTW-MAN and DTW-DUB are well within the 757 operating range, and you can get decent load factors there in summer, but that is not the most profitable use of those 757s for Delta, so it is not the use that happens.
Just because a route can make money, doesn't mean it will make MORE money than the alternative use of the resources.



But that's not true because there are many more cheap seats in the bigger markets which means there is an excess of inventory. So carriers do not exercise capacity restraint in bigger markets like they do in Detroit because they know that in Detroit they have a captive audience with little or no choice so they don't bother adding flights there. DTW-DUB is just as good or better than BOS-DUB on a 757 especially when they are not competing against EI they'd have the whole market to themselves not to mention all the connections.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
beerbus
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:41 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 4:40 pm

klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:
klm617 wrote:



But that's not true because there are many more cheap seats in the bigger markets which means there is an excess of inventory. So carriers do not exercise capacity restraint in bigger markets like they do in Detroit because they know that in Detroit they have a captive audience with little or no choice so they don't bother adding flights there. DTW-DUB is just as good or better than BOS-DUB on a 757 especially when they are not competing against EI they'd have the whole market to themselves not to mention all the connections.



The logic you are using doesn't make sense- you state there are more cheap seats in bigger markets, which means there is an excess of inventory. This is not accurate. An excess of capacity in the post deregulation era caused carriers to produce lousy net earnings. To fill planes, carriers cut their fares, and made little, if any profit. The string of bankruptcies at TW, CO, DL, NW, AA, EA, PE, US, and others is the legacy of excess inventory producing yields that were insufficient to produce a strong return on capital. You want to go back to that era?

1. There ARE more cheap, low yield seats in a bigger market, because it IS a bigger market. Supply follows demand. But what does that have to do with my statement about DTW having a supply that matches the market?

2. Again, you are stating, without facts, that carries don't restrain capacity in larger markets. I have previously explained that carriers like UA are also downsizing their flights from their fortress bubs like ORD and SFO. So yes, carriers besides DL do manage capacity in their hubs. Notice the reductions AA made in PHX since their merger with US. They dumped low yield connecting traffic to improve yields from that market. UA also cut flights completely from JFK to improve their overall system yield. And how do you explain CLT? AA rules O&D from there. And they constantly adjust capacity to match both local and connecting demand, to maintain high yields.

3. And regarding DUB, I used to sell the Irish market on NW from the mid-west. It's a tourist market. Not a significant producer of high-yield business traffic. So DL or any US carrier with a similar cost structure will take that 757 and place it in a market where they will get the largest return on assets. If it's DTW- it will fly from there. DL added DTW MUC because of business traffic, topped off by summer tourists. A good mix. The Italian market is also heavily tourist based, but it has a good number of high-yield business traffic making that a market DL also serves from DTW. And if DL is anti DTW, how do explain MUC and FCO?
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:27 pm

I know this is way far out but next July DL plans 757 service to SNA.
Whether you're here on business, returning home, or visiting our world class attractions, welcome to Orlando and Central Florida...
 
compensateme
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:56 pm

flymco753 wrote:
I know this is way far out but next July DL plans 757 service to SNA.


I'm pretty confident this is the first time in history that DL's initial summer schedule for the upcoming year was new rather than simply rolled over. Lots of frequency reductions, a derivative of a 50% reduction in YOY 50-seat movements. Upgauging 50-seaters to 65/76-seaters means that there's fewer 65/76-seaters to go around... and routes like our beloved DTW/JAX are upgauged to mainline.

Of course, little of this really matters at this point -- DL was tweaking its peak summer schedule (which began July 1 and concludes at the end of this week) into last month.
You're not the CEO; you were a menial aircraft support mechanic intern, and that was four years ago.
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:49 pm

beerbus wrote:
klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:



The logic you are using doesn't make sense- you state there are more cheap seats in bigger markets, which means there is an excess of inventory. This is not accurate. An excess of capacity in the post deregulation era caused carriers to produce lousy net earnings. To fill planes, carriers cut their fares, and made little, if any profit. The string of bankruptcies at TW, CO, DL, NW, AA, EA, PE, US, and others is the legacy of excess inventory producing yields that were insufficient to produce a strong return on capital. You want to go back to that era?

1. There ARE more cheap, low yield seats in a bigger market, because it IS a bigger market. Supply follows demand. But what does that have to do with my statement about DTW having a supply that matches the market?

2. Again, you are stating, without facts, that carries don't restrain capacity in larger markets. I have previously explained that carriers like UA are also downsizing their flights from their fortress bubs like ORD and SFO. So yes, carriers besides DL do manage capacity in their hubs. Notice the reductions AA made in PHX since their merger with US. They dumped low yield connecting traffic to improve yields from that market. UA also cut flights completely from JFK to improve their overall system yield. And how do you explain CLT? AA rules O&D from there. And they constantly adjust capacity to match both local and connecting demand, to maintain high yields.

3. And regarding DUB, I used to sell the Irish market on NW from the mid-west. It's a tourist market. Not a significant producer of high-yield business traffic. So DL or any US carrier with a similar cost structure will take that 757 and place it in a market where they will get the largest return on assets. If it's DTW- it will fly from there. DL added DTW MUC because of business traffic, topped off by summer tourists. A good mix. The Italian market is also heavily tourist based, but it has a good number of high-yield business traffic making that a market DL also serves from DTW. And if DL is anti DTW, how do explain MUC and FCO?



First of all you really can't count FCO as that is a hold over from the NWA days. As far as MUC goes that to me is on shaky ground every year so there is nothing indicating that it's going to last. Perhaps if they ran it 3 weekly over the winter that would be a better indicator of Delta's commitment to keeping that link. Not to mention it's not really an out and out add perse. There was a reduction in London, Frankfurt and Amsterdam capacity to offset the add of the MUC flight. So you would agree then that DUB is pretty much the same market as FCO so why not give it a try again I believe that BOS and DTW to DUB would return the same amount of yield but here's the thing DTW-DUB would have an negative impact on ATLl-DUB where BOS-DUB does not. I just wish this airport would see that the way to growth is not through Delta Air Lines
Last edited by klm617 on Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Sun Aug 13, 2017 10:52 pm

compensateme wrote:
flymco753 wrote:
I know this is way far out but next July DL plans 757 service to SNA.


I'm pretty confident this is the first time in history that DL's initial summer schedule for the upcoming year was new rather than simply rolled over. Lots of frequency reductions, a derivative of a 50% reduction in YOY 50-seat movements. Upgauging 50-seaters to 65/76-seaters means that there's fewer 65/76-seaters to go around... and routes like our beloved DTW/JAX are upgauged to mainline.

Of course, little of this really matters at this point -- DL was tweaking its peak summer schedule (which began July 1 and concludes at the end of this week) into last month.


Such a real joke why is Delta so afraid of adding capacity in the Detroit market. Once again by reducing frequency they make Detroit a less attractive market to make connections as there will be fewer flight options.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
johns624
Posts: 1522
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:56 am

klm617 wrote:
First of all you really can't count FCO as that is a hold over from the NWA days. As far as MUC goes that to me is on shaky ground every year so there is nothing indicating that it's going to last.
Why can't you count FCO, just because NW started it? Just about all the international flights at DTW were started by NW. I guess we can't count them, either. As long as MUC stays around, that can be counted, also. It's a European flight, isn't it? I bet the MUC flight gets quite a few passengers from Viking River Cruises, since Munich is the closest major airport to the city of the most popular eastbound cruises.
 
compensateme
Posts: 2068
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:24 am

klm617 wrote:
Such a real joke why is Delta so afraid of adding capacity in the Detroit market. Once again by reducing frequency they make Detroit a less attractive market to make connections as there will be fewer flight options.


I didn't say they cut capacity, just frequency; that's fairly natural when you cut nearly 40 CRJ departures from your schedule. At this point in time, DTW is showing about a 1.2% YOY capacity increase -- of course, it's a year off so I wouldn't read too much into it. But a reduction in 50-seaters (and RJ in general) is always a good thing.

At some point next year, PIT is scheduled to have 3 mainline flights and IND 4 -- levels of service unseen since the DC-9 days.
You're not the CEO; you were a menial aircraft support mechanic intern, and that was four years ago.
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:30 am

compensateme wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Such a real joke why is Delta so afraid of adding capacity in the Detroit market. Once again by reducing frequency they make Detroit a less attractive market to make connections as there will be fewer flight options.


I didn't say they cut capacity, just frequency; that's fairly natural when you cut nearly 40 CRJ departures from your schedule. At this point in time, DTW is showing about a 1.2% YOY capacity increase -- of course, it's a year off so I wouldn't read too much into it. But a reduction in 50-seaters (and RJ in general) is always a good thing.

At some point next year, PIT is scheduled to have 3 mainline flights and IND 4 -- levels of service unseen since the DC-9 days.


Correct but when they cut frequency that means less connection opportunities. Meaning less transfer passengers. Why not just upgauge each flight accordingly to add for more connection opportunities out of Detroit. Im ATL they did not do that they just upgsuged flight for flight there was no frequency reduction.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 1143
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:37 am

klm617 wrote:
compensateme wrote:
flymco753 wrote:
I know this is way far out but next July DL plans 757 service to SNA.


I'm pretty confident this is the first time in history that DL's initial summer schedule for the upcoming year was new rather than simply rolled over. Lots of frequency reductions, a derivative of a 50% reduction in YOY 50-seat movements. Upgauging 50-seaters to 65/76-seaters means that there's fewer 65/76-seaters to go around... and routes like our beloved DTW/JAX are upgauged to mainline.

Of course, little of this really matters at this point -- DL was tweaking its peak summer schedule (which began July 1 and concludes at the end of this week) into last month.


Such a real joke why is Delta so afraid of adding capacity in the Detroit market. Once again by reducing frequency they make Detroit a less attractive market to make connections as there will be fewer flight options.


This DL hates DTW talk is delusional, Detroit is Delta's second-largest hub by daily flights and third largest by seats available, and is Delta's Asian gateway for the majority of the eastern US. Be grateful that DL isn't cutting capacity like it did at CVG/MEM.

Look at the increased frequencies from this week's OAG
DL DTW-ALB JAN 3>4 FEB 3>4
DL DTW-AZO JAN 4>5 FEB 4>5
DL DTW-BUF JAN 4>5
DL DTW-DFW OCT 5>6
DL DTW-GRR JAN 6>7 FEB 6>7 MAR 6>7
DL DTW-GSP JAN 3>4 FEB 3>4 MAR 3>4
DL DTW-MDT JAN 3>4
DL DTW-PHL JAN 5>6 FEB 5>6 MAR 5>6
DL DTW-ROC JAN 3>4
DL DTW-SAT JAN 1.8>3 FEB 1.8>3
Last edited by Midwestindy on Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:41 am

beerbus wrote:
klm617 wrote:
2Holer4Longhaul wrote:



The logic you are using doesn't make sense- you state there are more cheap seats in bigger markets, which means there is an excess of inventory. This is not accurate. An excess of capacity in the post deregulation era caused carriers to produce lousy net earnings. To fill planes, carriers cut their fares, and made little, if any profit. The string of bankruptcies at TW, CO, DL, NW, AA, EA, PE, US, and others is the legacy of excess inventory producing yields that were insufficient to produce a strong return on capital. You want to go back to that era?

1. There ARE more cheap, low yield seats in a bigger market, because it IS a bigger market. Supply follows demand. But what does that have to do with my statement about DTW having a supply that matches the market?

2. Again, you are stating, without facts, that carries don't restrain capacity in larger markets. I have previously explained that carriers like UA are also downsizing their flights from their fortress bubs like ORD and SFO. So yes, carriers besides DL do manage capacity in their hubs. Notice the reductions AA made in PHX since their merger with US. They dumped low yield connecting traffic to improve yields from that market. UA also cut flights completely from JFK to improve their overall system yield. And how do you explain CLT? AA rules O&D from there. And they constantly adjust capacity to match both local and connecting demand, to maintain high yields.

3. And regarding DUB, I used to sell the Irish market on NW from the mid-west. It's a tourist market. Not a significant producer of high-yield business traffic. So DL or any US carrier with a similar cost structure will take that 757 and place it in a market where they will get the largest return on assets. If it's DTW- it will fly from there. DL added DTW MUC because of business traffic, topped off by summer tourists. A good mix. The Italian market is also heavily tourist based, but it has a good number of high-yield business traffic making that a market DL also serves from DTW. And if DL is anti DTW, how do explain MUC and FCO?


In reply to your number 1 point if what you say is true all flight from Chicgo should be slightly higher than those operating out of Detroit. For every flight that is cheaper out of ORD than DTW there is to much capacity at ORD. I say this because if service was equal and each airport has the correct capacity to match the market then the air fares should be pretty much in line. So a $1000 RT fare out of DTW should be about $1050 to $1100 if capacity is matched to the market as you say airlines always do. But I assure flights from ORD-LON are cheaper than DTW-LON because the market from ORD-LON has to many seats in it cause fares out of Chicago to be cheaper.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
alfa164
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:51 am

Midwestindy wrote:
klm617 wrote:
compensateme wrote:
I'm pretty confident this is the first time in history that DL's initial summer schedule for the upcoming year was new rather than simply rolled over. Lots of frequency reductions, a derivative of a 50% reduction in YOY 50-seat movements. Upgauging 50-seaters to 65/76-seaters means that there's fewer 65/76-seaters to go around... and routes like our beloved DTW/JAX are upgauged to mainline.
Of course, little of this really matters at this point -- DL was tweaking its peak summer schedule (which began July 1 and concludes at the end of this week) into last month.

Such a real joke why is Delta so afraid of adding capacity in the Detroit market. Once again by reducing frequency they make Detroit a less attractive market to make connections as there will be fewer flight options.

This DL hates DTW talk is delusional, Detroit is Delta's second-largest hub by daily flights and third largest by seats available, and is Delta's Asian gateway for the majority of the eastern US. Be grateful that DL isn't cutting capacity like it did at CVG.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark: There should be some way to flag "delusional" posters on A.net... and, after 10 or 12 such flags, ban them for a while...
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 6439
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:00 am

On an unrelated note, today was a beautiful day and it was beautiful August evening.
Sitting on my deck with a beer watching the arrivals coming in overhead on POLAR5 never gets old.

Every day when I'm home, usually on the weekend, and catch a 744 coming in from Asia I know we are approaching the end of an era. Hard to believe this is my last summer watching the NW/DL 744s coming in from Asia.
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 1329
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 2:57 am

Another bright note, DL schedules SAN and PHX 321 service next summer, so that'll be 5 321 rotations, regardless if they are removed they'll be placed on ATL, so you'll start seeing more 321s around DTW.

DL also is doing the E7W from DFW next summer, so it'll be a change in scenery.
Whether you're here on business, returning home, or visiting our world class attractions, welcome to Orlando and Central Florida...
 
klm617
Posts: 1487
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Part 5

Mon Aug 14, 2017 12:44 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
On an unrelated note, today was a beautiful day and it was beautiful August evening.
Sitting on my deck with a beer watching the arrivals coming in overhead on POLAR5 never gets old.

Every day when I'm home, usually on the weekend, and catch a 744 coming in from Asia I know we are approaching the end of an era. Hard to believe this is my last summer watching the NW/DL 744s coming in from Asia.



It is very sad indeed. Yes I would agree being in your yard watching planes arrive is a great past time. Most I ever get to see are the Porter and Jazz departures out of Windsor and when there are storms to the Southwest of Detroit sometimes the arrivals swing way out over this way but still are pretty high up.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos