klm617 wrote:

And Aer Lingus will do the same if the airport can make DTW-DUB happen. But the airport has to get in the game instead of just sitting on the sidelines waiting it out until their turn comes.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

And Aer Lingus will do the same if the airport can make DTW-DUB happen. But the airport has to get in the game instead of just sitting on the sidelines waiting it out until their turn comes.

At this point your gaze should shift towards whether the broader Detroit metro economy will be in a position to support the financial viability of DTW-DUB expansion given the earliest they would likely start that route would be 2020. Metro Detroit's housing market has slowed and the office market is showing early signs of softness while the automotive sector continues to get pummeled.

All of those factors play into discretionary spending and broader GDP expansion, which are two of the most prominent factors that EI will consider around a possible DTW-DUB launch. As you've rightfully stated, EI will receive virtually no stateside feed so they'll be relying heavily on Michigan point-of-sale traffic in their modeling.

Keeping an eye on how much discretionary income is in the pockets of Michigan residents and hoping that we don't see a broader economic correction will be a far better use of time and resources when compared to yelling at the airport authority to put a Dublin advertisement on a park bench to try and woo Aer Lingus. The financial viability of the route, subsidized or otherwise, is the only thing that matters when it comes to new route considerations.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

And Aer Lingus will do the same if the airport can make DTW-DUB happen. But the airport has to get in the game instead of just sitting on the sidelines waiting it out until their turn comes.

At this point your gaze should shift towards whether the broader Detroit metro economy will be in a position to support the financial viability of DTW-DUB expansion given the earliest they would likely start that route would be 2020. Metro Detroit's housing market has slowed and the office market is showing early signs of softness while the automotive sector continues to get pummeled.

All of those factors play into discretionary spending and broader GDP expansion, which are two of the most prominent factors that EI will consider around a possible DTW-DUB launch. As you've rightfully stated, EI will receive virtually no stateside feed so they'll be relying heavily on Michigan point-of-sale traffic in their modeling.

Keeping an eye on how much discretionary income is in the pockets of Michigan residents and hoping that we don't see a broader economic correction will be a far better use of time and resources when compared to yelling at the airport authority to put a Dublin advertisement on a park bench to try and woo Aer Lingus. The financial viability of the route, subsidized or otherwise, is the only thing that matters when it comes to new route considerations.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Sorry no it isn't when

BOS gets KE,KL,EDI and LIS
ATL gets WS,BUR,ONT,PVG plus rumors of KQ and BOM
MSP gets PVG and ICN

Makes the Detroit additions just look like a few token bones tossed their way.

By the way ORH isn't loaded any where so my guess Delta is trying to get out of operating without upsetting Massport because of the expansion at Boston

MSP has NOT been awarded PVG, only that they’re interested enough to apply (pending approval from the US and Chinese governments). And even if it happens it’s not until 2020. Anything could happen in that amount of time, IB could start DTW-BCN, QF could fly to SYD, the skies the limits.

But it's out there isn't what has Delta outlined as their international ambitions out of their leading Asian gateway (Per Ed Bastian) nothing. MSP has good things ahead while Detroit sits stagnant in the Delta network and believe me I am not again growth in the network at other hubs I am against holding Detroit back to feed that growth and Detroit for the most part has been the hub that has been held back the most to feed that growth. Again I'm going to use ICN DTW is the only hub that had it's capacity reduced under this JV while every other hub had capacity growth due to the DL/KE joint.

klm617 wrote:

Again that is the job of the WCAA to go out there and collect all the positive data than it can to present to EI and when EI points out negativities the airport needs to go out there and prove to EI that their findings are un founded...

...At this point the airport should be having weekly phone conferences with EI to keep reassuring Aer Lingus that Detroit will work for them and it's the place they want to be. But then Delta wouldn't like that if the WCAA was aggressively courting competition in the Detroit market now would they nuff said.

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP has NOT been awarded PVG, only that they’re interested enough to apply (pending approval from the US and Chinese governments). And even if it happens it’s not until 2020. Anything could happen in that amount of time, IB could start DTW-BCN, QF could fly to SYD, the skies the limits.

But it's out there isn't what has Delta outlined as their international ambitions out of their leading Asian gateway (Per Ed Bastian) nothing. MSP has good things ahead while Detroit sits stagnant in the Delta network and believe me I am not again growth in the network at other hubs I am against holding Detroit back to feed that growth and Detroit for the most part has been the hub that has been held back the most to feed that growth. Again I'm going to use ICN DTW is the only hub that had it's capacity reduced under this JV while every other hub had capacity growth due to the DL/KE joint.

Which is a bigger international gateway (including all airlines besides DL). DTW or MSP?

DTW to
Canada - 4
Europe - 7
Middle East - 1
Asia - 5
Mexico - 8 (mix of business and tourist)
Caribbean - 5
South America - 1

MSP to
Canada - 7
Europe - 5
Asia - 2
Mexico - 8 (tourist des.)
Caribbean - 11
Central America - 2

I included DUB and ICN. Also seasonal and year round.

flymco753 wrote:

If an airline hates a city because of crime, bad rep, etc., they will refuse to talk to an airport authority or city or whichever entity runs the airport. Not saying EI hates DTW, but it wouldn't dawn on me if an airline did hate DTW, just as they hate ORD or ATL or MSP.

flymco753 wrote:

If an airline hates a city because of crime, bad rep, etc., they will refuse to talk to an airport authority or city or whichever entity runs the airport. Not saying EI hates DTW, but it wouldn't dawn on me if an airline did hate DTW, just as they hate ORD or ATL or MSP.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

But it's out there isn't what has Delta outlined as their international ambitions out of their leading Asian gateway (Per Ed Bastian) nothing. MSP has good things ahead while Detroit sits stagnant in the Delta network and believe me I am not again growth in the network at other hubs I am against holding Detroit back to feed that growth and Detroit for the most part has been the hub that has been held back the most to feed that growth. Again I'm going to use ICN DTW is the only hub that had it's capacity reduced under this JV while every other hub had capacity growth due to the DL/KE joint.

Which is a bigger international gateway (including all airlines besides DL). DTW or MSP?

DTW to
Canada - 4
Europe - 7
Middle East - 1
Asia - 5
Mexico - 8 (mix of business and tourist)
Caribbean - 5
South America - 1

MSP to
Canada - 7
Europe - 5
Asia - 2
Mexico - 8 (tourist des.)
Caribbean - 11
Central America - 2

I included DUB and ICN. Also seasonal and year round.

European destinations from MSP

AMS
CDG
DUB
FRA
LHR
KEF

From DTW

AMS
CDG
FCO
FRA
KEF
LHR
MUC


DTW to Canada

YYZ
YUL
YOW

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

But it's out there isn't what has Delta outlined as their international ambitions out of their leading Asian gateway (Per Ed Bastian) nothing. MSP has good things ahead while Detroit sits stagnant in the Delta network and believe me I am not again growth in the network at other hubs I am against holding Detroit back to feed that growth and Detroit for the most part has been the hub that has been held back the most to feed that growth. Again I'm going to use ICN DTW is the only hub that had it's capacity reduced under this JV while every other hub had capacity growth due to the DL/KE joint.

Which is a bigger international gateway (including all airlines besides DL). DTW or MSP?

DTW to
Canada - 4
Europe - 7
Middle East - 1
Asia - 5
Mexico - 8 (mix of business and tourist)
Caribbean - 5
South America - 1

MSP to
Canada - 7
Europe - 5
Asia - 2
Mexico - 8 (tourist des.)
Caribbean - 11
Central America - 2

I included DUB and ICN. Also seasonal and year round.

European destinations from MSP

AMS
CDG
DUB
FRA
LHR
KEF

From DTW

AMS
CDG
FCO
FRA
KEF
LHR
MUC


DTW to Canada

YYZ
YUL
YOW
YVR

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

If an airline hates a city because of crime, bad rep, etc., they will refuse to talk to an airport authority or city or whichever entity runs the airport. Not saying EI hates DTW, but it wouldn't dawn on me if an airline did hate DTW, just as they hate ORD or ATL or MSP.

That's nonsense. Airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities at all. Profit-driven businesses don't hold grudges.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Gimmie a break that comment you keep regurgitating is getting old. I have only talked about logical adds her in Detroit firstly I talked about DTW-KEF which has now happened and with good enough loads to keep WOW Air flying it year round I have talked about

DTW-ICN on KE
DTW-AMS on KL
DTW-MUC on LH
DTW-MAN on DL
DTW-DUB on EI
DTW-DXB on EK or DTW-DOH on QR but not both
WS flights to Canada as Detroit is a very strong market to Cananda


Where does that equal that I believe DTW should be the JFK of the Midwest those are all within the realm of possibility.

Then if you disagree with my statement, why is DL not good enough to AMS, ICN, MUC, Canada? You forgot to add G4 from DET


The answer to your last question is...At this point not many foreign carriers have announce plans for North American expansion. But it’s a start.

First of all LH would be more likely year round on DTW-MUC where Delta is not and again adding KL and KE adds customer choice at Detroit those customers who live in Holland and Korea who are loyal to their home country airlines are less likey to connect through Detroit meaning more traffic diverted over hubs that have this option.

nomorerjs wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

Then if you disagree with my statement, why is DL not good enough to AMS, ICN, MUC, Canada? You forgot to add G4 from DET


The answer to your last question is...At this point not many foreign carriers have announce plans for North American expansion. But it’s a start.

First of all LH would be more likely year round on DTW-MUC where Delta is not and again adding KL and KE adds customer choice at Detroit those customers who live in Holland and Korea who are loyal to their home country airlines are less likey to connect through Detroit meaning more traffic diverted over hubs that have this option.

Lest we forget these predictions:

AZ: DTW-FCO
BA: DTW-LHR
CM: DTW-PTY
DY: DTW-LGW (among others)
JL: DTW-HND
LO: DTW-WAW
LY: DTW-TLV
TK: DTW-IST
VS: DTW-LHR/MAN

BEY if this was allowed has been mentioned many times.

And if DL didn’t hate DTW: BCN, BOM, DEL (may have been AI), EZE, HKG, KIX, MAD.

There are many more, but I’ll stop at these.

Seems like tail chasing to me.

winginit wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

If an airline hates a city because of crime, bad rep, etc., they will refuse to talk to an airport authority or city or whichever entity runs the airport. Not saying EI hates DTW, but it wouldn't dawn on me if an airline did hate DTW, just as they hate ORD or ATL or MSP.

That is complete and utter nonsense, and would be a breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders. Profits drive network decisions - end of story.

lavalampluva wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

If an airline hates a city because of crime, bad rep, etc., they will refuse to talk to an airport authority or city or whichever entity runs the airport. Not saying EI hates DTW, but it wouldn't dawn on me if an airline did hate DTW, just as they hate ORD or ATL or MSP.

That's nonsense. Airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities at all. Profit-driven businesses don't hold grudges.

Imo both are fairly close. The only major difference is the DTW is more business traffic, MSP is more tourist driven.

Though DTW owes much of what it has to the automotive industry. Without it it would be interesting to speculate what kind of hub it would be

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

If an airline hates a city because of crime, bad rep, etc., they will refuse to talk to an airport authority or city or whichever entity runs the airport. Not saying EI hates DTW, but it wouldn't dawn on me if an airline did hate DTW, just as they hate ORD or ATL or MSP.

That's nonsense. Airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities at all. Profit-driven businesses don't hold grudges.

klm617 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

If an airline hates a city because of crime, bad rep, etc., they will refuse to talk to an airport authority or city or whichever entity runs the airport. Not saying EI hates DTW, but it wouldn't dawn on me if an airline did hate DTW, just as they hate ORD or ATL or MSP.

That's nonsense. Airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities at all. Profit-driven businesses don't hold grudges.

Come on you know that's not true Delta just proved that with JAX there was a market there and they were choking off capacity to suit their own needs. That in my mind is market neglect.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

That's nonsense. Airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities at all. Profit-driven businesses don't hold grudges.

Imo both are fairly close. The only major difference is the DTW is more business traffic, MSP is more tourist driven.

Though DTW owes much of what it has to the automotive industry. Without it it would be interesting to speculate what kind of hub it would be

But you see I'm not comparing DTW to MSP good for them and I'm happy when they get new links you are misunderstanding my point What I am saying is if the MSP airport can get these adds why can't the WCAA get these same adds DTW is standing still while MSP is growing and with the new DUB and ICN flights with the numbers that wingingit shared it's going to pass DTW up but yet DTW can hold it's level of international flights year round when MSP can't the majority are summer only outside of skyteam . It's great that MSP got EI don't misunderstand me but if they can land EI why is Detroit landing virtually nobody that is where the disconnect is in my mind.

MastaHanky wrote:

I'm sorry, but it is simply true that MAN is a small market. The whole Manchester metro area is only about 2.8 million people - about the size of the St. Louis metro. In peak summer there are only three flights a day to NYC (one of which United flies their smallest equipment on). Combine that with a weak pound thanks to Brexit, and you don't have a great opportunity for service right now. I really don't see anything more than a seasonal 757 at best.

Midwestindy wrote:

klm617 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

That's nonsense. Airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities at all. Profit-driven businesses don't hold grudges.

Come on you know that's not true Delta just proved that with JAX there was a market there and they were choking off capacity to suit their own needs. That in my mind is market neglect.

Airlines are businesses not charities, they don’t have to serve any and every market from DTW if they believe there is better money that could be made on a route in another market

Delta doesn’t owe anything to DTW

User001 wrote:

MastaHanky wrote:

I'm sorry, but it is simply true that MAN is a small market. The whole Manchester metro area is only about 2.8 million people - about the size of the St. Louis metro. In peak summer there are only three flights a day to NYC (one of which United flies their smallest equipment on). Combine that with a weak pound thanks to Brexit, and you don't have a great opportunity for service right now. I really don't see anything more than a seasonal 757 at best.

Whilst not wanting to get sucked into a whole ‘should MAN-DTW be served’ argument. It’s in fact your argument that MAN is a small market that isn’t true.

The 1-2 hour catchment for MAN is 22 million plus. To look at MAN and say it only serves Manchester in singularity is a common mistruth on these forums. There is Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and the Northern parts of Birmingham to name a few cities. There is also plenty of businesses in the region that support flights too, despite further misconceptions about this also.

Manchester has broken through the 28 million passenger mark, despite loosing a based airline that carried circa 2 million pax to bankruptcy.

I don’t know what it is about this forum, but a lot of people just don’t seem to be able to grasp that MAN isn’t some backwater regional, it makes me wonder what level of research is done, because, for a forum that is supposed to be full of enthusiasts that should no better, the misconceptions about Manchester and it’s market are truly shocking. Yes, Manchester is not London. Nor will it ever be. Neither will it be some mega hub with routes to all corners of the globe. But as said, some of the things I see on these threads are just shocking.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

That's nonsense. Airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities at all. Profit-driven businesses don't hold grudges.

Come on you know that's not true Delta just proved that with JAX there was a market there and they were choking off capacity to suit their own needs. That in my mind is market neglect.

That statement was that airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities, and your response to try and disprove that pertains to JAX capacity discipline? How is capacity discipline in the same ballpark as an airline hating cities or airport authorities? Are you implying that Delta hates Detroit so they were deliberately withholding capacity? Speak clearly.

User001 wrote:

MastaHanky wrote:

I'm sorry, but it is simply true that MAN is a small market. The whole Manchester metro area is only about 2.8 million people - about the size of the St. Louis metro. In peak summer there are only three flights a day to NYC (one of which United flies their smallest equipment on). Combine that with a weak pound thanks to Brexit, and you don't have a great opportunity for service right now. I really don't see anything more than a seasonal 757 at best.

Whilst not wanting to get sucked into a whole ‘should MAN-DTW be served’ argument. It’s in fact your argument that MAN is a small market that isn’t true.

The 1-2 hour catchment for MAN is 22 million plus. To look at MAN and say it only serves Manchester in singularity is a common mistruth on these forums. There is Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and the Northern parts of Birmingham to name a few cities. There is also plenty of businesses in the region that support flights too, despite further misconceptions about this also.

Manchester has broken through the 28 million passenger mark, despite loosing a based airline that carried circa 2 million pax to bankruptcy.

I don’t know what it is about this forum, but a lot of people just don’t seem to be able to grasp that MAN isn’t some backwater regional, it makes me wonder what level of research is done, because, for a forum that is supposed to be full of enthusiasts that should no better, the misconceptions about Manchester and it’s market are truly shocking. Yes, Manchester is not London. Nor will it ever be. Neither will it be some mega hub with routes to all corners of the globe. But as said, some of the things I see on these threads are just shocking.

User001 wrote:

I don’t know what it is about this forum, but a lot of people just don’t seem to be able to grasp that MAN isn’t some backwater regional, it makes me wonder what level of research is done, because, for a forum that is supposed to be full of enthusiasts that should no better, the misconceptions about Manchester and it’s market are truly shocking. Yes, Manchester is not London. Nor will it ever be. Neither will it be some mega hub with routes to all corners of the globe. But as said, some of the things I see on these threads are just shocking.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Come on you know that's not true Delta just proved that with JAX there was a market there and they were choking off capacity to suit their own needs. That in my mind is market neglect.

That statement was that airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities, and your response to try and disprove that pertains to JAX capacity discipline? How is capacity discipline in the same ballpark as an airline hating cities or airport authorities? Are you implying that Delta hates Detroit so they were deliberately withholding capacity? Speak clearly.

I am implying that Delta is deliberately withholding capacity on a viable markets as shown by the DTW-JAX additions. With that being said how many more markets are viable out of Detroit that Delta is not operating because it is holding back capacity on them. By the way for the record I never said Delta hated Detroit

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

That statement was that airlines don't hate cities or airport authorities, and your response to try and disprove that pertains to JAX capacity discipline? How is capacity discipline in the same ballpark as an airline hating cities or airport authorities? Are you implying that Delta hates Detroit so they were deliberately withholding capacity? Speak clearly.

I am implying that Delta is deliberately withholding capacity on a viable markets as shown by the DTW-JAX additions. With that being said how many more markets are viable out of Detroit that Delta is not operating because it is holding back capacity on them. By the way for the record I never said Delta hated Detroit

It's called capacity discipline, and along with industry consolidation it's the reason carriers aren't going bankrupt left and right anymore. If the modeling shows that additional capacity or an additional route will generate incremental profitability for the route or system, Delta will launch the route. If it won't, or if the flight will be more profitable elsewhere, they won't launch the route or will launch it from another hub. It's that simple.

Airlines are not in the business of maximizing viable capacity for the sake of the consumer. They're in the business of maximizing profitable capacity for the sake of their shareholders.

MastaHanky wrote:

User001 wrote:

I don’t know what it is about this forum, but a lot of people just don’t seem to be able to grasp that MAN isn’t some backwater regional, it makes me wonder what level of research is done, because, for a forum that is supposed to be full of enthusiasts that should no better, the misconceptions about Manchester and it’s market are truly shocking. Yes, Manchester is not London. Nor will it ever be. Neither will it be some mega hub with routes to all corners of the globe. But as said, some of the things I see on these threads are just shocking.

Inferiority complex much? Manchester's annual traffic is slightly above Stockholm's and slightly below Copenhagen - two medium-sized European cities that both have a small handful of longhaul flights. None of them are even close to being in the top 50 worldwide.

You know where else is a medium-sized city that has a handful of long-haul flights? Detroit. Neither city is a backwater regional airport, but pretending that Detroit or Manchester is a large market is woefully ignorant of how large the actual large markets are. If the goal is to connect Detroit to more of Europe I think there are bigger fish to fry than Manchester, such as a seasonal Barcelona flight or EI to Dublin (which I think is a perfectly reasonable pursuit).

klm617 wrote:

Again we will revisit this when we get more BOS-MAN data if that is true because there are markets that carry money losing flights just because.

klm617 wrote:

even flights with high margins have been reduced and the capacity moved to other hubs.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Again we will revisit this when we get more BOS-MAN data if that is true because there are markets that carry money losing flights just because.

You don't need a data point to validate the fact that airlines aren't flying routes at a loss without an alternative 'just because'. It's a fact of Corporate America and publicly traded entities. End of story.

klm617 wrote:

even flights with high margins have been reduced and the capacity moved to other hubs.

Oh yeah? You're privy to Delta's profitability data? What luck for us please share!

klm617 wrote:

It's a well known fact that DTW-PVG is one of Delta's highest performing routes

klm617 wrote:

capacity was reduced and shifted to Atlanta even after failing twice there.

MastaHanky wrote:

Inferiority complex much? Manchester's annual traffic is slightly above Stockholm's and slightly below Copenhagen - two medium-sized European cities that both have a small handful of longhaul flights. None of them are even close to being in the top 50 worldwide.

klm617 wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

klm617 wrote:

First of all LH would be more likely year round on DTW-MUC where Delta is not and again adding KL and KE adds customer choice at Detroit those customers who live in Holland and Korea who are loyal to their home country airlines are less likey to connect through Detroit meaning more traffic diverted over hubs that have this option.

Lest we forget these predictions:

AZ: DTW-FCO
BA: DTW-LHR
CM: DTW-PTY
DY: DTW-LGW (among others)
JL: DTW-HND
LO: DTW-WAW
LY: DTW-TLV
TK: DTW-IST
VS: DTW-LHR/MAN

BEY if this was allowed has been mentioned many times.

And if DL didn’t hate DTW: BCN, BOM, DEL (may have been AI), EZE, HKG, KIX, MAD.

There are many more, but I’ll stop at these.

Seems like tail chasing to me.

First of all you can take AZ, BA, CM, LY and TK of there I never mentioned those and as far as JL that was tongue and check but the rest yes I have suggested as viable I also said DY but only from LGW but none of the others. I have also never mentioned BEY.

Pbb152 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

Lest we forget these predictions:

AZ: DTW-FCO
BA: DTW-LHR
CM: DTW-PTY
DY: DTW-LGW (among others)
JL: DTW-HND
LO: DTW-WAW
LY: DTW-TLV
TK: DTW-IST
VS: DTW-LHR/MAN

BEY if this was allowed has been mentioned many times.

And if DL didn’t hate DTW: BCN, BOM, DEL (may have been AI), EZE, HKG, KIX, MAD.

There are many more, but I’ll stop at these.

Seems like tail chasing to me.

First of all you can take AZ, BA, CM, LY and TK of there I never mentioned those and as far as JL that was tongue and check but the rest yes I have suggested as viable I also said DY but only from LGW but none of the others. I have also never mentioned BEY.

You absolutely have mentioned BEY. Post 1665 in the below thread. You can’t even keep track of all the crazy things you say.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355717&p=20008585&hilit=BEY#p20008585

MastaHanky wrote:

You know where else is a medium-sized city that has a handful of long-haul flights?

flymco753 wrote:

I say it to every thread, having NK or not having NK is picking a poison. Preferably, NK is right for DTW, I feel like DTW wouldn't have even cracked its top O&D markets without them.

BenflysDTW wrote:

It's great to see NK and DL expand here, but I'm concerned about UA, WN, B6, F9, and AS.
WN is retreating,
B6 couldn't manage a daytime flight to FLL like they did with BNA
F9 can't have DEN return year-round, or add TPA or LAS.
AS It would be cool if they would get back on PDX.
UA is less than half of what AA is.

klm617 wrote:

BenflysDTW wrote:

It's great to see NK and DL expand here, but I'm concerned about UA, WN, B6, F9, and AS.
WN is retreating,
B6 couldn't manage a daytime flight to FLL like they did with BNA
F9 can't have DEN return year-round, or add TPA or LAS.
AS It would be cool if they would get back on PDX.
UA is less than half of what AA is.

I think rather than PDX AS should try DTW-ANC summer only as they could operate that route without being in the shadow of Delta.

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

BenflysDTW wrote:

It's great to see NK and DL expand here, but I'm concerned about UA, WN, B6, F9, and AS.
WN is retreating,
B6 couldn't manage a daytime flight to FLL like they did with BNA
F9 can't have DEN return year-round, or add TPA or LAS.
AS It would be cool if they would get back on PDX.
UA is less than half of what AA is.

I think rather than PDX AS should try DTW-ANC summer only as they could operate that route without being in the shadow of Delta.

PDX offers far more connection opportunities than ANC. If you were an airline wanting to make money which would you choose? DTW-PDX with all its options couldn’t work seasonally. What makes you think DTW-ANC would?

kavok wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I think rather than PDX AS should try DTW-ANC summer only as they could operate that route without being in the shadow of Delta.

PDX offers far more connection opportunities than ANC. If you were an airline wanting to make money which would you choose? DTW-PDX with all its options couldn’t work seasonally. What makes you think DTW-ANC would?

DTW-ANC would actually work for about a week, until DL announces it too would start multiple daily DTW-ANC service in retaliation. Then there would be significant over competition on the route, and nobody would make any money. AS would then drop the route, and wish they’d never had started it to begin with.

But AS knows how this scenario would play out in reality, and that is why AS doesn’t try the route to begin with. Swap out ANC with PDX, and that is basically what we saw happen a year ago on DTW-PDX.

Pbb152 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

Lest we forget these predictions:

AZ: DTW-FCO
BA: DTW-LHR
CM: DTW-PTY
DY: DTW-LGW (among others)
JL: DTW-HND
LO: DTW-WAW
LY: DTW-TLV
TK: DTW-IST
VS: DTW-LHR/MAN

BEY if this was allowed has been mentioned many times.

And if DL didn’t hate DTW: BCN, BOM, DEL (may have been AI), EZE, HKG, KIX, MAD.

There are many more, but I’ll stop at these.

Seems like tail chasing to me.

First of all you can take AZ, BA, CM, LY and TK of there I never mentioned those and as far as JL that was tongue and check but the rest yes I have suggested as viable I also said DY but only from LGW but none of the others. I have also never mentioned BEY.

You absolutely have mentioned BEY. Post 1665 in the below thread. You can’t even keep track of all the crazy things you say.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1355717&p=20008585&hilit=BEY#p20008585

Midwestindy wrote:

kavok wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

PDX offers far more connection opportunities than ANC. If you were an airline wanting to make money which would you choose? DTW-PDX with all its options couldn’t work seasonally. What makes you think DTW-ANC would?

DTW-ANC would actually work for about a week, until DL announces it too would start multiple daily DTW-ANC service in retaliation. Then there would be significant over competition on the route, and nobody would make any money. AS would then drop the route, and wish they’d never had started it to begin with.

But AS knows how this scenario would play out in reality, and that is why AS doesn’t try the route to begin with. Swap out ANC with PDX, and that is basically what we saw happen a year ago on DTW-PDX.

Thus is the curse to having an incumbent hub carrier, unfortunately for klm617