jasoncrh wrote:

You really dont know what you're talking about.
LGA is perfectly located for suburbanites from Westchester County and up into parts of Connecticut, as well as large portions of the suburbs on Long Island. Anecdotally I know tons of people from those places that fly out of LGA.
You really have no basis to say that most people on AA are not nyc-based. I actually worked for a company that tracks those types of things and can tell you that AA does, indeed, get a lot of NYC - based business.

airportlover wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

I know many people who live in Westchester, CT, and Long Island. Not a single one of them prefers LGA over JFK or EWR. They all use JFK and then EWR before going anywhere near LGA.

klm617 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

It's all PR just like saying ATL is 2 hours away from 80% of the population that is also false.

How is that false? It clearly means 2 hours flight time.

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Clearly population geography isn't your thing.

As I said, anecdotal. I know a lot of people, you apparently do too. your people dont use LGA mine do. so the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Driving to EWR from Long island, though, is quite the haul.

airportlover wrote:

jasoncrh wrote:

You really dont know what you're talking about.
LGA is perfectly located for suburbanites from Westchester County and up into parts of Connecticut, as well as large portions of the suburbs on Long Island. Anecdotally I know tons of people from those places that fly out of LGA.
You really have no basis to say that most people on AA are not nyc-based. I actually worked for a company that tracks those types of things and can tell you that AA does, indeed, get a lot of NYC - based business.

airportlover wrote:

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

I know many people who live in Westchester, CT, and Long Island. Not a single one of them prefers LGA over JFK or EWR. They all use JFK and then EWR before going anywhere near LGA.

jasoncrh wrote:

As I said, anecdotal. I know a lot of people, you apparently do too. your people dont use LGA mine do. so the answer is probably somewhere in the middle. Driving to EWR from Long island, though, is quite the haul.

airportlover wrote:

jasoncrh wrote:

You really dont know what you're talking about.
LGA is perfectly located for suburbanites from Westchester County and up into parts of Connecticut, as well as large portions of the suburbs on Long Island. Anecdotally I know tons of people from those places that fly out of LGA.
You really have no basis to say that most people on AA are not nyc-based. I actually worked for a company that tracks those types of things and can tell you that AA does, indeed, get a lot of NYC - based business.

I know many people who live in Westchester, CT, and Long Island. Not a single one of them prefers LGA over JFK or EWR. They all use JFK and then EWR before going anywhere near LGA.

I completely agree. Let's leave that little skirmish behind us. NYC is a huge market, so there are many people with different preferences. And yes, EWR is a schlep from LI, like JFK is from Jersey.

airportlover wrote:

3) I meant to say SEA is not in the same league as NYC, Chicago, LA, San Fran, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Boston, Philly, D.C., etc. It is not a small market, but it is definitely smaller than people on a.net like to believe. Seattle is the third city on the West Coast. I consider the main West Coast cities to be LA, San Fran/Silicon Valley, Portland, and Seattle. Las Vegas and Phoenix are Interior West, along with DEN and SLC.

Ignore the heading, but SEA is larger than BOS/PHL/and probably IAH+HOU in terms of O&D.

I'll admit though that SFO (OAK/SJC), ORD(MDW), LGA(JFK/EWR), DFW(DAL), e.t.c are limited by the fact that they each have other airports cutting into their O&D.
https://www.orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

Midwestindy wrote:

airportlover wrote:

3) I meant to say SEA is not in the same league as NYC, Chicago, LA, San Fran, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Boston, Philly, D.C., etc. It is not a small market, but it is definitely smaller than people on a.net like to believe. Seattle is the third city on the West Coast. I consider the main West Coast cities to be LA, San Fran/Silicon Valley, Portland, and Seattle. Las Vegas and Phoenix are Interior West, along with DEN and SLC.

Ignore the heading, but SEA is larger than BOS/PHL/and probably IAH+HOU in terms of O&D.

I'll admit though that SFO (OAK/SJC), ORD(MDW), LGA(JFK/EWR), DFW(DAL), e.t.c are limited by the fact that they each have other airports cutting into their O&D.
https://www.orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

No, I was talking about city size, not airport size, Houston is #5, Philly is #7, and Boston is #10. In terms of airports, IAH is bigger than SEA. BOS is slightly smaller and PHL has about 10 million fewer annual passengers. They are all fairly similar, though.

airportlover wrote:

tlecam wrote:

airportlover wrote:

2) This assumption was only based on my experiences in the NYC area. North Jersey, Staten Island, and Rockland-county based travelers prefer EWR/UA. Westchester/the rest of the Hudson Valley prefers Hpn, then LGA/JFK, but they will use EWR too. Manhattanites use all three fairly equally. The Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens use LGA/JFK. Long Island uses LGA/JFK. People from Connecticut use HPN, then LGA/JFK, but will also use EWR. People who use LGA/JFK prefer JetBlue for the Caribbean and Florida and Delta to everywhere else. American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports. I assumed that was the situation in SEA, but I have heard of AA loyalists in Chicago. WN is never really on my radar being based in NYC.

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

LGA is 50/50 with us suburbanites. As a Long Islander, my preference is JFK (as it is for most of those that I know), but we will go to LGA for either a better fare or a better schedule. For instance, I flew to Nashville last weekend and flew out of LGA because the schedule offering better suited my needs, but I checked JFK first.

evank516 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

tlecam wrote:

I think you speak in over-generalizations when the situation at airports like SEA and in NYC is a lot more nuanced. For example, AA commands sizable marketshare in NYC, out of LGA.

But I would argue most people flying on AA are not NYC-based. Obviously there are exceptions (like if there are really cheap fares or great flight times), but most New Yorkers prefer UA out of EWR or DL/JetBlue out of Kennedy. LGA is not very popular with suburbanites. Only city people prefer LGA. Otherwise, EWR or JFK is preferred.

LGA is 50/50 with us suburbanites. As a Long Islander, my preference is JFK (as it is for most of those that I know), but we will go to LGA for either a better fare or a better schedule. For instance, I flew to Nashville last weekend and flew out of LGA because the schedule offering better suited my needs, but I checked JFK first.

Yeah, that's a fair statement. It does take a significantly cheaper fair to get people to go to LGA with the construction and traffic. Also, it depends where on Long Island, of course. The South Shore greatly prefers JFK. So does Eastern Long Island as it is easier to take the Southern State or Sunrise than deal with the LIE/Grand Central/Northern State traffic. North Shore people, especially in Nassau County are split. I would say the Port Washington line prefers JFK, but uses LGA often because it is so close and easy.

airportlover wrote:

American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports.

You'd be surprised how many American credit cards I see having been born in and still living in NY. You are WAY over generalizing.

airportlover wrote:

I assumed...

Yeah, you seem to be doing a lot of that.

airportlover wrote:

Yes, I completely realize that. I bet I know population statistics better than you, in fact.

You're here five hours and you're saying stuff like this? Good way to lose credibility, not gain it.

airliner371 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

American just offers an inferior product and route network out of NYC, so most people choose DL from those 2 airports.

You'd be surprised how many American credit cards I see having been born in and still living in NY. You are WAY over generalizing.

airportlover wrote:

I assumed...

Yeah, you seem to be doing a lot of that.

airportlover wrote:

Yes, I completely realize that. I bet I know population statistics better than you, in fact.

You're here five hours and you're saying stuff like this? Good way to lose credibility, not gain it.

I am just basing this on my own experiences. Feel free to offer your input respectfully.

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

IMO Delta won't be able to expand internationally in Boston. They missed their opportunity. The last 4 years have seen Boston gain a ton of international carriers, there aren't that many destinations right now that would have sufficient demand and not be served by some airline by this point and would have enough traffic to warrant several airlines to fly the route. Domestically Delta could probably add a few more routes, but they also missed their opportunity to capitalize on the market because they treated Boston like a joke until jetBlue became the major carrier in Boston. Sure, Delta could expand a little bit more in Boston, but I do believe that they missed the opportunity to capitalize on the Boston market. Their only real hope by this point is to work with some codeshares to offer connections.

They believe otherwise:
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news ... looks.html
The article is behind a pay wall but with so many of these sites, if you stop the page from loading at the right time you get the full article to display

I read the article, and he says they are planning to expand their presence in Boston, to be a "Global Airline" from Boston, but as I said I can see them adding some domestic and some Carribean flights and maybe add one or two more routes to Europe, but I don't see that happening because I don't think Delta will want to risk to add a longer flight to Asia, which is a shame because Boston has repeatedly proven itself to be VERY profitable for Boston-Asia flights.

stlgph wrote:

klm617 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

How is that false? It clearly means 2 hours flight time.

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Clearly population geography isn't your thing.

BOS, NYC or ORD can not be reached in 2 hours gate to gate from ATL how Delta calculates it's arrival and departure times.

NickolayAv wrote:

I read the article, and he says they are planning to expand their presence in Boston, to be a "Global Airline" from Boston, but as I said I can see them adding some domestic and some Carribean flights and maybe add one or two more routes to Europe, but I don't see that happening because I don't think Delta will want to risk to add a longer flight to Asia, which is a shame because Boston has repeatedly proven itself to be VERY profitable for Boston-Asia flights.

I think the biggest challenge for DL is getting enough A332's to fly BOS-Asia routes. No other airplane in DLs fleet would work. In the meantime, a KE A332 or 789 from ICN could get things started.

If DL is calling SEA a hub, then SEA is a DL hub...no matter what any of you armchair CEO's want to think as the definition of a hub. Every airline has their own definition of a hub, focus city or connection complex.

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I read the article, and he says they are planning to expand their presence in Boston, to be a "Global Airline" from Boston, but as I said I can see them adding some domestic and some Carribean flights and maybe add one or two more routes to Europe, but I don't see that happening because I don't think Delta will want to risk to add a longer flight to Asia, which is a shame because Boston has repeatedly proven itself to be VERY profitable for Boston-Asia flights.

I think the biggest challenge for DL is getting enough A332's to fly BOS-Asia routes. No other airplane in DLs fleet would work. In the meantime, a KE A332 or 789 from ICN could get things started.

Also a big issue for delta internationally at Boston that they don't have to concern themselves with at Seattle is a large tatl hub from JetBlue. The operating cost for JetBlue will be far lower than any legacies competitors and they have already shown the product is good enough for corporate contracts. And you can bet that Boston will be JetBlue's primary tatl hub.

For transpacific, the problem is oneworld carriers in Asia are just better located. Tokyo and hk are more important business markets than Seoul. And same with star alliance.

klm617 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Clearly population geography isn't your thing.

BOS, NYC or ORD can not be reached in 2 hours gate to gate from ATL how Delta calculates it's arrival and departure times.

I log gate-to-gate times for my flights, and just pulled every ATL-CHI or CHI-ATL flight I've ever taken. Actual gate-to-gate times and equipment are below.

1:35 M90
1:35 M88
2:01 M88
1:33 E70
1:50 M88
2:04 M88
1:42 319

tphuang wrote:

Also a big issue for delta internationally at Boston that they don't have to concern themselves with at Seattle is a large tatl hub from JetBlue. The operating cost for JetBlue will be far lower than any legacies competitors and they have already shown the product is good enough for corporate contracts. And you can bet that Boston will be JetBlue's primary tatl hub.

Humm.. what large TATL hub from JetBlue? DL already serves 4 TATL destinations from BOS while B6 doesn't even have an aircraft capable of flying TATL yet. I don't think B6 is a factor at this point. And as far as operating costs go, i'm not sure that's true either. Lets wait until B6 starts flying TATL to see what happens. For the time being DL is the only U.S. carrier operating TATL flights from BOS.

airbazar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Also a big issue for delta internationally at Boston that they don't have to concern themselves with at Seattle is a large tatl hub from JetBlue. The operating cost for JetBlue will be far lower than any legacies competitors and they have already shown the product is good enough for corporate contracts. And you can bet that Boston will be JetBlue's primary tatl hub.

Humm.. what large TATL hub from JetBlue? DL already serves 4 TATL destinations from BOS while B6 doesn't even have an aircraft capable of flying TATL yet. I don't think B6 is a factor at this point. And as far as operating costs go, i'm not sure that's true either. Lets wait until B6 starts flying TATL to see what happens. For the time being DL is the only U.S. carrier operating TATL flights from BOS.

We will see obviously, but I would be shocked if b6 doesn't announce Tatl plans this year. Whereas in Seattle, there really isn't any realistic possiblity that as would start Tatl or tpac flying.

airportlover wrote:

2) I agree, but frequent flyers will basically always prefer the larger carrier with more nonstop destinations, and that is undeniably AS at SEA. Unless you fly solely internationally, AS most likely works better for you.

AS may operate more nonstop flights out of SEA, but DL, UA, and AA have a much larger network, particularly to the secondary cities.

As an example, I fly to FAY on a pretty regular bases. AS doesn’t fly there, so my best option is DL through ATL or UA through IAD. I could take AS to RDU, but that’s out of the way and their schedule in/out of SEA is crap when dealing with the ferries.

I’ve lived in Washington for three years, but I’ve never flown AS. I’d love to give them a try, but they either don’t fly where I need to go, or their schedules don’t work with the ferry schedules.

flyinggoat wrote:

airportlover wrote:

2) I agree, but frequent flyers will basically always prefer the larger carrier with more nonstop destinations, and that is undeniably AS at SEA. Unless you fly solely internationally, AS most likely works better for you.

AS may operate more nonstop flights out of SEA, but DL, UA, and AA have a much larger network, particularly to the secondary cities.

As an example, I fly to FAY on a pretty regular bases. AS doesn’t fly there, so my best option is DL through ATL or UA through IAD. I could take AS to RDU, but that’s out of the way and their schedule in/out of SEA is crap when dealing with the ferries.

I’ve lived in Washington for three years, but I’ve never flown AS. I’d love to give them a try, but they either don’t fly where I need to go, or their schedules don’t work with the ferry schedules.

Yes, that makes sense. Would you say you are the exception or the rule among your friends?

tphuang wrote:

airbazar wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Also a big issue for delta internationally at Boston that they don't have to concern themselves with at Seattle is a large tatl hub from JetBlue. The operating cost for JetBlue will be far lower than any legacies competitors and they have already shown the product is good enough for corporate contracts. And you can bet that Boston will be JetBlue's primary tatl hub.

Humm.. what large TATL hub from JetBlue? DL already serves 4 TATL destinations from BOS while B6 doesn't even have an aircraft capable of flying TATL yet. I don't think B6 is a factor at this point. And as far as operating costs go, i'm not sure that's true either. Lets wait until B6 starts flying TATL to see what happens. For the time being DL is the only U.S. carrier operating TATL flights from BOS.

We will see obviously, but I would be shocked if b6 doesn't announce Tatl plans this year. Whereas in Seattle, there really isn't any realistic possiblity that as would start Tatl or tpac flying.

That's a lot of speculation. Even if announced, B6 won't have the aircraft for some time (read: they don't even have those aircraft on order). DL isn't connecting much in BOS, BOS is an O&D operation primarily (yes, there will be some connections). I'm also failing to see your point - is it that DL won't grow at BOS because of some hypothetical B6 TATL hub in BOS in a few years' time? If so, its a pretty weak premise. DL has the first mover advantage and can connect to a lot of European destinations through CDG and AMS. I just don't see your focus on international flights at SEA vs. BOS.

airportlover wrote:

flyinggoat wrote:

airportlover wrote:

2) I agree, but frequent flyers will basically always prefer the larger carrier with more nonstop destinations, and that is undeniably AS at SEA. Unless you fly solely internationally, AS most likely works better for you.

AS may operate more nonstop flights out of SEA, but DL, UA, and AA have a much larger network, particularly to the secondary cities.

As an example, I fly to FAY on a pretty regular bases. AS doesn’t fly there, so my best option is DL through ATL or UA through IAD. I could take AS to RDU, but that’s out of the way and their schedule in/out of SEA is crap when dealing with the ferries.

I’ve lived in Washington for three years, but I’ve never flown AS. I’d love to give them a try, but they either don’t fly where I need to go, or their schedules don’t work with the ferry schedules.

Yes, that makes sense. Would you say you are the exception or the rule among your friends?

I know a number of people whose primary carrier is DL out of Seattle. Moreover, go look at statistics (http://www.portseattle.org/About/Public ... fault.aspx) which belie your point that people don't/shouldn't fly DL.

There's clearly an obvious space in their network...whether they go back to DFW or max out AUS???

jbs2886 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

flyinggoat wrote:

AS may operate more nonstop flights out of SEA, but DL, UA, and AA have a much larger network, particularly to the secondary cities.

As an example, I fly to FAY on a pretty regular bases. AS doesn’t fly there, so my best option is DL through ATL or UA through IAD. I could take AS to RDU, but that’s out of the way and their schedule in/out of SEA is crap when dealing with the ferries.

I’ve lived in Washington for three years, but I’ve never flown AS. I’d love to give them a try, but they either don’t fly where I need to go, or their schedules don’t work with the ferry schedules.

Yes, that makes sense. Would you say you are the exception or the rule among your friends?

I know a number of people whose primary carrier is DL out of Seattle. Moreover, go look at statistics (http://www.portseattle.org/About/Public ... fault.aspx) which belie your point that people don't/shouldn't fly DL.

I am not saying that people shouldn't and don't fly DL out of SEA. However, I was asking if most of your acquaintances fly DL or AS mostly?

BreezyIAH wrote:

There's clearly an obvious space in their network...whether they go back to DFW or max out AUS???

They don't need to do either....

jbs2886 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

airbazar wrote:

Humm.. what large TATL hub from JetBlue? DL already serves 4 TATL destinations from BOS while B6 doesn't even have an aircraft capable of flying TATL yet. I don't think B6 is a factor at this point. And as far as operating costs go, i'm not sure that's true either. Lets wait until B6 starts flying TATL to see what happens. For the time being DL is the only U.S. carrier operating TATL flights from BOS.

We will see obviously, but I would be shocked if b6 doesn't announce Tatl plans this year. Whereas in Seattle, there really isn't any realistic possiblity that as would start Tatl or tpac flying.

That's a lot of speculation. Even if announced, B6 won't have the aircraft for some time (read: they don't even have those aircraft on order). DL isn't connecting much in BOS, BOS is an O&D operation primarily (yes, there will be some connections). I'm also failing to see your point - is it that DL won't grow at BOS because of some hypothetical B6 TATL hub in BOS in a few years' time? If so, its a pretty weak premise. DL has the first mover advantage and can connect to a lot of European destinations through CDG and AMS. I just don't see your focus on international flights at SEA vs. BOS.

Well the fleet review is coming up this quarter and they have to make a decision for 2019 on a321lr and have been known to study a new mint configuration for a while. This is widely reported.

One big advantage that Delta has over as and b6 is international flying. clearly if b6 starts flying to London and Dublin, that reduces the advantage. I don't see as starting to fly to Tokyo or London, do you? As for first mover, b6 was a late participant in the premium transcon market, but that hasn't prevented them from becoming a significant player.

Give it time, we will see how this all plays out.

airportlover wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Yes, that makes sense. Would you say you are the exception or the rule among your friends?

I know a number of people whose primary carrier is DL out of Seattle. Moreover, go look at statistics (http://www.portseattle.org/About/Public ... fault.aspx) which belie your point that people don't/shouldn't fly DL.

I am not saying that people shouldn't and don't fly DL out of SEA. However, I was asking if most of your acquaintances fly DL or AS mostly?

You asked someone else that question. But I'm not sure how anecdotal stories are more relevant than actual statistics.

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Clearly population geography isn't your thing.

BOS, NYC or ORD can not be reached in 2 hours gate to gate from ATL how Delta calculates it's arrival and departure times.

I log gate-to-gate times for my flights, and just pulled every ATL-CHI or CHI-ATL flight I've ever taken. Actual gate-to-gate times and equipment are below.

1:35 M90
1:35 M88
2:01 M88
1:33 E70
1:50 M88
2:04 M88
1:42 319

Have you calculated in the hour time difference because I checked the DL schedule and there is not one flight with a less then 2 hour arrival and departure time. 1:35 is impossible you'd have to be on the concord to make that trip in 1:35 minutes

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

BOS, NYC or ORD can not be reached in 2 hours gate to gate from ATL how Delta calculates it's arrival and departure times.

I log gate-to-gate times for my flights, and just pulled every ATL-CHI or CHI-ATL flight I've ever taken. Actual gate-to-gate times and equipment are below.

1:35 M90
1:35 M88
2:01 M88
1:33 E70
1:50 M88
2:04 M88
1:42 319

Have you calculated in the hour time difference because I checked the DL schedule and there is not one flight with a less then 2 hour arrival and departure time. 1:35 is impossible you'd have to be on the concord to make that trip in 1:35 minutes

Yes. These are elapsed times. How many times have you flown the route?



Can somebody remind me why I’m feeding the troll?

klm617 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

It's all PR just like saying ATL is 2 hours away from 80% of the population that is also false.

How is that false? It clearly means 2 hours flight time.

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Seems to work just great. Largest hub in the world. On topic of SEA, they actually even feed traffic trans-pac ATL-SEA-XXX.

airportlover wrote:

Curious what connecting traffic you think DL should add in SEA to make a "true" domestic connecting hub. There are nearly zero destinations domestically from X- connect SEA- to Y. It is by every definition a connecting hub for Transpac flights. It carries millions of people a year. They are physically constrained, to truly achieve massive hub scale, you need space. LAX is also a hub, but again, more focused on o/d and then higher value domestic/ international feed.

DL offers service to almost all of the major markets from SEA, some with premium lie-flat. Plus all the connections and international options. DL is a great option for people in Seattle.

AS and DL seem to coexist just fine, SEA is a booming market.

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

I log gate-to-gate times for my flights, and just pulled every ATL-CHI or CHI-ATL flight I've ever taken. Actual gate-to-gate times and equipment are below.

1:35 M90
1:35 M88
2:01 M88
1:33 E70
1:50 M88
2:04 M88
1:42 319

Have you calculated in the hour time difference because I checked the DL schedule and there is not one flight with a less then 2 hour arrival and departure time. 1:35 is impossible you'd have to be on the concord to make that trip in 1:35 minutes

Yes. These are elapsed times. How many times have you flown the route?



Can somebody remind me why I’m feeding the troll?

We are feeding the troll. But he’s saying blocked times versus elapsed times. But if DL said use blocked he would say use elapsed.

airzona11 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

How is that false? It clearly means 2 hours flight time.

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Seems to work just great. Largest hub in the world. On topic of SEA, they actually even feed traffic trans-pac ATL-SEA-XXX.

airportlover wrote:

Curious what connecting traffic you think DL should add in SEA to make a "true" domestic connecting hub. There are nearly zero destinations domestically from X- connect SEA- to Y. It is by every definition a connecting hub for Transpac flights. It carries millions of people a year. They are physically constrained, to truly achieve massive hub scale, you need space. LAX is also a hub, but again, more focused on o/d and then higher value domestic/ international feed.

DL offers service to almost all of the major markets from SEA, some with premium lie-flat. Plus all the connections and international options. DL is a great option for people in Seattle.

AS and DL seem to coexist just fine, SEA is a booming market.

What I am saying is that DL may serve the major markets, but there are small cities throughout the country, even within the PNW, that are not served by DL. There are connections, but a hub must serve the small markets within its region, no doubt in my mind. And the major markets have many other options on DL. The point of a hub is to serve distinct connection opportunities. Seattle basically does not do that. It could grow into that, but it is not currently at that level. Also, why should we trust the airlines. Just cuz DL calls it a hub does not mean it is. Everyday, they rip people off and lie to make money because they are greedy corporations. For example, SFO has a similarly terrible domestic connection location, but UA makes up for it with more Asian and Australian destinations, not to mention Hawaii. DL does not offer these options through SEA. It is not their fault, but SEA is capacity-constrained and DL does not dominate there like UA does at SFO.

airportlover wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Seems to work just great. Largest hub in the world. On topic of SEA, they actually even feed traffic trans-pac ATL-SEA-XXX.

airportlover wrote:

Curious what connecting traffic you think DL should add in SEA to make a "true" domestic connecting hub. There are nearly zero destinations domestically from X- connect SEA- to Y. It is by every definition a connecting hub for Transpac flights. It carries millions of people a year. They are physically constrained, to truly achieve massive hub scale, you need space. LAX is also a hub, but again, more focused on o/d and then higher value domestic/ international feed.

DL offers service to almost all of the major markets from SEA, some with premium lie-flat. Plus all the connections and international options. DL is a great option for people in Seattle.

AS and DL seem to coexist just fine, SEA is a booming market.

What I am saying is that DL may serve the major markets, but there are small cities throughout the country, even within the PNW, that are not served by DL. There are connections, but a hub must serve the small markets within its region, no doubt in my mind. And the major markets have many other options on DL. The point of a hub is to serve distinct connection opportunities. Seattle basically does not do that. It could grow into that, but it is not currently at that level. Also, why should we trust the airlines. Just cuz DL calls it a hub does not mean it is. Everyday, they rip people off and lie to make money because they are greedy corporations. For example, SFO has a similarly terrible domestic connection location, but UA makes up for it with more Asian and Australian destinations, not to mention Hawaii. DL does not offer these options through SEA. It is not their fault, but SEA is capacity-constrained and DL does not dominate there like UA does at SFO.

Not sure comparing SFO to SEA makes the point of SEA not being a hub.
SFO is way better situated for domestic connecting US traffic than SEA, SEA is a 2-hour flight south from SFO, they aren't that close.
DL connects many of those PacNW cities via other hubs like SLC. No offense, but Walla Walla or Spokane do not make SEA the gem of a hub for AS. SFO is the number 1 TransPacific hub in the US. The reason DL is building SEA is because UA has SFO. SFO is one of the premier global cities. In no way does DL need to replicate SFO in SEA to make SEA a legit hub. Your definition of a Hub is the provide distinct connection opportunities. SEA does that for their network and transpac (in addition to JVs to Europe and big US domestic network). I think you are arguing what are the best hubs, which also, isn't the premise of this. I would agree SFO>SEA.

But you just went off the wagon with your "rip people off and greedy corporation comment" not sure what your agenda is but that doesn't add value to the conversation.

airzona11 wrote:

But you just went off the wagon with your "rip people off and greedy corporation comment" not sure what your agenda is but that doesn't add value to the conversation.

How is that going off the wagon?!?!?!?!?! It is stating the obvious. Corporations are greedy to appeal to their investors. This is how large companies work. DL is one of them. It is not a hit against DL, but it is a fact. We should not listen to what corporations say. Many of their statements are marketing ploys to make money. This is not an issue; it is just something to be aware of. I did not realize this was even up for debate.

klm617 wrote:

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Delta can claim whatever they want. Outside of the fanboys on a.net, nobody really cares or takes their claims seriously. Remember the "#1 in New York (not including Newark)", all of the made-up on-time statistics (mainline only), and of course "the 50 day cancel-free streak" (mainline only and not counting flights completed days late)?

airportlover wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Seems to work just great. Largest hub in the world. On topic of SEA, they actually even feed traffic trans-pac ATL-SEA-XXX.

airportlover wrote:

Curious what connecting traffic you think DL should add in SEA to make a "true" domestic connecting hub. There are nearly zero destinations domestically from X- connect SEA- to Y. It is by every definition a connecting hub for Transpac flights. It carries millions of people a year. They are physically constrained, to truly achieve massive hub scale, you need space. LAX is also a hub, but again, more focused on o/d and then higher value domestic/ international feed.

DL offers service to almost all of the major markets from SEA, some with premium lie-flat. Plus all the connections and international options. DL is a great option for people in Seattle.

AS and DL seem to coexist just fine, SEA is a booming market.

What I am saying is that DL may serve the major markets, but there are small cities throughout the country, even within the PNW, that are not served by DL. There are connections, but a hub must serve the small markets within its region, no doubt in my mind. And the major markets have many other options on DL. The point of a hub is to serve distinct connection opportunities. Seattle basically does not do that. It could grow into that, but it is not currently at that level. Also, why should we trust the airlines. Just cuz DL calls it a hub does not mean it is. Everyday, they rip people off and lie to make money because they are greedy corporations. For example, SFO has a similarly terrible domestic connection location, but UA makes up for it with more Asian and Australian destinations, not to mention Hawaii. DL does not offer these options through SEA. It is not their fault, but SEA is capacity-constrained and DL does not dominate there like UA does at SFO.

As, yes, I'm so glad you are calling out airlines for lying about hubs. How evil of them! They tell us something is a hub, but it is not really a hub. The gall of DL!

jbs2886 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Have you calculated in the hour time difference because I checked the DL schedule and there is not one flight with a less then 2 hour arrival and departure time. 1:35 is impossible you'd have to be on the concord to make that trip in 1:35 minutes

Yes. These are elapsed times. How many times have you flown the route?



Can somebody remind me why I’m feeding the troll?

We are feeding the troll. But he’s saying blocked times versus elapsed times. But if DL said use blocked he would say use elapsed.

No I would say use on or the other don't use which ever time fits your agenda as Delta is so prone to doing.

airportlover wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Seems to work just great. Largest hub in the world. On topic of SEA, they actually even feed traffic trans-pac ATL-SEA-XXX.

airportlover wrote:

Curious what connecting traffic you think DL should add in SEA to make a "true" domestic connecting hub. There are nearly zero destinations domestically from X- connect SEA- to Y. It is by every definition a connecting hub for Transpac flights. It carries millions of people a year. They are physically constrained, to truly achieve massive hub scale, you need space. LAX is also a hub, but again, more focused on o/d and then higher value domestic/ international feed.

DL offers service to almost all of the major markets from SEA, some with premium lie-flat. Plus all the connections and international options. DL is a great option for people in Seattle.

AS and DL seem to coexist just fine, SEA is a booming market.

What I am saying is that DL may serve the major markets, but there are small cities throughout the country, even within the PNW, that are not served by DL. There are connections, [b][u][u][u]but a hub must serve the small markets within its region,[/u][/u][/u] no doubt in my mind. [/b]And the major markets have many other options on DL. The point of a hub is to serve distinct connection opportunities. Seattle basically does not do that. It could grow into that, but it is not currently at that level. Also, why should we trust the airlines. Just cuz DL calls it a hub does not mean it is. Everyday, they rip people off and lie to make money because they are greedy corporations. For example, SFO has a similarly terrible domestic connection location, but UA makes up for it with more Asian and Australian destinations, not to mention Hawaii. DL does not offer these options through SEA. It is not their fault, but SEA is capacity-constrained and DL does not dominate there like UA does at SFO.

A hub must serve small markets within it's region? Not true. Not true at all. A hub is a transfer point. MIA for AA lacks some intra-Florida routes, does that mean MIA is not a hub for AA? Seattle is in the Northwest corner of the country, it is not an ideal domestic hub for Delta. Alaska makes it work because they are a niche carrier. SEA is a Pacific hub for Delta, not a major domestic connecting hub. There are international hubs and domestic hubs. SEA is an international hub with some domestic connections.

tphuang wrote:

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

I think the biggest challenge for DL is getting enough A332's to fly BOS-Asia routes. No other airplane in DLs fleet would work. In the meantime, a KE A332 or 789 from ICN could get things started.

Also a big issue for delta internationally at Boston that they don't have to concern themselves with at Seattle is a large tatl hub from JetBlue. The operating cost for JetBlue will be far lower than any legacies competitors and they have already shown the product is good enough for corporate contracts. And you can bet that Boston will be JetBlue's primary tatl hub.

For transpacific, the problem is oneworld carriers in Asia are just better located. Tokyo and hk are more important business markets than Seoul. And same with star alliance.

That is exactly why Delta is adding those routes right now. Do you want to know why Delta wants to be the global airline in BOS? Because they don't want to give jetBlue the opportunity to become that global airline. jetBlue flying TATL (which is an eventuality, just like southwest flying internationally), would cut into DL's TATL a lot, not because of the price but just out of sheer overlap. JB is going to start out of BOS and JFK, DL already has a large presence at JFK, but they can certainly add stuff from BOS to fill the gap, and even better that they can do it with low risk 757 and 767 aircraft. BOS-Asia will happen with DL, but BOS-Europe is where they need to stake their claim before anyone else does.

airportlover wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

airportlover wrote:

Yes, that makes sense. Would you say you are the exception or the rule among your friends?

I know a number of people whose primary carrier is DL out of Seattle. Moreover, go look at statistics (http://www.portseattle.org/About/Public ... fault.aspx) which belie your point that people don't/shouldn't fly DL.

I am not saying that people shouldn't and don't fly DL out of SEA. However, I was asking if most of your acquaintances fly DL or AS mostly?

Whoa boy, time for my first ever post.

I'm a SEA based DL Diamond. Over the last four years I've been watching my coworkers move from being AS elites to DL. People up here aren't really flying to Spokane or other PNW destinations. We'd just as soon drive. We're flying for work, or we're flying to get out of the rain. For that, DL's network easily wins, especially with AS's shrinking partner network domestically.

DL has a lot of corporate contracts up here, and they are the preferred airline for many of the tech companies that are based in the region. Some of them even have dedicated DL check-in desks at SEA.

airportlover wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Then they need to adjust their arrival and departure times from ATL to the upper Northeast. You can't have it both ways pad arrival times for better onetime performance and then claim a city is 2 hours away and schedule 2.5 hours or 3.00 flying time. Doesn't work like that

Seems to work just great. Largest hub in the world. On topic of SEA, they actually even feed traffic trans-pac ATL-SEA-XXX.

airportlover wrote:

Curious what connecting traffic you think DL should add in SEA to make a "true" domestic connecting hub. There are nearly zero destinations domestically from X- connect SEA- to Y. It is by every definition a connecting hub for Transpac flights. It carries millions of people a year. They are physically constrained, to truly achieve massive hub scale, you need space. LAX is also a hub, but again, more focused on o/d and then higher value domestic/ international feed.

DL offers service to almost all of the major markets from SEA, some with premium lie-flat. Plus all the connections and international options. DL is a great option for people in Seattle.

AS and DL seem to coexist just fine, SEA is a booming market.

What I am saying is that DL may serve the major markets, but there are small cities throughout the country, even within the PNW, that are not served by DL. There are connections, but a hub must serve the small markets within its region, no doubt in my mind. And the major markets have many other options on DL. The point of a hub is to serve distinct connection opportunities. Seattle basically does not do that. It could grow into that, but it is not currently at that level. Also, why should we trust the airlines. Just cuz DL calls it a hub does not mean it is. Everyday, they rip people off and lie to make money because they are greedy corporations. For example, SFO has a similarly terrible domestic connection location, but UA makes up for it with more Asian and Australian destinations, not to mention Hawaii. DL does not offer these options through SEA. It is not their fault, but SEA is capacity-constrained and DL does not dominate there like UA does at SFO.

Sweet Christmas this is exceptional even by a.net standards. Tell us, what exactly counts as a “distinct connection opportunity” and how many of those do you need before it counts as a hub in your book? What is your arbitrary definition of a hub that all of us plus Delta seem to be missing?

airportlover wrote:

What I am saying is that DL may serve the major markets, but there are small cities throughout the country, even within the PNW, that are not served by DL. There are connections, but a hub must serve the small markets within its region, no doubt in my mind. And the major markets have many other options on DL. The point of a hub is to serve distinct connection opportunities. Seattle basically does not do that. It could grow into that, but it is not currently at that level. Also, why should we trust the airlines. Just cuz DL calls it a hub does not mean it is. Everyday, they rip people off and lie to make money because they are greedy corporations. For example, SFO has a similarly terrible domestic connection location, but UA makes up for it with more Asian and Australian destinations, not to mention Hawaii. DL does not offer these options through SEA. It is not their fault, but SEA is capacity-constrained and DL does not dominate there like UA does at SFO.

What routes are you talking about specifically? SFO-XIY? From SEA DL flies to PEK, HKG, ICN, PVG, and NRT. Outside of Chicago, LA, and NYC, SEA and SFO are the only two other cities to have that kind of traffic from one airline (DTW might now that I think about it). edit:I checked, DFW does too with AA, but I think that just proves the rule that airports with 5 or more flights to asia are hubs.

I am not sure what you mean by distinct connection opportunities either. For DL there are plenty of distinct connections through SEA especially from the PNW region and if you mean from other airlines, well there aren't very many airports in the US with only one airline so I don't get that either.

Also, I feel like most people don't have quite the understanding of just how sparsely populated Western North America is. There just plain aren't that many small markets within a 1hr flying time of SEA compared with ATL or DFW or ORD or DTW. Looking at DL's network from SEA, I can't really see more than one or two small PNW markets that DL doesn't serve, can you list any?

And finally you have to come back to SEA is space limited so for every CRJ flight that ties up a gate, you have to give up a 737 to ORD for example. So the fact that DL is flying to a lot of small airports in the region verse just serving the large markets suggest that DL is operating a hub verse a focus city.

Compare SEA and RDU. RDU has flights to non-hub airports like SEA, but none of them are small. Columbus, OH might be the smallest city served from RDU. The other "kinda' small airports are all super O&D heavy (read Florida).

I even mapped them all out on gcmap for you:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SEA-ATL%0D ... =wls&DU=mi

tlecam wrote:

jasoncrh wrote:

Delta only has so many airplanes. They have to put them where they think they will be most productive. The fact they havent put

them on BOS - Asia yet indicates that either they dont think they can get the most from them in Boston or that they have other deployment priorities. Not that mysterious.

chrisnh wrote:

I’m puzzled as to why DL doesn’t leap on some of the unserved Boston-Asia markets like Korea, while everyone twiddles their thumbs over whether KE will or won’t come back. No one necessarily wants to (or even needs to) be routed through a place like DTW or MSP.

I understand your point, but BOS was woefully underserved by the US carriers for years. The international expansion, largely by foreign carriers, leads me to believe that there has been a certain amount of missed opportunities.

The same goes for MCO as well... I find it odd that a legacy carrier doesn't have a current hub there (although now, there's likely not enough room for a legacy carrier to purchase lots of gates at a time at MCO).

mpdpilot wrote:

airportlover wrote:

What I am saying is that DL may serve the major markets, but there are small cities throughout the country, even within the PNW, that are not served by DL. There are connections, but a hub must serve the small markets within its region, no doubt in my mind. And the major markets have many other options on DL. The point of a hub is to serve distinct connection opportunities. Seattle basically does not do that. It could grow into that, but it is not currently at that level. Also, why should we trust the airlines. Just cuz DL calls it a hub does not mean it is. Everyday, they rip people off and lie to make money because they are greedy corporations. For example, SFO has a similarly terrible domestic connection location, but UA makes up for it with more Asian and Australian destinations, not to mention Hawaii. DL does not offer these options through SEA. It is not their fault, but SEA is capacity-constrained and DL does not dominate there like UA does at SFO.

What routes are you talking about specifically? SFO-XIY? From SEA DL flies to PEK, HKG, ICN, PVG, and NRT. Outside of Chicago, LA, and NYC, SEA and SFO are the only two other cities to have that kind of traffic from one airline (DTW might now that I think about it).

I am not sure what you mean by distinct connection opportunities either. For DL there are plenty of distinct connections through SEA especially from the PNW region and if you mean from other airlines, well there aren't very many airports in the US with only one airline so I don't get that either.

Also, I feel like most people don't have quite the understanding of just how sparsely populated Western North America is. There just plain aren't that many small markets within a 1hr flying time of SEA compared with ATL or DFW or ORD or DTW. Looking at DL's network from SEA, I can't really see more than one or two small PNW markets that DL doesn't serve, can you list any?

And finally you have to come back to SEA is space limited so for every CRJ flight that ties up a gate, you have to give up a 737 to ORD for example. So the fact that DL is flying to a lot of small airports in the region verse just serving the large markets suggest that DL is operating a hub verse a focus city.

Compare SEA and RDU. RDU has flights to non-hub airports like SEA, but none of them are small. Columbus, OH might be the smallest city served from RDU. The other "kinda' small airports are all super O&D heavy (read Florida).

I even mapped them all out on gcmap for you:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SEA-ATL%0D ... =wls&DU=mi

I can name a lot of PNW cities that DL does NOT serve: Wenatchee, Yakima, Walla Walla, Pullman, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Port Angeles, Bellingham, Moses Lake, Missoula, Redding, Eureka, Klamath Falls, Crescent City...

wedgetail737 wrote:

I can name a lot of PNW cities that DL does NOT serve: Wenatchee, Yakima, Walla Walla, Pullman, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Port Angeles, Bellingham, Moses Lake, Missoula, Redding, Eureka, Klamath Falls, Crescent City...

Not a bad a list, more than I thought, but I don't think it changes the argument any. Adding those cities wouldn't make SEA any more of a hub than it is today, would make it a bigger hub.

I would also say that Pocatello, Missoula, Idaho Falls are reaching with the term PNW, and DL does fly EUG-SEA.

mpdpilot wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I can name a lot of PNW cities that DL does NOT serve: Wenatchee, Yakima, Walla Walla, Pullman, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Port Angeles, Bellingham, Moses Lake, Missoula, Redding, Eureka, Klamath Falls, Crescent City...

Not a bad a list, more than I thought, but I don't think it changes the argument any. Adding those cities wouldn't make SEA any more of a hub than it is today, would make it a bigger hub.

I would also say that Pocatello, Missoula, Idaho Falls are reaching with the term PNW, and DL does fly EUG-SEA.

Your probably correct. But I think the real thing that's keeping DL from expanding more significantly is the relative lack of gate space at SEA. For anyone to say that DL is not a significant competitor to AS is dead wrong. Also some say DL is shrinking at SEA...also incorrect. I have noticed that DL has been replacing RJ's with mainline on some routes...especially SFO-SEA. And some of the routes that were flown by 717's are now 737-800's and A319s.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Your probably correct. But I think the real thing that's keeping DL from expanding more significantly is the relative lack of gate space at SEA. For anyone to say that DL is not a significant competitor to AS is dead wrong. Also some say DL is shrinking at SEA...also incorrect. I have noticed that DL has been replacing RJ's with mainline on some routes...especially SFO-SEA. And some of the routes that were flown by 717's are now 737-800's and A319s.

Agree completely, I was reading that even MKE is going mainline. Delta is doing quite well in SEA.

mpdpilot wrote:

That is exactly why Delta is adding those routes right now. Do you want to know why Delta wants to be the global airline in BOS? Because they don't want to give jetBlue the opportunity to become that global airline. jetBlue flying TATL (which is an eventuality, just like southwest flying internationally), would cut into DL's TATL a lot, not because of the price but just out of sheer overlap. JB is going to start out of BOS and JFK, DL already has a large presence at JFK, but they can certainly add stuff from BOS to fill the gap, and even better that they can do it with low risk 757 and 767 aircraft. BOS-Asia will happen with DL, but BOS-Europe is where they need to stake their claim before anyone else does.

I don't see where they're looking to expand though, because I don't think they will risk adding an Asia flight, and for Europe they will only be able to add to markets that are already served because Delta won't risk trying a new destination. I do not see JB starting any TATL flights in the next 2-3 years and if they do start those flights it will be on fairly small planes that won't make such a large dent in the market share to make other carriers stop service, like DL.

What’s the point of this thread? Delta considers Seattle to be a hub. They flow traffic over it, invest in facilities there, negotiate corporate contracts to appeal to local Seattle passengers, and schedule banks of flights to maximize connection opportunities. That’s a hub, regardless of whether some armchair ceo on this site who has never worked in an airline’s network planning group thinks so or not.

mpdpilot wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

Your probably correct. But I think the real thing that's keeping DL from expanding more significantly is the relative lack of gate space at SEA. For anyone to say that DL is not a significant competitor to AS is dead wrong. Also some say DL is shrinking at SEA...also incorrect. I have noticed that DL has been replacing RJ's with mainline on some routes...especially SFO-SEA. And some of the routes that were flown by 717's are now 737-800's and A319s.

Agree completely, I was reading that even MKE is going mainline. Delta is doing quite well in SEA.

Yes...I think it's going A319. The other thing I noticed is that it seems like DL has moved all of the CRJ-700's out of SEA. They are all variances of the E-175s. And if you think about it, DL does serve quite a few communities through the PNW and west coast, in general, through SEA...some of which did really surprised me. I'm sure we'll see modest expansion at SEA from DL...but gotta have that gate space first!