SFOtoORD wrote:

klm617 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

And when there are flights to Detroit people talk about automotive, when there are flights to NYC there is talk about financial services, DC leads to talk about capital-to-capital, flights from Germany to the South lead to talk about all the German companies with manufacturing in the South. So how is saying that a tech connection in the Bay Area is glorifying tech? Every region has a major industry. Shouldn’t be a big deal to talk about that as something that might contribute to new air service.

I agree but for the most part it seems to be that the only industry that is going to fuel growth in the commercial aviation industry is the tech industry. Germany is more connected to Detroit as far as manufacturing goes than the south is.

You’re being silly/overreacting on tech. There are a myriad of historical threads w the exact same discussion about other cities/industries.

The South comment came from the number of times there have been threads about how LH maintains service to CLT. BMW, Daimler, Siemens, Henkel and Bosch all have meaningful footprints in the Carolinas.

For the very same reason LH maintains a prescience at DTW and is looking to expand it's service in this market in the near future..

Bobloblaw wrote:

I didnt realize cities could be added to EAS. I knew cities could be taken off.

knope2001 wrote:

You're right that no new communities can be added

The only caveat is communities that used to be part of EAS that grew to the point of not requiring subsidy. If they lose their air service then EAS subsidies can be reinstated. This has happened only a couple times I believe.

Midwestindy wrote:

enilria wrote:

That's a shocker
*UA SFO-MSN JUN 0>0.8 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0

Likely some financial incentives behind it, PDEW was only around 75-80 for Q1/Q2 of 2017

Being from Wisconsin, people have always called Madison the San Francisco of the Midwest.

Rdh3e wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

I didnt realize cities could be added to EAS. I knew cities could be taken off.

knope2001 wrote:

You're right that no new communities can be added

The only caveat is communities that used to be part of EAS that grew to the point of not requiring subsidy. If they lose their air service then EAS subsidies can be reinstated. This has happened only a couple times I believe.

Was EAS instituted to get rural votes for deregulation from congress representing rural areas?

Some cities on EAS had good service well into the mid 1980s with Ozark and Republic flying DC9s. It wasnt until about 1984-85 that those cities began losing their sevice and then they still had SWMs and SF3s to hubs. So how did a city like DEC end up on EAS?

http://www.departedflights.com/RC080182intro.html
http://www.departedflights.com/OZ103182intro.html
1982 RC and OZ schedule shows lots of small cities with jet service even 4 years after deregulation. Was OZ and RC taking EAS money to serve those communities?

klm617 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

In this, and countless other threads I've read, when there is new service to the Bay area, you can count on comments about the flight being fueled by the tech industry.

And when there are flights to Detroit people talk about automotive, when there are flights to NYC there is talk about financial services, DC leads to talk about capital-to-capital, flights from Germany to the South lead to talk about all the German companies with manufacturing in the South. So how is saying that a tech connection in the Bay Area is glorifying tech? Every region has a major industry. Shouldn’t be a big deal to talk about that as something that might contribute to new air service.

I agree but for the most part it seems to be that the only industry that is going to fuel growth in the commercial aviation industry is the tech industry. Germany is more connected to Detroit as far as manufacturing goes than the south is.

Thats not accurate. Detroit has more corporate connections to Germany where the automobile industry is concerned. The South has more manufacturing ties to Germany where the auto industry is concerned.

Below is the list of the German car companies and where they build their cars in the US.

Mercedes - Vance, AL.
BMW - Spartanburg, SC. (this is pretty much the reason LH flies to CLT from MUC)
Audi - No plant in the US
Porsche - No plant in the US- US HQ is in Atlanta

There are no manufacturing ties between Michigan and Germany that I see. There are lots of corporate ties however. Thats what keeps LH and DL there.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

And when there are flights to Detroit people talk about automotive, when there are flights to NYC there is talk about financial services, DC leads to talk about capital-to-capital, flights from Germany to the South lead to talk about all the German companies with manufacturing in the South. So how is saying that a tech connection in the Bay Area is glorifying tech? Every region has a major industry. Shouldn’t be a big deal to talk about that as something that might contribute to new air service.

I agree but for the most part it seems to be that the only industry that is going to fuel growth in the commercial aviation industry is the tech industry. Germany is more connected to Detroit as far as manufacturing goes than the south is.

Thats not accurate. Detroit has more corporate connections to Germany where the automobile industry is concerned. The South has more manufacturing ties to Germany where the auto industry is concerned.

Below is the list of the German car companies and where they build their cars in the US.

Mercedes - Vance, AL.
BMW - Spartanburg, SC. (this is pretty much the reason LH flies to CLT from MUC)
Audi - No plant in the US
Porsche - No plant in the US- US HQ is in Atlanta

There are no manufacturing ties between Michigan and Germany that I see. There are lots of corporate ties however. Thats what keeps LH and DL there.

It's really more engineering ties than corporate ties. Most of the corporate folks for the German auto companies are on the east coast (somewhat disbursed for VW/Audi, Atlanta for M-B, and New Jersey for BMW). Some suppliers (e.g. Bosch) have corporate presences in southeast Michigan. FWIW, it's pretty similar with the Asian manufacturers. Nissan, Toyota, and Hyundai/Kia all have significant engineering presences in southeast Michigan but none has a substantial corporate presence.

Cubsrule wrote:

somewhat disbursed for VW/Audi

US headquarters is right by IAD:

Volkswagen Group of America.
2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171.

SFO-MSM gets a direct flight on UA But No ORD-ONT yet.

Bobloblaw wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

I didnt realize cities could be added to EAS. I knew cities could be taken off.

knope2001 wrote:

You're right that no new communities can be added

The only caveat is communities that used to be part of EAS that grew to the point of not requiring subsidy. If they lose their air service then EAS subsidies can be reinstated. This has happened only a couple times I believe.

Was EAS instituted to get rural votes for deregulation from congress representing rural areas?

Some cities on EAS had good service well into the mid 1980s with Ozark and Republic flying DC9s. It wasnt until about 1984-85 that those cities began losing their sevice and then they still had SWMs and SF3s to hubs. So how did a city like DEC end up on EAS?

http://www.departedflights.com/RC080182intro.html
http://www.departedflights.com/OZ103182intro.html
1982 RC and OZ schedule shows lots of small cities with jet service even 4 years after deregulation. Was OZ and RC taking EAS money to serve those communities?

EAS subsidy only kicked in when nobody was willing to provide as least the minimal service EAS required for that community. The airline which was currently serving the market filed a 90-day notice to terminate and then the EAS bids went out for a replacement. I'm not aware of the larger airline which was wanting to terminate (Ozark, Frontier, Republic, Texas International, etc.) getting the EAS contract for subsidy. All those airlines wanted was out, plus they were removing their smallest equipment and looking to grow into the big boy league.

Many EAS cities receiving subsidy today were unsubsidized until the 2010's, others have been on for years. It didn't need to be a big airline -- Paducah (for example) hasn't seen a big jet in decades but Mesaba / Pinnacle had been willing to fly without subsidy for years. When nobody was willing to fly there without subsidy anymore in the early 2010's it started getting EAS support.

EAS was offered as a temporary (!) safety net to ensure that cities served by certified carriers at the start of deregulation were not simply dumped in a race for airlines like Ozark and Frontier to become big boys. I don't think the deregulation bill would have had enough support without it -- it served as "cover" for representatives to support it.

Rdh3e wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

somewhat disbursed for VW/Audi

US headquarters is right by IAD:

Volkswagen Group of America.
2200 Ferdinand Porsche Dr.
Herndon, VA 20171.

Correct, although they also have a decent presence in New Jersey and, IINM, some corporate folks in Michigan. They are by far the most diffuse/complicated of the lot as far as who is where.

I've been thinking for a while that MSN-SFO would be the next logical add for MSN (with MSN-IAH being another potential add for UA here). Madison appears on all kinds of lists of the fastest-growing tech markets, and Epic certainly drives lots of air traffic (10+ Bay Area hospital systems use Epic, and there are many more customers up and down the West Coast). Add in the fact that San Francisco is a major destination for leisure as well, and I think there will be plenty of traffic to fill this flight. I don't see MSN-DEN suffering too much given the plethora of destinations available from the DEN hub and the fact that MSN still doesn't have that many connections westward.

Wow, I'm amazed to see MSN-SFO before MKE-SFO but so it goes! Hope the latter sees the light of day some day.

axiom wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

You seem to be making quite a leap. Which post says only tech companies fill planes? The Bay Area’s biggest industry is tech, but also several others including pharma and healthcare that were mentioned in posts above.

In this, and countless other threads I've read, when there is new service to the Bay area, you can count on comments about the flight being fueled by the tech industry.

Which is fair, and a good reason to begin to identify why two places might indeed share demand, but by no means an end point. The San Franciscio regional economy may be the capital of tech, but it also has a huge and diversified economy. I hope that goes without saying.

The problem is that some folks here tend to operate with a simplistic view of regional economics. Sam Francisco is tech. Boston is universities. Florida is trash holiday and VFR.

There are elements of trust in these narratives, but only just. Simplifications can become dogma. Simplifications beget more simplification. It becomes the basis for the equivalent of dick measuring.

Enilria, thanks for this thread. I've been enjoying them for what must be more than a decade, and I so appreciate it.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it is incorrect to assume all travel to the SF bay has anything to do with tech industries. Whatever credibility you have, you blew if when you referred to service to Florida as trash holiday and VFR. smh

AAvgeek744 wrote:

axiom wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

In this, and countless other threads I've read, when there is new service to the Bay area, you can count on comments about the flight being fueled by the tech industry.

Which is fair, and a good reason to begin to identify why two places might indeed share demand, but by no means an end point. The San Franciscio regional economy may be the capital of tech, but it also has a huge and diversified economy. I hope that goes without saying.

The problem is that some folks here tend to operate with a simplistic view of regional economics. Sam Francisco is tech. Boston is universities. Florida is trash holiday and VFR.

There are elements of trust in these narratives, but only just. Simplifications can become dogma. Simplifications beget more simplification. It becomes the basis for the equivalent of dick measuring.

Enilria, thanks for this thread. I've been enjoying them for what must be more than a decade, and I so appreciate it.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it is incorrect to assume all travel to the SF bay has anything to do with tech industries. Whatever credibility you have, you blew if when you referred to service to Florida as trash holiday and VFR. smh

I think you missed the point of that post entirely...

scutfarcus wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed to see MSN-SFO before MKE-SFO but so it goes! Hope the latter sees the light of day some day.

MKE has Southwest running MKE-SFO

FSDan wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

axiom wrote:

Which is fair, and a good reason to begin to identify why two places might indeed share demand, but by no means an end point. The San Franciscio regional economy may be the capital of tech, but it also has a huge and diversified economy. I hope that goes without saying.

The problem is that some folks here tend to operate with a simplistic view of regional economics. Sam Francisco is tech. Boston is universities. Florida is trash holiday and VFR.

There are elements of trust in these narratives, but only just. Simplifications can become dogma. Simplifications beget more simplification. It becomes the basis for the equivalent of dick measuring.

Enilria, thanks for this thread. I've been enjoying them for what must be more than a decade, and I so appreciate it.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it is incorrect to assume all travel to the SF bay has anything to do with tech industries. Whatever credibility you have, you blew if when you referred to service to Florida as trash holiday and VFR. smh

I think you missed the point of that post entirely...

Actually, Understood it quite well. I personally do not assume someone sitting next to me on a flight to SFO is going to the Google HQ or going town towards San Jose, or on a recent flight to SEA that they were going to Microsoft. It's not a hard concept. I don't need anyone to agree with me, it's my opinion. Feel free to pass over my comments if you don't agree.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Why does everyone think tech jobs fuel the airline business. Everyone flies not just tech people. It's like everyone has to glorify the tech industry.

You seem to be making quite a leap. Which post says only tech companies fill planes? The Bay Area’s biggest industry is tech, but also several others including pharma and healthcare that were mentioned in posts above.

In this, and countless other threads I've read, when there is new service to the Bay area, you can count on comments about the flight being fueled by the tech industry.

I'm not sure why this would be surprising considering tech is one of SFOs largest industries.... The article about MSN-SFO literally mentions tech in the first sentence....
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/ ... e8bf0.html

Here is an article about EL AL's flight to SFO:
https://thepointsguy.com/2018/01/el-al- ... cisco-787/
"Northern California’s Silicon Valley and Israel are both known for their thriving tech industries, so the route is an obvious choice for El Al."

Article about IND-SFO:
https://www.ibj.com/articles/43241-unit ... dianapolis
"United Airlines plans to offer nonstop flights between Indianapolis and San Francisco starting early next year, fulfilling a longtime wish of local tech firms eager for more direct access to the West Coast and Silicon Valley."

E.t.c., e.t.c, e.t.c you get the point

Tech is clearly a driving force behind many of SFO's route additions

ual763 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

enilria wrote:

That's a shocker
*UA SFO-MSN JUN 0>0.8 JUL 0>1.0 AUG 0>1.0 SEP 0>1.0

Likely some financial incentives behind it, PDEW was only around 75-80 for Q1/Q2 of 2017

Being from Wisconsin, people have always called Madison the San Francisco of the Midwest.

And the Oldsmobile Silhouette is the Cadillac of minvans

scutfarcus wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed to see MSN-SFO before MKE-SFO but so it goes! Hope the latter sees the light of day some day.

In addition to the most recent nonstop MSN-SFO route add, United has also added 2 new nonstop routes between SFO and the Midwest within the last year, including CVG-SFO and DTW-SFO. UA could add nonstops to MKE and CMH from SFO, since MKE and CMH are in the biggest Midwestern metropolitan areas that do already not have nonstop service to SFO on UA.

UA could also add nonstop service from MKE and MSN to IAD since Wisconsin is the largest Midwestern state (and the 2nd most populous U.S. state after Maryland) without any nonstop service to IAD, since Milwaukee is the largest Midwestern city without nonstop service to IAD, since Madison is the capital city of Wisconsin, since Delta is currently the only airline to serve DCA nonstop from MSN, and since Southwest is currently the only airline to serve any of the Washington, D.C. airports nonstop from MKE.

Per UA's press release today they are also adding service EWR-RAP on Saturdays for the summer. That is definitely some out of the box thinking!

"New summer service to Rapid City, South Dakota

In addition to the new year round services, United announced it will offer the only nonstop flight between New York and Rapid City, South Dakota. Beginning June 23, United will start summer service between New York/Newark and Rapid City, making it easier for customers to access popular outdoor destinations including Mount Rushmore National Memorial, Badlands National Park and Wind Cave National Park. United's Saturday-only service between New York/Newark and Rapid City will operate with Embraer E175 aircraft and will depart New York/Newark at 10:00 a.m. and arrive in Rapid City at 12:05 p.m."

http://newsroom.united.com/2018-01-08-U ... stinations

AAvgeek744 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but it is incorrect to assume all travel to the SF bay has anything to do with tech industries. Whatever credibility you have, you blew if when you referred to service to Florida as trash holiday and VFR. smh

I think you missed the point of that post entirely...

Actually, Understood it quite well. I personally do not assume someone sitting next to me on a flight to SFO is going to the Google HQ or going town towards San Jose, or on a recent flight to SEA that they were going to Microsoft. It's not a hard concept. I don't need anyone to agree with me, it's my opinion. Feel free to pass over my comments if you don't agree.

No, FSDan is correct -- you misread my post. My intent was to covent the exact opposite of what you took as my meaning.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

axiom wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

Actually, Understood it quite well. I personally do not assume someone sitting next to me on a flight to SFO is going to the Google HQ or going town towards San Jose, or on a recent flight to SEA that they were going to Microsoft. It's not a hard concept. I don't need anyone to agree with me, it's my opinion. Feel free to pass over my comments if you don't agree.

No, FSDan is correct -- you misread my post. My intent was to covent the exact opposite of what you took as my meaning.

Tis OK. I'll stand by my opinion. Thanks.

I think we're in agreement. I don't understand what you're standing by.

axiom wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

FSDan wrote:

I think you missed the point of that post entirely...

Actually, Understood it quite well. I personally do not assume someone sitting next to me on a flight to SFO is going to the Google HQ or going town towards San Jose, or on a recent flight to SEA that they were going to Microsoft. It's not a hard concept. I don't need anyone to agree with me, it's my opinion. Feel free to pass over my comments if you don't agree.

No, FSDan is correct -- you misread my post. My intent was to covent the exact opposite of what you took as my meaning.

Tis OK. I'll stand by my opinion. Thanks.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Re: DEN-HYS-SLN-ORD.

I made an observation a while back that 2-stop routes between hubs would be a good way to increase loads and provide more service to smaller markets and was roundly poo-poohed. Costs, extra segments make them non-viable etc...

Now I see something like this and have to gloat just a tad...even though this type of routing has yet to prove itself, with the US3 now having more robust hubs geographically I wonder if we wont see more of these types of routes going forward.

Actually, what was old is new again. Delta used to operate multi-stop routes between hubs like ATL-MLU-SHV-DFW, DFW-MLU-JAN-ATL, ATL-MGM-JAN-DFW, and ATL-BTR-SHV-DFW with 727s and DC-9s back in the 1980s. It worked reasonably well given that those small markets were relatively uncompetitive and the milk runs allowed Delta to offer much greater frequency to two hubs with mainline equipment, as opposed to the props on most competitors/commuter carriers.

The development of the regional jet made the milk runs unnecessary and also less competitive; i.e. a one-stop flight from SHV to ATL becomes less attractive if NW offers a non-stop on a regional jet to MEM or AA to DFW.

The multi-stop runs to EAS markets can work as long as several conditions are met:
* The service must be reliable (i.e. < 2-3% controllable cancellation rate)
* The service must save appreciable time versus driving to a larger airport.
* Enough frequency must be offered to keep schedule-sensitive passengers from driving to another airport with more service.
* The fares must be reasonable enough to prevent substantial traffic leakage to other airports (i.e. passengers driving from HYS to DEN or MCI to save $500).

AAvgeek744 wrote:

In this, and countless other threads I've read, when there is new service to the Bay area, you can count on comments about the flight being fueled by the tech industry.

And there's something of a grain of truth to that, although in the case of MSN, there is the connection between Epic and several major customers, as well as some traffic between the universities at both ends. From Chicago, O&D traffic to Los Angeles is nearly 40% higher than to San Francisco; from DFW/DAL the QLA market is nearly double the side of QSF. From MSN, traffic is nearly identical to QLA and QSF (the lead flips from quarter to quarter). Tech isn't the ONLY reason for new service to the Bay Area, but it's almost always a significant part of WHY that service is happening.

Bobloblaw wrote:

Some cities on EAS had good service well into the mid 1980s with Ozark and Republic flying DC9s. It wasnt until about 1984-85 that those cities began losing their sevice and then they still had SWMs and SF3s to hubs. So how did a city like DEC end up on EAS?

Well, keep in mind that into the 1980s non-code share interline tickets were pretty common and aggressive yield management really hadn't yet come into practice. One could fly into or out of those markets on a ticket involving two or more carriers without paying an arm and a leg -- and frequent flyer programs also didn't really drive customer behavior like they do today, either. Plus surface roads other than Interstate highways were rarely wider than two lanes outside of major metro areas (and many went through every city & town on the way) and the national speed limit was 55 mph.

still haven't seen DL make any significant moves in LAX

knope2001 wrote:

Bobloblaw wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

The only caveat is communities that used to be part of EAS that grew to the point of not requiring subsidy. If they lose their air service then EAS subsidies can be reinstated. This has happened only a couple times I believe.

Was EAS instituted to get rural votes for deregulation from congress representing rural areas?

Some cities on EAS had good service well into the mid 1980s with Ozark and Republic flying DC9s. It wasnt until about 1984-85 that those cities began losing their sevice and then they still had SWMs and SF3s to hubs. So how did a city like DEC end up on EAS?

http://www.departedflights.com/RC080182intro.html
http://www.departedflights.com/OZ103182intro.html
1982 RC and OZ schedule shows lots of small cities with jet service even 4 years after deregulation. Was OZ and RC taking EAS money to serve those communities?

EAS subsidy only kicked in when nobody was willing to provide as least the minimal service EAS required for that community. The airline which was currently serving the market filed a 90-day notice to terminate and then the EAS bids went out for a replacement. I'm not aware of the larger airline which was wanting to terminate (Ozark, Frontier, Republic, Texas International, etc.) getting the EAS contract for subsidy. All those airlines wanted was out, plus they were removing their smallest equipment and looking to grow into the big boy league.

Many EAS cities receiving subsidy today were unsubsidized until the 2010's, others have been on for years. It didn't need to be a big airline -- Paducah (for example) hasn't seen a big jet in decades but Mesaba / Pinnacle had been willing to fly without subsidy for years. When nobody was willing to fly there without subsidy anymore in the early 2010's it started getting EAS support.

EAS was offered as a temporary (!) safety net to ensure that cities served by certified carriers at the start of deregulation were not simply dumped in a race for airlines like Ozark and Frontier to become big boys. I don't think the deregulation bill would have had enough support without it -- it served as "cover" for representatives to support it.

In other news SkyWest under United bid for Riverton and Sheridan, WY, Presque Isle, ME and Plattsburgh, NY, Denver Air Connection won out on the WY bids, but SkyWest seems to be winning in a lot of EAS markets.
Off-topic but there doesn't seem to be an EAS thread that I know of.
I'm personally pulling for them to try again on RIverton

scutfarcus wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed to see MSN-SFO before MKE-SFO but so it goes! Hope the latter sees the light of day some day.

Ironically, UA flew SFO-MKE in the 1970s with a 727.

SumChristianus wrote:

In other news SkyWest under United bid for Riverton and Sheridan, WY, Presque Isle, ME and Plattsburgh, NY, Denver Air Connection won out on the WY bids, but SkyWest seems to be winning in a lot of EAS markets.
Off-topic but there doesn't seem to be an EAS thread that I know of.
I'm personally pulling for them to try again on RIverton

DOT is putting a huge premium on price this go-around. I haven't seen a market yet where the lowest bidder didn't win (except where the lower bidder was a seriously inferior product).

Skywest lost their bid for ALO to AA, for whom SkyWest already operates the route anyway.
ALO Docket: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0132-0043

BoeingGuy wrote:

scutfarcus wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed to see MSN-SFO before MKE-SFO but so it goes! Hope the latter sees the light of day some day.

Ironically, UA flew SFO-MKE in the 1970s with a 727.

Ironic? Not sure I get the connection. In the 70's, UA flew nonstops from MEM, BHM, and HSV to LAX, something they would never do today. The industry has changed a lot since deregulation, and I'm not sure all the change has been good.

AAvgeek744 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

scutfarcus wrote:

Wow, I'm amazed to see MSN-SFO before MKE-SFO but so it goes! Hope the latter sees the light of day some day.

Ironically, UA flew SFO-MKE in the 1970s with a 727.

Ironic? Not sure I get the connection. In the 70's, UA flew nonstops from MEM, BHM, and HSV to LAX, something they would never do today. The industry has changed a lot since deregulation, and I'm not sure all the change has been good.

Maybe ironic wasn’t the right term. Someone was expressing surprise that UA hadn’t started SFO-MKE. I wasn’t pointing out that they actually had in the past. UA also did SFO-OMA and for a short time tried LAX-GRR and I think LAX-DSM. And don’t forget MRY-ORD either, all on 727s. All interesting routes.

axiom wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

enilria wrote:

*AM DEN-MEX APR 0.4>0.2 MAY 0.3>0 JUN 0.3>0 JUL 0.3>0 AUG 0.3>0 SEP 0.3>0

I wish i could say this was surprising. AM is just sad with their USA flights. I hate to see them leave Denver.

Indeed, sad to see AM drop DEN. Does anyone have any perspective on why AM has been reducing so much US capacity lately? Is it a function of the DL JV?

According to DEN, this is a seasonal suspension. AM will be back in the peak winter season.

jagraham wrote:

still haven't seen DL make any significant moves in LAX

LAX won't last long for DL. This is not the first time they attempted a huge buildup at LAX only to pull it down after a year or two.

evank516 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

still haven't seen DL make any significant moves in LAX

LAX won't last long for DL. This is not the first time they attempted a huge buildup at LAX only to pull it down after a year or two.

I hope you guys are kidding. DL's investing a ton into LAX, and they're certainly not about to back down. This isn't like the late 2000's buildup where DL decided to fly ERJs to a bunch of random destinations in Mexico - they have competitive schedules to business destinations throughout the U.S. on large RJs and mainline equipment, and they've actually surpassed UA in terms of flights and seats offered (I believe they're #2 behind AA).

BoeingGuy wrote:

AAvgeek744 wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Ironically, UA flew SFO-MKE in the 1970s with a 727.

Ironic? Not sure I get the connection. In the 70's, UA flew nonstops from MEM, BHM, and HSV to LAX, something they would never do today. The industry has changed a lot since deregulation, and I'm not sure all the change has been good.

Maybe ironic wasn’t the right term. Someone was expressing surprise that UA hadn’t started SFO-MKE. I wasn’t pointing out that they actually had in the past. UA also did SFO-OMA and for a short time tried LAX-GRR and I think LAX-DSM. And don’t forget MRY-ORD either, all on 727s. All interesting routes.

OK, gotcha....thanks. Its easy to read the wrong thing into what some people say on here.