Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
yeogeo
Topic Author
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:29 pm

Fargo wrote:
This isn't Los Angeles or New York, Chicago can barely support 3 hub carriers as it is.


Alright, I'll take the bait. What does this even mean "barely support"? Honestly, it just sounds like sour grapes, which is odd: there's only a whisper on this thread about Delta turning ORD into a hub. More folks suggest it continuing on being a significant spoke and some suggest DL a few extra point to point routes (after all Delta is well known for those), but in time we'll see where it shakes out. FWIW, I fall on the side of a significant spoke with a few extra p to p's, but still nothing to threaten those "two great hubs up the road in DTW/MSP".
 
evank516
Posts: 2139
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:18 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Why? What is the benefit of adding *more* capacity? DL is offering frequency and product its flyers want. Moreover, DL will be operating 15 weekday daily flights with about half on mainline (in fact, IIRC I've seen reports that mainline could be all but a handful in the future).


That's what I mean. They need to upgauge from E175s to mainline. This is what they plan to do is go head to head on routes where UA and AA competes (look at the A220s on LGA-DFW, JFK-DFW, and LGA-IAH). The addition of the 717s is a great move on their part IMHO, and they need to continue to add more which is what you say they're doing anyway. Extra capacity is also a band aid on the gate constraints.


Except you haven't explained what benefit there is to adding larger aircraft. Its not like there is a product difference (frankly, E175s offer better upgrade potential). What benefit does DL have by doing a market share grab?


If there are gate constraints then they can shuttle in more people on one flight by upgauging. There's still a difference of roughly 30 extra passengers between the E175 and the 717. Product wise, the only difference is the charger ports in the 717s but not the E175s. Not to mention they're going up against hourly 738s on AA.

Planeboy17 wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
evank516 wrote:

That's what I mean. They need to upgauge from E175s to mainline. This is what they plan to do is go head to head on routes where UA and AA competes (look at the A220s on LGA-DFW, JFK-DFW, and LGA-IAH). The addition of the 717s is a great move on their part IMHO, and they need to continue to add more which is what you say they're doing anyway. Extra capacity is also a band aid on the gate constraints.


LGA-ORD is all mainline in the summer, not sure how much more you can ask for on this route.....

All 717s in fact, 15 a day during the week.


This I didn't know. Last summer it was a mix, but with the A220 going on LGA-BOS I guess it freed up more 717s for ORD.
 
ILS28ORD
Posts: 166
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2017 2:08 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:00 pm

yeogeo wrote:
Fargo wrote:
This isn't Los Angeles or New York, Chicago can barely support 3 hub carriers as it is.


Alright, I'll take the bait. What does this even mean "barely support"? Honestly, it just sounds like sour grapes, which is odd: there's only a whisper on this thread about Delta turning ORD into a hub. More folks suggest it continuing on being a significant spoke and some suggest DL a few extra point to point routes (after all Delta is well known for those), but in time we'll see where it shakes out. FWIW, I fall on the side of a significant spoke with a few extra p to p's, but still nothing to threaten those "two great hubs up the road in DTW/MSP".


I agree what does "barely support" mean? I see 3 hub carriers (UA, AA, WN) adding flights and looking to expand in Chicago but not being able to due to lack of gate space. Not to mention 2 ULCCs (f9, NK) at ORD who also have focus cities there and want more gates to expand. I wouldn't call that "barely supporting". All 3 operate largers hubs at ORD than the same 3 operate in LA or NY. I also see DL making ORD a full spoke but not much else, and this dropping CVG thing is coming from 2 posters who made the same unfounded claim in another thread and seem to be on a "DL will drop CVG-ORD kick" for no reason.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5287
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:39 pm

ILS28ORD wrote:
I also see DL making ORD a full spoke but not much else, and this dropping CVG thing is coming from 2 posters who made the same unfounded claim in another thread and seem to be on a "DL will drop CVG-ORD kick" for no reason.


I'd be happy to discuss why I believe it will happen, but any time it is brought up, it seems people take it very personally. So, if you want to explain why you think I am wrong please feel free.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2366
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:09 pm

evank516 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
evank516 wrote:

That's what I mean. They need to upgauge from E175s to mainline. This is what they plan to do is go head to head on routes where UA and AA competes (look at the A220s on LGA-DFW, JFK-DFW, and LGA-IAH). The addition of the 717s is a great move on their part IMHO, and they need to continue to add more which is what you say they're doing anyway. Extra capacity is also a band aid on the gate constraints.


Except you haven't explained what benefit there is to adding larger aircraft. Its not like there is a product difference (frankly, E175s offer better upgrade potential). What benefit does DL have by doing a market share grab?


If there are gate constraints then they can shuttle in more people on one flight by upgauging. There's still a difference of roughly 30 extra passengers between the E175 and the 717. Product wise, the only difference is the charger ports in the 717s but not the E175s. Not to mention they're going up against hourly 738s on AA.


Again - WHY do they need more seats? You can't seem to answer that question. So what if they are going up against hourly 738s on AA? You initially made an assertion that DL NEEDED to add more seats, but after 3 posts still cannot explain why.
 
evank516
Posts: 2139
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 12:15 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:51 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
evank516 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

Except you haven't explained what benefit there is to adding larger aircraft. Its not like there is a product difference (frankly, E175s offer better upgrade potential). What benefit does DL have by doing a market share grab?


If there are gate constraints then they can shuttle in more people on one flight by upgauging. There's still a difference of roughly 30 extra passengers between the E175 and the 717. Product wise, the only difference is the charger ports in the 717s but not the E175s. Not to mention they're going up against hourly 738s on AA.


Again - WHY do they need more seats? You can't seem to answer that question. So what if they are going up against hourly 738s on AA? You initially made an assertion that DL NEEDED to add more seats, but after 3 posts still cannot explain why.


Because they can fill the planes. They wouldn't have upgauged any of the flights if they couldn't. NYC-CHI is a market that is full of demand.
 
N649DL
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:26 pm

I don't think ORD will ever be a hub for DL but local O&D in L.A. probably is good enough for DL to start the route. Can the E175s make LAX-ORD work or not enough range? That would be a good A220 route.
 
TW870
Posts: 1229
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 5:10 am

compensateme wrote:
Ah, our monthly installment of ‘DL ORD expansion.’

Chicago is a stagnant LOCAL air market (do not confuse this with the mostly long-haul adds that have been added to take advantage of the incumbent hubs); most of its growth in recent years has been at the LCC level. Reality is, if DL wants to expand at ORD, it’s going to have to ‘steal’ market share from AA, UA and WN.

And given these carriers (a) dominate the Chicago POS contracts that matter, (b) have vested millions into their loyalty programs, (c) can offer frequency that DL will never be able to match, (d) can operate larger, lower CASM aircraft and (e) have the advantage of large hubs... that’s not going to be an easy task.

DL May add flights and capacity to its hubs, and link ORD to markets where it’s trying to build focus cities (LAX, RDU, etc.)... but that’s it. Anybody holding out for a large scale DL expansion is going to be sorely disappointed.

Put simply, there’s too many other markets where it could receive a better return for its investment.


Agreed. I think DL sees the move to T5 in terms of the following strategic enhancements in the following order - and nothing else:

1. Better concourse, restaurant, gate seating, bathroom facilities access for business travelers on corporate contracts mostly from ATL region, MSP region, NYC, SEA, and BOS point of sale. Right now ORD is one of the weakest concourse experiences system wide, and this will fix that.
2. New Skyclub that will be on par with the new DCA, PHX, AUS, and MSY clubs to appeal to the above named customers.
3. Gate space to add frequency on BOS if that market matures well.
4. Gate space to add LAX for LAX point of sale. Likely a small offering for minimum acceptable to LAX corporate contracts similar to SEA.
5. Gate space for frequency increase or/and upgauging for other current markets.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:27 am

The repeated claims that ‘DL desperately wants to add LAX but lacks gate space’ are unsubstainted and likely false. Two years ago I got into a heated exchange with one of the posters who agressively pushed that argument (including in this thread)... and since then, DL’s added SEA, expanded service to SEA, and announced multiple dailies to RDU now BOS.

Fact is... if DL truly wanted to serve LAX, it would have done so by now. CHI/LAX is a super competitive market, in which yields are often mediocre. And that’s the reason DL doesn’t enter the market. Perhaps one day they will, but gate space certainly isn’t preventing them from having done so by now.
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
N649DL
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:39 am

compensateme wrote:
The repeated claims that ‘DL desperately wants to add LAX but lacks gate space’ are unsubstainted and likely false. Two years ago I got into a heated exchange with one of the posters who agressively pushed that argument (including in this thread)... and since then, DL’s added SEA, expanded service to SEA, and announced multiple dailies to RDU now BOS.

Fact is... if DL truly wanted to serve LAX, it would have done so by now. CHI/LAX is a super competitive market, in which yields are often mediocre. And that’s the reason DL doesn’t enter the market. Perhaps one day they will, but gate space certainly isn’t preventing them from having done so by now.


I definitely think that's not exactly the case. Recall when DL added a slew of RJ destinations from LAX around 2016: DEN / DFW / AUS / MCI that they've quietly upgraded to 717 or 319 equipment in the past year. DL even operated the 738 on SEA-ORD and LAX-DEN during the summer which is a major capacity upgrade. At the same time, they've also upgraded routes out of SLC too like ORD going more mainline and SLC-EWR getting a 739ER most of the year.

Bottom line, they're not stupid but probably don't have the right aircraft for it (or they're tied up) for LAX-ORD. I would think they'd love to use the 319 on missions like LAX - ORD / EWR / BWI / IAD etc but are just taking it easy for now. The fact they serve hyper competitive markets on mainline like DFW & AUS, to me spells that ORD is coming from LAX.

I actually think the big deal is gate space at ORD and not LAX for them. Can one imagine if they had holding delays at ORD with gates coming from LAX? People would ditch them quickly, as much as many are willing to toss airlines like UA to the curb because they're so tired of them.
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:11 am

Midwestindy wrote:
Same thing was said about XNA, MKE, and BNA. As I pointed out, yields (and even LFs) have gone down drastically in recent years, and with DL using more CR2s instead of CR9s (which are aircraft with much higher CASM), profit on the route has undoubtedly shrunk.


Although moving to CRJs will reduce trip costs. I agree that moving from CR9s to a CRJ feels like a kiss of death. However, if the route is a dog but needed for corp agreements (i.e. its a required route for the purpose of holding onto deals with major CVG clients) then moving down to a CRJ makes sense. DL can offer the frequency needed to meet requirements and keep trip costs down and minimize losses. If you're only going to have 30 paid passengers on a flight, you might as well not use a plane that has 76 seats.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5287
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:07 pm

N717TW wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
Same thing was said about XNA, MKE, and BNA. As I pointed out, yields (and even LFs) have gone down drastically in recent years, and with DL using more CR2s instead of CR9s (which are aircraft with much higher CASM), profit on the route has undoubtedly shrunk.


Although moving to CRJs will reduce trip costs. I agree that moving from CR9s to a CRJ feels like a kiss of death. However, if the route is a dog but needed for corp agreements (i.e. its a required route for the purpose of holding onto deals with major CVG clients) then moving down to a CRJ makes sense. DL can offer the frequency needed to meet requirements and keep trip costs down and minimize losses. If you're only going to have 30 paid passengers on a flight, you might as well not use a plane that has 76 seats.


Thank you, I appreciate your reasonable response.

It's a possibility, downguaging to a CR2 is not always the kiss of death. However, I can't imagine cutting ORD would cause DL to lose any CVG based clients. Remember, DL has a much MUCH better network than any other carrier from CVG. So, for the most part the only way DL will lose contracts there is if other carriers offer companies more discounted fares on flights (which has already happened with WN to MDW/BWI). Even if DL cuts ORD, they would still offer n/s service to 19 out of 20 of CVGs largest O&D markets plus int'l service to YYZ and CDG, so again I think it would be pretty hard for DL to lose contracts solely for cutting ORD.

Next you have to look at opportunity cost. The route is being run on mostly CR2s, and given the lack of gate space at ORD, would this be the best use of gates vs. 4x to RDU (for example) on full CR9s or 3x A220 to LAX? With yields and gate availability trending downward, that may be something they are looking at

Image
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
ckfred
Posts: 5185
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:22 pm

Some random thoughts.

1. I thought that DL flew ORD-CDG in the winter, because AF didn't have enough aircraft to service the route. With AF adding service to warm weather cities in the winter, it lacked the right size of aircraft. So, DL would fly the route with a 763. IIRC, this was purely an arrangement stemming from the DL/AF/KL joint venture.

2. ORD used to be a large base for DL, until the delays at ORD in the 1980s forced DL to create the CVG hub. DL used to fly to all sorts of Southern destinations from ORD, even after moving from H to L. But, I suspect that the F/F base in the Chicago area is tiny, compared to AA and UA. There was a time when my wife flew DL a lot out of ORD, but that was because her employer was headquartered in Cincinnati and had a contract with DL. The contract disappeared around 2002 or 2003, and she pretty much fly AA or UA for business after that.

3. The DOT and the FAA don't like the concept of an airline leasing a gate, because it keeps other airlines out of that gate, if not fully utilized. What the new concept (preferential gate assignment) means is that an airline has "dibs" on the gate, so long as it's fully utilized during the day. So, if an airline has departures from a gate every 90 minutes to 2 hours, it will have exclusive use of the gate. If an airline schedules fewer flights out of the gate, then the City has the right to let other carriers schedule flights during slack periods.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5287
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:31 pm

compensateme wrote:
The repeated claims that ‘DL desperately wants to add LAX but lacks gate space’ are unsubstainted and likely false. Two years ago I got into a heated exchange with one of the posters who agressively pushed that argument (including in this thread)... and since then, DL’s added SEA, expanded service to SEA, and announced multiple dailies to RDU now BOS.

Fact is... if DL truly wanted to serve LAX, it would have done so by now. CHI/LAX is a super competitive market, in which yields are often mediocre. And that’s the reason DL doesn’t enter the market. Perhaps one day they will, but gate space certainly isn’t preventing them from having done so by now.


Gate space is an issue, if they want to run the flights at optimal times.

I'm not sure how many gates they have, but assuming they only have 6 gates, they will be running 11 departures per gate by the fall.

Yields are likely a bigger problem, but gate availability probably matters too
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1906
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 4:42 pm

ckfred wrote:
Some random thoughts.

2. ORD used to be a large base for DL, until the delays at ORD in the 1980s forced DL to create the CVG hub. DL used to fly to all sorts of Southern destinations from ORD, even after moving from H to L. But, I suspect that the F/F base in the Chicago area is tiny, compared to AA and UA. There was a time when my wife flew DL a lot out of ORD, but that was because her employer was headquartered in Cincinnati and had a contract with DL. The contract disappeared around 2002 or 2003, and she pretty much fly AA or UA for business after that.


It wasn't the delays at ORD that forced DL to create the CVG hub.

DL, EA, NW, North Central, Ozark, and TWA all had large presences at ORD before deregulation. However, all of these airlines' managements realized that they would never be the dominant airline at ORD, so rather than fight a losing battle against UA and AA, they chose to reduce their presence at ORD, and focus their resources on cities where they could be dominant.

For example, Republic swapped some of their excess gates on ORD's H Concourse in exchange for three of AA's gates at DTW. Republic then paid for Eastern to move into the ex-AA gates at DTW, enabling Republic to take over Eastern's old gates on DTW's D Concourse.
 
N649DL
Posts: 981
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:06 pm

WA707atMSP wrote:
ckfred wrote:
Some random thoughts.

2. ORD used to be a large base for DL, until the delays at ORD in the 1980s forced DL to create the CVG hub. DL used to fly to all sorts of Southern destinations from ORD, even after moving from H to L. But, I suspect that the F/F base in the Chicago area is tiny, compared to AA and UA. There was a time when my wife flew DL a lot out of ORD, but that was because her employer was headquartered in Cincinnati and had a contract with DL. The contract disappeared around 2002 or 2003, and she pretty much fly AA or UA for business after that.


It wasn't the delays at ORD that forced DL to create the CVG hub.

DL, EA, NW, North Central, Ozark, and TWA all had large presences at ORD before deregulation. However, all of these airlines' managements realized that they would never be the dominant airline at ORD, so rather than fight a losing battle against UA and AA, they chose to reduce their presence at ORD, and focus their resources on cities where they could be dominant.

For example, Republic swapped some of their excess gates on ORD's H Concourse in exchange for three of AA's gates at DTW. Republic then paid for Eastern to move into the ex-AA gates at DTW, enabling Republic to take over Eastern's old gates on DTW's D Concourse.


IIRC, from what I read up on DL's old gates that used to be next to AA's concourse (I think "L" gates or something) DL took up more of that wing during the 1980s-1990s and sold it to AA. Now they're in the former NW gates and use the former NW club as a Sky Club too.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5362
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:30 pm

N649DL wrote:
I don't think ORD will ever be a hub for DL but local O&D in L.A. probably is good enough for DL to start the route. Can the E175s make LAX-ORD work or not enough range? That would be a good A220 route.

The E75 doesn't have the range. Smallest aircraft outside of the 220 that Delta has that has the legs is the 319.

I don't imagine LAX-ORD has a chance till Delta moves to T5 though.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:07 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
compensateme wrote:
The repeated claims that ‘DL desperately wants to add LAX but lacks gate space’ are unsubstainted and likely false. Two years ago I got into a heated exchange with one of the posters who agressively pushed that argument (including in this thread)... and since then, DL’s added SEA, expanded service to SEA, and announced multiple dailies to RDU now BOS.

Fact is... if DL truly wanted to serve LAX, it would have done so by now. CHI/LAX is a super competitive market, in which yields are often mediocre. And that’s the reason DL doesn’t enter the market. Perhaps one day they will, but gate space certainly isn’t preventing them from having done so by now.


Gate space is an issue, if they want to run the flights at optimal times.

I'm not sure how many gates they have, but assuming they only have 6 gates, they will be running 11 departures per gate by the fall.

Yields are likely a bigger problem, but gate availability probably matters too


A DL enthusiast who has participated in this thread manufactured the narrative that LAX is a “must serve” market from ORD that DL desperately wants to serve, but hasn’t because of lack of gate space. Two years ago I got into an epic argument with him after challenging his narrative... since then, DL has added three flights to SEA and has announced four to RDU and five to BOS - all at optimal times. BOS wasn’t even part of the conversation two years ago. So no, gate space isn’t the issue that has prevented LAX from launching.

And DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA; the lease had long concluded and was being renewed annually. It’s possible DL opted not to renew this lease next year, hence the new service.
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1664
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:34 pm

compensateme wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
compensateme wrote:
The repeated claims that ‘DL desperately wants to add LAX but lacks gate space’ are unsubstainted and likely false. Two years ago I got into a heated exchange with one of the posters who agressively pushed that argument (including in this thread)... and since then, DL’s added SEA, expanded service to SEA, and announced multiple dailies to RDU now BOS.

Fact is... if DL truly wanted to serve LAX, it would have done so by now. CHI/LAX is a super competitive market, in which yields are often mediocre. And that’s the reason DL doesn’t enter the market. Perhaps one day they will, but gate space certainly isn’t preventing them from having done so by now.


Gate space is an issue, if they want to run the flights at optimal times.

I'm not sure how many gates they have, but assuming they only have 6 gates, they will be running 11 departures per gate by the fall.

Yields are likely a bigger problem, but gate availability probably matters too


A DL enthusiast who has participated in this thread manufactured the narrative that LAX is a “must serve” market from ORD that DL desperately wants to serve, but hasn’t because of lack of gate space. Two years ago I got into an epic argument with him after challenging his narrative... since then, DL has added three flights to SEA and has announced four to RDU and five to BOS - all at optimal times. BOS wasn’t even part of the conversation two years ago. So no, gate space isn’t the issue that has prevented LAX from launching.

And DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA; the lease had long concluded and was being renewed annually. It’s possible DL opted not to renew this lease next year, hence the new service.


Not really going to argue with much of what you have to say about all of this. But I will say, by the time Delta is fully up and running at T5 AND their LAX project is finished, they will be serving the LAX-ORD market. The writing is on the wall if you observe how they have strategically grown over the past decade. I remember when people thought is was crazy they'd serve LGA-ORD in the face of AA/UA hubs on both ends. They aren't afraid. And they are willing to absorb less-than-stellar performance on a particular route in order to support a bigger strategy.
 
airplanedaj
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:05 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:44 pm

evank516 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
evank516 wrote:

They need to upgauge more of their LGA flights. They're going up against a lot of capacity by AA and UA.


Why? What is the benefit of adding *more* capacity? DL is offering frequency and product its flyers want. Moreover, DL will be operating 15 weekday daily flights with about half on mainline (in fact, IIRC I've seen reports that mainline could be all but a handful in the future).


That's what I mean. They need to upgauge from E175s to mainline. This is what they plan to do is go head to head on routes where UA and AA competes (look at the A220s on LGA-DFW, JFK-DFW, and LGA-IAH). The addition of the 717s is a great move on their part IMHO, and they need to continue to add more which is what you say they're doing anyway. Extra capacity is also a band aid on the gate constraints.


Looking at Google Earth, I wonder if they use RJ's to get more flights in? The inside E gates have a couple different lines, where you can get 6 RJ's in, but only 4 737/A320 size jets in, That may have something to do with that
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 5287
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:14 pm

compensateme wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
compensateme wrote:
The repeated claims that ‘DL desperately wants to add LAX but lacks gate space’ are unsubstainted and likely false. Two years ago I got into a heated exchange with one of the posters who agressively pushed that argument (including in this thread)... and since then, DL’s added SEA, expanded service to SEA, and announced multiple dailies to RDU now BOS.

Fact is... if DL truly wanted to serve LAX, it would have done so by now. CHI/LAX is a super competitive market, in which yields are often mediocre. And that’s the reason DL doesn’t enter the market. Perhaps one day they will, but gate space certainly isn’t preventing them from having done so by now.


Gate space is an issue, if they want to run the flights at optimal times.

I'm not sure how many gates they have, but assuming they only have 6 gates, they will be running 11 departures per gate by the fall.

Yields are likely a bigger problem, but gate availability probably matters too


A DL enthusiast who has participated in this thread manufactured the narrative that LAX is a “must serve” market from ORD that DL desperately wants to serve, but hasn’t because of lack of gate space. Two years ago I got into an epic argument with him after challenging his narrative... since then, DL has added three flights to SEA and has announced four to RDU and five to BOS - all at optimal times. BOS wasn’t even part of the conversation two years ago. So no, gate space isn’t the issue that has prevented LAX from launching.

And DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA; the lease had long concluded and was being renewed annually. It’s possible DL opted not to renew this lease next year, hence the new service.


I agree with you that ORD is not a "must serve" market from LAX and gate space isn't "necessarily" what's limiting ORD-LAX , but I think the route is definitely on Delta's radar. It's the only hub/focus city not served from ORD, so it is a only a matter of time. AA's gotten quite strong in LA, so I think DL realizes they can't sit around on the sidelines forever on this route.

With regards to the timing issue with flights, I'll admit I'm not an expert since I'm almost always flying out of T3, but it sounds plausible that they aren't renewing the lease for next year. I think E12 is leased to UA, since I flew into E12 on UAX earlier this year.

The optimal times thing is debatable, so I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. All I'll is that not all flights are at "optimal" times, but I'll leave it to that.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
SUNCTRY738
Posts: 138
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 3:39 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:49 pm

jetlanta wrote:
compensateme wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:

Gate space is an issue, if they want to run the flights at optimal times.

I'm not sure how many gates they have, but assuming they only have 6 gates, they will be running 11 departures per gate by the fall.

Yields are likely a bigger problem, but gate availability probably matters too


A DL enthusiast who has participated in this thread manufactured the narrative that LAX is a “must serve” market from ORD that DL desperately wants to serve, but hasn’t because of lack of gate space. Two years ago I got into an epic argument with him after challenging his narrative... since then, DL has added three flights to SEA and has announced four to RDU and five to BOS - all at optimal times. BOS wasn’t even part of the conversation two years ago. So no, gate space isn’t the issue that has prevented LAX from launching.

And DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA; the lease had long concluded and was being renewed annually. It’s possible DL opted not to renew this lease next year, hence the new service.


Not really going to argue with much of what you have to say about all of this. But I will say, by the time Delta is fully up and running at T5 AND their LAX project is finished, they will be serving the LAX-ORD market. The writing is on the wall if you observe how they have strategically grown over the past decade. I remember when people thought is was crazy they'd serve LGA-ORD in the face of AA/UA hubs on both ends. They aren't afraid. And they are willing to absorb less-than-stellar performance on a particular route in order to support a bigger strategy.


Excellent response!
 
TWA1985
Posts: 646
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 3:24 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:28 pm

So a related question, if I may. Does Delta have any operational presence at ORD? Offices, administrators, etc? I know they still have a small flight attendant base in Chicago, but I’m talking beyond that. :)
Be Young. Be Wild. Be Free.
 
User avatar
yeogeo
Topic Author
Posts: 1531
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 2:47 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:20 am

compensateme wrote:
And DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA; the lease had long concluded and was being renewed annually. It’s possible DL opted not to renew this lease next year, hence the new service.


The only recent gate additions I'm aware of for Delta in T-2 were a year or two ago (if memory serves) when DL took over US's gates (E-7 & E-9) which were conveniently located next door to Delta's on the inner side of the T-2 "Y" and, as airplanedaj says, they've made the most of the space there.
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 3385
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:59 am

jetlanta wrote:
compensateme wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:

Gate space is an issue, if they want to run the flights at optimal times.

I'm not sure how many gates they have, but assuming they only have 6 gates, they will be running 11 departures per gate by the fall.

Yields are likely a bigger problem, but gate availability probably matters too


A DL enthusiast who has participated in this thread manufactured the narrative that LAX is a “must serve” market from ORD that DL desperately wants to serve, but hasn’t because of lack of gate space. Two years ago I got into an epic argument with him after challenging his narrative... since then, DL has added three flights to SEA and has announced four to RDU and five to BOS - all at optimal times. BOS wasn’t even part of the conversation two years ago. So no, gate space isn’t the issue that has prevented LAX from launching.

And DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA; the lease had long concluded and was being renewed annually. It’s possible DL opted not to renew this lease next year, hence the new service.


Not really going to argue with much of what you have to say about all of this. But I will say, by the time Delta is fully up and running at T5 AND their LAX project is finished, they will be serving the LAX-ORD market. The writing is on the wall if you observe how they have strategically grown over the past decade. I remember when people thought is was crazy they'd serve LGA-ORD in the face of AA/UA hubs on both ends. They aren't afraid. And they are willing to absorb less-than-stellar performance on a particular route in order to support a bigger strategy.
I'd give it no more than 5 days after DL announces ORD-LAX that AA announces DTW-LAX.
...the carriage of liquids, gels, and aerosols are prohibited through the screening checkpoint except for travel size toiletries of 3 ounces or less...
 
User avatar
N717TW
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 9:24 pm

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:26 am

Midwestindy wrote:
N717TW wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:
Same thing was said about XNA, MKE, and BNA. As I pointed out, yields (and even LFs) have gone down drastically in recent years, and with DL using more CR2s instead of CR9s (which are aircraft with much higher CASM), profit on the route has undoubtedly shrunk.


Although moving to CRJs will reduce trip costs. I agree that moving from CR9s to a CRJ feels like a kiss of death. However, if the route is a dog but needed for corp agreements (i.e. its a required route for the purpose of holding onto deals with major CVG clients) then moving down to a CRJ makes sense. DL can offer the frequency needed to meet requirements and keep trip costs down and minimize losses. If you're only going to have 30 paid passengers on a flight, you might as well not use a plane that has 76 seats.


Thank you, I appreciate your reasonable response.

It's a possibility, downguaging to a CR2 is not always the kiss of death. However, I can't imagine cutting ORD would cause DL to lose any CVG based clients. Remember, DL has a much MUCH better network than any other carrier from CVG. So, for the most part the only way DL will lose contracts there is if other carriers offer companies more discounted fares on flights (which has already happened with WN to MDW/BWI). Even if DL cuts ORD, they would still offer n/s service to 19 out of 20 of CVGs largest O&D markets plus int'l service to YYZ and CDG, so again I think it would be pretty hard for DL to lose contracts solely for cutting ORD.

Next you have to look at opportunity cost. The route is being run on mostly CR2s, and given the lack of gate space at ORD, would this be the best use of gates vs. 4x to RDU (for example) on full CR9s or 3x A220 to LAX? With yields and gate availability trending downward, that may be something they are looking at

Image


Your opportunity cost analysis is interesting in that I was thinking the same thing but with different hard assets: aircraft vs. gate space. My thinking was that the opportunity of using a CR9 on a route with more traffic had a higher opportunity value and hence why using the CRJ on the ORD route makes sense.

I suppose I never fully thought through the gate utilization. I know DL has 8 gates at ORD (with one leased to UA) and 55ish flights a day, but I've never bothered to even attempt to time block those flights into gates. Given that the airport isn't slot restricted, I would think that DL has the ability to run up to 70 turns a day at ORD. But clearly, its really about peak times and you're right, as DL is adding BOS, things get tight. Maybe RDU on CR9 or 175s would be a better use of resources.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8074
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Thu Dec 20, 2018 3:45 am

Aren't there some DL gates at ORD that are size restricted? I thought they were constrained on the number of gates that could fit 737/A320/757 sized aircraft. I believe there are some gates that are limited by wingspan to MD88/MD90 or less and/or some even CR2/7/9 sized aircraft?
 
jtwall
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:19 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:44 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Aren't there some DL gates at ORD that are size restricted? I thought they were constrained on the number of gates that could fit 737/A320/757 sized aircraft. I believe there are some gates that are limited by wingspan to MD88/MD90 or less and/or some even CR2/7/9 sized aircraft?

From my experience of flying ORD-CVG on DL, it certainly appears so some gates are size restricted. Although, if memory serves me correctly, there was one gate there were not really utilizing, perhaps to open up more space for larger aircraft.
 
drdisque
Posts: 1323
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:47 pm

E13 and E7 are parcicularly size restricted. I don't think anything mainline can go into E7. E15 is also somewhat restricted if E13 is occupied. Generally nothing larger than a 717 goes on the odd side in practice. When DL was scheduling the 757 into ORD, it could ONLY use E14.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Delta & O’Hare 21

Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:42 pm

jetlanta wrote:
compensateme wrote:
Midwestindy wrote:

Gate space is an issue, if they want to run the flights at optimal times.

I'm not sure how many gates they have, but assuming they only have 6 gates, they will be running 11 departures per gate by the fall.

Yields are likely a bigger problem, but gate availability probably matters too


A DL enthusiast who has participated in this thread manufactured the narrative that LAX is a “must serve” market from ORD that DL desperately wants to serve, but hasn’t because of lack of gate space. Two years ago I got into an epic argument with him after challenging his narrative... since then, DL has added three flights to SEA and has announced four to RDU and five to BOS - all at optimal times. BOS wasn’t even part of the conversation two years ago. So no, gate space isn’t the issue that has prevented LAX from launching.

And DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA; the lease had long concluded and was being renewed annually. It’s possible DL opted not to renew this lease next year, hence the new service.


Not really going to argue with much of what you have to say about all of this. But I will say, by the time Delta is fully up and running at T5 AND their LAX project is finished, they will be serving the LAX-ORD market. The writing is on the wall if you observe how they have strategically grown over the past decade. I remember when people thought is was crazy they'd serve LGA-ORD in the face of AA/UA hubs on both ends. They aren't afraid. And they are willing to absorb less-than-stellar performance on a particular route in order to support a bigger strategy.


I agree completely; I mentioned in my first posting within this thread that I expected DL to add LAX. I’m merely arguing with the narrative that’s been pushed by our former TechOps intern and now accepted as fact: ‘DL desperately wants to expand at ORD, including LAX, but lacks gate space.’ As I mentioned, DL was subleasing at least one gate to UA, and has managed to add three SEA flights since the assertion was initally made.

DL will grow - that’s what all good companies do -but DL hasn’t added LAX yet because it choose to build its (mostly LAX) client base before plunging into what will almost undoubtedly be a loss-making route operated for its positive contribution to the overall network.

In the past week, I’ve read threads on possible DL buildups at DFW, DEN and now ORD; ORD is generally accepted as a fact. That’s in spite of the go to beat writer reporting, two years ago when the ORD expansion plans were initally announced, that DL was less than enthusiastic about the project and was happy with status quo ... but gave it its blessing anyway since it knows that it’s an insignificant party in the market and wanted to generate goodwill. But in spite of that, we have DL desperately wanting DL to add flights from ORD to LAX, SBN and any other destination a.netters dream about.
We don’t care what your next flight is.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos