PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:23 pm

Reposting to get past all the silliness that occurred earlier today so us big kids can have an adult-like conversation:

Cross-posting from FSDan's Delta Summer 2019 thread, to enable a DTW-focused discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420613&p=21288623#p21288623

Here is some summary of the data base on departures:

Type: 2014 2018 2019
ERJ 37 0 0
CR2 172 93 86
CR7 43 64 52
E70 1 6 6
E75 11 4 0
CR9 45 90 113
717 18 44 33
221 0 0 7
73G 0 0 0
319 39 21 28
M88 28 0 0
M90 13 21 0
320 21 14 24
738 10 12 2
739 9 32 28
321 0 11 38
752 19 20 21
753 1 7 6
763 8 3 6
764 2 0 1
332 0 2 2
333 4 4 3
772 3 0 0
77L 3 0 0
359 0 5 5
744 2 0 0
TOTAL 489 453 461

By relative gauge / class - since DL tends to schedule some fleet types relatively interchangably based on gauge / capacity:

Class 2014 2018 2019
50 Seat (ERJ, CRJ) 209 93 86
2-class RJ (CR7, CR9, E70, E75) 100 164 171
Small Narrowbody ~120 seat (73G, 717, 319, 221) 57 65 68
Medium Narrowbody ~150 seat (320, 738, M88, M90) 72 47 26
Large Narrowbody >180 seat (321, 739, 752, 753) 29 70 93
Widebody (332, 333, 359, 744, 777, 77L) 22 14 17
Total 489 453 461

Notable changes:

CRJ relatively similar to last year, but down significantly since 2014
CR9 increased significantly
E75s out for Summer 2019 (mostly replaced by C-Series 221)
717 despite what I thought appeared to be up, is actually down compared to last summer (idk maybe they are heavily clustered on specific departure banks)
M90 out effective early-June, net 21 less MD-90 but more than offset by 321 increases
319/320 is up for Summer 2019, primarily offsetting the M90 removal to ATL, but still down from several years ago
738 down and almost out
739 similar
321 up 27 departures since last summer -> pretty significant upgauging into this fleet type
757 stable

The biggest take-away; fairly significant upgauging for Summer 2019 with fewer medium sized narrowbodies (150 seaters) and significant increase in large narrowbodies (180+ seaters) in line with DL's systemwide trend of increasing seats per departure.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:27 pm

It will be interesting to see how the schedule and upgauging evolves over the next 2 years as the MD-88s and MD-90s that are flying a bulk of ATL routes continue their on-going draw-down. Summer 2020 will see ~50 less MD88/90s out of ATL, ultimately needing aircraft to backfill 300 departures.

Will we see more upgauging at DTW, with A319/A320s going to ATL, and being back-filled by A321s?
More 717 / 221 flying backfilling CR7/CR9 replacing some CR2 routes?
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:32 pm

flymco753 wrote:
REgarding DCA, AA has upgauged to all E175, up from CRJ's 2 years ago. In October there will be 6 flights, 4 in which are A321's. This is a net increase in seats.

The story to be told is how well these secondary Florida services are going to do. JAX at 2x daily with the A320 and PBI with the A320 and SRQ going nearly year round on the A320.

SRQ is hands down, points territory hence why DL only runs it once weekly, so don't be too surprised to see a low cost carrier enter that market. Next summer it will most likely have an off daily ULCC and a Saturday DL. JAX became very low yielding yet it seems both NK and DL are running full. I'm surprised NK didn't give PBI a try through the summer only a few days a week. The service seemed to be full as well as the MBJ days of operation. I think PUJ and MBJ are both mileage burners so it makes it hard to justify competing against NK where they can get those passengers.

Curious if you have any further insight or speculation on this matter. Not saying your necessarily wrong, but do have any insight that really indicates these are Skymiles driven?
I say that because for the few times I'm looked, prices for flights to PUJ and MBJ are rather high across the board on all airlines, regularly pricing out above $500 during desirable flight times/days.
They are extremely popular right now for the all-inclusive resorts that have some very attractive deals and are all the rage right now, despite air fare that tends to be higher one might expect.
I don't necessarily see the markets that are highly attractive to many "once-a-year" travelers being huge Skymile redemptions, since "once-a-year / infrequent travelers" don't have bottomless accounts of Skymiles to redeem. Particularly with how DL dynamically prices mileage redemptions out, the can very much control the redemption rates on any particular flight.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 7:51 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Question -

When did MSP build Concourse A & B and install RJ jetbridges? Was it before the McNamera terminal in DTW was opened in 2002 or after?


Per Wikipedia, A&B opened up in June 1st, 2002, and C on October 31st, 2002. Thus, shortly after Midfield opened. I flew on plenty of CRJ and ARJ into MSP from FNT that parked at A,B or C , with my connecting flight at the high F or low G — several years before the train opened. Yikes! Those walks had to be longer than the old Davey Terminal treks...
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:08 pm

Everything going to Denver and further West is now operated by the 739, 321, 757 or 753. 757 are becoming increasingly less common, and generally set-up flights from SEA to Hawaii and from LAX to Hawaii + hot and high destinations in Central America. And of course, there’s SNA, but having briefly worked at the Newport Center when I was much younger... I understand.

We’re starting to see upgauging within the East. ORD and DFW are all-mainline again, to be joined by STL soon. MSY is going to 3x320 this fall - it has operated as 3x717 for the past several years, sans the period around Mardi Gras and off-peak day’s, when it’d go to 2x, with a 717 and M88/M90.

Looks like higher frequency of smaller planes is replacing the M88 mainstay markets of ORD, STL, DFW, etc. interestingly, 717 are taking over to places like BWI and BNA, with no frequency increase or other upgauging.

Lots of 321 into key NE business markets of LGA, BOS, DCA and even PHL. 221 are making appearances to EWR - I’d personally like to see this route go all-mainline, even with the 717. I have fairly wide shoulders and have always found the CR7/CR9 to be uncomfortable, but this is just a personal preference.

The 739 and 321 are also taking over many of the routes into Florida that use to be operated with the 738, M88 and M90 - e.g. TPA, MCO, PBI, RSW. And MIA, a route DL seems to have struggled with forever, loses the 717... Wasn’t that DL’s longest 717 flight? Anyway, I don’t go to Miami — but maybe I need to next spring break, to be that creepy guy hitting on all the 18yo — but those that do get a PTV finally.

It will be interesting to see what gets upgauged and what goes when the CRJ begin to diminish again. I scored a cheap flight, but into LAN, recently, and was the only person upfront on a CR9. (And the lazy FA still couldn’t be bothered with pouring a drink, but that’s reserved for FT.)

We should see a fair amount of upgauging going forward - we’re the last hub to have significant movements on two-cabin regional jets to larger business markets (see STL).
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:27 pm

Currently in the last row of an A321, wholly crap it’s a long plane
 
winginit
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:46 pm

compensateme wrote:
Everything going to Denver and further West is now operated by the 739, 321, 757 or 753. 757 are becoming increasingly less common, and generally set-up flights from SEA to Hawaii and from LAX to Hawaii + hot and high destinations in Central America. And of course, there’s SNA, but having briefly worked at the Newport Center when I was much younger... I understand.

We’re starting to see upgauging within the East. ORD and DFW are all-mainline again, to be joined by STL soon. MSY is going to 3x320 this fall - it has operated as 3x717 for the past several years, sans the period around Mardi Gras and off-peak day’s, when it’d go to 2x, with a 717 and M88/M90.

Looks like higher frequency of smaller planes is replacing the M88 mainstay markets of ORD, STL, DFW, etc. interestingly, 717 are taking over to places like BWI and BNA, with no frequency increase or other upgauging.

Lots of 321 into key NE business markets of LGA, BOS, DCA and even PHL. 221 are making appearances to EWR - I’d personally like to see this route go all-mainline, even with the 717. I have fairly wide shoulders and have always found the CR7/CR9 to be uncomfortable, but this is just a personal preference.

The 739 and 321 are also taking over many of the routes into Florida that use to be operated with the 738, M88 and M90 - e.g. TPA, MCO, PBI, RSW. And MIA, a route DL seems to have struggled with forever, loses the 717... Wasn’t that DL’s longest 717 flight? Anyway, I don’t go to Miami — but maybe I need to next spring break, to be that creepy guy hitting on all the 18yo — but those that do get a PTV finally.

It will be interesting to see what gets upgauged and what goes when the CRJ begin to diminish again. I scored a cheap flight, but into LAN, recently, and was the only person upfront on a CR9. (And the lazy FA still couldn’t be bothered with pouring a drink, but that’s reserved for FT.)

We should see a fair amount of upgauging going forward - we’re the last hub to have significant movements on two-cabin regional jets to larger business markets (see STL).


It's an interesting trend to be sure. DTW Flights YoY comparing full year 2019 schedule as it currently stands with full year 2018 below. All carriers hence the noise around labeling the 737s:

Image
 
N292UX
Posts: 413
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 7:08 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 8:57 pm

I really can't get over how some people actually think DTW is an underserved market. DL's 461 daily departures make DTW a larger hub than places like EWR, PHL, MIA, IAD, and SFO in terms of daily departures, and this isn't even counting NK's growing operation at DTW. Almost all of those markets are clearly huge markets, and probably have a stronger O&D pull than DTW does, yet DTW has more daily flights than these airports. In terms of annual passengers DTW ranks ahead of PHL, IAD, TPA, BWI, DCA, SAN, MDW, and PDX. By that logic, PHL and IAD are more underserved considering their market size and overall pull.

And DL has most certainly not been stagnant or shrinking at DTW recently. While they've dropped GRU, TUL, CAK, and PIA, they've added all of the following routes: AVL, HNL, SJC, BZN, LSE, SMF, BGR, and ORH. That's a net gain of 4 cities, including 2 of DTW's biggest holes (SJC and SMF). I'm pretty sure DTW can survive without TUL, CAK, and PIA, especially considering how close CAK is to CLE and PIA passengers can still use MLI. If you want to see hubs that are shrinking, just go look at AA's operation at JFK, and to an extent, PHX.

So can we just give up the "DL is shrinking DTW" and "DTW is underserved" nonsense? There are many other markets that are most definitely less served than DTW is.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:13 pm

N292UX wrote:
I really can't get over how some people actually think DTW is an underserved market. DL's 461 daily departures make DTW a larger hub than places like EWR, PHL, MIA, IAD, and SFO in terms of daily departures, and this isn't even counting NK's growing operation at DTW. Almost all of those markets are clearly huge markets, and probably have a stronger O&D pull than DTW does, yet DTW has more daily flights than these airports. In terms of annual passengers DTW ranks ahead of PHL, IAD, TPA, BWI, DCA, SAN, MDW, and PDX. By that logic, PHL and IAD are more underserved considering their market size and overall pull.

And DL has most certainly not been stagnant or shrinking at DTW recently. While they've dropped GRU, TUL, CAK, and PIA, they've added all of the following routes: AVL, HNL, SJC, BZN, LSE, SMF, BGR, and ORH. That's a net gain of 4 cities, including 2 of DTW's biggest holes (SJC and SMF). I'm pretty sure DTW can survive without TUL, CAK, and PIA, especially considering how close CAK is to CLE and PIA passengers can still use MLI. If you want to see hubs that are shrinking, just go look at AA's operation at JFK, and to an extent, PHX.

So can we just give up the "DL is shrinking DTW" and "DTW is underserved" nonsense? There are many other markets that are most definitely less served than DTW is.


You lack a coherent argument. You just babbled a laundry list of markets but...
1) Several of the hubs you mentioned are significantly larger than DTW by both passengers and ASM;
2) Several of the airports you mentioned are part of a muti-airport market;
3) You can’t reasonably compare interior markets to exterior markets. BOS, PHL, etc. are inherently limited in their abilities to serve as connecting, domestic hubs.
4) You acknowledge you have no idea what the OD of the markets you’re listing.

From an OBJECTIVE standpoint, if you rank all INTERIOR hubs by the ratio of total enplanements : local enplanements, DTW and MSP will be at the bottom of the list. Therefore, if klm617 wants to argue that DTW is underserved as a hub, he has a valid assertion.

If you’d like to dispute it, we’d be willing to listen. But please don’t come on here rattling off nonsense to refute his assertion. No, DTW isn’t an “important” market - but neither is SLC, DEN or CLT, hubs at the top of that list (local:total enplanements).
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:18 pm

winginit wrote:
compensateme wrote:
Everything going to Denver and further West is now operated by the 739, 321, 757 or 753. 757 are becoming increasingly less common, and generally set-up flights from SEA to Hawaii and from LAX to Hawaii + hot and high destinations in Central America. And of course, there’s SNA, but having briefly worked at the Newport Center when I was much younger... I understand.

We’re starting to see upgauging within the East. ORD and DFW are all-mainline again, to be joined by STL soon. MSY is going to 3x320 this fall - it has operated as 3x717 for the past several years, sans the period around Mardi Gras and off-peak day’s, when it’d go to 2x, with a 717 and M88/M90.

Looks like higher frequency of smaller planes is replacing the M88 mainstay markets of ORD, STL, DFW, etc. interestingly, 717 are taking over to places like BWI and BNA, with no frequency increase or other upgauging.

Lots of 321 into key NE business markets of LGA, BOS, DCA and even PHL. 221 are making appearances to EWR - I’d personally like to see this route go all-mainline, even with the 717. I have fairly wide shoulders and have always found the CR7/CR9 to be uncomfortable, but this is just a personal preference.

The 739 and 321 are also taking over many of the routes into Florida that use to be operated with the 738, M88 and M90 - e.g. TPA, MCO, PBI, RSW. And MIA, a route DL seems to have struggled with forever, loses the 717... Wasn’t that DL’s longest 717 flight? Anyway, I don’t go to Miami — but maybe I need to next spring break, to be that creepy guy hitting on all the 18yo — but those that do get a PTV finally.

It will be interesting to see what gets upgauged and what goes when the CRJ begin to diminish again. I scored a cheap flight, but into LAN, recently, and was the only person upfront on a CR9. (And the lazy FA still couldn’t be bothered with pouring a drink, but that’s reserved for FT.)

We should see a fair amount of upgauging going forward - we’re the last hub to have significant movements on two-cabin regional jets to larger business markets (see STL).


It's an interesting trend to be sure. DTW Flights YoY comparing full year 2019 schedule as it currently stands with full year 2018 below. All carriers hence the noise around labeling the 737s:

Image


Thank you very much for compiling that. Looks like the 320 and 321 will be the primary replacement for the MD-88 and MD-90 flying, as illustrated in the data complied for us by FSDan.

757 movements, while holding steady for the summer, are clearly down for the other seasons, as DL replaces them with more efficient 739/321.

I do wonder when the next mass CRJ retirements will begin...
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
detroitbadboy
Posts: 15
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:43 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:19 pm

Comparing daily departures is unnecessary and irrelevant. DTW has a much smaller average aircraft size than the markets that you mentioned. The fact is, DTW is a incredibly underserved market, particularly internationally.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:22 pm

detroitbadboy wrote:
Comparing daily departures is unnecessary and irrelevant. DTW has a much smaller average aircraft size than the markets that you mentioned. The fact is, DTW is a incredibly underserved market, particularly internationally.


Find something more productive to do with your time than playing Internet troll. Your verbiage gives away your true identity.

I have a great idea - why not compare the quality of the bathrooms at DFW to those at ORD? That would make an excellent thread!!!
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
winginit
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:34 pm

compensateme wrote:
detroitbadboy wrote:
Comparing daily departures is unnecessary and irrelevant. DTW has a much smaller average aircraft size than the markets that you mentioned. The fact is, DTW is a incredibly underserved market, particularly internationally.


Find something more productive to do with your time than playing Internet troll. Your verbiage gives away your true identity.

I have a great idea - why not compare the quality of the bathrooms at DFW to those at ORD? That would make an excellent thread!!!


It's a troll post and should be ignored, but it did get me thinking about average aircraft size as a metric that we don't often look at. Just for the sake of reference data, below is a comparison of average domestic aircraft sizes (measured by onboard seats) for middle America hubs inclusive of all carriers. Data is for full year 2019 and in parenthesis is a YoY comparison to 2018:

ATL: 141 (+1)
DEN: 129 (+1)
DFW: 123 (0)
MSP: 122 (+3)
SLC: 119 (0)
DTW: 112 (+2)
IAH: 109 (-1)
ORD: 104 (0)

I know it's a running joke about the abundance of RJs at ORD but goodness me 104?!
Last edited by winginit on Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:35 pm

N292UX wrote:
I really can't get over how some people actually think DTW is an underserved market. DL's 461 daily departures make DTW a larger hub than places like EWR, PHL, MIA, IAD, and SFO in terms of daily departures, and this isn't even counting NK's growing operation at DTW. Almost all of those markets are clearly huge markets, and probably have a stronger O&D pull than DTW does, yet DTW has more daily flights than these airports. In terms of annual passengers DTW ranks ahead of PHL, IAD, TPA, BWI, DCA, SAN, MDW, and PDX. By that logic, PHL and IAD are more underserved considering their market size and overall pull.

And DL has most certainly not been stagnant or shrinking at DTW recently. While they've dropped GRU, TUL, CAK, and PIA, they've added all of the following routes: AVL, HNL, SJC, BZN, LSE, SMF, BGR, and ORH. That's a net gain of 4 cities, including 2 of DTW's biggest holes (SJC and SMF). I'm pretty sure DTW can survive without TUL, CAK, and PIA, especially considering how close CAK is to CLE and PIA passengers can still use MLI. If you want to see hubs that are shrinking, just go look at AA's operation at JFK, and to an extent, PHX.

So can we just give up the "DL is shrinking DTW" and "DTW is underserved" nonsense? There are many other markets that are most definitely less served than DTW is.


Please once weekly Saturday flights can not be counted as real additions and all the other airports you listed are far a head of Detroit as far as diversity goes. EWR is slot controlled. PHL and IAD are not undeserved you have to add DCA into the picture. So then according to that logic why should Delta serve CAK and MLI at all just pull the service there people can drive. To get a realist picture you need to go back and look at where the airport was 14 years ago at it's highest passenger numbers to realize how undeserved it is now even during the huge rescission DTW had more service than it had now. No we are not giving up on the idea that Detroit's potential is stunted by the Delta hub here and it's unwillingness to grow this market. Growth has been near flat at an anemic 1% growth rate. AA doesn't have a hub and JFK and never did and PHX is still holding it's place in the rankings not to mention both airports all have more diversity.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 9:41 pm

compensateme wrote:

Thank you very much for compiling that. Looks like the 320 and 321 will be the primary replacement for the MD-88 and MD-90 flying, as illustrated in the data complied for us by FSDan.

757 movements, while holding steady for the summer, are clearly down for the other seasons, as DL replaces them with more efficient 739/321.

I do wonder when the next mass CRJ retirements will begin...


The number of 757 on a given day can ultimately swing based on DL's whims of simply how they schedule and route aircraft on even just a handful of routes - namely ATL, LAX, SEA.
Depending on the week/month/season this can swing the number of 757s any where by +/- 5-10 flights. For example over the spring period period in March, DL loaded-up DTW-ATL with more 757s that now for April are back to 739 & 321s. Same thing happens on SEA or LAX on certain flights.

The CRJs perplex me a bit particularly since I've never really see anyone ultimately break-down the OO at-risk contract. Specifically, how DL & OO decide which markets become at-risk vs pro-rate, what eventually happens when the CRJ at-risk flying terminates, and/or how does it revert to pro-rate, etc. There are still several CRJ markets that are likely candidates to eventually go to CR7/CR9, but there is still a whole swawth of the EAS/at-risk stuff are not likely candidates.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Thu Apr 18, 2019 10:52 pm

20 minutes to deplane from the time the seat-belt sign went off from the last row on a full A321. Similar to 753s in the back
Watch the MCT time if flying in on a A321, you could be playing with fire....
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:34 am

This is from the CLE thread hope the WCAA is keeping on top of this situation.

"For what it’s worth, news on an Instagram account I follow notes that Aer Lingus officials were back in town this week looking at airport facilities at CLE and talking to management about incentives similar to what were offered to WOW and Icelandair for marketing support. At least EI wouldn’t have to use the substandard FIS facilities at CLE, as DUB has CPB Pre-Clearance. No source was listed."
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1338
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:41 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Reposting to get past all the silliness that occurred earlier today so us big kids can have an adult-like conversation:

Cross-posting from FSDan's Delta Summer 2019 thread, to enable a DTW-focused discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420613&p=21288623#p21288623

Here is some summary of the data base on departures:

Type: 2014 2018 2019
ERJ 37 0 0
CR2 172 93 86
CR7 43 64 52
E70 1 6 6
E75 11 4 0
CR9 45 90 113
717 18 44 33
221 0 0 7
73G 0 0 0
319 39 21 28
M88 28 0 0
M90 13 21 0
320 21 14 24
738 10 12 2
739 9 32 28
321 0 11 38
752 19 20 21
753 1 7 6
763 8 3 6
764 2 0 1
332 0 2 2
333 4 4 3
772 3 0 0
77L 3 0 0
359 0 5 5
744 2 0 0
TOTAL 489 453 461

By relative gauge / class - since DL tends to schedule some fleet types relatively interchangably based on gauge / capacity:

Class 2014 2018 2019
50 Seat (ERJ, CRJ) 209 93 86
2-class RJ (CR7, CR9, E70, E75) 100 164 171
Small Narrowbody ~120 seat (73G, 717, 319, 221) 57 65 68
Medium Narrowbody ~150 seat (320, 738, M88, M90) 72 47 26
Large Narrowbody >180 seat (321, 739, 752, 753) 29 70 93
Widebody (332, 333, 359, 744, 777, 77L) 22 14 17
Total 489 453 461

Notable changes:

CRJ relatively similar to last year, but down significantly since 2014
CR9 increased significantly
E75s out for Summer 2019 (mostly replaced by C-Series 221)
717 despite what I thought appeared to be up, is actually down compared to last summer (idk maybe they are heavily clustered on specific departure banks)
M90 out effective early-June, net 21 less MD-90 but more than offset by 321 increases
319/320 is up for Summer 2019, primarily offsetting the M90 removal to ATL, but still down from several years ago
738 down and almost out
739 similar
321 up 27 departures since last summer -> pretty significant upgauging into this fleet type
757 stable

The biggest take-away; fairly significant upgauging for Summer 2019 with fewer medium sized narrowbodies (150 seaters) and significant increase in large narrowbodies (180+ seaters) in line with DL's systemwide trend of increasing seats per departure.


This was awesome. Thanks for posting it!
 
hjulicher
Posts: 698
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:26 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:25 pm

I'm going to chime in here:

Orig Dest OpAirl DaysOper Distance Capacity Freq

DTW AMS DL <1234567> 6341 8236 28
DTW CDG DL <1234567> 6377 3115 14
DTW FCO DL <1234567> 7446 1850 7
DTW FRA DL <1234567> 6698 1477 7
DTW LHR DL <1234567> 6061 3220 14
DTW MUC DL <1234567> 6996 1582 7
DTW FRA LH <1234567> 6698 1967 7
DTW CDG AF <1234567> 6377 1932 7

Total weekly seats each direction: 23379, typical calendar week 38

DLs aim at DTW is not to create a hub of breadth, the OD market from DTW is far too fragmented, thus only certain ODs really work. With AMS and CDG alone taking 7 frequencies, that's a lot of capacity directly to those markets that few other US hubs have. Yes they are hub-to-hub routes, but to fly spokes out of DTW requires significantly higher OD on those routes, which DTW doesn't have. Given DTWs interior location, East coast hubs function better as launching pads over the pond.

AAs strategy in PHL exemplifies this. They fly just 2+1BA to LHR, all other routes are served via one frequency, many seasonal, and less than daily service. For leisure travel, PHL can offer the breadth it does, but only because AA caters to this VFR and leisure traffic. AAs game plan at PHL is still being tested and we'll see if this dual hub (JFK/PHL) strategy pays off.

WW would still be flying to DTW if they hadn't failed. They didn't fail because of DTW, and the likelihood of another player swooping in to replace them is rather unrealistic. It will take time for another player to enter the market but I'm sure it will happen. Maybe once the 737Max issue is resolved, KEF again, or DUB.

I believe that many German ODs could be served out of DTW due to the high corporate business travelling to places like DUS, HAJ, STR and TXL. Since those markets can probably only sustain little TATL service, it's probably best to serve them via ATL or not at all. As AMS and FRA are well connected to those places, it's no surprise that the TATL market is the way it is.

DTW is a well served market TATL wise, but it suffers from a very dominant carrier and hardly any competition. Given the passenger flows as well, it's unlikely that new network carriers will enter the market.

As for US service, I think DTW is very well served and NK is a great addition to the breadth of the DL hub. For the time being, you're going to have to drive to YYZ to get your low fares to Europe, or perhaps try AA over PHL or CLT.
Detroit Moves the World!
LH 442
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:20 pm

hjulicher wrote:
I'm going to chime in here:

Orig Dest OpAirl DaysOper Distance Capacity Freq

DTW AMS DL <1234567> 6341 8236 28
DTW CDG DL <1234567> 6377 3115 14
DTW FCO DL <1234567> 7446 1850 7
DTW FRA DL <1234567> 6698 1477 7
DTW LHR DL <1234567> 6061 3220 14
DTW MUC DL <1234567> 6996 1582 7
DTW FRA LH <1234567> 6698 1967 7
DTW CDG AF <1234567> 6377 1932 7

Total weekly seats each direction: 23379, typical calendar week 38

DLs aim at DTW is not to create a hub of breadth, the OD market from DTW is far too fragmented, thus only certain ODs really work. With AMS and CDG alone taking 7 frequencies, that's a lot of capacity directly to those markets that few other US hubs have. Yes they are hub-to-hub routes, but to fly spokes out of DTW requires significantly higher OD on those routes, which DTW doesn't have. Given DTWs interior location, East coast hubs function better as launching pads over the pond.

AAs strategy in PHL exemplifies this. They fly just 2+1BA to LHR, all other routes are served via one frequency, many seasonal, and less than daily service. For leisure travel, PHL can offer the breadth it does, but only because AA caters to this VFR and leisure traffic. AAs game plan at PHL is still being tested and we'll see if this dual hub (JFK/PHL) strategy pays off.

WW would still be flying to DTW if they hadn't failed. They didn't fail because of DTW, and the likelihood of another player swooping in to replace them is rather unrealistic. It will take time for another player to enter the market but I'm sure it will happen. Maybe once the 737Max issue is resolved, KEF again, or DUB.

I believe that many German ODs could be served out of DTW due to the high corporate business travelling to places like DUS, HAJ, STR and TXL. Since those markets can probably only sustain little TATL service, it's probably best to serve them via ATL or not at all. As AMS and FRA are well connected to those places, it's no surprise that the TATL market is the way it is.

DTW is a well served market TATL wise, but it suffers from a very dominant carrier and hardly any competition. Given the passenger flows as well, it's unlikely that new network carriers will enter the market.

As for US service, I think DTW is very well served and NK is a great addition to the breadth of the DL hub. For the time being, you're going to have to drive to YYZ to get your low fares to Europe, or perhaps try AA over PHL or CLT.


Correct Detroit is well served to Europe via Delta the problem is diversity. Why should Detroiters have to drive 4 hours to YYZ or ORD when every other airport has the benefit of low coast European service and as you said WW appeared to be a success here in Detroit which brings us back to why is this happening and why. Again the airport is a public entity that is there to serve the entire cross section of it's customer base and not there just to suit the needs of it's hub carrier. We could also say that CLT, ATL, MSP and even BOS are well served but they all get new service announcements and not just one but many. Again learn the market before you comment and just don't post numbers you need the full picture and where you make comparison you need to compare the Detroit market to other hubs and metropolitan area of around the same size and then you can make a valid argument. I pay PFC charges every time I fly out of Detroit to better serve the customer and in my over 50 years of flying have only twice in my life time started and ended my trips not using my home market and those two trip where out of YQG so I expect the airport to look out for the customer base in Southeastern Michigan AS well as it's hub carrier and at this moment that's not happening in the international sector out of Detroit. Detroit is NOT very well served PHL, PHX, CLT and MSP are examples of what very well served markets look like.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:33 pm

hjulicher wrote:
I'm going to chime in here:

Orig Dest OpAirl DaysOper Distance Capacity Freq

DTW AMS DL <1234567> 6341 8236 28
DTW CDG DL <1234567> 6377 3115 14
DTW FCO DL <1234567> 7446 1850 7
DTW FRA DL <1234567> 6698 1477 7
DTW LHR DL <1234567> 6061 3220 14
DTW MUC DL <1234567> 6996 1582 7
DTW FRA LH <1234567> 6698 1967 7
DTW CDG AF <1234567> 6377 1932 7

Total weekly seats each direction: 23379, typical calendar week 38

DLs aim at DTW is not to create a hub of breadth, the OD market from DTW is far too fragmented, thus only certain ODs really work. With AMS and CDG alone taking 7 frequencies, that's a lot of capacity directly to those markets that few other US hubs have. Yes they are hub-to-hub routes, but to fly spokes out of DTW requires significantly higher OD on those routes, which DTW doesn't have. Given DTWs interior location, East coast hubs function better as launching pads over the pond.

AAs strategy in PHL exemplifies this. They fly just 2+1BA to LHR, all other routes are served via one frequency, many seasonal, and less than daily service. For leisure travel, PHL can offer the breadth it does, but only because AA caters to this VFR and leisure traffic. AAs game plan at PHL is still being tested and we'll see if this dual hub (JFK/PHL) strategy pays off.

WW would still be flying to DTW if they hadn't failed. They didn't fail because of DTW, and the likelihood of another player swooping in to replace them is rather unrealistic. It will take time for another player to enter the market but I'm sure it will happen. Maybe once the 737Max issue is resolved, KEF again, or DUB.

I believe that many German ODs could be served out of DTW due to the high corporate business travelling to places like DUS, HAJ, STR and TXL. Since those markets can probably only sustain little TATL service, it's probably best to serve them via ATL or not at all. As AMS and FRA are well connected to those places, it's no surprise that the TATL market is the way it is.

DTW is a well served market TATL wise, but it suffers from a very dominant carrier and hardly any competition. Given the passenger flows as well, it's unlikely that new network carriers will enter the market.

As for US service, I think DTW is very well served and NK is a great addition to the breadth of the DL hub. For the time being, you're going to have to drive to YYZ to get your low fares to Europe, or perhaps try AA over PHL or CLT.



On a side note when WW cam into Detroit KEF was number 55 as an O/D market out of Detroit when they served the route it went up to number 5. Some months saw an in crease of over 1000% in that market now you tell my why if the WCAA did their homework they could put this data together to sell a carrier on DTW-KEF years earlier and I suspect the same holds true for DTW-DUB. The airport needs to better do it's home work at projecting it's potential rather than what the numbers say. If I were the WCAA I'd be curious to know what stimulated that growth and what were those peoples travel habits before WW came into Detroit and use that data as a point of reference to project potential growth on any given city pair. instead of just crunching numbers of what is. Nobody said it would be easy but if you want to be successful they are several ways up the mountain even if you don't want to write a blank check. Let's face it WW came into Detroit so others can be sold on the idea if the imitative is there.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
kavok
Posts: 556
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 2:59 pm

klm617 wrote:

On a side note when WW cam into Detroit KEF was number 55 as an O/D market out of Detroit when they served the route it went up to number 5. Some months saw an in crease of over 1000% in that market now you tell my why if the WCAA did their homework they could put this data together to sell a carrier on DTW-KEF years earlier and I suspect the same holds true for DTW-DUB. The airport needs to better do it's home work at projecting it's potential rather than what the numbers say. If I were the WCAA I'd be curious to know what stimulated that growth and what were those peoples travel habits before WW came into Detroit and use that data as a point of reference to project potential growth on any given city pair. instead of just crunching numbers of what is. Nobody said it would be easy but if you want to be successful they are several ways up the mountain even if you don't want to write a blank check. Let's face it WW came into Detroit so others can be sold on the idea if the imitative is there.


I’d like to know why you keep calling out the WCAA as the ones who are “messing up”? Just legitimately curious why you think that.

I don’t dispute your argument that DTW is significantly lacking in TATL LCC service. What I do question is why that is the WCAA’s fault. Can you provide any evidence of some conspiracy where they are working behind the scenes to keep TATL LCCs out?

As for the not being convincing enough argument , I am sorry, but there isn’t a legitimate airline out there who after meeting with the WCAA, is going to walk away from the meeting and be like, “our network planners are idiots for not adding DTW, and thank god for the WCAA for showing us the light and way”. It just doesn’t work that way. Practically every airport works to attract service, but ultimately the decision is with the airline.
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:28 pm

kavok wrote:
klm617 wrote:

On a side note when WW cam into Detroit KEF was number 55 as an O/D market out of Detroit when they served the route it went up to number 5. Some months saw an in crease of over 1000% in that market now you tell my why if the WCAA did their homework they could put this data together to sell a carrier on DTW-KEF years earlier and I suspect the same holds true for DTW-DUB. The airport needs to better do it's home work at projecting it's potential rather than what the numbers say. If I were the WCAA I'd be curious to know what stimulated that growth and what were those peoples travel habits before WW came into Detroit and use that data as a point of reference to project potential growth on any given city pair. instead of just crunching numbers of what is. Nobody said it would be easy but if you want to be successful they are several ways up the mountain even if you don't want to write a blank check. Let's face it WW came into Detroit so others can be sold on the idea if the imitative is there.


I’d like to know why you keep calling out the WCAA as the ones who are “messing up”? Just legitimately curious why you think that.

I don’t dispute your argument that DTW is significantly lacking in TATL LCC service. What I do question is why that is the WCAA’s fault. Can you provide any evidence of some conspiracy where they are working behind the scenes to keep TATL LCCs out?

As for the not being convincing enough argument , I am sorry, but there isn’t a legitimate airline out there who after meeting with the WCAA, is going to walk away from the meeting and be like, “our network planners are idiots for not adding DTW, and thank god for the WCAA for showing us the light and way”. It just doesn’t work that way. Practically every airport works to attract service, but ultimately the decision is with the airline.


I never said that DTW is turning people away what I said was that the airport is not going over and above to make it happen. The WCAA is not making the way into the Detroit market easy. Of course you know the airport is doing everything by the book but they are not actively seeking carriers to come into Detroit that serve the needs of all travelers that use the airport they are acting in the best interest of our hub carrier. Let's just take CLE and PIT as exmples every carrier than got an incentive there has not returned except for BA who hasn't tested the waters yet but DTW gets WW who ignored the market for years before coming here an low and behold it hung on to Detroit and there is a reason for that because DTW is viable. I have also said before MSP has 3 LCC carriers to Europe yet can't maintain year round serve by any of the and every carrier at DTW maintains year round service without the aid of funds so you tell me which market is more viable and there is a reason why no one as biting at Detroit. If you agree that Detroit is undeserved by LCC competition then that should be the topic of discussion and how do we reverse that. Everybody likes to make sense of why it is when we should be discussing how to correct that issue here in Detroit. I don't believe the is anyone at the WCAA that is sitting there saying EI mentioned Detroit and we are going to do what it takes to bring them in. Also the airport went on record as saying they are trying to replace the KEF flight that was lost let's see how committed they actually are to that concept or are we going to have to wait another 5 to 10 years because the WCAA has the mindset if they come that's OK but if they don't we are good with that too.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
alfa164
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:33 pm

hjulicher wrote:
As for US service, I think DTW is very well served and NK is a great addition to the breadth of the DL hub. For the time being, you're going to have to drive to YYZ to get your low fares to Europe, or perhaps try AA over PHL or CLT.


Are fares from PHL and CLT significantly lower? I have never thought of either of them as "low-fare" markets.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:33 pm

kavok wrote:
klm617 wrote:

On a side note when WW cam into Detroit KEF was number 55 as an O/D market out of Detroit when they served the route it went up to number 5. Some months saw an in crease of over 1000% in that market now you tell my why if the WCAA did their homework they could put this data together to sell a carrier on DTW-KEF years earlier and I suspect the same holds true for DTW-DUB. The airport needs to better do it's home work at projecting it's potential rather than what the numbers say. If I were the WCAA I'd be curious to know what stimulated that growth and what were those peoples travel habits before WW came into Detroit and use that data as a point of reference to project potential growth on any given city pair. instead of just crunching numbers of what is. Nobody said it would be easy but if you want to be successful they are several ways up the mountain even if you don't want to write a blank check. Let's face it WW came into Detroit so others can be sold on the idea if the imitative is there.


I’d like to know why you keep calling out the WCAA as the ones who are “messing up”? Just legitimately curious why you think that.

I don’t dispute your argument that DTW is significantly lacking in TATL LCC service. What I do question is why that is the WCAA’s fault. Can you provide any evidence of some conspiracy where they are working behind the scenes to keep TATL LCCs out?

As for the not being convincing enough argument , I am sorry, but there isn’t a legitimate airline out there who after meeting with the WCAA, is going to walk away from the meeting and be like, “our network planners are idiots for not adding DTW, and thank god for the WCAA for showing us the light and way”. It just doesn’t work that way. Practically every airport works to attract service, but ultimately the decision is with the airline.


If what you say is true then the route planing position at any airport is a token title that really isn't needed because they don't make a bit off difference in the equation so why not just eliminate it.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
winginit
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 4:47 pm

I just want to dissect this for a moment because as I know it's been discussed on this forum countless times, it's very hard to deduce your conclusions given your lack of sentence structure, punctuation, and paragraphs. I am very genuinely and honestly trying to deduce what you're advocating should be focused on by the airport to entice new service, which I think in and of itself is a constructive conversation to have. My opinion is that incentives are most definitely needed to entice another European LCC, so let's see what you're thinking - sentence by sentence.

klm617 wrote:
Some months saw an in crease of over 1000% in that market now you tell my why if the WCAA did their homework they could put this data together to sell a carrier on DTW-KEF years earlier and I suspect the same holds true for DTW-DUB.


So the WCAA should crunch DTW-KEF data and use the conclusions of that data to try and influence EI's decision to launch DTW-DUB. I'm sure EI has already done that number crunching, but I don't disagree that translating passenger data would be a smart approach by the airport just to be sure. We're in agreement here so far.

klm617 wrote:
The airport needs to better do it's home work at projecting it's potential rather than what the numbers say.


Hm... so the airport should project it's potential with data as you stated above, but now in the next sentence you're saying they should go beyond what the data says? I'll admit that sounds contradictory but let's go with it. I'll assume you're referring to billboards and awareness campaign. I don't think those are effective, but we're seeing them in CLE I get the precedent.

klm617 wrote:
If I were the WCAA I'd be curious to know what stimulated that growth and what were those peoples travel habits before WW came into Detroit and use that data as a point of reference to project potential growth on any given city pair.


I agree! But again we're swinging the pendulum back to using data as a selling points and a point of reference, which contradicts your previous sentence that the airport should move beyond 'what the numbers say'

klm617 wrote:
instead of just crunching numbers of what is.


Wait... okay, we're back to not using the numbers, which contradicts your previous sentence saying that the airport should 'use that data as a point of reference'. That's three sentences, in a row, that contradict the previous sentence. I'm unclear on whether you're advocating that the airport should hone in on data or not hone in on data, and if they should hone in on something that's not fueled by data, what should that be? I'm presuming billboards like what we're seeing in CLE?

Tell me if I've accurately summarized below what you're trying to say:

The airport should crunch and use existing passenger data to reinforce the case that a European LCC should enter the DTW market. They should also go beyond the data via awareness campaigns to further try and entice European LCCs to enter the DTW market.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:47 pm

For those using seat maps to determine loads:

For my flight this morning (operated by a 739), the app showed 144 open seats. At the gate, they were seeking volunteers. No IRROPS, just tons of people on Economy Basic.
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:54 pm

By the sounds of it, I may have crossed paths with y'all these last few days by the way it sounds.
...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
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:59 pm

Could be :). I recently disposed of my FlyerTalk tags after realizing that getting attacked by a rabid coyote is less painful than a forced conversation with a FTer...
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:49 pm

winginit wrote:
I just want to dissect this for a moment because as I know it's been discussed on this forum countless times, it's very hard to deduce your conclusions given your lack of sentence structure, punctuation, and paragraphs. I am very genuinely and honestly trying to deduce what you're advocating should be focused on by the airport to entice new service, which I think in and of itself is a constructive conversation to have. My opinion is that incentives are most definitely needed to entice another European LCC, so let's see what you're thinking - sentence by sentence.

klm617 wrote:
Some months saw an in crease of over 1000% in that market now you tell my why if the WCAA did their homework they could put this data together to sell a carrier on DTW-KEF years earlier and I suspect the same holds true for DTW-DUB.


So the WCAA should crunch DTW-KEF data and use the conclusions of that data to try and influence EI's decision to launch DTW-DUB. I'm sure EI has already done that number crunching, but I don't disagree that translating passenger data would be a smart approach by the airport just to be sure. We're in agreement here so far.

klm617 wrote:
The airport needs to better do it's home work at projecting it's potential rather than what the numbers say.


Hm... so the airport should project it's potential with data as you stated above, but now in the next sentence you're saying they should go beyond what the data says? I'll admit that sounds contradictory but let's go with it. I'll assume you're referring to billboards and awareness campaign. I don't think those are effective, but we're seeing them in CLE I get the precedent.

klm617 wrote:
If I were the WCAA I'd be curious to know what stimulated that growth and what were those peoples travel habits before WW came into Detroit and use that data as a point of reference to project potential growth on any given city pair.


I agree! But again we're swinging the pendulum back to using data as a selling points and a point of reference, which contradicts your previous sentence that the airport should move beyond 'what the numbers say'

klm617 wrote:
instead of just crunching numbers of what is.


Wait... okay, we're back to not using the numbers, which contradicts your previous sentence saying that the airport should 'use that data as a point of reference'. That's three sentences, in a row, that contradict the previous sentence. I'm unclear on whether you're advocating that the airport should hone in on data or not hone in on data, and if they should hone in on something that's not fueled by data, what should that be? I'm presuming billboards like what we're seeing in CLE?

Tell me if I've accurately summarized below what you're trying to say:

The airport should crunch and use existing passenger data to reinforce the case that a European LCC should enter the DTW market. They should also go beyond the data via awareness campaigns to further try and entice European LCCs to enter the DTW market.


What you have said pretty much sums it up except that I might add that I feel that the WCAA knowing what they are willing to pay as far as incentives go and they need to do a better job at showing perspective airlines that even though they might not offer as much as incentives as other airports that DTW's ability attract more prospective customers than those other markets that offer more money more than negates the fact of those incentives. They could start with what WOW was able to do and also get some better leakage data to show those carriers that they would have access to those potential customers with their competitive pricing. We know that the incentives that DTW offers is not as much as a lot of airports but then Detroit is more than capable of supporting 2 narrowbody flights on an LCC say 7 to 9 times a week between the two. I'd say a good start is 4 weekly by both entrants and KEF and DUB are big tourist markets out of Detroit. PIT, STL and CLE are perfect examples of that they all offered money and have nothing to show for it.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:52 pm

compensateme wrote:
For those using seat maps to determine loads:

For my flight this morning (operated by a 739), the app showed 144 open seats. At the gate, they were seeking volunteers. No IRROPS, just tons of people on Economy Basic.


So if the aircraft is overbooked why would it show 144 seats open ?
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
seanpmassey
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:02 pm

klm617 wrote:
compensateme wrote:
For those using seat maps to determine loads:

For my flight this morning (operated by a 739), the app showed 144 open seats. At the gate, they were seeking volunteers. No IRROPS, just tons of people on Economy Basic.


So if the aircraft is overbooked why would it show 144 seats open ?


On Delta, Economy Basic/Basic Economy fares get the seat assigned at the gate. So those seats are open for anyone who is willing to pay a higher fare class.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:38 pm

Not surprised being Easter weekend and the tail end of spring break.
 
winginit
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:54 pm

klm617 wrote:
Detroit is more than capable of supporting 2 narrowbody flights on an LCC say 7 to 9 times a week between the two.


For clarity, that is a speculative statement and your opinion. Short of having internal data you have no idea what is and is not viable.
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:19 am

winginit wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Detroit is more than capable of supporting 2 narrowbody flights on an LCC say 7 to 9 times a week between the two.


For clarity, that is a speculative statement and your opinion. Short of having internal data you have no idea what is and is not viable.


Again in 2016 DTW-KEF wouldn't have looked viable on paper but in 2019 the airport has spoken out that it is actively looking to find a replacement carrier because of the success of the route. So no not any kind of industry insider could have predicted that just on data at that time . Even with data everything is fluid like the case of DFW-KEF it looked good from the data but yet 2 of the 3 players bailed out and the verdict on whether AA will continue serving the route after this summer. Data is only part of the equation you again have to do leg work to and I put that on the WCAA because as you say airlines only crunch numbers the airport needs to go out there and say hey while you see it this way here is a better perspective of the market. DTW had an as good or better load factor in line with the other FI stations. As an expert at posting data to back up your argument the airport should be able to present the same picture as you have proven so many times trying to get your point across.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:20 am

seanpmassey wrote:
klm617 wrote:
compensateme wrote:
For those using seat maps to determine loads:

For my flight this morning (operated by a 739), the app showed 144 open seats. At the gate, they were seeking volunteers. No IRROPS, just tons of people on Economy Basic.


So if the aircraft is overbooked why would it show 144 seats open ?


On Delta, Economy Basic/Basic Economy fares get the seat assigned at the gate. So those seats are open for anyone who is willing to pay a higher fare class.


Funny how a function that was put into place to make the job of the gate agent easier has now been reversed.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
seanpmassey
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:37 am

klm617 wrote:
They could start with what WOW was able to do and also get some better leakage data to show those carriers that they would have access to those potential customers with their competitive pricing.


Will the WCAA have better leakage data, though, compared to the airlines? The argument has been that DTW suffers leakage to both YYZ and ORD, and the two airlines that you're hoping will replace WOW in DTW serve both markets already (and that isn't including the data that EI would get from their parent company IAG and the Trans-Atlantic JV that they're set to join with AA, BA, IB, and AY)
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:56 am

seanpmassey wrote:
klm617 wrote:
They could start with what WOW was able to do and also get some better leakage data to show those carriers that they would have access to those potential customers with their competitive pricing.


Will the WCAA have better leakage data, though, compared to the airlines? The argument has been that DTW suffers leakage to both YYZ and ORD, and the two airlines that you're hoping will replace WOW in DTW serve both markets already (and that isn't including the data that EI would get from their parent company IAG and the Trans-Atlantic JV that they're set to join with AA, BA, IB, and AY)


Absolutely the WCAA is based in this market they would naturally have a better feel of the market. Like you say these carriers only look at numbers in a database they have no real idea of the potential of any given market beyond what the numbers project. Again I have to ask if what you say is true why even have a route director than at the airport if they are not there to make the case of why an airline should serve a given market beyond what information they have on a market there is no need for that position at DTW. since according to what everyone says it doesn't matter what the airport provides as proof of why they should serve Detroit. Just eliminate that position and save the taxpayers money and just have an administrative person who just pushes paper take care of all the paperwork when a perspective airlines comes knocking on the airports door.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7268
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:10 am

Can we publicly criticize your job which we all have no idea how to actually do, yet think we do on the internet as well?
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 1:23 am

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Can we publicly criticize your job which we all have no idea how to actually do, yet think we do on the internet as well?



I am not criticizing anyone's job just clarifying what others are saying that the route planners job has no bearing on whether an airline serves any given market because they have all the data already that they need when it comes to serving a possible potential market. Just to be clear I am using the term WCAA because I think the roadblock is above the route planners position at DTW.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
seanpmassey
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 3:22 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:29 pm

klm617 wrote:
seanpmassey wrote:
klm617 wrote:
They could start with what WOW was able to do and also get some better leakage data to show those carriers that they would have access to those potential customers with their competitive pricing.


Will the WCAA have better leakage data, though, compared to the airlines? The argument has been that DTW suffers leakage to both YYZ and ORD, and the two airlines that you're hoping will replace WOW in DTW serve both markets already (and that isn't including the data that EI would get from their parent company IAG and the Trans-Atlantic JV that they're set to join with AA, BA, IB, and AY)


Absolutely the WCAA is based in this market they would naturally have a better feel of the market. Like you say these carriers only look at numbers in a database they have no real idea of the potential of any given market beyond what the numbers project. Again I have to ask if what you say is true why even have a route director than at the airport if they are not there to make the case of why an airline should serve a given market beyond what information they have on a market there is no need for that position at DTW. since according to what everyone says it doesn't matter what the airport provides as proof of why they should serve Detroit. Just eliminate that position and save the taxpayers money and just have an administrative person who just pushes paper take care of all the paperwork when a perspective airlines comes knocking on the airports door.


There is enough straw in that post to build a scarecrow.

I'm not challenging the idea of an airport having a route director or information about the needs of the market. I'm challenging your assertion that the airport can provide better leakage data than the airlines in question since both airlines that you'd like to see replace WOW serve the two markets where Detroit passengers are driving to.

There is nothing wrong with data. Data is essential to making business decisions. Being able to build a model that shows demand and expected profit is more important than "feel of the market." The airport will be able to provide part of the picture that, when combined with the airline's data, should help fill in the gaps they have in their data.
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:09 pm

seanpmassey wrote:
klm617 wrote:
seanpmassey wrote:

Will the WCAA have better leakage data, though, compared to the airlines? The argument has been that DTW suffers leakage to both YYZ and ORD, and the two airlines that you're hoping will replace WOW in DTW serve both markets already (and that isn't including the data that EI would get from their parent company IAG and the Trans-Atlantic JV that they're set to join with AA, BA, IB, and AY)


Absolutely the WCAA is based in this market they would naturally have a better feel of the market. Like you say these carriers only look at numbers in a database they have no real idea of the potential of any given market beyond what the numbers project. Again I have to ask if what you say is true why even have a route director than at the airport if they are not there to make the case of why an airline should serve a given market beyond what information they have on a market there is no need for that position at DTW. since according to what everyone says it doesn't matter what the airport provides as proof of why they should serve Detroit. Just eliminate that position and save the taxpayers money and just have an administrative person who just pushes paper take care of all the paperwork when a perspective airlines comes knocking on the airports door.


There is enough straw in that post to build a scarecrow.

I'm not challenging the idea of an airport having a route director or information about the needs of the market. I'm challenging your assertion that the airport can provide better leakage data than the airlines in question since both airlines that you'd like to see replace WOW serve the two markets where Detroit passengers are driving to.

There is nothing wrong with data. Data is essential to making business decisions. Being able to build a model that shows demand and expected profit is more important than "feel of the market." The airport will be able to provide part of the picture that, when combined with the airline's data, should help fill in the gaps they have in their data.


And that's where the airport gets an F helping to get a better picture of the market. So then you do admit that if the airport does it's due diligence as far has helping an airline from another country see it's full potential in said market it can make or break an airlines decision whether to enter said market or not. So tell me which is it the data that the airport route planner puts together can help sell the market or what ever the airlines decide through the data they have collected on their own is the only measure used to determine which markets it's going to enter. Also what point is there of having someone point out the needs of a particular market if an airline doesn't even use that as a consideration when it starts a new market.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
LovePrunesAnet
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:04 am

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:15 pm

We just need to hold their feet to the fire. Or something like that.
 
winginit
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 22, 2019 3:37 pm

klm617 wrote:
seanpmassey wrote:
klm617 wrote:
They could start with what WOW was able to do and also get some better leakage data to show those carriers that they would have access to those potential customers with their competitive pricing.


Will the WCAA have better leakage data, though, compared to the airlines? The argument has been that DTW suffers leakage to both YYZ and ORD, and the two airlines that you're hoping will replace WOW in DTW serve both markets already (and that isn't including the data that EI would get from their parent company IAG and the Trans-Atlantic JV that they're set to join with AA, BA, IB, and AY)


Absolutely the WCAA is based in this market they would naturally have a better feel of the market. Like you say these carriers only look at numbers in a database they have no real idea of the potential of any given market beyond what the numbers project. Again I have to ask if what you say is true why even have a route director than at the airport if they are not there to make the case of why an airline should serve a given market beyond what information they have on a market there is no need for that position at DTW. since according to what everyone says it doesn't matter what the airport provides as proof of why they should serve Detroit. Just eliminate that position and save the taxpayers money and just have an administrative person who just pushes paper take care of all the paperwork when a perspective airlines comes knocking on the airports door.


Yeesh. Loads of misinformation being thrown about as to who has access to what data; so best if we clear that up if there's going to be any constructive dialogue about who can decide what:

- Airport authorities have access to somewhat detailed passenger enplanement data for their own airport or airports, they have a pretty good cut of unadjusted MIDT, and then they have access to consolidated government reported data like T100, DB1B, etc. That's enough to paint a pretty good portrayal of a route, but it pales in comparison to what carriers have readily on hand

- Airlines have access to all of the above with the exception of maybe a granular view of passenger enplanement data for a specific airport, but upon request if a route is being considered I've seen that data change hands. The kicker here is what the airline has but the airport does not have, which is not only detailed revenue and cost data for comparable routes, but also adjusted MIDT that can be quite a bit more powerful when compared to the cut of MIDT that an airport will have to establish volume and flow forecasts when put into QSI models. Additionally, airlines will have more detailed passenger information especially for their frequent fliers that an airport has no access to.

- That all being the case, the WCAA will only have better leakage data if they're willing to pay a very pretty penny to a third party for it (I imagine the WCAA does this but I don't know for sure), and even more important than that, they have no insight as to the cost or detailed revenue sides of the equation of a potential route. Thus, an airport authority is of course going to say that a prospective route is 'viable' because it's in their best interests to do so even though they really have no idea in that they have no insight into forecasted costs or revenues for a specific carrier.

In conclusion, as has been discussed at length already, only a carrier is going to be able to determine whether a prospective route is, in their mind and business model, 'viable'. While they may look to an airport authority for supplementary data to make that case (or, more importantly, incentives to help with the cost side of the equation), no carrier is going to be persuaded against what their modeling shows by an external party. For a carrier to do so could be defined as a violation of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:33 pm

winginit wrote:
klm617 wrote:
seanpmassey wrote:

Will the WCAA have better leakage data, though, compared to the airlines? The argument has been that DTW suffers leakage to both YYZ and ORD, and the two airlines that you're hoping will replace WOW in DTW serve both markets already (and that isn't including the data that EI would get from their parent company IAG and the Trans-Atlantic JV that they're set to join with AA, BA, IB, and AY)


Absolutely the WCAA is based in this market they would naturally have a better feel of the market. Like you say these carriers only look at numbers in a database they have no real idea of the potential of any given market beyond what the numbers project. Again I have to ask if what you say is true why even have a route director than at the airport if they are not there to make the case of why an airline should serve a given market beyond what information they have on a market there is no need for that position at DTW. since according to what everyone says it doesn't matter what the airport provides as proof of why they should serve Detroit. Just eliminate that position and save the taxpayers money and just have an administrative person who just pushes paper take care of all the paperwork when a perspective airlines comes knocking on the airports door.


Yeesh. Loads of misinformation being thrown about as to who has access to what data; so best if we clear that up if there's going to be any constructive dialogue about who can decide what:

- Airport authorities have access to somewhat detailed passenger enplanement data for their own airport or airports, they have a pretty good cut of unadjusted MIDT, and then they have access to consolidated government reported data like T100, DB1B, etc. That's enough to paint a pretty good portrayal of a route, but it pales in comparison to what carriers have readily on hand

- Airlines have access to all of the above with the exception of maybe a granular view of passenger enplanement data for a specific airport, but upon request if a route is being considered I've seen that data change hands. The kicker here is what the airline has but the airport does not have, which is not only detailed revenue and cost data for comparable routes, but also adjusted MIDT that can be quite a bit more powerful when compared to the cut of MIDT that an airport will have to establish volume and flow forecasts when put into QSI models. Additionally, airlines will have more detailed passenger information especially for their frequent fliers that an airport has no access to.

- That all being the case, the WCAA will only have better leakage data if they're willing to pay a very pretty penny to a third party for it (I imagine the WCAA does this but I don't know for sure), and even more important than that, they have no insight as to the cost or detailed revenue sides of the equation of a potential route. Thus, an airport authority is of course going to say that a prospective route is 'viable' because it's in their best interests to do so even though they really have no idea in that they have no insight into forecasted costs or revenues for a specific carrier.

In conclusion, as has been discussed at length already, only a carrier is going to be able to determine whether a prospective route is, in their mind and business model, 'viable'. While they may look to an airport authority for supplementary data to make that case (or, more importantly, incentives to help with the cost side of the equation), no carrier is going to be persuaded against what their modeling shows by an external party. For a carrier to do so could be defined as a violation of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.


I take all you said at face value then so again I'd ask why pay somebody and create a position that isn't in any way value added to the growth of the airport as you explain no airport can stat their case to be viable. So hence the paying of an airport route planner who has no bearing on the outcome of who serves the airport and what routes are viable is a total waste of resources and those monies can be put to better use someplace else.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
winginit
Posts: 2546
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 22, 2019 6:39 pm

klm617 wrote:
winginit wrote:
klm617 wrote:

Absolutely the WCAA is based in this market they would naturally have a better feel of the market. Like you say these carriers only look at numbers in a database they have no real idea of the potential of any given market beyond what the numbers project. Again I have to ask if what you say is true why even have a route director than at the airport if they are not there to make the case of why an airline should serve a given market beyond what information they have on a market there is no need for that position at DTW. since according to what everyone says it doesn't matter what the airport provides as proof of why they should serve Detroit. Just eliminate that position and save the taxpayers money and just have an administrative person who just pushes paper take care of all the paperwork when a perspective airlines comes knocking on the airports door.


Yeesh. Loads of misinformation being thrown about as to who has access to what data; so best if we clear that up if there's going to be any constructive dialogue about who can decide what:

- Airport authorities have access to somewhat detailed passenger enplanement data for their own airport or airports, they have a pretty good cut of unadjusted MIDT, and then they have access to consolidated government reported data like T100, DB1B, etc. That's enough to paint a pretty good portrayal of a route, but it pales in comparison to what carriers have readily on hand

- Airlines have access to all of the above with the exception of maybe a granular view of passenger enplanement data for a specific airport, but upon request if a route is being considered I've seen that data change hands. The kicker here is what the airline has but the airport does not have, which is not only detailed revenue and cost data for comparable routes, but also adjusted MIDT that can be quite a bit more powerful when compared to the cut of MIDT that an airport will have to establish volume and flow forecasts when put into QSI models. Additionally, airlines will have more detailed passenger information especially for their frequent fliers that an airport has no access to.

- That all being the case, the WCAA will only have better leakage data if they're willing to pay a very pretty penny to a third party for it (I imagine the WCAA does this but I don't know for sure), and even more important than that, they have no insight as to the cost or detailed revenue sides of the equation of a potential route. Thus, an airport authority is of course going to say that a prospective route is 'viable' because it's in their best interests to do so even though they really have no idea in that they have no insight into forecasted costs or revenues for a specific carrier.

In conclusion, as has been discussed at length already, only a carrier is going to be able to determine whether a prospective route is, in their mind and business model, 'viable'. While they may look to an airport authority for supplementary data to make that case (or, more importantly, incentives to help with the cost side of the equation), no carrier is going to be persuaded against what their modeling shows by an external party. For a carrier to do so could be defined as a violation of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.


I take all you said at face value then so again I'd ask why pay somebody and create a position that isn't in any way value added to the growth of the airport as you explain no airport can stat their case to be viable. So hence the paying of an airport route planner who has no bearing on the outcome of who serves the airport and what routes are viable is a total waste of resources and those monies can be put to better use someplace else.


In many ways I actually don't disagree with your post, but it's worth pointing out that these are often city or county positions that aren't paid particularly well but many do it for the security, the work/life balance, and in some cases the pension. I know many Directors of Air Service Development, and to be brutally honest many of them are often bored out of their minds unless their airport is enjoying a wave of popularity. At the end of the day, you have to have someone who is managing interest in the airport but in many cases there's really not much you can do to aid carriers in the decision making process especially with how public and straight forward incentive programs are these days.
 
klm617
Posts: 4339
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 22, 2019 7:10 pm

winginit wrote:
klm617 wrote:
winginit wrote:

Yeesh. Loads of misinformation being thrown about as to who has access to what data; so best if we clear that up if there's going to be any constructive dialogue about who can decide what:

- Airport authorities have access to somewhat detailed passenger enplanement data for their own airport or airports, they have a pretty good cut of unadjusted MIDT, and then they have access to consolidated government reported data like T100, DB1B, etc. That's enough to paint a pretty good portrayal of a route, but it pales in comparison to what carriers have readily on hand

- Airlines have access to all of the above with the exception of maybe a granular view of passenger enplanement data for a specific airport, but upon request if a route is being considered I've seen that data change hands. The kicker here is what the airline has but the airport does not have, which is not only detailed revenue and cost data for comparable routes, but also adjusted MIDT that can be quite a bit more powerful when compared to the cut of MIDT that an airport will have to establish volume and flow forecasts when put into QSI models. Additionally, airlines will have more detailed passenger information especially for their frequent fliers that an airport has no access to.

- That all being the case, the WCAA will only have better leakage data if they're willing to pay a very pretty penny to a third party for it (I imagine the WCAA does this but I don't know for sure), and even more important than that, they have no insight as to the cost or detailed revenue sides of the equation of a potential route. Thus, an airport authority is of course going to say that a prospective route is 'viable' because it's in their best interests to do so even though they really have no idea in that they have no insight into forecasted costs or revenues for a specific carrier.

In conclusion, as has been discussed at length already, only a carrier is going to be able to determine whether a prospective route is, in their mind and business model, 'viable'. While they may look to an airport authority for supplementary data to make that case (or, more importantly, incentives to help with the cost side of the equation), no carrier is going to be persuaded against what their modeling shows by an external party. For a carrier to do so could be defined as a violation of their fiduciary duty to shareholders.


I take all you said at face value then so again I'd ask why pay somebody and create a position that isn't in any way value added to the growth of the airport as you explain no airport can stat their case to be viable. So hence the paying of an airport route planner who has no bearing on the outcome of who serves the airport and what routes are viable is a total waste of resources and those monies can be put to better use someplace else.


In many ways I actually don't disagree with your post, but it's worth pointing out that these are often city or county positions that aren't paid particularly well but many do it for the security, the work/life balance, and in some cases the pension. I know many Directors of Air Service Development, and to be brutally honest many of them are often bored out of their minds unless their airport is enjoying a wave of popularity. At the end of the day, you have to have someone who is managing interest in the airport but in many cases there's really not much you can do to aid carriers in the decision making process especially with how public and straight forward incentive programs are these days.


IDK I couldn't sit still if I was bored I would be pushing buttons every where to try to make something happen. With all that free time I'd be doing something to try to make the impossible happen. But that's me I have never been one to take no for an answer.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 3493
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: Detroit Air Service Discussion Thread - 2019

Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:41 pm

This thread will be permanently locked, and there will be no replacement for this topic. Any replacements will be deleted for the foreseeable future. We have warned you all on numerous occasions that continued off topic posts, personal attacks, and trolling comments would result in the thread being locked, and our warnings have gone completely ignored.

This thread/topic has been the single most time-consuming thread for us for several years now, and this is the first time that we have ever had to take an action this drastic. Too many of you have demonstrated an inability to hold a civil, productive discussion on this topic, or anything else related to Detroit. Perhaps in the future we will reconsider allowing this discussion, but only if users can demonstrate in other topics that they are capable of staying on topic without resorting to personal attacks.

We apologize to the users who did attempt to engage productively, because it isn't fair for your experience to be ruined by a handful of users unable to do the same.

✈️ atcsundevil

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