FAQ

AS OF JULY 2018 THERE ARE CHANGES TO THE FORMAT OF THIS REPORT...SEE BELOW

WHAT IS THIS REPORT?
This compares departures for sale THIS WEEK for the stated period versus what was for sale LAST WEEK...prior year departures are now shown in brackets e.g. [0].

THE SCHEDULES SHOWN HERE CHANGE AFTER YOU POST???
-To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often---Winston Churchill. This is data the carriers filed at the point in time it was captured. It's changed since then. You are just going to have to live with it.

HOW DO I READ IT?
XXX-YYY DEC 4>5[4] JAN 4>5[4]
XXX Departure IATA code, YYY Arrival IATA code, Month, Average Departures/Day over the month for sale as of last week, Average Departures/Day over the month for sale as of this week, in brackets is the number of Average Departures/Day over the month that were scheduled one year earlier. So, it means that the listed airline changed the frequency between the two airports to add from 4 to 5 roundtrips in December and January. It also means that there were 4 roundtrips the prior year in each month. No other months were changed. I average two directions.

WHAT ABOUT CARRIERS THAT DON'T PUBLISH A SCHEDULE 9 MONTHS IN ADVANCE?
NEW CHANGE-Sometimes airlines do not load their schedules for the entire 330 day standard sales window. Southwest and many LCCs load their schedules for as little as 5 months into the future. When these flight are extended into a new sales month, it becomes a "schedule change". Previously, I have manually deleted these in many cases and replaced them with a Year-Over-Year compare. Effective immediately, this will now change. When a flight is loaded from 0 departures X departures, where X was the same the prior year, the record will not be shown. For example, if Delta loaded ATL-EGE MAR 0>1(1), it would not be shown because this additional flight does not represent a real year-over-year addition. Similarly, if B6 extended their schedule a record like this ATL-BOS JUL 0>4(4) would not be shown. It will be shown if the flight frequency changed from the prior year. So B6 ATL-BOS JUL 0>3(4) would be shown. If a partial month was loaded in a core schedule that became a full schedule month, those changes may be shown under this logic. For example, WN BNA-SEA 0.3>2(2). Because only a fraction of the month was previously loaded for sale, these changes will not be filtered out. I may, however, manually remove them to declutter.

HOW ARE THE DAILY DEPARTURES CALCULATED?
This report uses total operations for the month listed, divided over the days in the month. The following criteria are used to show a change: 1) The change must be at least 6 roundtrips per month with no exceptions, 2) changes of at least 6/week are always shown, 3) routes that are added or dropped are shown subject to the change minimum, and 4) in all other cases routes must change by 20% to be shown. For example, if a route changed from 21/week to 18/week it would not be shown because the change is -14.3%. This is done to filter minor changes that occur in large numbers.

WHAT ARE THE FRACTIONAL FLIGHTS?
Flights that do not operate every day of the month create fractional service. If the route has more than 2 daily flights, departures are rounded, but in cases of less than 2 departures per day a fraction is shown. For example, if a flight operates 4 times in April it will show 4/30=0.133=0.1. Also , a flight that only operates once per week may vary between 0.1 and 0.2 because a weekday may repeat either 4 or 5 times depending on the month.

THOSE FLIGHTS AREN'T DELTA, THEY ARE SKYWEST
This report only shows the marketing code. It is too complicated to show all the operators.

THE FREQUENCIES MAY HAVE CHANGED AS YOU SHOW, BUT THE SEATS DIDNT CHANGE BECAUSE OF EQUIPMENT SWAPS
Seats are not shown. That is a natural weakness of a frequency based report, but it provides something to discuss below.

THIS LOOKS LIKE AN ERROR?
The carriers file the schedules. They do make mistakes. Most of the mistakes I have seen are either related to code shares not being marked as "duplicates" or carriers filing flights with invalid data such as equipment codes that are not standard or overlapping schedule periods that see the same flight number in two places at once. These cause flights to not appear.

CHARTERS?
Lately charters have been showing up in the database. I have no idea if that will continue.

I marked some of the ones I thought were interesting with an "*".

AA CID-DFW SEP 3>4[3] OCT 3>4[3] NOV 3>4[3]
AA DFW-FSM SEP 4>5[4] OCT 4>5[4] NOV 4>5[4]
AA DFW-HNL DEC 1.5>2.0[1.4]
AA DFW-KOA JAN 0.2>0.7[0.2] FEB 0.4>0.7[0.4]
AA DFW-LGA OCT 12>13[11] NOV 12>13[11] DEC 12>13[11] JAN 12>13[11] FEB 12>13[11]
AA DFW-MEM SEP 7>8[7] OCT 7>8[7] NOV 7>8[7]
AA DFW-OGG DEC 1.5>1.9[1.3] JAN 1.3>2[1.3] FEB 1.3>2[1.2]
AA DFW-PNS SEP 6>5[4] OCT 6>5[4] NOV 6>5[4] DEC 6>5[4] JAN 6>5[4] FEB 6>5[4]
AA DFW-SEA SEP 9>8[9] OCT 9>8[8] NOV 9>8[7] DEC 9>8[7] JAN 9>8[6] FEB 9>8[6]
AA DFW-SHV SEP 6>7[6] OCT 6>7[6] NOV 6>7[6]
AA GEO-JFK DEC 0>0.5[0] JAN 0>1.0[0] FEB 0>1.0[0]
AA HNL-ORD DEC 1.0>1.5[0.4]
ORH must really be awful. Such a close in cut.
*AA ORH-PHL JUL 1.7>0.9[0] AUG 1.6>1.0[0]

AC LAX-YUL JUL 4>3[4]
AC MSP-YYZ JUL 4>3[3]
AC PHL-YYZ JUL 5>4[4]
*AC PHX-YYC JUN 1.0>0[1.0] JUL 1.0>0[1.0]

AD CNF-MCO SEP 0.4>0.1[0.4]
AD MCO-REC SEP 0.4>0.2[0.4]
AD MCO-VCP JUL 1.7>1.1[1.0] AUG 1.7>1.1[1.0]

AM ATL-GDL JUN 1.0>0.5[1.0]

AS ANC-OGG DEC 0.4>1.0[0.4]
AS KOA-SFO DEC 0.6>0.8[0.8]
AS OGG-SEA DEC 2>3[2] JAN 2>3[2] FEB 2>3[2]

Chinese carriers rolling back capacity in 1st tier routes even as 3rd tier routes keep coming
*CZ CAN-JFK SEP 2>1.3[1.9] OCT 1.9>1.1[1.8]
*CZ CAN-LAX AUG 1.4>1.0[1.5] SEP 1.4>1.0[1.2] OCT 1.4>1.1[1.4]

DL ATL-GRB DEC 1.5>1.0[0.9]
DL ATL-OAK DEC 0.4>0.1[0]
DL AUS-MSP JAN 3>2[1.9] FEB 3>2[1.9]
DL BIL-SLC OCT 4>3[3]
**DL BOM-JFK DEC 0>0.3[0] JAN 0>1.0[0] FEB 0>0.7[0]
DL CVG-SEA SEP 0.8>0.6[0.7]
DL DTW-LIT DEC 0.6>0.0[0.6]
DL DTW-TPA NOV 5>4[4]
DL FLL-MSP OCT 0.9>0.6[0.7]
No resumption date is published. This plus a type swap on another route appears to be the BOM-JFK plane.
**DL GIG-JFK DEC 0.4>0[0.4] JAN 1.0>0[0.7] FEB 1.0>0[0.6]
DL HNL-LAX OCT 4>3[3]
DL IAD-MSP DEC 3>2[2]
DL ISN-MSP SEP 3>2[2] OCT 3>2[2] NOV 3>2.0[1.9] DEC 2>1.9[1.9]
DL JAX-MSP DEC 0.9>0.6[0.7]
DL JFK-PDX DEC 1.8>1.3[1.2]
DL LAX-LIH SEP 0.8>0.4[0.9] OCT 0.7>0.5[0.7] NOV 0.7>0.4[0.7] DEC 0.8>0.6[0.8]
DL LEX-MSP DEC 0.8>0.3[0.8]
DL MFR-SEA NOV 3>2.0[1.9]
DL MSP-ORF DEC 0.9>0.6[0.6]
DL OMA-SLC SEP 3>2[1.8] OCT 3>2[1.7]
DL PDX-SEA JAN 7>8[7] FEB 7>8[7]
DL SEA-YYC NOV 3>2.0[1.9] DEC 3>1.9[1.9]
DL SLC-TUL SEP 1.7>1.0[1.0] OCT 1.7>1.0[1.7] NOV 1.6>1.1[1.4] DEC 1.8>1.2[1.8] JAN 1.9>1.1[1.7] FEB 1.8>1.0[1.8]

**HU CTU-ORD NOV 0>0.3[0] DEC 0>0.3[0] JAN 0>0.3[0] FEB 0>0.3[0]
**HU LAX-XIY NOV 0>0.3[0] DEC 0>0.3[0] JAN 0>0.3[0.2] FEB 0>0.3[0.1]

LF BKW-CLT JUN 1.7>1.2[0]
LF BKW-PKB JUN 1.7>1.2[0]
LF CLT-PKB JUN 0>0.5[0]

Interesting, but one month a of now
*OZ ICN-ORD NOV 0.7>0[0.7]

PR MNL-SFO JUN 1.0>2[1.4] JUL 1.0>2[1.4] AUG 1.0>2[1.3] SEP 1.0>2[1.0] OCT 1.0>2[1.0] NOV 1.0>2[1.0] DEC 1.0>2[1.4] JAN 1.0>2[1.3] FEB 1.0>2[1.0]

TS FLL-YUL NOV 0.3>0.6[0.3] DEC 0.5>0.7[0.5] JAN 0.7>1.0[0.6] FEB 0.7>1.0[0.7]
*TS FLL-YVR JAN 0>0.3[0] FEB 0>0.3[0]
TS FLL-YYZ NOV 0.3>0.6[0.3]
*TS MSY-YUL NOV 0>0.3[0] DEC 0>0.3[0] JAN 0>0.3[0] FEB 0>0.3[0]
*TS TPA-YYZ JAN 0.3>0[0.3] FEB 0.3>0[0.3]

UA ABE-ORD NOV 3>2[3]
UA ABQ-DEN NOV 4>5[4] DEC 4>5[4] JAN 4>5[4] FEB 4>5[4]
UA ABQ-IAH NOV 4>5[4] DEC 4>5[3] JAN 4>5[4] FEB 4>5[4]
UA ACV-SFO NOV 3>4[4] DEC 3>4[4] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[3]
UA ANC-SFO AUG 1.4>1.0[1.0]
UA AUS-EWR NOV 3>4[3] DEC 3>4[3] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[3]
UA AUS-SFO NOV 4>5[4]
UA AVL-ORD NOV 4>3[3]
UA BNA-SFO NOV 3>1.8[1.8] DEC 3>1.9[1.9] JAN 3>1.9[2] FEB 3>1.8[2]
UA BOI-DEN NOV 4>5[4] DEC 4>5[4] JAN 4>5[4] FEB 4>5[4]
UA BOI-SFO NOV 4>5[5] DEC 4>5[5] JAN 4>5[5] FEB 4>5[5]
UA BOS-EWR NOV 12>11[11] DEC 12>11[9] JAN 12>11[8] FEB 12>11[9]
UA BOS-LAX NOV 3>2[3]
UA BOS-SFO NOV 7>6[6]
UA BTV-EWR NOV 5>4[5] DEC 5>4[4] JAN 5>4[5] FEB 5>4[5]
UA BTV-IAD NOV 4>3[4]
UA BUF-EWR NOV 6>5[6] DEC 6>5[5] JAN 6>5[5] FEB 6>5[5]
UA BUF-ORD NOV 6>4[3] DEC 6>4[3] JAN 6>4[3] FEB 6>4[3]
UA BUR-SFO NOV 5>7[5] DEC 5>7[5] JAN 5>7[5] FEB 5>7[5]
UA BZN-DEN NOV 3>4[3]
UA CHS-IAD NOV 4>3[4]
UA CLE-LAX NOV 1.8>1.0[1.7] DEC 1.9>1.4[1.8]
UA CMH-EWR NOV 8>7[6] DEC 8>7[6] JAN 8>7[5] FEB 8>7[5]
UA COS-LAX NOV 2>3[1.9] DEC 2>3[1.9] JAN 2>3[1.9] FEB 2>3[1.9]
**UA CPT-EWR DEC 0>0.2[0] JAN 0>0.5[0] FEB 0>0.4[0]
UA CVG-IAD NOV 4>3[4] DEC 4>3[3] JAN 4>3[2] FEB 4>3[3]
UA DAY-ORD NOV 6>7[7] DEC 6>7[7] JAN 6>7[6] FEB 6>7[6]
UA DEN-DFW NOV 6>5[5]
UA DEN-FCA NOV 3>2[3]
UA DEN-HDN NOV 1.0>2[1.1]
UA DEN-IAH NOV 11>10[10]
UA DEN-IDA NOV 4>3[3]
UA DEN-MCO DEC 3>4[3] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[4]
UA DEN-ORD NOV 10>9[10]
UA DEN-PSP NOV 3>5[4] DEC 3>5[3] JAN 3>4[4] FEB 3>4[5]
UA DEN-RAP NOV 6>5[4]
UA DEN-RDM NOV 3>2[2.0] DEC 3>2[2] JAN 3>2[2] FEB 3>2[2]
UA DEN-RSW DEC 1.0>1.4[1.4] JAN 1.0>2[1.2] FEB 1.0>2[1.1]
UA DEN-STL NOV 5>6[5] DEC 5>6[4] JAN 5>6[4] FEB 5>6[4]
UA DEN-TPA DEC 2>3[1.9] FEB 2>3[2]
UA DEN-TUL NOV 5>4[4]
UA DTW-ORD NOV 8>7[7]
UA EUG-SFO NOV 5>4[4]
UA EWR-EYW DEC 1.0>1.9[2] JAN 1.0>2[2] FEB 1.0>3[3]
UA EWR-GRR NOV 4>3[3] DEC 4>3[2.0] JAN 4>3[1.7] FEB 4>3[1.9]
UA EWR-IND NOV 6>7[6] DEC 6>7[5] JAN 6>7[6] FEB 6>7[6]
UA EWR-LAX NOV 11>12[10]
UA EWR-MIA DEC 5>6[6]
UA EWR-ORF NOV 5>6[5] DEC 5>6[4] JAN 5>6[5] FEB 5>6[5]
UA EWR-PBI FEB 6>7[7]
UA EWR-PHX NOV 3>4[3] DEC 3>4[3] JAN 3>4[2] FEB 3>4[3]
UA EWR-PIT NOV 9>10[8] DEC 9>10[7] JAN 9>10[7] FEB 9>10[7]
UA EWR-RDU NOV 9>8[8]
UA EWR-RSW NOV 4>5[4] JAN 4>5[4] FEB 4>6[5]
UA EWR-SFO NOV 13>14[13] DEC 13>14[12] JAN 13>14[10] FEB 14>15[10]
UA EWR-SRQ FEB 2>3[3]
UA EWR-SYR NOV 4>5[4] DEC 4>5[3] JAN 4>5[4] FEB 4>5[4]
UA EWR-TPA DEC 6>7[7] FEB 6>5[5]
UA EWR-YQB NOV 2>3[3] DEC 2>3[3] JAN 2>3[2.0] FEB 2>3[2]
UA FAT-LAX NOV 4>3[4] DEC 4>3[3] JAN 4>3[3] FEB 4>3[3]
UA IAD-ITH NOV 3>1.8[2.0] DEC 3>2[1.6]
UA IAD-LAS NOV 2>3[3] DEC 2>3[3] JAN 2>3[3] FEB 2>3[2]
UA IAD-LAX NOV 8>7[6]
UA IAD-LWB JUL 0.7>1.0[0.4]
UA IAD-MCO NOV 4>5[4] DEC 4>5[5]
UA IAD-PVD NOV 4>3[3]
UA IAD-PWM NOV 4>3[3]
UA IAD-SFO NOV 8>7[7]
UA IAH-LAS NOV 7>6[6] DEC 7>6[6]
UA IAH-MKE NOV 1.8>3[1.9] DEC 1.9>3[1.9] JAN 1.9>3[1.9] FEB 1.8>3[1.9]
UA IAH-PIT NOV 5>6[5] DEC 5>6[5] JAN 5>6[5] FEB 5>6[5]
*UA IAH-PSP OCT 0>0.3[0.4] JAN 0>2[3] FEB 0>2[3]
UA IAH-RDU JUL 5>4[5]
UA IAH-RIC NOV 2>3[1.8] DEC 2>3[1.6] JAN 2>3[1.0] FEB 2>3[1.0]
UA IAH-RSW NOV 2>3[2] DEC 2>3[2]
UA IAH-SEA NOV 6>5[5] DEC 6>5[5] JAN 6>5[4] FEB 6>5[4]
UA IAH-SHV NOV 4>5[4] DEC 4>5[3] JAN 4>5[3] FEB 4>5[3]
UA IAH-TUL NOV 6>7[7]
UA IAH-TUS NOV 3>4[3]
UA IAH-VPS NOV 3>2[2] DEC 3>2[2] JAN 3>2[2] FEB 3>2[2]
UA IAH-XNA NOV 4>5[4] DEC 4>5[3] JAN 4>5[4] FEB 4>5[4]
UA ILM-ORD NOV 2>1.0[2.0] DEC 2>1.0[2] JAN 2>1.0[1.2] FEB 2>1.0[1.0]
UA LAS-LAX NOV 5>6[4]
UA LAS-ORD NOV 5>6[5] DEC 5>6[4] JAN 5>6[5] FEB 5>6[5]
UA LAX-MFR NOV 2>3[2.0] DEC 2>3[2] JAN 2>3[2] FEB 2>3[1.9]
UA LAX-ORD NOV 10>9[10] DEC 10>9[10]
UA LAX-PHX NOV 3>4[3] DEC 3>4[3] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[3]
UA LAX-RNO NOV 3>2[3] DEC 3>2[3] JAN 3>2[3] FEB 3>2[3]
UA LAX-SBP NOV 3>4[4] DEC 3>4[3] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[3]
UA LIT-ORD NOV 3>4[4] DEC 3>4[4] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[3]
UA MCI-SFO NOV 3>2[3] DEC 3>2[3] JAN 3>2[2] FEB 3>2[2.0]
UA MCO-SFO JAN 3>2[2] FEB 3>2[2]
UA MSP-SFO NOV 3>2[1.9] DEC 3>2[1.9] JAN 3>2[1.9] FEB 3>2[1.9]
UA ONT-SFO NOV 6>5[6] DEC 6>5[5] JAN 6>5[6] FEB 6>5[5]
UA SFO-TPA DEC 2>1.5[1.4] JAN 2>1.2[1.2] FEB 2>1.0[1.0]

VC AUS-BTR JUN 0.3>0[0]
VC BHM-RDU JUN 0.6>0.1[0]

Z3 CLP-DLG JUN 0>0.7[0] JUL 0>0.7[0] AUG 0>0.7[0] SEP 0>0.7[0] OCT 0>0.7[0] NOV 0>0.7[0] DEC 0>0.7[0] JAN 0>0.7[0] FEB 0>0.7[0]

Surprised to see AA add GEO out of JFK. I imagine that to be a pretty low yield VFR/tourism route which goes against their entire plan for JFK.

Sad to see JFK-GIG go. Wonder what it was for?

The rumor in Deltaland lately was that the airline would be withdrawing entirely from GIG - glad to see that, for now at least, it's "just" JFK and ATL is staying.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

Sad to see JFK-GIG go. Wonder what it was for?

To make money.

compensateme wrote:

The rumor in Deltaland lately was that the airline would be withdrawing entirely from GIG - glad to see that, for now at least, it's "just" JFK and ATL is staying.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

Sad to see JFK-GIG go. Wonder what it was for?

To make money.

Leaving GIG entirely would be disappointing. If i had to guess DL will probably base most of the Deep South American flights in ATl(GIG, GRU, EZE, SCL)

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

compensateme wrote:

The rumor in Deltaland lately was that the airline would be withdrawing entirely from GIG - glad to see that, for now at least, it's "just" JFK and ATL is staying.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

Sad to see JFK-GIG go. Wonder what it was for?

To make money.

Leaving GIG entirely would be disappointing. If i had to guess DL will probably base most of the Deep South American flights in ATl(GIG, GRU, EZE, SCL)

I think DL will keep JFK-GRU; strategically it is relatively important for their JFK network and I believe historically it is a higher yielding, higher performing route than GIG.

Beyond that, once JFK-GIG is discontinued, the deep South America flying will be concentrated out of ATL - I don't believe DL will have any deep South America flights outside of JFK-GRU at that point.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

compensateme wrote:

The rumor in Deltaland lately was that the airline would be withdrawing entirely from GIG - glad to see that, for now at least, it's "just" JFK and ATL is staying.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

Sad to see JFK-GIG go. Wonder what it was for?

To make money.

Leaving GIG entirely would be disappointing. If i had to guess DL will probably base most of the Deep South American flights in ATl(GIG, GRU, EZE, SCL)

And it makes sense. Most of the JFK bound traffic from deep South America originates locally so the scales will always be in favor of American Airlines, which commands most of the loyalty and premium markets in Argentina, Brazil and Chile. United would be second and then and only then, comes Delta. From/to ATL and with its incredible # of connections available, Delta rules and can make the deep South America routes work for itself. The outlier would be GRU-JFK: jury is still out on its long term viability.

Thanks Enilria!

enilria wrote:

No resumption date is published. This plus a type swap on another route appears to be the BOM-JFK plane.
**DL GIG-JFK DEC 0.4>0[0.4] JAN 1.0>0[0.7] FEB 1.0>0[0.6]

What was the swap?

enilria wrote:

DL LAX-LIH SEP 0.8>0.4[0.9] OCT 0.7>0.5[0.7] NOV 0.7>0.4[0.7] DEC 0.8>0.6[0.8]

I don't recall seeing this frequency going so low before, and the route's been around for over a decade. Maybe it's because of WN?

Looks like UA is increasing it's game at EWR.

Thanks Enilria!!

Concerning CZ cuts - do people think they will add a new US destination to CAN that CZ had "announced" at World Routes (ORD/SEA/BOS) or shoot for adding at the new airport in Beijing?

GIG skews leisure over business. JFK-GIG has come and gone on AA as well over the years as well. The AA flight has endured as a year round option until now, when it was made a seasonal route for the northern hemisphere winter.

adamh8297 wrote:

Thanks Enilria!!

Concerning CZ cuts - do people think they will add a new US destination to CAN that CZ had "announced" at World Routes (ORD/SEA/BOS) or shoot for adding at the new airport in Beijing?

They could do both if they have enough frequencies from CAN and the aircraft by the time Daxing opens.

In which... they have some 787s left on order and A350s to come.

A lot of action from UA in IAH and EWR.

Every time DL makes a cut in MSP, UA adds it in IAH...

EYW is growing FAST on UA (3 daily flights via EWR!)

Cointrin330 wrote:

GIG skews leisure over business. JFK-GIG has come and gone on AA as well over the years as well. The AA flight has endured as a year round option until now, when it was made a seasonal route for the northern hemisphere winter.

The local economy in Rio is in the toilet, violence has taken its toll on tourists' arrivals and yields are crap. Not even the local carrier (LATAM) flies long haul out of GIG any longer. This is the third route to Brazil that Delta has axed over the past 6 months. Hopefully we will see a turnaround in the not too distant future.

adamh8297 wrote:

Concerning CZ cuts - do people think they will add a new US destination to CAN that CZ had "announced" at World Routes (ORD/SEA/BOS) or shoot for adding at the new airport in Beijing?

There are some suspicion:
* It could be for PKX as you have said, but the timing seems a bit too early
* It could also be an act of revenue management as the new CZ president previously served MU have said something along the line of improving the carrier's financial situation
* Or it could be a seasonal cut to redeploy those capacity onto more profitable domestic routes during the summer season

Ishrion wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

Thanks Enilria!!

Concerning CZ cuts - do people think they will add a new US destination to CAN that CZ had "announced" at World Routes (ORD/SEA/BOS) or shoot for adding at the new airport in Beijing?

They could do both if they have enough frequencies from CAN and the aircraft by the time Daxing opens.

In which... they have some 787s left on order and A350s to come.

Bilateral would not allow that

enilria wrote:

AA DFW-HNL DEC 1.5>2.0[1.4]
AA DFW-KOA JAN 0.2>0.7[0.2] FEB 0.4>0.7[0.4]
AA DFW-OGG DEC 1.5>1.9[1.3] JAN 1.3>2[1.3] FEB 1.3>2[1.2]
AA HNL-ORD DEC 1.0>1.5[0.4]

AS ANC-OGG DEC 0.4>1.0[0.4]
AS KOA-SFO DEC 0.6>0.8[0.8]
AS OGG-SEA DEC 2>3[2] JAN 2>3[2] FEB 2>3[2]

Interesting Hawaii additions, 1.5 daily on a route that just started last year for ORD-HNL

enilria wrote:

DL ATL-OAK DEC 0.4>0.1[0]

Still chasing the rainbow

compensateme wrote:

The rumor in Deltaland lately was that the airline would be withdrawing entirely from GIG - glad to see that, for now at least, it's "just" JFK and ATL is staying.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

Sad to see JFK-GIG go. Wonder what it was for?

To make money.

LOL. Good answer.

Sightseer wrote:

Thanks Enilria!
enilria wrote:
No resumption date is published. This plus a type swap on another route appears to be the BOM-JFK plane.
**DL GIG-JFK DEC 0.4>0[0.4] JAN 1.0>0[0.7] FEB 1.0>0[0.6]

What was the swap?

Thanks! I don't know what the swap was. I doubt it is already filed, but might be.

adamh8297 wrote:

Thanks Enilria!!

Concerning CZ cuts - do people think they will add a new US destination to CAN that CZ had "announced" at World Routes (ORD/SEA/BOS) or shoot for adding at the new airport in Beijing?

They won't add anything else from CAN do the USA. It will be Beijing.

Gulfstream500 wrote:

A lot of action from UA in IAH and EWR.

Every time DL makes a cut in MSP, UA adds it in IAH...

EYW is growing FAST on UA (3 daily flights via EWR!)

EYW just needed that runway obstacle removed to grow like crazy. Took way too long. OTOH, from what I understand the locals are fed up with over-tourism. We might see that come into play ala HPN/SNA style restrictions.

c933103 wrote:

There are some suspicion:
* It could be for PKX as you have said, but the timing seems a bit too early
* It could also be an act of revenue management as the new CZ president previously served MU have said something along the line of improving the carrier's financial situation
* Or it could be a seasonal cut to redeploy those capacity onto more profitable domestic routes during the summer season

I suspect it is seasonal, but those frequencies will definitely move to the new Beijing airport in time.

SumChristianus wrote:

enilria wrote:
DL ATL-OAK DEC 0.4>0.1[0]

Still chasing the rainbow

Is it true that if you have outstanding parking/speeding/etc tickets and you park at OAK that they ticket your car? I heard an OAK local say this. Do other airports do that?

OMG...some news from AS! 3x daily SEA-OGG next winter is a big increase and equal to HNL.

wow, AS finally made some changes!

Regarding EWR adds by UA, isn't EWR supposedly de facto slot constrained for parts of the day now? Or is that just made up? Either way, that's a lot of additional capacity coming online.

And yes, ORH really is that horrible.

adamh8297 wrote:

Thanks Enilria!!

Concerning CZ cuts - do people think they will add a new US destination to CAN that CZ had "announced" at World Routes (ORD/SEA/BOS) or shoot for adding at the new airport in Beijing?

I think it's going to depend on how much TPAC service that airport has. CZ depends on a lot of connection traffic to make things work. CAN isn't exactly a high O&D and also not a good place to connect for interior China from North America. I'm sure CZ wants to make PKX work. it actually covers large part of Beijing better than PEK.

twaconnie wrote:

Looks like UA is increasing it's game at EWR.

Yeah, interesting to see so many short routes get a one-frequency increase.

Finally South Florida gets a Vancouver flight back. Largest U.S.-Canada market without a nonstop.

[*]

pbodyphoto wrote:

Surprised to see AA add GEO out of JFK. I imagine that to be a pretty low yield VFR/tourism route which goes against their entire plan for JFK.

GEO has been hugely successful from MIA, quickly going daily in less than five months, so clearly AA sees an opportunity. Also, it’s using a plane that would otherwise be overnighting and parked at JFK.

Is the XIY-LAX an extension into the winter? Because it's already been flying. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/hu493

Ishrion wrote:

Is the XIY-LAX an extension into the winter? Because it's already been flying. https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/hu493

It wasn't previously for sale for those months. I don't know why they had limited it.

tphuang wrote:

wow, AS finally made some changes!

Regarding EWR adds by UA, isn't EWR supposedly de facto slot constrained for parts of the day now? Or is that just made up? Either way, that's a lot of additional capacity coming online.

That appears to be 15 net new RTs for November. That is odd. I wonder if they are trying to prevent any more airlines from expanding at EWR by getting the FAA to tell them it's completely full and then complaining if anybody else is approved.

enilria wrote:

DL DTW-LIT DEC 0.6>0.0[0.6]

UA LIT-ORD NOV 3>4[4] DEC 3>4[4] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[3]

Interesting. Was DTW-LIT previously dormant in the post-holiday period only?

[url][/url]

pbodyphoto wrote:

Surprised to see AA add GEO out of JFK. I imagine that to be a pretty low yield VFR/tourism route which goes against their entire plan for JFK.

GEO is the furthest thing from a tourism destination. And while it is a pretty VFR centric destination, especially from NYC, it’s far from low yielding.

So... https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... ce-in-w19/

AA's going 3x daily on DFW-HNL.

2x 772, 1x 788.

Dec 18-Jan 6.

Guess that'll be updated soon.

Still no AA/QF JV approval so guess this is where they're deploying a 788

AC PHL-YYZ JUL 5>4[4]

I guess AC is not going to fight for market share of the TATL flights? AC also reduce in June from 5 daily to 4 daily as well.

UA keeps trying to add a fifth ABQ IAH but then it gets dropped before it starts. May be the case with other IAH markets as well.

PHLspecial wrote:

AC PHL-YYZ JUL 5>4[4]

I guess AC is not going to fight for market share of the TATL flights? AC also reduce in June from 5 daily to 4 daily as well.

Probably has more to do with juggling their overall fleet due to the MAX.

Same goes for the seasonal suspension of YYC-PHX. No doubt temporarily cut due to the MAX saga.

enilria wrote:

*UA IAH-PSP OCT 0>0.3[0.4] JAN 0>2[3] FEB 0>2[3]

I'm glad this seasonal route is already scheduled to come back. Now just waiting for UA's seasonal EWR-PSP non-stop flights to be scheduled to come back as well.

I flew these routes very often and not happy they ended. Not looking forward to using LAX.
At least we are getting an ONT-IAH non-stop next month. I just hope they add ONT-EWR in the near future.

United downsized in SEA after many years and had a big North Gate operation at one time.

• Does anyone recall who was bigger in Seattle? United or Northwes?

Operationally if United could not see the merit of continuing and operating a Pacific focus city hub out of SEA even just to supplement its other Pacific operations,

• isn’t Delta a little unwise to try and replicate UA’s experience here?
• Did United have a come to Jesus moment regarding SEA’s terminal, and infrastructure limitations, as well as its population catchment area including feed?
• Have things really changed Trans-Pacific and in SEA enough since United left for Delta to grow?
• Operationally is Delta’s network to Asia performing better, worse, or equal to its former Asia network out of PDX? Shareholders are not fond of cash burn when dividends have the possibility to be alot higher with simple rationalization.

This will be interesting to watch in the future especially for former SEA UAers. Told you so’s tend to alleviate some of the pain of long commutes, when things like this at Delta don’t quite turn out as planned, as it also makes it far easier to believe in and trust UA management in terms of their downsizing SEA.

Whoops posted this on the wrong thread. Thought this was the Delta thread... apologies.

TS with the FLL-YVR add! Nice.

tphuang wrote:

And yes, ORH really is that horrible.

I just booked an ORH-PHL flight for $78...which is was not basic economy

Ishrion wrote:

adamh8297 wrote:

Thanks Enilria!!

Concerning CZ cuts - do people think they will add a new US destination to CAN that CZ had "announced" at World Routes (ORD/SEA/BOS) or shoot for adding at the new airport in Beijing?

They could do both if they have enough frequencies from CAN and the aircraft by the time Daxing opens.

In which... they have some 787s left on order and A350s to come.

I suspect if that is due to skewed economics (subsidy-based) and their strategy of transfer pax, plus a new leader, so conservative, he cut the European expansion plan entirely already. Transfer pax means less paid despite more passengers and higher LF...... I am pretty suprimes that they will cut frequency instead of adding.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

United downsized in SEA after many years and had a big North Gate operation at one time.

• Does anyone recall who was bigger in Seattle? United or Northwes?

Operationally if United could not see the merit of continuing and operating a Pacific focus city hub out of SEA even just to supplement its other Pacific operations,

• isn’t Delta a little unwise to try and replicate UA’s experience here?
• Did United have a come to Jesus moment regarding SEA’s terminal, and infrastructure limitations, as well as its population catchment area including feed?
• Have things really changed Trans-Pacific and in SEA enough since United left for Delta to grow?
• Operationally is Delta’s network to Asia performing better, worse, or equal to its former Asia network out of PDX? Shareholders are not fond of cash burn when dividends have the possibility to be alot higher with simple rationalization.

This will be interesting to watch in the future especially for former SEA UAers. Told you so’s tend to alleviate some of the pain of long commutes, when things like this at Delta don’t quite turn out as planned, as it also makes it far easier to believe in and trust UA management in terms of their downsizing SEA.

Whoops posted this on the wrong thread. Thought this was the Delta thread... apologies.

Just a guess without digging out timetables. UA probably had more flights, but NW had quite a few 747/D10's at SEA, including sfort hops like PDX and GEG. They might have won the capacity side of the question.

AlexBrewster03 wrote:

Sad to see JFK-GIG go. Wonder what it was for?

GIG has almost come full-circle boom-bust back to 2004. At that time, for a few months, TP and AA were the only foreign carriers offering nonstop service to the US and Europe. Most other carriers that served the airport had a hop from GRU. It is still in relative better shape with 14 carriers offering long-haul, but far off from the busy times in 2013/2014.

GIG has almost 40 gates (plus remote stands) and now deals with 130-140 departures per day. It could easily handle 500 departures per day.

enilria wrote:

tphuang wrote:

wow, AS finally made some changes!

Regarding EWR adds by UA, isn't EWR supposedly de facto slot constrained for parts of the day now? Or is that just made up? Either way, that's a lot of additional capacity coming online.

That appears to be 15 net new RTs for November. That is odd. I wonder if they are trying to prevent any more airlines from expanding at EWR by getting the FAA to tell them it's completely full and then complaining if anybody else is approved.

In the last few months they've pulled a number of express cities out of EWR and moved them to IAD, or cancelled outright ( MHT, AVP, BWI etc.) That should give them some schedule flexibility to add these mainline trips.

KlimaBXsst wrote:

United downsized in SEA after many years and had a big North Gate operation at one time.

• Does anyone recall who was bigger in Seattle? United or Northwes?

Operationally if United could not see the merit of continuing and operating a Pacific focus city hub out of SEA even just to supplement its other Pacific operations,

• isn’t Delta a little unwise to try and replicate UA’s experience here?
• Did United have a come to Jesus moment regarding SEA’s terminal, and infrastructure limitations, as well as its population catchment area including feed?
• Have things really changed Trans-Pacific and in SEA enough since United left for Delta to grow?
• Operationally is Delta’s network to Asia performing better, worse, or equal to its former Asia network out of PDX? Shareholders are not fond of cash burn when dividends have the possibility to be alot higher with simple rationalization.

This will be interesting to watch in the future especially for former SEA UAers. Told you so’s tend to alleviate some of the pain of long commutes, when things like this at Delta don’t quite turn out as planned, as it also makes it far easier to believe in and trust UA management in terms of their downsizing SEA.

Whoops posted this on the wrong thread. Thought this was the Delta thread... apologies.

UA never had a much on their own metal other than the NRT flight.

UA never operated many widebodies there.

NW was basically a constant stream of 757's and DC-10's to MSP and DTW. They even flew the A330 there in the summer of 2007 (its only ever scheduled within-North America service by NW).

UA had more destinations, but at smaller gauge and lower frequency. UAX also had the Skywest At-Risk flying to a handful of destinations on Brasilias.

NW flew to Hawaii from SEA and had the AMS flight and often had flights to their focus cities during the summer (ie MKE or IND). UA never flew to domestic non-hubs (other than the OO at risk flying) and never flew to Hawaii from SEA.

NW had codeshare with AS, which also helped their position in the market.

So yes, I would estimate that for most of time 1990-2008, NW was bigger than UA in SEA.

jetsetter629 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

And yes, ORH really is that horrible.

I just booked an ORH-PHL flight for $78...which is was not basic economy

I booked ORH-PHL-BOS-JFK for $66 in January.

Thanks as always!

enilria wrote:

AA DFW-FSM SEP 4>5[4] OCT 4>5[4] NOV 4>5[4]

That surprises me a bit. FSM's traffic has been pretty stagnant over the last couple years (some months slightly up, some months slightly down). Looks like 4 of the 5 flights are CR9s and the other is an ERJ-145. I wonder if they're trying to push DL out, who just has 2 ATL flights on CR2s. UA doesn't even play in FSM.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

enilria wrote:

DL DTW-LIT DEC 0.6>0.0[0.6]

UA LIT-ORD NOV 3>4[4] DEC 3>4[4] JAN 3>4[3] FEB 3>4[3]

Interesting. Was DTW-LIT previously dormant in the post-holiday period only?

Looks like it's been removed completely after December. I'm sure it's been trimmed around the holidays previously, but has sustained in some manner for the last couple of years.

drdisque wrote:

NW flew to Hawaii from SEA and had the AMS flight and often had flights to their focus cities during the summer (ie MKE or IND). UA never flew to domestic non-hubs (other than the OO at risk flying) and never flew to Hawaii from SEA.

NW had codeshare with AS, which also helped their position in the market.

So yes, I would estimate that for most of time 1990-2008, NW was bigger than UA in SEA.

.

Hey thanks... that kind of explains how
Northwest, United, and Alaska managed to make the limiting infrastructure of SEA work prior to 2001.

Seems all 3 managed to coexist with two working together; so everyone had their own particular niche allowing competition and not overburdening the Seattle Airport.

I will need to read up on that NW AS codeshare.

drdisque wrote:

KlimaBXsst wrote:

United downsized in SEA after many years and had a big North Gate operation at one time.

• Does anyone recall who was bigger in Seattle? United or Northwes?

Operationally if United could not see the merit of continuing and operating a Pacific focus city hub out of SEA even just to supplement its other Pacific operations,

• isn’t Delta a little unwise to try and replicate UA’s experience here?
• Did United have a come to Jesus moment regarding SEA’s terminal, and infrastructure limitations, as well as its population catchment area including feed?
• Have things really changed Trans-Pacific and in SEA enough since United left for Delta to grow?
• Operationally is Delta’s network to Asia performing better, worse, or equal to its former Asia network out of PDX? Shareholders are not fond of cash burn when dividends have the possibility to be alot higher with simple rationalization.

This will be interesting to watch in the future especially for former SEA UAers. Told you so’s tend to alleviate some of the pain of long commutes, when things like this at Delta don’t quite turn out as planned, as it also makes it far easier to believe in and trust UA management in terms of their downsizing SEA.

Whoops posted this on the wrong thread. Thought this was the Delta thread... apologies.

UA never had a much on their own metal other than the NRT flight.

UA never operated many widebodies there.

NW was basically a constant stream of 757's and DC-10's to MSP and DTW. They even flew the A330 there in the summer of 2007 (its only ever scheduled within-North America service by NW).

UA had more destinations, but at smaller gauge and lower frequency. UAX also had the Skywest At-Risk flying to a handful of destinations on Brasilias.

NW flew to Hawaii from SEA and had the AMS flight and often had flights to their focus cities during the summer (ie MKE or IND). UA never flew to domestic non-hubs (other than the OO at risk flying) and never flew to Hawaii from SEA.

NW had codeshare with AS, which also helped their position in the market.

So yes, I would estimate that for most of time 1990-2008, NW was bigger than UA in SEA.

Actually UA did fly to HNL from SEA (was a DC10) and was even double daily at one point with one of the flights routing ORD-SEA-HNL.

I think answering the question of whether UA or NW was larger in SEA really depends on what era.

At one point UA had 5 daily 747/DC10 flights just to ORD, a 762 to JFK, multiple daily narrowbody flights to DEN, SEA, SFO and 8 daily flights to LAX. There was even, at times, mainline service to YVR, SAN and PDX in addition to the at risk OO flying around the Pacific Northwest. Internationally UA had 747/74L service to LHR, HKG and NRT....they managed to fill the North satellite by themselves. I'm sure by the turn of the millennium NW was larger than UA in SEA but up until that point I think UA may have been ahead.

What NW did really well was leverage their partnership with AS which allowed them to launch quite a few transpacific routes out of SEA. NW wasn't really that big in SEA outside of service to their hubs as well as the few international flights....NRT, AMS, KIX, SEL ect.

In the AC Summer 2019 network changes thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405343&p=21340679#p21340679 someone posted all of the changes for summer due to the MAX grounding. In there it's noted YYC-PHX is a temporary suspension due to the MAX.

Dominion301 wrote:

In the AC Summer 2019 network changes thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405343&p=21340679#p21340679 someone posted all of the changes for summer due to the MAX grounding. In there it's noted YYC-PHX is a temporary suspension due to the MAX.

I don't doubt it, but I do think what was cut by everybody signaled what was marginal. They didn't all cut their best routes or they'd be fired. I think some % of this stuff doesn't come back or comes back and doesn't survive very long. Having said that, I'm not 100% sure the MAX will fly again. I think there is a growing likelihood it never flies again. I would say that chance is still fairly small, probably under 10%, but if the plane isn't flying by the end of the year it's gonna be more like 50%. Also, keep in mind it's gonna cost A LOT to bring these planes back into service. You can't just park a plane in the desert and fly it out. It's gonna need serious maintenance to fly. Tubing dries out, for example. Even in the desert there can be corrosion. Damage from birds and animals. Batteries also don't like to sit unused. Planes like cars last longer when used than when parked.

Also, the value of these planes has cratered. They are probably worth half of what they were because of the cloud hanging over them from a consumer point of view. At some point just the raw economics will be that the cost to bring them back online will exceed the value of the plane. That's why I say 50% by 12/31. I'd say at some point next year the planes would be net negative and will never fly, at least in Europe/USA/Canada. I would assume they would rebrand the undelivered planes. I guess if you had somebody with huge balls they could buy up the grounded MAXs for quarters for a true transatlantic ULCC. Consumers will look past a lot for $99 fares. It all boils down to FAA and the path they create for getting this plane back into the air.

enilria wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

In the AC Summer 2019 network changes thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405343&p=21340679#p21340679 someone posted all of the changes for summer due to the MAX grounding. In there it's noted YYC-PHX is a temporary suspension due to the MAX.

I don't doubt it, but I do think what was cut by everybody signaled what was marginal. They didn't all cut their best routes or they'd be fired. I think some % of this stuff doesn't come back or comes back and doesn't survive very long. Having said that, I'm not 100% sure the MAX will fly again. I think there is a growing likelihood it never flies again. I would say that chance is still fairly small, probably under 10%, but if the plane isn't flying by the end of the year it's gonna be more like 50%. Also, keep in mind it's gonna cost A LOT to bring these planes back into service. You can't just park a plane in the desert and fly it out. It's gonna need serious maintenance to fly. Tubing dries out, for example. Even in the desert there can be corrosion. Damage from birds and animals. Batteries also don't like to sit unused. Planes like cars last longer when used than when parked.

Also, the value of these planes has cratered. They are probably worth half of what they were because of the cloud hanging over them from a consumer point of view. At some point just the raw economics will be that the cost to bring them back online will exceed the value of the plane. That's why I say 50% by 12/31. I'd say at some point next year the planes would be net negative and will never fly, at least in Europe/USA/Canada. I would assume they would rebrand the undelivered planes. I guess if you had somebody with huge balls they could buy up the grounded MAXs for quarters for a true transatlantic ULCC. Consumers will look past a lot for $99 fares. It all boils down to FAA and the path they create for getting this plane back into the air.

For AC, I'm pretty sure just about all, if not all of it will come back. No doubt YYC-PHX is weakest in summer, hence the cut. If this were February, something else would be cut as that's peak demand for PHX. The two routes that would be the most likely to not return are domestic, namely YXX-YYZ and YYC-YXU...which is a new route for AC (this will be their 3rd attempt at it, but first time with lower cost Rouge).

This is going off topic, but I imagine AC are getting an exemption from LHR's 'use it or lose it' policy while YHZ-LHR and YYT-LHR continue to get suspended as they're MAX routes.

A 738 is probably worth far more than a MAX these days.

enilria wrote:

DL LAX-LIH SEP 0.8>0.4[0.9] OCT 0.7>0.5[0.7] NOV 0.7>0.4[0.7] DEC 0.8>0.6[0.8]

I don't recall seeing this frequency going so low before, and the route's been around for over a decade. Maybe it's because of WN?[/quote]

Sadly DL hasn't been aggressive in Hawaii the past couple years while airlines are adding flights to KOA,HNL,LIH DL has been stagnant besides LAX-OGG sometimes going 3x daily the rest of Delta's Hawaii routes have been not up to par from mainland to Hawaii now DL is going 737-900 for the summer for KOA huh? that's almost 20 less seats.Wake up Delta Route planners!!!

enilria wrote:

EYW just needed that runway obstacle removed to grow like crazy. Took way too long. OTOH, from what I understand the locals are fed up with over-tourism. We might see that come into play ala HPN/SNA style restrictions.

I would like to see this happen. If restrictions come into play I'm sure that would open the door for some form of commercial service returning to Marathon (MTH). They have a really nice terminal ready and waiting for an airline to start flights. There's a few new hotels that have opened in Marathon after the hurricane and a few nice restaurants as well. With the Keys tourism boom recently I hope it's only a matter of time.

enilria wrote:

Dominion301 wrote:

In the AC Summer 2019 network changes thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1405343&p=21340679#p21340679 someone posted all of the changes for summer due to the MAX grounding. In there it's noted YYC-PHX is a temporary suspension due to the MAX.

I don't doubt it, but I do think what was cut by everybody signaled what was marginal. They didn't all cut their best routes or they'd be fired. I think some % of this stuff doesn't come back or comes back and doesn't survive very long. Having said that, I'm not 100% sure the MAX will fly again. I think there is a growing likelihood it never flies again. I would say that chance is still fairly small, probably under 10%, but if the plane isn't flying by the end of the year it's gonna be more like 50%. Also, keep in mind it's gonna cost A LOT to bring these planes back into service. You can't just park a plane in the desert and fly it out. It's gonna need serious maintenance to fly. Tubing dries out, for example. Even in the desert there can be corrosion. Damage from birds and animals. Batteries also don't like to sit unused. Planes like cars last longer when used than when parked.

Also, the value of these planes has cratered. They are probably worth half of what they were because of the cloud hanging over them from a consumer point of view. At some point just the raw economics will be that the cost to bring them back online will exceed the value of the plane. That's why I say 50% by 12/31. I'd say at some point next year the planes would be net negative and will never fly, at least in Europe/USA/Canada. I would assume they would rebrand the undelivered planes. I guess if you had somebody with huge balls they could buy up the grounded MAXs for quarters for a true transatlantic ULCC. Consumers will look past a lot for $99 fares. It all boils down to FAA and the path they create for getting this plane back into the air.

Wow! I have to say I am surprised that you think that the chances are that good that the type won't fly again. You do raise some very interesting points, though.