With recent news of United and American growing out their respect hubs. Delta’s mega hub ATL and BOS SEA seem to get the most attention. Unlike AA or UA growing out most of their hubs not just focusing on DFW(AA) or ORD(UA). Delta has a big departure gap between ATL and it’s other large hubs DTW/MSP compared to UA and AA. DFW has 900 and CLT is close to 700 not to far behind.
UA Hubs departure: as of S19
ORD 637
IAH 533
DEN 504
EWR 432
AA
DFW 915
CLT 688
ORD 546
PHL 417
DL
ATL 1070
DTW 461
MSP 450
SLC 281
Any thought, now I’m not saying Delta should do the same but just showing the differences.

Antoli0794 wrote:

With recent news of United and American growing out their respect hubs. Delta’s mega hub ATL and BOS SEA seem to get the most attention. Unlike AA or UA growing out most of their hubs not just focusing on DFW(AA) or ORD(UA). Delta has a big departure gap between ATL and it’s other large hubs DTW/MSP compared to UA and AA. DFW has 900 and CLT is close to 700 not to far behind.
UA Hubs departure: as of S19
ORD 637
IAH 533
DEN 504
EWR 432
AA
DFW 915
CLT 688
ORD 546
PHL 417
DL
ATL 1070
DTW 461
MSP 450
SLC 281
Any thought, now I’m not saying Delta should do the same but just showing the differences.

A better metric might be ASMs, as Delta is upgauging regional filghts from 50-> 76, 76->100 etc. That is where you are probably seeing growth, not in the number of flights.

I think you make a good point that Delta has neglected their core hubs outside ATL. DL’s hubs are smaller than all the others’ hubs except PHL/EWR which are infrastructure limited. OTOH, Delta is more profitable than they are.

enilria wrote:

I think you make a good point that Delta has neglected their core hubs outside ATL. DL’s hubs are smaller than all the others’ hubs except PHL/EWR which are infrastructure limited. OTOH, Delta is more profitable than they are.

Yes Delta still is the most profitable one. All other Hubs have more potential.

Delta has hubs at JFK and LGA also.

Antoli0794 wrote:

enilria wrote:

I think you make a good point that Delta has neglected their core hubs outside ATL. DL’s hubs are smaller than all the others’ hubs except PHL/EWR which are infrastructure limited. OTOH, Delta is more profitable than they are.

Yes Delta still is the most profitable one. All other Hubs have more potential.

How do you know hub potential better than DL Revenue Management? Why do you think XX has ### departures out of ZZZ, but DL only has ### out of DTW/MSP is, in any way, a valid comparison of hub potential?

You could learn a lot from FSDan's work with departures and gauge by hub. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420609

Then review O&D passenger counts by major U.S. airports and explain - in detail, please - why you think DTW or MSP ought to have as many departures (and seats or ASMs as better measures) as DEN.

The most important output the income statement is all that matters.

Phoenix757767 wrote:

Delta has hubs at JFK and LGA also.

Both of which are slot limited. Upgauging however, is always possible.

Atlwarrior wrote:

The most important output the income statement is all that matters.

Let's see their balance sheet in about 5 years when they have neglected the hubs that make them money in favor of trying to send AS and B6 a message. Plus they reduce capacity at their other hubs to balance out capacity growth at places like SEA and BOS.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antoli0794 wrote:

enilria wrote:

I think you make a good point that Delta has neglected their core hubs outside ATL. DL’s hubs are smaller than all the others’ hubs except PHL/EWR which are infrastructure limited. OTOH, Delta is more profitable than they are.

Yes Delta still is the most profitable one. All other Hubs have more potential.

How do you know hub potential better than DL Revenue Management? Why do you think XX has ### departures out of ZZZ, but DL only has ### out of DTW/MSP is, in any way, a valid comparison of hub potential?

You could learn a lot from FSDan's work with departures and gauge by hub. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420609

Then review O&D passenger counts by major U.S. airports and explain - in detail, please - why you think DTW or MSP ought to have as many departures (and seats or ASMs as better measures) as DEN.

The point of this thread is not to defend Delta's business practice but to brainstorm why it might not work in their favor over the long haul as it loses customer loyalty because it refuses to grow at it's other hubs.

bkflyguy wrote:

Antoli0794 wrote:

With recent news of United and American growing out their respect hubs. Delta’s mega hub ATL and BOS SEA seem to get the most attention. Unlike AA or UA growing out most of their hubs not just focusing on DFW(AA) or ORD(UA). Delta has a big departure gap between ATL and it’s other large hubs DTW/MSP compared to UA and AA. DFW has 900 and CLT is close to 700 not to far behind.
UA Hubs departure: as of S19
ORD 637
IAH 533
DEN 504
EWR 432
AA
DFW 915
CLT 688
ORD 546
PHL 417
DL
ATL 1070
DTW 461
MSP 450
SLC 281
Any thought, now I’m not saying Delta should do the same but just showing the differences.

A better metric might be ASMs, as Delta is upgauging regional filghts from 50-> 76, 76->100 etc. That is where you are probably seeing growth, not in the number of flights.

This is only happening in ATL. As they ungauge in Detroit for instance they are cutting frequency to balance the capacity so there is near zero growth at Detroit.

DL will probably grow SLC when new terminal opens. First phase October 2020 and when second phase gates will jump from 71 to 77 and all jetways which will help the RJ to mainline trend.

klm617 wrote:

bkflyguy wrote:

Antoli0794 wrote:

With recent news of United and American growing out their respect hubs. Delta’s mega hub ATL and BOS SEA seem to get the most attention. Unlike AA or UA growing out most of their hubs not just focusing on DFW(AA) or ORD(UA). Delta has a big departure gap between ATL and it’s other large hubs DTW/MSP compared to UA and AA. DFW has 900 and CLT is close to 700 not to far behind.
UA Hubs departure: as of S19
ORD 637
IAH 533
DEN 504
EWR 432
AA
DFW 915
CLT 688
ORD 546
PHL 417
DL
ATL 1070
DTW 461
MSP 450
SLC 281
Any thought, now I’m not saying Delta should do the same but just showing the differences.

A better metric might be ASMs, as Delta is upgauging regional filghts from 50-> 76, 76->100 etc. That is where you are probably seeing growth, not in the number of flights.

This is only happening in ATL. As they ungauge in Detroit for instance they are cutting frequency to balance the capacity so there is near zero growth at Detroit.

Wrong. Again.

In 2019 (12 months ending Oct 2019), DL will have flown 290,116 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 32.3M seats with of course some small adjustments for cancellations, etc.
In 2020 per the schedule (12 months ending Oct 2020), DL will fly 304,150 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 34.5M seats.

Do better.

Delta concentrates on it's focus cities and NINE official hubs, and as such they have more traffic in their outer network, than in the 4 core hubs listed below.
This is not a weakness. It is an advantage.

DTW and MSP are complimentary Hubs in the upper Midwest, and in some cases redundant. SLC is important for Regional flying, but SEA and LAX are more important for west coast International operations. JFK, and LGA are going to grow as the new terminals are finished, and aside from the regional traffic, they will compliment BOS on Transatlantic Operations.

Atlanta is just a great connection point for the Southeast, and will always hold the large core, unless Delta wants to reopen Memphis and split traffic like DTW and MSP.

With RDU ,AUS, and CVG as focus cities, Delta's growth will continue throughout the network.

Atlwarrior wrote:

The most important output the income statement is all that matters.

For the company, partially. For the public, generally no. For those that are paid by stock price, generally yes.

Restricting capacity at MSP, DTW, SLC, ATL, etc. is likely harming the income statement in some important metrics. What I mean by that is if DL is running a margin-maximizing strategy (a Wall Street favorite), total revenue and profit are sacrificed for margins. It's quite likely that DL is taking less profit to retain high margins. It's most evident at MSP, DTW, and ATL. We know in previous years that they were mentioned as having the highest margins, and this is a company running margins in the teens. That indicates to us that margins at those hubs are likely at least ~20+%, maybe even 25-30% during peak times. Additional capacity at those margins can be assumed to have a healthy margin of profit. However if you're running for margins, you generally hold back capacity up to the margin maximizing level. Strategic plays such as SEA and BOS not only "take away" from the high margin hubs operationally in the form of airplanes and staff, it also "takes away" financially in the form of capital and profit goals. Let's say SEA and BOS are break-even. In order to attain an overall margin of X percent, the high margin hubs have to provide a certain margin to counteract low margins with the strategic capacity additions. Under that margin goal, DL won't add very profitable capacity that misses overall margin goals. DL has high incentive not to add capacity above and beyond a general natural demand increase. The only way this situation ends is if competition increases, but currently the meager competition at MSP at DTW is actually declining (I haven't checked ATL and SLC). Until then, local passengers at DL fortress hubs have to deal with low supply and high fares, and part of that is for the benefit of travelers in cities such as SEA, BOS, NYC, and more. It's a frustrating position to be in as a passenger.

Short conclusion: DL won't be unusually growing MSP, DTW, and SLC anytime soon.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

This thread is likely to go off the rails in short order and we're going to hear the same old arguments about how DL is screwing DTW, MSP, SLC from the usual suspects.
Let's at least acknowledge each airline is different from their network strengths, how they deploy domestic capacity, and their business strategy.
Its a fallacy to assume that all hubs could be equal.

And it's off the rails . . .

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

bkflyguy wrote:

A better metric might be ASMs, as Delta is upgauging regional filghts from 50-> 76, 76->100 etc. That is where you are probably seeing growth, not in the number of flights.

This is only happening in ATL. As they ungauge in Detroit for instance they are cutting frequency to balance the capacity so there is near zero growth at Detroit.

Wrong. Again.

In 2019 (12 months ending Oct 2019), DL will have flown 290,116 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 32.3M seats with of course some small adjustments for cancellations, etc.
In 2020 per the schedule (12 months ending Oct 2020), DL will fly 304,150 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 34.5M seats.

Do better.

2020 hasn't happened yet.

PVD has service to 7 of the 12 listed. DFW seems like one that has some chance of happening someday.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

This thread is likely to go off the rails in short order and we're going to hear the same old arguments about how DL is screwing DTW, MSP, SLC from the usual suspects.
Let's at least acknowledge each airline is different from their network strengths, how they deploy domestic capacity, and their business strategy.
Its a fallacy to assume that all hubs could be equal.

Or the usual suspects defending Delta at the expense of the airports and customers in DTW, SLC and MSP. Just because you don't agree with a fact doesn't mean it isn't true. The good people of DTW, MSP and SLC are paying for the cheap seats that are being dumped into BOS at the moment. One thing I must say it was a great move by Delta consolidating the M88 flying out of ATL so when there is a service disruption there the system is less impacted than it was before.

klm617 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

This thread is likely to go off the rails in short order and we're going to hear the same old arguments about how DL is screwing DTW, MSP, SLC from the usual suspects.
Let's at least acknowledge each airline is different from their network strengths, how they deploy domestic capacity, and their business strategy.
Its a fallacy to assume that all hubs could be equal.

Or the usual suspects defending Delta at the expense of the airports and customers in DTW, SLC and MSP. Just because you don't agree with a fact doesn't mean it isn't true. The good people of DTW, MSP and SLC are paying for the cheap seats that are being dumped into BOS at the moment. One thing I must say it was a great move by Delta consolidating the M88 flying out of ATL so when there is a service disruption there the system is less impacted than it was before.

I haven't heard any issues with MD-88 reliability. The MD-88's are consolidated in ATL because there are many short flights with mainline demand that the MD-88 can operate efficiently.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

This is only happening in ATL. As they ungauge in Detroit for instance they are cutting frequency to balance the capacity so there is near zero growth at Detroit.

Wrong. Again.

In 2019 (12 months ending Oct 2019), DL will have flown 290,116 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 32.3M seats with of course some small adjustments for cancellations, etc.
In 2020 per the schedule (12 months ending Oct 2020), DL will fly 304,150 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 34.5M seats.

Do better.

2020 hasn't happened yet.

You're aware that airlines ... sell tickets... in advance ... right?

Not all hubs are the same or simply defined by capacity and number of flights. I’d like to know the “role” each plays in the network strategy... which is designed to maximize DL’s profits.

ATL
JFK
LGA
BOS
DTW
MSP
SLC
LAX
SEA

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Wrong. Again.

In 2019 (12 months ending Oct 2019), DL will have flown 290,116 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 32.3M seats with of course some small adjustments for cancellations, etc.
In 2020 per the schedule (12 months ending Oct 2020), DL will fly 304,150 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 34.5M seats.

Do better.

2020 hasn't happened yet.

You're aware that airlines ... sell tickets... in advance ... right?

Absolutely but I have been schedule changes because the flight I booked in advance didn't exist anymore.

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

2020 hasn't happened yet.

You're aware that airlines ... sell tickets... in advance ... right?

Absolutely but I have been schedule changes because the flight I booked in advance didn't exist anymore.

Let's be very clear here - DL will deploy more capacity in/out of DTW in 2020 when compared to 2019 - that's called growth, and here it's worth pointing out that they grew from 2018 to 2019. To say that DL is not growing in DTW is a false statement. the end.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Or the usual suspects defending Delta at the expense of the airports and customers in DTW, SLC and MSP. Just because you don't agree with a fact doesn't mean it isn't true. The good people of DTW, MSP and SLC are paying for the cheap seats that are being dumped into BOS at the moment. One thing I must say it was a great move by Delta consolidating the M88 flying out of ATL so when there is a service disruption there the system is less impacted than it was before.

I haven't heard any issues with MD-88 reliability. The MD-88's are consolidated in ATL because there are many short flights with mainline demand that the MD-88 can operate efficiently.

There are some issues being confounded some of that.

The MD88s were originally consolidated to ATL for a variety of reasons in Summer 2018, primarily to start the preparation for the fleet draw-down.
The MD88s were first pulled from LGA/JFK for a combination of product and allegedly due to space/upgrade capabilites on the FMS
Then MD88s were consolidated to ATL as a way to consolidate to a single pilot base, enable all the aircraft to fly out-and-backs from ATL, and consolidate spare parts inventory. Thus the net effect of increasing operational reliabiltiy as well as simplifying complexity across the network.

Some of this wasn't just for MD-88s, DL started on an initiative last year to rationalize the number of fleet types and/or RONs in outstations where it was feasible. Thus to help reduce operational complexity, enable better IRROP recovery, and increase operational reliability. This helped with crew scheduling, overnight maintenance, tail swaps/aircraft routing, spare parts and the like.

Yes and that was the point I was trying to make. So kudos to them for being proactive in correcting this problem because in the past it was a pretty good chance that the aircraft that flew trough the eastern hubs at some point touched ATL cause huge problems if there was a meltdown at the ATL hub. So yes I see the good that Delta does but I also see it when they are not so good at something.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

You're aware that airlines ... sell tickets... in advance ... right?

Absolutely but I have been schedule changes because the flight I booked in advance didn't exist anymore.

Let's be very clear here - DL will deploy more capacity in/out of DTW in 2020 when compared to 2019 - that's called growth, and here it's worth pointing out that they grew from 2018 to 2019. To say that DL is not growing in DTW is a false statement. the end.

Yes but the growth at Detroit and Minneapolis is microscopic because the need to restrict capacity else where to feed the BOS growth and they're not taking it out of ATL Again nothing is definite until 2020 is over. I don't call 3% real growth you might but I don't. Again it has taken Detroit over 10 years to match it's highest enplanement year and Detroit was better served during the crash of 2009 and things are going strong here now so the growth isn't matching what the market will bear the growth is based on restricting the market here keeping prices as high as it can without causing a revolt.

klm617 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antoli0794 wrote:

Yes Delta still is the most profitable one. All other Hubs have more potential.

How do you know hub potential better than DL Revenue Management? Why do you think XX has ### departures out of ZZZ, but DL only has ### out of DTW/MSP is, in any way, a valid comparison of hub potential?

You could learn a lot from FSDan's work with departures and gauge by hub. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420609

Then review O&D passenger counts by major U.S. airports and explain - in detail, please - why you think DTW or MSP ought to have as many departures (and seats or ASMs as better measures) as DEN.

The point of this thread is not to defend Delta's business practice but to brainstorm why it might not work in their favor over the long haul as it loses customer loyalty because it refuses to grow at it's other hubs.

Forget to switch back to your alt account?

DL can't really grow at JFK and LGA, out of which they operate a combined approximately 500 daily flights, but they are up-gauging. The days of 50-seat Delta Connection jets at either will soon be history, and at LGA, most MD service has been replaced by A321 service. Smaller markets to JFK or LGA will likely see a connection switched to BOS or ATL or get axed completely.

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

winginit wrote:

Wrong. Again.

In 2019 (12 months ending Oct 2019), DL will have flown 290,116 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 32.3M seats with of course some small adjustments for cancellations, etc.
In 2020 per the schedule (12 months ending Oct 2020), DL will fly 304,150 flights in/out of DTW comprised of 34.5M seats.

Do better.

2020 hasn't happened yet.

You're aware that airlines ... sell tickets... in advance ... right?

Per winginit's figures that's about an 7% increase in planned seats, year over year, which is a pretty good increase for an operation that size.

bluefltspecial wrote:

winginit wrote:

klm617 wrote:

2020 hasn't happened yet.

You're aware that airlines ... sell tickets... in advance ... right?

Per winginit's figures that's about an 7% increase in planned seats, year over year, which is a pretty good increase for an operation that size.

Lets see what the overall numbers really look like at the end of 2020

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27904/000168316818003681/delta_8k-ex9902.htm
To understand the role of the hubs, go here to pages 15-17

Core Interior Hubs that focus on connectivity (ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC)
- Industry leading margins
- Ideal geographies
- Strong local position (O&D, in particularly premium demand)
- Best customer experience
- High operational reliability
- Low cost per emplanement

Coastal Gateway for Future Margin Improvement: (NYC, SEA, LAX, BOS)

I'm curious to know what analogous roles United and American would categorize their hubs by.

winginit wrote:

Let's be very clear here - DL will deploy more capacity in/out of DTW in 2020 when compared to 2019 - that's called growth, and here it's worth pointing out that they grew from 2018 to 2019. To say that DL is not growing in DTW is a false statement. the end.

It's safe to say there will be more capacity in 2020, but it's not a fact at this point. And the amount that it will grow is absolutely not something to count on. The vast majority of 2020's schedule is subject to change. It's very common for capacity to be scaled back as the lead time winds down. It's actually a sly way of improving business too.

P.S. We're not far from DL traffic shrinking at DTW (2017 - I couldn't find 2018 data)

How about HND once the fifth runway and 4th terminal start operation?

klm617 wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

The most important output the income statement is all that matters.

Let's see their balance sheet in about 5 years when they have neglected the hubs that make them money in favor of trying to send AS and B6 a message. Plus they reduce capacity at their other hubs to balance out capacity growth at places like SEA and BOS.

I’m going to short you on that.

TTailedTiger wrote:

klm617 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

This thread is likely to go off the rails in short order and we're going to hear the same old arguments about how DL is screwing DTW, MSP, SLC from the usual suspects.
Let's at least acknowledge each airline is different from their network strengths, how they deploy domestic capacity, and their business strategy.
Its a fallacy to assume that all hubs could be equal.

Or the usual suspects defending Delta at the expense of the airports and customers in DTW, SLC and MSP. Just because you don't agree with a fact doesn't mean it isn't true. The good people of DTW, MSP and SLC are paying for the cheap seats that are being dumped into BOS at the moment. One thing I must say it was a great move by Delta consolidating the M88 flying out of ATL so when there is a service disruption there the system is less impacted than it was before.

I haven't heard any issues with MD-88 reliability. The MD-88's are consolidated in ATL because there are many short flights with mainline demand that the MD-88 can operate efficiently.

Surely you jest.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DL can't really grow at JFK and LGA, out of which they operate a combined approximately 500 daily flights, but they are up-gauging.

Upgauging while retaining existing frequency at slot controlled airports is growth.

DL747400 wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DL can't really grow at JFK and LGA, out of which they operate a combined approximately 500 daily flights, but they are up-gauging.

Upgauging while retaining existing frequency at slot controlled airports is growth.

Right, DL has actually grown quite a bit in NYC recently. A lot of upgauging and they are slowly using up every available slot they can get their hands on. There is a limit to how far that can go, but I don't think we've reached it yet.

Seems like JFK would have a lot of room to grow if regional frequencies were reduced and/or upgauged. For instance, DL flies 3x daily JFK-PWM on CRJ9'S and CRJ2's. That could easily change to 2x daily with CRJ9's or 1x daily 717/A319.

Do you think JFK would need a lot of infrastructure updates to accommodate such growth?

aemoreira1981 wrote:

DL can't really grow at JFK and LGA, out of which they operate a combined approximately 500 daily flights, but they are up-gauging. The days of 50-seat Delta Connection jets at either will soon be history, and at LGA, most MD service has been replaced by A321 service. Smaller markets to JFK or LGA will likely see a connection switched to BOS or ATL or get axed completely.

There are some more nonstop routes out of LGA that DL could upgauge to A220's or bigger planes from regional jets such as LGA-BUF, LGA-CHS, LGA-CLT, LGA-CLE, LGA-CMH, LGA-IND, LGA-JAX, LGA-MCI, LGA-MKE, LGA-BNA, LGA-PIT, and LGA-RDU.

There are also a few more nonstop routes such as LGA-HSV, LGA-LIT, LGA-OKC, and LGA-TUL that could be added by DL out of LGA if DL reduces frequencies on other nonstop routes out of LGA.

Fex180 wrote:

Seems like JFK would have a lot of room to grow if regional frequencies were reduced and/or upgauged. For instance, DL flies 3x daily JFK-PWM on CRJ9'S and CRJ2's. That could easily change to 2x daily with CRJ9's or 1x daily 717/A319.

That used to be mainline on one frequency but got downgauged.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/27904/000168316818003681/delta_8k-ex9902.htm
To understand the role of the hubs, go here to pages 15-17

Core Interior Hubs that focus on connectivity (ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC)
- Industry leading margins
- Ideal geographies
- Strong local position (O&D, in particularly premium demand)
- Best customer experience
- High operational reliability
- Low cost per emplanement

Coastal Gateway for Future Margin Improvement: (NYC, SEA, LAX, BOS)

Thanks for the link. Actually really good info. In addition, here are the DTW stats YTD Sept 2019 (from www.metroairport.com)

Mainline:
2018 passengers - 7,994,944
2019 passengers - 8,462,475 + 5.8%

2018 operations - 94,104
2019 operations - 100,034 + 6.3%

Regional:
2018 passengers - 3,815,293
2019 passengers - 3,824,679 +.2%

2018 operations - 123,154
2019 operations - 119,724 -2.8%

Total
2018 passengers - 11,810,237
2019 passengers - 12,287,154 +4.0%

2018 operations - 217,258
2019 operations - 219,758 + 1.1%

Looks like DTW is having a good year. Significant up gauging with the passenger count to match.

MSPNWA wrote:

winginit wrote:

Let's be very clear here - DL will deploy more capacity in/out of DTW in 2020 when compared to 2019 - that's called growth, and here it's worth pointing out that they grew from 2018 to 2019. To say that DL is not growing in DTW is a false statement. the end.

It's safe to say there will be more capacity in 2020, but it's not a fact at this point. And the amount that it will grow is absolutely not something to count on. The vast majority of 2020's schedule is subject to change. It's very common for capacity to be scaled back as the lead time winds down. It's actually a sly way of improving business too.

P.S. We're not far from DL traffic shrinking at DTW (2017 - I couldn't find 2018 data)

Schedules change between what's published and what is eventually flown, but rarely by more than fractions of a point in order to remain in line with guidance given to investors.

and depending on what time frame you're looking at, we're not close to DL shrinking at DTW - a comparison between FY18 and FY19 seems most relevant as the 2019 schedule won't change in these last few weeks:

FY18: 287,246 Flights, 31.2M Seats
FY19: 291,743 Flights, 32.6M Seats

We call that growth

MSPNWA wrote:

It's safe to say there will be more capacity in 2020, but it's not a fact at this point. And the amount that it will grow is absolutely not something to count on. The vast majority of 2020's schedule is subject to change. It's very common for capacity to be scaled back as the lead time winds down. It's actually a sly way of improving business too.

P.S. We're not far from DL traffic shrinking at DTW (2017 - I couldn't find 2018 data)

Wow, that's a new one to me.......Too much advance planning has occurred to say six weeks before year-end to state that "the vast majority of 2020's schedule is subject to change"

What part of the published or projected schedule are you using for example?

Significant advance planning occurs before a schedule is published, or before an airline goes before an analyst call an to advise ASM guidance for an upcoming year.

Think:

-Budgets/revenue projections
-HR requirements
-Fleet MRO planning
-Projected pilot needs
-Marketing and corporate sales programs

Not following advance schedule projections will usually negatively effect the above mentioned items and many other internal metrics.

DL, or for that matter, any US3 advance schedules are subject to change- but they don't significantly vary from plan unless circumstances greatly change in an unexpected manner. (think MAX grounding or a SARS outbreak for example)

During my time in the industry I never heard or saw evidence of an airline scaling back a published schedule as a "sly way of improving business". Unless a flight/market has significant negative margins, airlines don't reduce capacity in any macro scale. Micro capacity adjustments occur, but the capacity is normally shifted to other profitable opportunities to make use of assets. I wouldn't consider cancelling a poorly performing flight as being "sly".

Maybe I have misunderstood your premise here?

TTailedTiger wrote:

klm617 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

This thread is likely to go off the rails in short order and we're going to hear the same old arguments about how DL is screwing DTW, MSP, SLC from the usual suspects.
Let's at least acknowledge each airline is different from their network strengths, how they deploy domestic capacity, and their business strategy.
Its a fallacy to assume that all hubs could be equal.

Or the usual suspects defending Delta at the expense of the airports and customers in DTW, SLC and MSP. Just because you don't agree with a fact doesn't mean it isn't true. The good people of DTW, MSP and SLC are paying for the cheap seats that are being dumped into BOS at the moment. One thing I must say it was a great move by Delta consolidating the M88 flying out of ATL so when there is a service disruption there the system is less impacted than it was before.

I haven't heard any issues with MD-88 reliability. The MD-88's are consolidated in ATL because there are many short flights with mainline demand that the MD-88 can operate efficiently.

There consolidated due to limited parts & being able to quick fix if all based in ATL.