Tan Flyr wrote:
As noted in numerous other threads, business and travel articles, a lot of 50 seat jet flying will be gone. Passengers that resume travel will want either actual increased cabin space, or at least the perception of that. so, I think fewer frequencies (for a reasonable future) with more 70 seat aircraft. This also reduces staffing and costs at hub airports. And face it, a lot of traffic will take months to resume, just like after 9/11.
One other thought along this line is if the government ends up with equity holdings in airlines, politics will come into play like it was during the decades of the CAB with Presidential oversight.
That also can play a potential role in what routs are saved, and what are not.
Airlines screaming for help may have opened a pandora's box they wish had remained closed.
SBN will keep 50 seat flying for some time given proximity to both DTW and ORD. When flight is only 20-30 minutes, kind of plane you are in is less important. Flights to ATL, EWR, etc. that are longer will see 70 seaters eventually again, but not soon I don't think. Especially those run by SkyWest for maintenance will continue.
DTW and ORD are the only markets that will continue to have robust service. ATL and DFW will continue as well given the SkyWest maintenance facility. I could see CLT, MSP, and EWR all getting axed for awhile. Then there is Allegiant. Who knows what their balance sheet is like and whether they will even survive the next couple of months. I think they at least will eliminate AZA and LAS and focus on PGD, SFB, and PIE.
My guess is airlines will take this opportunity to look at their networks and make changes that would have been harder while trying to keep a full schedule. For example, DEN may become a reality as well as IAD for UA as they seek to re-balance connections at ORD and EWR (although O&D to EWR will bring it back eventually). DL might also shift some flying for connections to anywhere but Florida to DTW from ATL. AA is likely to keep both DFW and CLT, I don't see adding ORD.