• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12
 
blockski
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:09 pm

N649DL wrote:
I'm convinced his TPG article is just another "fear mongering" spin by the media over this virus. So DL is going to downsize and emerge? What then about UA considering 80% of it's stock went into an equity buy back program? Seems like UA compared to DL should be in liquidation mode (AA probably even worse than UA.)

...

I'll go out on limb here and just say this article is absolute garbage. What does TPG know about running the logistics of a global airline? (Mic Drop.)


Fear-mongering spin? The article has direct quotes from Delta's CFO!

The reporter got access to an employee webinar and reported the comments. It's a story about Delta - comments about UA or AA are irrelevant.

People need to calm the F-down and wise up. Remember N1H1? Neither do I, but it was more deadly and no bars or restaurants shut down back in 2009: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic


H1N1 will not be more deadly than this. The reason you don't remember it is because it's a completely different situation.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 4689
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:26 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

Yeah...no.

Delta dominate those two markets and giving up either would be brain dead. Besides, MSP doesn’t have near the high fare long haul O&D that DTW has.


Do you have any data to support this? You're the first person I've ever heard say that DTW has a fare premium over MSP.


I specifically said long haul premium travel and yes it does. Domestically the fares are higher to MSP. DTW-Asia is MUCH bigger than MSP-Asia in O&D. DTW-Europe is also larger in O&D.

Why do you think DL made DTW its Asia hub despite the fact that MSP has a better geographic location? How does DTW support service to NGO when no other airport in North America does? Why do DL and LH compete on DTW-FRA/MUC when they dont fly to MSP from either?


Are you accounting for yield in your domestic number? Yes, MSP fares might be higher, but I'd venture to say the average distance flown from MSP is sizably longer than DTW due to MSP's location. It might be similar to how HNL has high fares, but accounting for distance flown means the fares aren't actually that high, relatively speaking.

Back to the point at hand though, I think it is clear that DTW & MSP are safe from being dehubbed, it's surprising to me that people even view it as a possibility.
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 3:58 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Do you have any data to support this? You're the first person I've ever heard say that DTW has a fare premium over MSP.


I specifically said long haul premium travel and yes it does. Domestically the fares are higher to MSP. DTW-Asia is MUCH bigger than MSP-Asia in O&D. DTW-Europe is also larger in O&D.

Why do you think DL made DTW its Asia hub despite the fact that MSP has a better geographic location? How does DTW support service to NGO when no other airport in North America does? Why do DL and LH compete on DTW-FRA/MUC when they dont fly to MSP from either?


Are you accounting for yield in your domestic number? Yes, MSP fares might be higher, but I'd venture to say the average distance flown from MSP is sizably longer than DTW due to MSP's location. It might be similar to how HNL has high fares, but accounting for distance flown means the fares aren't actually that high, relatively speaking.

Back to the point at hand though, I think it is clear that DTW & MSP are safe from being dehubbed, it's surprising to me that people even view it as a possibility.


Excellent point and yes, MSP and DTW are both far too valuable to give up. Every hub everywhere is going to see a reduction in flights after we recover for a bit. But I dont think we will see any core airline hubs done away with. Focus cities are a different matter.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
Prost
Posts: 2536
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:25 pm

AirFiero wrote:
I really don’t get why people (including the DL CEO) say this will cause a permanent 30% decline in air travel. Supposedly, DL was making money just a few weeks ago with that level of service. If the demand was there, why wouldn’t it rebound when the virus problems are over?


Because people are shaken to their core and will probably reassess how much travel they were doing. A lot of work is being done efficiently from home and on-line meetings, this may become the new norm.
 
klakzky123
Posts: 684
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:05 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:33 pm

Prost wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
I really don’t get why people (including the DL CEO) say this will cause a permanent 30% decline in air travel. Supposedly, DL was making money just a few weeks ago with that level of service. If the demand was there, why wouldn’t it rebound when the virus problems are over?


Because people are shaken to their core and will probably reassess how much travel they were doing. A lot of work is being done efficiently from home and on-line meetings, this may become the new norm.


That and there will be substantial long term economic damage. People don't fly as much when they're unemployed and companies reduce travel when they're under stress.
 
Northwest1988
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:10 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:36 pm

I think when all is said and done these companies are going to say “you know we saved a lot of money doing all this from home... why not keep it up?”
 
bkflyguy
Posts: 223
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 4:43 pm

Midwestindy wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Back to the point at hand though, I think it is clear that DTW & MSP are safe from being dehubbed, it's surprising to me that people even view it as a possibility.


In the near- to mid-term, I think all hubs will remain but will see significant frequency reductions and the loss of some routes. If the COVID-19 lockdown/extreme travel downturn continues beyond 6 months, then anything is possible.
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 985
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:14 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:

International travel will be very light for the next 2-5 years. That's not good news for DTW. Passengers will either pay for a premium for the few nonstops from JFK or they will connect in LAX or SFO. DTW and ORD will both suffer. No one is going to pay extra for connection from the Midwest. There will be the high end and low end. No middle ground.

That is just your guess, not a fact.
 
danipawa
Posts: 259
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 1:18 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:28 pm

with 74 MD88/90 going, how many 767 could be retiring too ? maybe the can pickup few B721 from volotea
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:37 pm

Swadian wrote:
IWMBH wrote:
But, why wouldn't air traffic return to normal after the virus outbreak is over? In Europe most governments are pouring money into their economies to keep businesses 'alive' till they can reopen again after the crises. I'm sure the US economy will also get incentivises.


Because the government can't keep bailing out everyone when no one is working, paying taxes, or putting money back into the economy.


Actually the US is in a unique position no other country in the world has the luxury. The US Dollar is the world’s reserve currency. All other currency is measured against the Dollar. Oil, the life blood of the world and arguably the most important commodity, is traded in US Dollars. Despite our large deficit and national debt our debt to quite ratio so to speak is comparatively low. In fact, the US has run much higher debt spending to GDP In the past than we are currently.

If you look at the US in terms of a business with assets we are extremely stable. Although debt numbers may seem staggering compared to our natural resources and economic potential it’s remarkably low. The US has more oil reserve than the rest of world has ever discovered. We haven’t even come close to fully exploiting Alaska and vast reserves in National Parks ect.

We have the worlds strongest military many times over. Just our Navy alone is stronger than the next 7 countries combined.

Bottom line is the US has the luxury to print money “virtually” endlessly without destroying our economy. As long as oil and the world trades in dollars we are completely stable and in an excellent position. We have 11, soon to be 12 nuclear aircraft carriers to make sure the world continues to trade in dollars.

We are fine. The US has been and will continue to be the stabilizing factor in the entire world for the foreseeable future. The best days of the USA and the world have yet to be seen.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 5:46 pm

Prost wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
I really don’t get why people (including the DL CEO) say this will cause a permanent 30% decline in air travel. Supposedly, DL was making money just a few weeks ago with that level of service. If the demand was there, why wouldn’t it rebound when the virus problems are over?


Because people are shaken to their core and will probably reassess how much travel they were doing. A lot of work is being done efficiently from home and on-line meetings, this may become the new norm.


Saying people are “shaken to the core” is a gross overstatement and misrepresentation. I went out to dinner Friday night and the resturant was packed. Same with the bar I went to afterwards. I’m at my beach condo and the beaches are packed—not as much as normal but hardly a ghost town. The media has over hyped this as well as many political leaders for political gains in an election year. Some areas of the country are affected much greater than others. The US is a huge country and many places are business almost as normal. Of course that makes for boring Tv showing normal store and a normal transaction taking place.

Yes have an overall reduction in commerce, especially traveling and flying, but planes are still flying and people are still traveling. This whole situation will fade to a memory the same as after a hurricane batters a city. The recovery will be epically fast.
 
tphuang
Posts: 4114
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:10 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
Prost wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
I really don’t get why people (including the DL CEO) say this will cause a permanent 30% decline in air travel. Supposedly, DL was making money just a few weeks ago with that level of service. If the demand was there, why wouldn’t it rebound when the virus problems are over?


Because people are shaken to their core and will probably reassess how much travel they were doing. A lot of work is being done efficiently from home and on-line meetings, this may become the new norm.


Saying people are “shaken to the core” is a gross overstatement and misrepresentation. I went out to dinner Friday night and the resturant was packed. Same with the bar I went to afterwards. I’m at my beach condo and the beaches are packed—not as much as normal but hardly a ghost town. The media has over hyped this as well as many political leaders for political gains in an election year. Some areas of the country are affected much greater than others. The US is a huge country and many places are business almost as normal. Of course that makes for boring Tv showing normal store and a normal transaction taking place.

Yes have an overall reduction in commerce, especially traveling and flying, but planes are still flying and people are still traveling. This whole situation will fade to a memory the same as after a hurricane batters a city. The recovery will be epically fast.


New York hospital right now is about 2 weeks away from being completely overwhelmed by this. Over 100 New Yorkers died from this on just Sunday. And things are only going to get worse as the number of cases continue to increase here. So yes, people are shaken here and staying at their homes. Frankly, this will reach many other part of country if they are not watching out for this. So no, this is not a media hyped political event.
 
Gangurru
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2019 7:30 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:11 pm

twaconnie wrote:
No one knows the future, but it's sure fun to speculate,


This was a distressing comment to read. I work for an overseas competitor of Delta. Like hundreds of thousands of fellow airline people across the world, we are facing stand down. It’s a deeply unsettling time.

It’s not fun.

It’s natural to consider the future of the industry after events like this, but it’s vital that we do it respectfully.

Let us all be vigilant with our words and posts at this time. There are vulnerable people out there. Let’s not add to their pain.
 
micstatic
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:16 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
Prost wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
I really don’t get why people (including the DL CEO) say this will cause a permanent 30% decline in air travel. Supposedly, DL was making money just a few weeks ago with that level of service. If the demand was there, why wouldn’t it rebound when the virus problems are over?




Saying people are “shaken to the core” is a gross overstatement and misrepresentation. I went out to dinner Friday night and the resturant was packed. Same with the bar I went to afterwards. I’m at my beach condo and the beaches are packed—not as much as normal but hardly a ghost town. The media has over hyped this as well as many political leaders for political gains in an election year. Some areas of the country are affected much greater than others. The US is a huge country and many places are business almost as normal. Of course that makes for boring Tv showing normal store and a normal transaction taking place.

Yes have an overall reduction in commerce, especially traveling and flying, but planes are still flying and people are still traveling. This whole situation will fade to a memory the same as after a hurricane batters a city. The recovery will be epically fast.


Thanks for doing your part to possibly spread the virus you may have and not know for a couple weeks. :roll:
S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:21 pm

micstatic wrote:
MD80Ttail wrote:
Prost wrote:



Saying people are “shaken to the core” is a gross overstatement and misrepresentation. I went out to dinner Friday night and the resturant was packed. Same with the bar I went to afterwards. I’m at my beach condo and the beaches are packed—not as much as normal but hardly a ghost town. The media has over hyped this as well as many political leaders for political gains in an election year. Some areas of the country are affected much greater than others. The US is a huge country and many places are business almost as normal. Of course that makes for boring Tv showing normal store and a normal transaction taking place.

Yes have an overall reduction in commerce, especially traveling and flying, but planes are still flying and people are still traveling. This whole situation will fade to a memory the same as after a hurricane batters a city. The recovery will be epically fast.


Thanks for doing your part to possibly spread the virus you may have and not know for a couple weeks. :roll:


If you are vulnerable or high risk isolate yourself. That’s not my responsibility to do. In the last 2 weeks I’ve been in a dozen plus states and 4 different countries and dozens and dozens of restaurants. I have no plans to stop or curtail my activities. It’s called work. I’m an airline pilot. I fly planes. I eat out. I travel places.
Last edited by MD80Ttail on Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2223
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:21 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
Saying people are “shaken to the core” is a gross overstatement and misrepresentation. I went out to dinner Friday night and the resturant was packed. Same with the bar I went to afterwards. I’m at my beach condo and the beaches are packed—not as much as normal but hardly a ghost town. The media has over hyped this as well as many political leaders for political gains in an election year. Some areas of the country are affected much greater than others. The US is a huge country and many places are business almost as normal. Of course that makes for boring Tv showing normal store and a normal transaction taking place.

Yes have an overall reduction in commerce, especially traveling and flying, but planes are still flying and people are still traveling. This whole situation will fade to a memory the same as after a hurricane batters a city. The recovery will be epically fast.


This comment exemplifies the disconnect many people have right now about COVID-19. Florida isn't immune from the virus and the number of cases is rising rapidly. Going out to dinner and packing beaches spreads the virus. If people are going about "business as usual," they are part of the problem.

The end result will be instead of a few weeks of shut down and intense pain, we will be in for many many months of the same thing with a lot more suffering.

None of the airlines are predicting a rapid recovery. What they are doing are parking planes now and moving forward retirement plans for entire fleets. AA will retire the 767 and 757s, UA will retire the PW powered 757s and may retire some 777s, Delta is retiring the MD series, some of them early.

This isn't a short term situation.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:23 pm

So per you I should quit my job and refuse to fly? (You know the cargo holds are packed full of supplies even if the pax loads are lower)
 
micstatic
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:25 pm

tough spot you are in as an airline pilot right now bud. I hate it for you. Many of my best friends are also.
S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:28 pm

micstatic wrote:
tough spot you are in as an airline pilot right now bud. I hate it for you. Many of my best friends are also.



As long as I am healthy I plan to continue to fly and to work. If I have any symptoms I will be tested immediately. Once tests become more available and I can get tested while feeling healthy without causing a person in need to miss out on a test then I will get tested regularly. If I test positive, asymptomatic or not, I will quarantine myself as follow medical protocols.
 
User avatar
NameOmitted
Posts: 774
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:59 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:31 pm

ckfred wrote:
But, when people get cooped up, they will make up for lost time, once they can get out and about.

When they can. A lot of my friends are now unemployed. Even assuming this resolves quickly, it'll be awhile before they have built the reserves to start traveling.

We have a Federal Reserve Bank President warning of the possibility of 30% unemployment. That's not just a matter of people being told to stay home anymore. That's a game changer for the industry. For ALL industry.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2223
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:32 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
So per you I should quit my job and refuse to fly? (You know the cargo holds are packed full of supplies even if the pax loads are lower)


Not at all. You are working in an identified critical sector. If you are off-duty and not flying, you should be at home. It's the folks who think they are special and the rules do not apply to them which is making the situation untenable. You only need to look at Italy and now NYC to see how this plays out.
Last edited by SonomaFlyer on Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
micstatic
Posts: 752
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2001 10:07 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:32 pm

that's great. The point is that it takes upwards of 2 weeks to show symptoms. The average Corona patient spreads it to 2.5-3 people. Only around 1 with flu. Then those people spread it. And on we go. So yes that's why I'd rather shut everything down for a few weeks completely in hopes of getting this thing to be something that doesn't live on and cause more longterm economic destruction.
S340,DH8,AT7,CR2/7,E135/45/170/190,319,320,717,732,733,734,735,737,738,744,752,762,763,764,772,M80,M90
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:39 pm

micstatic wrote:
that's great. The point is that it takes upwards of 2 weeks to show symptoms. The average Corona patient spreads it to 2.5-3 people. Only around 1 with flu. Then those people spread it. And on we go. So yes that's why I'd rather shut everything down for a few weeks completely in hopes of getting this thing to be something that doesn't live on and cause more longterm economic destruction.



That’s insanity. People at high risk should quarantine themselves. You simply can’t and shouldn’t shutdown the entire economy. How do you plan to get supplies from point A to B? Planes, trucks and ships need people to operate them.

The media is overhyping this as well as politicians. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone. For some it’s the election. Some it’s the environment. Some it’s making money off the market. Everyone has an agenda. The media is not your friend. The hype level is massive. I can tell you for seeing first hand it’s not as dire as portrayed.
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 1746
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 6:49 pm

Please keep this thread on topic or it will be locked.
 
Exeiowa
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 4:49 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 8:03 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
micstatic wrote:
that's great. The point is that it takes upwards of 2 weeks to show symptoms. The average Corona patient spreads it to 2.5-3 people. Only around 1 with flu. Then those people spread it. And on we go. So yes that's why I'd rather shut everything down for a few weeks completely in hopes of getting this thing to be something that doesn't live on and cause more longterm economic destruction.



That’s insanity. People at high risk should quarantine themselves. You simply can’t and shouldn’t shutdown the entire economy. How do you plan to get supplies from point A to B? Planes, trucks and ships need people to operate them.

The media is overhyping this as well as politicians. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone. For some it’s the election. Some it’s the environment. Some it’s making money off the market. Everyone has an agenda. The media is not your friend. The hype level is massive. I can tell you for seeing first hand it’s not as dire as portrayed.


I have an agenda I would like to not get sick or spread it to people I know. When its all done I will start traveling on Delta and other carriers again.
 
User avatar
ER757
Posts: 3676
Joined: Tue May 10, 2005 10:16 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 9:09 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
People in Washington have taken social distancing very seriously. Buses with normal loads of 30+ will have 3-4 passengers. Restaurants went to take out. About the only crowded places I have seen are grocers (we avoid those hours). All of our medical and dental appointments have been cancelled, usually both by us and the providers. The naval shipyard in Bremerton could be a natural experiment in carrying out essential functions while also protecting workers - It can be done. If what we are doing works, we will start seeing some drop in the rates of infection in about a week. Social pressure to avoid contact is pretty heavy, and rightfully so.

That's not been my experience - drove past a park in Kent yesterday and there were about 40 people gathered paying volleyball - those that weren't actively in the game were huddled very close together on the sidelines. The golf course across the street was packed and lots of folks riding in two person golf carts. Saw a bunch of people paying frisbee golf not far away, again in very close quarters. And don't even get me started with the people having picnics at the nearby lake.
Now, back on topic - as for SEA, before this situation took place, DL's load factors on their TPAC routes ex SEA were consistently high, at least the figures I saw. Of course I have no idea if they were making money or not, but it stands to reason in my mind that they won't abandon the TPAC hub in SEA.
I do think that business travel has changed forever now though. As the effectiveness of tele-conferencing increases, many companies will find the need for long distance business travel to be un-necessary
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:01 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Do you have any data to support this? You're the first person I've ever heard say that DTW has a fare premium over MSP.


I specifically said long haul premium travel and yes it does. Domestically the fares are higher to MSP. DTW-Asia is MUCH bigger than MSP-Asia in O&D. DTW-Europe is also larger in O&D.

Why do you think DL made DTW its Asia hub despite the fact that MSP has a better geographic location? How does DTW support service to NGO when no other airport in North America does? Why do DL and LH compete on DTW-FRA/MUC when they dont fly to MSP from either?


I guess you missed the post where I said MSP was able to hold its own strictly on domestic connections. International travel will be very light for the next 2-5 years. That's not good news for DTW. Passengers will either pay for a premium for the few nonstops from JFK or they will connect in LAX or SFO. DTW and ORD will both suffer. No one is going to pay extra for connection from the Midwest. There will be the high end and low end. No middle ground.


DL and NK have grown their local market share at DTW in recent years, while virtually every other airline has shrunk, despite the ho hum economy. Whereas NK's growth has been predominately organic (their low fares have manufactured traffic, or taken it from other modes of travel), DL's has likely been a mix of pilfering passengers from other legacies. The end result is that DL's premium has grown at DTW; it's rare that DL even bothers to lower its fares to compete with LCC, in contrast to places like ORD, DFW and even ATL. Take a look -- as of last night, I can get a one-way flight from LAX to SEA in April for as low as $14, $36 to ATL or MSP ... and $146 to DTW. This isn't the late 2000s -- DTW is not the center of the recession, and MSP is not without LCC competition (and in fact has far surpassed DTW and even ATL in that regard).

Secondly, no, MSP could not absorb all of DTW's connectivity. The bread & butter of DTW's current service is smaller communities in the Lower Midwest/Northeast, which would require an additional 500 minute flight distance to MSP. There's simply no way that DL could economically operate these flights on flights approaching 3+ hours. The same is true of MSP and its connectivity within the Upper Midwest (it couldn't be economically replicated at DTW). And while the DTW vs. MSP argument is played out frequently here, the reality is that while there's system-wide competition for traffic flows, DTW, ATL, NYC and BOS overlap far more than DTW & MSP, and MSP overlaps with SLC, SEA and LAX far more than DTW. Some users really need to work on their geography skills ... flying from the Lower Midwest/Northeast through MSP makes sense only if you're headed West.

Thirdly... man, do you hate on DTW. I get that you're upset DL dehubbed CVG, but as I've explained before, you have to understand that CVG's weakness is part of the package that promoted DL to seek out an acquisition to solidify its network in the first place. CVG had about a third the local traffic, had already been cut to about a third of its peak size, and likely would've vanished anyway (in favor of an expeanded codeshare/marketing agreement with NW) in an alternate universe where no merger took place. What bothers me so much, is that the fairy tales some a.net members invented -- CVG was DL's most profitable hub for decades, CLE was printing money for UA and evil Jeff Seismik closed it out of a jealous rage, etc. -- are suddenly accepted by younger members as facts.

Sad.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1778
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:08 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
747megatop wrote:
IWMBH wrote:
But, why wouldn't air traffic return to normal after the virus outbreak is over? In Europe most governments are pouring money into their economies to keep businesses 'alive' till they can reopen again after the crises. I'm sure the US economy will also get incentivises.

US and Europe are different. If you noticed, for example Italy banned layoffs in this crisis.
US is survival of the fittest (rich, powerful, well connected, highly innovative entrepreuners etc.); it is merciless, greedy capitalism.

I am just pointing out the differences. Not saying what is right or wrong; not saying which is better; i don't want to get into that discussion. Even in one of the longest bull runs in history I have seen large layoffs in companies that were doing just fine and raking in billions..it is just a way of life..that is capitalism at work. It is scary to think what will happen in the next two years across all industries except of course Mr Bezos's Amazon. Only the fittest, smartest and those who can adapt (both businesses and individuals) can survive. That includes aviation. Who knows, Elon Musk may fast track some new efficient air transport mechanism that is cheaper, faster and more efficient that can adapt and scale efficiently to demand in a very agile and nimble way delivering point to point capacity? Who knows what 2 years from now will look like? Nobody knows.

you're reading too much George Orwell.

Looked him up only after you mentioned the name. Name still doesn't ring a bell my friend :-).
Last edited by 747megatop on Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1778
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 10:29 pm

MD80Ttail wrote:
micstatic wrote:
that's great. The point is that it takes upwards of 2 weeks to show symptoms. The average Corona patient spreads it to 2.5-3 people. Only around 1 with flu. Then those people spread it. And on we go. So yes that's why I'd rather shut everything down for a few weeks completely in hopes of getting this thing to be something that doesn't live on and cause more longterm economic destruction.



That’s insanity. People at high risk should quarantine themselves. You simply can’t and shouldn’t shutdown the entire economy. How do you plan to get supplies from point A to B? Planes, trucks and ships need people to operate them.

The media is overhyping this as well as politicians. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone. For some it’s the election. Some it’s the environment. Some it’s making money off the market. Everyone has an agenda. The media is not your friend. The hype level is massive. I can tell you for seeing first hand it’s not as dire as portrayed.

102 degree fever + shortness of breath; guaranteed that any individual would be panicking and making a beeline to the ER. Then it's probably a good time to ask that individual if all this was being over hyped (especially when there are no hospital beds or doctors available for getting treated). If we all live through this then let's chat about it whether it was over hyped. When ALL countries are shutdown and this situation is being termed over hyped that says something. For China to have admitted that this disease was out of control and told the world, that says something about how massive this was.
 
N649DL
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:04 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

I specifically said long haul premium travel and yes it does. Domestically the fares are higher to MSP. DTW-Asia is MUCH bigger than MSP-Asia in O&D. DTW-Europe is also larger in O&D.

Why do you think DL made DTW its Asia hub despite the fact that MSP has a better geographic location? How does DTW support service to NGO when no other airport in North America does? Why do DL and LH compete on DTW-FRA/MUC when they dont fly to MSP from either?


I guess you missed the post where I said MSP was able to hold its own strictly on domestic connections. International travel will be very light for the next 2-5 years. That's not good news for DTW. Passengers will either pay for a premium for the few nonstops from JFK or they will connect in LAX or SFO. DTW and ORD will both suffer. No one is going to pay extra for connection from the Midwest. There will be the high end and low end. No middle ground.


DL and NK have grown their local market share at DTW in recent years, while virtually every other airline has shrunk, despite the ho hum economy. Whereas NK's growth has been predominately organic (their low fares have manufactured traffic, or taken it from other modes of travel), DL's has likely been a mix of pilfering passengers from other legacies. The end result is that DL's premium has grown at DTW; it's rare that DL even bothers to lower its fares to compete with LCC, in contrast to places like ORD, DFW and even ATL. Take a look -- as of last night, I can get a one-way flight from LAX to SEA in April for as low as $14, $36 to ATL or MSP ... and $146 to DTW. This isn't the late 2000s -- DTW is not the center of the recession, and MSP is not without LCC competition (and in fact has far surpassed DTW and even ATL in that regard).

Secondly, no, MSP could not absorb all of DTW's connectivity. The bread & butter of DTW's current service is smaller communities in the Lower Midwest/Northeast, which would require an additional 500 minute flight distance to MSP. There's simply no way that DL could economically operate these flights on flights approaching 3+ hours. The same is true of MSP and its connectivity within the Upper Midwest (it couldn't be economically replicated at DTW). And while the DTW vs. MSP argument is played out frequently here, the reality is that while there's system-wide competition for traffic flows, DTW, ATL, NYC and BOS overlap far more than DTW & MSP, and MSP overlaps with SLC, SEA and LAX far more than DTW. Some users really need to work on their geography skills ... flying from the Lower Midwest/Northeast through MSP makes sense only if you're headed West.

Thirdly... man, do you hate on DTW. I get that you're upset DL dehubbed CVG, but as I've explained before, you have to understand that CVG's weakness is part of the package that promoted DL to seek out an acquisition to solidify its network in the first place. CVG had about a third the local traffic, had already been cut to about a third of its peak size, and likely would've vanished anyway (in favor of an expeanded codeshare/marketing agreement with NW) in an alternate universe where no merger took place. What bothers me so much, is that the fairy tales some a.net members invented -- CVG was DL's most profitable hub for decades, CLE was printing money for UA and evil Jeff Seismik closed it out of a jealous rage, etc. -- are suddenly accepted by younger members as facts.

Sad.


DL has actually recently expanded and/or reinstated mainline service at CVG on mostly 738s over the last few years to places like BOS, DEN, PHX, SEA, LGA etc. I know for a fact CVG-DEN was completely cut and came back only within the last first years first as 1x 717 and now it's 1x 738. Although, I don't think CVG is a true hub anymore for DL, it's still a dedicated Focus City (for now, at least pre-CoronaVirus.) I think they realized they cut way too much out there for their captive business audience where they still have corporate contracts in place. Thankfully they held onto their mainline terminal at CVG which is actually a pretty nice piece of real estate. The former Comair gates which closed were basically a glorified bus station (I don't miss them at all.)

On the other hand, CLE was an unfortunate UA hub closure during Smisek's "Project Quality" era. Before that, UA's CLE hub actually commanded very highly priced O&D with a 70 to 80 percent captive audience market (Think: similar to DL's hub at SLC = Small City, Extremely Captive Audience.)

The unfortunate deal is that UA has continued to almost cut down all non-hub CLE routes entirely. Thus, I don't even think it's a Focus City at this point whereas DL slashed CVG very hard after they merged with NW and actually came back and upgraded back mainline and/or added back routes only recently. People forget that after UA and CO combined fleet operations, quite a few CLE routes were upgraded from sCO 737s to sUA 757s before they pulled the plug on the hub.
 
hmmmm...
Posts: 1967
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 8:32 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:15 pm

What this does show is that almost all travel is not actually necessary. With teleconferencing and modern media solutions, most business can be conducted remotely. You don't normally need to transport your physical body to do business. Unless your body is your business. The rest is just tourism and people visiting. We could get along perfectly well without air travel. What we need is cargo traffic of course. And ships, rail and trucks. The rest is more of a luxury we afford ourselves. Not a good idea to build your economy on luxuries.
An optimist robs himself of the joy of being pleasantly surprised
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 896
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:42 pm

49.7% widebodies Delta parked
40.0% widebodies American parked
16.8% widebodies United parked
...
8.5% narrowbodies American parked
12.8% narrowbodies Delta parked
14.4% narrowbodies United parked

How can the United airlines differ that radically on widebodies?
Last edited by PacoMartin on Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
N649DL
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:49 pm

WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
DL has actually recently expanded and/or reinstated mainline service at CVG on mostly 738s over the last few years to places like BOS, DEN, PHX, SEA, LGA etc. I know for a fact CVG-DEN was completely cut and came back only within the last first years first as 1x 717 and now it's 1x 738. Although, I don't think CVG is a true hub anymore for DL, it's still a dedicated Focus City (for now, at least pre-CoronaVirus.) I think they realized they cut way too much out there for their captive business audience where they still have corporate contracts in place. Thankfully they held onto their mainline terminal at CVG which is actually a pretty nice piece of real estate. The former Comair gates which closed were basically a glorified bus station (I don't miss them at all.)

On the other hand, CLE was an unfortunate UA hub closure during Smisek's "Project Quality" era. Before that, UA's CLE hub actually commanded very highly priced O&D with a 70 to 80 percent captive audience market (Think: similar to DL's hub at SLC = Small City, Extremely Captive Audience.)

The unfortunate deal is that UA has continued to almost cut down all non-hub CLE routes entirely. Thus, I don't even think it's a Focus City at this point whereas DL slashed CVG very hard after they merged with NW and actually came back and upgraded back mainline and/or added back routes only recently. People forget that after UA and CO combined fleet operations, quite a few CLE routes were upgraded from sCO 737s to sUA 757s before they pulled the plug on the hub.


CVG is most definitely no longer a connecting hub for DL. That it's seen increases in services, isn't surprising; it isn't related to the fact that DL had cut too much, but rather the robust growth our economy has experienced. Every single airport in the country serving a medium-sized metro airport or larger has experienced significant growth in local traffic since the end of the Great Recession.

And CLE was a money-losing hub for UA. Per UA's agreement with Cleveland, Cleveland hired a Cleveland-based independent CPA firm, that looked at UA's books, and affirmed the carrier's conclusion that CLE had been, and was likely to continue, to lose money. The CLE fan boys have created their own, fictitious narrative on the forum. On one hand, you had Gordon Bethune, Continental and United complaining about the performance of CLE for well over a decade; and a Cleveland-based CPA firm comprised of people who live and work in Cleveland affirming this... on the other, you have a group of a.netters who claim -- with absolutely zero collaborative support -- that CLE was printing money for years, and was the lifeline of CO as NYC and Houston failed. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

TTailedTiger wrote:
It seems you forget that NWA went bankrupt as well. If DTW was printing as much money as you claim then what went wrong? And why hasn't DL made DTW their primary hub?


Boy, you love this response, don't you? And how the heck is it relevant to the argument?

Delta went bankrupt.
United went bankrupt.
American went bankrupt.
US Airways went bankrupt.
Aloha Airlines went bankrupt and liquidated.
ATA Airlines went bankrupt and liquidated.
and so on...

The only thing that prevented Continental, America West, etc. from going bankrupt... was that they had previously been through the process (Continental, twice) a decade before, and had already shed the costs that were bearing other legacies down.


CVG isn't a connecting DL hub? I was routed through there on EWR-CVG-LAX in late 2018 after the Holiday's. It surprisingly wasn't completely dead either. They literally post destinations at the gates for hours on end but both flights were fully loaded (thus the late afternoon bank to places like CDG, EWR, DFW, RSW etc. were posted hours beforehand at CVG but the gates sat empty until boarding time). I even got a glimpse of seeing the DL A220 for the first time while passing through CVG. Oh and they have a smoking lounge on the concourse as well (if you're into that.) The CVG Sky Club was pretty much empty but this was also a Saturday.

I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub (although I do believe you about the local CPA firm for sure) being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.
Last edited by N649DL on Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Mon Mar 23, 2020 11:53 pm

N649DL wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
DL has actually recently expanded and/or reinstated mainline service at CVG on mostly 738s over the last few years to places like BOS, DEN, PHX, SEA, LGA etc. I know for a fact CVG-DEN was completely cut and came back only within the last first years first as 1x 717 and now it's 1x 738. Although, I don't think CVG is a true hub anymore for DL, it's still a dedicated Focus City (for now, at least pre-CoronaVirus.) I think they realized they cut way too much out there for their captive business audience where they still have corporate contracts in place. Thankfully they held onto their mainline terminal at CVG which is actually a pretty nice piece of real estate. The former Comair gates which closed were basically a glorified bus station (I don't miss them at all.)

On the other hand, CLE was an unfortunate UA hub closure during Smisek's "Project Quality" era. Before that, UA's CLE hub actually commanded very highly priced O&D with a 70 to 80 percent captive audience market (Think: similar to DL's hub at SLC = Small City, Extremely Captive Audience.)

The unfortunate deal is that UA has continued to almost cut down all non-hub CLE routes entirely. Thus, I don't even think it's a Focus City at this point whereas DL slashed CVG very hard after they merged with NW and actually came back and upgraded back mainline and/or added back routes only recently. People forget that after UA and CO combined fleet operations, quite a few CLE routes were upgraded from sCO 737s to sUA 757s before they pulled the plug on the hub.


CVG is most definitely no longer a connecting hub for DL. That it's seen increases in services, isn't surprising; it isn't related to the fact that DL had cut too much, but rather the robust growth our economy has experienced. Every single airport in the country serving a medium-sized metro airport or larger has experienced significant growth in local traffic since the end of the Great Recession.

And CLE was a money-losing hub for UA. Per UA's agreement with Cleveland, Cleveland hired a Cleveland-based independent CPA firm, that looked at UA's books, and affirmed the carrier's conclusion that CLE had been, and was likely to continue, to lose money. The CLE fan boys have created their own, fictitious narrative on the forum. On one hand, you had Gordon Bethune, Continental and United complaining about the performance of CLE for well over a decade; and a Cleveland-based CPA firm comprised of people who live and work in Cleveland affirming this... on the other, you have a group of a.netters who claim -- with absolutely zero collaborative support -- that CLE was printing money for years, and was the lifeline of CO as NYC and Houston failed. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?

TTailedTiger wrote:
It seems you forget that NWA went bankrupt as well. If DTW was printing as much money as you claim then what went wrong? And why hasn't DL made DTW their primary hub?


Boy, you love this response, don't you? And how the heck is it relevant to the argument?

Delta went bankrupt.
United went bankrupt.
American went bankrupt.
US Airways went bankrupt.
Aloha Airlines went bankrupt and liquidated.
ATA Airlines went bankrupt and liquidated.
and so on...

The only thing that prevented Continental, America West, etc. from going bankrupt... was that they had previously been through the process (Continental, twice) a decade before, and had already shed the costs that were bearing other legacies down.


CVG isn't a connecting DL hub? I was routed through there on EWR-CVG-LAX in late 2018 after the Holiday's. It surprisingly wasn't completely dead either. They literally post destinations at the gates for hours on end but both flights were fully loaded. I even got a glimpse of seeing the A220 while passing through CVG.

I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:21 am

N649DL wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub (although I do believe you about the local CPA firm for sure) being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Unfortunately, facts get lost within these forums. In the late 2000s, CO was actively upgauging flights from both EWR & IAH. This was creating a surplus of regional jets; CO was still on the hook for the payments and other expenses related to these jets, and agreed to use them to expand CLE -- but only after Ohio agreed to chip in a $16M incentive package. The expansion was ultimately scrapped. While this is often used as the smoking gun that CLE was profitable for CO, let's think about it: in a then-thriving economy, CO requested $16M in aid to expand CLE, otherwise it would simply park a bunch of regional jets it was still making payments on. This actually supports the claim that the hub wasn't profitable.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2008 ... ed_wi.html

But it doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else within these forums thinks. An independent, Cleveland-based audit team, comprised of professionals working and living in Cleveland, affirmed UA's position that the hub was losing money, and had little hope of turning a profit in the near future. Is it some giant conspiracy where a local CPA firm, Gordon Bethune, Continental, United, Jeff Seismik, etc. lied for over 15 years about Cleveland's performance? The hub was losing money, no question about it. And the reason United is stuck paying for terminal space is because CO signed a contract way back in the 1990s that it's legally bound to. Of course, if UA files for bankruptcy, those payments are guaranteed to stop.

TTailedTiger wrote:
N649DL wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
CVG isn't a connecting DL hub? I was routed through there on EWR-CVG-LAX in late 2018 after the Holiday's. It surprisingly wasn't completely dead either. They literally post destinations at the gates for hours on end but both flights were fully loaded. I even got a glimpse of seeing the A220 while passing through CVG.


Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.


I've connected through LAS, RDU and TPA in recent years. None of these, including CVG, are connecting hubs, although DL will (smartly) take advantage of aircraft flows and sell connecting opportunities.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:38 am

WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub (although I do believe you about the local CPA firm for sure) being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Unfortunately, facts get lost within these forums. In the late 2000s, CO was actively upgauging flights from both EWR & IAH. This was creating a surplus of regional jets; CO was still on the hook for the payments and other expenses related to these jets, and agreed to use them to expand CLE -- but only after Ohio agreed to chip in a $16M incentive package. The expansion was ultimately scrapped. While this is often used as the smoking gun that CLE was profitable for CO, let's think about it: in a then-thriving economy, CO requested $16M in aid to expand CLE, otherwise it would simply park a bunch of regional jets it was still making payments on. This actually supports the claim that the hub wasn't profitable.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2008 ... ed_wi.html

But it doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else within these forums thinks. An independent, Cleveland-based audit team, comprised of professionals working and living in Cleveland, affirmed UA's position that the hub was losing money, and had little hope of turning a profit in the near future. Is it some giant conspiracy where a local CPA firm, Gordon Bethune, Continental, United, Jeff Seismik, etc. lied for over 15 years about Cleveland's performance? The hub was losing money, no question about it. And the reason United is stuck paying for terminal space is because CO signed a contract way back in the 1990s that it's legally bound to. Of course, if UA files for bankruptcy, those payments are guaranteed to stop.

TTailedTiger wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.


I've connected through LAS, RDU and TPA in recent years. None of these, including CVG, are connecting hubs, although DL will (smartly) take advantage of aircraft flows and sell connecting opportunities.


Are you aware that CVG is still a pilot, flight attendant, and maintenance base for DL? Not even BOS has a pilot base.
 
LNCS0930
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2020 9:17 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:41 am

One would assume DL did not mean on the international scale as they already flew to many less locales that UAL/AA and were trying to codeshare out many routes the last 5 years. It felt like DL was on their way to just flying to AMS/CDG/LHR/FCO/DUB/MAD in Europe by the time we got to 2030 and just ICN/HND/PEK in the Pacific. I don't know if that was/is a viable model or not because people see UAL/AA going to numerous other cities and wonder why the other big US carrier is not.
 
United1
Posts: 3961
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:56 am

PacoMartin wrote:
49.7% widebodies Delta parked
40.0% widebodies American parked
16.8% widebodies United parked
...
8.5% narrowbodies American parked
12.8% narrowbodies Delta parked
14.4% narrowbodies United parked

How can the United airlines differ that radically on widebodies?


52% of UAs wide body fleet is parked or in mods and about 5% of the narrow body fleet is parked....you may be working with outdated data.
Last edited by United1 on Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
umichman
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:42 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:57 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
N649DL wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:

CVG is most definitely no longer a connecting hub for DL. That it's seen increases in services, isn't surprising; it isn't related to the fact that DL had cut too much, but rather the robust growth our economy has experienced. Every single airport in the country serving a medium-sized metro airport or larger has experienced significant growth in local traffic since the end of the Great Recession.

And CLE was a money-losing hub for UA. Per UA's agreement with Cleveland, Cleveland hired a Cleveland-based independent CPA firm, that looked at UA's books, and affirmed the carrier's conclusion that CLE had been, and was likely to continue, to lose money. The CLE fan boys have created their own, fictitious narrative on the forum. On one hand, you had Gordon Bethune, Continental and United complaining about the performance of CLE for well over a decade; and a Cleveland-based CPA firm comprised of people who live and work in Cleveland affirming this... on the other, you have a group of a.netters who claim -- with absolutely zero collaborative support -- that CLE was printing money for years, and was the lifeline of CO as NYC and Houston failed. Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?



Boy, you love this response, don't you? And how the heck is it relevant to the argument?

Delta went bankrupt.
United went bankrupt.
American went bankrupt.
US Airways went bankrupt.
Aloha Airlines went bankrupt and liquidated.
ATA Airlines went bankrupt and liquidated.
and so on...

The only thing that prevented Continental, America West, etc. from going bankrupt... was that they had previously been through the process (Continental, twice) a decade before, and had already shed the costs that were bearing other legacies down.


CVG isn't a connecting DL hub? I was routed through there on EWR-CVG-LAX in late 2018 after the Holiday's. It surprisingly wasn't completely dead either. They literally post destinations at the gates for hours on end but both flights were fully loaded. I even got a glimpse of seeing the A220 while passing through CVG.

I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.



It is an O&D focus city. That does not mean it won't offer connections through the city. It only means the flights they operate are based on O&D traffic and it doesn't operate any flights primarily just to provide connections. You can also book many flights through RDU as it's a legal routing option on many fares. It is also an O&D focus city. There is zero O&D demand on routes like DTW-CLE/LAN/AZO/GRR/MBS. That's the fundamental difference between connecting hubs like ATL, MSP, and DTW and focus cities like CVG and RDU. Unfortunately, some people live in a state of denial and simply can't accept the label focus city.
 
wv399
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 12:32 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:03 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub (although I do believe you about the local CPA firm for sure) being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Unfortunately, facts get lost within these forums. In the late 2000s, CO was actively upgauging flights from both EWR & IAH. This was creating a surplus of regional jets; CO was still on the hook for the payments and other expenses related to these jets, and agreed to use them to expand CLE -- but only after Ohio agreed to chip in a $16M incentive package. The expansion was ultimately scrapped. While this is often used as the smoking gun that CLE was profitable for CO, let's think about it: in a then-thriving economy, CO requested $16M in aid to expand CLE, otherwise it would simply park a bunch of regional jets it was still making payments on. This actually supports the claim that the hub wasn't profitable.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2008 ... ed_wi.html

But it doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else within these forums thinks. An independent, Cleveland-based audit team, comprised of professionals working and living in Cleveland, affirmed UA's position that the hub was losing money, and had little hope of turning a profit in the near future. Is it some giant conspiracy where a local CPA firm, Gordon Bethune, Continental, United, Jeff Seismik, etc. lied for over 15 years about Cleveland's performance? The hub was losing money, no question about it. And the reason United is stuck paying for terminal space is because CO signed a contract way back in the 1990s that it's legally bound to. Of course, if UA files for bankruptcy, those payments are guaranteed to stop.

TTailedTiger wrote:


I've connected through LAS, RDU and TPA in recent years. None of these, including CVG, are connecting hubs, although DL will (smartly) take advantage of aircraft flows and sell connecting opportunities.


Are you aware that CVG is still a pilot, flight attendant, and maintenance base for DL? Not even BOS has a pilot base.


CVG still has reservations too.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18940
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:04 am

United1 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
49.7% widebodies Delta parked
40.0% widebodies American parked
16.8% widebodies United parked
...
8.5% narrowbodies American parked
12.8% narrowbodies Delta parked
14.4% narrowbodies United parked

How can the United airlines differ that radically on widebodies?


52% of UAs wide body fleet is parked or in mods and about 5% of the narrow body fleet is parked....you may be working with outdated data.

That makes more sense. Unfortunately, I think more widebodies will be parked.

This is only at an early stage in my opinion.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 2090
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:10 am

umichman wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
N649DL wrote:

CVG isn't a connecting DL hub? I was routed through there on EWR-CVG-LAX in late 2018 after the Holiday's. It surprisingly wasn't completely dead either. They literally post destinations at the gates for hours on end but both flights were fully loaded. I even got a glimpse of seeing the A220 while passing through CVG.

I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.



It is an O&D focus city. That does not mean it won't offer connections through the city. It only means the flights they operate are based on O&D traffic and it doesn't operate any flights primarily just to provide connections. You can also book many flights through RDU as it's a legal routing option on many fares. It is also an O&D focus city. There is zero O&D demand on routes like DTW-CLE/LAN/AZO/GRR/MBS. That's the fundamental difference between connecting hubs like ATL, MSP, and DTW and focus cities like CVG and RDU. Unfortunately, some people live in a state of denial and simply can't accept the label focus city.


I'm well aware of RDU connections. I use it often as well. I'll do anything to escape the chaos of ATL and DTW.
 
WidebodyPTV
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2019 9:06 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:21 am

umichman wrote:
[ It is an O&D focus city. That does not mean it won't offer connections through the city. It only means the flights they operate are based on O&D traffic and it doesn't operate any flights primarily just to provide connections. You can also book many flights through RDU as it's a legal routing option on many fares. It is also an O&D focus city. There is zero O&D demand on routes like DTW-CLE/LAN/AZO/GRR/MBS. That's the fundamental difference between connecting hubs like ATL, MSP, and DTW and focus cities like CVG and RDU. Unfortunately, some people live in a state of denial and simply can't accept the label focus city.


I'd just like to see some factual reasons as to why DL should dehub DTW, rather than people wishing DL would because they're upset DL dehubbed their favorite market a decade ago. But that may be expecting too much.

Ultimately, I doubt DL will dehub any of its core or trunk hubs. I'm certain it will try to salvage the investments it's made in BOS, SEA and LAX, but if the bleeding continues, I would expect BOS and SEA to see disproportionate cuts, simply because the markets haven't matured.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3197
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:35 am

What happens at JFK and LGA is going to be interesting. Before all of this, that was the second-largest operation (combined, about 500 flights per day). Travel will be very slow to return for NS20...it may be best preparing for much traffic to return for NW20.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2223
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:37 am

lightsaber wrote:
United1 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
49.7% widebodies Delta parked
40.0% widebodies American parked
16.8% widebodies United parked
...
8.5% narrowbodies American parked
12.8% narrowbodies Delta parked
14.4% narrowbodies United parked

How can the United airlines differ that radically on widebodies?


52% of UAs wide body fleet is parked or in mods and about 5% of the narrow body fleet is parked....you may be working with outdated data.

That makes more sense. Unfortunately, I think more widebodies will be parked.

This is only at an early stage in my opinion.

Lightsaber


UA is drawing down 95% of their international operations. As insane as I feel writing this, that is the reality. The only flights at all will be a few to Mexico and a Tokyo flight or two.
 
United1
Posts: 3961
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:47 am

SonomaFlyer wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
United1 wrote:

52% of UAs wide body fleet is parked or in mods and about 5% of the narrow body fleet is parked....you may be working with outdated data.

That makes more sense. Unfortunately, I think more widebodies will be parked.

This is only at an early stage in my opinion.

Lightsaber


UA is drawing down 95% of their international operations. As insane as I feel writing this, that is the reality. The only flights at all will be a few to Mexico and a Tokyo flight or two.


Not quite...
SFO-NRT/SYD, IAH-GRU, EWR-TLV/FRA/LHR and a handful of all cargo flights will remain. There was an updated press release put out a day after the 95% cut was announced.

Lightsaber is right however UA, DL and AA are going to park a much larger percentage of their wide body fleets over the next few days. This week and last are really when all of the schedule cuts have been kicking in.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6049
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 1:57 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub (although I do believe you about the local CPA firm for sure) being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Unfortunately, facts get lost within these forums. In the late 2000s, CO was actively upgauging flights from both EWR & IAH. This was creating a surplus of regional jets; CO was still on the hook for the payments and other expenses related to these jets, and agreed to use them to expand CLE -- but only after Ohio agreed to chip in a $16M incentive package. The expansion was ultimately scrapped. While this is often used as the smoking gun that CLE was profitable for CO, let's think about it: in a then-thriving economy, CO requested $16M in aid to expand CLE, otherwise it would simply park a bunch of regional jets it was still making payments on. This actually supports the claim that the hub wasn't profitable.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2008 ... ed_wi.html

But it doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else within these forums thinks. An independent, Cleveland-based audit team, comprised of professionals working and living in Cleveland, affirmed UA's position that the hub was losing money, and had little hope of turning a profit in the near future. Is it some giant conspiracy where a local CPA firm, Gordon Bethune, Continental, United, Jeff Seismik, etc. lied for over 15 years about Cleveland's performance? The hub was losing money, no question about it. And the reason United is stuck paying for terminal space is because CO signed a contract way back in the 1990s that it's legally bound to. Of course, if UA files for bankruptcy, those payments are guaranteed to stop.

TTailedTiger wrote:


I've connected through LAS, RDU and TPA in recent years. None of these, including CVG, are connecting hubs, although DL will (smartly) take advantage of aircraft flows and sell connecting opportunities.


Are you aware that CVG is still a pilot, flight attendant, and maintenance base for DL? Not even BOS has a pilot base.


And there it is.

DTW took the place of your preferred airport in Deltas network and then some. That’s why you hate it.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
User avatar
ChrisNH38
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:53 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 2:52 am

BOS seems to be a likely target for DL pullbacks...the second time they had grand aspirations for Logan and never got out of the starting gate. As for their big foe there...B6...I don’t know if they could see this as a benefit to them because they’ll be forced to shrink, too.
https://my.flightradar24.com/ChrisNH
 
N649DL
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:36 am

WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub (although I do believe you about the local CPA firm for sure) being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Unfortunately, facts get lost within these forums. In the late 2000s, CO was actively upgauging flights from both EWR & IAH. This was creating a surplus of regional jets; CO was still on the hook for the payments and other expenses related to these jets, and agreed to use them to expand CLE -- but only after Ohio agreed to chip in a $16M incentive package. The expansion was ultimately scrapped. While this is often used as the smoking gun that CLE was profitable for CO, let's think about it: in a then-thriving economy, CO requested $16M in aid to expand CLE, otherwise it would simply park a bunch of regional jets it was still making payments on. This actually supports the claim that the hub wasn't profitable.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2008 ... ed_wi.html

But it doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else within these forums thinks. An independent, Cleveland-based audit team, comprised of professionals working and living in Cleveland, affirmed UA's position that the hub was losing money, and had little hope of turning a profit in the near future. Is it some giant conspiracy where a local CPA firm, Gordon Bethune, Continental, United, Jeff Seismik, etc. lied for over 15 years about Cleveland's performance? The hub was losing money, no question about it. And the reason United is stuck paying for terminal space is because CO signed a contract way back in the 1990s that it's legally bound to. Of course, if UA files for bankruptcy, those payments are guaranteed to stop.

TTailedTiger wrote:
N649DL wrote:

Yes I connected in CVG in January MCO-CVG-DCA and SEA-CVG-MCO. Delta still sells connections through CVG.


I've connected through LAS, RDU and TPA in recent years. None of these, including CVG, are connecting hubs, although DL will (smartly) take advantage of aircraft flows and sell connecting opportunities.


I still don't understand what your exact definition of a "Connecting Hub" is. When I go to Delta.com, if I want to fly specifically to EWR from AUS (and not JFK which is nonstop) I can get choose via the big hubs like DTW or ATL or smaller Focus Cities such as RDU, CVG and even BOS on the website to EWR (Yes, DL now even flies EWR-BOS-EWR once again). So if the website is routing me through those Focus Cities, that means I'm connecting through there as a connecting complex of sorts. Correct?

Regarding UA at CLE, it's ancient history and anyone's guess I suppose. But recall CO dumped DEN in favor of CLE back in the mid-1990s so obviously there was potential even back then. And CO had a great setup at the new DIA in Terminal A but probably couldn't afford it. Perhaps UA and before that CO had issues with CLE's overall costs which made hub not profitable (if I had to guess) but with high fares and a locally very hub captive audience, they should've been able to make CLE work on paper. Also they had a nice terminal there as well and made for a great reliever hub when s*** hit the fan at EWR or ORD. Which as we all know Pre-CoronaVirus, happens almost weekly.

BTW in terms of CO's service into IAH and EWR back in the day, they were very single class ERJ connecting heavy into those hubs and there really wasn't much in terms of fleet upgrades at all (if anything more downgrading to ERJ from 737 as time went on). That, and also their 757 fleet were tied up on TATL routes out of EWR as well.
 
User avatar
Midwestindy
Posts: 4689
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 3:56 am

Re: Delta plans to emerge a "smaller" carrier

Tue Mar 24, 2020 3:52 am

N649DL wrote:
WidebodyPTV wrote:
N649DL wrote:
I'm still not entirely convinced about UA's CLE hub (although I do believe you about the local CPA firm for sure) being a money loser as they still have to pay dues for their terminal space until later this decade. This was the same management team that was going to dump IAD in favor of EWR and are now subsequently expanding IAD instead. The big issue with CLE was consolidating to ORD when it was convenient for them to do so and scrap out the majority of regional jet flying into the hub. Recall UA was dumping 757s left and right back then but still held onto the pesky ERJs because of their scope clause inherited from CO. And CO actually (and people forget about this) expanded their CLE hub during the recession in 2009 as well upgrading some of the operations to mainline back then.


Unfortunately, facts get lost within these forums. In the late 2000s, CO was actively upgauging flights from both EWR & IAH. This was creating a surplus of regional jets; CO was still on the hook for the payments and other expenses related to these jets, and agreed to use them to expand CLE -- but only after Ohio agreed to chip in a $16M incentive package. The expansion was ultimately scrapped. While this is often used as the smoking gun that CLE was profitable for CO, let's think about it: in a then-thriving economy, CO requested $16M in aid to expand CLE, otherwise it would simply park a bunch of regional jets it was still making payments on. This actually supports the claim that the hub wasn't profitable.

https://www.cleveland.com/business/2008 ... ed_wi.html

But it doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else within these forums thinks. An independent, Cleveland-based audit team, comprised of professionals working and living in Cleveland, affirmed UA's position that the hub was losing money, and had little hope of turning a profit in the near future. Is it some giant conspiracy where a local CPA firm, Gordon Bethune, Continental, United, Jeff Seismik, etc. lied for over 15 years about Cleveland's performance? The hub was losing money, no question about it. And the reason United is stuck paying for terminal space is because CO signed a contract way back in the 1990s that it's legally bound to. Of course, if UA files for bankruptcy, those payments are guaranteed to stop.

TTailedTiger wrote:


I've connected through LAS, RDU and TPA in recent years. None of these, including CVG, are connecting hubs, although DL will (smartly) take advantage of aircraft flows and sell connecting opportunities.


I still don't understand what your exact definition of a "Connecting Hub" is. When I go to Delta.com, if I want to fly specifically to EWR from AUS (and not JFK which is nonstop) I can get choose via the big hubs like DTW or ATL or smaller Focus Cities such as RDU, CVG and even BOS on the website to EWR (Yes, DL now even flies EWR-BOS-EWR once again). So if the website is routing me through those Focus Cities, that means I'm connecting through there as a connecting complex of sorts. Correct?



DL offers connections through probably more than a dozen non-hub stations

Per CVG, the airport is now 96.2% O&D, and DL has intentionally modified its schedule to focus on O&D

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/ ... -ever.html
Status for 2019/2020: AAdvantage Platinum, Delta Gold, Southwest A-List
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 12

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