In 2Q, Delta reported a profit of $652 million. But only because the Govt payroll support.

"Delta said Wednesday that it earned $652 million in the second quarter. However, Delta’s report shows that airlines still face turbulence as they try to rebound from their worst year ever.

Without $1.5 billion in federal pandemic relief and other one-time events, the Atlanta airline would have posted an adjusted loss of $678 million. "
https://apnews.com/article/business-hea ... e35a8caf6f

If they are profitably without CARES Funding that would be quite amazing. The DL announcement in an earlier post said their costs are 15% higher than 2019 and they admitted revenue is less than expected. I guess we will see.

There's a lot of delusion on this thread. A lot. Airlines will be fine - demand always craters during this time. It will pick back up heading into the holidays.

I agree that some airlines will be fine.

Us old timers who saw the cycle of folks losing their pensions and Chapter 11 filings are scarred I guess. Just remember the most dangerous words in business "it's different this time".

With the evolution of this virus I don't think anyone can speak with certainty as to what will or won't happen. It could go to an extreme where international travel is no longer possible for most to a situation where travel numbers begin to grow significantly given pent up demand. We just have to wait and see.

Deloitte did a survey about the future of U.S. corporate travel. No surprise, but while business leaders value face-to-face interaction, they are reevaluating company travel impact on the bottom line, its environmental impact, and how widely can technology be adopted instead.

Per the survey only 54% of companies expect business travel to return to 2019 levels by end of 2022. Hanging on to the significant cost savings brought by the pandemic combined with advances of technology, behavioral changes including the growth in remote workers, and the gaining importance in reducing carbon emissions are forces that can push companies to manage travel more judiciously moving forward.

WSJ story:
https://deloitte.wsj.com/articles/compa ... 1631555460

Survey paper
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/i ... 21:WSJFY21

At my employer it was announced that ~40% of previous office positions would be redesignated to remote work positions, and of those about half would be fully remote and location independent. This is a pretty big move from a company that in many ways is conservative and not the most flexible.

The shift is here guys. Becoming clearer that a growing number of positions can be accomplished without seeing the inside of the corporate office and the manner of the workplace of the future is changing.

LAXintl wrote:

Deloitte did a survey about the future of U.S. corporate travel. No surprise, but while business leaders value face-to-face interaction, they are reevaluating company travel impact on the bottom line, its environmental impact, and how widely can technology be adopted instead.

Per the survey only 54% of companies expect business travel to return to 2019 levels by end of 2022. Hanging on to the significant cost savings brought by the pandemic combined with advances of technology, behavioral changes including the growth in remote workers, and the gaining importance in reducing carbon emissions are forces that can push companies to manage travel more judiciously moving forward.

WSJ story:
https://deloitte.wsj.com/articles/compa ... 1631555460

Survey paper
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/i ... 21:WSJFY21

Not sure if this was the reason why you posted this, but these numbers are a GREAT outlook for the future of business travel:

1. This is saying 88% of companies expect to return to at least 75% of 2019 levels in just over a year.......that's amazing. I remember last year and this year, people were saying 50% of corporate travel is gone forever....

Only 4% expect to be below 50% of 2019 levels, that's an insanely good outlook if I am an airline executive, vs. what was expected.

https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/i ... 21:WSJFY21

2. They under-counted for how quickly business travel would return, in a "strong return scenario" they didn't anticipate corporate travel to reach 35% revenues until Q4. But airlines already hit that this quarter, for example WN reported managed business revenues at 35-40% of 2019 levels in Q3 in their latest investor update (link below).


https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/i ... 21:WSJFY21
https://otp.tools.investis.com/clients/ ... F&hasPdf=1

Midwestindy - so with this projection, when will you think the US3 (ex-SWA) will be profitable? Assuming no new payroll support after this quarter ends.

My company (a leisure travel company) consolidated by selling off buildings and combining different functions into the remaining space. We were going to return to office with a hybrid setup the week of Labor Day, but that is now on indefinite hold.

I think we should remember back to the great 2008-2009 recession and at that time business travel spend decline peaked at mere 11.4% (source US Travel Association), and how that devasted airlines for years to come. It took until 2013 for US airlines to reach pre-recession(2007) profitability level.

Seems to me a decline here will be far deeper and far longer. Frankly, I see the pandemic as having created permanent structural change in workplaces and how business is conducted with travel being a casualty.

UPlog wrote:

I think we should remember back to the great 2008-2009 recession and at that time business travel spend decline peaked at mere 11.4% (source US Travel Association), and how that devasted airlines for years to come. It took until 2013 for US airlines to reach pre-recession(2007) profitability level.

Seems to me a decline here will be far deeper and far longer. Frankly, I see the pandemic as having created permanent structural change in workplaces and how business is conducted with travel being a casualty.

He structural change will lead to more staff traveling a few time’s a year that never did. As well as people taking more leisure trips. If work from home becomes a permanent thing

UPlog wrote:

I think we should remember back to the great 2008-2009 recession and at that time business travel spend decline peaked at mere 11.4% (source US Travel Association), and how that devasted airlines for years to come. It took until 2013 for US airlines to reach pre-recession(2007) profitability level.

Seems to me a decline here will be far deeper and far longer. Frankly, I see the pandemic as having created permanent structural change in workplaces and how business is conducted with travel being a casualty.

The 2008-09 recession was purely an economic recession caused by bad financial moves. This is a medical pandemic which kills people. Many are unwilling to risk their personal safety to fly.

UPlog wrote:

At my employer it was announced that ~40% of previous office positions would be redesignated to remote work positions, and of those about half would be fully remote and location independent. This is a pretty big move from a company that in many ways is conservative and not the most flexible.

The shift is here guys. Becoming clearer that a growing number of positions can be accomplished without seeing the inside of the corporate office and the manner of the workplace of the future is changing.

Long term this may actually increase business travel not decrease it.

UPlog wrote:

I think we should remember back to the great 2008-2009 recession and at that time business travel spend decline peaked at mere 11.4% (source US Travel Association), and how that devasted airlines for years to come. It took until 2013 for US airlines to reach pre-recession(2007) profitability level.

Seems to me a decline here will be far deeper and far longer. Frankly, I see the pandemic as having created permanent structural change in workplaces and how business is conducted with travel being a casualty.

You can't seriously be comparing the financial position of airlines leading into the 2008 recession to airlines pre-covid......

Airlines would have expected business travel to have increased some certain percent (5?) each year for 2020, 2021, and 2022. Many statistical charts on the economy have an additional line showing recovery against expected growth. Such a line would be informative.

After all the hyperbole over the past few weeks that airlines were heading back to March 2020 levels, bookings and searches are growing again both in absolute terms and yo2y.



https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/BUtIB

Midwestindy wrote:

After all the hyperbole over the past few weeks that airlines were heading back to March 2020 levels, bookings and searches are growing again both in absolute terms and yo2y.



https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/BUtIB

I'm not sure anyone said things were heading back to March 2020 levels in this thread. Anyway, I did hear one data point that said that at least one day last week, TSA had the lowest throughput on a single day since May 2021. If true, it suggests things could be trending down. Would need to compare it to the throughput on the same day in 2020 though.

Midwestindy wrote:

After all the hyperbole over the past few weeks that airlines were heading back to March 2020 levels, bookings and searches are growing again both in absolute terms and yo2y.



https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/BUtIB

Not for long….

White House debates vaccines for air travel
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... air-travel
There have been lots of warnings that was coming eventually. And the Payroll support ends at the end of the month.

Going to be a dark winter, I think, especially in the prison states.

Seat1F wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

After all the hyperbole over the past few weeks that airlines were heading back to March 2020 levels, bookings and searches are growing again both in absolute terms and yo2y.



https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/BUtIB

I'm not sure anyone said things were heading back to March 2020 levels in this thread. Anyway, I did hear one data point that said that at least one day last week, TSA had the lowest throughput on a single day since May 2021. If true, it suggests things could be trending down. Would need to compare it to the throughput on the same day in 2020 though.

Yeah...cuz September is the slowest month for air travel..... Why should it be surprising that September travel is lower than June/July/August, all months at/near/or close to 2019 leisure travels??

This has been rehashed many times on here, but TSA numbers don't suggest trends, they validate trends seen weeks and even months before in bookings. Given TSA screenings are based on bookings, weeks, months, e.t.c in advance.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

After all the hyperbole over the past few weeks that airlines were heading back to March 2020 levels, bookings and searches are growing again both in absolute terms and yo2y.



https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/BUtIB

Not for long….

White House debates vaccines for air travel
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... air-travel
There have been lots of warnings that was coming eventually. And the Payroll support ends at the end of the month.

Going to be a dark winter, I think, especially in the prison states.

Remember when they were also 'discussing' requiring every domestic traveler to test? yeah - that never happened either... most airlines/vendors are understaffed as it is. Payroll support ending isn't going to have a meaningful impact...

Scarebus34 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

After all the hyperbole over the past few weeks that airlines were heading back to March 2020 levels, bookings and searches are growing again both in absolute terms and yo2y.



https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/BUtIB

Not for long….

White House debates vaccines for air travel
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... air-travel
There have been lots of warnings that was coming eventually. And the Payroll support ends at the end of the month.

Going to be a dark winter, I think, especially in the prison states.

Remember when they were also 'discussing' requiring every domestic traveler to test? yeah - that never happened either... most airlines/vendors are understaffed as it is. Payroll support ending isn't going to have a meaningful impact...

It takes a lot less resource to require vaccine for air travel. I have to show vaccination when I do indoor dining in NYC. It's not a big deal.

tphuang wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Not for long….

White House debates vaccines for air travel
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... air-travel
There have been lots of warnings that was coming eventually. And the Payroll support ends at the end of the month.

Going to be a dark winter, I think, especially in the prison states.

Remember when they were also 'discussing' requiring every domestic traveler to test? yeah - that never happened either... most airlines/vendors are understaffed as it is. Payroll support ending isn't going to have a meaningful impact...

It takes a lot less resource to require vaccine for air travel. I have to show vaccination when I do indoor dining in NYC. It's not a big deal.

I agree. I would welcome a policy of vaccination being required for air travel. It would certainly make traveling by air much safer.

Seat1F wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Remember when they were also 'discussing' requiring every domestic traveler to test? yeah - that never happened either... most airlines/vendors are understaffed as it is. Payroll support ending isn't going to have a meaningful impact...

It takes a lot less resource to require vaccine for air travel. I have to show vaccination when I do indoor dining in NYC. It's not a big deal.

I agree. I would welcome a policy of vaccination being required for air travel. It would certainly make traveling by air much safer.

Yes, well, while I would love everyone to be vaccinated… it’s also going to devastate the industry and those of us who work in it. Airlines are barely scraping by as is, banning 45% of the US from flying isn’t going to help.

And as I’ve said time and again - it’s the vaccinated folks who are still worried about this, and therefore less likely to travel. The unvaccinated have simply stopped caring… you can bet that the LCCs are going to take quite a hit if such a policy were to be implemented.

joeblow10 wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

tphuang wrote:

It takes a lot less resource to require vaccine for air travel. I have to show vaccination when I do indoor dining in NYC. It's not a big deal.

I agree. I would welcome a policy of vaccination being required for air travel. It would certainly make traveling by air much safer.

Yes, well, while I would love everyone to be vaccinated… it’s also going to devastate the industry and those of us who work in it. Airlines are barely scraping by as is, banning 45% of the US from flying isn’t going to help.

And as I’ve said time and again - it’s the vaccinated folks who are still worried about this, and therefore less likely to travel. The unvaccinated have simply stopped caring… you can bet that the LCCs are going to take quite a hit if such a policy were to be implemented.

The portion of the population that flies is a lot higher than 55% vaccinated. Plus no one is banned. You just have to go get the vaccine

32andBelow wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

I agree. I would welcome a policy of vaccination being required for air travel. It would certainly make traveling by air much safer.

Yes, well, while I would love everyone to be vaccinated… it’s also going to devastate the industry and those of us who work in it. Airlines are barely scraping by as is, banning 45% of the US from flying isn’t going to help.

And as I’ve said time and again - it’s the vaccinated folks who are still worried about this, and therefore less likely to travel. The unvaccinated have simply stopped caring… you can bet that the LCCs are going to take quite a hit if such a policy were to be implemented.

The portion of the population that flies is a lot higher than 55% vaccinated. Plus no one is banned. You just have to go get the vaccine

I don’t have the data, so of course, I could be very wrong - but fundamentally, I doubt the portion of people flying is much higher than 55% vaccinated. Maybe upwards of 65%… but I would guess that’s too high

Again - who is traveling right now and why are they traveling? It’s hugely leisure skewed, price sensitive travelers. There’s a reason we have seen unrest on airplanes this summer like never before. These folks traveling are infrequent travelers - meaning their propensity to be vaccinated is probably a lot less than people might think. And again… the vaccinated folks are the ones still thinking about this disease. If anything, they are the ones avoiding travel right now…

You can bet that F9 and NK are going to be hammered by such a policy

32andBelow wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

Seat1F wrote:

I agree. I would welcome a policy of vaccination being required for air travel. It would certainly make traveling by air much safer.

Yes, well, while I would love everyone to be vaccinated… it’s also going to devastate the industry and those of us who work in it. Airlines are barely scraping by as is, banning 45% of the US from flying isn’t going to help.

And as I’ve said time and again - it’s the vaccinated folks who are still worried about this, and therefore less likely to travel. The unvaccinated have simply stopped caring… you can bet that the LCCs are going to take quite a hit if such a policy were to be implemented.

The portion of the population that flies is a lot higher than 55% vaccinated. Plus no one is banned. You just have to go get the vaccine

The industry would fight it tooth and nail and perhaps rightfully so. I see no reason to require this unless we can prove that flying has lead to massive outbreaks.

We’re all going to get Covid at some point. It’s not going away. We have to learn to live with it. I think a big mistake was the implication that vaccines stop transmission because they clearly don’t. What they actually do is dramatically lower your risk of becoming severely ill.

Why do I mention that? It’s because bullying people who haven’t received the vaccine yet clearly isn’t going to work. It just drives division further. Driving that division will go a long way to severely harming the airline industry worse than it is. We can show flying is safe and we don’t have to make further restrictions to it due to the lack of outbreaks linked to flying.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

Yes, well, while I would love everyone to be vaccinated… it’s also going to devastate the industry and those of us who work in it. Airlines are barely scraping by as is, banning 45% of the US from flying isn’t going to help.

And as I’ve said time and again - it’s the vaccinated folks who are still worried about this, and therefore less likely to travel. The unvaccinated have simply stopped caring… you can bet that the LCCs are going to take quite a hit if such a policy were to be implemented.

The portion of the population that flies is a lot higher than 55% vaccinated. Plus no one is banned. You just have to go get the vaccine

The industry would fight it tooth and nail and perhaps rightfully so. I see no reason to require this unless we can prove that flying has lead to massive outbreaks.

We’re all going to get Covid at some point. It’s not going away. We have to learn to live with it. I think a big mistake was the implication that vaccines stop transmission because they clearly don’t. What they actually do is dramatically lower your risk of becoming severely ill.

Why do I mention that? It’s because bullying people who haven’t received the vaccine yet clearly isn’t going to work. It just drives division further. Driving that division will go a long way to severely harming the airline industry worse than it is. We can show flying is safe and we don’t have to make further restrictions to it due to the lack of outbreaks linked to flying.

I've discussed this several times within this thread -- the flying public has a higher vaccination percentage than the general public; several airlines, including DL, have mentioned this. Educated persons residing in high income households -- the demographic that tends to travel most by air -- have the highest vaccination rates. Households with below average income and high school diploma or less are far more likely to be unvaccinated.

If vaccine mandates were applied to air travel, of course it'd generate tremendous controversy, because people who feel strongly about it will make a big deal about it. But it's not likely to have a material impact on passenger traffic; in fact, it could lead to the opposite -- the recent COVID surge lead to a decrease in passenger traffic... mostly amongst vaccinated adults, including those fearful of their unvaccinated children..

WidebodyPTV wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

The portion of the population that flies is a lot higher than 55% vaccinated. Plus no one is banned. You just have to go get the vaccine

The industry would fight it tooth and nail and perhaps rightfully so. I see no reason to require this unless we can prove that flying has lead to massive outbreaks.

We’re all going to get Covid at some point. It’s not going away. We have to learn to live with it. I think a big mistake was the implication that vaccines stop transmission because they clearly don’t. What they actually do is dramatically lower your risk of becoming severely ill.

Why do I mention that? It’s because bullying people who haven’t received the vaccine yet clearly isn’t going to work. It just drives division further. Driving that division will go a long way to severely harming the airline industry worse than it is. We can show flying is safe and we don’t have to make further restrictions to it due to the lack of outbreaks linked to flying.

I've discussed this several times within this thread -- the flying public has a higher vaccination percentage than the general public; several airlines, including DL, have mentioned this. Educated persons residing in high income households -- the demographic that tends to travel most by air -- have the highest vaccination rates. Households with below average income and high school diploma or less are far more likely to be unvaccinated.

If vaccine mandates were applied to air travel, of course it'd generate tremendous controversy, because people who feel strongly about it will make a big deal about it. But it's not likely to have a material impact on passenger traffic; in fact, it could lead to the opposite -- the recent COVID surge lead to a decrease in passenger traffic... mostly amongst vaccinated adults, including those fearful of their unvaccinated children..

I think that’s too broad of a brush. Will business travel decline? Probably not, but I’d bet anything NK, F9, and the like would feel it greatly.

To me the whole thing is moot because very few outbreaks have been linked to air travel.

Seat1F wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Remember when they were also 'discussing' requiring every domestic traveler to test? yeah - that never happened either... most airlines/vendors are understaffed as it is. Payroll support ending isn't going to have a meaningful impact...

It takes a lot less resource to require vaccine for air travel. I have to show vaccination when I do indoor dining in NYC. It's not a big deal.

I agree. I would welcome a policy of vaccination being required for air travel. It would certainly make traveling by air much safer.

It requires congressional approval for domestic travel so it’s highly unlikely it’s happening. You won’t get the votes in a 50-50 senate

LAXdude1023 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

The industry would fight it tooth and nail and perhaps rightfully so. I see no reason to require this unless we can prove that flying has lead to massive outbreaks.

We’re all going to get Covid at some point. It’s not going away. We have to learn to live with it. I think a big mistake was the implication that vaccines stop transmission because they clearly don’t. What they actually do is dramatically lower your risk of becoming severely ill.

Why do I mention that? It’s because bullying people who haven’t received the vaccine yet clearly isn’t going to work. It just drives division further. Driving that division will go a long way to severely harming the airline industry worse than it is. We can show flying is safe and we don’t have to make further restrictions to it due to the lack of outbreaks linked to flying.

I've discussed this several times within this thread -- the flying public has a higher vaccination percentage than the general public; several airlines, including DL, have mentioned this. Educated persons residing in high income households -- the demographic that tends to travel most by air -- have the highest vaccination rates. Households with below average income and high school diploma or less are far more likely to be unvaccinated.

If vaccine mandates were applied to air travel, of course it'd generate tremendous controversy, because people who feel strongly about it will make a big deal about it. But it's not likely to have a material impact on passenger traffic; in fact, it could lead to the opposite -- the recent COVID surge lead to a decrease in passenger traffic... mostly amongst vaccinated adults, including those fearful of their unvaccinated children..

I think that’s too broad of a brush. Will business travel decline? Probably not, but I’d bet anything NK, F9, and the like would feel it greatly.

To me the whole thing is moot because very few outbreaks have been linked to air travel.

The LCCs would go out of business if you ask me

LNCS0930 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

WidebodyPTV wrote:

I've discussed this several times within this thread -- the flying public has a higher vaccination percentage than the general public; several airlines, including DL, have mentioned this. Educated persons residing in high income households -- the demographic that tends to travel most by air -- have the highest vaccination rates. Households with below average income and high school diploma or less are far more likely to be unvaccinated.

If vaccine mandates were applied to air travel, of course it'd generate tremendous controversy, because people who feel strongly about it will make a big deal about it. But it's not likely to have a material impact on passenger traffic; in fact, it could lead to the opposite -- the recent COVID surge lead to a decrease in passenger traffic... mostly amongst vaccinated adults, including those fearful of their unvaccinated children..

I think that’s too broad of a brush. Will business travel decline? Probably not, but I’d bet anything NK, F9, and the like would feel it greatly.

To me the whole thing is moot because very few outbreaks have been linked to air travel.

The LCCs would go out of business if you ask me

Which could be the whole point.
Diversification and competition is great for the traveling public, not so much for politicians. Much easier for pols to push around 2-3 companies, than a dozen. Ask Juan Trippe, or any number of formerly state-owned airlines about this.

"50% of business travel is gone forever"
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/17/coronav ... -term.html

Meanwhile.....at AA....in the real world:

"So again, at the time of our earnings announcement, which was mid-July, we had seen business travel increase from about 25 percent of where it had been in March of 2021, and it increased over 50 percent by June. In July it actually increased to 65 percent. So it was coming back very quickly."

"But in all I think it's encouraging. What it shows is business wants to travel, and when thinks looked better, as they did in July, we saw the rate of growth continue to increase, and we are well on our way back to 100 percent."

"The pent-up demand for business travel is very large, and we saw it continue in July but we saw it pull back a little bit in August"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washingt ... chair-ceo/

From where I am sitting, the boom in demand from customers with supply issues and ability to opportunistically increase prices has come to an end, but raw material price increases/availability due to logistics problems still exist so we are now going on a cost cutting period (today we have had free coffee taken away!) for example we have had to move lower margin products back to US plants from Asia because of shipping issues. So I imagine that travel which was being permitted on a limit basis will be curtailed again. Might just be specific to my industry (chemicals) But I would caution excess enthusiasm.

Ever since I returned stateside a few months ago I've been interested in this topic. This kind of info is not available overseas. Ive been tracking the passenger count from the TSA site for three months. I don't want to clutter the topic with a long spread sheet but US passenger count has settled at 75% of the 2019 count. Is COVId the only reason for the passenger loss in the US? I saw previous posts where some suggested September would rebound, is COVId the reason it hasn't? Would be interested to hear why and what's the forecast looking ahead.

DanielsBrawley wrote:

Ever since I returned stateside a few months ago I've been interested in this topic. This kind of info is not available overseas. Ive been tracking the passenger count from the TSA site for three months. I don't want to clutter the topic with a long spread sheet but US passenger count has settled at 75% of the 2019 count. Is COVId the only reason for the passenger loss in the US? I saw previous posts where some suggested September would rebound, is COVId the reason it hasn't? Would be interested to hear why and what's the forecast looking ahead.

The forecast ahead is on the upswing:

- JP Morgan released a note to investors this week saying bookings were accelerating
- Deutsche Bank released a note to investors this week "saying bookings recently stabilized and starting to turn up"
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/delta ... 2021-09-24

I'll post more detailed numbers tomorrow, but you can see a very clear trend reversal in the flight searches on a year over 2 year comparison from August to now (ignoring the Labor Day timing related blip).

https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends

The lifting of some restrictions was big for bookings this week:





https://www.airlines.org/dataset/impact ... -updates/#
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/woR4B

Midwestindy wrote:

The lifting of some restrictions was big for bookings this week:

Thanks for the update mate. This is great data and I suspect the airlines have it in more detail, almost granular.

My initial interest in the topic was two fold. One, just the availability of this data is unique and interesting and two, hoping traffic increases would improve my chances at getting a job.

It's still interesting and a nice predictor of traffic. Looking back on your previous posts it seems to corroborate the lack of recent increases. I'm still interested why the domestic volume is soft considering most restrictions are lifted including some international now.

On the job front I got very lucky and that part of the data is no longer as important to me. I left Hong Kong with no job prospects but had to get out. Way too unstable and CX was becoming impossible to work for. I just fell into the right seat of a corporate Falcon and I'll be in the left seat soon. Decent pay, home more frequently and way less stress.

I know it probably has minimal impact on the commercial side but from what I'm seeing the corporate side is booming. My new colleagues have been echoing the same and say it's been going on since shortly after COVId started. The company I'm working for has doubled the frequency of their fleet hours with no plans to reduce it. Where they've reduced is lower level management and sales. We're now hauling more engineer and tech types vs upper management types and they plan on keeping it that way. It must be similar with other corporate fleets operating in the US. I'll probably never fly big jets again but I'm just glad I landed a bloody flying job. Was at the right dinner party at the right time with the right women. lol

" I know it probably has minimal impact on the commercial side but from what I'm seeing the corporate side is booming. My new colleagues have been echoing the same and say it's been going on since shortly after COVId started. The company I'm working for has doubled the frequency of their fleet hours with no plans to reduce it. Where they've reduced is lower level management and sales. We're now hauling more engineer and tech types vs upper management types and they plan on keeping it that way. It must be similar with other corporate fleets operating in the US. I'll probably never fly big jets again but I'm just glad I landed a bloody flying job. Was at the right dinner party at the right time with the right women. lol[/quote]

A group of us on ANet have been arguing that Corporate/General Aviation was doing really well during COVID flying employees who weren't CEO's. Regular employees who normally would have flown commercial.

The majority said we were making it up. Thanks for posting

I have no idea what the previous normal was so no point of reference. All I can report is what my colleagues tell me. It feels busy though.

DanielsBrawley wrote:

I have no idea what the previous normal was so no point of reference. All I can report is what my colleagues tell me. It feels busy though.

They weren't pulling your leg. Article from CNBC website today -

Private jet rage grows as a record number of fliers strain the system, causing plane shortages
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/01/private ... lainternal

Excerpts -
The flood of new private jet customers — driven by health concerns during the pandemic and the rapid creation of wealth — is now taxing an industry geared for slower growth.
The problem has been made worse by a shortage of new and used planes, delays getting aircraft parts and crew and pilot shortages.
NetJets has halted sales of jet cards, fractional shares and leases for light cabin aircraft amid the challenges.

The big question is whether the more than 10,000 customers who started flying private for the first time during the pandemic will stick around if the problems continue to mount. Gollan said that while customers may complain about service issues, none of the 300 it surveyed said they planned to go back to commercial airlines.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

DanielsBrawley wrote:

I have no idea what the previous normal was so no point of reference. All I can report is what my colleagues tell me. It feels busy though.

They weren't pulling your leg. Article from CNBC website today -

Private jet rage grows as a record number of fliers strain the system, causing plane shortages
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/01/private ... lainternal

Excerpts -
The flood of new private jet customers — driven by health concerns during the pandemic and the rapid creation of wealth — is now taxing an industry geared for slower growth.
The problem has been made worse by a shortage of new and used planes, delays getting aircraft parts and crew and pilot shortages.
NetJets has halted sales of jet cards, fractional shares and leases for light cabin aircraft amid the challenges.

The big question is whether the more than 10,000 customers who started flying private for the first time during the pandemic will stick around if the problems continue to mount. Gollan said that while customers may complain about service issues, none of the 300 it surveyed said they planned to go back to commercial airlines.

Wow 10,000 people. That’s nothing

Not to be that guy but the article stated the following -

"July was the busiest month ever for private jet flights, with more than 300,000 flights, according to Argus International. While business usually cools in the fall, September saw nearly 300,000 flights and Argus projects October’s pace will break the July record."

We are probably looking at least 600,000 passengers or more per month not flying commercial. The kind of high revenue passengers who would be paying the bills at an airline versus VFR passengers who don't. At $1000 per flight (guess for 1st class) that $ 600,000,000 per month. $1.8 billion a quarter.

I think that's 10,000 individual/companies who chartered or bought an interest or an aircraft.

I imagine all those Captains who took buyouts are loving this - retirement pay and an extra $250k flying a Citation.

Scarebus34 wrote:

FlyingElvii wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

After all the hyperbole over the past few weeks that airlines were heading back to March 2020 levels, bookings and searches are growing again both in absolute terms and yo2y.



https://www.kayak.com/flight-trends
https://datastudio.google.com/u/0/repor ... page/BUtIB

Not for long….

White House debates vaccines for air travel
https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... air-travel
There have been lots of warnings that was coming eventually. And the Payroll support ends at the end of the month.

Going to be a dark winter, I think, especially in the prison states.

Remember when they were also 'discussing' requiring every domestic traveler to test? yeah - that never happened either... most airlines/vendors are understaffed as it is. Payroll support ending isn't going to have a meaningful impact...

Oops… Never Happened YET….

Feinstein introduces bill to require vaccinations or tests for domestic air travel
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/574 ... mestic-air

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Not to be that guy but the article stated the following -

"July was the busiest month ever for private jet flights, with more than 300,000 flights, according to Argus International. While business usually cools in the fall, September saw nearly 300,000 flights and Argus projects October’s pace will break the July record."

We are probably looking at least 600,000 passengers or more per month not flying commercial. The kind of high revenue passengers who would be paying the bills at an airline versus VFR passengers who don't. At $1000 per flight (guess for 1st class) that $ 600,000,000 per month. $1.8 billion a quarter.

I think that's 10,000 individual/companies who chartered or bought an interest or an aircraft.

I imagine all those Captains who took buyouts are loving this - retirement pay and an extra $250k flying a Citation.

I have been witnessing this, and saying this for months.

I personally know a few who have taken GA gigs after the buyouts, and a couple that are flying GA and didn’t go back to the regional when called.
Three I know are locally based. Two have kids and are loving the change in lifestyle, being home almost every night, the other is flying a locally based aircraft, at better money than he made as a regional lifer captain. Two others in this area that used to go charter now have shiny new Cirrus Vision jets to fly themselves around in, one of those is based at my home airport.

As I noted earlier in this thread, do the numbers reflect enough heads to substantially change the number of people traveling? No…
Are enough people using GA now to substantially affect the majors bottoms lines? Most certainly.

Take note, there has been movement like this before, when fractional ownership of private aircraft became a thing in the mid/late 90’s. It was cited as a factor in the United Bankruptcy proceedings as well.

It's this incremental revenue that may make the difference in UA/DL/AA profitability going forward. They would kill for this. So either they get this traffic back or lower their CASM to be more profitable with lower RASM.

One saving grace for the majors is International flying will help the majors. The regular rich might balk at 14 hours of block time and the international fees . CEO and mega rich - it's walking around money. Plus the First Class/Business Class experience international is the last bastion of flying sanity.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's this incremental revenue that may make the difference in UA/DL/AA profitability going forward. They would kill for this. So either they get this traffic back or lower their CASM to be more profitable with lower RASM.

One saving grace for the majors is International flying will help the majors. The regular rich might balk at 14 hours of block time and the international fees . CEO and mega rich - it's walking around money. Plus the First Class/Business Class experience international is the last bastion of flying sanity.

Let’s take a look at just a couple of hours, from just one airport, Chicago Exec/Palwaukee, just 8 miles north of O’Hare, an airport that can easily be said has flights to everywhere. It’s Saturday, normally the slowest day of the week, in normally slow October.

Per flightaware, of the tail numbers not being blocked by request, a Citaion departed to St.Louis, an Epic to New London, CT, a Citation to Nantucket, a Hawker to Baton Rouge, a G4 to Lakeland, Wi, in the Northwoods, and a Premier going to Guad Cities.

Scheduled to leave soon are a Challenger 600 for the Northwoods, ExecJets to Durango and Westchester, an Epic to Cuyahoga/Cleveland, a Flexjet Challenger to Newark, a Challenger 550 to Destin, a Hawker to Lawrence, KS, a Challenger to Lander Wyoming, a VisionJet to Lansing, a FlexJet to Peru Illinois, an ExecJets Epic to Baton Rouge, and a Falcon 750 to Truckee.

Enroute, or schedule to arrive in PWK are ExecJets from Aspen, Nantucket, and JFK. A Flexjet Epic from Dems Moines, Citations from Bedford Mass and Manhattan KS, as well as Challenger from St. Louis.

Each and every one of of these planes is carrying people that could just as easily get to where they are going much cheaper at O’Hare, just a mere 8 miles down the road. But they Have CHOSEN to pay more to fly private, without the hassles, groping, crowds and risks of going through O’Hare.

As you noted, all of this is high-paying incremental income that the majors won’t be getting. Each Passenger flying through PWK today is the financial equivalent of at least TEN leisure pax, or more. More People with the means to do so are choosing alternatives now, than ever before. Even for shorter hops, one of the reasons that the FAA is cracking down enforcement actions on Part 91 charter ops that fall into the legal grey area between General Aviation and Part 135.

Just for the giggles, and having some time to kill, I looked at Indianapolis for this morning as well. Keep in mind, this is a Saturday in October…

Arriving to IND was a Cheyenne owned by “Private Charters, Inc” from Scranton. Inbound are an Epic from Miami, and a DPJ/UP Challenger from Tuscaloosa. Scheduled outbound are a Challenger to Rochester Minnesota, a Challenger to Lansing, and a Commander to Salina, KS.

Looking at the IND Reliever Airports:
MQJ -Indy Regional/Mt. Comfort
scheduled inbound are a Hawker for CMH, a Sovereign 680 from Sarasota, an ExecJets Sovereign from RDU, and a Citation from CLT.
Departing this morning are aFlexjet Epics for South Bend and The Hampton’s, Citations with different owners to Opa Locka, Pittsburgh, and Traverse City,
A SolutionsAir TBM for Naples, with an ExecJets Sovereign to Jackson Hole still to go.

Greenwood Municipal:
A Hawker arrived this morning from Pontiac.

Indy Exec/Zionsville:
ExecJets Citations departed for Cleveland and Dulles, a First Wings Citation left for OSU/Columbus, and a FlexJets Epic left for For Spartanburg Downtown, with a private Citation scheduled for Key West, and a JetLynx Citation going to the Ocean Reef Club.

Inbound are an ExecJets Latitude from St. Simons Island, an AvCenter Citation from Santa Fe, ExecJets Epics from Baton Rouge and Boston, and a Lear45 from San Antonio.

This is just one medium sized city, on a normally slow Saturday, folks…

FlyingElvii wrote:

MohawkWeekend wrote:

It's this incremental revenue that may make the difference in UA/DL/AA profitability going forward. They would kill for this. So either they get this traffic back or lower their CASM to be more profitable with lower RASM.

One saving grace for the majors is International flying will help the majors. The regular rich might balk at 14 hours of block time and the international fees . CEO and mega rich - it's walking around money. Plus the First Class/Business Class experience international is the last bastion of flying sanity.

Let’s take a look at just a couple of hours, from just one airport, Chicago Exec/Palwaukee, just 8 miles north of O’Hare, an airport that can easily be said has flights to everywhere. It’s Saturday, normally the slowest day of the week, in normally slow October.

Per flightaware, of the tail numbers not being blocked by request, a Citaion departed to St.Louis, an Epic to New London, CT, a Citation to Nantucket, a Hawker to Baton Rouge, a G4 to Lakeland, Wi, in the Northwoods, and a Premier going to Guad Cities.

Scheduled to leave soon are a Challenger 600 for the Northwoods, ExecJets to Durango and Westchester, an Epic to Cuyahoga/Cleveland, a Flexjet Challenger to Newark, a Challenger 550 to Destin, a Hawker to Lawrence, KS, a Challenger to Lander Wyoming, a VisionJet to Lansing, a FlexJet to Peru Illinois, an ExecJets Epic to Baton Rouge, and a Falcon 750 to Truckee.

Enroute, or schedule to arrive in PWK are ExecJets from Aspen, Nantucket, and JFK. A Flexjet Epic from Dems Moines, Citations from Bedford Mass and Manhattan KS, as well as Challenger from St. Louis.

Each and every one of of these planes is carrying people that could just as easily get to where they are going much cheaper at O’Hare, just a mere 8 miles down the road. But they Have CHOSEN to pay more to fly private, without the hassles, groping, crowds and risks of going through O’Hare.

As you noted, all of this is high-paying incremental income that the majors won’t be getting. Each Passenger flying through PWK today is the financial equivalent of at least TEN leisure pax, or more. More People with the means to do so are choosing alternatives now, than ever before. Even for shorter hops, one of the reasons that the FAA is cracking down enforcement actions on Part 91 charter ops that fall into the legal grey area between General Aviation and Part 135.

Ok but your not saying how many more than is from the baseline? The amount of available private jets hasn’t increased by much so the only option is that they are flying more often.

Most private jets and turbo props had low utilization rates - just by looking at industry for sale sites the Total Time is very low.

But they are cranking out jets and prop jets at 60% great numbers than commercial - According to the GAMA website, in 2020 American manufactures delivered 443 turbo props and 644 jets last year. Falcon 34 jets, Embraer 86, Bombardier 114. Total 1321
Airliners - Boeing delivered 210 aircraft, Airbus 566, Embraer 44, ATR 10 Total - 820


That is alot of additional General Aviation Capacity. And I bet Boeing and Airbus's numbers include a dozen or so BBJ's

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Most private jets and turbo props had low utilization rates - just by looking at industry for sale sites the Total Time is very low.

But they are cranking out jets and prop jets at 60% great numbers than commercial - According to the GAMA website, in 2020 American manufactures delivered 443 turbo props and 644 jets last year. Falcon 34 jets, Embraer 86, Bombardier 114. Total 1321
Airliners - Boeing delivered 210 aircraft, Airbus 566, Embraer 44, ATR 10 Total - 820


That is alot of additional General Aviation Capacity. And I bet Boeing and Airbus's numbers include a dozen or so BBJ's

Right but the same rich people aren’t going to start flying at 3am. The whole scheme is not scaleable without tens of thousands of more jets