LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think a lot of people on this thread need some perspective.

The issues going on at DTW are systems wide and across all airlines. There is a massive pilot shortage and the airlines getting hit hardest are the regionals. As a result there has been a lot of draw down for those.

Take a look at UA's schedule adjustment with the March schedule recently published. This is how many flights they eliminated on a weekly basis from each hub.

Number of weekly departures cut by hub:
DEN -298
EWR -94
IAD -272
IAH -218
LAX -112
ORD -378
SFO -367

The industry needs more pilots. Only then we will see this sort of thing die down. It is not specific to DTW in any way, shape, or form.

These cuts aren't relevant without benchmarking what the original schedule was and how it compares to 2019/2022

The cuts illustrate a point about pilot shortages and how its not specific to one airline or airport.

Not really, unless you know what % of 2019 these cuts represent:

-94 weekly means nothing in isolation....

e.g. Is that -94 flights from a schedule that was 150% of 2019 or -94 flights from a schedule that was 75% of 2019? Did XYZ hub have a larger placeholder than YYY hub? e.t.c.

kavok wrote:

BowlingShoeDC9 wrote:

kavok wrote:

The one other positive is that giant sucking sound of RJs being pulled to LGA to feed DLs convoluted “slot requirements” has hopefully finally subsided.

Looking at the schedule, there are very few LGA slots left without a CR7/9. Aside from the LGA flights to the DL hubs (ATL/DTW/MSP), Florida, and competition hubs (DFW/IAH/ORD),… pretty much every other LGA flight remaining is a 2-class RJ. Posters used to refer to DTW/MSP as an RJ city back in the day… but % wise nothing much compares to the LGA operation of today.

So hopefully as more new CR9s are delivered, **maybe** they could be used at DTW on more profitable routes.

New CR9’s? Where are these coming from?

For some reason I though DL/9E still had some new CR9s yet to be delivered. My apologies if that is inaccurate.

CRJ production ended ~2 years ago as far as I know. No worries though. I didn’t know if they bought some new (to Delta) ones from another carrier.

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

These cuts aren't relevant without benchmarking what the original schedule was and how it compares to 2019/2022

The cuts illustrate a point about pilot shortages and how its not specific to one airline or airport.

Not really, unless you know what % of 2019 these cuts represent:

-94 weekly means nothing in isolation....

e.g. Is that -94 flights from a schedule that was 150% of 2019 or -94 flights from a schedule that was 75% of 2019? Did XYZ hub have a larger placeholder than YYY hub? e.t.c.

It was based on what the airline had scheduled in March vs. what they recently cut. So the airline have been modifying their schedules last minute. So for example, the EWR March schedule had 94 more weekly flights prior to the schedule updates for March that were done a couple weeks ago. Thats what the numbers represent.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think a lot of people on this thread need some perspective.

The issues going on at DTW are systems wide and across all airlines. There is a massive pilot shortage and the airlines getting hit hardest are the regionals. As a result there has been a lot of draw down for those.

Take a look at UA's schedule adjustment with the March schedule recently published. This is how many flights they eliminated on a weekly basis from each hub.

Number of weekly departures cut by hub:
DEN -298
EWR -94
IAD -272
IAH -218
LAX -112
ORD -378
SFO -367

The industry needs more pilots. Only then we will see this sort of thing die down. It is not specific to DTW in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, this point rings true—but that's exactly my point. In the very conditions that you point out, I don't see why DL can't distribute the role of a core midwest hub to their other core midwest hub + lucrative coastal hubs. These conditions will have a ripple effect in the industry; they are changing the business fundamentals of operating a hub.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

The cuts illustrate a point about pilot shortages and how its not specific to one airline or airport.

Not really, unless you know what % of 2019 these cuts represent:

-94 weekly means nothing in isolation....

e.g. Is that -94 flights from a schedule that was 150% of 2019 or -94 flights from a schedule that was 75% of 2019? Did XYZ hub have a larger placeholder than YYY hub? e.t.c.

It was based on what the airline had scheduled in March vs. what they recently cut. So the airline have been modifying their schedules last minute. So for example, the EWR March schedule had 94 more weekly flights prior to the schedule updates for March that were done a couple weeks ago. Thats what the numbers represent.

They were rhetorical questions.

I was pointing out the flaws in reporting cuts that way.

Crankyflier did a good piece on why it was misleading (AA version) to show cuts like that:
https://crankyflier.com/2022/08/18/cont ... er-flying/

This talk about DL at BOS replacing DTW's role in a non-starter. BOS is a large, yet highly fragmented and competitive market.

Using today, (granted its a holiday week) here is DL's schedule. This is going up against 126 JetBlue flights, and 82 American flights.

DTW has more capacity is almost every single market being flown out of BOS. BOS is not meant to be a core connecting hub. DL cannot significantly grow BOS other than upgauging. Its also highly dependent on E70/E75 feed.


Delta 128
E170 3
E75L 53
BCS1 20
A319 7
B738 1
B739 5
A321 20
A21N 9
B752 5
B764 1
A332 1
A333 2
A339 1
Skyteam 3
A332 1
A339 1
B789 1
Grand Total 131

Row Labels Count of Flight
Delta 128
AMS 1
ATL 10
AUS 1
BNA 3
BUF 1
BWI 3
CDG 1
CHS 1
CLE 3
CLT 2
CMH 2
CUN 1
CVG 3
DCA 7
DEN 1
DFW 2
DTW 5
DUB 1
EWR 3
FLL 1
HPN 3
IND 2
JAX 2
JFK 8
LAS 1
LAX 2
LGA 16
LHR 1
MCI 2
MCO 3
MIA 1
MKE 1
MSP 5
MSY 1
ORD 5
PBI 1
PHL 3
PIT 2
RDU 4
RIC 1
RSW 1
SAN 1
SAV 1
SEA 3
SFO 2
SLC 2
TPA 2
Skyteam 3
AMS 1
CDG 1
LHR 1
Grand Total 131

reasonable wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I think a lot of people on this thread need some perspective.

The issues going on at DTW are systems wide and across all airlines. There is a massive pilot shortage and the airlines getting hit hardest are the regionals. As a result there has been a lot of draw down for those.

Take a look at UA's schedule adjustment with the March schedule recently published. This is how many flights they eliminated on a weekly basis from each hub.

Number of weekly departures cut by hub:
DEN -298
EWR -94
IAD -272
IAH -218
LAX -112
ORD -378
SFO -367

The industry needs more pilots. Only then we will see this sort of thing die down. It is not specific to DTW in any way, shape, or form.

Yes, this point rings true—but that's exactly my point. In the very conditions that you point out, I don't see why DL can't distribute the role of a core midwest hub to their other core midwest hub + lucrative coastal hubs. These conditions will have a ripple effect in the industry; they are changing the business fundamentals of operating a hub.

It can't consolidate its Midwest hub because MSP could never produce the Pacific fare premiums DTW has. BOS has neither the geography nor the infrastructure to replace DTW.

Non-starter.

dtwpilot225 wrote:

A month ago or so someone posted something about being strong rumors of dtw-ath
And while it was highly Likely that was a fake news post I was just wondering, besides ams,cdg,muc,fco,fra,lhr, and all the Asian cities is there anywhere else in that dtw could ever get service from? I always looked at the Middle East or Poland, both large populations in detroit but It seems delta is all about the premium now and the corporate contracts and unless the route is going To bring in premium revenue, they aren’t going to launch it. It’s cool we have the cities we have but I just don’t see anything else on the horizon any time soon

Poland would seem logical on the face of it. Seasonal DTW WAW service on whatever is the most efficient plane. However despite the large polish diaspora in the midwest, I believe a lot of it is simply lower yielding VFR traffic. If they had the equipment ( I honestly don't know how much slack DL have in their long haul fleet) would they want to tie up a 764, 339 on this kind of lower yielding service? Also ORD sees a lot of Michigan leakage to the LO 787 services.

The middle east would seem to be low hanging fruit but it
is really well covered by RJ with a lot of local brand recognition within the communities and diaspora who use the AMM service. The tags to/from YUL have also be dropped with each now being stand alone. If TK or QR ever entered the DTW market then that would be case closed I think for DL.

If and when all the recent shenanigans sort out such as the regional flying issues, covid restrictions in China, issues stemming from energy markets uncertainty, I think you'll see DL resume a good amount of Asia flying.

Detroit is not who it was 10 years ago. There are still issues, but the city is indeed progressing, it no longer depends just on the auto industry. Many large tech and financial companies now reside downtown, Tourism is growing, and the metro areas still have affluence. DTW also has 2 beautiful terminals which are not complicated and not a significant pain in the ass to use.
Do I think DL are a sure bet in the future? I'd like to think so but the world doesn't revolve around them. Who's to say LO, EI, BA, QR, EK, TK, JL, KE won't someday turn up on the doorstep. Big dreams I know but we dont know the future.

Also we need an Admirals Club. Get on it AA. lol.

BA will be back in DTW, when market conditions allow them. There’s a lot of untapped middle of America markets like MCI and IND that need to see a form of IAG service before they starting stuff at DTW

BA / IAG has a few more markets where they can be first mover and soak up some subsidies and revenue guarantees from markets looking for TATL prestige before they actually want to go into a competitive market like DTW

DL has zero interest in going after price competitive VFR travel, like said they want routes with a revenue premium and where they can sell their D1 and PS products- business and premium leisure.
WAW is a non starter. They might try something like that from JFK but definitely not DTW

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

This talk about DL at BOS replacing DTW's role in a non-starter. BOS is a large, yet highly fragmented and competitive market.

Using today, (granted its a holiday week) here is DL's schedule. This is going up against 126 JetBlue flights, and 82 American flights.

DTW has more capacity is almost every single market being flown out of BOS. BOS is not meant to be a core connecting hub. DL cannot significantly grow BOS other than upgauging. Its also highly dependent on E70/E75 feed.


Delta 128
E170 3
E75L 53
BCS1 20
A319 7
B738 1
B739 5
A321 20
A21N 9
B752 5
B764 1
A332 1
A333 2
A339 1
Skyteam 3
A332 1
A339 1
B789 1
Grand Total 131

Row Labels Count of Flight
Delta 128
AMS 1
ATL 10
AUS 1
BNA 3
BUF 1
BWI 3
CDG 1
CHS 1
CLE 3
CLT 2
CMH 2
CUN 1
CVG 3
DCA 7
DEN 1
DFW 2
DTW 5
DUB 1
EWR 3
FLL 1
HPN 3
IND 2
JAX 2
JFK 8
LAS 1
LAX 2
LGA 16
LHR 1
MCI 2
MCO 3
MIA 1
MKE 1
MSP 5
MSY 1
ORD 5
PBI 1
PHL 3
PIT 2
RDU 4
RIC 1
RSW 1
SAN 1
SAV 1
SEA 3
SFO 2
SLC 2
TPA 2
Skyteam 3
AMS 1
CDG 1
LHR 1
Grand Total 131

I'm looking ahead, not at today, and suggesting that a drawdown at DTW due to RJ cuts and pilot shortage and economic conditions in Asia will change the dynamic of how DL's hubs operate and coordinate with each other. I'm suggesting that BOS and MSP can complement each other, not either one individually supplant DTW. In this scenario BOS doesn't need to be a connecting hub, just directly service profitable routes without needing to connect in DTW, while MSP strengthens as a connecting hub for connections made in DTW today (or, not made in DTW in the near future, in light of all the cuts that have been shared here).

bhxdtw wrote:

Detroit is not who it was 10 years ago. There are still issues, but the city is indeed progressing, it no longer depends just on the auto industry. Many large tech and financial companies now reside downtown, Tourism is growing, and the metro areas still have affluence. DTW also has 2 beautiful terminals which are not complicated and not a significant pain in the ass to use.
Do I think DL are a sure bet in the future? I'd like to think so but the world doesn't revolve around them. Who's to say LO, EI, BA, QR, EK, TK, JL, KE won't someday turn up on the doorstep. Big dreams I know but we dont know the future.

Also we need an Admirals Club. Get on it AA. lol.

To use a favorite figure of speech in reference to the Pistons, Red Wings, Lions, and Tigers, Detroit is in "rebuilding mode."

EI, BA, TK, QR, KE, JL could all serve the region in the future. Honestly, I don't think anyone can anticipate exactly how the very large paradigm shifts we're going through right now will reorder the airline industry. First and foremost myself. But it's plain which way the wind is currently blowing with DL at DTW. The only sure bet is that things in five years won't look like 2019 or 2007 or 1999 or 1988—especially for DTW.

reasonable wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

This talk about DL at BOS replacing DTW's role in a non-starter. BOS is a large, yet highly fragmented and competitive market.

Using today, (granted its a holiday week) here is DL's schedule. This is going up against 126 JetBlue flights, and 82 American flights.

DTW has more capacity is almost every single market being flown out of BOS. BOS is not meant to be a core connecting hub. DL cannot significantly grow BOS other than upgauging. Its also highly dependent on E70/E75 feed.


Delta 128
E170 3
E75L 53
BCS1 20
A319 7
B738 1
B739 5
A321 20
A21N 9
B752 5
B764 1
A332 1
A333 2
A339 1
Skyteam 3
A332 1
A339 1
B789 1
Grand Total 131

Row Labels Count of Flight
Delta 128
AMS 1
ATL 10
AUS 1
BNA 3
BUF 1
BWI 3
CDG 1
CHS 1
CLE 3
CLT 2
CMH 2
CUN 1
CVG 3
DCA 7
DEN 1
DFW 2
DTW 5
DUB 1
EWR 3
FLL 1
HPN 3
IND 2
JAX 2
JFK 8
LAS 1
LAX 2
LGA 16
LHR 1
MCI 2
MCO 3
MIA 1
MKE 1
MSP 5
MSY 1
ORD 5
PBI 1
PHL 3
PIT 2
RDU 4
RIC 1
RSW 1
SAN 1
SAV 1
SEA 3
SFO 2
SLC 2
TPA 2
Skyteam 3
AMS 1
CDG 1
LHR 1
Grand Total 131

I'm looking ahead, not at today, and suggesting that a drawdown at DTW due to RJ cuts and pilot shortage and economic conditions in Asia will change the dynamic of how DL's hubs operate and coordinate with each other. I'm suggesting that BOS and MSP can complement each other, not either one individually supplant DTW. In this scenario BOS doesn't need to be a connecting hub, just directly service profitable routes without needing to connect in DTW, while MSP strengthens as a connecting hub for connections made in DTW today (or, not made in DTW in the near future, in light of all the cuts that have been shared here).

You seem to be ignoring the part where DTW is a valuable market on its own. BOS is highly fragmented. It’s large but the fare premiums would not match what DL can get in DTW. MSP could NEVER replace DTWs Asia network. The market is so much smaller and the fare premiums are not there.

Only one market has ever been able to support a flight to NGO in the US and it is DTW. When DL has ATL, MSP and DTW to choose for an Asian gateway, they choose DTW because of the fare premiums. This despite the fact that ATL has better connectivity and MSP has better geography.

Just seems like there are people who simply want DTW to fail as a hub. A few RJ cuts and a pilot shortage are not evidence of this. What’s more likely is that much of the Asia market is still recovering and DTW is DLs primary Asia hub. So it makes sense as to why DTW might be more effected than MSP or ATL. You can see the same with DFW. Several routes to Latin America were chopped because they didn’t have the feed from Asia anymore. SFO is also struggling with some its connectivity.

Trying to make these issues solely about DTW is simply trying too hard.

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Not really, unless you know what % of 2019 these cuts represent:

-94 weekly means nothing in isolation....

e.g. Is that -94 flights from a schedule that was 150% of 2019 or -94 flights from a schedule that was 75% of 2019? Did XYZ hub have a larger placeholder than YYY hub? e.t.c.

It was based on what the airline had scheduled in March vs. what they recently cut. So the airline have been modifying their schedules last minute. So for example, the EWR March schedule had 94 more weekly flights prior to the schedule updates for March that were done a couple weeks ago. Thats what the numbers represent.

They were rhetorical questions.

I was pointing out the flaws in reporting cuts that way.

Crankyflier did a good piece on why it was misleading (AA version) to show cuts like that:
https://crankyflier.com/2022/08/18/cont ... er-flying/

I get the rationale but placeholder schedules represent a desired outcome for airlines if they have full use of their resources. In this time, they don’t due mainly to pilot shortages. So they have to chop from their placeholder schedule. What the data I did post shows is where UA decided to chop.

Then there has to be some inference as to why. DEN and ORD have huge numbers of RJ flights and the pilot shortage is certainly being in play there. SFO is suffering from the problems in Asia. DTW is both DLs primary Asian gateway and it has a lot of RJ markets. Putting it together, it’s easy to see why DTW has had more chops than the other hubs for now. It does not translate to this doom and gloom that some seem to be wishing upon it.

A.net had been wishing and prospecting on the demise of the DTW from the day the NW-DL merger was announced…..it is what it is.
It will always be the gloomiest and dire city specific thread on here.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

It was based on what the airline had scheduled in March vs. what they recently cut. So the airline have been modifying their schedules last minute. So for example, the EWR March schedule had 94 more weekly flights prior to the schedule updates for March that were done a couple weeks ago. Thats what the numbers represent.

They were rhetorical questions.

I was pointing out the flaws in reporting cuts that way.

Crankyflier did a good piece on why it was misleading (AA version) to show cuts like that:
https://crankyflier.com/2022/08/18/cont ... er-flying/

I get the rationale but placeholder schedules represent a desired outcome for airlines if they have full use of their resources. In this time, they don’t due mainly to pilot shortages. So they have to chop from their placeholder schedule. What the data I did post shows is where UA decided to chop.

Then there has to be some inference as to why. DEN and ORD have huge numbers of RJ flights and the pilot shortage is certainly being in play there. SFO is suffering from the problems in Asia. DTW is both DLs primary Asian gateway and it has a lot of RJ markets. Putting it together, it’s easy to see why DTW has had more chops than the other hubs for now. It does not translate to this doom and gloom that some seem to be wishing upon it.

I'm sorry but you literally cannot put any weight in a placeholder schedule, it's called a placeholder schedule for a reason.

Random #'s of cuts don't tell you much of anything unless it is indexed to a benchmark (e.g. 2019 size).

But this is going in circles, and is relatively off-topic, so I'll agree to disagree.

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

They were rhetorical questions.

I was pointing out the flaws in reporting cuts that way.

Crankyflier did a good piece on why it was misleading (AA version) to show cuts like that:
https://crankyflier.com/2022/08/18/cont ... er-flying/

I get the rationale but placeholder schedules represent a desired outcome for airlines if they have full use of their resources. In this time, they don’t due mainly to pilot shortages. So they have to chop from their placeholder schedule. What the data I did post shows is where UA decided to chop.

Then there has to be some inference as to why. DEN and ORD have huge numbers of RJ flights and the pilot shortage is certainly being in play there. SFO is suffering from the problems in Asia. DTW is both DLs primary Asian gateway and it has a lot of RJ markets. Putting it together, it’s easy to see why DTW has had more chops than the other hubs for now. It does not translate to this doom and gloom that some seem to be wishing upon it.

I'm sorry but you literally cannot put any weight in a placeholder schedule, it's called a placeholder schedule for a reason.

Random #'s of cuts don't tell you much of anything unless it is indexed to a benchmark (e.g. 2019 size).

But this is going in circles, and is relatively off-topic, so I'll agree to disagree.

I’m sure we could go on about it, but I’m good to agree to disagree.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Then there has to be some inference as to why. DEN and ORD have huge numbers of RJ flights and the pilot shortage is certainly being in play there. SFO is suffering from the problems in Asia. DTW is both DLs primary Asian gateway and it has a lot of RJ markets. Putting it together, it’s easy to see why DTW has had more chops than the other hubs for now. It does not translate to this doom and gloom that some seem to be wishing upon it.

I think a difference worth pointing out is, UA's SFO hub hasn't seen many domestic destinations cut, frequencies are obviously down but not really destinations.

I think the # is only 6 total domestic routes axed from pre-covid from UA's SFO hub, one of which being DTW.

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Then there has to be some inference as to why. DEN and ORD have huge numbers of RJ flights and the pilot shortage is certainly being in play there. SFO is suffering from the problems in Asia. DTW is both DLs primary Asian gateway and it has a lot of RJ markets. Putting it together, it’s easy to see why DTW has had more chops than the other hubs for now. It does not translate to this doom and gloom that some seem to be wishing upon it.

I think a difference worth pointing out is, UA's SFO hub hasn't seen many domestic destinations cut, frequencies are obviously down but not really destinations.

I think the # is only 6 total domestic routes axed from pre-covid from UA's SFO hub, one of which being DTW.

I would say that UAs SFO hub had far fewer domestic destinations to begin with. So fewer destinations means each cut would impact the hub more.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Then there has to be some inference as to why. DEN and ORD have huge numbers of RJ flights and the pilot shortage is certainly being in play there. SFO is suffering from the problems in Asia. DTW is both DLs primary Asian gateway and it has a lot of RJ markets. Putting it together, it’s easy to see why DTW has had more chops than the other hubs for now. It does not translate to this doom and gloom that some seem to be wishing upon it.

I think a difference worth pointing out is, UA's SFO hub hasn't seen many domestic destinations cut, frequencies are obviously down but not really destinations.

I think the # is only 6 total domestic routes axed from pre-covid from UA's SFO hub, one of which being DTW.

I would say that UAs SFO hub had far fewer domestic destinations to begin with. So fewer destinations means each cut would impact the hub more.

Of the 6, most of UA's domestic cuts were long thin routes: STL, DTW, MSN, XNA, OKC, & STS

Probably right to also assume these were majority O&D, with the exception of STS, meaning cutting them impacted the hub less.

For DTW (not sure if I missed any), most of the domestic route cuts are heavy connecting flow flights, and more short-haul oriented (higher frequency pre-covid). Which in theory would impact the hub more:
DTW-SMF
DTW-SJC
DTW-ERI
DTW-OKC
DTW-MLI
DTW-MHT
DTW-SJU
DTW-AVP
DTW-LSE
DTW-EVV
DTW-LIT
DTW-ORH
DTW-CWA
DTW-SBN
DTW-SCE
DTW-FWA
DTW-ITH
DTW-BGM

This link talks about Turkish Airlines' flying for next year. Noticed nothing about DTW. Shocker (total sarcasm intended). Frankly, I'm still not sure what TK bring can bring to the table that can't be serviced by DL/KL/AF through AMS/CDG, LH through FRA or RJ through AMM.

https://simpleflying.com/turkish-airlines-usa-changes/

EBiafore99 wrote:

This link talks about Turkish Airlines' flying for next year. Noticed nothing about DTW. Shocker (total sarcasm intended). Frankly, I'm still not sure what TK bring can bring to the table that can't be serviced by DL/KL/AF through AMS/CDG or RJ through AMM.

https://simpleflying.com/turkish-airlines-usa-changes/

DTW has been mentioned many times in the past year officially by TK. Simple Flying is just talking about recently made Turkish schedule changes. DTW being absent from that article means nothing.

Could PTK be used as a sencondary airport to DTW, YIP is too close and DET is too small, and this could allow more airlines, especially LCCs to expand into the city maybe.

FLYKTPA wrote:

EBiafore99 wrote:

This link talks about Turkish Airlines' flying for next year. Noticed nothing about DTW. Shocker (total sarcasm intended). Frankly, I'm still not sure what TK bring can bring to the table that can't be serviced by DL/KL/AF through AMS/CDG or RJ through AMM.

https://simpleflying.com/turkish-airlines-usa-changes/

DTW has been mentioned many times in the past year officially by TK. Simple Flying is just talking about recently made Turkish schedule changes. DTW being absent from that article means nothing.

The article also states "As of November 21st, there's no change to planned service to Atlanta, Boston, Dallas Fort Worth, Newark, or San Francisco", so the article implies it's discussing all of TK's US destinations.
I know TK has indicated it will start serving DTW, but the start date has been very fluid. I would expect DTW to appear somewhere in the article if TK has set a start date. To me, the longer there is no start date, the more I question TK's entry.

EBiafore99 wrote:

FLYKTPA wrote:

EBiafore99 wrote:

This link talks about Turkish Airlines' flying for next year. Noticed nothing about DTW. Shocker (total sarcasm intended). Frankly, I'm still not sure what TK bring can bring to the table that can't be serviced by DL/KL/AF through AMS/CDG or RJ through AMM.

https://simpleflying.com/turkish-airlines-usa-changes/

DTW has been mentioned many times in the past year officially by TK. Simple Flying is just talking about recently made Turkish schedule changes. DTW being absent from that article means nothing.

The article also states "As of November 21st, there's no change to planned service to Atlanta, Boston, Dallas Fort Worth, Newark, or San Francisco", so the article implies it's discussing all of TK's US destinations.
I know TK has indicated it will start serving DTW, but the start date has been very fluid. I would expect DTW to appear somewhere in the article if TK has set a start date. To me, the longer there is no start date, the more I question TK's entry.

Turkish has also publicly said the 787 delays from Boeing have caused them to pushback and delay growth. In the past few years, Turkish keeps their word for the most part. A few months ago they mentioned their desire for SEA to go daily, but cited 787 delays. Now Seattle is daily. Now that 787 deliveries have resumed, DEN and DTW should be added next year. Denver is heavily rumored to be next.

Yes.....good chance TK could be in DTW by mid-2023, and Play (if they can keep their head above water this winter).

EBiafore99 wrote:

This link talks about Turkish Airlines' flying for next year. Noticed nothing about DTW. Shocker (total sarcasm intended). Frankly, I'm still not sure what TK bring can bring to the table that can't be serviced by DL/KL/AF through AMS/CDG, LH through FRA or RJ through AMM.

https://simpleflying.com/turkish-airlines-usa-changes/

AMM can’t hold a torch to the massive connecting machine that TK has through IST, which has an ideal location for serving the large Middle Eastern and South Asian diaspora in SE Michigan.

All this discussion has motivated me to take a deeper dive into the DL DTW flight schedules and frequencies… and one of the routes that particularly stands out is DTW-MSP itself.

Obviously a significant hub-hub route, and arguably more significant now given the many destination cuts each market has seen. And yet, DL normally is only flying DTW-MSP 5x daily.., (2x 321, 320, 737, and 717!)*. I guess I am surprised the frequency and gauge isn’t higher.
*Feb 10 was the date used, but that is pretty typical for current schedules.

Just seems awful low. Obviously connecting traffic isn’t the biggest money maker, but still. And to add insult to injury, the “RON bank” morning inbound MSP-DTW and “RON bank” outbound evening DTW-MSP are timed to make many RON-bank connections at DTW very tight.

That is how its been post-pandemic. To not confuse others, that has been the general frequency trend in the post-pandemic era.

Pre-pandemic, DTW-MSP in 2019 was 8x and saw a mix of 717, 738/739, 319/320/321, and the occasional 757. At least 2 of the flights were typically 717s to bridge between the hubs.

In 2021 & 2022 as they brought back capacity, DTW-MSP has been 5x winter & 6x summer.

For the better part of 2021 & 2022 DTW frequency have operated as follows:

1-2x small regional markets (EAS routes, LAN, MBS, AZO, CR2 routes, etc.)
3-4x mid-large sized markets (BNA, RDU, STL, CMH, DEN, DFW, GRR, etc)
4-5x Florida routes (TPA, RSW, FLL, MCO) with gauge and frequency increases during peak times
5-6x hubs and large cities (DCA, BOS, LGA, LAX, Florida routes, MSP, SLC)
10x ATL
TATL
TPAC

The core of the hub is really running around ~4 departure banks per day currently.

Midwestindy wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I think a difference worth pointing out is, UA's SFO hub hasn't seen many domestic destinations cut, frequencies are obviously down but not really destinations.

I think the # is only 6 total domestic routes axed from pre-covid from UA's SFO hub, one of which being DTW.

I would say that UAs SFO hub had far fewer domestic destinations to begin with. So fewer destinations means each cut would impact the hub more.

Of the 6, most of UA's domestic cuts were long thin routes: STL, DTW, MSN, XNA, OKC, & STS

Probably right to also assume these were majority O&D, with the exception of STS, meaning cutting them impacted the hub less.

For DTW (not sure if I missed any), most of the domestic route cuts are heavy connecting flow flights, and more short-haul oriented (higher frequency pre-covid). Which in theory would impact the hub more:
DTW-SMF
DTW-SJC
DTW-ERI
DTW-OKC
DTW-MLI
DTW-MHT
DTW-SJU
DTW-AVP
DTW-LSE
DTW-EVV
DTW-LIT
DTW-ORH
DTW-CWA
DTW-SBN
DTW-SCE
DTW-FWA
DTW-ITH
DTW-BGM

Add BNA for SFO.

I think were making two different points. Im saying that because SFO has far fewer destinations domestically, each loss hits harder. You are saying that because the cuts at DTW are more connection focused, it hits harder because the routes are chopped at SFO are more O&D. I think both points are valid.

The only real difference of opinion we have is based on the placeholder schedules.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

That is how its been post-pandemic. To not confuse others, that has been the general frequency trend in the post-pandemic era.

Pre-pandemic, DTW-MSP in 2019 was 8x and saw a mix of 717, 738/739, 319/320/321, and the occasional 757. At least 2 of the flights were typically 717s to bridge between the hubs.

In 2021 & 2022 as they brought back capacity, DTW-MSP has been 5x winter & 6x summer.

For the better part of 2021 & 2022 DTW frequency have operated as follows:

1-2x small regional markets (EAS routes, LAN, MBS, AZO, CR2 routes, etc.)
3-4x mid-large sized markets (BNA, RDU, STL, CMH, DEN, DFW, GRR, etc)
4-5x Florida routes (TPA, RSW, FLL, MCO) with gauge and frequency increases during peak times
5-6x hubs and large cities (DCA, BOS, LGA, LAX, Florida routes, MSP, SLC)
10x ATL
TATL
TPAC

The core of the hub is really running around ~4 departure banks per day currently.

That’s a good summary, and matches my observations as well.

But I guess a better way to word my question is: Why did DL place DTW-MSP in that “hubs and large city” group? (Obviously MSP is a hub, so I am not questioning your naming… just the group it is associated with).

More specifically, why isn’t DTW-MSP in the category with ATL? To me, an “ATL or Large Hub category” seems like it should be a better fit for DTW-MSP, even if the gauge and frequency on DTW-MSP still remains considerably less than DTW/MSP-ATL. That’s what I meant when I originally said DTW-MSP at only 5x daily between the two large hubs seemed out of place.

To me, even when looking at it through the lens of DL’s 2022 reduced DTW domestic schedule, DTW-MSP still seems too small relatively speaking.

I think by DL reducing DTW-MSP this allowed SY to justify the add even more with the other justification being a natural addition. They avoided ATL, they could have chosen to do the same with DTW but DL’s loss benefitted it.

Those groupings I made were arbitrary and just how to generalize how DTW has been scheduled in 2021 & 2022.

FWIW here is a summary of the frequency on DTW-MSP using a placeholder date in Feb & July over the years:
There has been several step-function changes that have impacted the frequency / capacity on DTW-MSP

The biggest changes have been how DL has changed network flows post-merger.
In the NW network, it was very much a barbell and numerous cities were only accessible over either DTW or MSP.
In the DL network, for DTW based passengers SLC, and even SEA and LAX handle pre-merger connecting flows that might have flown through MSP
In the DL network, for MSP based passengers ATL, and to an extent even LGA/JFK some pre-merger connections

DL is flowing a lot more southeast connections over ATL, whereas in NW one would've had to connect over DTW to get to places like RIC, ORF, CRW, CHO, TYS, CHA, CAE, CHS, MYR, SAV, etc, etc. etc.
DL is flowing a lot more west connections over SLC whereas in the NW one would've had to connect over MSP to access places like GEG, SMF, SNA, RNO, FCA, BZN, BOI, etc.
Yes some are still accessible nonstop and/or connecting over each, but there are a lot more connecting options over other hubs, its not just those two.

Winter (Feb)
1988 7
1989 8
1990 7
1991 7
1992 6
1993 11
1994 12
1995 12
1996 13
1997 13
1998 11
1999 14
2000 14
2001 14
2002 15
2003 15
2004 14
2005 14
2006 14
2007 15
2008 14
2009 13 (Last NW operated//scheduled)
2010 10 (First year DL operated/scheduled)
2011 8
2012 9
2013 9
2014 8
2015 8
2016 8
2017 8
2018 8
2019 8
2020 8
2021 5
2022 5

Summer (July)
1988 8
1989 8
1990 9
1991 10
1992 9
1993 12
1994 12
1995 13
1996 13
1997 13
1998 14
1999 14
2000 14
2001 16
2002 14
2003 15
2004 16
2005 13
2006 17
2007 15
2008 13
2009 11 (Last year NW operated/schedule)
2010 9 (First year DL operated/schedule)
2011 9
2012 9
2013 9
2014 8
2015 8
2016 8
2017 8
2018 8
2019 8
2020 6
2021 6
2022 6

Anyone know off the top of their head if the 321 neo could do dtw-anc in the summer?

dtwpilot225 wrote:

Anyone know off the top of their head if the 321 neo could do dtw-anc in the summer?

Airbus's quoted A321neo range now has the A321neoLR (with the two extra tanks as standard). Looking at older press releases (https://web.archive.org/web/20180618175332/https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-outlines-expected-market-impact-of-a320neo-350463/) and cutting a bit down I'd still estimate at most 3300nm range for the standard Delta A321neo which makes DTW-ANC look possible with it as that's only 2,594nm


La Compagnie currently flies the longer EWR-MXP (3,485nm) with a standard A321neo although that is in a special all-business class configuration
https://info.flightmapper.net/flight/La ... nie_B0_300

The January schedule still seems to be adjusted and I noticed interesting stuff.

MCO will see one of the 753’s convert to an A330-200, appears that 753 is being used to cover FLL which like TPA is exclusively 753’s. LAS and PHX will have a 753 each, so a lot of 757-300 movement in DTW this winter. Smallest plane to FL is a 737-900 to MIA, otherwise everything is either a 757 or 321.

LAX will get the A321neo on top of SNA getting a premium upgrade. I expect the neo to make appearances on SFO, SAN, and SEA mixed with the 757-300 like they do every summer.

SumChristianus wrote:

dtwpilot225 wrote:

Anyone know off the top of their head if the 321 neo could do dtw-anc in the summer?

Looking at older press releases (https://web.archive.org/web/20180618175332/https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-outlines-expected-market-impact-of-a320neo-350463/) and cutting a bit down I'd still estimate at most 3300nm range for the standard Delta A321neo which makes DTW-ANC look possible with it as that's only 2,594nm

AA already operates the A321neo on PHX-LIH nonstop service, and PHX-LIH is approximately the same distance as DTW-ANC with PHX-LIH being 2979 mi and DTW-ANC being 2986 mi.

AA has also operated the Airbus A321neo on DFW-ANC/FAI, both of which are longer than DTW-ANC. The distance of DFW-ANC is 3043 mi, and the distance of DFW-FAI is 3056 mi.

DTW-ANC is likely within the range of an A321neo with AA already operating A321neo's on routes similar in length to DTW-ANC.

DTW-CIU (Sault Ste Marie) is now down to less than daily (5x weekly) this winter. DTW-IMT remains accessible 1x daily, albeit with a stop in ESC on the way. All are EAS.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Those groupings I made were arbitrary and just how to generalize how DTW has been scheduled in 2021 & 2022.

FWIW here is a summary of the frequency on DTW-MSP using a placeholder date in Feb & July over the years:
There has been several step-function changes that have impacted the frequency / capacity on DTW-MSP

The biggest changes have been how DL has changed network flows post-merger.
In the NW network, it was very much a barbell and numerous cities were only accessible over either DTW or MSP.
In the DL network, for DTW based passengers SLC, and even SEA and LAX handle pre-merger connecting flows that might have flown through MSP
In the DL network, for MSP based passengers ATL, and to an extent even LGA/JFK some pre-merger connections

DL is flowing a lot more southeast connections over ATL, whereas in NW one would've had to connect over DTW to get to places like RIC, ORF, CRW, CHO, TYS, CHA, CAE, CHS, MYR, SAV, etc, etc. etc.
DL is flowing a lot more west connections over SLC whereas in the NW one would've had to connect over MSP to access places like GEG, SMF, SNA, RNO, FCA, BZN, BOI, etc.
Yes some are still accessible nonstop and/or connecting over each, but there are a lot more connecting options over other hubs, its not just those two.

Winter (Feb)
1988 7
1989 8
1990 7
1991 7
1992 6
1993 11
1994 12
1995 12
1996 13
1997 13
1998 11
1999 14
2000 14
2001 14
2002 15
2003 15
2004 14
2005 14
2006 14
2007 15
2008 14
2009 13 (Last NW operated//scheduled)
2010 10 (First year DL operated/scheduled)
2011 8
2012 9
2013 9
2014 8
2015 8
2016 8
2017 8
2018 8
2019 8
2020 8
2021 5
2022 5

Summer (July)
1988 8
1989 8
1990 9
1991 10
1992 9
1993 12
1994 12
1995 13
1996 13
1997 13
1998 14
1999 14
2000 14
2001 16
2002 14
2003 15
2004 16
2005 13
2006 17
2007 15
2008 13
2009 11 (Last year NW operated/schedule)
2010 9 (First year DL operated/schedule)
2011 9
2012 9
2013 9
2014 8
2015 8
2016 8
2017 8
2018 8
2019 8
2020 6
2021 6
2022 6

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

I ran some scenarios of hypothetical February 2022 MSP-DTW-BUF/ROC/SYR/ALB bookings. (i.e. routes with numerous daily frequencies from DTW, but no nonstop from MSP). Given only 5 remaining MSP-DTW, options are expectedly limited.

In all cases, there are basically only two routing options that conform to DLs ticketing rules, and afford the traveler a one stop routing through DTW. 1) 6:00am MSP-DTW flight, connecting onward using the ~9am DTW outbound bank. 2) 4:15pm MSP-DTW, connecting onward using the overnight outbound RON bank.

Not surprisingly, the 6am option is normally the lowest priced because 1) many business travelers will shy away from a 6am flight if there are other options, and 2) MSP can’t offer much connection feed, as redeyes are basically the only inbound options arriving early enough to make a 6am flight out.

This effectively means that pax from places like BIS/CID/FSD can’t daytime double connect in MSP&DTW, and instead have to double connect on MSP&LGA, or MSP&ATL… even though going through DTW makes much more sense geographically.

kavok wrote:

DTW-CIU (Sault Ste Marie) is now down to less than daily (5x weekly) this winter. DTW-IMT remains accessible 1x daily, albeit with a stop in ESC on the way. All are EAS.

The tagging and round-robin flights with MSP are back this winter.
Due to the EAS contract they have to maintain the number of contractual weekly departures, but they are mixing up the destinations.

CIU: 1x DTW & 1x MSP
ESC: 1x DTW & 1x MSP-IMT-ESC
IMT: 1x DTW-ESC-IMT & 1x MSP
PLN: 1x DTW & 1x DTW-APN-PLN
APN: 1x DTW & 1x DTW-PLN-APN

FI announces DTW. Flights begin May 18 with a 737 MAX 8.

https://simpleflying.com/icelandair-add ... oit-route/

Well there you go….they beat Play to the market.

Well, I’m sure we can all eat our words. 2 new airlines so far in 2023 with a possible 3rd on deck (TK). All logical and natural route additions that have a place in the market.

That’s awesome news about Iceland air what would be even better is if delta defended their rurf on this one but with the msp flight already I doubt it

Great news!

That’s great! I didn’t call out FI in my earlier post because for so long they seemed to leave it for the startup airlines, but I think that FI and EI are both inevitable.

This shows how other airlines can capitalize on DL holding DTW to mostly DL-operated core long haul routes while expanding routes and passenger experience at other airports like MSP (where this includes both new routes like KEF and the rumored DUB as well as having partners with superior product operate verss in DTW only AF and AM operate a flight or two) and BOS with its several secondary european markets. There are growth opportunities with DL’s status quo maintenance-level investment in DTW.

Hell, I could even see Finnair jumping in as they try to find new markets while Russian airspace is closed. With the DOJ wrapping up the NEA case this week, it will be curious to see how AA & B6 evolve together. If DTW becomes a B6 base and the NEA is preserved, perhaps AA or BA would launch LHR with the feed and capture some of the DTW-LHR premium market. If the NEA falls apart, B6 will have a stronger merger case which also bodes well for DTW as they may seek to a sort of midwest hub to open new markets with their big new fleet. If DL doesn’t respond to that, then it’s just more trimming to core routes on larger aircraft, which leaves more of the market for the taking for JL, TK, BA, EI…

I can hear all the pushback to this idea, and that’s fine. All I’m saying is that going forward, airlines are going to have to be both invested in a core AND highly creative as they find new markets. The career bureaucrats at WCAA can capitalize on that and be creative in turn, or they can just wait and let things happen. I hope they get creative not in order to have a big important airport, but to make the region more vibrant.

reasonable wrote:

That’s great! I didn’t call out FI in my earlier post because for so long they seemed to leave it for the startup airlines, but I think that FI and EI are both inevitable.

This shows how other airlines can capitalize on DL holding DTW to mostly DL-operated core long haul routes while expanding routes and passenger experience at other airports like MSP (where this includes both new routes like KEF and the rumored DUB as well as having partners with superior product operate verss in DTW only AF and AM operate a flight or two) and BOS with its several secondary european markets. There are growth opportunities with DL’s status quo maintenance-level investment in DTW.

Hell, I could even see Finnair jumping in as they try to find new markets while Russian airspace is closed. With the DOJ wrapping up the NEA case this week, it will be curious to see how AA & B6 evolve together. If DTW becomes a B6 base and the NEA is preserved, perhaps AA or BA would launch LHR with the feed and capture some of the DTW-LHR premium market. If the NEA falls apart, B6 will have a stronger merger case which also bodes well for DTW as they may seek to a sort of midwest hub to open new markets with their big new fleet. If DL doesn’t respond to that, then it’s just more trimming to core routes on larger aircraft, which leaves more of the market for the taking for JL, TK, BA, EI…

I can hear all the pushback to this idea, and that’s fine. All I’m saying is that going forward, airlines are going to have to be both invested in a core AND highly creative as they find new markets. The career bureaucrats at WCAA can capitalize on that and be creative in turn, or they can just wait and let things happen. I hope they get creative not in order to have a big important airport, but to make the region more vibrant.

Finnair at DTW is absolutely never going to happen. The market between Finland and the US is entirely concentrated on a few key markets. The demand between DTW and Finland is basically non-existent. I also think JL and TK are pipe dreams (even though TK keeps mentioning it). I don’t see BA returning while DL is operating two daily flights, DTW-LHR is a roughly 130 PDEW O&D market, which DL has covered with the nearly 500 daily seats it offers. That doesn’t leave much room for BA and as a mature market, you’re not going to see any stimulation from a 3rd daily flight. EI is a definite possibility, however.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

reasonable wrote:

That’s great! I didn’t call out FI in my earlier post because for so long they seemed to leave it for the startup airlines, but I think that FI and EI are both inevitable.

This shows how other airlines can capitalize on DL holding DTW to mostly DL-operated core long haul routes while expanding routes and passenger experience at other airports like MSP (where this includes both new routes like KEF and the rumored DUB as well as having partners with superior product operate verss in DTW only AF and AM operate a flight or two) and BOS with its several secondary european markets. There are growth opportunities with DL’s status quo maintenance-level investment in DTW.

Hell, I could even see Finnair jumping in as they try to find new markets while Russian airspace is closed. With the DOJ wrapping up the NEA case this week, it will be curious to see how AA & B6 evolve together. If DTW becomes a B6 base and the NEA is preserved, perhaps AA or BA would launch LHR with the feed and capture some of the DTW-LHR premium market. If the NEA falls apart, B6 will have a stronger merger case which also bodes well for DTW as they may seek to a sort of midwest hub to open new markets with their big new fleet. If DL doesn’t respond to that, then it’s just more trimming to core routes on larger aircraft, which leaves more of the market for the taking for JL, TK, BA, EI…

I can hear all the pushback to this idea, and that’s fine. All I’m saying is that going forward, airlines are going to have to be both invested in a core AND highly creative as they find new markets. The career bureaucrats at WCAA can capitalize on that and be creative in turn, or they can just wait and let things happen. I hope they get creative not in order to have a big important airport, but to make the region more vibrant.

Finnair at DTW is absolutely never going to happen. The market between Finland and the US is entirely concentrated on a few key markets. The demand between DTW and Finland is basically non-existent. I also think JL and TK are pipe dreams (even though TK keeps mentioning it). I don’t see BA returning while DL is operating two daily flights, DTW-LHR is a roughly 130 PDEW O&D market, which DL has covered with nearly 500 daily seats. That doesn’t leave much room for BA and as a mature market, you’re not going to see any stimulation from a 3rd daily flight. EI is a definite possibility, however.

Jeremy

Why would you think TK at DTW is a pipe dream? It makes perfect sense given the market between DTW and the Levantine region. I do agree JL and AY would never happen. DTW-Japan is a large market (about the same size as BOS-Japan) but DL has it covered.

Yep, lots of reasons why not based what’s true in the past and seen as an indication of where we’re at today. Business conditions change rapidly, as we’ve seen on multiple cycles of 5 years or so since the great recession. I think the reasons why not of today aren’t inevitable going forward. Well, here’s one way to look at FI’s announcement given today’s news: DL is status quo and under-investing in DTW and other entrants will see opportunities to tap the various idle markets of a 5 million person CSA.

Preempting the “people will drive to ORD” and “UA/AA won’t cannibalize their ORD hub” arguments: If OneWorld wants to make a play for market share in DTW based on various other factors, they’d probably do well. BA and JL would both capture market and stoke growth with their superior offerings compared to DL’s microwaved chicken and wine from Meijer, let alone pricing power. Being next to CLT doesn’t prevent AA flying to LHR from RDU, nor does CVG being pretty close to ORD prevent BA.