Kev3188
Veteran
Having a thread actually stay on topic seems cool to me.
Delta is removing more flights
- Thread starter swamt
- Start date
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
Kev3188 said:
+1
Translation: Kev, you're just a ramper, you can't possibly grasp the complex subject at hand.WorldTraveler said:
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #48
then you should be capable of producing some sort of stat that shows something to do with schedules.
esp. since DL publishes them.
It certainly is true that DL removed flights at MEM - but there has been more capacity pulled from JFK and CUN on a seasonal basis for years.
And it also doesn't change that DL's overall capacity has grown more than any other US carrier.
It might fancy you to pick a single city out of DL's network and harp on it but I'm certain that you wouldn't and haven't talked about the capacity being added at other cities - and the personnel DL is hiring because of it.
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
Kev that pic sure is sad sight for sore eyes shame what dl has done and continues to do so regardless what that revenue mgmt preacher clown says its them folks who are n continue to pay a dear price being employees at will
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #50
the only thing that looks different from PIT and MEM is that DL didn't spend a bunch of money building a new terminal and then walk away from the debt on the last day of bankruptcy like US did.
You do have pictures of PIT, don't you?
There have been no shortage of people on this forum who have talked about the price they paid for US' moves, haven't there been?
You do have pictures of PIT, don't you?
There have been no shortage of people on this forum who have talked about the price they paid for US' moves, haven't there been?
Kev3188
Veteran
Right?robbedagain said:
It's almost unrecognizable from when I worked there.
I get the business case for winding it down, and most of us knew it was coming several years ago.
Still sucks anyway...
robbedagain
Veteran
- Oct 13, 2003
- 11,125
- 2,676
difference is DL cut MEM after CH 11 second you don't see SWA adding any more flights than what they have at PIT Third I'd be willing to bet the DL intl flight does not do as well out of Pit. On the other hand back then US was literally short of closing its doors permanently whereas DL was not Kev I know folks from ABE and we did well then too but like in your case the writing was on the wall
Sad to see such drastic changes. When we had a dozen airlines, they all needed a hub (or two or three), so we saw medium-sized cities with hubs, like IND, DAY, CVG, MEM, CLE, BNA, RDU, STL and SJC (plus countless others). Periodic recessions and consolidation have slowly eliminated many of them. Now, with just three remaining hub and spoke legacies, we still have too many hubs. UA and DL have begun the process with CVG, CLE and MEM, but more are probably on the way. Don't know which ones, but I assume that AA won't forever have as many as it does today.
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #55
Yes, there are too many hubs in the US, esp. medium sized hubs. 3 legacy carriers just don't a half dozen hubs in the central US all competing for much of the same flow traffic.
Further, the demise of small RJs, which made it possible for many of these small/medium sized hubs to exist at all necessitates changes in hub structures.
even if low fuel prices would otherwise have made small RJs viable for longer, the pilot shortage is only increasing such that it is increasingly difficult for legacy carriers to find regional carriers to operate small RJ flights.
The number of small RJs in the US will continue to shrink and with it hubs will be affected.
There is no reason to believe that DL will do any more cutting of hubs.
UA still has lot of duplicate flow in its network - SFO vs LAX, IAD vs. EWR, and IAH vs. DEN.
AA hasn't even begun to restructure its domestic network which doesn't have anywhere near the level of obvious duplication between hubs but yet AA still is overhubbed.
and robbed, you can note that DL cut after BK, but you also fail to note that fuel prices - a major factor that affects RJ viability increased dramatically AFTER the DL/NW merger was announced. Every other carrier merged in the high cost fuel environment. And if there were no pilot shortage, small RJS might get a significant extension of life. but pilots aren't going to be available to sustain the number of small RJs that currently operate in the US and it will affect hubs.
You can guess that DL doesn't do well on PIT-CDG but you really have no evidence, esp. since DL has a pretty strong track record of cutting capacity to levels that ensure profitability - precisely what the issue is with SEA-HND.
There are few cities in the US that can't support a flight to a major hub in Europe on at least a seasonal less than daily basis. US pulled all int'l service from PIT and DL saw an opportunity. The route was subsidized but is not now. There is a market and it is certain DL wouldn't operate it if it didn't make money.
The economics of PIT didn't work for US; I get it.
MEM is a significantly smaller revenue market than PIT. MEM was overhubbed driven by RJs. PHL and PIT had significant overlap just as ATL and MEM had.
MEM will likely never be a hub for a legacy carrier again... it might pick up some point to point service but it is time to admit that the market is not there to support the level of service MEM once had.
Given the growth elsewhere in DL's network, it is obvious that there are places that have local markets and where existing aircraft can generate decent profits.
Further, the demise of small RJs, which made it possible for many of these small/medium sized hubs to exist at all necessitates changes in hub structures.
even if low fuel prices would otherwise have made small RJs viable for longer, the pilot shortage is only increasing such that it is increasingly difficult for legacy carriers to find regional carriers to operate small RJ flights.
The number of small RJs in the US will continue to shrink and with it hubs will be affected.
There is no reason to believe that DL will do any more cutting of hubs.
UA still has lot of duplicate flow in its network - SFO vs LAX, IAD vs. EWR, and IAH vs. DEN.
AA hasn't even begun to restructure its domestic network which doesn't have anywhere near the level of obvious duplication between hubs but yet AA still is overhubbed.
and robbed, you can note that DL cut after BK, but you also fail to note that fuel prices - a major factor that affects RJ viability increased dramatically AFTER the DL/NW merger was announced. Every other carrier merged in the high cost fuel environment. And if there were no pilot shortage, small RJS might get a significant extension of life. but pilots aren't going to be available to sustain the number of small RJs that currently operate in the US and it will affect hubs.
You can guess that DL doesn't do well on PIT-CDG but you really have no evidence, esp. since DL has a pretty strong track record of cutting capacity to levels that ensure profitability - precisely what the issue is with SEA-HND.
There are few cities in the US that can't support a flight to a major hub in Europe on at least a seasonal less than daily basis. US pulled all int'l service from PIT and DL saw an opportunity. The route was subsidized but is not now. There is a market and it is certain DL wouldn't operate it if it didn't make money.
The economics of PIT didn't work for US; I get it.
MEM is a significantly smaller revenue market than PIT. MEM was overhubbed driven by RJs. PHL and PIT had significant overlap just as ATL and MEM had.
MEM will likely never be a hub for a legacy carrier again... it might pick up some point to point service but it is time to admit that the market is not there to support the level of service MEM once had.
Given the growth elsewhere in DL's network, it is obvious that there are places that have local markets and where existing aircraft can generate decent profits.
FrugalFlyerv2.0
Veteran
- Oct 29, 2003
- 2,931
- 3,341
WorldTraveler said:
Would you care to speculate about the future for DL at SLC? I think in terms of population SLC and MEM are fairly similar sized metro areas. Also, in the west would DLs focus & shift of assets to SEA have any impact on SLC?
Kev3188
Veteran
Let's use Frugal's question as an opportunity this one to bed, and start a new one about SLC.
It's certainly an interesting topic; especially in light of DL's comments regarding the triad of SEA/LAX/SLC...
It's certainly an interesting topic; especially in light of DL's comments regarding the triad of SEA/LAX/SLC...
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #58
SLC is wealthier, more geographically separated, serves markets that can't be served from either MSP or SEA
Further, DL just committed to a major rebuild of SLC facilities even after their announcing their intention of growing SEA.
DL would not have committed to SLC if it intended to shut it down since DL will be on the hook regardless of what they do.
and to robbed's point, DL is still obligated to pay significantly more for CVG and MEM facilities than what they use because DL did not shrink those hubs in BK.
Like UA's 3 western hub strategy of LAX, SFO, and DEN, DL's 3 hub strategy of LAX, SEA, and SLC serves similar objectives while retaining and growing a presence in two west coast cities plus a mountain hub.
Further, DL just committed to a major rebuild of SLC facilities even after their announcing their intention of growing SEA.
DL would not have committed to SLC if it intended to shut it down since DL will be on the hook regardless of what they do.
and to robbed's point, DL is still obligated to pay significantly more for CVG and MEM facilities than what they use because DL did not shrink those hubs in BK.
Like UA's 3 western hub strategy of LAX, SFO, and DEN, DL's 3 hub strategy of LAX, SEA, and SLC serves similar objectives while retaining and growing a presence in two west coast cities plus a mountain hub.
You don't understand DL has a three omnidirectional 3 hub strategy in the west - see DL is killing it in LA with a gate constrained growth - SLC with a fairly small population and now a new hub in SEA - so all is going through as planned - the la to NYC cargo market is a core focus of DL
That's all we need to know
But wait WT can school of of us with some new stats
That's all we need to know
But wait WT can school of of us with some new stats
WorldTraveler
Corn Field
- Dec 5, 2003
- 21,709
- 10,662
- Banned
- #60
first, Kevin, you posted right before me but I agree that the MEM issue has been properly treated.
If the mods want kill this thread, fine. or we can continue to talk about hub development esp. in the west.
this is a valid business strategy discussion and if kept as such without name calling, it can be a means for all to participate.
and, no, it is not just about DL, jcw. UA has the same type of strategy.
DL looked at what UA has done and figured what is necessary to be at least on parity with them. UA is still the largest legacy carrier in the western US. Their strategy has worked.
DL has not been as strong in the west as a whole but has had more focus throughout the west instead of just one or two hubs - LAX and PHX for AA, SEA for AS.
DL and UA do not believe they need to have as large of an operation in LAX - a more competitive market - because they can still focus on the top markets with more point to point service and leave their other hubs to serve smaller cities.
it is far from clear how DL and UA's strategy vs. AA's will work but there is no evidence that DL's growth in SEA is working while they have lost nothing in SLC.
UA seems to be holding its own in the local LAX market, DEN is stabilizing with F9's pulldown, and SFO is still growing.
The clear difference between what DL and UA are doing is that DL and UA have a strong position in each of their hubs and the markets they serve since LAX is still highly fragmented along with geographic spread....
DL and UA's position in the west is interestingly similar to AA/US in the east.... with the difference that DL and UA's western int'l ops are less spread out than AA/US' in the east.
If the mods want kill this thread, fine. or we can continue to talk about hub development esp. in the west.
this is a valid business strategy discussion and if kept as such without name calling, it can be a means for all to participate.
and, no, it is not just about DL, jcw. UA has the same type of strategy.
DL looked at what UA has done and figured what is necessary to be at least on parity with them. UA is still the largest legacy carrier in the western US. Their strategy has worked.
DL has not been as strong in the west as a whole but has had more focus throughout the west instead of just one or two hubs - LAX and PHX for AA, SEA for AS.
DL and UA do not believe they need to have as large of an operation in LAX - a more competitive market - because they can still focus on the top markets with more point to point service and leave their other hubs to serve smaller cities.
it is far from clear how DL and UA's strategy vs. AA's will work but there is no evidence that DL's growth in SEA is working while they have lost nothing in SLC.
UA seems to be holding its own in the local LAX market, DEN is stabilizing with F9's pulldown, and SFO is still growing.
The clear difference between what DL and UA are doing is that DL and UA have a strong position in each of their hubs and the markets they serve since LAX is still highly fragmented along with geographic spread....
DL and UA's position in the west is interestingly similar to AA/US in the east.... with the difference that DL and UA's western int'l ops are less spread out than AA/US' in the east.
