DL to grow SLC

[737823]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=28372944&nid=148&title=delta-to-expand-services-operations-at-slc-international-airport&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-1

SLC is awesome, the ACS staff are always friendly and despite the cold weather and volume of skis and large bags the ramp handles, baggage is always out promptly.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

not unexpected given the investment in SLC facilities that DL is supporting, AS' decision to add flights to SLC, and the fragility of UA and their operation at DEN, the only viable intra-mountain hub. DL's addition of longer flights and more efficient RJs will give DL an advantage not only over UA but also in the western US overall.

 

[Kev3188]

I wonder how much of that "growth" is simply upgauging flights from CRJ-200's to 2-class RJs.
 
Also, more cities is always good, but how many times have SLCMKE & SLCRDU been tried now?

 

[737823]

not unexpected given the investment in SLC facilities that DL is supporting, AS' decision to add flights to SLC, and the fragility of UA and their operation at DEN, the only viable intra-mountain hub. DL's addition of longer flights and more efficient RJs will give DL an advantage not only over UA but also in the western US overall.

WT, don't get me wrong I enjoy UT and Salt Lake, family owns a vacation home and I travel there frequently but clearly DEN is a larger, growing metropolitan area. Hub dynamics at DEN may not be great at the moment with the three way battle between what is left of F9, UA, and WN but with F9 restructuring it will be interesting to see how things play out.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

8% growth is a significant amount.... some of that can be gained by upgrades, including the addition of seats to some mainline aircraft like the 320s.

But there will be new routes added and it is precisely because DL has flown some of these routes before that they know what they can generate. Those routes might not have made strategic sense in the past but they might now, esp. relative to AS and UA. Good companies have a strategic wishlist of things they want to do but growth has a cost..... as I have noted before, DL's strategic focus has been on NYC for several years. DL is now at the point of fine-tuning NYC rather than engaging in significant growth which means they have the bandwidth to focus their strategic efforts elsewhere.

DEN is indeed a larger market - but it is highly competitive and the biggest peer to DL - UA - has to decide how they want to rationalize their network. F9 won't ever be a direct competitor to the role that DL or UA play in the west.

 

[737823]

I wonder how much of that "growth" is simply upgauging flights from CRJ-200's to 2-class RJs.
 
Also, more cities is always good, but how many times have SLCMKE & SLCRDU been tried now?

Bring back SLC-FLL/MIA. Didn't DL once fly to TPA too? MEX and YYZ also come to mind of markets DL once served, and of course NRT.

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has flown those 3 Florida cities as part of its Sunday after Thanksgiving extra SLC bank of flights.
 
The market to each of these cities all exists to a certain degree.... the problem is that DL has other hubs that can carry flow traffic so DL has to intentionally shift some flow traffic from other hubs to these new flights in order to make them work.
 
If DL's overall network grows or DL can reduce capacity at other hubs and maintain those hubs, then it is worth adding new service.
 
also, all of these are relatively long flights from an airport where performance restrictions do limit aircraft types that can be used.   
 
possible... but DL's overall network has to "demand" that these flights be added, the cost of operating these long flights has to be superior to carrying many of the connections via other hubs, and the strategic value of funding this type of growth has to fit in with DL's overall network plans.  

 

[700UW]

as I have noted before, DL's strategic focus has been on NYC for several years. DL is now at the point of fine-tuning NYC rather than engaging in significant growth which means they have the bandwidth to focus their strategic efforts elsewhere.

 

Translation, NY isnt doing as well as they thought.
 
(waiting for a million word reply)

 

[WorldTraveler]

your knack for misreading doesn't change regardless of the topic, does it?

DL still has work to do to improve profitability in NYC... but they won't be growing LGA and JFK near as much as they have in the past. They also know where the problems are and what they have to do and the profitability they can expect until NYC is delivering profits the way they want as well as when it is operating optimally.

That also says that DL's core ATL, DTW, and MSP hubs as well as its Asian and European operations are delivering more than enough profits to support NYC's development as well as on the west coast. $2.5B in profits with NYC still a 'work in progress' means DL is very profitable elsewhere which also means DL has a lot of capacity to grow esp as NYC's profitability increases.

Specific to AS and UA and the western US, it shows the strategic advantages that DL has over both of those.

 

[FrugalFlyerv2.0]

.... the problem is that DL has other hubs that can carry flow traffic so DL has to intentionally shift some flow traffic from other hubs to these new flights in order to make them work.
 
If DL's overall network grows or DL can reduce capacity at other hubs and maintain those hubs, then it is worth adding new service.

Does that mean that some of the growth at SLC might come at the expense of MSP or DTW?

 

[robbedagain]

Frugal when dl does add more flights at slc will it via 2 class rjs or mix of rjs n mainline and if it comes at the expensenof say dtw or msp which one will it be or could it be both?

 

[WorldTraveler]

It is doubtful that DL will cut anything to grow SLC. It is possible that by pushing flow traffic that might have gone over other hubs and push it over SLC, they divert some traffic from other hubs but the chances are high than they will grow elsewhere from MSP or DTW in order to offset traffic that is pushed over SLC, for instance.

Airlines and hubs don't work by shrinking and DL knows that. SLC growth has to be net positive to the network.... the strategic bandwidth to grow SLC comes because other hubs are delivering high profitability to sustain further growth at SLC which is profitable now.

 

[robbedagain]

But theyre still taking planes from what would in a hub and moving it to slc thus the loss of rev n flight at the orig but if they down grade to the embraer junk jets theyre not going to gain much but nonetheless the orig city such as dtw or msp will still lose out Of course if dl is taking deliveries of new acft to support it that could always be something rather than a city losing flights etc

 

[737823]

Don't recall the numbers off the top of my head but I recall DLs guidance was something to the effect of focused/disciplined capacity growth, which would be consistent with a few marginal additions. But as stated by Kev I don't imagine this will amount to much more than upgauging tge 50 seaters to 2-class 76 seaters. Which of course means that the markets formerly served by 76 seaters are subsequently upgauge to m/l 717/73G/319/MD88/etc

Josh

 

[WorldTraveler]

DL has had a certain amount of incremental growth in their plan and can easily increase it up or down.
Competitive changes such as reduced AA and WN presence in key DL markets could affect or shift DL's growth.