waltinsocal

+1. Both are basically con artists who, after you add in fees and other stuff, many times charge prices as high or higher than LCCs. But much of the public has bought into their spiel.

MikeMpls

That would actually courage efficient use of inventory and make our travels more environmentally friendly.

Enough of that!

mooper

You are incorrectly presuming that, without the hub, it would be just as cheap for the airline to provide the service. If you didn't have all these connecting travelers, you'd have much higher costs and *less* efficiency. Simple example: If you have 100 people trying to get from BOS to SEA and 100 from BOS to DEN, it isn't more efficient to fly 100 BOS>SEA and 100 BOS>DEN. It is more efficient to fly 200 BOS>SLC and then 100 SLC>DEN and 100 SLC>SEA.

RobertS975

mooper, with all due respect, the issue is quite complex. Did you ever think about all the fuel that gets burned at busy hubs just trying to land, taxi and takeoff when compared to P2P? Hubs are an efficient way of getting people from point A to point B when there are no nonstop flights between A and B.

Imagine the following system: What if each airline referred their prospective pax to the most efficient flight to get then to where they want to go? In your example, DL would put its BOS-DEN passengers over to a UA nonstop, and the return would be that UA refers its BOS-SLC pax to DL. And both refer their BOSSEA pax to the AS nonstops. Now there are a multitude of obstacles facing such a notion such as anti-trust issues etc. But IF there was only one giant airline in the domestic US market, wouldn't we all try to get on nonstops whenever we could?

It is the FF programs that cause me and countless others to travel in an often inefficient manner, opting to connect somewhere to collect FF miles and MQMs and passing up several nonstop flights to our eventual destination.
The WN model has demonstrated that you can run nonstop flights from some formerly minor markets and fill your flights... examples are PVD-PHX and PVD to LAS etc.

DL used to have many P2P flights from BOS to Florida markets like TPA, PBI, and RSW. They are pretty much all gone now even though they could fly fairly full with the combined FF membership of DL and NW combined. Some have argued that DL doesn't want to compete with B6 on these routes. Yet DL will often fly me with a connection for less $$$ than B6 is charging for a nonstop. How could DL possibly make as much as B6 if they are flying my butt through the air an extra couple of hours for the same origin and destination? And what is my incentive for taking the DL flights with a connection, having to board twice and stow luggage twice, having to hike through the airport at ATL or DTW or MEM or CVG? A probable upgrade (nice since it will take an extra hour or two in the air), a free couple of drinks and most importantly... MQMs!

mooper

My example highlighted a situation where it would be *less* efficient to use nonstop routing (in terms of fuel and resources other than passenger time). You are wrongly presuming that, absent competition, it would be most efficient for nonstops to exist for all routes. It wouldn't - the demand isn't there. But we're getting off topic. Delta isn't driven to change their FF program because of how it impacts consumer time efficiency - they would only be motivated to change it if they felt they could improve their business efficiency, i.e., profits. There is room for improvement there, and that's why *if* we see a marked change (I don't think we will any time soon), I suspect the focus will be on more closely tying awards to profitable activity.

84fiero

I think you overestimate the number of folks who are miles-obsessed like most of us. The majority of people would probably pick the nonstop, I would think. Though I'm not sure there is any hard survey data on consumer flight route decision making to substantiate either perspective.

Anecdotally most people I talk to would rather connect less often and they rarely seem concerned about their mileage program impacts. Very, very few travelers come anywhere close to maximizing FF programs the way we do.

Aside from those living in major metro areas, millions of people take connecting flights because they have to with the hub and spoke system, or would have to in any case because their O/D market wouldn't support a nonstop to the desired destination.

RobertS975

Actually, an excellent point. Over the years, I have often been surprised to be sitting next to a GM or even a PM who really had no idea about some important details and rules about the SM program. However,. when I get off a BOS originating flight at a hub like ATL and look at the GIDS displaying connecting flight information, I am struck by the number of destinations that could have been flown from BOS on another carrier's nonstop. I cannot say for sure how much FF programs influenced flight selection vs other factors such as pricing.

AA_EXP09

I am a GM on CX, however, the only thing I purchased with them last year was V (cheapest published fare to HKG), and nothing else.
Combine that with the 5X petro points promo and I could get an F ticket to BKK/SGN for less than $2000 using miles.
Does it mean I am not profitable?
Not quite - when I have given then $8000+ of revenue tickets.

mooper

Are you suggesting this counters what I said? If so, how?

PowerFlyer

Next time you fly, look and see how many people are connecting to destinations DL, itself, otherwise runs nonstop. BOS (along with the other focus cities--RDU, IND, SEA etc) are great examples. Most times, people are seeking a cheaper fare but sometimes it's one of us--knowing the extra MQMs earned through the inefficient routing.

monitor

Apropos this latest subject, I can state that I seldom will do a connection when there is a nonstop available.

There are a few exceptions such as some nonstops on the RJs which are extremely uncomfortable with third world service and amenities and usually no fare class available lower than "B."

A prime example of this is the new LGA-SDF service where I have yet to see a ticket priced under $600 RT for the crappy Chautauqua ERJ with no jetways at LGA. As a contrast the ATL connections on mainliners usually come in around $350-400.

Josephmay

Because I travel solely for pleasure and not for business, I can state that I will often do a connection when there is a nonstop available. I value status and need every MQM I can muster.
But I will avoid the baby CRJs. The 900 is OK. I will also avoid stops that add few if and MQMs like NYC-SFO with a stop in DTW or MSP but a stop in ATL would be fine.... If this turns into a fee based reward system I'll take my 20 flights a year with JetBlue or maybe even go back to flying :::gulp:: AA.

bubbashow

THIS. The type of flyer that a new Skymiles needs to exclude from reward.

WesNSpace

Didn't you guys get the message about this thread?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfa1HsnMPzA

Bowgie

This fall, I have three rt's SAN-ATL-ICT-ATL-SAN. Very inefficient routing, but allowed. Anything east of Colorado can be routed thru ATL or JFK instead of SLC from the west coast.

Delta is not stupid; Delta knows this. It is just a minor cost or consequence of having the Mother of all Hubs tucked away in the corner of the continental U.S.

Addressing the quoted comment, Skymiles "parasites" are a trival consequence of Delta's hub geography. They are stuck with it.
Personally, I think Delta either does or should love mileage runners. Why? We suck up unwanted seat inventory so that the "must go" last minute traveller can pay thru the nose for "Y" fares.