<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by FL-Delta-Platinum:
Just another thought, what good would this actually do with a hub and spoke system...?? By design, don't planes NEED more time there for connecting passengers? I know AA is doing some experimentation with this in DFW. From what I've heard it means less ground time for planes, but more layover time for passengers who "just miss" the next connection. If you reference the thread regarding ATL "hell" then who would want that!!!
The article pointing out RDU turn time and allowing one less plane to be in service supposes that the planes are only doing round trips ATL-RDU-ATL, which is not exactly the case between those city pairs, and certainly not with most.
Short turn times work for Song because they are essentially going after the point-to-point travel market.
I question how well it would work on DL mainline, and maybe that's why there are no details here. I think it is just a way to get Delta on the Wall Street headlines for the day - and of course to plug Song. Why is the Song president commenting on Delta procedures anyway?</font>
AMR has "de-peaked" both DFW and ORD and so far it has been successful. It allows AMR to more efficiently use gates and people and I haven't seen a lot of complaints from the AA people about longer connecting times.
I expect DL will eventually depeak ATL as well. When you have a hub as large as ATL where most markets have high frequency service, "de-peaking" actually makes a lot of sense.
A good number of markets out of ATL do follow the ATL-XXX-ATL routing, as many markets only have mainline service to ATL. Even if the plane isn't going ATL-XXX-ATL, faster turn times still allow for greater utilization. Regardless of being point-to-point or hub-and-spoke, the major airlines have to become more efficient. There is no reason for an MD88 to sit in an outstation for 1.5 hours.