Declining frequency of flights to and from regional destinations
 

I've been noticing that as time is progressing, DL seems to be replacing 2 RJ flights with 1 mainline flight. While this is a step in the right direction, it is starting to get a little annoying with PVD-LAX either requires a 30 minute connection in ATL or a multi-hour connection in DTW. In fact, from my own estimation, there seems to 2 PVD-ATL flights and 2 PVD-DTW flights per day (an early and a late flight), which is in contrast to 3/4 PVD-ATL and the 4 PVD-DTW flights that were available last year.

1. Has anyone noticed this happening from other regional destinations?

2. Is DL looking to get regional destinations down to 1 or 2 flights per day?

I suppose the root of my annoyance is the increased frequency between other airports as well as the fact that DL could go the way of AA and reduce traffic to the point in which service was suspended (my mother was left high and dry in 2008 when AA suspended service--right in the middle of her itinerary out to PHX). And when it comes to paying more for service from a regional destination, like PVD, I'll gladly pay it instead of having to travel to BOS or possibly NYC, because while the fare is higher, the cost of getting to BOS/NYC and the added time and aggravation, makes the appeal to pay more in the beginning a lot better.

true for BDL as well

Many people cheered when DL said it was removing a bunch of CRJs from the fleet. Everybody cheered when DL committed to having F cabins (meaning aircraft with a minimum of ~64 seats) on domestic fights >750 miles. Reduced frequency on some routes is the logical outcome to both drives.

But, now since that has been completed, I would rather have the higher frequency on the regional-hub routes (CR7/9s are nice as well as the E175) as, for the most part, the F cabin that counts (for me anyway) are usually the second set of flights (especially TATL and TPAC along with Transcontinental).

For most airports, it is hard to have it both ways. This thread is further evidence that flyers in the US prefer frequency.

:-:

I love when folks insist that they'll never fly the smaller RJs but insist on multiple frequencies daily to smaller markets. It is impossible to do both in a manner that remotely resembles profitability so the airlines don't. The fact that airlines are still cutting ASMs in many cases, and also that they are renegotiating contracts with regional suppliers (like DL cutting a ton of YX capacity and finally winning that lawsuit), means that there are fewer seats flying and the smaller markets are going to feel the brunt of those cuts.

It also helps to get a governor and high-ranking senator involved as well.

GFK now has 7 fights per day, up from 5.

how many involve DL FAs? (sorry, couldn't let that one go ...)

For me the key is onward connections. I actually don't mind the reduced frequency as long as it doesn't mean excessively long layovers; as long as the regional flights are carefully aligned with departure banks at the hubs, I'm glad to trade a few hours of time flexibility for the availability of F cabins.

Mini Hubs
 

There are regional type flights (regional carriers) and regional airports (New Haven). PVD and BDL are medium sized non-regional airports.

I see what DL is doing (cannot speak for the other carriers). They have cut back to ONE (from 3) flight their JFK-BDL and BDL-JFK service. This is the same 76 person CRJ aircraft as before, only less service.

JFK is being priced as one of their international gateways. From airports like BDL to get most European cities (except European gateways like MAD, CDG, AMS, London, etc) requires two connections unless the first leg is to JFK. JFK serves non-hub cities like BUD, Bucharest, etc with non stop service from New York.

By cutting to one flight a day DL is pretty much guaranteeing the JFK-BDL is full, which makes business sense.

Customers from BDL are being routed through DTW, ATL, CIN for International destinations. This is acceptable for the European gateways (though BDL-MAD via ATL adds about 3 hours in the air) but adds a connection (and potential problems) to the other destinations.

THIS SUCKS. However the alternative is to drive to Boston or New York (shuttle is also available) which is more or less acceptable depending where you live in Southern New England.

By cutting these flights it is obvious the committment to these markets is in decline. Interesting though, pricing sometimes is cheaper from BDL than JFK or BOS, so there is somewhat a multiple personality approach.

I am focusing on BDL because this is my home airport and I am familiar with it. I do not understand why BDL is not developed more. It could be a pretty useful hub for one of the major carriers. Delays originating because of a 'situation' at BDL is pretty much unheard of (this does not include delayed incoming flights, ground stops, etc). It has extremely long runways, can accommidate any aircraft (frequent diversion point for the Concorde) and is easily accessible. BDL draws a lot of passengers from southern New England, particularly central CT, western Mass and VT. Burlington and Providence do also, as does (naturally) Boston.

There may be no need, but in my experience both BOS and JFK are plagued by delays due to volume. BDL could be utilized to reduce this volume and would be a decent place to make a connection.

In fact, when NW operated is BDL-AMS service, the flights were full and they used BDL as a limited gateway for passengers coming from other parts of the US.

Opinions?