ssk1127

My expectation is that MEM will keep high-volume/high-revenue routes and otherwise be downgraded to a focus city. Seems DL is focusing traffic and streamlining seats to smaller markets. At the same time, seems they are "southwesting" it a bit at other markets by increasing the number of focus cities (e.g., LAX, RDU, DCA, MCO). My opinion is that eventually we may see DL operate out of a small number of super-hubs with a large number of O&D-oriented point-to-point travel focus cities within the network. The biggest downside I see for DL is losing even more of the Texas/mid-South market to UA and AA. The only way to offset this might be to bulk up MSY and either AUS or SAT as focus cities in the region.

seacarl

+1 Spot on. That's what will be most profitable.

AA is extremely vulnerable right now, with high costs, poor fuel efficiency and terrible labor morale. There are opportunities for DL and UACO to take a run at growing cities like MSY, AUS, SAT, even DAL. Or even for a competitor to set up a competing hub at DAL/DFW - like F9 & SW at DEN. If DL hadn't closed the DFW hub, they'd be growing it right now.

xliioper

They lasted until the huge disaster in Japan. I guess you missed the news on the Earthquake/Tsunami and tremendous drop-off in travel to Tokyo.

personaltravelaid

Maybe we are going to start seeing the 744 on routes TATL destinations? That'd be great for high-density flights (ATL-CDG/AMS, etc)

seacarl

No, I think you missed my point that Delta has a pattern of using "the facts changed so we aren't bound". Whether it's a change in oil prices or a natural disaster. I accept a 6 week moratorium on the HND flights. I think the switch to the 777 is more sized to the market potential, just like downsizing CVG and MEM are totally logical business decisions in conjunction with the DTW and ATL hubs in the combined company. Just don't play the public for fools by making promises about keeping hubs or using 747's and then at the first opportunity do what was your real intention all along. What I first wrote (though i was wrong, they did fly 747s for about 3 weeks) But the market potential for midnight HND flights simply doesn't warrant 747's. It is 777's at best. DL won the gov't approval on pretenses that weren't supported by the market, and DL made assurances about the CVG and MEM hubs that really weren't realistic, either.

xliioper

Doubtful with the price of fuel. Although they did sub a 744 for a 753 on Flight 1506 today. I'd take a half empty 744 over a 753 on a domestic route any day (particularly since the upgrade odds are much higher with a much better seat and AVOD).

SamuelS

Very true. The RDU flights, IND (albeit with a loss of some of the pre-merger routes), and don't forget MIA. Though I am still puzzled at all the new CRJ flights intra-FL from MIA to TPA, MCO et al.

Maybe in a few years "all roads lead to ATL" won't necessarily be the case for DL with a new litany of point-point and focus flights?

SamuelS

UA did stick their toe in SAT a few years back with an almost 'focus city' like operation - albeit almost all UX. I recall seven or eight different routes other than just DEN or ORD.

Agree with AA situation - though they have a pretty aggressive plan it seems to ditch the MadDogs in favour of more fuel efficient 737 variants.

troyintn

I agree with some of this on the Revenue side with the top line, but how much cheaper is it to route someone through MEM versus ATL?

rayraf

Welcome to our world in CVG

seacarl

While MEM may have lower costs, the ATL flights aren't going away - so they are a "sunk cost". So does the incremental capacity via MEM generate sufficient incremental revenue, considering they can route some of the traffic via ATL?

We're seeing that DL's bean counters say it's better for DL to shrink MEM and route the profitable traffic via ATL (prior executive commitments notwithstanding)

seacarl

Just saw that DL is upgauging LAX-NRT to the 747-400. The whole application process for Haneda is pretty suspect....

xliioper

Ah yes, conspiracy theories. But why are you wasting your breath on flyertalk? Clearly you should be complaining to DOT about how UA got da shaft.

seacarl

UA did get the shaft in this process. The Gate posted a summary of the Memphis thread and it all seemed to so deja vu:

DL - no hubs will be affected by the merger.
CVG shrinks and shrinks. Is it even still called a hub or do they acknowledge its down to a focus city?
MEM has its 2nd shrink announced. While they say no mainline reductions, that doesn't gel with losing SAN & SFO, SEA going down to 1x/day, etc. And with so many spokes shrinking or eliminated, how long before it loses critical mass.
Neither of these moves are surprising from a business perspective, and they seem almost totally foreseeable, but they make DL management seem fairly duplicitous given their previous assurances.

And yes, the HND route authorities for the U.S. airlines were pretty weird. The only one that really made sense was DL DTW-HND. The others - giving AA JFK-HND, DL LAX-HND, and HA HNL-HND were all strange politics. From a connecting point of view UACO should have gotten EWR or SFO or even LAX - though in light of the earthquake and its aftermath maybe it's turned out fortunate for them. But using the promise of the 747-400 as the basis of the decision and then finding that plan is ephemeral and there is no meaningful commitment to it makes a mockery of the process.

Having said that, the timeslots at HND are a joke, too - one can only hope that somehow that gets improved.

hockeystl

Great club, great staff....but is too small for the level of guest volume during MEM's peak afternoon/early evening period. Twice in the past month I've had to, literally, sit on the floor if I wanted access to a power plug. The elimination of flights will bring down the # of guest to a level that's on par with the amount of available seating.