BearX220

Well, that's silly, especially given the ex-NW figures in high places at DL.

You got me there. I was thinking in terms of stations served, total departures, frequencies, aircraft movements, etc. When all this goes through I would think they could close either the A or B finger and consolidate in one.

sxf24

I agree. However, it's frustratingly unconstructive that some posters feel the need to continue singing the DL-hates-NW tune...

MSP is still better off than CVG, JFK, MEM and SLC and only slightly worse then ATL.

I would imagine some consolidation is being considered, especially since it could benefit connecting times.

hazelrah

I thought it would be interesting to go back and look at the actual press relase from Delta with respect to this service cutback and a couple of observations:

http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1408

"Delta to Adjust Service to Smaller, Underperforming Markets"

Nowhere in the press release does Delta use the word "unprofitable". It uses "under-performing" and it cites "$14 million annual loss". Is this loss due to one route, a few, many but not all? We don't know , and it is the mainstream media and some that have jumped on the announcement and has used the word "unprofitable"

Further, the release states and I quote- "While Delta would prefer to continue serving these communities, the new reality of mounting cost pressures faced by our industry means we can no longer afford to provide this service. As we continue to strengthen our business, Delta is retiring the Saab turboprops and some 50-seat jet aircraft, which will hinder the financial viability of serving these smaller markets," Delta said.

So it's not as simple as saying, these routes are not profitable, but also on the corporate decision to terminate turboprops. IMO this decsion was made several years ago.

sxf24

Oh, so you can be profitable but still report an annual loss?

How is it not simple? If unprofitable with small turboprop, a route would be even more unprofitable with a larger jet.

BearX220

We have a new euphemism for "kill." in a moment I'm going to go over and adjust a mosquito's lifespan.

Trading the Saabs for RJs makes a marginal, on-the-bubble route into a clear loser. It's not that these markets cannot be served. It's that DL can't do it within the envelope of its master fleet plan.

Also, the real way to assess these routes is not on a stand-alone basis, as I doubt many pax are getting off at Minneapolis for the Twins game, but on the value of the total influx of small-market pax into MSP for onward trips. Does a pax going TVF-MSP-MIA bring less value to the company than one going PDX-MSP-MIA? Probably.

sxf24

On the occasions network carriers discuss route profitability, they're not talking about the absolutely profitability of the hub-spoke route. The contribution to the network is absolutely considered.

Of course, since the pax going TVF-MSP-MIA is the only one on the plane between TVF and MSP, its less valuable than 1 of 160 passengers on a PDX-MSP flight.

pbarnette

You aren't serious, right? The mainstream media and "some" use the term "unprofitable" because something is "unprofitable" when expenses exceed revenues. Another word for this would be "loss".

FLLDL

Q & A piece from the NY Times with the Mayor of Hibbing MN and a City Councilor regarding Delta's planned service reductions:

From Hibbing, Minn., a Plea for Planes to Keep Flying
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/us...ep-flying.html

The city's arguments aren't particularly compelling but thought it would be of interest.