gloopy

The braintrust has said recently that CVG is "VERY profitable" (emphasis theirs) and I think we place way too much emphasis on geographical proximity of a "hub" not to mention the word "hub" is pretty etherial anyway.

USAir did poorly having "hubs" in PHL and PIT because they were so close to eachother. Jetblue does quite well having "hubs" in JFK and BOS even though they are so close to eachother, despite the fact that DL ran from a high yield recession proof market with an overbuilt terminal for no reason other than lack of ambition. Ditto for JB in MCO and FLL. Proximity is only a factor in arbitraty hubs, or what Gordon Bethune used to call "hubs on steroids" meaning poor O&D relative to their size. CVG has a lot of business traveler/fortune 500 accounts relative to its size and DL owns the O&D there and loads and yields are pretty good. Even the CDG flight works despite being wide open most of the time because of cargo, business pax and yields.

CVG may or may not close as a "hub" (whatever that means...we will always fly to CVG from pretty much every other DL "hub" and other markets as well) but if it does it won't have anything (at this point) to do with its proximity to any other "hub" because the arbitrary thru traffic excess is already gone. As of right now its flying profitable O&D and enough of it to justify being significantly larger than our presence in MEM. I can see a few more RJ routes out of CVG being consolidated back to ATL or DTW, although if the yields for the directs are there then they will stay. The core of that market capacity at this point appears to not only not canibalize the other hubs but provides a revenue premium and is more than self sustaining.

If CHA could support the loads and yields to justify 150+ flights a day all over the place we would have a "hub" there too, regardless of its proximity to ATL.

dalad

There is a lot of O&D out of BOS.

dalad

Looks like a 787 nose and a 320 tail.

Bucking Bar

Gloopy,

As an O&D market, I agree. You hit on what matters; the ability of the city to generate revenue.

tim123

FTB I was wondering the same thing,but I seem to remember ALPA put in print somewhere that the 717's have to be in service.Our section 1 also says Delta must establish a fleet of new narrowbody......ect.The word fleet in our contract is defined as aircraft in servive,undergoing maint,operational spares so I would hope that two for training now does not count toward the ratio.

tim123

How convenient-someone brings it up on DALPA webboard and Bar posts it here,and the next day the press release on deltanet has the last sentence removed from it.

Bucking Bar

The 321 NEO looks to be the best of the bunch in terms of the range and capacity to replace the 757.

The C Series is lighter and does not have quite the legs of the Airbus offering. The best the C Series can do is ~3,000 NM with required contingency fuel.

A spreadsheet is of little use in trying to figure out what Delta might do. Mr. Anderson has stated he likes getting manufacturers bidding their new products against existing airframes. He likes getting new jets for used jet prices.

With US energy independence looming and the nature of domestic operations, we don't have the pressure on us to upgrade that operators like Icelandic Air do ... they really need the 757's capabilities.

Bucking Bar

DALPA has a web board?

Bucking Bar

They've pulled those shenanigans in the past.

sailingfun

Delta wanted the E190 rather badly in the last contract negotiation. They just did not want it at the mainline. They were willing to pay to have it at DCI however the offer was rejected.