mapsgl

This...


I understand that it is frustrating to see ones flying options diminish, but I'm still perplexed about the DTW "hate". People seem to stretch for reasons to not like DTW. It's a great airport - one of the best in the US.

They go on tangents about the city or the automotive industry, but ignore the data and the big picture.

Rustbelt

I have no problem with DTW. This airport is indeed top notch facility with very good choices of restaurants.

I have problem with very slow ground crews. This is the reason why I avoided NWA connecting through DTW.

HDQDD

Trust me, DTW is my favorite place to connect. I think many east coast flyers would agree. Catchment areas are important however, and I think many think that DTW is going away. I would disagree. The DTW area has no doubt been hurt hard by the recession, but it's still a huge area, and with the majority of heavy manufacturing in DTW, there will always be premium demand for DTW flights.

Cheers from Auburn Hills.

Feather Man

Red Alert !! DL said the same thing about CVG. Believe it when you see it.

Feather Man

Just curious....what specific geographic advantages do DTW & MEM have over CVG ?

AUDirt

I can't speak for DTW and I'm not a meteorologist, but I will continue to wager that MEM enjoys a large advantage over CVG when it comes to weather closings. Snow in MEM is a very rare event.

Bagels

The "hatred" goes beyond the airport and into the surrounding the communities.

As I pointed out earlier, check-out the UA forum. Dearborn is the sole Global Service call center for UA, yet you frequently read postings praising the (non-existent) GS call center in Honolulu while simultaneously bashing Detroit. And FT/airliners are full of similar comments... How often is it posted that 'the only reason DTW is a hub is because DL owns the terminal?' (And often by the same posters who choose to ignore the truth.)

pbarnette

Do absolute population numbers really matter that much? In an era of hub consolidation, isn't it the relative loss of population that hurts places like DTW and CVG? Certainly, the DTW area is large enough to support a hub, and I think it will remain one for some time, but the entire rustbelt region is the loser in the population shift game. It is more than just that the DTW region is static or shrinking, but that the population center is shifting further and further from DTW. That population growth is increasingly concentrated far away from DTW could very well see growth at DTW stall, with growth concentrated at other hubs better located to capture share in these growing markets.

hazelrah

CVG was an attempt at a "midwest" hub, but it's not in the midwest. Too distant from many midwest cachement areas and not insignificant backtracking so DTW and MSP are far superior to service midwest feed.

In this respect it resembles PIT which really had no basis for a hub other than it legacy roots.

Bagels

No, they don't; I agree. But as we both know, corporate - and not VFR/lesiure - traffic drives hubs. Thus a key reason why WN has been more successful in serving emerging Southwestern communities vs. its network counterparts. While I agree growth will be stronger elsewhere, I'll bet that the overwhelming majority of corporations embedded within the Midwest & East will stay put.

But with the Baby Boomers retiring & seeking warmer pastures and vacating many high-paying jobs that need to be filled, the population shifts over the next decade will be interesting.

youngdlplat

MEM does have some significant advantages. Its O&D is not what DL would like for it to be (so I am not convinced it will remain a hub), but I think it's advantage over CVG, and the reasons it will remain a hub include:

- Most Open Airport in the Country: I don't have an official link to confirm this, but I've been told that MEM is "open" more than any other airport in the country. That is, there are almost never weather problems. It is far enough south that snow is rarely an issue, far enough inland to avoid hurricanes, in an area that almost never gets fog, etc. All of the issues that close down airports (other than T-storms) don't affect MEM. If you connect through MEM, a weather delay is unlikely. Aside from Fred Smith being from Memphis, I understand Fedex is MEM based in part because the airport is so good for weather.

- Very Cheap for DL. Again, because of Fedex. The airport makes so much revenue from Fedex, that DL is an also-ran. I understand the landing fees in Memphis and overall costs are some of the lowest in the system (much lower than CVG).

- Good Location: MEM is much more centrally located than CVG, especially to get traffic from Texas, Oklahoma, and other places where DL's presence is small. MEM makes more sense as a connecting hub than CVG for the mid-west.

- Lots of runways. It's almost unheard of to have a long wait to take off in MEM. I believe the airport has four runways (could be wrong about that), which is a phenomenal number. Maybe someone knows. Does MEM have more runways than ATL? It definitely has more than ORD. So delays are rare, and there are fuel savings for DL by not having delays on the tarmac (granted, CVG no longer has delays either now that service has been cut so much).

None of these things mean MEM won't be dehubbed because it is a small market. But it has some serious structural advantages over every other DL hub.

6P&E

MEM has four runways to ATL's five. And FED EX is not competing for them at hours when DL is using them.

What I do not understand about the DL MEM hub is how it can be viable with mostly RJ's in so many markets.

Also, are there any statistics on what percentage of traffic at DL MEM hub is O/D? I think the total numbers for MEM and BNA are roughly the same, but only MEM is a hub, so O/D traffic at MEM must be significalty smaller than that of BNA. And how does it compare with that of CVG, I wonder.

pbarnette

I'm not expecting a great many corporations to uproot their HQs, but that doesn't mean those companies will not choose to grow elsewhere. I mean, IBM has something like 11k employees in RTP. And I would expect that trend to continue. I especially think we will continue to see an incredible shift to Texas - the DFW and Houston metro areas BOTH added over 1m people between 2000 and 2010 (as did ATL). That is just staggering.

To my mind, this doesn't mean the end of hubs such as DTW, but it does call into question whether they should expect to see much growth. We may not see a CVG-style pull down of existing service at places like DTW, but we shouldn't be surprised if they increasingly get passed over for new service.

It will be interesting, but I wouldn't be surprised to simply see those jobs follow the population to the better climates (both business-wise and weather-wise) in the South.

PowerFlyer

MEM has some weather benefits; DTW is the home airport for a lot more people. Otherwise, you're right CVG's location isn't that much different than DTW. That's the core of the problem: CVG is close to Detroit but has a smaller O&D base. If you have two hubs that essentially flow the same traffic, you cut the one that brings less in terms of high margin traffic. It's nothing against CVG, which is a fine city and a fine airport. The smaller CVG now makes a ton more sense for DL: they own the terminal, it's an easy to connect and use facility, and when you add some connecting traffic they can maintain dominance to/from most cities anyone would serve.

As people keep reporting, FedEx is the reason this hub will stay. It's a win-win for everyone. DL gets lower operating costs and MEM gets service to a whole lot of cities it has no right being connected to.

I agree that I don't understand how the CRJs stay although most of the draw down is CRJs. This all comes with the caveat that I don't have an understanding of the fares and markets between cities in the far mid-west/great plains and central south. With STL gone, there is no hub in the dead middle of the country anymore, so MEM does serve as a fairly direct routing spot from say OMA/MCI/DSM/IND to say BHM/MOB/SHV/MSY. There has to be a reason they keep the CRJs going other than a contractual obligation.

MEM has a terrible O&D number--20% Seehttp://m.commercialappeal.com/news/2...phis-25-perce/

This is part of the reason why they are drawing down the operation. My educated guess is that the low cost structure and fortress hub that keeps DL and the operation profitable enough. I realize that FL (soon WN) serves the airport but DL actually controls the vast majority of the terminal and charges a pretty penny to fly non-stop. They affectively complete with FL by making you connect in ATL to get a similar fare. And where are you going to go if you don't want to fly from MEM? It's actually far to the next major airport. That's very different than CVG where DAY was pretty close.


There was an extremely interesting article in the Atlantic that essentially said the movement was towards so-called Mega-cities/regions. That in the next 20 years the vast majority of the country will live in the Route 95 Corridor Northeast, Great Atlanta, Central/South Florida, Chicago, the DFW-SAT-HOU triangle, and along the California coast.

Bagels

But hubs like ATL, DFW & IAH -- and to a lesser extent, CLT -- already handle significant traffic flows that would be better routed through ORD, DTW or MSP. I expect that as time passes, and as products are streamlined, DL passengers accustomed going flying BDL-ATL-SEA will be willing to pass through DTW or MSP; and former CO passengers traveling CMH-IAH-SFO will be willing to travel through ORD or DEN.

With ATL already handling 70%+ connecting traffic, realistically, diverting the above-mentioned traffic elsewhere ultimately isn't going to impact the yield - especially as traffic throughout the SE grows. Financially, it'd probably be best for DL to route that traffic elsewhere.

So while I agree that other regions will experience stronger population growth, I also firmly believe that the growth + current industry consolidation will ultimately lead DTW, ORD and MSP to be stronger hubs in their region.

The business climate within this country will continue to change over the next decade. Many Midwestern/Eastern states recognize their problems and are attempting change. Others will be forced to change. And many Southern states are facing the same budget woes their Northern counterparts are.

Availability of jobs coupled with a low cost of living lead many people to Texas. With an increasing liberal presence and soaring debt, will TX's huge advantage remain??

People have moved to FL, CA, CO, AZ, etc. in masses. But they've found lower-than-expected paying jobs and a higher-than-expected cost of living. So as the baby boomers retire, will people return home? Or will the jobs follow them?