Comments on: Delta’s Half-Empty Threat to Shrink Atlanta

By: Theo

Theo — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 03:43:55 +0000

LOL CF, nice info in your posts, i’m learning so much just from watching you and Eric’s responses.

By: CF

CF — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:18:47 +0000

Ari – It depends on if it’s an odd week (load factor) or an even week (revenue), of course. ;)

$1.6b is double what B6 paid for its new JFK terminal and $0.5b more than Indy paid for its entirely new terminal (including taxiways and a new tower). So, without having any actual knowledge of the project, comps make it seem that there could be some cost-cutting in the project. I just don’t know how much.

By: Ari

Ari — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:58:14 +0000

“This one is basic math. If your costs rise, then you need to make more money for each flight to be profitable.”

I thought in aviation you’re only supposed to get marketshare.

$1.6 b doesn’t seem to buy as much terminal space as before. In China it’s a whole different matter.

By: CF

CF — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:20:44 +0000

Optimist – You’ll get no disagreement from me. If we use my favorite example, LAX, I don’t think anyone would deny that they need to put money into that place. But spending billions of dollars to make it pretty is a completely waste of money. I don’t know much about the Atlanta project, so I can’t comment on it too much. If the project is to build a palace like LAX wants to do, then it should be scaled back. But if it’s really a worthy $1.6 billion investment in a massive terminal, then that’s fine. Still, the airlines are the ones that need to keep the airports honest. I’m guessing Delta and AirTran are trying to do just that.

By: The Traveling Optimist

The Traveling Optimist — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:14:03 +0000

Nice touch, Gary. When will the LUV come to ATL? Been waiting on that one for years, now, sir. :-)

By: The Traveling Optimist

The Traveling Optimist — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:10:23 +0000

CF – I agree that splitting hubs is not the way to go. Any reduction in service can sometimes make the locals nervous about the viability of their air service, however unrealistic the threats from the airline.

At the same time, while I don’t approve of runaway municipal spending I look to the often decried and much maligned situation at LAX. An intransigent city council has let a major international gateway go to seed. Also, like you spoke out against such frivolity, some of the spending finally approved has gone to cosmetics (the wave ceiling design).

A balance is needed. If ATL wants to compete as a viable Eastern (rest in peace) US gateway, it needs a functional and flexible new international terminal. If DL wants to continue to dominate ATL and fly to every viable corner of the earth from that city, then it needs to support a reasonable (whatever that is) increase in fees to do it.

No one wants another LAX or MIA but at the same time I tire quickly of airlines not willing to pay fairly for the infrastructure improvements they demand.

By: Gary

Gary — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:29:47 +0000

Dear Delta

I whole-heartedly support your move to draw down capacity at Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson International. In fact, I LUV the idea! ;-)

Sincerely,

By: CF

CF — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:36:46 +0000

Jason H – Yeah, I saw AirTran jumped on the bandwagon after Delta spoke up. I’m actually glad to see both airlines fighting Atlanta. Airports get away with spending too much with the assumption they can just pass the costs on. The airlines can and should be fighting back much more. This threat isn’t empty, but it shouldn’t scare the locals in Atlanta to think that they’ll lose all their service.

Eric and Optimist – Splitting hubs like that doesn’t really make any sense. When you split hubs, you make it less convenient for the local population while probably marginally increasing convenience for the connecting passengers if at all. The focus should be on the locals, especially when you have a market as big as Atlanta.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:53:06 +0000

Yes, I am aware of the failed science expierament with BNA/RDU; but those were organic projects, not pre-exsisting hub structures…and had an no international scope.

Lets use JAN as an example…say (this is all hypothetical) the 0900 departure with 50 seats has only 2 pax going to ATL; with the rest going to ORD,MDW,DTW,SDF,DCA,BOS & STL…connecting to other RJs mind you. Those 48 can be just as well served using MEM..in fact perhaps better, with a shorter min connect time. Obviously the JAN-ATL O&D is till there, and many connectionscombinations that work only in ATL…but they can cut frequency (and cost) from 8x a day to 5 while still giving the JAN market the connectivity it demands. So its not so much a redundancy as making use of the facilities and equiptment they are hamstrung with.

By: Jason H

Jason H — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:45:33 +0000

From the news reports it wasn’t just Delta that was saying they would have to review flights if costs rise. Airtran said much the same thing according to news reports I saw, so in effect ATL is risking both DL and Airtran flights if they don’t control costs at the new terminal.