# Another airline pulls out of MSP-ORD



## ParanoidAndroid

http://m.startribune.com/msp-loses-another-airline-flying-nonstop-to-chicago/489888221/

Maybe it's REALLY time now to set up some MSP-CHI corridor service (not at the expense of the EB). Only problem is Wisconsin.


----------



## cpotisch

ParanoidAndroid said:


> http://m.startribune.com/msp-loses-another-airline-flying-nonstop-to-chicago/489888221/
> 
> Maybe it's REALLY time now to set up some MSP-CHI corridor service (not at the expense of the EB). Only problem is Wisconsin.


Is corridor rail service for that distance really going to compete with air travel? MSP-CHI on the EB takes almost nine hours. That just seems too long to replace air travel for many people.


----------



## jebr

MSP - CHI air fares have jumped significantly since Spirit pulled out. I used to be able to get $30 - $50 one-way fares if I played the dates right and wasn't too picky on my airline choice. Now it's rare to see a flight under $100 one-way.

Corridor service could certainly compete here, especially for leisure travel. The carded time is 7 hr 55 min eastbound, 7 hr 48 min westbound when running on a normal schedule. (Currently there's an hour added eastbound to time track work properly.) Assuming you can fit within Amtrak's generous carry-on allotment, there's really only a need to arrive 15 minutes before departure, maybe 30 if you're wanting to make sure you have enough time to walk from the far parking lot. On the other end you're in downtown Chicago, so let's assume another 30 minutes there to get off, grab a cab, and shoot over to your downtown location. That leaves total trip time at just under 9 hours from arriving at St. Paul Union Depot to arriving at your destination in downtown Chicago.

Air travel MSP - CHI takes about an hour and a half gate-to-gate. MSP's pretty conveniently located to downtown Minneapolis and much of the metro, so I'd consider drive/transit time to be roughly equal when painting a broad brush. However, I'd leave an hour and a half to park/arrive, get checked in, through the gate, and onto the aircraft. (That's below the recommended time, which is 2ish hours, but if you're a regular traveler with Pre/GE/NEXUS that's easily doable.) Upon landing, it's about an hour to get to downtown Chicago from O'Hare, which is where most of the flights go to. That means that total time for that is around 4 hours.

Driving, according to Google Maps, takes about six hours. However, there's tolls along the way, and you'll have to stop one (twice if you're doing the recommended amount of stopping) so I'd suggest adding another hour on for that. That makes driving seven hours. Also, Chicago traffic isn't the greatest, and if your destination is downtown parking sucks and is generally expensive.

Bus travel is roughly equal to the train.

Corridor rail could work in this corridor, especially with intermediate markets helping to add more city pairs. Wisconsin Dells is conveniently about halfway, which is a popular family destination at least for many in Minnesota and Wisconsin. (I'm not sure how popular it is for Chicago residents.) Add in Milwaukee, and ideally a stop or easy connection to Madison, and you'd have a robust corridor. Chicago's a destination where you really don't need a car, and a few extra hours over flying may swing some people over to the train if it's cheaper (especially if the train had wi-fi to allow reliable connectivity.) There's also the environmental benefits of rail over flying, which shouldn't be ignored.

Overall, it'd be a successful corridor, and it's been studied a few times. I hope one of these studies actually gets off the ground and adds another frequency at least St. Paul - Chicago. It's be a huge boon to getting to Chicago, and if a smaller train/state-subsidized train could be priced a bit lower (the $39 fare that's currently on promo would be a nice everyday/two-weeks-out fare for the full length) I think it'd be successful.


----------



## Dakota 400

I will try to stay off my "soapbox" in this post.

This decision by Spirit Airlines seems to be to be more in their corporate interests than in what is in the interests of their customers. MSP is not a small airport. But, it is experiencing airlines pulling out?

My local airport is Dayton International Airport. It is an excellent facility. Their motto is "Easy in, Easy out". And, it is. Once a hub airport for Piedmont Airlines, then US Air (for awhile), and the city of Dayton financed an entirely new wing to the terminal that was supposed to serve as a Delta hub. (That hub has been mothballed for years, but I am sure the taxpayers are still paying for the bonds sold to finance it.) Mostly regional jets serve us while Delta still has MD-88's or similar planes for the Day-ATL route. (Thankfully.) In the past, we have been served by L 1011, 707, 737, 727 aircraft and even had a charter Concorde flight once. We have the facilities, yet we too have experienced airline pulling out.

There will be many who will disagree with me--and that's OK by me. But, communities such as mine--and maybe now MSP as well, have not been served well by airline deregulation. We, the flying consumer have been affected as well--some positively, some negatively. It's nice to have to pay less for an air ticket. But, this has now led to flying being "the Greyhound" of the skies. And, a competition with other near-by airports, i.e. Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, for customers when the airports don't control the pricing to attract customers, but the airlines do.

I guess my attempt to stay off my "soapbox" didn't work. Sorry.


----------



## cpotisch

Dakota 400 said:


> This decision by Spirit Airlines seems to be to be more in their corporate interests than in what is in the interests of their customers. MSP is not a small airport. But, it is experiencing airlines pulling out?


Sadly, that's pretty much always the case. It's a company, and the true goal is to turn a profit, not do what is in the best interests of the customer.


----------



## PVD

Delta carries more than 70% of the passengers at that airport, it is very hard for anyone else to match their worldwide reach. But MSP - ORD also adds United and American to the mix. For an airline that is more geared towards point to point leisure travel as opposed to business travel, competing on price alone to get passengers on a plane with little opportunity/reason for a connecting flight is a losing proposition.


----------



## amtrakpass

From taking the Empire Builder between St.paul and Chicago quite a bit I have noticed the real running time from St. Paul Union Depot to Chicago Union Station is about 7hrs 20 minutes with no delays.The rest is padding. So even without any speed improvements, with the population in the twin cities I think you would get pretty decent ridership. But I think it is important to have the trains also stop in downtown Minneapolis even with the short change of direction necessary. At the very least the corridor trains would probably start at St. Cloud or hopefully Duluth and stop at one of the Northstar commuter stops to add ridership. St Paul Union Depot is cool but it is pretty far east to a lot of the population in the Twin city area


----------



## Dakota 400

cpotisch said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This decision by Spirit Airlines seems to be to be more in their corporate interests than in what is in the interests of their customers. MSP is not a small airport. But, it is experiencing airlines pulling out?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's pretty much always the case. It's a company, and the true goal is to turn a profit, not do what is in the best interests of the customer.
Click to expand...

That is why I believe that airline re-regulation is needed. Not an economist, but, prior to deregulation, the airlines seemed to make money and the public was better served.


----------



## jebr

If the airlines were still regulated like the days before "deregulation" (there's still regulation, just less of it) then Spirit likely would not exist, at least in its current form, in the first place. There's still plenty of flights to choose from, even direct, between MSP and Chicago, they're just not as dirt cheap as they used to be. They're probably still lower (at least for a basic fare) than they would be under pre-deregulation, though.

MSP hasn't had any major airlines pull out entirely in recent memory, and most airlines are either expanding routes or swapping routes. Spirit's MSP-ORD slots seem to be taken up by flights to other destinations, Seattle being a recent add that comes to mind. JetBlue has recently arrived into MSP, thus adding some east-coast competition. Sun Country has improved their route map somewhat recently, though its decline into ULCC status has been swift and terrible. Delta is still the primary carrier, and if you need direct they're the ones to go with outside of cities with hubs for other airlines or random ULCC routes. The addition of other airlines and expansion of domestic routes has made MSP a bit less of a Delta fortress hub than it used to be, but MSP is certainly still a major Delta hub and is the business traveler's airline of choice if they need a wide reach for direct flights.

I'm guessing the MSP - CHI route just isn't competitive as a direct flight for leisure travelers. The three-to-five hour savings each way is probably enough to solidify it as a flying market for most business travel, especially with the Empire Builder's unreliability and lack of connectivity (there's not always coverage between Red Wing and Tomah, and even between Tomah and Milwaukee can be a bit spotty.) Driving means that the entire drive is unproductive, and Megabus/Greyhound just don't have an appeal for the business sector (probably rightfully so.) However, the additional time still isn't terrible for a day's drive (or a half day's drive) and buses and trains grab the economy traveler side of the market better than airlines can.


----------



## cpotisch

Dakota 400 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This decision by Spirit Airlines seems to be to be more in their corporate interests than in what is in the interests of their customers. MSP is not a small airport. But, it is experiencing airlines pulling out?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's pretty much always the case. It's a company, and the true goal is to turn a profit, not do what is in the best interests of the customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why I believe that airline re-regulation is needed. Not an economist, but, prior to deregulation, the airlines seemed to make money and the public was better served.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty darn sure that airlines have made a lot more money since they cut (almost) all of the regulations. And prices definitely tend to be a lot cheaper. It's the purpose of a company to turn a profit. You can't really expect much better.


----------



## jebr

amtrakpass said:


> But I think it is important to have the trains also stop in downtown Minneapolis even with the short change of direction necessary. At the very least the corridor trains would probably start at St. Cloud or hopefully Duluth and stop at one of the Northstar commuter stops to add ridership. St Paul Union Depot is cool but it is pretty far east to a lot of the population in the Twin city area


 You're better off starting in St. Cloud and skipping downtown Minneapolis. A Fridley stop (or similar commuter rail stop) would grab most people in the west metro who want to be able to park their car for cheap/free. The downtown Minneapolis station is a bit west of the downtown core, so most people wouldn't walk to it, and the light rail would be just as quick as the short light rail jaunt to Target Field + the time it'd take to get from Target Field to Union Depot. (There's also the 94 bus that's almost certainly faster than any rail connection would be, though it doesn't run on evenings/weekends.) There's also no direct parking, so it wouldn't get much for car-to-rail traffic (and a suburban stop would serve that market better anyways.

If you're looking to increase connectivity, a northeast Minneapolis stop along the current route would do better, especially if it could be placed to also serve Northstar. Northeast isn't as well connected to downtown St. Paul, and so a stop there would be enough of a time saver to draw some traffic in without requiring a rather long back-up move.


----------



## chakk

Is there not one of those low-cost bus services between Minneapolis and Chicago that competes with Amtrak both time-wise and money-wise?


----------



## jebr

chakk said:


> Is there not one of those low-cost bus services between Minneapolis and Chicago that competes with Amtrak both time-wise and money-wise?


Megabus runs the corridor (with stops in Madison and Milwaukee) 4 times a day, with travel time between 8 and 9 hours. Greyhound runs 4-6 times a day along the corridor, with various stops depending on the particular route, with travel time between 7 hr 45 minutes and 9 hr 45 minutes.

However, that doesn't touch as much of the intermediate market, and there's definitely a "rail bias" with a fair amount of our local transit routes, which may result in ridership on the train that wouldn't consider the bus.


----------



## Palmetto

ParanoidAndroid said:


> http://m.startribune.com/msp-loses-another-airline-flying-nonstop-to-chicago/489888221/
> 
> Maybe it's REALLY time now to set up some MSP-CHI corridor service (not at the expense of the EB). Only problem is Wisconsin.


Talk to the Canadian Pacific RR. They're the ones that will have the final say. because it's their railroad. Unless, of course, Amtrak decides to run BNSF. Either way, I wouldn't hold my breath, the Badger State not withstanding.


----------



## railiner

In the "if only" department....

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track5/hiawatha195407.html

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track4/cnw400194106.html

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track4/twinzephyrs194805.html


----------



## NorthShore

jebr said:


> Wisconsin Dells is conveniently about halfway, which is a popular family destination at least for many in Minnesota and Wisconsin. (I'm not sure how popular it is for Chicago residents.)


Significant.



> Add in Milwaukee, and ideally a stop or easy connection to Madison, and you'd have a robust corridor. Chicago's a destination where you really don't need a car, and a few extra hours over flying may swing some people over to the train if it's cheaper.


Nor Milwaukee. Nor the Twin Cities. Nor Madison as far as personal transportation vehicles. At least not for most stuff as a visitor.


----------



## NorthShore

jebr said:


> If you're looking to increase connectivity, a northeast Minneapolis stop along the current route would do better, especially if it could be placed to also serve Northstar. Northeast isn't as well connected to downtown St. Paul, and so a stop there would be enough of a time saver to draw some traffic in without requiring a rather long back-up move.


Northeast really needs lightrail.


----------



## NorthShore

jebr said:


> Driving means that the entire drive is unproductive, and Megabus/Greyhound just don't have an appeal for the business sector (probably rightfully so.) However, the additional time still isn't terrible for a day's drive (or a half day's drive) and buses and trains grab the economy traveler side of the market better than airlines can.


Perhaps adding a business class coach to the corridor would be a valuable incintive to recruit ridership.


----------



## Trogdor

Dakota 400 said:


> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This decision by Spirit Airlines seems to be to be more in their corporate interests than in what is in the interests of their customers. MSP is not a small airport. But, it is experiencing airlines pulling out?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's pretty much always the case. It's a company, and the true goal is to turn a profit, not do what is in the best interests of the customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why I believe that airline re-regulation is needed. Not an economist, but, prior to deregulation, the airlines seemed to make money and the public was better served.
Click to expand...

That couldn’t be further from the truth. Prior to deregulation, airline service was barely a skeleton of what we see today, and, inflation-adjusted, airfares were considerably higher. Yes, you got a microwaveable dinner for that much higher fare, but paying for a checked bag, economy plus, and a buy-on-board meal item still puts you much further ahead today than you would have been in the 1970s.

Meanwhile, airlines are posting profits in the billions of dollars. Airlines did lose a ton of money in the 1980s through the 2000s, but that can be attributed to a few factors:

First, in the 1980s, the airline industry was still adjusting to the deregulation era and hadn’t yet figured out how things would work. A few legacy carriers bit the dust (or were on their way to doing so) because they hadn’t figured out how to operate in the new model without regulation protecting them (Pan Am being a big one there). Then there were a couple of cases of corporate raiders figuring out that they could personally profit by raping companies for all they had and sending the skeletons of the company to bankruptcy (Lorenzo and Eastern, Carl Icahn and TWA). Other carriers started and failed because they hadn’t figured out a business model that worked.

Then in the 1990s you had the Gulf War which had the double-whammy of spiking fuel prices and depressing demand. Yet, most airlines had fuel-inefficient planes from the 1960s and 70s and were too slow to replace them. Incidentally, much of the legacy airlines’ fleets were purchased in the era of regulation, such as DC-10s, L1011s, and even domestic 747s. They could fly them profitably when fares were regulated and they didn’t have to worry about competition. When deregulation hit, smaller planes killed the larger planes in terms of economics on most routes, which is why a carrier like Southwest, flying only 737s, was able to take on larger competitors. It’s also why the number of domestic wide bodies significantly decreased when the first generation were ready for retirement. You used to see DC-10s and 747s on short hops such as Chicago-Cleveland, Milwaukee-Detroit, etc. But once the carriers dumped them, they didn’t replace them with other 300-seaters, but with much smaller planes.

The early 2000s had, of course, 9/11, which led to a couple of bankruptcies, and the fuel cost spike and economic decline of 2006-2008 was the last major negative event to hit the airlines economically. However, since then, and following the latest consolidation, airlines are more profitable than they have ever been (and this with the fares still being lower than pre-deregulation).

I’m not sure what you expect regulation to bring that we don’t have already.


----------



## ehbowen

cpotisch said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This decision by Spirit Airlines seems to be to be more in their corporate interests than in what is in the interests of their customers. MSP is not a small airport. But, it is experiencing airlines pulling out?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's pretty much always the case. It's a company, and the true goal is to turn a profit, not do what is in the best interests of the customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why I believe that airline re-regulation is needed. Not an economist, but, prior to deregulation, the airlines seemed to make money and the public was better served.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm pretty darn sure that airlines have made a lot more money since they cut (almost) all of the regulations. Airlines make more money and prices tend to be a lot cheaper. It's the purpose of a company to turn a profit. You can't really expect much better.
Click to expand...

No, it's the purpose of a company to pump up the price of the stock held by it's chief executives through predatory market practices, outsourcing to slave labor, accumulating debt at below market rates, stifling competitors by way of imposing onerous regulations via government connections, publishing unrealistic forward expectations (in 20 years we'll have 20 billion subscribers!), and knowing when to jump ship when the house of cards begins to collapse. "Profit" doesn't enter into the equation at all...see also Amazon, Tesla, Netflix....


----------



## railiner

Trogdor said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cpotisch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This decision by Spirit Airlines seems to be to be more in their corporate interests than in what is in the interests of their customers. MSP is not a small airport. But, it is experiencing airlines pulling out?
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that's pretty much always the case. It's a company, and the true goal is to turn a profit, not do what is in the best interests of the customer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is why I believe that airline re-regulation is needed. Not an economist, but, prior to deregulation, the airlines seemed to make money and the public was better served.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That couldn’t be further from the truth. Prior to deregulation, airline service was barely a skeleton of what we see today, and, inflation-adjusted, airfares were considerably higher. Yes, you got a microwaveable dinner for that much higher fare, but paying for a checked bag, economy plus, and a buy-on-board meal item still puts you much further ahead today than you would have been in the 1970s.
> 
> Meanwhile, airlines are posting profits in the billions of dollars. Airlines did lose a ton of money in the 1980s through the 2000s, but that can be attributed to a few factors:
> 
> First, in the 1980s, the airline industry was still adjusting to the deregulation era and hadn’t yet figured out how things would work. A few legacy carriers bit the dust (or were on their way to doing so) because they hadn’t figured out how to operate in the new model without regulation protecting them (Pan Am being a big one there). Then there were a couple of cases of corporate raiders figuring out that they could personally profit by raping companies for all they had and sending the skeletons of the company to bankruptcy (Lorenzo and Eastern, Carl Icahn and TWA). Other carriers started and failed because they hadn’t figured out a business model that worked.
> 
> Then in the 1990s you had the Gulf War which had the double-whammy of spiking fuel prices and depressing demand. Yet, most airlines had fuel-inefficient planes from the 1960s and 70s and were too slow to replace them. Incidentally, much of the legacy airlines’ fleets were purchased in the era of regulation, such as DC-10s, L1011s, and even domestic 747s. They could fly them profitably when fares were regulated and they didn’t have to worry about competition. When deregulation hit, smaller planes killed the larger planes in terms of economics on most routes, which is why a carrier like Southwest, flying only 737s, was able to take on larger competitors. It’s also why the number of domestic wide bodies significantly decreased when the first generation were ready for retirement. You used to see DC-10s and 747s on short hops such as Chicago-Cleveland, Milwaukee-Detroit, etc. But once the carriers dumped them, they didn’t replace them with other 300-seaters, but with much smaller planes.
> 
> The early 2000s had, of course, 9/11, which led to a couple of bankruptcies, and the fuel cost spike and economic decline of 2006-2008 was the last major negative event to hit the airlines economically. However, since then, and following the latest consolidation, airlines are more profitable than they have ever been (and this with the fares still being lower than pre-deregulation).
> 
> I’m not sure what you expect regulation to bring that we don’t have already.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty thorough, and fair, capsule history...nicely done!


----------



## Dakota 400

Trogdor,

I agree with some of what you say; I disagree with some of your other points.

The legacy carriers were behind the curve in replacing large planes. For me, the most obvious example was a TWA flight from ORD to DAY using a 707. If the plane was one-third full, I would be surprised. (Great service, as I recall, and no "fighting" for luggage bin space.)

"Prior to deregulation, airline service was barely a skeleton of what we see today...", you stated. I disagree. Using my home airport as an example, prior to deregulation, we had L-1011 service to the West Coast: LAX-DAY-IND-LAX. More non-stop flights on planes, including jets, that were larger and more comfortable than the regional jets of today. An AA non-stop 727 flight to LGA with a good dinner(!) in Coach. We were a hub airport with many non-stop choices for Piedmont Airlines including flights to/from Boston with meal service in Coach.

DAY has not quite a skeleton service, yet. But, if the reduction/elimination of TSA security check points take place as has been proposed very recently, our air service will be negatively affected, in my opinion. Only Delta is flying larger jets and that is only on the DAY-ATL itinerary. Deregulation has promoted the rise of the budget airlines and lowered the fares so that flying is now like traveling by bus was when I was in college. But, even airports such as DAY have suffered the loss of some of these budget airlines. You may disagree with this statement if you wish. But, my hometown airport is very much under served given the tax payer's money that has been spent in building and maintaining and improving our airport.

Deregulation allowed for the development of the low cost carriers and making flying less expensive: no doubt. The development of more fuel efficient aircraft was encouraged by deregulation. Has it led to the airlines being more profitable? Yes, since they now can tack onto one's ticket fees for "whatever" they wish and raise/lower fares as they wish.

Has the public been better served by these changes? In my opinion based upon my flying experience from a non-major airport or hub, this member of the public has not been better served.


----------



## cpotisch

Dakota 400 said:


> Trogdor,
> 
> I agree with some of what you say; I disagree with some of your other points.
> 
> The legacy carriers were behind the curve in replacing large planes. For me, the most obvious example was a TWA flight from ORD to DAY using a 707. If the plane was one-third full, I would be surprised. (Great service, as I recall, and no "fighting" for luggage bin space.)
> 
> "Prior to deregulation, airline service was barely a skeleton of what we see today...", you stated. I disagree. Using my home airport as an example, prior to deregulation, we had L-1011 service to the West Coast: LAX-DAY-IND-LAX. More non-stop flights on planes, including jets, that were larger and more comfortable than the regional jets of today. An AA non-stop 727 flight to LGA with a good dinner(!) in Coach. We were a hub airport with many non-stop choices for Piedmont Airlines including flights to/from Boston with meal service in Coach.
> 
> DAY has not quite a skeleton service, yet. But, if the reduction/elimination of TSA security check points take place as has been proposed very recently, our air service will be negatively affected, in my opinion. Only Delta is flying larger jets and that is only on the DAY-ATL itinerary. Deregulation has promoted the rise of the budget airlines and lowered the fares so that flying is now like traveling by bus was when I was in college. But, even airports such as DAY have suffered the loss of some of these budget airlines. You may disagree with this statement if you wish. But, my hometown airport is very much under served given the tax payer's money that has been spent in building and maintaining and improving our airport.
> 
> Deregulation allowed for the development of the low cost carriers and making flying less expensive: no doubt. The development of more fuel efficient aircraft was encouraged by deregulation. Has it led to the airlines being more profitable? Yes, since they now can tack onto one's ticket fees for "whatever" they wish and raise/lower fares as they wish.
> 
> Has the public been better served by these changes? In my opinion based upon my flying experience from a non-major airport or hub, this member of the public has not been better served.


In your post, you keep on bringing up how great it was that they used large planes on short routes. Those might have been more comfortable, it 100% does not refute Trogdor's point that airline service was skeletal back then. The rise of regional jets is primarily because it can now be profitable to run low capacity, short distance routes, whereas planes used to be too large and inefficient to justify that.


----------



## Dakota 400

cpotisch said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trogdor,
> 
> I agree with some of what you say; I disagree with some of your other points.
> 
> The legacy carriers were behind the curve in replacing large planes. For me, the most obvious example was a TWA flight from ORD to DAY using a 707. If the plane was one-third full, I would be surprised. (Great service, as I recall, and no "fighting" for luggage bin space.)
> 
> "Prior to deregulation, airline service was barely a skeleton of what we see today...", you stated. I disagree. Using my home airport as an example, prior to deregulation, we had L-1011 service to the West Coast: LAX-DAY-IND-LAX. More non-stop flights on planes, including jets, that were larger and more comfortable than the regional jets of today. An AA non-stop 727 flight to LGA with a good dinner(!) in Coach. We were a hub airport with many non-stop choices for Piedmont Airlines including flights to/from Boston with meal service in Coach.
> 
> DAY has not quite a skeleton service, yet. But, if the reduction/elimination of TSA security check points take place as has been proposed very recently, our air service will be negatively affected, in my opinion. Only Delta is flying larger jets and that is only on the DAY-ATL itinerary. Deregulation has promoted the rise of the budget airlines and lowered the fares so that flying is now like traveling by bus was when I was in college. But, even airports such as DAY have suffered the loss of some of these budget airlines. You may disagree with this statement if you wish. But, my hometown airport is very much under served given the tax payer's money that has been spent in building and maintaining and improving our airport.
> 
> Deregulation allowed for the development of the low cost carriers and making flying less expensive: no doubt. The development of more fuel efficient aircraft was encouraged by deregulation. Has it led to the airlines being more profitable? Yes, since they now can tack onto one's ticket fees for "whatever" they wish and raise/lower fares as they wish.
> 
> Has the public been better served by these changes? In my opinion based upon my flying experience from a non-major airport or hub, this member of the public has not been better served.
> 
> 
> 
> In your post, you keep on bringing up how great it was that they used large planes on short routes. Those might have been more comfortable, it 100% does not refute Trogdor's point that airline service was skeletal back then. The rise of regional jets is primarily because it can now be profitable to run low capacity, short distance routes, whereas planes used to be too large and inefficient to justify that.
Click to expand...

How does one define "skeletal service"? What service DAY now has is not "skeletal service"--yet. But, if proposed TSA reduction of security check points in small airports is put in place, I fear what service we will have will be a shadow of what our airport is capable of handling and a waste of the taxpayers money that put such a facitlity in place.

I don't defend the use of a TWA 707 for my ORD-CHI flight many years ago. Shocked, I was, to see that I was boarding such a plane.


----------



## BCL

Dakota 400 said:


> DAY has not quite a skeleton service, yet. But, if the reduction/elimination of TSA security check points take place as has been proposed very recently, our air service will be negatively affected, in my opinion. Only Delta is flying larger jets and that is only on the DAY-ATL itinerary. Deregulation has promoted the rise of the budget airlines and lowered the fares so that flying is now like traveling by bus was when I was in college. But, even airports such as DAY have suffered the loss of some of these budget airlines. You may disagree with this statement if you wish. But, my hometown airport is very much under served given the tax payer's money that has been spent in building and maintaining and improving our airport.


Location doesn't seem to be ideal though. It seems to be located within reasonable distance of a couple of major airports. It going to be tough getting the airlines to serve an airport where they don't necessarily see any profitability.

You want "barely there" service? I was looking to book a trip to Seattle around Christmas, and possibly the lowest fare was at Charles Schultz Sonoma County Airport. Never been there, but apparently it has even fewer passengers than Dayton. Does seem kind of cute though. I wonder if Lucy really charges a nickel for help.


----------



## Dakota 400

BCL,

Quite correct, I think, that we are surrounded by three very competitive airports currently. But, those airports have existed as long as DAY has. I assume all have improved their facilities, but DAY has also as well.

DAY is clearly a step-Sister in my opinion in the minds of the airline executives and I don't clearly understand why.

If because of deregulation that profitability of the airlines is the prime motive for such an action. it is a "win" for them. But, what about, "We, the People"? This seems to becoming a lost concept in the America of the 21st Century.


----------



## railiner

Part of the problem with deregulation, is the constant merging of carrier's, and consequently the closing of many hubs, or reducing service drastically. Look at what happened to St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Nashville, Las Vegas, Reno, etc....all just from AA merger's and acquisition's....add to them the other hubs suffering from similar on DL, and UA....


----------



## Anderson

On airlines:
I think it is questionable as to just how "skeletal" service was then, and a lot of that depends on the question of hub-and-spoke services versus through-routing. I would note that, for example, PHF (Newport News) had quite a bit of service pre-deregulation. In the years since, it has been a veritable yo-yo at times (as mergers knocked out service due to consolidation at RIC (Richmond) or ORF (Norfolk). So I think this is a case where your mileage may vary.

With that being said, I do think that deregulation combined with the mass consolidation did ultimately screw the pooch for many smaller-to-midsized airports. One thing I would note is that while in "real terms" airfares have been declining for a long time, this has been largely invisible after inflation (they've been reasonably static in nominal terms since about 2000 or so) and is also masked by the steady increase in ancillary revenue (e.g. seat selection fees, baggage fees) in recent years. [1]

I do agree that in many cases, we're coming out ahead of where we were 40 years ago...but in many cases I suspect that at least some share of the gains are down to more efficient engines reducing fuel consumption, increases in seat density, and reduced operating crew requirements (and costs, once you take into account the splitting-off of many short-haul flights to "regional" operators such as SkyWest, who IIRC have much lower costs; remember, pre-deregulation, many of those routes would have been on "mainline" through-routings). Trying to disentangle what elements of deregulation worked out well and which ones "misfired" would be an interesting exercise for a PhD student in transportation economics.

With all of this being said, I think that security regulation hasn't helped anything on the airline front. In particular, I suspect it has made it an increasingly dubious proposition to support airports (and city pairs) on the lower end of the passenger count range (I think you face mounting viability issues anywhere below 250k pax/yr). It has also engendered what I can only call a racket in "expedited security" options (how many airlines sell this as an option now?).

The new TSA plans are a mixed bag that I can't quite sort out. On the one hand, I feel like they would help smaller airports in some specific cases (particularly where you've got a lot of traffic that isn't connecting onwards), but there's a risk of enough operationally "blown" connections, airports not set up to handle kicking a bunch of pax on smaller planes out and sending them back through security (anyone want to imagine trying to deal with this at Atlanta?), and issues with having to do a Chinese fire drill wich checked luggage that some airlines may just say "screw it" and cut service. I can also imagine being a little bit annoyed at boarding a regional plane going XXX-YYY and then having to go through security at YYY to transfer to a similar plane going YYY-ZZZ (and in this case, I could see the emergence of "unsecured terminals"...there's already a side-market in quasi-general aviation services in different markets, after all...just seeing the market fully bifurcate, with the "unsecured" market having a size limit on the planes involved, would be interesting).



On CHI-MSP:
I tend to think a corridor on this route would work pretty well. As noted, there are a number of decent internal traffic-generating stops, and the timing is pretty competitive with taking a bus or driving. I suspect you could nudge that down by a bit as well (shooting for the 6:45 timetabled times of the 1950s seems like a reasonable goal for a corridor project; I'm not sure if you could pull it off with a MAS of 90 MPH or you'd need to go to 110 MPH). I'm also trying to find some of the studies from the old Chicago-Madison-Minneapolis project to figure out what the proposed end-to-end runtimes were like.

My guess is that with 2-3 "dedicated" trains (that is, not LD trains) on the route you'd have something that was pretty successful. Ideally you'd want something closer to the hourly service of Brightline, but I think you'd have to seriously knock away at travel time to make it work (pushing your average speed to 80 MPH, offering a 5-hour travel time, would almost assuredly require getting MAS to 125 MPH for some portion of the route...and I think 5 hours is just too long for a Brightline-esque model to work).

Whether there would ever be either serious interest in or funding for anything beyond this (aside from perhaps an alternate routing via Rochester) is an open question...the 400-ish miles between Chicago and Minneapolis is /just/ long enough to start stretching the viability of any sort of HSR plan (you start needing average speeds in the 130 MPH range (not far off of the Nozomi trains on the Tokaido Line, and above that of the Hikari trains). There's also the hand-wringing fact that a "true" bullet train from end-to-end would probably risk dropping intermediate stops.

[1] I'm reminded of one time when I bought my brother a ticket in F on a flight. He was confused, until I pointed out to him that buying a Y ticket, a checked bag (he was going to need one since a wedding was involved, at best straining his carry-on's capabilities), and an extra-legroom seat (he's all legs) would actually be /more/ expensive than the F seat, and F came with breakfast and drinks.


----------



## railiner

Reminds me of some of those 'super-short' flights, pre-deregulation...

UAL had DC-8's flying between Norfolk and Newport News, as well as between San Francisco and Oakland...






Those were part of longer, multi-leg flights, another thing that is fairly rare in this hub and spoke era....Alaska Airlines still has quite a few of those...


----------



## cpotisch

railiner said:


> Reminds me of some of those 'super-short' flights, pre-deregulation...
> 
> UAL had DC-8's flying between Norfolk and Newport News, as well as between San Francisco and Oakland...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were part of longer, multi-leg flights, another thing that is fairly rare in this hub and spoke era....Alaska Airlines still has quite a few of those...


Those kinds of flights are still around, just not to the extent they used to:


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

PVD said:


> Delta carries more than 70% of the passengers at that airport, it is very hard for anyone else to match their worldwide reach. But MSP - ORD also adds United and American to the mix. For an airline that is more geared towards point to point leisure travel as opposed to business travel, competing on price alone to get passengers on a plane with little opportunity/reason for a connecting flight is a losing proposition.


Exactly. People are jumping on this like it's a big deal but NK only had a fraction of the market and the Big Three were farming revenue from hub connections.


----------



## Anderson

Also, don't forget that "Chicago" also includes Midway, and WN flies that route something like 8x daily. So between the "big four" MSP-CHI you have:
DL: 14x (7 ORD/7 MDW)

UA: 10x (10 ORD/0 MDW)

AA: 6x (6 ORD/0 MDW)

Nobody else is in the market, granted, but (looking at the other carriers) B6 and AS are based on the coasts while NK and G4 simply have different models (Spirit doesn't "do" connections, for example). SY is the one that's sort-of a "shame" but my guess is that they couldn't make do trying to supplement their MSP hub with a bunch of CHI flights.

One other possibility: The article says that NK started out with 3x daily flights to Chicago. It is quite possible that if they didn't increase this rate, between (possiblly) lousy OTP and low frequency they just couldn't "cut it".


----------



## jebr

3x/day is actually pretty frequent for NK. Most of their routes they only operate once/day, at least out of MSP. LAS may be an exception to that rule (I think they do 2-3x/day there,) and there may be a Florida destination or two that gets multiple frequencies. NK does do connections, but they're often not severely discounted like their direct flights are, and sometimes the layover times are abysmal.

G4 doesn't directly serve MSP or a different airport within most generally accepted definitions of the MSP metro area. G4 does serve STC, but their routes generally have other LCC/ULCC competition at MSP and so their market seems to be more outstate Minnesota where MSP would require more driving and paying for parking (STC does not charge for parking.) F9 does serve MSP, and for a time they did serve ORD, but that ended pretty quickly and most of their routes are less-than-daily (DEN is two-three times a day and I think there's a Florida destination or two that's daily, but the rest are less-than-daily.) SY is kind of an odd duck and when they switched to ULCC but didn't immediately drop fares in the way that I would have expected I've kinda ignored their progress. Their snafu with their last flight of the season from a Mexican destination (the flight didn't operate, but they didn't offer any rebooking or rescheduled flight option and they only refunded the fare amount, which was significantly lower than last-minute tickets on a non-ULCC carrier) has made me swear them off for almost all travel at this point.

My guess is that NK was either close to or fully breaking even on the flights (which is why they kept them for so long) but once they expanded their route map and had less connecting traffic the load factor or fares that it generated weren't panning out. Maybe they were also hoping to get some of the lower end of the business market but weren't able to capture it. For a while they dropped to a single flight, but the timing didn't work for us and I'm guessing they found that it didn't work well enough to capture the business needed for it. It makes sense, considering the corridor is still short enough that driving or Megabus/Greyhound are viable options for a wide swath of leisure travel. A flight only saves a few hours, which probably isn't enough to register as "saving vacation days" if you're flying. There's always the parking cost worry, but there's enough easy-ish alternatives (staying in a suburb and using a park-and-ride, parking a car outside the city somewhere and transit/Lyft/taxi in, or simply paying for parking downtown) that paying a bunch for a flight doesn't pan out cost-wise.

Maybe at some point someone will try again, but I'm not hopeful. It's disappointing, since the time savings made it so a day trip to CHI was possible as a long day instead of having to sleep overnight somewhere/on a bus, but I really can't justify spending $400 for two people round-trip just for a day trip.


----------



## BCL

Dakota 400 said:


> BCL,
> 
> Quite correct, I think, that we are surrounded by three very competitive airports currently. But, those airports have existed as long as DAY has. I assume all have improved their facilities, but DAY has also as well.
> 
> DAY is clearly a step-Sister in my opinion in the minds of the airline executives and I don't clearly understand why.
> 
> If because of deregulation that profitability of the airlines is the prime motive for such an action. it is a "win" for them. But, what about, "We, the People"? This seems to becoming a lost concept in the America of the 21st Century.


Certain airports qualify for Essential Air Service subsidies, but that's typically places where there isn't another passenger airport for 100 miles. As it is, Dayton has service to major hubs already. Unless someone can persuade an airline to make Dayton a hub, it's going to be underutilized for passenger traffic.

For example, Charlotte gets something like 45 million passengers a year as an American Airlines hub, even though it's pretty obvious that most of the traffic comes from connecting flights where nobody leaves the airport.


----------



## BCL

railiner said:


> Reminds me of some of those 'super-short' flights, pre-deregulation...
> 
> UAL had DC-8's flying between Norfolk and Newport News, as well as between San Francisco and Oakland...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those were part of longer, multi-leg flights, another thing that is fairly rare in this hub and spoke era....Alaska Airlines still has quite a few of those...


United had an SFO-OAK-DEN route although it was possible to book SFO-OAK separately. I think before they canned it, the equipment used was 727s. I saw some ABC News puff piece article on it during the early 80s. They started off on the set of a soap opera, but it was because one of the actresses was moonlighting there, where her full time job was as a flight attendant where she flew the SFO-OAK route.

I heard that it was pretty popular near the end of the year for those who needed a certain number of miles (500 minimum) or one more segment to reach status. They could then take public transportation home.


----------



## Bob Dylan

I flew on many flights that did short hops during Long Distance Routes.

Most memorable to me were Ft. Worth to Dallas, and Austin to San Antonio!


----------



## JayPea

While I never flew on it, there used to be, not all that long ago, flights between Pullman/Moscow (WA/ID) and Lewiston, ID, a distance of 35 highway miles and considerably shorter by air. It was part of a longer distance route.


----------



## BCL

Bob Dylan said:


> I flew on many flights that did short hops during Long Distance Routes.
> 
> Most memorable to me were Ft. Worth to Dallas, and Austin to San Antonio!


I remember even shorter flights. I used to hang out with a relative who was a travel agent back in the late 70s. Air California used to have supremely short flights. Stuff like Oakland to San Jose - I think at a standard fare of $8 back in the late 70s. I've read that sports teams playing games in Oakland often fly into San Francisco (to be closer to the team hotel) and their charters might have to be repositioned to Oakland (to pick them up closer to the venue).

But SFO-OAK was supposedly the shortest regularly scheduled jet flight in the world. There might have also been regularly scheduled helicopter flights. These days BART is more or less direct between those two airports, although that would mean a transfer from a special airport connector that's integrated into the BART fare system. It's $6 for the airport connector, and I believe there's a $5 surcharge for SFO, so the fare would be $16.15.


----------



## jis

At one time United had regular positioning flights between SFO and Oakland (allegedly including a wide-body one) on which they sold tickets. I have no idea how popular they were.


----------



## PVD

Many years ago I did MIA to FLL (Eastern Airlines) Back in that era, airlines had to maintain route authorities, satisfy mail/cargo contracts as well as repositioning. With the old student standby fare, it wasn't much more than the bus...You could be "traded" really desirable routes if you took some "less desirable" routes. Or you bought someone who had the ones you wanted. Think PanAm buying National, or Delta buying Northeast.


----------



## MARC Rider

Around 1987, I flew from Denver to BWI. The flight was scheduled with one stop along the way. The stop was Dulles. So got to enjoy as 15 minute Dulles to BWI flight in a DC-8. I don't know whether they sold tickets for the Dulles to BWI segment.


----------



## jis

Airlines back then used to do stuff that would be considered completely bizarre today


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> At one time United had regular positioning flights between SFO and Oakland (allegedly including a wide-body one) on which they sold tickets. I have no idea how popular they were.


UAL having it's main maintenance base at SFO probably had a lot to do with that...


----------



## railiner

One of the most "bizarre" flights I recall, was United's local flight from Salt Lake City to Reno, stopping in Elko and Ely. Even the 737-100's were too big for that flight, so they contracted with Frontier to fly it, using Convair 580's. They had Frontier pilot's, and United flight attendants, IIRC, and were sold as United flights. Were even catered by United's flight kitchen...


----------



## fairviewroad

jis said:


> Airlines back then used to do stuff that would be considered completely bizarre today


Like serving hot meals and offering free checked bags in domestic coach?

EEK!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

fairviewroad said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Airlines back then used to do stuff that would be considered completely bizarre today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like serving hot meals and offering free checked bags in domestic coach? EEK!
Click to expand...

I don't miss food on coach flights, if I have to eat I'd rather grab something at the airport anyway, but can we at least get the carry-on liquid/gel/aerosol limit raised to 150ml? That way I wouldn't have to check luggage on most mainline flights.


----------



## BCL

railiner said:


> One of the most "bizarre" flights I recall, was United's local flight from Salt Lake City to Reno, stopping in Elko and Ely. Even the 737-100's were too big for that flight, so they contracted with Frontier to fly it, using Convair 580's. They had Frontier pilot's, and United flight attendants, IIRC, and were sold as United flights. Were even catered by United's flight kitchen...


Too big as in not enough runway or too big as not enough passengers most of the time? A 737 doesn't really need that much runway. They regularly use John Wayne Airport, which is 5700 ft long and has a really crazy typical takeoff procedure given the noise-abatement requirements. Boeing delivers 737s out of Renton Airport, which is even shorter.


----------



## PVD

has to be passenger load, neither elko nor ely are that short, although ely's runways are not in good shape anymore


----------



## cpotisch

BCL said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of the most "bizarre" flights I recall, was United's local flight from Salt Lake City to Reno, stopping in Elko and Ely. Even the 737-100's were too big for that flight, so they contracted with Frontier to fly it, using Convair 580's. They had Frontier pilot's, and United flight attendants, IIRC, and were sold as United flights. Were even catered by United's flight kitchen...
> 
> 
> 
> Too big as in not enough runway or too big as not enough passengers most of the time? A 737 doesn't really need that much runway. They regularly use John Wayne Airport, which is 5700 ft long and has a really crazy typical takeoff procedure given the noise-abatement requirements. Boeing delivers 737s out of Renton Airport, which is even shorter.
Click to expand...

Passenger load.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Devil's Advocate said:


> fairviewroad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Airlines back then used to do stuff that would be considered completely bizarre today
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like serving hot meals and offering free checked bags in domestic coach? EEK!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't miss food on coach flights, if I have to eat I'd rather grab something at the airport anyway, but can we at least get the carry-on liquid/gel/aerosol limit raised to 150ml? That way I wouldn't have to check luggage on most mainline flights.
Click to expand...

This!


----------



## BCL

PVD said:


> has to be passenger load, neither elko nor ely are that short, although ely's runways are not in good shape anymore


Longer than SNA, but then I realized its at high altitude.


----------



## PVD

Flights that short wouldn't need to carry heavy fuel loads. Skywest flys it with 50 seat Canadair RJ's for Delta to this day....


----------



## railiner

Here's an excerpt from the 'wikipedia' on Elko airport

"Starting in November 1977 United Boeing 737-200 jetliners operated round trip San Francisco - Reno - Elko - Ely - Salt Lake City service; however in 1982 United ended this flight, which had been previously operated with a Douglas DC-6B aircraft which in turn was United's last piston powered service in the U.S.[5] In the April 27, 1969 United timetable a DC-6 was listed as the aircraft type operating San Francisco - Oakland - Reno - Elko - Ely - Salt Lake City service; the return trip skipped Oakland. This was the only piston flight in the timetable at the time. In 1970 United replaced the DC-6 service with Convair 580 turboprops operated by Frontier Airlines (1950-1986) via a subcontract arrangement; the flights used the "UA" airline code[6] until 737s took over."

So apparently, when UAL retired its last piston DC-6B, in 1970, they did not have an aircraft suitable for that portion, and contracted with the old Frontier until November of 1977, when they started using their own 737-200's. And in 1982, they ceased running the route, altogether.

So I remembered the Frontier operation, but not all the details...


----------



## PVD

That is a clearer narrative. In the original you had mentioned 737-100. United never had them, their first 737s were 200 series. Actually, very few 737-100 were built, of the 1144 first gen 737, only 30 were built. Mostly went to Lufthansa. Half of them ended up here with People Express. and then over to Continental. They used to on a couple of routes where they could get them back to Newark for regular maintenance. I came back from Empire State Games in Buffalo on one BUF-EWR, right before they (thankfully) were retired.


----------



## railiner

I always liked the looks of those "baby Boeing's"... I would rather fly in one of them, then the current cramped regional jets.

And they were just as wide as their big brother 707-Intercontinental's.

Reminds me of the story of a short line railroad president. It was customary years ago, for railroad president's to exchange annual passes with other railroad president's, as a 'courtesy'...

So the president of this short line sends one of his, to the president of one of the mighty trunk lines. Not receiving one in return, he writes a letter, inquiring the reason. The trunk line president answers back, saying that his line is 10,000 miles long, and the short line is only 39 miles long, and you expect reciprocity?

The short line president answered back stating that the trunk line may be much longer than his, but its track was no wider...

The story goes on that the trunk line president had such a good laugh over that, that he went ahead and rewarded the short line president with an annual pass...


----------



## cpotisch

PVD said:


> Flights that short wouldn't need to carry heavy fuel loads. Skywest flys it with 50 seat Canadair RJ's for Delta to this day....


Often with really short flights they will actually fuel it up for the way there and back, to save time. For those distances, it's worth it to cut the turn around time and hassle, even if the outgoing flight is a bit less efficient.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> I always liked the looks of those "baby Boeing's"... I would rather fly in one of them, then the current cramped regional jets. And they were just as wide as their big brother 707-Intercontinental's.


I'm not a fan of scheduled service regional jets but the B732 is one of the ugliest mainline aircraft I've ever flown. The combination of torpedo engines hanging off a stubby wing connected to a bloated fuselage was visually unappealing and comically disproportionate. The TOGO stage cabin noise was almost unbearable and I'm pretty sure I lost some permanent hearing along the way.



Needless to say I was glad to see them removed and retired. Then again the aircraft I find most aesthetically pleasing is the A346, which is about as far from a 732 as you can get.


----------



## PVD

Airlines have gotten very careful about fuel. They will calculate everything that influences costs down to price at specific locations to determine whether to carry more versus the added cost of fuel burnt to carry the weight. They run computer profiles to calculate optimum climb and decent, hoping weather and ATC cooperate. If the choice is : I can fly this route given the runway length and altitude or temp vs I can't if I carry a heavier load, the time to refuel becomes irrelevant. It's around 500 miles from SLC to Reno. I can fly a roundtrip with somewhat more than a half a fuel load.


----------



## PVD

I will agree. The 737-100/200 was not an attractive plane. The later models (especially the latest) are much better proportioned. Honestly, not an RJ fan, but the Embraer E jets (170/175/190/195) are not bad at all.


----------



## cpotisch

Devil's Advocate said:


> Then again the aircraft I find most aesthetically pleasing is the A346, which is about as far from a 732 as you can get.


Agreed. It's perfectly proportioned, the four engines are the perfect size and shape. It's the exact opposite of a 737 Classic, and an absolutely gorgeous bird.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...


----------



## Bob Dylan

I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!

My first Flight on a Real Jet was on a 707.

And my first 747 Flight was on Quantas to Australia when they were still New.

Champagne in the Upstairs Lounge and the space in the Wide Body are fond Memories!


----------



## BCL

Bob Dylan said:


> I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!


Not sure that people living near airports (or just in the plane) would agree about the 707.


----------



## cpotisch

Bob Dylan said:


> I'll still take the 707 and 747 for my ideal Jets!


Aesthetically, the 707 was glorious. Practically and technically, it's an abomination by today's standards (and yes, I know it's 60 years old). And while the 747 is beautiful and one of the most important airliners in history, I have more of a soft spot for Airbuses.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

The B707 was before my time and while the B747 is really unique and has many entries in the history books it never really grew on me. By the time I was traveling on intercontinental flights the 747 had generally been relegated to a high mileage low yield sub-fleet that was always two or three upgrades behind everything else. The squeaky rattles, worn-out upholstery, smoke stained interiors, noisy public address systems, washed out projection movie screens, and ancient fixtures didn't help.


----------



## cpotisch

Devil's Advocate said:


> The B707 was before my time and while the B747 is really unique and has many entries in the history books it never really grew on me. By the time I was traveling on intercontinental flights the 747 had generally been relegated to a high mileage low yield sub-fleet that was always two or three upgrades behind everything else. The squeaky rattles, worn-out upholstery, smoke stained interiors, noisy public address systems, washed out projection movie screens, and ancient fixtures didn't help.


Agreed. It's technically very impressive and IMO it looks beautiful (and I imagine even those who disagree with that won't deny that the design is at minimum unique), but I never had a personal connection to it. I guess I'm just not a Boeing person.


----------



## tp49

Devil's Advocate said:


> I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...
> 
> [picture removed for space considerations]


The A340-600 is a nice plane. I fly Lufthansa A340-6's semi-regularly SFO-MUC and love the two seats instead of three on the window side. There was a time SFO looked like an A340 dealership with the Lufthansa, SAS, and Swiss variants all parked at the same time. A few years back I took pictures of the line of retired A340-500's at Changi and last year caught SAA's A340-6 at JFK.

However, my favorite is the 747 though the most disappointed I've ever been on a flight was in the top deck of a 744 because of the distance between seat and window due to the curve of the fuselage.


----------



## PVD

KC-135 carry on. They are a tad smaller (shorter) than a later 707, but very close in appearance. A little different look with the replacement engines, but close. E3 AWACS were built on a 707-320B frame, there are some of those still flying.


----------



## cpotisch

PVD said:


> KC-135 carry on. They are a tad smaller (skinnier and shorter) than a 707, but very close in appearance. A little different look with the replacement engines, but close. E3 AWACS were built on a 707-320B frame, there are some of those still flying.


Yeah it's sort of a stubbier 707 with modernized engines:


----------



## Bob Dylan

Nothing but the Best for our Troops right!

(lots of AU members Fathers werent even born when the B-52s,KC-135s etc. went into Service as the Backbone of SAC!)


----------



## jis

Bob Dylan said:


> Nothing but the Best for our Troops right!
> 
> (lots of AU members Fathers werent even born when the B-52s,KC-135s etc. went into Service as the Backbone of SAC![emoji21])


First flight of the first B52 was within a week after my birth [emoji4]


----------



## PVD

the 367-80 prototype (known as Dash 80) that led to the KC-135 and 707 is on display at the Udvar-Hazy Center of the Air and Space Museum, out by Dulles.


----------



## BCL

Trogdor said:


> Then in the 1990s you had the Gulf War which had the double-whammy of spiking fuel prices and depressing demand. Yet, most airlines had fuel-inefficient planes from the 1960s and 70s and were too slow to replace them. Incidentally, much of the legacy airlines’ fleets were purchased in the era of regulation, such as DC-10s, L1011s, and even domestic 747s. They could fly them profitably when fares were regulated and they didn’t have to worry about competition. When deregulation hit, smaller planes killed the larger planes in terms of economics on most routes, which is why a carrier like Southwest, flying only 737s, was able to take on larger competitors. It’s also why the number of domestic wide bodies significantly decreased when the first generation were ready for retirement. You used to see DC-10s and 747s on short hops such as Chicago-Cleveland, Milwaukee-Detroit, etc. But once the carriers dumped them, they didn’t replace them with other 300-seaters, but with much smaller planes.


A lot of those were converted to flying cargo. FedEx even specialized, where they designed and sold "hush kits" for a lot of those older planes.

I heard they worked out pretty well because the planes were cheap to buy. Even with poor fuel economy, the freight airlines don't have to run them that long every day, while passenger planes need to be utilized a lot in order to justify the costs. I heard the hub model they had didn't require utilization quite like passenger planes. However, I'm not sure how it's going to be now with orders of new cargo planes.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...


Me too! They remind me of one of my favorites...the DC-8-61 and 63....

With their long, long fuselage, and relatively small tail, they look like trains when seen taxiing, when you see them from the vantage point of a taxiway underpass....

And on the inside, the cabin seems to go on endlessly...






Images from here

https://www.google.com/search?q=united+dc+8+-63+photos&rlz=1C1CHZL_enUS739US739&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=NH_VTzDm8LkgbM%253A%252CSFp7HHzdlBnagM%252C_&usg=AFrqEzer-X5l_iNYtMLEfmp7XlfTMhE0cg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjunKz-zOHcAhWnct8KHfXcBX4Q9QEwB3oECAEQEg#imgrc=F-upY-ELIVJ_0M:


----------



## PVD

Both of those beauties soldiered on after United. They were re-engined, and converted to freighter use ending up with Emery. N8079U was involved in an accident fatal to the crew, N8087U was eventually retired and scrapped.


----------



## railiner

"United One-Seventy Eight Heavy, taxi into position and hold, Three-Five-Left..."

I can't count how many times I heard that call from ATC, waiting to take off from Denver's Stapleton, on my way home from Denver to New York JFK, in the seventies...

I wonder if they still offer that on an audio channel?

They used to do it for take off and landing on a movie channel, but on one flight, the Cap left it on the whole way. Interesting hearing the 'handoffs' from the Denver Center to the Minneapolis Center to the Chicago Center, to the Cleveland Center, to the New York Center, and then to the New York Tracon.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> I really need to find a way to get a ride on this sexy beast before they're all gone...
> 
> 
> 
> Me too! They remind me of one of my favorites...the DC-8-61 and 63....With their long, long fuselage, and relatively small tail, they look like trains when seen taxiing, when you see them from the vantage point of a taxiway underpass....And on the inside, the cabin seems to go on endlessly.
Click to expand...

I've ridden DC-9's but DC-8's were before my time. The extended length variants always looked interesting but I've only ever seen them in photographs.



railiner said:


> "United One-Seventy Eight Heavy, taxi into position and hold, Three-Five-Left..."
> 
> I can't count how many times I heard that call from ATC, waiting to take off from Denver's Stapleton, on my way home from Denver to New York JFK, in the seventies... I wonder if they still offer that on an audio channel? They used to do it for take off and landing on a movie channel, but on one flight, the Cap left it on the whole way. Interesting hearing the 'handoffs' from the Denver Center to the Minneapolis Center to the Chicago Center, to the Cleveland Center, to the New York Center, and then to the New York Tracon.


Prior to the UA/CO merger the ATC audio feed generally remained intact on UA mainline hardware. From a functional perspective it was often disabled unless and until a passenger specifically requested activation from a sometimes agreeable captain via an occasionally willing flight attendant. After the merger with CO the CH9 ATC feed was eventually lost to a sea of mixed fleets and staffing pools. Some aircraft never had the ATC feed, some were originally connected but suffered from defective or disabled personal audio circuitry, and others featured elaborate and opaque AVOD menus with no mention of CH9 or ATC.


----------



## railiner

I wonder if any airlines still offer that? I suppose you may be able to get some of it now, via a wifi connection to some ATC website...

Another thing I enjoyed, was a front view camera of the takeoff on an ANA 747 I flew from Tokyo to Hong Kong back around 2,000.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> I wonder if any airlines still offer that? I suppose you may be able to get some of it now, via a wifi connection to some ATC website...
> 
> Another thing I enjoyed, was a front view camera of the takeoff on an ANA 747 I flew from Tokyo to Hong Kong back around 2,000.


Hard to say for sure but having flown 35 other airlines I've yet to see or hear of a similar service mentioned anywhere else. I looked for CH9 on a UA 788 but couldn't find anything and the FA didn't seem to understand what I was talking about. I gave up on CH9 before flying UA's 789. I could be wrong but I don't think the ATC feed was ever setup to interface with digital media systems. I would also not expect ATC over onboard WiFi to be very practical. Many audio streams are blocked, when allowed they're often choppy and delayed due to network interference and overhead, and in general aircraft WiFi isn't turned on during most of the heavy ATC action anyway. Unfortunately the use of portable radio scanners remains banned on commercial airlines serving the US market. On the plus side passenger accessible external cameras remain available on larger Boeing aircraft and have become standard equipment on many Airbus widebodies.

More recent and detailed information on UA's CH9 can be found here: https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/922470-consolidated-channel-9-availability-discussion-thread-merged-8.html


----------



## saxman

Dakota 400 said:


> "Prior to deregulation, airline service was barely a skeleton of what we see today...", you stated. I disagree. Using my home airport as an example, prior to deregulation, we had L-1011 service to the West Coast: LAX-DAY-IND-LAX. More non-stop flights on planes, including jets, that were larger and more comfortable than the regional jets of today. An AA non-stop 727 flight to LGA with a good dinner(!) in Coach. We were a hub airport with many non-stop choices for Piedmont Airlines including flights to/from Boston with meal service in Coach.


This is exactly why service changed. Putting in large airports into small cities and serving hot meals to every passenger is just not sustainable anymore. DAY is not big enough to sustain a hub anymore either. That said, the regional jets of today are more comfortable than they were. I see only a couple of flights on the CRJ-200 (50 seater) but quite a bit of service on the larger 70-76 seaters that offer 1st class, extra legroom, etc with either buy on board meals and some meals for first class for the longer flights. That ERJ-175 is a pretty nice ride and I prefer that to most Airbus and 737's even. All those services are still available if you don't mind paying for them. Probably similar to the amount you payed during regulation. 



> DAY has not quite a skeleton service, yet. But, if the reduction/elimination of TSA security check points take place as has been proposed very recently, our air service will be negatively affected, in my opinion. Only Delta is flying larger jets and that is only on the DAY-ATL itinerary. Deregulation has promoted the rise of the budget airlines and lowered the fares so that flying is now like traveling by bus was when I was in college. But, even airports such as DAY have suffered the loss of some of these budget airlines. You may disagree with this statement if you wish. But, my hometown airport is very much under served given the tax payer's money that has been spent in building and maintaining and improving our airport.


I don't think the TSA cuts are going to happen at all, but even if they did, I doubt DAY would lose the TSA, since most of the flights there are on jets larger than 60 passengers seats. 

Looking at DAY passenger totals, they have indeed lost passenger in recent years. A peak of 1.4 million in 2010 down to a measly 950,000 in 2017. It's hard to say why, but my guess is that CVG has grown quite a bit since Delta shrunk it's hub and now LCC's have finally entered the CVG market. Perhaps CVG is stealing your passengers. Back when Delta had the huge hub, they increased prices so much that people would buy a ticket on Delta from DAY and just make the drive there and then connect right back through CVG again. On the way home, they'd just skip the last flight back to DAY.



railiner said:


> Part of the problem with deregulation, is the constant merging of carrier's, and consequently the closing of many hubs, or reducing service drastically. Look at what happened to St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Nashville, Las Vegas, Reno, etc....all just from AA merger's and acquisition's....add to them the other hubs suffering from similar on DL, and UA....



Nashville is the 4th fastest growing airport in the US right now. It has added British Airway recently. Raleigh is now a mini-Delta hub with a flight to Paris. AA still has a flight to London. RDU has carried more passengers now than ever at 11.6 million in 2017. Pittsburgh did add British Airways as well.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

saxman said:


> That said, the regional jets of today are more comfortable than they were. I see only a couple of flights on the CRJ-200 (50 seater) but quite a bit of service on the larger 70-76 seaters that offer 1st class, extra legroom, etc with either buy on board meals and some meals for first class for the longer flights. That ERJ-175 is a pretty nice ride and I prefer that to most Airbus and 737's even. All those services are still available if you don't mind paying for them. Probably similar to the amount you payed during regulation.


In my experience coach seats and legroom on today's regional jets are substantially less comfortable than the previous generation of mainline aircraft which they replaced. In many cases First Class on regional jets has been reduced to three rows or less with reduced pitch and recline. What we call premium economy today is tight and compact compared to standard coach seats of the past.



saxman said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem with deregulation, is the constant merging of carrier's, and consequently the closing of many hubs, or reducing service drastically. Look at what happened to St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Nashville, Las Vegas, Reno, etc....all just from AA merger's and acquisition's....add to them the other hubs suffering from similar on DL, and UA....
> 
> 
> 
> Nashville is the 4th fastest growing airport in the US right now. It has added British Airway recently. Raleigh is now a mini-Delta hub with a flight to Paris. AA still has a flight to London. RDU has carried more passengers now than ever at 11.6 million in 2017. Pittsburgh did add British Airways as well.
Click to expand...

How does having a vanity flight to London or Paris help the vast majority of American passengers? How does having British Airways at your airport help you with the other 99% of flights that don't go anywhere near England or Europe? Your post sounds just like an airport marketing report full of cherry picked stats that sound great but mean nothing to most travelers.

Regarding Nashville...



> The states 2018 budget included $1 million for the London flight, and another $500,000 was dedicated to the project. Metro government committed $500,000 and the airport dedicated $1 million in marketing over two years.


I hope they get their money's worth.


----------



## XHRTSP

Devil's Advocate said:


> How does having a vanity flight to London or Paris help the vast majority of American passengers? How does having British Airways at your airport help you with the other 99% of flights that don't go anywhere near England or Europe? Your post sounds just like an airport marketing report full of cherry picked stats that sound great but mean nothing to most travelers.


Are we talking most travelers, or just you and where you want to go? Because a lot of travelers like going to/from Europe and last I checked doing it in two legs (direct LHR/CDG, then connect to the rest of the EU)is definitely easier than three (EWR/JFK/ORD/IAD, then LHR/CDG/AMS, then connecting).

Something I was going to add before this started going off topic, but both LSE-ORD and MSP-MKE are single airline routes.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

XHRTSP said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> How does having a vanity flight to London or Paris help the vast majority of American passengers? How does having British Airways at your airport help you with the other 99% of flights that don't go anywhere near England or Europe? Your post sounds just like an airport marketing report full of cherry picked stats that sound great but mean nothing to most travelers.
> 
> 
> 
> Are we talking most travelers, or just you and where you want to go? Because a lot of travelers like going to/from Europe and last I checked doing it in two legs (direct LHR/CDG, then connect to the rest of the EU)is definitely easier than three (EWR/JFK/ORD/IAD, then LHR/CDG/AMS, then connecting).
Click to expand...

Less than half of Americans have a passport, fewer still ever travel to Europe, and those that do are unlikely to book a less-than-daily vanity flight from Nashville. I've yet to meet anyone who was dying to visit Europe but refused to book a flight because it was two connections instead of one. Most of the people I know are more concerned about when to go and how much it will cost than how many connections they can avoid. We have a British Airways flight in Austin despite the fact that DFW and IAH are less than a hour away by plane. By the time I drove to AUS I could be half way to landing at a major gateway so even in the case of traveling directly to England Austin's British Airways flight has never made any sense. These flights may look prestigious now but they're not sustainable and when the next recession hits these traveler and taxpayer funded vanity links will simply pack it up and fly away.


----------



## cpotisch

saxman said:


> Dakota 400 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Prior to deregulation, airline service was barely a skeleton of what we see today...", you stated. I disagree. Using my home airport as an example, prior to deregulation, we had L-1011 service to the West Coast: LAX-DAY-IND-LAX. More non-stop flights on planes, including jets, that were larger and more comfortable than the regional jets of today. An AA non-stop 727 flight to LGA with a good dinner(!) in Coach. We were a hub airport with many non-stop choices for Piedmont Airlines including flights to/from Boston with meal service in Coach.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why service changed. Putting in large airports into small cities and serving hot meals to every passenger is just not sustainable anymore. DAY is not big enough to sustain a hub anymore either. That said, the regional jets of today are more comfortable than they were. I see only a couple of flights on the CRJ-200 (50 seater) but quite a bit of service on the larger 70-76 seaters that offer 1st class, extra legroom, etc with either buy on board meals and some meals for first class for the longer flights. That ERJ-175 is a pretty nice ride and I prefer that to most Airbus and 737's even. All those services are still available if you don't mind paying for them. Probably similar to the amount you payed during regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DAY has not quite a skeleton service, yet. But, if the reduction/elimination of TSA security check points take place as has been proposed very recently, our air service will be negatively affected, in my opinion. Only Delta is flying larger jets and that is only on the DAY-ATL itinerary. Deregulation has promoted the rise of the budget airlines and lowered the fares so that flying is now like traveling by bus was when I was in college. But, even airports such as DAY have suffered the loss of some of these budget airlines. You may disagree with this statement if you wish. But, my hometown airport is very much under served given the tax payer's money that has been spent in building and maintaining and improving our airport.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think the TSA cuts are going to happen at all, but even if they did, I doubt DAY would lose the TSA, since most of the flights there are on jets larger than 60 passengers seats.
> 
> Looking at DAY passenger totals, they have indeed lost passenger in recent years. A peak of 1.4 million in 2010 down to a measly 950,000 in 2017. It's hard to say why, but my guess is that CVG has grown quite a bit since Delta shrunk it's hub and now LCC's have finally entered the CVG market. Perhaps CVG is stealing your passengers. Back when Delta had the huge hub, they increased prices so much that people would buy a ticket on Delta from DAY and just make the drive there and then connect right back through CVG again. On the way home, they'd just skip the last flight back to DAY.
> 
> 
> 
> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem with deregulation, is the constant merging of carrier's, and consequently the closing of many hubs, or reducing service drastically. Look at what happened to St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Nashville, Las Vegas, Reno, etc....all just from AA merger's and acquisition's....add to them the other hubs suffering from similar on DL, and UA....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nashville is the 4th fastest growing airport in the US right now. It has added British Airway recently. Raleigh is now a mini-Delta hub with a flight to Paris. AA still has a flight to London. RDU has carried more passengers now than ever at 11.6 million in 2017. Pittsburgh did add British Airways as well.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with literally everything you just said. Just "liking" this post is insufficient.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Interesting topic with good points made by all.

I agree with Chris about the Vanity Flights,since,as he says, they are not sustainable and require huge subsidies ( supplied by the users and citizens through Fees and taxes) that could better be spent on in country service ( sort of like Amtrak and VIA) which is booming here.

I live in Austin, and even though Austin has had several International Flights through the years to various Countries by various Airlines, none have lasted long, even though Austin's too small airport is very busy and growing like topsy.

Most people I know here who travel to International destinations make connections @ DFW or IAH as Chris says.


----------



## railiner

saxman said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the problem with deregulation, is the constant merging of carrier's, and consequently the closing of many hubs, or reducing service drastically. Look at what happened to St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Nashville, Las Vegas, Reno, etc....all just from AA merger's and acquisition's....add to them the other hubs suffering from similar on DL, and UA....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nashville is the 4th fastest growing airport in the US right now. It has added British Airway recently. Raleigh is now a mini-Delta hub with a flight to Paris. AA still has a flight to London. RDU has carried more passengers now than ever at 11.6 million in 2017. Pittsburgh did add British Airways as well.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of the overall operation of those three airports currently, so I will accept your points. I was referring to AA, which at one time had minihubs at Raleigh and Nashville, and its former US Air had a major hub at Pittsburgh. No longer true at any of those.


----------



## Dakota 400

saxman is correct about the passenger switching that has gone on between CVG and DAY over the years and it all has to do with price paid by the passenger.

As a taxpayer, the thing that gripes me is the money that has been spent to pay the bonds sold to make the airport facilities suitable for a hub airport--which it was. And, more money that was spent to construct a third concourse for use by Delta which was mothballed after a brief period of time when it was used. It is a very much underutilized facility that has more than enough unused gates for additional flights. Money is now being spent to improve the physical plant and, I guess, the "attractiveness" of the facility. Good runways with good approaches are available. Availability of parking is good. "Easy in; Easy out" is airport's marketing slogan, and it is!

The airport is not physically set-up for international flights where incoming passengers could be easily kept separate from others until after Customs/Immigration. (That may have been the plan for the mothballed concourse, I don't know.)


----------



## XHRTSP

Devil's Advocate said:


> I've yet to meet anyone who was dying to visit Europe but refused to book a flight because it was two connections instead of one. Most of the people I know are more concerned about when to go and how much it will cost than how many connections they can avoid.


You're talking to the wrong people in the wrong segment. For those of us who fly business, and for those businesses who employ us, this is a huge deal. Or go ask anyone working in the tourism industry what it means to a city the more connections it gets.


----------



## JRR

Dakota 400 said:


> saxman is correct about the passenger switching that has gone on between CVG and DAY over the years and it all has to do with price paid by the passenger.
> 
> As a taxpayer, the thing that gripes me is the money that has been spent to pay the bonds sold to make the airport facilities suitable for a hub airport--which it was. And, more money that was spent to construct a third concourse for use by Delta which was mothballed after a brief period of time when it was used. It is a very much underutilized facility that has more than enough unused gates for additional flights. Money is now being spent to improve the physical plant and, I guess, the "attractiveness" of the facility. Good runways with good approaches are available. Availability of parking is good. "Easy in; Easy out" is airport's marketing slogan, and it is!
> 
> The airport is not physically set-up for international flights where incoming passengers could be easily kept separate from others until after Customs/Immigration. (That may have been the plan for the mothballed concourse, I don't know.)


You are correct, price is the reason. Going to Cincinnati, I used to fly to Dayton because it was much cheaper than CVG. I also used to fly to Columbus on Southwest, because it was cheaper even including the rental car charges.

CVG is much more competitive now.


----------



## saxman

Devil's Advocate said:


> How does having a vanity flight to London or Paris help the vast majority of American passengers? How does having British Airways at your airport help you with the other 99% of flights that don't go anywhere near England or Europe? Your post sounds just like an airport marketing report full of cherry picked stats that sound great but mean nothing to most travelers.
> 
> Regarding Nashville...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The states 2018 budget included $1 million for the London flight, and another $500,000 was dedicated to the project. Metro government committed $500,000 and the airport dedicated $1 million in marketing over two years.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope they get their money's worth.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking data? I'm trying to decide how stating the passenger counts of a few airports is cherry picking? I mention the addition of overseas flights to smaller markets because I think it is an interesting fact that others on here might also find interesting. Cities such as Austin, Nashville, Raleigh etc, are growing and booming right now among others. So I'm not surprised to see additional flights being added. BA is using the 787 exactly as it was designed to do; serve long thinner markets on small fuel efficient aircraft. I'm not sure what the definition of a "Vanity Flight" is, but I'll point out a few more. Delta serves RDU, PIT, and IND with flights to Paris. IND starts soon. BA is also starting PIT and started MSY last year. It does seem weird that the state of Tennessee put in $1.5 million and I do wonder if they would have started service without it. We'll see how it goes.



> I've yet to meet anyone who was dying to visit Europe but refused to book a flight because it was two connections instead of one. Most of the people I know are more concerned about when to go and how much it will cost than how many connections they can avoid. We have a British Airways flight in Austin despite the fact that DFW and IAH are less than a hour away by plane. By the time I drove to AUS I could be half way to landing at a major gateway so even in the case of traveling directly to England Austin's British Airways flight has never made any sense. These flights may look prestigious now but they're not sustainable and when the next recession hits these traveler and taxpayer funded vanity links will simply pack it up and fly away.


You live far from AUS, so it makes sense that you would also look into connecting to another city. But did you also talk to other few million that live closer to AUS that make actually take the flight? There are business travelers too. I'm sure the marketing department at BA kinda knows what they are doing. You do realize the AUS-LHR flight has been upgauged to a 747-400 for peak seasons. It must be doing well.



> I agree with Chris about the Vanity Flights,since,as he says, they are not sustainable and require huge subsidies ( supplied by the users and citizens through Fees and taxes) that could better be spent on in country service ( sort of like Amtrak and VIA) which is booming here. I live in Austin, and even though Austin has had several International Flights through the years to various Countries by various Airlines, none have lasted long, even though Austin's too small airport is very busy and growing like topsy. Most people I know here who travel to International destinations make connections @ DFW or IAH as Chris says.



Still not sure what a vanity flight is, but none of these flights are subsidized. (Aside from Nashville) Austin is the fastest growing airport now and saying most passengers connect to DFW or IAH is like saying most people drive to Houston or Dallas, therefore we shouldn't have a train.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Good points Chris,you're mostly right about Austin,but my real point was about "Vanity Flights" that require subsidies and New Fees, and all the Marketing Hype that Airport boosters put out when New Flights to International Destinations start, and then dont last, as has happened numerous times here in River City!

IMO, our too Small, Booming Airport would be better served by putting their money into expansion and better service to Major Hub Airports.( compare the Fares from Austin and DFW or IAH to International Destinations. )YMMV


----------



## Swadian Hardcore

Well this has gotten off-topic as usual. But my point on the MSP-ORD market is that NK pulling out means the market is smaller than people think, not bigger, and does not need additional entrants. The current airlines have enough competition; it's far from a monopoly. I thought NK is hated by most AUers anyway.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

saxman said:


> I'm not sure what the definition of a "Vanity Flight" is, but I'll point out a few more.


Sounds like you have a pretty good idea about vanity flights whether you're willing to admit it or not.







saxman said:


> Still not sure what a vanity flight is, but none of these flights are subsidized.


Five minutes of quick and dirty googling found the following subsidies...

Raleigh - Paris: $2.85 million

Nashville - London: $3 million

Pittsburg - London : $3 million

New Orleans - London: $4.2 million

Indianpolis - Paris: $5.5 million

Pittsburg - Paris: $9 million

To be clear these figures are rarely reported in precise terms and they're generally spread across various subsidies, performance incentives, advertising campaigns, and backstop guarantees from municipal, state, and airport budgets. In most cases the incentives only last a few years but recouping millions in giveaways is never guaranteed and although the B787 is very agile and efficient it's not a miracle worker. When the subsidies run out and the industry constricts again (market downturn, violent sectarian attack, international pandemic) the B787 will pack up and leave for greener pastures as yet another frequency between larger hubs with stronger connections of similar relevance.


----------



## PVD

You are correct in the fact that airports routinely provide incentives to carriers to provide services, LI agencies have been trying to get domestic carriers to stick it out at MacArthur, and haven't succeeded. Sometimes it is to improve image, sometimes to bolster tourism/travel, and very often to add greater relevance to an airport that has lost a number of flights. Pittsburgh struggled with US Air/AA knocking out the hub, Jetblue tried pretty hard and didn't get anywhere, having some Europe flights gives airlines a reason to have flights connect there. Pretty nice airport, handles half as much traffic as it once did. I have not read the articles yet, but I believe a lawsuit was announced today involving the PIT subsidies to One Jet.


----------

