Originally Posted by gloopy (Post 1422471)

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1422464)

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviatio.../1/2267140.jpg

Won't make Paris.

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1422287)

If we take two for training does that count for 1.25 jets to take 1 new CRJ900 can arrive?

Originally Posted by Bucking Bar (Post 1422255)

New name for concessionary alter ego operation, their (our) new jets have already begun arriving. My 0h my that was fast given management was telling everyone they were going to be shut down ....

Originally Posted by fisherpilot (Post 1422469)

Whats the range on it? Arent they suppose to be in the 130 seat range? Looks like a nice plane. Maybe compete with Small Airbus..

Originally Posted by tim123 (Post 1422501)

How convenient-someone brings it up on DALPA webboard ....

Originally Posted by tim123 (Post 1422494)

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

Originally Posted by forgot to bid (Post 1422348)

The only thing that matters is the hourly rate difference between said airplane at mainline and said airplane at the regional.

The one thing that would be interesting is if one carrier got a CRj900 or E175 in-house. Not the E-190 which DAL doesn't seem to want and doesn't care if JB or UsAir operates in-house, but a jet that is a pillar to DCI.