CVG Reductions

robbedagain said:
good luck to all the affected folks... yet again
Only one city is really being reduced (BNA) while the rest are mostly one or two month small reductions. 
BNA is going to basically peek day operations. 
 
which is likely also where CVG is going.

CVG is largely a point to point market outside of the hubs which means that DL is willing to use RJs to serve the local business market but will only do it when the market is there.

given that DL is operating RDU-PHL with RJs, it is entirely possible to use RJs for point to point service and DL will have enough 50 seaters left in the fleet for a number of years to serve point to point business focused markets.

also, nothing has been said about any changes to staffing in CVG. if anything, it might allow a lot more people to get weekends or parts of weekends off each week.
 
Oh the schedule change is driven by letting folks have more time off
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
More cuts:
 
With the reduction in 50-seat jets, CVG will be experiencing its most significant cuts in service in several years this upcoming summer. Very few of the 50-seat cuts were offset by upgauging other flights; in addition, mainline reductions are also occurring.

Highlights (comparing summer 2014 to summer 2015):
JAX, MSY discontinued
MCO reduced to 1xM88 from 2xM88
RSW reduced to Saturday-only
seasonal SAN not resuming
ORD going from 6xCRJ to 1xCRJ, 5xCR9
DTW getting mainline (320)

peak-day departures, Summer 2014:
105 (including 21 mainline); approximately 8,200 seats

peak-day departures, Summer 2015
87 (including 19 mainline); approximately 7,200 seats

So about a 17% reduction
in flights and 12% in pure capacity.
 
DL CVG-BDL JUN 2>1.3 JUL 3>1.5 AUG 3>1.4
DL CVG-BWI JUN 3>1.6 JUL 3>1.8 AUG 3>1.7 OCT 3>1.7
DL CVG-CLT APR 3>1.5
DL CVG-GRR JUN 1.2>0.6 JUL 1.4>0.5 AUG 1.4>0.6
DL CVG-MCI JUN 2.0>1.4 JUL 3>1.6 AUG 3>1.5
DL CVG-MKE AUG 3>1.7
DL CVG-PHL JUN 3>1.6 AUG 4>3
DL CVG-RDU AUG 3>1.7
DL CVG-STL AUG 3>1.3
DL CVG-YYZ APR 1.5>0.8 JUN 1.5>0.9 JUL 1.7>0.9 AUG 1.7>0.8

 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
WorldTraveler said:
which is likely also where CVG is going.

CVG is largely a point to point market outside of the hubs which means that DL is willing to use RJs to serve the local business market but will only do it when the market is there.

given that DL is operating RDU-PHL with RJs, it is entirely possible to use RJs for point to point service and DL will have enough 50 seaters left in the fleet for a number of years to serve point to point business focused markets.

also, nothing has been said about any changes to staffing in CVG. if anything, it might allow a lot more people to get weekends or parts of weekends off each week.
They wont have to. With IIRC almost all 100 of the increased staff when they put the DCI ramp to mainline were RRs. 
So all they will do is not bring people back when they hit their hours. Still lay offs but wont be called that. 
 
jcw said:
Oh the schedule change is driven by letting folks have more time off
more unpaid time off....... 
 
someone can go back and track all of these annual changes but it appears that DL regularly reduces the summer schedule at CVG increases it from summer to late fall, cuts during the winter, and then adds back in the late spring.

if so, that is perfectly in line with what you do in a business market that has a small component of leisure activity.

business demand falls off in the summer and there are better opportunities to use assets then. In the winter, business demand is stronger but there is very little leisure demand.

Add on to this and CVG like MEM is being impacted by the reduction in 50 seat flying.

DL is targeted the remaining CVG schedule to markets that have a decent amount of business demand and operating it using the smallest aircraft possible operating only when the business demand is there.

Compare what DL has done and accomplished at CVG with AA/US hubs where they are not the largest carrier in the local market in most of the markets where they used to have a hub. DL is still the largest carrier or the largest legacy carrier in each of the markets where it had former hubs.
 
Delta is "still the largest carrier or the largest legacy carrier" in each of their former hubs.  Hmmm ... didn't realize Delta was the largest carrier, legacy or otherwise, at DFW.  Guess they really are "winning in N. Texas."  Nonetheless, that "or largest legacy carrier" is a fairly critical caveat.  Using that same caveat, I believe - someone correct me if I'm wrong - that AA, when you include the merged/combined airline (as you have to also do for Delta), is also still the largest carrier "or largest legacy carrier" in each of its former hubs - BNA, RDU, SJC, SJU, and STL.
 
Anyway, these continued reductions just underscore precisely what many of us knew years ago - which is that of course CVG and MEM had no future as hubs for a combined airline given that their network roles were near-completely eclipsed by larger, stronger hubs nearby, and as such they continue to see both flights and seats reduced to reflect this reality.  In CVG's case, a strong corporate customer base (P&G, et al) is certainly able to support some critical mass of O&D flying.  We'll see how the economics of this capacity continues to evolve as more and more of the RJs on which CVG nonstops have long been dependent are parked - the trend of the "post-hub" years thus far doesn't exactly seem encouraging.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
commavia said:
Delta is "still the largest carrier or the largest legacy carrier" in each of their former hubs.  Hmmm ... didn't realize Delta was the largest carrier, legacy or otherwise, at DFW.  Guess they really are "winning in N. Texas."  Nonetheless, that "or largest legacy carrier" is a fairly critical caveat.  Using that same caveat, I believe - someone correct me if I'm wrong - that AA, when you include the merged/combined airline (as you have to also do for Delta), is also still the largest carrier "or largest legacy carrier" in each of its former hubs - BNA, RDU, SJC, SJU, and STL.
 
Anyway, these continued reductions just underscore precisely what many of us knew years ago - which is that of course CVG and MEM had no future as hubs for a combined airline given that their network roles were near-completely eclipsed by larger, stronger hubs nearby, and as such they continue to see both flights and seats reduced to reflect this reality.  In CVG's case, a strong corporate customer base (P&G, et al) is certainly able to support some critical mass of O&D flying.  We'll see how the economics of this capacity continues to evolve as more and more of the RJs on which CVG nonstops have long been dependent are parked - the trend of the "post-hub" years thus far doesn't exactly seem encouraging.
So, in a nutshell, your saying these affected employees should have seen this coming, correct?
Also, if you ran a business on street corners and business on certain street corners did not warrant a full staff, would you continue to staff them at their current level?
Trust me, I don't like to see people lose jobs, I've lost a couple myself because of downsizing and closures but knew, in plenty of time, to make other arrangements!
 
You also have to remember when AA took a beating from some cheerleader saying they were rapidly drawing down Europe flying when every one pointed out it was the winter schedule - and now some cheerleader is saying it's the summer schedule in CVG - it's amazing how the double standard is at play if DL pulls down a schedule for a season if another airline does its a sign of weakness

Now for reality we know the CVG reductions are not seasonal its a permanent adjustment to the schedule - good for DL to admit the challenges and cut the losses
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
If CVG skeds fall permanently then you can say that DL cannot even retain the local market
But given that large RJs and mainline are being added into certain markets, the chances are this is just equipment changes
No, there is no double standard. CVG is a business market which reflects biz not leisure skds
AAs position in most markets is driven by the number of duplicated hubs...which is not sustainable
 
commavia said:
Delta is "still the largest carrier or the largest legacy carrier" in each of their former hubs.  Hmmm ... didn't realize Delta was the largest carrier, legacy or otherwise, at DFW.  Guess they really are "winning in N. Texas."  Nonetheless, that "or largest legacy carrier" is a fairly critical caveat.  Using that same caveat, I believe - someone correct me if I'm wrong - that AA, when you include the merged/combined airline (as you have to also do for Delta), is also still the largest carrier "or largest legacy carrier" in each of its former hubs - BNA, RDU, SJC, SJU, and STL.
 
Anyway, these continued reductions just underscore precisely what many of us knew years ago - which is that of course CVG and MEM had no future as hubs for a combined airline given that their network roles were near-completely eclipsed by larger, stronger hubs nearby, and as such they continue to see both flights and seats reduced to reflect this reality.  In CVG's case, a strong corporate customer base (P&G, et al) is certainly able to support some critical mass of O&D flying.  We'll see how the economics of this capacity continues to evolve as more and more of the RJs on which CVG nonstops have long been dependent are parked - the trend of the "post-hub" years thus far doesn't exactly seem encouraging.
No no. 
Delta is still larger in Dallas. 
profit sharing
union dues
AA sucks
 
 
southwind said:
So, in a nutshell, your saying these affected employees should have seen this coming, correct?
Also, if you ran a business on street corners and business on certain street corners did not warrant a full staff, would you continue to staff them at their current level?
Trust me, I don't like to see people lose jobs, I've lost a couple myself because of downsizing and closures but knew, in plenty of time, to make other arrangements!
Yeah those guys at DWH were promised by Tony and his band of stupid people that they were safe going to Tampa. 
 
 
Oh wait. 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people