In 2018 I broke the news that Delta planned to make Austin a ‘focus city’. They got new gates as part of the airport’s expansion, and opened a gorgeous new Sky Club with an outdoor deck, but while joint venture partners KLM (Amsterdam) and Virgin Atlantic (London Heathrow) now serve Austin, Delta has done very little.
The Atlanta-based carrier dropped plans for all of their focus cities except Austin and Raleigh in 2021, but still didn’t actually do anything to grow in Austin until earlier this year when they added flights to hubs, and to their other focus city Raleigh.
Delta’s flying in Austin is now scheduled for:
- Atlanta: 10 peak daily departures.
- Boston: 3 peak daily departures.
- Detroit: 4 peak daily departures.
- New York JFK: 4 daily departures.
- Los Angeles: 4 peak daily departures.
- Minneapolis: 4 peak daily departures.
- Seattle: 3 peak daily departures.
- Salt Lake City: 4 peak daily departures.
- Raleigh: 2 peak daily Delta connection flights
Delta Sky Club Austin
Currently Southwest Airlines is the dominant carrier in Austin, following by American, with Delta number three ahead of United. But Delta is now adding non-hub service from Austin. Aviation watchdog JonNYC notes that Delta will fly Austin to Las Vegas and Orlando.
Here JonNYC shares Delta’s internal note about the service including schedules for these flights.
— 🇺🇦 JonNYC 🇺🇦 (@xJonNYC) July 7, 2023
In a sense these are big, obvious routes. On the other hand they’re already-saturated routes.
- Austin – Las Vegas is currently served by American, Southwest, Spirit, and Allegiant as well as JSX. The Delta flight operates at the same time as American’s and Southwest’s.
- Austin – Orlando is currently served by American, Southwest, and Spirit. It, too, operates with similar times to the American and Southwest service.
These two additional flights and destinations won’t move their overall market share in the city. However it is more Delta options competing with more capacity that may lower fares in the market (even if only lowers Southwest and American Airlines fares). That’s great for the city.
Overall though American’s big expansion in Austin – which won’t come close to being displaced by Delta any time soon – has been a struggle. Several of the flights haven’t worked, and have been removed from the schedule permanently (like San Juan) while others have come and gone (like Washington Dulles). Yields overall haven’t been very good, and many flights have featured significant passengers connecting over Austin as an alternative to Dallas rather than simply serving the local market.
Whether or not a single Orlando and Las Vegas flight can work for Delta is a question, though these are two leisure destinations that are said to almost always work for everyone, or that at least can be filled at some fare by everyone.
The bigger issue is that many people were convinced that Delta was giving up on AUS as a focus city.
Anyone that has watched Delta for any length of time knows that they move on their schedule and rarely when anyone else expects it.
The timing of this announcement comes just after JetBlue decided to terminate the NEA. AA now has to decide if it is worth taking its very few growth aircraft – by far the lowest number of the big 4 – to fight Delta in AUS or rebuild its presence in NYC.
And that is assuming there aren’t even better options to grow elsewhere on AA’s network – and there likely are.
AUS is a growing market, DL has invested in the facilities to grow, and they will build out what makes sense in time.
And, Gary, by definition, if Delta is adding seats and manages to put anyone on them while other carrier capacity is flat, then DL’s share will increase.
These two routes are clearly leisure focused but DL, like AA, apparently believes that in order to get the business traveler, it has to also fly some leisure markets – and MCO and LAS are the top 2 from most US cities.
@Tim Dunn – “And, Gary, by definition, if Delta is adding seats and manages to put anyone on them while other carrier capacity is flat, then DL’s share will increase.” But these two flights won’t move the needle on share. Their share of capacity will, roughly speaking, remain flat.
Wow! 2 leisure routes! Tim Dunn is already on Wikipedia changing Delta to the number 1 carrier at AUS over SWA/AA.
Gary,
sorry but you don’t understand basic math.
Whether it changes by more than a fraction of a point is not what you said.
It will move the share needle if they manage to put a single body on the flights and everyone else remains constant.
Little risk in Delta adding Las Vegas and Orlando. These cities have constant demand, though as mentioned, with such great competition, there is no indication that Delta can generate revenue premiums on these routes which are only about 2 hrs long in length.
Orlando Airport is constrained operationally and is a mess. Terminal C does help ease some constraints, but the main terminal is packed to the gills, its almost the next Charlotte.
Replace Delta with AA, and Timmy would be railing how these flights have already failed.
Keep clutching those 777-200ER fuel economy pearls.
John,
two new routes are what doesn’t move the needle. and neither does LAS-SMF which DL is also adding. But, because it is AUS, it matters to Gary who ran a story about it and then went on to argue that the routes really won’t matter. HIS logic seems a little disconnected. “this won’t matter but I’m going to get in one more story on Friday night w/ this breaking news.”
The only reason I care is because it proves that DL is going to do something w/ AUS. My point remains that the interwebs are full of people who would convinced that DL wouldn’t do this or that and history shows they have indeed followed through but long after the impatient moved on.
@Tim Dunn
No it won’t, not enough significant digits on the dial for the needle to measure differently.
drop the hate and do the math.
Delta is using mainline jets.
Tell us how many mainline flights operate from AUS and then add several more plane loads and it will be more than several digits to the right of the decimal point.
But you, like Gary, miss the point.
He had to drop all he had planned on a Friday night – which might not have been much – to post breaking news and tell the world that Delta was adding TWO flights to AUS – only to then argue – which you fell for – by saying they won’t matter.
If it really doesn’t matter, why are you fixated on these TWO FLIGHTS?
@John: exactly, you nailed it!! So true!
Gary’s forever quest to convince us that Austin is a major market!
Tim Dunn is a paid bot. Look into his personal record, too.
Cheap, utilization flying (look at the schedule – obviously same aircraft back-forth-and back) becoming an RON on the return to AUS.
AUS Dept. of Aviation must be getting a bit pesky with the gate utilization rules.
“ Anyone that has watched Delta for any length of time knows that they move on their schedule and rarely when anyone else expects it.”
What typical Tim Delta crap.
Delta announced Austin as a focus city years ago then got beat to making it one by aa.
Delta, like any corporation, has a marketing team that works in tandem with their planning team. They announced something in Austin with little thought then realized someone else beat them to it and still has them beat. Tim has been telling us for years that, after Delta having an established focus city definition, that they did have one in austin simply by upgauging flights to hubs.
Thanks for the usual desperate delta spin though, you’re always good for a laugh. Nice to see your Friday night was as sad as usual, trolling the blogs… amusing you’d try to troll Gary about putting content on his blog on a Friday when you have little else to do but comment on the article all evening.
I find it interesting that Las Vegas and Orlando are both referred to as “leisure markets.” While it is somewhat true, both are among the largest convention markets in the country, and are gaining share in conventions from all kinds of other cities (San Francisco, East Coast urban markers, even Atlanta). I have been to both cities for work many more times than I have been for leisure. The more options to both cities (and between the cities), the better
The the point of my earlier post, I find Delta’s adds more interesting from a Las Vegas point of view. They added San Diego, Sacramento and are adding another JFK flight. I find Las Vegas poorly served by the major airlines and even JetBlue. Hopefully we see more flights added from everyone at more convenient times…
@Tim Dunn – as usual, whether about airlines or my personal life, you make frequently wrong assumptions and mistake those for facts. This post was written prior to the end of the business day on Friday. And why did I write it? Because it’s my home airport, and Delta’s foray beyond flying merely to its hubs + focus city RDU with regional jets. So it may be the first move in a larger play, albeit one that’s naturally limited by available gate space.
Gary,
This is an intervention.
You’re in an abusive relationship with an internet troll.
You’ve turned every cheek on your body, there’s nothing left to prove, we love you.
But it’s time to flush the Dunn-toilet.
Anthony,
your point is valid. MCO and LAS are massive convention cities – so is ATL and Chicago. Perhaps DL sees convention activity coming back or maybe they just want to build some volume in AUS. Either way, since DL has operated point to point (non-hub) flights from other cities to MCO and LAS for years, the chances are slim to none they will not carry substantial numbers of passengers.
Gary,
it doesn’t matter when you actually wrote the article but rather when you released it. And arguing about the time of the release doesn’t change that it is statistically impossible for 2 new mainline flights not to have SOME change on market share unless other carriers add more flights.
Once again, WN is STILL waiting for the MAX7 to be certified and delivered – not going to happen until well into 2024 – and AA has very few aircraft due for delivery which means that they either have to give up on rebuilding NYC or build their own secondary cities like AUS.
And MAX,
you, like most of the rest of the internet crowd has no ability to see the big picture or the patience to see strategies for anyone develop. In the time since DL announced AUS as a focus city, it built BOS into a hub where it is now the unchallenged leader in revenue despite B6′ greater number of flights. And DL overtook AA at LAX, also apparently unchallenged. Both are far larger markets and DL’s gains in both cities have far greater strategic value. And DL did both while working through the regional jet pilot shortage but has more mainline aircraft due for delivery this year than any other airline. DL bought Western in 1987 or so and then took 35 years to aggressively use that acquisition to overtake AA. In the meantime, DL solidified its position in NYC as the largest airline and has overtaken UA in the number of flights by a good 15% – and that number is going to widen as UA is forced to live w/ the capacity limits of EWR as its primary hub.
DL simply measures time on a very different timeframe than you and the fankids.
They will do in AUS what makes sense. and they will do it on their timeline.
DL has gate space to expand, something AA and WN do not.
“Gary,
it doesn’t matter when you actually wrote the article but rather when you released it.”
You made a comment about what I was doing on Friday evening. I shared you were incorrect. To you it doesn’t matter if you’re wrong as long as you believe you were right. And that’s why it’s not worth presenting facts…
“it is statistically impossible for 2 new mainline flights not to have SOME change on market share unless other carriers add more flights.”
As usual you’re arguing about something I didn’t say, even though I clarified to make the point even clearer. The difference in market share is *immaterially* changed after the addition of these flights.
why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong, Gary?
your original statement copied RIGHT NOW was
“These two additional flights and destinations won’t move their overall market share in the city.”
I would agree IF you had used the word “materially” but you didn’t.
My two reasons for even responding were to
1. note that DL is moving forward w/ its AUS focus city even if it didn’t happen on the timeline that you and alot of others thought they should have
2. to note the logical fallacy in your statement about market share.
DL has added PTP routes to both MCO and LAS for many years so this breaking news is a nothing burger in the scope of things.
Your article did provide an opportunity to argue logic w/ you and Max which are the only reasons I participated in the conversation.
Happy Saturday, Gary
“why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong, Gary?”
Sincerely,
Pot, Kettle, and everything black
Get help tim. You’ve now spent your Friday night and Saturday morning trolling aviation blogs with zero value add… again
the value you can’t and don’t want to see is challenging your tunnel vision approach to the airline industry which is echoed a million times across a million other aviation sites.
DL will do in AUS what makes sense in its time even as you try to argue its strategic failures because you have the inability to see a strategic picture for more than few months in advance.
“why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong, Gary?”
Hah! That is hilarious coming from the guy who never admits he is wrong. Hey Tim, how about those Haneda slots? You called that one… not.
@Tim Dunn “the value you can’t and don’t want to see is challenging your tunnel vision approach to the airline industry which is echoed a million times across a million other aviation sites.”
You were literally challenging *what I was doing on a Friday night*
(And you were challenging things that I didn’t write, but you do you)
OCT,
please quote where I said that Delta would definitely be allowed to move its HND slots.
and, the HND slot issue is not over. DL hasn’t announced its decision about flying PDX while HNL is for sale w/ competitive fares.
DL could choose to relinquish its PDX route and rebid for it which is what the DOT is saying it wants if DL won’t fly the PDX route. There is still a high possibility – the only words I have ever used about the HND case – that DL could rewin the route which I think has the best chances for SLC or JFK, the former because it does not have HND service and JFK because AA and UA both serve it through their alliance partners – UA serves HND w/ its own aircraft from HND.
stay tuned.
Gary,
you have proved my point.
I could care less if you write an article six days in advance and then sit on it. I and everyone else only see an article when it hits your site. Arguing about the time when an article is written vs. released instead of dealing w/ the issue of whether you included the word “material” or any variations of it in your original statement IS the point that you can’t admit.
why is it that Ben, who you love to take on and compare your site’s performance to his, is happy to repeatedly correct what readers see but you almost never are capable of doing that?
@Tim Dunn – I quote you “The DOT will rule but chances are high that they will grant DL’s request.”
I never said “definitely” – and your statement above was wrong. Now you ramble on about rebidding, etc. Why can’t you ever admit you are wrong? Your original quote said nothing about rebidding, etc. You said chances were high DOT would rule in favor of Delta. It did not. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Your opinions would carry more weight if you could admit that you are not infallible.
@Tim – “UA serves HND w/ its own aircraft from HND.” ??
UA serves HND from EWR w/ its own aircraft …
which simply means that UA and Star serve both NYC international airports to Tokyo while JAL serves JFK to HND which helps DL’s case to argue that it should get a JFK-HND route, the biggest US-HND route which 2 but not all 3 US carriers serve.
Whether DL expects to lose money flying PDX-HND or not, I always believed JFK-HND was their real highest motivation for wanting to move HND routes.
HND is unrelated to the AUS discussion but involves far more revenue and profits than two non-hub routes and you brought it up
“These two additional flights and destinations won’t move their overall market share in the city.”
“I would agree IF you had used the word “materially” but you didn’t.”
Unless my comprehension is somehow flawed, Mr. Leff accurately conveyed the crux of the message – these two flights will not change DL’s market share ranking at AUS.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
“it is statistically impossible for 2 new mainline flights not to have SOME change on market share unless other carriers add more flights.”
“to note the logical fallacy in [the] statement about market share.”
But we don’t have enough information for such an assertion. For instance, is it POSSIBLE that these two flights actually cannibalize DL’s AUS origins that flow ex-ATL and ex-SLC to the new nonstop destinations?
What other variables are extant that challenge the premise?
—————————————————————————————————————————————————-
“And DL overtook AA at LAX, also apparently unchallenged. Both are far larger markets and DL’s gains in both cities have far greater strategic value. And DL did both while working through the regional jet pilot shortage but has more mainline aircraft due for delivery this year than any other airline. DL bought Western in 1987 or so and then took 35 years to aggressively use that acquisition to overtake AA.”
I just love revisionist takes on airline history. In the wake of the WA acquisition, DL was #1 at LAX for roughly five years. That position was squandered due to a multitude of factors – poor stewardship, financial hardship, ‘Black Swan’ events, marketplace responses by competitors, infrastructure limitations, etc.
Amazing that AA somehow faces those same challenges today (well, not with the poor stewardship part, but I digress….)
Frankly, an apt observation lies in this sentence: the value you can’t and don’t want to see is challenging your tunnel vision approach to the airline industry.
aaway
the number of seats that all carriers have scheduled from AUS is known so the addition of two flights by one airline changes the market share if DL puts one more person on those flights than it is currently carrying and the same is true for all other airlines.
All of the facts are known so that that the addition of seats by any airline will change its market share; its capacity share changes regardless of whether they put a paying passenger on the new flights or not.
The key word is “material” which was NOT part of the original post which is why I even commented.
As for LAX and a 35 year lookback, I didn’t try to argue that DL once was the #1 airline at LAX by size but rather, since we are fixated on wordsmithing in this article, that Delta didn’t use that merger to “aggressively” grow to the number 1 position.
We can go back over the past 35 years of airline history but AA had a much stronger coast to coast position than DL while DL before the Western merger was primarily a southeast airline. Over the same 35 years, DL overtook AA in NYC (where AA was larger than DL up until 9/11) and now at LAX as well as BOS. DL overtook AA and UA in the PNW with its SEA hub. that is all in addition to the interior US hub growth that happened at AA, DL and UA as a result of mergers and organic growth.
Over 35 years, DL has become more national and more global than AA which is more southern and more Latin focused which is the only global region where it is #1 or 2.
UA is still trying to figure out its interior hubs and DL is very much on the verge of overtaking UA in the NE and potentially the west coast depending on what UA does at LAX. AA and DL arguably have more space at LAX to work w/ than UA. And specific to Japan and Asia, it is unlikely that AA will challenge DL and UA’s position.
Let’s be honest that as much of the rambling attempts to find fault with Delta’s strategies belies the reality that DL was the #3 carrier at deregulation and has grown its route system and revenues more than AA or UA – and that is absolutely relevant to the overall trend of DL’s new market additions, even if AUS-LAS and MCO are blips on the radar.
Feel free to argue those points and move off the wordsmithing about AUS market share if you wish.
Tim, seriously you need help. It’s hilarious to troll you, but it’s clear you have a problem. Maybe take a step back and look at all your comments in this thread. It’s a little obsessive compulsive.
AA already has mainline MCO and LAS with its prox to DFW and amount of feeder those DL routes are going to fold fast. Faster than Tim Dunn is ready to put down AA no matter the news.
@gary take JonNYC’s advice. He’s an epic troll who should be taking commissions from DL. Keep your peace and same with the rest of this board. Let him have his say and just ignore it. If Ed B. Offered him a date Timmy would pretty woman the proposition.
I have made it clear that I participated in this discussion for 2 reasons:
– to counter the statement about market share which was stated
– to show that DL is following through on its AUS focus city plans but also accurately noted that DL has never done anything on the timeline of the internet CEO wannabees.
I find it laughable that I am accused of being a troll but there are people that have posted nothing about the topic but solely about me and there are also people that have dragged in HND and tried to argue about DL’s strategies when it is clear that DL has done more to improve its position in the industry since deregulation than either AA or UA.
When people can’t debate facts, they just throw barbs at other people – which is childish.
You and I are free to respond or not – but I will not walk away from a logical debate when it is the other side that displays a lack of logic.
and I don’t get paid by anyone to post here.
Unfortunately, we’ve all known someone in real life like him.
He won’t stop. The only way to stop this is simply not to respond. That starts with Gary, please. I don’t believe in banning or censoring, but responding is what keeps the venom spewing. Stop taking the bait.
So I am supposed to not respond when there are trash contributors including someone that thrives on bartered and stolen info and brands it as breaking news contribute absolutely nothing to the conversation except trash someone else?
You would do well to take your OWN advise to just walk away.
I have to agree with many of the others. Please stop responding and taking the bait. And yes I agree, also Gary. It is too much already.
Gary has and should clean out the comments that are nothing more than personal attacks.
Let’s recap.
I made repeated factual and accurate posts and THAT degenerated into personal attacks by people that are outdebated by someone that understands the industry – something that some people simply can’t stand.
And I also understand logic and language- such as when statements that two additional flights can’t increase market share.
Instead of attacking other people, just learn to think and debate.
and don’t traffic in stolen information. One person can’t possibly work for multiple airlines and have access to internal documents from all of them.
and then don’t make statements that I can’t possibly be paid when it is other people, not me, that made that charge.
Some people not only don’t have morals but they also don’t have reading comprehension.
and quit fixating on what other people post but instead respond with your own facts.
@JonNYC does not, as far as I know, traffic in “stolen” information. The people who share it with him have it properly, they don’t steal it, they are employees of airlines who are given the information. And they leak it to Jon.
Jon’s sharing it is exactly what journalists do. You can criticize the people who leak it to Jon, but he’s not ‘stealing’ the information. He isn’t sitting around at a computer hacking airlines. He isn’t breaking into airline headquarters in the dead of night.
The information isn’t stolen, it’s given by people who rightly have it, perhaps *the leaker* is violating their employer’s policies. But there’s nothing improper or unethical on the part of the person receiving and publishing that information.
[I have cleaned up some comments on this thread but by no means all]
You and Ben repeatedly publish information that is clearly marked for internal employee use from Jon and then label it as groundbreaking.
Of course, since you have your employee moles at AA that supply you with content, you don’t see the problem.
the schedule content you wrote about was published yesterday. There are people that read the OAG schedule files which are prepared for publication even before Saturday when most US airlines update their schedules.
and, again, I participated in this discussion for 2 very clear reasons – and a whole lot of people attacked me because they cannot and did not logically address the points I made or even develop and defend their own logic.
thank you for cleaning up the comments.
The sheer irony of tim spending much of this comment section trolling what Gary was doing on a Friday night…
Then, after an entire day of doing his usual delta nonsensical rants, starts crying to Gary to stop what he’s doing… late on a Saturday night… to clean up the comments for him since Tim has been called out by so many people in them.
Tim, there’s a reason you’re banned from other websites. Maybe take it to heart and stop commenting.
You engage in vitriolic attacks toward others all the time, call Jon and now Gary thieves but somehow go crying to Gary when people call you out for who you are…
The irony and hypocrisy is lost on no one. Enjoy your Sunday.
MAX<
as usual, you show up NOT to engage in the conversation but to worry about someone else does w/ their free time.
for someone that is supposedly banned from "sites" how is that you are so fixated on the volume of posts I make on the internet?
grow up and learn to accept that other people might choose to use their time differently.
and then engage in the topic, not the users.
You have demonstrated before that you are capable of doing it but your knee-jerk gut reaction is to attack someone else instead of using your God-given brain to think
@Tim Dunn – you are complaining about publication of internal documents (journalism) when the substance at issue was publicly available. Got it.
Gary,
can we put a nice bow tie on this article before it rolls off the first page?
The information posted as the source of the AUS expansion was not public at the time you posted it.
Schedule changes become public for US carriers for the most part on Saturday.
Inside leaks from both government and business are common but I know of no other person that posts under a pseudonym from multiple companies or organizations. To call someone that traffics in stolen data as an aviation watchdog is frankly disgusting.
And if your friend gives you the keys to their company car and you use that car for your own personal use, that car is indeed stolen if you or the authorized user of that car has not obtained permission from the owner (the company) to use it for other than company business.
The same is true for data and information.
But let’s get to the real point. You jumped the public release of the schedules by hours so that you could argue that 2 new flights wouldn’t make a difference – and you repeatedly tried to defend your statement that they wouldn’t move Delta’s share which is factually incorrect.
2 flights won’t SIGNIFICANTLY, MATERIALLY, or MEANINGFULLY change anything and your refusal to acknowledge the lack of any those words made my point true. Instead of admitting I was right, you argued and that, IMHO, set the tone of this entire conversation.
And you and everyone else missed the larger significance of DL’s addition of those 2 routes
1. These are the 1st two non-hub, non-focus city routes since DL announced AUS as a focus city, so far as I know.
2. These 2 new routes came just after the NEA was legally shot down and B6 agreed they are not willing to pursue it any longer.
3. AA already had very few aircraft on order and they are now faced w/ either trying to defend DL’s AUS route additions or rebuild its NYC presence – or let go of JFK and LGA slots they didn’t even use before covid.
4. WN is also awaiting certification of the 737 MAX7 and has said that it won’t enter service before 2024 at the earliest.
5. Based on delivery delays esp. from Boeing, DL is likely to put more aircraft in service this year including reactivations of used aircraft it acquired during the pandemic as well as aircraft that were grounded and are now being reactivated.
DL, quite simply, likely finds that NOW is the time to return to its pre-covid non-hub growth strategies and the same higher degree of aircraft availability could play out not just w/ more new service at AUS but elsewhere .
Those are the real strategic issues that are far more significant than two fairly insignificant flights.
I do, however, appreciate your tenacity and commitment to your beliefs and your willingness to engage in debate instead of focusing on people. I don’t care if we agree; I do respect you and anyone else that can and will debate and discuss rather than shut down dissenting opinions or attack people that don’t agree w/ you.
all the best, always, Gary.
DL is setting up to fail in TX again. DFW was a disaster and AUS will be too. AA is TX and has DFW and AUS for business and people who don’t want to ‘MOO” while boarding. AA has a much better schedule out of AUS and with KLM limiting flights next year, AUS could soon be gone. Virgin or BA, will take BA any day, Virgin is a tiny airline with limited global connections. Sorry DL, waiting time in TX again!
viking,
DL indeed never achieved local market share at DFW more than mid-teens which, interestingly, it is not far from in the Metroplex even w/o a hub there.
And you also fail to note that DL took its airplanes from the DFW hub and built up NYC, a larger and richer market, where it has now grown to be the largest airline by numbers of flights and has nowhere near the operational problems on a regular basis that B6 and UA regularly have because of their respective JFK and EWR operations.
And, yes, the NE is an ATC disaster yet again today.
DL has very little at risk strategically in Texas. Given that the rest of their AUS routes and nearly all of their Texas routes as a whole are to hubs and focus cities, and they generate higher average fares on most of those routes, there really is nothing to fail.
If they succeed with a few point to point routes at AUS won’t make or break anything negatively.
The fact that DL is adding point to point routes at AUS now IS significant not just from what they are adding but when and could lead to even more significance regarding how AA and WN respond if they do at all.
@Tim Dunn – “The fact that DL is adding point to point routes at AUS now IS significant not just from what they are adding” which was my entire point… on Friday 😉
@Tim Dunn – the “aviation watchdog” moniker for JonNYC is not mine. It dates to his breaking news about a Frontier Airlines incident two and a half years ago:
https://news.yahoo.com/observant-flight-attendant-stops-frontier-140440911.html
“The plane had gone through de-icing from Trego-Dugan Aviation, but a flight attendant afterward noticed what appeared to be ice and snow mixed with de-icing fluid on one of the plane’s wings, according to a tweet from an aviation watchdog Tuesday that exposed the near tragedy.”
And it’s been used elsewhere, such as The New Republic, after Jon was the first to publicly launch the hue and cry over Southwest’s operational problems in December. https://newrepublic.com/post/169727/southwest-airlines-winter-flights-cancelled
“An aviation watchdog that goes by the Twitter handle @JonNYC shared an internal memo from Southwest’s vice president of ground operations Chris Johnson. In the memo, Johnson declared a state of operational emergency at the Denver International Airport and said employees would be fired for calling in sick without a doctor’s note, requesting personal time off, or refusing to work now-mandatory overtime.”
I use it a bit cheeky and in good fun.
Please stop responding to him. Please? I know many of you feel like you have to defend yourselves but you don’t, and all replies only prolong the agony, Please.