Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2853724/

Topic: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Nopeotone
Posted 2006-06-30 04:22:05 and read 6356 times.

I read that the FRontier service from LAX-SFO is starting soon.
Does anyone know how it looks so far or any projections on its load factor?

With some other airlines offering that and OAK-LGB, will this work for Frontier?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Silverstreak
Posted 2006-06-30 04:32:08 and read 6345 times.

Dunno - Today, I did see from Hwy. 101 a Frontier "baby" at SFO starting to roll out and wondered where it was going.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: 3201
Posted 2006-06-30 04:38:13 and read 6328 times.

Started today, according to this trip report (which has to be one of the faster-posted TR's for a new route ever).

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: AS739X
Posted 2006-06-30 06:38:23 and read 6201 times.

Started today! F9 had food and beverage at gate 38 set-up. They seemed busy when I was over in that area around 800pm, though they had a DEN flight at 845p. Let you know what I hear locally, but I'll be on it ALOT!

ASLAX

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: A330300
Posted 2006-06-30 07:43:40 and read 6132 times.

Loads were light on the first flight out this morning from SFO, but picked up a bit later in the day. Speaking at the press conference today were Andrew Hudson from Corp Comm, and Chris Collins, SVP of Operations. The loads are characteristic of a maturing route, and are good through the holiday week.

At gates 31 and 33, thwere were the walking seats, a string band, and food setup for our customers...nice turnout from F9 employees.  Smile

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-06-30 08:43:47 and read 6078 times.

Quoting Nopeotone (Thread starter):
With some other airlines offering that and OAK-LGB, will this work for Frontier?

Um, a lot more L.A.-Bay routes are offered than LAX-SFO and OAK-LGB. That aside, I did see a billboard on Manchester Blvd. for their $59 OW fare on the route.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: EmSeeEye
Posted 2006-07-06 17:08:17 and read 5831 times.

Does anyone have any updates so far this week on how this route is performing?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: RoseFlyer
Posted 2006-07-06 17:24:49 and read 5806 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 5):
Um, a lot more L.A.-Bay routes are offered than LAX-SFO and OAK-LGB. That aside, I did see a billboard on Manchester Blvd. for their $59 OW fare on the route.

A lot of routes from the Bay Area to the LA area are offered since both metro areas have a fair number of airports. The benefit of flying SFO-LAX for Frontier is that Southwest does not serve SFO. F9 is only competing with United and American for the most part. WN dominates flights between the areas with hourly flights between OAK/SJC and LAX and tons of flights to other airports like BUR, ONT, and SNA. jetBlue flies OAK-LGB which has no WN competition.

I hope this can work for F9, but I can't imagine that the yields will be that high, but load factors should be high.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Azstar
Posted 2006-07-06 17:36:37 and read 5788 times.

This week load factors around 20%. Most flights have 20-40 passengers, but some have fewer than 10.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Stl1326
Posted 2006-07-06 17:54:58 and read 5751 times.

Quoting Azstar (Reply 8):
This week load factors around 20%. Most flights have 20-40 passengers, but some have fewer than 10.

Wow! I hope things pick up for Frontier or else this will probably be another shuddered route for LAX. There is a lot of competition on the short haul routes on the west coast especially when you got southwest running multiple daily round trips.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-06 18:46:24 and read 5686 times.

Quoting Azstar (Reply 8):
This week load factors around 20%. Most flights have 20-40 passengers, but some have fewer than 10.

Ouch. With such a saturated market, it might be harder than they expected to even alert people who fly it regularly to the new option. People get set in their ways about who they fly when they do it often.

I hope people wise up. i plan to fly this route, but I might not have time before they cancel it!

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: EmSeeEye
Posted 2006-07-06 18:59:41 and read 5655 times.

This is just one week and this is a route catered to businesses. Its probably a bad week for business travelers...

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Laxintl
Posted 2006-07-06 19:12:34 and read 5621 times.

I'm sure Frontier will hang on for a while, but its certainly a challenging market to be in.

UA has LAX-SFO pretty much locked up, with AA running a few services in between. SWA has incredible strenght connection the various Bay and SoCal airports excluding SFO.
UA, SWA and AA all have strong frequent flyer bases in the markets. All this while Frontier does not have much name recognition in either market certainly not when one thinks intra-CA flying.

A thing to also consider is that DL on two separate occasions since having taken over the Western franchise tried frequent LAX-SFO service to only withdraw.

Going against UA between its to California hubs and having SWA being the #1 intra CA player does not make things easy for Frontier.
Basically what does Frontier compete on? Fares UA has matched, frequency its not even close to UAs offering. And I doubt they get people just because of having TV on a 50min flight.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2006-07-06 19:14:06 and read 5621 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
it might be harder than they expected to even alert people who fly it regularly to the new option.

I think F9 didn't advertise it enough, so a lot of people weren't aware. We were on the road to Frisco Saturday, and back down to LA on the morning of July 4. I was straining to catch a glimpse of an animal taking off or on approach, but no such luck.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Travelin man
Posted 2006-07-06 19:19:11 and read 5600 times.

Beyond a billboard near LAX, Frontier has done little to no advertising here in LA as far as I've seen. Have they even done newspaper ads? I haven't seen a television commercial.

They're going to have to try a little harder, because as has been mentioned, AA, WN, and especially UA have fairly entrenched frequent flier base here in SoCal (and NoCal as well). Given that there are many business travelers on LAX-SFO, they are also going to have to distinguish themselves on something besides price, because quite frankly business travelers are the LEAST price sensitive travelers out there.

I think there is opportunity, but it won't just "come to them". They're going to have to beat the drums about their new service.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Dutchjet
Posted 2006-07-06 19:41:17 and read 5554 times.

I still dont understand why Frontier has thrown itself into this market - what do they possibily have to gain? So much competition, so many flights, so many airports.....Los Angeles-San Francisco is one of the most complex routes in the nation due to the number of airports serving each area and the frequency of departures.

Frontier is a very good airline with clever management.......what are they thinking with LAX-SFO? There must be better opportunities elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Laxintl
Posted 2006-07-06 19:43:30 and read 5545 times.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 14):
Have they even done newspaper ads?

They've had some adds in the LA Times. About 2 weeks prior to the start up even had a one page add promoting the $59 fare.
Still however agree not much exposure getting the name out.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2006-07-06 19:56:13 and read 5521 times.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 16):
Still however agree not much exposure getting the name out.

Does anyone else recall how WN first advertised their LAX-OAK service? They ran a couple of radio ads touting a free one-way ticket anywhere they fly with the purchase of any one-way on the new route, even on discounted tickets. An agent simply handed out the fully-transferable certificate as you boarded.

When I heard it, I was on the freeway. I literally pulled off to the first exit, called my travel agent, and had her make multiple bookings every day that I could do two round-trips per day. At the beginning of the promotion, people were hiring day laborers to fly en masse with them, and near the end of the promotion, people were camping out at both LAX and OAK to get a standby seat. It was major news in the newspapers and on TV.

It's hard to make an impression intra-California, but it can be done.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Lax44
Posted 2006-07-06 20:14:40 and read 5466 times.

Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
Basically what does Frontier compete on? Fares UA has matched

What were the UA/AS/AA fares before Frontier entered the market?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-06 20:25:01 and read 5437 times.

It's only been a few days, obviously, and a holiday, so it's not the end of the world, but still, those loads are low.

They sent discount information to FF members about the route, but since there likely that many F9 FF members in LAX or SFO, this is more preaching to the choir, as they say.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2006-07-06 20:42:38 and read 5402 times.

Quoting Lax44 (Reply 18):
Quoting DEVILFISH (Reply 13):
Basically what does Frontier compete on? Fares UA has matched

You took Laxintl's words and quoted me.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Laxintl
Posted 2006-07-06 23:53:37 and read 5267 times.

Fares LAX-SFO have been in the low/mid $200 range recently especially with fare increase which have stuck.

Frontiers introductory fare in the market has been $59 each way. This is to expire at the end of July. Will be interesting to see if it gets extended.

United in the mean time has added a few $59/$69/$79 fare buckets matching Frontier.

With UA offering 15+ daily flights plus AA's 7 combined with both having strong frequent flyer followings will be interesting to see how Frontier makes out.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 03:22:55 and read 5131 times.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 15):
Frontier is a very good airline with clever management.......what are they thinking with LAX-SFO? There must be better opportunities elsewhere.

If they ever intend to have a presence on the West Coast, then this is a fairly important route. Don't you think?

Assuming LAX-SJD is (finally) approved - despite Delta's tantrum - that will change the equation slightly, as would any other route from either SFO or LAX that they add.

And I note that Frontier is appearing as the connector for a number of airlines who have service from LAX or SFO - but not both.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 21):
will be interesting to see how Frontier makes out.

Yes, indeed. And I would think it will take a while. But with load factor records falling every month - 85% plus in June, their highest ever - they can possibly afford to nurse SFO-LAX for a while.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060706/lath114.html?.v=36

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Iowaman
Posted 2006-07-07 05:29:31 and read 5020 times.

I thought F9 had learned their lesson in LAX?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MSYtristar
Posted 2006-07-07 05:50:55 and read 4994 times.

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 23):
I thought F9 had learned their lesson in LAX?

Apparently not; but, give them credit for trying. They have to try to get away from the DEN-centric operation if they want to really grow the airline. Only so much capacity can be added at one airport. This is why LCC's like FL and to a lesser extent B6 have been (historically) successful...lots of "focus cities" in addition to a central main hub.

F9 has been a low frequency carrier to most of the outstations, which makes it more difficult from a marketing standpoint to get their name out there.

They HAVE to promote the hell out of LAX-SFO if they want to see it succeed.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-07 07:09:32 and read 4908 times.

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 7):
I hope this can work for F9, but I can't imagine that the yields will be that high, but load factors should be high.

Actually, LAX-SFO is a rather higher yielding route.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
Ouch. With such a saturated market, it might be harder than they expected to even alert people who fly it regularly to the new option. People get set in their ways about who they fly when they do it often.

The market really isn't saturated. It is much like Hawai'i in that it isn't really difficult to fill an airplane and LAX-SFO specifically has had a discount vaccum since WN decided to shutter SFO.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 15):
I still dont understand why Frontier has thrown itself into this market

I am guessing this is their way of drumming up some business not involving DEN and also a way to better utilize their fleet.

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 23):
I thought F9 had learned their lesson in LAX?

There really isn't a lesson to learn. F9's problem initially was their choice of routes to fly out of an LAX focus city. They pissed off Northwest to no end with the MSP route and then chose places like MCI and STL where they really didn't need to be going.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 07:10:23 and read 4908 times.

Quoting Iowaman (Reply 23):
I thought F9 had learned their lesson in LAX?

It depends what you think the lesson is, and what should have been learned.

To my mind, the mistake was not the establishment of the LAX focus city.

The mistake was in dismantling it completely.

I hope they are able to fix that.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-07 07:33:41 and read 4886 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 25):
The market really isn't saturated. It is much like Hawai'i in that it isn't really difficult to fill an airplane and LAX-SFO specifically has had a discount vaccum since WN decided to shutter SFO.

What I meant is that with so many airlines flying between the two markets (all the various airports), people who fly it often know which airline they like best and are fixed on it. That means that for F9 to penetrate those minds, they need to really alert flyers to this new route more than they are.

Living here, I've seen little to nothing to tell me that F9 now flies to SFO!

I plan to fly them because I like F9 and I don't like regional jets if there is a real alternative. Being a CO elite, I can't fly them to SFO, so why not F9, where I have a few miles built up?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Coronado990
Posted 2006-07-07 07:40:32 and read 4878 times.

My opinion is that F9 is going after the circle trips. I other words, business travelers that need to do business in both cities and want to keep everything on one ticket instead of an open jaw from DEN where the LAX-SFO portion needs to be a o/w ticket on another airline. Makes sense to keep some of that revenue and maybe drum up some new business along the way that will also expose the airline to it's longer transcontinental routes.

I hope they will do the same in the SAN-SFO market.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 07:49:51 and read 4867 times.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 28):
I hope they will do the same in the SAN-SFO market.

Agreed.

Or - SFO-SAN-CUN perhaps?  Smile

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Laxintl
Posted 2006-07-07 07:51:51 and read 4860 times.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 28):
usiness travelers that need to do business in both cities

And how many could that be a day?? 10-20??
I really dont see many people wanting DEN-SFO-LAX-DEN, to even come close to make a difference for 5 daily RT.

What F9 needs if they want to succeed is to get their name out. Radio, TV, billboards, newspapers, local magazines, trade show, sponsor local events etc..

While costly, I just dont see them reaching the point of being able to fill planes at a reasonable fare (north of the introductory $59 rates) going against 100+ daily corridor flights between SoCal and the Bay Area where name recognition and frequent flyer loyalty to UA, AA and Southwest are so big.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-07 07:52:49 and read 4860 times.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 28):
I hope they will do the same in the SAN-SFO market.

I think it unlikely. So many of the businesses are between LAX and SAN that people fly into LAX and then drive to them. I can't imagine there is enough of a demand for people flying to do business in SFO, then needing to go to a company that is much closer to SAN than LAX, then back again. Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-07 08:04:53 and read 4842 times.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 27):
Living here, I've seen little to nothing to tell me that F9 now flies to SFO!

Yeah, that is indeed their biggest problem. Other than the La Cienega billboard, you would have to be an A.netter to know F9 opened the route.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 08:07:31 and read 4838 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 32):
Other than the La Cienega billboard, you would have to be an A.netter to know F9 opened the route.

This is what everyone said last time. So - how did the 80% load factors LAX-STL happen?

Were they all a.netters?

 Smile

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Coronado990
Posted 2006-07-07 08:17:59 and read 4829 times.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 30):
And how many could that be a day?? 10-20??

I've dealt with clients out of DEN and making the circle trip was quite common. Right now most passengers that make the circle trip will fly UA because all three segments can simply be done on one ticket. Maybe it is only 10-20 pax a day for F9 but these pax are now on the DEN legs as well instead of UA, right?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-07 08:39:40 and read 4806 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 33):
This is what everyone said last time. So - how did the 80% load factors LAX-STL happen?

Were they all a.netters?

There is a lot less choice for LAX-STL than for LAX-Bay.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 08:45:07 and read 4797 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 35):
There is a lot less choice for LAX-STL than for LAX-Bay.

I am not sure what difference that makes.

Most people here - a.net - claimed lack of advertising was the problem with Frontier's focus city last time.

In fact, after a slow start many of the load factors became good - people knew of the service.

But this was the time when yields were rock bottom and oil was going through the roof.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-07 09:36:20 and read 4766 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 36):
Most people here - a.net - claimed lack of advertising was the problem with Frontier's focus city last time.

In fact, after a slow start many of the load factors became good - people knew of the service.

Then they shouldn't have pulled them.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 36):
But this was the time when yields were rock bottom and oil was going through the roof.

For a carrier like Frontier, building revenues and traffic should be at the forefront of their planning, not yields as much. This is especially true when you consider that they have excellent cost control. Further, Frontier's use of a less flexible pricing structure (similar to that of jetBlue) means it is harder to garner higher yielding tickets. Further, their reliance on contracted ground ends up costing more in the long run and killed routes like Boston.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2006-07-07 09:42:36 and read 4757 times.

UA has so many passengers shuttling between LAX-SFO-LAX, connecting to Asian and European flights its hard to know how F9 are going to make a go of this!

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 09:47:57 and read 4756 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
Then they shouldn't have pulled them.

The load factors were good, the yields were not. However, I do agree. As I said:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 26):
To my mind, the mistake was not the establishment of the LAX focus city.

The mistake was in dismantling it completely.

But I am bemused by:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
For a carrier like Frontier, building revenues and traffic should be at the forefront of their planning, not yields as much.

I think that is what they do.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
their reliance on contracted ground ends up costing more in the long run and killed routes like Boston.

(a) they have several stations where they have their own ground staff - both over and under wing - and (b) that is not what killed Boston.

But I am really confused by these management concepts for Frontier. I thought your point was that they need to advertise more in Los Angeles.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-07 10:18:17 and read 4738 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 39):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 37):
For a carrier like Frontier, building revenues and traffic should be at the forefront of their planning, not yields as much.

I think that is what they do.

If it is, they should never have axed anything at LAX other than LAX-MSP

Quoting Mariner (Reply 39):
But I am really confused by these management concepts for Frontier. I thought your point was that they need to advertise more in Los Angeles.

They do, but I was looking more at the overall situation and agreeing on your analysis that they shouldn't have axed the focus

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 38):
UA has so many passengers shuttling between LAX-SFO-LAX, connecting to Asian and European flights its hard to know how F9 are going to make a go of this!

Connecting traffic is a mere fraction of what United gets on the route. The vast majority of travellers are O&D

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MSYtristar
Posted 2006-07-07 13:28:38 and read 4687 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 33):
So - how did the 80% load factors LAX-STL happen?

I'd say that route hit 80% just by random people browsing through Orbitz and
Expedia (etc.) to try to find the lowest fare option between the two cities since it was only AA doing the route nonstop. From what I remember most days that route saw about 80-85 passengers on average.

LAX-SFO is different due to the sheer frequency of the competition.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Travelin man
Posted 2006-07-07 17:47:16 and read 4603 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 33):
This is what everyone said last time. So - how did the 80% load factors LAX-STL happen?

Actually, last time F9 DID advertise on TV in the LA market. I remember the "talking tails" commercials (where the various animals on the F9 tails said stuff to each other).

In that case, the advertising WAS a lot more than what we are seeing now.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 21:03:46 and read 4495 times.

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 41):
I'd say that route hit 80% just by random people browsing through Orbitz and
Expedia (etc.)

Actually, LAX-STL hit 84% at one point, and those travellers must have been browsing for LAX-MCI as well because that also had good load factors.

And of course, Southwest flies both those routes.

LAX-PHL did okay, too, but with oil on the ascendant, it simply used too much fuel.

I note that JetBlue - for example - is not adding many transcons in part because of the price of fuel.

 Smile

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Dutchjet
Posted 2006-07-07 21:40:53 and read 4444 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 43):
, LAX-STL hit 84% at one point, and those travellers must have been browsing for LAX-MCI as well because that also had good load factors.

And F9 dropped the route with an 84% load factor? For that to happen, the yeilds must have been impossible - was F9 giving the seats away? I know that filled airplanes does not guaranty profits, but something is very wrong if F9 could not make money on a route operated by a rather effecient A319 and 84% of its seats filled. What are we missing here???

Quoting Mariner (Reply 43):
I note that JetBlue - for example - is not adding many transcons in part because of the price of fuel.

Thats what they said, but its not what they are doing. JFK-TUS, just announced, is very close to transcon in miles flown, as is JFK-AUA, another new route. So its unclear where JetBlue stands on this issue.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-07 21:47:19 and read 4437 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 33):
So - how did the 80% load factors LAX-STL happen?

Ridiculously low fares.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 22:05:56 and read 4414 times.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 44):
And F9 dropped the route with an 84% load factor? For that to happen, the yeilds must have been impossible

Two completely separate issues.

The 84% figure was reached and was used by me to show that people knew of the service.

That was a summer months figure and - fairly obviously - did not sustain through the winter months, when the route remained slightly profitable to break-even. As did LAX-MCI.

However, it was at this time that the effects of the oil price rise were starting to bite. Other routes out of DEN were losing money because of it.

So the decision was made to protect the DEN hub and retrench out of LAX.

It caused considerable angst at Frontier, and may have contributed to the departure of two very senior execs.

I disagree with that particular decision - if only because of what is happening now. Had they maintained those two routes, then LAX-SFO would have made more sense than it presently does to some - such as yourself.

I note that you defend Delta as trying to right the mistake they made in leaving LAX and the Mexican resorts. I have predicted a return to LAX since the day they left, and it looks to me that Frontier is trying to right the mistake they made in leaving LAX.

But I don't know. I don't work for Frontier, I have only occasional contact with them. This is all my perception.

So - I don't know what their plans are, but I think it is a fairly safe bet that they will fly to GDL, for example, from more US cities than just DEN. We know - because they told the DOT - that they would fly LAX-GDL if it were available. Which it isn't.

Others - mostly from MSY - disagree with Frontier's decision to protect CUN over MSY after the hurricanes. CUN makes sense to me, but it was a tough one that I wouldn't want to have to make.

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 44):
Thats what they said, but its not what they are doing. JFK-TUS, just announced

I did say that JetBlue is not adding "many" transcons, and I also note Mr. Neeleman's comments about having been beguiled - or was it distracted? -by transcons.

I would also note that JFK-AUA is a resort situation, with entirely different fare structures and competition issues.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Dutchjet
Posted 2006-07-07 22:15:08 and read 4396 times.

Thanks for the interesting analysis, as usual. You raised several issues that I did not consider....the information about dropping LAX services to protect the Denver hub is very very interesting.....and, I agree with you, was probably the wrong decision. LAX-STL and LAX-MCI could have developed into important routes for F9......LAX-PHL and LAX-MSP are different stories due to the competitve enviornments and other factors that affect those routes.

Again, thanks.....

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: EmSeeEye
Posted 2006-07-07 22:32:42 and read 4374 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 46):
I did say that JetBlue is not adding "many" transcons, and I also note Mr. Neeleman's comments about having been beguiled - or was it distracted? -by transcons.

Kind of a cheap shot dont you think?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 22:35:29 and read 4368 times.

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 48):
Kind of a cheap shot dont you think?

Why? It is what he said. I agree with him.

So I'm not sure how agreeing with him is "a cheap shot".

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-07 22:36:07 and read 4356 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 46):
That was a summer months figure and - fairly obviously - did not sustain through the winter months, when the route remained slightly profitable to break-even. As did LAX-MCI.

Says who?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 22:38:05 and read 4356 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 50):
Says who?

Frontier's CEO. At an AGM. Unless, of course, he was lying to the stockholders.

In which case, you should immediately contact the SEC

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MSYtristar
Posted 2006-07-07 22:49:08 and read 4332 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 46):
Others - mostly from MSY - disagree with Frontier's decision to protect CUN over MSY after the hurricanes. CUN makes sense to me, but it was a tough one that I wouldn't want to have to make.

Wow, the bait has been thrown out, and i'm just the fish to catch it!  Smile

Granted it was probably a tough call. But what F9 did not take advantage of was the chance for good PR with reintroducing New Orleans service. Like you've said though in regards to BOS, F9 doesn't NEED to serve every market in every section of the U.S. It's just a shame that they let Katrina spook them and made them think that MSY is a questionable market, when in reality to yields here are the highest they've ever been. FL on the other hand chose the different (and better) route...choosing to resume flights to MSY just a month and a half after the storm and putting CUN on the semi-permanent back burner.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: EmSeeEye
Posted 2006-07-07 22:50:48 and read 4332 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 49):
Why? It is what he said. I agree with him.

So I'm not sure how agreeing with him is "a cheap shot".



Quoting Mariner (Reply 46):
beguiled - or was it distracted? -by transcons.

I think they have owned up to making the mistake of too many transcons but your "or was it distracted?" comment seemed to be a rather cheap shot.

Beguiled means to be temped, fooled or cooerced into something. Distracted means to have your attention drawn to something other than the current topic or situation.

It appears you were taking a cheap shot at Neelemans ADD condition.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 23:01:48 and read 4311 times.

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 53):
It appears you were taking a cheap shot at Neelemans ADD condition.

To assume that I would take a shot at anyone with an ADD condition is a breath-taking assumption on your part, since I have a mild version of ADHD myself.

Quoting MSYtristar (Reply 52):
.choosing to resume flights to MSY just a month and a half after the storm and putting CUN on the semi-permanent back burner.

CUN does not - and did not - represent 9% of Airtran's business.

You are saying, in effect, they should have protected the 1 x daily (sometimes 2) instead of the a destination that is a focus city for them and represents a healthy percetange of their traffic.

Okay. I guess that is what they should have done.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-07 23:13:59 and read 4302 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 51):
Frontier's CEO. At an AGM.

Do you have the actual context or is this from memory?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MSYtristar
Posted 2006-07-07 23:36:16 and read 4270 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 54):
You are saying, in effect, they should have protected the 1 x daily (sometimes 2) instead of the a destination that is a focus city for them and represents a healthy percetange of their traffic.

Okay. I guess that is what they should have done.

I think they could have done both. I never said that CUN didn't make financial sense for the airline. But they could EASILY be flying down here with one flight a day, and they'd be making money on it, like they were doing before the storm. But, I guess they figured starting LAX-SFO for instance (a route with intense competition) would show them a better return on investment. Whatever.

Who knows, perhaps F9 will return here in the Fall? It would be a smart business decision on their part.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-07 23:38:36 and read 4270 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 55):
Do you have the actual context or is this from memory?

It was recorded, I'm sure it is in the archives somewhere.

How are those DEN-FAT loads of Frontier doing?

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-08 00:15:02 and read 4220 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 57):
It was recorded, I'm sure it is in the archives somewhere.

I'll chalk that one up to memory unless you can provide the context.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 57):
How are those DEN-FAT loads of Frontier doing?

Great! Just 29 percentage points worse than UA's DEN/FAT  Silly as of Mar 06.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-08 01:35:54 and read 4167 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 58):
I'll chalk that one up to memory unless you can provide the context.

Or you could bother to do some research.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 58):
Great! Just 29 percentage points worse than UA's DEN/FAT   as of Mar 06.

Really? March 2006?

So - do I believe you - or Fresno Airport?

http://www.fresno.gov/flyfresno/load...0LOAD%20FACTORS%20March%202006.pdf

mariner

[Edited 2006-07-08 01:39:30]

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-08 03:36:40 and read 4091 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 59):
So - do I believe you - or Fresno Airport?

I meant average load factor as of March 06 as in from the start of operation through March 06.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 59):
Or you could bother to do some research.

You have no idea.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-08 03:52:39 and read 4072 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 60):
I meant average load factor as of March 06 as in from the start of operation through March 06.

I really have no idea why you would make that complex statement, since the orginal post, in the original thread, was that the load factor had grown.

Given the figures from Fresno Airport for March, April and May, 2006, one wonders why you would sneer at this growth.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-08 03:58:22 and read 4065 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 59):
Or you could bother to do some research.

There was this from yahoo news:
" the disappointing financial performance of this focus city, which contributed significantly to our loss, led us to adjust our August schedule to appropriately reallocate our resources to better performing opportunities."

Quoting Mariner (Reply 61):
one wonders why you would sneer at this growth.

Who is sneering at the growth? F9 NEEDS growth if DEN/FAT is going to cut it. Right now it's 2/3rds full on an RJ, probably mostly full with connecting traffic. 2/3rds full+RJ+slim local traffic=not good.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-08 04:25:47 and read 4046 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
" the disappointing financial performance of this focus city

"Of this focus city...."

You don't put a date, but since it refers to the August figures, I assume that it was that first August when the disastrous LAX-MSP was cancelled.

Two routes were retained for some little while. Guess which ones.

If it is the following August, it would mean those two routes had been in place for 15 months, which ain't bad, but may, indeed, represent a "disappointing" financial performance.

Part of this being that they saw an opportunity to expand the Mexican services - thus relieving themselves of the "disappointing" financial performance.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 62):
Right now it's 2/3rds full on an RJ,

85.5% (April) and 83.3% (May) is - I think - more than two thirds full.

http://www.fresno.gov/flyfresno/loadfactors.asp

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-08 04:41:54 and read 4029 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 43):
I note that JetBlue - for example - is not adding many transcons in part because of the price of fuel.

Transcons use less fuel per seat mile than short hauls. JetBlue's problem wasn't having too many transcons it was not gearing their cost structure to short hauls and allowing transcons to then reduce it. They instead did the opposite, having rock bottom CASM numbers because of the predominance of transcons and Florida flights and then getting wacked when they started adding a larger number of shorter hauls.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-08 05:03:05 and read 3997 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 64):
Transcons use less fuel per seat mile than short hauls.

I can only go by what Mr. Neeleman has said as to the reasons why JetBlue is not adding so many transcons.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-08 05:08:56 and read 3991 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 65):
I can only go by what Mr. Neeleman has said as to the reasons why JetBlue is not adding so many transcons.

Well, Mr. Neeleman needs some excuse for the worsening performance of the airline. Actually, if you look at what they are doing, they are adding a lot of routes that are within but on the longer side of the E190's range band, which is essentially the same thing as what they were doing with the A320 early on. That is also a way to keep the CASM of the E190, which has hurt their cost structure immensely (not a dig at the 190, which is a great airplane, just the realities of flying a significantly smaller plane), lower than when it entered service on the BOS-JFK shuttle.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Ikramerica
Posted 2006-07-08 09:03:30 and read 3926 times.

Quoting Travelin man (Reply 42):
Actually, last time F9 DID advertise on TV in the LA market. I remember the "talking tails" commercials (where the various animals on the F9 tails said stuff to each other).

Yep, remember those ads on LA TV. I liked them, they stuck with me, and were in fact one reason I considered them and flew them on a last minute flight to IAH rather than CO. Even though it was a DEN connection, I gave them a shot. Like the airline, not the delays in DEN due to weather nor the lack of frequency between LAX and DEN making connections difficult (and long)...

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-08 20:17:12 and read 3884 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 63):
Part of this being that they saw an opportunity to expand the Mexican services - thus relieving themselves of the "disappointing" financial performance.

"We saw other opportunities" is a euphamism for "it sucked".

Quoting Mariner (Reply 63):
85.5% (April) and 83.3% (May) is - I think - more than two thirds full.

Again, I said through March 06. I haven't seen the official numbers for April and May yet.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 64):
Transcons use less fuel per seat mile than short hauls.

Up to a certain point, yes. As the aircraft goes farther, it needs to carry so much fuel that you start to lose any marginal benefit from sending it so far. High gas prices disproportionately affect transcons more than shorthauls.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-08 20:44:19 and read 3840 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 68):
"We saw other opportunities" is a euphamism for "it sucked".

I don't dispute that.

However, LAX-MCI and LAX-STL did not - originally - totally suck. Or why did they retain them for a year, when they had cancelled the others?

Easier to cancel everything.

Those two routes got worse as the price of fuel went up.

Unless you are claiming that the then continually rising price of fuel had no effect on the profit/loss equation?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 68):
Again, I said through March 06. I haven't seen the official numbers for April and May yet.

But even in March '06, UAX was not 29 points ahead of Frontier. Unless you are claiming that the Fresno Airport figures are wrong?

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that you are using a metric of Frontier's total time at FAT - seven months to March '06. This metric is so arcane one wonders who would find it of value.

What would you do in the case of comparatives with BA at LHR - amalgamate their figures over the past 60 years?

So I ask you again - why do you sneer at Frontier's growth at FAT?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 58):
Great! Just 29 percentage points worse than UA's DEN/FAT   as of Mar 06.

And if you claim that you are not sneering, why the green smiley face?

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-08 21:01:53 and read 3815 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 69):
If I understand you correctly, you are claiming that you are using a metric of Frontier's total time at FAT - seven months to March '06. This metric is so arcane one wonders who would find it of value.

Normally I'd use an "arcane" average of the last twelve months. However in my two second glance at F9 vs UA performance in the market I just averaged the load factor over the time that F9 was operating the route.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-08 21:15:34 and read 3798 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 70):
However in my two second glance at F9 vs UA performance in the market

The danger of two second glances, perhaps?

It took me more than two seconds to remind myself how long Frontier had been at FAT - since 2004 or 2005.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2006-07-09 03:52:37 and read 3668 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 68):
Again, I said through March 06. I haven't seen the official numbers for April and May yet.



Quoting Mariner (Reply 63):
85.5% (April) and 83.3% (May) is - I think - more than two thirds full.

http://www.fresno.gov/flyfresno/load...s.asp

Correct, F9 has done very well the last 2 months at Fresno. In fact I posted that info in a couple of threads the last few months so if someone was tracking it they would see it.
http://www2.airliners.net/discussion...ion/read.main/2862777/6/#ID2862777
http://www2.airliners.net/discussion...ion/read.main/2841323/6/#ID2841323

But for comparison here are LFs for just part of the FAT airlines again.
***May 2006
Mexicana had 85.8% LF
UAX (to LAX, SFO, DEN combined) was 84.1%
Frontier JetExpress was 83.3%
AA to DFW was 81.9%

***April 2006
Mexicana 94.1%
Frontier JetExpress 85.5%
American 80.7%
UAX 78.7%

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-10 16:40:56 and read 3479 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 71):
The danger of two second glances, perhaps?

Nope--doesn't change the fact that in those first seven months F9 was almost 30 percentage points behind UA.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2006-07-10 18:02:39 and read 3441 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 73):
Nope--doesn't change the fact that in those first seven months F9 was almost 30 percentage points behind UA.

Hhhmmm. Let's see. F9 vs. UAX load factors. I'm not sure what numbers you are using but FAT puts out their reports with all of UAX's flights combined, not breaking out UAX on FAT-DEN.

But even using that info I see something different.

In its first 9 months, Frontier had load factors at FAT higher than UAX in 4 of them and nearly tied UAX in one other.

Additionally Frontier exceeded the average load factor for all airlines at FAT in 5 out of 9 months.

So I don't see how you get that 30 points. Even averaging the average load factors (which is mathematically inaccurate) there is only a 2% difference.

Here is the comparison:
Month Frontier UAX all FAT airlines
Sep-05 63.7% 52.4% 61.6%
Oct-05 68.2% 77.4% 71.0%
Nov-05 77.1% 73.1% 70.4%
Dec-05 66.8% 71.8% 74.2%
Jan-06 49.0% 65.9% 64.8%
Feb-06 53.8% 64.5% 62.5%
Mar-06 66.5% 64.3% 64.8%
Apr-06 85.5% 78.7% 73.6%
May-06 83.3% 84.1% 77.2%

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-10 18:09:14 and read 3431 times.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 74):
Hhhmmm. Let's see. F9 vs. UAX load factors. I'm not sure what numbers you are using but FAT puts out their reports with all of UAX's flights combined, not breaking out UAX on FAT-DEN.

DOT stats.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 74):
Hhhmmm. Let's see. F9 vs. UAX load factors. I'm not sure what numbers you are using but FAT puts out their reports with all of UAX's flights combined, not breaking out UAX on FAT-DEN.

DEN/FAT runs a very high load factor, around 90, whereas LAX, SFO, and the prop stuff run much lower load factors in the low 60s/high 50s. When you average it all together, which as you said is meaningless, it comes out to the mid 60s.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2006-07-10 18:22:23 and read 3421 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 75):
DOT stats.

But DOT has only released through Q3 2005. That would be 1 month of Frontier info. That sounds like you are comparing Frontier loads from the FAT reports against older UA info. Is that what you are doing?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 75):
and the prop stuff run much lower load factors in the low 60s/high 50s.

So if 2/3 on F9 is horrible then UA has a problem on their props load factors???  

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 75):
When you average it all together, which as you said is meaningless,

No I said averaging an average is inaccurate.

You need to go back to the original numbers of seats flown and seats occupied, add them for the months you want to average then divide. Otherwise your number is inaccurate. It would be like rounding a number then rounding it up again.

[Edited 2006-07-10 18:25:47]

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-10 20:31:20 and read 3350 times.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 76):
But DOT has only released through Q3 2005. That would be 1 month of Frontier info. That sounds like you are comparing Frontier loads from the FAT reports against older UA info. Is that what you are doing?

The DOT data currently goes through March 2006; F9 has been flying DEN/FAT since September 2005. That's seven months.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 76):
So if 2/3 on F9 is horrible then UA has a problem on their props load factors???

My guess is yes, without knowing much of the prop costs and relationship w/ UA. They are probably unprofitable on a segment basis but I would imagine contribute well on connecting segments.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 76):
No I said averaging an average is inaccurate.

If something is inaccurate then isn't it also meaningless? Do you ever use a number that is inaccurate to prove a point?

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-10 20:46:30 and read 3335 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 73):
Nope--doesn't change the fact that in those first seven months F9 was almost 30 percentage points behind UA.

But not in March. And not in April. And not in May.

Your claim may be, in itself, accurate - but it does not paint an accurate picture of what is happening at FAT.

Nor have you yet explained why you are so determined to belittle Frontier's record at FAT.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2006-07-10 21:01:22 and read 3316 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 68):
Up to a certain point, yes. As the aircraft goes farther, it needs to carry so much fuel that you start to lose any marginal benefit from sending it so far.

An aircraft flying within its range band, where it bulks out on passengers and cargo and can still fly the route, is not losing that "marginal" benefit. Also, your characterization of the benefit given by transcons as marginal is incorrect, especially given what has happened with jetBlue

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 67):
not the delays in DEN due to weather

Are you thinking of Stapleton or something? DEN is now very rarely weather delayed because of its size and infrastructure

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2006-07-10 21:27:08 and read 3283 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 77):
The DOT data currently goes through March 2006;

Right, I was thinking of the airfare data. I'll have to update my T-100 database, been too busy to play with the numbers so I haven't bothered for a while.

Of course we are comparing a new route vs. a more mature route with several years under its belt. Most business plans for any industry are written to allow for a growth period of a new product or location.

Also Frontier has been seeing growth. The linear trend line of the load factors is upward not flat or down. That says more then just an average of 7 months.

I'm more interested in seeing if Frontier stays at the higher numbers they are currently seeing or not. It is possible that the route is now maturing to match UAX.

And we still don't have a good comparison of yields between the 2. Or the impact on the overall network.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 77):
My guess is yes, without knowing much of the prop costs and relationship w/ UA. They are probably unprofitable on a segment basis but I would imagine contribute well on connecting segments.

So couldn't Frontier's Fresno passengers also contribute well on connecting segments? In reply 62 you talk as if local traffic is more important. But local traffic from FAT to LAX and SFO is also limited.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 77):
If something is inaccurate then isn't it also meaningless? Do you ever use a number that is inaccurate to prove a point?

Inaccurate does not mean meaningless.

Actually using inaccurate numbers happens quite often in the business world. That is why reports and memos come with source info, disclaimers, qualifying statements, and footnotes.

An inaccurate number explaining why or how it is inaccurate can still be useful in decision making. As a quick example, think of the statistical margin of error mentioned in polls and surveys. The survey info can be considered inaccurate but it is not meaningless.

A meaningless number would have nothing that it is based on or would not be explained as to why it has problems.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 78):
Nor have you yet explained why you are so determined to belittle Frontier's record at FAT.

Good question since this seems to be an airport he likes to pick on.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-10 22:10:14 and read 3247 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 78):
But not in March. And not in April. And not in May.

I don't know how many other ways I can state that I only looked at data through March 06.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 78):
Nor have you yet explained why you are so determined to belittle Frontier's record at FAT.

I'll do that right after you explain your blissful detachment from reality when it comes to Frontier Airlines.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 79):
Also, your characterization of the benefit given by transcons as marginal is incorrect

Marginal as in "on the margin" not as in "immaterial". The point remains that high fuel prices disproportionately affect longhauls, particularly segments that are close to the edge of a plane's range.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 80):
Of course we are comparing a new route vs. a more mature route with several years under its belt....

All true. All I'm saying is that a 2/3rds full RJ, at an LCC, that's probably full of connecting traffic, and is subsidized is probably not a recipe for success. Any improvement is obviously welcome.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 80):
So couldn't Frontier's Fresno passengers also contribute well on connecting segments? In reply 62 you talk as if local traffic is more important. But local traffic from FAT to LAX and SFO is also limited.

Local traffic is generally higher yielding traffic while connecting traffic, particularly at an LCC is generally low yield. It could very well be doing wonderful things for the F9 system.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 80):
Inaccurate does not mean meaningless.

I'll agree to disagree.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 80):
Good question since this seems to be an airport he likes to pick on.

You and Mariner should know that pointing out what I, or anyone, see as faults in an airline or airport doesn't mean that I'm "picking on" said airport or airline.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-10 22:22:31 and read 3234 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 81):
I don't know how many other ways I can state that I only looked at data through March 06.

I understand that. Which doesn't resolve the problem of March.

Your average would lead anyone to assume - which was your clear intention - that Frontier is underperforming UAX at FAT.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 81):
I'll do that right after you explain your blissful detachment from reality when it comes to Frontier Airlines.

"Blissful", certainly, but how "detached from reality"? I own shares in the airline which I buy (on good news) and sell (on bad).

I have never lost money over a period of seven years, which is one of the many reasons I love the airline.

There. I've explained. Your turn.

mariner

[Edited 2006-07-10 22:25:43]

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-11 00:12:20 and read 3135 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 82):
Your average would lead anyone to assume - which was your clear intention - that Frontier is underperforming UAX at FAT.

...which, without a doubt, is 100% true for the first seven months of operation.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-11 02:41:59 and read 3075 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 83):
...which, without a doubt, is 100% true for the first seven months of operation.

I doubt that I would base any present claims or forward decisions on that information.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2006-07-11 03:05:26 and read 3059 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 83):
...which, without a doubt, is 100% true for the first seven months of operation.

However as I said before most businesses realize that a market takes time to develop. The problem is only if it doesn't develop or takes longer than expected. We don't know what Frontier expected to see and how long they thought it would take the route to develop.

I think it is hard to say it is underperforming if Frontier expected it to take time to develop. We don't know if they consider it underperforming or not.

We also don't know what else Frontier is considering that might be more strategic about the route. FAT tagged on to Mexico flights out of LAX, SAN, or others? FAT direct to Mexico?

And we also don't know what yields Frontier is getting from FAT. Fewer but higher paying passengers? Or lower paying?

UAX to Denver started from Fresno in October 2000. The route went up and down in terms of frequency in the first 5 years before the schedule finally has gotten consistent.

Mexicana at FAT started strong from the start, surprising even their route planners. They expected it would be a while (they are quoted as saying a year) before they needed more capacity. Instead they are now trying to figure out how to get more capacity in the market.

So it is not an exact science.

There is probably some normal time figure that a route planner could tell us is used to determine how long a route should take to develop. I would guess that it is something like 6 to 12 months. Allegiant seems to use a shorter figure but most airlines seem to give a route longer before they make a decision to cancel service.

The reason I say 12 months is that most incentives airports use to attract an airline to a new route (such as waived fees) are for a year. If it took longer I would assume the airlines would hold out for a longer time frame.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 81):
I'll agree to disagree.

That's fine. It took me years to be comfortable with knowing I had to use inaccurate numbers. Sometimes that is what you have to work with. Now I can manage the risk in decisions if I know where the problems with the info are. But they are better than meaningless numbers.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 81):
You and Mariner should know that pointing out what I, or anyone, see as faults in an airline or airport doesn't mean that I'm "picking on" said airport or airline.

No it usually isn't. But there are lots of airlines and airports and routes out there. You seem to be paying attention to this route in particular for some reason. In fact enough attention to bring it up on several threads. Just makes me wonder why.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mymorningsong
Posted 2006-07-11 14:55:48 and read 2953 times.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 12):
Basically what does Frontier compete on? Fares UA has matched, frequency its not even close to UAs offering. And I doubt they get people just because of having TV on a 50min flight.

I flew SFO-LAX on F9 recently. I didn't realize that UA and AA had dropped pricing to match. A quick check of my booking system showed AA @ 259 RT and UA @ 285. Those are down from 400+. Yeah competition!

UA does have more frequency, but my experience with them is that they often cancel flights on this route and consolidate flights. I don't know why it is, but they seem to make flying intrastate a complex task. Maybe its the WN mindset in me that expects everybody to do a reverse fire drill to get situated. Assigned seating isn't that big a deal for me on a short flight; I actually prefer it because I have a better chance at keeping the seat next to me free.

AA only flies not-so-Super 80's, which I dislike.

WN is great with its frequency, but you have to go through OAK.

F9's TV isn't a huge thing, but its really nice to have because its also the 15 minutes of waiting to back away from the gate.

So to me, F9 competes on nicer/newer planes (some of UA's 757's feel pretty dirty), TV, easier to deal with security checkin at lax, and variety of a different airline experience. Admittedly the flying public couldn't care much about this stuff, just fare price. With all these fares becoming refundable type flights (whereas before you had to pay $100 to change a flight), now I'm likely to fly SFO more often than OAK knowing that I have two (3 if you count AA) options. F9 will get likely get my ticket if their flight times are somewhat convenient to my travel schedule. I have been very impressed with them when flying to Denver. UA on the other hand has annoyed me at various times and Premier hasn't really done much for me.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: EXAAUADL
Posted 2006-07-11 15:12:23 and read 2940 times.

I have to honest. I think F9 has either run out of gate space in DEN, doesnt have enough new market opportunities from DEN or this is a stupid retaliation against WN coming into DEN. Clearly F9 has too many planes coming and not enough place to put them profitably at least in the short term.

I dont think it will work well. There is really nothing to win here( market is already well served and F9 cant really leverage LAX-SFO to support the rest of their system). This isnt like AA entering the LAX-SFO market with low frequency. AA has lots of loyal flyers in the SFO and LAX areas and needed ot fil lthat gap to kepp them from defecting to UAL.

If they have to place aircraft somewhere in the short term until they get more gates in DEN, there are worse places than LAX-SFO.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-11 17:15:47 and read 2897 times.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 85):
In fact enough attention to bring it up on several threads. Just makes me wonder why.

You're asking the wrong person. Mariner brought it up in this thread and I think I've mentioned it in one other thread.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 57):
How are those DEN-FAT loads of Frontier doing?



Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 85):
It took me years to be comfortable with knowing I had to use inaccurate numbers.

Yeah, I've seen those airport presentations with "inaccurate" numbers  Silly.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 85):
Fewer but higher paying passengers?

Not likely...especially on an LCC's RJ.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2006-07-11 19:51:39 and read 2847 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 88):
Yeah, I've seen those airport presentations with "inaccurate" numbers.

Sounds like thats politics not business.

I just know the industries I consult in deal with numbers that are not 100% accurate all the time. Statisticians have margin of error. Engineers work with tolerance. etc. Its just a fact of business life. Many times I've told a client this is a "quick and dirty" set of numbers we are looking at to explain that it has inaccuracy.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 88):
Not likely...especially on an LCC's RJ.

Then you may not know the Fresno market. Leisure travellers book ahead through LAX, SJC, OAK, SMF, and SFO for better fares. It leaves a higher % of airport passengers to be later-booking business travel. Fresno's passenger profile is different than many other airports.

Also there is a large drop in FAT passengers in Jan/Feb. There is roughly a 20-25% drop in business during those 2 months.

The high potential for fog delays in those months cause many people to choose not to travel unless they have to. Airport wide load factors every year for those 2 months are in the low 60%s with the highest airline only hitting in the low 70s. Then it returns to a higher normal. You can see the pattern every year.

So you are also being skewed by something that is normal at FAT, just like some airports are seasonal for other reasons. More important to look at what happens over a full year. I'd be cautious making judgment calls about a route that is still maturing when 2/7 of your info is impacted by a seasonal drop.

[Edited 2006-07-11 20:09:53]

[Edited 2006-07-11 20:10:23]

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-11 20:42:57 and read 2806 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 88):
Not likely...especially on an LCC's RJ.

Be funny if they went mainline and put the A318 on the route.

But then again - the RJ's are owned and operated by Horizon, with Horizon staff, configured for Horizon service - frequently called in to sub on Horizon routes.

And speaking of inaccurate information:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 81):
I'll do that right after you explain your blissful detachment from reality when it comes to Frontier Airlines.

I explained my affection for Frontier. Did I miss your post?

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: EmSeeEye
Posted 2006-07-11 21:06:18 and read 2782 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 90):
Be funny if they went mainline and put the A318 on the route.

I wonder if a 318 would attract more pax as opposed to the CRJ.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-11 21:35:07 and read 2758 times.

Quoting EmSeeEye (Reply 91):
I wonder if a 318 would attract more pax as opposed to the CRJ.

Difficult to know, a sort of chicken and egg situation, I guess. DEN-FAT started slowly and has built.

DEN-DAY and DEN-GEG have both gone mainline for the summer, but in each case, the morning flight is the A319 and the evening flight is A318.

Assuming the Fresno Airport figures are within a reasonable percentage of accuracy, they're the kind of load factors that would justify mainline - in summer, much less likely in winter.

Would more people fly the mainline aircraft? The Horizon service has a very fine reputation and gets a good rap.

At the same time, the switch to mainline at the other stations seems to have worked out pretty well.

So - more frequency with the RJ's, perhaps, or more capacity with mainline?

People with a lot more knowledge than I are paid to make these decisions.

 Smile

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2006-07-11 21:54:30 and read 2744 times.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 89):
Leisure travellers book ahead through LAX, SJC, OAK, SMF, and SFO for better fares. It leaves a higher % of airport passengers to be later-booking business travel

They have so many high yield business passengers that they need to subsidize additional competition?

Quoting Mariner (Reply 90):
Did I miss your post?

There is no answer. I can't help it if every criticism of Frontier is taken as a personal slight. Only you can talk yourself down from that ledge.

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-11 22:01:32 and read 2737 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 93):
There is no answer. I can't help it if every criticism of Frontier is taken as a personal slight.

Oh, that's just silly. I know you are more intelligent that that.

Anyone who happily admits they sell Frontier stock on bad news is hardly taking criticism as a "personal slight".

Money - the making and losing of it - is a great truth teller.

mariner

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: FATFlyer
Posted 2006-07-11 22:14:36 and read 2725 times.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 92):
Assuming the Fresno Airport figures are within a reasonable percentage of accuracy,

Historically they match to the DOT figures that Maverick used.

Quoting Mariner (Reply 92):
DEN-FAT started slowly and has built.

At DAY weren't they the only westbound flight?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 93):
They have so many high yield business passengers that they need to subsidize additional competition?

LOL, spinning what I said?

No, they lose too many passengers (particularly leisure/fare-sensitive pax) to other airports due to high fares. Even today's San Jose newspaper had a Fresno resident asking about traffic delays driving from Fresno to SJC to catch a flight. The 3+ hour drive with traffic must be worth it in fare savings. So FAT is trying to get fares down to be competitive. Bottom of this link:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/15011817.htm

Topic: RE: Frontier LAX-SFO Any Updates?
Username: Mariner
Posted 2006-07-11 22:33:03 and read 2707 times.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 95):
At DAY weren't they the only westbound flight?

Yes, and that certainly helped.

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 95):
So FAT is trying to get fares down to be competitive.

As a collector of airline trivia, here's a curious little stat that I didn't know:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060710/lam092.html?.v=55

The average annual income of Frontier passengers is $99,000.

I don't know how this compares with other airlines, but it seems high - well over double the national average.

So I guess there is a reason that "Wealth" is showing their program on Frontier.

 Smile

mariner


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/