Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5645847/

Topic: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: knope2001
Posted 2012-12-28 11:37:15 and read 5897 times.

With the unconventional integration of AirTran into Southwest, there have been a number of new and/or unconventional markets added. These include:

--Southwest adding flights to the AirTran Atlanta hub, both to Southwest hubs and some lesser Southwest destinations.

--AirTran adding flights to the Denver WN hub

--Southwest taking over some AirTran markets in Milwaukee

--AirTran adding international flying from Southwest strongholds, including some domesitc respositioning flights to get aircraft to those cities.

While it is important to remember that onboard loads DO NOT directly correlate with relative profit and loss, it's not a meaningless metric. Factors such as fare and traffic composition are also key, of course. But in the contemporary fare and cost environment, as loads get softer it's hard to suggest they are anything but money losers. Loads in the 30's or 40's...or even weaker...could in theory be moneymakers if yields are high enough, but it's just not very likely. Markets with loads in the 90's sometimes still lose money if yields are crappy enough.

The latest available onboard loads for domestic flights are through September 2012. Here are loads for markets I find of particular interest.

Atlanta Southwest Flights

Baltimore
74.9% February
77.9% March
79.8% April
76.9% May
80.7% June
66.2% July
66.2% August
66.6% September

Denver
74.4% February
78.7% March
73.8% April
77.2% May
80.9% June
85.8% July
77.5% August
69.7% September

Houston
78.3% February
81.7% March
77.8% April
79.6% May
79.2% June
69.6% July
71.5% August
74.5% September

Las Vegas
81.3% March
76.7% April
80.8% May
90.9% June
80.8% July
82.0% August
66.9% September

Los Angeles
88.8% June
93.0% July
90.3% August
69.7% September

Chicago
66.2% February
76.0% March
80.2% April
78.9% May
79.0% June
69.0% July
52.8% August
53.9% September

Norfolk
58.1% August
43.4% September

Phoenix
91.2% March
80.7% April
83.1% May
95.3% June
95.2% July
81.0% August
68.0% September

Louisville
42.6% August
33.5% September

Seattle
88.5% August
61.5% September

Austin
59.3% February
71.9% March
73.2% April
72.9% May
85.8% June
81.0% July
65.1% August
49.4% September

I listed Austin last is because Austin seems to benefit heavily from thru traffic going to Dallas. In addition to the onboard loads in the monthly T100 stats, there's another set of stats listing the number of passengers by airline who flew between two points without changing planes. Here are those numbers for one way traffic departing ATL on Southwest:

2454 AUS February
1822 DAL February
4779 AUS March
2938 DAL March
4298 AUS April
3380 DAL April
3823 AUS May
3218 DAL May
3686 AUS June
3844 DAL June
3757 AUS July
4291 DAL July
3242 AUS August
4321 DAL August
2830 AUS September
3122 DAL September

In the month of May (for example) Southwest in Atlanta boarded 3,823 passengers who flew to Austin without a change of planes, and 3,218 who flew to Dallas without a change of planes. Even though Southwest does not fly nonstop between Atlanta and Dallas, we can see from these stats how many people flew on 1-stop ATL-xxx-DAL trips with no plane change. Because most (but not all) of the ATL-xxx-DAL flights stopped in Austin, it seems ATL-AUS loads reflect a lot of Dallas-bound traffic onboard.

Also, it may be no surprise that some of the ATL frequencies moved to Southwest have been returned to AirTran.

In the Southwest hub city of Denver, AirTran added flights to La Guardia, Dayton and Akron. Southwest took those markets over in mid August. The switch to an airlines with connectivity at Denver clearly made a difference, with late August and September (slower times of year) largely surpassed the summer peak loads.

Denver New Markets started by AirTran

Akron
67.3% June AirTran
87.5% July AirTran
83.6% August AirTran
87.8% August Southwest
87.3% September Southwest

Dayton
35.4% June AirTran
59.1% July AirTran
69.3% August AirTran
86.3% August Southwest
78.2% September Southwest

LaGuardia
74.2% June AirTran
86.8% July AirTran
82.8% August AirTran
93.7% August Southwest
82.5% September Southwest


In the AirTran hub city of Milwaukee, Southwest took over certain flying in mid August.

Milwaukee Markets Transitioning to Southwest

Los Angeles
81.9% August
60.3% September

LaGuardia (Southwest 2x/day....AirTran kept 3x/day at that point)
37.3% August
34.5% September

Seattle
91.5% August
82.0% September

It's noteworthy that Southwest's schedule in MKE allowed some connecting flow to/from Seattle, but far less to/from LAX.

On the flip side, one of the Milwaukee frequencies to the Southwest hub of Phoenix was transferred to AirTran, operated as a red eye. AirTran has run MKE-PHX for a few years but not during the summer, and nobody has run a redeye MKE-PHX-MKE before, except for AirTran dabbling with one a time or two during the spring break peak period -- definitely not in summer or early fall. Here's how that daily redeye did for AirTran:

MKE-PHX-MKE AirTran Redeye
59.8% May
79.5% June
70.5% July
57.0% August
26.0% September

At the same time that Southwest started taking over more of the flying at Milwaukee, AirTran increased their MKE-MSP flying from 3x to 4x in September. MKE-MSP relies heavily on connecting traffic, and the devolution of connectiity at MKE appeared to be in play. In spite of increasing the flights from 3x to 4x, AirTrna carried fewer total passengers

AirTran MKE-MSP-MKE September 2011 vs 2012

2011
184 flights
16,497 passengers
76.6% load factor

2012
220 flights
16,011 passengers
61.3% load factor

Another transition from FL to WN was in Akron, where CAK-MKE was replaced by CAK-MDW in mid August. In this case, loads did not shoot up with access to a WN hub.

Akron
47.2% January MKE FL
47.7% February MKE FL
50.1% March MKE FL
64.1% April MKE FL
76.1% May MKE FL
74.7% June MKE FL
70.5% July MKE FL
72.4% August MKE FL
47.1% August MDW WN
56.4% September MDW WN

Part of that may be due to the end of summer / fall traffic slump, and also to the 20 extra seats on a 737 versus 717. But at least the first six weeks of MDW replacing MKE wasn't exactly a barn burner here.

New AirTran international flying at Southwest strongholds of Orange County, Austin, and San Antonio included some domestic legs added for aircraft positioning. Here's how those did.

Orange County had daily FL nonstops to SFO and LAS
San Francisco
53.8% June
48,6% July
53.0% August
33.0% September

Las Vegas
29.8% June
31.3% July
32.3% August
30.2% September

Austin had FL flights to Houston about 4x/week
12.3% May
16.3% June
12.8% July
13.0% August
14.5% September

San Antonio had FL flights to Houston about 3x/week
5.1% May
6.5% June
6.7% July
6.4% August
5.8% September

Some of these tag flights (like SFO-SNA) dovetailed better with international connections, while others definitely did not.

Finally international stats are out through June, so the new AirTran international flights are just the first month or two. But we have that bit to know so far:

Austin-Cancun
71.1% May
92.0% June

San Antonio-Cancun
59.8% May
86.0% June

San Antonio-Mexico City
62.3% May
75.0% June

Orange County-Mexico City
64.8% June

Orange County-Cabo
75.3% June

Again, remember that loads alone are only half the picture in knowing how things are going financially. The lack of code sharing is likely responsible for somewhat tepid results in filling seats in many of the places FL added served to WN strongholds and vice versa. Code sharing is said to be on the horizon, although it sounds like it will be "limited" at least at first. That should offer some help in places where the lack of connectivity has hurt.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ADent
Posted 2012-12-28 11:49:45 and read 5872 times.

5.1% of 137 seats is 7. That is about 91 people for the month.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2012-12-28 11:59:49 and read 5828 times.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Norfolk
58.1% August
43.4% September

Bad as this number is, it's not so bad when you consider WN was relying mostly on O+D traffic plus competing against DL who has significant capacity on this route. If WN can fill half the plane with O+D on a route like ORF-ATL, they might do better in ATL than many might expect.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Triple7LR
Posted 2012-12-28 12:20:19 and read 5765 times.

For the ATL markets in sept the loads all dropped drastically. I think it's just a combination of two things, the end of summer travel and obviously to much capacity. As for the other markets they must be extremely high yielding with those poor load factors.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: enilria
Posted 2012-12-28 12:44:26 and read 5690 times.

Great post!

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Louisville
42.6% August
33.5% September
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Norfolk
58.1% August
43.4% September

ROTFL

No surprise here, but guess what? This is what the whole ATL hub looks like without banked connections. Atlanta must have well-timed Florida connects to carry volume. This is an embarrassment. Also, PHF-ATL was dropped to fly 50% loads.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Akron
47.2% January MKE FL
47.7% February MKE FL
50.1% March MKE FL
64.1% April MKE FL
76.1% May MKE FL
74.7% June MKE FL
70.5% July MKE FL
72.4% August MKE FL
47.1% August MDW WN
56.4% September MDW WN

Been saying this for a while. Part of the problem is that CLE-ORD is hub2hub for UA, so WN probably gets no local traffic on this to speak of.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Austin had FL flights to Houston about 4x/week
12.3% May
16.3% June
12.8% July
13.0% August
14.5% September
San Antonio had FL flights to Houston about 3x/week
5.1% May
6.5% June
6.7% July
6.4% August
5.8% September

HOLY F---
That defies all comment. If anyone said that the merger was going according to plan...that's staggering. The lack of code share is costing them buckets of money.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-28 12:53:15 and read 5654 times.

Good post. It'll be interesting to see how these are impacted with the start of the code-share.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: knope2001
Posted 2012-12-28 17:56:01 and read 5329 times.

Quoting ADent (Reply 1):
5.1% of 137 seats is 7. That is about 91 people for the month.

Yup -- late May through September they operated 102 flights and carried 879 people.

It's important to note that those positioning flights to support international flying (like HOU-AUS or LAS-SNA) are not high frequency -- the Orange County flights are once daily, AUS-HOU and SAT-HOU were about 1/2 of the time. But the international flights they enabled were also low frequency. Not only do those international legs have to turn a profit, but the profit has to be awfully big to offset the certain losses suffered on those positioning legs.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 2):
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):Norfolk
58.1% August
43.4% September
Bad as this number is, it's not so bad when you consider WN was relying mostly on O+D traffic plus competing against DL who has significant capacity on this route. If WN can fill half the plane with O+D on a route like ORF-ATL, they might do better in ATL than many might expect.

Certainly true. However Southwest did run thru and (limited) connecting flows at ATL. For example, in August the mid-day SDF-ATL flight continued on to Houston. Because it was the only "thru" SDF-HOU flights offered by Southwest in August, we can tell that the 420 passengers reported to the DoT as flying Southwest from SDF to HOU were on that SDF-ATL-HOU routing. They flew 20 SDF-ATL-HOU flights in August, and carried 470 Louisville-Houston passengers, for an average of 23.5 thru passengers on that particular SDF-ATL flight each day. We can't tell anything about connecting flows from these stats -- for example, a STL-ATL passenger might have connected in Louisville, and that would show up as a local SDF-ATL passenger. But we can weed out thru passengers to get a somewhat better idea of the tru number of local passengers Southwest served in this period. Another example of this is ORF-ATL-LAX operated as a thru flight. Southwest operated 38 ORF-ATL-LAX thru flights in August and carried 885 passengers ORF-LAX -- 23.3 thrus per flights on average.

We can indentify the total thru passengers in these markets and include that in the evaluation. These numbers below are toals are combined to+from at ATL from the start of Southwest service through September:

Nortolk
39,319 total seats
19,368 total seats occupied on those legs
15,610 seats occupied on those legs by people boarding in ATL and deplaning in ORF, or vice versa
3,758 seats on those legs were occuped by thur passengers to or from another destination
80.6 of every 100 onboard passengers boarded in ATL and deplaned in ORF or vice versa
19.4 of every 100 onboard passengers were "thru" to or from another destination
49.3% total onboard load factor
39.7% onboard load factor if thru passengers are excluded

Louisville
38,804 total seats
14,435 total seats occupied on those legs
11,292 seats occupied on those legs by people boarding in ATL and deplaning in SDF, or vice versa
3,143 seats on those legs were occupied by thru passengers to or from another destination
78.2 of every 100 onboard passengers boarded in ATL and deplaned in SDF or vice versa
22.7 of every 100 onboard passengers were "thru" to or from another destination
37.2% total onboard load factor
29.1% onboard load factor if thru passengers are excluded

Austin
113,115 total seats
78,949 total seats occupied on those legs
53,484 seats occupied on those legs by people boarding in ATL and deplaning in SDF, or vice versa
25,465 seats on those legs were occupied by thru passengers to or from another destination
67.7 of every 100 onboard passengers boarded in ATL and deplaned in AUS or vice versa
32.3 of every 100 onboard passengers were "thru" to or from another destination
69.8% total onboard load factor
47.3% onboard load factor if thru passengers are excluded

Again, note that what's shown in these stats as "local" are just those who got on in ATL and got off in AUS or vice versa. Someone who really flew ORF-AUS with a connection in Atlanta would look like a local ORF-ATL passenger and a local ATL-AUS passenger. Same with an ATL-ELP passenger who connected in AUS, for example. But we can tell the thru passengers and exclude them to get an idea of how many locals are onboard.

I don't know typically how many onboard locals is routine for Southwest -- if they are carrying 35 true locals on the average SDF-ATL flight, I'm not sure if that's right in line with expectations. If so, then when they can put 75 more connections and thurs onboard (from a fully integrated Atlanta hub) it will be great. Or....does that fall short of the norm for Southwest? But it is a good point to note that they are filling these seats at ATL without benefit of a lot of connecting flow there.

Quoting enilria (Reply 4):
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):Akron
47.2% January MKE FL
47.7% February MKE FL
50.1% March MKE FL
64.1% April MKE FL
76.1% May MKE FL
74.7% June MKE FL
70.5% July MKE FL
72.4% August MKE FL
47.1% August MDW WN
56.4% September MDW WN
Been saying this for a while. Part of the problem is that CLE-ORD is hub2hub for UA, so WN probably gets no local traffic on this to speak of.

That could well be part of it. Also, I can't help but wonder how much might be the CAK market's affinity for AirTran and the relative foreign status of Southwest, including the need to book at southwest.com. When it came to Akron-Milwaukee, even through the true local market isn't very large, they received plenty of spillover of PIT-MKE (which recently lost nonstop service) and CLE-MKE (which is high-fare nonstop on UA*). Now flying CAK-MDW, they compete against more frequent UA nonstops to ORD, plus CLE and PIT both have frequent low-fare nonstops to CHI. There is local traffic between Chicago and the Akron/Canton area who prefers using MIdway and/or prefers Southwest, but even some of those passengers are still using CLE or PIT based on schedule and habit instead of CAK.

In general, I get that they couldn't wait forever to come into Atlanta. It's 20 months since the purchase was completed, and if they'd waited until code sharing to integrate, they'd still be waiting. But I can't help but think that the lack of code sharing has hampered plans for integration.

Obviously it's still relatively early -- some of these markets are only two months in. But one wonders if planning decisions were made based on code sharing coming much sooner than it actually is. Adding markets like ATL-HOU and ATL-MDW to feed and link to the biggest Southwest hubs makes sense, even without any linkage to AirTran. But beyond that, a lot of these soft loads are rather predictable and one wonders if they were viewed as "necessary evils" or if they expected things to turn out differently.

[Edited 2012-12-28 17:59:40]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-28 18:32:24 and read 5262 times.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Norfolk
58.1% August
43.4% Septembe
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Louisville
42.6% August
33.5% September
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 2):
Bad as this number is, it's not so bad when you consider WN was relying mostly on O+D traffic plus competing against DL who has significant capacity on this route. If WN can fill half the plane with O+D on a route like ORF-ATL, they might do better in ATL than many might expect.
Quoting enilria (Reply 4):
This is what the whole ATL hub looks like without banked connections

I think Enilria is correct. This is what ATL looks like when you try and run a P2P rather than a hub spoke system. This is much worse than I expected and WN's plan of running 100 plus daily flights will fall flat. Looks like WN in ATL, unless they create connectivity, will have at max 35-45 flights per day. They can serve their "hubs" but it looks like even AUS will go away if DAL-ATL goes nonstop in 2014. It is very possible ATL will see WN service to BWI, MDW, DEN, LAS, PHX, LAX, HOU and that's it. If so WN/FL will go down as one of the industry's great failures.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Baltimore
74.9% February
77.9% March
79.8% April
76.9% May
80.7% June
66.2% July
66.2% August
66.6% September

BWI seemed to tank earlier than the other markets. Did WN/FL add capacity in July? Also the lack of a fall off in Sep makes me wonder if they then pulled the capacity out.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: iowaman
Posted 2012-12-28 18:41:43 and read 5243 times.

Very interestng numbers - thanks for sharing!

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
listed Austin last is because Austin seems to benefit heavily from thru traffic going to Dallas.
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
t seems ATL-AUS loads reflect a lot of Dallas-bound traffic onboard.

I'm guessing ATL-AUS may be replaced by ATL-DAL once Wright Amendement restrictions are lifted.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
LaGuardia (Southwest 2x/day....AirTran kept 3x/day at that point)
37.3% August
34.5% September


An unacceptable use of slots by WN in LGA in my opinion, as they can likely get healthier loads else where. I doubt MKE produces high enough yields to make up for 1/3rd full planes.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Norfolk
58.1% August
43.4% September
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Louisville
42.6% August
33.5% September
Quoting knope2001 (Reply 6):
I don't know typically how many onboard locals is routine for Southwest -- if they are carrying 35 true locals on the average SDF-ATL flight, I'm not sure if that's right in line with expectations. If so, then when they can put 75 more connections and thurs onboard (from a fully integrated Atlanta hub) it will be great. Or....does that fall short of the norm for Southwest?

Definitely not the norm on O&D.

These are great candidates to be dropped in my opinion.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Orange County had daily FL nonstops to SFO and LAS
San Francisco
53.8% June
48,6% July
53.0% August
33.0% September

Las Vegas
29.8% June
31.3% July
32.3% August
30.2% September

Austin had FL flights to Houston about 4x/week
12.3% May
16.3% June
12.8% July
13.0% August
14.5% September

San Antonio had FL flights to Houston about 3x/week
5.1% May
6.5% June
6.7% July
6.4% August
5.8% September
Quoting enilria (Reply 4):
That defies all comment. If anyone said that the merger was going according to plan...that's staggering. The lack of code share is costing them buckets of money

These odd-ball low load-factor flights are an extremely small portion of the daily flights and are a temporary fix to aircraft positioning while the merger is in process. I wouldn't get too concerned.

Edit:

For comparison purposes, maybe Knope would be super kind and could look up the same numbers on the following routes that have been/are being cut. Many of them have been around for years, with some of the others probably supporting a substantial connecting feed on a percentage basis.

BOI-PDX
BUR-DEN
HOU-PHL
EWR-BWI
LGA-BWI
PHL-RDU
ISP-MDW

I'd be curious to see how they compare to the low-performing WN routes out of ATL based on loads and connecting passengers.

[Edited 2012-12-28 18:54:44]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: airliner371
Posted 2012-12-28 18:54:55 and read 5203 times.



Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7):
This is what ATL looks like when you try and run a P2P rather than a hub spoke system.

A brand new airline to the market, just about 30 flights, this is no outlook as to what will happen.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7):
WN's plan of running 100 plus daily flights will fall flat.

You can't make that accusation right now. WN is doing this almost all O&D, starting just to get in the market and be known. No codeshare or anything. One thing no one can do right now is say how WN will do in ATL, the merger may have closed last year and SOC this year but things are just going to start early/mid next year at ATL.

[Edited 2012-12-28 18:57:47]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-28 19:01:24 and read 5181 times.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 9):
WN is doing this almost all O&D,

But their long term plan is O&D. Youre right if WN's plan is to replicate the FL hub, but it isnt.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: CIDFlyer
Posted 2012-12-28 19:02:44 and read 5178 times.

What on earth are they doing in ATL? One would think they could have just as a successful "hub" there like they do in DEN, MDW etc. Hopefully they get it ironed out pronto. I'm really surprised at how long this merger is taking, its somewhat of an embarassment.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: airliner371
Posted 2012-12-28 19:12:31 and read 5151 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 10):
But their long term plan is O&D.

I think it is O&D but more on the lines of MDW and DEN where they do see connections quite often, just no as often as hub and spoke.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 11):
I'm really surprised at how long this merger is taking, its somewhat of an embarassment.

They have a lot to handle. I would rather them go slow and keep the airline in tact rather then just plow through and kill them selves in the process. I wouldn't consider it an embarrassment, just them being careful.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MSPNWA
Posted 2012-12-28 19:45:18 and read 5101 times.

To be honest I was expecting worse numbers out of ATL. Those are some pretty good numbers considering the lack of feed beyond ATL. It's like a dog with just two or three legs, and WN is already walking or running on them. Wait till they get all four to use.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: knope2001
Posted 2012-12-28 19:59:11 and read 5071 times.

Quoting iowaman (Reply 8):
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):LaGuardia (Southwest 2x/day....AirTran kept 3x/day at that point)
37.3% August
34.5% September

An unacceptable use of slots by WN in LGA in my opinion, as they can likely get healthier loads else where. I doubt MKE produces high enough yields to make up for 1/3rd full planes.

This is the result of one of those "what-did-they-expect" scheduling moves.

Here's the schedule they ran on MKE-LGA
6:00am....137 seats....no connecting feed....Southwest
7:45am....117 seats....connections from SFO, MSP, PHX....AirTran
10:05am...137 seats....thru from STL but overlapping an STL-LGA nonstop....Southwest
12:15pm....117 seats...connections from various....AirTran
7:02pm...117 seats...connections from various cities....AirTran

AirTran's 3 flights on MKE-LGA ran 89.7% full in August and 85.0% full in September. Traditionally the three times of strongest demand on MKE-LGA have been 8:00am, 1:00pm and 7:00pm. What did Southwest possibly expect for those two flight times?

A very similar thing played out on MKE-MSP, and when we see the onboard loads for November and December I'm sure we'll see awful results. AirTran has flown MKE-MSP for a few years with 117-seat 717's, usually at 3x/day and occasionally at 4x. The huge majority of passengers have been connecting passengers. As I mentioned earlier, when AirTran increased to 4x this past September, they only flew 61.3% full. In November, Southwest took over with 5x/day in the market using 137-seat 737's. And two of the five MKE-MSP departures were scheduled so early that they will carry almost nothing but local passengers...a 6:00am MKE-MSP departure with no possible connections, and a 7:55am MKE-MSP departure whose only fortification is that it runs thru from a very early BWI-MKE inbound. AirTran has typically run about 20 or fewer local passengers per flight on MKE-MSP. What kind of load factor did they think they'd find on those two MKE-MSP flights? With the January schedule, Southwest is cutting MKE-MSP from 5x to 3x.

As a MKE-based traveler, this kind of stuff worries me. The term "set up to fail" comes to mind. We saw it with some of Frontier's scheduling, which predictably lost money and lead to cut after cut, and this kind of stuff from Southwest concerns me as well. I do not believe either airline truly intended to make MKE fail so they could cut it later on, but I'm concerned the results could be similar. On a simlar note, I worry how MKE-DCA is doing on AirTran now that it has lost all of its connecting feed. They are operating over 500 daily nonstop seats each direction and must rely completely on local traffic because all the connecting markets at MKE which supported that capacity in the past have either been cut or transferred over to Southwest, including OMA, DEN, SFO, DSM, MSP and LAX.

Quoting iowaman (Reply 8):
For comparison purposes, maybe Knope would be super kind and could look up the same numbers on the following routes that have been/are being cut. Many of them have been around for years, with some of the others probably supporting a substantial connecting feed on a percentage basis.

BOI-PDX
BUR-DEN
HOU-PHL
EWR-BWI
LGA-BWI
PHL-RDU
ISP-MDW

I'll see if I have a chance and will post if I do. Not sure that load factor alone is the driver in cutting these markets, but at least a few are definitely weak.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: mke717spotter
Posted 2012-12-28 23:35:07 and read 4901 times.

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 14):
As a MKE-based traveler, this kind of stuff worries me. The term "set up to fail" comes to mind.


I agree that some of WN's flights are poorly timed and could use connection opportunities to help with loads, but your numbers are only through September and wasn't the MKE operation pretty much split up until the most recent changeovers in November? I know that may not make up a huge difference, but I'd like to think that the numbers won't be quite as ugly once all service has transitioned over to WN.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: seven3seven
Posted 2012-12-28 23:44:58 and read 4894 times.

Please compare the same exact flights after the codeshare starts. I predict it will be a staggering difference

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2012-12-28 23:56:40 and read 4885 times.

Quoting CIDFlyer (Reply 11):
What on earth are they doing in ATL? One would think they could have just as a successful "hub" there like they do in DEN, MDW etc. Hopefully they get it ironed out pronto. I'm really surprised at how long this merger is taking, its somewhat of an embarassment.

Kind of like the disaster known as United? Still having serious customer service issues, separate fleets, crews, etc...

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-29 06:15:17 and read 4745 times.

Another issue in MKE is when did F9 pull down. MKE had much too much capacity overall. WN loads should increase overall.

What the FL merger shows us the emperor has no clothes. The vaunted WN is no more than a high cost, arrogant, tech backward airline getting by on their laurels from the Herb days. I predict by 2020 WN will institute layoffs and paycuts. Also I predict WN will be forced into a pure hub spoke system with BWI, MDW, DEN, PHX and HOU having 75% plus of all WN flights. There will still be some focus cities but the P2P will be gone as WN fare structure won't allow for much stimulation.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: netjetandy
Posted 2012-12-29 07:58:55 and read 4630 times.

This is no surprise to Atlanta. O&D simply will not accept a layover anywhere on any airline out of Atlanta. They've been spoiled for all these years with FL and DL and all things being equal Delta is usually the same price, with higher frequency.

My son owns an IT company north of Atlanta with about 100 employees. They flew FL pretty much exclusively except for International and a year ago they switched to DL because of the anticipation of all this city pair nonsense and lack of dual cabin configuration. He is just one business of many.. it simply will not work here for O&D passengers.

He has told me that the corporate sales weasels have been hitting him up very hard to switch back to FL/WN with all kinds of Rapid Reward special promos and pricing in the last 3 months or so, so they know they have a problem with business travel apparently.

[Edited 2012-12-29 08:02:38]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-29 08:29:17 and read 4583 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 17):
Kind of like the disaster known as United? Still having serious customer service issues, separate fleets, crews, etc...

I dont think UA has been a disaster. Clearly not as smooth as DL/NW, but not a disaster.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-29 08:39:29 and read 4561 times.

Id be curious to see how many pax are flying ATL-DAL via AUS or HOU on a PDEW basis. When DAL opens up there is going to be quite a change in service. There is no way WN will fly DAL-STL or MCI 6-8x daily like they are now. I think those will fall to 3-4x daily. ATL-DAL should be 3-4x daily. AMA-DEN will be in big trouble with DAL-DEN nonstop.

I think DAL will get new service to:
ATL 3-4x
BWI 3-4x
MDW 3-4x
DEN 3-4x
LAS 2x
PHX 2x
LAX 3-4x
BNA 1-2x
MCO 1x
TPA 1x
Cuts will happen to STL, MCI, HOU, AMA, LBB, MAF, ELP maybe some more like OKC and TUL. No markets cut but frequencies.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Flytravel
Posted 2012-12-29 08:41:20 and read 4559 times.

Quoting iowaman (Reply 8):
An unacceptable use of slots by WN in LGA in my opinion, as they can likely get healthier loads else where. I doubt MKE produces high enough yields to make up for 1/3rd full planes.

I think the slots for CAK-LGA and MKE-LGA will likely be re-used for increased service on HOU-LGA and MDW-LGA, and new service DAL-LGA in 2014.

If Southwest decides to buy out Sun Country, it might consider MSP-LGA (2x maybe) and build a decent spoke at MSP.

Quoting iowaman (Reply 8):
I'm guessing ATL-AUS may be replaced by ATL-DAL once Wright Amendement restrictions are lifted.

I think the codeshare or eastern feed into ATL might help a route like ATL-AUS. e.g. LGA/DCA-ATL-AUS

If it doesn't, then it's likely gone.

I don't see ORF-ATL staying, with the direct DL competition, it not really being a destination route, no useful unique connections, and the route being over 500 miles. It could be replaced by a direct ORF-FLL for Florida, and ATL connects through BWI or MCO for ORF.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
. In this case, loads did not shoot up with access to a WN hub.

I think CAK-MDW will do better getting more connection feed, once CAK-ATL on FL is dropped. It's still kinda dumb that southwest.com doesn't associate CAK with CLE.

[Edited 2012-12-29 08:43:58]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2012-12-29 08:42:32 and read 4549 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 20):
I dont think UA has been a disaster. Clearly not as smooth as DL/NW, but not a disaster.

Yet, FL/WN has? What issues have non-a.net passengers had in regards to the merger? They said from the beginning it would take until 2015 to be fully integrated. I'm sure I could find a few hundred CO/UA frequent flyers that would disagree with your assessment of the UA/CO merger.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-29 08:52:15 and read 4532 times.

Quoting Flytravel (Reply 22):
If Southwest decides to buy out Sun Country, it might consider MSP-LGA (2x maybe) and build a decent spoke at MSP.

Is that something they are looking at? Would they do that just for a couple of slots? They can build up MSP now, they dont need SunCountry to do that.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 23):
Yet, FL/WN has?

UA/CO didnt have the problems WN/FL has had with regards to Res System and integration. Most of the complaints come from CO pax who miss CO's level of service. WN/FL have lost tens of millions at minimum due to inability to integrate. I dont think that has been the case with UA/CO

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: airliner371
Posted 2012-12-29 09:04:32 and read 4611 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 18):
I predict

Im sorry but you predict a lot and your predicting based on nothing. What you see now is not at all an indicator of what will happen.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 24):
Is that something they are looking at?

No lol. That comment came completely from no where.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 24):
WN/FL have lost tens of millions

Yet they made a profit....

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2012-12-29 10:03:26 and read 4552 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 24):
UA/CO didnt have the problems WN/FL has had with regards to Res System and integration.

Those UA/CO passengers that have stood in line for hours on end (5+) to check-in as well as those that had their reservations cancelled without cause would most certainly disagree with you. Customer service complaints aren't a disaster when you're in the customer service business?


http://seekingalpha.com/article/1046...h-merger-but-promising-signs-ahead

http://www.aviationpros.com/news/108...argest-airline-has-bigger-troubles

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2012-12-29 10:05:54 and read 4612 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 24):
WN/FL have lost tens of millions at minimum due to inability to integrate.

United has lost $103 million in the first three quarters of 2012. If this is after a successful (for you) integration, it makes me wonder.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Coronado
Posted 2012-12-29 10:35:55 and read 4570 times.

Does anybody have any insights on what Delta is doing to move into this vaccuum at ATL? I see in enliria OAG flight schedule change post that they are adding some frequencies our of ATL next spring. Are they also up-gauging some flights? If I recall Delta competed head to head with Airtran on 90% of their routes so they must be enjoying their growing market share at ATL.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: SESGDL
Posted 2012-12-29 10:45:22 and read 4559 times.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 13):
To be honest I was expecting worse numbers out of ATL. Those are some pretty good numbers considering the lack of feed beyond ATL. It's like a dog with just two or three legs, and WN is already walking or running on them. Wait till they get all four to use.

Those numbers are good but DL reporting record profits is frowned upon?   Those numbers are pitiful are a direct result of poor strategic and network planning, nothing more. To have load factors below 50% on any route in this day and age of travel is simply poor network management. These aren't new routes, they are well established flights that shouldn't have been switched to WN.

Jeremy

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: iowaman
Posted 2012-12-29 10:46:17 and read 4549 times.

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 14):
I'll see if I have a chance and will post if I do. Not sure that load factor alone is the driver in cutting these markets, but at least a few are definitely weak.

I'm guessing most if not all the markets WN cuts are either:

Low overall load-factor
Low to decent load-factor but a high percentage of connecting passengers compared to O&D passengers

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 24):
Is that something they are looking at? Would they do that just for a couple of slots? They can build up MSP now, they dont need SunCountry to do that.

WN is slowly building up MSP anyway. Non-stop MCI starts in February and nothing has been cut since they started 8 daily flights to MDW in 2008. STL, PHX, DEN, have all been added since and MKE and MCO being picked up from FL (although MCO does go back to FL for a period of time this coming Spring). It also appears WN metal will be operating MSP-RSW as well.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 26):
Those UA/CO passengers that have stood in line for hours on end (5+) to check-in as well as those that had their reservations cancelled without cause would most certainly disagree with you. Customer service complaints aren't a disaster when you're in the customer service business?

The WN merger is slow, but the impacts on customers are being minimized as much as practical.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: OzarkD9S
Posted 2012-12-29 10:46:35 and read 4548 times.

Quoting Coronado (Reply 28):


Does anybody have any insights on what Delta is doing to move into this vaccuum at ATL? I see in enliria OAG flight schedule change post that they are adding some frequencies our of ATL next spring. Are they also up-gauging some flights? If I recall Delta competed head to head with Airtran on 90% of their routes so they must be enjoying their growing market share at ATL.

What vacuum?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-29 11:02:33 and read 4534 times.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 31):
What vacuum?

I agree. Keep in mind that FL had low fares that stimulated traffic. When they reduce flights, DL is probably happy to raise fare sand let markets shrink to more profitable levels.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-29 11:05:14 and read 4512 times.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 25):
Yet they made a profit....

I should have said "it has cost them" rather than they lost. That would be better. There is no way anyone, including WN can say the merger has gone well .

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-12-29 11:31:17 and read 4418 times.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Orange County-Mexico City

I thought LAXMEX fares were terrible but they start about $100 rt higher than SNA, which starts at $257rt all in. That's about $75ow for a four hour flight. WN must be going through the SNA subsidy on a weekly basis.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-29 14:47:00 and read 4243 times.

Quoting Coronado (Reply 28):
Does anybody have any insights on what Delta is doing to move into this vaccuum at ATL? I see in enliria OAG flight schedule change post that they are adding some frequencies our of ATL next spring. Are they also up-gauging some flights? If I recall Delta competed head to head with Airtran on 90% of their routes so they must be enjoying their growing market share at ATL.

I would half expect DL to cut capacity and raise fares in the markets they aren't competing in anymore.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 33):
I should have said "it has cost them" rather than they lost. That would be better. There is no way anyone, including WN can say the merger has gone well .

It's all in the eye of the beholder. The company has managed to maintain a profit throughout the period, which is better than most. Sure some pax haven't been gained due to the networks not being connected, but that's fixed here in the very near future. I look at this lead up to 2013 as being on a roller coaster going up to the first hill. It is slow and steady up the hill and then finally things speed up once you get over the big hump. The company is about to get to the point and things will start coming together very quickly.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: GentFromAlaska
Posted 2012-12-29 16:42:22 and read 4136 times.

WN seems to bucking the trend If we are to believe the analyst which claim there is still a lot of consolidation to come across the entire airline spectrum. It certainly is going to be fun to watch what the Wright Amendment does in DAL when it is repealed.

Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter):
Milwaukee Markets Transitioning to Southwest

Seattle
91.5% August
82.0% September

If I understand correctly MKE-SEA seems to be doing very well. I suppose some of the numbers can be traced backed tow WN free baggage allowance when compared to FL who continues to charges for baggage. It appears the flying public is catching on.

I would also think the numbers between MDW-SEA are doing exceptional in that Boeing moved its corporate offices to Chicago. WN of course being high on the list if not number one as Boeing's single aisle airframe customers.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-30 05:13:02 and read 3906 times.

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 36):

I don't think that Boeing having corporate offices in Chicago impacts SEA-MKE at all. How would it?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: atrude777
Posted 2012-12-30 05:43:22 and read 3869 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 37):

I don't think that Boeing having corporate offices in Chicago impacts SEA-MKE at all. How would it?

He didn't say SEA-MKE..he said MDW-SEA...

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 36):

I would also think the numbers between MDW-SEA are doing exceptional in that Boeing moved its corporate offices to Chicago. WN of course being high on the list if not number one as Boeing's single aisle airframe customers.

Interesting to see how the loads transition between the two airlines. Air Tran only segments for domestic to reposition the flights for international were just that folks, to reposition the aircraft. WN very well knew that it was most likely not going to make any money, but since they have to reposition the aircraft why not try to sell seats on it at least?

2013 really is going to be the big year.

To the a.net customer and for those who really keep an eye on the stuff, it is going very slow, but internally, WN customers have never had an issue with WN, and FL customers never had an issue with Air Tran related to the merger (I do not count IT issues like the website double charging by accident, that's not a merger related issue).

I too first thought WN was making a huge mistake at the approach they were doing, but looking back at the history of mergers, WN is doing the smart thing, literally taking the process one airplane and employee at a time. Is it slow? Absolutely, is it working, time will tell, but the lack of complaints from WN or FL Customers in regards to merger related issues is slim to none. Compare it to United, I work for OO, and handle the UA side, and we still get issues that pop up, SHARES going down, or Unimatic going down literally causing aircraft to not even be able to move on the ramp and delaying flights for hours. THAT is a merger issue, that WN or FL has to have happen yet. Give WN time..wait until everything has become WN, then you guys can judge.

WN didn't get to 40 years of service and 30+ years of profitability by making wrong decisions over and over.

Alex

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-30 09:50:53 and read 3708 times.

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 38):
Interesting to see how the loads transition between the two airlines. Air Tran only segments for domestic to reposition the flights for international were just that folks, to reposition the aircraft. WN very well knew that it was most likely not going to make any money, but since they have to reposition the aircraft why not try to sell seats on it at least?

Indeed. Many people completely just glossed over that point. If the plane is flying there anyway, why not try to cut the losses by selling a few seats.

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 38):
I too first thought WN was making a huge mistake at the approach they were doing, but looking back at the history of mergers, WN is doing the smart thing, literally taking the process one airplane and employee at a time. Is it slow? Absolutely, is it working, time will tell, but the lack of complaints from WN or FL Customers in regards to merger related issues is slim to none. Compare it to United, I work for OO, and handle the UA side, and we still get issues that pop up, SHARES going down, or Unimatic going down literally causing aircraft to not even be able to move on the ramp and delaying flights for hours. THAT is a merger issue, that WN or FL has to have happen yet. Give WN time..wait until everything has become WN, then you guys can judge.

Great post Alex.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-30 10:34:11 and read 3671 times.

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 6):
I don't know typically how many onboard locals is routine for Southwest -- if they are carrying 35 true locals on the average SDF-ATL flight, I'm not sure if that's right in line with expectations. If so, then when they can put 75 more connections and thurs onboard (from a fully integrated Atlanta hub) it will be great. Or....does that fall short of the norm for Southwest? But it is a good point to note that they are filling these seats at ATL without benefit of a lot of connecting flow there.

The number of onboard locals is very market-dependent. Part of it is a function of length (most of the recently cut very short routes like MCO-RSW weren't carrying a lot of local traffic). But there are longer routes with healthier local markets that are also, in the grand scheme of things, less local. BNA-JAX, which carries a ton of CHI-JAX traffic, much of it thru, is probably a good example of a market where someone just looking at the route map might guess that it's a lot more local than it is.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-30 13:23:08 and read 3594 times.

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 38):
but the lack of complaints from WN or FL Customers in regards to merger related issues is slim to none.

That's because there has been no integration.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: atrude777
Posted 2012-12-30 13:27:55 and read 3598 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 41):

That's because there has been no integration.

Air Tran Aircraft into WN Fleet=Integration
FL Markets becoming WN Cities=Integration
FL Employees becoming WN Employee=Integration
Conversion of WN Rapid Reward into Air Tran A+ or Reverse=Integration

All of these are happening or have been happening for quite awhile, all of these are integration. They have been running quite well, with I am sure some hiccup, but not enough to bring in the extraordinary complaints we have heard at United.

Alex

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: enilria
Posted 2012-12-30 16:09:49 and read 3525 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 5):
Good post. It'll be interesting to see how these are impacted with the start of the code-share.

When will that be? LOL We'll have many more months to look at this disaster.

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 6):
That could well be part of it. Also, I can't help but wonder how much might be the CAK market's affinity for AirTran and the relative foreign status of Southwest, including the need to book at southwest.com.

Perhaps, but that's not changing any time soon.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7):
I think Enilria is correct. This is what ATL looks like when you try and run a P2P rather than a hub spoke system.

Thanks. Also, I know for a fact that the results on ORF/SDF-ATL are top of mind for WN planners and were a significant surprise. The setup flights being a trainwreck was expected, but they really thought that the "Southwest Effect" would allow ORF/SDF to perform acceptably. The fact that they have failed has reverberated though the compound down there in DAL. I think the results of that experiment has altered WN's future expectations and plans for ATL post-FL.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 9):
You can't make that accusation right now.

I think you absolutely can. They have already shrunk ATL nearly 50% from their peak according to DL on their quarterly call. Trajectory negative.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 9):
No codeshare or anything.

Keep in mind even when this code share finally gets going, it will *not* be a code share like UA/CO had. They could sell either carrier's flights on either website. Even in the most optimistic version I've heard, you will only be able to buy services on the code share where that carrier's metal is involved. So, you could buy a WN-FL connect from HOU to BOS via ATL on both FL.com and WN.com, but the local flight would only be available on one system and the FL-FL connection HOU-ATL-BOS would only be on FL.com. That's still a patchwork of embarrassment.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 17):
Kind of like the disaster known as United?

This is better operationally, but much worse financially.

Quoting netjetandy (Reply 19):
Delta is usually the same price, with higher frequency.

And that's what is different in ATL. WN will never have a frequency advantage to anywhere (maybe DAL in 2014).

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 25):
Im sorry but you predict a lot and your predicting based on nothing. What you see now is not at all an indicator of what will happen.

This isn't nothing. This is actual data. You just need to plot the line out.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 25):
Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 24):
WN/FL have lost tens of millions

Yet they made a profit....

WN as a whole made a profit. WN has repeatedly refused to release any information about the FL network claiming all sorts of excuses on their quarterly calls. They've hinted that "there are transitional effects in the FL network that are negative" which is marketing-speak for FL's network sucks. We know why...

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-30 16:22:20 and read 3506 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
And that's what is different in ATL. WN will never have a frequency advantage to anywhere (maybe DAL in 2014).

Different how? In which markets ex-LAX, CHI or DEN does WN have a frequency advantage?

In which markets ex-ATL did PMFL have a frequency advantage?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-30 16:24:36 and read 3499 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
When will that be? LOL We'll have many more months to look at this disaster.

I could say, but I like my pay check. Let's just say you have no idea on the timeline.   Granted when it comes to WN a lot of your information has been bogus or made up simply to satisfy some distaste for WN.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
Keep in mind even when this code share finally gets going, it will *not* be a code share like UA/CO had. They could sell either carrier's flights on either website. Even in the most optimistic version I've heard, you will only be able to buy services on the code share where that carrier's metal is involved. So, you could buy a WN-FL connect from HOU to BOS via ATL on both FL.com and WN.com, but the local flight would only be available on one system and the FL-FL connection HOU-ATL-BOS would only be on FL.com. That's still a patchwork of embarrassment.

Eh, I'm not touching the inaccuracies until it is public. You'll still think it is an embarrassment at the end, so why should we bother with any effort to change your opinion? Folks in DAL have this mapped out, the company is still profitable...the opinion of a caterer isn't going to keep them up at night.  
Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
WN as a whole made a profit. WN has repeatedly refused to release any information about the FL network claiming all sorts of excuses on their quarterly calls. They've hinted that "there are transitional effects in the FL network that are negative" which is marketing-speak for FL's network sucks. We know why...

It doesn't take a genious to know when you migrate from a hub-and-spoke system to a P2P system, there is going to be a period where performance will drop until the network is fully transformed. Once that is done the benefits will start to be realized and the performance of the ATL markets will improve. WN has always been about strong O&D markets combined with strong margins. If a market doesn't have it, it probably won't last.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-30 16:28:22 and read 3498 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 41):
That's because there has been no integration.

This just completely removed any credibility (what little there was) on comments from you regarding WN.

Though I guess you'd rather the two companies just immediately be mashed together? Sorry. WN has a brand to maintain and slapping the name on FL aircraft without converting them (and the stations they serve) would confuse the 135+ million passengers that choose WN every year.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: airliner371
Posted 2012-12-30 16:54:26 and read 3475 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 46):
Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 45):

   to everything.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2012-12-30 17:16:31 and read 3447 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 45):
Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 46):
Quoting airliner371 (Reply 47):

     

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2012-12-30 17:52:59 and read 3401 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
They have already shrunk ATL nearly 50% from their peak according to DL on their quarterly call.

But most of that occurred before WN took over....a little fact you ignore.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
The setup flights being a trainwreck was expected, but they really thought that the "Southwest Effect" would allow ORF/SDF to perform acceptably.

Just like you knew that AA was going to ground all their MD80's and ERJ's in BK!! Or how you knew about the lawsuits coming against WN because FL stayed in DFW longer...        

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MSPNWA
Posted 2012-12-30 18:02:05 and read 3394 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
Also, I know for a fact that the results on ORF/SDF-ATL are top of mind for WN planners and were a significant surprise.

Can you expound on those facts? The numbers for those destinations have to be nearly entirely O&D, so what's the surprise?

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
I think you absolutely can. They have already shrunk ATL nearly 50% from their peak according to DL on their quarterly call. Trajectory negative.

Good case of why you don't take competitor's comments seriously. The word "peak" shouldn't be used for a long while yet.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
This is better operationally, but much worse financially.

Can't be worse financially. United has been hit hard. They were on top of the world not long ago.

Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
WN as a whole made a profit. WN has repeatedly refused to release any information about the FL network claiming all sorts of excuses on their quarterly calls. They've hinted that "there are transitional effects in the FL network that are negative" which is marketing-speak for FL's network sucks. We know why...

Of course FL's network was dubious at best. Ever see their financial statements towards the end? There's no reason to keep the FL network status quo unless you like losing money.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 44):
Different how? In which markets ex-LAX, CHI or DEN does WN have a frequency advantage?

Absolutely. When has WN ever stepped right in and had a frequency advantage against a competitor? That's not how they roll.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-31 06:30:12 and read 3232 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 27):
United has lost $103 million in the first three quarters of 2012. If this is after a successful (for you) integration, it makes me wonder.

Can you post how you derived that number? Bob is correct, WN has yet to integrate operations with FL. They are paying the FL pilots B scale wages at an advantage to WN. Once the computer that can calculate foreign transactions goes online at WN I see huge problems.

Think WN hasn't angered anyone..... Think again. People get angry with airlines. Southwest is not immune.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_1...-with-its-frequent-flier-relaunch/

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-15/e...t-airlines-last-year?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/trave...ights/2006-04-11-swa-lawsuit_x.htm

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-31 06:32:58 and read 3231 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 51):
Think WN hasn't angered anyone..... Think again. People get angry with airlines. Southwest is not immune.

Of course WN is not immune, but is there any indication that high level elites are defecting or threatening to defect in large numbers, as UA has seen?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: mcdu
Posted 2012-12-31 07:15:46 and read 3182 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 52):
but is there any indication that high level elites are defecting or threatening to defect in large numbers, as UA has seen?

Sorry I thought this thread was about WN. If you want to discuss the UA merger then perhaps you should start a new thread. Since you made the above statement can you tell us how many UA elites have gone to other carriers? Can you post supporting data? From what I have been told internally the number was very low and many of the few that decided to leave have asked to come back. I suspect that none of the legacy elites have ever been successfully wooed by WN. WN just doesn't have the value in its FF program that a legacy can provide. Too many dots missing from the global route map.

Do you think AA lost FF elites during its pilot action last fall? How many will jump from US and AA to UA and DL during the merger that is about to take place? I don't blame the consumer. If they get a better offer they should take it. If my company isn't doing things correctly then we need to fix them. I just don't see WN involved in the quest for elite FF's. Very little value in the WN program.


WN has not done integration with FL. They have butchered the code share that is way past their initial timeline. The upcoming IT issues at WN will be large. Plus they are integrating a disenfranchised employee group from FL. Can it be fixed? I think it can. It will involve ancillary charges and other major revamps to their product and their treatment of the FL staff.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2012-12-31 07:28:44 and read 3157 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 53):
I suspect that none of the legacy elites have ever been successfully wooed by WN. WN just doesn't have the value in its FF program that a legacy can provide. Too many dots missing from the global route map.

You misunderstand the demographics of WN elites, I think. Most of us live in cities where WN is the best option on many - but by no means all - itineraries. If I'm going to LAX, DEN, JAX, MSY, RDU, etc., I'm almost certainly flying WN. If I'm going to CRW, NRT, BTR, GRU, etc., I'm certainly not flying WN. There is also some middle ground that includes places like CHI, WAS and DTW. Outside of perhaps Texas, where WN has a pretty good network to secondary cities, there aren't going to be many WN elites who don't fly legacies quite a bit. But as long as those folks look first to WN when going to most WN cities, I don't know why that's a bad thing.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 53):
Since you made the above statement can you tell us how many UA elites have gone to other carriers? Can you post supporting data? From what I have been told internally the number was very low and many of the few that decided to leave have asked to come back.

Your internal information does not surprise me, and I doubt there are any reliable statistics on how many UA elites are unhappy with the merger. Speaking for myself (not an elite but close most years), I haven't seen a lot of the operational issues that others have. EWR, IAH, SFO and ORD are messes in the right weather, but that's nothing new or merger-related.

My point is that, from all indications, WN has managed to avoid irritating elites in any significant number. That seems to be untrue at UA, where a lot of elites are (or claim to be) upset.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 53):
Very little value in the WN program.

Liberal award availability has value, doesn't it?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Coronado
Posted 2012-12-31 07:45:50 and read 3137 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 51):
Quoting usflyguy (Reply 27):United has lost $103 million in the first three quarters of 2012. If this is after a successful (for you) integration, it makes me wonder.
Can you post how you derived that number?

Just for the record 'unitedcontinentalholdings' in their statement of consolidated operations ending Sept 30, reported a net loss of U$103mm for the first 9 months of 2012, compared to a net profit of US$978mm for the first 9 months of 2011.

http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....-newsArticle&ID=1749882&highlight=

If this link does not work go to www.unitedcontinentalholdings.com go to Investor Relations and then search for the 2012 quarterly results and the financial statements filed with the SEC.

A lot of the loss is attributed to the accounting for the $454mm payment to the pilots upon reaching their agreement. From a purely financial reporting basis, I would probably have made the argument that this lump sum should have been expensed over previous quarters, since the profits reported the previous year could be considered by the average arm chair analyst to have been in fact overstated by this decision to not take this charge until the agreement was finalized. A bit of semantics here since in the past I have seen numerous companies prop up profits in a poor year by reporting some non-typical, albeit legal, adjustments.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: atrude777
Posted 2012-12-31 07:53:11 and read 3132 times.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 51):
Bob is correct, WN has yet to integrate operations with FL.

Bob is wrong, and so are you. WN and FL have integrated in four different ways as I posted above and you guys simply ignored. I will repost here...

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 42):

Air Tran Aircraft into WN Fleet=Integration
FL Markets becoming WN Cities=Integration
FL Employees becoming WN Employee=Integration
Conversion of WN Rapid Reward into Air Tran A+ or Reverse=Integration

That is integration of some form...

We were not discussing that people have never complained about WN. We were discussing complaints that pertained the merger ONLY, as that is what the comparison was, United Integration Complaints and WN Integration Complaints.

All of the news link you posted about complaints against WN had nothing to do with the merger so your argument doesn't fly here. I don't discredit the complaints themselves, they did happen quite obviously, but they had nothing to do with the merger or integration of the two companies, which is what we were discussing.

Alex

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-12-31 09:03:18 and read 3070 times.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 50):
Good case of why you don't take competitor's comments seriously. The word "peak" shouldn't be used for a long while yet.

??? Are we waiting for a forthcoming massive buildup in ATL? DL's comments are based on schedule data--it's pretty transparent and not something they can make up.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 50):
Of course FL's network was dubious at best. Ever see their financial statements towards the end? There's no reason to keep the FL network status quo unless you like losing money.

It took a massive amount of flow and bare bones costs to make that network breakeven at best toward the end. Gone are the flow and the costs, so what does that leave?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 49):
But most of that occurred before WN took over....a little fact you ignore.

Not correct

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 45):
WN has always been about strong O&D markets combined with strong margins

...slipping margins

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-31 09:14:55 and read 3046 times.

Quoting atrude777 (Reply 56):
Bob is wrong, and so are you. WN and FL have integrated in four different ways as I posted above and you guys simply ignored. I will repost here...

They are separate marketing airlines. No one travels between an FL and WN flight as of yet. The operating certificate maybe the same, but they are still separate for marketing purposes and most operations. Transferring markets from FL to WN is not the same as integrating the airline like UA/.CO did or NW/DL did.

The reason pax dont complain about WN/FL is because from the pax standpoint, they havent been integrated. Even the frequent flier programs are separate but allow transfer of credits.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 53):
They have butchered the code share that is way past their initial timeline.
Quoting mcdu (Reply 53):
The upcoming IT issues at WN will be large

The emperor has no clothes. WN has sever internal problems that the merger has revealed. Some people get upet, but Ill say it again. By 2020, WN will have layoffs and pay cuts. The vaunted Spirit and employee culture will be altered within a few years for the worse.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 57):
Are we waiting for a forthcoming massive buildup in ATL?

It wont happen. Like so many WN promises for ATL. FL selling to WN was a good move for FL shareholders, but a bad move for ATL.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: enilria
Posted 2012-12-31 09:20:51 and read 3039 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 44):
Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
And that's what is different in ATL. WN will never have a frequency advantage to anywhere (maybe DAL in 2014).

Different how? In which markets ex-LAX, CHI or DEN does WN have a frequency advantage?

WN has a frequency advantage in all MDW markets...and no ORD/MDW are not the same market. They overlap, of course, but MDW has some geographical uniqueness like all alternate airports.
WN has a frequency or seat advantage in all its intra-California markets plus markets like PHX and LAS. If there are a couple where they aren't #1, they are close enough so it doesn't matter.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 44):
In which markets ex-ATL did PMFL have a frequency advantage?

FL didn't need a frequency advantage because they had a hub to fill the empty seats left vacant by their second tier status in the ATL point of sale market. WN will have neither a hub nor a significantly different status level in the ATL market among business travelers.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 45):
Granted when it comes to WN a lot of your information has been bogus or made up simply to satisfy some distaste for WN.
Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 45):
Eh, I'm not touching the inaccuracies until it is public. You'll still think it is an embarrassment at the end, so why should we bother with any effort to change your opinion? Folks in DAL have this mapped out, the company is still profitable...the opinion of a caterer isn't going to keep them up at night.

So, you are sure that you will be able to buy an FL ATL-MCO flight with a WN flight number on WN.com without being transferred to the FL.com website and without requiring a connection to a WN operated flight? Let's bet. Whoever is wrong will write an apology to the other in one of these threads. How about that?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 49):
Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
They have already shrunk ATL nearly 50% from their peak according to DL on their quarterly call.
But most of that occurred before WN took over....a little fact you ignore.

Pretty much all of the spoke closures from ATL are post-merger.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 49):
Or how you knew about the lawsuits coming against WN because FL stayed in DFW longer...

Hasn't played out yet. It will. They don't want to operate there now, so they have determined they can't sue yet. If they won they would be forced to operate pre-perimeter rule repeal.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 49):

Just like you knew that AA was going to ground all their MD80's and ERJ's in BK!!

They wanted to, but as you know the union situation played out much more poorly than management had hoped. They expected a much broader authority in Ch11 and much quicker resolution of the pilot contract. To a large extent the US Airways situation created additional power for the APA throughout the process, plus there is now new precedent on a judge setting the contract that was completely unexpected and negative to management. The delay in getting a pilot contract on the front end and the threat of US Airways submitting a rival reorg plan on the "back end" has effectively eliminated the window they would have had to take delivery of replacement aircraft. I don't think Eagle has fully played out, though. I'm still not sure there won't be more adjustments to the E145 situation.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 50):
Can you expound on those facts? The numbers for those destinations have to be nearly entirely O&D, so what's the surprise?

Simply put, WN felt that their brand was "magical" enough so that they could add anything and it would succeed because "WN had finally come to ATL". What they have found is that people are very loyal to DL, DL has a better schedule, matches their fares, and the bag fee situation was much less positive than they thought.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 50):
Quoting enilria (Reply 43):
This is better operationally, but much worse financially.

Can't be worse financially. United has been hit hard. They were on top of the world not long ago.

It absolutely can be. FL is a tiny bit of WN. UA and CO was nearly a merger of equals. It's much easier for WN to hide the poor results of FL. Also, UA didn't buy CO to completely rip apart its network. It appears WN did.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 50):
Of course FL's network was dubious at best.

OK, then why did WN buy FL? FL was doing better than F9/VX and, at the time, NK. They weren't doing much worse than B6. What do you expect?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2012-12-31 10:07:12 and read 2987 times.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Pretty much all of the spoke closures from ATL are post-merger.

So? What's your point? WN closed 5-10 tiny markets with almost no local ATL traffic. That certainly doesn't account for the 50% drop you are claiming that DL said. It's also partially offset by a few new markets being added...SDF, AUS.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
They wanted to, but as you know the union situation played out much more poorly than management had hoped.

They never wanted to. That was all made up in your head. AA was NEVER going to dump all the MD80's and ERJ's in BK. Their network would have collapsed with such a large capacity loss. Slowly, the MD80's and ERJ's will go, but it will be a slow process drawn out over many years...not massive grounding as you predicted.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Simply put, WN felt that their brand was "magical" enough so that they could add anything and it would succeed because "WN had finally come to ATL".

Again, statements like this give you no credibility.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
They overlap, of course, but MDW has some geographical uniqueness like all alternate airports.

But MDW is largely at a disadvantage to ORD. Most of the people who fly live closer to ORD, not MDW.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
WN will have neither a hub nor a significantly different status level in the ATL market

You don't have to have perfectly timed connecting banks in order to have a hub. Think about it.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Also, UA didn't buy CO to completely rip apart its network.

All the more reason that UA/CO should be outperforming WN, but they're not. UA merged two airlines together that were both making money at the time of the merger. Yet now, UA has DECLINING revenues while WN's revenues are growing.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-31 10:19:01 and read 2958 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 57):
...slipping margins

Hey look, WN has pulled the plug on some long time short haul routes...that didn't have strong enough margins. Imagine that.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
They are separate marketing airlines. No one travels between an FL and WN flight as of yet. The operating certificate maybe the same, but they are still separate for marketing purposes and most operations. Transferring markets from FL to WN is not the same as integrating the airline like UA/.CO did or NW/DL did.

Ahhh...so its only integration if it is like every other merger. This shows a blatant disregard for the fact that the WN and FL operations were entirely different. One has a single class, no assigned seats, fees and group boarding. The other had two-classes, assigned seats, fees, and zone boarding. Whereas UA/CO and NW/DL didn't have these extreme differences so it is easier to just slap the new name on the operation or code-share without any worry about branding or experience issues.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
The emperor has no clothes. WN has sever internal problems that the merger has revealed. Some people get upet, but Ill say it again. By 2020, WN will have layoffs and pay cuts. The vaunted Spirit and employee culture will be altered within a few years for the worse.

Thankfully you aren't internal at WN otherwise you would be part of the taint that would cause that. The merger has highlighted areas where there needs to be improvements, I'll give you that. However, plans are in place to address all those. We'll see buyouts again before layoffs and pay cuts happen.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
It wont happen. Like so many WN promises for ATL. FL selling to WN was a good move for FL shareholders, but a bad move for ATL.

What promises were made for ATL? They never said the hub and spoke system would be left in tact. They didn't pull a UA or DL promising to keep a hub open and then close it a couple years later.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
So, you are sure that you will be able to buy an FL ATL-MCO flight with a WN flight number on WN.com without being transferred to the FL.com website and without requiring a connection to a WN operated flight? Let's bet. Whoever is wrong will write an apology to the other in one of these threads. How about that?

Did I say that? I think my words were to the effect that...it isn't public yet so I'm not commenting on the specifics. Some of us actually have respect for confidential information which you tend to completely ignore.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Hasn't played out yet. It will. They don't want to operate there now, so they have determined they can't sue yet. If they won they would be forced to operate pre-perimeter rule repeal.
Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
They wanted to, but as you know the union situation played out much more poorly than management had hoped.

IOW, you were wrong and still holding out hope?

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
It absolutely can be. FL is a tiny bit of WN. UA and CO was nearly a merger of equals. It's much easier for WN to hide the poor results of FL. Also, UA didn't buy CO to completely rip apart its network. It appears WN did.

Everyone knew that the hub and spoke system for FL was going away. So where is the shock?

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
OK, then why did WN buy FL? FL was doing better than F9/VX and, at the time, NK. They weren't doing much worse than B6. What do you expect?

Strong low cost provider in the eastern US that could only expand one direction (west). Is this question really still being asked?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: airliner371
Posted 2012-12-31 10:38:16 and read 2934 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 57):
DL's comments are based on schedule data--it's pretty transparent and not something they can make up.

Data is so easy to manipulate and that is what DL did.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 57):
Not correct

Actually, it is.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
Transferring markets from FL to WN is not the same as integrating the airline like UA/.CO did or NW/DL did.

Thats because its a DIFFERENT integration.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
The reason pax dont complain about WN/FL is because from the pax standpoint, they havent been integrated.

And they won't be. They will begin to move over to WN.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
WN has sever internal problems that the merger has revealed.

And non of it is affecting the passenger and its all in the process of being fixed.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
Some people get upet, but Ill say it again. By 2020, WN will have layoffs and pay cuts. The vaunted Spirit and employee culture will be altered within a few years for the worse.

No one gets upset, everyone just laughs. I have a great simile for you, your correct just like the Mayans were on the 21st.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 58):
It wont happen. Like so many WN promises for ATL. FL selling to WN was a good move for FL shareholders, but a bad move for ATL.

You simply can't say that yet.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
and no ORD/MDW are not the same market.

It is the same case as HOU/IAH and in the recent slot preceding it was said that they serve the same market from competitors.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
So, you are sure that you will be able to buy an FL ATL-MCO flight with a WN flight number on WN.com without being transferred to the FL.com website and without requiring a connection to a WN operated flight? Let's bet. Whoever is wrong will write an apology to the other in one of these threads. How about that?

You don't work with SWA, you have a past of making up info just to go against WN, you don't have any credit for this.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Hasn't played out yet. It will. They don't want to operate there now, so they have determined they can't sue yet. If they won they would be forced to operate pre-perimeter rule repeal.

And it won't, you were just wrong.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
They wanted to

Excuses.... You were wrong, you said that, you were proven wrong.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Simply put, WN felt that their brand was "magical" enough so that they could add anything

No, they knew it would take work and they are still working.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
It absolutely can be. FL is a tiny bit of WN. UA and CO was nearly a merger of equals. It's much easier for WN to hide the poor results of FL. Also, UA didn't buy CO to completely rip apart its network. It appears WN did.

They made a profit, period. It doesn't matter what FL did, they made a profit.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
OK, then why did WN buy FL? FL was doing better than F9/VX and, at the time, NK. They weren't doing much worse than B6. What do you expect?
ATL, LGA, DCA, more 737s, international experience and a lot more reasons.

Quoting mcdu (Reply 51):
Bob is correct, WN has yet to integrate operations with FL.

Simply no, he is wrong.

[Edited 2012-12-31 10:42:09]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-12-31 11:42:19 and read 2884 times.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 62):
Data is so easy to manipulate and that is what DL did.

Not really. You can talk about departures when ASMs would be a better measure, or vice versar, but it's pretty hard to manipulate actual schedule data since it's so easy to access and verify.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 62):
Actually, it is.

Nope. In the dismal economy/fuel run up of 2008, FL cut about 5% of its capacity. With the much better economy now, and relatively mild fuel cost, WN/FL will be down about 10-20% YOY at ATL. So where is this major FL cutback that preceded the merger?

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 62):
You simply can't say that yet.

Sure you can. If your interest is to maximize competition or passenger throughput at ATL, then this merger is bad for ATL. If you're DL, then it's great.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 60):
You don't have to have perfectly timed connecting banks in order to have a hub. Think about it.

ATL is not going to be a WN hub in the long run. It can't afford to carry the traffic FL was carrying, and there simply isn't much geography to connect to/from beyond ATL. Sure people will connect over ATL as they do in MSY or BNA, but that's about as hub-like as it will get.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-31 12:17:30 and read 2854 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 63):
ATL is not going to be a WN hub in the long run. It can't afford to carry the traffic FL was carrying, and there simply isn't much geography to connect to/from beyond ATL. Sure people will connect over ATL as they do in MSY or BNA, but that's about as hub-like as it will get.

Has anyone, educated and internal to WN, ever stated the ATL would remain a hub/spoke operation?

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MSPNWA
Posted 2012-12-31 12:17:48 and read 2854 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 57):
???

When has it been proper to say "peak"? It can't mean the FL peak of years past (irrelevant). It can't mean the forthcoming WN peak (hasn't happened yet). Are we seriously falling for a pitchman's commercial? I guess some are.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 57):

Gone are the flow and the costs, so what does that leave?

The typical WN business model that has typically beaten the legacy business model. We shall see how this one turns out.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Pretty much all of the spoke closures from ATL are post-merger.

And none of them were much of a surprise. In fact, the closed markets were so small that WN's few additions to this point essentially make it up. Don't listen to the pitchman.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
Simply put, WN felt that their brand was "magical" enough so that they could add anything and it would succeed because "WN had finally come to ATL". What they have found is that people are very loyal to DL, DL has a better schedule, matches their fares, and the bag fee situation was much less positive than they thought.

Okay, so the facts you had was conjecture. You've failed to address how load factors north of the average ATL O&D percentage, on nearly pure point-to-point routes, were a bad surprise to anyone.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
It absolutely can be. FL is a tiny bit of WN. UA and CO was nearly a merger of equals. It's much easier for WN to hide the poor results of FL. Also, UA didn't buy CO to completely rip apart its network. It appears WN did.

Sure it "can be". No one would deny that. But that's different from "it is", and that is your belief. On paper, UA/CO should be rocking the world. But they're not. On paper, we knew FL was a drag financially in it's current state. So which acquisition is truly the financial disappointment at this stage?

So are you suggesting that WN should have kept the underperforming FL network alone? What in the world did you expect anyway? Your axe is sharp know, so let's get down to business.

Quoting enilria (Reply 59):
OK, then why did WN buy FL?

For the same basic reasons as the others. To become larger, more efficient, to eliminate a competitor, and to expand into markets where organic growth would have been difficult and costly to achieve.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-12-31 12:28:17 and read 2839 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 64):
Has anyone, educated and internal to WN, ever stated the ATL would remain a hub/spoke operation?

No, which makes the people on a.net pushing for a ATL hub even more curious.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 65):
When has it been proper to say "peak"?

In any scheduling vernacular it's common: peak day, generally Thursday, or peak month, generally July, or recent peak, all time peak...take your pick. I don't have the data in front of me but FL's peak departures at ATL were around 200 daily, and are going downhill from there.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 65):
It can't mean the forthcoming WN peak (hasn't happened yet)

What forthcoming peak? The combined WN/FL operation is only going to shrink.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 65):
The typical WN business model that has typically beaten the legacy business model. We shall see how this one turns out.

WN's model also is entirely post deregulation (they were only an intrastate carrier prior to deregulation). Ever since the two 'models' have been converging, almost entirely to WN's advantage, but recently the spread between the two models has gotten uncomfortably tight for WN.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2012-12-31 12:55:39 and read 2824 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 66):
No, which makes the people on a.net pushing for a ATL hub even more curious.

Initially WN said they would keep the 717s and keep ATL's operation possibly grow it. ATL would be a major part of WN's system. It wont. It took about one year for WN to admit they would unwind FL''s ATL hub (Announced buyout Oct 2010, announced hub pull down Oct 2011).

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 63):
ATL is not going to be a WN hub in the long run. It can't afford to carry the traffic FL was carrying

That is absolutely 100% CORRECT. Which, along with ditching the 717s, after they said theyd plan an important role for WN, shows that WN's costs are increasingly making the airline uncompetitive. In short WN cannot make money running an airline where 70% of the passengers are connecting on 115 seat airplanes, unlike FL or Delta for that matter. As for focusing on O&D, I am sorry but there isnt that much untapped O&D traffic in ATL, if any. Fares are already low and Delta serves well, some might say overserves (mainline to many markets other hubs serve with RJ) most ATL markets. In the end WN serves their core markets from ATL and leaves ATL pax much worse off than before.

Delta can capture nearly all of FL's former corporate accounts by simply telling those accounts WN wont be able to serve their destinations nonstop anymore.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Flytravel
Posted 2012-12-31 15:13:12 and read 2729 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 7):
It is very possible ATL will see WN service to BWI, MDW, DEN, LAS, PHX, LAX, HOU and that's it.

I think it will have more than those markets. Along with them
DAL, SAT, (maybe AUS is still kept) for Texas
MCO, TPA, FLL (the major Florida markets it services) and possibly JAX as it's short-haul
LAX (already listed), SFO and SAN- destination markets in California
STL, MCI (other big focuses). Excluded BNA as WN would be competing against DL and a viable drive.
MSY
DCA (combined BWI/DCA frequency where it can be competitive against DL.)
RDU (short haul where it has a chance to compete against DL)

WN can still be an alternative to DL to these markets above.

I assume WN will launch RIC-ATL on it's metal as well, but it might do RIC-BNA/TPA/MCO and MDW, instead just to stay clear of direct DL competition when it will be a new market for them.

Of the east/mid-west ATL routes, the other one that might have a shot still is PIT-ATL. Likely, WN replaces it with a PIT-BNA which is actually shorter and would be a unique route without direct DL competition.

I think WN's Carribean/ SJU service will consolidate to BWI, MCO and TPA so ATL will lose nonstop from FL/WN.

I don't see PHL-ATL and LGA-ATL converting because WN will likely be weak against the two other carriers or more. It could launch ISP-ATL and TTN-ATL as a few unique low frequency routes with no DL, mainly for leisure/VFR.

BOS-ATL it might not transition either, thus opening a door for B6 in. WN can still low fare ATL-BWI-BOS making it difficult for B6 to charge that much a premium on a nonstop, which will anyways be matched by DL.

WN might be concerned a little if B6 launches more at ATL than just BOS, however, like ATL-MCO/FLL/TPA/MSY. I think it was a good strategy of WN of launching ATL-SFO and ATL-LAX. Atleast with them early, it might have hindered VX from opening up there.

Overall, the acquisition of FL might prove better for BWI and BNA, than ATL.

[Edited 2012-12-31 15:32:54]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-31 15:44:29 and read 2692 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 67):
Initially WN said they would keep the 717s and keep ATL's operation possibly grow it. ATL would be a major part of WN's system. It wont. It took about one year for WN to admit they would unwind FL''s ATL hub (Announced buyout Oct 2010, announced hub pull down Oct 2011).

Sure they had a plan in place if they couldn't dump the 717s. They were looking at using them as replacements for the older 737s. However, the way the numbers worked out they could extend the service life of the replaced 737s and dump the 717s.

ATL will be a major part of the WN system. I would love to see the quotes stating that they would grow the connecting hub at ATL, but up to this point you are just making it up like 99% of the other garbage you are posting. Quite entertaining it is.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 67):
That is absolutely 100% CORRECT. Which, along with ditching the 717s, after they said theyd plan an important role for WN, shows that WN's costs are increasingly making the airline uncompetitive. In short WN cannot make money running an airline where 70% of the passengers are connecting on 115 seat airplanes, unlike FL or Delta for that matter.

Like I said above. They were going to be older 737 replacements, but instead it made more sense to keep the 737s a little longer and dump the 717s. Luckily they have a deal with DL that will be essentially break even to get rid of them.

The main problem with the FL ATL hub is that you had so much garbage yield traffic connecting to Florida from up North, that it won't work in a P2P system. Each route needs to stand on its merits of a decently strong O&D market and many ATL spokes couldn't do that. However, the cutting is pretty much done when it comes to cities (routes are obviously going to keep getting realigned) so that part of it is done.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 67):
As for focusing on O&D, I am sorry but there isnt that much untapped O&D traffic in ATL, if any. Fares are already low and Delta serves well, some might say overserves (mainline to many markets other hubs serve with RJ) most ATL markets. In the end WN serves their core markets from ATL and leaves ATL pax much worse off than before.

WN still controls a vast amount of pricing pressure on the industry. When they lower fares, everyone matches. When they raise fares, everyone matches. It was entertaining to watch UA try to raise fares in the Fall, WN didn't follow, and everyone reverted back. Look we aren't naive about the ability for any airline to capture a large portion of O&D from their hub city. If/when WN start DAL-ATL up...chance are WN will secure most of the DAL originating traffic and if DL follows, they might do the same out of ATL. Big deal. O&D is a two way street.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 67):
Delta can capture nearly all of FL's former corporate accounts by simply telling those accounts WN wont be able to serve their destinations nonstop anymore.

Unless it is SEA, SFO, DEN, LAS, LAX, PHX, AUS, HOU, MDW, SDF, MCO, ORF, and BWI...currently. Chances are we might very well still see TPA, RSW, FLL, PBI, MSY, MEM, MCI, MSP, STL, DAY, CAK, DTW, RDU, RIC and LGA remain. The frequencies might come down a bit, but chances are there will still be nonstop service to those markets. 28 nonstop markets isn't too shabby. That doesn't include other potential PMWN cities that could be added in...BNA, ECP, CHS, CMH, IND, etc.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MSPNWA
Posted 2012-12-31 15:50:37 and read 2677 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 66):
In any scheduling vernacular it's common: peak day, generally Thursday, or peak month, generally July, or recent peak, all time peak...take your pick. I don't have the data in front of me but FL's peak departures at ATL were around 200 daily, and are going downhill from there.

Bingo, just the reasons why the word "peak" is DL's pitch to sway their investors. They want to make things sound good for them, so they'll use the word in an irrelevant manner.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 66):
What forthcoming peak? The combined WN/FL operation is only going to shrink.

When we can finally say that every WN/FL flight at ATL is one carrier. Maybe that day will be the peak and will go all downhill from there. Of course just the opposite may occur and that will be the low point. Who knows. All we do know is that day is still in the future.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2012-12-31 15:57:21 and read 2671 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 67):
It wont. It took about one year for WN to admit they would unwind FL''s ATL hub (Announced buyout Oct 2010, announced hub pull down Oct 2011).

WN has NEVER announced a hub pull down of ATL. You are lying.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 66):
I don't have the data in front of me but FL's peak departures at ATL were around 200 daily, and are going downhill from there.

You're way off. FL peaked around 250 flights. Most of that was pulled down prior to WN coming in.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 67):
As for focusing on O&D, I am sorry but there isnt that much untapped O&D traffic in ATL, if any.

What about all the O&D in the cities outside of ATL?

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 67):
Delta can capture nearly all of FL's former corporate accounts by simply telling those accounts WN wont be able to serve their destinations nonstop anymore.

Which would be patently false except for a handful of marginal markets (MLI, FNT, ACY) that had almost no corporate contract traffic to start with.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-12-31 16:33:25 and read 2648 times.

How do you reconcile this...

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 69):
Each route needs to stand on its merits of a decently strong O&D market and many ATL spokes couldn't do that.

...with this:

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 69):
ATL will be a major part of the WN system.
Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 70):
Bingo, just the reasons why the word "peak" is DL's pitch to sway their investors. They want to make things sound good for them, so they'll use the word in an irrelevant manner.

Those investors can look up the data pretty easily--this is not data that can be faked when it's public information that everyone has access to.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 70):
When we can finally say that every WN/FL flight at ATL is one carrier. Maybe that day will be the peak and will go all downhill from there. Of course just the opposite may occur and that will be the low point. Who knows. All we do know is that day is still in the future.

No I think you're misunderstanding the semantics. I don't know the context of the DL commentary, but FL or FL/WN most certainly had a recent peak capacity in ATL that has only decreased since. In the unlikely event they add enough capacity to surpass 2008 high of ~250 daily deps, or even this past summers high of 200 deps, then we can talk about a new peak.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 71):
You're way off. FL peaked around 250 flights. Most of that was pulled down prior to WN coming in.

It peaked, along with everyone else, around Summer 2007/8, after which they, again along with everyone else, cut capacity because of the oil spike and terrible economy. Since about 2009 departure levels have been pretty flat; any cuts going forward are unique to the merger, and not the economic/oil related cuts in 2008/9.

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: Flytravel
Posted 2012-12-31 20:10:56 and read 2532 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 69):
Look we aren't naive about the ability for any airline to capture a large portion of O&D from their hub city. If/when WN start DAL-ATL up...chance are WN will secure most of the DAL originating traffic and if DL follows, they might do the same out of ATL. Big deal. O&D is a two way street.
DAL-ATL will be easy, but some of the other routes where WN will be up against DL, it will be cities/markets where WN isn't that strong on the other end, and routes driven by frequency and business traffic.

Looking at WN vs. US at PHL, WN receded out of most of the business routes where it was competing against US, including a longer stage length service to HOU where WN is big but it conceded to US and UA. US had an advantage in frequency, and loyalty. DL at ATL will just be the same, but a bigger competitor.

Amending my opinion-I have doubts even if WN could compete well on RDU-ATL, which I originally figured would be a comfortable stage length for WN. FL is showing just 3 daily flights, where DL has about 12 daily mainline flights. WN would need atleast half of the frequency of DL if it ran it for O&D. Also, even though WN is a major carrier at RDU, it's close between WN, DL and AA and it appears to some extent WN is be pulling in the general volume traffic for vacations and VFR than business traffic at RDU. So, WN would have to woo business customers on both ends.

Going on where it's strong, it maybe better launching a unique route or increasing MCO and FLL permitting connections to ATL, than competing directly with DL on a high frequency RDU-ATL and not making any money from it.

I'm more inclined that WN will launch BNA-ATL even though it's a stage length is shorter, but more connection opportunities would be present via BNA given it's focus city status and WN dominance there. I could see BNA becoming enhanced with more routes and increased frequencies as FL at ATL is drawn down.

[Edited 2012-12-31 20:17:44]

Topic: RE: WN/FL Traffic In Selecte New Or Changed City Pairs
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2012-12-31 23:57:14 and read 2417 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 72):
In the unlikely event they add enough capacity to surpass 2008 high of ~250 daily deps, or even this past summers high of 200 deps, then we can talk about a new peak.

I doubt you'll see numbers back to the 250 level.


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/