Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5758685/

Topic: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-05-08 15:39:49 and read 15779 times.

It appears WN is de-hubbing ATL. In stead of flying non stop
flights it inherited from FL its going point to point domestic and is stil
non stop to SJU.

WN says the move wil eliminate 300 FL jobs but they'll be offered
other positions or relocations at other stations.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: 1337Delta764
Posted 2013-05-08 15:43:41 and read 15768 times.

For those who were wondering, here is the news report:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...-adds-more-airtran-cities/2144017/

Considering that WN will focus on point-to-point traffic, I can assume this means ABQ-ATL on WN will not happen (O&D between the two cities is marginal at best; the bulk of passengers on DL's flights from ABQ are connecting in ATL).

[Edited 2013-05-08 15:46:24]

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Kcrwflyer
Posted 2013-05-08 16:17:42 and read 15465 times.

This is relatively old news. They said a long time ago that they were going to de-bank the ATL hub. Don't know how large of an operation they'll end up with given the percentage of FL pax that were connecting at ATL and the fact that WN fares won't be any lower than FL's..eek math!!

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airplaneboy
Posted 2013-05-08 16:19:39 and read 15454 times.

I think this is a good thing business wise (but unfortunate for those who will have to relocate). WN *generally* establishes their schedules based on local O&D traffic/demand. With few exceptions (MDW and DEN), WN does not have hubs in the traditional sense whereby they do not create banks of flights to connect passengers (which is what a hub truly is). They use their aircraft more efficiently by routing them throughout their network to serve the maximum number of local markets as they can. If connections can be created, then they will be offered. But new markets are not added with the sole intention to create connecting itineraries. This is why you'll see that they have a large presence in most of their markets- because they primarily cater to local O&D travel.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ncflyer
Posted 2013-05-08 16:20:51 and read 15424 times.

To me, this is marketing fluff meaningless. To get to anywhere from most smaller markets on WN, you have to change in MDW, BWI, BNA, DEN, etc. Other than the fact that WN has so many hubs, hows that any different from a legacy.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-05-08 16:27:00 and read 15346 times.

I agree, not really news to those that had somewhat of an understanding about WN's business model. I still laugh a bit when I think about the merger threads that were going on around here saying all kinds of grand things like WN was gonna grow even more at ATL and add all these flights... that's just not WN. They will be a formidable competitor, ATL will be a large station, but the size of FL's ATL operation is just an orange in WN's basket of apples...

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: mia305
Posted 2013-05-08 16:43:50 and read 15197 times.

Why wouldn't WN want to have a hub in ATL? I know what WN business
model entails and the point to point concept.

But if they opened a few non stops to key market places and leisure cities say LAX, SFO, LAS &
even EYW on a 737-700. Wouldn't that ruffle a few feathers in ATL namely DL.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airliner371
Posted 2013-05-08 16:54:10 and read 15113 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 6):
But if they opened a few non stops to key market places and leisure cities say LAX, SFO, LAS

They are operating to all three of these airports from ATL.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 6):

Your post makes it seem as though you think they are gonna cut most of the flights and thats not it. The dehubing mostly involves removing the banks and moving towards more O&D routes. They are still gonna be at 165 flights in this part of the dehub and will stay somewhere in the hundred by the end.

[Edited 2013-05-08 16:56:17]

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: BOStonsox
Posted 2013-05-08 17:15:56 and read 14954 times.

I wonder how long it will be before we see B6 from BOS. They might add SJU and JFK as well. And VX would probably add flights to SFO and LAX also.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-05-08 17:18:15 and read 14911 times.

Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):

It appears WN is de-hubbing ATL. In stead of flying non stop
flights it inherited from FL its going point to point domestic and is stil
non stop to SJU.

WN says the move wil eliminate 300 FL jobs but they'll be offered
other positions or relocations at other stations.

Go read: WN/FL May 6 Schedule Release Predictions? (by wnflyguy Apr 25 2013 in Civil Aviation)

The dehubbing is all in the system now. Most of your questions are going to be answered there. If you want to know what the nonstop network from WN looks like, go to the website and click on the route map then selection nonstop only and hover over ATL.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: GSPSPOT
Posted 2013-05-08 18:00:17 and read 14639 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 9):
If you want to know what the nonstop network from WN looks like, go to the website and click on the route map then selection nonstop only and hover over ATL.

But doesn't that also show the still-active Airtran flights ex-ATL as well?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: DiamondFlyer
Posted 2013-05-08 18:06:21 and read 14586 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 6):
But if they opened a few non stops to key market places and leisure cities say LAX, SFO, LAS &
even EYW on a 737-700. Wouldn't that ruffle a few feathers in ATL namely DL.

Sure, it would. And Delta would flood every market WN is flying with capacity at lower prices than WN will fly them at. Don't think Delta is just going to sit there and let WN chip away.

-DiamondFlyer

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-05-08 19:21:48 and read 13703 times.

Quoting mia305 (Reply 6):
Why wouldn't WN want to have a hub in ATL? I know what WN business
model entails and the point to point concept.

WN cant make money on the FL traffic that was flowing over ATL. Too low yield for WN.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: 727LOVER
Posted 2013-05-08 19:54:24 and read 13179 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 12):
Too low yield for WN.

Because WN.s costs are too high  
Quoting mia305 (Thread starter):
wil eliminate 300 FL jobs

YAY......go WN!  


THEEEEEE most anti-consumer merger in history!

[Edited 2013-05-08 20:03:36]

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-05-08 20:02:34 and read 13091 times.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
THEEEEEE most anti-consumer merfer in history!

Maybe, but ATL consumers actually benefit with more service to places they want to go rather than, say, BMI and FNT.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-05-08 20:26:01 and read 12812 times.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
Because WN.s costs are too high

Yes, WN's costs are too high to make money off the marginal FL pax.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
THEEEEEE most anti-consumer merger in history!

Well, TW/OZ and NW/RC were pretty blatantly anti-consumer.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Kcrwflyer
Posted 2013-05-08 20:32:30 and read 12717 times.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
THEEEEEE most anti-consumer merger in history!

It's up there.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14):
Maybe, but ATL consumers actually benefit with more service to places they want to go rather than, say, BMI and FNT.

We can't possibly pretend this is good for Atlanta as a whole. Fares to every single city FL flew to will rise one way or another.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-08 20:37:57 and read 12664 times.

Quoting ncflyer (Reply 4):
Other than the fact that WN has so many hubs, hows that any different from a legacy.

The greater the number of flights to a single hub, the greater the number of potential one stop connections. WN has chosen not to connect to the Nth degree.

This will be a little less appealing for O&D traffic at ATL, but it will be made up at other hubs. I think the difference is a small cost savings for WN.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
THEEEEEE most anti-consumer merger in history!

I would argue that UA/CO would have been worse for consumers. FL was a small player in the grand scheme of things. In fact, it could be considered proconsumer due to

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 15):
Well, TW/OZ and NW/RC were pretty blatantly anti-consumer.

OZ and RC are?

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 9):
If you want to know what the nonstop network from WN looks like, go to the website and click on the route map then selection nonstop only and hover over ATL.

Great suggestion.


Definitely click on the 'non-stop' only button as otherwise a different impression is given.

Link: http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 11):
Sure, it would. And Delta would flood every market WN is flying with capacity at lower prices than WN will fly them at. Don't think Delta is just going to sit there and let WN chip away.

Umm... WN is already flying there... I'm confused. WN has no desire to get into a price war with DL. But WN (or DL) will increase frequency as demand allows.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-05-08 20:41:01 and read 12616 times.

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 8):
I wonder how long it will be before we see B6 from BOS.

Probably not long.

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 8):
They might add SJU and JFK as well.

Probably

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 8):
And VX would probably add flights to SFO and LAX also.

VERY VERY doubtful. If you think UA's response to them at EWR and ORD were harsh, watch DL at ATL. You would probably see hourly international 767s and 777s with 747s there as well.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-05-08 20:48:59 and read 12513 times.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 18):
Probably

I dont think youll see B6 fly ATL-JFK or SJU, but instead ATL-FLL. B6 said they are targeting FLL with 100 daily flights. ATL would be a good spoke for FL-Latin/Carribbean flights. If WN ever ends ATL-BOS, then B6 should be a no brainer.

I still think VX could fly ATL-LAX, because of all the movie and TV shows in ATL now. Obviously that wont fill the plane but it would be a good source of higher yielding pax.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 18):
VERY VERY doubtful. If you think UA's response to them at EWR and ORD were harsh, watch DL at ATL. You would probably see hourly international 767s and 777s with 747s there as well.

Not in response to two daily A320s. They would probably increase frequency, but that is overkill.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: canyonblue17
Posted 2013-05-08 21:19:14 and read 12211 times.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
THEEEEEE most anti-consumer merger in history!

If more consumers had supported FL and kept it strong enough to avoid an acquisition maybe this would not have happened. Many could argue the reason Alaska Airlines has not been gobbled up has been the strong consumer support it gets. It I a two-way flight path.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-05-08 21:26:26 and read 12142 times.

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 10):
But doesn't that also show the still-active Airtran flights ex-ATL as well?

Anything with the WN code will be shown, so that includes every FL flight that is currently active. The routes vanish once they are past their final day.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 11):
Sure, it would. And Delta would flood every market WN is flying with capacity at lower prices than WN will fly them at. Don't think Delta is just going to sit there and let WN chip away.

As Lightsabre pointed out, you do realize they already serve all of those except EYW right? It's been going for awhile too.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
YAY......go WN!  

I agree. Go WN! Why to reduce the number of gates need by TEN and maintain 165 flights a day (down only 10 from what it is now). They are finally fixing the inefficient ATL operation FL had. The folks will be taken care of. WN employees are also offered the ability to transfer back out of ATL to help out the FL folks.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 13):
THEEEEEE most anti-consumer merger in history!

Isn't every merger anti-consumer? With pretty much every single one options are reduced, competition goes down, and routes are dropped.

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 16):
We can't possibly pretend this is good for Atlanta as a whole. Fares to every single city FL flew to will rise one way or another.

Why not? Markets that aren't profitable are getting axed and the operation gets stronger overall. Artificially low fares just to fight for market share isn't good for the overall health of the operation.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
OZ and RC are?

I think he means Ozark and Republic.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-05-08 21:57:26 and read 11887 times.

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 16):

We can't possibly pretend this is good for Atlanta as a whole. Fares to every single city FL flew to will rise one way or another.

DL has to be jumping for joy.

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 7):
Your post makes it seem as though you think they are gonna cut most of the flights and thats not it

The math just doesn't add up. FL was on thin ice on bare bones costs, and loads of flow, picking up scraps of local ATL traffic that was not loyal to DL, and barely loyal to FL. Now take out F, increase the unit costs, remove the flow, drop the bag revenue, and throw that up against one of the best run operations in the industry, both in terms of customer service and financially. If WN is still above 100 daily deps in ATL in a couple years I'll be shocked--I'd expect it to end up looking like PHL.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: SurfandSnow
Posted 2013-05-08 23:37:19 and read 11392 times.

If I didn't know better, all the press reports and a.net chatter would lead me to (mistakenly) believe that Atlanta is facing the classic case of an acquiring carrier rapidly and thoroughly dismantling a hub they just acquired. Maybe some folks just don't realize that WN taking on FL's primary hub at ATL is absolutely NOT the same as, say, AA picking up TW's STL hub!

Believe it or not, one of the main reasons WN bought FL was ATL. Atlanta was by far the largest domestic market that WN still didn't serve, and it is quite hard for new entrants to gain gate space at ATL (even now, after the opening of the 12 gate Concourse F). I'm sure WN would have ultimately found a way to get the gates necessary for ATL service, but even then they probably would have been hamstrung by having few gates - thereby limiting the amount of service they could offer - whilst facing excessive competition from both DL and FL. It seems like WN wanted to serve ATL in a big way (similar to other major markets they entered in the 2000s, like DEN and PHL) rather than just offering a token presence (i.e. BOS, MSP). If they wanted a token ATL presence, they probably would have had one before buying FL. Since they presumably wanted a major ATL presence, organic growth was not an option: simply put, their only option was to buy FL.

FL's ATL hub was not what I would call peachy (pardon the pun). By the early 2000s, FL had already added service to every viable market east of the Mississippi from their ATL hub. In fact, several of their smaller markets weren't all that viable, and they tried outsourcing some ops to ZW CRJ-200s (dba AirTran JetConnect) to rectify this. In the end, many of the JetConnect markets were long gone before WN came into the picture - i.e. GSO, MYR, SAV, and TLH. Mainline FL then set its sights on the West, where several key markets were untapped and could provide much-needed feed for the ATL hub. However, once they had covered the big 5 (LAS, LAX, PHX, SEA, and SFO), they quickly discovered nothing else, even SAN, would work from their ATL hub. FL then focused most of its growth efforts elsewhere, whether it was building the MKE hub, starting p2p routes to Florida and LAS, or opening new stations with no service to ATL at all - i.e. AVL, BTV, CRW, GRR, LEX, etc. Of course, FL was always willing to add service to their ATL hub for a price, and several markets were willing to pony up the necessary funds - i.e. ACY, BKG, FPO, GPT, ICT, UTM, etc. ATL did get a nice boost when FL decided to go international, but once again, FL quickly grabbed all the low-hanging fruit (CUN, MBJ, PUJ, SJU, etc.) and really had no viable opportunities left from their ATL hub. Bottom line - FL maxed out the potential of their ATL hub as a regional all-717 operator, then a few years later they did the same as a domestic 737 carrier, and only a few more years passed until they had seized virtually all near-international opportunities. Independent FL was heavily reliant on subsidies for several of their ATL spokes, and they were even cutting longstanding services like ATL-MLI before WN took the helm. IMO, a lot of the cuts being made by WN at ATL would probably have happened even if FL had remained independent. Their ATL hub was not some amazing gold mine.

Now, WN is not "dehubbing" ATL as much as right-sizing it to better match O&D and the WN business model. This will be much more sustainable in the long run. I really don't understand what all the fuss is about. If you live in Atlanta, would you rather have nonstop LCC service to crap places like Bloomington, IL and Rochester, NY like FL offered, or have nonstop LCC service to great places like Austin, TX and San Diego, CA like WN now offers?!? Not to mention seamless access to WN markets like PDX and SLC that FL could have never taken you to. IMO, Atlanta should be grateful for these changes, and expect WN to keep service to all important/major markets intact just like they did at FL's MKE hub.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-05-09 01:52:12 and read 11011 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 22):

I think FL had a higher percent local than did DL. Also FL had a decent corporate program. People say Air Tran was on thin ice but they were profitable. A emerged Delta from BK was tougher to compete with. WN offered a 66% premium on their share price.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airliner371
Posted 2013-05-09 04:38:03 and read 10754 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 22):
I'd expect it to end up looking like PHL.

Your "story" keeps getting funnier....     
Not gonna happen.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-05-09 04:58:06 and read 10598 times.

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 16):
We can't possibly pretend this is good for Atlanta as a whole. Fares to every single city FL flew to will rise one way or another.

Is service to AUS and SAN "worse" than paying $5 more to Chicago? I don't see how you can possibly conclude that.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2013-05-09 05:19:40 and read 10579 times.

What a mess.

And what was the point?

The merger (or takeover) between these two airlines has been an ongoing saga without end. They just started code-sharing on flights!

So you get rid of the 717s and de hub ATL...and you get some 737s (which WN could have easily bought) a small international network (which WN could have easily built) and an O and D system in ATL (which WN could have done themselves...just like they did to F9 in DEN)

So what the heck was the point?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Kcrwflyer
Posted 2013-05-09 05:20:34 and read 10572 times.

Quoting DiamondFlyer (Reply 11):
Sure, it would. And Delta would flood every market WN is flying with capacity at lower prices than WN will fly them at. Don't think Delta is just going to sit there and let WN chip away.

Delta did that with AirTran. With WN, I highly doubt there will be much if any flooding in response to them adding routes. DL will price competitively, but it won't be nearly like it was when FL would add a city. On the routes where WN takes over for FL, DL can probably cut a flight or two, or down-gauge to smaller aircraft and bring the fare up to where WN sets it.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 21):

Why not? Markets that aren't profitable are getting axed and the operation gets stronger overall. Artificially low fares just to fight for market share isn't good for the overall health of the operation.

My point was made in reference to the O&D Market in Atlanta, not the health of WN's operation there. I'm not arguing that WN is doing what they have to do; they are given their model and costs.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 22):
DL has to be jumping for joy.

This is working out so well for them they probably cant believe it. They're probably added staff just to pinch or slap senior management on a daily basis to remind them it's not a dream.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 26):
Is service to AUS and SAN "worse" than paying $5 more to Chicago? I don't see how you can possibly conclude that.

AirTran didn't fly to San Diego? $5 increase is an understatement.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-05-09 05:29:40 and read 10442 times.

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 28):
AirTran didn't fly to San Diego? $5 increase is an understatement.

No, and maybe, but the point is that the merger will have pro-competitive effects (new low fare service) in some markets and anti-competitive effects (elimination of service and/or fare increases) in others. How do we possibly balance those and conclude that ATL customers are worse off?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-05-09 05:30:36 and read 10431 times.

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 8):
I wonder how long it will be before we see B6 from BOS.

I don't see WN dropping BOS-ATL so probably not any time soon.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Flytravel
Posted 2013-05-09 06:14:27 and read 10094 times.

Well it's FL that's still flying to the NE to ATL nonstop. FL with business class seats and coach seats sold on expedia, etc and a lot of connecting traffic where WN will be targeting different pax. Its interesting the BDL-ATL addition was on FL. Let's see them (PHL, LGA, BDL, BOS) convert to WN metal or not. I'm 100 percent DCA-ATL will and RIC and RDU.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2013-05-09 06:34:15 and read 9889 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 22):
The math just doesn't add up. FL was on thin ice on bare bones costs, and loads of flow, picking up scraps of local ATL traffic that was not loyal to DL, and barely loyal to FL. Now take out F, increase the unit costs, remove the flow, drop the bag revenue, and throw that up against one of the best run operations in the industry, both in terms of customer service and financially

WN is the largest domestic carrier by passengers boarded and the best fit financially... all without F, higher unit costs, non-traditional hubs, etc, etc, etc. according to DOT statistics and passenger surveys, DL is not the best in the industry in terms of customer service.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-05-09 06:40:39 and read 9886 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 32):
DL is not the best in the industry in terms of customer service.
DL might be up there company-wide, but ATL is one of the two or three worst stations in the company (only LGA and JFK give it a run for its money).

[Edited 2013-05-09 06:41:00]

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-05-09 08:57:43 and read 8848 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 27):

Just like 1995 and Morris Air.

Getting rid of a low cost low fare competitor. Morris was a long term threat to WN moving onto the west coast. FL was depressing fares in the eastern half of the USA.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: milesrich
Posted 2013-05-09 11:00:42 and read 8002 times.

I

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 34):
Just like 1995 and Morris Air.

Getting rid of a low cost low fare competitor. Morris was a long term threat to WN moving onto the west coast. FL was depressing fares in the eastern half of the USA.

I absolutely agree, and this will help Delta immensely. Southwest will eventually cut back ATL the way they did at SLC after dismantling Morris.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-09 11:31:44 and read 7779 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 34):
Just like 1995 and Morris Air.

Getting rid of a low cost low fare competitor. Morris was a long term threat to WN moving onto the west coast. FL was depressing fares in the eastern half of the USA.

I hope that isn't the reason, as it just opens 'space' for G4, NK, B6, and whomever buys F9.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: boslax
Posted 2013-05-09 11:42:10 and read 7733 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 34):
Getting rid of a low cost low fare competitor. Morris was a long term threat to WN moving onto the west coast. FL was depressing fares in the eastern half of the USA.

I thought the Morris Air deal was all about their aircraft. Southwest needed some 737's and Morris had the 737-300's with analog cockpits that Southwest desired.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 35):
Southwest will eventually cut back ATL the way they did at SLC after dismantling Morris.

The summer of the acquistion, 1994, Morris operated 38 daily flights from SLC. Two years later, WN was operating approx 40 daily depts. Today WN, operates 32 daily depts from SLC. Not sure I would call that a dismantling.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: usflyguy
Posted 2013-05-09 11:49:01 and read 7698 times.

Quoting boslax (Reply 37):
The summer of the acquistion, 1994, Morris operated 38 daily flights from SLC. Two years later, WN was operating approx 40 daily depts. Today WN, operates 32 daily depts from SLC. Not sure I would call that a dismantling.

Are you new or something? Facts aren't allowed around here...    

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: United_fan
Posted 2013-05-09 12:31:14 and read 7410 times.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 23):
If you live in Atlanta, would you rather have nonstop LCC service to crap places like Bloomington, IL and Rochester, NY like FL offered

That's a little harsh.(the ROC part)

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: BOStonsox
Posted 2013-05-09 14:38:47 and read 6655 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 30):
I don't see WN dropping BOS-ATL so probably not any time soon.

ATL is the largest market from BOS that B6 doesn't serve. It's bigger than BOS-DFW and that market has three carriers, although AA is weaker at the moment than DL is. I think it's going to happen relatively soon, I just wonder how soon.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: etops1
Posted 2013-05-09 15:05:36 and read 6452 times.

Is it me , or has WN acquired AirTran just to eliminate a competitor ? It really dosent look like your traditional merger. It just looks like WN went in to dismantle AirTran and get rid of it .

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: skycub
Posted 2013-05-09 17:06:49 and read 6138 times.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 35):
Southwest will eventually cut back ATL the way they did at SLC after dismantling Morris.

Quoting boslax (Reply 37):

I thought the Morris Air deal was all about their aircraft. Southwest needed some 737's and Morris had the 737-300's with analog cockpits that Southwest desired.

Who knows if it is true or not... but the story I have always been told is that Morris Air approached Southwest....

The founder of Morris Air, June Morris, had been diagnosed with cancer and SHE approached Southwest asking for Southwest to acquire them. There was, at the time, absolutely no overlapping routes.... and Morris had modeled themselves after Southwest. The Morris acquisition resulted in NO overlapping routes and an entirely new region of operations for Southwest... Seattle, Spokane, Boise, Salt Lake City, Portland, Orange County, etc etc. They flew the same planes and they operated on a point to point system. Morris had modeled themselves after Southwest, and once June Morris was diagnosed with cancer.... she wanted her legacy to be part of Southwest.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-05-09 18:47:42 and read 5870 times.

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 34):
Just like 1995 and Morris Air.

Getting rid of a low cost low fare competitor. Morris was a long term threat to WN moving onto the west coast. FL was depressing fares in the eastern half of the USA.

Not to leave out...AA/QQ, US/Peidmont, TW/OZ, and just about every single merger.

Quoting boslax (Reply 37):
The summer of the acquistion, 1994, Morris operated 38 daily flights from SLC. Two years later, WN was operating approx 40 daily depts. Today WN, operates 32 daily depts from SLC. Not sure I would call that a dismantling.

Hey now. How dare you confront people with actual facts. You'll make their heads explode!  
Quoting etops1 (Reply 41):

Is it me , or has WN acquired AirTran just to eliminate a competitor ? It really dosent look like your traditional merger. It just looks like WN went in to dismantle AirTran and get rid of it .

Just to eliminate a competitor? No. Was it part of it? I'm sure. FL was showing signs of wanting to participate in the M&A activity going on, so it might have also been the case of get them before someone else does. This is definitely nothing like AA/QQ or AA/TW where nothing is left after the fact.

Quoting skycub (Reply 42):
Who knows if it is true or not... but the story I have always been told is that Morris Air approached Southwest....

The founder of Morris Air, June Morris, had been diagnosed with cancer and SHE approached Southwest asking for Southwest to acquire them. There was, at the time, absolutely no overlapping routes.... and Morris had modeled themselves after Southwest. The Morris acquisition resulted in NO overlapping routes and an entirely new region of operations for Southwest... Seattle, Spokane, Boise, Salt Lake City, Portland, Orange County, etc etc. They flew the same planes and they operated on a point to point system. Morris had modeled themselves after Southwest, and once June Morris was diagnosed with cancer.... she wanted her legacy to be part of Southwest.

I believe that's correct.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-05-09 19:00:03 and read 5810 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 33):
JFK give it a run for its money).

Not for long........             

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 23):
If you live in Atlanta, would you rather have nonstop LCC service to crap places like Bloomington, IL and Rochester, NY like FL offered, or have nonstop LCC service to great places like Austin, TX and San Diego, CA like WN now offers?!?

Well, all of those markets also have DL (and all of them have mainline more than once a day), so obviously people want to go to these "crap cities".

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: steeler83
Posted 2013-05-09 19:15:04 and read 5759 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 43):
US/Peidmont

In that sense, considering what it looks like is happening with WN/FL and their ATL ops, I guess I'd compare it more to US-PSA rather than US/Piedmont. There is at least one ex-Piedmont hub that's still around and will likely be around for some time to come -- for AA.

USAir bought PSA, which had a focus city in SAN and hubs in LAX and SFO (IIRC). They altimately moved everything out east through CLT, PHL, PIT, BWI, and wherever else they had a hub...

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: wnflyguy
Posted 2013-05-09 20:34:29 and read 5633 times.

Quoting skycub (Reply 42):

You are 100% correct on how Morris magic became part of Southwest spirit.
wnfg  couple 

[Edited 2013-05-09 20:36:27]

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2013-05-09 21:00:10 and read 5622 times.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 23):
Atlanta was by far the largest domestic market that WN still didn't serve, and it is quite hard for new entrants to gain gate space at ATL (even now, after the opening of the 12 gate Concourse F).

Horse poo. ATL has 10 CUTE gates that Delta can't touch. Because of this ATL has room for (limited) growth.

What you have seen is complete stupidity by WN. IMHO they have gotten a little big headed after Denver and seem to have thought they would be able to come in a bully Delta around. They were wrong(again) and Delta is kicking their butts.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 33):
but ATL is one of the two or three worst stations in the company

er. Got data to back that up?

All the numbers we get told on the inside say that is completely false.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 32):
best fit financially.

based on?

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 32):
DL is not the best in the industry in terms of customer service.

based on what? DOT numbers? If so who has better numbers, DL or WN?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-05-09 21:45:58 and read 5504 times.

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 45):
In that sense, considering what it looks like is happening with WN/FL and their ATL ops, I guess I'd compare it more to US-PSA rather than US/Piedmont. There is at least one ex-Piedmont hub that's still around and will likely be around for some time to come -- for AA.

Oh I wasn't excluding US/PSA...which is probably a better example. My point is that nearly every airline has resulted in less competition. It is the whole point behind consolidation.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 47):
What you have seen is complete stupidity by WN. IMHO they have gotten a little big headed after Denver and seem to have thought they would be able to come in a bully Delta around. They were wrong(again) and Delta is kicking their butts.

Really? I don't recall the company ever stating they were going into ATL to bully DL. You simply can't do that at a 1000 flight hub. However, ATL does have a lot of opportunities for an WN style operation to work alongside DL.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 47):
based on?

40 years of consistent profitability helps for one. The company is also on target to hit its 15% ROI for the year. That's not too shabby. All without going to the courts to get things cleaned up.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 47):
based on what? DOT numbers? If so who has better numbers, DL or WN?

Have you ever looked at them? Here is the latest report: http://airconsumer.dot.gov/reports/2012/September/2012SeptATCR.PDF

Southwest is #2 in the nation, where it normally ends up, behind Hawaiian. Delta is 6th overall, though not as bad as United who is 15th or dead last of those measured.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airportugal310
Posted 2013-05-09 22:15:53 and read 5442 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 48):

Spread that Aloha Spirit!   

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: MSPNWA
Posted 2013-05-09 22:53:11 and read 5426 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 47):
They were wrong(again) and Delta is kicking their butts.

WN gaining local market share in ATL is evidence of the contrary. DL can't be liking it. ATL has never been a high yield hub, and WN is further eroding that tight margin.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2013-05-09 23:19:45 and read 5385 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 48):

40 years of consistent profitability helps for one. The company is also on target to hit its 15% ROI for the year. That's not too shabby. All without going to the courts to get things cleaned up.

....Oh ok. So we judge how well a company is doing now based on 5,10,15,20,30,40 years ago, not what they have done over the last 2 or so years. Ok. Cool.   (who cares about logic)

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 48):
Have you ever looked at them?

Do you know what a question is? I wouldn't have put a "?" at the end if I knew.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 48):
Really? I don't recall the company ever stating they were going into ATL to bully DL. You simply can't do that at a 1000 flight hub. However, ATL does have a lot of opportunities for an WN style operation to work alongside DL.

Yeah Just like they haven't stated they went into DEN to "bully" F9/UA.
I didn't say WN is going to pack up and leave, I did however say they are going to keep getting smaller. IMO the level off at 120-140 flights a day in the end. Not bad, but nearly a 100 flight a day cut from FL's peak. I think WN thought they would be able to keep most of the hub intact, instead they are more than liking handing Delta more gates and room to grow.

Quoting MSPNWA (Reply 50):

WN gaining local market share in ATL is evidence of the contrary. DL can't be liking it. ATL has never been a high yield hub, and WN is further eroding that tight margin.

2nd highest margins in the network behind MSP. Most profitable hub in the Delta system by far. First profit in a decade in the first quarter.
Oh, I bet it CVG/MEM making all the money. (oh and Delta is growing capacity here because they don't like making money)  

And WN is gaining the local low yield market share. Delta doesn't care about the ATL local PAX that want the cheapest fare to MCO.

Having said that, Where are you finding this info?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airportugal310
Posted 2013-05-09 23:46:46 and read 5383 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 51):

Your bias really shines through in your questions and responses. With all due respect, you're not as transparent as you think you are.

So please just stop. You're not adding anything constructive to the conversation.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-05-10 00:23:44 and read 5333 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 43):

I don't think AA/QQ was an attempt to kill off a competitor nor PI/US.

Quoting skycub (Reply 42):

That sort of implies that WN was entirely magnanimous in taking over Morris Air. Could Morris not survive without its founder?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2013-05-10 00:47:53 and read 5327 times.

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 52):

I'm sorry but your telling me I have added nothing but just what did you add with this post? Just the "oh you hate WN so leave"

Ps. I have Delta in my user name. That in its self should kinda send up a warning sign. Don't read my post if you don't like em. Seems easy to me.  


Pss. My questions are questions. I have know idea where MSP is getting the local traffic numbers or who had better DOT numbers. If I want to say something, I'll say it. I don't try to make things cute with questions.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airportugal310
Posted 2013-05-10 00:58:53 and read 5303 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 54):


Carry on then, by all means. Considering I don't have a dog in this fight, it's interesting you'd automatically assume "pro-WN / anti-Delta".  
Quoting etops1 (Reply 41):

Probably not just you. A few posts above mention an "anti-consumer merger". While I don't have an opinion either way, seems you might not be alone on the boards.

[Edited 2013-05-10 00:59:56]

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-05-10 02:00:15 and read 5287 times.

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 32):
WN is the largest domestic carrier by passengers boarded and the best fit financially... all without F, higher unit costs, non-traditional hubs, etc, etc, etc. according to DOT statistics and passenger surveys, DL is not the best in the industry in terms of customer service.

DL has been significantly outperforming WN lately financially

Quoting airliner371 (Reply 25):
Your "story" keeps getting funnier....

Also funny? WN's lack of value proposition in ATL, or upside in general following this transaction.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 48):
40 years of consistent profitability helps for one. The company is also on target to hit its 15% ROI for the year. That's not too shabby. All without going to the courts to get things cleaned up.

It didn't have to go to the courts because it didn't have decades of prederegulation baggage.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2013-05-10 04:50:57 and read 5155 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56):
It didn't have to go to the courts because it didn't have decades of prederegulation baggage.

Neither did DL....a mostly non-union carrier. Most of the things that caused DL to lose money had nothing to do with pre-deregulation. That's a nice excuse, but it doesn't hold water.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56):
DL has been significantly outperforming WN lately financially

DL outperformed WN in the late 90's as well...but it didn't last.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56):
WN's lack of value proposition in ATL,

WN's costs are still lower than DL's, so WN can offer lower fares. The other thing you're missing is the value proposition for all the people going TO ATL, not coming from. WN is a far stronger player in places like AUS, OKC, ORF, etc.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-05-10 05:29:19 and read 5100 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 47):
er. Got data to back that up?

All the numbers we get told on the inside say that is completely false.

I didn't know that DL--or anyone else--kept statistics on things like surly agents or number of gate changes, the things that make the ATL experience much worse than, say, DTW or SLC.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: airbazar
Posted 2013-05-10 06:22:11 and read 5024 times.

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 40):
BOS-DFW and that market has three carriers

Only in the last year and because the non-stop fares were absolutely ridiculously high, and like you said AA has weakened in Boston. But DL's customer base in Boston remains very strong and they will be a much tougher nut to crack, for B6. A clear evidence of that is that B6 doesn't even fly JFK-ATL which is not only a bigger market but also B6's hometown. Is there any history of B6 starting a new city from BOS, before JFK? My impression is that B6 always starts a new destination from JFK first, then from BOS.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2013-05-10 06:22:41 and read 5024 times.

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 52):
Your bias really shines through in your questions and responses.

And, of course, yours never does. Are you speaking into a mirror when you say that?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: boslax
Posted 2013-05-10 07:26:00 and read 4974 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 59):
Is there any history of B6 starting a new city from BOS, before JFK? My impression is that B6 always starts a new destination from JFK first, then from BOS.

The only markets that come to mind are BWI, DCA, DFW, and PHL. PIT and RIC are today only served from BOS, but once had nonstops to JFK.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: steeler83
Posted 2013-05-10 07:38:55 and read 4925 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 48):
My point is that nearly every airline has resulted in less competition. It is the whole point behind consolidation.

You mean airline "mergers?"

And you're right by that. That's one less airline in the end, which means airlines can jack up fares to uneconomical levels -- unless you happen to be a frequent flyer member of an airline...

However, fewer airlines can lead to a stabilization of the industry, eventually opening the doors for a start-up airline. Just going by what's been posted on a.net over the last several years...

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: mesaflyguy
Posted 2013-05-10 07:57:26 and read 4893 times.

WN did not enter ATL to "bully" DL. Personally, I have been takig what I read in this thread with a grain of salt as you are always going to have the people who are almost like "airport extremists", bashing any new airline that challenges their home carrier. It's not just ATL, there are many on these forums. I am not surprised that WN is cutting and trimming ATL to what works for them. It doesn't mean they were stupid, it doesn't mean they are being crushed by DL. What it means is that they are finding what works, a process which has obviously worked for them in the past. There really isn't any reason for this threaf turning into a war being certain posters.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2013-05-10 08:02:25 and read 4888 times.

Quoting mesaflyguy (Reply 64):
There really isn't any reason for this threaf turning into a war being certain posters.

  

For real... it's either DL is gonna drive WN out of ATL completely or WN is going to send DL back in Ch11... come on people, ATL is big enough and the two carriers are healthy enough. They will both stay large and they will both make a lot of money (at least for the foreseeable future.)

WN shifting FL's operation to more of a WN operation doesn't mean the sky is falling, it just means WN is just being WN. They might have been able to organically grow in ATL, but buying FL and shifting flights around was just much easier

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: BOStonsox
Posted 2013-05-10 09:55:55 and read 4644 times.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 59):
A clear evidence of that is that B6 doesn't even fly JFK-ATL which is not only a bigger market but also B6's hometown. Is there any history of B6 starting a new city from BOS, before JFK? My impression is that B6 always starts a new destination from JFK first, then from BOS.

AFAIK, they have not served any market from BOS only and then added JFK. I never said they wouldn't start JFK-ATL at the same time, but that has a DL hub on both ends so if it ever does start ATL, BOS would come first. If B6 wants to serve business markets from BOS, then MIA (despite FLL being nearby), ATL, MSP, and DTW are the five largest markets they haven't started.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-05-10 11:40:51 and read 4519 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 57):
Neither did DL....a mostly non-union carrier. Most of the things that caused DL to lose money had nothing to do with pre-deregulation. That's a nice excuse, but it doesn't hold water.

It's much more than just unionized labor. How's WN's defined benefit plan going?

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 57):
WN's costs are still lower than DL's, so WN can offer lower fares. The other thing you're missing is the value proposition for all the people going TO ATL, not coming from. WN is a far stronger player in places like AUS, OKC, ORF, etc.

Being slightly more relevant on the spoke than in the "hub" is probably a wash at *best*, but it all adds up to WN remaining a low fare spill carrier in an already over served ATL, with unit costs and revenues moving in the wrong direction since FL.

Quoting BOStonsox (Reply 65):
ATL, MSP, and DTW are the five largest markets they haven't started.

And yet they would still rather start ORH 

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-05-10 12:17:48 and read 4451 times.

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 62):
You mean airline "mergers?"

Sigh. Yes. Eeesh I need a vacation.

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 62):
However, fewer airlines can lead to a stabilization of the industry, eventually opening the doors for a start-up airline. Just going by what's been posted on a.net over the last several years...

Which I think that is the point we are reaching now. Fairly mature and stable industry that will start to foster some fresh blood in the wake of all the downsizing. Not all of them with make it, but its exciting nonetheless.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2013-05-10 12:42:45 and read 4408 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 66):
How's WN's defined benefit plan going?

Again, not relevant. In many years, on a per person basis, WN's defined contribution plan was more expensive than the defined benefit plan at DL. The only reason DL's defined benefit plan got expensive was purely because of mismanagement. DL chose not to contribute to the plan in good years which exacerbated the payments they would have to make in bad years. Once again, nothing to do with deregulation....just bad management thinking short-term.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 66):
already over served ATL

Who says ATL is overserved? While DL certainly pumps a lot of capacity through ATL, most of that is connecting and has nothing to do with the local traffic base.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 66):
with unit costs and revenues moving in the wrong direction since FL.

Unit revenues for WN/FL at ATL are on the rise, so not sure what your point is there.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: JBAirwaysFan
Posted 2013-05-10 13:03:26 and read 4356 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 57):
DL outperformed WN in the late 90's as well...but it didn't last.

Yeah, but WN is no longer the carrier it was even as recently as 2007. IMO their business model has completely changed, their hedges on fuel expired, their unit costs went up (and so did their airfares). I've said this many times, WN is no longer the WN it was in the mid-2000s. Those days I think are over.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ouboy79
Posted 2013-05-10 15:16:10 and read 4204 times.

Quoting JBAirwaysFan (Reply 69):
Yeah, but WN is no longer the carrier it was even as recently as 2007. IMO their business model has completely changed, their hedges on fuel expired, their unit costs went up (and so did their airfares). I've said this many times, WN is no longer the WN it was in the mid-2000s. Those days I think are over.

The WN hedges of the past worked out well because fuel was jumping around. However, fuel hedging is locked in through the rest of this year, and I want to say 60% next year and 30% for 2015. I might be off on that a bit. So the benefit there is they have that cost tied down for the most part and can plan accordingly without worrying about massive price jumps if a hurricane decides to dance in the Gulf this year.

No is saying the WN model hasn't changed - it has. It had to. The industry is completely different now and they need to tweak things to change with the times. Profitability still in tact. 15% ROI this year...things are good.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: steeler83
Posted 2013-05-10 19:31:40 and read 3933 times.

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 67):
Sigh. Yes. Eeesh I need a vacation.

Haha! It's all good. I work as a caregiver for the elderly and have been doing so for over 4 years. Not even my field of study; I have a masters in geography...

Quoting ouboy79 (Reply 67):
Which I think that is the point we are reaching now. Fairly mature and stable industry that will start to foster some fresh blood in the wake of all the downsizing. Not all of them with make it, but its exciting nonetheless.

Yeah, I think you're right about that. What other airlines are there that could merge? Everyone keeps speculating about who will merge next, and I highly doubt we'll see anymore of that. As for start-ups, any new start-up should have a smart business plan and model (sensible equipment, one-class/2-class layout, good base location(s), and which markets or airports to target and serve, etc). Skybus and Independence Air did not have good approaches. Skybus crammed their pax into A319s and flew from a hub with limited O&D to 2ndary airports at best. Independence Air had way too many regional jets in its fleet. What did they even use their A319s for anyway? It seemed they had more CR2s than anything else.

That aside, we're going to see who's left essentially grow organically (AS, NK, etc adding routes here and there from select hubs/focus cities to grow their product), and we'll eventually see new airlines take to the skies and build a name for themselves. Was EA's re-launch basically a pipe dream? I remember hearing something about that about a couple of years ago. I want to see PeoplExpress take off, but I'm not so sure about their choice in PHF for a hub and hq. PIT would be better for that.

Anyway, back to the topic of WN and ATL. I am a bit shocked that they are dehubbing ATL, but I guess they have "hubs" at select larger markets and large p2p bases at others, while everything else is just a spoke in the system. I guess they see ATL as being more of a p2p base rather than a hub. Maybe in order to compete with DL there and have some foothold on the market, a hub operation isn't exactly resonable -- I guess they'd need to have a very sizeable operation, but I guess a) such a large operation is not in WN's business plan, and b) ATL's local market is probably not large enough to sustain a 1,000-plus flight op PLUS a second one of at least a few hundred or so. I dunno, I'm not an expert, just speculating based on what I'm reading above...

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: FlyASAGuy2005
Posted 2013-05-10 23:40:34 and read 3760 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 58):

You would be quit surprised what Delta tracks.

I can count about 25 different metrics just for turning an airplane and that's just below wing. DOT numbers didn't improve by the CS fairy  

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: bobloblaw
Posted 2013-05-11 02:35:42 and read 3675 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 68):

That sort of is the definition of over served. The amount of service ATL has is disproportionally large to its O&D size.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-05-11 02:44:33 and read 3663 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 68):
Again, not relevant. In many years, on a per person basis, WN's defined contribution plan was more expensive than the defined benefit plan at DL

True, but it had to be funded from somewhere. Regardless, there are any number of vendor/cost/network/fleet/merger/etc decisions that were made in a regulated environment that would have been made differently post deregulation. And while DL's lack of labor representation may have made things easier, the ever present threat of unionization would make any dramatic changes challenging, and any deviation from industry standard rules and compensation a red flag.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 68):
Who says ATL is overserved?

Pretty much everyone. It's not CLT, but it's one of the most overserved hubs in the US. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but any local passenger DL is not getting, is probably not worth having. And if DL should choose to take more locals, it can shift the mix and lower the boom pretty quickly on a competitor.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 68):
Unit revenues for WN/FL at ATL are on the rise, so not sure what your point is there.

It may be on the rise, but in the long run I don't see how increased costs over FL, and decreased ancillary revenue combines to support a growing ATL operation for WN, particularly with WN's difficulty breaking into major hubs recently

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: RyanairGuru
Posted 2013-05-11 03:20:15 and read 3662 times.

WARNING: I'm going to go well off topic here...

Quoting airportugal310 (Reply 49):
Spread that Aloha Spirit!

Believe me, I've told as many people as physically possible down here how amazing HA is   

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 54):
Ps. I have Delta in my user name. That in its self should kinda send up a warning sign.

This raises an interesting point.

Several posters have looked to me to have some kind of "scoop" on FR. I haven't even been near that carrier in 7 years! Similarly, (and hopefully he doesn't mind me using him as an example) airportugal310 lives 8000mi from Lisbon.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 57):
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 56):
It didn't have to go to the courts because it didn't have decades of prederegulation baggage.

Neither did DL....a mostly non-union carrier.

You've just made me think about something I've never even considered before, why the hell was CO largely un-unionized after two bankruptcies?!!? As a massive CO fan, I'm glad they were as not having labor and management at war with each other helped develop the Bethune culture. But I only started paying attention to the airline in the late 1990s, so I'm not really sure about what came before then.

*If anyone has an answer, feel free to PM me rather than take this thread further off topic than I'm already doing*

Quoting airbazar (Reply 59):
DL's customer base in Boston remains very strong and they will be a much tougher nut to crack, for B6

Wait until US-AA merge  
Quoting steeler83 (Reply 71):
As for start-ups, any new start-up should have a smart business plan and model

I agree, and unless anyone wants to try Skybus Mk II, unfortunately I can't see much opening to the US market. Either you are going to have to be a quality carrier that is incapable of competing against three legacies, backed by three global alliances, or you are going to have to be an ULCC

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 71):
Skybus crammed their pax into A319s and flew from a hub with limited O&D to 2ndary airports at best

i.e. FR model. Unfortunately they were about a decade to early. With the travelling public adapting to G6 and NK, I think that an FR-style airline in the USA would stand a better chance the second time around.

Quoting steeler83 (Reply 71):
ndependence Air had way too many regional jets in its fleet

Who would ever think about running an LCC with RJs?

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: Cubsrule
Posted 2013-05-12 12:55:19 and read 3109 times.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 74):
It may be on the rise, but in the long run I don't see how increased costs over FL, and decreased ancillary revenue combines to support a growing ATL operation for WN, particularly with WN's difficulty breaking into major hubs recently

WN has long been able to command a fare premium over FL on routes on which they compete. That will help, but I don't know how much as compared to the challenges you've identified.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 75):
With the travelling public adapting to G6 and NK, I think that an FR-style airline in the USA would stand a better chance the second time around.

No. The problem is that unless they are paying people to fly, US fares are low enough that it's not worth it to drive to CEF or GYY.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: ggflyboy
Posted 2013-05-12 17:28:48 and read 2930 times.

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 23):
If you live in Atlanta, would you rather have nonstop LCC service to crap places like Bloomington, IL and Rochester, NY like FL offered, or have nonstop LCC service to great places like Austin, TX and San Diego, CA like WN now offers?!?

If I needed to get to Bloomington, IL or Rochester, NY, I certainly would. Having lived in Atlanta for four years during the AirTran heyday, the airline certainly made a lot of middle-tier American cities more accessible. These are the kinds of destinations that would otherwise have been 5-10x's as expensive.

Don't get me wrong, San Diego and Austin are great places, but don't mix a valid business case with an argument based on destination snobbery.

Clearly, AirTran's business model was not sustainable, but that's not to say some folks appreciated riding the 'Tran while it lasted.

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: LoneStarMike
Posted 2013-05-15 16:26:18 and read 2370 times.

Brett Snyder at The Cranky Flier had a blog entry about this subject on Monday.

What it Means When Southwest Says It Has De-Hubbed Atlanta

LoneStarMike

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2013-05-15 22:11:05 and read 2125 times.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 76):
WN has long been able to command a fare premium over FL on routes on which they compete

True, WN generally has a huge fare premium over FL, but it has also been abandoning markets where FL managed to stick it out (ie NE to Florida), because no one is willing to pay anyone a premium in those markets. I think the number of markets where WN can extract its traditional premium are far outnumbered by the much more price sensitive FL markets that just won't work anymore

Topic: RE: WN To De-hub ATL.
Username: skycub
Posted 2013-05-15 22:38:37 and read 2097 times.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 47):
IMHO they have gotten a little big headed after Denver and seem to have thought they would be able to come in a bully Delta around. They were wrong(again) and Delta is kicking their butts.

Can you try translating that into English for me? Thank you.


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/