Luv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12340 posts, RR: 45
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2821 times:
I believe YX falls into this category though Frontier is more of a true hub and spoke, LCC that knows its market and is growing and going after it. YX like others have said I am really surprised they are still around....
WorldXplorer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 381 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2804 times:
I would not call F9 a "boutique" carrier. They are a solid LCC and have done well in the DEN market. As long as they stay focused and stop trying to expand with focus cities such as LAX (as done in the past), they will be just fine.
TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3346 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2602 times:
Let's take it back to what I think is the poster's original question. I think the poster may have been confused about F9's product, but now YX. Can an airline with a high level of service survive in today's market?
Short answer, yes. Is YX the carrier? No. I think there's a market for a high service level carrier. I think MKE isn't the market for such a carrier. I could see a carrier offering an all J class 737/717/319 in very dense, very high yield business markets. Certainly wouldn't be a hub/spoke carrier, strictly point to point. Start the lowest fare slightly above the current $299 one way cap of WN, top it out at $599 each way depending on market. With a simple J class product (maybe similar to domestic first in the 90's), PTV's and good service, I could see the premium biz traffic going for it. LH and KL are using Privat Air to start similar services from Europe. With the right business model, it could work. Those business travellers stuck on Song JFK-LAX, for example. You know in that market there has to be a good number of people willing to pay a little more to be away from the huddled masses...
FlapsDown20 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 23 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2455 times:
YX IS surviving in today's market. And with fuel prices decreasing daily lately, it will reach it's 2005 goal of cash neutrality. Had the company the cash to advertize nationwide, the planes would be overbooked consistently. As it is, the flights are near capacity many days, and we are overwhelmed on the ramp and at the counter with the increase in passenger loads. The addition of HOU from MKE and with all the MCI new cities served, there is an optomistic sense that the little air line that could is on it's way to recovery. I might remind all of you that YX has NEVER declared bankruptcy. Long may BLUEBIRD soar!
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2426 times:
Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 7):
One could argue that their LAX and CUN expansions indicate otherwise....
I was gonna make an argument here but...
Quoting Mariner (Reply 8): However, if you want to argue that CUN has not been a huge success for Frontier you're on your own.
I guess I don't need to...Eh, I'll do it anyway. Yes, the LAX expansion was new ground for Frontier, but they quickly saw it wasn't working and got out. Kept their losses to a minimum. CUN on the other hand, once the legacies saw how well F9 was doing in CUN, they wanted a piece of their own pie (FL, UA, DL coming to mind, and yes, FL has surpassed 1bn in revenue which qualifies them as a legacy).
F9fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 704 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2353 times:
It looks like F9 may be trying to do at PVR what they did at CUN. Pending DOT approval, and I don't see any reason they won't, they are going to add SLC-PVR and MCI-PVR. They entered into an agreement with Apple Vacations to use F9 whenever possible for their vacation packages, and Vacation Express to sell seats on the BNA-CUN route. Also, the state of Jalisco tourism office is probably providing a subsidy to F9 to help start these routes.
Cloudboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1007 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2278 times:
If Midwest actually focused on their primary market - business travelers looking for something better than the LCC economy but not full blown business or first class, and had a route layout to match that market, then they would be a pretty strong carrier. At one point, it was only them and SouthWest that were posting a profit. But they listened to critics, started looking at going LCC, and now they are a schizophrenic company with no real marketing plan and for many people simply aren't a realistic option due to routing and availability.
"Six becoming three doesn't create more Americans that want to fly." -Adam Pilarski
Sideflare75 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
I think Midwest still does a good job of focusing on the business market. All the core business markets served out of MKE are still Signature Service as are all the markets out of MCI. It wasn't listening to critics that forced the changes to YX but pure economics. Nobody can make money flying people to MCO or LAS on a MD-80 with only 116 seats. They had to add seats to be able to compete on these routes. Judging by the loads it seems like it was a good choice. Is it too bad they had to change from what they once were? Of course. But if they hadn't, they wouldn't be here now. People flying to MCO or LAS don't care how big their seat is, they just want to get there.