Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Go! Hikes Fares, Acknowledges Mesa $$$ Problems  
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2496 posts, RR: 2
Posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3421 times:

While I think go!'s (Mesa's) tactics are undoubtedly cutthroat, I take the position that they do benefit the average Hawaiian (interisland) traveler (see comments in linked article). Frankly, I'm surprised that it took this long for go! to raise fares given their mounting losses and rising fuel costs. Capitalism dictates that only the strongest survive...

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...cle?AID=/20080105/NEWS01/801050348

Let the ensuing 'Mesa is the devil, long live AQ and HA' discussions begin!


777fan


DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22923 posts, RR: 20
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 3370 times:



Quoting 777fan (Thread starter):
Frankly, I'm surprised that it took this long for go! to raise fares given their mounting losses and rising fuel costs. Capitalism dictates that only the strongest survive...

The only question is how much they need to raise fares. Assuming a CASM of 20 cents, average stage length of 150 miles (that might be a little long), and load factor of 65% (the number that folks have tossed around on here), they need an average one-way fare of $46 to break even. So perhaps $40 is enough, but if their CASM is higher than $0.20, it might not be.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3263 times:

No, they need more superferry! It is ridiculous that one is forced to take a
flight for most inter-island travel!


User currently offlineAirTranTUS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3188 times:

Hmm, the article said AQ loses money when fares are below $50. With this correction to $49, maybe this is where fares should be. The comments said Island Air lowered some of their fares to $47. And the comments also showed that go! isn't as hated as some employees of airlines from Hawaii would lead us to believe.

User currently offlineBahadir From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1779 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3147 times:

Go and JO are the disgrace of airline industry.. period..


Earthbound misfit I
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3091 times:



Quoting Magyar (Reply 2):
No, they need more superferry! It is ridiculous that one is forced to take a
flight for most inter-island travel!

The Superferry has a much more detrimental effect on the environment and traffic on the islands. Flights aren't that much more expensive either. I compared HNL-OGG-HNL departing 2/15 and 2/22. HA was 110 including taxes and fees with a flight time of 30 minutes each way. The Superferry was 86 roundtrip and 3to3:45 each way. I'll take the plane. And I'm sure anyone who commutes/travels for business would as well. Also, keep in mind that HNL-OGG is one of the shorter interisland routes. Imagine HNL-ITO.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineBR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

What I don't understand is why GO is even there in the first place. With HA and AQ covering the inter-island market (and some trans-pacific), It seemed like things were Ok. Then this joke of an airline comes in with their gas-guzzling CRJs, and starts pushing the "legacies" around.

Yeah, Competition, I know.. But there are some instances where Competition should not be allowed. After all, In my opinion, HI is covered by its 2 airlines, and does not need a third. 2 is company, 3's a crowd. But that's just me.

I think GO is a waste of time, money, space, and everything else.


User currently offlineUN_B732 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 4289 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

Well.. when you fly interisland in Hawaii, if you want to pay higher fares.. be my guest.

Duopolies never work out well for the consumer (For example comcast and at&t for broadband). It's good to have a third co. to shake things up.



What now?
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2907 times:



Quoting 777fan (Thread starter):
Capitalism dictates that only the strongest survive...

No it doesn't. Capitalism is not about the biggest guy winning and the rest falling away. Where do people get this from?

Quoting UN_B732 (Reply 7):
It's good to have a third co. to shake things up.

sure, if that company is on a level playing field. but if they are using their larger non-market operations to flood your market with underpriced product to shut down competitors, it's not good. the end result will usually be a new duopoly with the survivor, who's financially weaker than before...



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2878 times:



Quoting Magyar (Reply 2):
No, they need more superferry! It is ridiculous that one is forced to take a
flight for most inter-island travel!



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 5):
The Superferry has a much more detrimental effect on the environment and traffic on the islands.



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 5):
Superferry was 86 roundtrip and 3to3:45 each way. I'll take the plane.

The Advertiser had another article (just below the linked one on this thread) that mentioned Superferry pax fares were statying at $39 despite rising fuel costs. Bok269, I'm curious to know how you substantiate your claim about the Superferry's detrimental effects on the environment. The claims that it endangers whales is valid but, with NVG-armed spotters, I'd counter that they're doing more than, say, any of the Young Brothers, Horizon or Matson ships that transit the Isles on a regular basis. The Superferry's construction also makes it about as efficient and clean as can possibly be expected from a ship its size. Compare that with the noise and dirty contrails eminating from AQ's 732s, and I'd argue it's about equal in terms of environmental impact. Here's the Superferry article from yesterday:

http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/ap...pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801050352

Furthermore, with the ability to take your vehicle to another island for $55 o/w, the Superferry has quite a bit of appeal to locals that don't want to rent a car for extended period of time ($35+ a day) while visiting friends and family.

Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 6):
What I don't understand is why GO is even there in the first place.

I think there's quite a bit of truth to the allegations that go!'s motive was to drive one of the Isles' mainstays out of business with the intent of stepping in once they were gone. Suffice to say, both AQ and HA have taken a substantial hit in fending off go!'s aggressive price-out. I'm not sure anyone knows exactly how bad AQ is doing given that they keep their finances private (they're not publicly traded). UA's 10% stake in AQ has probably helped prop it up to an extent but I still believe that their move is intended to better position themselves (UA) to supplant AQ's interisland service should they cease operations. As mentioned before, I wouldn't be surprised that, if this were the case, UA would contract Mesa to fly the routes with UA paint.

That said, love 'em or hate 'em, go! has put a lot of locals' butts in seats and given people an opportunity to fly within the Isles when they otherwise might not have been able to do so. If you're loyal to HA or AQ, you no doubt hate go! but if you're simply trying to get from one Island to another, you've probably benefitted from the fare war at some point, regardless of which carrier you chose.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 2846 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
No it doesn't. Capitalism is not about the biggest guy winning and the rest falling away. Where do people get this from?

I never said capitalism has nothing to do with 'big' - I said 'strong'! To survive, a company needs to continually develop capital, market share, brand recognition, customer loyalty, while maintaining efficiencient operations, among other things.

Neither AQ nor go! are excelling at this (hence their race to bleed cash), but, in this case, go! is backed by deeper pockets (Mesa). AQ was in a perilous financial standing before go!'s arrival. They targeted AQ's strengths and weaknesses from day one (hence the pending lawsuit). In this case, it's likely that only stronger one will survive; go! may be ordered to cease ops in the Isles, but even then, there's no guarantee that AQ will survive.

777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2787 times:



Quoting 777fan (Reply 9):
Bok269, I'm curious to know how you substantiate your claim about the Superferry's detrimental effects on the environment. The claims that it endangers whales is valid but,

The whales were what I was referring to. Additionally, no environmental assessment of the superferry has been conducted (to the best of my knowledge-feel free to correct me if they have).



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2614 times:



Quoting Bok269 (Reply 11):
The whales were what I was referring to. Additionally, no environmental assessment of the superferry has been conducted (to the best of my knowledge-feel free to correct me if they have).

I think this must be one of the most idiotic counterargument I heard!
Hawaii is one of the most important base of the US Navy, full with all
type of sonar equipments (if one worries about the whales). Furthermore,
most items HAVE to be transported to Hawaii by freighter ships (cars,
gasoline, you name it), and they are worried about a handful of ferry boats.
I guess this environmental concern translate into "fear of competion" by
rental companies and other businesses.
Their near monopoly on a given island comes to an end when people
and their belongings can be moved between the islands. Also, the ferry
could create a ceiling for airfares. Yes it is slow, but beyond a certain price
for a fligth, peoples would opt for the ferry.


User currently offlineHiloboy1 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 81 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

777fan you're right on!!

In reference to the superferry and the EIS people better wake up the EIS that the other shippers have covers the route NOT the ship, and the "other companies" have added new and different types of ships without doing any update to any EIS they had on file. Its a shame that if you watch the news of the protest, its all the non-locals getting out of control. We also found out that some of the protesters were paid by the other companies, but that didn't make the news.


User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2496 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2397 times:



Quoting Magyar (Reply 12):
I guess this environmental concern translate into "fear of competion" by
rental companies and other businesses.

No doubt. It's worth pointing out that I'm not sure Bok269 was making that argument, but rather was citing the ongoing protests that some on Kauai and now Maui have instituted against the ferry.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineBok269 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 2105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2202 times:



Quoting 777fan (Reply 14):
It's worth pointing out that I'm not sure Bok269 was making that argument, but rather was citing the ongoing protests that some on Kauai and now Maui have instituted against the ferry.

Correct. Thanks for pointing that out.



"Reality is wrong, dreams are for real." -Tupac
User currently offlineHa763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3655 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1895 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AirTranTUS (Reply 3):
With this correction to $49, maybe this is where fares should be.

The $39 fare was supposed to be a promotional fare. The regular lowest go! fare was supposed to be $49. With the cost of fuel and other expenses in Hawaii, the fares should be around $60. Which BTW, is close to what it was before go! entered the interisland market.

Quoting Hiloboy1 (Reply 13):
In reference to the superferry and the EIS people better wake up the EIS that the other shippers have covers the route NOT the ship, and the "other companies" have added new and different types of ships without doing any update to any EIS they had on file.

It isn't the company that has to do the EIS, it is the State of Hawaii. It was the State that exempted the state funded harbor improvements from an environmental assesment (EA), which is to see if an EIS is needed. The exemption was granted after the Superferry threatened to pull out if an EA was required.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8488 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1841 times:

CASM would be higher than 20 cents. Say on a 120 mile flight, you generate 6000 ASMs with 50 eats. OK. Now, was your cost only $1200? I think it's more like $2000. So, some 33 cents CASM.

20 cents is what I would expect mainline CASM to be in the inter-Hawaii market. For a 50 seat CRJ it must be considerably worse.


User currently offlineTmamtrak From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1753 times:

The argument against the Superferry on environmental concerns is no doubt one of the most preposterous I have come across in recent years. I have no doubt that it can have a far greater effect on marine life than an airplane, but considering the number of vessels that traverse Hawaii's waterways already, many of which are larger (but not as fast) it seems a drop in the bucket. I watched a very interesting program on the Discovery Channel about the Superferry a while ago, and I was floored when they said it wouldn't begin operations right away despite the fact that it was built because of environmental concerns. I think their efforts would be better suited to many other more pressing issues, like... say, "Evil Chemical Corporation #132" that is dumping barrels of toxic waste into the bay behind their offices.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22923 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1661 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 17):
20 cents is what I would expect mainline CASM to be in the inter-Hawaii market. For a 50 seat CRJ it must be considerably worse.

I think you're right. Unfortunately, all we have to go on is YV's systemwide CASM, and from there we must guess. For an EXTREMELY crude idea of what interisland operations do to CASM, we might compare TZ and AQ, which operate similar fleets and similar route maps aside from AQ's interisland hops, but I've never seen a number for CASM for AQ.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineHiloboy1 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 81 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Ha767,

You're right, but the companies have been allowed to operate (by them not saying anything, of course who would) on old EIS's with the understanding that if they changed ships they were required to notify the state to see how it affected the original EIS (came straight from the harbor masters mouth at a meeting here) and the reason that the superferry got away with it was because they threatened a law suit for unfair labor practices. So basically the state was forced to approve it.

But you know how things work here in the islands; just look at the mess honolulu is in for the contracts at the airport.


keep it real

nahale


User currently offlineFlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 7004 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (6 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1400 times:



Quoting BR715-A1-30 (Reply 6):
What I don't understand is why GO is even there in the first place. With HA and AQ covering the inter-island market (and some trans-pacific), It seemed like things were Ok. Then this joke of an airline comes in with their gas-guzzling CRJs, and starts pushing the "legacies" around.

Yeah, Competition, I know.. But there are some instances where Competition should not be allowed. After all, In my opinion, HI is covered by its 2 airlines, and does not need a third. 2 is company, 3's a crowd. But that's just me.

I think GO is a waste of time, money, space, and everything else.

You have to be joking? Since when is competition every a bad thing in the industry? Just because of geography? I don't get your reasoning. Sounds like hot air at best...



What gets measured gets done.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Go! (Mesa Hawaii) Publishes Sched & Fares posted Thu Mar 23 2006 22:08:18 by Searpqx
Hawaii: $19 Fares Back With Launch Of Go!Express posted Fri Mar 16 2007 18:11:23 by Laxintl
Go!/Mesa Airlines On Inter-island Hawaii Services posted Tue Feb 27 2007 02:51:43 by SQ_EK_freak
Hawaiian Loses Round 1 VS. Go! (Mesa) posted Fri Oct 6 2006 03:51:15 by HALFA
Go! (Mesa) Loses 1 Million In 1st Month! posted Sat Jul 29 2006 01:08:15 by HALFA
Mesa To Take E195 Intead Of CRJ900 For Go posted Wed Apr 12 2006 20:23:31 by Planemaker
Bombardier CRJ Fuel Bladder Problems Delay Mesa Ha posted Mon Jan 30 2006 12:21:37 by ERAUgrad02
If Fuel Prices Go Down, Will Fares Follow? posted Fri May 13 2005 22:45:07 by JMV
Compassionate Fares The Next Thing To Go? posted Thu Feb 3 2005 02:12:07 by ETStar
Do You Go For Cheaper Fares Or Better Aircraft? posted Wed Dec 8 1999 03:06:53 by ATA757