Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Did UA Scare F9 Off With Mainline At FSD?  
User currently offlineAirbusaddict From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 415 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3009 times:

Well,
As a lot of people know, when the first four Lynx Aviation Destinations were going to be announced, just one or two days before Frontier was going to announce them, United added two daily mainline flights to the schedule (they took off one CRJ-200, but still added 20-30 seats) for Sioux Falls. The Newspaper and TV stations kept going on and on about how Frontier was stating that Sioux Falls had a very good chance of getting this service. Im just curious why United was either so defensive about FSD, and what would happen if Frontier added 170 service (there is some chance, but not with the Q). Sioux City 70 miles south got the Dash-400 service.


Finally F9! FSD-DEN 7-4-2011
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25569 posts, RR: 86
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2993 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

"Did UA Scare F9 Off With Mainline At FSD?"

No.

Despite what was said by FSD airport and the Sioux Falls media, Frontier had been in negotiations with SUX for some time.

It is a neat, clever move. I may be wrong, but I can't see Frontier/Lynx adding service at FSD. Why would they?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2991 times:



Quoting Airbusaddict (Thread starter):
what would happen if Frontier added 170 service

UA would likely back off from the pressures as long as F9 could undercut UA prices. The market in Sioux Falls is not enough to support a capacity war, and would likely benefit from a price war until one airline cried uncle. At this point, it would be more crucial for F9 to make this move, and protect the route, as this is one of the larger markets within the range Lynx is looking at.

 twocents 



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineKcrwFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3845 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2920 times:



Quoting Airbusaddict (Thread starter):
The Newspaper and TV stations kept going on and on about how Frontier was stating that Sioux Falls had a very good chance of getting this service.

If theres one thing I've learned its to not listen to them! Especially local media. More often than not they're receiving bits and pieces of information and turning it into something different.

Quoting Airbusaddict (Thread starter):
United was either so defensive about FSD, and what would happen if Frontier added 170 service (there is some chance, but not with the Q). Sioux City 70 miles south got the Dash-400 service.

With Sioux City that close, It doesnt look good for FSD getting F9. If FSD did get anything, It'd likely be on the Q400. If frontier builds up a larger system of regional routes, I could see both cities working in the future.


User currently offlineAlphascan From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 937 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2844 times:

I am always hesitant to disagree with Mariner on Frontier issues because I'm usually proven wrong. However, I do believe the UA moves had an impact on the decision not to serve FSD. FSD was offering Lynx a very very generous package of incentives to initiate FSD/DEN service which practically guaranteed Frontier a profit on the route through at least the end of 2007. Whether the two routes were considered by Frontier to be mutually exclusive because of their close proximity is hard to say. While the FSD incentives were better, SUX had the benefit of no competition.

Had UA continued to offer exclusive RJ service, I believe Lynx could have come into the market and succeeded by offering lower fares which would have trashed UA's profits on the lucrative route. However, as good as the Qs are for competing time-wise and cost-wise with the RJs, they can't hold a candle to full 737s. Add in the prop perception problem and the wise and timely move by UA sabotaged any move by Lynx into FSD. I wouldn't hold my breath for Republic service as at least some of the FSD incentive offers have expired.

UA successfully blocked Republic service to CID in much the same manner.



"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
User currently offlineNWAESC From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3391 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days ago) and read 2819 times:



Quoting Airbusaddict (Thread starter):

Maybe you should go to the next FSD airport planning meeting and get the full story?



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineTripleboom From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 278 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2687 times:

Kind of a sad loss for FSD. Great for a struggling Sioux City community. The Sioux City Journal claims passengers have leaked over the S.D. border to Sioux City to catch Frontier's lower fares:

"McElroy said Frontier's low fares, which Northwest has been matching, has helped Sioux Gateway attract more customers from a larger geographic area. In particular, spot checks of the parking lots and conversations with passengers show that Frontier's Denver service is bringing in a number of travelers from the Sioux Falls area, McElroy said. Frontier's fares were low enough to entice them to drive to Sioux City rather than fly out of Sioux Falls, where United Airlines offers daily service to Denver."

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/arti...5f942553ce64e7862573c8001308c3.txt


User currently offlineAirbusaddict From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2573 times:



Quoting Tripleboom (Reply 6):
Kind of a sad loss for FSD. Great for a struggling Sioux City community. The Sioux City Journal claims passengers have leaked over the S.D. border to Sioux City to catch Frontier's lower fares:

"McElroy said Frontier's low fares, which Northwest has been matching, has helped Sioux Gateway attract more customers from a larger geographic area. In particular, spot checks of the parking lots and conversations with passengers show that Frontier's Denver service is bringing in a number of travelers from the Sioux Falls area, McElroy said. Frontier's fares were low enough to entice them to drive to Sioux City rather than fly out of Sioux Falls, where United Airlines offers daily service to Denver."

And thats what FSD lacks (competition).
UnitedExpress: Chicago O'Hare Denver
United: Denver
Northwest Airlink: Minneapolis
Northwest: Minneapolis
Allegiant Air: Phoenix/Mesa Las Vegas Orlando-Sanford
Delta Connection: Atlanta Cincinnati

There is no competition going west, and there is no service going south. The airport is trying its hardest to get American Connection/Eagle back in Sioux Falls, and I really would love to have St. Louis and Dallas service out of FSD. Dallas of course (i think) is a very good chance of service from Sioux Falls since other airlines serve (from the DOT site) a little above 55 passengers each way per day.



Finally F9! FSD-DEN 7-4-2011
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25569 posts, RR: 86
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2558 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Alphascan (Reply 4):
While the FSD incentives were better, SUX had the benefit of no competition.

FSD was courting Frontier with incentives for a long time, and Frontier had always said no.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...ontier-airlines-south-dakota_N.htm

"In 2003, the airport applied for federal money to add service to Denver on Frontier/Mesa Airlines, but the request was denied. When airport officials visited with Frontier in Denver in late 2005, the airline said it didn't have the planes available for the route.

The airport last year tried to offer the company an incentive package that included a $350,000 federal grant.

That grant was denied, but all wasn't lost: Frontier last fall said it would order up to 20 new planes and sent requests for proposals to 65 cities, including Sioux Falls."


Of course, SUX was on that same RFP list. Just as discussions began with FSD because of the RFP, other discussions were also held with SUX.

But if Frontier was intending FSD and changed their minds because of United mainline, then Frontier must have put together SUX astonishingly quickly.

United mainline service at FSD was announced, at least here, on June 29, '07. Frontier service to SUX was announced on July 3, '07.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAirbusaddict From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2407 times:

Quoting Mariner (Reply 8):
Quoting Alphascan (Reply 4):
While the FSD incentives were better, SUX had the benefit of no competition.

FSD was courting Frontier with incentives for a long time, and Frontier had always said no.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...N.htm

Do you think the incentive package thats still up for grabs will go to maybe American? The airport now said that the next new airline or airline to start a new city gets 50,000 dollars in marketing plus the incentive package. I know that the incentive package just doesnt bring the airline to the city because they need to know they could make a profit.

Or atleast what do you think the next airline will be to kind of grab that up (even with new destinations).

Northwest really needs to add Detroit service from Sioux Falls because there are a lot of people who would either use the Detroit airport for international service or east coast connections. Yeah, its crossing MSP, but so is OMA, BZN, LNK, etc. etc.

And when i was connecting through Memphis, on the boards it said "DEPARTURE: Sioux Falls, SD 1-Stop."
Why Would they put that up there?

[Edited 2008-01-22 21:30:28]


Finally F9! FSD-DEN 7-4-2011
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25569 posts, RR: 86
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 2391 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Airbusaddict (Reply 9):
Do you think the incentive package thats still up for grabs will go to maybe American?

I wish I could help, but I live in New Zealand, and it isn't easy for me to keep track of one airline - Frontier - from here.  Smile

My guess, and it i only a guess, is that United's ramp-up at FSD may be a double edged sword - it's good for FSD, but other airlines, apart from Frontier, may have to be persuaded quite heavily that the market is there before taking United on.

On the other hand, if the market is there, then, together with the incentives, you stand a good chance. Airlines will go where they believe there is money.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineTripleboom From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 278 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2318 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 10):
it's good for FSD

The questions is, how long will it remain a good thing for FSD? If UA really did add mainline to scare off F9, then why keep it there once Frontier has bowed out of FSD. As it's been mentioned on this thread, I don't foresee F9 starting up service into FSD anymore, and with fuel prices the way they are, I would look for UA to pull back the number of empty mainline seats it's flying into a regional airport. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe UA's mainline service is filling up like gangbusters. Anybody know?


User currently offlineAirbusaddict From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 415 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2291 times:



Quoting Tripleboom (Reply 11):
The questions is, how long will it remain a good thing for FSD? If UA really did add mainline to scare off F9, then why keep it there once Frontier has bowed out of FSD. As it's been mentioned on this thread, I don't foresee F9 starting up service into FSD anymore, and with fuel prices the way they are, I would look for UA to pull back the number of empty mainline seats it's flying into a regional airport. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe UA's mainline service is filling up like gangbusters. Anybody know?

Well on average usually 1-6 seats are open each flight, but lots of flights get full. We have NW and UA Mainline, Allegiant MD's, Delta CRJ's. NW Mainline is off and on during the day with a mix of 319's, 320's, DC-9's, and CRJ's. But, the Northwest Mainline jets fill and so does the UA Mainline jets, so that is why they are going to possibly add another daily flight to Chicago O'Hare on the 737.

If they put in UA mainline to scare off F9, the reason they are keeping it there is because they are making money on the flight, and passengers are willing to fill those mainline flights as long as the fares are reasonable.



Finally F9! FSD-DEN 7-4-2011
User currently offlineTripleboom From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 278 posts, RR: 13
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2273 times:



Quoting Airbusaddict (Reply 12):
If they put in UA mainline to scare off F9, the reason they are keeping it there is because they are making money on the flight, and passengers are willing to fill those mainline flights as long as the fares are reasonable.

Not a bad turn of events for UA at all. That really is outstanding news for the locals of Soo Foo.


User currently offlineMOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2234 times:



Quoting Airbusaddict (Thread starter):
Did UA Scare F9 Off With Mainline At FSD?

I don't think so much. If FSD was in the plans a couple days before, it likely still would have been announced while the management of F9 would have been prepared to cancel the route prior to the first flight in the name of lackluster sales, if necessary. Just my opinion, though.


User currently offlineAlphascan From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 937 posts, RR: 13
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2231 times:

The price difference between FSD/DEN on United and SUX/DEN on Lynx is considerable.

FSD passengers are paying $511 plus taxes RT for 21 day advance purchase. SUX passengers are paying $215 plus taxes RT for 21 day advance purchase. Both cities have some lower fares (in FSD's case, considerably lower) but they are highly restrictive weekend fares with very short and inconvenient travel windows tailored for the leisure traveler.

The LOWEST RT walkup fare on the route out of FSD is $907 plus taxes. That fare goes up another $140 next week. The lowest walkup fare out of SUX is $470. At those prices it is no wonder passengers are taking the 1 hour drive to SUX from FSD. And yet, UA continues to fill it's planes at FSD. I'd say there is at least one person who still knows what they are doing left in Chicago.



"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
User currently offlineTripleboom From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 278 posts, RR: 13
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2228 times:



Quoting Alphascan (Reply 15):
I'd say there is at least one person who still knows what they are doing left in Chicago.

Apparently he didn't talk to this guy in Chicago... http://www.denverpost.com/airlines/ci_8049537

Should be interesting to see where the cutbacks are at. Lord knows DEN has seen the RJ revolution over the past several years now. Looks like that trend will continue for a while.


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...
FSD Officials To Meet With American At Dallas posted Tue Oct 23 2007 18:43:34 by Airbusaddict
Did Allegiant Abort A Take Off At MKE On 3/11 posted Sun Mar 12 2006 17:47:24 by Legacytravel
F9 Tangles With Another Aircraft At IND posted Tue Jul 19 2005 01:38:31 by ATAIndy
Why No UA Mainline At RDU? posted Tue Jun 14 2005 06:27:59 by Usairwys757
Former UA Mainline At MFR And EUG posted Thu Apr 14 2005 08:32:44 by UnitedFlyer
UA 747 Runs Off Taxiway At Melbourne Airport posted Fri Mar 7 2003 04:41:29 by ADG
What Did UA Want With US's CLT Hub? posted Thu Jun 20 2002 21:46:26 by B764
UA Picking Off US, 1 Plane At A Time posted Sun Jun 16 2002 22:34:27 by Ouboy79
UA Mainline At TVC posted Tue Feb 13 2001 23:12:41 by Rjnut
Off With Your Head At Kal posted Fri Apr 23 1999 16:18:53 by Lufthansa