Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SAN-ORF: Why No Nonstop Service?  
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5472 posts, RR: 12
Posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3482 times:

I thought we needed a non-"Will-XX-Merge-With-YY" thread for a change of pace.

I would love to hear opinions from our many A.net experts -- especially any actually involved in airline schedule planning -- involving an unserved (nonstop) route that I, and at least one other gentleman here on A.net (and you know who you are Coronado  Wink ) think should be started: SAN-ORF. I know there are lots of unserved city-pairs in the US and if we were to ask everyone on A.net, most would come up with a list of markets that should have n/s service, but don't. I guess the difference is that I'm asking specifically about this one.

The case.
(1) The last 5 DOT traffic reports for SAN-ORF daily O&D passengers (both directions) are:
2Q'07: 333
1Q'07: 295
4Q'06: 288
3Q'06: 349
2Q'06: 322
They show consistent, year 'round numbers, although a bit lower in the winter, and in my opinion, are certainly supportable of at least one daily r/t nonstop flight. BTW, SAN is the largest O&D market west of Chicago from ORF, larger than LAX, SEA, SFO, LAS, PHX, DEN, etc.
(2) At the SAN-end of this city-pair, the largest market without n/s service currently is, you guessed it, ORF. (Per DOT reports.) (MCO is right in there but currently sees limited weekly n/s service on FL which will end soon.) ORF ranks right around the 30th largest market from Lindbergh Field.
(3) And on the ORF end, guess which city is the largest market without n/s service? Yup. In fact, SAN is the 4th largest destination from the ORF airport, surpassed only by NYC, CHI and MCO, all of which have multiple daily n/s. (From the ORF website.)
(4) There is probably some leakage from ORF (to IAD) for those who want n/s service to SAN but there is no leakage on the SAN end since LA, the 7th largest destination out of ORF, amazingly doesn't have n/s service either.
(5) The most logical common denominator accounting for this large daily number of pax is, of course, the US Navy. It isn't likely that the Navy is going anywhere, from either the Naval Base San Diego (the largest on the west coast) nor from the largest Naval base in the world at Norfolk.
(6) WN flies multiple direct flights (1 stop with no change of plane) between the 2 cities; this is probably not a coincidence and may well mean that WN is aware of and closely watching the market.
(7) I doubt this is a low-yield market like LAS or MCO usually are; neither SAN nor ORF are generally considered low-yield. I do realize that no one outside of WN Yield Management really knows that.
(8) Heck, there might even be lots of small cargo/freight and gate-to-gate parcels that would help the profitability of such a flight.

This is obviously a transcon and there are those who say we should expect fewer of those these days due to fuel prices and the economy. I don't agree. I see new long-haul domestic routes starting up; some existing ones are disappearing but those may just be too low-yield or on under-performing routes where a/c are better off elsewhere.

So is this just an unattractive and weird sort of route that doesn't "make sense" or wouldn't "look good" on anyone's route map, so it isn't going to happen? Would it look "better" to connect a small market like ORF with an LA or a SF? Is it ok to make this many passengers (especially military folks?) change planes, waste time, be inconvenienced? When exactly does it become a route that "deserves" the attention and resource-deployment of a nonstop? (I'm assuming this should be a successful and profitable route; is that a bad assumption? )

Are there issues with military contracts that require travel on certain carriers and do the majority of the travelers in this particular market have to worry about such things? I've heard that DL and UA have a majority of those contracts; does anyone know what the Navy situation is? Would it be an empty plane if, say, WN started flying SAN-ORF nonstop?

Some tag-ons might make for great direct routings: SAN-ORF-PVD or ORF-SAN-HNL come to mind immediately.

Thoughts, suggestions, flames? I'd like to get some feedback on whether I'm way off base here... (Sorry 'bout that; couldn't resist.  Smile )

bb

33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3471 times:



Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
Thoughts, suggestions, flames? I'd like to get some feedback on whether I'm way off base here... (Sorry 'bout that; couldn't resist. )

Easy.......yield. There is marginal yield on Govt fares.


User currently offlineIflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3467 times:



Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
(5) The most logical common denominator accounting for this large daily number of pax is, of course, the US Navy. It isn't likely that the Navy is going anywhere, from either the Naval Base San Diego (the largest on the west coast) nor from the largest Naval base in the world at Norfolk.

I've often wondered the same thing. Either US or WN would seem like naturals, even though WN has scaled back trans-cons.



Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
User currently offlineSuper80DFW From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 1696 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3468 times:

Well, I thought WN was trying to steer away from Transcon flights. So who else would fly it? It seems like a pretty promising flight if someone would start it.


"Things change, friends leave, life doesn't stop for anybody." -- EAT'EM UP EAT'EM UP KSU!!
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3856 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3396 times:



Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
6) WN flies multiple direct flights (1 stop with no change of plane) between the 2 cities; this is probably not a coincidence and may well mean that WN is aware of and closely watching the market.

Here's my thoughts. Why would you want to tie up a plane all day just for the chance to compete for 333 daily passengers - or about 167 each way per day? To even achieve a 70% load factor on this route, WN would have to have a 58% market share.

A one-stop direct no change of planes flight isn't that much longer than a nonstop, and it's a heck of a lot better than a connection - especially if that connection is at a mega-hub like DFW or IAH. By adding just one intermediate stop, you increase the number of passengers you're competing for. ie the 333 daily passengers who fly between SAN and ORF plus xxx passengers who travel between SAN and the intermediate city and another xxx passengers who travel between the intermediate city and ORF.

That's how AUS has gotten a lot of it's nonstop service from WN, by being the intermediate stop on a 2-legged transcon. LAX-AUS-TPA and the recently announced OAK-AUS-FLL service set to begin in May are two routes that come to mind.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineSuper80DFW From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 1696 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

After all, Wn is known for their one-stops! I bet that most of the people that fly SAN-ORF fly the one-stop. Why is SAN-ORF such a popular route to fly? Does it have to do with Naval Air Stations?


"Things change, friends leave, life doesn't stop for anybody." -- EAT'EM UP EAT'EM UP KSU!!
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3856 posts, RR: 34
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3370 times:



Quoting Super80DFW (Reply 5):
I bet that most of the people that fly SAN-ORF fly the one-stop

A little bit more are probably taking AA via a connection in DFW. In 2Q 2007, AA had a 25% market share, while WN had a 21% market share.

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineFlynavy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3367 times:



Quoting Super80DFW (Reply 5):
After all, Wn is known for their one-stops! I bet that most of the people that fly SAN-ORF fly the one-stop. Why is SAN-ORF such a popular route to fly? Does it have to do with Naval Air Stations?

Um, yeah. Considering Norfolk is home to the world's largest Naval activity. San Diego is nearly as big as well.

All things considered, WN (and Norfolk/San Diego residents) can live with ORF-LAS and then just connect to SAN via LAS.


User currently offlineUalflyer From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 58 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3357 times:

We need nonstop to LAX

User currently offlineIflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3352 times:

I'd bet US could pull it off by making it a 1 stop, example: DCA-ORF-SAN as a red-eye/positioning leg or ORF-CLT-SAN as a possibility. I'd say the Navy is a factor.


Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
User currently offlineSuper80DFW From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 1696 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3345 times:



Quoting Ualflyer (Reply 8):
We need nonstop to LAX

I bet if UA flew LAX-ORF, UA would gain a decent percentage of the market share. Maybe UA could spare an A319.



"Things change, friends leave, life doesn't stop for anybody." -- EAT'EM UP EAT'EM UP KSU!!
User currently offlinePSU.DTW.SCE From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 7661 posts, RR: 27
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3224 times:

When looking at the average number of passengers on a given route there are two things that must be considered.

1) A single daily nonstop is not going to capture all of the market simply because of the schedule. There will always be a percentage of passenger who need to fly at a certain time and the nonstop may not suit their travel needs

2) A percentage of passengers will always go with their airline of choice or simply shop for the lowest fare.

These two factors will always reduce the potential amount of passengers that a given flight could get on any given route. Probably just enough to make the numbers on a route like SAN-ORF look unattactive, particularly when it would rely 100% on O&D on both ends.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5472 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3101 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 1):
Easy.......yield. There is marginal yield on Govt fares.

Good point but I must wonder how many of the passengers actually qualify for or use gov't fares? Maybe half? (For example, there are probably a lot of military dependents/families traveling back and forth to visit relatives; would they be eligible for YM of gov't fares?)

Quoting Iflyatldl (Reply 2):
Either US or WN would seem like naturals, even though WN has scaled back trans-cons.



Quoting Super80DFW (Reply 3):
Well, I thought WN was trying to steer away from Transcon flights.

Well, except that the only currently existing WN transcons happen to be SAN to BWI!

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 4):
Why would you want to tie up a plane all day just for the chance to compete for 333 daily passengers - or about 167 each way per day? To even achieve a 70% load factor on this route, WN would have to have a 58% market share.

I don't know the figures but I'd bet that is not an unusual LF or market share for at least some of the 11 non-competetive p-2-p n/s routes that WN flies from SAN; in fact, some, such as SAT, ELP and BNA, have lower O&D pax counts than ORF!

Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 4):
That's how AUS has gotten a lot of it's nonstop service from WN, by being the intermediate stop on a 2-legged transcon. LAX-AUS-TPA and the recently announced OAK-AUS-FLL service set to begin in May are two routes that come to mind.

... and SAN-AUS-MCO, SAN-HOU-MSY, OAK-SAN-BNA, SJC-SAN-BWI. No question that WN's direct flights are a big important part of their scheduling. But, as I asked in the OP, at what point did the BWI-BNA-SAN or the SAN-ABQ-BWI direct flights rate the twice-daily n/s service that they now have?

Quoting Ualflyer (Reply 8):
We need nonstop to LAX.

Hmmm, what can I say but thanks for this very relevant post... BTW, as you may have seen in my argument #4 in the OP, as hard as it is to believe, LAX (#7) is almost twice as far down the list ranking destinations by number of pax out of ORF as SAN is (#4!) As a matter of fact, I'll bet you that SAN will see a n/s to ORF before LA will.

Quoting PSU.DTW.SCE (Reply 11):
These two factors will always reduce the potential amount of passengers that a given flight could get on any given route. Probably just enough to make the numbers on a route like SAN-ORF look unattractive, particularly when it would rely 100% on O&D on both ends.

I certainly understand that a new n/s on a route will only capture a percentage of the existing traffic in a market for the reasons you listed, as well as others. I also know that given time, more and more "holdouts" will eventually go with the n/s service that is offered, surrendering carrier loyalty and even timing, in favor of the amazing convenience of eliminating missed connections and lost luggage!

Plus, you will gain traffic from the leakage factor; in this case, perhaps some on the ORF end. Also, particularly in the case of WN, there would be some connecting and down-line traffic possibilities, e.g., SAN-ORF-PVD, ORF-SAN-OAK. (A lot of SAN's out-of-state services on WN include intra-California tags and I'm sure an ORF n/s would be no different.)

Finally, we shouldn't disregard the Southwest Effect which, in part, acknowledges that new traffic is often generated in markets that previously had no direct service, as soon as WN (or anyone) begins such service in that city-pair. In any case, PSU', I do appreciate your opinion that the SAN-ORF numbers, with all things considered, might be borderline.

Thank you all for your input.

bb


User currently offlineLexy From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 2515 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Starting May 10th I believe, you will be able to fly SAN-BNA-ORF.


Nashville, Tennessee KBNA
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3856 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 12):
I don't know the figures but I'd bet that is not an unusual LF or market share for at least some of the 11 non-competetive p-2-p n/s routes that WN flies from SAN; in fact, some, such as SAT, ELP and BNA, have lower O&D pax counts than ORF!

But not everyone on a SAN-SAT, SAN-ELP, or SAN-BNA flight is traveling between those two cities.

Using your SAN-SAT flight, for example, that flight continues on to MCO, so some seats filled on the SAN-SAT leg are people who are continuing on to MCO. Other seats filled on the SAN-SAT leg are people who plan to get off in SAT and make a connection to DAL or HOU. A SAN-ORF nonstop would have to pretty much rely on O&D travelers and there's not enough to make it worthwhile, IMHO.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 12):
No question that WN's direct flights are a big important part of their scheduling. But, as I asked in the OP, at what point did the BWI-BNA-SAN or the SAN-ABQ-BWI direct flights rate the twice-daily n/s service that they now have?

Well, I had to go back to see when WN actually started the SAN-BWI service and it was July 6, 2003. That was nearly 2 years after the September 11 attacks and it was apparent by this time that short-haul travel was not going to fully recover from what it was before the attacks. And Southwest had a lot of short-haul flights out of BWI.

A July, 2006 article in the Dallas Morning News about Love Field and the Wright Amendment mentioned the drop in short-haul travel. (Remember, most of the flights out of DAL are short-haul.)

Quote:
In 2000, the last full year before the terrorist attacks, Southwest carried 6.6 million passengers at Love Field. In 2002, the first full year afterward, traffic dropped nearly 19 percent below the 2000 levels, to 5.4 million passengers. Last year, traffic remained down 15 percent to 5.6 million.

Mr. Kelleher said Southwest could add more long-haul flights in Houston, Phoenix and elsewhere in its system to make up for the lower demand on shorter flights. But it couldn't do so at Love Field -- not without changing the Wright amendment.


My guess is that WN started the SAN-BWI service thinking that some people on that flight would want to make a connection in BWI to go on to other cities in the Northeast, and help fill up some of those empty seats on those short-haul flights out of BWI. Between the O&D travelers flying between SAN and BWI and the others making connections in BWI, they'd be able to fill up enough seats to make the SAN-BWI service viable.

Out of curiousity, I looked at O&D between SAN and BWI for 2Q 2007, as well as O&D for most of the markets ex-SAN where Southwest offers connecting and/or through service via BWI.

SAN-BWI - 538 daily passengers
SAN-ALB - 97 daily passengers
SAN-BUF - 127 daily passengers
SAN-BDL - 217 daily passengers
SAN-ISP - 50 daily passengers
SAN-MHT - 125 daily passengers
SAN-ORF - 333 daily passengers
SAN-PVD* - 184 daily passengers *Both SAN-BWI flights continue to PVD as 1-stops
SAN-RDU - 279 daily passengers

So by operating a SAN-BWI nonstop, Southwest is able to compete for some of the 1,950 passengers per day who travel in the 9 city-pairs out of SAN listed above.

If they flew SAN-ORF, they'd really only be competing for the 333 daily passengers who fly between the two cities, because on WN, there's really not many places you'd be able to connect to out of ORF. BWI, maybe, but that's about it.

BTW, is SAN-BWI the only transcon service WN has ever offered out of SAN? If so, that would make sense, because BWI is the one city in the Northeast that offers a lot of connecting possibilities.

LoneStarMike

[Edited 2008-02-16 07:58:22]

User currently offlineGOCAPS16 From Japan, joined Jan 2000, 4347 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2954 times:



Quoting Iflyatldl (Reply 9):
ORF-CLT-SAN as a possibility. I'd say the Navy is a factor.

If we're talking about official government travel, SATO has contract(s) with Delta, United, and AirTran for government fares. I can see it can benefit for leisure travelers having a nonstop flight out there, and it will make life easier for me since my family lives in San Diego and when I was stationed in Virginia Beach, I'd travel out there once a month during non-peak travel days to see them going through Atlanta, which I didn't mind. As long if Delta or any other skyteam does a nonstop flight to SAN, and with a SAN-ORF redeye, please let me know.  Smile Another factor we can discuss is airfares. People want cheap flights and usually, nonstop flights are more pricer then one-stop.



SIX T'S!......TURN. TIME. TWIST. THROTTLE. TALK. TRACK.
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2889 times:



Quoting SANFan (Reply 12):
Good point but I must wonder how many of the passengers actually qualify for or use gov't fares? Maybe half? (For example, there are probably a lot of military dependents/families traveling back and forth to visit relatives; would they be eligible for YM of gov't fares?)

Have to be on official government duty to get the gov't fare. Family members flying back and forth for vacation/visiting family wouldn't quaify.

My father, who does Navy work, flies between ORF and SAN a few times a year for the past 20 years, is either on UA or DL. Those are the two airlines that always seems to have the government contract. Once, he flew US. And once, on AA. Never on WN. Perhaps that is why WN doesn't offer a non-stop, as they do not have the government contract?

The Navy flew him two years ago on (DL)ORF-ATL-MIA-(AA)-LIM. I didn't even realize that there was a gov't fare to Peru. I wouldn't think that Navy traffic between ORF-LIM is very high!

The ulitmate route would be ORF-PNS-SAN-HNL. Cover all the bases with just one flight!


User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3856 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2872 times:



Quoting LoneStarMike (Reply 14):
Out of curiousity, I looked at O&D between SAN and BWI for 2Q 2007, as well as O&D for most of the markets ex-SAN where Southwest offers connecting and/or through service via BWI.

SAN-BWI - 538 daily passengers
SAN-ALB - 97 daily passengers
SAN-BUF - 127 daily passengers
SAN-BDL - 217 daily passengers
SAN-ISP - 50 daily passengers
SAN-MHT - 125 daily passengers
SAN-ORF - 333 daily passengers
SAN-PVD* - 184 daily passengers *Both SAN-BWI flights continue to PVD as 1-stops
SAN-RDU - 279 daily passengers

So by operating a SAN-BWI nonstop, Southwest is able to compete for some of the 1,950 passengers per day who travel in the 9 city-pairs out of SAN listed above.

I'm really, really bored this morning  Smile so I decided to explore this a bit further to try and determine how many passengers WN was actually flying on the 9 city-pairs above during 2Q 2007.

SAN-BWI - 538 pax x WN market share of 64.5% = 347.01 daily passengers
SAN-ALB - 97 pax x WN market share of 36.04% = 34.95 daily passengers
SAN-BUF - 127 pax x WN market share of 30.78% = 39.09 daily passengers
SAN-BDL - 217 pax x WN market share of 17.47% = 37.90 daily passengers
SAN-ISP - 50 pax x WN market share of 93.88% = 46.94 daily passengers
SAN-MHT - 125 pax x WN market share of 47.00% = 58.75 daily passengers
SAN-ORF - 333 pax x WN market share of 21.16% = 70.46 daily passengers
SAN-PVD - 184 pax x WN market share of 43.76% = 80.51 daily passengers
SAN-RDU - 279 pax x WN market share of 21.20% = 59.15 daily passengers

So of the 1950 people per day who travel in those 9 city-pairs out of SAN, WN is capturing 774.76 of them.

Rounded up to 775 passengers per day, that's about 39.74% of the 1950 passenger total.

Obviously, not all the passengers who are travelling from SAN to the other nine cities are transiting through BWI. Indeed, it would be impossible because WN only offers 548 daily nonstop seats between SAN and BWI. Some of them are having to go through PHX, LAS, MDW, etc. But I'll bet enough of them are transiting through BWI for WN to fill up those two daily BWI-SAN nonstops.

And of the 775 daily passengers, 428 of them are going to places other than BWI and and the ones who do transit through BWI are helping to fill up some of those empty short-haul flights out of BWI.

This is a long-winded way  Smile of saying that a SAN-BWI nonstop provides WN with more opportunities to fill up seats than a SAN-ORF nonstop.

Quoting SANFan (Thread starter):
I thought we needed a non-"Will-XX-Merge-With-YY" thread for a change of pace.

I meant to thank you for that, BTW  Big grin

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23148 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2861 times:



Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 16):
Perhaps that is why WN doesn't offer a non-stop, as they do not have the government contract?

I've always gotten the sense that WN doesn't pursue government and corporate contracts quite as aggressively as many of the legacies; here in STL, I know AA does much better with the large corporate employers than does WN. I'm not sure why this is, but the lack of small aircraft may be one reason, as few corporate or government contracts are going to fill up a 73G on an otherwise thin route.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineIflyatldl From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1936 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2843 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 18):
Quoting Ocracoke (Reply 16):
Perhaps that is why WN doesn't offer a non-stop, as they do not have the government contract?

I've always gotten the sense that WN doesn't pursue government and corporate contracts quite as aggressively as many of the legacies; here in STL, I know AA does much better with the large corporate employers than does WN. I'm not sure why this is, but the lack of small aircraft may be one reason, as few corporate or government contracts are going to fill up a 73G on an otherwise thin route.

I read a post about this back sometime ago, and it was countered by a poster that the govt. tend to award contracts to "Full Service Carriers" was the term I remember being used. Why? Couldn't tell you. Part of that just sticks out in my mind for some reason.



Ah, Summer, Fenway Park, Boston Red Sox and Beer.....
User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3195 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2773 times:



Quoting GOCAPS16 (Reply 15):
If we're talking about official government travel, SATO has contract(s) with Delta, United, and AirTran for government fares.

This year UA has the contract, so all official government travel between SAN and ORF should be flying them.

WN and other LCCs certainly do compete and win government contracts. Out of SAN, for example, B6, XE, and F9 all have contracts to various destinations. I don't see any for WN out of SAN this year but they have in the past (SAN-MCO is one I remember).


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5472 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2651 times:

More cool stuff folks and I thank you all for it! I really hoped that we might see a good analysis of an unserved route, one with pretty decent numbers really, and maybe figure out why there is no n/s. I feel that has been accomplished. This kind of effort must be put into almost any possible new routes by the airlines (unless they just use darts and map of the US which, I firmly believe, some do!) and I can now appreciate what is involved that much more.

That doesn't mean that I don't continue to feel (and hope) that I will live long enough to see Lindbergh and Norfolk connected with a nonstop, by SOMEBODY! (I would have thought UA or DL would have the most to benefit due to their military contracts, plus they could both take the flight on over the Pacific to HNL and complete my imagined "Sailor Shuttle" -- sorry Ocracoke, you're right on the money but PNS just messes up the aesthetics too much -- but WN just seems the most logical to do it, especially in SAN, when noone else will.)

And LSMike, any time you are bored again and have a morning to burn, please let me know! There's always lots of route and traffic stat's to be studied! (Great and impressive job!)

bb


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2099 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Do not forget that the major factor for a non-stop, particularly a long thin potential one like SAN-ORF is the number of passengers willing to pay a premium for the service. If most of the passengers are military, then it is unlikely that they or the government would be willing to pay enough of a premium. It is usually the business passengers that are willing to pony up for the non-stop.

User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1605 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

I think the commercial O&D is only half the story. I bet a lot of people fly this airline between San Diego-Norfolk...or more precisely Coronado to Virginia Beach...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chad Thomas - Jetwash Images
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Chris Starnes



But a route like this should really be served by none other then the original "poor sailors airline"...PSA. Maybe US should dedicate this aircraft to the route...


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Andres Meneses




Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineOcracoke From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 684 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (6 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 2527 times:



Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 23):
I think the commercial O&D is only half the story. I bet a lot of people fly this airline between San Diego-Norfolk...or more precisely Coronado to Virginia Beach...

You usually don't see this aircraft at NAS Oceana. You'll seen them every once in a while, and an occasional C17, C5, and even commercial B747 freighters, but mostly, you'll only see the fighter/attack planes. This picture was taken during a recent air show. (Pretty neat the Navy named the aircraft the City of Virginia Beach!  Smile ) Mostly, Navy traffic flies into and out of NAS Norfolk. I'm trying to remember if there is even a passenger terminal at Oceana. I think there is, but it has been a while since I've been there, so I can't remember. But there certainly is one at NAS Norfolk.

If you are flying on a Navy plane to Cuba, Iceland, Charleston, or wherever else, you fly out of NAS Norfolk.


25 Iowaman : Somewhat Thin Transcon. ORF doesn't even have PHX non-stop, let alone SAN.
26 Super80DFW : I'm surprised ORF-PHX isn't a route, but MHT-PHX is! PHX-ORF could relieve some of the SAN-ORF traffic.
27 GOCAPS16 : During my 4 years at NTU, I have never seen a 747, however Omega Tanker brings in the 707 and also a KC-10 registered in Netherlands, I have seen, on
28 Dragon6172 : Actually VR-56 has been stationed at Oceana for about 18 months, so you actually see C-9s there quite close to daily I'd say. I could care less about
29 Charlienorth : You can say anything in a route between two cities...but in the end is it really a necessary route?..Does it add to the bottom line I could justify LS
30 Post contains links LoneStarMike : Hi Dragon, You can try looking at DOT's Consumer Airfare Report Table 6 lists all city-pairs where there are at least 10 passengers per day. Each pai
31 BA744PHX : question LoneStarMike I have download the table you are referring to however when looking at the departure city for some it only shows cities in alpha
32 Post contains images LoneStarMike : If your departure city starts with "O" (Like Orlando, for instance) when you get down to where "Orlando" starts, it will only show the city-pairs whe
33 BA744PHX : LOL yes it made sense thanks Lonestar
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...
London - San Juan. Why No Service? posted Wed Sep 8 2004 01:51:19 by ORBITJFK
Why No AA Service To Brownsville Or Harlingen, TX? posted Sat Aug 18 2007 17:04:58 by CIDflyer
Why No Nonstop UA LAX-SGN And LAX-ICN? posted Wed May 16 2007 20:01:25 by SparkingWave
Why No Direct Service To GUM On Airmike? posted Sun Mar 18 2007 20:08:34 by ASEFlyer
Why No Loganair Service From Dundee? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 16:20:24 by 8herveg
Why No KLM Service To Amsterdam From EMA & LPL? posted Sat Sep 23 2006 20:17:47 by 8herveg
Why No LH Service Between Heathrow & Berlin? posted Thu Sep 7 2006 12:05:18 by 8herveg
Why No LX Service Between LHR - GVA Anymore? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 17:28:52 by 8herveg
Why No DL Service To Kona? posted Wed Jul 13 2005 08:36:13 by AV8AJET
Why No Sked Service Between Canada And Portugal? posted Sun May 22 2005 07:04:41 by RicardoFG