Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
QX Changes At FAT  
User currently offlineWhatUsaid From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 667 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2749 times:

Would appear the transition away from the CRJ700's will hit FAT this winter. First move is a reduction in the number of departures to/fr SEA from 2X to 1X per day. Then, come February, the Q400 moves into the SEA-FAT-PDX run. By late spring, if one is to assume the loaded schedules hold true, the 2nd FAT-SEA returns, but on a CRJ700.

WIth the new schedule, no same day RT FAT-SEA...

QX recorded an 85% LF out of FAT in May. Traffic is very much seasonal, with LF in January and February well below their systemwide numbers. Losing the morning departure to SEA is not welcome news, even if only for a few months. But, these days, to simply retain service is something to be thankful for..

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I'm surprised that QX is retaining the SEA-FAT using a Q400.

User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Pretty soon the only mainline service in FAT will from Mexicana, if this is not true already.

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11972 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2649 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 1):
Pretty soon the only mainline service in FAT will from Mexicana, if this is not true already.

Let we forget AA's double-daily mainline MD80 flights to DFW, plus Allegiant to LAS.


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2586 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Commavia (Reply 3):
Let we forget AA's double-daily mainline MD80 flights to DFW, plus Allegiant to LAS.

I didn't quote this...Eghansen did.

It's too bad that QX won't fly FAT-LAX with Q400's.


User currently offlineWhatUsaid From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2550 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 4):
It's too bad that QX won't fly FAT-LAX with Q400's.

I'd like QX to SAN. And, I am most likely am speaking for many others as well.

Flying XE to SAN Monday, there were a number of very unhappy passengers that are pretty much planning to make the 6 hour drive come September - they have no choice. I feel for the guy sitting next to me who makes the FAT-SAN trip 3X each week. I hope his bank account can handle the sticker shock.

As to flying the Q to SEA - it's only about 15 minutes longer than the CRJ700. They've done it before. At least there's a better view flying over Mt. Shasta on the Q. But, I was hoping that we'd see a new regional partner flying CRJ900's on these longer haul QX routes. I guess not.


User currently offlineJetboy319 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 270 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2478 times:



Quoting WhatUsaid (Reply 5):
I was hoping that we'd see a new regional partner flying CRJ900's on these longer haul QX routes. I guess not.

And displace many, many hard working Horizon employees just so you can have a "bigger" jet? How thoughtful. You may not be fond of a long Q400 trip up to SEA or PDX, but like others have said, be glad you still have the service at all. Cheers!


User currently offlineWhatUsaid From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 667 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2415 times:



Quoting Jetboy319 (Reply 6):
And displace many, many hard working Horizon employees just so you can have a "bigger" jet? How thoughtful. You may not be fond of a long Q400 trip up to SEA or PDX, but like others have said, be glad you still have the service at all.

Careful here, don't read anything more into what I was saying...but I did say:

Quoting WhatUsaid (Thread starter):
But, these days, to simply retain service is something to be thankful for..

Earlier reports, as you know, suggested that AS would look for a new partner for these longer haul flights. While I fully understand that AS wants to simply the fleet at both AS and QX, the idea of a 90 to 100 pax aircraft to fill the gap between the Q's and the 737s of AS would appear to make sense given costs. Is that concept dead?

Meanwhile, why is Fresno not dangling some $$$ incentives in front of QX for SAN? My business offered to help bring in a number of major Fresno-based companies to approach QX. Seems as if everyone is just giving up. Sure, timing is all wrong given fuel costs, but if you don't try...you drive.


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2398 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would imagine if QX were to consider flying to Southern California, they would fly to LAX over SAN (sorry WhatUsaid) considering that's where the AS/QX hub or connecting complex is located.

Wouldn't be a blast if QX/AS were able to contract Island Air to fly some of the SoCal routes on contract? Maybe or maybe not. They once entertained EAS flying out MCI...anything is possible at this point.

What about SBA?


User currently offlineExaauadl From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (6 years 4 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2379 times:

Why would QX serve FAT-LAX, it is already well served. Why so that they can connect low yield to Mexico beaches? FAT-SAN is at least a unique market with no direct competition.

User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5844 posts, RR: 28
Reply 10, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2333 times:



Quoting WhatUsaid (Reply 7):
Meanwhile, why is Fresno not dangling some $$$ incentives in front of QX for SAN? My business offered to help bring in a number of major Fresno-based companies to approach QX. Seems as if everyone is just giving up. Sure, timing is all wrong given fuel costs, but if you don't try...you drive.

Too much focus on the terminal projects right now? It does seem strange that more isn't being put together on the service side.

Heck, you and I would both even go for Allegiant 3X or 4X per week to SAN.

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 8):
I would imagine if QX were to consider flying to Southern California, they would fly to LAX over SAN (sorry WhatUsaid) considering that's where the AS/QX hub or connecting complex is located.



Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 9):
Why would QX serve FAT-LAX, it is already well served.

The only reason I can see for QX to fly FAT-LAX would be if Eagle closed the LAX operation and QX replaced it statewide.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2300 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 10):
The only reason I can see for QX to fly FAT-LAX would be if Eagle closed the LAX operation and QX replaced it statewide.

It wouldn't surprise me if Eagle closed up LAX operations, considering all of the Saabs will be parked. The Jungle Jets will only serve some markets.

You have a point about QX...I don't see how QX would have the resources nor the drive to open up a much larger operations at LAX.

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 9):
Why would QX serve FAT-LAX, it is already well served. Why so that they can connect low yield to Mexico beaches? FAT-SAN is at least a unique market with no direct competition.

Is there enough traffic for multiple flights between FAT and SAN? While I don't disagree with you on the fact that it would be unique market, IMHO I think there is a better chance of them doing FAT-LAX over FAT-SAN. Stranger things have happened though.


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5844 posts, RR: 28
Reply 12, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2250 times:



Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 11):
Is there enough traffic for multiple flights between FAT and SAN? While I don't disagree with you on the fact that it would be unique market, IMHO I think there is a better chance of them doing FAT-LAX over FAT-SAN. Stranger things have happened though.

XJet has gone from 2X originally to 3X/day (150 seats each way) now on FAT-SAN. Loads have been about 65-70% and growing but a lot of business traffic. So 2X per day on a Q400 might be possible.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlinePlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 5792 posts, RR: 28
Reply 13, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2204 times:



Quoting Jetboy319 (Reply 6):
And displace many, many hard working Horizon employees just so you can have a "bigger" jet? How thoughtful.

Oh please. So now we cannot even wish for a different or better plane on an aviation message board without being labeled a job-killer? What about the hard-working people at Skywest? Or Republic? What about the guy paying for the ticket?

I need less caffeine.

Quoting Jetboy319 (Reply 6):
You may not be fond of a long Q400 trip up to SEA or PDX, but like others have said, be glad you still have the service at all. Cheers!

Yes. By all means, you as the paying customer should just shut up, pay for your seat, and move along. No need to offer your two cents. After all, what business ever failed due to not listening to feedback.

Definitely less caffeine...

Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 12):
XJet has gone from 2X originally to 3X/day (150 seats each way) now on FAT-SAN. Loads have been about 65-70% and growing but a lot of business traffic. So 2X per day on a Q400 might be possible.

I think ExpressJet has shown that connecting secondary markets is not profitable on an ERJ/CRJ, but given a different fuel environment, better connecting opportunities, and the right aircraft (Q400?), it might just make sense. And money.

-Dave



Next Trip: SEA-ABQ-SEA on Alaska
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5594 posts, RR: 12
Reply 14, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2131 times:



Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 12):
XJet has gone from 2X originally to 3X/day (150 seats each way) now on FAT-SAN. Loads have been about 65-70% and growing but a lot of business traffic. So 2X per day on a Q400 might be possible.



Quoting WhatUsaid (Reply 7):
Meanwhile, why is Fresno not dangling some $$$ incentives in front of QX for SAN? My business offered to help bring in a number of major Fresno-based companies to approach QX. Seems as if everyone is just giving up. Sure, timing is all wrong given fuel costs, but if you don't try...you drive.

I realize I'm kind of late to the party, but you guys have a third "Aye" for your SAN-FAT ideas, this one from the other end of the line!  Smile

It's certainly been discussed many times before and will continue to be until SOMEONE catches on. I will repeat (here) the op's situation for AS/QX at Lindbergh:
> 3 EXCLUSIVE gates (16, 17, 18)
> 13 flights (SEA x8, PDX x4, SJD x1), all AS mainline
> 4.3 flights/gate/day
> QX has started SAN-BOI and/or SAN-GEG more than once, cutting it soon each time
AS must either 1) have something in mind for SAN expansion, or 2) have lots of money to still be paying for this kind of gate utilization for over a year and a half now.

I think if QX got a bit creative this time, and took advantage of the great groundwork left by XE, they could find some good, solid opportunities at Lindbergh Field, starting with, but necessarily limited to, Fresno...

bb


User currently offlineWedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5950 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 2004 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

You all might be right...I would love to see QX do a lot more intra-California flying or Southwest-regional flying, but I just don't see what resources QX will have for it.

Unless...QX applies the rest of the airplanes that they will receive from Bombardier to SoCal.

Who knows at this point?


User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1991 times:



Quoting FATFlyer (Reply 12):
XJet has gone from 2X originally to 3X/day (150 seats each way) now on FAT-SAN. Loads have been about 65-70% and growing but a lot of business traffic. So 2X per day on a Q400 might be possible.

actually since the CASM on a DH4 is much lower than the ERJ and the trip cost is about the same, three DH4s would be fine even with 35% more seats


User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5844 posts, RR: 28
Reply 17, posted (6 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1975 times:



Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 16):
actually since the CASM on a DH4 is much lower than the ERJ and the trip cost is about the same, three DH4s would be fine even with 35% more seats

I suspected that but was trying to be conservative.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
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...
More Changes At Finnair? posted Sat Jul 19 2008 12:14:06 by Fly2YYZ
More Changes At US Airways posted Thu Jun 12 2008 13:56:57 by MSYtristar
Sun Country At FAT posted Mon Jun 9 2008 18:21:29 by WhatUsaid
Delta Gate Changes At IAD posted Thu Feb 7 2008 20:02:40 by Flynavy
The Future For G4 At FAT posted Mon Jan 14 2008 17:08:24 by WhatUsaid
Route And Frequency Changes At MAXjet posted Mon Oct 8 2007 17:46:14 by ThirteenRight
TAM Changes At MXP And CDG posted Wed Sep 12 2007 13:03:58 by JJMNGR
ABX At FAT posted Mon Sep 3 2007 02:36:12 by WhatUsaid
Two More Jetways At FAT posted Thu Jun 21 2007 22:08:36 by FAT5DEP
Trump's 727 At FAT posted Sat May 26 2007 15:56:00 by WhatUsaid