TOLtommy From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3346 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6643 times:
Quoting SWASFLA (Reply 3): Is CVG still considered a fortress hub??? LOL
Quoting KcrwFlyer (Reply 4): Fortress! give me a break.... Didnt DL just announce the closure of one of the terminals in its "fortress" CVG?
If either of you had taken the time to read the article, you'd see that DL still has an 80% market share in CVG. That's a fortress hub.
That being said, a new entrant airline with a business plan that takes the high cost of oil into account makes more sense at CVG than CMH. No airline dominated CMH. Fares were reasonable there for that reason. Skybus II could charge higher fares from CVG than CMH, and still undercut DL. The goal is not to take DL pax, but to get people out of their cars. If done right it could work. But thats the caveat. It has to be done right. And I'm not sure what that is in today's environment.
BOStonsox From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2014 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 6494 times:
If/when the DL/NW merger goes through, CVG will most likely be reduced. That would open it to the LCCs, be it Skybus 2 or the likes of B6, WN and FL. But until then, it is not going to be easy for them to go there.
Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 12): That being said, a new entrant airline with a business plan that takes the high cost of oil into account makes more sense at CVG than CMH. No airline dominated CMH. Fares were reasonable there for that reason. Skybus II could charge higher fares from CVG than CMH, and still undercut DL. The goal is not to take DL pax, but to get people out of their cars. If done right it could work. But thats the caveat. It has to be done right. And I'm not sure what that is in today's environment.
Agree, like an ice-cubes chance in hell it could be done right today, but you make a good point about the passenger demographic. DL would enact predatory pricing, but would never be able to go down to $10 fares if thats what Skybus part deux was offering.
Still.....this guy should seriously just stop trying to make this work. Wait till oil drops below $100 a barrel then we'll listen.
DL said CVG would not be reduced. as a hub.. what about the thousands of employees there that DL said would not be effected by the merger... this is going to be interesting... I have lived through DL promises before.... ha ha ha.... "due to unexpected operating cost you need to move to ATL/DFW/CVG if you want to keep your job".... "DL said you would not loose your job... but we never said where we expected you to live"..... lived that one.... all DL employees should be ready to move per mom DL's needs... I went from Alaska to DFW following the DL "plan".... IMO this will be a bummer for CVG DL employees....
TISTPAA727 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 337 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5203 times:
What I don't understand is if the SkyBus model failed so miserably in the face of high oil (ultra low fares with in flight advertising), why would they believe it could work with a new name? I hope the investors are smart enough to hide their money from any former SkyBus exec...
DLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3631 posts, RR: 11
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5082 times:
Quoting TISTPAA727 (Reply 19): What I don't understand is if the SkyBus model failed so miserably in the face of high oil (ultra low fares with in flight advertising), why would they believe it could work with a new name? I hope the investors are smart enough to hide their money from any former SkyBus exec...
Just my two cents...
From what I have seen in the press releases (for CVG, CMH, and the WV proposal) they are trying to lure the stupidest investors of all, local governments.
Idiot bureaucrats playing with taxpayers' monies with "the greater good" in mind.
Steeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9375 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5024 times:
Quoting CFMitch56 (Reply 18): PIT got some limited LCC action, but still, from what I've read, is not better off than when US had major ops there.
Some folks would like to argue otherwise, but I do agree that PIT is still worse off than when US was in town, in terms of the amount of traffic that used PIT.
However, PIT suffered then what CVG is suffering from now: outrageous fares. How much is a flight from CVG to, say DTW or ORD? Well, a flight from PIT to PHL, which was/in a top destination among PIT travelers, cost $300 - $400 one way, on COACH! REDICULOUS! Naturally, O&D was in the toilet. I could go on and on about what all lead up to the demise of the PIT hub, but it's been argued to beyond-exhaustion, so I will spare you all that!
Anyway, without the US hub in PIT, and as US continued to downsize their presence there from 2002 until 2005, LCCs began to come in to offer lower fares. The LCCs got off to a slow start because of the number of US loyals at PIT who would prefer to give their right arm for a flight and add to their precious FF miles. (Just ask FL about their flights to LGA, PHL, and MDW/ORD)
When US finally dehubbed PIT at the end of 2004, WN announced PIT, with inagural flights to PHL, MDW, LAS, and MCO. Now, the airline is the #2 airline at PIT and handles about half as much of the traffic as still-dominant US.
I am not sure of which LCC would be interested in CVG at this time, should DL pick up and move out. I would think that WN might be number one, but I don't think they have any interests of opening up new markets, especially any time soon with this economy. FL already serves DAY, so there is the possibility of canibalism if they launch CVG, given that many CVG flyers flock to DAY for flights to BWI, ATL, MCO, or TPA... Plus, USA3000 has weekly service to CUN, RSW, and Punta Cana, but apparently it doesn't even put a dent in the CVG market...
Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
MOBflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 1209 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4992 times:
Quoting Lexy (Reply 1): Well, the contract they signed in 1974 may keep the LCC's out of there for a while unfortunately. That's a deal breaker with LCC"s.
That contract, contrary to the article, is NOT unique to CVG. Federal regulations now prohibit an AIRPORT from subsidizing or offering incentives to one specific carrier. A local or state government can do that, as can CVBs, COCs, etc. An airport CAN provide incentives service to particular markets, however then all carriers, including incumbents, qualify.