Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Capacity Changes At MIA/JFK/LAX/SFO  
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32618 posts, RR: 72
Posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4271 times:

Just for comparisons sake, it is interesting to see the changes at these four major international gateways this fall, comparing November 2007 to November 2008. Unlike numbers that are updated weekly by USA Today, these numbers, released by Innovata on Friday, include international:

Los Angeles/LAX

Number Of Flights: -19.5%
Number of Seats: -12.8%

Miami/MIA

Number Of Flights: -2.7%
Number of Seats: +2.3%

New York City/JFK

Number Of Flights: -3.2%
Number of Seats: -4.2%

San Francisco

Number Of Flights: -5%
Number of Seats: -6%

In my non-expert opinion, LAX is suffering the most because of both it's location and it's lack of status as a major hub for any U.S. airline. U.S. airlines have cut non-core hub routes like there is no tomorrow. For LAX, this has meant a serve cutback in Delta operations, the loss of United flights to both Frankfurt and Hong Kong, and a reduction or elimination in AA services to a handful of domestic destinations. Plus, it's geographic location to Europe puts it at a huge disadvantage. LAX-Europe typically need 1.5 planes allocated, but doesn't command significant fare premiums over East Coast-Europe. Air India, Aer Lingus, and soon Alitalia, are all out of the L.A.-Europe market. Major airlines have also found LA to be an easy market to reduce frequency in while still keeping a large pressence. This is what British Airways, Cathay Pacific, EVA, Korean Air, Qantas, and Singapore Airlines have all done. Despite each having cut a fair amount of frequencies and/or capacity to LAX, they each maintain a good presence in the market.

San Francisco has seen similar cuts from international airlines, but airlines have a smaller presence at SFO than at LAX, so they can't as much. Plus, despite United cutting destinations like Nagoya and Taipei, they remain an important player in the market and the cuts could have been worse.

Miami's gains can be credited towards the continuing strength of U.S.-Latin America traffic and American Airlines' decision to conitnue to expand in the market. While international airlines and American Airlines have expanded at MIA, domestic airlines have continued to cut capacity, the only exception being United (UA will more than double daily seats this winter; a result entirely due to closing PBI and FLL).

JFK cuts don't seem to need much explanation. They really aren't that significant, IMO, and just represent airlines adjusting to the market. It could have been a lot worse, IMO, but JFK seems to be holding on quite well.

Numbers from this article:
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_10694112


a.
16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

Thanks for the link.. checkmark 


I do agree with a lot of your reasons as to why LAX has seen a large decrease in both flights and seats.

Its nice to see AA expanding from somewhere.....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineMIASkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1346 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

Can we expect at MIA from UA? return to SFO?


Nothing better than making love at 35K Feet!
User currently offlineDoug From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 853 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

UA restarting MIA-SFO is not out of the question especially if the oil prices keep dipping like analyst predict.

User currently offlineLax44 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 62 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3985 times:

Yields aside, isn't it too much of a cutback at LAX? In August 2008 LAX served 5.8 million pax with 54,000 flights and this is before the even greater flight reductions in September.

If most flights go out 90%-100% full what happens to pax on cancelled flights?

Now with fuel back to sub $80, any chance airlines will hedge and add flights at LAX?


User currently offlineCorinthians From United States of America, joined May 2008, 337 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3900 times:

LAX is way down from it's high numbers in 2000.

Just a glance:

Movements
2007 - 680 954
2000 - 783 433

PAX
2007 - 61 896 075
2000 - 66 424 767

It used to be the 3rd busiest airport in the world. I'm curious how far it will fall after the latest round of massive cuts.

Info I got was from www.airports.org.


User currently offlinePhatfarmlines From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1346 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3836 times:



Quoting Corinthians (Reply 5):
LAX is way down from it's high numbers in 2000.

Just a glance:

Movements
2007 - 680 954
2000 - 783 433

PAX
2007 - 61 896 075
2000 - 66 424 767

How much of it could be contributed to B6? They were then-new in 2000.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24869 posts, RR: 46
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3785 times:



Quoting Corinthians (Reply 5):
LAX is way down from it's high numbers in 2000.

And both the city and neighboors are quite happy I am sure.

However the declines this year have so far come in domestic activity. For instance thru August '08 international passengers volume was actualy up a fraction at +0.13%.

I'm sure the fall cuts will eat into international traffic also, however its certainly not the end of the world, and in reality as I said earlier something many locals probably applaud the declines.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSFOnative From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3758 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Thread starter):
San Francisco

Number Of Flights: -5%
Number of Seats: -6%

SFO's negative numbers here are probably lower as well since the other neighboring airports of OAK and SJO have been the one's hit really hard by flight reductions in the past few months.


User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3743 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting SFOnative (Reply 8):

SFO's negative numbers here are probably lower as well since the other neighboring airports of OAK and SJO have been the one's hit really hard by flight reductions in the past few months.

SJO=San Jose, Costa Rica
SJC=San Jose, California


User currently offlineSFOnative From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 209 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3694 times:



Quoting LACA773 (Reply 9):
SJO=San Jose, Costa Rica
SJC=San Jose, California

Crappers, and I even made a point to make sure I didn't screw that one up again.  Angry


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24870 posts, RR: 22
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3669 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Thread starter):
In my non-expert opinion, LAX is suffering the most because of both it's location and it's lack of status as a major hub for any U.S. airline.

Is "suffering" the correct word? The drop in capacity at LAX should benefit the airlines serving LAX as they should be able to increase fares and improve yields with less competition.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2371 posts, RR: 11
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3631 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Thread starter):
In my non-expert opinion

Can not judge your expert, however I do think that you may be missing the point somewhat. The numbers you provided show that number of flights [-19.5%] have dropped much more than the number of seats [-12.8%], in fact the drop in number of flights is 52% higher that the drop in seats . . . Now that would suggest that the flight reduction is much more attributed to smaller airplanes rather than large airplanes. The international routes you were referring to generally tend to be operated by large - widebody - airplanes, so they can not be responsible in any significant way for the drop in flights.

It would be interesting in this respect to compare LAX to other non-hub power houses.

Regards,
PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineIAHFLYER From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 319 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3001 times:



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 1):
Its nice to see AA expanding from somewhere.....

It's just nice to see someone expanding period.



Little airports with the big jets are the best!! Floyd
User currently offlineSCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8752 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2971 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting IAHFLYER (Reply 13):

A lot of airlines are expanding services at the moment, especially foreign carriers.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32618 posts, RR: 72
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2587 times:



Quoting PW100 (Reply 12):
The international routes you were referring to generally tend to be operated by large - widebody - airplanes, so they can not be responsible in any significant way for the drop in flights.

No, but they can be responsible for a large drop in capacity. CX, BA, and SQ alone account for the loss of three daily 747-400 flights.

The loss in flights is largely thanks to significant cutbacks in United Express RJ operations; elimination of Delta Connection RJ operations; and the replacement of American Eagle Saab operations with American Eagle RJ operations (bigger planes; less frequency).



a.
User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2484 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):

No, but they can be responsible for a large drop in capacity. CX, BA, and SQ alone account for the loss of three daily 747-400 flights

Even more Mark, CX is changing their equipment on their LAX flights to the 77W gradually this month so their will be fewer seats in this sector.

Did SQ change the equipment from the 744 on their sole LAX-NRT 744 flight? In addition to the 744 daily to NRT they have a 345 to SIN and used to operate a 772/77W flight to TPE. It has been mentioned SQ will eventually change the LAX-NRT flight to a 388.


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...
United On JFK-LAX/SFO - Has Ps Improved Mkt Share? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 18:26:18 by Mozart
It's Official: Song To Fly JFK-LAX, SFO, SEA posted Thu Jan 27 2005 00:32:01 by Jetbluefan1
Song To Fly JFK-LAX/SFO posted Wed Dec 8 2004 01:08:52 by Padcrasher
UA Ordered To Repay DEN Bonds, Not JFK,LAX,SFO posted Wed Mar 31 2004 01:32:15 by Alphascan
UA JFK-LAX/SFO Business Class? posted Thu Jan 15 2004 19:20:54 by Slcdeltarumd11
Delta, JFK-LAX/SFO posted Sun Oct 26 2003 03:09:13 by ContinentalEWR
AR Sched Changes At MIA...going To Daily posted Sat Dec 29 2001 23:50:15 by Mah4546
Changes At Mia! posted Mon Dec 20 1999 15:57:00 by Derico
Highest First/business Loads From LAX, SFO, & JFK posted Fri Oct 10 2008 16:26:32 by Kaitak744
Terminal Changes At LAX This Fall? posted Tue Aug 12 2008 02:02:31 by The777Man