lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11912 posts, RR: 100 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17970 times:
First, I find YYZ an very intresting choice for VX's first international destination. I interpret this to be a strategy 'going North' first. I do not expect Mexico for a few years, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
Quoting PHXtoDCAtoMSP (Reply 2): I thought that the ending of services to SNA was particularly interesting. That was a rather short foray.
dbo861 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 814 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17876 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 3): First, I find YYZ an very intresting choice for VX's first international destination. I interpret this to be a strategy 'going North' first. I do not expect Mexico for a few years, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.
They have been hinting at Canada service for awhlie. I always thought YVR would be their first choice. I'm not surprised by YYZ, but it is an extremely expensive airport to operate out of. Hopefully they can make it work.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1375 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17793 times:
I'm sure I may not be comparing "apples to apples" here but it strikes me that the growth of VX seems a lot more cautious and slower as compared to B6, years ago.
I mean, the article talks about VX as "the new airline". How many years can you say that???
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
flyingcat From United States of America, joined May 2007, 520 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 17632 times:
VX serving to SNA ulitmately was a chancy move so early on when their network is still in its infancy and they have pletny more destinations to add before they begin to add a secondary airport. WN pouncing on the route did not help at all Perhaps when they becom larger the can revisit this but if they had to go after a secondary market my hunch would have been BUR. C'est la vie.
MCO and YYZ are far better LCC choices. MCOLAX has no LCC service only DL,AA, and UA which makes it a prime LCC target. YYZ is a smiliar market with no LCC service. The money was on YVR but WS already has LCC service.
If anyone read the recent Jaunted article on possible new VX additions YYZ was onlly given a middle of the road 60% while MCO was not even on the list. If this is the case expext more VX additions to include a mix of the usual supsects along with some out of left field surprises.
wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5758 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17383 times:
Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 9): Virgin is getting a lot of press lately - good (new routes), bad (Flight 404) and good/bad (Fly Girls debut).
LOL! True. I just hope VX's problem at Stewart doesn't become an on-going problem with future interrupted flight operations.
Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 9): According to the article, YYZ is two flights a day - one each from LAX and SFO. Another article also mentions three additional cities for 2010 - presumably Chicago is one of them.
I would be interested in Air Canada's and maybe WJ's response to VX's new service. When AS was flying MD-80's between LAX and YYZ back in 1980's-1990's, Air Canada brought in the big guns with L-1011's and 767-300's...I wouldn't have been surprised if they even brought in 747-100's/-200's...just to flood the market and chase AS out.
Icebird757 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 647 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17278 times:
Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
YYZ will be a total disaster, and MCO will be, well, MCO. Who wants to bet B6 announces LAXMCO/SFOMCO shortly?
I was just wondering the same thing. How many hours before B6 announces this? I think on the VX SFO-FLL annoucement, it only took less than 4 hours for B6 to annouce they were going to serve that route also.
LGB....where you can watch the grass grow because the traffic is so slow.
How come it took you so long to write your usual "optimistic" predictions about VX? Reply # 11? Come on, you can do better than that. By the way, any reason why YYZ will be "a total disaster"? Or should we just trust your word for it? As a matter of fact, has any of your forecasts about VX been successful yet?
NorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2902 posts, RR: 39 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17137 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 10): I would be interested in Air Canada's and maybe WJ's response to VX's new service. When AS was flying MD-80's between LAX and YYZ back in 1980's-1990's, Air Canada brought in the big guns with L-1011's and 767-300's...I wouldn't have been surprised if they even brought in 747-100's/-200's...
AC has had large aircraft on YYZ-LAX many times, before, during and after Jet America/Alaska's service. It was one of the routes the 2nd round L1011s served (YYZ-LAX, YYZ-YVR) well after AS dropped out.
AC has scheduled: DC-8-40/50/60, 727-200, 747-100/-200, L1011, 767, A319, 320, 321... don't think they ever scheduled A330s, 340s and 777s, but basically everything else with enough range.
Also 747-400 Combis flew YYZ-LAX fairly often due to freight contracts.
Now its all Babybus service... or 73NGs on AA or WJ.
Anyways... VX to YYZ! Only qustion i would have is T1 or T3?(my hunch is T3 but who knows)
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
pnwtraveler From Canada, joined Jun 2007, 2145 posts, RR: 12 Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16908 times:
When I first read the title of the thread I immediately though finally Branson who is in Toronto a lot is following through on his frequent comments of returning to YYZ. Then I saw the America .
A large amount of the traffic between YYZ and LAX is from two sources. Business travel and connecting travel.
There is a surprizing amount of entertainment industry traffic that shuttles back and forth. Music and movie for example. Some fly back and forth almost weekly. The business traffic would not be as prone to switch because they would be quite dependent on either AA's or AC's frequent flier programs. This travel can ebb and flow somewhat but it is still quite significant.
Connecting travel as well. Many of those people would be on through tickets with either OW or Star carriers, with or without a stop over.
After that there is the leisure market. Much more traffic goes south from YYZ than southwest so I would have thought we would have seen someone start service to Florida first. A lot of the tour operators sell the packages and then either put people on AA or AC, or one of the charter airlines. It will be interesting to see if Virgin is able to attract some of that traffic.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23471 posts, RR: 50 Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16817 times:
Too bad about Orange County.
Sadly instead of a nice market co-existence next to United, VX got trumped by SWA which started its own SNA-SFO service within days of VX.
I've watched the SNA flights a bit and instead of nice fare premiums compared to LAX which the airport long generated, its become just another low cost market on many(most) city-pairs.
ScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6441 posts, RR: 33 Reply 22, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16802 times:
Quoting PHXtoDCAtoMSP (Reply 2): I thought that the ending of services to SNA was particularly interesting.
The spin on SNA in the press release was rather bizarre: "Despite our relatively strong performance at SNA, given our new fleet plan and network prospects, we've made the decision to focus on the immediate long-haul opportunities that the Orlando and Toronto markets provide."
"Relatively strong" markets don't get axed. Their loads eventually started to pick up last fall after a weak start, but I suspect that they are finding it difficult to get the yields they need. Mood lighting and TV aren't as compelling on flights with a stage length under one hour.
Not that LAX-MCO is a high-yielding route; even with no non-stop LCC competition on the route, yields are already 15% lower than on LAX-JFK. Similarly, SFO-MCO yields are already 5% lower than SFO-JFK yields, again without non-stop low-cost competition in the market. SFO-MCO isn't a terribly dense route, either. Perhaps they've picked up some entertainment industry contracts which require LAX-MCO/YYZ (which might imply YVR would be forthcoming).
Quoting Icebird757 (Reply 12): How many hours before B6 announces this? I think on the VX SFO-FLL annoucement, it only took less than 4 hours for B6 to annouce they were going to serve that route also.
It hasn't happened yet, but I can't imagine that B6 wants to give VX any breathing room.
What caught my eye was this, "Our airport is well positioned to welcome new routes and new airlines. We are reaping the benefits of our world class facilities, our commitment to cost competitiveness which is reflected in three consecutive years of lower fees and our focus on serving our customers. All of these factors have enabled us to develop new routes and attract new airline carriers such as Virgin America," added Mr. (Lloyd) McCoomb." Am I reading more into it or perhaps is there a 'deal' going on here.....hmmmmmm
aviators99 From United States of America, joined May 2008, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 8 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16622 times:
Canceling SFO-SNA really doesn't free up aircraft that could be used for the new routes. That short-haul trip was just making use of available utilization. I'm wondering if they will add flights to the routes from where they were previously subtracted. It has been really hard to get a seat on short notice to/from SEA lately.