Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Q3 2010 DEN Mkt Share (from DOT)  
User currently offlinetxagkuwait From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 1803 posts, RR: 42
Posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2848 times:

Well, the DOT finally got around to posting their mkt share statistics for Q3 2010. Better late than never, I suppose.

I have digested them and am posting the data here for your review.

Here is the source: http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/x-5...le_files/consumerairfarereport.htm

I guess what strikes me as most significant is that was the first quarter for WN to surpass UA in O&D, Denver to/from Chicago traffic. Gnaw on that one for a moment. WN now carries more folks between Denver & Chicago than does UAL, which has hubs in both of those cities. UA has a significant fare premium over WN but WN enjoys a significant fare premium over F9.

WN is the leading carrier in 4 of the 5 largest markets to/from Denver. Maybe there is something about "bags fly free" that is drawing passengers over to Denver's Terminal C.

Trends from previous quarters as far as continuing to add market share and a steady increase in fare premium over F9 continues.

data includes: carrier, city pair1, city pair2, psgrs per qtr, mkt share %, avg fare $, and mkt psgrs per day

http://i54.tinypic.com/2ce5etx.jpg

http://i52.tinypic.com/2rfq1ed.jpg

[Edited 2011-03-03 12:09:52]

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

Very interesting. WN really has pushed their way into the market!

Just out of interest, does Denver-Los Angeles include BUR, SNA, and ONT? If so, I can see why WN would be up there with UA...



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2584 times:

Pretty amazing what WN has done here with the O&D.

Just by a quick count, they lead in 32 of the 56 markets listed here, and have another 8 where they have at least a 20% market share.

All done in about 5 years?


User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2300 times:

Not to take away from WNs amazing accomplishment but MDW-DEN is an all reality connecting two hubs for them as well.

I only see WN improving these percentages as time goes by. With No change fee, two pieces of luggage for free, amazing frequencies out of DEN, and more and more destinations i bet they keep climbing in percentage as people shift away from their historical ties to UA. I bet you WN will be a clearer winner in Q1 2011 in the Denver to LA market. We saw the addition of BUR and WN really seems to be sticking in the DEN market and invaded pretty quickly and successfully.

WN is already the market leader in quite a few impressive markets out of DIA. DEN-LA, DEN-Chicago, DEN-LAS, DEN-PHX, DEN-SAN, DEN-SLC, DEN-MCI, DEN-BWI, DEN-MCO, DEN-TPA, DEN-IND and many others. They are the market leader in 4 out of the 5 largest destinations from DEN!! I think that WN is really gonna go after UA in the not so distant future in DEN. Probably a decent time post airtran merger though they have too much to handle right now.

WN has expanded so much i bet the new strategy maybe post airtran merger is to boost and gain market share in Denver. Go after UA hubs and major cities and really compete now that they have built up a solid FF base in Denver. I look for big boosts in DEN-IAD/DCA, DEN-BOS, DEN-SFO, DEN-SEA and DEN-EWR/LGA to come. WN looks to be only limited by the range of the 737 out of DEN. It has been impressive to see. I think UAs horrible or lack of a plan in DEN has been a large part to WNs success. They refuse to fly the international business routes LHR, MEX, NRT, CDG and insist in fighting the LCCs on domestic routes when they have higher costs and much higher passenger fees which are making people fly the LCCs. UA better come up with some type of a plan and fast i only see WN keep chipping away at DIA. If i were UA i would at least allow a free checked bag for DEN passengers or wave the change fee give them something. UA isnt going to win a head to head battle with the LCCs in the domestic market where they have higher fares, higher change fees, and higher luggage charges in the end.

[Edited 2011-03-04 17:46:47]

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25392 posts, RR: 49
Reply 4, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2288 times:

Quoting FSDan (Reply 1):
Just out of interest, does Denver-Los Angeles include BUR, SNA, and ONT?

If you look at OP'ers charts you will see seperate enteries for the airports.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1541 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2233 times:

I find it shocking that FL somehow gets a fare premium against AA on DEN-RIC. Definitely an anomaly.


717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2211 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4):
If you look at OP'ers charts you will see seperate enteries for the airports.

Oh yeah, I see that SNA and ONT are on there separately. How does the DOT split things up? Does it go by the city the airport is named for, or by proximity, or something else? I'm asking because there is no breakdown for Chicago: both ORD and MDW are lumped together. However, SFO, OAK, and SJC are shown separately, even thought they serve the same metro area. At the same time, EWR is lumped in with JFK and LGA, even though EWR is technically not in the city of New York (or even the state). What is the reasoning here?



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2172 times:

What I find most impressive is the huge fare premium that UA enjoys over WN. Based on these numbers WN carried slightly more passengers Denver - Chicago, but UA collected over $4 million more in fares for the same city pair. Same story in Los Angeles where WN carries more passengers but UA brings in over $3 million more.


It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlinedenverdanny From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 263 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1998 times:

Yeah, on the Chicago-Denver UA vs WN thing, it's interesting to think about the planes being flown and how full they might be. How many flights does WN have going between the two cities versus United? I would think United is flying fewer and larger planes between the hubs and filling them, while WN is flying a lot more 737s. Plus, with United being able to charge higher fares, it makes me think United, though not having a higher market share, is still winning with profitability on the route. They're able to charge a higher price while flying around the same percentage. If United is flying fewer and larger planes, perhaps they are able to save on flight crew costs (pay). If WN flies 3 737s and United flies 2 757s, that's less crew for United to pay, isn't it? May be more efficient fuel wise too.

[Edited 2011-03-05 00:12:07]

User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

Quoting Alias1024 (Reply 7):
What I find most impressive is the huge fare premium that UA enjoys over WN. Based on these numbers WN carried slightly more passengers Denver - Chicago, but UA collected over $4 million more in fares for the same city pair. Same story in Los Angeles where WN carries more passengers but UA brings in over $3 million more.

$56 premium compared to how low fares are on this route isnt too much to get excited about its still low for a legacy carrier and its costs. I wouldn't be surprised if WN is still loosing less on those routes even with that- i dont think either is making money on those routes and fares. WN has never said that they are making money in DEN either. Does that price also factor in the first and business class fares that UA sells on the route? Maybe someone can chime in on that. Remember UA isnt a LCC they have to be pulling in a premium to survive they have much higher costs than WN and Frontier


User currently offlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2912 posts, RR: 30
Reply 10, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 1904 times:

Thanks for compiling and posting this stuff.

Something wihich does not affect the Southwest numbers but may impact UA and F9 is inclusion of code-share partner traffic. That's a chronic issue with these DoT stats. It's by no means every code-share partner missing, and it can vary from quarter to quarter. Makes these stats maddening sometimes.

DEN-OMA is a good illustration.

Here are total onboard passengers between Denver and Omaha (both directions) in Q3 2010
98,618 United
68,357 Frontier
59,168 Southwest

The DoT reported local traffic between the two cities shows:
29,490 Southwest
19,980 United
Frontier too small to show up

The issue here is that the huge majority of Frontier traffic was flown by Midwest in the quarter, and some United traffic was flown by code-share regionals. I'm not certain which if any of the various UA* carriers flying DEN-OMA are missing in these totals, but it seems very likely that F9* operated by YX in the quarter is missing.

If you look at other routes where Frontier's presence was primarily code-share such as ABQ, F9 is similarly missing.

This doesn't stunt everything here...for example there's no UA* nor F9* between Denver and Chicago...but it is something to keep in mind, especially on routes with less mainline. Not positive how much UA* is missing, but F9* appears to be excluded in what the reports show.


User currently offlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2912 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1870 times:

From the prior year's Q3 (2009) numbers, DEN-OMA local traffic:

27970 Frontier
23990 Southwest
23250 United

Southwest might well have moved into the top spot, unless Frontier also grew on OMA-DEN enough to keep up with Southwest. But it seems very unlikely that in the course of of a year Frontier went from #1 to too-small-to-register in the market.

One other sign of this reporting issue. The grand total daily traffic between Denver and Omaha (both ways together) was reported as 823 per day in Q3 of 2009 but then dropped down to 570 per day in Q3 of 2010. Hard to believe that in a market where Southwest pressed growth that the entire pie shrunk by 30% year-over-year.


User currently offlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2912 posts, RR: 30
Reply 12, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1829 times:

As long as I was playing around with the F9 numbers in DEN, for Q3 2010 I looked at the percentage of passengers flying Frontier out of DEN by market who actually flew on F9*.

Here are the markets where at least 5% of Frontier passengers actually flew on F9*, and the count of these don't appear to be in the DoT stats.

(Most of these >95% markets were actually 100%, but some had the occasional mainline making the total in the high 90's)

>95% ….. abq
>95% ….. ase
>95% ….. bil
>95% ….. bkg
>95% ….. bzn
>95% ….. cos
>95% ….. dro
>95% ….. grb
>95% ….. grr
>95% ….. ict
>95% ….. lgb
>95% ….. okc
>95% ….. rap
>95% ….. sat
>95% ….. sba
94% ……. oma
41% ……. boi
39% ……. slc
29% ……. mke
25% ……. mci
23% ……. aus
22% ……. msn
16% ……. dfw
14% ……. sfo
13% ……. geg
12% ……. msp
12% ……. san
7% ……… phx
7% ……… dtw
6% ……… iah

For markets where Frontier shows up in the Denver passenger stats...but significant traffic actually flew F9*....the reported Frontier numbers are an undercount.

For example, Denver-Salt Lake was reported as 14,150 passengers local passengers per the quarter on Frontier. However of all the total onboard DEN-SLC passengers served by Froniter, 39% were on F9*, and thus not counted in that 14,150. If that 14,150 only represents 61% of all local customers Frontier actually carried, that puts the real Frontier count for local DEN-SLC passengers at just under 23,200.

This doesn't affect all markets, of course. And the undercount in markets like Houston, Detroit and Phoenix is small. But a fair number of markets do have show a significant undercount of actual Frontier traffic served, and a few like ABQ and OMA are omitted entirely from DoT stats because so little was mainline, and thus so little registered in the report.


User currently offlineFSDan From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 755 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1782 times:

Quoting denverdanny (Reply 8):
I would think United is flying fewer and larger planes between the hubs and filling them, while WN is flying a lot more 737s.

United has larger planes, but not fewer. Both have 9 daily flights. However, I'm sure UA carries more connecting passengers.



SEA SFO SJC LAX ONT SAN DEN IAH DFW OMA FSD MSP MSN MKE ORD DTW CVG MEM JAN BHM RSW ATL CLT BWI PHL LGA JFK MEX LIM KEF
User currently offlineLambertman From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2076 posts, RR: 35
Reply 14, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1735 times:

Looking at the number of flights in some of those markets I can't help but think that Denver is bleeding a lot of red ink for someone.

User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2760 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1600 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 9):
$56 premium compared to how low fares are on this route isnt too much to get excited about its still low for a legacy carrier and its costs.

It's $16 million in annual revenue. Nothing to sneeze at.

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 12):
But a fair number of markets do have show a significant undercount of actual Frontier traffic served, and a few like ABQ and OMA are omitted entirely from DoT stats because so little was mainline, and thus so little registered in the report.

I noticed that too. The flights operated by Republic under the Frontier/Midwest brands seem to have been omitted. I did think it was an interesting look at UA and WN head to head, but too many of the F9 numbers were too far off of reality to get a good feel of how they compete against the two.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17508 posts, RR: 45
Reply 16, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 9):

$56 premium compared to how low fares are on this route isnt too much to get excited abou

What? It's a 36% fare premium. When your fare is in the 100s and you can get $50 more that's huge, for any carrier.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineTUSdawg23 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1582 times:

Why wasnt for DEN-NYC both DL and B6 mentioned?

[Edited 2011-03-05 15:03:03]

User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1524 times:

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 10):
Something wihich does not affect the Southwest numbers but may impact UA and F9 is inclusion of code-share partner traffic. That's a chronic issue with these DoT stats. It's by no means every code-share partner missing, and it can vary from quarter to quarter. Makes these stats maddening sometimes.
Quoting knope2001 (Reply 10):
One other sign of this reporting issue. The grand total daily traffic between Denver and Omaha (both ways together) was reported as 823 per day in Q3 of 2009 but then dropped down to 570 per day in Q3 of 2010. Hard to believe that in a market where Southwest pressed growth that the entire pie shrunk by 30% year-over-year.

QuotingLambertman(Reply 14):
Looking at the number of flights in some of those markets I can't help but think that Denver is bleeding a lot of red ink for someone.


Boyd Group did an interesting write-up on an aspect of this recently using q210 numbers:


http://www.aviationplanning.com/AviationDataFlash.htm
(scroll down a bit)


... Nonstop Segment Financial Performance Report covering the four carriers in the Denver - Phoenix market.

The data (in this case for the 2Q of 2010) show that each airline has a different strategy and model. Each is chasing after, and capturing, different traffic stratas, based on their route system strengths and weaknesses. Each is doing quite well, even in light of the fact that the capacity these carriers offer is roughly double the local O&D demand in the PHX-DEN market.



boyd aviation consulting group q201 den phx
graph courtesy of Boyd Group


With A 13% & 14% Local O&D Share, United & US Airways Are Cleaning Up. What's interesting is that the strategy of both United and US Airways in the DEN-PHX market is to capitalize on using the seats they're tossing between DEN and PHX to maximize their hub strength (UA at DEN and US at PHX) - and to cede the local market to the competition.

But let's look beyond just local O&D...... US & UA are arguably doing better than the competition on the DEN-PHX route by the only metric that really counts - money. In short, the scorecard is simply how much long green do those nonstop seats generate to the carrier's system.


Money makes the world go 'round.......  

And as these DOT stats do cover a wide range of measure, it's pretty obvious that they don't answer all the questions.

BTW, thanks and really good job with this txagkuwait, this summary provides a lot of interesting info.

and p.s. it looks like CAK gets more O&D than does CLE.......?


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6764 posts, RR: 31
Reply 19, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1393 times:

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 12):
Here are the markets where at least 5% of Frontier passengers actually flew on F9*, and the count of these don't appear to be in the DoT stats.

(Most of these >95% markets were actually 100%, but some had the occasional mainline making the total in the high 90's)

Actually, some of those markets do appear in the DOT stats; for example, F9 is reported to have 36% market share in ASE-DEN, and that was entirely flown by L4 under the F9 code.

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 10):
The issue here is that the huge majority of Frontier traffic was flown by Midwest in the quarter, and some United traffic was flown by code-share regionals. I'm not certain which if any of the various UA* carriers flying DEN-OMA are missing in these totals, but it seems very likely that F9* operated by YX in the quarter is missing.

If memory serves, these reports are generated from ticketing data submitted to DOT by the airlines. As a result, Republic was submitting separate data for Frontier and Midwest in 3Q2010; both airlines continued to issue tickets until the reservations systems were consolidated on 1 Oct 2010.


User currently offlineLV From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 2005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1367 times:

I am curious I noticed that F9 is not listed for DEN-OKC.... what's up with that?

User currently offlineslcdeltarumd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3466 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1287 times:

For the record i don't think anyone knows that WN is making money in DEN either but it seems like a market they have decided they are willing to loose money to build a full scale hub operation quickly. Saying that UA and US is getting xys higher fares or is doing better than WN on a particular route or routes does not mean that UA/US is making money on the route either. The fares are still low for everyone none of those routes are racking it in for anyone. DEN airfares are still way way below the national average which is the real problem for UA as they have higher costs than the LCCs. I am sure o&d looses money for UA at DEN but the connections are very profitable because of alot of the city pairs. DEN is a very interesting place but i really think UA should add LHR, CDG, and MEX 5x a week its something to differentiate themselves from WN and F9 for the local market. DEN has high o&d those routes would be at least ok if they actually committed and flew them year round and it would be huge for business travelers and keep them on UA as opposed to shifting. I just wish UA would actually try them. UA seems to have given up on the idea of flying to any international business destination from DEN besides the local canada flights

Below paragraph is a quote from the article. WN has a goal right now of trying to increase DEN market share and they are doing it super low fares or not they are entering DEN like a freight train and getting alot of the local passengers on board quickly. Also UA loosing market share in DEN is a reality and significant

"each is pursuing traffic based on its own strategy, service model and market strengths. For aviation analysts, airport planners, and financial houses, this is another indication that yesterday's metrics - such as "market share" - are often outright wrong in determining how an airline may be doing on a given route, or even in a given region."

[Edited 2011-03-06 00:25:06]

User currently offlineouboy79 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 4599 posts, RR: 22
Reply 22, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 1286 times:

Quoting LV (Reply 20):

I am curious I noticed that F9 is not listed for DEN-OKC.... what's up with that?

Jump back a few posts. The route is operated by Republic, so the passenger numbers won't show up under F9 directly. So while the original chat by the OP is very nice, it is extremely flawed in that it doesn't include any passengers carried by the Embraers or Dash 8s (from what I've been able to tell by the data/comments). Hopefully this is redone to more accurately reflect the true nature of the markets and not discount a significant portion of the traffic actually on these routes.


User currently offlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2912 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (3 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1221 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
Actually, some of those markets do appear in the DOT stats; for example, F9 is reported to have 36% market share in ASE-DEN, and that was entirely flown by L4 under the F9 code.

Thanks for catching that...you're right, the Q400's do appear as Frontier in markets like ASE, DRO and BIL where they were dominant for F9. It appears the Republic EJets are missing.

Quoting ScottB (Reply 19):
If memory serves, these reports are generated from ticketing data submitted to DOT by the airlines. As a result, Republic was submitting separate data for Frontier and Midwest in 3Q2010; both airlines continued to issue tickets until the reservations systems were consolidated on 1 Oct 2010.

What puzzles me about how the info is submitted and complied is thta some airlines are flat-out missing. I would understand better if the E190 passengers out of Denver in the quarter showed up as credited to Midwest, but they don't. And I'd understand a bit more a case like the F9 / YX integration and overlap if reporting was off during the process. But some airlines with no such issues are periodically or regularly missing. If you go back over the last handful of years, ExpressJet / CO* is missing for most quarters, for example. When it's a small prop operator not included, it doesen't show up on most people's radar. But when an airline like ExpressJet is missing, that leads to a lot of skewed and missing data. And the ready access to this skewed data (either directly or via sites like Fare Measure) helps it spread.


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...
WN, Denver, And Q1 Mkt Share Numbers posted Tue Aug 3 2010 16:53:58 by TxAgKuwait
AA/BA/IB/AY/RJ Recieve Final ATI From DOT posted Tue Jul 20 2010 13:59:44 by B377
2010 Top Performing Airlines From AW&ST posted Wed Jul 14 2010 15:58:32 by allegro
Will WN Use NK Strike To Gain Mkt. Share @ FLL? posted Sat Jun 12 2010 10:57:54 by bjorn14
Q3 2010 Likely Boeing 787 Entry Into Service? posted Mon Apr 6 2009 06:45:24 by Keesje
Arik Air Receives Full Rights From DOT posted Sat Apr 5 2008 05:48:34 by ENU
Frontier's Lynx Gets Tentative Nod From DOT posted Sat May 5 2007 01:36:21 by Laxintl
United On JFK-LAX/SFO - Has Ps Improved Mkt Share? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 18:26:18 by Mozart
Ted Loses DEN Market Share; F9 Up posted Thu Jun 2 2005 19:59:39 by Alphascan
Boeing To AirAsia: Sell 737 At Cost 4 Mkt Share? posted Fri Dec 10 2004 23:52:44 by Xkorpyoh