FutureUScapt From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 765 posts, RR: 1 Posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3376 times:
The DOT today selected AA Eagle to provide EAS service to ART for the next 24 months at an annual subsidy of just over $3M. Without the subsidy, AA is forecasting a $2.7M loss. AA has proposed 12x weekly service to ART from its ORD hub as follows:
ORD 1305-1555 ART 0 ERD Ex. Sat
ORD 1830-2120 ART 0 ERD Ex Sat
ART 0715-0815 ORD 0 ERD Ex Sun
ART 1630-1730 ORD 0 ERD Ex Sat
Schedule subject to change.
It will be interesting to see how this one plays out. On one hand, I think it is great to see EAS service provided by a major airline that can offer seamless connections to dozens of destinations worldwide on equipment that the flying public has come to expect. On the other hand, I can't help but think how ill-suited ORD is to serve as a connecting point for an ART traffic that would be headed to the eastern seaboard and whether or not this is truly in the best interest of the passengers that would use ART.
HPRamper From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4622 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3333 times:
It's the best that could be hoped for with AA. The service needs to provide the maximum connection possibilities, and ORD definitely has more of those on AA than JFK and everywhere else is too far away.
It does seem counterproductive as one could simply drive to another airport - SYR - in the time it would take for a flight to ORD and then backtrack eastward.
panam330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2710 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2217 times:
Quoting FutureUScapt (Thread starter): I can't help but think how ill-suited ORD is to serve as a connecting point for an ART traffic that would be headed to the eastern seaboard and whether or not this is truly in the best interest of the passengers that would use ART.
Those pax will just continue to use SYR like they have for the past 30 years. I still think that USX to PHL or DCA would've been a drastically better idea, but it is what it is. Let's hope ART can support it past the subsidy expiration.
Selfishly, I wonder if this'll negatively impact AA's current SYR-ORD schedule.
Skywatcher From Canada, joined Sep 2002, 487 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
I find it curious that the citizens of Watertown can't find a better use for $3,000,000 than this. I hope the Chinese don't object to their loans being used for this type of thing.
Isn't it odd that there is a much larger Canadian town of 30,000 people (Cornwall) just across the St.Lawrence river from Watertown and there is no commercial airline service there at all?
I'm continually shocked at how the supposedly "capitalist" U.S. borrows trillions to hand out primarily to people who are middle class or higher. Is the average passenger going to ORD from Watertown disadvantaged economically?
knope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3182 posts, RR: 31
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
The DoT can only select among the bids it receives, of course, and US* didn't bid for PHL, UA* didn't bid for IAD, etc.
Service to O'Hare will obviously not do any good for people who need to head east...not many people are going to fly ART-ORD-LGA, of course. I would guess that a lot of the big cities in the northeast would not be flying destinations fom Watertown anyway. That's especially true if a connection is involved....if US* flew ART-PHL, maybe some local people going to Philadelphia would use it, but probably almost nobody headed to New York would fly if it meant flying ART-PHL-LGA...they'd drive.
As you get further south, it's not so important that ORD be the best option, but that it be a reasonable option.
Watertown-Atlanta, for example, is definitely fewer miles connecting in PHL versus ORD. But if you look at the elapsed time (assuming a 60 minute connection) flying via O'Hare is only 10 minutes longer than flying via Philly on a theoretical DH8 from ART to PHL.
Flying via ORD is 271 miles longer than flying via PHL...about 28% longer. But from a passenger perspective, there's very little penalty going via Chicago.
EAS markets are not be-everything-to-everybody ventures. Some local people will not fly out of ART because they want nonstop flights. Some people will not fly out of ART if it's $10 more than SYR. Some people will not fly out of ART because they want more flight options, or miles on a different airline. And some people will think flying ART-ORD-ATL is too out of the way. But for those people value the convenience of the local airport over those poetential negatives, this is not a bad service. We'll see if it is patronized well enough to make this succeed.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 9279 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
Quoting Skywatcher (Reply 9): Is the average passenger going to ORD from Watertown disadvantaged economically?
It's just proof that these awards are a joke sometimes.
The subsidy per passenger is still very inconsistent from place to place. This sounds like it will be high subsidy (mostly a loss to society).
The traffic at ART depends on the fares vs the very easy alternative at SYR, airport which is about a 1 hour 10 minute drive from Watertown, NY. Essentially, ART would have to be nearly as cheap as the very convenient (and practically local) SYR option. It is similar to JFK in New York City, which often takes a similar time (or more) to reach from parts of New York.
This in my opinion is an abuse of the EAS service which is supposed to provide access to needy areas with a viable demand base.... of which Watertown NY is neither.
To my knowledge, ART typically has single digit passenger counts. A jet ride to Chicago is just... political theater.