Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Volaris Applies For Host Of New US Routes  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25404 posts, RR: 49
Posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5811 times:

Today Concesionaria Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (dba Volaris) applied with the DOT for authority to serve the below five Mexico-US routes:

Aguascalientes, Mexico - Chicago, Illinois
Monterrey, Mexico - Las Vegas, Nevada
Morelia, Mexico - Oakland, California
Toluca, Mexico - Chicago, Illinois
Zacatecas, Mexico - Oakland, California

Volaris plans to utilize a mix of A319/A320 aircraft and states it plans to commence the services "shortly after receipt of approval".

Interesting to note, with these added 5 city-pairs, Volaris will hold designation for total of 42 different route combinations between the countries. Quite a collection of authorities.

OST-2011-TBA


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
20 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMexicana757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3042 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Interesting to note, with these added 5 city-pairs, Volaris will hold designation for total of 42 different route combinations between the countries. Quite a collection of authorities.

I agree that is quite a collection of routes. I feel they are getting the AM syndrome of collecting route authorities.

Interesting to see them apply for Chicago-AGU and Chicago-TLC. Chicago-AGU Mexicana operated for less than a year before it was cut.

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
"shortly after receipt of approval".

They always seem to say that. They have yet to open many routes where they use that sentence. Of the seven route authorities they have from Chicago-Mexico they use that sentence on five and only fly to one destination, GDL.


User currently onlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5436 posts, RR: 12
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Quoting Mexicana757 (Reply 1):
They always seem to say that. They have yet to open many routes where they use that sentence.

They sure went fast with SAN authorities: applied for GDL/MEX-SAN on 4/01, routes approved by DOT 4/05, schedules appeared on Y4 website a month later with service started on 7/15!

bb


User currently offlineskyone From Mexico, joined Feb 2001, 426 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5527 times:

Quoting Mexicana757 (Reply 1):
Interesting to see them apply for Chicago-AGU and Chicago-TLC. Chicago-AGU Mexicana operated for less than a year before it was cut.
Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Toluca, Mexico - Chicago, Illinois

Weird, they just applied to MEX-MDW as an extrabilateral until MX returns (they aren´t coming back), but why go for TLC-MDW if they will most likely get the authority from MEX airport. This route, if timed correctly, will get them plenty of conections at MDW + all the O&D to the windy city.

I just hope to see Y4 starting service from MEX to MDW soon.


User currently offlineNetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5454 times:

I read on the wall street journal that U.S airlines control more than 70% of the U.S - Mexico market.. this might start tilting things a bit more towards the center. this wil also help convince Mexicana to stay 'GONE'

User currently offlineMexicana757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3042 posts, RR: 28
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 2):

They sure went fast with SAN authorities: applied for GDL/MEX-SAN on 4/01, routes approved by DOT 4/05, schedules appeared on Y4 website a month later with service started on 7/15!

With SAN they went fast. Same with the extra bilateral they received for MEX-LAX/LAS. My pet peeve has to do with Chicago-Mexico route authorities they have been granted.     In their application for Chicago-MLM, MTY, ZCL they stated they would commence flights as soon as they were granted the rights. They have yet to do anything. Same goes for the huge application of routes they asked for back in February, they had six priority routes to start, of the six only two were started.

Quoting skyone (Reply 3):
Weird, they just applied to MEX-MDW as an extrabilateral until MX returns (they aren´t coming back), but why go for TLC-MDW if they will most likely get the authority from MEX airport. This route, if timed correctly, will get them plenty of conections at MDW + all the O&D to the windy city.

I just hope to see Y4 starting service from MEX to MDW soon.

I too find TLC-MDW a weird application. I believe this may be a move to block/ compete with Viva in case they decide to establish a focus city at TLC. DGAC has granted Viva rights to fly TLC-IAH, SAT, MCO, SFB, MIA.

I too hope to see Y4 starting services on MEX-MDW soon. Hope they open this route as fast as they did with MEX-LAS/LAX. The route has been granted, its up to Y4 to decide on a start up date.


User currently onlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6216 posts, RR: 30
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5375 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skyone (Reply 3):
but why go for TLC-MDW if they will most likely get the authority from MEX airport. This route, if timed correctly, will get them plenty of conections at MDW + all the O&D to the windy city.

I assume that it is because the catchment area for many passengers travelling to / from MDW is very high from TLC to certain parts of Mexico City (Santa Fe) for example, which is filled with high end businesess and the headquarters of a variety of companies whereas the catchment area from MEX is completely different. So it makes sense to fly from both airports.


User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17510 posts, RR: 45
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5375 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 2):
They sure went fast with SAN authorities: applied for GDL/MEX-SAN on 4/01, routes approved by DOT 4/05, schedules appeared on Y4 website a month later with service started on 7/15!

Didn't they pull SAN down to 2x last week?



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineMexicana757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3042 posts, RR: 28
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 7):
Didn't they pull SAN down to 2x last week?

GDL-SAN was cut down to 5X weekly from a daily service. MEX-SAN continues to fly daily.


User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5910 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Oakland to both Morelia and Zacatecas were ex-TAESA routes and I think Mexicana routes. I'm not sure if Azteca or Allegro served those routes.

User currently onlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5226 times:

Quoting Mexicana757 (Reply 1):
Interesting to see them apply for Chicago-AGU and Chicago-TLC. Chicago-AGU Mexicana operated for less than a year before it was cut.

Bear in mind, they just applied for them which is a long way from actually flying them.

They applied for a whole bunch of routes a while back that they havent flown and have shown no signs of flying.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5196 times:

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 9):
Oakland to both Morelia and Zacatecas were ex-TAESA routes and I think Mexicana routes.

FWIW I'm certain that MX used to serve OAK - Zacatecas...I remember seeing it listed on the arrival/departure screens...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineflyinryan99 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 2004 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 5134 times:

Quoting Mexicana757 (Reply 5):
With SAN they went fast. Same with the extra bilateral they received for MEX-LAX/LAS. My pet peeve has to do with Chicago-Mexico route authorities they have been granted. In their application for Chicago-MLM, MTY, ZCL they stated they would commence flights as soon as they were granted the rights. They have yet to do anything. Same goes for the huge application of routes they asked for back in February, they had six priority routes to start, of the six only two were started.

Do they have the aircraft on property to actually start all of these routes?


User currently offlinescutfarcus From United States of America, joined May 2000, 405 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4927 times:

I'm kinda surprised they don't have any US flights from TIJ. Given how many destinations they have from TIJ it seems like a no brainer to run connections up to OAK, SMF, maybe even PDX and SEA!

Maybe it's just psychological that US passengers are scared to connect in Tijuana? How about re-naming the airport "Baja Airport" or something?


User currently offlinewedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5910 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4739 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scutfarcus (Reply 13):
I'm kinda surprised they don't have any US flights from TIJ. Given how many destinations they have from TIJ it seems like a no brainer to run connections up to OAK, SMF, maybe even PDX and SEA!

Volaris flew the OAK-TIJ route briefly, but was not successful. Allegro Air did the same thing.


User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2868 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4616 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Aguascalientes, Mexico - Chicago, Illinois
Monterrey, Mexico - Las Vegas, Nevada
Morelia, Mexico - Oakland, California
Toluca, Mexico - Chicago, Illinois
Zacatecas, Mexico - Oakland, California

Interesting. It appears as though they are very interested in bolstering their presence at OAK, LAS, and especially MDW. Perhaps coincidence, or perhaps a shifting strategy away from adding random non-WN spokes (FAT, DFW, JFK, etc.) in order to focus on growing in key WN hub markets. I wonder if the elusive Y4/WN codeshare may soon be coming to fruition after all (just as the one between WN and FL will in the first half of 2012)...

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Interesting to note, with these added 5 city-pairs, Volaris will hold designation for total of 42 different route combinations between the countries.

True, but they only operate a fraction of those and I daresay a majority will never even start. I'd honestly be surprised if even 2 of these routes actually begin before they expire/lapse after the one year period.

Quoting Mexicana757 (Reply 1):
I feel they are getting the AM syndrome of collecting route authorities.

Absolutely!

Quoting Mexicana757 (Reply 1):
They always seem to say that. They have yet to open many routes where they use that sentence. Of the seven route authorities they have from Chicago-Mexico they use that sentence on five and only fly to one destination, GDL.

Probably more of a formality than anything. The DOT is well aware that airlines aren't clamoring to fly CHI-AGU, so might as well let Y4 have it even if they have little to no intention of ever actually doing it.

Now, I will say this. MX had a robust transborder (Mexico-U.S.) operation, complete with some pretty big focus cities - offering service to many Mexican spokes, rather than just hubs at GDL/MEX - at LAX and ORD. So far, Y4 seems to have restored much of the MX void in the California and LAS markets, complete with an impressive LAX operation. Now, it seems they may try to replicate what MX had going at CHI too. Also, it doesn't hurt that they can tie in to a huge WN hub at MDW!

Quoting skyone (Reply 3):
I just hope to see Y4 starting service from MEX to MDW soon.

I imagine that MDW-MEX must be a big priority. If/when MX's frequencies become fair game, Y4 will have a pretty compelling argument to have its established extra-bilateral flights become legally permanent.

Quoting Netjetsintl (Reply 4):
I read on the wall street journal that U.S airlines control more than 70% of the U.S - Mexico market.. this might start tilting things a bit more towards the center. this wil also help convince Mexicana to stay 'GONE'

A lot of that is due to the U.S. carriers dominating virtually all transborder routes in the leisure/beach markets (particularly CUN, SJD, and PVR). Y4 hasn't attempted anything in that realm, though they do hold the necessary authorities to do so if they would ever want to. When it comes to the ethnic/VFR markets, the playing field is much more level, if not in favor of the Mexican carriers that can tie in to strong hubs and inherently better serve their own people.

Quoting scutfarcus (Reply 13):
I'm kinda surprised they don't have any US flights from TIJ. Given how many destinations they have from TIJ it seems like a no brainer to run connections up to OAK, SMF, maybe even PDX and SEA!

Actually, one of Y4's very first U.S. routes was OAK-TIJ. It didn't last long. You really can't make money flying a route solely for the purpose of making connections. All of the O&D traffic is naturally inclined to fly OAK-SAN instead, because you don't have to pay all of the transborder taxes and fees on that domestic sector. This is the same reason that you see few - if any - flights into Mexico from some pretty important U.S. border airports like SAN, TUS, ELP, etc. Might as well drive across the border and hop on to a significantly cheaper domestic flight.

There are 3 alternatives to connecting via TIJ:

1) Introduce flights from OAK, SMF, etc. directly to key Mexican markets with strong O&D. Nonstop service is highly preferred to a connection, but, if there isn't sufficient traffic to warrant such flights, then

2) Utilize WN codeshare to bring pax from OAK to LAX, then hop on a nonstop Y4 flight. The transfer between T1 and T2 isn't bad at all, and LAX's massive O&D can support nonstop service to many markets that the likes of OAK, SMF, etc. never could.

3) Offer seamless connections via GDL, MEX, or other Mexican cities that may be served nonstop.

Quoting scutfarcus (Reply 13):
Maybe it's just psychological that US passengers are scared to connect in Tijuana? How about re-naming the airport "Baja Airport" or something?

That has very little to do with it. Newark, NJ is (or at least was) notoriously dangerous, but that didn't/doesn't deter folks from flying through there. Tijuana's issue has to do with a lack of O&D that stems from the proximity to SAN (far better options when flying from there to any U.S. market) and tax discrepancy between domestic and international flights. Same thing happens all along the U.S.-Mexico border and even the U.S.-Canada one too.



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineTomassjc From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 871 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4281 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 9):
Oakland to both Morelia and Zacatecas were ex-TAESA routes and I think Mexicana routes.

MX served Morelia from all 3 Bay Area airports at one time. There is a huge population of Michoacanos in the Bay Area.

Tomas SJC



When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your eyes turned skyward -Leonardo DaVinci
User currently offlineRamblinMan From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 1138 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3942 times:

Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 15):
Also, it doesn't hurt that they can tie in to a huge WN hub at MDW!

IF they ever turn that into a "real" partnership/alliance. Right now it seems that if you book a connection all it really does is sell you two tickets at once, and adds the fares together making it often far more expensive than others. And still no RR credit on Volaris.

That being said, the MDW-Mexico market has room to grow on O&D alone.


User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4018 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3769 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tomassjc (Reply 16):

MX served Morelia from all 3 Bay Area airports at one time. There is a huge population of Michoacanos in the Bay Area.

Tomas SJC

I was just thinking SJC was left out of the new applications and I believe MX did well on their SJC-MLM flight.

To be positive about all this, perhaps they are not pulling a "AM" move and will actually start the majority of these routes. First they have to receive the aircraft to start these new services first. Isn't the fleet they have pretty well spoken for with optimal utilization? If so, then one can see why they have not started these new routes they have obtained authorization to fly. Wouldn't the majority of these flights mainly be flown with A319s?


User currently offlineflyibaby From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1017 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3754 times:

What so many of you don't understand is that although they can get route authorities, they also have to get landing rights from US Customs before they can actually start that service. As an example, recently Volaris was denied daytime landing rights in OAK (even though they used to have a few daytime departures last year) and additional frequencies for their RON flights at SJC. The reason? Customs doesn't have enough staffing currently available to support additional flights. I would be willing to bet that the airport directors at both airports are making their voices heard to US Customs considering every airport wants to add flights.

User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3460 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3641 times:

Quoting scutfarcus (Reply 13):
Maybe it's just psychological that US passengers are scared to connect in Tijuana? How about re-naming the airport "Baja Airport" or something?

Maybe it's the two-hour border crossing wait if they're going to San Diego...maybe it will be better some day if the TIJ pedestrian border crossing ever gets built.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
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...
Status Of New US Routes? posted Sat Jul 15 2006 08:29:02 by Mah584jr
Three New US Routes For Aer Lingus? posted Thu Mar 18 2004 18:39:08 by Kaitak
Volaris Applies For GDL-LAS posted Fri Apr 23 2010 16:17:36 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For GDL-SJC & Chicago posted Fri Feb 12 2010 16:32:27 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For LAX-MTY posted Wed Nov 18 2009 17:32:38 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For LAX-MLM & ZCL posted Fri Oct 2 2009 19:16:06 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For TIJ-OAK posted Sat May 23 2009 09:25:59 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For GDL-LAX posted Sat May 16 2009 09:30:45 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For LAX & OAK posted Tue Mar 24 2009 15:14:32 by LAXintl
When Will Singapore Launch New US Routes? posted Sat Mar 29 2008 17:45:44 by BOACVC10