Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SRQ Reacts To WN/FL In Article  
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6564 posts, RR: 20
Posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 6012 times:

Intially, the SRQ director was optomistic......but when she was alone, she finally reacted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ap5Sw3xsZhU

Airport chief writes article on how WN/FL handled it:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120126/COLUMNIST/120129666
I personally think WN is full of SH_T----pick a vowel

The scramble to find new airlines:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120123/ARTICLE/120129787

After the bad press,WN apologizes:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20120130/ARTICLE/120139977


Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

I still see this as an opportunity for UA. CO left during a wave of cutbacks in 2008 at the depths of the downturn and the high fuel cost period, because CO didn't have enough demand to fly larger 737s, so they were mostly flying 735s and ERJs, which are thirsty. They flew the ERJ from IAH, which required a coastal route. And they had trouble making CLE work. B6 also temporarily flooded the market with lower starter fares and more seats (they have cut back).

But with the removal of capacity to chicago, the increased size of UA+CO (worlds largest), the addition of IAD and the flexibility of A319s and E75s (more efficient than ERJs and 735s), UA can easily make IAH, ORD, EWR and IAD work.

Because CO left, DL has once again abused SRQ with higher fares to get there from ATL despite using the same types of aircraft, and the fees being lower. It's once again ripe for UA to come in and offer TPA equivalent fares like before.

But who knows, seems like UA is still afraid of Florida, even after the CO merger with the CO management.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlinebillreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 1021 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

SRQ may be better off without WN. They tend to scorch the competition and stagnate smaller markets.

Yes, agree that several airlines will consider filling gaps.
CO/UA is a possibility for CHI-town.
Where the largest problem exists is with BWI. Sarasota is the spring training home for Baltimore.
MKE, thats a challenge, but Frontier could consider.
IND has been a long standing winter connection from Indiana. Thats a hard one.
US could beef up CLT, and what about adding PHL?
DL could add more flow over ATL.
JetBlue won't fill any obvious holes left by FL.
SunCountry could fill some gaps.
Allegiant could look at some destinations.
Spirit could fill some CHI and add some other destinations as well.

WN is in antitrust territory at BWI, MDW and several other airports now.



Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6564 posts, RR: 20
Reply 3, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5593 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):

How exactly did B6 FLOOD the market??



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5504 times:

Several things. The article states that the SQR, with a metro pop of 725,000, lost WN service but smaller sized cities such as Flint (425,000) and Key West (25,000) retained service.

However, what the article fails to mention is that due to its close proximity to TPA, a fair percentage of the SQR's metro population is cannibalized by TPA. Once you subtract out the number of SQR's metro population that uses TPA, the potential pool of customers drops considerably.

Secondly, Key West is not near another WN station. The closest WN station to Key West is FLL which is quite some distance away.

This article is a clear case of someone presenting one side of the story without looking at the full picture OR someone who has an ulterior motive.


User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6564 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5472 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 4):

The article was WRITTEN by the airport director, he was a guest columnist.

TPA.....how many times do I have to hear this crap ??????!!!! People would use SRQ more if aiRlines provided better service at a competitive price.



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5):
TPA.....how many times do I have to hear this crap ??????!!!! People would use SRQ more if aiRlines provided better service at a competitive price.

Perhaps, but this is the same issue faced at every secondary airport in a large metro area. It is not crap.....it is just simple economics.

Quoting 727LOVER (Reply 5):
The article was WRITTEN by the airport director, he was a guest columnist

Which is why I said:

Quoting EricR (Reply 4):
This article is a clear case of someone presenting one side of the story without looking at the full picture OR someone who has an ulterior motive.


User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5073 times:

I find it very odd that WN will maintain EYW as a station, especially with it's "seasonal fluctuations" in traffic. Besides the fact that FL currently only operates 2 flights a day in the market. That's not typical WN strategy. I'm wondering if EYW will see additional flights? Of course, the very short runway there is another factor, so you're very limited to what destinations can be served efficiently. I would assume service will be limited to just the nearby focus cities of FLL, MCO and TPA.

User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3621 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5002 times:

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 1):
They flew the ERJ from IAH, which required a coastal route.

Was this an E145 or bigger?

Quoting John (Reply 7):
I find it very odd that WN will maintain EYW as a station, especially with it's "seasonal fluctuations" in traffic. Besides the fact that FL currently only operates 2 flights a day in the market. That's not typical WN strategy. I'm wondering if EYW will see additional flights? Of course, the very short runway there is another factor, so you're very limited to what destinations can be served efficiently. I would assume service will be limited to just the nearby focus cities of FLL, MCO and TPA.

Not only that I believe FL had to specially equip a 737 with brakes that could handle the short runway.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7552 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4940 times:

Quoting billreid (Reply 2):
They tend to scorch the competition and stagnate smaller markets.

Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come. I understand they are upset, but tossing blame around in the newspaper and even attempting to get an apology from WN is a crazy PR strategy. Did they really think WN was going to say, "sorry, we will give you another chance?" They wouldn't cake the mud on their own face like that. The airport should have taken the high road. Very embarrassing...

Quoting John (Reply 7):

I find it very odd that WN will maintain EYW as a station, especially with it's "seasonal fluctuations" in traffic.

Well, it does seem to have too few flights to survive, BUT it behaves like a combination of DCA and BGI. It's high yield, short-haul, and has restricted entry. If they can make it work cost-wise they will stay. It isn't as seasonal as you think.


User currently offlineKcrwflyer From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3845 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4821 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come. I understand they are upset, but tossing blame around in the newspaper and even attempting to get an apology from WN is a crazy PR strategy. Did they really think WN was going to say, "sorry, we will give you another chance?" They wouldn't cake the mud on their own face like that. The airport should have taken the high road. Very embarrassing...

WN obviously didn't want to fly there. Though you can't deny that when considering other cities they kept, leaving SRQ makes little or no sense.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8):
Not only that I believe FL had to specially equip a 737 with brakes that could handle the short runway.

I think they're just regular 73G brakes.


User currently offlinecmhsrq From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 995 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4783 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come. I understand they are upset, but tossing blame around in the newspaper and even attempting to get an apology from WN is a crazy PR strategy. Did they really think WN was going to say, "sorry, we will give you another chance?" They wouldn't cake the mud on their own face like that. The airport should have taken the high road. Very embarrassing...

Did you read the article? They didn't toss blame, they stated the reasons WN gave them for leaving, they never asked for an apology either. They did mention that what WN did was bordering on unethical. Which is true. Accept a bunch of money for advertising then announce you're pulling out a month later. It's like breaking up via text message.

This is the second time WN has screwed SRQ, first when they bought ATA, and pulled out, and now. They simply feel that the 300,000 pax who flew on FL last year will drive to TPA or RSW and still fly them. It's not about costs, or seasonality or anything like that. It's about the cheapness of the average WN passenger. Just like driving an extra mile to save a penny on gas. People will drive 2 hours to save 20 bucks.

SRQ is in a real pickle, DL, US, and B6 have load factors in the upper 80's low 90's so unless seat are added those passengers will use TPA or RSW.

The airport should try VA as well. There is enough O&D to PHL, ORD, and IAD to support dailies.

Maybe DL will make DTW daily year round, and double daily in the winter.

They have their work cut out for them.

Paul Murchie



The voice of moderation
User currently offlineboslax From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4699 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Quoting enilria (Reply 9):
Actually, SRQ just scorched their relationship with WN/FL. I'd say the public finger-pointing accomplished nothing positive and will put SRQ on WN's "avoid" list for years to come

Just like El Paso did around 1995/1996. The mayor of ELP at the time decided to raise the airport fees despite the objection of WN and publicly said he didn't care what WN thought. WN eliminated 10 daily flights within a few weeks. Service has never recovered to this day.

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 11):
Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 11):
They did mention that what WN did was bordering on unethical.

Is the SRQ director that arrogant to believe he is afforded special treatment. Ask the other 15 stations or so that Southwest/AirTran are eliminating if they got a visit from a WN executive. Probably not.

[Edited 2012-02-02 09:24:20]

User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6808 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4648 times:

Quoting Kcrwflyer (Reply 10):
WN obviously didn't want to fly there. Though you can't deny that when considering other cities they kept, leaving SRQ makes little or no sense.

I suppose the question which must be asked is, "Why didn't WN want to fly there?" If we take "WN had it in for SRQ" off the table, I'd presume that the reasons would consist of some combination of small air travel market size, low yields, and large seasonal variations in traffic. Yields for FL on monopoly non-stop routes to SRQ from BWI & MDW were lower than WN's yields on routes to TPA from the same airports where they did face competition. FL's service profile at SRQ was/is highly seasonal, with 8 daily departures in the peak season and 3 in the slow season.

EYW's seasonality isn't anywhere near as extreme, and yields are much, much higher.


User currently offlineAtrude777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5700 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4648 times:

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 11):

This is the second time WN has screwed SRQ, first when they bought ATA, and pulled out, and now.

No it is not. Southwest Airlines have NEVER screwed SRQ, why are people saying that?

The decision of ATA not expanding at SRQ along with MIA was the decision of ATA alone. Was there a codeshare in place between the two? Yes, but Southwest was NOT in ownership of ATA in 2005 when SRQ/MIA was dropped.

In December 2004, ATA entered into an agreement with Southwest Airlines to transfer six gates at Chicago Midway International Airport and 27% of non-voting stock in exchange for a cash influx and codeshare agreement.

All SWA "owned" were the gates and only 27% of Stock, certainly not a full ownership of ATA.

The ownership of ATA did not happen until 2008 when they got the LGA slots.

Alex



Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
User currently offlineTVNWZ From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 2408 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4618 times:

Wait a minute.

Isn't the reason airTran is in SRQ to begin with was they were bribed by a subsidy. So you bribe an airline to come and then get upset when the bribe proves insufficient to begin with? And if you have to bribe an airline to begin with doesn't that say something about the viability of the area to begin with?

Isn't this the free market at work? Drive to Tampa.


User currently offlinecmhsrq From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 995 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4543 times:

Quoting boslax (Reply 12):
Is the SRQ director that arrogant to believe he is afforded special treatment. Ask the other 15 stations or so that Southwest/AirTran are eliminating if they got a visit from a WN executive. Probably not.

Dude, read the article. SRQ paid FL 75k, for marketing in the in flight mag. They also 250,000K more in airport operating refunds. Is it right to accept that money then leave????

Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
I suppose the question which must be asked is, "Why didn't WN want to fly there?" If we take "WN had it in for SRQ" off the table, I'd presume that the reasons would consist of some combination of small air travel market size, low yields, and large seasonal variations in traffic. Yields for FL on monopoly non-stop routes to SRQ from BWI & MDW were lower than WN's yields on routes to TPA from the same airports where they did face competition. FL's service profile at SRQ was/is highly seasonal, with 8 daily departures in the peak season and 3 in the slow season.

EYW's seasonality isn't anywhere near as extreme, and yields are much, much higher.

Small market size, yet they keep GRR, EYW, and numerous other locations. EYW has 2 flights a day. Checking the yields for TPA-MDW and SRQ-MDW. SRQ's yield is higher.



The voice of moderation
User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6808 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4427 times:

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 16):
Small market size, yet they keep GRR, EYW, and numerous other locations.

GRR & EYW don't have the same extreme seasonality as SRQ.

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 16):
They also 250,000K more in airport operating refunds. Is it right to accept that money then leave????

They already paid the airport the $250K in terminal rents, apron fees, and landing fees over the previous fiscal year. They're getting money FL overpaid back.


User currently offlinesyncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 2039 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4330 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cmhsrq (Reply 16):
Small market size, yet they keep GRR,

First of all, GRR is hardly "small." The greater Grand Rapids area (keeping in mind that GRR is the only significantly sized airport serving the market) has a population of over 1.3 million people and virtually no competition from other area airports (i.e. AZO).

Secondly, how many other areas do you see WN serving multiple airports in a metro area with more than one airport? WN has a significant operation in place at TPA and there is a good chance that it simply operates more efficiently than SRQ does/would.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4295 times:

GRR and EYW aren't with an hour or hour and half of two other SWA airports with quite a bit of service. If SRQ were able to be profitable without canabalizing TPA or RSW, I'm sure it would have stuck around.


My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineLoneStarMike From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 3861 posts, RR: 34
Reply 20, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4237 times:

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but the article mentions that WN/FL is still on the hook for terminal & gate rent until sometime in 2014. So if another airline were to come in and use the space that AirTran is using now, would the new airline be subleasing that space from WN/FL?

LoneStarMike


User currently offlineikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 21, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4063 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 8):

145. Always full, usually overbooked, but because of distance and routing not profitable enough and not overwater rated so had to hug coast. But a 110 seater would be overkill.

Cle w 145 was even worse.

[quote=727LOVER,reply=3]

2 A320s to JFK w low fares on top of COs service was flooding the market. Did so right during economic downturn where traffic dropped off. Now that traffic has picked up overall, B6 charge $500 or more RT, while charging $300 RT to LAX. They undercut CO, forced them out, then bumped up prices. Classic AA DFW style move.

The point is, UA can go in and charge $350 RT to EWR or IAD or ORD and grab traffic back with A319s and E75s. And they can pick up the west of the country again from IAH with a more efficient, right sized E75 on the route, something CO couldn't do. UA needs 4 flights minimum to make the costs work, but likely could enter with 5 and perform well (with FL gone). Doubt they will ever return the SRQ-TPA prop flights though.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offline727LOVER From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 6564 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4035 times:

Quoting ScottB (Reply 13):
Yields for FL on monopoly non-stop routes to SRQ from BWI & MDW were lower than WN's yields on routes to TPA from the same airports where they did face competition
Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 14):
Southwest Airlines have NEVER screwed SRQ, why are people saying that?

Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.......its a DUCK!!!!.....or at least its FISHY

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 15):
Isn't the reason airTran is in SRQ to begin with was they were bribed by a subsidy. So you bribe an airline to come and then get upset when the bribe proves insufficient to begin with?

Yeah???? Read this !!!

Airtran Doing Extremely Well In SRQ (by Cmhsrq Jan 7 2005 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1895212&searchid=1895816&s=airtran+SRQ#ID1895816

and THIS !!
Interesting Comments From AirTran's VP About SRQ (by Oceanic Dec 23 2004 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1874844&searchid=1876347&s=SRQ+FL#ID1876347






some memories!!!


Airtran Goes With Sarasota! (by Njdevilsin03 Oct 4 2004 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1764840&searchid=1774741&s=airtran+SRQ#ID1774741


AirTran's SRQ Debut (by Oceanic Dec 18 2004 in Civil Aviation)?threadid=1868603&searchid=1868603&s=airtran+SRQ#ID1868603



Listen Betty, don't start up with your 'White Zone' s*** again.
User currently offlineMLI717fan From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 249 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3606 times:

This is kind of unrelated, but still some what... With G4, F9, and NK stepping in where FL is leaving off, does anyone think they will make a play for SRQ?

G4 tried a MCO focus city, they ended up giving up on it, but maybe SRQ would be a good way for them to merge their PIE and PGD operations. I know people who fly to PIE and drive south from there. SRQ is only 44 miles from PIE and 48 miles from PGD, so it might be a good compromise. Their PIE operation is flourishing, but it seems like the PGD operation hasn't really taken off.

F9 and NK also have operations in RSW and TPA, so they are also less likely to run to SRQ, but I think there is certainly a market here that is open for someone.


User currently offlineCitrusCritter From United States of America, joined May 2007, 1129 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 9 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3082 times:

I could have sworn WN told Federal regulators as well as all the stakeholders and shareholders in this process that they weren't going to shutter a significant number of stations and that primarily stations like PHF and DFW that duplicated existing WN ops would take the cuts. Instead, we've seen a number of small communities negatively affected by the merger. This is why merger regulation needs significant reform - WN misrepresented their plans to get it approved, then they just go ahead and do whatever they want to the detriment of those the regulations are supposed to protect.

25 FlyPNS1 : I count four strikes against SRQ. 1) Yields are weak. 2) Traffic is overwhelmingly leisure. 3) Proximity to an existing market, TPA. 4) Traffic is se
26 727LOVER : How about reading that 2nd thread in reply 22...............note FL VP's words
27 FlyPNS1 : Is it 2004?? If business travel was so strong from SRQ, you'd have service from AA and UA. The fact that those two carriers have stayed away speaks v
28 Atrude777 : Fishy or not..it's the truth. Southwest did not screw SRQ the first time around, that was all ATA's doing which I will reiterate again... I read it t
29 727LOVER : Fair enough......BUT, thats the way the media makes it sound, same thing with ATA's pullout of PIE I never said SRQ was BOS, NYC, or LAX.....I was po
30 DLX737200 : Southwest saw SRQ as a market they couldn't succeed in with TPA and RSW so close by. Airlines are a business, not a charity and the quicker the commun
31 N766UA : Noooooo, an AIRLINE company is DISINGENUOUS!? Whaaat?! That NEVER happens!
32 cmhsrq : You can pull fare, yield, and # of passengers from DOT filings. The average FL fare from SRQ to MDW was $145.32, MDW-SRQ $148.38, Q1,2,3 2011 The aver
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...
What Will Happen To WN 737 In MDW? posted Wed Dec 14 2005 19:08:35 by B777A340Fan
WN & FL Cuts In Florida? posted Sat Jan 28 2012 21:05:42 by olddominion727
WN/FL Confirm Plans To Maintain Ops At 22 Stations posted Fri Jan 20 2012 10:22:42 by atrude777
WN To Start ICT In 2013 posted Fri Jan 13 2012 10:22:15 by TSRA
WN (FL) And F9 To Battle It Out For Chicago-Cancun posted Tue Jan 10 2012 20:10:15 by wnintl
FL Policies Slowly Transitioning To WN's Policy's posted Tue Jan 3 2012 13:27:32 by atrude777
Rumor: SOC For WN/FL To Occur March 2nd, 2012 posted Tue Jan 3 2012 10:25:02 by atrude777
To Kill A WN/FL Merger - At The Last Moment? posted Wed Sep 29 2010 17:35:39 by Goblin211
What Happened To PHX's Status In WN's System posted Tue Aug 10 2010 23:14:29 by lv
How Much Does Cargo Figure In To WN's Decisions? posted Mon May 3 2010 22:09:36 by LV
FL Policies Slowly Transitioning To WN's Policy's posted Tue Jan 3 2012 13:27:32 by atrude777
Rumor: SOC For WN/FL To Occur March 2nd, 2012 posted Tue Jan 3 2012 10:25:02 by atrude777
To Kill A WN/FL Merger - At The Last Moment? posted Wed Sep 29 2010 17:35:39 by Goblin211
What Happened To PHX's Status In WN's System posted Tue Aug 10 2010 23:14:29 by lv
Rumor: SOC For WN/FL To Occur March 2nd, 2012 posted Tue Jan 3 2012 10:25:02 by atrude777
To Kill A WN/FL Merger - At The Last Moment? posted Wed Sep 29 2010 17:35:39 by Goblin211
What Happened To PHX's Status In WN's System posted Tue Aug 10 2010 23:14:29 by lv